The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-428-Minutes for Meeting August 15,2018 Recorded 10/15/2018BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-42$ Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 10/15/2018 4:41:15 PM ROM FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY, August 15, 2018 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Commissioner Tammy Baney was absent. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; 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 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: None was offered. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner DeBone reported the District Attorney's office requested to pull Consent Agenda 2 to be included on the Monday, August 20 agenda. Commissioner Henderson requested to pull the minutes for further review. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 15, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 3 HENDERSON: Move approval of Consent Agenda Item DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BAN EY: Absent, excused. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-052, Appointing Director's Designee for Behavioral Health Transports 2. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2018-592, VOCA Grant Award 3. Approval of Minutes of the May 16, 2018 Work Session 4. Approval of Minutes of the June 25, 2018 Work Session 5. Approval of Minutes of the June 27, 2018 Work Session ACTION ITEMS 6. PRESENTATION: Notification of SAMHSA Grant Award - Co -Responder Program Deschutes County Health Services Crisis Services Program Manager Holly Harris and Bend Police Chief Jim Porter were present to announce the award for substance abuse grant for $330,000 each year for five years. Services covered were reviewed. HENDERSON: Move acceptance of the grant. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BAN EY: Absent, excused. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 15, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 7. DELIBERATIONS: Board Discussion of the Appeal of Land Use Approval, 23450 Walker Road Anthony Raguine, Community Development Department presented the deliberations on the application on the subject property to establish a marijuana production facility. The various issues identified with the application were reviewed. Continued deliberations will be scheduled for Monday August 20. OTHER ITEMS: None were offered. ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:18 a.m. DATED this Day of Commissioners. ATTEST: R ING SECRETARY BOCC BUSINESS MEETING 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PHILIP G. f :NDERS•N, VICE CHAT TAMMY BANEY, CviMISSIONER AUGUST 15, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 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 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2018 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.org/meetings. Business Meetings are usually streamed live online and video recorded. Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-052, Appointing Director's Designees for Behavioral Health Transports 2. Consideration of Chair Signature Document No. 2018-592, VOCA Grant Award Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda of 2 Wednesday, August 15, 2018 Page 1 3. Approval of Minutes of the May 16, 2018 Work Session 4. Approval of Minutes of the June 25, 2018 Work Session 5. Approval of Minutes of the June 27, 2018 Work Session ACTION ITEMS 6. PRESENTATION: Notification of SAM HSA Grant Award--Co-Responder Program - Holly Harris, 7. DELIBERATIONS: Board Discussion of the Appeal of Land Use Approval, 23450 Walker Road - Anthony Raguine, Senior 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 of 2 Wednesday, August 15, 2018 Page 2 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 15, 2018 DATE: August 9, 2018 FROM: Holly Harris, Health Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Notification of SAMHSA Grant Award--Co-Responder Program RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: This item is for information only; there is no staff recommendation. CONTRACTOR: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) PROJECT TIMEFRAME: Starting Date: 9/30/2018 Ending Date: 9/29/2023 INSURANCE: Insurance Certificate Required: No Insurance Review Required by Risk Management: N/A BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners approved Deschutes County Health Services' (DCHS) request to apply for a SAMHSA Law Enforcement and Behavioral Health Early Diversion grant on February 21, 2018. DCHS was recently awarded this SAMHSA Grant, award number 1H79SM080555-01, to implement a Co -Responder Program, as outlined in the submitted grant, to begin September 30, 2018. The award amount is $330,000 per year for five years. Program and staffing costs are entirely funded through the grant. These efforts support the County's commitment to the Stepping Up Initiative as the focus and intent of the program is to divert individuals with mental health and co-occurring issues from the criminal justice system. Program Overview: The Deschutes County Co -Responder Program is a law enforcement and behavioral health partnership between Deschutes County Health Services and the Bend Police Department. A Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) trained police officer and the co -responder Behavioral Health Specialist II will work shifts together to divert adults with serious mental illness (SMI) or a co-occurring disorder (COD) from the criminal justice system prior to arrest and booking. The Co -Responder Team's approach will allow for real-time, in -the -field interventions focused on assessing the needs of the individual, evaluating opportunities for diversion and connecting individuals with community-based services. In addition to the Behavioral Health Specialist II, the Co -Responder grant will fund a Peer Support Specialist (PSS) and Senior Secretary. Through life experiences and demonstration of self- sufficiency, the PSS will act as a role model who will engage the individual, reduce barriers to necessary services and provide ongoing support to ensure successful engagement and follow through. Integration into community-based services will be accomplished through coordination with DCHS programs as well as other SMI and COD treatment providers in the community. The Senior Secretary will be responsible for all reporting and compliance requirements associated with this grant. Data from the Bend Police Department regarding individuals with mental illness shows ongoing and increasing need. There were 664 calls in 2010 compared to 1,809 calls received in 2017, an overall increase of 172%. The Co -Responder Program will build upon the foundation created by the CIT Program as well as the Sequential Intercept Mapping that was conducted in 2012 and again in 2018. Project goals and objectives include: 1) Increasing the number of individuals with SMI or COD who are diverted from the criminal justice system, 2) Increasing the number of diverted individuals with SMI or COD who are enrolled in community-based behavioral health services, 3) Increasing the number of diverted individuals with SMI or COD who are enrolled in an integrated medical and behavioral health setting, 4) Increasing the number of diverted veterans with SMI or COD who are receiving community-based services, and 5) Increasing the number of individuals referred by law enforcement who are screened for SMI or COD. The Co -Responder Program will serve 400 individuals on an annual basis and 2,210 over a five-year period. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Please see attached Fiscal Analysis. ATTENDANCE: Holly Harris, DCHS Crisis Services Program Manager; Chief Jim Porter, City of Bend Police Department NOTE: Analysis performed by Fiscal Year. FY 2024 0 N O to d tn. $ 27,075.00I .f1 0 o0 O O N .f1 .f} 00'00S'L $ O Ln co ./1 N 0 '4 ?-; u- O O W r -i 0 0 O T -I ' $ 2,000.00 $ 30,000.00 0 O 0 O m FY 2022 $ 178,500.00 0 0 gyri O .-i 4f1 .f1 0 � tD r -i .f1 .f1 00 00 O' M ./1 O M m f1 VI - 1-1 N oN }1 $ 166,500.00 0 0 0 0 0 oo Ol if1 00 0 o gyri .f1 0 0 14 o m ./1 4/1 $ 30,000.00 0 0 0 M .f1 N N � U. $ 155,300.00 $ 91,400.00 o 0 0 m Ln O o O O m o 0 O o 0 m 0) e -i O N LI- $ 108,675.00 0 Obi o0 m lD in 0 o O tfi if1 $ 47,434.001 if1 0 O L N N if) - /1N $ 247,500.00 Wages' Benefits) Travel 0 CU 0- 0 to Contract' Total Indirect (10% de -minimus) (allows $2,500 for contracts) Total Costs 0 0 0 0 Ln N 00 t 0 O O 0 0 O m m O 0 O 0 0 m M 0 O O 0 O 0 m M $ 330,000.00 Total grant funds, per year 0 0 0 0 O Ln Total (5 Year Total) 4J Grant deficit a) E mc 0. to 0) 0A N O L O 0) 0.0 C C.4- • (0 c C O OL 0 3 cu o m vi 0.1 CO rz o U E • C •_ E C -O O o a O c I ro a) ' i./ +L+ C O a-+ — (o 3 0 -O L • CU O ▪ 0) E (� (0 C O 0) O_ U 0. IL) 'U ..1-5 C 4- O CO O O 0 • • 0 (0 O CU m .f1 (1' = a) a (0 (° +a — 0. L V, • E ra -a • (o 0.0 0) t O 4-, 0) •E 0) a) u 1 0) 0 a) ((00 0) CU L (0 L V0 0 ro0 C 0) 4-,E A-+ 0) C (0 0) 0 O O_ 0) > 0 .O (0 Notice of Award Issue Date: 07/25/2018 fDepartment of Health and Human Services { Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Mental Health Services Grant Number: 1H79SM080555-01 FAIN: H79SM080555 Program Director: Holly Harris Project Title: Deschutes County Co -Responder Program Grantee Address COUNTY OF DESCHUTES Mrs. Holly Harris 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 977031960 Business Address Ms. DeAnn Carr Deschutes County Health Services 2577 NE Courtney Drive Bend, OR 977017638 Budget Period: 09/30/2018 — 09/29/2019 Project Period: 09/30/2018 — 09/29/2023 Dear Grantee: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration hereby awards a grant in the amount of $330,000 (see "Award Calculation" in Section I and "Terms and Conditions" in Section III) to COUNTY OF DESCHUTES in support of the above referenced project. This award is pursuant to the authority of and is subject to the requirements of this statute and regulation and of other referenced, incorporated or attached terms and conditions. Award recipients may access the SAMHSA website at www.samhsa.gov (click on "Grants" then SAMHSA Grants Management), which provides information relating to the Division of Payment Management System, HHS Division of Cost Allocation and Postaward Administration Requirements. Please use your grant number for reference. Acceptance of this award including the "Terms and Conditions" is acknowledged by the grantee when funds are drawn down or otherwise obtained from the grant payment system. If you have any questions about this award, please contact your Grants Management Specialist and your Government Project Officer listed in your terms and conditions. Sincerely yours, Gwendolyn Simpson Grants Management Officer Division of Grants Management See additional information below Page -1 SECTION I — AWARD DATA — 1 H79SM080555-01 Award Calculation (U.S. Dollars). Salaries and Wages Fringe Benefits Personnel Costs (Subtotal) Equipment Materials & Supplies Travel Other Direct Cost Indirect Cost Approved Budget Federal Share Non -Federal Share Cumulative Prior Awards for this Budget Period AMOUNT OF THIS ACTION (FEDERAL SHARE) SUMMARY TOTALS FOR ALL YEARS YR AMOUNT 1 2 3 4 5 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $153,977 $101,247 $255,224 $15,000 $4,160 $7,270 $18,346 $300,000 $30,000 $940,533 $330,000 $610,533 $0 $330,000 *Recommended future year total cost support, subject to the availability of funds and satisfactory progress of the project. Fiscal Information: CFDA Number: EIN: Document Number: Fiscal Year: IC SM CAN C96J396 93.243 1936002292A4 18SM80555A 2018 Amount $330,000 IC CAN 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 SM C96J396 330 000 330 000 330 000 330 000 330 000 SM Administrative Data: PCC: BHP -ED / OC: 4145 SECTION II - PAYMENT/HOTLINE INFORMATION — 1H79SM080555-01 Payments under this award will be made available through the HHS Payment Management System (PMS). PMS is a centralized grants payment and cash management system, operated by the HHS Program Support Center (PSC), Division of Payment Management (DPM). Inquiries regarding payment should be directed to: The Division of Payment Management System, PO Box 6021, Rockville, MD 20852, Help Desk Support— Telephone Number: 1-877-614-5533. Page -2 The HHS Inspector General maintains a toll-free hotline for receiving information concerning fraud, waste, or abuse under grants and cooperative agreements. The telephone number is: 1- 800 -HHS -TIPS (1-800-447-8477). The mailing address is: Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Attn: HOTLINE, 330 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20201. SECTION III - TERMS AND CONDITIONS — 1 H79SM080555-01 This award is based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, SAMHSA on the above -title project and is subject to the terms and conditions incorporated either directly or by reference in the following: a. The grant program legislation and program regulation cited in this Notice of Award. b. The restrictions on the expenditure of federal funds in appropriations acts to the extent those restrictions are pertinent to the award. c. 45 CFR Part 75 as applicable. d. The HHS Grants Policy Statement. e. This award notice, INCLUDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CITED BELOW. Treatment of Program Income: Additional Costs In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts with cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 must report and maintain information in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)). Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75. SECTION IV — SM Special Terms and Conditions — 1 H79SM080555-01 REMARKS FY 2018 New Award 1. This Notice of Award (NoA) is issued to inform your organization that the application submitted through the funding opportunity SM -18-005 has been selected for funding. 1a) This award reflects approval of the budget submitted March 3, 2018 as part of the application by your organization. However, please see under "Revised Budget" the cost categories more detailed costs and clarification are required to be submitted to SAMHSA. 2. Recipients are expected to plan their work to ensure that funds are expended within the 12 - month budget period reflected on this Notice of Award. If activities proposed in the approved budget cannot be completed within the current budget period, SAMSHA cannot guarantee the approval of any request for carryover of remaining unobligated funding. 3. All responses to award terms and conditions and prior approval requests must be submitted through the eRA Commons system. 4. Register Program Director/Project Director (PD) in eRA Commons: Page -3 If you have not already done so, you must register the PD listed on the HHS Checklist in eRA Commons to assign a Commons ID. Once the PD has received their Commons ID, please send this information to your Grants Management Specialist. You can find additional information about the eRA Commons registration process at https://era.nih.gov/reg_accounts/register_commons.cfm. Key Staff Key staff (or key staff positions, if staff has not been selected) are listed below: Holly Harris, Project Director @ 15% level of effort Any changes in key staff including level of effort involving separation from the project for more than three months or a 25 percent reduction in time dedicated to the project, requires prior approval. Reference the Prior Approval Standard Term for additional information and instructions. Any changes in key staff including level of effort involving separation from the project for more than three months or a 25 percent reduction in time dedicated to the project, requires prior approval. Reference the Prior Approval Standard Term for additional information and instructions. SPECIAL TERMS Disparity Impact Statement (DIS) By November 30, 2018 you must: Submit an electronic copy of a DIS to the Government Project Officer (GPO) and Grants Management Specialist (GMS) as identified under Contacts on this notice of award. The DIS should be consistent with information in your application regarding access, *service use and outcomes for the program and include three components as described below. Questions about the DIS should be directed to your GPO. Examples of DIS can be found on the SAMHSA website at http://www.samhsa.gov/grants/grants-management/disparity- impactstatement. *Service use is inclusive of treatment services, prevention services as well as outreach, engagement, training, and/or technical assistance activities. The disparity impact statement, in response to the Special Term of Award, consists of three components: 1. Proposed number of individuals to be served and/or reached by subpopulations in the grant implementation area should be provided in a table that covers the entire grant period. The disparate population(s) should be identified in a narrative that includes a description of the Page -4 population and rationale for how the determination was made. 2. A quality improvement plan for how you will use your program (GPRA) data on access, use and outcomes to monitor and manage program outcomes by race, ethnicity and LGBT status, when possible. The quality improvement plan should include strategies for how processes and/or programmatic adjustments will support efforts to reduce disparities for the identified sub - populations. 3. The quality improvement plan should include methods for the development and implementation of policies and procedures to ensure adherence to the Enhanced Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) Standards and the provision of effective care and services that are responsive to: a. Diverse cultural health beliefs and practices; b. Preferred languages; and c. Health literacy and other communication needs of all sub -populations within the proposed geographic region. SPECIAL CONDITIONS Revised Budget By By October 30, 2018, the recipient must submit a revised detailed budget to include the following through eRA Commons.: 5. A revised SF 424A reflecting budget totals for Year 1 only. Section B, Column 1 of the revised SF 424A must show the federal cost breakdown only. Section A, Column (f) must reflect the Non -Federal Match for Year 1 only. This revised SF 424A must be submitted through eRA Commons. 6. Also, the recipient must submit the following: a. Travel Cost Category - A detailed cost breakdown of the travel costs (ex. number of individuals and lodging costs per person; airfare per person; transportation per person, meals and incidentals per person etc.) for both Washington DC and for Portland, Oregon. b. Other Cost Category: cost breakdown of the $18,346 listed as "Barrier Removals" c. Equipment Cost Category - cost breakdown of the "Initial Equipment" for Mobile Crisis Team d. Recalculation of your indirect costs based on the10% de -minimus indirect cost rate. The de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) may only be applied to the following: o All direct salaries and wages charged to the award; o Applicable fringe benefits; o Materials and supplies; and o Travel. Page -5 The modified total direct cost excludes equipment costs. Submit Indirect Cost Rate By /month/ /day/, /year/, submit via eRA Commons. The recipient must submit an Indirect Cost Rate.... STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS Standard Terms for Awards FY 2018 Your organization must comply with the Standard Terms and Conditions for grants awarded in Fiscal Year 2018 and the following award terms applicable to your award type as identified below: *Grant SAMHSA's Terms and Conditions Webpage is located at: https://www.sam hsa.gov/grants/grants-management/notice-award-noa/standard-terms- conditions. Annual Programmatic Progress Report Submission of an annual Programmatic Report is due no later than December 30, 2019. Note: Recipients must also comply with the GPRA requirements that include the collection and periodic reporting of performance data as specified in the FOA or by the Grant Program Official (GPO). This information is needed in order to comply with PL 102-62, which requires that Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) report evaluation data to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of its programs. The response to this term must be uploaded as a .pdf into the Terms Tracker in the eRA Commons Systems. Please contact your Government Program Official (GPO) for program specific submission information. Additional information on reporting requirements is available at https://www. samhsa.gov/grants/grants-management/reporting-requirements. Annual Federal Financial Report (SF -425) The Federal Financial Report (FFR) (SF -425) is required on an annual basis and must be submitted no later than 90 days after the end of the budget period. The annual FFR should reflect only cumulative actual Federal funds authorized and disbursed, any non -Federal matching funds (if identified in the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA)), unliquidated obligations incurred, the unobligated balance of the Federal funds for the award, as well as program income generated during the timeframe covered by the report. Additional guidance to complete the FFR can be found at http://www.samhsa.gov/grants/grants- management/reporting-requirements. FFR reporting must be entered directly into the eRA Commons system. Instructions on how to submit a Federal Financial Report (FFR) via the eRA Commons is available at Page -6 https://www. samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/samhsa-grantee-submit-ffr-10-22-17.pptx. Compliance with Terms and Conditions FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE STATED TERMS AND CONDITIONS MAY RESULT IN ACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 45 CFR 75.3 71, REMEDIES FOR NON- COMPLIANCE AND 45 CFR 75.372 TERMINATION. THIS MAY INCLUDE WITHHOLDING PAYMENT, DISALLOWANCE OF COSTS, SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT, TERMINATION OF THIS AWARD, OR DENIAL OF FUTURE FUNDING. All previous terms and conditions remain in effect until specifically approved and removed by the Grants Management Officer. Staff Contacts: Roxanne Castaneda, Program Official Phone: (240) 276-1917 Email: Roxanne.Castaneda@samhsa.hhs.gov Darrell Russ, Grants Specialist Phone: (240) 276-1517 Email: darrell.russ@samhsa.hhs.gov Page -7 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 15, 2018 DATE: August 3, 2018 FROM: Anthony Raguine, Community Development, 541-617-4739 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: DELIBERATIONS: Board Discussion of the Appeal of Land Use Approval, 23450 Walker Road RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: On July 11, 2018, the Board conducted a public hearing to consider the appeal of Briteside Oregon LLC's land use approval. The approval would allow Briteside to establish a marijuana production facility at 23450 Walker Road. ATTENDANCE: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner MEMORANDUM DATE: August 3, 2018 TO: Board of County Commissioners ("Board") FROM: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner RE: Deliberations; Land Use File Nos. 247 -17 -000833 -AD, 247-18-000424-A Briteside Oregon LLC applied for a land use permit to establish a marijuana production facility at 23450 Walker Road, as depicted on the attached Location Map (Exhibit A). The proposal includes use of an existing structure and the establishment of a new structure for marijuana production. In total, the applicant proposes a maximum mature plant canopy size of 20,000 square feet. May 9, 2018, staff issued an approval of the application (Exhibit B). The approval was timely appealed and on July 11, 2018, the Board conducted a public hearing for the appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board established a 5:00 p.m. deadline for each of the open record periods detailed below. 1. New Evidence & Testimony: July 18, 2018 (Exhibit C) 2. Rebuttal Evidence & Testimony: July 25, 2018 (Exhibit D) 3. Applicant's Final Legal Argument: August 1, 2018 (Exhibit E) A number of issues were raised during the land use process. Below, staff provides additional detail regarding those issue areas which relate to approval criteria. I. SETBACKS As discussed at the hearing and identified in the staff decision, the applicant requested a setback exception to the west property line. At the time of the hearing, it was understood that the existing building was sited approximately 90 feet from the west property line. Given the concerns regarding this measurement expressed at the hearing, the applicant engaged a licensed surveyor to re -measure the distance from the existing building to the west property line.' As a result of this re -measurement, the applicant states the existing building is 105 feet from the western property line. For this reason, the applicant argues an exception to the required 100 -foot property line setback is no longer necessary. 1 See Exhibit P of the applicant's submittal dated July 18, 2018, and included as part of Exhibit C to this memo. Alternatively, should the Board find that the existing building does not meet the 100 -foot setback requirement, the applicant requests approval of a setback exception pursuant to the findings made in staff's approval decision. Opponents object to the approval of any setback exception and request the Board continue its denial of requested exceptions. II. INDOOR PRODUCTION AND MULTIPLE BUILDINGS The appellant argues that only one building is allowed for each production license. In addressing this argument, staff pointed to DCC 18.116.330(B)(2), 2. Indoor Production and Processing. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. As noted in staff's approval decision, ...the specific language in this criterion contemplates the potential use of multiple buildings and similar structures for production. Additionally, the Board of County Commissioners approved two buildings for marijuana production use in the Eakin application (247-17-000520-A) in which only one OLCC licensed was proposed to be used. For these reasons, staff finds the applicant's use of an existing building with a proposed new building for the production operation meets this criterion. The applicant agrees with staffs interpretation. III. MAXIMUM MATURE CANOPY SIZE The code provision at DCC 18.116.330(B)(3)(d), allows a maximum mature plant canopy size of 20,000 square feet for properties equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in size. The record indicates the subject property is 40 acres in size. An opponent argues a survey should be required to ensure the property is, in fact, 40 acres in size. No evidence has been submitted which would contradict the 40 -acre size of the property as shown in Assessor Records. The opponent further argues the applicant will be in violation of the 20,000 -square -foot limit because the existing4,160-square-foot building and the proposed 18,300 -square -foot building will have a total square footage of 24,460. Staff notes that the relevant criterion limits the size of mature plan canopy and not the size of the buildings as a whole. The applicant agrees to a condition of approval to ensure compliance with the 20,000 -square -foot limit for mature plant canopy. IV. ACCESS Concerns were expressed regarding adequate access and location of the access road in relation to adjoining Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") lands to the south. The record includes a recorded Shared Access Consent Agreement ("Agreement"), incompliance with DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(c).2 An opponent argues that the consent agreement is useless because itis not legally binding. Specifically, an easement for two properties, when both properties are owned by the same owner, is void under the "Merger Doctrine." For this reason, a condition of approval should be included requiring recordation of the easement now, and again if either tax lot 1500 or 3400 is sold by the applicant or the applicant's successor in interest. The applicant provides the following response, The doctrine of merger has no relevance here. The doctrine of merger provides that if the owner of property burdened by an easement also acquires the property benefited by the easement, then the easement terminates. Although in practice landowners commonly record easements benefitting and burdening property in common ownership, as a strict legal matter the doctrine of merger arguably could render ineffective the easement recorded July 16, 2018. However, if that is the case, then no easemen is needed since the owner of both properties is the same. There is no legal impediment to a property owner using its own property to access other property that also owns. So either Briteside has valid access to Tax Lot 3400 via the July 16, 2018 easement, or it has valid access to Tax Lot 3400 because it also owns Tax Lot 1500. If the latter is true, then upon any conveyance of either tax Lot 3400 or tax Lot 1500 to a different owner, Briteside can (and will) record an easement at that time. The applicant further explains that the Agreement is binding on subsequent owners of tax lot 1500. Staff notes that Section 4 of the Agreement is a "no merger" clause. With respect to the access road location, the applicant reiterates its commitment to locate the road entirely within Briteside LLC lands, and off of any BLM lands. To this end, the applicant agrees to a condition of approval to ensure compliance. V. ODOR Both the Board and opponents questioned whether the applicant met their burden of proof with respect to Deschutes County Code 18.116.330(B)(10). Specifically, the applicant was asked to submit additional information to demonstrate that the carbon filtration system will function as intended to control odors. The applicant provides a two-pronged response to this issue. 1. The existing and proposed buildings are entirely closed-loop with respect to air filtration. No HVAC economizers are proposed which would cycle air in and out of the building during operations. Air locks will prevent air from escaping when people enter or exit the buildings. The only time air might escape the buildings is during periodic cleanings about four times per year. 2. The applicant argues that carbon filtration systems can be effective odor mitigation and highlights land use regulations from two Oregon jurisdictions, a Final Environmental Impact Report, along with two articles to supplement this point.3 The applicant also points out that the odor -specific approval criterion does not require the elimination of odors, but rather the control of odor to not unreasonably interfere with neighboring properties. 2 See Exhibit L of the applicant's submittal dated July 18, 2018, and included as part of Exhibit C to this memo. 3 See Exhibit N of the applicant's submittal dated July 18, 2018, and included as part of Exhibit C to this memo. VI. NOISE Noise impacts from the proposed facility were identified as an area of concern. As noted in the ColeBreit report dated April 20, 2018, entered previously in the record, no noise mitigation is required from the new building to the north and east property lines. The report goes on to conclude that a noise wall will allow the new building to meet the noise standard to the south and west property lines. A revised site plan showing the location of the necessary sound walls was submitted as Exhibit K of the applicant's July 18, 2018 submittal, and is attached as Exhibit F to this memo. The ColeBreit report goes on to state that no noise mitigation is required for the existing building. The applicant points out that the noise calculations were made based on the assumption that both the existing and proposed buildings were operating their noise -producing machinery concurrently. VII. SCREENING AND FENCING A comment was made asserting that the applicant had the authority to install security fencing of any color. The record indicates that Briteside proposes a seven -foot -tall black chain-link fence topped with barbed wire. Staff's decision included a condition of approval requiring the barbed wire to also be black in color to ensure compliance with DCC.116.330(B)(12). The applicant agrees to the condition of approval. VIII. WATER Objections were raised regarding the applicant's ability to use well water for marijuana production; the ability of the applicant to use mitigation credits; and whether water from COID is legally available. The applicant acknowledges it presently has no right to use well water and available mitigation credits for agricultural purposes unless, and until, the Oregon Water Resources Department ("OWRD") issues a permit for such use. Nonetheless, the applicant argues it has a sufficient, year- round water supply utilizing a combination of Central Oregon Irrigation District ("COID") water and Bend Water Hauling water. An opposition letter points out that only the water right associated with the building area may be used for marijuana production, not the entirety of the 31 acres of water right associated with the property as a whole. For this reason, the commentor questions whether the applicant has sufficient water right to establish the use. The applicant submitted information from COID and the OWRD District 11 Watermaster that the COID water rights may be used for watering plants in an enclosed building on-site, including cannabis.4 The applicant points out that the Board has accepted irrigation district water and water hauling from off-site to satisfy DCC 18.116.330(B)(13) in previous decisions. 4 See Exhibit Q of the applicant's rebuttal submittal dated July 25, 2018, and included as a part of Exhibit D of this memo. IX. DECISION MATRIX Issue Area Applicant Response Staff Comment Board Decision Points Setbacks Re -measurement shows the existing building is 105 feet from west property line. No exception needed. If Board disagrees, Board can adopt staff's exception findings to grant setback exception. Staff's approval decision addresses the equal or greater protection standard with respect to visual, odor, noise, lighting and privacy impacts. Does the existing building meet the 100 - foot setback to the west property line? a. If yes, the Board can continue reviewing the application. b. If no, the Board must determine whether the applicant has met their burden of proof with regard to the equal or greater protection standard. i. If yes, grant the setback exception and continue reviewing the application. ii. If no, deny the application. Property Size - Property is not 40 acres in size None. Assessor records indicate property is 40 acres. No evidence submitted to the contrary. Is the subject property 40 acres in size? a. If yes, continue reviewing the application. b. If no, and smaller than 40 acres, then include a condition of approval limiting maximum canopy to 10,000 square feet. Canopy Size - Thecanopy two buildings exceed 20,000 square feet in size Applicant agrees to condition of approval to limit maximum mature plant canopy to 20,000 square feet. The 20,000-square- foot limit applies to mature canopy, not Does the applicant's proposal comply with the 20,000 -square -foot mature plant limit? a. If yes, continue reviewing the application. b. If no, either: i. Condition approval limiting total building(s) size to 20,000 square feet; or ii. Deny application. the square -footage of the buildings as a whole. Access - Easement Doctrine of merger does not apply. Briteside has access via easement, or access because it owns the adjoining property. Applicant willing to record a new easement if the adjoining property is purchased by a different owner. Section 4 of the Shared Access Agreement is a "no merger" clause. Does the recorded Shared Access Agreement and associated easement meet the access requirement of DCC 18.118.330(B)(8)? a. If yes, continue reviewing the application. Possible condition of approval requiring recordation of new easement. b. If no, deny the application. Issue Area Applicant Response Staff Comment Board Decision Points Access - Location Applicant reiterates its commitment to locate the easement entirely on Briteside property. Condition of approval to ensure compliance. Does the proposed relocation of the access entirely onto Briteside property comply with the access requirement of DCC 18.118.330(8)(8)? a. If yes, continue reviewing the application. b. If no, deny the application. Odor Buildings are closed- loop air systems with air locks. Submittal of additional information to demonstrate the effectiveness of carbon filtration systems. None. Will the proposed odor control system comply with DCC 18.118.330(B)(10)? a. If yes, continue reviewing the application. b. If no, either: i. Condition approval to achieve compliance; or ii. Deny the application. Noise Noise calculation made assuming all noise generating machinery for both buildings operating concurrently. Only 2 noise walls necessary for new building to achieve compliance. None. Will the location of the buildings and necessary sound walls allow the facility to comply with DCC 18.113.330(B)(11). a. If yes, continue reviewing the application. b. If no, either: i. Condition approval to achieve compliance; or ii. Deny the application. Screening and Fencing Applicant proposes seven-foot-tall, black, chain-link fence with barbed wire. Applicant agrees to condition of approval requiring barbed wire to be black. Staff's decision included a condition of approval requiring the barbed wire to be black. Does the proposed fencing and barbed wire, with condition, comply with DCC 18.116.330(B)(12)? a. If yes, continue reviewing the application. b. If no, either: i. Condition approval to achieve compliance; or ii. Deny the application. Water Applicant understands that well water cannot be used without an OWRD permit. Sufficient water is available via COID and Bend Water Hauling. None. Has the applicant demonstrated compliance with DCC 18.116.330(B)(13)? a. If yes, continue reviewing the application. b. If no, either: i. Condition approval to achieve compliance; or ii. Deny the application. X. OTHER ISSUE AREAS In addition to the issue areas which relate to approval criteria identified above, a number of other issue areas were raised which do not relate to approval criteria. These include, but are not limited to: • Compliance with regulations related to agricultural exempt buildings • Access to BLM lands • Continued beneficial use of water on-site, outside of the marijuana production facility • Metering of water use • Use of pesticides and the potential contamination of nearby water sources and the on-site septic system by agricultural runoff • Number of Briteside employees Other Briteside business affiliations or interests Requested changes to marijuana -related code provisions • Drilling, excavation and grading on the property in advance of land use approval • Property values • Incompatibility with children and families • Overproduction of marijuana in Oregon Because these issue areas do not relate to approval criteria, staff does not address them here. XI. NEXT STEPS The Board can continue their deliberations to a date certain or direct staff to draft a decision. EXHIBITS A. Location Map B. Staff Decision 247 -17 -000833 -AD C. New Evidence & Testimony D. Rebuttal Evidence & Testimony E. Applicant's Final Legal Argument F. Revised Site Plan BLANK PAGE EXHIBIT A Location Map BLANK PAGE Briteside: 247-17-000833-AD, 247-18-000424-A 23450 Walker Road BLANK PAGE EXHIBIT B Staff Decision 247 -17 -000833 -AD BLANK PAGE Mailing Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 Community Development Department Planning Division Budding Safety Division Environmental Sods Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://wtiaw.deschutes.org/cd FINDINGS AND DECISION FILE NUMBER: 247 -17 -000833 -AD APPLICANT/OWNER: Briteside Oregon LLC PROPOSAL: A request to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. STAFF REVIEWER: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), County Zoning Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone — EFU Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance II. BASIC FINDINGS: A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 23450 Walker Road, Bend. It is identified as tax lot 3400 on County Assessor's map 17-13-00. B. ZONING: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use. C. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record pursuant to lot of record determination 24 -17 -000210 -LR. D. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to establish up to 20,000 square feet of mature canopy area within a new building which will include internal modular structures ranging in size from 4,000 to 18,000 square feet, and within an existing agricultural building. The proposed building will be sited within the building envelope' identified on the plan titled "Site Plan Addendum", dated January 18, 2018. The applicant specifically requests approval to site the proposed new building anywhere within the building envelope. 1 The western building is the existing agricultural building. The eastern building is a representation of the potential location of the proposed building. Quality Services Performed with Pride E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is 40 acres in size, and is developed with a dwelling and two accessory buildings. Vegetation on-site consists of irrigated fields and juniper trees. F. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several public agencies and received the following comments: Deschutes County Assessor The subject property is receiving farm deferral. Deschutes County Building Division NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. Deschutes County Road Department I have reviewed the application materials for the above -referenced file number, proposing marijuana production with mature canopy up to 20,000 square feet at 23450 Walker Road, Bend (Tax Lot 1713000003400). The subject property is accessed by a private access road which serves and crosses TL 1500 and which connects to Alfalfa Market Rd approximately 2,360 feet west of the subject property. While applicant has provided written consent and a legal description for use of a 40' easement across the southern portion of TL 1500 from the owner of that property (who is also owner of subject property), it is unclear to Road Department staff whether or not the existing road is solely contained within that described easement. Review of the vicinity of the subject property on Deschutes County's Dial website indicates that portions of the existing road may cross south of the southern section line of 17-13-27, which is the southern boundary of TLs 1500 and 3400. If this road does cross south of the section line, then the access requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(c) have not been met, as portions of the road would exist on land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management rather than inside of the described easement on TL 1500 or on TL 3400. Deschutes County Road Department requests that this application be considered incomplete until the applicant submits information prepared by a licensed surveyor demonstrating that the existing road is located completely within the described easement on TL 1500 or on TL 3400. [STAFF COMMENT: Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit a survey of the access easement and relocate all portions of the road within the easement, and off of any adjacent BLM lands.] File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 2 Deschutes County Transportation Planner I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -17 -000833 -AD for a marijuana production (growing) operation in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone at 23450 Walker Road, aka 17-13-00, Tax Lot 3400. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access to the property or access from a private easement for a grow of more than 5,000 square feet of mature canopy. The proposal is for 20,000 square feet of mature canopy, so the access requirement does apply. The applicant should provide a copy of an approved driveway permit from the Road Department. If the applicant does not have one, then acquiring one should be made a condition of approval. The traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for a marijuana production application, unless the application is also under going site plan review and must show compliance with DCC 18.124.080(J). As this land use not being reviewed against the criteria of DCC 18.124, no traffic study can be required. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The County uses the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual to assess SDCs. The ITE manual does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The applicant proposes 20,000 square feet of mature canopy spread across several buildings, but does not provide the total square footage of those buildings. The County's SDC is based on the buildings' total square footage related to cannabis production and support and not the square footage of the mature canopy. For discussion purposes only, 20,000 square feet of mature canopy would produce 6.4 p.m. peak hour trips (20 X 0.32). The resulting SDC is $25,197 (6.4 X $3,937). The actual SDC will be higher as it will be based on building square footage and not mature canopy size. Regardless of the final amount, the SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and setbacks 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. Bureau of Land Management The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Prineville District Office provides the below comments regarding a marijuana production proposal off Walker Road near the Juniper Woodlands Recreation Area application file number 247 -17 -000833-AD. Upon recent review of the project area BLM does have concern on a number of issues regarding this proposal. In response to question 8.c of the application, the applicant File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 3 indicates that the access is via a private road across private property. A recent review of the property boundaries along Walker Road, as depicted in the Deschutes county property information website (https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/InteractiveMap/106922), indicates that the road may dip south off of the applicants parcel onto public lands. The applicant has not requested or received consent from the BLM to use this access route. BLM requests that a survey be completed to establish that the access road is not on public land. Second, the location of the project area is very close to the Juniper Woodlands Recreation Area boundary. BLM recommends that the applicant have a boundary survey of the parcel conducted to ensure no unintentional future trespass onto public lands occurs. Additionally, the BLM has concerns over the use of pesticides and herbicides and chemical residue migration onto public lands. It is requested that if chemicals are used in the operation, that protocols are required to ensure that chemical residue is contained and does not migrate onto public lands. If you have any questions on these information requests, please contact April Rabuck, Acting Assistant Field Manager Lands and Minerals at (541) 416-6853. [STAFF COMMENT: As noted above, staff has added a condition of approval to ensure that the access road is entirely within the easement, with no portion of the road on BLM lands.] Alfalfa Fire District The following is input from the Alfalfa Fire District, • Address should be clearly visible from the primary access road. • Access gate should be at least 20 feet wide to provide access to fire apparatus. • Access roads and driveways should be all weather and able to support at least 60,000 GVW • Exit doors should be clearly marked and unobstructed. • Onsite firefighting water supply should be clearly marked and be accessible to firefighters at all times. • Portable fire extinguishers should be located throughout the building with a travel distance of no more than 75 feet. • Fire extinguisher locations should be clearly marked. • Facility should have a fire safety plan including exit plan and employee accountability system. This plan should be practiced by all employees on a regular basis. Material Safety Data Sheets for all onsite hazardous materials should be keep on site and be accessible to fire department personnel at all times. • All hazardous material storage areas, tanks and containers should be clearly marked. • Firefighters should be able to coordinate with facility managers a building walk through for the purpose of training and emergency planning. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 4 Central Oregon Irrigation District COID FACILITIES • COID has its D-1-8 delivery ditch on a portion of the subject's property ➢ It has a 20' canal right of way COID WATER RIGHTS • Subject's property has 31.25 acres of COID water rights • COID request a copy of the site plan • Please contact COID concerning water rights COID GUIDELINE STATEMENT COID response to Community Development Notice for Proposed Marijuana Production: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) serves this property with 31.25 acres of irrigation water during the irrigation season of April 1st through October 31st at a rate of up to 6 gallons per minute per acre. This water cannot be used for irrigation during the winter months. An additional source (not COID) of water is necessary to irrigate between November 1st and March 31st. If the recreational marijuana production facility is a greenhouse or other structure proposed to be built on top of the COID water right, land - user must allow COID annual access to the structure to document beneficial use of the water right. Structures on top of a water right for any purpose other than growing plants is not allowed. Applicant should contact COID to determine status of water rights prior to construction of production facility. Plot Plan is required to assist COID in determining if the proposed structure will be located on the water right or if a water transfer application is needed to transfer water to it. The following agencies were provided notice but did not submit comments: Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division and Watermaster — District 11. G. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the administrative determination application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. Additionally, the applicant submitted a land use sign affidavit indicating the sign was posted on the property on. A number of opposition comments were submitted in response to the mailed and posted notices, along with one support comment. These comments and concerns are summarized below. OPPOSITION 1. Odor impacts. 2. Noise impacts. 3. Improper use of well water for the production operation. 4. Legal sources of water. 5. Improper waste disposal. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 5 6. County code should be interpreted to limit production to a single building for the single license allowed for the property. 7. Light pollution. 8. Improper access on BLM land. 9. Potential impacts to wetlands. 10. Excessive consumption of electricity. 11. Workers should be subject to a background check. 12. Need for inspections. 13. Negative impact on ground water and water within the COID canal from fertilizer use. 14. Increase in black market sales. 15. COID received federal grant money and should not be used to irrigate marijuana. 16. Discharge of industrial wastewater into the on-site septic system is prohibited. 17. Proposed water usage far exceeds household usage and will negatively impact water availability for surrounding residents, particularly from wells. 18. Negative impact on property values. 19. Negative impact on quality of life for surrounding residents, particularly children. 20. Production of marijuana is morally wrong. 21. Negative impact on community safety. 22. Will increase crime and drug use. 23. Increase in traffic and potential transportation safety issues. 24. Livestock may consume marijuana. 25. Cross contamination of marijuana with other nearby crops. [STAFF COMMENT: Issues 1 through 8 are addressed below. With respect to issue 9, the proposed building envelope will be located at least 700 feet from the mapped wetland onsite. Staff finds no impacts to wetlands will result from the proposal. Issues 10 through 25 are not associated with any applicable approval criteria. For this reason, staff does not address issues 9 through 25 in this decision.] SUPPORT 1. Deschutes County Code 9.12.080 prohibits any new restrictions to farming practices. 2. Current county code violates the reasonable time, place and manner provisions of state statute. H. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on October 11, 2017. The application was deemed incomplete and a letter summarizing the additional information needed to review the applications was mailed on November 9, 2017. The applicant submitted additional information in response to the incomplete letter on January 26, 2018, and the application was deemed complete on that day. The 150th day on which the County must take final action on this application is June 25, 2018. III. FINDINGS: TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING. A. CHAPTER 18.16, EXCLUSIVE FARM ZONE File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 6 1. Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. FINDING: The applicant is proposing marijuana production on the subject property, a use permitted outright subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.116.330, addressed below. 2. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: The applicant proposes to use both an existing structure that is less than 30 feet in height, along with a new structure that will be approximately 14 feet in height. This criterion will be met. 3. Section 18.16.070. Yards. A. The front yard shall be a minimum of: 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. FINDING: The property has frontage on Walker Road, classified as a local road requiring a 40 - foot front yard setback. Because the proposed structure is not a nonfarm dwelling, the required side and rear yard setbacks are 25 feet. The applicant's Site Plan Addendum dated January 18, 2018 shows the location of the existing structure to be used as part of the operation and a building envelope intended to represent the possible location of the proposed new building. The existing building observes a south front yard setback of 483 feet, an east side yard setback of 924 feet, a west side yard setback of 90 feet, and a north rear yard setback of 781 feet. The proposed building envelope will observe a south front yard setback of 200 feet2, an east side yard setback of approximately 900 feet, a west side yard setback of 200 feet, and a north rear yard setback of 880 feet. Both the existing building and the building envelope comply with the required setbacks. 2 Although the building envelope illustrates a front yard setback of 120 feet and a west side yard setback of zero feet, the acoustical barrier limit sets effective front and west side yard setbacks of 200 feet. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 7 D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDING: Any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes will be addressed during building permit review. 4. Section 18.16.080. Stream Setbacks. To permit better light, air, vision, stream pollution control, protection of fish and wildlife areas and preservation of natural scenic amenities and vistas along streams and lakes, the following setbacks shall apply: A. All sewage disposal installations, such as septic tanks and septic drainfields, shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet, measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. In those cases where practical difficulties preclude the location of the facilities at a distance of 100 feet and the County Sanitarian finds that a closer location will not endanger health, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may permit the location of these facilities closer to the stream or lake, but in no case closer than 25 feet. B. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. FINDING: Although a COID canal traverses the property, no streams or lakes exist on-site. Therefore, these criteria do not apply. B. CHAPTER 18.116, SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 1. Section 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing. A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: 1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones. FINDING: The applicant proposes a marijuana production (grow) facility in the EFU Zone. This section applies. B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Minimum Lot Area. a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. FINDING: The subject property is 40 acres in size. This standard is met. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 8 2. Indoor Production and Processing. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. FINDING: A comment was received from Laurie Craghead3 arguing that only one building is allowed for each production license. Specifically, Ms. Craghead provides the following, The county code allows only one marijuana production license per property but does allow production within a building. Thus, the code should be interpreted that only one building is allowed for each production license. Thus, each separate container onsite is a separate production site. Since each one is a separate production site, each one needs to be licensed by the OLCC separately. The county code, however, allows only one licensed marijuana production site per parcel. Thus, no more than one container can be used for a licensed marijuana production. Nothing in the statutes or the OARs precludes such an interpretation of the county code. Staff finds that the specific language in this criterion contemplates the potential use of multiple buildings and similar structures for production. Additionally, the Board of County Commissioners approved two buildings for marijuana production use in the Eakin application (247-17-000520-A) in which only one OLCC licensed was proposed to be used. For these reasons, staff finds the applicant's use of an existing building with a proposed new building for the production operation meets this criterion. No outdoor production is proposed. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. 3 Reference Laurie Craghead email dated March 9, 2018. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 9 FINDING: Based on the property's 40 -acre size, the applicant can be approved for up to 20,000 square feet of mature canopy area. The applicant proposes a maximum of 20,000 square feet of production area. This criterion will be met. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. FINDING: The subject property is zoned EFU. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. FINDING: The applicant states the intention to complete and finalize the OLCC license upon approval of the subject application. A condition of approval will ensure that only one OLCC or OHA site is registered to the subject property. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. FINDING: The existing structure will exceed the 100 -foot setback from all property lines except for the west property line. As noted above, the existing structure observes a 90 -foot setback from the west property line. Consequently, the applicant requests an exception to the setback standard as discussed under subsection (c) below. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. FINDING: Staff reviewed permit records for all adjacent properties and found the closest dwelling to the marijuana production building envelope is located approximately 325 feet to the west on tax lot 1500, Assessor map 17-13-27C (23250 Walker Road). This standard will be met. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. FINDING: The existing building observes a 90 -foot setback from the west property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a ten -foot exception to the 100 -foot setback standard under File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 10 subsection (a). Each of the required issue areas associated with the exception criteria is addressed below. Visual The applicant proposes to use an existing structure for a portion of the marijuana production operation. This structure is located 90 feet from the west property line. The property to the west (23250 Walker Road) is also owned by the applicant. Given the small, ten -foot exception requested, the proposed trees4 between the existing building and the west property line, and the fact that the applicant also owns the property to the west, staff finds the use of the existing building affords equal mitigation of visual impacts to the adjacent property to the west. Odor As noted in the findings under DCC 18.116.330(8)(10) below, the existing building will include fan/filter combinations that will meet the approval criteria. Additionally, the existing building is a pre -fabricated structure that is sealed such that no air is exhausted to the outside. For these reasons, staff finds the existing building will afford equal mitigation of odor impacts to the adjacent property to the west. Noise As noted in the findings under DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) below, the engineer's letter indicates that no sound dampening is necessary to meet the 30 dB limit at the west property line. For this reason, staff finds the existing building will afford equal mitigation of noise impacts to the adjacent property to the west. Lic'htinq Per the applicant, the existing building does not have any windows, or similar, which will allow light to escape the structure. For this reason, staff finds the existing building will afford equal mitigation of lighting impacts to the adjacent property to the west. Privacy Existing and proposed trees provide additional buffering from the existing building to west property line. The requested exception is for only ten feet and the adjacent property to the west is also owned by the applicant. For these reasons, staff finds the existing building will afford equal mitigation of privacy impacts to the adjacent property to the west. Access The production operation will utilize a proposed access easement across the property to the west, which is also owned by the applicant. Staff finds the proposed access easement along the south property line will eliminate any access impacts to the adjacent property to the west. For the reasons detailed above, staff finds use of the existing building will afford equal mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts. As a result, staff grants an exception to the 100 -foot setback to the west property line. 4 Reference applicant's email dated April 27, 2018 and the Site Plan Addendum. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 11 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: 1. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(6)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(6)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(6)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(6)(7) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or Lawfully established. FINDING: Four (4) tax lots are wholly or partially within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Staff reviewed land use records for these properties and found none of these properties are engaged in or approved for a use described in this section, or are subject to subsection (c). This criterion will be met. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 12 i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. FINDING: The proposed production operation will include mature canopy of up to 20,000 square feet. For this reason, these criteria apply. Comments were received by the Deschutes County Road Department and the BLM indicating a concern regarding the location of the existing road that will provide access. The application materials include a shared access consent agreement signed by the parties. The agreement includes a description of the proposed marijuana production operation and a legal description of the easement. Staff has added conditions of approval to ensure adequate and legal access. The applicant shall record the shared access consent agreement with the County Clerk prior to initiation of use or issuance of any building permit, whichever comes first. Prior to initiation of use or issuance of any building permit, whichever comes first, the applicant shall survey the proposed easement, and for any portion of the road that is not within the easement, to relocate the road within the easement. With the imposition of these conditions of approval, this criterion will be met. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. FINDING: Neither the existing building nor the proposed building have any windows, or similar, which would allow light to escape. These criteria will be met. c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. FINDING: The applicant agrees to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will comply with the Outdoor Lighting Control ordinance. A condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(6)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 13 b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. FINDING: The applicant submitted a revised engineer's letter dated April 20, 2018 prepared by Rob James, a mechanical engineer registered in the state of Oregon (Certificate Number 65108 PE), to address both odor and noise for the existing and proposed buildings. Existing Building The revised engineer's report provides the following details for the odor control system within the existing building. The existing building contains 2 grow rooms, a veg/clone room and some ancillary non - grow spaces. 1. The 2 grow rooms each have a volume of 15,880 CF [cubic feet], which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 5,294 CFM [cubic feet per minute]. Each grow room will have 3 air handlers that each move 1,471 CFM through carbon filters, plus one Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") with an attached Can -Filter 150, 12" flange. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 5,338 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 2. The veg/clone room has a volume of 6,815 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 2,272 CFM. This room will have 2 air handlers that each move 1,471. CFM through carbon filters. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 2,942 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 3. During normal operations of the facility the Opticlimate System is designed to condition and recirculate the air within the building. No air is exhausted from the building as there is not an Economizer Mode on the HVAC System. 4. The prefabricated structures are sealed operationally, not to pose any potential for odor to neighboring properties. Based on the above, staff finds the proposed odor control system for the existing building will comply with the approval criteria. Staff has included a condition of approval to ensure proper maintenance and use. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 14 Proposed Building The revised engineer's report provides the following details for the odor control system within the proposed new building. The new building consists of 28 modules of flower and vegetation rooms. Each module has a volume of 7,500 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 2,500 CFM. Each module will have three Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5') with an attached Can -Filter 150, 12" flange. The total carbon filtered air flow will be 2,775 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. Based on the above, staff finds the proposed odor control system for the new building will comply with the approval criteria. Staff has included a condition of approval to ensure proper maintenance and use. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. FINDING: The revised engineer's report provides the following details for the noise control system within the existing building and proposed new building. The HVAC configuration associated with the Lectrus pre -fabricated structures was designed by Opticlimate. The interior air handlers were provided by Briteside Holdings, and installed by Lectrus Corporation. The wall mounted HVAC units were purchased and installed by Lectrus. Final configuration of each unit will include: • The new building will have 22 wall -mounted HVAC units on each side that are rated at 73 dB noise level at the units. There will be a total of 44 HVAC Units for the entire building. • The existing building will have 2 condensing units on the west side, 6 condensing units on the east side, and 1 Bard unit on the north side. Regarding noise control, (DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a) the following factors assist in mitigating the sustained noise from the mechanical equipment used for HVAC, odor control, fans and similar functions to not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between L0:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day: 1. DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)(a) Marijuana production facilities shall have a minimum setback of 100 ft from the nearest property line. The new building is a minimum 200' from the south property line, 880' from the north property line, 924' from the east property line, and 200' from the west property line. The existing building is approximately 483' from the south property line, 781' from the north property line, 924' from the east property line, and 90' from the west property line. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 15 2. Security fencing and plantings around the perimeter of the property line will be installed that will further dampen sound transmission. 3. Sound pressure is reduced by 6 dba each time the distance from the noise source is doubled, per the inverse square law. 4. For the new building: On the south and west sides, the outdoor units will need a 6'-7' high concrete sound wall between them and the their respective property lines, with a 200' minimum distance to keep the sound below 30 dBA. On the north and east sides, the outdoor units need no special treatment because they are far enough away from the property line to keep the sound below 30 dBA. 5. For the existing building: No special sound treatment is required to keep sound levels below 30 dBA at any property line. 6. The calculated sound pressure levels from the mechanical equipment at property line are: West property line: 29.9 dBA South property line: 29.6 dBA North property line: 27.2 dBA East property line: 23.7 dBA Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to construct a six- to seven -foot - tall concrete sound wall between the proposed new building and the west and south property lines. The proposed new building shall be sited within the building envelope and no closer than 200 feet from the west and south property lines. With the imposition of these conditions of approval, staff finds this criterion will be met. 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. FINDING: The subject property is not in a Landscape Management or Wildlife Area Combining Zone. Per the applicant's response to the Incomplete Letter, seven -foot -tall black chain-link fencing with one -inch barbed wire along the top will be installed. The applicant's response does not specify the color of the barbed wire. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the barbed wire to also be painted black. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 16 The applicant does not propose to remove any vegetation on-site. A condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance with subsection (d) above. These criteria will be met. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide; a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. FINDING: The applicant proposes multiple water sources to serve the production operation. • Three (3) mitigation credits from Legacy Ranches LLC — reference Oregon Water Resources Department Assignment Record submitted with the applicant's response to the Incomplete Letter • Forty-three (43) acres of irrigation water from COID for use from April 1St through October 31St (irrigation season) — reference COID's letter submitted with the original application materials • Bend Water Hauling5 — reference the Bend Water Hauling `will -serve' letter submitted with the original application materials Staff finds this criterion will be met. 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. FINDING: The applicant is not proposing processing of cannabinoid extracts. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. FINDING: The record includes a letter from CEC dated June 9, 2017 indicating CEC has reviewed the load information (4,000 amp three phase service) associated with the cannabis production facility and that system upgrades will be necessary. The letter goes on to state that CEC is willing and able to serve the proposed marijuana production use at the subject property. No other utilities have been proposed to serve the operation. This criterion is met. 16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, 5 It is staff's understanding that Bend Water Hauling sources their water from Avion Water Company and City of Redmond, quasi -municipal and municipal water sources. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 17 except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. FINDING: The applicant states security cameras will be used. Compliance with this standard shall be a condition of approval. