2018-447-Minutes for Meeting August 28,2018 Recorded 11/1/2018BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal
CJ2018-447
11/01/2018 2:10:25 PM
IIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIII lull
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
2:00 PM
WEDNESDAY, August 28, 2018 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were
Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive
Assistant. Several citizens and representatives of the media were in attendance.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Marijuana Text Amendments
Tanya Saltzman, Community Development Department presented the hearing
procedures. Hearing no conflicts or challenges, Commissioner DeBone opened the
hearing. Ms. Saltzman presented the staff report.
Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department reported on the statistics of
the marijuana production applications. There are 791 medical marijuana sites that
are licensed through the Oregon Health Authority.
BOCC PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 28, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 6
Commissioner DeBone noted the meeting is audio and video recorded.
Commissioner DeBone opened the public hearing.
Kyle Gorman Oregon Water Resources Department. The OWRD permits and
regulates water use in the state of Oregon. Mr. Gorman had suggested language
changes. Mr. Gorman spoke on water meters and usage.
Dave Markham Central Electric Cooperative and Steve Hess Midstate Electric
Cooperative support the proposed text amendments. Mr. Marken explained the
requirements of the customer when requesting electric service. Mr. Haas reported
on the impact and cost of the suspected grows and the inconvenience to existing
customers. They are losing on existing capacity.
Jeff Kitchens Bureau of Land Management. For the hearing today, Mr. Kitchens
read a letter addressed to the Board of Commissioners for the record. The BLM
expresses concern of access across BLM land these activities would be a violation of
federal law. The Board expressed interest in a follow up conversation of public
lands.
Quinn Keever Park Planner with Bend Park and Recreation District. Ms. Keever gae
testimony and submitted a letter for the record.
Lindsey Pate presented testimony and noted her opposition to the proposed text
amendments. Ms. Pate feels the proposed text amendments are too strict. Ms.
Pate submitted various other pieces of written testimony for the record as well.
Bill Tye lives in Alfalfa and presented testimony. Mr. Tye spoke on the
comprehensive plan and preserving farm and agricultural land and explained that
crops grown in the ground should be the use of valuable agricultural land.
Robert Pederson lives in Tumalo and supports the proposed text amendments.
Gretchen Pederson supports the proposed text amendments and requests to
include local parks as well for distance requirements and setbacks from property
lines. Ms. Peterson spoke on the concern of water usage.
Al Fols supports the text changes and no grows in MUA 10. Mr. Fols also
commented on federally funded home loans would also disqualify recreational
grows on these types of properties.
BOCC PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 28, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 6
Tammy Threkeld lives on Alfalfa Market Road and addressed an issue of the
applications and requirements of burden of proof .
Joel Gisler lives in Tumalo and supports the text amendment and wishes the County
would have opted out originally. Mr. Gisler commented the production, water
rights, and access language should be revised. Mr. Gisler spoke on water rights.
Charles Cook lives in North East Redmond and his big concern is compliance. Mr.
Cook noted the adjacent property is a medical marijuana grow and is now applying
for a recreational grow operation. He is concerned because if he complains about
his neighbor he has a target on his back. Commissioner Baney suggested to lean
on the Board or Community Development Department for a resource.
Mike Hayes currently owns a dispensary and spoke on rules and regulations for
retail. Mr. Hayes feels the problems with compliance are with those that are not
following the regulations and with medical grows. Mr. Hayes noted they need to be
ready for OLCC inspections at any time.
Liz Dickson, attorney gave testimony. Ms. Dickson spoke on behalf of the farming
community and their concerns of the definition of the word crop. The farmers have
been complaining. Each time a farmer wants to build a house or barn they have to
save the good soil and resource lands. Crops should be those that are grown in the
soil. Why can pot growers place structures anywhere and place the plants in pots
and not use the soil.
Doug Spencer lives in Bend and is a partner in a grow operation. Mr. Spencer
would like to challenge the setbacks.
lennifer Clifton presented testimony and spoke on the cannabis industry.
Ron Caramella there is a variety of activity in his area and spoke on livestock and
agriculture.
Carrie Caramella lives in Redmond provided testimony on her support of the
cannabis industry and the right to farm.
BOCC PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 28, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 6
Steve Paulding lives in Alfalfa and noted his support of legalized marijuana but
supports the regulations of the industry and supports the proposed text
amendments.
Austin Dilling is a certified public accountant and has concerns with the proposed
amendments including the financial impacts.
David Mullan is a CEO of a software company that provides transparency for this
industry.
Hunter Neubauer presented testimony and expressed his dissatisfaction with the
proposed text amendments.
Susan Altman presented testimony and lives next to a marijuana grow operation.
She expressed concern with the use of soil for traditional farming. Ms. Altman
supports the proposed text amendments.
Bennie Mueller and Annie Rothrock of Cannabis Nation requested additional
proposed text amendment regarding retail to expand the hours of business.
Damien Stickler was a paramedic firefighter and he has an EFU property and
started a new career as a recreational grow operation. He spoke on EFU water
rights.
Pattyjo Waters is a farmer and lives next to a grow and it is very noisy and the
smell is off and on.
Pat Horton provided testimony and suggested additional changes should be
included in the text amendments and stated they are too restrictive and almost
punitive.
RECESS: At the time of 5:05 p.m., the Board took a recess and the hearing was
reconvened at 6:02 p.m.
BOCC PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 28, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 6
Tanya Saltzman, Community Development Department presented the staff report.
Commissioner DeBone called for public testimony.
Jeff Glasberg provided testimony on his concern on groundwater consumption and
the cost of drilling new wells.
Abby HKellner-Rode lives in Alfalfa and is the farm owner of Boundless Farmstead
producing fruits and vegetables and has a proposed grow next to them. This not a
farm product this is truly a pharmaceutical product. She did vote for marijuana to
be legalized but never thought it would mean we would be taking farm land away
from people when we should be producing food for people. She commented that
Oregon is the only state that has called it a farm product which is causing all of the
problems we are faced with. She appreciates the work of the Board in trying to
make it more livable and is in favor of the proposed changes.
Doug Brady presented testimony stating he is opposed to more regulations. He
was approved for a land use compatibility statement. There is a public school near
his property and he would be eliminated now because of the proposals.
Commissioner DeBone asked for further testimony. Hearing none, the Board
reviewed the next process for the record period. Nick Lelack Community
Development Department Director commented on the hope to schedule meetings
with the various agencies for additional discussions. Mr. Lelack suggested they
meet with their staff and place their language revisions into the record.
Commissioner Baney commented on the lack of oversight with medical marijuana
grows. Commissioner Baney wants a discussion on how to communicate with the
state and how to do the inspections on the medical. Mr. Lelack suggested if the
Board approves the regulations then coordinate with OHA to ask them to mail the
regulations to those licenses to place them on notice.
Written testimony will be accepted until September 14. Materials are to be sent to
the Community Development Department by email or mail.
BOCC PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 2.8, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 6
Charles Cook asked the Board a few additional questions. He asked what
"grandfathering" means. Mr. Lelack explained the grows that were established
prior to the adoption of the regulations but still needed to comply with the imposed
regulations. His other question is how much marijuana is enough marijuana.
Jeff Glasberg also asked the Board about the odor control systems because he still
smells it from his neighbors grow operation.
Susan Altman also asked the Board about requiring a water meter would be more
strict than what OWRD requires. She researched the requirements and has seen
where the water meters were required.
Tammy Threlkeld also commented on the public trails near BLM land. On the
electrical we have lost power 5 times in the last three months and were told it was
due to an overload. On the water it doesn't seem to her OWRD is giving any specific
answer.
ADJOURN
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
DATED this
Commissioners.
Day of OC
BOCC PUBLIC HEARING
&P--1 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
PHILIP
HENDERSON, VICE CHAIR
TAMMY BANEY, MMISSIONER
AUGUST 28, 2018
PAGE 6 OF 6
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
2:00 PM, TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2018
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
PUBLIC HEARING
Hearing Times: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and repeated starting at 6:00 p.m.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Text Amendments - Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.org/meetings
Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past
meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar.
®® Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and
Liactivities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. ifyou have questions
regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Agenda
Tuesday, August 28, 2018 Page 1 of 1
G
0
o 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 Public Hearing of August 28, 2018
DATE: August 23, 2018
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Text Amendments
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) is conducting a public hearing to consider Ordinance
2018-012, a series of text amendments pertaining to the regulation and enforcement of
recreational marijuana on rural lands in Deschutes County.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
DATE: August 23, 2018
SUBJECT: Marijuana Text Amendments - Public Hearing
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a public hearing on August 28, 2018
from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., reconvening at 6:00 p.m., to consider Ordinance 2018-012, a series
of text amendments pertaining to the regulation and enforcement of recreational marijuana on
rural lands in Deschutes County. The proposed text amendments and the findings statement are
attached to this memorandum.
I. OVERVIEW
Since the release of the Marijuana Regulatory Assessment on April 2, 2018, the Board has
conducted eight work sessions to discuss programmatic changes to the regulation and
enforcement of marijuana production on rural lands, based on the Board's ensuing experience
with marijuana production sites since the original regulations were adopted in 2016. The
proposed amendments were presented to the Planning Commission on August 9, 2018.1
II. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The Planning Commission appreciated being involved as an advisory body in its review for the
August 9 work session. The comments and questions expressed by the Planning Commission at the
work session were mainly interpretive and seeking clarification—that is, ensuring that the language
in the proposed amendments was clear in its requirements. Since the Planning Commission
conducted its review at the end of the text amendment development process—without the added
1 https://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2047
benefit from discussion and review over the course of the work sessions—its experience reading
the amendments for the first time underscores the need to make sure that the final amendments
minimize ambiguity in its language and requirements.
III. MEASURE 56 NOTICE AND PUBLIC COMMENT
As noted in the work sessions, amendments to Deschutes County's marijuana regulations triggered
Ballot Measure 56 notice be mailed to approximately 5,000 property owners with properties larger
than five acres in the Exclusive Farm Use and Multiple Use Agricultural zones. This notice was
mailed on August 8, 2018. In addition to the mailing, staff created a dedicated website and
telephone line to provide information and answer residents' questions pertaining to the notice. As
of the time of the writing of this memorandum, the Measure 56 phone line had received ten calls
since August 8. Two calls were concerning code enforcement of existing sites; two calls were
concerning hemp production; two concerned property eligibility; two inquired as to the effect of the
regulations on existing legal production sites; and two were general inquiries.
Public comment received since the DLCD 35 -day notice was issued on July 24, 2018 is included as
an attachment.
Three in Support:
• Barbaro
• Leshaw (with additional comments)
• stniIt
Zero in Opposition
One with General Comments:
• Bend Park and Recreation District
IV. OVERVIEW OF DOCUMENTS
Attached to this memorandum are the documents that were provided to DLCD on July 24, 2018 for
the required 35 -day notice before a public hearing, as well as to the Planning Commission on August
9, 2018:
• Findings - Provides an overview of the proposed code changes as well as background and
justification for the proposed changes.
• Proposed text amendments -- contains changes to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter
9.12, Right to Farm; DCC Chapter 18.24, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone; DCC
Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions; DCC Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review; DCC
Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings; and DCC Chapter 22.32, Appeals.
Page 2 of 3
V. NEXT STEPS
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options:
• Continue the hearing to a date and time certain;
• Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time
certain; or
• Close the hearing and commence deliberations.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 2018-012 and Corresponding Exhibits
2. Public Comment Received to Date
Page 3 of 3
Attachment 1:
Ordinance No. 2018-012 and
Corresponding Exhibits
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending DCC Titles 9, 18, and
22 to Refine Standards for the Regulation and
Enforcement of Marijuana Production on Rural
Lands.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners directed the Deschutes County Community
Development Department staff to initiate amendments (Planning Division File No. 247 -18 -000540 -TA) to
Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 9, Chapter 9.12, Right to Farm; Title 18, Chapter 18.24, Redmond Urban
Reserve Area Combining Zone; Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions; Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Approval
Criteria; Title 22, Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings; and Chapter 22.32, Appeals, refining standards for
the regulation and enforcement of marijuana production on rural lands; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered this matter after a duly noticed public
hearing on August 28, 2018 and concluded that the public will benefit from the changes to the Deschutes County
Code; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 9.12, Right to Farm, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A,"
attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language set forth in
strikethrough.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.24, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone, is amended
to read as described in Exhibit "B," attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined
and deleted language set forth in strikethrough.
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.116, Supplementary Provisions, is amended to read as described
in Exhibit "C," attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language
set forth in strikethrough.
Section 4. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.124, Site Plan Review, is amended to read as described in Exhibit
"D," attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language set forth
tri through
in ��.
Section 5. AMENDMENT. DCC 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "E," attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language
set forth in strikethrough.
///
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
Section 6. AMENDMENT. DCC 22.32, Appeals, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "F,"
attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language set forth in
ctrikethrough.
Section 7. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "G," attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
Dated this of , 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ANTHONY DeBONE, Chair
PHIL HENDERSON, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner
Date of 1st Reading:
day of ,2018.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2018.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Anthony DeBone
Phil Henderson
Tammy Baney
Effective date: day of , 2018.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
Chapter 9.12. RIGHT TO FARM
9.12.020. Purpose and Scope.
* * *
9.12.020. Purpose and Scope.
A. It is the purpose of DCC 9.12 to protect farm and forest -based economically productive activities of
Deschutes County in order to assure the continued health, safety and prosperity of its residents. Farm and
forest uses sometimes offend, annoy, interfere with or otherwise affect others located on or near farm and
forest lands. Deschutes County has concluded in conformance with ORS chapter 30 that persons located
on or near farm and forest lands must accept resource uses and management practices.
B. DCC 9.12 is intended to limit the availability of remedies based on nuisance or trespass, rights of action
and claims for relief and issuance of citations for violations over which Deschutes County has jurisdiction,
when they otherwise would either have an adverse impact on farm and forest uses that Deschutes County
seeks to protect, or would impair full use of the farm and forest resource base within Deschutes County.
I C. She. _._DCC Chapter 9.12 (The Deschutes County Right To Farm Ordinance) does not apply to
marijuana production operations whether permitted by Deschutes County, Oregon Liquor Control
Commission, Oregon Health Authority, or otherwise.
(Ord. 2018=012 §1„2018; Ord. 2003-021 §21, 2003; Ord. 95-024 §2, 1995)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
Chapter 18.24 REDMOND URBAN RESERVE AREA COMBINING ZONE
18.24.030. Conditional Uses Permitted; Prohibition.
18.24.030. Conditional Uses Permitted; Prohibition.
A. Subject to the prohibitions provided for in DCC 18.24.030(B), uses permitted conditionally in the
RURA Combining Zone shall be those identified as conditional uses in the underlying zoning districts.
Conditional uses shall be subject to all conditions of those zones as well as the requirements of this
chapter.
B. The following uses are prohibited and not permitted in the RURA Combining Zone:
1. Marijuana production; and
2. Marijuana processing.
Ord. 20_I 8.-012,_2,2018
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
Chapter 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
18.116.330
18.116.340
*
Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing
Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)
18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing
A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to:
1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-40 -and RI zones.
2, Marijuana Processing in the EFU, MJA40-,-TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RI, and SUBP zones
3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, TuI, RC, RI, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP
zones.
4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, RC, SUC, and SUBP zones.
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 nil MUU-A-.-10-zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum
lot area of five (5) acres.
2. Indoor Production and Processing.
111 -the -N11 --1-0-ze -mo- ria-13:°odue-tiott-a ,i--processin l l z c_leeated er tirel.y,,.
w thiitone or-i,tore-fu ly enclosed --buildings \ zt1- eonve-ntieialer-pos fiu ed.opaque,.
rigid \v -all: and -roof-covering. g. 11 -se of greenhouses., hoop- t e and ,i ;4ap- of -i -1d
sta=ve - es ; s pig hlhite-d.
a. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in
buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures.
b. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area.
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.
4,--M-axiincu B-4 di-a-g—Reer-A—ea.4-n-thc MULA--4-0-;{tae°,-the--miixiriaurn-k skte 4lt-tar—area
, sed-fot=a-li a ti -vines s-soe atecl with-rnarituana rodue3ion-and-pioces,,ine ti,e ubjeet
l`=opeFty. &hall --b
Pay eels- rain -5 i,c'es-tee le:ss-tlian 1 -0 -acre in kat -urea: 2,500 s -quare —1 e4-:
b. 14reels equal t;3 or greater tllarr-10- Fes= 5- 00.0 --sq ref -et:
54. 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)
Page 1 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot.
. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing
areas and buildings:
a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 24-00 feet.
b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 5300 feet.
For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site
dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to
submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County.
c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the
setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and
access impacts.
76. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows:
a. The use -applicant property line shall be located a minimum of 10-00-2,640 feet from:
i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory
under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school;
ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as
described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and
any property used by the school;
iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool.
This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in
residential structures;
iv. A youth activity center; and
v. National monuments and state parks; -
vi. PublieFederal lands; a d
vii. Redmond Urban Reserve Area;
vin. The boundary of any local jurisdiction that lids opted out ofOregon's iec,reational
maiituana program; and
ix.. Any other lot or parcel approved by Deschutes County for- mai-iittana
lroduction.
-
b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(76), all distances shall be measured from the lot
line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(76)(a) to the closest point
of the buildif,gs andrnd-aveaappiicant"s property _line of land occupied by the
marijuana producer or marijuana processor.
c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(76) shall
not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC
18.116.330(B)(76) if the use is:
i. Pending a local land use decision;
ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or
iii. Lawfully established.
87. Access. Marijuana production ove--5-;004-s€uare-f et -e lcaimay-area-ler-rnatu-r u=uan
plants -sites 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:
Page 2 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
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;
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.
98. 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 sundown to
sunu
b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly
by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected
below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with
DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
409. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)`1-0), building means the building, including
greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or
marijuana processing. Odor produced by marijuana production and processing shall comply
with the following:
a. Standard. To prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of
their property, no adverse or noxious odors shall be detectable beyond the applicant's
property line.
b. Odor control plan. To ensure that the standard stated in DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) is
continuously met, the applicant shall submit an odor control plan prepared and stamped
by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon that includes the following:
i. The mechanical engineer's qualifications and experience with system design and
operational audits of effective odor control and mitigation systems;
ii. A detailed analysis of the methodology, which has been indepcndently researched
and tested, that will be relied upon to effectively control odor on the subject
property;
iii. A detailed description of any odor control systems that will be utilized, including
operational schedules and maintenance intervals;
iv. Contingence measures if any aspect of the odor control plan fails or is not
followed, or if it is otherwise shown that the standard stated in DCC
18.116.330(B)(9) is not met;
v. Testing protocols and intervals; and
vi. Identification of the responsible parties tasked with implementing each aspect of
the odor control plan.
Corin liar c e: Ori- mingcamplianc—e with- he-otlor-corzit- 3lani - 3tarldatoi-y and shall
be-en-sn-:c d -with -a -permits Rdit' en- f-aPpreva t -e -e nrip li4-4to-oclar=-eantrel
plan --does not-s-upers requife eom ii-anee-,,-The—sandy rd set foit1 in-DeCl
1--0-1-1.x:33 (1k-):-lf-pFo-vit-led-in--a 3licable-st-a,e-s-tattifes,- rivate-aetions-al-l� +1g
nnisaneeer trespassasse& is lWFth ed =-irnpae s at e author ized-
c. Modifications. Modifications to the odor control plan shall be approved in the same
manner as a modification to a land use action pursuant to DCC 22.36.040.
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
.. -
Ank
Page 3 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
authorizedystem will effectively and continuously control odor so as not to
c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts arc
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 sizcd for cubic fcct 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.
c. The system shall at all times be maintained in working order and shall be in use.
A--3-10. 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:
and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted fanning practices is
Peffait4ed,
a. Standard. To prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of
their property, sustained noise shall not be detectable beyond the applicant's property
line above 30 dB(A) between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am the following day.
i. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), "sustained noise" shall mean noise
lasting more than two continuous minutes or two total minutes in a one hour period
from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor
control, fans an similar functions associated with marijuana production and
processing.
b. Noise control plan. To ensure that the standard stated in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) is
continuously met, the applicant shall submit a noise control plan prepared and stamped
by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon that includes the following:
i. The mechanical engineer's qualifications and experience with system design and
operational audit of effective noise control and mitigation systems;
ii. A detailed analysis of the methodology that will be relied upon to effectively
control noise on the subject property;
iii. A detailed description of any noise control systems that will be utilized, including
operational schedules and maintenance intervals;
iv. Contingence measures if any aspect of the noise control plan fails or is not
followed, or if it is otherwise shown that the standard stated in DCC
18.116.330(B)(10) is not met;
v. Testing protocols and intervals; and
vi. Identification of the responsible parties tasked with implementing each aspect of
the noise control plan.
-Corned -coanc-e with the e entrol-plan—is-tnanklat-ory and shall
to t s-trod-wi€h-a-p ffnit-ee di ian-ofappyovalTbu-t-E ; hanee_wit-ll-tlhiieia -e-at rel
plan-does--not-supersede required -compliance. -with -the lig standard,c-t€ortli-it3-f2C'C
-1-8-41& 33 -0 34) -l -k- €-p+ videdat} apt licablc stag -stat tes;- ivate-aet tis allegi
IDA isanec-or-he-spaas-asseel ated-witfrvdor-impacts -arc--authorized:
c. Modifications. Modifications to the noise control plan shall be approved in the same
manner as a modification to a land use action pursuant to DCC 22.36.040.
1211. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to
Page 4 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for
marijuana production and processing:
a. All marijuana uses, buildings, structures, fences, and storage and parking areas,
whether a building permit is required or not, in the Landscape Management Combining
Zone, shall comply with and require Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management
Combining Zone approval, if applicable.
b. Fencing and screeuin&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.
-1J12. Water. Applicant shall state the anticipated amount of water to be used on an annual
basis. Water use from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable
state statutes and regulations. The applicant shall provide:
a. Aeo13y-of:_a_vvater,-ig t-peftnit7- -ri freate;-<x=-other—w4ef-use- -.tt-1 rizt tion-fra - he
OrE in Writer Zes«utEe-D pat,ineft, >rOres;on Water Resources Department (OWK1))
C ertitic.ateishpetmit,. or other water use authorization proving necessary water suW,
of,l7i'opei classification will be available for intended use during- required seasons,
regardless of source.
b. A -w ll--se-i bv-`,-rtilteme'rit- hzt-wa9{ei=-ts-subplie-d-zCFam-a-publie-ei' ter vote-'C'ater—pr 3yi&-r-;
a.lfxig-with a-witivi--sh+t-e anent ine-ludic tb -name-z1 d -contact -info -rrlation- o4 the
water -prow derhaulti; of Source water provider Will Serve statement ieferencing
Certificated. tificated Watef Right to be utilized if any,as well as aWil1 Haul statement_,
including; thename and contact information of the water hauler.
c, P-roo-f-f'iFoni4he-Ore-goi1.-Wacct--Re-se-uives-lW ai metit-th4-the-wa-f-r--to- e -u -td -is- rot a
sourceth-atd ,-s-riot-requi€c--a wt3te±r-:ght=dn the alternative to (ai) an ljb) above,progf
from Oregon Water ResourcesWpAitmeut that the water sup_nWto tic, used does not -
require a Certificated Water Right for the specific application use classification,
volume and season of use (i_e , roof collected wateW
d. For production sites with 5.000 square feet of moreof mature canopy, a._water meter_for
all on-site commercial wells shall be rectuii_ed..
e 1€3r�u?aii�lc so> rct;3ofwatct-aiE-belt 3r-akd-duiint_ tkie yeai;t3e atlicai3tl3all
j'.ro-viE e -p -fron- -the-controlliY-e-at-ty-thin-die-w-ater-e-fm-i?f'a19iplied o iiiapi a -aria
13roduet on,
4-4.43. 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.
4-514. Utility Verification. Utility statements identifying the proposed operation, or operational
characteristics such as required electrical load and timing of such electrical loads and Aa
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. The utility_shall state_
whether system upgrades willbeto serve the ptqposed use, and that -the use will
not be served until such upgrades are co ripleted to protect existing service toneWhboring
users This rias%also be included as a condition of approval if -protvriate,insuring
Page 5 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
applicant_participationi.n upgrade
1-615. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the
subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements
of the OLCC or the OHA.
4-7-16. Secure Waste Disposal.
a. 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).
b. A statement is also required describing how any water runoff is being addressed.
-1-8—R-es ey.-1n the1MU _14--i onc,a--min-ina-utmef e of tl h �i s3�a11 i i
d'wclliu-g-u-ni-t-otj-he- ub e et-propcity:
b= 4 holder—o -an-Ol 'C-lieertse -for-marilt anu roduello 1 rovidcd-ttxat-tet--lien-Re
applies ,offhe sul cfpr ope-rty;-or
c k l� rnisk red w� l� tltc 2l ^ �,s a per,�3 delis ihaicd to }��od aec n a ijuan� by i
re;rstr---i&-atific-�tion--car lieldct oa
g y - z -pr• iced �-hat the rds'trat,onapp1ies-tc;-t-lac-stll>te-Et
-1-917. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8,
2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with Ordinance 2016-015 andwi-th 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.
2.0_18. 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;
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.
tilt -C UA` -1-0 Zorr;;;-the-Mlowrng-uses are—prolli rtes .
€3'raTr 1t;rCi9'1' $ . v 3i� E�ii�j lHc tE,Ii i`ttl £ riHti4 iF 11c) f Pfi r1C £ E :? }Ii-oultinEiion
w-i-tlazr rrrai=ijuaraa row
eb. In the EFU,--MUA -1-1}; and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on
the same property as marijuana production:
i. Guest Lodge.
ii. Guest Ranch.
iii. Dude Ranch.
iv. Destination Resort.
v. Public Parks.
vi. Private Parks.
vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings.
viii. Bed and Breakfast.
ix..__Room and Board Arrangements.
19._ Compliance.
a_ Odor.On1_goin? compliance with the odor control plan is mandatoryand shall be
ensured witha er mit condition of approval. The odor control plan does not supersede
re_ uired compliance with the standard set forth in DCC 18.1 16.330(1)19). lt_provided
in applicable state statutes, private a.ctronsalleging nuisance or tre&assassociated with
odor impacts are authorized.
Page 6 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
b. Noise. Onuoingcompliance with the noise controlplan is mandatory and shall be
ensured with a permit condition of approval_ The noise control plan does not supersede_
required compliance with the standard set forth in DCC 18_11633003)(101__.If
provided in applicable state statutes, private actions alleging nuisance or trespass
associated with odor impetsare authorized.
C. Marijuana Retailing. Marijuana retailing, including recreational and medical marijuana sales,
shall be subject to the following standards and criteria:
1. Hours. Hours of operation shall be no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 7:00 p.m. on
the same day.
2. Odor. The building, or portion thereof, used for marijuana retailing shall be designed or
equipped to prevent detection of marijuana plant odor off premise by a person of normal
sensitivity.
3. Window Service. The use shall not have a walk-up or drive-thru window service.
4. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the
possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA registrant.
5. Minors. No person under the age of 21 shall be permitted to be present in the building, or
portion thereof, occupied by the marijuana retailer, except as allowed by state law.
6. Co -Location of Related Activities and Uses. Marijuana and tobacco products shall not be
smoked, ingested, or otherwise consumed in the building space occupied by the marijuana
retailer. In addition, marijuana retailing shall not be co -located on the same lot or parcel or
within the same building with any marijuana social club or marijuana smoking club.
7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows:
a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from:
i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory
under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school;
ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as
described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and
any property used by the school;
iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool.
This does not include licensed or unlicensed family child care which occurs at or in
residential structures;
iv. A youth activity center;
v. National monuments and state parks; and
vi. Any other marijuana retail facility licensed by the OLCC or marijuana dispensary
registered with the OHA.
b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(CB)(7), distance shall be measured from the lot line
of the affected property to the closest point of the building space occupied by the
marijuana retailer. For purposes of DCC 18.116.3300B)(7)(a)( vi), distance shall be
measured from the closest point of the building space occupied by one marijuana
retailer to the closest point of the building space occupied by the other marijuana
retailer.
c. A change in use to another property to a use identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7),
after a marijuana retailer has been licensed by or registered with the State of Oregon
shall not result in the marijuana retailer being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(CB)(7).
D. Inspections and Annual Reporting.
Page 7 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
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.
iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
b. A statement of annual water use.
l.-1=aiktre--to-timelystibmit-the- nnufl-repel few; a1 iCofsen-to- st-Premise --former
de-m-onstpatF -eompl te-e--with-IAC£- -18:.146-: 30(DC)-(--)-(a) hal-1-, t=v e --as
ac-k-nowle- =ernes+by-the-i a -l -t operty-owne--andheen that41---e other ise-al o
t re-is-not-itt-comp-Ranee with Deschutes C.ou 4y --Code-; autho i es -per it-reve aticn
trader-DCC=I'-f1Je 22,-a td--n,ayhc-relied- upemby-the:-State-o-f-Oregon to-deny-new-er
Boerne -re e-waifs)-fer-the- su-b-leet-usc-
c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure
compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare.
d. As a condition of approval, the applicant must consent in writing to allow Deschutes
County to, randomly and without prior notice, inspect the__premisesand ascertain the
extent and effectiveness of the odor controlsystem(s) compliancewith the Deschutes
County Code, and plicable conditions of ap_proval ln_pections mei be conducted by
the County up to four (4) times per calendar year, including one inspection prior to the
initiation of use. -fei in meetimt—the-prernises-std-to-aseer$.aitt-the-< nt-and
effe-e-tivc n 5o of o:lois-eon,tro-1-syste (s).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.
e: f. Documentation that System Development Charges have been paid.
g____This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17).
Failure totimely submit the annual report ice and. Consent to inspect Premises. form or
to demonstrate compliance with 1)CC 18116330.01(1)(a),shallserve as
acknowledgement -12y the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed.
use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Codc,_authotrzes permit revocation
under DCC 'Fide 22,and may be relied upon by_the Stateof Oregon to deny new or
license renewa4s1 for the suhlect use.
(Ord. 2.018 =012 2018.LOrd. 2016-015 §10, 2016)
18.116.340. Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)
A. Applicability. Section 18.116.340 applies to:
1. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016; and
2. All marijuana production registered by OHA on or after June 1 2016 until the effective date
of Ordinances 2016-015, 2016-16, 2016-17, and 2016-18, at which time Ordinances 2016-
015 through Ordinance 2016-018 shall apply.
B. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016 shall comply with the
following standards by September 15, 2016:
1. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows:
Page 8 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
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:�3�:
10--7:-08- m sundown to sunup--on-he-fel-l-ow-ing-€lay.
b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly
by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected
below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with
DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
C. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016 shall comply with the
following standards by December 15, 2016:
1. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.3430(CB)E4-04, 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.
2. 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 not subject to the Right to Farm
protections in DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395. Intermittent noise for accepted farming
practices is however permitted.
3. 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
Page 9 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
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.
4. 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.
5. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the
subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements
of the OLCC or the OHA.
6. 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).
7_.. Inspections and Annual Reporting. All maritL ana production registered try OHATrio _ to
.lune, 1 2016 shall comply withDCC _.18.116.34(0)1.8) when site locations are identified
or otherwise disclosed by the State of Oregon.
D. All new marijuana production registered by OHA on or after June 1, 2016 shall comply with
DCC 18.116.3430(A -BC) and the following standards:
1. Shall only be located in the following zones
a. EFU; or
b. MUA 10; or
e b. Rural Industrial in the vicinity of Deschutes Junction.
2. Minimum Lot Area.
a. In the EFU and—MUA—I0—zones, the subject property shall have a minimum lot area of
five (5) acres.
Maximum -Bud -ding- Hoer Area. In The M4 -UA -10 zone, die-maximum-buildingRoo-r area
used for aI-i act1viiies as sees ted %1 i i, iia die -a marijuana prodUC-0f3i <3i'r lh@ ub_4 Et ropeTty
a— P-aee-els fr l 5-aeves- to -less- than -1.0 i eres-m are at:-` ,540 -sq{ a feet,
b. I l -cc Is -a -I a -1-t3 or greater -than 1-0 acres: 5,000-sqUar feet:
43. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production areas and
buildings:
a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: -1-200 feet.
b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 5400 feet.