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). FINDING: The applicant proposes secure waste receptacles within both the existing and proposed buildings. Compliance with this standard shall be a condition of approval. 18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property: a. An owner of the subject property; b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property; or c. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. FINDING: The subject property is zoned EFU, therefore this standard does not apply. 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016. FINDING: The subject property does not include a medical marijuana grow facility. This criterion does not apply. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. b. In the MUA-10 Zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use when carried on in conjunction with a marijuana crop. c. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana production: i. Guest Lodge. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 18 ii. Guest Ranch. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort. v. Public Parks. vi. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. viii. Bed and Breakfast. ix. Room and Board Arrangements. FINDING: The applicant is not proposing any of the prohibited uses listed above. As a condition of approval, the uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. D. Annual Reporting 1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits. ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. c. Other information as maybe reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. f This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17). FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting requirements of this section shall be a condition of approval. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 19 IV. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The County uses the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual to assess SDCs. The ITE manual does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The applicant proposes 20,000 square feet of mature canopy spread across several buildings, but does not provide the total square footage of those buildings. The County's SDC is based on the buildings' total square footage related to cannabis production and support and not the square footage of the mature canopy. For discussion purposes only, 20,000 square feet of mature canopy would produce 6.4 p.m. peak hour trips (20 X 0.32). The resulting SDC is $25,197 (6.4 X $3,937). The actual SDC will be higher as it will be based on building square footage and not mature canopy size. Regardless of the final amount, the SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. V. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the application materials submitted by the applicant and the above analysis, staff concludes this application for a marijuana production facility in the EFU Zone can conform to the standards for approval. Other permits may be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining any necessary permits and meeting the requirements of the Deschutes County Building Safety Division, the Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division and the Deschutes County Road Department, as well as obtaining any required state and federal permits. VI. DECISION: APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. VII. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. Approval is based upon the submitted application materials and record developed for this land use action. Any substantial change to the approved use will require a new application. B. All necessary Building Division and Environmental Soils Division permits shall be secured by the applicant prior to initiating the use. C. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. D. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. E. Light cast by exterior light fixtures associated with the production buildings, other than marijuana grow lights, shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 20 F. The proposed odor control systems for the production buildings must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. G. The proposed odor control systems for the production buildings shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. H. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment associated with the production buildings and used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. I. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the production buildings from the public right-of- way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. J. Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and shall comply with the requirements of the OLCC. K. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secure waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OHA licensee. L. The uses listed under DCC 18.116.330(B)(20) are prohibited on-site if marijuana production exists on-site. M. The applicant or property owner shall comply with the annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D). N. Prior to initiation of production use within the existing building or issuance of any building permit for the proposed new production building, whichever comes first, the applicant shall record the shared access consent agreement with the County Clerk. The applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded agreement to the Planning Division. O. Prior to initiation of production use within the existing building or issuance of any building permit for the proposed new production building, whichever comes first, the applicant shall survey the proposed easement and, for any portion of the road that is not within the easement, relocate the road within the easement. The applicant shall schedule a site visit with Planning staff to demonstrate compliance with this condition. P. Prior to initiation of production use within the new building, the applicant shall install a six- to seven -foot -tall concrete sound wall between the proposed new production building and the west and south property lines. The proposed new production building shall be sited within the Building Envelope identified on the applicant's Site Plan Addendum dated January 18, 2018, and sited no closer than 200 feet from the west and south property lines. Q. Prior to initiation of production use within the existing building, the applicant shall plant at least six (6) trees between the existing building and the west property line. Said trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall at time of planting and shall be maintained for as long as the production use within the existing building continues on-site. The applicant shall replace any dead trees installed as part of this condition. File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 21 R. Any barbed wire installed as part of the proposed fencing shall be painted black. VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall initiate the use within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain approval of an extension under Title 22 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION (r1/4 -e___ Written by: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 22 ;:.; r.....1. '•;., 1' BRITESIDE FACILITY SITE PLAN ADDENDUM DESCHUTES COUNTY 011100M BLANK PAGE EXHIBIT C New Evidence & Testimony BLANK PAGE Tracy Griffin From: Susan Altman <susiealtman@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 9:10 AM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: 23450 Walker Road - Permits Mr. Raguine: Last week I was on the Permits page for 23450 Walker Road and there was text / a note there relating to permits and payments and possible compliance issues. This information has been removed. As this was part of the public record I am asking that it be sent to me or reinstated in the public record. Thank you, Susan 1 BLANK PAGE From: Monika Piatt To: Tammy Banev; Phil Henderson; Tonv DeBone; Anthony Raguine Subject: Briteside Appeal 247-17-000833AD Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:23 AM Attachments: ATT00001.txt ATT00002.txt ATT00003.txt ATT00004.txt ATT00005.txt From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: td tammv Anthony Raguine Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone; PhilHenderson{ )bendbroadband.Com; Nick Lelack Re: Appeal of Briteside Oregon LLC File # 247 -17 -000833 -AD, Appeal #247-18-000424-A Monday, July 16, 2018 10:58:46 PM On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 6:41 PM td tammy <shortshuffle@gmail.com> wrote: County Commissioners and Senior planner, In regards to above mentioned Applicant and Property, I would like to put this correspondence on and in the record. I would like to request all file documentation be opened and available to the Commissioners for review to allow them to see the non- compliant procedure of the Deschutes County Policy and precedures by the applicant, not just once, but numerous times of Non -Transparency and Dis-Regard to our county rules and regulations. I am a neighbor to this property and frequented the propery many times to visit with the previous Resident/Owner William C. Kaesche. The dwellings on the property 23450 Walker rd.previously(Richardson rd.) westwardly from there. 1. Mr.Kaesche's house 2. A detatched 3 car garage 3. A storage/ utility room next to the detached garage. 4. A Mother -in Laws small living quarters with a tool storage building adjacent. 5. Further towards the west. An old hay barn with a tool room and storage room. 6. Beyond barn towards west was a constructed mobile home as a primary resident for Mr. Kaesche's farm helper. A cistern of irrigation water was used at the mobile home and beside the mobile home a three car garage. No other dwellings. Mr. Kaesche's septic runs into a Lava tube not an actual septic. Mr. Kaesche also used irrigation water and a cistern for his home as when his daughter-in- law stayed with him I occasionally provided her with bottled water. There was no well any property. I am unaware if there was a septic put in for the mobile home. Existing building, (did not exist) for the setback distance exception. Applicant disregarded regulations that were in effect before the construction of new building. I would like to suggest that the BOCC members review these specific items from file before making their decission of this land use appeal. Letter From Cody Smith, P.E. County Engineer Deschutes County Road Dept. (about survey of road) to: Anthony Raguine, cc: Peter Russell - Dated Friday October 27, 2017 2:59 PM. Letter from Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner to: Anthony Raguine, Chris Doty, Cody Smith cc: Peter Russell - Dated October 27, 2017 10:02 AM COID COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT Dated 10/25/2017 From Daniel Downing, GIS/Operations Technician. Will Serve Water Letters from : Bend water Hauling and also Avion Both letters signed by Kimberlee Nunez. ? It is very obvious that these applicants for this agricultural land use are not concerned with our County Rules and Regulations, Our Good Neighbor Conduct, Transparency or Taking Care of Unresolved and Incomplete Issues that will directly effect all and set an example. On 10/16/2017 at 9:29 AM Tracy griffin E-mailed Jenkinsc@brtside.com' A notice of procedure of proposed land use sign and proposed sign would be ready for pick up ready for pick-up on 10/18/2017. cc: to Anthony Raguine proposed land use sign was just recently posted. Please look at signature petition turned in with wildlife overview on 12-01-2017. Signatures of approx. 140 county residents. This is a very clear case of non compliance to any rules and regulations throughout this entire EFU land use application process by an irresponsible applicant to devert from required responsibilities of farm use land. Huge gravel mounds were not brought in, they were made by a rock crusher from blasting and digging of the property, neighbors heard it round the clock, windows shook two blocks behind our house at a neighbors. This type of land destruction with no oversight or permits can not be permitted to continue to happen. With this type of behavior who is going to monitor this property to make sure your requirements of exceptions: (before start of Production) has all been done and correctly ?? The smell issue has not been specific in demonstration. As you are aware the carbon filters are not working to aleviate the odor of the marijuana. The noise, Mr. Rob James clearly states in his Odor and noise Nuisance letter dated 10/02/2017 that in order to meet the noise level required something will have to be done on the north and south sides. Thats on #4 of his letter Water is a big issue. It is very clear they are not able to use the well or the mitigated rights from Legacy at this time. If the well is used I request as an exception condition, for it be metered due to all these non transparency items of issues not being adheared to by applicant. BLM had requested 2 different survey be done as to prove against encrochment of BLM land. This was in letter in file. It was very disappointing that at the appeal no one was there from the Briteside Company to answer or respond to questions concerned neighbors or community members had. I hope you will look over this application documentation carefully of dates, timeframes, clarity, specificity and for our new wish for Transparency. Respectfully, Tamara D. Threlkeld/ Ken Clouse 23344 Alfalfa Mkt Rd. Bend, OR 97701 PS. please rsvp me that you have received this as my computer is not working correctly. BLANK PAGE From: Bill & Alice Tye To: Anthony Raguine Subject: Fw: Appeal comments for Briteside Marijuana Grow Operation Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 4:23:39 PM Attachments: Tye Appeal Comments- Briteside Mariivana Grow Case No. 247-18-000424-A 247-17-000833-AD.odf Mr. Raguine, I'm sorry that I misspelled your name on my previous attempt to email this to you so it did not go through. I do hope it reaches you this time. Bill Tye Forwarded Message From: Bill & Alice Tye <tyecattleco@yahoo.com> To: Anthony.Ranguine@deschutes.org <Anthony.Ranguine@deschutes.org> Cc: tammy.baney@deschutes.org <tammy.baney@deschutes.org>; phil.henderson@deschutes.org <phil.henderson@deschutes.org>; tony.debone@deschutes.org <tony.debone@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 3:36:56 PM PDT Subject: Appeal comments for Briteside Marijuana Grow Operation Mr. Ranguine: Please accept my attached comments to the appeal record for Case #247-18-000424-A (247 -17 -000833 - AD) These address water rights and water use issues. Thank you, Bill Tye LNOIMAJNO &LVRVt71N0 INC TYE EN II EERI G S RVE GB INC. 725 NW Hill Street, Bend, Oregon 97703 • www.tyeengineering.com Phone: 541-389-6959 • Fax: 541-385-1341 Anthony Raguine, Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development 114 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org July 17, 2018 RE: Appeal Comments, Case #247-18-000424-A (247 -17 -000833 -AD), Briteside Oregon LLC, 23450 Walker Rd. Dear Mr. Ranguine: The following comments focus on the problems with Briteside Oregon LLC's proposed water sources and the legality of water use for their proposed marijuana grow operation. These written comments follow up on the comments I presented at the appeal hearing on July 11, 2018 before the Board of County Commissioners. I am addressing the three water sources proposed by the applicant: mitigation credits, Central Oregon Irrigation District, and Bend Water Hauling LLC. MITIGATION CREDITS The applicant has proposed to use three mitigation credits from Legacy Ranches LLC as the water right for their existing water well. They state that this water well is to be the water source for the marijuana grow operation. It is interesting to note that these three mitigation credits are derived from a transfer of water rights out of the Crooked River. I want the Commissioners to understand that mitigation credits are not an actual ground water permit and cannot be used as an irrigation water right. In order to obtain a valid water right, the applicant must first submit an application to the Oregon Department of Water Resources for a permit to appropriate ground water. Among the items required in the application, the appellant is required to specify the type of use, the place of use, and the amount of water they request to be appropriated. As a condition of approval, OWRD will require some kind of mitigation to offset the demand on the region's existing ground water resource. In this case, the mitigation credits from Legacy Ranches LLC may be able to be applied. As part of the approval process, OWRD will review the application for completeness and adequacy. The department's Ground Water Section will determine whether there is ground water available for use without causing harm to other users in the area. However, since it is known that the ground water table in the Alfalfa subzone is being depleted and existing wells are having to be deepened, there is doubt that OWRD would approve the application. It can take up to one year for OWRD to complete the review process and issue a temporary permit, if the application is indeed approved. The applicant may not be aware that until the permit is actually issued, they are NOT allowed to use the existing well as a source of irrigation for their grow operation. CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT The applicant has indicated they have 31 acres of irrigation water provided by COID for their marijuana grow operation. The commissioners need to understand this is not a correct statement and the applicant is misinformed. Just because the applicant has a generic letter that says COID serves the property, it does not mean it all can be used for this project. It is my understanding that none of the COID irrigation water can legally be used for their marijuana grow operation. The applicant proposes to utilize enclosed modular buildings to house their marijuana operation and not use an open -bottom greenhouse. Currently, a 4,000 square foot building exists on the property and is located on non -irrigated ground. Therefore, none of the 31 acres of water rights can be used for the existing building. The applicant's second building is 18,000 square feet and proposed to be placed on irrigated ground. Because this will also be a completely enclosed modular building with a floor, it is doubtful that the underlying water right can be used and would have to be transferred out. If the structure is placed before that portion of the water is transferred, the water right for that site would have to just be abandoned, reducing the total amount of water rights for the property. To help explain, if an open -bottom (no floor) greenhouse is located within the specific area served by the COID water right, then the COID water can legally be used to water plants in that greenhouse, just as it would for plants grown in a field as most agricultural crops are. However, you can only use the amount of water commensurate with the size of the greenhouse or the area where the crop is grown. For instance, if the greenhouse is one-half acre in size (which is the about the size of Briteside's proposed structure), then you can only use one-half acre's worth of the 31 -acre water right at the greenhouse—NOT the full 31 acres of water rights. The amount of water allowed for one-half acre water right is about 3 gallons per minute, not the 10 million gallons which the applicant appears to believe they would have available. BEND WATER HAULING LLC Bend Water Hauling can use a municipal water source to deliver water to a marijuana grow operation for a portion of the year. Since marijuana is considered to be an "agricultural crop", it legally should only be watered using a municipal groundwater source during the irrigation season of April through October. I am concerned that the applicant is not very well informed on water rights law, process, or when and how they can legally irrigate their proposed marijuana grow operation. I believe they are jumping to conclusions about what they can legally do. In summary: 1. It is doubtful that the applicant can obtain a ground water irrigation water right from OWRD 2. COID surface irrigation water cannot be used at the existing building since there is no underlying water right. It is doubtful COID will allow them to use an irrigation water right inside an enclosed building 3. Agricultural crops are only allowed to be irrigated during the irrigation season (April — October) Thank you for considering my comments. Please contact me if you would like further information. Sincerely, 1411: z. rye- WILLIAM R. TYE PE, CWRE cc: Deschutes County Commissioners Tracy Griffin From: Northwest Belt <kcburk@mindspring.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 4:20 PM To: Anthony Raguine Cc: kcburk@mindspring.com Subject: Briteside Walker Road CUP appeal Attachments: Briteside 7 17 18.docx; USAOR-Marijuana Enforcement Priorities -Final (1).pdf Mr. Raguine, Attached is our letter with concerns in opposition of the proposed marijuana production behind our house. Also is the letter from US Dist Att. Billy 1 Williams regarding enforcement of federal laws in Oregon - specifically the last paragraph is most applicable to land use issues and BLM proximity as well: Priority 5: Protecting Federal Lands, Natural Resources, & Oregon's Environment We will prioritize enforcement of federal marijuana violations that have serious adverse effects on federal land or natural resources, including water, air, and listed species. The United States has a fundamental interest in protecting its property and natural resources. This priority also reflects the appreciation Oregonians share for our public lands, and our longstanding dedication to its appropriate conservation for current and future generations. Examples falling within this priority include cultivating marijuana on federally managed lands, using unlawful pesticides that pose a threat to human health, wildlife, and our environment, or using large amounts of water for grow operations without proper authorization. Oregon's livability transcends the interests of any one industry. Thank you - The Burks 1 July 17, 2018 Anthony Raguine — Senior Planner Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 247-18-000424-A (247-17-000833-AD)—written arguments against Our property address is 23367 Alfalfa Market Rd. — Taxlot 171327-00-00100, our residence is the closest to the location of the proposed marijuana production facility. We strongly oppose the approval and usage of this property for marijuana production. We are very concerned by the behavior of Briteside Oregon LLC since they purchased the property last year. They very quickly began blasting, rock hammering and crushing operations, followed by drilling of a very deep well that taps into our ground water for their production purposes. The mining operations left a large mountain of dusty gravel in the center of the property, with plans to spread a 6 acre pad for building production. The fact that Briteside constructed a production building violating required setbacks even before having approval for marijuana production is very conceming. This setback violation must be rectified before any approval moves forward. There has been absolutely no property maintenance of the grounds, what has been green hay pastures for several years has now turned into a tremendous fire hazard of 3 ft tall dead grass and dust. This property is an investment for industrial production and distribution, the investment group has shown it is only focused on profits and does not care about those of us that actually live here. Because of the behaviors of the last year, we have no reason to believe that Briteside will be diligent in its efforts to mitigate odor, noise, lighting, dust, etc. The fact that no actual representative of Briteside itself was at the hearing on July 11th shows their lack of concem for the residents of our county. Here is a condensed list of the major issues that must be considered for the approval of this CUP, and at the very least be handled by conditions of approval: • Water usage — there should be no usage of groundwater from the well(s) at any time of the year for production of marijuana. Growing 20,000 SF of highest potentcy marijuana requires an extremely Targe amount of water to flush the plants regulary. Briteside's attorney July 11th stated they did not need to use groundwater (5:46:20 mark on the video of hearing), so please make sure they do not use well water for this production. The county should also use a meter or another way of tracking any well water use on the property to ensure compliance. This groundwater is for existing single family residences in the area. COID water is allowed for beneficial use based on the acreage covered, which will be less than half acre as stated in the hearing. Also COID water is only available April through October each year. The usage of water from COID and Bend Water hauling needs to be proven legal before final approval of the CUP. • Property values — perception is reality. Even if the operation becomes the cleanest, best neighbor ever type of facility, our property values will go down with this approval. The pool of prospective buyers decreases dramatically with the paradigm of horrors related to living next to a pot grower. • Odor — a proven plan for eliminating odor must be in place prior to final approval. As stated in the hearing, carbon filtering does not work. Briteside must prove that ours and other's properties in the area will not be trespassed by any odors. • Access road and BLM land issues must be sorted out and clear before approval. • Noise — Concrete walls are not sufficient, there must be a better plan for capturing noise and keeping it from affecting surrounding properties. • Lighting — no visible lighting from production operations during dark hours, especially grow lights that effect the night sky. Deschutes County should have access to all electric usage records to help monitor lighting. The average marijuana growing operation uses 18 hours of lighting, wether natural or artificial, to maximize production. • Farming - Require the property owner return to fully irrigating and maintaining the fields with greenery instead of letting it die and endangering their COID water rights. There are many ways they could beneficially use that 30 plus acres with traditional, non-THC crop production and/or livestock raising. Briteside's attorney stated on July 11th that they would be willing to do this (5:47:00 on the video of hearing), so make it condition of approval at the least. • Waste — Briteside needs to present a comprehensive, detailed plan for legally and safely handling pesticides and residues from pesticides, waste water from production, and waste from production. The introduction of all of these new toxins in our area is of great concern to our community and we need assurance that it will not affect our health and safety. • Employees/traffic- As with all CUP's in Deschutes County. There needs to be a reasonable limit on the number of employees and daily business related trips to and from the property. Briteside needs to provide the county with detailed, comprehensive explanation of the anticipated employee and shipping activities it intends to use with this operation. Included must be maximum limits of employees based on seasonal activities related with growing and harvesting/trimming. • Overproduction — the overproduction of marijuana in Oregon and the subsequent black market activities are a major concern for all Oregonians. This has resulted in an increase in criminal activity all over the state. We are very concerned about the security issues these production facilities bring with them. • Complaints — our neighborhood will very closely monitor activities on any approved marijuana production facility. This will further increase workload for Code Enforcement and DCSO due to the inevitable odor, noise, lighting, waste handling, traffic, water useage issues, etc.. Thank you for considering our very real, and troubling concerns. We ask in closing hthat you help us to preserve our rural residential lands in Deschutes County by rejecting further approval of this CUP. K.C. and Valeisha Burk PORTLAND MAIN OFFICE 1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 727-1000 www.usdoj.gov/usao/or Billy J. Williams United States Attorney Bill.Williams@usdoj.gov (503) 727-1000 Reply to Portland Office U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE United States Attorney's Office District of Oregon Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney May 18, 2018 EUGENE BRANCH 405 E 8th Avenue, Suite 2400 Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 465-6771 MEDFORD BRANCH 310 West Sixth Street Medford, Oregon 97501 (541) 776-3564 FROM: THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON SUBJECT: PRIORITIES IN ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS INVOLVING MARIJUANA IN THE DISTRICT OF OREGON On January 4, 2018, Attorney General Jefferson Sessions, III, rescinded previous Justice Department guidance related to enforcement of federal marijuana laws. U.S. Attorneys around the country were instructed to determine marijuana enforcement policy in light of the specific circumstances in their individual districts. Because Oregon, under state law, previously legalized marijuana, this change raised questions regarding how our District intended to exercise its discretion in marijuana enforcement under the federal Controlled Substances Act. That act prohibits the cultivation, possession, and distribution of marijuana. In response, and to provide an opportunity to hear and learn from the diverse range of Oregonian viewpoints, I convened a Marijuana Summit on February 2, 2018. The summit was attended by more than 130 people from nearly 70 organizations and represented a wide cross- section of interests and perspectives bearing on federal marijuana enforcement in our state. Among those in attendance were the Governor of Oregon, representatives from 14 U.S. Attorney's Offices, and Oregon congressional delegation staff. The Summit featured presentations by State officials, including the Governor's Marijuana Policy Advisor and Criminal Justice Commission, as well as representatives of the Association of Oregon Counties, Oregon - Idaho High -Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Oregon Cannabis Association, affected landowners, banking industry, medical community, and leadership from tribal nations. Although the views expressed at the Summit were often divergent, the group found consensus in three principal areas. First, there is urgent need for more comprehensive and accurate data on the scope and effect of marijuana production and distribution in Oregon. Second, too few resources are devoted to enforcement and oversight of the State's marijuana regulatory regime. Third, there can be no doubt that there is significant overproduction of marijuana in Oregon. As a result, a thriving black market is exporting marijuana across the country, including to states that have not legalized marijuana under their state laws. PRIORITIES IN ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS INVOLVING MARIJUANA IN THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Page 2 May 18, 2018 Overarching Principles As the primary federal law enforcement official in Oregon, I will not make broad proclamations of blanket immunity from prosecution to those who violate federal law. When I became the U.S. Attorney for this District, I swore to uphold the rule of law in this state, and I take that responsibility extremely seriously; indeed, all of my actions in this job derive from that solemn pledge. The U.S. Constitution is the source for the rule of law in our nation, and two of its bedrock principles direct my deliberations on this subject. The first is that federal law is the supreme law of the land. Second, Congress determines the content of that federal law. The fact that a State may pass a law that conflicts with, or reflects a different policy from federal law cannot nullify these principles or shield an activity from federal prosecution regardless of whether the substance of the law addresses marijuana, environmental protection, or any other subject. At the same time, our office's resources are finite. By necessity, we must use appropriate discretion before prosecuting any federal case. This has several implications for purposes of the present guidance. It means, for example, that we will strategically consider and use available civil law enforcement mechanisms in conjunction with or as an alternative to criminal prosecution in appropriate cases. Such options include asset forfeiture, civil litigation, and administrative enforcement. Next, we will continue to efficiently leverage federal resources by closely coordinating with our partners in state, tribal, and local governments around the state. As an example, our office is currently participating with the Oregon State Police's Northwest and Southwest Regional Marijuana Teams and we regularly confer with local law enforcement agencies around the state to address and support their marijuana enforcement concerns. Lastly, it means we will focus our enforcement efforts on federal violations implicating one or more of the priority elements of this guidance. Finally, consistent with the Attorney General's direction, we will apply this guidance in a manner consistent with well-established principles the Justice Department and our office has employed for many years. As noted in the Attorney General's memorandum, these principles include "federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community." Such principles ensure that enforcement of federal law is fair, equally administered, and not influenced by any personal biases or feelings that any of our Assistant U.S. Attorneys or I may have about particular laws, including those involving marijuana. PRIORITIES IN ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS INVOLVING MARIJUANA IN THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Page 3 May 18, 2018 Five Federal Enforcement Priorities The Importance of Effective Partnerships As a preliminary matter, I am fully committed to continuing the long tradition in Oregon of carrying out law enforcement in close coordination with our partners at the State, Tribal, and local levels, including all Oregon Sheriffs and municipal police departments. I am committed to working in coordination with Oregon officials to address the issues the state marijuana law has engendered. I am encouraged that the Oregon Legislature recently enacted SB1544. That legislation establishes an Illegal Marijuana Market Enforcement Grant Program to help local governments and their law enforcement agencies combat unlawful marijuana cultivation with $9 million in state funding over the next six years. We will also continue to leverage federal resources in conjunction with those of our state, tribal, and local law enforcement partners to achieve the most efficient results possible using the latest and best data. At the same time, however, and especially to the extent major enforcement or state regulatory oversight gaps persist, we will not hesitate to act as the law and facts warrant. In so doing, we will focus our resources primarily on situations involving one or more of the following priorities Priority 1: Overproduction and Interstate Trafficking We will prioritize enforcement of federal marijuana violations that have national or interstate implications, particularly when the Oregon -based criminal activity adversely affects states that have not legalized marijuana. This will be a top priority until overproduction that feeds exportation of marijuana across Oregon's borders stops. Notably, since broader legalization took effect in 2015, large quantities of marijuana from Oregon have been seized in 30 states, most of which continue to prohibit marijuana. Priority 2: Protecting Oregon's Children We will prioritize enforcement of federal marijuana violations that threaten public health, with particular emphasis on the access to marijuana by minors. This priority is consistent with state law, which strictly limits marijuana use to those 21 years of age and older. More can and must be done to ensure that both state and federal law are upheld in this regard, and I look forward to working with the Governor and our state law enforcement partners to ensure this occurs. The need to gather more data is particularly acute on this front, as numerous educational and social -services officials report significant increases in use by young people in their communities. We can, and must, do better by our youth. PRIORITIES IN ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS INVOLVING MARIJUANA IN THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Page 4 May 18, 2018 Priority 3: Violence, Firearms, or other Public Safety Threats We will prioritize enforcement of federal marijuana violations that involve or pose a substantial risk of violence or other threats to public safety in our communities, especially those involving firearms. During the Summit, I heard landowners describe feeling intimidated by marijuana producers, some of whom were armed. Federal marijuana violations associated with violence are of particular concern given that the protection of public safety is our paramount objective. Another public safety concern is the illegal manufacture of butane hash oil resulting in dangerous explosions and fires. Federal prosecutors throughout the district will continue to bring appropriate cases under federal law that fall within these public safety concerns. Priority 4: Organized Crime We will prioritize enforcement of federal marijuana violations that serve to fuel other criminal activity, especially through racketeering and the involvement of organized crime. Regardless of the underlying criminal offense involved, groups acting in concert to violate the law on an ongoing basis pose a particularly grave threat to the communities in which they operate. This includes not only violent crimes, but also non-violent criminal activity, such as federal income tax evasion or systematic money laundering to evade detection of illegal proceeds. Priority 5: Protecting Federal Lands, Natural Resources, & Oregon's Environment We will prioritize enforcement of federal marijuana violations that have serious adverse effects on federal land or natural resources, including water, air, and listed species. The United States has a fundamental interest in protecting its property and natural resources. This priority also reflects the appreciation Oregonians share for our public lands, and our longstanding dedication to its appropriate conservation for current and future generations. Examples falling within this priority include cultivating marijuana on federally managed lands, using unlawful pesticides that pose a threat to human health, wildlife, and our environment, or using large amounts of water for grow operations without proper authorization. Oregon's livability transcends the interests of any one industry. BLANK PAGE From: Nunzie To: Anthony Raguine Subject: Briteside testimony Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:06:03 PM Attachments: Briteside Gould testimony.do4 Attached are color photos of the Briteside Lectrus metal pre manufactured mobile agricultural exempt structure placed on taxlot 3400 and other items discussed at the hearing and in this testimony. Notice the HVAC units which abut the building and which are not included in the floor plan of the ag exempt structure application materials. Also see the attached testimony. Thanks you Nunzie Gould Deschutes County Commissioners You've spent time creating a marijuana production plan for EFU land. You've invested energies to manage marijuana odor, noise and setbacks in Deschutes County. Now it's time to deny the Briteside Lab Prototype Lectrus (ag exempt building) and the Proposed Britesde marijuana grow structure on taxlot 3400. Applicant simply has not met many burdens of proof. Setback: Briteside has thru their attorney David Peterson removed the building envelope on their site plan yet there is no site plan that today conveys what Briteside is proposing and their existing premanufactured mobile Lectrus metal building does not meet the 100' setback from the west property line of taxlot 3400. Access: As you should know by now: Taxlot 3400 is land locked. When Briteside purchased the property, that portion of Walker road was vacated where it abutted taxlot 3400 and taxlot 1400 and taxlot 1500. There is no Walker road here anymore. Walker Road is the wrong address to be using since Walker road does not exist at these properties. Subsequent to the lot line adjustment reconfiguring taxlots 1400 and 1500 there was no access granted from Alfalfa Market Road to taxlot 1400 or to taxlot 1500 or to taxlot 3400. The marijuana easement does not meet the criteria of a road to taxlot 1500 or a road to taxlot 1400 or a road to taxlot 3400. Briteside marijuana approval should be denied. More than marijuana production and Not warehouse: Even before Briteside acquired it's properties, as early as 3/10/2017 Briteside's intention was for marijuana production.1 More recently Briteside advertises themselves as providing marijuana grow structures, transporting marijuana from dispensaries in Bend, Medford and Ashland and guiding and consulting others in the challenging marijuana industry. All of these activities are identified to occur at taxlot 3400. Yet none of these businesses (making or selling metal marijuana structures, vehicular deliveries or consultants) have been included in the applicant's description of activities. Certainly these sales, deliveries, consulting employees are not equal to warehouse activities and therefore a traffic study is needed. At the appeal hearing, atleast 3 persons were employed by Briteside: David Petersen, Greg Blackmore, Amanda Cardenas yet none were able to identify the numbers of employees of Briteside. This is pretty bizarre since Amanda's title is compliance officer for Briteside Holding LLC which is the single member owner of Briteside Oregon LLC. This is a reason to deny a marijuana application because the County cannot assure that less than 10 people will be at the ag exempt Lectrus 4160 square foot building. Larger than 20'000 square feet: 1 See floor plan and elevation plans of Lectrus briteside Lab Prototype dated 3-10-2017 issued for construction 4-10-2017 (submitted in 247 -17 -004406 -AGE) 4160 (existing ag exempt Lectrus + 18300 proposed marijuana grow building= 24460 square feet which exceeds 20'000 square feet. Code for this purported 40 acre size property is 20'000 square feet. Only with a survey can you assure that taxlot 3400 is 30 acres... but certainly approving both buildings is in violation of county code. 1. The ag exempt application 247-17-004406-AGE dated 8-7-17 states that the current use of the farm was ag/farm hay, seed etc, cattle yet as of the appeal hearing date 7- 11-18 applicant is not growing anything on the property because they are not using any irrigation water for ag, the farm, hay, seed or cattle. Applicant also did not grow anything on the property during 2017. 2. The ag building exemption application does not grant permission for more than 10 people to work on the premises. Briteside has not disclosed the numbers affiliated with the proposed building and the site plan shows parking striations for the area abutting the 4160 sq ft building only as being having 3. The environmental soils records that dial shows posted to taxlot 3400 dating to 1982 is for the septic system for the Manufactured Home which sits on taxlot 1500 not for the yellow house built in the 1930's which is on taxlot 3400. The proposed septic on the marijuana site plan is not designed or located to serve the yellow house or the illegal granny flat dwelling unit on taxlot 3400 . 4. The ag exempt application should not have been granted because the fire marshall will have oversight to any proposed marijuana grow building. " "Agricultural building" does not include (c) a structure regulated by the State Fire Marshall pursuant to ORS chapter 476." In Oregon the State Fire Marshall has complete oversight to all building. 5. The marijuana site plan shows a septic and leach system to serve the ag exempt existing and the future building but this septic and leach system does not provide septic to the yellow home on taxlot 3400. It is important for the home on the property to be served by septic and not a drill hole especially since applicant stated at the appeal hearing that they rented this yellow home to an employee during the summer of 2017 and also in light of the mapped wetland on abutting BLM land near this yellow house and the 2nd dwelling unit. 6. There is a 2nd dwelling on taxlot 3400 a granny flat used by Kaesche the former owner. This 2nd dwelling which is next to the yellow house should not be used as it is unpermitted on EFU land. 7. Applicant's agricultural building exemption site plan shows an existing dwelling on taxlot 1400. There is no dwelling on taxlot 1400 only a barn. <http://d ial.deschutes.orq/Real/Improvements/109318> The County has no assigned address for taxlot 1400 which is to the east of the little COID ditch. 8. Applicant would love you to think of all 3 Tots as being 1 taxlot. This simply is not the case. As such the reason for your marijuana code is to assure that those not approved by OLCC cannot access the property. Additionally thru the lot line adjustment process, there are specific criteria that must be met. 9. There is no site plan that shows where fencing is proposed. There are several gates in many old fencelines which only a survey will disclose their actual location. 10. Applicant has not shown where barriers to entering the proposed marijuana grow will be located on taxlot 3400. This is important as there might be a tenant in the yellow house who is not a licensed marijuana grower thru OLCC. Also there might be kids either living in this yellow house or in the manufacture dwelling on taxlot 1500 who like others on hot summer days want to be in water like a pond or in an irrigation ditch... The objective of OLCC's fencing regulations is to protect the public from marijuana. See this link for verification that taxlot 1500 has a dwelling unit and farm buildings <http://dial.deschutes.orq/Real/Improvements/109317> 11. Today there is a little COID ditch that traverses from BLM northbound onto taxlot 1500, about 20 feet into taxlot 1500 there is a weir box that sends water thru pipe east under the ditch road and then thru open ditch to the pond that is on the east side of taxlot 3400. After the weir box on taxlot 1500, the ditch continues north thru taxlot 1500 and into and across taxlot 1400 where after the barn that is on the taxlot 1400, there is another weir box where the canal is piped for several other irrigators downstream. Weir boxes in all irrigation canals get blocked from time to time and farmers, property owners and/or irrigators are the ones tasked with removing this debri. Much as you might think ditch riders do this work, the reality is it's the farmers down gradient who manage open ditches in central oregon ! 12. Taxlot 1500 has a manufactured home that has a gravel driveway west of this little irrigation ditch. East of the little ditch is a ditch road which begins at Bear Creek Road and follows the ditch thru BLM lands and onto taxlot 1500. It is this ditch road that a person gets access to the East pond on taxlot 3400 and to the barn on taxlot 1400. There is nothing in the marijuana easement that provides anyone access to taxlots 1500 or 1400 from Alfalfa Market Road for farm, irrigating or domestic dwelling accesses. In fact the easement in the record has no identifications to actually benefit taxlot 1500 or 1400. So thru the course of this land use process, staff errs in even suggesting that such a marijuana easement is a legal easement when it is a self created easement between Briteside Oregon LLC and Britesdie Oregon LLC. This process is faulty and this is reason to deny Briteside a marijuana permit. 13. The Hickman Williams mj easement ends at the SW corner of taxlot 3400. The site plan shows no roads or interior circulation methodologies for how one gets from this easement road to the ag exempt building or to the proposed marijuana grow structure or to the east pond or to any of the agricultural improvements on taxlot 3400 or to the yellow dwelling or to the unpermitted dwelling or to the East pond or to the Easterly COID ditch that traverses from BLM lands south of taxlot 3400 thru the S- SE area of taxlot 3400. 14. Survey is needed before things get even messier. The public has a right to quiet use of abutting BLM land. Free of noise and odor. It's obvious that a survey is needed today. The approval criteria granted by the County is to punt this until there is a marijuana use. This is absurd ! The survey is needed so that access is in the correct format and location and does not trespass on public land. 15. Until the access is put in, staff has no accountability of how many juniper trees will be cut and neither does applicant. As such, applicant's noise study is bogus because you don't know whether the proposed building is one building or multiple 4160 square foot buildings. 16. The `acoustic wall' on applicant's site plan is described simply as a concrete 6-7' wall. This is a concrete wall not an acoustic wall. A concrete wall will cause amplification of sound not sound buffering especially to the abutting BLM property which is at higher elevation than taxlot 3400. A concrete wall sited between the existing ag exempt building and the proposed marijuana building will cause sound reverberations and sound amplifications from the HVAC units that are on the existing ag exempt building. 17. Odor - Carbon Filters and Foggers don't work Today it's over 90 degrees. This is much hotter than the 60 degree testing of the nasal ranger fogger misting system performed by only 3 individuals one time in Nevada. According to the Hopmann appeal hearing oral testimony 247-18-000205-A the marijuana growers themselves admitted that here in Deschutes County carbon filtering does not control odor and that foggers were more preferred. Yet the fogger/misting system is unproven in our climate in Deschtues County (certainly you're not going to rely on 1 out of state sampling by 3 individuals in 60 degrees as a standard that matches conditions here in Deschutes County)therefore Briteside should be denied to use the carbon filtering system because it simply does not work and the industry acknowledges this. There is no system that works to control odor of noxious and evading marijuana. 18. It's time for the County to learn about the Juniper Woodlands Recreation Area which has a wetland ! and is the most amazing recreation asset in Deschutes County. As is seen in the Tumalo area at Maston, BLM lands attract the public for diverse recreational and wildlife attractions. Not only do folks come to Juniper Woodlands Recreation Area from Deschutes County, but also from Crook County. As such an inholding piece surrounded by BLM land is not a prudent place to locate this commercial marijuana venture. 19. Applicant has no obligation to purchase the mitigation credits - read the agreement please. There is an entire carve out that voids the agreement. Mitigation credits are a paper device, mitigation credits are not water or a right to water. 20. Finally, attached is a photo of the Lectrus prefabricated mobile ag exempt buiding that is on taxlot 3400: it is 51'8" wide by 79'8" long, image bringing in multiple metal manufactured buildings onto farm land for Briteside Lab Prototype. Now imagine more of these, not quite sure how many are planned for taxlot 3400 even though Briteside advertises itself as guiding others in this complex marijuana industry and has been at this for 1.5 years 21. Fencing is not shown to control or contain the proposed marijuana grow from the multiple entries to taxlot 1500 and to taxlot 3400 including the various ditch roads, COID canals and drive entrances which by the way are not identified driveway permits issued by Deschutes County. Dear Commissioners: Briteside's marijuana production application on taxlot 3400 is poorly conceptualized, and is an incomplete application that does not meet the County Code. The County's standard of proof is higher than what Briteside has proved. Briteside marijuana production should be disallowed. Thank you. Nunzie Gould p.s. please keep me a party to this record, my address is on file. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Preserve Deschutes County Anthony Raguine Submittal for Briteside appeal Tuesday, July 17, 2018 4:43:58 PM Letter to Anthony Raguine for Briteside at 23450 Walker Road reduced.odf Attached is a PDF document for the Briteside appeal at 23450 Walker Road (247-18- 000424-A (247 -17 -000833 -AD). All information in this email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be read, copied, and used only by the intended recipient(s). Any use by a person other than its intended recipient, or by the recipient but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender and then destroy this email. If you have received this as a forwarded email, it may have been altered from its original content. Dear Mr. Raguine: This letter is submitted for the file for Briteside at 23450 Walker Road (247-18-000424-A (247 -17- 000833 -AD); please include this in the open record period. Following on the appeal hearing for Briteside, the below addresses the reasons why this application should be denied. Access It is the commissioners' duty to review the application that has been put before them. In the Briteside application, and per testimony from counsel for the applicants, it appears that the current driveway (formerly Richardson Road, which was vacated in the 1980s and which borders BLM land — see Exhibit A) crosses onto federal land. Per a letter from the BLM (see Exhibit B), they will not grant approval for commercial access on federal land for the purpose of transporting a federally illegal substance. The application was approved with the condition that the applicant move the access road. Following precedent set by previous hearings, where exceptions based on conditions could have been granted but weren't, it is the commissioners' duty to deny this application for lack of proper access. In previous appeals, commissioners have had the opportunity to grant exceptions as conditions of approval, but have not (Rubio, Baker, Hopmann). They reviewed and made their decisions based on the application submitted. This sets precedent and this case should be treated equally. If the applicant wishes to move the road and then reapply that is their right to do so. As the application was submitted, this property does not have proper commercial access without trespassing on BLM land and should be denied. See Exhibit A: Documents related to vacating Richardson Road See Exhibit 8: Letter from BLM Setbacks and siting Per testimony from the appeal hearing on July 11, 2018 (and lacking records from the county's surveyor office) that indicated that no recorded survey exists for tax lot 3400, absent of a proper survey clearly marking and recording the property lines, it is impossible to say if the property is the correct acreage for the proposed size of the growing operation. If, however, you take at face value that the property lines are correct, the building in the application does not meet the setback requirements. Furthermore, the building was placed on-site with the knowledge that it does not meet the setback requirements, as it was located and sited after the property was purchased and after the county's regulations had been established. This is not a pre- existing structure, but a structure that was assembled on-site before a LUCS was issued. By intentionally installing the building where it is, the applicant has not shown good faith in abiding by county codes. When questioned by commissioner Baney on July 11, 2018 regarding placing the building knowing it didn't meet setback requirements and indicating that it runs counter -intuitive to abiding by the code, counsel for the applicant stated that the structure was placed on the property "maybe in error." However, in the files on Dial, a statement from Greg Blackmore says that "HWA designed the building at a distance of 90 feet from the western property line." (See Exhibit C) Hardly an oversight. Per the application, the "'building envelope' is.... proposed to allow buildings to be placed as near as 25 feet from the western property line." (See Exhibit D) Applicant is requesting latitude to place structures anywhere within the "building envelope" area. Providing a general "building envelope" area does not provide enough specificity to the commissioners to approve this application without demonstrated ability to mitigate odor and noise, to prove setbacks (the "building envelope" shows it does not meet setback requirements), and to show legal access that does not trespass onto BLM. Counsel for the applicant commented that right to farm allows marijuana production outright on EFU land. Oregon's "right to farm" law doesn't provide aspiring marijuana growers with "blanket immunity" per Yamhill County Circuit Court Judge John Collins (see Exhibit E). The application should be denied on not meeting the setback requirement. Exhibit C: Briteside email correspondence Exhibit D: Original Briteside application Exhibit E: Capital Press article regarding Circuit Court ruling in Yamhill County Water A quick reading of applicant's Purchase Agreement for Mitigation Credits (see Exhibit F) will show that these credits have not actually been purchased yet. Therefore applicant does not own the water rights at this time. This is why the ground water rights for this property have not been proven as testified to by the representative from OWRD in the public hearing on July 11, 2018. No application for water rights has been submitted to OWRD. An agreement to purchase mitigation credits is not the same as owning the mitigation credits. Lacking mitigation credits which are owned by the applicant, they are not able to apply for a groundwater permit from OWRD; furthermore no water right certificate is proven. As you'll see on the attached Water Supply Well Report (see Exhibit G), the applicant's new well is located in the pond proximal to their building. If they intend to use COID water, they will need to fill their pond from the ditch that runs to the property; from that pond they will pump the water necessary to either irrigate pasture (which has been destroyed by the blasting and effective gravel parking lot they have created on high-value farmland). The well is in the pond; both cannot be used at the same time. Has the integrity of the pond failed because of the drilling of the well? Applicant has stated that they intend to use a water hauler to bring water to the site in the off-season. Bend Water Hauling's letter (Exhibit H) does not indicate the number of gallons it will provide to the applicant, nor what the breakdown of number of trips will be. Will it be 4,000 gallons of water per day for 20 days of the month? Furthermore, what is the impact of the weight of a full water truck on public roads? A water truck carrying 4,000 gallons of water weighs 40,000 Ib in water alone, not to mention the weight of the truck. How have the county roads toward Alfalfa been impacted by the constant delivery of water on Alfalfa Market Road? Has a traffic study been done; have the impacts to the roads been measured? What is also missing from this application is information on where the water will be stored. There is no indication in the application that there is a cistern that will be used for this project. The water rights have not been proven; this application should be denied. Exhibit F: Purchase Agreement for Mitigation Credits Exhibit G: Briteside Water Supply Well Report Exhibit H: Bend Water Hauling will -serve letter from original application Odor and Noise The letters from ColeBreit have not proven that the system will demonstrate that it works. Per Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1979, the definition of "demonstrate" is as follows: To teach by exhibition of samples; to derive from admitted premises by steps of reasoning by which admit no doubt, to prove indubitably. To show or prove value or merits by operation, reasoning, or evidence. So far no one has proven indubitably that noise and odor control systems do not interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. In this case, where a neighbor is not just one person but the general public using a federal recreation area, absent any provable examples, this claim is not justified. Furthermore, as submitted by a person's testimony at the hearing on July 11, 2018, recent testimony in other hearings (appeal hearings for Hopmann, Lee Property Management) indicate that the charcoal filtering system which is intended to "scrub" odor from production facilities is an outdated methodology and those applications elected to use other methods which they thought superior. Per an online article in Dope Magazine, an industry publication ( https://www.dopemagazine.com/nose- mind-odor-mitigation-raises-issues-across-industry/ ), "The usual carbon filters and fans that work in apartments and smaller grows are no longer the best option out there. A sealed greenhouse isn't a great course of action, either, as it allows too much moisture to build up within the structure, potentially increasing mold and fungi on the plant." ColeBreit mentions that "during normal operations of the facility, the Opticlimate System is designed to condition and recirculate the air within the building" and that no air will be exhausted from the building. This lacks in specificity to define what "normal operations of the facility" are. (See Exhibit I) Is that Monday through Friday 9 to 5? Is it during growing season but not harvesting season or vice versa? Is it overnight? Is it with a certain number of employees in the building? Is it when the HVAC system is working? From Wikipedia: Ventilating or ventilation (the V in HVAC) is the process of exchanging or replacing air in any space to provide high indoor air quality which involves temperature control, oxygen replenishment, and removal of moisture, odors, smoke, heat, dust, airborne bacteria, carbon dioxide, and other gases. Ventilation removes unpleasant smells and excessive moisture, introduces outside air, keeps interior building air circulating, and prevents stagnation of the interior air. Ventilation includes both the exchange of air to the outside as well as circulation of air within the building. It is one of the most important factors for maintaining acceptable indoor air quality in buildings. HVAC systems are designed to provide for and regulate indoor air quality and remove unpleasant smells and excessive moisture. How is this possible without exhausting air from the building? Here is information from the EPA regarding indoor air quality: https://www.epa.Bov/indoor-air-quality- iaq/fundamentals-indoor-air-quality-buildings Exhibit l: ColeBreit letter from April 20, 2018 Waste Water Applicant's application indicates that they will be disposing of wastewater via on-site septic. Per DEQ's rules on marijuana, "discharge of industrial wastewater into an onsite septic system is prohibited since these systems are only designed to treat domestic wastewater. In addition, planting and growing marijuana on top of a septic drainfield or irrigating and harvesting over a drainfield may affect a residential septic system's performance." Their pollution rule states that "Agricultural pollution cannot enter streams, ditches, or ponds, or be in a location that is likely to enter these water bodies." The siting of the building in proximity to the COID ditch and the pond (which may have been rendered unusable since that is now the location of the well) makes discharge of waste water in proximity to a ditch or a pond likely. In looking at the permit on Dial (Exhibit J), there is no map of where the drainfield is located (the document is practically unreadable). What is readable on the document is that the system was designed to handle 450 gallons of waste water per day. If they are to be using 2,600 gallons of water daily, how much waste does that produce? Exhibit J: Cannabis and Water Quality ODA document Exhibit K: Permit application dated 5/27/82 Summary In summary, it should be reiterated that the applicant knowingly disregarded setbacks, trespassed over BLM land for commercial purposes (different than traversing federal land for general household access) to erect a facility for producing a federally illegal substance, and has essentially ruined a good portion of high-value farmland and likely disturbed federal lands with razing and gravelling. Their "building envelope" is asking for blanket approval to erect buildings anywhere within a given perimeter and which actually minimize the setback, potentially sit on top of their pond or well, and do not provide specificity for the commissioners to consider in accordance with county codes. Their mitigation credits have not been purchased, thus the ground water has not been proven, and Bend Water Hauling has not provided specificity for how much water they will deliver and on what schedule and where the water will be stored. Odor control has not been proven. Septic system discharge is not allowed. Following precedent, this application must be considered as submitted and not be offered exceptions as conditions of approval based on promises of compliance. Exhibit A - Richardson Road Vacation Documents TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY VACATION NOTICE ALL UTILITIS AND MUNCIPALITIES DESCHUTES COUNTY ENGINEER RICHARDSON ROAD VACATION ELEIIVE JAN 241884 DESCHUTES CO. ROAD DEPT. Deschutes County has received a Petition to Vacate the property described ir: Exhibit "A", attached hereto. If you currently have any facilities located on this property, have a possible future interest in this property, or wish to comment on the proposed vacation, please complete this form and return it to: The Department of Public Works, County Engineer, 61150 SE 27th Street, Bene, Oregon 97702, within seven (7) days. DATED this 11TH day of JANUARY, 1984. `1. S �S� t\j c.. Imo'! PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1133 MW WALL STREET BEND, OREGON 97701 li' EXHIBIT "A" ROAD INFORMATION FOR OFFICE: NAME: Richardson Road (aka Walker Rd) AREAt:D NUMBER:27 LENGTH:0.75 mi. R/W:60.00 feet T/R/S:17-13-Sec. 27 & 34 COUNTY __ PUBLIC ___ PRIVATE__.____ FOR: VACATION OF A PORTION OF RICHARDSON ROAD ROAD DESCRIPTION A portion of Richardson Road lying in Sections 27 and 34 of Township 17 South, Range 13 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being a strip of land sixty feet in width, the centerline of which is described as follows: Beginning at a point where the scuth line cf said Section 27 intersects the southeasterly right-of-way line of Alfalfa Market Road; thence easterly along the south line of said Section 27 to the East one -sixteenth (E 1/16) corner common to said Sections 27 and 34. po=c-e—iejitGL,L. DAVHOERNING, COLT TY ENGINEER February 7, 1984 DESCHUTr;S COUNTY DEPARTMENT CF PUBLIC WORKS 61150 SE 27TH STREET . BEND, OREGON 97702 (503) 388-6581 GENERAL SERVICES (503) 388-6591 ENGINEERING ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR PUBLIC ROAD VACATION TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: DESCHUTES COUNTY ENGINEER SUBJECT: ENGINEER'S REPORT RELATING TO THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF RICHARDSON ROAD LOCATED IN TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, SECTIONS 27 AND 34, W.M. DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON. 1. Property proposed for vacation is owned by the Public and is used for the following: A road access to private and public land; also used for electric and telephone lines. 2. It is the Engineer's assessment that the proposed vacation is not in the public interest because: This vacation would land lock two additional lots owned by Mr. Kaesche; they are lots number 17-13-00 3400 and 17-13-27C 1500. However, if Mr. Kaesche combined the two lots with parcel 17-13-27C 1400 to form one tax lot then the road could be vacated. 3. The following other pertinent facts were considered in making this report: Two utilities requested an easement be left if the road is vacated. They are Central Electric Cooperative and Pacific Northwest Bell. COUNTY ENGINEER BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COI.1MISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Setting a Date for a Public Hearing to Consider the Vacation of a portion of, Richardson Road located in, Township 17 S, Range 13 E, Sections 27 and 34, Deschutes County, Oregon ORDER NO. 84-016 WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Engineer has presented the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, an Engineer's Report on the proposed vacation of a portion of Richardson Road, located in Township 17 5, Range 13 E, Sections 27 and 34, Deschutes County, Oregon, recommending vacation of said road; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDERS as follows: Section 1. That ori Wednesday, March 28, 1984, at 10:00 a.m. at the Deschutes County Courthouse Annex, Bend, Oregon 97701, the Board will hold a hearing to determine whether the above-described public property, described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, should be vacated. Section 2s Notice of said hearing shall be posted in no less than three (3) places, including the property proposed to be vacated, or property within the vicinity of the property proposed to be vacated. This notice shall be posted at least 20 days prier to the hearing. Said notices must be visible from traveled public roads. Section 3. -Property owners of record abutting the property proposed tc be vacated shall be notified. by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, at least 30 days prior to said hearing. Section 4. All public utilities and municipalities affected by the proposed vacation shall be notified by Certified :fail, return receipt requested, at least 30 days prier to said hearing. Secti.on5, Notice of the hearing, in substantially the form marked Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, of such hearing shall be published at least twenty (20) days before, and within ten (10) days of the date of said hearing. 1 - ORDER NO. 84-016 DATEDthis day of , 1984. 3OARD CF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ALBERT P. YOUNG, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: LOIS BRISTOW PRANTE, COMMISSIONER Recording Secretary LAURENCE A. TUTTLE, COMMISSIONER 2 - ORDER NO. 84-016 EXHIBIT "A" ROAD INFORMATION FOR OFFICE: NAME: Richardson Road (aka Walker Pd) AREz#:D NUMBER:27 LE1GTH:0.75 mi. R/ :60,00 feet T/t/S:17-13-Sec. 27 & 34 COUNTY PUBLIC PRIVATE___ FOR: VACATION OF A PORTION 07 RICHARDSON ROAD ROAD DESCRIPTION A portico of Richardson Road lying in Sections 27 and 34 of Township 17 South, Range 13 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being a strip of land sixty feet in width, the centerline of which is described as follows: Beginning at a point where the south lire of said Section 27 intersects the southeasterly right-of-way line of alfalfa Market Road; thence easterly along the south line of said Section 27 to the East one -sixteenth (E 1/16) corner common to said Sections 27 and 34. / /z -1 - -�- -� ----- HOERNINC, CO' TY ENGINEER x/�. --x.�.--- � EXHIBIT "B" CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTLS COUNTY, OREGON NOTICE OF ROAD VACATION FEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC IIEARING ON MARCH 28, 1984 AT .10:00 A.N. IP THE COURTHOUSE ANNEX, BEND, OREGON, ON THE PROPOSED ROAD VACATION PROCEEDING DESCRIBED BETON. ALL INTERESTTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND BE HEARD. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOIDER,• VENDOR 0R LEjk R; ORS CHAPTER. 2_,1_5 RL[UIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE TRIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED T THE PURCHASER. Deschutes County has received a Petition requesting that a portion of Richardson Road be vacated. Persons interested in obtaining more detailed information or a map of the proposed vacation may contact the Deschutes County Public !7orhs Department, 61150 S.E. 27th Street, Bend, Oregon, (503) 388-6581. ORS 368.326 to 368.426 provides authority for road vacation. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ALBERT A. YOUNG, Chairman PUBLISHED: Bulletin 3-7-84 and 3-16-:4 POSTED: 3-7-84 MAILED: 2-24-84 DESCHUTES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORPS 61150 SE 27TH STREET BEND, OREGON 97702 February 7, 1984 (503) 388-6581 GENERAL SERVICES (503) 3E8-6591 ENGINEERING ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR PUBLIC ROAD VACATION TO: BOARD OF COUNTY C0J4N ISS IONERS FROM: DESCHUTES COUNTY ENGINEER SUBJECT: ENGINEER'S REPORT RELATING TO THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF RICHARDSON ROAD LOCATED IN TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, SECTIONS 27 AND 34, W.M. DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON. 1. Property proposed for vacation is owned by the Public and is used for the following: A road access to private and public land; also used for electric and telephone lines. 2. It is the Engineer's assessment that the proposed vacation is riot in the public interest because: This vacation would land lock two additional lots owned by Mr. Kaesche; they are lots number 17-13-00 3400 and 17-13-27C 1500. However, if Tyr. Kaesche combined the two lets with parcel 17-13--27C 1400 to form one tax lot then the road could be vacated. 3. The following other pertinent facts were considered in making this report: Two utilities requested an easement be left if the road is vacated. They are Central Electric Cooperative and Pacific Northwest Dell. i COUNTY ENGINEER CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. March 7, 1984 Mr. Dave Hoerning County Surveyor 61150 S. E. 27th St. Bend, OR 97702 RE: Richardson Road and Dodds Road Vacation Notices (Exhibit B, March 6, 1984) Dear Dave: Central Electric wishes to make written comment on the proposed vacation of Richardson Road and Dodds Road. Central Electric anticipates immediate construction of a trans- mission/distribution powerline within the proposed vacation of Richardson Road right-of-way. C.E.C. requests a permanent easement for utility and access purposes along the vacated route. Central Electric maintains powerlines within portions of the proposed Dodds Road vacation of right-of-way. C.E.C. requests a permanent easement for utility and access purposes along the vacated route. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you need this information presented verbally at the hearing or have any questions about this matter please give me a call at 389-1980. Sincerely, Scott Whipple 7)1 Right -of -Way Agent SW:ms P.O. Box 846 • 2098 N. Hwy. O7 • Redmond, Oregon 97756 • Phone: (503) 548-2144 PRELIMINARY VACATION NOTICE TO: ALL UTILITIES AND MUNCIPALITIES FROM: DESCHUTES COUNTY ENGINEER SUBJECT: RICHARDSON ROAD VACATION Deschutes County has received a Petition to Vacate the property described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. If you currently have any facilities located on this property, have a possible future interest in this property, or wish to comment on the proposed vacation, please complete this form and return it to: The Department of Public Works, County Engineer, 61150 SE 27th Street Bend, Oregon 97702, within severe (7) days. DATED? this 11TH day of JANUARY, 1984. Central Electric anticipates immediate construction of transmission power line and distribution line within this proposed vacation of county road right-of-way. C.E.C. requests a permanent easement for utility and access purposes along this vacated route. Scott Whipple Right -of -Way Agent CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE P.O, BOX 846 REDMOND, OREGOIT 97756 IN REPLY REFER TO: 2000 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT District Office P.O. Box 550 Prineville, Oregon 97754 Albert A. Young Deschutes County Commissioners Courthouse Annex Bend, OR 97701 Re: Notice of Road Vacation Hearing on Richardson Road #27 Dear Mr. Young: RECEIVii L4R 1 2 1984 March 7, 1984 We have reviewed the proposed road vacation which includes public lands in the N 2 of Section 34, T. 17 S., R. 13 E., W.M. The description of the road easement shows that a strip of public land 30 feet in width would be included in the portion to be vacated by the County. This road currently provides public access to public lands to the east and to the portion of public lands in Section 34, lying north and west of two COI ditches. The subject road segment also provides access to Pacific Northwest Bell and Central Electric Cooperative Inc. who maintain facilities on the public lands in the vicinity. While we recognize that the county does not maintain this road it would still be of benefit to recognize it as a public way in order to protect the historic rights of use by the public. Such rights have existed for over 100 years with the subject segment of road having been recognized on the original survey plats as the "1851 immigrant road". Should vacation of the road be approved, all concerned should be cognizant of the fact that the portion on public lands will remain open to the general public and any attempt to limit such use would be in violation of Federal regulations. We appreciate your notice and the opportunity to comment on this subject. CC: W.C. Haesche 23450 Richardson Rd Bend,Oregon 97701 Sincerely yours, 'Maurice Ziegler �' ? Area Manager ,_. „ L. Landers ROUTE k D. Hoernin s C. Plummer H. Debit 0 L. Huettl Q r. MAR 1:3 198/; R. i irl;ersham 0 RETURN TO, ; ✓, : u FOR: Action Filing Disposal 8. November 1983 Subject: Request for abandonment of R/W along Southerly property boundry (T.17,R. 13, Sec. 27) -see attached map - aka Walker Road - Parcels 1400, 1500 & 3400. Gentlemen: Request: County abandon subject R/W coupled with BLM's companion piece. Discussion: As sole owner of the property on which the Northern 3o feet of the R/W are located and with you planning to abandon the Easterly part of this R/W (all on BLM land), the time appears propitious to re= quest the above. Payment: Enclosed is check No. 169 for 350.00 US dollars in favor of Deschutes County. (The sum is,T was told, the maximum fee, hence this sum was provided to avoid any delay - any refund greatfully received.) ierely yours, Kaesche + 23450 Richardson Rd. Bend, Ore. 97701 +The nomenclature "Richardson Road" is that of the reknowned U.S. Postal Service and appears to have no relationship to any other entity - real or imaginary but the mail gets through. WCK/ne RECE1Via NAR. 2 0 1984 Eich 1984 albject:Notice of 2_oRd Va.ction :earing O1 i!_ichardsori Cad Dear Hro Youn: The ELE thougtful enough to senC1 me e. copy of tLeir letter to you on the subject matter. As I ani in California on. a. job until P;Ely, 1 felt 1. Lhould 1')rovide the Lwell aware of the neods of the Telephone Col:Janw- (whatever their new nal.::e nay 1.,e), the COI etc, as far an their access ap:ly to ne :u tion of the stre,et vacation nat (ho-,-Jefully) revrt lo Ee and , t7,iere1ope wouhl rant in any case .:-h3"-e 1. atoDiaticaLly ,..-!:G&S not t2ailsfe6 i6entical fiLhts to ose tey currently have. T1-1 Sas been ilLaintainca by nle for 1T:any (my fil2s are in 1:e;Ton '1'nce use 'many'') years and naturally 1 will continue to 00 so,, Called the LU to maLe certain 1 fully understood t3ir letter aDd as a result of their elucidation , see no prOblem in eo1:foemi;:]o t their.,L--egrifert. If thefo are any flthy.-- Tiostions tLat you. or your staff I:day wish to dipect to me, 1 00 avaioaoj 001110 woring hours at (619) 846 0326, Please do not booltato to call as 1 an iTiost anxious to s,,ie thisthrouRh to co2letion ELe soon as pesibie. icac-c-.„-che i?esert, CaliJ89240 • CU" 00 den 22. Farch Subject: ..oad. Vacation 2eain2 A.chadson 27, Mr. Ho-fning: Thank yo u for youv rucent telephone call. Confirming my statements: It is iv request to proceed with the vacation action, It io my under.staning that , assuming no valid nb,ientioy's a2ise, it LT111 be p000iblo to issue the approval r;ci-,;:lect to th.c three to lot& .3eino-: combined, It is uor intention to taioch action after i 1-etu2n to You ponted out that 6Lould 1 (.ver wish to aaia have the saihe tiree parcel condition,a survey ,,-.rould.2 0 breneciniste. wif,3's security elw-Anr, my absences to my primary motivation. 'r.aescLe Ue. o Lt , . � i -C ii'% 94 t' -F DESCIIUTES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 61150 SE 27TH STREET BEND, OREGON 97702 (503) 388-6581 GENERAL SERVICES (503) 388-6591 ENGINEERING April 6, 1984 Mr. W.C. Kaesche 23450 Richardson Road Fend, Oregon 97701. Dear Er. Kaesche: On Wednesday, April 4, 1984 the Boars: of County Commissioners gave conditional approval to vacate the northerly portion of Richardson Road. The conditional approval is subject to your combining your three (3) tax lots into one tax lot. Please contact this office when you return to Bend so that we can complete the paperwork on this vacation. Sir 'erely, Dave Hoerning 7 County Engineer DH:wg 15. May 1984 Subject: Vacation Walker (Richardson) Road -tax lots 1400, 1500 and 3400. OR 36049 Dear Mr. Smith: On the 14. May I embarked on my program to determine the various effects of the vacation upon the property and to combine the tax lots to enable the conditions of the vacation to be met. Since the combining of the tax lots raised a host of changes which involved expenses of considerable magnitude if I ever wished to return to my current status, I asked you if it were possible for me to file an. easement which would assure ready access from the County Road (Alfalfa) to the "landlocked" lots 150.0 and 3400. You indicated that such an approach had been used in the past but that problems had arisen and therefore the combining in my case was from the County's point of view the best solution. After further discussion I asked if I could obtain an opinion from the County attorney as to whether an easement with rry issuing a "hold blamless" document might not be equally satisfactory to the County. You indicated you would check this point with the County attorney. My next visit, to the Tax office, produced the fact that the three tax lots cannot be combined - Source Mr. Terry Sears. My position: I still very much want the vacation and therefore would appreciate your advising what you wish me to do in view of the ,above obstacle. I would prefer the Easement approach if acceptable. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, d aesche 2»50 Richardson Road BEND. Ore. 97701 15. May 1984 Dear fir. Floerning, Per our conversation the enclosed letter was sent to Mr. Craig Smith. nine )erty -ons of changes which involved expenses of considerable magnitude if I ever wished to return to my current status, I asked you if it were possible for me to file an easement which would assure ready access from the County Road (Alfalfa) to the "landlocked" lots 1500 and 3400. You indicated that such an approach had been used in the past but that problems had arisen and therefore the combining in my case was from the County's point of view the best solution. After further discussion I asked if I could obtain azi opinion from the County attorney as to whether an easement with my issuing a "hold blamless" document might not be equally satisfactory to the County. You indicated you would check this point with the County attorney. My next visit, to the Tax office, produced the fact that the three tax lots cannot be combined - Source Mr. Terry Sears. My position: I still very much want the vacation and therefore would appreciate your advising what you wish me to do in view of the above obstacle. 1 would prefer the Easement approach if acceptable. Thank you for your attention 1:o this matter. Sir,,eerely yours, ld °;,rd 'aesche Richardson Road REND. Ore_ Q7701 SEE MAP • 1, :---„MeGRATH I6 15 100 141 100 ROAD ,SEE MAP 14 b'>•0 (AA "79 98 400 100 .1.00 3200 3300 SEE 2 ROAD SEE M MAP ALFALFA( if 100 100 00 w . o SEE MAP r( 00 WAL KED l00100 7 13 33A 7000 SEE MAP 17 1.3 330 w a) SEE`\ MAP 1Z, 1334 80 35 100 ROAD . — 7 $35,00 APPLICANT'S NAME: /5�-Che , /!,j? C Community Development Department Courthouse Annex / Bend. Oregon 97701 Building Safety / (503) 388-6575 Environmental Health / (503) 38B-6561 Planning / (503) 388-6556 APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUST,1ENT PLEASE PRINT ***************************** ADDRESS : ; 3 4/_ 1-) ,/YlG � J'� fr r -.+ 0 ' � r'%1�c.ln ZIP CODE q��'HONE %- /fit^ PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME (if different) - 564 -P -Le..$ --i— ADDRESS: ZIP CODE PHONE — PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: T /% R /5 S 7 Tax Lots • /94C) J c;F•1+w!i „74/46:2 6:2 ADJOINING PROPERTY INVOLV‘Il IN THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT: PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: ADDRESS: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: GENERAL LOCATION: > )5 b >✓ ZIP CODE T R S Tax Lot PHONE — REASON FOR ADJUSTMENT: CDryr / /.-)// vze_c�/ios� v�t�1- .yt.,;p,17727 r ,y7,1 .+ . /7851. PRESENT ZONE OF APPLICANT'S PROPERTY: 4-/47.2-,20 PRESENT ZONE OF ADJOINING PROPERTY: AREA OF APPLICANT'S PROPERTY PRESENTLY: 2 — y4 /C1,7f7e��crc AREA OF APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AFTER ADJUSTMENT:/ -4 /"..2e).4. !2/= AREA OF ADJOINING OWNERS PROPERTY PRESENTLY: AREA OF ADJOINING OWNERS PROPERTY AFTER ADJUSTMENT: P- eaae attach a map (d -'awn -to 4cafe) and £egaf dehen.,Lptiona .the adju-tment4. which deech-Lbe NOTE: THE DEEDS SHALL BE IN THE SAME NAME FOR ALL PARCELS THAT ARE ADJUSTED OR CONSOLIDATED, AND ALL DELINQUENT TAXES FOR ALL PARCELS SHALL BE PAID IN FULL. DATE :,7 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED! C APPLICANT: t.-"'(� PROPERTY OWNER:( (signature) THIS APPLICATION MUST BE PROCESSED WITHIN THE 120 DAYsig DEADLTNEe FILE NO.: -417-10 CPPROV /DENIED . BY: . DATE: 7- /r-g� OFFICE USE ONLY DATE SUBMITTED • RECEIVED BY: FEE PAID: RECEIPT NO.: -7`773g Exhibit B - Letter from BLM In Reply Refer To: 2000/2800(ORP060) United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Prineville District Office 3050 NE 3rd Street Prineville, Oregon 97754 JUL 1 0 2018 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 66th 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 1 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 2nd, 2018, on case 247 -18 -000047 -AD, as well as for the hearing occurring on July 11th, 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, Dennis C. Teitzel District Manager, Prineville District Office cc: CERIFIED MAIL — 7017 3380 0000 1219 6848 Brett Richwine Cascade Estate Farms, LLC. 6829 NW 661h Street Redmond, OR 97756 CERTIFIED MAIL — 7017 3380 0000 1219 6831 Briteside Oregon, LLC. 832 Georgia Ave #510 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Exhibit C - Briteside email correspondence From: Greg Blackrnore To: Anthony Raguine Cc: Amanda Cardenas Subject: Briteside - Response to review questions Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 6:39:24 AM Attachments: Colebreit Letter.odf m.il tram •I r i' . br N OWRD exemp water form signed 4-06-2018.pdf T Hi Anthony - Please find below clarifying responses to questions raised during the review of the Briteside Production Administrative Determination Application: Hi Greg. Are there any trees between the existing building and the west property line? If yes, does the applicant propose to retain the trees between the existing structure and the west property line? - While there are a significant number of trees on the neighboring property to the west (which the applicant owns), there are not any trees between the existing structure and the western property line of the subject property. For the Variance, if necessary to buffer the property to the west (which is owned by the applicant), the applicant would be willing to provide buffer trees, as detailed on the attached Exhibit. Hi Greg. I wanted to confirm that neither the existing building nor the proposed building will have any windows, or similar, which would allow light to escape the building? Thanks. - correct, neither the existing, nor the proposed building have windows. Hi Greg. The engineer's report references plantings around the perimeter of the property line to further dampen sound transmission. l can't find a landscaping plan. Am I missing something? - The applicant plans to install a row of evergreen type plantings along the fence for security and additional sound dampening. While the trees will provide additional buffer, screening, and sound dampening, they are not required for noise mitigation or any other Code standard, thus a Landscape Plan was not included. Thanks. When I scale the existing building, it appears to be approximately 90 feet from the west property line. The engineer's report indicates the existing building will be 97 feet from the west property line. Can you confirm the distance? - HWA designed the building at a distance of 90 feet from the western property line. The Colebreit Letter has been reviewed and revised to correct the distance reference. Also, rather than only an "under 30 dBA" reference, sounds levels at the property lines were calculated and added in the revised letter. With respect to vegetation: Are there any trees between the existing building and the west property line? - While there are a significant number of trees on the neighboring property to the west (which the applicant owns), there are not any trees between the existing structure and the western property line of the subject property. For the Variance, if necessary to buffer the property to the west (which is owned by the applicant), the applicant would be willing to provide buffer trees, as detailed on the attached Exhibit. Hi Greg. The burden of proof indicates secure waste receptacles will be placed within the structures. Do you have any details regarding the type of container and method of securing the containers (locking bar on the container; stored within a room that can be locked)? - The applicant has indicated that secure waste receptacles will be located within the buildings per OLCC and Deschutes County requirements. Additional details have not been provided. Hi Greg. Did Briteside submit the affidavit? I don't see it in the record. - The applicant has provided an affidavit, attached. Hi Greg. The engineer's report says that sound will be mitigated by a number of factors, including fencing and plantings (see note #2 on the last page). If the anticipated noise from the new facility will be entirely mitigated by distance and the concrete sound wall, that should be stated specifically. At this point, the reports reads as though the fencing and plantings are either necessary to achieve compliance with the 30 dB limit. Let me know if the engineer wants to submit any clarification. Thanks. - In an attached email, ColeBreit has confirmed that the noise mitigation is achieved entirely by the sound wall and distance. Also, a Marijuana Producer Exempt Water Form has been completed and is being provided (attached), to provide/document proof of the water usage plan. Please do not hesitate to give me a call or send me an email should you have any additional questions, comments, or concerns. Thanks. Greg Blackmore Blackmore Planning and Development Services, LLC 541.419.1455 blackmoreplanning.com NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. April 20, 2018 RE: Odor and Noise Nuisance Letter Lectrus Serial Number 64619 23450 Walker Road Bend, Oregon 97701 Deschutes County To whom it may concern, Please see the following information and data sheet attachments regarding noise and odor mitigation for the prefabricated dry agricultural structures located at 23450 Walker Road, Bend, Oregon 97701. Qualifications: I am a licensed engineer in Oregon #65108P. Building Description: • The Briteside agricultural modular facility includes metal buildings fabricated at the Lectrus Corporation Facility in Chattanooga, TN. It has structural, mechanical, electrical, and fire protection systems designed and approved by the State of Oregon. • HVAC system o The facility is conditioned by an engineered series of 4 Ton Split DX systems. o In normal operation the Indoor units will condition the space to 70-74 degrees F and provide Humidity Control at 45 — 55% o The in-line carbon (charcoal) container filters will scrub and remove the odors from the Grow Room atmosphere o The Series Pleated filters will remove large air -borne particles from the environment. o The carbon filters will be maintained and replaced every 3-4 months per the manufacturer's suggested service intervals. o The additional air movement by 8- 12" (930CFM/Ea) oscillating wall fans in the Flower and Vegetation Rooms will provide an additional 7,740 CFM per room to ensure the air movements through the Opticlimate filtration systems and overall health of the plants. o The Odor Control System will not interfere with the neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property as the Facility was designed for a concealed production use, not allowing odors to leave the facility during any normal operation. Odor Control Methodology: COLE ENGINEERING BY DESIGN,,,, • C.LFC4En ENaNNaan10 . The final site odor control configuration within the Lectrus pre -fabricated structures was designed by Opticlimate, provided by Briteside Holdings, and installed by Lectrus Corporation. This system was designed to manage any odor not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. This system consists of multiple fans and air handlers within the prefabricated structure. The existing building contains 2 grow rooms, a veg/clone room and some ancillary non -grow spaces : 1. The 2 grow rooms each have a volume of 15,880 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 5,294 CFM. Each grow room will have 3 air handlers that each move 1,471 CFM through carbon filters, plus one Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") with an attached Can -Filter 150, 12" flange. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 5,338 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 2. The veg/clone room has a volume of 6,815 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 2,272 CFM. This room will have 2 air handlers that each move 1,471 CFM through carbon filters. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 2,942 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 3. During normal operations of the facility the Opticlimate System is designed to condition and recirculate the air within the building. No air is exhausted from the building as there is not an Economizer Mode on the HVAC System. 4. The prefabricated structures are sealed operationally, not to pose any potential for odor to neighboring properties. The new building consists of 28 modules of flower and vegetation rooms. Each module has a volume of 7,500 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 2,500 CFM. Each module will have three Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") with an attached Can -Filter 150, 12" flange. The total carbon - filtered air flow will be 2,775 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. Noise Control Methodology: The HVAC configuration associated with the Lectrus pre -fabricated structures was designed by Opticlimate. The interior air handlers were provided by Briteside Holdings, and installed by Lectrus Corporation. The wall mounted HVAC units were purchased and installed by Lectrus. Final configuration of each unit will include: • The new building will have 22 wall -mounted HVAC units on each side that are rated at 73 dB noise level at the units. There will be a total of 44 — HVAC Units for the entire building. • The existing building will have 2 condensing units on the west side, 6 condensing units on the east side, and 1 Bard unit on the north side. Regarding noise control, (DCC18.116.330(B)(11)(a) the following factors assist in mitigating the sustained noise from the mechanical equipment used for HVAC, odor control, fans and similar functions to not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day: COLE r` a,. T ENGINEERING BY DESIGI'9`3a • GOLF C4E11 EN4INNEPINo • ( EXPIRES 6/30/19) 1. DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)(a) Marijuana production facilities shall have a minimum setback of 100 ft from the nearest property line. The new building is a minimum 200' from the south property line, 880' from the north property line, 924' from the east property line, and 200' from the west property line. The existing building is approximately 483' from the south property line, 781' from the north property line, 924' from the east property line, and 90' from the west property line. 2. Security fencing and plantings around the perimeter of the property line will be installed that will further dampen sound transmission. 3. Sound pressure is reduced by 6 dba each time the distance from the noise source is doubled, per the inverse square law. 4. For the new building: On the south and west sides, the outdoor units will need a 6'-7" high concrete sound wall between them and the their respective property lines, with a 200' minimum distance to keep the sound below 30 dBA. On the north and east sides, the outdoor units need no special treatment because they are far enough away from the property line to keep the sound below 30 dBA. S. For the existing building: No special sound treatment is required to keep sound levels below 30 dBA at any property line. 6. The calculated sound pressure levels from the mechanical equipment at each property line are: West property line: 29.9 dBA South property line: 29.6 dBA North property line: 27.2 dBA East property line: 23.7 dBA Sincerely, Rob James, P.E. COLES E N G 1 14 E E R 1 14 G By DES GW' Fran Rob James robjam as(6colebreit.com Subject: Re: Re Briteside Land Use Application - followup request ASAP March 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM To: Amanda Cardenas cardenasa(a)brtsidc.com Cc: Chris Jenkins jenkinsc@brtside.com, Justin Junda itincLi'@brtside.com Hi Amanda, The sound mitigation is achieved entirely be the sound wall and the distance. The other things were mentioned because they can only help, but were not factored in the calculations, mainly because there is no way to include them. ROg Rob James, P.E. COLE*REIT t 6! ! 1030 NW BOnd St.,:ante 202 cotebreit.com 97:03 robjarnesccolebreit.com o : 541 723 3203 c : 541 279 1055 On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Amanda Cardenas <cardenasa@brtside.com> wrote: Hi Rob, I hope this message finds you well. As we progress with our land use application review, the land use planner/County has followup questions and is requesting clarification. One of these items has to do with your letter/report provided for Briteside. The letter/report (attached here) says that sound will be mitigated by a number of factors, including fencing and plantings (see note #2 on the last page). If the anticipated noise from the new facility will be entirely mitigated by distance and the concrete sound wall, that should be stated specifically. At this point, the letter/report reads as though the fencing and plantings are either necessary to achieve compliance with the 30 dBA limit. The County planner is asking for clarification on this. We would appreciate a letter or separate email clarifying the above. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks in advance. Regards, Amanda Cardenas Legal and Compliance Officer Briteside Holdings, LLC cardenasa@brtside.com 8118-389-2269 (cell) __— Please consider the environment before printing this email. This transmission is confidential and may be privileged or proprietary. if you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use the information in this transmission in any way. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received this transmission in error, and permanently delete and destroy the original and any copies of the information. Only officers or directors with express authority may bind the Company to any legally enforceable agreement. Therefore, be advised that no agreement contained in this email shall be enforceable against the Company. Marijuana 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 docs not require: a water use permit or certificate from the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). This determination is based in part upon thc information provided by the producer. OWRD staff may need to conduct a site visit to determine if thc proposed water source is exempt. Incorrect 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. Information to be Provided by Producer Name of Business: Briteside Oregon LLC Name of Representative: Amanda Cardenas, Legal & Compliance O(fca Contact Telephone Number: 818-389-2269 E-mail: cardenasa@brtside.com Premises Address: 23450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 97701 17S 13E 00 swvasttt 1713000003400 Township: Rangy Section: Quarter-Quarier:a Tax Lot: Legal Landowner: Briteside Oregon LLC How will water needs be met? Describe water sources) and delivery system: This property is within the Central Oregon Irrigation District and has water rights to serve the property and use. See attached COID - - ing seasonal water ri0hts ofthe property. - ' Water will etas t e provided by Bend Water Hauling LLC. Sae attached letter from Bend Water .. . .' . . .." • and willingness to cc vc the property. Ranches 1 LC has entered into a formal agreement in which Briteside has reserved and will purchase 3 mitigation credits (MP -124) from Legacy Ranches. See attached Assignment Record for Mitigation Credits Chain -of -Custody Form already signed by parties. Spring If available, include previous letter from the 1Vatermaster verifying the spring is 00 exempt source of water. Note that changing circumstances can lead a spring to be deemed non-exempt in the future. Name of Spring and GPS Coordinates, if known: Estimated Annual Volume of Water Required from this Sourcc: Rainwater Harvesting O Water may only be collected from an impervious surface, such as a roof. Describe method for storing rainwater collected (tanks, reservoir- etc.): Estimated Annual Volume Required from this Source: Other Estimated Annual Volume Required from this Source: I hereby certify the information provided above is true. I understand that incorrect information will invalidate this proof. Name of Business Representative: Amanda Cardenas, Legal and Compliance Officer r+nzuluacc 4/04/2018 Signature: rif"d„,,,, Date FOR OWRD USE ONLY — DO NOT WRITE BELOW 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 docs 1101 require a water right pem it or certificate: Exempt Spring O Location: Rainwater Harvesting O No storage right necessary 0 Storage Method: Other fl Watermaster or Authorized OWRD Staff Signature: Date: Printed Name: Phone #: Email: OcheckifAdditional Pages Attached. Number of pages of attachments__ Notes: Oregon Water Resources Department (12/31/2015) Marijuana 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 incorrect 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 he used by the producer in the cultivation or processing of marijuana do not require a water right: Information to be Provided by Producer: Nance of Business: Name of Representative: Contact Telephone s`4il(t)ber.__.---._._� Premises Address: • Township: Range: Section: Quarter -Quarter: Tax Lot. Legal l_andowne . ,..._.. __ How will water needs be met? Describe water source(s) and delivery system: Spring ®/f available, include previous letter .from the Watermaster verifying the spring is an exempt source of water. Note that changing circumstances can lead a spring to he deemed non-exempt in the future. Name of Spring and GPS Coordinates, if known: - - Estimated Annual Volume of Water Required from this Source: Rainwater Harvesting O Water may Only be collected from an impervious .surface, such as a roof. Describe method for storing rainwater collected (tanks, reservoir, etc;)..__._._.. Estimated Annual Volume Required from this Source_ Other Est,„,„., f Annual Volume Required from this Source I hereby certify the information provided above is true i understand that incorrect information will invalidate this proof. Name of Business Representative. t Dari FOR OWRD USE ONLY – DO NOT WRITE BELOW 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 1-1 No storage right necessary Storage Method: Other ® The applicant will use water right 8357Pdurinq the irrigation season and.Bend water hauling during the ri ti n season, WaterniasterorAuthorized OWRD Staff Signature: _ ___ __ fate: .4/Ws-- Printed Name: _Jeremy f1D_ Phone #: 541-306-6885 Email: Jeremy.t.giffinl oregon.gov Oregon Water Resources Department Check if Additional Pages Attached. Number of pages of attachments (12/31/2015) Fc rh r''. �. 1. C 4 tsy,. VS [``S /c4�� #'', %4 ..ygr�"' 'tX�" ?. : /� Y'^i� : } SFd sY 1.. } N� rtff 2 »S' my d. 9tlrej 3� om-- Y't '1 l k �� i `� r Y�.>y„ vc •F•'"i $ :k,� �r Ji Cdr a5 >Y-- t' ry ♦ t - 'j,� '�J�`` 3y k`, 9YS r,K 7 lEy� �5'l7 , .iA57" : .. j3 bF\ .1.-_:, k.,; t .. n } yk • h` q . — ifl', /, t Z �fi'y -b > Ft i � rC - \ :SIY } z f i ' � to II e4�— NUM.•- z' ♦ n' $v I t ,. ?'vS{� :i6'.._..©icy } ``llye �.0 t ,,,:, rYiz% .L'WZ ': Q' -£ aSt f '.'ySy'y N a 5ti c' rt ., s .44 xr Sc 5>' { ✓$ / \ � _ £,t .,5 .,, bxy� }.tS }} ,t � f x 2�yr {'i4 .- F C c i, Yl, i i i 2y f . S -: f Fk f� {r' j 3 F 1 f Y k.fo x t t S r r S t T` ) F S J 2 'Y� R J. -g. Sr. fes(; J1 Y� may: z S f3 f K '''P�1 r — 8 J i f i f J .,,,,, c BRITESIDE FACILITY f - ,F4', D ; SITE PLAN ADDENDUM }I� -- w - DfSCHUTCS COUNTY OREGON sF; F .. 4-3 \(-2- Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Sona ©ivisinn P.O. Sox 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Send, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 368-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1704 http://vow. deschutes,org/cd. LAND USE ACTION SIGN AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DESCHUTES ) FILE NUMBER 4-7 - 17' 1 C Ca066,S , being first duly sworn, depose and state as follows: (name) I placed a Notice of Land Use Action sign on the Applicant's property on 2 fir, n� (agate) 2017, where it can be clearly seen from Al (name of road) If the land use sign notices a hearing, the hearing is to be held on B'' / A 2017. (date) Dated this 2 day of Subscribed and sworn to before me this OFFICIAL STAMP ;(E 8!_ LYN 5r.:;hE[8 NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON COMMISSION NO. 941770 iY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 09, 2019 g , 201f. Affiant day of ,201$. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Updated 1/17 6 Zsi‘11 IA) Exhibit D - Original Briteside application File No. 247 - Community Development es artment 'fanning Division 9uilding Safety Division Environmental Socia Division P,O, Eo;K 6005 -,r La ye'ite Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 �` NW r'',.'inE (541) 388-6575 Fax' (541) 3S5-1764 hit`:!.r:/, 4vw v.deschutes.org/cd LAND USE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate original signatures. To ensure timely processing of your application, all materials must be submitted on single -sided, 8.5" x 11" paper. Do not use binders, tabs/dividers, staples or tape. 2. This application shall include one full-sized plan set (to scale) and one plan set reduced to no larger than 11" x 17". Include a plot plan that shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. 3. Include a copy of the current deed showing the property owners. 4. Attach correct fee. 5. All applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): FEE: :- 15 Administrative Determination (AD) X Partition (MP) _ Site Pian (SP) Conditional Use (CU) Subdivision (TP) Variance (V) _ Declaratory Ruling (DR) Temporary Use (TU) Setback Exception (SE) Other Applicant's Name (print): Briteslde t`JreRon Mailing Address: 832 Geoic-1la Avenue #150 T _ ....__ Applicant's Email Address: Phone: (6-Lik ) ztc rte' S City/State/Zip: Chattanooga / TN / 37402 Property Owner/s Name (if different)-: same_ Mailing Addresssame 1, Request _yarijuana Production Phone: ( ) same City/State/Zip: same 2. Property Description: Township 17 Range 13 Section 00 Tax Lot 3400 3, Property Zone(s): EFU -TRB ...,_. Property Size (acres or sq. ft.). 40 acres _ 4. Lot of Record? (State reason): Yes- Deschutes County File 247 -17 -000'210 -LH 23450 Walker Rod, Bend 5, Property Addre,s:,___.. _._... ,.._ Quality Services Perj rmed with Pride (over) - 6. Present Use of Property:_ Residence & Agriculture 7. Existing Structures: yes 8. Property will be served by: Sewer Onsite Disposal System septic 9. Domestic Water Source:_ well To (he best of my knowledge, the proposal complies with all previous conditions of approval and all other applicable local state, and federal laws. By signing this application, I acknowledge that Deschutes County planning staff may make a :site visit(s) to the address(es) listed on this application in ordei to evaluate the property(ies) with the Deschutes County Code criteria applicable to the land use request(sal submitted. Please describe any special circumstances regarding a potential site visit: Applicant's Signature::__, Property Owner's Signature (if diff dfenl)*' Agent's Name (if applicable): Blackmore Planning and Development Services Mailing Address 19454 Sunshine Way Agent's Email Address: . re• @ biackmore • iannincncorn Date: �_. Phone: ( 541 ) 419-1455 City/State/Zip: Bend / OR / 97702 *If this application Is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. By signing thls application, the applicant understands and agrees that Deschutes County may require a deposit for hearings officers' fees prior to the application being deemed complete. If the application Is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. 6/16 Burden of Proof Narrative Marijuana Production APPLICANT/ Briteside Oregon LLC OWNER: 832 Georgia Avenue #150 Chattanooga, TN 37402 LAND PLANNING Blackmore Planning and Development Services, LLC CONSULTANT: Greg Blackmore, Principal Planner 19454 Sunshine Way Bend, OR 97702 REQUEST: Administrative Determination and approval of a proposal for marijuana production. The proposal includes providing up to 20,000 square feet of mature canopy area, in an identified "Building Envelope" area, within modular structures ranging in size from 4,000 — 18,000 square feet. I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zones 18.16.020, Uses Permitted Outright 18.16.060, Dimensional standards 18.16.070, Yards Chapter 18.116 Supplementary Provisions 18.116.330, Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing II. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 23450 Walker Road, Bend and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map No. 17-13-00 as tax lot 3400. B. LOT OF RECORD: As described in Deschutes County File 247 -17 -000210 -LR, the subject property is a Lot of Record as defined by the Deschutes County Code. C. ZONING: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use Terrebonne, Redmond, Bend subzone (EFU-TRB). It is designated Agriculture on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. D. PROPOSAL: Administrative Determination and approval of a proposal for marijuana production. The proposal includes providing up to 20,000 square feet of mature canopy area, in an identified "Building Envelope" area, within modular structures ranging in size from 4,000 — 18,000 square feet. E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is 40 acres in size. Upon the property are an approximately 2,300 square foot residence, a 1,138 square foot farm building, and a recently placed 4,116 square foot manufactured agricultural building. Pursuant to Deschutes County DIAL records, the property has 1 acre of dry ground Class 8 soil, a lacre farm site, 7.5 acres of irrigated Class 4 soil, 13.5 acres of dry ground Class 7 soil, and 17 acres of irrigated Class 7 soil. Subject Property F. SURROUNDING LAND USES: To the north, east and south, the property is bordered by EFU zoned land that is owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), totaling over 5,000 acres. To the west is approximately 80 acres of EFU zoned land that is owned by the Applicant/Owner of this submittal. The area to the northwest is zoned Mixed Use Agriculture -10 (MUA-10) and developed with a mix of residences, agricultural uses, irrigated pastures, home occupations and a guest house. G. SOILS: According to NRCS soil mapping for this area, there are 4 soil units mapped on the subject property: 36A Deskamp sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. This complex is composed of 85% Deskamp soils and similar inclusions, and 15% contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp soil is somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability and an 2 available water capacity of about 3 inches. The major use of this soil complex is irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The soil is designated high value when irrigated. This soil complex is located throughout the central area of the site. 36B Deskamp sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes. This complex is composed of 85% Deskamp soils and similar inclusions, and 15% contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp soil is somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about 3 inches. The major use of this soil complex is irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The soil is designated high value when irrigated. This soil complex is located in a western area of the site. 580 Gosney Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes. This complex is composed of 50% Gosney soils and similar inclusions, 25% rock outcrop, 20 % Deskamp soils and similar inclusions and 5% contrasting inclusions. The complex is somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about 1 inch. The major use of this soil complex is livestock grazing. The soil is not designated high value when irrigated. This soil complex comprises a small south-central segment of the site. 59C Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, dry Oto 15 percent slopes_ This complex is composed of 50% Gosney soils and similar inclusions, 25% rock outcrop, 20 % Deskamp soils and similar inclusions and 5% contrasting inclusions. The complex is somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about 3 inch. The major use of this soil complex is livestock grazing. The soil is not designated high value when irrigated. This soil complex generally comprises the northeastern area the site. 3 H. WATER RIGHTS: The property is within the Central Oregon Irrigation District and has water rights to serve the property and use. I. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Electricity — The property is served by Central Electric Cooperative. Road Access — The property will take access via a private road easement to the west. Telephone — CenturyLink and cell phone service is available to serve the property. Domestic Water — Domestic water is provided to the by a well. The proposal will not necessitate modifications to domestic water demands. Wastewater — Wastewater is accommodated via an on-site septic system. The proposal will not necessitate modifications to the existing septic system. Fire Protection — The subject property is within the Rural Fire District #2 Tax District. A Map of Fire Protection District is included as an Exhibit. Ambulance Service — The subject property is within the Bend Ambulance Service Area. A Map of Ambulance Service Area is included as an Exhibit. Law Enforcement — The property is located within the service area of the Deschutes County Sherriff. A Map of the Law Enforcement Service Area is included as an Exhibit. J. EXHIBITS • Application Form & Fees • Ownership Deed • Lot of Record Decision 247 -17 -000210 -LR • Walker Road Vacation Documentation • Site (Plot) Plan with Buffers • Building / Structure Concept Elevations / Floor Plans • Building Design Photo • Odor Control and Noise Documentation • Proof of Water Rights • Bend Water Hauling Letter • Legacy Ranches Mitigation Credits Letter • CEC Will Serve Letter • Shared Access Consent Agreement • County Fire Map • Ambulance Service Area Map • County Emergency Services Map 4 III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR MARIJUANA PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING. 1. Section 18.16.020, Uses Permitted Outright The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. Applicant Response: The applicant is proposing to use the property for marijuana production. A complete review of the applicable provisions of DCC 18.116.330 is included below. As detailed in the referenced section, the proposal complies with all applicable provisions of DCC 18.116.330, findings of which are incorporated herein. Therefore, using the site for marijuana production is permitted outright. 2. Section 18.16.060 Dimensional Standards E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. Applicant Response: New structures will be less than 30 feet in height, thus in conformance with this standard. 4. Section 18.16.070. Yards A. The front yard shall be a minimum of: 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. Applicant Response: Structures will be located within the identified "Building Envelope" area, which is identified as the hatched area on the Site Plan. Within the "Building Envelope" area, the Site Plan shows the location of the recently placed modular agriculture building, along with one other possible building location. While these are examples of possible building locations, the applicant requests flexibility to place structures anywhere within the "Building Envelope" area. The "Building Envelope" area is located well over 100 feet from any street, thus in conformance with these standards. 5 B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm us, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. Applicant Response: The proposal is not for a non-farm dwelling; therefore 25 -foot setbacks apply to the side and rear property lines. Structures will be located within the identified "Building Envelope" area, which is identified as the hatched area on the Site Plan. Within the "Building Envelope" area, the Site Pian shows the location of the recently placed modular agriculture building, along with one other possible building location. While these are examples of possible building locations, the applicant requests flexibility to place structures anywhere within the "Building Envelope" area. Although the "Building Envelope" area is shown to the western property line, the applicant understands that a 25 -foot setback from the west may be required, even though that property is owned by the applicant/owner. As shown on the Site Plan, the "Building Envelope" area is proposed to be situated over 100 feet from the southern property line and well over 300 feet from the northern and eastern property lines. The proposal conforms to these standards. D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. Applicant Response: The structures that are proposed for the use are agricultural structures. Based upon preliminary due diligence to date, including conversations with Deschutes County Planning and Building Department Staff, greater setbacks to accommodate the applicable building and structural codes are not anticipated. Upon approval of the land use application, the applicant intends on finalizing all required building plans for the new structures. Any required building permit submittal will be in conformance with all applicable design standards and building code requirements. In the event greater setbacks are identified through the specific building permit design or review, the applicant would adjust the location accordingly (within the "Building Envelope" area), however a revision is not expected. 6 5. Section 18.16.0801 Stream Setbacks To permit better light, air, vision, stream pollution control, protection of fish and wildlife areas and preservation of natural scenic amenities and vistas along streams and lakes, the following setbacks shall apply: A. All sewage disposal installations, such as septic tanks and septic drainfields, shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet, measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. In those cases where practical difficulties preclude the location of the facilities at a distance of 100 feet and the County Sanitarian finds that a closer location will not endanger health, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may permit the location of these facilities closer to the stream or lake, but in no case closer than 25 feet. B. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along ail streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. Applicant Response: These criteria are not applicable because there are no streams or lakes on or near the property. 6. Section 18.16.090 Rimrock Setback Notwithstanding the provisions of DCC 18.16.070, setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC 18.116.160 or 18.84.090, whichever is applicable. Applicant Response: This criterion is not applicable because there is no rimrock on the property or surrounding area. 1. Section 18.116.330. Marijuana Production Processing, and Retailing A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: 1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones. Applicant Response: The applicant is proposing a Marijuana Production use in the EFU zone; therefore this section applies to the proposal. 7 B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Minimum Lot Area. a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. Applicant Response: The subject property is located within the EFU zone, pursuant to Deschutes County File 247 -17 -000210 -LR, it is a legal lot of record, and the subject property is 40 acres in size. Therefore the property conforms to these minimum lot area req uirements. 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the MUA-10 zone, marijuana production and processing shall be located entirely within one or more fully enclosed buildings with conventional or post framed opaque, rigid walls and roof covering. Use of greenhouses, hoophouses, and similar non -rigid structures is prohibited. Applicant Response: The property is not situated within the MUA-10 zone; therefore this standard does not apply. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. c. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. Applicant Response: The subject property is located within the EFU zone. All production is proposed to be located within structures. Outdoor production or processing is not proposed; therefore the proposal conforms to these sections. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: c. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. Applicant Response: The subject property is located within the EFU zone, and it is 40 acres in size; this section allows a maximum mature plant canopy size of 20,000 square feet. The applicant proposes up to 20,000 square feet of mature canopy area, as allowed by this section. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with 8 marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. Applicant Response: The property is not situated with a MUA-10 zone; therefore this standard does not apply. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. Applicant Response: Upon approval of the current application, the applicant plans to complete/finalize the process for an OLCC license. Prior to initiation of the marijuana production use, the applicant plans to provide proof of the OLCC license to the County. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. Applicant Response: As shown on the Site Plan, the "Building Envelope" area is will over 100 feet from the northern, eastern, and southern property lines. The "Building Envelope" area is, however proposed to allow buildings to be placed as near as 25 feet from the western property line (the minimum setback requirement of the EFU zone). Subsection "c" below allows the County to grant an exception to the setback requirements "...provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts". As detailed in subsection "c" below, the applicant owns the properties to the west and although the "Building Envelope" area will be less than 100 feet from the western property line, the design allows development that is central to properties owned and controlled by the Owner/Applicant. By allowing buildings in the identified area, the "Building Envelope" area is situated farthest distance from abutting properties that are not owned and controlled by the Applicant/Owner. Allowing for placement in the identified location will move the use away from neighbors and minimize any potential visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts to neighbors. Given the design of the structure, the topography, and the fact that noise and odor control systems are planned in the buildings, the proposed setback affords equal or greater mitigation to visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts to properties that are not owned by the Applicant/Owner, therefore an exception is warranted and can be approved. b. Setback from off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to 9 Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. Applicant Response: The applicant proposes new structures within an identified "Building Envelope" area for marijuana production. As detailed on the Site Plan, the "Building Envelope" area is located over 300 feet from any off-site dwelling, which is in accordance with this section. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. Applicant Response: As shown on the Site Plan, the "Building Envelope" area is will over 100 feet from the northern, eastern, and southern property lines. The "Building Envelope" area is, however proposed to allow buildings to be placed as near as 25 feet from the western property line (the minimum setback requirement of the EFU zone). This section allows the County to grant an exception to the setback requirements "...provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts". The applicant owns the property to the west and although the "Building Envelope" area will be less than 100 feet from the western property line, the design allows development that is central to properties that are owned and controlled by the Owner/Applicant. By allowing buildings in the identified area, the "Building Envelope" area is situated farthest distance from abutting properties that are not owned and controlled by the Applicant/Owner. Allowing for placement in the identified location will move the use away from neighbors and minimize any potential visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts to neighbors. Given the design of the structure, the topography, and the fact that noise and odor control systems are planned in the buildings, the proposed setback affords equal or greater mitigation to visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts to properties that are not owned by the applicant, therefore an exception is warranted and can be approved. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not 10 include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. Applicant Response: The Site Plan identifies a 1,000 -foot buffer around the proposed marijuana production "Building Envelope" area. This buffer area extends to 3 nearby properties. The applicant physically viewed the neighboring properties and did not see signs of any of the referenced uses. Furthermore, because all the associated properties are within the EFU or MUA-10 zone, if approved for one of the identified uses, each of the above referenced uses would require a CUP and/or Site plan review. The applicant reviewed Deschutes County records on each of the 3 referenced properties, and none of the properties have received approval for any of the uses that require 1,000 -foot separation. Therefore the proposal complies with this section. c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or 111. Lawfully established. Applicant Response: The applicant understands that if a property within 1,000 feet of the identified marijuana production "Building Envelope" area changes its use to one of the uses requiring specific separation, that an existing and approved marijuana use will not be in violation of the separation requirements. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; 11 iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. Applicant Response: The marijuana production use is planned to have over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature plants; therefore these standards apply. The property takes access across the property to the west, which the Applicant/Owner also owns, via a private road or easement. Included as an Exhibit to this submittal is written consent on a form that was provided by the County, that includes the notarized signature of the abutting property owner (which is also the applicant/owner of this application), it includes a description of the proposed marijuana production operation, and that includes a legal description of the private road or easement. The referenced Exhibit documents conformance with this section. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. Applicant Response: All grow operations are planned within enclosed structures, wherein lighting will not be visible outside of the building. As proposed the design conforms to these standards. c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. Applicant Response: Any on-site exterior lighting will be installed in conformance with DCC15.10. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(6)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. Applicant Response: Attached as an Exhibit is a report by Rob James, an engineer licensed in the State of Oregon. The referenced report provides details of the odor control systems for structures, accommodating up to 20,000 square feet of mature plant canopy. As detailed in the Exhibit, the odor will be maintained on-site. The odor control 12 specification included in the letter from the licensed engineer document that the proposed odor control measures will prevent unreasonable interference of neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property Applicant Response: Attached as an Exhibit is a report by Rob James, an engineer licensed in the State of Oregon, documenting that the odor control systems for the site will not unreasonably interfere with neighbors use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. Applicant Response: The new production buildings are proposed with odor control systems, thus private actions are not anticipated. The applicant understands that compliance with zoning requirements does not prevent private actions or trespass. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. Applicant Response: Attached as an Exhibit is a report by Rob James, an engineer licensed in the State of Oregon. The report indicates that the system is sized in accordance with these rules. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. Applicant Response: The applicant plans to maintain the odor control system in working order and keep it in use, in conformance with this requirement. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall 13 not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. Applicant Response: The planned production buildings will include heating, air conditioning, ventilation and odor control equipment. Attached as an Exhibit is a report from Rob James, an engineer licensed in the State of Oregon documenting that the noise from these systems will not exceed 30 dB(A), in compliance with these rules. 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. Applicant Response: The subject property is not located within a Landscape Management Combining Zone. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. Applicant Response: New fencing will be utilized for the operation. The applicant proposes to use muted earth tones for all fencing as required by this section. c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. Applicant Response: No razor wire or similar fencing is proposed. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. Applicant Response: The use is proposed within new buildings within an identified "Building Envelope" area. The "Building Envelope" Area is separated from public right of way and adjacent properties by a line of trees along the southern property line and disbursed trees to the north and east. To the west are properties owned by the 14 applicant/property owner with screening vegetation. The vegetation on the subject property and neighboring property (which is owned by the Applicant/Owner) provide significant buffers to surrounding rights of way and/or adjacent properties. The applicant intends to limit tree removal to the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the building placement. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. Applicant Response: The applicant plans on year-round production and has the ability to provide water from multiple sources. Attached as Exhibits are: • Letter from Central Oregon Irrigation District referencing water rights of the property • Letter From Bend Water Hauling indicating their ability to serve the property • Letter from Legacy Ranches indicating their intent to transfer 5 mitigation credits upon land use approval. The use has a demand of approximately 135,000 gallons per month, and with the referenced methods the applicant has access to capacity that will provide well over that amount. 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. Applicant Response: The proposal is for marijuana production, it does not include the processing of cannabinoid extract; therefore this section does not apply. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. Applicant Response: Included as an Exhibit is a "Will Serve Letter" from Central Electric Cooperative (CEC), documenting conformance with this requirement. 16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, 15 except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. Applicant Response: The site will use security cameras. The site will have an OLCC compliant security system; which will only record activity on the subject property as required by OLCC, and in accordance with this section. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). Applicant Response: The applicant proposes secure waste receptacles to be placed and maintained within the structures, and under control of he OLCC licensee as required by this section. 18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property: a. An owner of the subject property; b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property; or c. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. Applicant Response: The property is not located within the MUA-10 Zone, therefore these standards do not apply. 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(6)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(6)(1042, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016. Applicant Response: The property does not include a medical marijuana grow site established prior to June 8, 2016, therefore this section does not apply. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: 1. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. 16 Applicant Response: The property is located within the EFU zone. None of the prohibited uses identified in these sections are proposed. b. In the MUA-10 Zone, the following uses are prohibited: 1. Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use when carried on in conjunction with a marijuana crop. c. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana production: i. Guest Lodge. 11. Guest Ranch. 111. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort v. Public Parks. vi. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. viii. Bed and Breakfast. ix. Room and Board Arrangements. Applicant Response: The property is not located within the MUA-10 zone and none of the uses identified in this section are proposed. C. Marijuana Retailing... Applicant Response: Marijuana retailing is not proposed; therefore this section does not apply. IV. Summary and Conclusion The preceding sections document that the proposal conforms to the applicable development standards and approval criteria of the Deschutes County Code. Because the proposal conforms to all applicable criteria and standards, the applicant respectfully requests that the County approve the Administrative Determination as proposed. 17 Afii6rffdJe After recording return to: Briteside Oregon, LLC 832 Georgia Avenue, Ste. 150 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to the following address: Briteside Oregon, LLC 832 Georgia Avenue, Ste, 150 Chattanooga, TN 37402 File No. 172602A141 TT135 SPACE RESERVED FOR I:ECORDER'S USE Deschutes County Official Records 2017-025685 D D Stn. -0 BN 06/30/2017 04:04:00 PM $15.000600 $11 00010.00521.00 $63.00 I, Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk for Deschutes County, Oregon, certify that the instrument identified herein was rncorded in the Clerk records. Nancy Blankenship - County Clerk STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Wayne Curtis Kaesche, as Trustee of The Wayne Curtis Kaesche Trust dated December 2, 1994, Grantor(s), hereby convey and warrant to Briteside Oregon, LLC, Grantee(s), the following described real property in the County of Deschutes and State of Oregon free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth. herein: See Attached Exhibit 'A' FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY, THE MAP/FAX ACCT //(S) ARE, REFERENCED HERE: 17130000 03400 106922 171327C0 01500 109317 171327C0 01400 109318 The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is $1,250,000.00- PURSUANT TO AN 1RC 1031 'FAX DEFERRED EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF GRANTOR/GRANTEE. The above-described property is free of encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of this deed and those shown below, if any: Rannr, To; A Am&&ible Page 2 Statutory Warranty Deed Escrow No. 172602AM BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERII1NG FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, CINDER ORS 195.300, 195301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007. SECTIONS 2 TO 9 10,4017, 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 TION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS IN TRUMEN3', THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTIV ENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND I ELNGjTRAN FERRED I5 A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED LII ORS 92.010 OR "23 5,010,, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWISUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGI IBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, LF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 1'5.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17,ICHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. 0,-4 {- Dated ,: i = day of {�("� in NViT i Cur Ile Trust dated December 2, 1994. By, tiVayne t% :aescN. Trustee State of Oregonl ss. County of (-44 , AC) On this ,,,.//14 14 day of .017, he1bre nte, Notary Public in and for said state, peraona€ly amazed Wayne name i_ sill cnhed to the foregoing instrument as tnt.tee of aclatowle'lged to me that he/sIt 4 y executed the same as Tru eE �./2 a Curtis Kaesche known ur identdite9 to me to he the person whose the Wayne Curds Kaesche Trust !dated December 2, 1994, and flee. IN WITNESS 'VOE1ERH0F, I have hereunto set my hand and above written Notary Public fort c Slate of 0tegrns», Residing at;I+?/'. i Commission. Expires: _ 11"/21,. OFFICIAL STAMP ROBERT J VEI.EZ NOTARY PUBLIC • OREGON COMMISSION NO. 960909 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 09, 202 affixed my official soal the day tied year iri this certificate first Page 3 Statutory Warranty Deed Escrow No. 172602AM EXHIBIT File No, 172602AM Parcel 1: The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SW1/4SE1/4) of Section Twenty - Seven (27), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Thirteen (13) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon; Parcel 11: The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE1/4SW1/4) ofiSection Twenty - Seven (27), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Thirteen (13) Egst of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon; Parcel 111: The Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of the Southwest Quarter )SWI/4) of Section 27, Township 17 South, Range 13, East of the Willamette Meridiaoi, Deschutes County, Oregon, Mailing Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division May 10, 2017 Wayne Curtis Kaesche, Trustee Wayne Curtis Kaesche Trust 11420 E Apache Vistas Drive Scottsdale, AZ 85262 Cc: Paul Blikstad 144 SE Dorrie Court Bend, OR 97702 P Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ Re: File No. 247 -17 -000210 -LR; Lot of Record Determination for Property Identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-13-27C as Tax Lots 1400 and 1500, and Map 17-13-27 as Tax Lot 3400. Dear Mr. Kaesche, You have submitted an application for a lot of record determination on the above referenced tax lots. Tax Lot 1400 has no address assigned, Tax Lot 1500 has an assigned address of 23250 Walker Road, Bend, and Tax Lot 3400 has an assigned address of 23450 Walker Road, Bend. The Planning Division has reviewed the information you submitted with your application, as well as County records, and has determined Tax Lot 3400 is a separate legal lot of record as shown in Figure 1 and that Tax Lots 1400 and 1500 constitute two (2) separate legal lots of record as identified below in Figure 3. Section 18.04.030 of the County Zoning Ordinance defines a "lot of record" as: A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means: 1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92; 2, By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk; 3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the Quality Services Performed with Pride conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat; 4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the Deschutes County Record of Plats; or 5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot or parcel. B. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a lot or parcel validated pursuant to ORS 92.176 shall be recognized as a lot of record. The definition goes on to say that the following are not deemed to be a lot of record: 1. A lot or parcel created solely by tax lot segregation because of an assessor's roll change or for the convenience of the assessor. 2. A lot or parcel created by an intervening section or township line or right of way. 3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or parcel was conveyed subject to DCC 18.04.030. 4. A parcel created by the foreclosure of a security interest. History of Deschutes County Partition & Subdivision Requirements Deschutes County adopted its first zoning ordinance (PL -5) on November 1, 1972, which described minimum lot sizes for new parcels. This zoning ordinance was replaced in 1979 with PL -15. The subdivision ordinance of 1970, PL -2, regulated subdivisions less than 10 acres in size but did not regulate partitions. The partition ordinance (PL -7) was adopted on April 5, 1977, which described the criteria under which parcels could be partitioned. Analysis of Tax Lot 3400 For reference, Figure 1 shows Tax Lot 3400 in its current configuration. Figure 1 Current Configuration of Tax Lot 3400 Tax Lot 3400 contains approximately 40.00 acres in its current configuration. It was originally described as a 40.0 -acre parcel; less 0.61 acres for road right-of-way, for a total of 39.39 acres 247 -17 -000210 -LR 2 in a Deschutes County Deed dated January 14, 1963 and recorded as Volume 133, Page 522 in the Deschutes County Clerk's Book of Records. In 1985 Richardson (Walker) Road was vacated, returning 0.61 acres to Tax Lot 3400 to reflect the current size of 40.00 acres. Tax Lot 3400 is 40 acres in size and over 50 feet in width and thus meeting the definition of a lot of record above (at least 5,000 square feet in area and 50 feet wide). Based on these findings, Deschutes County recognizes Tax Lot 3400 as a legal lot of record. Analysis of Tax Lots 1400 and 1500 For reference, Figure 2 shows the tax lots 1400 and 1500 in the current configuration. Figure 2 Current Configuration for Tax Lots 1400 and 1500 Tax Lot 1400 contains approximately 18.73 acres according to the Deschutes County Assessor's Records. It was originally described as a 40.00 acre parcel; Tess 3.89 acres for road right-of-way, for a total of 36.11 acres in a Deschutes County Deed dated March 17, 1971 and recorded as Volume 174, Page 857 in the Deschutes County Clerk's Book of Records. Figure 3 below illustrates Tax Lot 1400 in this approximate 36.11 -acre configuration, less the 3.89 acres of road right-of-way. Tax Lot 1400 is 36.11 acres in size and over 50 feet in width and thus meeting the definition of a lot of record above (at least 5,000 square feet in area and 50 feet wide). Based on these findings, Deschutes County recognizes Tax Lot 1400 as a legal lot of record. Tax Lot 1500 contains approximately 58.07 according to the Deschutes County Assessor's Records. It was originally described as a 40.0 acre parcel; Tess 0.91 acres for road right-of-way, for a total of 39.09 acres in a Deschutes County Deed dated March 17, 1971 and recorded as Volume 174, Page 858 in the Deschutes County Clerk's Book of Records. In 1985 Richardson (Walker) Road was vacated, returning .91 acres to Tax Lot 1500 to its original size of 40.00 acres. Figure 3 below illustrates Tax Lot 1500 in this approximate 40 -acre configuration. Tax Lot 1500 is 40 acres in size and over 50 feet in width and thus meeting the definition of a lot of 247 -17 -000210 -LR 3 record above (at least 5,000 square feet in area and 50 feet wide). Based on these findings, Deschutes County recognizes Tax Lot 1500 as a legal lot of record. Figure 3 Legal Lots of Record for Tax Lots 1400 and 1500 On July 11, 1984, the County approved a property line adjustment between tax lots 1400, 1500, and 3400. At the time the 1984 property line adjustment was approved, the County's Procedure's Ordinance PL -9 was in effect and provided a one-year approval period for land use permits (Ordinance 82-011, Section 26, Duration of Permit). Because there were no deeds recorded for the approved property line adjustment LL -84-18 within the one-year time frame for approval, the property line adjustment expired in July 1985 and thus became null and void. . Therefore, Tax Lot 1400 is 36.11 acres in size, Tax Lot 1500 is 40.00 acres in size, and Tax Lot 3400 is 40 acres per the original deeds. Conclusion At the time of conveyance there were no partition standards required by Deschutes County. Therefore, conveyance by deed of separately described, non-contiguous, units of lands was sufficient to create legal lots of record Tax lots 1400, 1500, and 3400 are currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use- Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone. Tax Lot 1400 and 1500 are also located within the Airport Safety Combining Zone. Any development of the property described is subject to all requirements of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, as well as the County Environmental Soils and Building Safety Divisions, and the County Road Department for access to public roads. This decision becomes final 12 days after the date of mailing. Sincerely, 247 -17 -000210 -LR 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner c: Paul Blikstad Gregg Rossi, County Assessor's Office 247 -17 -000210 -LR 5 SYt1/4 SEC. 27 T.17S. R.13E. CM. Licsaturcs COUNTY 17 13 27C 570 N Ar It a a -a a -a , 2h7-17-ti(21flLl V3:251'1 Walket Road, flu,'1 ! 