For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site
dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to
submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County.
c. Exception: Reductions to these setback requirements may be granted at the discretion
of the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates that the
.. .. reater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting,
privacy, and access impacts.
54. Indoor Production and Processing.
a I-i3-th;-M-DA--10- zo ne; 3a-rijna ra-1,rodueTio i- shall bc-teeated-e;ntifel Th-iwone- or -rote
f, -1-f nreused% flim --wKth-co ny�entienaJ,-ors,-€ -timed--e aqu-e r=igid -walls and -roof
eonerring-Usre:-of-gfe-en4ou-ses, hoop--houses--arid-simil-ar-non-ri-g,id-structure-s-is
prohibited.
a. In the EFU zone, marijuana production shall only be located in buildings, including
greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures.
Page 10 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
b. In all zones, marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area.
65. 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.
76. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows:
a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1040-2,640 feet from:
i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory
under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school;
ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as
described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and
any property used by the school;
iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool.
This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in
residential structures;
iv. A youth activity center; and
v. National monuments and state parks;
vi. PublieFederal lands; and
vii. Redmond Urban Reserve Area;
viii. The boundary of any local. jurisdiction that has opted out of Oregon's recreational
marijuana program; and
ix. Any other lot or parcel approved by Deschutes County for- marijuana production.
b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.3430(DB)(76), all distances shall be measured from the
lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.34;0(1214)(76)(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 18.116.3440(DB)(76)
shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of
DCC 18.116.330(B)('76) if the use is:
i. Pending a local land use decision;
ii. Registered by the State of Oregon; or
iii. Lawfully established.
87. Access. Marijuana production € ;fer=5,90 qac - et or e-anopyt area- fopa a-tu --a riju na
plantssites 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.
Page 11 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
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;
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.
s lsidei3c� �i t13�4fJ l�'� a iai[ ix3i�a e# �[3� crf thfolle>� i[i shill [csi'e i a
dwo�lint.T-u-n-i-t_e[rthe-subjeet--propef.t ,_
a:--Au &-wnff-of-the--sttb pipet
b.-pei=s-ora--registored-wi-tk-tlx--0144-as-a-lie s-on-de i-,-n-ated-to-preduee-.n wi�;uan±b a
regisAry i-dej tiff-cation-eard14c31der,,-prov-ide-d-that--the-registsati-on-appl-les-t43-t e-s-ubjcet
proper=ty.
-1-08. Inspections and Annual Reporting. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, of marijuana
production registered by OHA, 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.
iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
b. A statement of annual water use.
l email ire io Fa x 1�1�at tl3 a �i ar�sort;�fee, t3[�d[3senk[,.��eet Iz iso s fEh r13 cit
to.-menstna- c com-}Aria-nem w-i -h-; ! , l.cz.34-AC)(-8)-sera-ll-serve>--as
ac-If3Tow-ledgeiment-by-die-re-al-prope>-rty-owner-acrid-liee-nsee--thar-4-h-e-ether pis-aho=wed
u sE [s -not tth De-s--h tti : Cou ty -Co iatl-io-F z~r9-pe- m t-revo(:i%tiort
Undo-i- GCl Int-le-22, and may be i- lied-upon-by-tk-,—Mate;-o-f—Ore=g on to-cicriy new-«r•
1-i-cense-rel-v-a1{ss,-fot-_t1. subjce-t-_use
c..__Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure
compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare.
d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community
Development Department. As a condition of approval _theapplicant must consent in
writing to allow Deschutes County iq a[ulomly and without prior notice, inspect the
premises and ascertain the extent and effectiveness of the odor control system(s),
con fiancewith the Deschutes County Code,and applicable conditions of approval.
Inspections_ may be conducted by the County up to four (4) tnnesper calendar year,
including one inspection prior to the initiation of use qhs-tea cendj-tion-of-appvevl-th.e
applieant--i+n-use-€ens--nt-i-n w-retina-to-a1low-De-se-vao—€eun y-to-r--andermly-aid-witheu:t
prior-notree, up-to-four{ )-tim s-i er-ealend-ai=yeas inspect-the -promises-tf3-ascestain--tho
ex-te-M arab-e%-e-tive?ne-sS-of-fa -allot-ean-t-Feil-
Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community
Development Department.
e. Documentation that System Development Charges have been paid.
(.,___This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17).
l'_ Failure totimely_sub>nit the annual report, Tee,_ and Consent to Insect Premises .form o •
to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.1 I6 340 CC3) shall serve as
Page 12 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
acknowledgement by the rcalprp ertyownerandlicenseethatthe otherwise allowed
use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code. authorizepermit revocation
under DCC "fide 22zand may be relied upon by the State of Or gon to dcr y new or
license renewal(s) for the subject use.
4 9.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;
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.
b: Inshe 1\4UA 10 -Zeno t -he ffodo ing use -a -e p oMhit :
C-onanircia -acti- ides in -conjunction with f` ma --i se when-car€ied od-i-i2 b jO- IC:tion
witla-a-Pa wi u-ana e op.
eb. In the EFU, MUA-4 0,_ and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on
the same property as marijuana production:
Guest Lodge.
i. Guest Ranch.
ii. Dude Ranch.
iii. Destination Resort.
iv. Public Parks.
v. Private Parks.
vi. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings.
vii. Bed and Breakfast.
viii. Room and Board Arrangements.
(Ord. 2018-012 3, 2018.;_Ord. 2016-019 §1, 2016)
Page 13 of 13 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
Chapter 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW
18.124.060. Approval Criteria.
* * *
18.124.060. Approval Criteria.
Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria:
A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural and man-made environment and
existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and
topographical features.
B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering
development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall
be protected.
C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities
for privacy and transition from public to private spaces.
D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for
wheelchairs and Braille signs.
E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between
pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings
and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures.
F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets,
or surface and subsurface water quality.
G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires,
and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located
and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties.
,i. Nati , ,l located toadverse 1 the site .�
H. Ali above -ground utility installations shall be located minimize Visna, impacts On nuc and
neighboring properties.
I. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks,
etc.).
J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site.
K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use.
1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance, turn and
acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of-way, roadway surfacing and widening, and bicycle and
pedestrian connections, shall be identified.
2. Mitigation for transportation -related impacts shall be required.
3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 17.16 and DCC 17.48, applicable Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) mobility and access standards, and applicable American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.
(Ord, 2018-012 §4;201 Ord. 2010-018 §2, 2010, Ord. 93-043 §§21, 22 and 22A, 1993; Ord. 91-038 §1,
1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
Chapter 22.24. LAND USE ACTION HEARINGS
22.24.010. Filing of Staff Report for Hearing.
22.24.020. Hearings Body.
22.24.030. Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action.
22.24.040. Contents of Notice.
22.24.050. Burden of Proof.
22.24.060. Nature of Evidence.
22.24.070. Limitation on Oral Presentations.
22.24.080. Standing.
22.24.090. Record.
22.24.100. Disclosure of Ex Parte Contacts.
22.24.105. Disclosure of Personal Knowledge.
22.24.110. Challenge for Bias, Prejudgment of Personal Interest.
22.24.120. Hearings Procedure.
22.24.125. Setting the Hearing.
22.24.130. Close of the Record.
22.24.140. Continuances or Record Extensions.
22.24.150. Objections to Jurisdiction, Procedure, Notice or Qualifications.
22.24.160. Reopening the Record.
22.24.010. Filing of Staff Report for Hearing.
A. At the time an application that in the judgment of the Planning director requires a hearing is deemed
complete, a hearing date shall be set.
B. A staff report shall be completed seven days prior to hearing. Tithe report is not completed by such time,
the hearing shall be held as scheduled, but any party may at the hearing or in writing prior to the hearing
request a continuance of the hearing to a date that is at least seven days after the date the initial staff report
is complete. Pursuant to DCC 22.24.140(A)(3), grant of a continuance under these circumstances shall
be discretionary.
C. A copy of the staff report shall be mailed to the applicant, shall be made available to such other persons
who request a copy and shall be filed with the Hearings Body.
D. Oral or written modifications and additions to the staff report shall be allowed prior to or at the hearing.
(Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §11, 1995; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.020. Hearings Body.