17 13 27C y, 9S-10536 voL 55 FACE 45 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Vacating a portion of Richardson Road, located in Township, 17S, Range 13 E, Sections 27 and 34 Deschutes County, Oregon. * }6bAUG -I PM 3: I * MARY SUE PENHOLLOV COUNTY CLERK ORDER NO. 84-016 WHEREAS, a petition requesting a vacation of a portion of Richardson Road, described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, was filed with the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, on February 15, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners declared its intent to vacate said Road by Resolution No. 84-016, dated February 15, 1984; and WHEREAS, notice of hearing was given in accordance with law; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held on March 28, 1984 to consider the proposed vacation; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is in the public interest to vacate the public property; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDERS as follows: Section 1s That the property, described in Exhibit "A", is hereby vacated. Section 2, That W.C. Kaesche is liable for the payment of costs in the amount of $350.00 resulting from this approved vacation. Section 3. That any person liable for payment of costs shall pay the amount of costs established. Section 4. That the Deschutes County Surveyor is directed to mark the plat, if any, as provided in ORS 271.230. Section a, That this Order shall be recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk, and copies shall be filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and County Assessor, 1 - ORDER NO. 84-018 DATED this y of Recordin Secretary VOL 55 FACE 46 , 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON 2 - ORDER NO. 84-018 LO TE, COMMISSIONER LAURENCE A. TUT LE, COMMISSIONER E `i r} J .._ ______=1_ =^- .?u=` —.,.�S I' 1C:, :gid.. M 11'.10' I I k3 P Ktyp yx c' t rT 01`•M _.... —may.-_. ..s._...... October 2, 2017 RE: Odor and Noise Nuisance Letter Lectrus Serial Number 64619 23450 Walker Road Bend, Oregon 97701 Deschutes County To whom it may concern, Please see the following information and data sheet attachments regarding noise and odor mitigation for the prefabricated dry agricultural structures located at 23450 Walker Road, Bend, Oregon 97701. Qualifications: I am a licensed engineer in Oregon #65108P. Building Description: • The Briteside agricultural modular facility is a metal building fabricated at the Lectrus Corporation Facility in Chattanooga, TN. It has structural, mechanical, electrical, and fire protection systems designed and approved by the State of Oregon. • HVAC system o The facility is conditioned by an engineered series of 4 Ton Split DX systems. o In normal operation the Indoor units will condition the space to 70-74 degrees F and provide Humidity Control at 45 — 55% o The in-line carbon (charcoal) container filters will scrub and remove the odors from the Grow Room atmosphere o The Series Pleated filters will remove large air -borne particles from the environment. o The carbon filters will be maintained and replaced every 3-4 months per the manufacturer's suggested service intervals. o The additional air movement by 8- 12" (930CFM/Ea) oscillating wall fans in the Flower and Vegetation Rooms will provide an additional 7,740 CFM per room to ensure the air movements through the Opticlimate filtration systems and overall health of the plants. o The Odor Control System will not interfere with the neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property as the Facility was designed for a concealed production use, not allowing odors to leave the facility during any normal operation. Odor Control Methodology: The final site odor control configuration within the Lectrus pre -fabricated structures was designed by Opticlimate, provided by Briteside Holdings, and installed by Lectrus Corporation. This system was designed to manage any odor not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. This system consist of multiple fans and air handlers within the prefabricated structure. Each module of the grow facility contains 2 grow rooms, a veg/clone room and some ancillary non -grow spaces : 1. The 2 grow rooms each have a volume of 15,880 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 5,294 CFM. Each grow room will have 3 air handlers that each move 1,471 CFM through carbon filters, plus one Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") with an attached Can -Filter 150, 12" flange. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 5,338 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 2. The veg/clone room has a volume of 6,815 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 2,272 CFM. This room will have 2 air handlers that each move 1,471 CFM through carbon filters. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 2,942 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 3. There will be a total of four modules that will duplicate these carbon -filtered air flows. 4. During normal operations of the facility the Opticlimate System is designed to condition and recirculate the air within the building. No air is exhausted from the building as there is not an Economizer Mode on the HVAC System. 5. The prefabricated structures are sealed operationally, not to pose any potential for odor to neighboring properties. Noise Control Methodology: The HVAC configuration associated with the Lectrus pre -fabricated structures was designed by Opticlimate. The interior air handlers were provided by Briteside Holdings, and installed by Lectrus Corporation. The wall mounted HVAC units were purchased and installed by Lectrus. Final configuration of each unit will include: 8 each, outdoor HVAC condensing units that are rated at 56 dB noise level at the units. There will be a total of 32 — HVAC Units for the entire Facility. 1 each, wall mounted Bard 3 -ton HVAC unit (Model WA3S2-A) which is rated at 66.9 dB noise level at the unit. Sound pressure is measured 10 feet in front of unit and 5 feet above the bottom of the unit. There will be a total of 4 -- wall -mounted Bard units on the completed facility. Regarding noise control, (DCC18.116.330(B)(11)(a) the following factors assist in mitigating the sustained noise from the mechanical equipment used for HVAC, odor control, fans and similar functions to not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day: 1. DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)(a) Marijuana production facilities shall have a minimum setback of 100 ft from the nearest property line. The pre-fabricated units are a minimum 100' from the south property line, 412' from the north property line, 923' from the east property line, and 2,651' from the west property line. 2. Security fencing and plantings around the perimeter of the property line will be installed that will further dampen sound transmission, 3. Sound pressure is reduced by 6 dba each time the distance from the noise source is doubled, per the inverse square law. 4. On the north and south sides, the outdoor units will need either the building or a 6' high concrete sound wall between them and the north and south property lines to keep the sound below 30 dBA. On the east and west sides, the outdoor units need no special treatment because they are far enough away from the property lines to keep the sound below 30 dBA. Sincerely, Rob James, P.E. CENTRAL OREGON 23250 Walker Rd. -171327C001500 - 11.75 acres 23450 Walker Rd. —1713000003400 — 31.25 acres Central Oregon Irrigation District ("District") serves this property with a total of 43.00 acres of Irrigation water (surface delivery) provided under State issued primary water right certificate #83571 (priority date 10/31/1900) and supplemental certificate #76714 (priority date February 28, 1913). These certificates allow delivery during the irrigation season of April 1" through October 31" and cannot be used for irrigation during the winter months. Water is currently delivered at a rate of up to 6 gallons per minute per acre. If crop is proposed to be grown inside a structure, land -user must allow COID annual access to the structure to document beneficial use of the water right. A Plot Plan is required to assist COID in determining if a proposed structure will be located on the water right. Structures built on top of a mapped water right for any purpose other than starting/growing plants during the irrigation season is not allowed. Water rights are subject to the Taws and rules of the State of Oregon, the federal government, and the policies of the District. 22166 Nelson Road Bend, OR 97701-9790 Office (541) 382-0759 08/30/2017 Briteside Oregon, LLC Maptaxlot 171327C001400 171327C001500, 1713000003400 RE: Will Serve Letter Briteside Oregon, LLC have requested that Bend Water Hauling, LLC deliver potable water to the maptaxlots mentioned above. We have set up an account and will deliver to this location. Ifyou ha‘ any questions or concerns please contact us at the office. Sincerely, 1 Kimberlee Nunez Dispatcher/Member • •• • •• • • P.O. Box 464 Prineville, OR 97754 To Whom It May Concern, Legacy Ranches, LLC has reserved 5 mitigation credits, which total approximately 4,500 gallons a day, to sell to Briteside Oregon, LLC for their operation located at Maptaxlet 171327C001400, 1713270001500, and 1713000003400. Credits will be transferred immediately upon land use approval. Regards, „hawn Jones Partner CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. www.cec.coop i P.O. Box 846, Redmond, OR 97756 e Office: 541.548.2144 • Fax: 541,548 0366 June 9,2017 Briteside 123 SW Columbia St Bend, OR 97702 RE: Will Serve Letter for 23250 & 23450 Walker Rd. In response to your inquiry, please be advised that the property located in 'i'.17S., R.13E., W.M., Section 27 -COO, Tax Lots 1400, 1500 & 3400 in Deschutes County, Oregon, is located within the service arca of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (4,000 amp three phase service) associated with the submitted cannabis grow facility and has determined that this service will require system upgrades to our facilities in the arca. Central Electric Cooperativc is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies oldie Central Electric Cooperative. Sincerely, Robert C Towler Customer Service Representative After recording return to: Briteside OregoLLC 235OWalker Road Bend, OR 97701 MARIJUANA PRODUCTION SHARED ACCESS CONSENT AGREEMENT For marijuana production (growing) over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants on property that takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, Deschutes County Code requires the applicant to obtain written consent from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement to utilize the easernent or private road for marijuana production access. Grantors that share the private road or easement hereby provide written consent to utilize the private road or easement for access to the referenced marijuana production operation in accordance with DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(c) and as follows: 1. This agreement shall be binding upon heirs, successors and ai ns and shall run with the land. 2. This consent applies only to the marijuana production as described below. GRANTORS (Persons granting consent to use of private road/easement for marijuana production): Property #1 Property Owner Name(s): Briteside Oregon LLC Property Address/Tax Lot Number: 23250Walker Road, Bend OR 97701 /17-13_37CU(}15DO Property #2: Property Owner Name(s): Property Address/Tax Lot Number: Property #3: Property Owner Name(s): Property AddresslTax Lot Number: GRANTEE production) - Property Owner Name(s): Briteside Oregon LLC Property Address/Tax Lot Number: 23450 Walker Road, Bend OR 97701 / 17-13-00 03400 Lega Description of the Private Road or Easement Attached as Exhibit "A" Marijuana Froduction Shared Access Consent Agreemerit1 Description of the Proposed Marijuana Production Operation: Year round marijuana production. Up to 20,000 square feet of mature plant canopy. Dated this 'day o i STATE OF OREGON ) "�c h (ALS S ) ss. COUNTY OF -1fr tt`#f On this I (.5 day of i:�t� Z " 2017, before me a Notary Public in t a d or said County and State, personally appeared :lay - %ii`fMtq(«1 rl�vf;'briecnown to me to be the identical individuals described in the above document, and who acknowledged to me that they executed the same freely and voluntarily. 2017. GRANTORS, on behalf of Property #1: r' ft s 4e LLC Carr t 1b. Watea, McMkoer OFFICIAL STAMP MONICA LYN STRINGER NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 945384 M t COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEMBER 13, 2419 Dated this r bay of " ` 2 p ,e , 2017 Notary Public fora.._.. My Commission Expires: GRANTEE: P,ritt tide 0 (Printed Name: " 7,--1 __J,r. STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF;:I'`t;�.t ) On this day of ( - Z �, �� ,�, , 2017, before me, a Notary Public fir),, ant for. said County and State, personally appeared iL� f I �?'I:I �`v A tc� , r11' i� 'r'I %1'1� ]'l,t irte wj'r&&ls (Hawn to me to be the identical individual described in the above' document, and Who acknowledged to me that he executed the same freely andvoluntarily. ip � C OFFICIAL STAMP 'rte MONICA LYN STRINGER NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 945384 MISSION EXPIRES DECEMBER 13, 2419 Notary Public for My Commission Expires: Marijuana Production Shared Access Consent Agreement 2 EXHIBIT A A parcel of land located in the Southwest Quarter (SWI/4) of Section 27, Township 17 South, Range 13 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, being a portion of those lands described in Instrument No. 2017-25685, Deschutes County Official Records, being more particular described as follows: The Southerly 40 feet of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of said Section 27 lying Easterly of Alfalfa Market Road. Subject to: All easements, restrictions and right-of-ways of record and those common and apparent on the land. See attached map titled "EXHIBIT B", hereby incorporated by reference. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 10, 2007 PATRICK GAGE COLE 79157 EXPIRES: 12/31/17 October 5, 2017 S:\Land Projects\170903-Walker Road Agricultural Facility\docs\Legal - Access Easement,docx EXHIBIT "B" LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR NORTH OREGON JULY 10, 2007 PATRICK GAGE COLE 79157 CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING 1 PLANNING EXPIRES: 12/31/17 SHARED ACCESS CONSENT AGREEMENT 170903 -ACCESS ESMT.DWG SCALE: 1" m 500' DRAWN BY: AR SHEET DATE; 10/5/2017 District Map Law n e. Ser vice Area F� r NO0380 'anag CRJ 2:13N1VAA OSt'€Z NYld g_LIS _ ! , Exhibit E - Capital Press article Judge: No `blanket immunity' for aspiring pot growers facing lawsuit /oregon/201 7112.4/judg no•bla. Ikekrnrnunity-fu firing-Piot-gaAk is fa0ing-1E:wsuit CapitaPress The WestWebstte The West's AG Weekly Since 1928 • • Subscribe • Classifieds • e -Editions • Info • State • Nation & World • Ag Sectors o Livestock o Dairy o Eneray o FFA o Horses o Nursery o Orchards, Nuts & Vines o Organic o Outdoors o Research Center o Rural Life o Timber o Water • Opinion • Special Sections 1-800-882-6789 Search sponsored by Capital Press Marketplace Home State Oregon A judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by grape producers against a planned marijuana operation in Oregon's Yamhill County. 1/3 Mateusz Perkowski Capital Press Published on November 24, 2017 8:05AM Last changed on November 24, 2017 2:11 PM Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press Marijuana plants grow in a high tunnel at a farm near McMinnville, Ore. A judge has refued to dismiss a lawsuit filed by neighbors against a planned marijuana operation in Oregon's Yamhill County. Oregon's "right to farm" law doesn't provide aspiring marijuana growers with "blanket immunity" from a lawsuit filed by grape -producing neighbors in Yamhill County, a judge has ruled. Yamhill County Circuit Court Judge John Collins has denied a motion to dismiss a complaint against the marijuana operation planned by Steven and Mary Wagner, and their son Richard. A nearby vineyard owner, Momtazi Family LLC, claimed the marijuana odors would damage wine grapes with "foul-smelling particles" and sought an injunction against cultivation of the psychoactive crop. The lawsuit was joined by Harihari and Parvathy Mahesh, neighbors who haven't yet planted a vineyard but plan to do so. Last month, the Wagners asked the judge to throw out the lawsuit because there was no evidence that marijuana odors would cross property lines and because the planned marijuana operation wasn't yet definite. "You don't get to file a lawsuit with no facts, sheer conjecture, pure speculation about what will happen," said Allison Bizzano, their attorney, during oral arguments on Oct. 11 in McMinnville, Ore. Richard Brown, attorney for the plaintiffs, countered that it's common to enjoin activities that haven't yet occurred but that would cause damage. "If the court allows them to develop the property first, it's the equivalent of letting them pull the trigger," Brown said. Judge Collins sided with the plaintiffs on this issue, ruling that an injunctions can be a preventative remedy meant to "stay the lawless hand before it strikes the blow," based on a legal precedent from 1914. 2/3 "While this language from an old case might be seen as somewhat arcane today, the principle remains: A party may seek injunctive relief not just to halt an ongoing harm, but also to head off that harm if the harm can reasonably be predicted to occur in the reasonably near future," he said. The judge also disagreed with the defendants that the case is barred by the "right to farm" law, which prohibits nuisance and trespass lawsuits against common farming practices. A provision from that law clarifies that it doesn't protect against lawsuits alleging "damage to commercial agricultural products." "Plaintiffs' vineyard and, more specifically, grapes, certainly fall within this term and plaintiff adequately alleges damage or potential damage to that product," Collins said. While the "right to farm" law does not provide blanket immunity against the lawsuit, it can still be raised as an "affirmative defense to be addressed at a later stage in the case," he said. Marketplace Our Guidelines Stay on topic - This helps keep the thread focused on the discussion at hand. If you would like to discuss another topic, look for a relevant article. Share with Us - We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article, and smart, constructive criticism. Be Civil - It's OK to have a difference in opinion but there's no need to be a jerk. We reserve the right to delete any comments that we feel are spammy, off -topic, or reckless to the community. Be proactive - Use the 'Flag as Inappropriate' link at the upper right corner of each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Search sponsored by Capital Press Marketplace 3/3 Exhibit F - Purchase Agreement for Mitigation Credits PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR MITIGATION CREDITS BETWEEN: Legacy Ranches. LLC. a foreign Hrnited_flabiilty companti ("Legacy Ranches") AND: Briteside Oregpn. LLC. an Oregon limited liability company ("Briteside Oregon") DATED: January 24.2018 RECITALS A. Pursuant to Oregon Water Resources Department's Final Order Approving a Change in Place of Use and Character of Use and Preliminary and Final Award of Mitigation Credits, dated June 3, 2011, the T-10730/MP-124 project was awarded 221.4 mitigation credits to be used in the Crooked River Zone of Impact and/or the General Zone of Impact and was In the names of Grass Butte, LLC and Premier West Bank. These credits were assigned to different holders of record, including Legacy Ranches. B. A total of 113.51 credits were assigned to Legacy Ranches as part of this MP -124. C. Briteslde Oregon desires to purchase mitigation credits from Legacy Ranches to satisfy its mitigation obligations for developments on its property located at 23450 Walker Road, Bend, Oregon 97701 In Deschutes County (Tax Lots 1400, 1500, and 3400). D. Legacy Ranches desires to sell and assign three (3) mitigation credits from MP -124 to Briteslde Oregon. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration described in this Purchase Agreement for Mitigation Credits ("Agreement"), the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Legacy Ranches and Briteslde Oregon agree as follows: 1. Sale of Credits. Legacy Ranches hereby agrees to sell and assign, and does hereby sell, assign, transfer and convey to Briteslde Oregon, and Briteslde Oregon hereby agrees to purchase and accept, and does hereby purchase, accept, acquire and receive from Legacy Ranches, three (3) mitigation credits, subject to Paragraph 3 of this Agreement. 2. Payment for Credits. In consideration of the delivery of mitigation credits, Briteside Oregon will pay Legacy Ranches : for each mitigation credit, The total amount will be _ --.- �..:., _ ; for the three (3) mitigation credits purchased pursuant to this Agreement. ********** Per the contingency noted below, Briteside WILL purchase the three mitigation credits, but have not yet done so. ********** 3. Land Use Approval Contingency. Briteside Oregon will purchase the three (3) mitigation credits within seven (7) business days of receiving its Deschutes County land use approval to allow marijuana production within multiple structures; that Is, approval of an Administrative Determination from Deschutes County (File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD). in the event that this condition of land use approval has not been satisfied, this Agreement shall automatically terminate. Neither Legacy Ranches nor Briteside Oregon shall have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement. 4. Chain -of -Custody Form. Briteside Oregon will prepare the assignment paperwork required by Oregon Water Resources Department. Within two (2) business days of receipt and deposit of Briteside Oregon's payment, Legacy Ranches will submit to Oregon Water Resources Department the completed and signed form entitled "Assignment Record for Mitigation Credits Chain -of -Custody." This form will state that mitigation credit holder Legacy Ranches assigns three (3) mitigation credits from Mitigation Credit Project MP -424 to Briteside Oregon, Legacy Ranches will provide confirmation of Oregon Water Resources Department's receipt and processing of this form via written notice to Briteside Oregon. 6. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient if in wilting and sent to the respective party at its principal business address or email address. 6. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed unlawful, void, or for any reason unenforceable, then that provision shall be deemed severable from these terms and conditions and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions. 7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between Legacy Ranches and Briteside Oregon and supersedes any previous or contemporaneous oral or written agreements and understandings. It may be changed only by an agreement in writing signed by a duly authorized officer or representative of Briteside Oregon and the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change, modification, extension or discharge is sought. 8. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Oregon. 9. No Waiver. Failure of strict performance of any provision of this Agreement will not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce such a provision or any other provision of this Agreement subsequently. 10. Executed Agreement. This Agreement may be executed by Legacy Ranches and Briteside Oregon In one or more counterparts by manual or electronic signature or by use of one or more physical or electronic copies that are either physically delivered or 2 Purchase Agreement for Mitigation Credits electronically transmitted, and all of which, when taken together, constitutes one and the same original of the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Legacy Ranches and Britestde Oregon have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. Legacy Ranches, LLC By: Name: Chad Faigal (signature) Title: CFO & Coo Date: 01/24118 Brtteslde Oregon, LLC By: Name: Title: Date: (signature) 3 Purchase Agreement for Mitigation Credits electronically transmitted, and all of which, when taken together, constitutes one and the same original of the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Legacy Ranches and Briteside Oregon have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. Legacy Ranches, LLC By: Name: Title: Date: (signature) Britestde Oreg By: (sature) Name: CliZ S C • "C'p's Title: Date: /7Y /b 3 Purchase Agreement for Mitigation Credits Exhibit G - Water Supply Well Report OTATL OP OREGON DESC 61053 WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT (as required by ORS 537.765 & OAR 690-205-0210) 11/9/2017 Page 1 of 3 WELL I.D. LABEL# L START CARD # ORIGINAL LOG # 125763 1036628 (1) LAND OWNER First Name Company BRITESIDE OREGON, LLC. Owner Well I.D. Last Name Address 832 GEORGIA AVENUE #150 City CHATTANOOGA State TN Zip 37402 (2) TYPE OF WORK x New Well 'Deepening Conversion Alteration (complete 2a & 10) n Abandonment(complete 5a (2a) PRE -ALTERATION Dia + From Casing: Material Seal: To Gauge Stl Plstc Wld Thrd ❑ ❑ 0 C From To Amt sacks/lbs I I I I (3) DRILL METHOD Rotary Air _ Rotary Mud Cable Reverse Rotary Other X Auger C Cable Mud (4) PROPOSED USE ❑ Industrial/ Commericial ❑Thermal ❑Injection Domestic LJ Irrigation Livestock Dewatering Other Community (5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION Depth of Completed Well 765.00 ft. BORE HOLE Dia From To Material Bentonite Chips 12 0 77 Special Standard 8 77 765 (Attach copy) SEAL From To Amt 0 1 77 Calculated 16250 1879.43 I I sacks/ lbs P I How was seal placed: Method I 1A x Other POURED DRY Calculated B C ❑D E Backfill placed from ft. to Filter pack from ft. to Explosives used: II ft. Material ft. Material Size Yes Type Amount (5a) ABANDONMENT USING UNHYDRATED BENTONITE Proposed Amount Actual Amount (6) CASING/LINER Casing Liner Dia + From 8 6 Shoe C Ins'de Temp casing—Yes Dia o Gauge Stl Piste Wld Thrd ❑x Outside Other Location of shoe(s) 760 From -F❑ To (7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENS Perforations Method Factory Saw Screens Type Material Perf/ Casing/ Screen Screen Liner Dia From To width length slots pipe size Scm/slot Slot # of Tele/ Perf Liner 6 740 760 .125 3 220 (8) WELL TESTS: Minimum testing time is 1 hour O Pump O Bailer O Air O Flowing Artesian Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Pump depth Duration (hr) 50 0 720 6 Temperature 60 °F Lab analysis ❑ Yes By Wa er uality concerns? LfYes (describe below) TDS amount 48 Ppm Prom To Description AmountUmts 638 765 Total Disolved Solids 48 ppm (9) LOCATION OF WELL (legal description) County DESCHUTES Twp 17.00 S N/S Range 13.00 E E/W WM Sec 27 SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 Tax Lot 3400 Lot Tax Map Number Lat Long " or 44.06727701 " or -121.15302433 ( Street address of well (` Nearest address DMS or DD DMS or DD 23450 WALKER ROAD, BEND, OREGON 97701 (10) STATIC WATER LEVEL Date SWL(psi) + SWL ft Existing Well / Pre -Alteration Completed Well 10/14/2017 Flowing Artesian? Dry Hole? WATER BEARING ZONES Depth water was first found 638.00 SWL Date From To Est Flow SWL(psi) + SWL(ft) 10/14/2017 638 765 75 638 (11) WELL LOG Material Ground Elevation 3441.00 From To Soft Sandy Loam 0 6 Pumice, Ash, Small Gravels 6 26 Hard Gray Basalt 26 33 Large Fracture Lost Circulation 33 37 Hard 37 48 Void 48 55 Broken Hard 55 62 Hard 62 68 Void 68 69 Hard 69 93 Medium Hard 93 135 Softer 135 168 Hard 168 206 Soft 206 215 Hard 215 280 Soft 280 295 Hard 295 340 Medium Soft 340 352 Hard 352 370 Date Startedlo/9/2017 Completed 10/14/2017 (unbonded) Water Well Constructor Certification I certify that the work I performed on the construction, deepening, alteration, or abandonment of this well is in compliance with Oregon water supply well construction standards. Materials used and information reported above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. License Number Date Signed (bonded) Water Well Constructor Certification I accept responsibility for the construction, deepening, alteration, or abandonment work performed on this well during the construction dates reported above. All work performed during this time is in compliance with Oregon water supply well construction standards. This report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. License Number 1385 Date 11/9/2017 Signed ROBERT BUCKNER (E -filed) Contact Info (optional) ORIGINAL - WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT THIS REPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF WORK Form Version: WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT - continuation page DESC 61053 11/9/2017 Page 2 of 3 WELL I.D. LABEL# L START CARD # ORIGINAL LOG # 125763 1036628 (2a) PRE -ALTERATION Dia + From To Gauge Stl Plstc Wld Thrd Material From To Amt sacks/lbs (5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION BORE HOLE Dia From To Material SEAL From To sacks/ Amt lbs I I Calculated Calculated I 1 Calculated I I Calculated FILTER PACK From To Material Size (6) CASING/LINER Casing Liner Dia + From To Gauge Stl Plstc Wld Thrd • • • • (7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENS Perf/ Casing/ Screen Screen Liner Dia From To width length slots pipe size Scrn/slot Slot # of Tele/ (8) WELL TESTS: Minimum testing time is 1 hour Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Pump depth Duration (hr) Water Quality Concerns From To Description Amount Units (10) STATIC WATER LEVEL SWL Date From To Est Flow SWL(psi) + SWL(ft) (11) WELL LOG Material From To Soft 370 382 Hard 382 400 Broken 400 414 Hard 414 485 Void 485 487 Hard 487 545 Void 545 547 Hard 547 580 Medium Soft 580 592 Hard 592 610 Soft 610 615 Hard 615 622 Very Broken 622 630 Hard 630 640 Broken & Loose 640 655 Medium Hard 655 685 Loose 685 695 Medium Hard 695 710 Soft 710 745 Broken & Loose 745 765 Comments/Remarks WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT - Map with location identified must be attached and shall include an approximate scale and north arrow DESC 61053 11/9/2017 Page 3 of 3 Map of Hole STATE OF OREGON VVELL LOCATION MAP This map is supplemental to the WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT Oregon Water Resources Department 725 Summer St NE, Salem OR 97301 1•.;, i5o3)98e-oaoo LOCATION OF VVELL Latitude: 44.067245 Datum: WGS84 Longitude: -12 1.1530 17 Town sh ip/Ra ng elSectio n/Qu arte r -Qua rter Section: WO 17S 13E 27 SWSE Address of Well: 23450 WALKER ROAD, BEND. OREGON 97701 Well Label: 125763 Printed: November 6, 2017 Tri:s riisp is iritsiriits,i io.ss, tor, I t ;E t Provided by well constructor Exhibit H - Bend Water Hauling will -serve letter Fead Vatet e 22166 Nelson Road Bend, OR 97701-9790 Office (541) 382-0759 08/30/2017 Briteside Oregon, LLC Maptaxlot 171327C001400 171327C001500, 1713000003400 RE: Will Serve Letter Briteside Oregon, LLC have requested that l3end Water Hauling, LLC deliver potable water to the maptaxlots mentioned above. We have set up an account and will deliver to this location. If you ha‘ any questions or concerns please contact us at the office. Sincerely, Kirnberlee Nunez Dispatcher/Member Exhibit I - ColeBreit letter April 20, 2018 RE: Odor and Noise Nuisance Letter Lectrus Serial Number 64619 23450 Walker Road Bend, Oregon 97701 Deschutes County To whom it may concern, Please see the following information and data sheet attachments regarding noise and odor mitigation for the prefabricated dry agricultural structures located at 23450 Walker Road, Bend, Oregon 97701. Qualifications: I am a licensed engineer in Oregon #65108P. Building Description: • The Briteside agricultural modular facility includes metal buildings fabricated at the Lectrus Corporation Facility in Chattanooga, TN. It has structural, mechanical, electrical, and fire protection systems designed and approved by the State of Oregon. • HVAC system o The facility is conditioned by an engineered series of 4 Ton Split DX systems. o In normal operation the Indoor units will condition the space to 70-74 degrees F and provide Humidity Control at 45 — 55% o The in-line carbon (charcoal) container filters will scrub and remove the odors from the Grow Room atmosphere o The Series Pleated filters will remove large air -borne particles from the environment. o The carbon filters will be maintained and replaced every3-4 months per the manufacturer's suggested service intervals. o The additional air movement by 8- 12" (930CFM/Ea) oscillating wall fans in the Flower and Vegetation Rooms will provide an additional 7,740 CFM per room to ensure the air movements through the Opticlimate filtration systems and overall health of the plants. o The Odor Control System will not interfere with the neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property as the Facility was designed for a concealed production use, not allowing odors to leave the facility during any normal operation. Odor Control Methodology: COLE Err ENGINEERING BY DESIGN,0 The final site odor control configuration within the Lectrus pre -fabricated structures was designed by Opticlimate, provided by Briteside Holdings, and installed by Lectrus Corporation. This system was designed to manage any odor not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. This system consists of multiple fans and air handlers within the prefabricated structure. The existing building contains 2 grow rooms, a veg/clone room and some ancillary non -grow spaces : 1. The 2 grow rooms each have a volume of 15,880 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 5,294 CFM. Each grow room will have 3 air handlers that each move 1,471 CFM through carbon filters, plus one Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") with an attached Can -Filter 150, 12" flange. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 5,338 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 2. The veg/clone room has a volume of 6,815 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 2,272 CFM. This room will have 2 air handlers that each move 1,471 CFM through carbon filters. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 2,942 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 3. During normal operations of the facility the Opticlimate System is designed to condition and recirculate the air within the building. No air is exhausted from the building as there is not an Economizer Mode on the HVAC System. 4. The prefabricated structures are sealed operationally, not to pose any potential for odor to neighboring properties. The new building consists of 28 modules of flower and vegetation rooms. Each module has a volume of 7,500 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 2,500 CFM. Each module will have three Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") with an attached Can -Filter 150, 12" flange. The total carbon - filtered air flow will be 2,775 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. Noise Control Methodology: The HVAC configuration associated with the Lectrus pre -fabricated structures was designed by Opticlimate. The interior air handlers were provided by Briteside Holdings, and installed by Lectrus Corporation. The wall mounted HVAC units were purchased and installed by Lectrus. Final configuration of each unit will include: The new building will have 22 wall -mounted HVAC units on each side that are rated at 73 dB noise level at the units. There will be a total of 44 — HVAC Units for the entire building. • The existing building will have 2 condensing units on the west side, 6 condensing units on the east side, and 1 Bard unit on the north side. Regarding noise control, (DCC18.116.330(B)(11)(a) the following factors assist in mitigating the sustained noise from the mechanical equipment used for HVAC, odor control, fans and similar functions to not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day: COLEE ENGINEER 1 N 0 BY DESIGN,,, 1. DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)(a) Marijuana production facilities shall have a minimum setback of 100 ft from the nearest property line. The new building is a minimum 200' from the south property line, 880' from the north property line, 924' from the east property line, and 200' from the west property line. The existing building is approximately 483' from the south property line, 781' from the north property line, 924' from the east property line, and 90' from the west property line. 2. Security fencing and plantings around the perimeter of the property line will be installed that will further dampen sound transmission. 3. Sound pressure is reduced by 6 dba each time the distance from the noise source is doubled, per the inverse square law. 4. For the new building: On the south and west sides, the outdoor units will need a 6'-7" high concrete sound wall between them and the their respective property lines, with a 200' minimum distance to keep the sound below 30 dBA. On the north and east sides, the outdoor units need no special treatment because they are far enough away from the property line to keep the sound below 30 dBA. 5. For the existing building: No special sound treatment is required to keep sound levels below 30 dBA at any property line. 6. The calculated sound pressure levels from the mechanical equipment at each property line are: West property line: 29.9 dBA South property line: 29.6 dBA North property line: 27.2 dBA East property line: 23.7 dBA Sincerely, Rob James, P.E. COLE Err ENGINEERING EXPIRES 6/30/19) BY DES • o.L, C4E11 ..NEINUE1.1N6 • Exhibit J: Cannabis and Water Quality OREGON CANNABIS e Cannabis and Water Quality OregsLn. Department of Agriculture What are ODA's rules for water and growing cannabis? Agricultural Water Quality Program www.oregon.gov/ODA (503) 986-4700 • In Oregon, growing cannabis is an agricultural activity and Oregon's agricultural water quality rules apply. More information can be found at: bit.do/AgWQ • Two important rules apply to all agricultural producers (others may apply depending on your operation). - Pollution Rule: Agricultural pollution cannot enter streams, ditches, or ponds, or be in a location that is likely to enter these water bodies. - Riparian Rule: Agricultural activities must not prevent streamside vegetation from growing and establishing. • Contact the ODA Agricultural Water Quality Program to learn about the rules that apply to you. How can I get rid of excess irrigation water? DEQ and ODA coordinate to manage nonpoint source agricultural runoff through implementation of agricultural water quality management area plans. • Septic systems DEQ or the local county may regulate an onsite septic system. Discharge of industrial wastewater into an onsite septic system is prohibited since these systems are only designed to treat domestic wastewater. In addition, planting and growing marijuana on top of a septic drainfield or irrigating and harvesting over a drainfield may affect a residential septic system's performance. • Public sewer systems Growers and processors may be able to discharge waste water to a local sanitary sewer. Pretreatment before discharge may be required. Contact your local city or county for information about connecting or discharging to a sanitary sewer system. • Land application ODA recommends spreading excess irrigation water on vegetation at agronomic rates. DEQ has a regulatory role in managing wastewater from growing operations if it is being discharged into a sanitary sewer system, an onsite septic system, or being discharged directly into a surface water body through a ditch, channel, or pipe. Surface water discharges may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. For more information, contact DEQ at 503-229-5696 and contact the ODA Agricultural Water Quality Program at 503-986-4700. Outdoor considerations • Maintain access roads to prevent ruts, gullies, and sheet erosion that contribute sediment to streams, ditches, and ponds. • Excavation of grow sites must not contribute sediment to streams, ditches, and ponds. Use silt fences and straw bales around grow sites. • Ensure that culverts and stream crossings are built properly and not causing erosion. • Do not locate grow operations near septic drain fields. • Vegetation is your friend. Maintain vegetated areas (grass, shrubs, trees) between grow sites and streams, ditches, and ponds, and do not remove streamside vegetation. • Irrigation water use from private wells, streams, ditches, or ponds may require a permit from the Oregon Water Resources Department, 503-986-0900. Gallons of excess irrigation water per 100 sq. feet per year 1,000 800 600 400 200 Land area needed to safely apply excess irrigation water Example: Excess irrigation water with 150 ppm of nitrogen means 200 gallons can be spread on 100 square feet of vegetation per year 50 100 150 200 Nitrogen content of excess irrigation water in ppm Land application of excess irrigation water from indoor grows 250 300 • Dumping excess irrigation water into a stream, ditch, or pond is prohibited. • Test the nitrogen in excess irrigation water prior to application to know the concentration in parts per million (ppm). Use the table to determine appropriate size of area needed to apply excess irrigation water. • Do not spread excess irrigation water within 48 hours after a storm event or when weather conditions will lead to runoff. • Excess irrigation water application area should be flat and vegetated in order to use excess nitrogen and prevent pollution. • Vegetation receiving the excess irrigation water must be cut and removed. Vegetation needs to be growing to use nitrogen. Example: mow the grass and remove the cuttings from the area where wastewater is applied. • If vegetation is turning yellow or dying at location of application, nitrogen levels are too high. You may need to dilute the excess irrigation water more or spread it over a larger area. • Practice conservation actions such as: - Plant native grasses, shrubs, and trees for extra filtration and nutrient uptake. - Install silt fences, straw bales, mulch, and/or wattles in sensitive areas where runoff could reach surface water. - Collect runoff in a retention basin. More information from ODA online: bit.do/CannabisODA • More information about water quality online: bit.do/AgWQ Created 3 /2017 Exhibit: K: S°anitatioerieift 5/282 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3888575 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3888558 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 388.8561 DATE .5- ,2 'i - :2 - BUILDING PERMIT NO 5 -2 --/A----3"7/v-1°- SANITATION PERMIT NO O,---2' 9 L • JOB LOCATION •.>>---' i� %() �,_ ,,.-„:.i-, ` ?--�rj...,0 e` . .,, ),,t?„,„. ___-'-, • �--- ADDRESS~ PERMIT TYPE i. X RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL MOBILE HOME SEPTIC ACCESSORY OTHER CLASS OF WORK FIRE ZONE NEW REMODEL DEMOLITION MOVED 4(-• .-..4.--4--, -��,,_•-t2--",,"1='L) OCCUPANCY USE OF BUILDING 1-4(-:':. -,,,-.4.--4--, 0 STRUCTURE TYPE CONSTRUCTION TYPE METAL 5RAME7 BLOCK LOG , OTHER OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS-" ' -'''• '-' J^,-- �' PHONE ..1. y ' �.� - .-- % 0�. � ,- V- BUILDER'S NAME & ADDRESS ARCHITECT/ENGINEER _:12.:?'/.'J[)...44-'G ...,-:%,y.r,:-/-:-4'.(:e ,,/1e •. 6% -' __ PHONE PHONE NOTES' , - - .. , -.... '- '_- '' -. , ..� - P 4 ;� r •-.I c - •�4.,-- e-fe(, 9._ - , c.. -r: ., LEGAL( _ ) PLANNING DEPARTMENT DESC TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION TAXIOT NO. SUBDIVISION NAME LOT BLOCK OR SITE PLAN NUMBER/ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY USE OF BUILDING (DESCRIBE SETBACKS FRONT: / ZONE ACREAGE "fG 4::}15'4._.,: ....v.,,......,../. IN DETAIL) ❑ NOTES: SIDE: ❑ REAR: 0 - PERMIT NUMBER -0y ”' �' FROMIC PERATE IITF XPIRES ONE YEAR I SANITATION DEPARTMENT SIZE OF SEPTIC TANK GAL LINEAL FEET OF DRAINFIELD NUMBER OF BEDROOMS • - WATER SOURCE �'..'••: / -- e NOTES• , •. .... .- .r. .'.:c:-' .. a i , I CERTIFY THAT ALL LABOR IN CONNECTION PERSON LICENCED UNDER ORS 454.695 SIGNATURE OF OWNERIINSTALLER WITH THE C')NSTRUCTION OF THE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM WILL BE PERFORMED EITHER BY A OR THE OWNER, X PLANNING DEPT APPROVED/ DENIED BY I AGREE TO BUILD ACCORDING TO ABOVE DESCRIPTION, PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND THE BUILDING CODE OF DESCHUTES COUNTY. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL & VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COM- MENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED OR ABAN• DONDED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. BUILDER CERTIFICATION NO. VALUATION BUILDING SURCHARGE DATE PLUMBING SANITATION DEPT (APPROV,EftDENIED BY 011,4 ,r'. c ,A.c.,4: MECHANICAL SURCHARGE PLAN CHECK I_o DATE ;1.i'',P,'7 -.`7,1') C-3 MOBILE HOME x.32) -LO i-”. •7k1) - PLANNING / • Ot) -- PLANS CHECKED & BY . �/ ', � "=rje - '-�"''" .J UR /SANITATION -7'=" - /6J D.E.Q. SURCHARGE QS -G O - OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT OTHERAPPROVED TOTAL FEES ', % ?f) DATE RECEIPT NUMBER X - AUTHORIZATION NOTICE NAME 1 - 1 ADDRESS: LOCATION: SUBDIVISION PERMIT NUMBER U 9- PHONE NUMBER ,gf_2 �e LOT BLOCK TAX LOT TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION This drainfield system is: Approved Existing — Pre-existing )( This Certificate acknowledges the sewage system located on property identified above has been examined by Field Inspection Record Review to serve a }4 61 L i p kovtije with a sewage flow up to 4151) ga. per day. (type of structure) It is the opinion of this department that this subsurface sewage system is .xadequate _ not adequate to serve the proposed dwelling. Remarks: DATE: Deschutes County Note: 1. The Deschutes County Department of Environmental Health considers this sewage system adequate to serve a maximum daily sewage flow up to that indicated above only. 2. This certificate does not certify that a mobile home was located according to the plot plan. 3. This certificate does not guarantee satisfactory or continuous operation of the sewage system identified. BLANK PAGE From: Susanne Ritter To: AnthonvRagmne Cc: Tony DeBone; PhD Henderson; Tammy Baney Subject: CORRECTION Re: Case ID: 247 -17 -000833 -AD: 23450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 97701 aka Briteside Oregon LLC, Ietter of opposition IN RESPONSE TO APPEAL Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:06:54 PM Attachments: 1magv001.onn |m*geooz.nnn /mmov003.onn /mag^004onn 18u7.16 e,/tegueAopoa| S. Ritter co,eueu.uoo' Mr Raguine, | made an error in some of my calculations of water use. Therefore please use the attached version of my letter for the Boards' consideration, not the one 1 emailed you earlier today. Thank you for your help. Respectfully, Susanne Ritter, neighbor From: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:05 PM To: Susanne Ritter Subject: RE: Case ID: 247 -17 -000833 -AD: 23450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 97701 aka Briteside Oregon LLC, Ietter of opposition IN RESPONSE TO APPEAL Thank you for your comments. I will add your email and letter to the record for the Board's consideration. Bc: Board [� Anthony Raguine Senior Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 osscourpscoumrvcuwmumnv ucvs < poBox aoo Bend, Orego97708 39|www.ucoxote,.nrR/ca 00 0 Disclaimer: Please note that the information mthis email is an informal statement made inaccordance with DCC �20.00and sholl not be deemed to const/tuefino/ (hunry oct/on effecting 0 chonge in the status ?/operson's property o/colermgany rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From:SusanneRitter<susanneritter@nutlook.00m> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 11:50 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc:TonyDe8one<Tony.De8one@pdeschutes.or8>;TammyBaney<Tammy.Baney@odeschutecnrQ>; Phil Henderson <PhiiHendeoon@deschutes.orQ> letter of opposition IN RESPONSE TO APPEAL Mr Raguine, Attached, please find my appeal arguments to deny the Marijuana Grow Application by Briteside LLC. Please let me know that you received this email, thank you. Respectfully, Susanne Ritter, neighbor Nick Lelack, AICP, Director, 541-385-1708, mobile 541-639-5585 Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner, 541-617-4738, anthonv.raguine@deschutes.org Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Re: Appeal arguments to Marijuana Grow Application Case ID: 247 -17 -000833 -AD: 23450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 97701 aka Briteside Oregon LLC Dear Commisioners and to whom it may concern: July 16, 2018 Below, please find my arguments for denial of the above application, in order of the applicable approval critera as listed at the appeal hearing last Wednesday: 1. Odor impacts As discussed in the hearing, carbon filters do not work. A grower that sits on the farm bureau and has a 10+ greenhouse operation in Alfalfa and 4+ retail stores in the area, and has been a grower of (initially medical) marijuana since before 2014, stated in a neighborhood meeting in February 2018 that he sprays "something" onto his plants because carbon filters do not work. Even with his "new and improved" system, you can smell the skunk stench just driving down Alfalfa Market Road. One 20,000sf greenhouse, and potentially three of them next door to us, could be close to unbearable, year round. As was discussed in the hearing, please have Briteside DEMONSTRATE that their odor control system works, BEFORE this operation gets approved. 2. Noise impacts The Briteside application calls for 44 HVAC units plus 20 or so other electricity units (fans, controls, etc) per 20,000sf structure, running 24/7, 12 month out of the year. That means a lot of noise. The electrician who designed the system is one of the two Briteside owners, an electrician from Chattanooga, Tennessee. Of course he will sign off on his own creation. Has anyone inspected this electrical system? I called Central Oregon Pole buildings, a Bend company in the business of construction Targe agricultural (and other) structures and asked them what they thought. I was told that at least the electrical system needs to be inspected and approved by the building department. That is the law. Besides, electricity and water do not mix, especially on this scale, so it is also a safety issue. In addition, the representative advised me strongly to have the rest of the structure inspected for structural integrity. So, can Briteside just draw a rectangle on a piece of paper and have it approved? Should there not at least be an electrical inspection, per Oregon law and building code? The noise impact from this electrical system will be tremendous, especially if two additional greenhouses get erected. There is also concern of fire, overload of the electrical system (we had the power go out twice in the last 2 weeks already). Also, please ask the building department if "opaque structures" that are modular (like a Manufactured home or Modular home) do not need to be inspected and approved like other modular homes, for noise ordinances, electrical OREGON code, and structural integrity - for everyone's safety. Another related point to noise and electrical system is that the provider of electricity stated in their letter that they need to redesign their electrical system to meet the demand of the Briteside operation. 7/16/18 Appeal Arguments to Marijuana Grow Application 23450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 9770 aka Briteside LLC Page 1 of 4 Have they done so yet? Is it safe for the neighborhood for this system to go online right now? Or will our electricity just go out once a week, especially in hot weather, as it already has done the last 2 weeks? 3. Improper use of well water for production operation The well Briteside drilled is a DOMESTIC well. That is their permit. In other words, it will NEVER be allowed for irrigation. As their attorney stated, Briteside fully intends to use ground water for their grow, with their mitigation rights. Where will they get this groundwater, if not from their DOMESTIC well? PLEASE AT LEAST ORDER BRITESIDE TO PUT A METER ON THE WELL AND ORDER METER READINGS ONCE A MONTH, by neighbors, the water department, someone. Once they have their permit, it will be easy for them to just open the faucet on their well. Look at the plan. The well is located outside the small 5,000sf demo greenhouse. The water runs from the well into this small greenhouse, from there into and through the large 20,000sf greenhouse and then exits the large greenhouse by the septic tank and from there drains into the leach field. The house is on a completely different part of the property, far away from the well. Why would Briteside put a domestic well next to their greenhouse if not to use the water for the greenhouses? There is no irrigation 5-6 months out of the year. Briteside says they need 4,500 gallons a day. That is nine 500 gallon water tanks a day. If you were a business owner, would you pay for that or just use your well if you could where the water costs you nothing? What would be cheaper and easier? Across the street from Briteside and on a slightly lower elevation sits our community of 27 houses. We have one community well. It had to be redrilled deeper a few years ago because it was running dry. It is now about 700 feet deep (the Briteside well, I am told, is deeper, some say 800 feet, some say even deeper). My 6 month water bill for our house shows we use about 4,000 gallons per half year, so about 650 gallons a month. Briteside wants to use 4,500 gallons A DAY, so about 135,000 gallons a month (or more, I believe they have actually applied for 450,000 gallons a month). Taking these numbers, 27 houses use_roughly 20,000 gallons a month. In other words, BRITESIDE WANTS TO PUMP 7 TIMES AS MUCH WATER AS OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY (or 22 times as much if 450,000 gallons per month are assumed), possibly all year round, but at least while irrigation is not running, so 5 to 6 month each year. How long do you think it will take for our well to run dry? It would be easiest and cheapest for Briteside to just use the well year round. Why pay for staff to manage an irrigation system, use irrigation water that is not as clean as well water, and keep an irrigation system maintained which is an ongoing headache and expense, ask any farmer? WE NEED AT LEAST A METER ON THAT WELL AND MONTHLY METER READINGS. Bend Water Hauling: Briteside claims they will haul water if they cannot use well water. However, there are no water storage tanks on their plans. Where will they store 4,500 gallons a day (or 15,000 gallons a day if the 450,000 gallon a month number is used)? 4. Legal sources of water As discussed in the hearing, the mitigation credits cannot LEGALLY be used in their current form, an application has to be filed with the state of Oregon, and that will take a year or more. Bend Water hauling will be expensive for Briteside. COID irrigation for 30.25 acres means that 30.25 acres need to be watered with the irrigation water, exactly where the irrigation map says those 30.25 acres are located, not anywhere else, and not just 20,000sf. As the attorney for Briteside stated, nobody is currently living on that land. Who will do this? Irrigating an acreage of this size is a full time job. This is not part of the Briteside business model. Their 7/16/18 Appeal Arguments to Marijuana Grow Application 23450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 9770 aka Briteside LLC Page 2 of 4 business model is, and I quote: "Briteside produces a diverse range of products and services, from prefabricated modular cultivation units to home delivery and subscription based services. All Briteside products are predicated on proprietary algorithms designed to improve yields and efficiencies while reducing cost and time." Source: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/four-top-cannabis-companies-announce-merger- forming-one-of-the-most-comprehensive-industrv-platforms-300648561. html PS.: This business statement was on the Briteside website just last week, now I cannot find it, I wonder why they erased this important news from their own website? https://brtside.com/the-sugar-leaf/ 5. Improper waste disposal The map Briteside delivered to the Commissioners appeal meeting shows a septic tank and leach field next to the big greenhouse. To build a septic system you need a permit, and it has to be inspected. I cannot find any application or permit. So, does this tank and leach field exist? Who approved it? The property owner before Briteside used no septic tank or leach filed, just a natural lava tube through which everything went straight into the ground, unfiltered (from one small house). If this old lava tube is the "septic system" Briteside will use, it will most likely contaminate the groundwater with pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, chemicals, and marijuana plant residues etc. Plants grown in greenhouses are more prone to pests and diseases than outdoor grown plants because of the humid temperate environment that a greenhouse creates and bugs and diseases love ( even if the greenhouse has no air flow as Briteside claims ). The grower that sits of the farm bureau stated at a public meeting in Redmond this year that he buy $20,000 worth of beneficial insects each month to run his greenhouses. Will Briteside be so "environmentally responsible"? The use pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers is completely unregulated in the marijuana industry, so why should they spend the money? Ecologist Mourad Gabriel states that some of the pesticides that are used on cannabis farms are so toxic that half a teaspoon can kill a bear, and these chemicals do leach into the ground water, see: http://www. newsweek.com/illegal-ma rilua na-farms-dump-shocking-amou nt-toxic-waste-647568 So, do I need to buy my drinking water now because I do not know how many of these chemicals leach into our groundwater? What about our animals? What about our children? Who will we sue when we get sick? And who will pay for that? Please, at least inspect this septic system and leach field. Next is the question of the disposal of the marijuana plants themselves. Only a small part of these huge plants is used in retail and products. Most of the plant material will become toxic waste. Can you imagine the amount of dead plants from just one harvest of 20,000sf of over 8 foot tall plants? Then imagine it year round, possibly in 3 huge greenhouses. Where will the dead toxic plant material go? Briteside only speaks of "secured waste receptacles" on their property. How big are they? Where are they? They are not marked on the map. Can someone inspect these please, their size, their appropriateness, understand the plan of emptying these "trash cans"? Please advise. 6. Country code should be interpreted to limit production to a single building for the single license allowed for the property. Both attorneys have spoken to this item. In addition, I would like to note that two greenhouses are already on the map, one for 5,000sf and one for 20,000sf (approximately). So, even from the two rectangles on their own map, they are already over their applied for 20,000sf. 7/16/18 Appeal Arguments to Marijuana Grow Application 23450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 9770 aka Briteside LLC Page 3 of 4 7. Light pollution The "opaque" modular structure with many modules inside that is supposed to be the greenhouse is nowhere to be seen, not in a photo, not on their website, nowhere. Can someone please show me a photo of the proposed structure? Can someone inspect it and see how much light it emits? 8. Improper access to BLM land The issue of the road has been addressed in the appeal. It sounds as if at least part of it is located on BLM land. BLM has asked for a survey and received none. Should this access issue not be resolved BEFORE any permit is granted? If not, the Commissioners create a precedent that it is "OK" to just drive over BLM to get to anywhere. 9. Potential impacts on wetlands If the property 30.25 acres are not irrigated, the wetland will dry up.lt does not matter how far away from the greenhouse the wetland is, it will dry up because the land around it receives no water. The above are the issues the appeals paperwork stated are under review by the Commissioners, therefore I will not address the rest. However, I would like to make some general statements: A recent Bend newspaper article stated: "In the years since marijuana became legal, the county has approved 30 unique grow sites, with 22 more applications pending. Only nine of the approved applicants have also received a required license from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which oversees the state marijuana issue, and can therefore legally operate. https://www.bendsource.com/bend/grow-woes/Content?oid=5330998 In other words, over two thirds of recreational marijuana sales are already black market. A calculation of the monetary benefit for Oregon from recreational marijuana tax income therefore needs to deduct the cost of law enforcement, of new diseases such as hyperemesis (when people cannot stop vomiting from using marijuana) and psychosis, the loss of productivity from high schoolers and others who loose drive (according to local school officials). It sounds like Oregon is losing more than it is gaining. Then let us not forget that the wholesale price of this drug is dropping and further pushing illegal sales. Also, many consumers buy black market because it is much cheaper than product in the stores. Next we have the headaches of the Commissioners and home owners who have to deal with all of this. Do we really need more of this? Respectfully, Susanne Ritter, a neighbor 7/16/18 Appeal Arguments to Marijuana Grow Application 23450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 9770 aka Briteside LLC Page 4 of 4 Tracy Griffin From: Carol Clouse <clouseck©gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 4:58 PM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: Appeal/ Briteside Oregon LLC/23450 Walker RD/ #247-18000424-A Photos Taken From BLM/Neighbors of properties 23450 Walker RD Lot 3400 and 23250 Walker RD Lot 1500. Please add these for the Appeal Record and BOCC Thank You, Tammy Threlkeld Photos Take 07/17/2018 2nd .hoto COID Irritation Ditch, #ED & 5TH Photo New Buildin: Placed 2 3 BLANK PAGE From: To: Subject: Date: redarrow55 Anthony Raguine RE: Grow operation case # 247-18-000242-A Walker Rd. Wednesday, July 18, 2018 9:24:02 AM Debbie Simpson. 23095 Alfalfa Market Rd Bend thanks Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Original message From: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Date: 7/17/18 9:44 AM (GMT -08:00) To: 'redarrow55' <redarrow55@aol.com> Subject: RE: Grow operation case # 247-18-000242-A Walker Rd. Thank you for your comments. If you would like to receive notice of any decision related to this project, please submit your name and mailing address. Anthony Raguine Senior Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue i Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 I Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 617-4739 I www.deschutes.ore/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is on informal statement mode in accordance with DCC 22.20,005 and shall not he deemed to constitute final County action effecting o change in rhe status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: redarrow55 <redarrow55@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 7:46 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Grow operation case # 247-18-000242-A Walker Rd. Please no more traffic on Alfalfa Market Rd. It's a race track now.That is my first concern, 2nd is smell and 3rd is water ..vote no! Tracy Griffin From: Laurie Craghead <laurie.craghead@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 3:31 PM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: Briteside, File No. 247-17-000833-AD/424-A, Paulson Open Record Period 1 comments Attachments: Paulson Open Record 1 comments.pdf Good afternoon, Anthony. Please enter the attached into the record for the above file. Thank you. Laurie E. Craghead Attorney at Law PO Box 5833 Bend, OR 97708-5833 Ph 458.206.6884 / FAX 1.541.833.6426 THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL. IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION OR ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE E-MAIL. IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: Unless specifically designated therein, any advice that may be expressed above (including in any attachments) as to tax matters was neither written nor intended by the sender to be used and cannot be used by you or anyone else for (i) the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction, plan or arrangement. Each taxpayer should seek advice from the taxpayer's own independent tax adviser, based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances. 1 LAURIE E. CRAGHEAD Attorney at Law PO Box 5833, Bend, OR 97708-5833 Ph. 458.206.6884 / Fx +1.541.833.6426 laurie.crathead@outlook.com July 18, 2018 C/0 Anthony Raguine Board of County Commission VIA E-MAIL: anthony.raguine@deschutes.org RE: Paulson opposition to appeal of the Briteside application for marijuana production, File No. 247-17-000833 -AD/424-A Dear Commissioners: Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional comments on the above application during this first open record period ("Open Record Period 1"). First, the Paulsons agree with the comments submitted by Susan Altman during this Open Record Period 1. Second, the Paulsons add the following comments. 1. The consent agreement is useless because it's not legally binding. As easement for two properties when both properties are owned by the same owner is void under the "Merger Doctrine." The same would be true for a consent agreement. Thus, the condition must be written such that the agreement be recorded now and again if, either Tax Lot 1500 or 3400 sold, between the applicant or the applicant's successor in interest and the buyer of the other lot. 2. The OLCC does not have any regulations as to how to dispose of the solid waste or the wastewater from the production. The agency merely has guidelines and those just refer to the Washington guidelines. Thus, it is within the purview of the county to require the applicant to specify the disposal method and location rather than allowing a vague condition that says the applicant will comply with the OLCC regulations. 3. The applicant has not proven that the COID or mitigation credit water can be used inside a fully enclosed building as opposed to on a field or within a hoop house type of greenhouse where the water will go back into the ground. 4. The applicant has not proven that the mitigation credit water is sufficient if the COID water is not allowed to be used in the manner in which the applicant intends to use it. Thus, the applicant does not have that water in hand or guaranteed to be in hand because it has not applied for the appropriate approval from WRD to use the mitigation credits nor shown that COID can provide the water. Paulson Letter Open Record Period 1 July 18, 2018 Page 2 of 2 5. The applicant has not proven that carbon filters are sufficient to filter the air. It merely assumes they will sufficiently scrub the odors. 6. The BOCC has been strict with setbacks in the past. The applicant has not provided any reason to be more lenient now by allowing the applicant time to move the dwelling or engage in a lot line adjustment. The applicant should take care of that setback issue then come back when its ducks are in row. Therefore, the appellants, Jeff and Alissa Paulson, request that the Board of County Commissioners deny this application because the applicant has not provided the necessary information to show that it can meet all the approval criteria in DCC 18.116.330. Sincerely, Laurie E. Craghead BLANK PAGE Tracy Griffin From: Nunzie <nunzie@pacifier.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 4:57 PM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: Gould comment #2 re 247-18-000424-A Attachments: Doctrine of Merger - Briteside.pdf; ATT00001.htm Regarding 247-18-000424-A Please enter the following files into the above Briteside Appeal file: 247-18-000424-A, 247 -17 -000833 -AD, 247 -17 -004406 -AGE, 247 -17 -000210 -LR, Environmental Soils records from 2002 further found : <https://weblink.deschutes.org/cdd/DocView.aspx?id=254584&cr=1> It is inappropriate to give taxlot 3400 a Walker Road address as Walker Road has been vacated and access to taxlot 3400 is not from BLM to the East where Walker Road ends at the SE confer of taxlot 3400. It is inappropriate to give taxlot 1500 a Walker Road address because Walker Road is vacated and there is no access from Walker road East of taxlot 3400 to taxlot 1500. Please enter this file into the above Appeal record: 247 -17 -000720 -LL because conditions of that land use decision have not been completed and because a self imposed easement is not allowed by law per the doctrine of merger (Briteside ownstaxlot 1500 and taxlot 1400 and cannot self impose an easement in particular the proposed marijuana access easement according to the Doctrine of Merger). See attached doctrine of merger. Only if taxlot 1500 were sold to another could Briteside record an easement for marijuana. Today taxlot 1500 and taxlot 3400 are both owned by Briteside Oregon LLC so the recorded easement is against the law. Also please enter this file into the above Appeal record: 247 -17 -000210 -LR because CDD did not understand these properties (1400, 1500 or 3400) or that none have legal accesses. Thank you Nunzie Gould 1 attachment: Doctrine of Merger 1 RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW THIRD THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW PROPERTY Servitudes As Adopted and Promulgated BY THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE AT WASHINGTON, D.C. May 12, 1998 Volume 2 Chapters 5 to 8 Tables and Index ST. PAUL, MN AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE -PUBLISHERS 2000 MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION § 7.5 parties, § 887.020) is abandoned if all of the following conditions are satisfied for a period of 20 years immediately preceding commence- ment of the action to establish abandonment: (1) the easement is not used at any time; (2) no separate property tax assessment of the easement is made, or if made, no taxes are paid; (3) no instrument creating, reserving, transferring, or otherwise evidencing the ease- ment is recorded. Section 887.060 permits recordation of a notice to preserve the easement up to the time judgment is entered in the action to establish abandonment. These provisions for termination supplement and do not limit or otherwise affect the common law governing abandonment of an easement, § 887.030. Easement for purposes of this chapter means a burden or servitude on land, whether or not attached to other land as an incident or appurtenance, that allows the holder of the burden or servitude to do acts upon the land, § 887.010. (This chapter applies to affirmative easements, whether appurtenant or in gross, but does not apply to negative easements, 18 Cal, L. Rev. Comm. Reports 257 (1985)). Cal. Civ. Code § 811(3); Cal Civ. Code § 811(4): A servitude is extinguished ... when the servitude was acquired by enjoyment, by disuse thereof by the owner of the servitude for the period prescribed for acquiring title by enjoyment. Georgia: Ga. Code Ann. § 44-9-6, Loss of easement by abandonment or nonuse: An easement may be lost by abandonment, or forfeited by nonuser, if the abandonment or nonuser shall continue for a term sufficient to raise the presumption of release or abandonment. Montana: Mont. Code Ann. § 70-7-111(3): a servitude is extinguished by "the performance of any act upon either tenement by the owner of the servitude or with his assent that is incompatible with its nature or exercise." Indiana: Ind. Code § 32-5-12-6(a)(2) (railroad right of way deemed abandoned when ICC issues certificate authorizing abandonment and railroad removes rails, switches, ties, and other facilities from the right of way). North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 47-05-12(3). Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 60, § 59(3). South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 43-13-12. 7.5 Termination by Merger A servitude is terminated when all the benefits and burdens come into a single ownership. Transfer of a previously benefited or burdened parcel into separate ownership does not revive a servitude terminated under the rule of this section. Revival requires re-creation under the rules stated in Chapter 2. 365 § 7.5 Cross -References: Chapter 2, Creation of Servitudes; § 2.2, Intent to Create a Servitude; § 2.12, Servitudes Implied from Prior Use; § 2.15, Servitudes Created by Neces- sity. Comment: a. Rationale. A servitude benefit is the right to use the land of another or the right to receive the performance of an obligation on the part of another. A servitude burden is the obligation not to interfere with another's use of the burdened party's land, or the obligation not to use land in the burdened party's possession in particular ways, or the obligation to render a specified performance to another. When the burdens and benefits are united in a single person, or group of persons, the servitude ceases to serve any function. Because no one else has an interest in enforcing the servitude, the servitude termi- nates. The previously burdened property is freed of the servitude. If the ownership of the property is separated, no new servitude arises unless a new servitude is created under the rules stated in Chapter 2. b. Creation of servitudes after termination by merger. A subse- quent conveyance of the property that results in separate ownership of the previously dominant and servient estates raises the question whether the parties can re-create the servitude that previously existed on the property without complying with the requirements set forth in Chapter 2. Under the rule stated in this section they cannot. Because a servitude is an interest in land subject to the Statute of Frauds, their intent to re-create the servitude must either be expressed in a written instrument or their actions must fall within one of the recognized exceptions to that requirement. If the circumstances are otherwise appropriate for creation of a servitude by implication, the fact that the servitude previously existed may warrant the inference that the par- ties intended to re-create it on severance. Illustrations: 1. 0, the owner of Blackacre, a parcel burdened by an easement for access to and use of a lake on Blackacre in favor of Whiteacre, acquired ownership of Whiteacre. Three years later 0 conveyed Whiteacre to X. The deed made no mention of an easement to use the lake. In the absence of other facts or circumstances, Whiteacre does not enjoy the benefit of an ease- ment to use the lake on Blackacre. 2. Recreation Club owned an easement in gross for hunting and fishing on Blackacre. Recreation Club then acquired the fee- simple interest in Blackacre. Ten years later Recreation Club 366 MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION § 7.5 conveyed Blackacre to Developer. The deed made no mention of an easement. In the absence of other facts or circumstances, Blackacre is not subject to an easement for hunting and fishing in favor of Recreation Club. 3. Blackacre is burdened by covenants prohibiting the con- struction of any structure that would interfere with the view from Whiteacre and requiring that vegetation on Blackacre be trimmed to protect the view from Whiteacre. 0, the owner of Blackacre, acquired ownership of VAWhiteacre. Later 0 sold Whiteacre to Able. The deed made no mention of any right to a protected view. In the absence of other facts or circumstances, Blackacre is not subject to an obligation to protect the view from Whiteacre. 4. 0 is the owner of Blackacre, a parcel burdened and benefited by an easement for a common driveway shared with Whiteacre. 0 then acquires ownership of Whiteacre and later sells Blackacre to Able. The `conveyance of Blackacre does not revive the previous easement, but may create a new implied easement for the common driveway based on prior use under the rule stated in § 2.12. 5. 0 owned Blackacre and Whiteacre. 0 then sold Blackacre to Baker assuring Baker that drainage into a borrow pit on Whiteacre would permit development of Blackacre under circum- stances that resulted in creation of an easement by estoppel under § 2.10. After Blackacre was developed, 0 sold Whiteacre to Charlie. Charlie had notice of the easement because it was apparent that runoff from Blackacre drained into the borrow pit on Whiteacre. Charlie subsequently sold Whiteacre to Baker, the owner of Blackacre, taking back a purchase -money mortgage from Baker. Baker subsequently defaulted on the mortgage and Char- lie purchased Whiteacre at the foreclosure sale. Whiteacre is subject to an easement for drainage benefiting Blackacre. The conveyance of Whiteacre to Blackacre extinguished the original easement by merger, but a new easement for drainage based on prior use under § 2.12 was created when Baker mortgaged White - acre to Charlie. c. Application to property subject to general plan of develop- rrcent. Because merger takes place only when all the benefits and burdens of the servitude come into a single ownership, subdivision covenants and servitudes in other developments with reciprocal servi- tudes are rarely terminated by merger. Since each lot, unit, or parcel `enjoys the benefit of the servitudes imposed on every other property in the development, see § 2.14(a), the occasion for merger can arise :only when the entire development is acquired by a single owner. 367 § 7.5 SERVITUDES Ch. 7 d. Merger does not take place if there are any outstanding` interests in the servitude. So long as there are any outstanding interests in the property or estate benefited or burdened by the servitude, merger does not take place. If the outstanding interests are`, future rather than present interests, and the owner of the future interest has no right to present enjoyment of the servitude; the servitude is suspended until the future interest becomes possessory. Illustrations: 6. Blackacre is burdened by an easement for ingress and egress in favor of Whiteacre. 0, the owner of Blackacre, leased Blackacre to the owner of Whiteacre for 10 years. In the absence of other facts or circumstances, the easement is suspended during the term of the lease because the lease entitles the lessee to make any use authorized by the easement in addition to other uses. At the end of the lease term Blackacre remains subject to the easement. 7. 0 owned Blackacre. Able and Baker owned Whiteacre as tenants in common. Whiteacre is subject to an easement for ingress and egress appurtenant to Blackacre. Able acquired own- ership of Blackacre. Able and Baker then conveyed Whiteacre to Charlie. The deed made no mention of an easement in favor of Blackacre. In the absence of other facts or circumstances, White - acre remains subject to the easement appurtenant to Blackacre. 8. 0, the owner of Blackacre, granted a conservation ease- ment to the Heritage Foundation. Subsequently 0 conveyed the fee simple in Blackacre to the Heritage Foundation subject to O's retained life estate. Heritage Foundation later conveyed Black- acre to the State. 0 is still alive. In the absence of other facts or circumstances, Blackacre remains subject to the conservation easement. REPORTER'S NOTE The rule stated in this section is generally accepted and is similar to that stated in the Restatement of Property §§ 497-499 and § 555. See Gerald Korngold, Private Land Use Arrangements §§ 6.11, 11.04 (1990); Jon W. Bruce & James W. Ely, Jr., The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land 119.09 (1988). Rationale, Comment a. Tract Dev. Serv., Inc. v. Kepler, 199 Cal.App.3d 1374, 246 Cal.Rptr. 469 (1988) (com- mon ownership of lots on each side of street in which easement was located 368 Ch. 7 MODIFICATION AND did not result in merger where there was not common ownership of entire subdivision). Illustration 5 is based on Tatum v. Dance, 605 So.2d 110 (F1a.Dist.Ct. App.1992) (right to use borrow pit on adjacent property for drainage not destroyed by merger when owner subsequently obtained title to ser- vient estate and then lost it by fore- closure of purchase -money mortgage; majority reached result by classifying drainage right as personal irrevoca- ble license not subject to merger; concurring opinion more accurately analyzed the right as an easement created by estoppel extinguished by merger and recreated by implication based on prior use on conveyance of mortgage). Cheever v. Graves, 32 Mass.App. Ct. 601, 592 N.E.2d 758 (1992) (single owner's acquisition of title to several subdivision lots, including lot subject to easementfor use of beach and access to beach for benefit of all lots in subdivision, extinguished benefit of easement by merger; for merger to occur, ownership of the estates must be coextensive, but the land area comprising the dominant and servient estates need not be; when one person holds one estate in severalty and only a fractional part of the other, the easement is not extinguished, but if one person owns the servient estate and some but not all of the benefited lots, the benefit is extinguished as to the owned lots). Swartz v. Sinnot, 6 Mass.App.Ct. 838, 372 N.E.2d 282 (1978) (easement that may have existed was extin- guished when ownership of both par- cels was united in grantee; evidence did not establish that new right of way was created on severance of common ownership). TERMINATION § 7.5 Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 918 P.2d 314 (Nev.1996) (ease- ment extinguished by merger; ab- sence of wives as grantees in deed to one of the parcels did not negate unity of ownership; presumption that all property acquired • during mar- riage is community property pre- vailed). Pollock v. Ramirez, 870 P.2d 149 (N,M.Ct.App.1994) (even if landowner created servitudes by filing declara- tion, subsequent transfer of entire subdivision to single owner extin- guished covenants by merger; cove- nants were not revived by later transfer of the subdivision property; transferee's subsequent filing of doc- ument entitled "Amendments to Dec- laration of Covenants" to permit con- struction of single-family homes on 1—acre lots did not unambiguously in- dicate intent to revive original cove- ` nants). Will v. Gates, 680 N.E.2d 1197 (N.Y.1997) (merger doctrine proceeds from recognition that a person cannot have an easement in his or her own land because all the uses of an ease- ment are fully comprehended in the general right of ownership; when dominant and servient estates be- come vested in 1 person the easement no longer serves a purpose and termi- nates; where only a portion of domi- nant orservient estate is acquired, termination does not occur because the rights of other owners cannot be affected; termination does not occur as to only a fractional part of the estate). Stilbell Realty Corp., 43 A.D.2d 966, 352 N.Y.S.2d 656 (1974).(acquisi- tion of dominant and servient estates in fee in single ownership extinguish- es easement, other than easement by necessity; once extinguished, the easement is gone forever and cannot 369 § 7.5 SERVITUDES Ch. 7 be revived, although it may be creat- ed de novo). Witt v. Reavis, 284 Or. 503, 587 P.2d 1005 (1978) (easement acquired by prescription before 1956 was ex- tinguished by merger in 1966 when easement holder acquired title to ser- vient estate and held fee simple in both dominant and servient estates; court rejected "minority Pennsylvania rule," which engrafted the rules of implied easements onto those for ex- tinguishment by merger, in favor of treating the issue whether a new easement was created on separation of the 2 estates as a separate issue to avoid confusion). Thar v. Edwin N. Moran Rev. Trust, 905 P.2d 413 (Wyo.1995) (ease- ment granted to lessee was terminat- ed when Lessee acquired the fee in the dominant estate; easement disap- pears when estate it is created to serve disappears; leasehold was de- stroyed by merger). Merger does not take place if there are any outstanding interests in the servitude, Comment d. Guy v. State, 438 A.2d 1250 (I)el.Super.Ct.1981) (outstanding possessory estate pre- vents merger of dominant and ser- vient estates to terminate easement). General American Realty Co. v. Greene, 107 I11.App.3d 1011, 438 N.E,2d 540 (1982) (restrictions includ- ed in contract were not intended sole- ly to protect lender until payment of purchase price and did not terminate on delivery of deed to vendee; deed provisions making it subject to re- strictions of record indicated intent that recorded Supplemental Articles survive delivery of deed). Parkinson v. Board of Assessors, 398 Mass. 112, 495 N.E.2d 294 (1986) (conveyance of fee simple in property subject to conservation easement to beneficiary of easement did not de- stroy easement' where grantor re- tained Life estate subject to the ease- ment; easement was not extinguished where intervening life estate prevent- ed complete unity of ownership in dominant and servient estates). Heritage Communities of N.C., Inc. v. Powers, Inc., 272 S.E.2d 399 (N.C.Ct.App.1980) (outstanding deed of trust is sufficient interest to pre- vent termination of easement by merger of dominant and servient es- tates). Boorom v. Rau, 640 A.2d 963 (R.I. 1994) (right of way benefiting 4 lots and burdening 4 lots not extinguished by merger when owner of western- most benefited lot acquired fee title to the portion of the right of way adjacent to his lot; unity of title be- tween the servient estate and every dominant estate is required for merg- er). Aasland v. County of Yankton, 280 N.W.2d 666 (S.D.1979) (tax sale did not vest title in county; county's ease- ment for road was not extinguished by merger). § 7.6 Modification or Extinguishment by Estoppel A servitude is modified or terminated when the per- son holding the benefit of the servitude communicates to the party burdened by the servitude, by conduct, words, or silence, an intention to modify or terminate the servitude, under circumstances in which it is reasonable to foresee that the burdened party will substantially change position 370 David J. Petersen davld.petersen@tonkon,com Admitted to Practice In Oregon and California 503.802.2054 direct 503.221,1440 main July 18, 2018 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL - anthony.rat±uine(i?deschutes.org Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Mr. Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Re: Appeal of Briteside Oregon LLC Administrative Approval File Number 247 -17 -000833 -AD, 247-18-000424-A RECEIVED JUL 18 2018 butes County CDD Dear Mr. Raguine: This letter provides supplemental evidence and argument of Briteside Oregon LLC ("Briteside"), in accordance with the Board's order at the hearing on July 11, 2018 holding the record open for additional evidence for seven days. First, this letter addresses issues raised at the hearing that relate to applicable approval criteria under DCC 18.116.330(B). For each such issue, the relevant citation to DCC 18.116.330(B) is indicated in parentheses. This letter then concludes with information related to other issues raised at the hearing but which do not relate to applicable approval criteria. The latter is provided for informational purposes only; the application may not be denied or conditioned based on issues outside the scope of the applicable approval criteria. 1. Setbacks (DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)) Enclosed as Exhibit K please find an updated site plan, which compiles all relevant information regarding building location into a single plan. This site plan also provides added clarity by identifying specific building locations rather than the previously -proposed building envelope (within which Briteside had sought flexibility to microsite the new building). Briteside is now willing to commit to the precise development plan shown on Exhibit K. The updated site plan demonstrates that all setback requirements are met, including the setback from the western property line to the western edge of the existing building. This distance is 105 feet, in excess of the required 100 feet. Briteside acknowledges that prior information placed the existing building about 90 feet from the western property line; however, in light of concerns expressed at the hearing about the accuracy of this information, Briteside had the distance re -measured. That re -measurement, conducted by a licensed surveyor from HWA, found the existing building to be 105 feet from the property line. HWA's re -measurement utilized property corner monuments set in conjunction with the field survey from the 2017 boundary line adjustment between tax lots 1400 and 1500, which both border tax lot 3400. A copy of the 2017 field survey is enclosed as Exhibit 0, and a copy of HWA's July 17, 2018 survey, stamped by a licensed professional surveyor, is enclosed as Exhibit P. Tonkon Torp 111' I Advocates ti Advisors 1 888 SW Fifth Ave. I Suite 1600 1 Portland OR 97204 1 tonkon.com Deschutes County Board of Commissioners July 18, 2018 Page 2 Given the foregoing, Briteside withdraws its request for a setback exception, since no such exception is necessary. The proposed facility fully complies with the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(6). 2. Access (DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)) Based on a comment from the Board at the hearing, Briteside reexamined title to the property and determined that no recorded access easement existed giving tax lot 3400 the formal right to use Walker Road across tax lot 1500 for access to Alfalfa Market Road. It is Briteside's understanding that tax lots 1500 and 3400 have consistently been in common ownership since the former Richardson Road was vacated as a public street in 1984, making a formal easement unnecessary. However, to clarify tax lot 3400's access rights and to address the possibility that the two parcels could someday have separate owners, on July 16, 2018 Briteside recorded a binding perpetual access and utility easement, a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit L. As shown in the record and discussed at the hearing, the shared access consent agreement required by DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(c) has already been recorded. Additionally, a comment made at the hearing questioned Briteside's commitment to relocate Walker Road so that it is entirely within the easement area on tax lot 1500 and does not at any point cross onto BLM property. Briteside has already completed a survey of the road and reiterates its commitment to complete any necessary road relocation prior to commencing operations, as required by condition of approval O. That condition also specifically requires that County staff make a site visit and confirm the relocation once it is complete. 3. Odor (DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)) Enclosed as Exhibit M is a supplemental report from ColeBreit Engineering regarding odor mitigation. This report, combined with the materials already in the record related to odor mitigation and the additional information below, demonstrate that the proposed facility is designed in a manner that will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(b). The Board expressed concern at the hearing that carbon filtration may not be effective for odor mitigation, and referred to evidence received in other proceedings for other marijuana production applicants that questioned the efficacy of carbon filtration. Any such evidence is of no value here since those proposals concerned different facilities with different designs in different locations, and Briteside objects to any reliance on evidence that is not in the record of this proceeding to evaluate this proposal's compliance with the applicable criteria. Further, ample evidence exists that carbon filtration can provide effective odor mitigation in the correct setting. To that end, enclosed as Exhibit N please find the following: • Excerpts from the land use regulations of Grants Pass and Milwaukie, Oregon specifically requiring carbon filtration for odor control for indoor grows; Deschutes County Board of Commissioners July 18, 2018 Page 3 • Appendix to December 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Santa Barbara, CA, for its Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program which finds that carbon filtration is a common and effective odor mitigation system, particularly for indoor grows; • October 13, 2016 article in High Times magazine explaining that carbon filters are highly effective for indoor cannabis growrooms; and • May 29, 2017 article in North Bay Business Journal (Sonoma County, CA) explaining that carbon filtration can achieve removal of 99.996% of odor -causing particulates from growing cannabis, resulting in detectable odor at an HVAC output point but not at ground level, let alone at neighboring properties several hundred feet away or more. It is also important to recognize that for this specific facility, the proposed buildings are entirely closed-loop as to air filtration — there will be no HVAC economizers cycling air in and out of the building during operations. There will also be air locks to prevent air from escaping when people enter or exit the buildings. The only time air might escape the buildings is during periodic cleanings which will occur about four times per year. Thus, the carbon filtration system is included primarily to improve air quality for people working in the building and to improve growing conditions, although of course they would also reduce any odors detectable from the outside. In this regard, it is important to note that the DCC does not require the complete elimination of odors, but only the control of odor so as to not unreasonably interfere with neighboring properties. Faint odors released a few times a year in an agricultural zone do not rise to the level of unreasonable interference, even if detectable from offsite which is questionable at best. 4. Noise (DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)) The site plan enclosed as Exhibit K shows the proposed location for the concrete sound wall required by condition P of the staff approval. As explained in the April 20, 2018 report from Rob James of ColeBreit Engineering already in the record, no noise mitigation is required to keep noise from the proposed new building below the limits required by DCC 18.116.330(B)(11) at the north and east property lines, and the proposed wall (which is more than 200 feet from any property line) will reduce noise to below the required limits at the south and west property lines. Further, as the ColeBreit letter explains, no mitigation is required in any direction for noise to be generated from the existing building. As per the May 8, 2018 e-mail already in the record, all noise calculations were made based on the assumption that both buildings were operating their noise -producing machinery concurrently. 5. Screening and Fencing (DCC 18.116.330(B)(12)) A comment was made at the hearing that Briteside's security fence could be any color. This is not correct -- the application materials already in the record specifically commit to construction Deschutes County Board of Commissioners July 18, 2018 Page 4 of a seven -foot black chain link security fence topped with barbed wire (see January 26, 20181 letter from Greg Blackmore), and condition of approval R specifically requires that the barbed wire also be black, 6. Water (DCC 18.116.330(B)(13)) Allegations were made at the hearing regarding Briteside's existing well on the property and Briteside's right (or lack thereof) to use groundwater to irrigate marijuana. Briteside has confirmed that the well was dug as a domestic exempt well. While Briteside also anticipated eventually using groundwater from the well for irrigation purposes, no such right presently exists. Rather, Briteside must first apply to the OWRD for a new groundwater irrigation permit. Any permit would be issued subject to mitigation obligations, which Briteside would satisfy with the mitigation credits it has purchased from Legacy Ranches. However, until a permit is issued by OWRD, Briteside does not have the right to pump groundwater from the well for agricultural use. Despite the present lack of available groundwater, Briteside's application still satisfies the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(13). Specifically, Briteside has provided evidence showing a sufficient supply of water year-round from a combination of COID water and water trucked from offsite. For the reasons explained in my letter of July 2, 2018 and at the hearing, the Board has accepted similar evidence to satisfy DCC 18.116.330(B)(13) in the past and should not deviate from past practice in connection with this application. 7. Other Issues The Board inquired about the number of employees that will work on site, in connection with a comment about parking. The proposed facility at full operation will never require more than 10 employees. Sufficient parking already exists on tax lot 3400 (at the east end of Walker Road) for 10 employees and 5 visitors. All employees will be provided with a means of access through the gate at the west end of Walker Road, so there will be no need or incentive for them to park between the gate and Alfalfa Market Road. Visitors will be admitted through the gate in a manner consistent with the security requirements of the OLCC. Several comments were made about the possibility of excess irrigation water from the facility entering the property's septic system. Regulation and enforcement of rules and area plans for agricultural water quality, including cannabis, are the responsibility of the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, not the County.2 Because agricultural water quality is regulated by the state, there are no applicable criteria related to wastewater under DCC 18.116.330, and therefore denial of the application or imposition of a condition of approval based on wastewater issues would not be justified. Nonetheless, Briteside 1 The County's date stamp on this letter erroneously identifies it having been received on January 26, 2017. 2 See, e.g., the "Cannabis and Water Quality" fact sheet from the Oregon Department of Agriculture submitted by Ms. Craghead at the July 11, 2018 hearing. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners July 18, 2018 Page 5 fully intends to comply with all applicable water qualify rules and regulations in connection with this facility. The Board raised a concern about the ongoing agricultural use of the subject property, outside of Briteside's buildings. Briteside intends to keep up the agricultural use of the property, probably for cattle grazing or alfalfa. Further, Briteside has a strong incentive to keep the property in active agricultural use, as failure to do so would jeopardize its right to COID irrigation water, which can be lost if the water is not put to beneficial use. Please include this letter on the record on appeal in this matter. Thank you for your consideration. David J. Petersen DJP/djp Enclosures cc (by e-mail, w/enc): Exhibits: Ms. Amanda Cardenas Mr. Chris Jenkins Mr. Greg Blackmore Mr. Sam DeBaltzo K - Revised Site Plan L - Recorded Access Easement M - Supplemental Odor Mitigation Report N - Supplemental Evidence Re: Odor Mitigation O - 2017 Boundary Line Adjustment Survey P - Survey of Setback Re -Measurement, July 17, 2018 039927/00001/9145645v2 TAB K k47.1,103 M,f x r o a. TAB L RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Tonkon Torp LLP 1600 Pioneer Tower 888 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Attn: David Petersen Deschutes County Official Records Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk 2018-28940 lIIIlIIfl II ilIl1fluhIll IUIUI 1111 llII 1 111 $103.00 01163596201800289400030032 07/16/2018 01:22:48 PM D -EAS Cnt=1 5tn=4 SRB 515.00 811.00 $61.00 810.00 86.00 ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT This ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT dated July (0, 2018 is made by Briteside Oregon LLC, an Oregon limited liability company ("Grantor"), with respect to the following facts: RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of certain real properly in Deschutes County, Oregon with Tax Lot No. 17130000 03400 and more particularly described as follows ("Benefited Property"): The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SW 1 /4SE1/4) of Section 27, Township 17 South, Range 13 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. B. Grantor is also the owner of certain real property in Deschutes County, Oregon with Tax Lot Nos. 171327C0 01400 and 01500 and more particularly described as follows ("Burdened Property"): The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4SW1/4) and the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE l /4S W 1 /4) of Section 27, Township 17 South, Range 13 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. C. A private road known as Walker Road is currently located along the south boundary of the Burdened Property. Walker Road provides access to the Benefited Property from a public street. D. Grantor desires to document the historic and ongoing use of Walker Road by granting an easement for access and utilities for the benefit of the Benefited Property. NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, Grantor hereby grants a perpetual, non-exclusive easement (the "Easement") to the south forty (40) feet of the 1 Burdened Property ("Easement Area") for pedestrian and vehicular access, and for utilities, appurtenant to the Benefited Property, on the terms and conditions of this instrument. 1. Maintenance. The owners of the Burdened Property and the Benefited Property shall each be responsible for 50% of all costs to maintain and repair the Easement Area, except that each owner shall be solely responsible for maintenance and repair of the Easement Area to the extent that such maintenance and repair is required due to damage or misuse of the Easement Area by such owner or persons on the Easement Area with such owner's permission. If one owner pays more than its allocated share of costs hereunder, then the other owner shall reimburse the paying owner for its share within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice therefor. 2. Gate. The owner of the Benefited Property shall have the right to maintain a gate on the Easement Area, provided that the owner of the Burdened Property is provided with a means of access through the gate. 3. Binding Effect. The Easement shall run with the land and the rights and obligations hereunder shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the personal representatives, successors and assigns of Grantor. 4. No Merger. The Easement shall not be ineffective or terminate due to any unity of title with respect to ownership of the Burdened Property and the Benefited Property, whether at the time of execution of this instrument or in the future. 5. Modifications. This instrument may be modified or amended only by a writing signed by the parties in interest. 6. Choice of Law. This instrument shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon, and any dispute arising hereunder shall be resolved in the courts of Deschutes County, Oregon. 7. Attorney Fees. In the event of any action to enforce the terms of this instrument or to declare rights under this instrument, including any action in bankruptcy court, the prevailing party at any such action, on trial or appeal, shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees to be paid by the losing party as fixed by the court. [nothing further on this page] 2 8. No Public Dedication. Nothing contained in this instrument shall be deemed a gift or dedication of any portion of the Burdened Property to the general public or for any public purpose whatsoever, and no government agency shall have any responsibility to maintain or otherwise service the Easement herein described. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this instrument as of the date first written above. BRITESIDElOREGON LLC By: _� lr t 0444,0 Its: ml?I,(6,6ce. c i° STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF ) SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -1-1'N day of July, 2018, by I\ u t+ S as the t -.Q.' ) I I;, Ce t. )1' °ol l3riteside Oregon LLC, an Oregon limited liability company. OFFICIAL STAMP APRIL LEAH KINGSTON NOTARY PUI3LIC•ORGGON COMMISSION NO. 949276 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 14, 2020 4039927/00001/9139517v1 NOLr y Public for My commission expires 1`-; 3 TAB M Britesice Holdings LLC Cannabis Odor and Noise Report SUMMARY This report represents ColeBreit Engineering's analysis of odor and noise mitigation for the cannabis cultivation facility located at 23450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 97701, in Deschutes County. Fig. 1: Photograph of existing building during site visit ColeBreit Engineering performed a site visit on July 18th, 2018, to observe the site and existing modular structure. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St , Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com CANNABIS ODOR ANALYSIS AND CALCULATION Applicable Standard The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) reads: Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(8)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. Odor Mitigation Technology Review Activated Carbon Filtration has been utilized in many industries for many years, and is considered a proven technology. Due its relatively low first cost, it is a common odor control choice for cannabis facilities. See Appendix A for information gathered, including: A. Technology Overview B. Activated Carbon as a recognized odor control method in Cannabis C. Activated Carbon as a recognized odor control method in other industries D. Activated Carbon has lowest first cost. Proposed Odor Mitigation Design Pursuant to DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d)(i), the odor control system will consist primarily of indoor air handlers equipped with carbon filters. Additionally, there will be activated carbon filters attached to inline fans that recirculate air within each grow space. The capacity of this carbon filtration system will be no Tess than the volume of the space divided by three, in accordance with DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d) COLEEIREIT EN 6 1 N■ E R 1 N 6 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541 728 3293 colebreit.com (i). This is equivalent to 20 air changes per hour or one air change every 3 minutes. This exceeds the requirements of many jurisdictions, who require only the exhaust air to be treated. See Appendix 8 for examples of odor control requirements of other jurisdictions. A. Happy Valley, OR — "The building shall be equipped with an activated carbon filtration system for odor control to ensure that air leaving the building through an exhaust vent first passes through an activated carbon filter." B. Estacada, OR — "The building shall be equipped with an activated carbon filtration system for odor control to ensure that air leaving the building through an exhaust vent first passes through an activated carbon filter." C. Kalamazoo, MI — "The building shall be equipped with an activated carbon filtration system for odor control to ensure that air leaving the building through an exhaust vent first passes through an activated carbon filter." D. Spokane, WA — "Odor control measures may include, but are not limited to: use of carbon adsorption media or other controls at all exhaust air discharge points, use of vertical exhaust vents or stacks, and/or completely enclosing the operation and recirculating ventilation air within the enclosure." The final site odor control configuration within the Lectrus pre -fabricated structures was designed by Opticlimate, provided by Briteside Holdings, and installed by Lectrus Corporation. This system was designed to manage any odor not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. This system consist of multiple fans and air handlers within the prefabricated structure. The facility was designed for a concealed production use, not allowing odors to leave the facility through the following methods: Air within the facility will be entirely circulated within each building, with no air coming in or exhausting to outside. This includes a sealed vestibule as the primary entrance, which will reduce the opportunity for air to leave the facilities during entry or exit of staff. Several emergency exits have been included for life safety only, and not operable from outside. Additionally, no economizers will be included in the HVAC system, preventing any operational requirement to exchange outside air. • HVAC system o The facility is conditioned by an engineered series of 4 Ton Split DX systems. o In normal operation the Indoor units will condition the space to 70-74 degrees F and provide Humidity Control at 45 — 55% o The in-line activated carbon canister filters will scrub and remove the odors from the Grow Room atmosphere, for additional odor mitigation and employee comfort. o The Series Pleated filters will remove air -borne particles and mitigants from the environment o The carbon filters will be maintained and replaced every 3-4 months per the manufacturer's suggested service intervals. o The additional air movement by (8) 12" (930CFM/Ea) oscillating wall fans in the Flower and Vegetation Rooms will provide an additional 7,740 CFM per room to ensure the air movements through the Opticlimate filtration systems and overall health of the plants. COLEBREIT ENCIINUERING The existing building is comprised of two grow spaces, one flower/veg space, and ancillary spaces. The to -be -constructed building is comprised of twelve grow spaces, two flower/veg spaces, and ancillary spaces. Both buildings are comprised of a series of modules. Each module either contains a grow space, or a veg/clone space. Odor control in each type of module is as follows: 1. Grow room modules each have a volume of 15,880 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 5,294 CFM. Each grow room will have 3 air handlers that each move 1,471 CFM through carbon filters, plus one Can -Fan 12" (1595 CFM @ 0.5") with an attached Can -Filter 150, 12" flange. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 6,008 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 2. Veg/clone modules each have a volume of 6,815 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 2,272 CFM. These rooms will have 2 air handlers that each move 1,471 CFM through carbon filters. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 2,942 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. lectrus 1,0N 1,30, .1,110 a .... ANv�,=.v� Fig. 2: HVAC Duct Plan COLEBREIT E P4 13 1 H E E R1 N 6 40 cm (16") Activated Carbon Air Filters Can 150 SKU: 358700 Recommended Exhaust CFM: 1260 CFM / 2100m'/h @ 0.1 sec contact time Prefilter: Yes Flange: 10" - 12" - 14" Dimensions: (with pre -fitter) • Outside Diameter: 42 cm / 16.5" • Height: 150 cm / 60" Total Weight: 71 kg / 156 lbs. Carbon Weight: 56 kg / 123 lbs. Carbon Bed Depth: 6.5 cm / 2.56" Max Operating Temp: 80°C / 176°F Pressure drop at max CFM: 180pa / .75"wg Recommended Fan: Filtered Air FAN CFM Watts 16" Max-FanTM 1410 322 14" Max-FanTM 1230 250 12" Max-FanTM 1440 480 12" Can -Fan® HO 888 290 10" Max-FanTM" 907 227 Can 125 SKU: 358705 Recommended Exhaust CFM: 1020 CFM / 1700m3h 0 0.1 sec contact time Prefilter: Yes Flange: 8" - 10" - 12" - 14" Dimensions: (with pre -filter) COLEBREIT ENGINEERING Fig. 3: Can 150 Activated Carbon Filter 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o541 728 3293 colebreit.com PERFORMANCE AT PRESSURE MAX RPM VOLYS WATTS A1MM 8303 2944 2351 115 115 115 120 75 66 53 179 `115 213 115 188 ;115 ' 178 0.65 0.58 0.49 1.5 F Fan 0" .12S" .25" .375" .S" .75" 1.0" 1.25" 1.5" 334 264 201 667 322 253 176 650 309 238 153 630 296 221 131 610 116 255 175 82 225 143 24 187 93 N/A 13 N/A N/A 520 420 150 100 1.87 1.71 1.62 932 899 849 802 749 703 869 770 660 1.9 4.1 1019 985 950 1708 1680 1655 12" Max-FanT SKU: 3 CFM 1 708 at Owa RPM 3374 Max Watts 489 Amps 4. it 120 VAC 60 Hz Sones Diameter 12" Length 12 Vs" Blade Design Mixed Flow Housing Galvanized Inlet/Outlet 12" COLEBREIT ENGIN E ER I N 0 840 803 723 638 340 208 2, 729 687 600 465 270 110 1, i 613 568 477 316 140 N/A 920 815 705 535 155 1.78: 1630 1595 1530 1460 1380 1300 3.34 1630 1560 1490 14C0 1150 240 N/A N/A 1.19 Fig. 4: Max -Fan 12" with performance data 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 co lebreit.com Filter Life and Maintenance From the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (ASHRAE), "the life of activated carbon in odor control systems ranges from a few weeks to a year or more, depending on the concentration of the odorous emission". [2016 ASHRAE Handbook — HVAC Systems and Equipment, see Appendix C] This is in-line with the information we have received from the filter manufacturer, "The life of a filter is determined by the concentration of the contaminant, the relative humidity and the volume of air being cleaned. Unfortunately, there is no indicator light on the filter that tells you when it is ready to be replaced. Typically 12-18 months is expected of the Original Can -Filter, although many of them have lasted much longer." Our recommendation is to change the activated carbon filter in the HVAC system every three months, and the Can -Filters attached to inline fans every six months. Per ASHRAE, depending on the concentration of the contaminants, the filter life could be much shorter or longer than six months, so it is imperative that the facility manager keep a close eye on the "breakdown" of the carbon filter and change more frequently if required. Odor is the evidence of breakdown. Odor Mitigation Conclusion This odor control system will satisfy the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d)(l), and prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. NOISE ANALYSIS AND CALCULATION Applicable. Standard The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a) reads: Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. Noise Calculation and Analysis The HVAC configuration associated with the Lectrus pre -fabricated structures was designed by Opticlimate. The interior air handlers were provided by Briteside Holdings, and installed by Lectrus Corporation. The wall mounted HVAC units were purchased and installed by Lectrus. Final configuration of each unit will include: • The new building will have 22 wall -mounted HVAC units on each side that are rated at 73 dB noise level at the units. There will be a total of 44 — HVAC Units for the entire building. « The existing building will have 2 condensing units on the west side, 6 condensing units on the east side, and 1 Bard unit on the north side. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com Regarding noise control, (DCC18.116.330(B)(11)(a) the following factors assist in mitigating the sustained noise from the mechanical equipment used for HVAC, odor control, fans and similar functions to not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day: 1. DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)(a) Marijuana production facilities shall have a minimum setback of 100 ft from the nearest property line. The new building is a minimum 200' from the south property line, 880' from the north property line, 924' from the east property line, and 200' from the west property line. The existing building is approximately 483' from the south property line, 781' from the north property line, 924' from the east property line, and 105' from the west property line. 2. Security fencing and plantings around the perimeter of the property line will be installed that will further dampen sound transmission. 3. Sound pressure is reduced by 6 dba each time the distance from the noise source is doubled, per the inverse square law. 4. For the new building: On the south and west sides, the outdoor units will need a 6'-7" high concrete sound wall between them and the their respective property lines, with a 200' minimum distance to keep the sound below 30 dBA. On the north and east sides, the outdoor units need no special treatment because they are far enough away from the property line to keep the sound below 30 dBA. 5. For the existing building: No special sound treatment is required to keep sound levels below 30 dBA at any property line. 6. The calculated sound pressure levels from the mechanical equipment at each property line are: West property line: 29.9 dBA South property line: 29.6 dBA North property line: 27.2 dBA East property line: 23.7 dBA Noise Mitigation Conclusion Given the calculations and sound barrier prescribed above, the facility will comply with DCC 18.116.330(8)(11)(4 Sincerely, Rob James, #65108PE. COLEBREIT E N O 1 N EE RING C3 PRQ - em 65108PE zif Ap pr, E y�� Rp L" EXPIRES 6/30/19) Appendix A — Odor Technology Review Project Proposal and Feasibility Study Bi�dor Team 17 Jonathan Gingrich Lauren Grimley Cassandra Miceli Kerala Smith Calvin COLLEGE Senior Design Project: Engineering 339/340 12/11/15 COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St,, Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com Copyright © 2015, Calvin College, Jonathan Gingrich, Lauren Grimley, Cassandra Miceli, Kerala Smith COLEBREIT N GINNER IN (3 Executive Summary The objective of this project is to design an odor -control system for the Wyoming Clean Water Plant (CWP) that will minimize nuisance odors to tolerable levels. The proposed technology is a biofiltration unit that will treat the air emitted from an uncovered splitter box. The splitter box directs the effluent wastewater stream from the primary clarifiers into three aeration basins. The primary cause of nuisance odors at the CWP is hydrogen sulfide, which will be the contaminant targeted for removal by the proposed odor -control system. The CWP is currently using carbon adsorbers and chemical scrubbers for odor -control at various locations throughout the plant. These systems have proven to be challenging with respect to maintenance and cost, causing the CWP to be more inclined towards using biofiltration. In order to properly understand the advantages of biofiltration, the team researched multiple odor -reducing technologies in order to verify that biofiltration was the best option for the CWP. Various design criteria were considered to determine the optimal odor -reducing technology including; installation and operation costs, the time required for maintenance, and the client's preference. The feasibility of biofiltration was confirmed through research, discussions with engineers and specialists, and the success of biofiltration currently installed at plants in the area. The majority of the design for the biofilter will be carried out during the spring of 2016. There are multiple parameters that must be considered during the design process including packing media, temperature, moisture content, oxidation reduction potential, pressure drop, pH, empty bed recovery time, bed area, and medium depth. The biofilter will be modeled as a reactor in order to determine the necessary volume. The media dictates many factors of the design and will be optimized in early spring. The primary selection criteria for the packing media will depend on its upfront cost, the anticipated maintenance and operation, the life of the media, and its environmental impact. This Project Proposal and Feasibility Study details project goals and design alternatives, providing the necessary parameters for design and affirming the feasibility of the project. Page 2 of 84 COLEBREIT ! N 6 1 N!! RING The greatest problem to overcome with this technology is to minimize interaction with potentially hazardous chemicals, while maintaining adequate treatment tithe odor•producingcompounds (21). I J 2 Liquid Redux Liquid redox odor•control units use a chelated metal (usually iron) to remove gaseous hydrogen sulfide and convert it to ckmental sulfur. This treatment source Is best used in digester gas (biogas) applications, where the concentration of hydrogen sulfide is relatively high (>2001bs/day). If the concentration is lower than this, then chemical scrubbers are a better choice since they have a much lower capital cost (7). I.J.3 diufiltration Biofiltration odor -reducing technologies use microbial organisms to consume problematic odor• producing chemical compounds from waste air streams. The biological organisms arc a constituent of the biafllm attached to either organic or inorganic packing material The microbial species used arc engineered for the specific target contaminant(s) found In the waste air stream. As the untreated air is blown through thc media bed, the microorganisms biochemically react with the contaminants and act to break apart the compounds and rekasc stabilized, treated air. 1 3 1 Solid Scavengers Solid scavengers are chemicals or other substances that, when injected Into thc contaminated stream, react with the hydrogen sulfide, removing it from the stream. This technology results in very little corrosion, which means the capital cost is low; however. the chemicals required to scavenge cost quite a bit, making operating costs comparably high (22). fs c: rtxm aeuci;tbor calif, tho € E 5»s ,.icer if thp surface of t,1hs c;arbc i.ta lex Fz.o,z.fc r sats of o c>r•contsW and auci rtsk offM cos -t. cofacis from purr: cart -stet € . s 11,M+ tp' rt Mak is a Wage kin -aft haft r faee Cop car faio i<crpt dry, hist iihp odvaristioso c g achy t wally rfe c �e lsocf gd with carbon vhorpUon aco Aso t Epic ce moa resJ to tt The dtsf«.i.t ateti r. phaocctiuttt:. rstew t d CMIKA1regi€orasrge2ltsa�p,:r'tstaifid and atom chier hifeciusing compounds bye €ciipsr.i i'• isihita€fart l hydrr„c€t sulfide, stripiting tri rhea t.,otrt . ui`;rfk t s =rtcc zr€.a;onit ij to the fa:V n, n ruction. HS)) ¢ 0�(g)-Sa,(s) + 21120 (g) Most of the eater pm-dused from this frrtra:c: is feta ta the air stream as It pates throcIh the system, While the sulfur is adsorbed into the parous surface a the activated carbon. The adsorption continues until the pores can nu lamer take in sulfur, As the ports mach their expaacd►y for sulfur uppta1;,e, the Page 2S of 84 COLEBREIT IN G 1 N■ E R 1 N 6 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com odor compounds begin to break through the media, meaning noticeable odors are released from the unit indicating the meadia needs to be replaced. 4.4 LIQUID -PHASE TREATMENT Liquid -phase technologies involve the treatment of the wastewater stream using chemicals to control or inhibit the formation of odorous compounds. This technology prevents hydrogen sulfide from escaping the liquid phase and entering into the vapor phase, thus eliminating the release of this odorous and corrosive gas pollutant Liquid -phase technologies often involve the use of iron salts or a nitrate solution which is applied to water to dissolve or precipitate sulfide [71 Another way that this method is utilized is through the use of Maxide to treat the hydrogen sulfide in the water as it enters through the pipes of the treatment plant. Dioxide is Ammonium Calcium Nitrate that is used i n many wastewater treatment plants to remove hydrogen sulfide before it reaches the plant [23]. Like solid scavengers, this chemical has a very low capital costs, but a high operations cost, as the chemical must be constantly purchased. 4,5 ODOR -CONTROL DESCISION MATRIX A decision matrix consisting of six criteria was used to decide which odor -control technology to select for this project The criteria includes Installation cost, maintenance and operations cost. popularity of use for odor -control, projected life of the technology, satisfaction from users, and client preference. Each criteria was ranked on a scale of 3 to 10. A high score indicated the importance of the criteria. • Client preference was highly ranked because our clients' needs are of considerable importance. Our client is very interested in biofiltration technology making It a priority for our team to investigate its feasibility. Client preference was ranked 10. • Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs includes the intensity and amount of labor involved in maintaining the system as well as any chemical dosing requirements for the system. O&M was ranked 8. • Capital cost is another important consideration because same odor treatment technology can be ruled out due to high upfront cost, However, capital cost was ranked lower than maintenance and operation costs because It would contribute less to the overall cost during the life of the project, assuming a robust desikm. Capital cost was ranked 7. • User satisfaction is important to consider because it validates the advantages and disadvantages of differentodor•control technologies fram the viewpoint of plant supervisors around the West Michigan area, For some of the treatment technologies, we were unable to gather information on the level of satisfaction with that particular method, so they were given an average score. User satisfaction was ranked 6, • The life of the filter was considered because BiOdor wanted to choose a filter that would effectively serve the client for a long time without the netid to invest in a new system. Lang - lasting systems received higher scores than technology with a shorter operating life. The life of the filter was ranked 5. Page 26 of B4 COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program December 2017 COLEBREIT ENGINEER 1 P4 0 !,1 )11,' Appendix F Cannabis Odor Control Supplemental Odor Control Technology Research Summary Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program Final Environmental Impact Report COLEBREIT ENGINEER IN 6 December 2017 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o;541 728 3293 colebreit.com This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program December 2017 Fin& Environmental Impact Report COLEBREIT ENGINEERING Sunnlemental Odor Control Technoloarr Research Introduction and Overview Effective technologies exist to suppress cannabis malodors. Activated carbon filtration systems have been proven to be effective far indoor cannabis facilities by Denvefs Department of Environmental Health. Vapor -phase systems have been proven to be effective for outdoor odor mitigation by the City of San Diego's Department of Environmental Services, Air Pollution Control District, and Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, as well as greenhouse cultivation by established greenhouse growers in Carpinteria. These technologies could be implemented to effectively reduce cannabis malodors in Santa Barbara County. Additionally, counties have implemented agriculture buffer requirements which serve in part to reduce land use conflicts which arise From odors, Buffer requirements may be a useful strategy for cannabis odor mitigation within the County where neighboring land uses are far apart. Anecdotal evidence suggests that strong cannabis odors can sti1L be detected large distances away from the source. Thus, buffers may be utilized but are Likely to be more effective remote areas of the County where larger buffer distances could be implemented. In more urban areas, odor mitigation technologies would he more appropriate as they would significantly reduce odors over a shorter distance, Activated Carbon Filtration Ventilation 5vstem In this system, odor causing agents are adsorbed and filtered through activated carbon (Pennsylvania State University 2002). Odorous gas from the operation facility is collected via a ventilation system. Blowers then direct the gasses to the distribution system which uniformly delivers the gas to the filter. The filter sorbs and degrades the odors resulting in relatively odor -free exhaust. Supporting fnfororatfon and Current Usage The City of Denver's Department of Environmental Health regulates nuisance odors under Denver Revised Municipal Code, Chapter 4 - Air Pollution Control, Section 4-10. Under this rule, an odor control plan must be submitted 1) describing any odors anticipated to originate from the premises of marijuana growing, processing. and manufacturing facilities and 2) describing control technologies that will be used to prevent odors from leaving the premises (City and County of Denver 2017). The Department of Environmental Health states the, "rule recognizes carbon filtration as the current best control technology for marijuana cultivation and marijuana infused product facilities" (Denver Department of Environmental Health 2017). However, other odor contral technologies are permitted so long as k ran be demonstrated that the technology can effectively mitigate odors. The Director of the Environmental Quality Division of Denver's Department of Environmental Health (Deaver Director) was contacted by phone on November 30, 2017 to discuss how effective carbon filtration is, where it has been app lied, and if it had the potential to impact product qual ity.The Denver Director stated that approximately 60 percent of indoor grow operations in Denver had Installed odor mitigation control prior to the rule, and that 9B percent of those who installed odor mitigation had utilized carbon filtration. in creating the rule, input from indoor grow operators and HVAC control technicians was included to ensure the regulations would reflect technical and economic feasibility. COLEBREIT IINGINIEER I N 0 1030 Bond St , Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com City officials toured the cultivation facilities to determine the effectiveness of the carbon filtration technology. City officials determined that carbon filtration was effective in removing odors. However, the Denver Director stated that carbon filtration is only effective for processing facilities and indoor grows, which was the only type of cultivation facility in Denver at the time of the ruling_ The Denver Director noted that the initial cost of investment far a carbon filtration system is S 10, 000.$15,000 for a medium-sized 10,000 square foot indoor facility with an additional $2,000.$3,000 per year in operation and management costs. The Denver Director also stated that the carbon filtration technology would not impact the quality oldie cannabis. Finally, the Denver Director stated that the quality of cannabis would only be impacted if the HVAC system, not the carbon filtration system, malfunctioned and humidity was not properly controlled_ A grower in Carpinteria was contacted by phone on November 19, 2017. The grower utilizes vapor - phase technology [discussed below) to mitigate cannabis odors from his greenhouse in Carpinteria. He had considered carbon filtration, but stated that he did not use it because he would not have been able to control the internal environment of his greenhouse. The grower noted that carbon filtration would be appropriate for manufacturing, indoor grows, drying rooms, and packaging. A Code Compliance Officer for the Portland Cannabis Program (Portland Officer), stated that there is no specific odor requirement for the City afPartland. if odor complaints are made, then an action plan N required to reduce odors. Portland's Zoning Code Section 33.262.070 simply states that "continuous, frequent, or repetitive odors may not be produced" (City of Portland 2017a). Portland's rode guide for cannabis businesses states that "all exhaust and relief air should be filtered or scrubbed" in order to comply with the zoning code (Portland Bureau of Development Services 2017). The Portl and Officer stated that retailers, wholesalers, and processors use countertop carbon systems in order to mitigate odors, Large ventilation systems with activated carbon filters are used for indoor cultivation. These systems are scaled proportionately to the size of the facility. However, Portland does not currently have any greenhouses and the Portland Officer does riot know of any odor mitigation strategies for greenhouses. Canisters Activated carbon ventilation systems which are supported by activated carbon gas canisters. Supporting lnformatron and Current Usage The Director or the Planning and Development Department of the City/County of Pueblo, Colorado (Pueblo Director), was contacted by phone on December 1, 2017. The Puebla Directar stated that Pueblo only regulates odor for cannabis in industrial zones and that agricultural zanes is exempt from cannabis odor mitigation- Pueblo County Code Title 17 Chapter 17.120.190 requires that all cannabis establishments in the central business zoning district [B-4) have odor mitigation. "The building [term includes buildings, greenhouses, and hoop houses) shall be equipped with a ventilation system with carbon filters sufficient in type and capacity to eliminate marijuana odors emanating from the interior to the exterior discernable by a reasonable person..." (County of Pueblo 2017). The Pueblo Director stated that mitigate odors in greenhauses,some growers are using canisters with activated carbon inside to filter the air. This works similarly to the ventilation activated carbon systems used in indoor grows but can be used for greenhouses. The Pueblo 0 irectorand officials from the Department of Public Health and Environment plan to use an olfactometer to test theeffectiveness of this technology in greenhouses on December Z 1' COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541 728 3293 colebreit.com Vapor -Phase System A manufacturer of this technology as it specifically applies to cannabis was contacted. As described, a deodorizing liquid comprised of essential oils in the citrus and pine family are placed inside a vaporizing mechanism. The vapor travels through a distribution pipe that is suspended high up in the greenhouse and runs along its entire perimeter, The vapor escapes from holes in the distribution pipe and a curtain a vapor along the perimeter is produced. The vapor interacts with and changes the chemistry of cannabis malodors. Because of this chemistry change, the olfactory receptors in the human nose no longer interprets the smell as a malodor, The result is an odor -neutralizing, not an odor -masking technology. The interviewed manufacturer had a third -party consultant perform a public health and safety assessment for their specific cannabis deodorizer. Acute inhalation studies were performed and the product was evaluated against health criteria developed by regulatory agencies such as the USEPA. This particular manufacturer's cannabis deodorizer met all applicable health criteria thresholds (CPF Associates, Inc. 2017). In Pueblo Colorado, some growers are using this technology to mitigate the cannabis odor emitted from greenhouse fan exhaust. The Pueblo Director and officials from the Department of Public Health and Environment plan to use an olfactometer to test the effectiveness of this technology in neutralizing the odors from greenhouse fan exhaust on December 219. The Landfill Operations Program Manager for the City of San Diego's Department of Environmental Services (San Diego Manager), was contacted by phone on November 30, 2017. The San Diego Manager stated that the City of San Diego uses the technology produced by the interviewed manufacturer, but uses a different blend of the same essential oils that Is specific to the malodors resulting from landfills. The San Diego Manger, along with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), performed a pilot study of the technology's effectiveness at the Miramar landfill. The San Diego Manger noted that he, along with the officials from APCD and LEA, could not smell the landfill within 25-30 feet of the device and that the technology was effective in reducing odor in nearby communities. These communities are the nearest sensitive receptor and are located one mile away from the landfill on the other side of a highway. The San Diego Manager stated that the odor mitigation technology is only effective when the device was downwind of the source of the malodors and between the source of the malodor and sensitive receptors. Because wind direction changes during the day, the landfill uses other odor mitigation strategies (e.g„ covers) in addition to the vapor -phase technology. The San Diego Manager mentioned that the technology would be more effective in an enclosed area (e.g., greenhouse), because wind direction would not have to be considered and the vapor would be closer to the odor source, and therefore, would have a greater likelihood of interacting with and neutralizing the malodors. Like the grower in Carpinteria, the San Diego Manager stated that the vapor had a pine scent, but that this scent was only noticeable when too much vapor is being produced. He stated that reducing the amount of vapor leaving the system was effective in reducing the pine scent. A grower in Carpinteria was contacted by phone on November 29, 2017, and stated that the scent of cannabis is no longer noticeable at a distance of 50 feet from the greenhouse when this technology is used. However, the grower stated that the liquid and resulting vapor has a pine/citrus scent, which can be noticeable if too much vapor is being produced. If this occurs, it was stated that the amount of vapor produced by the system can be reduced. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING Buffer Zones Odors dissipate with increasing distance away from the odor source. Therefore, buffer zones are sometimes utilized as a strategy to mitigate odors. Other jurisdictions have implemented buffer zones for cannabis, The State of Washington has buffer requirements that apply to all cannabis businesses and protect sensitive receptors. Such buffer requirements could be applied to protect residential areas in the County of Santa Barbara. The State of Washington requires a 1,000 -foot buffer zone between any type of cannabis business and sensitive uses such as an elementary of secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care center, public park, public transit center, or game arcade (Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board 2017). However, recent legislation allows local governments, like the City of Seattle, to reduce the buffer to 100 feet, except for elementary and secondary schools and public playgrounds (Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board 2017). The City of Seattle has buffer requirements for both retail and non -retail cannabis businesses such as cannabis cultivators. The City of Seattle requires a buffer zone of 1,000 feet from sensitive receptors such as elementary schools, secondary schools, and playgrounds for all cannabis businesses (Seattle City Council 2016). A 500 -foot buffer from child care centers, game arcades, libraries, public parks, public transit centers, or recreation centers or facilities is required for cannabis retail businesses while a 250 -foot buffer is required for non -retail cannabis businesses. Additionally, a 350 -foot buffer must be maintained between cannabis retail businesses. Meanwhile, the City of Portland only requires buffers for cannabis retailers and retail couriers, which does not include cannabis cultivators (City of Portland 2017b). For cannabis retailers, a 1,000 -foot buffer is required from schools, retailers, and dispensaries. For cannabis retail couriers, a 1,000 -foot buffer is required from schools. Like the State of Washington, the State of California also requires buffer zones for both retail and non - retail businesses such as cannabis cultivators. California state law requires cannabis businesses, including cannabis cultivators, to not he located within a 600 -foot radius of any school providing instruction for kindergarten or any grades 1.12, day care center, or youth center. However, an exception may be made if the cannabis businesses has a valid license or permit from a local jurisdiction, is compliant with local ordinances and regulations, and the cannabis business is not located such that people must pass through a business that sells alcohol or tobacco to access the cannabis business. Other cities within California, such as the City of Oakland, have followed the state's direction. In the City of Oakland, cannabis businesses, including cannabis cultivators, are required to have a 600 -foot buffer for schools (City of Oakland 2017). In addition to meeting state requirements, Santa Barbara County may consider proximity to sensitive areas, local climatic conditions, and local topography and barriers when establishing buffers (Pennsylvania State University 2002). Odor impact assessments used to establish robust buffer requirements for odors in general rely on complex mathematical models that involve 1) odor flow from the source 2) odor dilution in the atmosphere 3) peak concentrations that mimic odor detection by the human nose and 4) the probability that the odor exceeds an odor impact threshold at various distances from the odor source (Schauberger, G. and Piringer, M. 2012). However, such information is not available for the County of Santa Barbara. In the absence of such detailed information, established buffer zones within the County of Santa Barbara and County of San Luis Obispo for similar land uses may serve as an example of effective buffer distances. Similarly to cannabis, agricultural crops are grown outdoors and in greenhouses and some have been noted for their disagreeable odor (e.g., garlic, cauliflower, broccoli). In the County of San Luis Obispo, buffer distance for agricultural uses depends on the type of crop and proximity to COLEBREIT 6 N 0 1 N B 6 R 1 N 6 dwellings (County of San Luis Obispo 2010). The buffer distance ranges from 100 feet to 300 feet for greenhouses, 100 feet to 400 feet for irrigated forage and field crops, 100 feet to 500 feet for wholesale nurseries outdoors, and 200 feet to 600 feet for irrigated vegetables and berries. For Santa Barbara County's 2013 Agricultural Buffer Ordinance was established to "minimize potential conflicts between agricultural and adjacent land uses that result from noise, dust, light, and odor incidental to normal agricultural operations as well as potential conflicts originating from residential and other non-agricultural uses" (County of Santa Barbara 2013). In commercial and industrial zones, the minimum buffer width is 100 feet and maximum buffer width is 300 feet. In residential not located on a small lot located within an urban area, the minimum is 200 feet and maximum 300 feet. In residential located on a small lot located within an urban area, the minimum is 100 feet and maximum 200 feet. For sensitive non-agricultural uses, the minimum is 300 feet and maximum 400 feet. These agricultural buffers are not specific to cannabis. Anecdotal evidence suggests that strong cannabis odors can still be detected at least 600 feet away, though it has also been stated that the odor can be noticed from one to two miles away from the source. Thus, buffers may be utilized but are likely to be more effective remote areas of the County where larger buffer distances could be implemented. In more urban areas, odor mitigation technologies may be more appropriate as they would significantly reduce odors over a shorter distance (e.g., 50 feet for vapor -phase technologies). Appendix Citations: City and County of Denver. 2017. Denver Revised Municipal Code, Chapter 4 - Air Pollution Control, Section 4-10. Accessed: 30 November 2017. Retrieved from: https://library.municode.com/co/denver/codes/code ofordinances?nodeld=TITIIREMUCO_C H4AIPOCO_ARTI IAD_S4-10NU City of Oakland. 2017. Map of Permitted Zones for Cannabis Facilities. Accessed: 5 December 2017, Retrieved fro m: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/CityAdministration/OAK064043 City of Portland, 2017a. Zoning Code Section 33.262,070. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/53319 --. 2017b. Delivery of Cannabis in Portland. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.portlandoregon.govioni/article/629355 Claessen, E. L. 2009, University of Gothernburg. Widely Used Fragrance Ingredients In Shampoos And Conditioners Are Frequent Causes Of Eczema. Accessed: 29 November 2017. Retrieved from: http s://www.medicalnewstoday.com/rel eases/144044hp County of Pueblo. 2017. Pueblo County Code Title 17 Chapter 17120.190. Accessed: 4 December 2017. Retrieved from: http://county.pueblo.org/government/county/code/titlel7/chapterl7-120 County of San Luis Obispo. 2010. Agriculture Element, Accessed: Retrieved from: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/getattachm ent/72316c5b-f626-456c-8 cd6- e81 e6d6baf47/Agriculture-El ementaspx County of Santa Barbara, 2013. Agricultural Buffer Ordinance Attachment 2. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: http://longrange.sbcountyplann ing.org/programs/ag_buffer/AgBufferOrdC LU D C%20 Board%2 OReso4851.pdf CPF Associates, Inc. 2017. Screening Health Assessment of Waterless Vapor Phase Odor Control Technology. COLEBREIT E N G 1 N E E R 1 N 0 Denver Department of Environmental Health. 2017. Denver's Odor Control Plan Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed: 30 November 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.d envergov.org/conte nt/dam/denvergov/Portals/771 /documents/EQ/Odor/Odo r%20FAQ%20Final.pdf Gertsch J, Leonti M, & Raduner S. 2008. Beta-caryophyllene is a dietary cannabinooid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 105 (26): 9099-104. doi: 10. 1073/pnas.0803601105. Kent James, A. 1983. Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry. Eighth Editions (ISBN 0 442 20164 8). Kim YW, Kim MJ, Chung BY, Bang du Y, Lim SK, Choi SM, Lim DS, et al. 2013. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of d-Limanene. Accessed: 28 November 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.nchi.nlm.nih.gov/puhmed/23573938 Passosa, G. F., & Fernandesa, E. S. 2007. Anti-inflammatory and anti -allergic properties of the essential oil and active compounds from Cordia verbenacea - Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 110 (2)r 323-333, doi: 10.1016/] jep.2006.09.032. Pennsylvania State University. 