A. The following shall serve as the hearings body:
1. Hearings Officer.
2. Planning Commission, as specified by DCC 22.24.020(C).
3. Board of County Commissioners, except where an applicable joint management agreement within an
acknowledged urban growth boundary specifies a city governing body as the final appeals body.
B. The Hearings Body order shall be as set forth in DCC 22.24.020(A), except that the Board may call up
an administrative decision for review without the necessity of an application going before the Hearings
Officer.
C. Where the Hearings Officer declines to hear a matter on the grounds of a conflict of interest, the Planning
Commission shall substitute for the hearings officer. In the Redmond Urban Area, the initial Hearings
Body for a quasi-judicial plan amendment or zone change may at the discretion of the Planning Director
be either the Planning Commission or the Hearings Officer. Additionally, in the Redmond Urban Area,
the initial Hearings Body for Declaratory Rulings and revocations of land use approvals may, at the
Page 1 of 3 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
discretion of the Planning Director, be the Hearings Officer, the Redmond Urban Area Planning
Commission or the Redmond City Council.
(Ord. 2001-045 §1, 2001; Ord. 2000-003 §1, 2000; Ord. 99-031 §5, 1999; Ord. 98-019 §3, 1998; Ord. 96-071
§1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §11A, 1995; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.030. Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action.
A. Individual Mailed Notice.
1. Except as otherwise provided for herein, notice of a land use application shall be mailed at least 20
days prior to the hearing for those matters set for hearing, or within 10 days after receipt of an
application for those matters to be processed administratively with notice. Written notice shall be
sent by mail to the following persons:
a. The applicant.
b. Owners of record of property as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property
located:
1. Within 100 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where any part of the subject
property is within an urban growth boundary;
2. Within 250 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where the subject property is
outside an urban growth boundary and not within a farm or forest zone, except where greater
notice is required under DCC 22.24.030(A)(4) for structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in
height; or
3. Within 750 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where the subject property is
within a farm or forest zone, except where greater notice is required under DCC
22.24.030(A)(4) for structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in height.
Within 1000 feet of the pro ?erty_that. is subject of a marijuana production or processing notice
where the subject prdperty is within a farm zone.
c. For a solar access or solar shade exception application, only those owners of record identified in
the application as being burdened by the approval of such an application.
d. The owner of a public use airport if the airport is located within 10,000 feet of the subject
property.
e. The tenants of a mobile home park when the application is for the rezoning of any part or all of
a mobile home park.
f. The Planning Commission.
g. Any neighborhood or community organization formally recognized by the board under criteria
established by the Board whose boundaries include the site.
h. At the discretion of the applicant, the County also shall provide notice to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development.
2. Notwithstanding DCC 22.24.030(A)(1) (b)(1), all owners of property within 250 feet of property that
is the subject of a plan amendment application or zone change application shall receive notice.
3. The failure of a property owner to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate any land use approval if
the Planning Division can show by affidavit that such notice was given.
4. For structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in height that are located outside of an urban growth
boundary, the area for describing persons entitled to notice under DCC 22.24.030(A)(1)(b) shall
expand outward by a distance equal to the distance of the initial notice area boundary for every 30
foot height increment or portion thereof.
B. Posted Notice.
1. Notice of a land use action application for which prior notice procedures are chosen shall be posted
on the subject property for at least 10 continuous days prior to any date set for receipt of comments.
Such notice shall, where practicable, be visible from any adjacent public way.
Page 2 of 3 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
2. Posted notice of an application for a utility facility line approval shall be by posting the proposed
route at intervals of not less than one-half mile. The notice shall be posted as close as practicable to,
and be visible from, any public way in the vicinity of the proposed route.
3. Notice of a solar access application shall be posted as near as practicable to each lot identified in the
application.
C. Published Notice. In addition to notice by mail and posting, notice of an initial hearing shall be published
in a newspaper of general circulation in the County at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in
Deschutes County.
(Ord. 2018-012 §5, 2018; Ord. 99-031 §6, 1999; Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-071 §1, 1995; Ord. 95-045
§12, 1995; Ord. 91-013 §7-8, 1991; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
Page 3 of 3 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
Chapter 22.32. APPEALS
22.32.010. Who May Appeal.
22.32.015. Filing Appeals.
22.32.020. Notice of Appeal.
22.32.022. Determination of Jurisdictional Defects.
22.32.024. Transcript Requirement.
22.32.025. Consolidation of Multiple Appeals.
22.32.027. Scope of Review.
22.32.030. Hearing on Appeal.
22.32.035. Declining Review.
22.32.040. Land Use Action Hearings on Appeal From the Hearings Officer.
22.32.050. Development Action Appeals.
22.32.060. Rehearing.
22.32.070. Remands.
22.32.080. Withdrawal of an Appeal.
22.32.010. Who may appeal.
A. The following may file an appeal:
1. A party;
2. In the case of an appeal of an administrative decision without prior notice, a person entitled to notice,
a person adversely affected or aggrieved by the administrative decision, or any other person who has
filed comments on the application with the Planning Division; and
3. A person entitled to notice and to whom no notice was mailed. A person who, after such notices were
mailed, purchases property to be burdened by a solar access permit shall be considered ape..n to
whom notice was to have been mailed; and
4. A city, concerning an application within the urban area for that city, whether or not the city achieved
party status during the proceeding.
B. A person to whom notice is mailed is deemed notified even if notice is not received.
(Ord. 95-071 §2, 1995; Ord. 95-045 §31, 1995; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.32.015. Filing appeals.
A. To file an appeal, an appellant must file a completed notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Planning
Division and an appeal fee.
B. Unless a request for reconsideration has been filed, the notice of appeal and appeal fee must be received
at the offices of the Deschutes County Community Development Department no later than 5:00 PM on
the twelfth day following mailing of the decision. If a decision has been modified on reconsideration, an
appeal must be filed no later than 5:00 PM on the twelfth day following mailing of the decision as
modified. Notices of Appeals may not be received by facsimile machine.
C,.__Unless a request for reconsideration has been tiled for a marijuana production orprocessing
administrative decision, the notice ofappeal and appeal fee must be ieceived at the offices of he
Deschutes CoorsCommunity _1 evelopment Department no later than 500PMon the fifteenth day
followii g mailing of the decision.
GI),If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and the Board declines review, a portion of
the appeal fee may be refunded. The amount of any refund will depend upon the actual costs incurred by
the County in reviewing the appeal. When the Board declines review and the decision is subsequently
appealed to LUBA, the appeal fee may be applied toward the cost of preparing a transcript of the lower
Hearings Body's decision.
DE. The appeal fee shall be paid by method that is acceptable to Deschutes County.
Page 1 of 2 - EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
(Ord. 2018-012 §6 2018; Ord. 2015-017 §3, 2015; Ord. 99-031 §15, 1999; Ord. 98-019 §2, 1998; Ord. 96-
071 §1G, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §32, 1995; Ord. 94-042 §2, 1994; Ord. 91-013 §11, 1991; Ord 90-007 §1, 1990)
Page 2 of 2 - EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
FINDINGS
I. BACKGROUND
A. Deschutes County Process
Following the passage of Ballot Measure 91 (2014), legalizing the sale and recreational use of marijuana, and HB
3400 (2015), refining the implementation of marijuana legalization, the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners adopted marijuana regulations in June 2016 (Ordinance Nos. 2016-013, 2016-014, 2016-015,
2016-017, 2016-018, and 2016-019). Throughout the adoption process, the Board committed to evaluating the
regulations after they had been in place for a year to determine if they were working as intended. The Board
reiterated this commitment to the 2017 Legislature. Since the release of the Marijuana Regulatory Assessment on
April 2, 2018, the Board conducted eight work sessions to discuss changes to the regulation and enforcement of
marijuana production on rural lands.
Based on the issues discussed during the work sessions, the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners
considered substantive changes to certain sections of Deschutes County Code (DCC), specific to marijuana
production. The proposed amendments are more restrictive than Deschutes County's existing marijuana regulations.