2002. Odor Management in Agriculture and Food Processing: A Manual of Practice for Pennsylvania. Accessed: 30 November 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.agricu Iture.pa.gov/Protect/StateConservationCom in ission/OdorM anagementProgr am/Documents/ PS U%200dor%20M anagement%20111 %20Ag%20an d%20 Food%2OProcessing %2obrochure.pdf Portland Bureau of Development Services. 2017. Portland Code Guide for Cannabis Businesses. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: https://www,portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/637883 Schauberger, G. and Piringer, M. 2012. Assessment of Separation Distances to Avoid Odour Annoyance: Interaction Between Odour Impact Criteria and Peak -to -Mean Factors. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 30. DOi: 10,3303/CET1230003 Seattle City Council. 2016. Marijuana Zoning Ordinance. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/va u It/marijuanazoning/documents/default.h tm Vazquez-Araujo, L., Rodriguez -Solana, R., Cortes-Dieguez, S. M., & Dominguez, J. M. 2013. Use of hydrodistillation and headspace solid -phase microextraction to characterize the volatile cmposition of different hop cultivars, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 93 (10): 2568.74. dio:10.1002/jsfa, 6078. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. 2017. Distance from Restricted Entities, Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: https://icb.wa.gov/mjlicense/distance_from_restricted_entities COLEBREIT EN 6 1 N E E PING Pata Acquisition Contact List Netherlands - Office of Medicinal Cannabis UC Vegetable Research & Information Center Penn State University & PA Department of Agriculture City and County of Denver, Department of Environmental Health Denver Department of Environmental Health City of Denver Marijuana Business Daily International Code Council City of Boulder City of Boulder Planning and Development Services City of Denver CBS News Cannabis Practice Group President of Byers Scientific and Manufacturing Company Byers Scientific & Manufacturing Director of Environmental Quality Division, Denver Department of Environmental Health City/County of Pueblo Colorado Environmental Health and Emergency Preparedness Division City/County of Pueblo Planning and Development Department COLEBREIT ENGINEER! N 6 City/County of Pueblo Director of Planning and Development Department City of San Diego Department of Environmental Services City of San Diego Waste Management Company Landfill Operations Program Manager, City of San Diego, Environmental Services Department Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Medical Marijuana Program San Diego Air Pollution Control District City of Portland Cannabis Program City of Boulder Finance Department Licensing Division County of Boulder Marijuana & Liquor Licensing SCS Engineers consulting firm, President of SCS Tracer Environmental and SCS Engineers Puget Sound Air Agency Portland Bureau of Development Services Portland Zoning Code Helpdesk County of Santa Barbara State of Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board City of Portland City of Seattle City of Oakland California Bureau of Cannabis Control COLEBRE1T g NGIN0HR INC; DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Odor in Commercial Scale Compost: Literature Review and Critical Analysis October 17, 2013 Publication no. 13-07-066 Amendment 1 to Contract C1200132 COLEBREIT ■ N 6 1 N■■ R 1 N 0 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com Publication and Contact Information This report is available on the Department of Ecology's website at www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1307066.html For more information contact: Waste 2 Resources P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: 360-407-6900 Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov o Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000 o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300 o Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490 o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 If you need this document in a format for the visually impaired, call the Waste 2 Resources at 360-407-6900. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING Odor in Commercial Scale Compost Literature Review and Critical Analysis By Jingwei Ma Kelpie Wilson Quanbao Zhao Georgine Yorgey Craig Frear Waste 2 Resources Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington COLEBREIT ENGINEERING improve the economic viability of Commercial projects. Mother research could lead to advances in anaerobic digestion technology that could reduce costs, increase performance, or develop value-added coproducts. Using the biogas to produce liquid fuel rather than electricity may be. more economically viable for recycling facilities with large fleets of collection trucks. The fourth major odor -control strategy includes incorporation of carbon -based materials to piles, including activated carbon, high carbon wood ash, and biochar. Among these, activated carbon is generally understood to be technically effective but too expensive for widespread use in compost odor control. High carbon wood ash is a waste product from biomass energy combustion, and is therefore obtainable at relatively low cost. The small amount of published scientific literature on high carbon wood ash indicates mixed results. The product may provide some composting process benefits (e.g. faster processing, higher initial temperatures), and may reduce some odors, but may have no impact on or tnay even increase others. In addition, at higher quantities, the ash may compromise the quality of the compost as a plant growth medium. Meanwhile, research results are beginning to show how biochar can improve compost processes and reduce methane emissions. Biochar can hold air and water at the same time, encouraging aerobic bacteria and reducing the number of anaerobic pockets that produce methane, potentially reducing odors. It also appears to support denitrifying organisms in ways that reduce the production of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas. Blocher can improve compost quality by retaining nitrogen and other nutrients and minerals. It promotes compost maturity and increased humification and may have positive climate impacts as more carbon is converted to stable humic substances. Recent studies suggest that biochau' compost may be high quality, with positive effects on plant growth. There are a number of ways that biochar could be used in current composting systems to reduce the generation and pmpagation of odors. These include adding it to anaerobic collection bins to suppress volatile fatty acid generation, using it in compost receiving areas for immediate odor control, and using it as cover or a bulking agent in windrows. Biochar may also work to extend the life of blot -Liters and control leachate in compost yards. At this time there is very limited economic analysis available for the use of biochar as an odor control strategy. Any economic analysis of using biochar in compost should balance the cost of using biochar against increased returns from the sale of higher quality compost than is obtainable without biochar. It is clear that there are many approaches that could be used by the industry to reduce the odors presently associated with aerobic compost treatment of organics enriched in food scraps and fresh yard clippings. For existing compost facilities, enhanced design criteria, in -time process monitoring with feedback control, and changes to maximum flow rates and processing times are some of the factors that will need to be considered in potential updates to management plans ea more adequately address odor problems in the near-term. In the longer-term, integration of next generation process technologies such as high solids anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis d biochar may be more advantageous due to the greater potential environmental and hutnan health benefits. more effective treatment of highly biodegradable waste streams. potential for renewable energy generation, and even the potential economic viability of organic materials recycling facilities. vii COLEBREIT EN GINEERING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com '.) refereed paper EVALUATING ODOUR CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES USING RELIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Odour control technology at wastewater treatment or water recycling plants NJR Kraakman, J Cesca Abstract Technologies for odour control have been widely reviewed and their optimal range of application and performance has been clearly established, Selection criteria, mainly driven by process economics, are usually based on the air -flow volume, the Inlet concentrations and the required removal efficiency. However, these criteria are shifting, with social and environmental issues becoming as important as process economics. This paper presents results from several studies to quantify sustainability and robustness of odour control technology In the context of odour control at wastewater treatment or water recycling plants. The most commonly used odour abatement techniques (Biofiltration, Biotrickling Filtration, Activated Carbon Adsorption, Chemical Scrubbing, Activated Sludge Diffusion and Blotrickling Filtration coupled with Activated Carbon Adsorption) are evaluated in terms of: Sustainability, with quantification of process economics, environmental performance and social impact using the IChemE Sustainability Metrics; s Sensitivity towards design and operating parameters such as utility prices (energy and labour), Inlet odour concentration (HA) and design safety (EBRT); a Robustness, quantifications of operating reliability, with recommendations to Improve reliability during its lifespan of operations. Introduction In climates such as Australia's, odour problems are exacerbated by high temperatures. The often relatively flat coastal terrain with high population densities and long sewer rising mains leads to a relatively high risk of odour problems, frequently Increased by Intrusion of sulphate -rich seawater. Wastewater treatment plants that COLEBREIT ENGINEERING were built many years ago outside a residential area are naw often located near or among housing developments. Wastewater collection systems have been expanded over the years, resulting In greater odour nuisance as a result of the septic conditions created in these extended sewage collection systems. Municipalities and water corporations are constantly searching for cost-efficient and community -friendly methods of dealing with odours emitted from wastewater collection systems and wastewater treatment plants. Moreover, many wafer efficiency programs are in place to stimulate behavioural change of consumers to use less water. Businesses have also changed the way they use water through Initiatives that have encouraged them to minimise water usage, for example, with decentralised water recycling schemes with residuals being discharged to the sewers. Increased community awareness about water usage, combined with the Introduction of water -saving devices (e.g. waterless urinals), official local water usage restrictions and sewer mining projects, will reduce the overall wastewater flows in existing sewers. From these developments there are obvious benefits to the environment, progress towards sustainability objectives, and the potential to defer capital expenditure on water supply. However, the corresponding impacts of decreased wastewater flows and increasing constituent concentrations are new phenomena for water utilities to manage. Decreasing wastewater flows and increasing constituent concentrations will give opportunities for better energy, nutrient and water recovery, although not without increased risks like corrosion and high-strength odours, More stringent discharge limits for wastewater treatment plants has required mote sophisticated and advanced treatment technologies (e.g. for nutrient removal or disinfection). Thls has resulted In significantly higher energy usage and a larger carbon footprint of treatment plants over the last decades This paper outlines the link between sustainable wastewater treatment plants and the type of odour control used. Odour Treatment Technologies Model malodorous emission For this evaluation, a model for malodorous emission was selected and consisted of the odours composition typically emitted from municipal wastewater treatment systems. This Includes many different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and volatile organic sulphur compounds (VSCs) including hydrogen sulphide (H15) and mercaptans. The assessment was based on a compilation of real data from full-scale facilities. All the systems evaluated were based on designs capable of coping with typical daily and seasonal fluctuations in odour concentration, which often requires the over -sizing of the reactor. Odour abatement technologies The design parameters of all the below technologies are based on a minimal 28% reduction of the H,S concentration (outlet concentration < 0.1 ppmv) and a 95% reduction of the odour concentration (outlet concentration < 1000 OU). Biofliter (B17: An open bed blofilter packed with a mixture of organic and Inorganic material, an average density of 450kg m", and a lifospan of five years was used to model blotliters (for HzS- concentration of 20 ppm,. throe years lifespan and for H,S-concentrstlon 40 ppm. two years flfeepan). The cost for packing materiel was considered $250 per m1. The unit operated at an empty bed residence time (EBRT) of 60s with a packed bed height of 1.5m and a pressure water NOVEMBER 2012 85 C te'r i ;�tl drop Of 750 Pa (eac1udng tae **ewe Ire d rop of an POPOV rel rtdf0 of 70C Pa) A types OM14MN bray 0150 kPa wag considered 00r the Iqud route nstaMed for 040140 irr154 401 04p044 0044* se terMa77MOus wade of 5200 • our ser etas U�4 r,+r�r,'Y•t. A ctoss0 Susie Dlim'on IASD,t• A typic. marveled 4udg..rated tank equpped vete fns'b.roals dditne•s (typically by to 5C kwa of possum drop) located a: a depth of 4.Sm was laud as a model AS elusion tin a04nC14 rep robs, DT7): A nitrite* On east Iwo- WmAohulnq (iter 5th on CDP' er 15s was [ands ed n tea compretve analyse. The frit ever opastn M low pl' {areasif Armor* Ie sodophlc 14 S oxibsing Diatela and the second ass °ge res b a nee nears pt' *rinsing the rest d Ms odorants. '1e system was packed wet mer: plastic 5KWr9 war a Ofeepan of 1C bows. a coat or S/ .r�r3 Drr .1. 31C a t:+.4- yYr,NLre .Y,x;: of 800 ob. The relatively 4.9h cost el the p.ddre medial is based on previous experience n AAI -scan apdk44ons b eawarcee *4 lineal end removal eBc..naoe h94* Jon Mt% I* 04,8 and 4511 ferodou concentrator. Uoud notice were used f0• the roe neat°, of Pre aqueous medium at app 71. r' reactor mn'. The 'envy's! of the sgt.ea.s re[=v-..S hie erpricaey dewed deer ants a rare of 2.5 L q 1',S removed. Dsp0sel cents as a hazardous waw al 5510 row k.. Padre wire bald 40; andel . Cp.nre Scrubber (CU A two-step caustic -hyper bMe 44301414804O1 scrubby packed with 2n of packing robe with a *moan d 10 years and a cost of 81.200 per m k press+re drop of 60C Pa and operated at on AAP' of a sec a sec per supe was used et tie medal scrub** Ile system was wended ala roc rudder rated 184 f'S 01 null4G014,0*t,41g! !SO •f',e in :1e paid nozzles. T1e frit stage s typically operated at 6 s44 range co 8.6-10. wt-o'0aa the *cad Mayo 8 worried at (ower 91.1.5-4.5; Al pat ens above '0, a .9nlhcart abaorptor *4 Cwfan 4101640 (CO) her arbenl err ocwo Iwexh bads to hires 44o01' cawwrprwst,,.hyena at pr levees below 8.5. ** NaC10 may raw*, to fee chlorine Acd weal+ req r chance se'ebbers' media is reseelly performed parade* y Cypcely once a year) to can *aim from Pie redo llew.v*, *me costs ere ref rcuded ir the °carefree analysis, tee..* May aro not 04ned40d s19+Acar: 0 spode cores as a hatwda,m waste of $SOC pet M. peeking were used Mr end4M. M °C,IEL 4En 2.'7 Water COLEBREIT N 6 1 N C■ 11 1 N 0 9:4K, '33 MfrIA vvvrwol Bc 'clky Atelba41 r Activated Carbon Aaisr„ny telr.AC): This h4ttd technology coming of a Motrcdrp 1kra:or (&BRTof 10s: roacenq *Ohl of 2m: not plastic pscOOng pressure dtap 01650 pal backed W by 00,0W** AC Ndaor 3E811r Of 2 WC. 660 PA oat,ct : 4S4.1.1; as a hazardous warte of 5500 per 4 pacer.; ware wed for 14rdali Cans, ausl/Mtab4lty and robustness el odour abatement t.OMobplas is e'1e97 conatnrpttm pm: for On *mulatto wasrolutaese as 0 (^'s 1 AP 9Ps) a Blower 0Po0r.1Cy (0 et see Ooeratro oats as breeder a plc* or 50 15MNY for wenn. 5/ 50444 Ie potlbe eat., 50 50+4 for Hwtdory enee4 eat.. 66/49 Ie hrer*9Nled *dlva110 as'bnn war a Olneny of 0 640411. S0 W- k./ 400 604 t*fe4 *04044. 50 5401. NY 1216 4wtw1 N.0CI Yid a cost tot labs, of 5100.• pat or TIe kmotrn*1t oo4t4 Shawn I4131.6* only Orett necaaneal IQ inrom roes Cit S"C OCk:+.' .'.hdtC(" ' ' at=t ar..t 0: not naiad con for Parsec* e) Pre co'rrssorr9, and &weenie lees sten as the cos% for Me pwpareton, the M exerael'e1 mean (carers. dMwe4 and Ire). SCADAir p-at.or. stems plstl0tns, pnforronce tested, oor:ractor mobilisation. wronger andelerd overfeed Oa dale! dew 1 wale. teadernq and propel ran49ererd. Al these refract oasts aro o0nedsted to we nedrn ly trdepsrdart and prier..49an** of the type of pdaur 1r.r'em system The coerewoa' d e.MonabMy NW tang upon eV" tape butte rens comeet, Oven nesse the asserarr.nl of envnmmoma o*r10nnar.C., social r*terned paper reepordbity and piens scenario, 1w rq :he IChemE Sudan: eXay Meeh A Greerrrona &nudes facto. of 25046 CO, -e4uvde a per GJ of aroyl osrarred OCl ern£. 20001, ' .278 aro 1.06549 C0; .qJNatants tot Ory tors d rousse ant *diem 179001101.4 Ooreu nee ( .**n. ' 012) aid ' .00049 CO, -sola valent. pool :dm asthma 08 Dal 09444014p, 20.2) t4 wad 'M 9.>04.0166 gas (04404 4r4sae an only opendon and eenb 12001011,4 related and 8x[1.04 :he 6110 for new meds armee* s ugedy ,aural and moult* 11rkrW pree.ss n9, CO 4'10 ST1 mope N a 144414.41y 61W 41,101141 610 .r$WAy has 4 fee lie 40Ont, u10 ww.xs4 the telsoo4Yt 0110041410, +.101•,4: 4n7 ,4,:r atc3 cabon as tray ay %key to haw only a rata mry smell contibdeon. 1ero4464l410*111441110097( 1 ca4 be oua'sfs0 by 01ernnnq :Is PO a *Salm 441464 on pro pertorm4na er M6 tarn reo9y 101 WI palettes a 4400. 0440004a %Actuation or operational eesse4. transited cry its koqussbyof ocarnres. and adding all possel4 dieordms according 10 {nominal 12003) n stew it Co. (1k O./10x70 ill where * is the pr0b.b5ty el eco rnrce ora ;xsoroem a^ 1 C t0A e.ryce'. err 4 aimed*. The Ix'o:obe y of occurrence of any dsordel can be expressed as the 461.000140 rumor of o0Cwro1C4e p. ye* (vwn04ryNq 0r as the montage 01 operating stye bar 449 51.41 It 0 144fy 100000' i%64041 The 41401 of the 01111046' (El. Or *roust smelly. 081 be a pressed es 11e bas at the fellow °S Mercy 410). 0e top *4 en total nereval 049 day ' or erg year'), or the impact on :see peope rote new Joe retaliates (0.9 the rove* of oocu'enca. Marro when me comma taros 0f 1144 .114140 of (.'t , 1,T ia?iy`.i1 , The .10101)0110 000) In et* 44941 boot rat proba014y of ocorre4d .rd 114 Neat At 11e'1i-*dartdl.d on a scaled' t to 5 tlazM o'r u:.e+n!ar ' cic ea3Y+• ew.cca 311 o1Mr studies (Cerrito et e1.. 20121. Results and Discussion The mesh -ran cods per .roan of 0r hexed decreased exporent4Ny with myee440 ONip1 anew lo all Me °doe 4o4MMtk 140MOlOsl evalu0f40. *Nah n9lppn% tug rattles of rte **ernes of eree Wow* 1) The odour kestmsnt tadmel091 1 wttn the hgtest nvestr 10*1 a e Bo*kMnq rivet on 010 Die Mateo. and wth the ewe* reestrert aro toe physleaVeriernicd technologies IC•wrncd 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com refereed paper ,ro ImftfMa tan ofodaur control technology saes same o=Bow IWI 1 Figure 1. The Investment costs for Activated Carbon nitration, Chenical Scrubbing, Boflltratim and Bahfdrllrlg Filtration (adapted from tetrads et al., 2011). Scrubbing and Activated Carbon Filtration). The selected configuration in chemical scrubbing (one stage versus two stages) significantly Influences the investment costs, with two-stage chemical scrubbers presenting higher costs than their one -stage counterparts. Nowadays, odour removal at typical design efficiencies of 90-95% demands at least two stages for higher odour loads, whereas one stage is enough when only H,S abatement (95-99 %) Is required. The Investment costs in Activated Sludge Diffusion are not shown, as these would be minimal because all equipment required is already present In the wastewater treatment tine Additional investments for Activated Sludge Diffusion would derive from the Installation of moisture traps and dust and grease aerosol filters, and from the use of corrosion -resistant materials In blowers and air piping. In this context, a survey from 30 WWTPs In the US showed that corrosion concerns were not well founded; but in most cases, corrosion - resistant materials must be installed NPVp[$ perm3h•'J $300 $250 0200 $150 5100 $50 odour management in filters, moisture traps and blowers (Bowker and Burgess, 2001). Despite its limitation in air volume and foul air loading, Activated Sludge Diffusion Is the cheapest of all the technologies selected. During evaluation and selection of odour abatement systems, the Net Present Value (NPV) rather than the Initial Investment cost must be used as economic selection criterion. For a relatively low (7,500m' h') odorous emission containing less than 7 5 ppm, of H,S, Activated Carbon Filtration Is the cheapest technology, but the dearest when the H,S exceeds approximately 20 ppm, (Figure 2a) For higher airflows (75,000m' h'') It reveals that the blotechniques (Biofiltration, Blotdckling Filtration as well as the Hybrid Technology) become increasingly less expensive (NPV20)wlth Increased airflows (Figure 2b). The cost of secondary effluent water is assumed to be less than potable water (as secondary effluent is often used as plant service water), which favours the operational costs and the overall costs (NPV20)of the blotechniques. Nearly complete (49%) H,S degradation In the BTF stage was assumed for the Hybrid Technology. The effect of higher H,S concentrations on Biofiltration is typically a reduction of blollter media lifespan due to an Increased acidification of the BF media, which reduces Its abatement performance. Therefore, a biofilter media lifespan of five years at an average H,S concentration of 5 ppm,, and a media Lifespan of two years at 40 ppm, was used in this evaluation. A single -stage chemical scrubber offers for relatively low concentrations an opportunity to reduce the capital costs of Chemical Scrubbing. A single - stage chemical scrubber could reduce the investment cost by about 40% NPV„ for the treatment of 7,500 m311-1 BF -B-BTF AC -x- a I1-etalni -FS= ail-,tm'l 11.11-• At NPVzo I $ per m3 h.] $300 0250 5200 5150 5100 $50 (dale not shown). This cost saving on Investment will result In an approximately 10% saving from the total costs (NPV.) at an airflow of 7,500m' h-' and an Inlet concentration of 20 ppm, H,S (app. 5% at 75,000 m' h^), and an approximately 15% saving from the total costs (NPV.) at an Inlet concentration of 5 ppm (app. 10% at 75,000 m' h'). To obtain the assumed required reduction of 95% in odour concentration, bath caustic and hypochiorite dosing are still needed, which typically results in slightly higher chemicals consumption In the single - stage scrubber compared 10 a two-stage scrubber. In summary, although capital cost savings for a single -stage scrubber is significant, the overall cost savings (NPV.) are not as large compared to a two-stage scrubber to obtain 95% odour removal, because the total costs of Chemical Scrubbing are mainly determined by the operating costs. The Influence of the utility prices (energy and labour) end design parameters (media life and reactor size) on the NPV. of the five odour abatement technologies are evaluated. The biological technologies (Biofiltration and Biotrickling Filtration) shows the lowest operating costs as illustrated by Estrada eta). (2012). Figure 3a shows that at 50% higher energy prices compared to the currently used 50.15 per kW, Activated Carbon is the least affected, as energy is only a very small part of all operating costs, while Biofiltration Is most affected followed by Chemical Scrubbing and the Hybrid Technology. Figure 3b illustrates that when the labour cost is Increased by 25%, Activated Carbon and BtoflltratIon are most affected due to their relatively low media lifespan and large volumes of NPV�0 for the treatment of 75,000 m3 h'1 BF --B-eTF Ac -x. C5 It -stage) Cs It -,team e1FAC 00 50 0 10 20- 30 90 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 H,5 -concentration [ ppm,I H,5 -concentration [ ppm, 1 Roues 2a and 2b. The 1'bt Present Value (NPV.) evaluated for a 7,500nt' h^ odorous emission (Figure 2a) and evaluated for a 75,000m' hl adores emission (Roue 2b) at afferent H,S ccncerrtraticns. CS Is Chemical Scrubber, ?Cis Activated Carbon 8' Is 8ofllhaticn, SW IsB(drickfingnitration, BtF+ACisBobldclingRltratlonwith Activated Carbon polishing. water NOVEMBER 2012 67 COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com odour management t,wpCae b.*..•wnrt. h••..w•. r.N 9.11.4 refereed paper a.f N• Y.wt. I•..•e.,..w r Ma WN Figures 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d. The Influence of the utility prices and design parameters on the NPV, of five odour abatement technologies evaluated. Results are shown as per cent increase of the NPV,,, when the energy cast Is increased by 50% (a), the labour costs Increased by 25% (h), the Merman of the media decrassed by a factor 2 (c) and the reactor size increased by 50% (d) (Entrada 61 ai, 2012). CS Is Chemical Scrubber, AC Is Activated Carbon, BF Is Btoflitratlan, BTF le Blotrlckting Filtration, BTF+AC le Blotrickling Filtration with Activated Carbon polishing. packing material that require disposal, transport and handling. Nevertheless. the cost of labour for operations is between 5-20% for all odour treatment units and, therefore, Is not a key parameter (Estrada et al., 2012). Figure 30 shows that if media lifespan is reduced. the Activated Carbon Is most affected, as well as Biofiltration, as a significant amount of the operating costs are related to the renewal of the packing material. The NPV of Biotrickling Filtration Is also significantly affected due to the high price of packing material. The relatively expensive packing material for Blotrlckling Filtration Is often provided with a guarantee of a minimum 10 -year lifespan durability. When an extra design safety factor is applied for the reactor size, the Hybrid Technology as well as Chemical Scrubbing are hardly affected (Figure 3d). Chemical Scrubbing Is hardly affected due to the relatively small packing volume and the fact that most operating costs come from chemicals usage. Biofiltration is significantly affected as packing material is a significant operating cost. The reactor size (5881) and the cost of the packing material often constitute the key parameters determining the initial investment cost in Biofiltration. When the land available is limited (Figure 4), or the price offend is relatively high, Biofiltration can come with an additional cost. 100 rb 4020 0 land occupation u en h A< M.. Figure 4. The footprint of odour control technology relative to each other, The O&M related GHG emissions of the different odour control technologies treating 50,000m2 hat 15 ppm, H2S are Illustrated in Figure 5a and are mainly determined by the energy consumed for fans, pumps and Instrumentation. At 15 ppm,, Chemical Scrubbing leads to the highest GHG Table 1.A semi -quantitative robustness evaluation for the different odour abatement taoimotogles evaluated according to the methodology proposed. Technology Disorder / upset Possible cause Failure of supply or recirculation Water supply pumps. Control failures (e.9. disorder valves). Changing conditions inlet alr (temp., rel humidity) Electricity supply Power outage Chemical dosing Pump or control failures. Empty dleonter storage chemical tank Foul air supply Fan failure, blockage extraction Interruption ductwork. Production stops Fluctuation Changing or discontinuous of Inlet production. Diurnal or seasonal concentratlona changes. Production stops Higher inlet Changing conditions or concentrations production. Uneccurata design. Changing or discontinuous production. Diurnal or seasonal changes. Production slops Fluctuation of Inlet temperature Robustness of performance (R ) Chemical Scrubbing Blofltretlon p E p•E p E p•E p E p•E p E p•E 3 -4 -12 4 -3 -12 3 -3 -8 2 -1 -2 2 -3 -6 2 -2 -4 2 -3 -6 2 -2 -4 Olotnckling Filtration Activated Sludge Diffusion 2 -4 -a 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 2 -1 -2 2 -2 -4 2 -2 -4 2 -2 -4 4 -2 -8 4 -2 -8 4 -2 -8 4 -2 -8 1 -1 -1 1 -2 -2 1 -1 -1 1 -3 -3 3 -1 -3 3 -2 -6 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3 -40 -37 -32 -25 Probability (P).. 1. Very unlikely or not possible. 2 Low. 3. Occasional. 4. Probable. 5. Frequent 01 fs certain Ilial it will happen). ENocl (6): 1. Minor. 2. Marginal. 3. Moderate. 4. Cdlilal. 5. Catastrophic 68 NOVEMBER 2012 water COLEBREIT ENGINEERING Activated Carbon p 9 p•E 1 -1 -1 3 -1 -3 2 -1 -2 2 -1 -2 8iouickling Act. Carbon Polishing p E p•E 1 -1 -1 2 -1 -2 4 -1 -4 1 -4 -4 3 -1 -3 -17 -16 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com refereed paper emissions, while Biotdckling Filtration and especially Activated Sludge Diffusion results in significantly lower GHG emissions. The GHG emissions of the Activated Sludge Diffusion are considered nearly zero as aeration for the activated sludge bioreactor will already be present. 1t should be noted that the application of Activated Sludge Diffusion Is restricted, especially by the aeration capacity of the activated sludge bioreactor, which usually means that Activated Sludge Diffusion can only be applied for relatively small odorous airflows. The residual emissions of all the different compounds in the treated odorous air stream are calculated and evaluated for the different technologies elsewhere (Estrada el al., 2011). Activated Carbon and the Hybrid Technology wit provide the lowest Human Health Effect (a measure for the carcinogenic effect) and is illustrated in benzene equivalents (IchemE, 2002). Besides legislations to eliminate odour nuisance from wastewater treatment plants, additional regulations for specific compounds like benzene can ba present, In California, for example, some locations require additional treatment to obtain high removal of specific VOCs like benzene. Table 1 illustrates the robustness of the different technologies for typical operation Recommended control (protection / detection) Duty -standby pumps / back-up water supply / spare Pads / flow and level transmitter alarms Back-up / alarms Duty-standoy pumps / spare parts / flow and level transmitter alarms Duty -standby tens / flow and pressure transmitter alarms Combine foul air from sources / continuous pollutant dotocbon Committer alarms Redundancy in design or lay -out Combine foul air from sources/ temperature transmitter alarms COLEBREIT E N G 1 N Ig E R i N G OBM•reteled6HG emhstons pant ,rotate/ Lem odour management q rmi,r+ont Figures 5a and 55. The atmospheric impact burdens according to IChemE austainebllity metrics with (Figure 5a) the O&M related greenhouse gas emissions (In tons per year of CO, equivalents) and (Figure 5b) the Human Health Burden (In tons of benzene equivalents per year) for treating 50,000m' 5' containing 15 ppm, of H=S. GAC Is granular activated carbon. at a wastewater treatment or wastewater recycling plant, which include process fluctuation and operational upsets. The robustness evaluation conducted showed that Activated Carbon Filtration and the Hybrid Technology are the most robust technologies, while biotechnologies exhibited robustness comparable to that of chemical scrubbers. The robustness of Biofiltration, Biotrickling Filtration and Chemical Scrubbing is about half the robustness of Activated Carbon and the Hybrid Technology. Activated Carbon Filtration together with the Hybrid Technology is the most robust technology. For Activated Carbon Filtration this assessment of robustness is correct only for the restricted situations where the Inlet H2S concentrations are relatively tow (likely less than 10-15 ppm). For higher H,S concentrations the breakthrough of the activated carbon will be much faster, leading to possibly unexpected odour emissions that might require a major action of replacement of the activated carbon to restore performance. When, In an economical and risk evaluation, the robustness is counted as relevant as the overall costs (NPV,,), the Hybrid Technology would move up next to Blotrickling Filtration and Activated Sludge Diffusion as the most preferred technologies. Odour abatement In development The use of an existing resource at a wastewater treatment plant (activated sludge) can In certain situations offer the possibility to reduce or eliminate the high investment costs associated with conventional odour control measures to reduce operating costs and provide high performance odour control for wastewater treatment plants. The use of activated sludge (often considered as a waste product) should be considered at WWTPs as part of the several options for odour control management (Kiesewetter of al., 2012). Recycling Activated Sludge to the Inlet Works for odour control is less widely applied and studied, but the capital and operating expenditure for activated sludge recycle and the operational complexity are considered extremely low as compared to implementation and operation of conventional odour control technologies. Activated sludge recycle (ASR) has been practiced less commonly than activated sludge diffusion, however, anecdotal evidence shows the technology has the potential to substantially reduce odour emissions from inlet works and primary treatment areas al wastewater treatment plants with minor capital and operational expense. Important design parameters and design criteria ere: • Use a volumetric recycle rate around 10-15% for approximately 50% reduction in dissolved sulphide; • Aerobic activated sludge will show enhanced performance as compared to anaerobic, or de -aerated activated sludge; • Plants operating with Iron dosing (for phosphate removal) will achieve improved sulphide reduction due to chemical sulphide precipitation. Pilot trials are suggested prior to implementing ASR to determine more accurate and site-specific removal efficiencies and to refine recycle rates. Further research Is suggested for activated sludge recycle to improve the knowledge base and to further explore the possibilities of this technology. A photocatalytic system, using ultraviolet and activated carbon technology, has proven to be very effective. It has a relatively small footprint and Is especially good applicable at discontinuous odour emissions with relatively low HrS concentrations as it can be easily turned on and off without any effect on its performance. The downside Is that operational costs (replacement UV -light bulbs and activated carbon), which are typically higher than biological water NOVEMBER 2012 89 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541 728 3293 colehreit.com odour management systems, are unclear and difficult to determine up front. At low odour concentrations the technology seems to be cost effective, but further long- term operation is needed to confirm its operational costs, especially at higher odour loadings. Conclusions From a process economics viewpoint, odour treatment technologies with the highest investments presented the lowest operating costs, which means that the Net Present Value (NPV,o) should be used as a selection criterion rather than Investment costs. Economies of scale are more Important in biotachnlques (Biofiltration and Biotrickiing Filtration) as al increased airflows their overall costs (NPV,) reduction is more extreme when compared to the physical/chemical technologies (Chemical Scrubbing and Activated Carbon Filtration). The phys(cal/chemical technologies (Chemical Scrubbing and Activated Carbon Filtration) were highly Impacted Irl n,;lYnl?Inil; Wai1> by ilio 0011 l3nti,111Vi1 of H1S, which constitutes an important drawback for these technologies. Also, the GHG emissions are relatively high and directly Impacted by the odour load. Due to their low Net Present Value (NPVsaj and their low environmental Impact, Activated Sludge Diffusion and Biotrlckling Filtration are M general the most cost effective and are likely to. be the technologies considered first for odour treatment in a WWTP. However, the odorous air -flow volume treated with Activated Sludge Diffusion is usually restricted by the aeration tank capacity. When, In an economical and risk evaluation, the Rellabllity is counted to be relevant as the overall costs (NPV„), Hybrid Technology (Biotrickling Filtration with Activated Carbon polishing would be comparable 10 Biotrickling Filtration end Activated Sludge Diffusion as the most preferred technologies, when all technologies are designed to have a 99% reduction of HA and a 95% reduction of the Odour Concentration. The Authors Bert Kraekman (email: Bart, Kraekmanech2m.com.au) is Principal Technologist with CH2M HILL, Chatawood, Sydney. Bart has 20 years' experience in various design and project management roles. He has been responsible for numerous waste gas and odour control projects involving Identification of emission causes, ventilation, corrosion control, as well as investigation, evaluation (cost, risk and life cycle), development and implementation of various waste gas and odour emission control technologies. He Is co-author on several scientific papers and book chapters on volatile gas emission control related topics and currently has an affiliation with the Technical University Delft In the Netherlands. Josef Comma (email: Josef. CescaOch2m.com.au) is Regional Technology Lead at CH2M HILL, Chetswood, Sydney. Josef has over 25 years' experience in wastewater collection and treatment, biosol(ds management and odour control He has been responsible for the design and imrsnwal flnany Wmlel and V4;1010W110P treatment plant facilities as well as many odour control projects to identify odour generation causes, assessment of odour Impacts, and Investigations. evaluation and Implementation of various emission control technologies. He Is a Senior Process Mechanical Engineer with extensive experience In the domestic and Industrial water and wastewater refereed paper industry and has been responsible for the design, commissioning and performance testing of various processes including turnkey designs Josef teaches various odour related courses to Industry and academics including the IWES Odour and Corrosion Course. References Agenlschap (2012): Translation o1 I59 Monitoring Protocol 12-014. www agentschapnt rrihlles/ delauh/filesbbiyagen/12-014 %20Process %20 embsions%20non%20fossil pol Bowker RPO 8 Burgess JE (20011: Activated sludge diffusion as an odour control technique In Odours In Wastewater Treatment: Measurement. Modelling and ConlrOl; Stuelr, R, Frenchen F8, Ede; IWA Publishing 1,1,04 Jr., Wan:n,:,n N Ai. IAvno.: Rs Oueaebrero A (20111: A Comparative Analysis of Odour Treatment Technobgiee m Wastewater Treatment Plante Environmental Selene 8 Technology, 45, pp 1100-1106. Estrada JM. Kraakman NJR, Mucor R, Lebmo R (2012): A sensitivity analysis of process design parameters. commodity prices and robustness on IM economics of odour abatement technologies, Bloteconology advances, dui:10 10168 biotechadv.2012.02.010 IChemE (2002}: The Suetalneba:ly Winos: The Institution al Chemical Engineer": Rugby, UX. Klesewener J, Kreakman NJR, Cesca J. Trainor S 8 Witherspoon J (2012): Expanding the Use of Activated Sludge at Biological Waste Wafer Teatment Plants for Odor Control Proceedings of the Odors and Air Pollutants Conference 2012 April 15-18 Loulsevlae. Kentucky, US. 10raekman NJR (2003): Robustness of a Full -Scale Biologics/ System Treating Industrial CS2 Emissions. Environmental Progress, 22, pp 79-85 Owen WF (1982): Energy In Wastewater Treatment Englewood' Clion, NJ. Prentice -Hall Leaders in Water Control Solutions 70 NOVEMBER 2012 water COLEBREIT ENGINEER ING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com Appendix B.— Odor Control Requirements of Other Jurisdictions A. Happy Valley (excerpted) B. Estacada (excerpted) C. Kalamazoo (excerpted) D. Spokane COLEBREIT ENGINEERING •.1,�tluA,Tltt�S 16,49.030 Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Manjuana production, processing, and wholesaling shall be subject to the following standards and erten: A. indoor Production, Processing and Wholesaling. In the EC and IC Districts, manjuana production, processing, and wholesaling shall be located entirely within one or more completely enclosed buildings. B. Maximum Building Floor Space. The following standards apply in the EC and IC Districts: 1. A maxtmum of twenty thousand (20.000) square feet of building floor space may be used for all activities associated with marijuana production, processing, and wholesaling on the premises; and 2. If only a portion of a building is authorized for use in marijuana production, pracessmg and wholesaling a partition wall at least seven feet in height, or height as required by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code shah separate the marijuana production, processing and wholesaling spate from the remainder of the building. A partition wall may include a door, capable of being closed, for ingress and egress between the marijuana production, incensing and wholesaling space and the remainder orate building. C. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: I. Light cost by light fixtures inside any building used for marijuana production or marijuana processing shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the following day; 2. Outdoor marijuana grow lights shalt not be illuminated from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 am. the following day; and 3. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights (e.g., security lights, dnvcway tights) shall not be directed skyward and shall be directed within the boundaries of the subject property. O. Odor. As used in Section 16.49.00, building mews the building, portion thereof, used for marijuana production or processing and shall he ruulatcd as folttxWs; 1. The building shall be equipped with an activated =bon filtration ystem for odor control ter ensnare that air teaming the building through an exhaust vent first pusses through an !activated carbon filter; 2. The filtration system &hull consist of one or more fans and activated carbon filters. At a minimum, the fan(s) shall be :sized for cubic, feet per animate (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width nndtipticd by height) divided by three. The filtsr{s) shall be rated for the applicable CFM; 3. The filtration systcsm shall be maintained in working order and shall lx in use. The filters shall be changed a sniraintim ofonre every three hundred sixty-five {365) days; 4, Nei ativc air pressure shall be maintained inside the building; 5, I.Ax rs and windows shall remain cloud, except for the minhnuxn length of time needed to allow pe,eptc eo ingresx or ureas the building; 0. The filtration system shall be deigned by s mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon, The engiacca shall stamp the design and certify that it ooneplics with this subsection (1)); and 7. An alternative odor control system is permitted if the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer Licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the Oki -native sywttcan will control odor as well OR better than than activated carbon filtration system otherwise required. E. Noise. 7ltc applicant shall submit a noise study by an acoustic engineer licensed in the Stale of Oregon, The study shall demonstrate that generators as well as mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilating, air conditioning, or odor control will not produce sound that, when measured at any lot line of the subject property, exceeds fifty (50) d13(A). F. Security Cameras. If used, secunty cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and may be directed to public rights -of --way as applicable, except as required to comply with licensing requirements ol'thc COLEBREIT EN GINEE R 1 NG 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541 728 3293 colebreit.com OLCC or registration requirements of the ORA. G. Water. The applicant shall submit: 1. A water right permit or certificate number for the proposed marijuana production or processing; 2. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or 3. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used for marijuana production or processing is from a source that does not require a water right. H. Waste Management. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA registrant. I. Processing Limitations. The use of butane or other explosive materials in the processing of marijuana is prohibited. (Ord. 503 § 1, 2016) View the mobile version, COLEBREIT F N O I N C■ R I N 0 ORDINANCE SERIES OF 2016, NO. 005 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS IN THE ZONING CODE RELATING TO MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, MARIJUANA WHOLESALING, AND MARIJUNA RETAILING. Section 1. Section 16,08.010 Definitions is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.08.010 Definitions. As used in this title, the singular includes the plural and the masculine the feminine and neuter; the word "may" is discretionary; the word "shall" is mandatory. The following words and phrases shall mean as follows: "Access" means the way or means by which pedestrians and/or vehicles enter and leave property. "Accessory stricture or use" means a structure or use incidental and subordinate to the main use of a property and located on the same lot as the main use. "Adult foster care" means any family home or facility in which twenty-four (24) hour care is provided for five or fewer adults who are not related to the provider by blood or marriage. "Airport" means a tract of land or water that is maintained for the landing and take -off of aircraft and for receiving and discharging passengers and cargo and the repair, storage, supplying of aircraft and providing supplies to aircraft. "Alley" means a public way, for the purpose of providing a secondary means of access to property. "Apartment" means any building, or portion thereof, which is designated, built, rented, leased, let or hued out to be occupied, or which is occupied as the home or residence of four or more families living independently of each other and doing their own cooking in the building, Automobile, 1. "Repair garage" is a use providing for the major repair and maintenance of motor vehicles and includes major mechanical and body work, straightening of body parts, painting, welding or storage of motor vehicles not in operating condition. 2. "Service station" means any premise used for any or all of the following: supplying gasoline, oil, accessories and services, and auto repair work. excluding body and fender repair, at retail direct to the customer and where inoperative car storage is limited to thirty (30) days. 3. "Wrecking yard" means any property where two or more vehicles not in running condition, or the parts thereof, are stored in the open and are not being restored to operation; or any land, building or structure used for the wrecking or storing of such motor vehicles or the parts thereof. 4. "Auto detail shop" includes any or all of the following uses: (a) shampoo and cleaning of carpet and seats; (b) complete interior cleaning; (c) clean and vacuum trunks; (d) cleaning and treatment of vinyl and rubber surfaces; (e) machine buffing and waxing of COLEBREIT ENG !NEER 1 N 0 13. llours A marijuana retailer may only sell to consumers between the hours of I0:00om and 8:OOpm and may only permit consumers to be present in the building space occupied by the marijuana retailer between the hours of 10:00am and a:00pin. C. Odor. As used m subsection 16.65.020 (C), building means the building, or portion thereof, used for marijuana retailing, 1. The building shall be equipped with an activated carbon filtration system for odor control to ensure that air leaving the building through an exhaust vent first passes through an activated carbon filter. 2. The filtration system shall consist of one or more fats and activated carbon filters. At a minimum, the fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the applicable CFM. 3. The filtration system shall be maintained in good working order and shall be in use. The filters shall be changed a minimum of once every 365 days. 4. Negative air pressure shall be maintained inside rhe building. 5. Doors and windows shall remain closed, except for the minimum length of time needed to allow people to ingress or egress the building. 6. The filtration system shall be designed by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon. The engineer shall stamp the design and certify that it complies with subsection 16.65.020 (C). 7. An alternative odor control system is permitted if the applicant submits o report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the alternative system will control odor as well or better than the activated carbon filtration system otherwise required. D. Window Service. The use shall not have a walk-up window ar drive-thru window service. E. Lim. Entrances and off-street parking areas shall be well lit and not visually obscured from public view. F. Waste Mana einent. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OI IA registrant G. Minors. No one under the age of 21 shall be permitted to be present in the building space occupied by the marijuana retailer, except as allowed by state law. II. Co -Location of Related Activities and Uses. Marijuana and tobacco products shall not be smoked, ingested, ar otherwise consumed in the building space occupied by the marijuana retailer. In addition, marijuana retailing shall not be co -located on the sante lot of record or within the same building with any marijuana social club or marijuana smoking club. I. Minimum Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: 1. If the use is licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) pursuant to Section 22, Chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, it shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from any other marijuana retailer so licensed by the OLCC. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St , Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541 728 3293 colebreit.com CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO ORDINANCE NO. 595 ADOPTED: February 20, 2018 ENEECTIVE: February 28, 2018 Zoning Ordinance Teat Amendments An ordinance to implement the provisions of PA 281 of 2016, and Ordinance No. 591 "Medical Marijuana Facilities Ordinance" in the Township Zoning Ordinance by defining medical marijuana facilities; designating zoning districts in which such facilities shall be allowed as special land uses; by providing regulations related thereto; by eliminating obsolete definitions in the zoning ordinance; to provide for severability, to repeal all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith and to provide an effective date. THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO KALAMAZOO COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDAINS: SECTION I AMENDMENTS TO TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE The following amendments, insertions and deletions are hereby made to the Charter Township of Kalamazoo Zoning Ordinance: COLEBREIT E N G 1 N E E R t N G regardless of nonconformity to the building housing the medical marijuana facility. iv. Measurement of Municipal Boundary Buffers. A building where a marijuana grower facility is located shall not be located within 250 feet of the Township border with another municipality except where any adjoining property in the adjacent community is zoned for any similar use. vi. See Buffer Diagram B-1 of this Ordinance. b. Building Floor Space. The following standards apply: If only a portion of a building is authorized for use in marijuana grow operation, a partition wall of a height as required by the applicable building codes, shall separate the marijuana grow operation space from the remainder of the building. A partition wall must include a door, capable of being closed and locked, for ingress and egress between the marijuana production space and the remainder of the building. c. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: Light cast by light fixtures inside any building used for marijuana production or marijuana processing shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the following day. d. Odor. It is the intent of this ordinance that no odor shall be detectable outside of any building where marijuana is present. As used in this subsection, building means the building, or portion thereof, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. i. The building shall be equipped with an activated carbon filtration system for odor control to ensure that air leaving the building through an exhaust vent first passes through an activated carbon filter. ii. The filtration system shall consist of one or more fans and activated carbon filters. At a minimum, the fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the applicable CFM. iii. The filtration system shall be maintained in working order and shall be In use. The filters shall be changed a minimum of once every six (6) months or as manufacturer recommended. iv. Negative air pressure shall be maintained inside the building. v. Doors and windows shall remain closed, except for the minimum length of time needed to allow people to ingress or egress the building. vi. An alternative odor control system is permitted if the special use permit applicant submits and the municipality accepts a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the state of Michigan demonstrating that the alternative system will control odor as well or better than the activated carbon COLEBREIT E N 6 1 N E E R 1 H 6 Lrl .a 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com filtration system otherwise required. The municipality may hire an outside expert at the applicant's expense, to review the alternative system design and advise as to its comparability and whether in the opinion of the expert it should be accepted. e. Security Cameras. if used, security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and may not be directed to public rights-of-way as applicable, except as required to comply with licensing requirements of the state of Michigan. f. Residency. As a specific condition of this special use, an owner of the subject property, or the licensee associated with the subject property shall either provide a caretaker residence as defined herein in a separate building with 24-hour staffing or provide a 24-hour, seven - days -a -week staffed security presence on the property. A direct phone number shall be supplied to local law enforcement. g. Waste Management Plan The applicant shall establish a waste management plan at a minimum in compliance with state regulations. 3. Marijuana Processors shall be subject to the following standards: a. Facilities. A marijuana processing facility shall be located entirely within a fully enclosed, secure, indoor facility with rigid walls, a roof, and doors and shall comply with all sections of Article 9.00 Performance Standards. b. Buffer. A marijuana processor facility shall not be located within a 1,000 -foot radius of any property occupied by: (1) A public or private elementary, or secondary school; (2) A public library ii. A marijuana processor facility shall not be located within a 500 -foot radius of any property occupied by: (1) A public playground; (2) A public park; (3) Public housing; (4) A religious institution; (5) A public or private, vocational school, college, junior college, or university; (6) A state licensed child care center or preschool; (7) Any public swimming pool, public or private youth activity facility, public outdoor recreation area(except trails), or public recreation facility; (8) A youth center; (9) A juvenile or adult half -way house; CD (10) Correctional facility or rehab center; (11) Property zoned R-1, R-2, RM -1, RM -2, RM -3, or MHP. a COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 co lehreit.com REGULATORY GUIDANCE FOR LICENSED 1-502 OPERATIONS IN SPOKANE COUNTY This guidance explains rules and regulations to protect community, environmental, and worker safety and health, and introduces the agencies responsible for their enforcement. This booklet offers only guidance. Because the cannabis industry is so new, we know that regulations and guidance wit change. We are learning together. Recreational marijuana businesses licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board under Ch. 314-55 WAC may be subject to additional state, regional and local regulations and permits beyond those in this document. It is the responsibility of every business to check for the most up-to-date requirements, and to know and comply with those regulations so that our communities, environment, and workers remain safe and healthy. This document is for informational purposes only. It is intended to help inspectors and marijuana producers, processors and retailers be -aware of local, state and/or regional requirements they may need to meet. For more technical information, contact local, state, and regional regulatory authorities. STOP - Does your locality have a moratorium or ban on cannabis -related businesses? if unsure, check this web -link: htto://www,mrsc.orgjsubiects/legal/S02/recmarifuena.asoxlltable. If not, continue. SECTION 1- SAFETY FIRST WORKER SAFETY • Inspectors - Consider the hazards present in any business you inspect, then plan and prepare for your safety accordingly. Ask the operator of the business you intend to inspect about the safety concerns present on site and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements for its employees before you enter the business. Follow the business's PPE requirements and safety rules as well as the requirements of your own health and safety program. • Businesses - The following Worker Safety section pertains to employers, whether In business or a government agency. Contact the Consultation program of the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries with questions. httttp_//www.lni.walov1Safety/Consultationjdefault.asp?F=HDI WORKER SAFETY L&I has several branches, one of which is the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). In addition to DOSH, L&I also administers several other programs that cover: • Workplace Rights requirements related to issues such as minimum wage, breaks and more. • Claims and Insurance for the workers' compensation system. It is a requirement for employers to obtain industrial insurance for their employees through L&i. • Inspections and permits (i.e. electrical, pressure vessels), when a particular city does not offer that service. • The focus in this document is worker safety (DOSH). Version 1,0 Regulatory Guidance for1-502 Businesses, January 12, 2015 Special thanks to the Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC) In King County Washington for research and development of the guidance document. The document has been edited to reflect requirements In Spokane County. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 co le breit.com All employers must start by developing an "Accident Prevention Plan" (i.e., a safety manual) that is specific to their business. From there, any regulations that apply to the hazards of the job must be followed. These regulations have additional requirements such as training employees and also making sure that steps are taken to prevent any injury or illness to them during their day-to-day activities (e.g., using ventilation to prevent flammable atmospheres and providing personal protective equipment for use during pesticide handling). Most employers must at least follow a basic set of rules known as the Core Rules (WAC 296-800), and then any other regulations under WAC 296 that apply based on the specific hazards at the business. However, businesses that grow marijuana are mainly subject to the Safety Standards for Agriculture (WAC 296-307). • Some potential hazards to look for during growing: o Pesticide, heat exposure o Molds, other chemical and fertilizer use o Air enrichment contaminants such as carbon dioxide and others like carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides if using burners/combustion o Electrical hazards from improper wiring o Sprains and strains (esp. hand intensive work during trimming) o Slips, trips, falls (from presence of water or poor housekeeping) o Exposure to machine hazards (cuts, nips, pinches, crushes depending on equipment) o Material handling equipment (e.g. forklifts) • Some potential hazards to look for during processing: o Extraction • Use of flammable compressed gases and solvents- • Air contaminant hazards (e.g. carbon dioxide if dry ice used to extract) • Chemical and extract products handling • Machine hazards associated with extraction and waste processing equipment o Kitchen • Heat exposure, fire, burns and scalds (from work with ovens/stoves) • Slips, trips, and falls (from presence of water or poor housekeeping) • Cuts from knives, machine hazards (e.g., cuts and amputations) from food processing equipment • Chemical use (e.g,, sanitizers like bleach) • Sprains and strains o Packaging and Labeling • Sprains and strains (from material handling, repetitive work) • Machine hazards • Material handling equipment (e.g., pallet jacks) • Some potential hazards to look for at retail stores: o Sprains and strains (from material handling) o Slips, trips and falls (from poor housekeeping) Version 1M Regulatory Guidance for 1-502 Businesses, January 12, 2015 Special thanks to the Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC) in King County Washington for research and development of the guidance document, The document has been edited to reflect requirements In Spokane County. COLEBREIT E NGINEERING DOSH has some overlap with areas covered by WSDA and the local Fire Marshal. The role that DOSH plays in regard to pesticides is enforcement of worker protection standards (found in WAC 296-307). DOSH has fire safety codes that it enforces, but there are many more that the local Fire Marshal enforces and DOSH will also give deference to the decisions of the local Fire Marshal if a question arises where both agencies have similar codes that address the same hazard. See the Resource Section under L&I DOSH for contacts and help. SECTION 2 - BEFORE BUSINESS OPERATIONS BEGIN LAND USE AND ZONING In addition to location restrictions in place by WSLCB, check with the local authority on land use and zoning rules in the community. Access which governmental agency, Fire Department or Fire District provides these services for your property: www puilcircRionalspokane,Grg, Know and comply with building codes, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and energy codes. Separate permits and inspections are required for new construction and building alterations/remodeling. BUSINESS LICENSE Check with the municipality or, if not established In a municipality, contact the county to secure a business license. The State Business License must be registered with the municipality in which the operation resides. Each city or municipality has its own process to secure a business license. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)— SEPA Review Check with the local permitting agency (e.g., building department) first to learn whether or not to do this, A pre - approval meeting with the local permitting agency will help determine whether to complete an environmental checklist (SEPA). If a SEPA review is required, complete a checklist describing the project's environmental impacts. (This can include processes such as: wastewater and solid waste disposal, use of CO2 in growing, or odor controls.) See the Resource Section under SEPA Review for contacts and help. LOCAL CODES: BUILDING, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND FIRE All municipalities and counties create appropriate zoning for specific activities. Check with the municipality or county to secure a map of the zones which allow the scope of business and ensure the business will be allowed at the location it seeks to occupy. A local business license, in addition to the state business license, may be required in addition to SEPA, Change of Use Permit, and/or additional design review. Obtain all required permits. Not unlike any other new business venture, permits will be required for installations, replacement, movement, additions, modifications, removal of building improvements, remodeling of tenant spaces, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and new signs at a minimum. Expect routine visits from local, county and state agencies for inspections during business hours. Here are some examples, not all inclusive of what may be needed: 0 Building: Moving or adding walls, installing counters and display cases that are attached to the floor or ceiling, storage racks, and attached safes. ❑ Plumbing; New or altered indoor plumbing. Changing or adding outdoor drainage or wastewater lines. 0 Electrical: Data cabling for cash register point of sale systems, computers and security/camera systems, new or changed electrical wiring, receptacles, switches, and fixtures. Version 1.0 Regulatory Guidance for 1-502 Businesses, January 12, 2015 Special thanks to the Interagency Resource For Achieving Cooperation (IRACI in King County Washington for research and development of the guidance document. The document has been edited to reflect requirements in Spokane County. COLEBREIT E N G I N EE R I N G 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit com • Mechanical: New, upgraded or moved ventilation, heating, air conditioning systems; odor mitigation, gas appliance, gas hot water tank installation or removal. • Sign: New primary business sign or replacing face of existing sign, temporary sign permits, I i.e., for grand opening, new business announcement, balloons, banners, etc.) • Fire: Sprinklers (new and maintenance), gases, oxygen tanks, propane storage and installations, etc, FIRE CODE Build a good relationship with the local fire department or fire district. Each fire district has the ability to modify the fire code to cover its specific circumstances and all decisions are the responsibility of the local fire code official. Building and fire code considerations include: • Fire suppression and the ability to provide firefighting water to your property • Fire sprinkler/alarm systems within your building • Occupancy/use designation • Rating of construction materials used in buildings • Exits and entries • Equipment listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (e.g., UL -listed, NFPA Standards) • Hazardous materials and storage on site and within the building: o Combustible materials and quantities o Com pressed gases o Flammable liquids and gases o Storage and use of hazardous materials • Maximum allowable quantities of hazardous materials AIR QUALITY AND ODOR CONTROLS Because the production and processing of marijuana can impact a Ir quality and produce odorous emissions, producers and processors in Spokane County are subject to Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency requirements_ • Odor - All businesses must comply with Spokane Clean Alr's odor regulation. Odor control measures may include, but are not limited to: use of carbon adsorption media or other controls at all exhaust air discharge points, use of vertical exhaust vents or stacks, a nd/or completely enclosing the operation and recirculating ventilation air within the enclosure. • Permit- Depending on the type of equipment used (i.e. boilers, generators, solvent extraction), the business may be required to get an air quality permit called a Notice of Construction (NOC). • Registration - Please note that registration is not currently required, unless an air quality permit is needed, but th is may change. • Asbestos - Regardless of the age of the structure, prior to any type of repair, renovation and/or demolition, an asbestos survey by AHERA building inspector is required. If asbestos is found, you must obtain an asbestos permit called and Notice of Intent and all asbestos containing materials must be abated by a certified abatement contractor. Marijuana is not considered an agricultural product (RCW 82.04.100) and the waste associated with the plant cannot be burned. There are no agricultural burn permits available for marijuana. If the business is located outside of Spokane County, then you must follow WA State Department of Ecology's requirements. Contact the appropriate agency for more information. See the Resource Section. Nasion 1,0 appiitery Guldenn rw 130? ausin•sus, ;arum 12, 5055 �+ryidl;,m to the Melare'etyn.V>•dle r1 AI h1 W,c (4v1•41. or 1 .AC)ill r ..tv Wowirldt01,to rete. h WIGwrril pm.rtt; ,,1 Ihe r.,dente docurrerc.medocumcrtnssbeesecitedto'eIlect,c0ulronerrsh5 0loreZounty. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:547 728 3293 co lebreit.com SECTION 3 - DURING OPERATIONS SANITARY INSPECTIONS FOR EDIBLES MANUFACTURING The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) will perform sanitary inspections at WSLCB-licensed marijuana operations for the WSLCB under contract with goals to ensure product safety and maintain state -level oversight of food safety concerns for both processors and retailers. The end product must be shelf -stable (requiring no temperature control). WSDA licensed -food processors may not manufacture marijuana -infused edibles. See the Resource Section under WSDA for contacts and help. (Refer to Sanitary Sewer Discharge if manufacturing edibles with any kind of fats, oils, or grease.) WEIGHTS AND MEASURES All scales used for commercial transactions (including marijuana transactions) must meet strict accuracy and technical standards. Package labeling must properly disclose the package contents by weight or volume. See the Resource Section under WSDA for contacts and help. PESTICIDE AND FERTILIZER USE Pesticides registered by WSDA (RCW 15.58) are allowed for use for the production of marijuana, if they meet WSDA criteria. Refer to WSLCB rules (WAC 314-55-084). Two types of pesticides are allowed for use on marijuana: ❑ Section 3 (Tolerance Exempt) with Broad Use Sites (Primarily Biopesticides and Pesticides Used in Organic Food Production). ❑ Section 25b Minimum Risk Pesticides (Labeled for Use on Food Crops). WSDA Criteria for Pesticides Used for the Production of Marijuana in Washington: httCl gr.wa.goy/FP/Pubs)docs]398-WSDACriteriarorPesticideUseOnMarjuanaQdf A searchable list of pesticides that meet WSDA criteria is available from Washington State University Pesticide Information Center Online (PICOL) database: http://cru66.cake.wsu.edu/Labe(Tolerance_html Recordkeeping for Pesticide Applications: Refer to WSLCB Rules (WAC 314-55-087) and WSDA Rules (WAC 16-228- 1320). Recordkeeping for Fertilizer Applications: Refer to WSLCB Rules (WAC 314-55-087). Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Restricted Entry Interval (REI) for Pesticides: Refer to pesticide label. PPE for Fertilizers: Refer to fertilizer safety data sheet (SDS). Please note that Washington State Department of Labor & Industries Division of Occupational Safety & Health (DOSH) oversees worker safety. Its regulations for pesticide use are located in the Safety Standards for Agriculture (WAC 296-307). See the Resource Section under WSDA for contacts and help. SECTION 4 - AT THE END OF ANY PROCESS SANITARY SEWER WASTEWATER Wastewater that results from any growing, manufacturing, cleaning, or rinsing processes is considered an Industrial or commercial waste (Industrial wastewater) and is subject to local, state and federal regulations. Sources of industrial and commercial process wastewater associated with 1-502 operations include extraction, hydroponic Version 1.0 Regulatory Guidance for 1-502 ausinesses, January 12, 2015 Special thanks to the Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC) In King County Washington for research and development of the guidance document. The document has been edited to reflect requirements In Spokane County. COLEBREIT ENGINEER IN G 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 co lebreit.corn irrigation and the manufacture of edible products. Prior to discharging Industrial wastewater to any municipal sewer system, all dischargers must contact their local sewer agency to obtain written approval. If wastewater contains solvents, chemicals, or other non-domestic type contaminants, an application for a wastewater discharge permit may be required from the municipality or Ecology. When a municipal sanitary sewer collection system is not available, 1-502 process wastewater may be collected and stored in an on-site tank and later: ❑ Transported to a municipal wastewater treatment system, The municipality or Ecology must give written approval of this option. ❑ Used as spray irrigation or land application. A discharge permit application must be submitted to Ecology and Ecology must give written approval of this option. If you are producing edible products a Fats, Oils or Grease (FOG) removal device (grease trap/grease interceptor) must be installed and maintained to prevent fats from clogging the sewer or causing sewage to back-up. Your local permit agency will provide plumbing permits for you to install the removal device and will conduct regular inspections to ensure the device is working and maintained properly. See the Resource Section under Sanitary Sewer Discharges for contacts and help. SEPTIC SYSTEM WASTEWATER Septic systems, also known as Individual On-site Sewage Systems, are designed to treat only domestic wastewater, general from kitchens, baths, and laundries. Industrial or commercial process wastewater must not be discharged to any to septic system according to state regulations, Industrial and commercial process wastewater discharges to a domestic septic system can cause existing systems to fail and not provide treatment. Stand-alone on-site septic systems are not designed to treat commercial or industrial process wastewater. See the Resource Section under Sanitary Sewer Discharges for contacts and help. SPRAY IRRIGATION OR LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER The 1.502 proponent considering spray irrigation or land application of their industrial or commercial process wastewater must submit a permit application or checklist to Ecology to determine if a discharge permit is required. Ecology may issue a discharge permit depending on the information presented in the application or checklist. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT "Only rain down the drain". https://fortress.wa.eov/ecv/aublications/publications/1004017.odf O Discharge of any material other than uncontaminated storm water down the storm drain system or to the ground, is prohibited. This includes hydroponic water and any other wastewater. The bottom line is: only rain down the drain. ❑ Outside storage of liquids must be In a covered area or storage cabinet with secondary containment sufficient to contain 10% of the total volume of all containers or 110% of the volume of the largest container, whichever is greater. O Outdoor storage of incoming growing media (soil) must be stored in such a way that rain does not come into contact with it nor can it be carried away by the wind. Weighted tarps and berms are acceptable. O All solid and compostable waste (including regular garbage and spent material awaiting removal for composting) must be in covered, leak -proof containers. Version 1.0 Regulatory Guldance for 6502 Businesses, January 12, 2015 Special thanks to the Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC) in King County Washington for research and development of the guidance document. The document has been edited to reflect requirements In Spokane County. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING O Storm drain catch basins need to be inspected and cleaned out when the sediment reaches within 18" of the outlet. (Check with your local agency for the local requirement.) 0 Producers and processors must develop a site-specific Spill Prevention Pian to address spills both Inside and outside of buildings and have appropriate spill materials on hand. O If floor drains are proposed in work areas, they must be approved by the municipality for connection to sanitary sewer. O Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) system for outdoor production. See the Resource Section under Storm Water Management for contacts and help. SOLID WASTE Businesses will generate wastes that can be classified as solid waste, compostable organic waste, or dangerous waste. It is the responsibility of the business owner / operator to evaluate their waste to determine its classification and proper management. If it designates as a dangerous waste, specific requirements for storage and disposal will apply (WAC 173-303). Waste management is regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), via WAC 173-350 (Solid Waste Handling Standards) and WAC 173-303 (Dangerous Waste Regulations), Your county's Local Health Jurisdiction enforces our state's Solid Waste Handling Standards; contact their Environmental Health Division's solid waste section for assistance regarding solid waste and composting options. Ecology offers tools and guidance for assisting businesses with dangerous waste questions. Resources are listed in the Resource Section of this document. Plant Waste: Compostable Waste and Non-Compostable Waste All parts of the cannabis plants (including root balls, planting medium, stems, branches, leaves, trim, etc.) that contain less than 10% THC may be disposed pursuant to WAC 314-55-097, and after providing the WSLCB traceability system 72 -hour notice, as either compostable waste or non-compostable waste: 1) Compostable Waste: Dispose by grinding the cannabis plant waste 50/50 by volume with non -cannabis compostable waste, e.g., food waste or yard waste and then take it to a solid waste facility for composting or other type of organics recycling (e.g. anaerobic digestion), or compost or recycle it on-site in accordance with local solid waste regulations. OR 2) Compostable Waste or Non-compostable Waste: Dispose by grinding the cannabis plant waste 50/50 by volume with non -cannabis waste and dispose of it at a permitted solid waste facility (e.g. transfer station, incinerator, landfill). If cannabis waste (I.e., cannabis extraction pulp) was processed using steam, ice water or carbon dioxide, it may be managed as compostable organic waste or as solid waste. See the sections above for guidance. If the cannabis waste contains greater than 10% THC, it must be managed as a dangerous waste that is toxic. See the Resource Section under Compostable and Solid Waste for contacts and help. Dangerous Waste Businesses that generate dangerous waste are called dangerous waste generators. The generator is responsible for designating waste and keeping accurate records (of designation and proper disposal.) Generator status (small, Version 1.0 Regulatory Guidance tori -502 Businesses, January 12, 2015 Special thanks to the Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC) in King County Washington for research and development of the guidance document. The document has been edited to reflect requirements in Spokane County. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING medium, or large) is determined by the amount of dangerous wastes generated by a business. Medium and Large Quantity Generators are required to submit annual reports to Ecology. The business's generator status also dictates the length of time and amount of waste that can be stored onsite before proper disposal. The less dangerous waste generated, the fewer regulatory requirements that apply. It is advisable to follow pollution prevention and safer alternative guidance to minimize dangerous waste. Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Medium Quantity Generator (MQG) Large Quantity Generator (LQG) Generates <220 lbs/mo DW or <2,2 lbs/mo of Acute Hazardous Waste (AHW) or WT01, Extremely Hazaroudous Waste (EHW) Generates 220-2,200 lbs/mo DW Generates> 2,200 lbs/mo DW or 2.2 lbs/mo of AHW or WTO1 (EHW) Dangerous waste may include: 0 Waste cannabis extraction pulp (flash point <140°F through exposure to solvents and/or > 10% THC content) ❑ Waste pesticides, fertilizers, solvents ❑ Some lighting (mercury and lead content) ❑ Laboratory wastes ❑ Waste cannabis flowers, trim and solid plant materials used to create an extract (> 10% THC content) Cannabis waste must be designated, managed and disposed as dangerous waste if: ❑ It was exposed to solvents that are considered ignitable (e.g., butane, isobutane, heptane, alcohol) and if the resulting waste has a flash point less than 140°F, it must be managed as a dangerous waste that is ignitable (a federal waste code of D001 would apply.) Or, ❑ It contains > 10% THC content, it must be managed as a dangerous waste that is toxic (a WA State Only waste code of WTO2 would apply.) Or, ❑ Both the above conditions are met, it must be managed as dangerous waste that is both ignitable and toxic, See the Resource Section under Dangerous Waste for contacts and help. RESOURCE SECTION RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCES IN WASHINGTON STATE An interactive map: ht t www.mrsc.or sub'ects le el 502.(recmarijuena.aspx#table L&I DOSH ❑ DOSH free assistance with workplace safety. bitp:f/www,lni:ws.poo/Safety/Corisulttationfdefauit.asp?I HDI ❑ L&I Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH): http://www.lni.wa.xov/safety/ ❑ L&I DOSH Core Rules (WAC 296-800): http://www.lni.wa.gov/safety/rules/ch_apter/800/default.p. ❑ All L&I Safety Rules (WAC 296): http://wpw.lni,v,,a.wy/Saretyfliultdlind/WACNtimber/default.asp ❑ L&I Safety Standards for Agriculture (WAC 296-307): http://www.lni.wa.gov/safety/rules/e.hapte1301 ❑ L&I Boiler and Pressure Vessel: http://www.lni.we.pov/iradesLicensing/Boilers/Permitinspect/Detault.asp Version 1.0 Regulatory Guidance for 1.502 Businesses, January 12, 2015 Special thanks to the Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC) in King County Washington for research and development of the guidance document. The document has been edited to reflect requirements in Spokane County. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, 08 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit corn WASHINGTON STATE ❑ Washington State Liquor Control Board: www.liq.wa.gov ❑ Washington State Department of Ecology: www.ecy.wov/topics/mauana.html ❑ Office of Regulatory Innovation & Assistance (ORIA) www.oria.wa.gov (use search term "marijuana") SEPA REVIEW ❑ http://www.ecy,w4,govfprograrns/se<a/sepafe.review.hUrul ❑ Contact SEPAHELP(oecy.wa.Rov or (360)407-6922. CITIES AND COUNTY PERMITTING AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS ❑ City of Airway Heights, www.cawh.org ❑ City of Cheney, www.citvofchenev.org ❑ City of Liberty Lake, www.libertylakewa.gov ❑ City of Millwood, www.citvofmillwood.org ❑ City of Spokane: www.sookanecitv.org ❑ City of Spokane Valley: www.spokanevalley.org ❑ Spokane County, www.spokanecounty.org AIR QUALITY ❑ Spokane Regional Clean Alr Agency - Spokane County www.SpokaneCleanAir.ora/, (509)477-4727 ❑ Ecology - www ery.wa.Rovfproj ramsjurjai(harpe html WSDA ❑ WSDA's portal webpage for marijuana and hemp issues, including edibles, weights and measures, and pesticides: htcp:/fags_wa,gpvfAginWa/1SQ2/r(efat>It aspx. ❑ WSDA Criteria for use on marijuana: http;[/agr vvi3.ggv/FP/Pubs/docs/398- WSDAtCrririteri ForpesticidellseQuMarijuana_ydf ❑ Washington State University Pesticide Information Center Online (PICOL) database: htUr//cru66.Calle,wsu.edu/tabelTolerance.html ❑ WSDA registered fertilizers: httpl/agr.wa.pov/Pesti ertikertilizers/Product0atabase.aspx ❑ WSDA information on chemigation and fertigation, pesticide storage, and waste pesticide disposal: httpjfgr.wa,e,o?>v estferlpestic:ides[pesticideuseonmarijuana.aspx SANITARY SEWER DISCHARGES ❑ Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Guidance: hap:j/www.ecy.wa.gov/grogram siwttfwyhome.htnii (509)329-3524 ❑ City of Spokane: Int p jbeta.spokanecity.orgjpublicworks/wastewate/business/, (509)625-4600 0 Spokane County: http:iwww.sookanecounty.orf;/tut lities[IPNjcontent_aspx?c-300(; (509)477-3604 O Spokane Regional Health District: http://www.srhd.org STORMWATER MANAGEMENT O Only Rain Down the Drain Best Practices: tp. 7ifortr4sg wa eov ecy/py hcotloqsij?t,bhEat ins/10040 7.pdf SOLID WASTE AND DANGEROUS WASTE ❑ City of Spokane Solid Waste Department, www.sookanecitvsolidwaste.com O City of Spokane Valley Solid Waste, www.vokatievalImpidsolidwaste Version 1,0 Regulatory Guidance for 1-502 Businesses, January 12, 2015 Special thanks to the Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC) In King County Washington for research and development of the guidance document The document has been edited to reflect requirements In Spokane County. COLEBREIT B P4 GIFFIBE R I N 0 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com O Spokane County Regional Solid Waste System, www.spokanecountysolidwaste.org 0 Spokane Regional Health District, www.srhd.org 0 Washington State Department of Ecology: www.ecy.wagov/topics/rnariivana.html O Dangerous Waste (DW) Regulations (WAC 173-303): httjjj/www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/reg comp guide/7'73-303.hTTM 0 OW Questions for Marijuana Processing in the Eastern Region (all counties east of the Columbia River): (509) 329- 3558 0 Ecology's Quick Reference Guide for dangerous waste generators: https://fortress.wa.govJecv/publicalinns/publications/981252hwtrdJdf 0 Ecology: General Requirements for Managing Dangerous Waste htt.PJ/www.eciIr:PEEPRIVIIWIliMAPAgeW.4..htm I 0 Dangerous waste storage best management practices: https //fortress.wa.govJecv/publications/publicatIonsJ0804015.pdf O Dangerous Waste Regulations Self Audit Checklist: haps://fortress.wa. ov ecyjoublications/publications/ecv070381.pdf Version 1.0 Regulatory Guidance for 1.502 Businesses, January 12, 2015 Special thanks to the Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC) in King County Washington for research and development of the guidance document. The document has been edited to reflect requirements in Spokane County. COLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com Appendix C ASHRAE Statement Regarding Carbon Filter Life A. From 2016 ASHRAE Handbook — HVAC Systems and Equipment COLEBREIT ENGINEERING TAB N City of Grants Pass Municipal Code Title 11 MARIJUANA BUSINESSES Chapters: 11.01.100 Marijuana Defined 11.01.200 Marijuana and Marijuana Businesses Defined 11.01.300 Access Restrictions 11.01.400 Hours of Operation 11.01.500 Buffers 11.01.600 Colocation 11.01.700 Odor Control 11.01.800 Drive -Up 11.01.900 Compliance with Laws Title 11 New Chapter 10/6/17 Title 11: Marijuana Businesses Page 1 of 3 City of Grants Pass Municipal Code 11.01.100 Marijuana Defined "Marijuana" means the plant Cannabis family Cannabaceae, any part of the plant Cannabis family Cannabaceae and the seeds of the plant Cannabis family Cannabaceae. 11.01.200 Marijuana and Marijuana Businesses Defined "Marijuana Business" shall mean any of the following: 1. Marijuana processing sites; or 2. Medical marijuana dispensaries; or 3. Marijuana producers; or 4. Marijuana processors; or 5. Marijuana wholesalers; or 6. Marijuana retailers. 11.01.300 Access Restrictions Persons under 21 years of age may not enter a Marijuana Business, unless state law otherwise expressly permits entry. 11.01.400 Hours of Operation Medical marijuana dispensaries and marijuana retailers shall not be permitted to operate outside the hours of 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. 11.01.500 Buffers (Ord. 17-5724 9/6/17) Marijuana Businesses may not be located within 200 feet of any R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 or other residential zone (measured in a straight line from the closest edge of the property line on which the Marijuana Business is located to the closest edge of property in the residential zone). Marijuana Businesses may not be located within 1000 feet from all of the following facilities (measured in a straight line from the closest property line on which the Adult Business is located to the closest edge of the property line on which the facility is located): 1. A "school, public" as defined by Article 30, with an average weekday attendance (during any continuous 3 month period during the preceding 12 months) of not less than 50 children who are under 18 years of age; a. Exception: Marijuana producers or processors may not be located within 500 feet from a school located in an Industrial Zone. 2. A public library; or Title 11 New Chapter 10/6/17 Title 11: Marijuana Businesses Page 2 of City of Grants Pass Municipal Code 3. A public park which covers an area of not Tess than 20,000 square feet and has facilities such as a playground, baseball field, football field, soccer field, tennis court, basketball court, or volleyball court; or 4. A commercial or residential recreational facility, as defined in Article 30, which serves children under 18 years of age, and has a total area for indoor and outdoor recreation (not including parking) of not less than 20,000 square feet; or 5. A daycare facility licensed by the State of Oregon, unless such daycare facility is established after the Marijuana Business has received all regulatory licensing and approvals, in which case the Marijuana Business shall be permitted to remain in that location, unless the State of Oregon revokes the license for the Marijuana Business. Additionally, Marijuana retailers may not be located within 1,000 feet of other Marijuana retailers. 11.01.600 Colocation No more than one Marijuana Business may be located on the same property, parcel, address, or tax lot. 11.01.700 Odor Control Medical marijuana dispensaries and marijuana retailers shall be equipped with an air filtration and ventilation system which, to the greatest extent feasible, contains all marijuana -related odors within the facility rather than allowing the odors to escape to the exterior. A building used for marijuana production, processing, wholesaling, or storage shall be equipped with a carbon filtration system for odor control. The odor control system shall consist of one or more fans and filters. The fan(s) shall be sized for T cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the square footage of the building floor space (i.e. one CFM per square foot of building floor space). An alternative odor control system shall be permitted if the applicant submits a report by an Oregon registered professional mechanical engineer that demonstrates that the alternative system will control odor as well or better than the system otherwise required. 11.01.800 Drive -Up No drive -up or drive through service shall be permitted for Marijuana Businesses. 11.01.900 Compliance with Laws Marijuana Businesses shall comply with all state and local laws, including, but not limited to, holding the applicable license in good standing with the Oregon Health Authority or the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Title 11 New Chapter 10/6/17 Title 11: Marijuana Businesses Page 3 of 3 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6101 SE Johnson Creek Blvd Milwaukie OR 97206 PHONE: 503-786-7630 FAX: 503-774-8236 E-MAIL: planning rnawaukieoregoe.gov Marijuana Regulations In 2015, the City of Milwaukie adopted local regulations to allow for medical marijuana dispensaries. Following the passage of State of Oregon Measure 91, the City added regulations to address recreational marijuana businesses in Milwaukie. These were adopted on September 20, 2016, by Ordinance 2134. The purpose of this handout is to provide business information, key definitions, and identify the zoning districts where marijuana business activities are permitted. Applicable zoning code references for additional standards are included. Please refer to the Milwaukie Municipal Code (MMC) Title 19 zoning code for detailed information, found here: www.qcode.us/codes/milwaukie/. License and Taxes Recreational marijuana facilities require licensing through the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). Please visit the State of Oregon's Recreational Marijuana website for more information: www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana. The state licensing process requires that the City sign -off on a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) to ensure that the business is allowed in the proposed location. The City requires payment of $25 to process the LUCS form. The City of Milwaukie requires that all business operating in the City register annually with the City Finance Department. A fee is required for registration and it depends on the number of employees who are based in the City. For more information go to: www.milwaukieoregon.gov/finance/business-registration-1. The City of Milwaukie imposes a 3% tax upon the retail sale of recreational marijuana items by marijuana retailers by Ordinance 2127. See Chapter 5.65 Recreational Marijuana Tax in the MMC, here: www.ocode.us/codes/milwaukie/. Environmental Impacts Some marijuana businesses can have a significant impact on the natural environment. Depending on the type of business you are starting, there may be additional wastewater or storm water pre-treatment improvements required for your business. Please check with the City Engineering Department to determine if additional improvements are necessary at 503.786.7606 or engineeringAmilwaukieoregon.gov. Zoning Title 19 of the MMC contains the zoning requirements for the City. These include definitions, specific development standards for marijuana businesses, and the list of zoning districts where specific uses are permitted. Some of the requirements related to marijuana businesses are provided below. Development Standards for Marijuana Businesses: MMC 19.509.1 Standards for Marijuana Retailers A. A marijuana retailer shall not be located within 1,000 ft of the real property comprising a public or private elementary, secondary, or career school attended primarily by minors. In addition, a marijuana retailer shall not be located within 1,000 ft of the Wichita and Hector Campbell school sites nor within 1,000 ft of another marijuana retailer. B. A marijuana retailer shall not be collocated with another business except when collocated with another state -licensed marijuana business as permitted by state laws. C. Display of marijuana or marijuana products that are visible from outside of the retail facility is prohibited. Marijuana Regulatlons.docX—Rev.4/2017 Marijuana Regulations Page 2 of 2 D. The hours of operation for a marijuana retailer shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. E. No drive-through sales are permitted. MMC 19.509.2 Security and Odor Control for Certain Marijuana Businesses A. The operation shall be entirely indoors, within a fully -enclosed, secure building meeting building codes adopted by the City of Milwaukie and all other applicable state regulations. B. Odor shall be managed through the installation of activated carbon filters on exhaust outlets to the building exterior from any rooms used for production, processing, testing, research, and warehousing. Negative air pressure shall be maintained within the rooms. Exhaust outlets shall be a minimum of 25 ft from a property line. C. An alternative odor control system may be approved by the building official based on a report by a mechanical engineer licensed by the State of Oregon, demonstrating that the alternative system will control odor equally or better than the required activated carbon filtration system. MMC 19.509.3 Marijuana Production Limitations The following limitations apply to marijuana production in the M -Manufacturing and M -TSA Tacoma Station Area Manufacturing zones: A. Within a building utilized for production, multiple producers may operate but no single producer shall operate in a manner where the mature marijuana plant grow canopy associated with that producer's operation exceeds 10,000 sq ft. B. A marijuana producer shall not be located in a building that is within 1,500 ft of another building that Is utilized for marijuana production. Zoning Districts Where Marijuana Businesses Are Permitted: Zoning Districts Retail' Testing & Research Facilitiesz Processingz Facllities2 Warehousing Production S Growing2 Mixed Use Zones GMU and NMU P P C N N DMU C P P N N Commercial Zones C -L P P N N N C -G P P N N N C -CS P P N N N Manufacturing/Industrial B -I N P C C C M P3 P L L P M -TSA L4 P P P C P — Permitted Outr9ht, L — Limited; C Conditional Use; N — Not Permitted/Prohibited 1 Marijuana retailers are subject to the standards of Subsection 19.509.1. 2 Marijuana testing, research, processing, warehousing, and production are subject to the security and odor control standards of Subsection 19.509.2. 3 Marijuana retailers are permitted in the M zone when any combination of manufacturing, office, and/or commercial uses are allowed when at least 25% of the total project involves an industrial use under Subsection 19.509,2.8 and subject to special development under Subsection 19.509.1. Marijuana retailers are subject to the standards of Subsection 19.312.6.8. Appendix - F Cannabis Odor Control Supplemental Odor Control Technology Research Summary Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program Final Environmental Impact Report December 2017 Supplemental Odor Control Technology Research Introduction and Overview Effective technologies exist to suppress cannabis malodors. Activated carbon filtration systems have been proven to be effective for indoor cannabis facilities by Denver's Department of Environmental Health. Vapor -phase systems have been proven to be effective for outdoor odor mitigation by the City of San Diego's Department of Environmental Services, Air Pollution Control District, and Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, as well as greenhouse cultivation by established greenhouse growers in Carpinteria. These technologies could be implemented to effectively reduce cannabis malodors in Santa Barbara County. Additionally, counties have implemented agriculture buffer requirements which serve in part to reduce land use conflicts which arise from odors. Buffer requirements may be a useful strategy for cannabis odor mitigation within the County where neighboring land uses are far apart. Anecdotal evidence suggests that strong cannabis odors can still be detected large distances away from the source. Thus, buffers may be utilized but are likely to be more effective remote areas of the County where larger buffer distances could be implemented. In more urban areas, odor mitigation technologies would be more appropriate as they would significantly reduce odors over a shorter distance. ®- Activated Carbon Filtration Ventilation System In this system, odor causing agents are adsorbed and filtered through activated carbon (Pennsylvania State University 2002). Odorous gas from the operation facility is collected via a ventilation system. Blowers then direct the gasses to the distribution system which uniformly delivers the gas to the filter. The filter sorbs and degrades the odors resulting in relatively odor -free exhaust. Supporting Information and Current Usage The City of Denver's Department of Environmental Health regulates nuisance odors under Denver Revised Municipal Code, Chapter 4 - Air Pollution Control, Section 4-10. Under this rule, an odor control plan must be submitted 1) describing any odors anticipated to originate from the premises of marijuana growing, processing, and manufacturing facilities and 2) describing control technologies that will be used to prevent odors from leaving the premises (City and County of Denver 2017). The Department of Environmental Health states the, "rule recognizes carbon filtration as the current best * control technology for marijuana cultivation and marijuana infused product facilities" (Denver Department of Environmental Health 2017). i lowever, other odor control technologies are permitted so long as it can be demonstrated that the technology can effectively mitigate odors. The Director of the Environmental Quality Division of Denver's Department of Environmental Health (Denver Director) was contacted by phone on November 30, 2017 to discuss how effective carbon filtration is, where it has been applied, and if it had the potential to impact product quality. The Denver Director stated that approximately 60 percent of indoor grow operations in Denver had installed odor mitigation control prior to the rule, and that 98 percent of those who installed odor mitigation had utilized carbon filtration. In creating the rule, input from indoor grow operators and HVAC control technicians was included to ensure the regulations would reflect technical and economic feasibility. City officials toured the cultivation facilities to determine the effectiveness of the carbon filtration technology. City officials determined that carbon filtration was effective in removing odors. However, the Denver Director stated that carbon filtration is only effective for processing facilities and indoor grows, which was the only type of cultivation facility in Denver at the time of the ruling. The Denver Director noted that the initial cost of investment for a carbon filtration system is $10,000-$15,000 for a medium-sized 10,000 square foot indoor facility with an additional $2,000-$3,000 per year in operation and management costs. The Denver Director also stated that the carbon filtration technology would not impact the quality of the cannabis. Finally, the Denver Director stated that the quality of cannabis would only be impacted if the HVAC system, not the carbon filtration system, malfunctioned and humidity was not properly controlled. A grower in Carpinteria was contacted by phone on November 19, 2017. The grower utilizes vapor - phase technology (discussed below) to mitigate cannabis odors from his greenhouse in Carpinteria. He had considered carbon filtration, but stated that he did not use it because he would not have been able to control the internal environment of his greenhouse. The grower noted that carbon filtration * --would be appropriate for manufacturing, indoor grows, drying rooms, and packaging. A Code Compliance Officer for the Portland Cannabis Program (Portland Officer), stated that there is no specific odor requirement for the City of Portland. If odor complaints are made, then an action plan is required to reduce odors. Portland's Zoning Code Section 33.262.070 simply states that "continuous, frequent, or repetitive odors may not be produced" (City of Portland 2017a). Portland's code guide for cannabis businesses states that "all exhaust and relief air should be filtered or scrubbed" in order to comply with the zoning code (Portland Bureau of Development Services 2017). The Portland Officer stated that retailers, wholesalers, and processors use countertop carbon systems in order to mitigate odors. Large ventilation systems with activated carbon filters are used for indoor cultivation. These systems are scaled proportionately to the size of the facility. However, Portland does not currently have any greenhouses and the Portland Officer does not know of any odor mitigation strategies for greenhouses. Canisters Activated carbon ventilation systems which are supported by activated carbon gas canisters. Supporting Information and Current Usage The Director of the Planning and Development Department of the City/County of Pueblo, Colorado (Pueblo Director), was contacted by phone on December 1, 2017. The Pueblo Director stated that Pueblo only regulates odor for cannabis in industrial zones and that agricultural zones is exempt from cannabis odor mitigation. Pueblo County Code Title 17 Chapter 17.120.190 requires that all cannabis establishments in the central business zoning district (B-4) have odor mitigation. "The building (term includes buildings, greenhouses, and hoop houses) shall be equipped with a ventilation system with carbon filters sufficient in type and capacity to eliminate marijuana odors emanating from the interior to the exterior discernable by a reasonable person..." (County of Pueblo 2017). The Pueblo Director stated that mitigate odors in greenhouses, some growers are using canisters with activated carbon inside to filter the air. This works similarly to the ventilation activated carbon systems used in indoor grows but can be used for greenhouses. The Pueblo Director and officials from the Department of Public Health and Environment plan to use an olfactometer to test the effectiveness of this technology in greenhouses on December 21St. Vapor -Phase System A manufacturer of this technology as it specifically applies to cannabis was contacted. As described, a deodorizing liquid comprised of essential oils in the citrus and pine family are placed inside a vaporizing mechanism. The vapor travels through a distribution pipe that is suspended high up in the greenhouse and runs along its entire perimeter. The vapor escapes from holes in the distribution pipe and a curtain a vapor along the perimeter is produced. The vapor interacts with and changes the chemistry of cannabis malodors. Because of this chemistry change, the olfactory receptors in the human nose no longer interprets the smell as a malodor. The result is an odor -neutralizing, not an odor -masking technology. The interviewed manufacturer had a third -party consultant perform a public health and safety assessment for their specific cannabis deodorizer. Acute inhalation studies were performed and the product was evaluated against health criteria developed by regulatory agencies such as the USEPA. This particular manufacturer's cannabis deodorizer met all applicable health criteria thresholds (CPF Associates, Inc. 2017). In Pueblo Colorado, some growers are using this technology to mitigate the cannabis odor emitted from greenhouse fan exhaust, The Pueblo Director and officials from the Department of Public Health and Environment plan to use an olfactometer to test the effectiveness of this technology in neutralizing the odors from greenhouse fan exhaust on December 21St. The Landfill Operations Program Manager for the City of San Diego's Department of Environmental Services (San Diego Manager), was contacted by phone on November 30, 2017. The San Diego Manager stated that the City of San Diego uses the technology produced by the interviewed manufacturer, but uses a different blend of the same essential oils that is specific to the malodors resulting from landfills. The San Diego Manger, along with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), performed a pilot study of the technology's effectiveness at the Miramar landfill. The San Diego Manger noted that he, along with the officials from APCD and LEA, could not smell the landfill within 25-30 feet of the device and that the technology was effective in reducing odor in nearby communities. These communities are the nearest sensitive receptor and are located one mile away from the landfill on the other side of a highway. The San Diego Manager stated that the odor mitigation technology is only effective when the device was downwind of the source of the malodors and between the source of the malodor and sensitive receptors. Because wind direction changes during the day, the landfill uses other odor mitigation strategies (e.g., covers) in addition to the vapor -phase technology. The San Diego Manager mentioned that the technology would be more effective in an enclosed area (e.g., greenhouse), because wind direction would not have to be considered and the vapor would be closer to the odor source, and therefore, would have a greater likelihood of interacting with and neutralizing the malodors. Like the grower in Carpinteria, the San Diego Manager stated that the vapor had a pine scent, but that this scent was only noticeable when too much vapor is being produced. He stated that reducing the amount of vapor leaving the system was effective in reducing the pine scent. A grower in Carpinteria was contacted by phone on November 29, 2017, and stated that the scent of cannabis is no longer noticeable at a distance of 50 feet from the greenhouse when this technology is used. However, the grower stated that the liquid and resulting vapor has a pine/citrus scent, which can be noticeable if too much vapor is being produced. If this occurs, it was stated that the amount of vapor produced by the system can be reduced. Buffer Zones Odors dissipate with increasing distance away from the odor source. Therefore, buffer zones are sometimes utilized as a strategy to mitigate odors. Other jurisdictions have implemented buffer zones for cannabis. The State of Washington has buffer requirements that apply to all cannabis businesses and protect sensitive receptors. Such buffer requirements could be applied to protect residential areas in the County of Santa Barbara. The State of Washington requires a 1,000-foot buffer zone between any type of cannabis business and sensitive uses such as an elementary of secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care center, public park, public transit center, or game arcade (Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board 2017). However, recent legislation allows local governments, like the City of Seattle, to reduce the buffer to 100 feet, except for elementary and secondary schools and public playgrounds (Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board 2017). The City of Seattle has buffer requirements for both retail and non-retail cannabis businesses such as cannabis cultivators. The City of Seattle requires a buffer zone of 1,000 feet from sensitive receptors such as elementary schools, secondary schools, and playgrounds for all cannabis businesses (Seattle City Council 2016). A 500-foot buffer from child care centers, game arcades, libraries, public parks, public transit centers, or recreation centers or facilities is required for cannabis retail businesses while a 250-foot buffer is required for non-retail cannabis businesses. Additionally, a 350-foot buffer must be maintained between cannabis retail businesses. Meanwhile, the City of Portland only requires buffers for cannabis retailers and retail couriers, which does not include cannabis cultivators (City of Portland 2017b). For cannabis retailers, a 1,000-foot buffer is required from schools, retailers, and dispensaries. For cannabis retail couriers, a 1,000-foot buffer is required from schools. Like the State of Washington, the State of California also requires buffer zones for both retail and non- retail businesses such as cannabis cultivators. California state law requires cannabis businesses, including cannabis cultivators, to not be located within a 600-foot radius of any school providing instruction for kindergarten or any grades 1-12, day care center, or youth center. However, an exception may be made if the cannabis businesses has a valid license or permit from a local jurisdiction, is compliant with local ordinances and regulations, and the cannabis business is not located such that people must pass through a business that sells alcohol or tobacco to access the cannabis business. Other cities within California, such as the City of Oakland, have followed the state's direction. In the City of Oakland, cannabis businesses, including cannabis cultivators, are required to have a 600-foot buffer for schools (City of Oakland 2017). In addition to meeting state requirements, Santa Barbara County may consider proximity to sensitive areas, local climatic conditions, and local topography and barriers when establishing buffers (Pennsylvania State University 2002). Odor impact assessments used to establish robust buffer requirements for odors in general rely on complex mathematical models that involve 1) odor flow from the source 2) odor dilution in the atmosphere 3) peak concentrations that mimic odor detection by the human nose and 4) the probability that the odor exceeds an odor impact threshold at various distances from the odor source (Schauberger, G. and Piringer, M. 2012). However, such information is not available for the County of Santa Barbara. In the absence of such detailed information, established buffer zones within the County of Santa Barbara and County of San Luis Obispo for similar land uses may serve as an example of effective buffer distances. Similarly to cannabis, agricultural crops are grown outdoors and in greenhouses and some have been noted for their disagreeable odor (e.g., garlic, cauliflower, broccoli). In the County of San Luis Obispo, buffer distance for agricultural uses depends on the type of crop and proximity to dwellings (County of San Luis Obispo 2010). The buffer distance ranges from 100 feet to 300 feet for greenhouses, 100 feet to 400 feet for irrigated forage and field crops, 100 feet to 500 feet for wholesale nurseries outdoors, and 200 feet to 600 feet for irrigated vegetables and berries. For Santa Barbara County's 2013 Agricultural Buffer Ordinance was established to "minimize potential conflicts between agricultural and adjacent land uses that result from noise, dust, light, and odor incidental to normal agricultural operations as well as potential conflicts originating from residential and other non-agricultural uses" (County of Santa Barbara 2013). In commercial and industrial zones, the minimum buffer width is 100 feet and maximum buffer width is 300 feet. In residential not located on a small lot located within an urban area, the minimum is 200 feet and maximum 300 feet. In residential located on a small lot located within an urban area, the minimum is 100 feet and maximum 200 feet. For sensitive non-agricultural uses, the minimum is 300 feet and maximum 400 feet. These agricultural buffers are not specific to cannabis. Anecdotal evidence suggests that strong cannabis odors can still be detected at least 600 feet away, though it has also been stated that the odor can be noticed from one to two miles away from the source. Thus, buffers may be utilized but are likely to be more effective remote areas of the County where larger buffer distances could be implemented. In more urban areas, odor mitigation technologies may be more appropriate as they would significantly reduce odors over a shorter distance (e.g., 50 feet for vapor -phase technologies). Appendix Citations: City and County of Denver. 2017. Denver Revised Municipal Code, Chapter 4 - Air Pollution Control, Section 4-10. Accessed: 30 November 2017. Retrieved from: https://library.municode.com/co/denver/codes/code_ofordinances?nodeld=TIT1IREMUCO C H4AIPOCO_ARTIIAD_S4-10NU City of Oakland. 2017. Map of Permitted Zones for Cannabis Facilities. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/CityAdministration/OAK064043 City of Portland. 2017a. Zoning Code Section 33.262.070. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/53319 — —. 2017b. Delivery of Cannabis in Portland. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/629355 Claessen, E. L. 2009. University of Gothernburg. Widely Used Fragrance Ingredients In Shampoos And Conditioners Are Frequent Causes Of Eczema. Accessed: 29 November 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/144041.php County of Pueblo. 2017. Pueblo County Code Title 17 Chapter 17.120.190. Accessed: 4 December 2017. Retrieved from: http://county.pueblo.org/government/county/code/titlel7/chapterl7-120 County of San Luis Obispo. 2010. Agriculture Element. Accessed: Retrieved from: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/getattachment/72316c5b-f626-456c-8cd6- e81e6d6baf47/Agriculture-Element.aspx County of Santa Barbara, 2013, Agricultural Buffer Ordinance Attachment 2. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/programs/ag_buffer/AgB ufferOrdCLUDC%20Board%2 OReso4851.pdf CPF Associates, Inc. 2017. Screening Health Assessment of Waterless Vapor Phase Odor Control Technology. Denver Department of Environmental Health. 2017. Denver's Odor Control Plan Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed: 30 November 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/771/documents/EQ/Odor/Odo r%20FAQ%20Final.pdf Gertsch J, Leonti M, & Raduner S. 2008. Beta-caryophyllene is a dietary cannabinooid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 105 (26): 9099-104, doi: 10, 1073/pnas.08036O1105. Kent James, A. 1983. Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry. Eighth Editions (ISBN 0 442 20164 8). Kim YW, Kim MJ, Chung BY, Bang du Y, Lim SK, Choi SM, Lim DS, et al. 2013. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of d-Limonene. Accessed: 28 November 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbinlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23573938 Passosa, G. F., & Fernandesa, E. S. 2007. Anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic properties of the essential oil and active compounds from Cordia verbenacea - Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 110 (2): 323-333. dol: 10.1016/j.jep.2OO6.09.O32. Pennsylvania State University. 2002. Odor Management in Agriculture and Food Processing: A Manual of Practice for Pennsylvania. Accessed: 30 November 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Protect/StateConservationCommission/OdorManagementProgr am/Documents/PSU%20Odor%20Management%20in%20Ag%20and%20Food%20Processing %20brochure.pdf Portland Bureau of Development Services. 2017. Portland Code Guide for Cannabis Businesses. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/637883 Schauberger, G. and Piringer, M. 2012. Assessment of Separation Distances to Avoid Odour Annoyance: Interaction Between Odour Impact Criteria and Peak-to-Mean Factors. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 30. DO1: 10.3303/CET1230003 Seattle City Council. 2016. Marijuana Zoning Ordinance. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/vault/marijuanazoning/documents/defau lt.htm Vazquez-Araujo, L., Rodriguez-Solana, R., Cortes-Dieguez, S. M., & Dominguez, J. M. 2013. Use of hydrodistillation and headspace solid-phase microextraction to characterize the volatile cmposition of different hop cultivars. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 93 (10): 2568-74. d io:10.1002/jsfa. 6078. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. 2017. Distance from Restricted Entities. Accessed: 5 December 2017. Retrieved from: https://lcb.wa.gov/mjlicense/distance_from_restricted_entitles Data Acquisition Contact List Netherlands - Office of Medicinal Cannabis UC Vegetable Research & Information Center Penn State University & PA Department of Agriculture City and County of Denver, Department of Environmental Health Denver Department of Environmental Health City of Denver Marijuana Business Daily International Code Council City of Boulder City of Boulder Planning and Development Services City of Denver CBS News Cannabis Practice Group President of Byers Scientific and Manufacturing Company Byers Scientific & Manufacturing Director of Environmental Quality Division, Denver Department of Environmental Health City/County of Pueblo Colorado Environmental Health and Emergency Preparedness Division City/County of Pueblo Planning and Development Department City/County of Pueblo Director of Planning and Development Department City of San Diego Department of Environmental Services City of San Diego Waste Management Company Landfill Operations Program Manager, City of San Diego, Environmental Services Department Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Medical Marijuana Program San Diego Air Pollution Control District City of Portland Cannabis Program City of Boulder Finance Department Licensing Division County of Boulder Marijuana & Liquor Licensing SCS Engineers consulting firm, President of SCS Tracer Environmental and SCS Engineers Puget Sound Air Agency Portland Bureau of Development Services Portland Zoning Code Helpdesk County of Santa Barbara State of Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board City of Portland City of Seattle City of Oakland California Bureau of Cannabis Control Grow Hack: Odor Control Strategies & Their Best Applications • High Times Grow Hack: Odor Control Strategies & Their Best Applications :•.DVI;:» 1I SI::MC. N Page 1 of 6 GROW Home» Grow Grow Hack: Odor Control Strategies & Their Best Applications Published 2. years ago on October 13, 2016 13y Lindsey Schiller -► REGISTER TO V -►TRACK CONCH"` —► GEF COOL TEES Sweet, skunky, minty, fruity—the aroma of cannabis is an essential feature of the crop and often our first inclination of its quality and characteristics. Cannabis' odor is created by https://hi ghtimes.com/grow/grow-hack-odor-control-strategies-their-best-applications/ 7/16/2018 Grow Hack: Odor Control Strategies & Their Best Applications • High Times Page 2 of 6 terpenes, oil-producing compounds that play a major role its psychotropic effects via complex interactions with cannabinoids. While an essential part of the plant, terpenes create challenges for commercial cannabis growers. Most municipalities restrict how grow operations handle odors. Particularly in urban areas, regulations may prohibit a growroom or greenhouse from venting untreated air outside. This introduces a major challenge for growers. Ventilation is the primary way growers control heat and humidity. Without it, indoor growrooms and greenhouses are can easily get too hot and humid, increasing the risk of pests, molds and diseases. As large-scale cannabis operations proliferate, the need for cost-effective odor control methods is mounting. Commercial cannabis growers must provide sufficient cooling and air circulation without exhausting untreated air outside. Home growers, too, typically want to reduce odors to keep their crops discreet. Thus, the need for odor control spans many operations. From time -tested to cutting-edge, here is a roundup of odor control strategies and their best applications. Carbon Air Filters (The Standard) AOVF NPI?+6MLNI CANNABIS .INFO -*REGISTER TO VOTE .+TRACK CONGRESS —0 -GET COOL TEES Lt` Carbon filters (AKA carbon scrubbers) have historically been the go -to method for serious odor control. These use pellets of charcoal to trap terpenes as air passes through the filter. Carbon filters are simple to install, effective and reliable, if changed regularly. The major disadvantage is that they must be replaced frequently, usually every 2-4 months. This is doable for home growers or small-scale commercial producers, but can get quite costly on larger scales. For example, when designing their 120,000 sq. ft. greenhouse near Vancouver, Canada, Tantalus Labs required significant airflow to help reduce their use of chemical pesticides. If using a carbon scrubber system, each bay of the greenhouse would require 17 additional fans with carbon filters The initial investment was significant, but more cumbersome was the maintenance and operational cost of replacing 160 filters and fans every couple of months. The carbon filters also reduce airflow through a fan, necessitating more fans than originally planned. All in all, the system turned out to be impractical for the large greenhouse. While costly on large scales, carbon filters are still the highly effective for home growers and indoor growrooms. In these cases, the grower installs a carbon scrubber in ducting before air moves through the exhaust fan. Filters should be sized to meet the size of fan (described in A https://hightimes.com/grow/grow-hack-odor-control-strategies-their-best-applications/ 7/16/2018 Grow Hack: Odor Control Strategies & Their Best Applications • High Times Page 3 of 6 cubic feet per minute or CFM). Performance is inhibited by higher humidity, making them better suited for cultivation facilities with some environmental control. Air Filters ADVEII I ISEMENI Oncologists Are Freaking Out After True Cause Of Cancer Is Released Promoted Content Watch The Video Standard air filters, often called air purifiers, are typically made of densely woven fiber screens. These trap particles as air circulates through the filter, which can either be a stand alone unit or incorporated into a ventilation system. Filters are less effective than carbon scrubbers for odor control. They are primarily employed to trap larger particles, such as dust and molds in the growing environment. Odor control can be a small or moderate secondary benefit. Advanced ones, like HEPA (high -efficiency particulate arrestance) filters can get quite pricey. Sealed Greenhouses (For Commercial Growers) Due to the costs of odor control for large-scale grows, some commercial greenhouses are taking another approach entirely: reducing the need for ventilation in the first place. Instead of exhausting air outside, sealed greenhouses circulate air inside. Fans and advanced climate control systems regulate indoor conditions such as temperature, CO2 and humidity, and provide sufficient air circulation. !•DVF'.PrISEMEN1 THE WORLDS PREMIER SEEJB„9NK ,()rCtjpnE1,1 eedil Rk oregoneliteseeds.com I @otegoneliteseeds This strategy has a number of other benefits: it reduces incoming pests and pathogens; saves CO2 and energy; and avoids the possibility of' hemp pollen entering the structure and pollinating crops, a recent issue in legal states like Colorado. However, enclosing a greenhouse raises other challenges with controlling over -heating and humidity. Companies are quickly https://hightimes.com/grow/grow-hack-odor-control-strategies-their-best-applications/ 7/16/2018 Grow Hack: Odor Control Strategies & Their Best Applications • High Times Page 4 of 6 responding with innovative climate control solutions to enable a sealed indoor environment. Ceres Greenhouse Solutions, for example, builds insulated cannabis greenhouses for harsh climates like Colorado. Their Ground to Air Heat Transfer (GAHT) system circulates air through a network of pipes underground. The air is cooled and dehumidified as it passes through the soil, and then exhausted back into the greenhouse cooler and drier. Creating a super controlled environment with advanced climate controls—including heating, cooling, dehumidification and air movement—is a major trend in commercial cannabis greenhouses. This enables growers to keep odorous air inside, while still providing precise environmental control and sufficient air movement. Back-up ventilation systems with carbon scrubbers can be much smaller, allowing for initial and ongoing savings. You can read more about the pros and cons of a sealed greenhouse on Ceres blog on the topic here. Odor Neutralizers (For Home Growers) Odor neutralizers span a broad range of products. These can be as simple and cheap as the air freshener in your car: these products simply cover up the smell, without eradicating it. More effective solutions are gels and oils ,which waft into the air and bind with terpenes. Ona gel products are popular with home growers. These adsorb terpenes, eliminating cannabis odors. Importantly, they cannot be used directly in the growroom as they will negatively affect the taste and smell of the product. Instead, they should be placed in adjacent living areas. Thus, they are limited to home growers, but considered effective for that application. Ozone Generators (Not Recommended) Ozone generators are a longtime tactic to deal with odors, but generally considered risky, if not downright unsafe. Ozone is a gas made of three oxygen atoms that breaks apart and bonds with terpenes. In significant concentrations, it is toxic to both plants and humans. For people, it's a lung irritant, and can produce a slew of health effects. For those reasons alone, many growers advise against using ozone as an odor control strategy. Others proclaim generators can be used safely because they are limited in how much ozone they can produce over a time period, making high concentrations less likely. (The challenge is that the gas can easily build up in a room if there is not sufficient ventilation.) Regardless of how you interpret the research, ozone generators are a less common strategy for those reasons, and one that demands caution for both the grower and the crop. Biofilters (One to Watch) Due to the high cost of odor control on a commercial scale, growers are innovating in the rapidly growing commercial industry. Tantalus Labs turned to the livestock industry for solutions for their large-scale greenhouse. Biofilters are have been used for years as an odor control strategy for farms and municipalities. A biofilter is simply a stockpile of organic material, like woodchips, inoculated with bacteria that naturally consume odorous molecules. A https://hightimes.com/grow/grow-hack-odor-control-strategies-their-best-applications/ 7/16/2018 Grow Hack: Odor Control Strategies & Their Best Applications • High Times Page 5 of 6 Though this strategy has been proven to reduce odors from methane, Tantalus Labs commercial is undergoing the first tests to evaluate how bacteria process terpenes, and thus eliminate odors. Initial small-scale tests by biofilter companies showed promise. They also assuaged concerns that the bacteria would harm the health of cannabis crops. Currently, the first biofilter application is being tested in the company's 120,000 sq. ft. greenhouse near Vancouver. Tantalus Labs' trial raises an important point: though odor control is not the sexiest topic, it is ripe for innovation. Currently, traditional methods are challenging to implement cost- effectively at scale. In this highly regulated industry, controlling odors of this incredibly aromatic plant is a topic that is here to stay. Don't miss our previous Grow Hack: Wind Barriers for Growing in Dry, Breezy Areas YOU MAY LIKE Grow Hack: Air -Prune to Stop Plants from Getting {foot -Bound Grow Hack: This Microbe Can 5 Tips For Germinating Old Actually Make Gardeners Seeds Feel Happy Grow Hack; Easy Buds for Busy People Crow Hack: Release and Maintain Ladybugs In Your Indoor Carden Grow Hack: Use Green Lacewings To Eat Or Prevent Nasty Pests https://hightimes.com/grow/grow-hack-odor-control-strategies-their-best-applications/ 7/16/2018 Grow Hack: Odor Control Strategies & Their Best Applications • High Times TRENDING Page 6 of 6 NIiW i The DEA Has Released This Year's Drug Slang Handbook BUSINESS The Weird and Wonderful World of Las Vegas Weed Culture NEWS 5d,iyse:cit) US Reportedly Banning Entrance to Canadians in Legal Cannabis Industry DISPENSARIES The 10 Best Dispensaries Oregon Governor of Hawaii Vetoed Bill Allowing Cannabis for Opioid Addicts HEALTH ^<Iogo What is Laced Weed? FOODS / lays;Igo 6 Healthy Munchies For Stoners HIGH TIMES p ia7 G* IJ in t ABOUT CONTACT SUBMISSIONS PRIVACY POLICY LEGAL DISCLAIMER Copyright 974-2018 High Times NEWS i'. day State Lawm Against Okla Marijuana R A https://hightimes.com/grow/grow-hack-odor-control-strategies-their-best-applications! 7/16/2018 Cannabis growers overcome the powerful scent Page 1 of 7 Sign Up to receive our daily newsletter, breaking news alerts and more X Cannabis growers overcome the powerful scent JAMES DUNN NORTH BAY BUSINESS JOURNAL TECHNOLOGY EDITOR 1 May 29, 2017 Order Article Reprint Cannabis stinks, its opponents claim, comparing the scent of buds at harvest to skunks. But beyond its fragrant nose, cannabis enterprise carries an aroma welcome even to many who shun pot: the smell of money. Cash gushes from the emerging industry. It's expected to soar to billions of dollars a year in California, with Santa Rosa's CannaCom Valley at the heart of North Bay cannabis commerce. But cannabis operators must reckon with the reek, which makes some neighbors smoking mad. At public hearings on cannabis policy held by Sonoma County's board of supervisors, residents who live near cultivation complained to the board about its pungent smell — especially at harvest. Supervisors responded by banning cultivation in rural -residential zones. In public comments to Santa Rosa officials about proposed cannabis cultivation sites, neighbors objected to the odor. SMELL TRAVELS 1,500 YARDS "I object to the proposed commercial growth of marijuana adjacent to my home," said Richard Cooper, an attorney who lives near proposed Giffen Avenue http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/northbay/sonomacounty/7008462-181 /cannabis-... 7/16/2018 Cannabis growers overcome the powerful scent Page 2 of 7 cannabis -cultivation sites, all indoors, the largest in Santa Rosa. "My primary objection is against the odor -smell that the plants create. The smell is skunk -like or sewer -like," Cooper said in his March 17 letter, noting that "the offensive smell travels long distances — 1,500 yards or more. I don't want to have this smell .... Do city officials realize the loss of value my property suffers because of this odor?" Agricultural commerce brings unwelcome odors. Cow manure annoys folks near dairies. Gilroy reeks of garlic grown nearby. Vineyard managers in Sonoma and Napa counties spray elemental sulfur on wine grapes to ward off powdery mildew. Sulfur can smell like rotting eggs. Cannabis, too, has a distinctive aroma. Santa Rosa's planning staff sums up how cannabis cultivators at 2835 Duke Court will need to mitigate odor: "Air within the facility will be ventilated through high -efficiency particulate arrestance filters," the report said. "Cannabis cultivation and processing rooms include several layers of carbon filtration and fan systems, including scrubbers." Duke Court Capital Partners, headed by Steve Monahan of San Rafael, submitted descriptions of carbon -based can filters "designed for the control of VOCs, odors and other gaseous contaminants." VOCs are volatile organic compounds such as paint fumes, hydrocarbons. FRUITY AROMAS For industrial engineers, olfactory challenges have a scientific basis in essential oils, according to jay Takacs, principal at 15000 Inc., a mechanical engineering company in Santa Rosa. Fatty acids occur naturally in cannabis and other plants, and can produce fruity aroma like that of berries, banana or apple cider. Terpenes — fragrant essential -oil compounds of hydrogen and carbon — in cannabis account for sweet, floral, citrusy or piney scents. The typical smell of cannabis comes from roughly 140 different terpenes, according to "Chemistry and http://www.northbay businessjournal.com/northbay/sonomacounty/7008462-181 /cannabis-... 7/16/2018 Cannabis growers overcome the powerful scent Page 3 of 7 Analysis of Phytocannabinoids," written in 2007 by Rudolf Brenneisen, professor of phytochemistry at University of Bern, Switzerland. He studied cannabis for 20 years. Terpenes can have beneficial as well as olfactory effects — antiseptic, anti- inflammatory or antiviral. Myrcene, noted for sedative, analgesic (pain relief) and anti-inflammatory effects, occurs in many cannabis strains as well as in hops, mangoes, thyme, lemongrass and basil. Linalool, a terpene found in cannabis and lavender, is prized for its stress -reduction effects. Pinene in cannabis and coniferous oil such as pine and spruce is strongly antiseptic. Limonene, occurring in citrus fruits as well as cannabis, is powerfully antiviral. SCIENCE BEHIND THE SKUNK ODOR Some cannabis critics describe its smell as skunky during flowering. The odoriferous secretion of skunks is primarily volatile thiols: €-2-butene-1 thiol (about 40 percent) and 3-methyl-1-butanethiol (about 22 percent). Cannabis contains alpha -linolenic acid, which may break down under the ultraviolet rays of sunlight into methyl and butyl thiols, according to one scientist's theory. Whether it's skunky or not, the smell of cannabis becomes a business challenge for which local engineers sniff out solutions. Extraction involves isolating and concentrating substances in cannabis that have medicinal or psychoactive effects. Extraction facilities use ethanol and carbon dioxide in processing, which must be managed in ventilation systems. Butane, more volatile, is not allowed in Santa Rosa's CannaCom Valley. The engineering company also works with cannabis distribution centers. http://www. northbaybusinessjournal.com/northbay/sonomacounty/7008462-181 /cannabis-... 7/16/2018 Cannabis growers overcome the powerful scent Page 4 of 7 "Plant matter is broken down," said Matthew Torre, a mechanical engineer at 15000 Inc. "It is taken out of large bins and repackaged, sent out to dispensaries." Smell is "much more prevalent in the trimming process," Torre said. "You are breaking plants open. That's where a lot of odors are emitted," The potency of smell depends on strain and plant size. "Indica or sativa plants grow in different styles," Torre said. "Some of them (cultivators) top the plants early so they have a very quick growing cycle." Other cultivators allow cannabis plants to grow some 15 feet tall, Torre said. Smell depends on "what stage and cycle plants are in terms of how much odor is emitted," he said. "Sativas and indicas (different strains) have different odors." He doesn't mind the strong smell. "It would be like objecting to the hop smell in beer" or to rosemary, Torre said. People in the cannabis industry are "conscious of what they're doing and very good at what they're doing," Torre said. 'They're really conscientious. We take all measures to take care of odors. You can walk by the buildings and it's not going to smell." One of Torre's clients is the proposed cultivation facility by Middle Relief Partners at 1805 Empire Industrial Court in Santa Rosa. The project, as presented to the city, will have about 4,000 square feet of canopy in a building with some 9,700 square feet. "We would ultimately like to have a dispensary," said David Page, chief operating officer and managing general partner of Middle Relief. The group's three partners paid $1.7 million for the building in cash. Cultivation will be overseen by Scott Toland, who worked for Good Chemistry in Denver. PLUME DISCHARGE AT 34 MPH http://www.northbaybusinessj ournal.com/northbay/sonomacounty/7008462-181 /cannabis-... 7/16/2018 Cannabis growers overcome the powerful scent Page 5 of 7 Managing cannabis reek is not just about filtration. "It's how you terminate it," Torre said. "We take an industrial -ventilation approach. We try to get a high plume coming off the exhaust fan. We discharge the air high into the atmosphere. Wind current will take it away without anybody on the ground ever noticing." A roof duct rises to a nozzle, which increases the velocity of escaping gases. "We shoot that up into the atmosphere," Torre said. "Plume heights we try to get between 10 and 20 feet above the nozzle." Escaping air at the nozzle moves at about 3,000 feet per minute — nearly 34 miles per hour. "It's a multiple approach to controlling odor, not just filtering particulate," Torre said. The cost for tenant improvements for cannabis operators runs nearly double that of most industrial businesses, Takacs said. "It's not like doing an office building" at about $25 a square foot. Because growing plants generate humidity, cannabis cultivation rooms require dehumidification" on top of plume discharge and filtration, for a total cost of about $50 a square foot. Filtration takes out most particles that smell. A high -efficiency particulate air filter with activated carbon achieves 99.996 percent removal of particulates. Resulting air still could smell faintly of cannabis at the emission nozzle, but not at ground level. Capturing 100 percent of particulates kills air flow, Takacs said, creating unhealthy indoor air. "We do recirculation systems and bolster typical HVAC systems," Torre said. "Beyond air terminals and defusers, oscillating fans ensure proper mixing of air." Indoor air quality is as important as the smell of escaping air. "This technology has existed for years," Takacs said. "This is a year-round operation" similar to growing tomatoes indoors. "Each room has to be on its own zone," he said, with numerous air-intake points. DEHUMIDIFIERS FIGHT MOLD http://www.northbay businessj ournal.com/northbay/sonomacounty/7008462-181 /cannabis-... 7/16/2018 Cannabis growers overcome the powerful scent Page 6 of 7 "Mold is an enormous deal. We need to take care of the mold" with dehumidification. "It's all critical," Takacs said. Every plant transpires — draws water from roots and evaporates it from pores on leaves. Small plants transpire less than big ones, so the system must respond variably to differing zones. Sensors in the cultivation rooms send information to the HVAC system. Some cannabis -growing techniques create hazards. Cultivators boost plant growth by injecting carbon dioxide into the room, which can jeopardize worker safety. "It's the same as in a winery," Takacs said. "A fermentation room is kicking off a lot of CO2. We would exhaust CO2 low because it is heavier than air," keeping indoor carbon -dioxide levels less than 600 parts per million. Cannabis processors use ethanol for cannabinoid extraction. "It's heavier than air/' Takacs said. He uses slotted hoods with low intakes to entrain (draw in) the ethanol. "Then we take it out. You get the odor. We filter and treat it." ADAPTING EXITING BUILDINGS "Santa Rosa has done a phenomenal job at setting regulations" for cannabis, Takacs said. "The county is a bit further behind. The city is not taking it lightly." Some buildings planned for cannabis cultivation or processing don't have roofs built to handle Toads such as bigger air -filtration units, Torre said, so modifications must be made. "We just did an extraction facility on Piner Place," he said. "The roof structure itself would not allow for a 500 -pound exhaust fan to go up there." Instead of mounting the unit on the roof, he located it inside. "We ran the duct up through the roof." Torre has completed several cannabis building designs, about evenly split between cultivation and extraction. http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/northbay/sonomacounty/7008462-181 /cannabis-... 7/16/2018 Cannabis growers overcome the powerful scent Page 7 of 7 Though much of the cannabis industry runs on cash, the engineering firm is not being paid in currency. "They are real businesses," Takacs said. "If they want to pay us in cash, we'll take it." 'They want to be as legitimate as the beer industry, the wine industry," Torre said, "nothing taboo. We are seeing them operate as standard businesses." In Santa Rosa's CannaCom Valley, businesses want buildings retrofitted fast. "Right now, the boom is on. The biggest challenge is schedule," Takacs said. "Everybody wants it now. The quicker you open your doors, the quicker you are making money." James Dunn covers technology, biotech, law, the food industry, cannabis, and banking and finance. Reach him at: james.dunn@busjrnl.com or 707-52 7-4257 http://www. northbaybusinessjournal.com/northbay/sonotnacounty/7008462-181 /cannabis-... 7/16/2018 TAB 0 PROPERTY LINE AD, I USTMEN T SUR VEY OF A TR A CT OR LANE i 0 (Am) fN THE ,.51/1? OF SEC TION 27, TI R 3E. 11". 1)) (]1 UTES Y 0 1?1,1G 0A //50. 1 4 931 52/1n1r.../I_QI!" 5,150, 5.5.55.5. 55.0,5,55557.51,551., 50515 5. 1251 5. 01 kgcli " 15 5 5,5=0,,,,,,g515 -5,V, 5,1. 50 51.10 A 5,555 5, 5 P. 0 5 CAI. (15.5. 5 C505. 5.5,5 .550 M.. 5 0555 055 M. 15.11. 155, 055 KM. ICU. A, C. O.,. soeVEYOR'S CEItTIFICATE, SORN.:y ,A,A./i'RA 'NOV s I IS 1, "I.)) 1,1;7; Al DPSC121/ TWATRACI 1 A F7'1,7? A Di ILSTil RA' 7' 5.5. 1. 5,1 .15 55.1 5.559 .1/, A 01305,5 05 5515 .5 511, 71.51 V.. 1. 115.11 5 00..5 5. 55 5. 171, . 1,511 1,11, C; 5.15, 515 550.5, A 1155 AC 1.15; . 1,51;55, . 1155,5 51. 5.. 01..5 5555 ;555.. 55.55 50.5, A. 15.111 .0..5 5155 05011... 151, 5,50,55.1 0.5.1,150 50.5 551. 5..) 1.7 0 .5 .15 5,5 1.5555 05 505 5,50.5.1 .55.5,515 . 1; .0555,, U.- .;1551155 (555, .5,, A 5,0 ,51.5 C5.51,55,51. A0 5555.... MAW, .1111 1055 n 1,115,5; 2.0/ ,,,, WO, cf., A 5.10, f-51.55 ;55 55 HE, t. 1..1.E. OF St, i:AS1 IPG// 1.1.1,S,10-,2 TRACT 2AP-771? . API 5,2,1, W7` 5,555 CCM. (1;515551 05 5.15.55 25. 1,011, 'r51.11. 11.551 55.5.1555.05., 1.1515. Al55,55. , 515.55 505155,1 00.551 .01 5151, 5551, 515.1.5 550,0 B.,. 00.51 ,C5, A. 5,511 51, 05 0555. 5.55. A 0005. OF la', 49 au. 1151.5 11.1151 CAC 555 55, 5,555, TA:i, .1. 55 51 .55,0 KV, 05515 Z. 55551555. 1555,1 15.55 10 01 5,550 CC 051 5. 1.5,1 05.0 0,5,1,5 .55 .0. 055. 15115 A 01555,0 55,5 5111 50 5.0.5.5 115,,C1 5.5555 1.5 011 5.50.5.r.55.0.,5,550 , ;AA 51.1.0 5.154 CC., 55, 0. 5 .1550.5.5151 1.5.1 555 15, 1,15.5 .555555,55 100,5 ;1,5. .50111 a o 0( 55. 0555, 5,0 5105 ,,,, 1,A1 .15. A c A. 550 55.5 10 5155 WO ]7--193] 0 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (h TAB P LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SW1/4 SE1/4) SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON NORTH SE 1/4 SW 1/4 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURV=YOR OREGON JULY 10, 2007 PATRICK GAGE COLE 79157 EXPIRES: 12/31/19 / — 105.0' io ry N 1n iD 0 0 0 0 z SECTION 27 k ----105,0' LEGEND ►O! FOUND 3" BRASS CAP PRIMARY MONUMENT te FOUND 5/8" IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED "ARMSTRONG S&E" 79.6' U) 79.6' EXISTING BUILDING SW 1 /4 SE 1/4 NOTES 1) THIS ASBUILT WAS PREPARED TO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE EXISTING BUILDING TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 27. 2) THIS ASBUILT IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY HWA , COMPLETED ON JULY 16, 2018. 3) THE FOUND MONUMENTS LABELED AS "E 1/16" AND "ON LINE" WERE SET BY ARMSTRONG SURVEYING & ENGINEERING PER THEIR UN -FILED PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT, PROVIDED TO HWA. N89'42'45"E 1325.79' SECTION 34 CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING I PLANNING ASBUILT SURVEY OF: A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4, SE 1/4, SECTION 27, T. 17 S., R. 13 E., W.M., OR SCALE: 1"= 100' DRAWN BY: BJH DATE: JULY 17, 2018 SHEET 1/1 BLANK PAGE EXHIBIT D Rebuttal Evidence & Testimony BLANK PAGE Tracy Griffin From: KC Burk <kcburk@mindspring.