B. Deschutes County Distinguishing Land Use Characteristics
As summarized in the findings to the 2016 ordinances listed above, agricultural land in Deschutes County has a
history of challenges unique to the area, owing to its low rainfall, high elevation, relatively poor soil quality, short
growing season; and distance to major markets. As a result, Deschutes County utilizes smaller lot size
requirements for agricultural land than the general State requirement; this unique set of farm sub -zones has been
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (DLCD). Nevertheless, the inherent
difficulties of commercial farming in Deschutes County combined with rapid population growth make for
considerable pressure to convert agricultural land to residential or other uses when possible.
The introduction of marijuana production into these agricultural lands—particularly those areas of smaller lotting
patterns—highlights the compatibility concerns expressed by both farm and nonfarm property owners. The
unique conditions and development patterns present in Deschutes County only amplify the challenge of balancing
the mitigation of potential impacts with the "reasonable time, place, and manner" regulation of marijuana
production.
II. PROPOSAL
This is a legislative text amendment to Deschutes County Code (DCC), Title 9, Public Peace and Welfare, Title 18,
County Zoning, and Title 22, Development Procedures. The proposal clarifies the regulation and enforcement of
marijuana production in Deschutes County based on work sessions with the Board of County Commissioners.
The proposed amendments are to:
• DCC Chapter 9.12, Right to Farm;
• DCC Chapters 18.24, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone, 18.116, Supplementary Provisions,
and 18.124, Site Plan Review;
Page 1 of 10 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
• DCC Chapters 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings, and 22.32, Appeals.
Substantive elements of the proposal:
• Excludes marijuana production and processing in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone.
• Increases minimum separation distances to one-half mile from federal lands, local governments that opted
out of regulating marijuana, Redmond Urban Reserve Area, and other approved marijuana production sites.
• Increases requirements for odor and noise mitigation.
• Increases requirements for documentation of water usage.
List of Preliminary Modified Amendments
The following list summarizes amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 9.12, Right to Farm, DCC Chapter
18.24, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone, DCC Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions, DCC Chapter
18.124, Site Plan Review, DCC Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings, and DCC Chapter 22.32, Appeals. The full text
amendments will be available in their entirety at www.deschutes.org/marijuana.
DCC Chapter 9.12, Right to Farm
DCC 9.12.020 - Clarified the scope of the Right to Farm Ordinance does not apply to marijuana production
operations whether permitted by Deschutes County, Oregon Liquor Control Commission, Oregon Health
Authority, or otherwise.
DCC Chapter 18.24, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone
DCC 18.24.030 — Prohibited marijuana production and processing in the Redmond Urban Reserve Area
Combining Zone.
DCC 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing
DCC 18.116.330(A)(1) and (2) — Removed MUA-10 zone from zones permitting marijuana production and
processing.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(1) — Removed MUA-10 zone from marijuana production and processing standards.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(2) — Removed MUA-10 zone from indoor production and processing standards.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(4) — Removed Maximum Building Floor Area standards for MUA-10 zone.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(5)(a) - Increased setback distances from lot lines for marijuana production and processing
from 100 feet to 200 feet.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(5)(b) - Increased setback distances from an off-site dwelling for marijuana production and
processing from 300 feet to 500 feet.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(5)(c) - Removed setback exception.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)(a) - Applied a 1/2 mile separation distance from Redmond Urban Reserve Area, federal
lands, local governments that have opted out of regulating marijuana and approved marijuana production
sites. Separation distances are to be measured from the applicant's property line.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(a) - Clarified indoor lighting shall not be visible outside a building from sundown to
sunup.
Page 2 of 10 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
DCC 18.116.330(6)(9) - Strengthened odor control measures, requiring odor control methodology to be
independently researched and tested.
DCC 18.116.330(6)(10) - Strengthened noise control measures.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a) — Clarified all marijuana uses, buildings, structures, fences, and storage and parking
areas, whether a building permit is required or not, in the Landscape Management Combining Zone, shall
comply with and require Landscape Management Combining Zone approval.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(12) - Strengthened water use requirements.
DCC 18.116.330(6)(14) - Strengthened utility requirements.
DCC 18.116.330(6)(16) —Added a requirement to Secure Waste Disposal for a statement describing how any
water runoff is being addressed.
DCC 18.116.330(6)(18) — Removed subsection outlining residency requirements for MUA-10 zone.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(18)(b) and (c) — Removed references to MUA-10 in Prohibited Uses.
DCC 18.116.330(D) —Added Inspections to Annual Reporting.
DCC 18.116.330(D)(1)(b) — Added statement of annual water use to requirements for annual reporting.
DCC 18.116.330(D)(1)(d) — Added condition of approval that an applicant must consent in writing to allow
Deschutes County to randomly and without prior notice, up to four (4) times per calendar year, inspect the
premises to ascertain the extent and effectiveness of odor control and compliance with applicable conditions
of approval. One of the four allowable inspections must be prior to initiation of use.
DCC 18.116.330(D)(f) — Added documentation that System Development Charges have been paid.
DCC 18.116.340. Marijuana Production Registered by OHA
DCC 18.116.340(B)(a) — Clarified indoor lighting shall not be visible outside a building from sundown to sunup.
DCC 18.116.340(C)(7) —Added condition to clarify that properties licensed before June 1, 2016 are
subject to the annual inspection regulations from 18.116.330(D)(8).
DCC 18.116.340(D) — Referenced the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(A -B) for new marijuana production
registered by OHA on or after June 1, 2016.
DCC 18.116.340(D)(3) - Removed Maximum Building Floor Area standards for MUA-10 zone.
DCC 18.116.340(D)(3)(a) - Increased setback distances from lot lines for marijuana production and processing
from 100 feet to 200 feet.
DCC 18.116.340(D)(3)(b) - Increased setback distances from an off-site dwelling for marijuana production and
processing from 300 feet to 500 feet.
DCC 18.116.340(D)(3) - Removed setback exception.
DCC 18.116.340(D)(4)(a) - Removed MUA-10 zone from indoor production and processing standards
DCC 18.116.340(D)(6)(a) - Applied a 1/2 mile separation distance from Redmond Urban Reserve Area, federal
lands, local governments that have opted out of regulating marijuana and approved marijuana production
sites. Separation distances are to be measured from the applicant's property line.
DCC 18.116.340(D)(8) —Added Inspections to Annual Reporting.
DCC 18.116.340(D)(8)(b) —Added statement of annual water use to requirements for annual reporting.
DCC 18.116.340(D)(8)(d) — Added condition of approval that an applicant must consent in writing to allow
Deschutes County to randomly and without prior notice, up to four (4) times per calendar year, inspect the
Page 3 of 10 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
premises to ascertain the extent and effectiveness of odor control and compliance with applicable conditions
of approval. One of the four allowable inspections must be prior to initiation of use.
DCC 18.116.330(D)(8)(f) — Added documentation that System Development Charges have been paid.
DCC 18.116.340(D)(9) - Removed subsection outlining residency requirements for MUA-10 zone.
DCC 18.116.340(D)(9)(b) and (c) - Removed references to MUA-10 in Prohibited Uses.
DCC Chapter 18.124. Site Plan Review
DCC 18.124.060—Added a provision that proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural and
man-made environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features
including views and topographical features.
DCC Chapter 22.24. Land Use Action Hearings
DCC 22.24.030(A)(1)(b)(4) — Added required notice to property owners within 1,000 feet of marijuana
production or processing.
DCC Chapter 22.32. Appeals
DCC 22.32.015(C) — Added provision allowing 15 days for an appeal of a marijuana production or
processing decision.
III. REVIEW CRITERIA
Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative plan amendment.
Nonetheless, Deschutes r'.,�,..+., initiating .,., +h., County bears +h responsibility For lustifyin`, that the
IV VIICL11 c IeiS, since VGJ�.IIU ICD County i$ 111k € 1111g one, the County bears the njustifying b uw
amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and its existing Comprehensive Plan.
A. HB 3400 and ORS 475B
Following the 2014 adoption of Measure 91, legalizing the production, possession, distribution, and use of
recreational marijuana in certain amounts, in 2015 the Oregon State Legislature passed HB 3400, which allows
local governments to adopt reasonable regulations on the production, processing, and wholesale and retail sale
of marijuana. Subsequently, this bill, along with several others, have been codified into ORS 475B and OAR 845-
025-2000 to 845-025-2080.