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 4:52 PM To: Anthony Raguine Cc: kcburk@mindspring.com Subject: Response to letter from S Ritter 7-17-2018 - File no. 247 -17 -000833 -AD RE: Briteside Walker Rd. Mr. Raguine, In response to section 5 — "Improper waste disposal" from Ms Ritter's email, I would like to explain the following public health threat posed by improper waste disposal at this operation: All of the water that feeds Mayfield pond flows onto and through the actual 40 acre lot at 23450 Walker Rd., the same lot of the proposed Briteside marijuana production facility. Mayfield pond is a large body of water, heavily used by the public for recreation, swimming, fishing, drinking by campers and transients. It is part of the B.L.M. managed Mayfield Pond Recreation Area of 19,500 acres. It is around 1 mile downstream from the Briteside property. The canal that feeds Mayfield pond actually flows through the property for several hundred feet in the SE corner. The overflow for the Briteside irrigation pond ties also back into the Mayfield canal. B.L.M. requested twice in letters dated 12/14/2017 and 07/10/2018 that Deschutes County "require protocols be adopted to ensure chemical residue be contained and not migrate onto public lands." So far, as Ms. Ritter stated, Briteside has only said they will have "secured waste receptacles", with no further details of handling waste. The possibility of toxic chemicals and waste from this operation finding their way to Mayfield pond is highly likely. This is a public health risk that must not be taken and therefore the application should be denied on these grounds. Thank you — KC Burk 1 BLANK PAGE Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 4:52 PM To: 'Nunzie' Subject: RE: rebuttal #2 247-18-000424-A Hi Nunzie. Your email was received by the County's server at 5:02 pm. Because the deadline for submittal of rebuttal testimony was 5:00 pm, your email will not be considered by the Board. Let me know if you have any questions. Anthony Raguine Senior Planner 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 617-4739 1100 Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey From: Nunzie Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 5:02 PM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: rebuttal #2 247-18-000424-A Please enter this into the record as rebuttal #2 re 247-18-000424-A. I would like to reiterate that as of today 7-25-2018 after checking with Deschutes County survey department, there is no boundary survey recorded with Deschutes County for taxlot 3400. Also today there is no survey recorded with Deschutes County that legitimizes the field survey done in 2017 for the boundary line adjustment between taxlot 1400 and taxlot 1500.The Hickman Williams submittal showing 105' is based on an un -filed property line adjustment by Armstrong. Applicant has not shown that their 'private walker road' is on their property; to the contrary what is driven on today is shown on their maps as deviating onto abutting BLM public land. The site plan Applicant New Information dated 7-15-2018 submitted 7-18-2018 does not show how the 2 dwellings will be served by road or how an irrigator will access the 2 ponds on taxlot 3400 to maintain the COID water rights used for irrigating the agricultural fields of the farm. A complete site plan is needed not this piecemeal site plan. One page where the proposed septic, road, setbacks, 2 dwellings, pond and all entrances onto taxlot 3400 are drawn i.e. including how a vehicle will travel between the 40' easement across taxlot 1500 and the 2 dwellings on taxlot 3400 ( applicant at the hearing already identified that Briteside has leased the dwelling to an employee in the past even without the grow, so it is not unreasonable to expect people to live in the dwellings onsite.. The question is how will they get to these dwellings? It is also unclear whether fencing and/or the acoustic wall will provide access to the other activities: dwellings, farming, irrigating that occur on the taxlot 3400. It is unreasonable for the County to assume that trees along the south border of taxlot 3400 where it abuts BLM land (to the south) will be preserved when legal access from Alfalfa market Road is created thru the Lot Line adjustment between taxlot 1400 and taxlot 1500 since taxlot 3400 is land 1 locked and does not abut Alfalfa Market Road. The record is correct that Walker Road all along taxlot 1400 and taxlot 1500 and taxlot 3400 was vacated by Deschutes County. Applicant purchased a land locked parcel 3400 and then began and today still continues it's lot line adjustments for taxlot 1400 and taxlot 1500. With Walker Road being vacated over 30 years ago, the County has not shown nor has applicant shown that there is a legal access from Alfalfa Market Road to taxlot 1400 and such access is not shown on any site plan either in the lot line adjustment file or in the proposed marijuana easement which as previously discussed is contrary to the Doctrine of Merger. (you cannot create an easement to benefit your property thru another property which you own.) It is especially relevant today with marijuana being the product grown on taxlot 3400 that the county fully understand who has use and access to taxlot 3400. According to applicant's July 18, 2018 game plan... if Walker Road is a private road, where is the road permit and/or driveway permit? This newly recorded easement is still self imposed and invalid. Applicant would have you believe the because it owns all 3 properties there is no problem. Our code does not read such. It is applicant's BURDEN OF PROOF to show that today they meet the marijuana development code. It is preposterous to believe now after all of applicant's gyrations that the County should trust applicant. Just by having a toe in the door does not legitimize that applicant has not been forthright in applying for the marijuana land use before obtaining the agricultural exempt building permit. Since before applicant purchased this property it has intended it's operation to be a commercial marijuana grow. Deschutes County must deny this application because today there is no recorded survey on file with Deschtues County of taxlot 3400. And today there is no driveway permit from Alfalfa Market Road to either of the 3 properties owned by Briteside Oregon LLC. As such even with Deschutes' Marijuana Code Enforcement Staff, Deschutes County cannot verify today what the building setback is, or where the future access road will be placed, or what trees might be standing along the south side of taxlot 3400 that would buffer noise from the operation from abutting BLM or where access gates might be located or where fencing with barbed wire will be located on taxlot 3400 in order to know where gates or accesses would be located for simple circulation of all the activities on taxlot 3400: 2 dwellings, 2 ponds, agricultural irrigation, existing ag exempt manufactured prefabricated building, future proposed grow building. The Burden of Proof has not been met by applicant. Applicant has further not identified whether their proposed new building will be one building or a multiple of prefabricated modular buildings. This matters to the total canopy: is it 20'000 + the 4'160 square foot building already on site? or is it a total of 20'000 square feet? It is an insult to clutter this record with irrelevant information from Kalamazoo, Spokane or others, what is needed is to prove that odor will be managed according to Deschutes County's code not some other place or state. What is relevant is that marijuana growers in Deschutes County have publically testified as recently as April 2018 (4 months after applicant's Appendix F which dates to December 2017 - beginning page 72 of applicant's July 18, 2018 submittal) that carbon filters do not work in our Deschutes County climate. Carbon Filters are old technology. Applicant inserts odor control information about tall pipe vented emissions from greenhouses... is this now what is planned? Applicant submits information from Year 2012, which is not current odor knowledge for our community. 2 It is applicant's burden of proof to identify the system that will control odor in our climate for this specific marijuana grow site. How absurd for applicant in page 58 of their July 18, 2018 submittal (together with Colebreit Engineering) to include information from Spokane "Marijuana is not considered an agricultural product." This application fails the County's marijuana land use test. It should be denied. Thank you Nunzie Gould 3 BLANK PAGE Tracy Griffin From: td tammy <shortshuffle@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 4:34 PM To: Anthony Raguine; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone; Phil Subject: 247-18-000424-A / Briteside Oregon LLC Appeal/ 23450 Walker RD. To: Deschutes County BOCC Members and all Deschutes County Departments, Deschutes County has Rules and Regulations in place for the implementation of Recreational, Medical and personal growing of Marijuana. All employed by Deschutes County has the responsibility to the Deschutes County Residents to implement the rules and regulations of this new industry. To ensure the rules are adhered to also. Your county residents should not have to be appealing approved applications that are NOT COMPLETE. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to review their application before submittal to county for approval. The rules and regulations were in place for our county long before Briteside ever purchased the property, Lots 3400,1500 and 1400. Briteside is in the pot business and I am sure they know what rules and regulations are. It is Ridiculous to approve an application contingent upon conditions needing to be met for APPROVAL. It then falls upon CODE ENFORCEMENT to attempt to rectify rules and regulations that arent completed or met. This should not be left to code enforcement to " CLEAN UP". Briteside application was submitted on 10/17/2017, was then on 11/17/2017 deemed an incomplete application. Then even though incomplete requests and incorrect information is still taking place by applicant and being accepted, in the meantime the application was approved by county planner. Whats wrong with this picture ?. The Briteside applicants did not adhere to county rules and regulations: Setbacks : 1 have read 3 to 4 different ones, 97 ft, 90 ft ,105 ft Has the county actually measured to see what it is ?. As of today no survey documents have been recorded. Building codes: Briteside knew these buildings were not standard greenhouses. Look at the original application (BRITESIDE PROTOTYPE PROJECT) on building plan structure submitted. Now it is called " BRITESIDE LAB PROTOTYPE". Prototype in any dictionary means the same thing: something that HAS NOT BEEN TESTED, and needs to be tested and refined before selling. BRITESIDE has advertised, I BELIEVE FALSE ADVERTISEMENT OF THIS BUILDING AND OTHER "PRODUCTS" by using EFU PROPERTY ADDRESS 23450 WALKER RD. BEND, OR 97701 since last year.Now correct me if I am wrong but I believe when growing agricultural recreational Marijuana on EXCLUSIVE FARM USE PROPERTY , it is not allowed to sell these commercial products from this EFU property. Further more I have yet to see this applicant abide by any single rule or regulation set forth towards their application. water, survey( 2 requested by BLM),noise, odor etc somehow it seems to difficult for them to just answer a simple question ?. Employees, how many does briteside have ? unknown by applicant well here are quite a few of them: Justin P. Junda - Founder S. Christopher Jenkins- Co- founder Amanda Cardenas- Legal and Compliance Officer Jesse Banner Scott mc coy Nicholaus Jones James A. Hurst Jr. James A Hurst Sr. obviously mr. Peterson, thats just a few, they advertise at least 50 employees. They also have at least eight Different LLC'S: BRITESIDE E-COMMERCE BRITESIDE RISK PARTNERS BRITESIDE HOLDINGS Some LLC'S are foreign and some domestic for ownership. 1 have documented at least 6 states of business doings. I can provide this information. I am requesting this APPROVED EFU LAND USE APPLICATION BE DENIED . Based on all documented facts of applicants applications of not being in code rule and regulation. If more infirmation is desired, please dont hesitate to contact me: Respectfully, Tamara Threlkeld 23344 Alfalfa mkt. rd. Bend, OR 97701 2 Tracy Griffin From: Rita Bell <rita.bell@tonkon.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:35 AM To: Anthony Raguine Cc: David Petersen; Janet Neuman; Sam DeBaltzo; 'cardenasa@brtside.com'; 'jenkinsc@brtside.com'; 'greg@blackmoreplanning.com' Subject: Appeal of Briteside Oregon LLC Administrative Approval [IWOV-PDX.FID10685421 Attachments: 2018-07-25 Briteside Record Rebuttal Letter.pdf Mr. Raguine, Please see the attached letter and attachments. As before, our client will hand deliver a copy of this letter and the exhibits to you today. Thank you, Rita Belli Tonkon Torp LLP Legal Assistant 888 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 503.802.2083 direct rita.belltonh:on.com 1 website This message may contain confidential and privileged communications and privileged information. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify me promptly. 1 BLANK PAGE July 25, 2018 VIA E-MAIL - anthonv.raguinera%deschutes.org Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Mr. Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Re: Appeal of Briteside Oregon LLC Administrative Approval File Number 247 -17 -000833 -AD, 247-18-000424-A David J. Petersen david.petersen@ion kon.com Admitted to Practice in Oregon and California 503.802.2054 direct 503.221.1440 main Dear Mr. Raguine: This letter provides rebuttal evidence from Briteside Oregon LLC ("Briteside") during the second seven-day period established by the Board's order at the hearing on July 11, 2018. Briteside will submit its final legal argument by the August 1, 2018 deadline. Enclosed as Exhibit -Q please find an e-mail from Janet Neuman of this firm to me describing her telephone conversations on July 24, 2018 with COID and the OWRD District 11 Watermaster. The e-mail documents information from COID and the Watermaster that the COID water rights appurtenant to the project site may be used for watering plants in an enclosed building onsite, including cannabis. Enclosed as Exhibit R please find a copy of a topographic survey of Walker Road, and enclosed as Exhibit S please find draft construction drawings for the relocation project. Briteside had these materials prepared as part of the process to eliminate the existing encroachments onto adjacent BLM property, as will be required by condition of approval 0 if the permit is approved. As noted in my letter of July 18, 2018, agricultural runoff is regulated by state agencies and is not an applicable approval criterion here. However, in the interest of providing the Board with a complete picture of the proposed facility, Briteside intends to use a HyperLogic Reverse Osmosis water recapture system that recirculates runoff back to the plants. The end result is that all irrigation water introduced into the facility is either absorbed by the plants or enters the atmosphere by evaporation or transpiration. The only byproduct from irrigation is a non -hazardous solid waste that will be transported offsite and disposed of in the manner required by OLCC regulations. Thus, no agricultural runoff enters the septic system or is otherwise delivered to groundwater. This system has the added benefit of drastically reducing the total volume of water needed. Briteside has reviewed the photographs submitted into the record by Ms. Gould and Ms. Threlkeld. Based on the angle and distance, the photos from Ms. Threlkeld could not have been taken without entering onto Briteside's property. The photos from Ms. Gould also may Tonkon Torp LLP j Advocates Advisors 888 SIN Fifth Ave. Suite 1600 Portland OR 97204 1 tonkon.com Deschutes County Board of Commissioners July 25, 2018 Page 2 have been taken on Briteside's property, although it is possible with a high quality telephoto lens that the photographer was offsite at the time. Neither Ms. Threlkeld, Ms. Gould nor anyone else asked for or received Briteside's permission to come onto its property to take photographs. We trust that the County does not condone trespass onto private property in furtherance of submitting comments on a land use application. Please include this letter on the record on appeal in this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, David J. Petersen DJP/djp Enclosures cc (by e-mail, w/enc): Ms. Amanda Cardenas Mr. Chris Jenkins Mr. Greg Blackmore Ms. Janet Neuman Mr. Sam DeBaltzo Exhibits: Q — July 24, 2018 e-mail from Janet Neuman R — June 25, 2018 Walker Road Topographic Survey S — Draft relocation construction drawings 039927/00601/9163546v1 TAB Q David Petersen From: Janet Neuman Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 2:07 PM To: David Petersen Subject: follow up questions on Briteside water issues [IWOV-PDX.FID1068542] David: I spoke today by phone with both COID (Leslie Clark) and the District 11 Watermaster (Jeremy Giffin) about the water issues raised in the Briteside matter. Both Mr. Giffin and Ms. Clark confirmed that COID's irrigation rights appurtenant to the Briteside property can be used for watering plants in an enclosed building on land covered by the water right. Mr. Giffin also said that OWRD takes the position that irrigating cannabis, like irrigating any other crop, is an allowed beneficial use of water, and that the State defers to the irrigation districts as to whether district water can be used for marijuana depending on where a district's water comes from. He said that some districts take the position that their water cannot be used to irrigate marijuana because their water comes only from a federal project, but other districts with live flow rights, such as COID, allow irrigation of cannabis. Let me know if you need any additional information. Janet Neuman 1 Tonkon Torp LLP Senior Counsel 888 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1600 Portland OR 97204 503.802.5722 direct 1503.680.2242 cell ignet.neumaaptonkon.com 1 website 1 bio This message may contain confidential and privileged communications and privileged information. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify me promptly. 1 TAB R Ilf NOD3110 uNnoo 'WM "3 GI. 11 'S LI 1. a N011338 NI 031V001 A9A23ns 01HdV2:190d01 CIVOLI L9N1VAA SONIC1OH 3ais21wa VM H 1 Lo P ' ..•,,,,.,..,-, „,,. , qr r, NOD3110 kiNtIOD S31/114.30 VMH F.” 'PM "3EL 11"S LI '1J 0 a NO1133S NI 031,1001 A3AdfIS 01HdY800d01 GVOH H3>11VM SONIG1OH 3GIS9111:19 « 1 . 1 0 1 0 og3i, C.N•S*)' — --, ,, _ n — N - •.1 4 I ,'" •,, 1 I 1 / t t cj M g . 878 8 . 0' E, E 0 9 ,, 2 y . E x . . . 7 7 ° g H _ 8' 8 ,g _ , — N - /-- ' :V / , .4441 6 .,, !....... l'.. I 2,66-3• LAI 1 i z 1 ° I' a 1 . 1 0 I . . .,..„... ..,.,, TAB S .091.Z - BIOZ 'S Dem Px.PJ—�1 9 6OZ/9 L/L WA. 170903 NO038O ALNf1OO S31f1HOS30 azn '' 133HS H3A00 • _ (t: o3 i= VO9>i1VM NOIIVOO1DH QH H1 `v� MH = 0 Al1110VA ividnrinoluov 3a1S]lla9 B,ry .ao3"s3 " m s 3" SWIM. a I m I 0 1 0 1 I 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 OWNER/DEVELOPER BRITESIDE AGRICULTURAL FACILITY BRITESIDE OREGON LLC 832 GEORGIA AVE. 6510 WALKER ROAD RELOCATION CHATTANOOGA. TN 37402 TAX LOTS 17 13 27 00 1500 & 3400 LOCATED IN THE SW % OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON FILE NUMBER: 247 -17 -000833 -AD CONSTRUCTION NOTES LEGEND: t THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EMPLOY ALL LABOR EQUIPMENT, AND METHODS REQUIRED TO PREVENT HIS OP ERATIO.FROM PRODUCING DUST IN AMOUNTS DAMAGING TO PROPERTY, CULTIVATED VEGETATION. AND DOMESTIC MAMA. OR CAUSING EXISTING FEATURES NUISANCE TO PERSONS OCCUPYING BUILDINGS IN THE VICINITY OFTHE.oBBITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY DUST RESULTING FROM HIS OPERATIONS. •2 ALL OE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT 'UNDERGROUND LOCATE SERNCE'ATI-000-332.2344 AM LOT UNE IAPPRonLUTE UncATIOM T LEAST 46 BUSINESS -DAY HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OF POWER. GAS. OIL. CABLE Ft°2 LIFE TV. AND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING THE 2,- OVERHEAD POWER APPROPRIATE PUBLIC AGENCY FOR LOCATION CF ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. -:aP- UNDERGROUND POWER, • -- UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNE S. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW ALL APPLICABLE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY REGULATIONS, THE ENGINEER. AND THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING SAFETY REGULATIONS. RA EAR WATER UNE 4. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY HWA M JULY 2010. OTHOUNG TO I Y ASPHALT RAVING S VERIFY LOCATIONANDIES AND ELEVATION INAS CONDN ARE ACCURATE TO THE UCTED? THE CONTRACTOR F AVAILABLE HAS THE TOTARDS AND L RESPOENBIBILITY TO VERIFY THE I ., I CONCRETE LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND TO NOTIFY THE UTILITY COMPANIES WHEN WORKING IN PROXIMITY TO THEIR FACILITIES. 6 IPRIGAIIDNVALVE AE-0 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDNIONS ON THE JOB SITE INCLUDING DIMENSIONS, GRADES, ELEVATIONS. , EXTENT AND COMPATIBILITY OF THE WORK DESCRIBED ON THE ENGINEERS DRAWING WITH THE EXISTING SITE NO F Guy R CONDITIONS. ANY DISCREPANCIES OR UNEXPECTED CONDITIONS THAT AFFECT OR CHANGE THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THE -0- INXI,FINF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ENGINEERS ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ® Ra CONC.?. PROCEED WITH ANY OF THE WORK IN THE AREA OF DISCREPANCIES UNTIL ALL SUCH DISCREPANCIES ARE REESOLVES.0 ELECTRIC S•ERNCE TNE. CONTRACTOR CHOOSES TO DO SO. THEN 0 I UNDERSTOOD THAT HE SHALL OE PROCEEDING AT HIS OWN RISK AND ER INCUR ALL COST, IF ANY. TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER. . TELEPHONE MEP D. NOTED, OR DED IN A OO M+OIt a MATERIAL QUANTITIES LAW REQUIRES THE COWiw.CTORS OFOLTE ITEMI2ED QUANTITY TAKE -OFF ARE AN ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS, AND ARE ESTIMATES ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR HAS THE SOLE SEWER MANHOLE . RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING HIS OWN QUANTITY TAKEOFFS ON WHICH TO BASE HIS MD. GAS KTER of, „RIAcE ATTENTION O LOW RULES ADOPTED BY THE OREGON UTIUN mr NOTIFICATION CENTER. THOSE RULES ARE SET FORTN IN OAR 952-DDI.001E THROUGH 0S2-001-0080. THE CONTRACTOR MAY N OBTAIN COPIES OF THE RULES BY CALLING THE CENTER. (NOTE THE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE OREGON UTILITY O6 NOTIFICATION CENTER IS(503)232.298T.) NicuRmRr I.NTERvAL 6 SURVEY MONUMENTS O UMTS AND/OR PROPERTY CORNERS THAT ARE DESTROYED OR DISTURBED AS A RESULT OF ACTIVITIES SHALL BE RESTORED FUD/OR REPLACED Ai THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE I— ! 1 I I - W F- _11. rn____s-i I— -_ • Q 2 b \ i i Z O J 1 4 1l _If e yl 11 1f > !6 L- 1 1 r I m I I O .091.Z - BIOZ 'S Dem Px.PJ—�1 wall-[ - 002 'SZ lM O. b.rp ,-wilpaoNa Pb uyloM- �[aob roinllnau6v PPPd uypM-C060[r\s! 81 OZ/91'/ a p - m N rC): C..) 3 N0034,1O 'A1NflOO S31f1HOS30 ONLLSIX3�oNN3N1VM :3„ NV1dIVAOWOa/SNOIlIGNOJ 0310NS a'd �� SN did NOIlt/00�3a avOa a3lIlvM::0 W1MW -♦ WMW 000000 A11110Vd 1vanl1naiaEv 3aIs311aa s os 3a < I m I 0 I 0 ✓ 0\ U — �8 �� ¢ 3m — (7 co \ \ N 1� IJ %�. \ I v�y`�I V"\\l\\\\ �(:.� --. 'i' � ";,I Nili � </ 7, 1 II I y 1� - �� i . o u �i �`� \ i\\\ ,+9541 r� / .—e- )4 4' vim, II o �� \ \ $. X000 \ iA ''' 8 \ '-� ^ Li'ag z v, t t\ I !-.w .31 f y--° 1 1-J. / r 1 eT J i 1 T I r J- L\ t "_ 1 V \ �� . II I Y W-= tn ? 7Ao6,o ©ou0o 1 1 II' m V .W � e 3 0 1I 11 ,� � • Iv` 1 I U8 .5 m aHo ' I I i` 1, rvT�11Gwi �� • �,.,1 8 • 6ko9 ' f/°A s 1 / �(f 1111 I ry l a as adz a� I /1 I !�' 7; 1 I fz Xay A-€ z: °z OHI 1 foo \ c3a ra5 z o° "4 a W w 3 sY`s woa °Ea3= F Y,g' tzw e- fie. z }g "tm 2 : ,a°o — — N 1 - rj4 � 11 I. - i 1' 0 X000000 < I m 1 U I o wall-[ - 002 'SZ lM O. b.rp ,-wilpaoNa Pb uyloM- �[aob roinllnau6v PPPd uypM-C060[r\s! w �x I� NO038O'A1Nf1OO S31f1HOS30 8602/9ISL ' I o 0 mo U 1 00+04-00+0 IS JlIdObd 8 Nt/ld OVOa a3>IlVM .01,1a3NlVM SNbld NOIld�Ol3ki at/Oti F13�ldM Al1113Vd 1VHlnllnOINJV 3ais311EI9 0310NSo' NW S ,e �� WMW a�M y a 'AB WMW " �yo,s, 3e 0 0 co O O 0 O I— Z d 0 0 O w VB 06V OBtt OV I.0 Le Ogie bar SI Ca 0 OO Lt>c Z ILO 01 51 nttt 0 0 0 K Z—�1 g a 0 won - POZ 52 /M PaM 6�'P s,p�-uPyPappy P8-,..1-t06Ot1\6»P\40pd 4»41'}'46V pony aaypM-ro60[i\s/rYoid P.A,S rvpa ry ✓ABI 1 - BIO? '3? IM 13)0 6Yp50J-w_iloaolan On Nn1o1-[060t I\6.OITnt�on 010Il0)0 810Z/91./Lem al oo 0 LI ...; V LI ,_ rt 3 = N09300 'AJNn00831f1H3830 tJ1S 311�04�d 8 NV1d dt�0l� hJ3111VM ;, OVOiltl3AlVM ' • . 00+2-00+01. 0310888 :3,Cr) �. �� SNd1d NOIld�013�i Ot/Oki a�Ji1dM WMW :Ae 'ad WMN ,....10.1930 V ^�J �./L' /� 1, �./ �J A1fIJ J 1 V 9UlS LIOa V V anl1nOIOO SHaiSin3tl I CO I 0 1 0 \ R \ {,..f .. `0 II % r✓ ae ewe3w ry oar N I ) �'� $ @ J ' v nara $ -0 o �p . oo bS 1� 1.1.1- I 1,R /I , _ are o — 1 A — _. t I/"� oo f j ? PI; 8 , II S3A3 1 I v. etrt ./+/ e eye ' f ,,oar o oax /74,- ,,,etre w aff eo w -a- a�ow + II1 6 , No . „ o bso�0rc[ se Wf 1 a i<oA�N B9,sne% g2,0 O 0 CO 1,!0, 16.00 y '" pj 'k 1. i- t� w m 11 cs _ P wimpy ws N `� \ �E _�_zo sere O 8 .see -- - 3� 3 1 we 3 ` I- o a .z 0113.1x3 3 .. - - ©) I • N s t .s1 so13 / 1 '. 0 0_ N 8 e.1103 W 11 p1p \_ V 0 n _ ( wa — O / i. I I O.' �: ��e ex o � r1. n \ \ 1 J VG SIM ! ateesc _ b rX m 5 n __ _ I 16 1 rt svrs W n L 1 < au8e _7 Y a 6�. '. , 33a . !� - - j..; I�, �r �� 'PaC9PC 3.9 le sere _ I 3o.1.10 x.1a 1 ss Isms ea ears \ i \ 4 I C'Y y f C9re 0152.96 \' wa 2 33 N N i I ` 1 / 1 SD j m 0b�b'b, T „ ,- x i��% 111 . w ewe _; Ab4 ' la PC6 !,�I — —i ��0 ,,,, „1st etre>a tip; 1\\1' ^ 3 \ l 1111111 i ss rare - m3 t. 0 n.1-- 1 11L. _ ' 1 s� - -1 Z-ciiiiic \- o BBo s 1 \ 0 sF, 8 r m - o a I 00 I 0 I 0 ✓ABI 1 - BIO? '3? IM 13)0 6Yp50J-w_iloaolan On Nn1o1-[060t I\6.OITnt�on 010Il0)0 k + N0037r1O'AINf1O0S31f1HOS3O 81.OZ/9I/L I a_ 0 m° M C..)I il 09+9Z-00+2 V1S 31id0ldd'8 NV -Id OVOH ld3Ji�VM OVoaa3NivM SNVId NOW/0013HaV0ld ld3NlVM Alf1I3Vd 1VEIflllfl3IHOV 341S311ld9 V� HwMw^OA O151A3a"00"0'530 m U co co ti /- it /// 1 co m U I O vagi, - RIOZ ''CZ 33 ONA 6&P's,PO-.0➢fo#a Pa ) 3 M-CO60[,0in0,0,060 Pvoa lay,JM-[66OL1\war., ➢u➢I\ 5 rvW! BLANK PAGE EXHIBIT D Rebuttal Evidence & Testimony BLANK PAGE Tracy Griffin From: KC Burk <kcburk@mindspring.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 4:52 PM To: Anthony Raguine Cc: kcburk@mindspring.com Subject: Response to letter from S Ritter 7-17-2018 - File no. 247 -17 -000833 -AD RE: Briteside Walker Rd. Mr. Raguine, In response to section 5 — "Improper waste disposal" from Ms Ritter's email, I would like to explain the following public health threat posed by improper waste disposal at this operation: All of the water that feeds Mayfield pond flows onto and through the actual 40 acre lot at 23450 Walker Rd., the same lot of the proposed Briteside marijuana production facility. Mayfield pond is a large body of water, heavily used by the public for recreation, swimming, fishing, drinking by campers and transients. It is part of the B.L.M. managed Mayfield Pond Recreation Area of 19,500 acres. It is around 1 mile downstream from the Briteside property. The canal that feeds Mayfield pond actually flows through the property for several hundred feet in the SE corner. The overflow for the Briteside irrigation pond ties also back into the Mayfield canal. B.L.M. requested twice in letters dated 12/14/2017 and 07/10/2018 that Deschutes County "require protocols be adopted to ensure chemical residue be contained and not migrate onto public lands." So far, as Ms. Ritter stated, Briteside has only said they will have "secured waste receptacles", with no further details of handling waste. The possibility of toxic chemicals and waste from this operation finding their way to Mayfield pond is highly likely. This is a public health risk that must not be taken and therefore the application should be denied on these grounds. Thank you — KC Burk BLANK PAGE Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 4:52 PM To: 'Nunzie' Subject: RE: rebuttal #2 247-18-000424-A Hi Nunzie. Your email was received by the County's server at 5:02 pm. Because the deadline for submittal of rebuttal testimony was 5:00 pm, your email will not be considered by the Board. Let me know if you have any questions. Anthony Raguine I Senior Planner 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 617-4739 ODS Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey From: Nunzie Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 5:02 PM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: rebuttal #2 247-18-000424-A Please enter this into the record as rebuttal #2 re 247-18-000424-A. I would like to reiterate that as of today 7-25-2018 after checking with Deschutes County survey department, there is no boundary survey recorded with Deschutes County for taxlot 3400. Also today there is no survey recorded with Deschutes County that legitimizes the field survey done in 2017 for the boundary line adjustment between taxlot 1400 and taxlot 1500.The Hickman Williams submittal showing 105' is based on an un -filed property line adjustment by Armstrong. Applicant has not shown that their 'private walker road' is on their property; to the contrary what is driven on today is shown on their maps as deviating onto abutting BLM public land. The site plan Applicant New Information dated 7-15-2018 submitted 7-18-2018 does not show how the 2 dwellings will be served by road or how an irrigator will access the 2 ponds on taxlot 3400 to maintain the COID water rights used for irrigating the agricultural fields of the farm. A complete site plan is needed not this piecemeal site plan. One page where the proposed septic, road, setbacks, 2 dwellings, pond and all entrances onto taxlot 3400 are drawn i.e. including how a vehicle will travel between the 40' easement across taxlot 1500 and the 2 dwellings on taxlot 3400 ( applicant at the hearing already identified that Briteside has leased the dwelling to an employee in the past even without the grow, so it is not unreasonable to expect people to live in the dwellings onsite.. The question is how will they get to these dwellings? It is also unclear whether fencing and/or the acoustic wall will provide access to the other activities: dwellings, farming, irrigating that occur on the taxlot 3400. It is unreasonable for the County to assume that trees along the south border of taxlot 3400 where it abuts BLM land (to the south) will be preserved when legal access from Alfalfa market Road is created thru the Lot Line adjustment between taxlot 1400 and taxlot 1500 since taxlot 3400 is land 1 locked and does not abut Alfalfa Market Road. The record is correct that Walker Road all along taxlot 1400 and taxlot 1500 and taxlot 3400 was vacated by Deschutes County. Applicant purchased a land locked parcel 3400 and then began and today still continues it's lot line adjustments for taxlot 1400 and taxlot 1500. With Walker Road being vacated over 30 years ago, the County has not shown nor has applicant shown that there is a legal access from Alfalfa Market Road to taxlot 1400 and such access is not shown on any site plan either in the lot line adjustment file or in the proposed marijuana easement which as previously discussed is contrary to the Doctrine of Merger. (you cannot create an easement to benefit your property thru another property which you own.) It is especially relevant today with marijuana being the product grown on taxlot 3400 that the county fully understand who has use and access to taxlot 3400. According to applicant's July 18, 2018 game plan... if Walker Road is a private road, where is the road permit and/or driveway permit? This newly recorded easement is still self imposed and invalid. Applicant would have you believe the because it owns all 3 properties there is no problem. Our code does not read such. It is applicant's BURDEN OF PROOF to show that today they meet the marijuana development code. It is preposterous to believe now after all of applicant's gyrations that the County should trust applicant. Just by having a toe in the door does not legitimize that applicant has not been forthright in applying for the marijuana land use before obtaining the agricultural exempt building permit. Since before applicant purchased this property it has intended it's operation to be a commercial marijuana grow. Deschutes County must deny this application because today there is no recorded survey on file with Deschtues County of taxlot 3400. And today there is no driveway permit from Alfalfa Market Road to either of the 3 properties owned by Briteside Oregon LLC. As such even with Deschutes' Marijuana Code Enforcement Staff, Deschutes County cannot verify today what the building setback is, or where the future access road will be placed, or what trees might be standing along the south side of taxlot 3400 that would buffer noise from the operation from abutting BLM or where access gates might be located or where fencing with barbed wire will be located on taxlot 3400 in order to know where gates or accesses would be located for simple circulation of all the activities on taxlot 3400: 2 dwellings, 2 ponds, agricultural irrigation, existing ag exempt manufactured prefabricated building, future proposed grow building. The Burden of Proof has not been met by applicant. Applicant has further not identified whether their proposed new building will be one building or a multiple of prefabricated modular buildings. This matters to the total canopy: is it 20'000 + the 4'160 square foot building already on site? or is it a total of 20'000 square feet? It is an insult to clutter this record with irrelevant information from Kalamazoo, Spokane or others, what is needed is to prove that odor will be managed according to Deschutes County's code not some other place or state. What is relevant is that marijuana growers in Deschutes County have publically testified as recently as April 2018 (4 months after applicant's Appendix F which dates to December 2017 - beginning page 72 of applicant's July 18, 2018 submittal) that carbon filters do not work in our Deschutes County climate. Carbon Filters are old technology. Applicant inserts odor control information about tall pipe vented emissions from greenhouses... is this now what is planned? Applicant submits information from Year 2012, which is not current odor knowledge for our community. 2 It is applicant's burden of proof to identify the system that will control odor in our climate for this specific marijuana grow site. How absurd for applicant in page 58 of their July 18, 2018 submittal (together with Colebreit Engineering) to include information from Spokane "Marijuana is not considered an agricultural product." This application fails the County's marijuana land use test. It should be denied. Thank you Nunzie Gould 3 BLANK PAGE Tracy Griffin From: td tammy <shortshuffle@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 4:34 PM To: Anthony Raguine; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone; Phil Subject: 247-18-000424-A / Briteside Oregon LLC Appeal/ 23450 Walker RD. To: Deschutes County BOCC Members and all Deschutes County Departments, Deschutes County has Rules and Regulations in place for the implementation of Recreational, Medical and personal growing of Marijuana. All employed by Deschutes County has the responsibility to the Deschutes County Residents to implement the rules and regulations of this new industry. To ensure the rules are adhered to also. Your county residents should not have to be appealing approved applications that are NOT COMPLETE. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to review their application before submittal to county for approval. The rules and regulations were in place for our county long before Briteside ever purchased the property, Lots 3400,1500 and 1400. Briteside is in the pot business and I am sure they know what rules and regulations are. It is Ridiculous to approve an application contingent upon conditions needing to be met for APPROVAL. It then falls upon CODE ENFORCEMENT to attempt to rectify rules and regulations that arent completed or met. This should not be left to code enforcement to " CLEAN UP". Briteside application was submitted on 10/17/2017, was then on 11/17/2017 deemed an incomplete application. Then even though incomplete requests and incorrect information is still taking place by applicant and being accepted, in the meantime the application was approved by county planner. Whats wrong with this picture ?. The Briteside applicants did not adhere to county rules and regulations: Setbacks : 1 have read 3 to 4 different ones, 97 ft, 90 ft ,105 ft Has the county actually measured to see what it is ?. As of today no survey documents have been recorded. Building codes: Briteside knew these buildings were not standard greenhouses. Look at the original application (BRITESIDE PROTOTYPE PROJECT) on building plan structure submitted. Now it is called "BRITESIDE LAB PROTOTYPE". Prototype in any dictionary means the same thing: something that HAS NOT BEEN TESTED, and needs to be tested and refined before selling. BRITESIDE has advertised, I BELIEVE FALSE ADVERTISEMENT OF THIS BUILDING AND OTHER "PRODUCTS" by using EFU PROPERTY ADDRESS 23450 WALKER RD. BEND, OR 97701 since last year.Now correct me if I am wrong but I believe when growing agricultural recreational Marijuana on EXCLUSIVE FARM USE PROPERTY , it is not allowed to sell these commercial products from this EFU property. Further more I have yet to see this applicant abide by any single rule or regulation set forth towards their application. water, survey( 2 requested by BLM),noise, odor etc somehow it seems to difficult for them to just answer a simple question ?. Employees, how many does briteside have ? unknown by applicant well here are quite a few of them: Justin P. Junda - Founder S. Christopher Jenkins- Co- founder Amanda Cardenas- Legal and Compliance Officer Jesse Banner Scott mc coy Nicholaus Jones James A. Hurst Jr. James A Hurst Sr. i obviously mr. Peterson, thats just a few, they advertise at least 50 employees. They also have at least eight Different LLC'S: BRITESIDE E-COMMERCE BRITESIDE RISK PARTNERS BRITESIDE HOLDINGS Some LLC'S are foreign and some domestic for ownership. I have documented at least 6 states of business doings. I can provide this information. I am requesting this APPROVED EFU LAND USE APPLICATION BE DENIED . Based on all documented facts of applicants applications of not being in code rule and regulation. If more infirmation is desired, please dont hesitate to contact me: Respectfully, Tamara Threlkeld 23344 Alfalfa mkt. rd. Bend, OR 97701 2 Tracy Griffin From: Rita Bell <rita.bell@tonkon.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:35 AM To: Anthony Raguine Cc: David Petersen; Janet Neuman; Sam DeBaltzo; 'cardenasa@brtside.com'; 'jenkinsc@brtside.com'; 'greg@blackmoreplanning.com' Subject: Appeal of Briteside Oregon LLC Administrative Approval [IWOV-PDX.FID1068542] Attachments: 2018-07-25 Briteside Record Rebuttal Letter.pdf Mr. Raguine, Please see the attached letter and attachments. As before, our client will hand deliver a copy of this letter and the exhibits to you today. Thank you, Rita Bell I Tonkon Torp LLP Legal Assistant 888 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 503.802.2083 direct rita.bell-(tonkon.com website This message may contain confidential and privileged communications and privileged information. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify me promptly. i July 25, 2018 VIA E-MAIL - anthony.raguine( )deschutes.org Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Mr. Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Re: Appeal of Briteside Oregon LLC Administrative Approval File Number 247 -17 -000833 -AD, 247-18-000424-A David J. Petersen david.petersen@tonkon.com Admitted to Practice in Oregon and California 503.802.2054 direct 503.221.1440 main Dear Mr. Raguine: This letter provides rebuttal evidence from Briteside Oregon LLC ("Briteside") during the second seven-day period established by the Board's order at the hearing on July 11, 2018. Briteside will submit its final legal argument by the August 1, 2018 deadline. Enclosed as Exhibit Q please find an e-mail from Janet Neuman of this firm to me describing her telephone conversations on July 24, 2018 with COID and the OWRD District 11 Watermaster. The e-mail documents information from COID and the Watermaster that the COID water rights appurtenant to the project site may be used for watering plants in an enclosed building onsite, including cannabis. Enclosed as Exhibit R please find a copy of a topographic survey of Walker Road, and enclosed as Exhibit S please find draft construction drawings for the relocation project.' Briteside had these materials prepared as part of the process to eliminate the existing encroachments onto adjacent BLM property, as will be required by condition of approval 0 if the permit is approved. As noted in my letter of July 18,- 2018, agricultural runoff is regulated by state agencies and is not an applicable approval criterion here. However, in the interest of providing the Board with a complete picture of the proposed facility, Briteside intends to use a HyperLogic Reverse Osmosis water recapture system that recirculates runoff back to the plants. The end result is that all irrigation water introduced into the facility is either absorbed by the plants or enters the atmosphere by evaporation or transpiration. The only byproduct from irrigation is a non -hazardous solid waste that will be transported offsite and disposed of in the manner required by OLCC regulations. Thus, no agricultural runoff enters the septic system or is otherwise delivered to groundwater. This system has the added benefit of drastically reducing the total volume of water needed. Briteside has reviewed the photographs submitted into the record by Ms. Gould and Ms. Threlkeld. Based on the angle and distance, the photos from Ms. Threlkeld could not have been taken without entering onto Briteside's property. The photos from Ms. Gould also may Tonkon Torp LLP Advocates & Advisors 838 SW Fifth Ave. Suite 1600 Portland OR 9720,1 1 lonkon.coin Deschutes County Board of Commissioners July 25, 2018 Page 2 have been taken on Briteside's property, although it is possible with a high quality telephoto lens that the photographer was offsite at the time. Neither Ms. Threlkeld, Ms. Gould nor anyone else asked for or received Briteside's permission to come onto its property to take photographs. We trust that the County does not condone trespass onto private property in furtherance of submitting comments on a land use application. Please include this letter on the record on appeal in this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, David J. Petersen DJP/djp Enclosures cc (by e-mail, w/enc): Ms. Amanda Cardenas Mr. Chris Jenkins Mr. Greg Blackmore Ms. Janet Neuman Mr. Sam DeBaltzo Exhibits: Q — July 24, 2018 e-mail from Janet Neuman R — June 25, 2018 Walker Road Topographic Survey S — Draft relocation construction drawings 039927/00001/9163546v1 TAB Q David Petersen From: Janet Neuman Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 2:07 PM To: David Petersen Subject: follow up questions on Briteside water issues [IWOV-PDX.FID1068542] David: I spoke today by phone with both COID (Leslie Clark) and the District 11 Watermaster (Jeremy Giffin) about the water issues raised in the Briteside matter. Both Mr. Giffin and Ms. Clark confirmed that COID's irrigation rights appurtenant to the Briteside property can be used for watering plants in an enclosed building on land covered by the water right. Mr. Giffin also said that OWRD takes the position that irrigating cannabis, like irrigating any other crop, is an allowed beneficial use of water, and that the State defers to the irrigation districts as to whether district water can be used for marijuana depending on where a district's water comes from. He said that some districts take the position that their water cannot be used to irrigate marijuana because their water comes only from a federal project, but other districts with live flow rights, such as COID, allow irrigation of cannabis. Let me know if you need any additional information. Janet Neuman 1 Tonkon Torp LLP Senior Counsel 888 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1600 Portland OR 97204 503.802.5722 direct 1503.680.2242 cell janet.neumantonkon.com 1 website 1 bio This message may contain confidential and privileged communications and privileged information. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify me promptly. 1 TAB R i 111 NH 11V 141 A. oos ..U..?':-, `til. '_, r, N003130 1,11.1,103 S31113530 ... - ,. ... ,—...".:,., ,.-.• . _ 'NtiM "3 CL '8 "S LI '1 til3 CZ NO11338 Nil CaLV301 A3Aans 3iHdV2:100d01 CIVOH H3N1VM SONI010H 3ais3ion -,, .i. ' '`...'' 0 \ \-::' . ' 1 A I I 11 I I II ,' • s_ Lu 91 L°11 !q' k 0 FLA ,, . ,- ,; 1111111— '-,'.P , WIWI z § FH:.' 1. ...xleM.ogeo.g1.411 L 9 . . . i , . 2 1'. i i , % „ ,F s `j , Z ' .. ; : '°, 1, t4, : 5 '' " I , - ' _ ., ..... ,,. ... , 4 < 1 ,n m 1 ,,, 1 . — „ —. ,—..,..,.,......,. A RE Nil ilir ,7- ' ' . '-'-' NODRIO AiNnoa S3.1f1H9530 .. , '.:.:':.':,:.,''.-.'-.'-': VM H , 2 ' - ' 'VC Al,"3 EL '2I"S 1. l a AO LZ N01103S NI OaLV301 A3A1MIS 01HdVHOOdaL ,'":t CIVOH 1:13>I1VM SONIC:110H 301S3.1189 4 1 t 2 ii I I tl 1 [ g . 8999! 1 111111 WWI 8 7 _f ii. . F., '!' . 9 ' . , . g , 9 - g 6 L' l'"'1111 - 0 -. .- N — - . - - cv — / :,. i - _AI g., ::-,..\. 1 .--. k.... I I I I ' : . I i 0 TAB S wog, - 9IOZ YZ .Pxpo-uogo.. Pb NVMif-fO&OZJ\b�P\l.Naaj loirylnal.6V P <I 8LOZ/91,1 _ = m r .1 U WA. 170903 NO9380'A1N1100 S31f1HOS30 EDA00 M onoda3 ( Y OVO1321—IS NOllt/00��i a �13�1�dM V H hll�l�t/� �d�J(11�f101�1�t/ 3alS�llaB wMw Aa o3� ,=3 txoIsIA3a Q 1 m 1 U 1 D 11 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 OWNER/DEVELOPER BRITESIDE AGRICULTURAL FACILITY BRITESIDE OREGON LLC 832 GEORGIA AVE. 8510 WALKER ROAD RELOCATION CHATTANOOGA. TN 37402 TAX LOTS 17 13 27 00 1500 & 3400 LOCATED IN THE SW %4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON FILE NUMBER: 247 -17 -000833 -AD CONSTRUCTION NOTES LEGEND: • 1. T. CONTRACTOR SHALL EMPLOY ALL LABOR. EQUIPMENT, AND METHODS REQUIRED TO PREVENT M50PERATIO.AS FROM PRODUCING OUST IN AMOUNTS DAMAGING TO PROPERTY, CULTNATED VEGETATION, AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS OR CAUSING EXISTING FEATURES NUISANCE TO PERSONS OCCUPY!).. BUILDINGS IN THE VICINSTY OF THE .1011 SITE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY OUST RESULTING FROM HIS OPERATIONS, 2. SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT -UNDERGROUND LOCATE SERVICE" AT 1-800-332-23A1 - ASSESSOR,. LorU E! AOn,,,, .cnnoM TLEAST AB BUSINESS -DAY HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OF POWER...OIL. CABLE — cuP8 use TV. AND PONE UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC AGENCY FOR LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND FACILRIES. — - Goo— uueE9wowo Povw -- L19.9010100TI.1-1.. VW 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW ALL APPLICABLE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY REGULATIONS, THE ENGINEER, AND THE OWNER SHALL NOT B- RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING SAFETY REGULATIONS. — - V.— DRAGE SSE. a. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY RNA IN JULY 200. SUTILITIES I AEE., PAVING VERIFYY LOCATION ANDS ELEVATION WAS CONDUCTED. AVAILABLE ED. TTHE CONTRACTOR HAS THE TTO RESPONSIBILITY TYTO VERIFY THE I ., I CONCRETE LOCATION FACILITIES. OFEXISNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND TO NGTI.THE :GUN COMPANIES WHEN WORKING IN PROXIMITY O Oa IRRIGATION VALVE 6 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDIT10N50NTHE JOB SITE INCLUDING DIMENSIONS, GRADES. ELEVATIONS. R'' EXTENT AND COMPATIBILITY OF THE WORK DESCRIBED ON THE ENGINEERS DRAWING WITH THE EXISTING SITE R CONDITIONS. ANY DISCREPANCIES OR UNEXPECTED CONDITIONS THAT AFFECT OR CHANGE THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THE CONTRACT ALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ENGINEERS ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ® RA CONDI PAD CEED WITH ANY OF THE WORK IN THE AR. OF DISCREPANCI. UNTIL ALL SUCH DISCREPANCIES ARE RESOLVED. IF 0.-rxic SERVICE THE CONTRACTOR CHOOSES TO OTHEN R IS UNDERSTOOD THAT HE SHALL BE PROCEEDING AT HIS OWN RISK AND G CASSE IV 8R INCUR ALL COST, IF ANY. TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.• 11 TELEFTIoys PIS. . Op NNA,E 7 MATERIAL USED. NOTED. PROVIDED 100557AMTE ITEMIZED OUANTITV TAKEOFF ARE AN ENGINEER'S PROBABLE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS, AND ARE ESTIMATES ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR HAS THE SOLE Op RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING HIS OWN QUANTITY TAKE -OFFS ON WHICH TO BASE HIS MO. PSERVED sawn°. QUIRES THE CONTRACTOR TO FOLLOW RULES ADOPTED BY THE OREGON UTILITY `i wfl ,T,. 5 ATTENTION CENTER. THOSE RULES ARE SET FORTH IN OAR908001.00I0 THROUGH 002O7T0D90. THE CONTRACTOR MAY N T OBTAIN COPIES 55 THE RULES BY CALLING THE CENTER, (NOTE THE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE OREGON UTILITY OE NOTIFICATION CENTER 0 W03) 202.2987,) 11--3620— CONTOUR MC. ,,, 4 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,c.rERVA 9 SURVEY MONUMENTS AND/OR PROPERTY CORNERS THAT ARE DESTROYED OR DISTURBED AS A RESULT OF COSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE RESTORED ANDNR REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE i W ^ 0 LL CQ Q a y_11 I— z co yam 1[ , _II r ' VA v�e a. ___`� T j � 1�i i _ 1 Nu P re'=' Q I m 1 0 O wog, - 9IOZ YZ .Pxpo-uogo.. Pb NVMif-fO&OZJ\b�P\l.Naaj loirylnal.6V P <I NO0321O'A1NfOO S31f1HOS30 NVId IVA0IN38/SNOIlIaNOo ONILSIX3 SNVId NOIiVOOl3a OVOH 1:3)fVM AlllloVJ 1VanilnOI} OV 9018311E1E1 o N 0 1 m U I m 1 U O (i t - BIOZ 'OZ /M 00 6.0x00- ono,, yy 0d ..*10 t060Zi\6.0\'l'6JOJ iwnll0�uby pony �orypy�-CO60!l\slaa'o d pu0)\.B rvv) H CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u) u)e , 0 0 CC CC w E® Se 006 68 OS, Le 01:160 91 06 0060 60 S9 {060 0 0 0 o 0 0 ui 0 0 0 � 0 F. w eD 0 won, - BIOZ '52 IM POM 6.PYPJ-uPIIP) INV PN .0o+r&M-[060[1\6•P\Ml il,0, Iwn11^,6y Poor.aypM-f060/1\o!»'oie PUP7\ 3' rvPPry NO03?JO'A1NfOO S31f11-10S3O 91.OZ/91IL »^ a _ CS m 1 U ¢ _ OO+OL 00+0 VIS 3lldOad 8 NV -Id OVO 1 I2>11 Mit:',) OVOaa3MlVM •ado bO3J1�M SNdld NOIlV0013a aa at/ A11113Vd 1danl-1n3laOV 3GIS3111:19 0310N S ail HWO a �� WMW WMW AB 00.1530 O1S163a CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u) u)e , 0 0 CC CC w E® Se 006 68 OS, Le 01:160 91 06 0060 60 S9 {060 0 0 0 o 0 0 ui 0 0 0 � 0 F. w eD 0 won, - BIOZ '52 IM POM 6.PYPJ-uPIIP) INV PN .0o+r&M-[060[1\6•P\Ml il,0, Iwn11^,6y Poor.aypM-f060/1\o!»'oie PUP7\ 3' rvPPry ,uog,,1 - 9,00 '02 /M pax bxps,p0-,:ogo,O1.N 90 xyIo0-00601, 0P\PVP pope p007\:. N0030JO 'AuN n00 S31f1H0S30 8 [OM [iL ..no w! _0 ; I a m N /y� ` J m 4Z 00+04 d1S 9lld0ad'8 NV1d a dOa aJ)flVM OVO883MlVM ():00+ SN did NOI1V�Ol3a adOa 132N1YM ^�./ �./ r� �./ A1nIJVJ iVani-noiaoV gaisiiaa 0310NSa"3l HAD •^a 3MO3H° V/� WMW ,A•U WMW ��e 03Hols3a 5u0151n30 a I m I 0 I 0 I 1V .. o' —... z—� ' i 1 �1 es H I r n�a ..`-i roVbGt r Y I ,ti � , I ce 6ssc _ ok 'aosz.e1.,s.Fne' N'IP 1��, I ; ei itot U co O of - 1I 171,, e'en 0 = Ii lIRh,>� O''' e LO ��6r / \o�II �.\.. RI MC pan o;u 11 %{ ,, f 8 1! ; stetry _ 6oam __ normo xa° pawaw - ov W 3woi� oo — -I- '3:I �\� _ n E r[ zn I SI � �� ere -"� _`;z - p3� m m o I i '" oo era.30e wee ¢ znxw dNw wz a _ • stsne 0 0 0 0 O 88 ai rp l 12, a .., acac „ 16,100 .!tI rare oo w O o l 1 ea + O �v a OINI MIN o z0,13ix3 ; .J - _ © C a ,, ) / o a r ee w 5: n `ate +t 0 Xp W __ten �ara 0 asu.r4 ssa o a�a -�—, 1— — -- rosz.r, song re sure W � 3 I a m m Dere ; .ieC ; e \ I y oCI 6 I �o - r ' T. ..— OZ•CR .__� e0AS 301 i0 Hie osa . 8 arc 1 O J(' . 33.OyO1' m N N 1 I\1,'. I a »v m 2I I ! s 6 �� m $ —, / .I a ecvwc m s - I \ -`/ 0 rare _ I a I in & ' I '`� I a sen ^� n a 1 sr aero —_-___CZ—'� _ t. 1 ` r, ' A m ' - o a I m I v I O ,uog,,1 - 9,00 '02 /M pax bxps,p0-,:ogo,O1.N 90 xyIo0-00601, 0P\PVP pope p007\:. (%; e- NO0380'AINnoo 83111HOS30 81,0Z/9 1./L i m Mb0310N U # 09+9Z-00+2 : :NILS311dOHd'8 NVId GVOH H3>I1VMoVoaa3 VM SNVId NOIlV0013H aVOH I:ON-WM A11110V31VHnlin3lHE1v 3a1S31IHa SV •alvos NryMWA Ae rvm ao WMW a a3rvsis3 Np1516 3a CO U 0 O O + N f- !/) J 0 00 w J 5 to m 0 0 u.oRI Z - BIOZ '52 /M OTM 6.ya00-ia,qo.oNy ON nx10.1-ro60[1\6x0\00oj 1.,^11^ u6y pony ,a4MM-fO(O1I\,t0id Ouo-/\.; ryrv�yry EXHIBIT E Applicant's Final Legal Argument BLANK PAGE ONKON pp August 1, 2018 David J. Petersen david.petersen@tonkon.com Admitted to Practice in Oregon and California 503.802,2054 direct 503.221.1440 main VIA FACSIMILE AND E-MAIL - anthonv.raguine a,deschutes.org Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Mr. Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Re: Appeal of Briteside Oregon LLC Administrative Approval File Number 247 -17 -000833 -AD, 247-18-000424-A Dear Mr. Raguine: This letter provides applicant's final legal argument in accordance with the Board's order at the hearing on July 11, 2018. Substantial evidence in the record, most of which is uncontroverted by any other evidence in the record, shows that all the applicable approval criteria of DCC 18.116.330 are met, as follows: 1. Applicability (DCC 18.16.020 and 18.116.330(A)) Marijuana production is a permitted use in the EFU zone, subject to compliance with DCC 18.116.330(B). The requested approval is not a conditional use permit, as suggested by the Burks. 2. Minimum Lot Area (DCC 18.116.330(B)(1)) The subject property (Tax Lot 3400) is 40 acres, in excess of the minimum lot size of 5 acres in the EFU zone. 3. Indoor Production (DCC 18.116.330(B)(2)) All production is proposed to occur indoors, as required by subparagraph (b). The buildings are fully enclosed, opaque buildings; they are not greenhouses. Appellant's argument that production is limited to a single building is not well -taken for the reasons explained in staffs Findings and Decision and my letter of July 2, 2018. 4. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size (DCC 18.116.330(B)(3)) Because the subject property is 40 acres, the maximum permissible canopy is 20,000 square feet. The applicant does not propose to exceed that limitation. Tonkon Torp LLP 1 Advocates fr Advisors 1 888 SW Fifth Ave. I Suite 1600 1 Portland OR 97204 1 tonkon.com Deschutes County Board of Commissioners August 1, 2018 Page 2 5. Maximum Building Floor Area (DCC 18.116.330(B)(4)) This criterion does not apply in the EFU zone. 6. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel (DCC 18.116.330(B)(5)) Briteside intends to obtain a single OLCC license for the production facility on the subject property. A condition of approval was approved by staff ensuring that this obligation is met. It does not appear that this condition made it into the final list of conditions in the Findings and Decision, but Briteside does not oppose such a condition. This criterion is met, and there is no contrary evidence in the record. 7. Setbacks (DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)) Briteside acknowledges that information regarding the setback of the existing building from the west property line has been inconsistent. To resolve this inconsistency, Briteside had the setback re -measured by a professional engineer on July 17, 2018. That engineer provided a survey showing that the setback is in fact 105 feet, in excess of the 100 foot minimum lot line setback required (see Exhibit P). The survey is stamped and signed by a registered professional land surveyor from the State of Oregon attesting to its accuracy. No evidence has been submitted by any opponent suggesting that the survey is incorrect. The survey provides substantial evidence that the setbacks criterion is met; however, in recognition of earlier confusion about the setback distance, Briteside would accept a condition of approval requiring that the 105 foot setback be confirmed by a site visit with County staff. Several opponents have expressed concern that no surveys of the subject property boundaries are recorded. There is no requirement in Oregon law or the DCC that a survey must be recorded to be valid. Any survey prepared by a licensed professional surveyor is reliable evidence that the boundaries and distances are as shown on the survey. Moreover, the July 17, 2018 survey (Exhibit P) is based on the earlier Property Line Adjustment Survey (Exhibit 0), which was also prepared by a licensed professional surveyor. That earlier survey was utilized to complete the 2017 boundary line adjustment between Tax Lots 1400 and 1500, which was recorded following approval by all applicable County regulators. There is no actual evidence that the Property Line Adjustment Survey is inaccurate, or that the corresponding recorded boundary line adjustment was approved in error. Accordingly, the July 17, 2018 survey provides reliable evidence that the setback requirement is met. All of the foregoing notwithstanding, if the County nonetheless concludes that the existing building is set back less than 100 feet from the western property line, then alternatively an adjustment to the setback requirement is justified for the reasons stated in the Findings and Decision. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners August 1, 2018 Page 3 8. Separation Distances (DCC 18.116.330(7)) The Findings and Decision concludes that all requirements of this subsection are met, and there is no contrary evidence in the record. 9. Access (DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)) Substantial and uncontroverted evidence shows that the subject property has sufficient access to meet this criterion. Tax Lot 3400 has legal access over a private road across Tax Lot 1500, to Alfalfa Market Road. This access has continually existed since a public road in the same location, then known as Richardson Road, was vacated in 1984. After 1984 no formal easement was required, since Tax Lots 3400 and 1500 have been in common ownership continually from 1984 to the present day. However, to address the possibility that the two tax lots may have different owners in the future, Briteside recorded a formal easement across Tax Lot 1500 for the benefit of Tax Lot 3400 on July 16, 2018 (Exhibit L). The doctrine of merger has no relevance here. The doctrine of merger provides that if the owner of property burdened by an easement also acquires the property benefited by the easement, then the easement terminates. Although in practice landowners commonly record easements benefiting and burdening property in common ownership, as a strict legal matter the doctrine of merger arguably could render ineffective the easement recorded July 16, 2018. However, if that is the case, then no easement is needed since the owner of both properties is the same. There is no legal impediment to a property owner using its own property to access other property that it also owns. So either Briteside has valid access to Tax Lot 3400 via the July 16, 2018 easement, or it has valid access to Tax Lot 3400 because it also owns Tax Lot 1500. If the latter is true, then upon any conveyance of either Tax Lot 3400 or Tax Lot 1500 to a different owner, Briteside can (and will) record an easement at that time.' As to the existing encroachments of the access road onto BLM property, this has been fully discussed at the hearing and in prior correspondence. BLM's only stated concern related to the access road has been a request that the road be relocated off BLM property so that federal property is not used in conjunction with the production of cannabis. Briteside has agreed to do this, it is required by condition of approval 0, and Briteside has begun the process to comply with the condition (Exhibits R and S). To respond to the rebuttal comment of Tammy Threlkeld, it is not obligatory that the relocation be completed before the application is approved — a condition of approval is a reasonable and well-established way to ensure compliance with the approval criterion. Moreover, in this circumstance it is the more appropriate method, since Briteside would have no reason to relocate the road if the permit is not approved. Briteside has taken the additional step of confirming it authorizes the use of its own property to access a marijuana production facility by executing and recording the Shared Access Consent Agreement (Exhibit J), which would be binding on subsequent owners of Tax Lot 1500. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners August 1, 2018 Page 4 10. Lighting (DCC 1.8.1.16.330(B)(9)) The buildings are fully enclosed and without windows or similar apertures that would allow light to escape. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary. Also, the Findings and Decision impose conditions of approval C through E to ensure County lighting standards are met, to which Briteside has no objection. All evidence in the record shows that this criterion is met. 11. Odor (DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)) Substantial and uncontroverted evidence in the record of this application shows that the proposed odor mitigation system will be adequate to ensure compliance with this criterion. Specifically, the April 20, 2018 report from ColeBreit Engineering, the supplemental report from ColeBreit submitted on July 18, 2018 (Exhibit M) and additional evidence submitted that same date (Exhibit N) all show that given the particular design of this proposed facility, the proposed activated carbon filtration system will be more than adequate to control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. That evidence shows, among other things, that: • This facility is designed so that no air escapes to the outside, except in connection with quarterly cleanings; • Activated carbon filtration is well-established as an effective odor mitigator for indoor cannabis growing facilities, with the capability of removing up to 99.996% of odor -causing particulates; • Activated carbon filtration is accepted as the preferred odor mitigation method for indoor grows in at least four other Oregon jurisdictions, plus jurisdictions in Colorado, California, Michigan and Washington; and • The odor filtration system is sufficiently sized to clean the air inside the facility once every three minutes, and is otherwise sized and designed to meet the County's requirements. Opponents have provided minimal evidence in the record of this application that the above conclusions are incorrect. Certainly, the minimal contrary evidence in this record does not alter the balance of the other substantial evidence in the record, which overwhelmingly demonstrates that the County's odor mitigation criteria are met. As noted in my letter of July 18, 2018, reliance on evidence from other County proceedings that is not in this record to conclude otherwise would be legally incorrect. It would also be factually unreasonable, since evidence from other proceedings concerns facilities with different designs in different locations, sharply limiting its relevance when compared to Briteside's evidence that is tailored to the specific design and location of the proposed facility. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners August 1, 2018 Page 5 12. Noise (DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)) The April 20, 2018 report in the record from ColeBreit constitutes substantial and uncontroverted evidence that, with construction of the concrete wall shown on the updated site plan (Exhibit K), the noise mitigation criteria of DCC 18.116.330(B)(11) will be met. Specifically, ColeBreit concluded that even with both buildings running their noise -producing machinery concurrently (see e-mail in the record dated May 8, 2018), no mitigation was required to reduce noise to acceptable levels at the north and east property line, and the wall would reduce noise to acceptable levels at the south and west property lines. Opponents have submitted much speculation, but no actual evidence, that the conclusions of the ColeBreit report are incorrect. The Findings and Decision imposes condition of approval P, to which Briteside does not object, requiring construction of the noise wall. Accordingly, substantial evidence in the record compels the conclusion that this criterion is met. 13. Screening and Fencing (DCC 18.116.330(B)(1.2)) Contrary to misstatements by opponents, Briteside has in fact committed to installation of a seven -foot black chain link fence topped by black barbed wire (see condition of approval R). The Findings and Decision found that this would meet the requirements of this criterion, and no contrary evidence has been submitted. 14. Water (DCC 18.116.330(B)(13)) William Tye of Tye Engineering submitted testimony and comments objecting to Briteside's proposed use of water from COID and Bend Water Hauling. His objections are misplaced. First, Mr. Tye is mistaken in his "understanding that none of the COID irrigation water can legally be used for [Briteside's] marijuana grow operation." Briteside's letter of July 25, 2018 and Exhibit 0 thereto summarize information received from COID and OWRD about the allowable use of the 31.25 acres of irrigation rights appurtenant to the subject property. Both the irrigation district and the OWRD watermaster confirmed that COID irrigation water can be used on plants—including marijuana—inside enclosed buildings as long as those buildings are located "on top of' the water right. This is consistent with the written comments in the record from Daniel Downing of COID dated October 25, 2017. Whether the building has a floor or not is irrelevant. Mr. Tye is also incorrect about the location of the existing building. That building is in fact within the COID water right footprint, as shown by a comparison of the site plan and the map attached to Mr. Downing's comments. Thus, the existing building can be served by the COID water right, as can the proposed additional building. Alternatively, even if the existing building were partly or completely outside the water rights mapped on the property, Briteside could request a transfer through COID to move the water from one location to another within the property boundary. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners August 1, 2018 Page 6 Mr. Tye is also incorrect in his statement about the total amount of water potentially available for use in Briteside's two buildings. The two buildings together will provide 20,000 square feet of growing space, which, as Mr. Tye notes, is approximately half an acre. He then argues that half an acre of the water right only amounts to 3 gallons per minute. But three gallons per minute would produce 129,600 gallons over thirty days, which is well beyond the 77,550 gallons per month that Briteside requires. Finally, Mr. Tye incorrectly contends that because marijuana is an agricultural crop, Briteside cannot use water from Bend Water Hauling outside of the irrigation season. First, Bend Water Hauling is well aware of the use proposed by Briteside and has agreed to provide water from November to March. Even assuming for purposes of argument that this water comes from a municipal source, Mr. Tye's assertion that municipal rights should be "legally" limited to providing irrigation water during the irrigation season only has no legal or factual support. Municipal water use is defined very broadly in OAR 690-300-0010(29) to include "all uses usual and ordinary to such systems." Municipal water suppliers certainly do not limit the time of year their water is used for irrigation of parks, golf courses, gardens, nurseries, garden centers, and other such uses similar to this proposed use. As explained in my letter of July 18, 2018, water from the existing well will not be used to irrigate cannabis unless and until Briteside holds the necessary permits. Briteside does not rely on the possibility of such permits to show compliance with this criterion. However, the well is still a valid domestic well, and may be used to produce water for exempt uses without a permit. ORS 537.545. 15. Fire Protection for Processing of Cannabinoid Extracts (DCC 18.116.330(B)(14)) Briteside does not propose to process cannabinoid extracts in this facility, so this criterion does not apply. 16. Utility Verification (DCC 18.116.330(B)(15)) The only utility necessary for the proposed facility is electric service, which has been confirmed by a letter in the record from CEC dated June 9, 2017. There is no contrary evidence in the record suggesting that sufficient electric service is unavailable. 2 Although Mr. Tye did not explain how he came up with this amount, it appears to be roughly correct. Certificate 83571—which is the water right appurtenant to the property—authorizes a maximum duty of 9.91 acre feet per acre for the season for this location. Dividing that by half for half an acre comes to 4.96 acre feet, which converts to approximately 3.1 gallons per minute. It is also consistent with Mr. Downing's statement in his October 25, 2017 letter that water is available to the subject property at up to 6 gallons per minute per acre. However, irrigation water is not generally applied with mathematical precision and an irrigator is not required to carefully meter the amount of water that goes on each square foot of irrigated ground, as long as the total water applied is within the authorized rate, duty, and footprint of the water right for the property as a whole. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners August 1, 2018 Page 7 17. Security Cameras (DCC 18.116.330(B)(16)) The Findings and Decision imposes condition of approval J, to which Briteside does not object, requiring compliance with this criterion. 18. Secure Waste Disposal (DCC 18.116.330(B)(17)) Briteside will store and dispose of cannabis -related waste as required by the OLCC in compliance with this approval criterion. Further, the Findings and Decision imposes condition of approval K, to which Briteside does not object, requiring compliance with this criterion. Several opponents have raised concerns regarding disposal of agricultural runoff. As noted in previous correspondence, compliance with agricultural water quality regulations is the purview of the state and is not an applicable approval criterion under the DCC. Nonetheless, as explained in my letter of July 25, 2018, the proposed facility will have no agricultural wastewater requiring disposal all water will either be utilized by the plants or released to the atmosphere by evaporation or transpiration. The solid waste byproduct from irrigation will be transported offsite in compliance with DCC 18.116.330(B)(17), OLCC regulations and condition of approval K, as described above. No agricultural runoff from the proposed facility will enter groundwater, COID's irrigation ditches or the property's septic system.3 19. Residency (DCC 18.116.330(B)(18)) This criterion does not apply in the EFU zone. 20. Nonconformance (DCC 18.116.330(B)(19)) Briteside does not propose to grow medical marijuana at this subject property, so this criterion is inapplicable. 21. Prohibited Uses (DCC 18.116.330(B)(20)) Briteside does not propose any of the uses prohibited in the EFU zone by DCC 18.116.33 0(B)(20)(a). 22. Annual Reporting (DCC 18.116.330(D)) The Findings and Decision imposes condition of approval M, to which Briteside does not object, requiring compliance with this criterion. 3 Statements in Briteside's application materials that wastewater will be discharged to the existing septic system refer to domestic wastewater, not agricultural runoff. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners August 1, 2018 Page 8 In addition to the agricultural wastewater issue discussed in item 18 above, opponents have raised a number of other issues that are not relevant to any applicable approval criteria. A non -exhaustive list of such issues includes: allegations that Briteside's gate blocks public access to BLM land; traffic impacts; employee parking; occupancy (or lack thereof) of the residential structures on Briteside's property; alleged bad behavior by other marijuana growers in the County; Briteside's other business ventures not related to this property; Briteside's employees not employed at this site; and Briteside's use of water from the existing well for exempt purposes. As these issues do not bear on any applicable criteria, they are irrelevant and it would be improper to rely on any evidence or argument about these issues in considering the application. Further, arguments were received from opponents, including the appellant, that the applicable criteria for a marijuana production facility on EFU land should be changed. The criteria cannot be changed in the context of a pending land use application, which must be evaluated under the criteria that existed at the time the application was deemed complete. Lastly, Briteside objects to efforts of opponents to incorporate by reference the entire County files in prior, completed proceedings. In her comments of July 18, 2018, Ms. Gould attempts to incorporate into the record by reference the County's entire files on the boundary line adjustment between Tax Lots 1400 and 1500, a lot of record determination for the subject property and an agricultural building permit matter. In her continents of July 16, 2018, Ms. Ritter also questions electrical and other inspections already completed on the existing building. Files from other County proceedings cannot be incorporated into the record merely by reference, and decisions made in other proceedings are final and not subject to collateral attack in this proceeding. Substantial evidence in the record supports affirmation of staffs approval of Briteside's application. There is insufficient evidence on which to conclude otherwise. Accordingly, Briteside respectfully requests that the appeal be denied and staffs Findings and Decision confirmed, except that the setback adjustment approved by staff is not needed. Please include this letter on the record on appeal in this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, David J. Petersen DJP/djp cc (by e-mail): 039927/00001/9189156v1 Ms. Amanda Cardenas Mr. Chris Jenkins Mr. Greg Blackmore Mr. Sam DeBaltzo EXHIBIT F Revised Site Plan July 16, 2018 gills ii11,0 111, qil NS03110 Sill1103 S31030330 VM H ' • A 1 , - .z. .3 S.' 3 El el 3 El i .1 t 3 NOIS OBS NI 33130,01 1191HX2 AIHDd02:1c1 CIV02:1EDW1VAA SNIO1OH 3C11SaLIEIEI 1 5 8 8 0 8f1 fA\