In 2016, the Legislature clarified that both medical and recreational marijuana are farm crops, which allows
marijuana to be grown on land zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU), subject to local time place and manner
restrictions.' ORS 475B.340 (since renumbered to ORS 475B.486) specifies that cities or counties may impose
restrictions on elements such as hours of operation, location, public access, and manner of operation. The OLCC
(Oregon Liquor Control Commission), which controls the licensing of recreational marijuana, does place some
limited restrictions on the location of recreational production sites—for example, on federal property or at the
same address as a liquor license. Ultimately, however, the source of authority to operate a marijuana production
business derives from state law; local code—and the proposed text amendments—is the mechanism by which the
county may impose reasonable restrictions and conditions on the operator.
' https://www.orcities.org/Portals/17/Library/2016LocalRegulationofMarijuanAinOregonl2-09-16.pdf
Page 4 of 10 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
B. Local Restrictions
The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners adopted marijuana regulations in June 2016. Throughout
the adoption process, however, the Board committed to evaluating the regulations after they had been in place
for a year to determine if they were working as intended. The Board reiterated this commitment to the 2017
Legislature. Based on its experience with the ensuing proposals, applications, and hearings, the Board concluded
that further refinements to the regulation and enforcement of marijuana production were needed. The proposed
amendments acknowledge that marijuana production is authorized, but additional restrictions are necessary to
maintain compatibility with neighboring land uses. In light of the inability to regulate and mitigate the potential
impacts of medical marijuana under the current law, Deschutes County seeks to regulate the impacts of
recreational marijuana, which by law, it is permitted to do in a "reasonable time, place, and manner."
Contributing factors include:
Parcel Size. As noted above, the unique conditions of Deschutes County's rural agricultural land have resulted in
smaller than average parcels zoned for Exclusive Farm Use. As such, landowners have the potential to be exposed
to the effects of neighboring uses more than they would if minimum lot sizes were larger. Light, noise, and odor
all have the potential to be more noticeable at closer distances. The proposed amendments address this in two
ways: by strengthening and clarifying the light, noise, and odor mitigation requirements, as well as increasing
setbacks and separation distances from certain types of uses.
Oversaturation of Market. As with any newly emerging industry, the marijuana market has not always been
predictable. The market has shifted since regulations were first introduced, and it has become oversaturated,
resulting in lower prices and in some cases, difficulty for smaller growers to survive. This could be attributed to a
number of factors: the complexities of the ever-changing state and local laws; the manner in which lawmakers
first structured the program, allowing businesses to apply for multiple licenses, with low fees and no caps on
licenses;2 the ability of jurisdictions to opt out of the program entirely, thereby concentrating the industry into
certain areas; and the inability to move or distribute marijuana across state lines all are contributors to an
oversaturation of the marijuana production market in Oregon.3 With the oversaturation of product comes the
potential of the surplus being sold into the illegal market (for instance, to out-of-state sales channels), thereby
exacerbating the problems that the creation of a legal market was intended to avoid.
Medical Marijuana. According to the Oregon Health Authority's (OHA) Medical Marijuana Statistical Snapshot
from July 2018, Deschutes County currently contains 791 medical marijuana grow sites." By current law, these
are all sites that are not subject to local land use regulations, nor can a list of grow site locations be provided to
local law enforcement, as discussed in correspondence between OHA and the Deschutes County Sherriff's Office,
dated April 19, 2018 (see Attachment A). In correspondence dated June 12, 2018 (see Attachment B), the Oregon
Health Authority has acknowledged that of the 18,000 medical grow sites across the state, approximately 6,000
of these are registered for two or more patients; OHA is in the process of determining priority of compliance
inspections. For sites serving fewer than two patients, inspections are complaint -based only. In light of the
County's inability to regulate or inspect these medical grow sites—which greatly outnumber the recreational grow
sites in Deschutes County—it is necessary to ensure that adequate regulations are utilized to mitigate the
potential impacts of recreational grow sites.
2 https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/31/easy-entry-into-oregons-legal-pot-market-means-huge-surplus/
https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2018/02/08/marijuana-falling-prices-and-retailer-saturation/
4https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/CHRONICDISEASE/MEDICALMARIJUANAPROGRAM/Documents/0
M M P-Statistic-Snapshot-07-2018_Fina l.pdf
Page 5 of 10 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
C. Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement: The amendments do not propose to change the structure of the County's citizen
involvement program. Notice of the proposed amendments were provided to the Bulletin for the Board public
hearing. Since the release of the Marijuana Regulatory Assessment on April 2, 2018, the Board conducted seven
work sessions open to the public to discuss programmatic changes to the regulation and enforcement of marijuana
production on rural lands.
In addition, In the November 1998 general election, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 56 (BM 56). The measure
requires cities and counties to provide affected property owners with notice of a change in zoning classification;
adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan; or adoption or change of an ordinance in a manner that limits or
prohibits previously allowed uses. Amendments to Deschutes County's marijuana regulations triggered BM 56 notice
to approximately 5,000 property owners with properties larger than five acres in the Exclusive Farm Use and Multiple
Use Agricultural zones. A notice was sent to those property owners on August 8, 2018. To supplement the information
provided in the Measure 56 notice, a dedicated website and phone line were created to provide opportunities for the
County to answer questions or issue clarifications to the public concerning the regulations.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning: This goal is met because ORS 197.610 allows local governments to initiate post
acknowledgments plan amendments (PAPA). An Oregon Land Conservation and Development Department 35 -day
notice was initiated on July 24, 2018. The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on August 28,
2018. The Findings document provides the adequate factual basis for the amendments.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands: House Bill 3400 specifies that marijuana is a crop for purposes of the definition of farm
use in ORS 215.203 and clearly permits the production and small-scale processing of marijuana in Exclusive Farm
Use zones. House Bill 3400 also prohibits marijuana -related farm dwellings, farm stands and commercial activities
in conjunction with farm use. The proposed amendments to the County Code are consistent with these provisions
of state law and are therefore consistent with Goal 3.
Goal 4: Forest Lands: House Bill 3400 specifies that marijuana is a crop for purposes of the definition of farm use
in ORS 215.203 and explicitly provides for marijuana production on land zoned for farm or forest use in the same
manner as the production of marijuana is allowed in exclusive farm use zones. The proposal prohibits marijuana
related uses in the forest use zones (F-1, F-2).
Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: Complies because the text amendment
does not propose to change the County's Plan policies or implementing regulations for Goal 5 open spaces, scenic
and historic areas, and natural resources.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: The proposed text amendments do not propose to change the
County's Plan policies or implementing regulations for compliance with Goal 6, and therefore are in compliance.
In addition, the proposed amendments serve to strengthen criteria regarding reporting of water usage as well as
water runoff as they relate to marijuana production on rural lands.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: The proposed text amendments do not propose to change
the County's Plan or implementing regulations regarding natural disasters and hazards; therefore, they are in
compliance.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs: Complies because the text amendment does not propose to change the County's Plan
or implementing regulations regarding recreational needs.
Goal 9: Economy of the State: Goal 9 and its implementing regulations focus on economic analysis and economic
development planning required in urban Comprehensive Plans. The proposed amendments apply to rural lands
but do not propose to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 9 does identify land use controls and ordinances as
one of a suite of economic development tools. The proposed text amendments continue to allow marijuana
Page 6 of 10 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
production in certain rural zones; however, these uses are already permitted in these zones as part of other more
general use categories (e.g., farming). Therefore, the text amendments comply with Goal 9.
Goal 10: Housing: This goal is not applicable because, unlike municipalities, unincorporated areas are not obligated
to fulfill certain housing requirements.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services: Complies because the text amendments do not propose to change the
County's Plan or implementing regulations regarding public facilities and services.
Goal 12: Transportation: Goal 12 is implemented by Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. Local
governments are required to adopt a Transportation System Plan and land use regulations to implement the TSP.
This proposal does not include amendments to the County's TSP or transportation -related land use regulations.
However, Plan and land use regulation amendments must be evaluated under OAR 660-012-0060. The proposal
includes allowing specified marijuana related uses in certain zones; however, these uses are already permitted in
these zones as part of other more general use categories (e.g., growing of crops). There is no greater impact to
the transportation system by more specifically identifying these uses in the zones where they are permitted. The
text amendments do not propose any changes to the functional classifications, performance standards, or access
management standards of any County roads or State highways. The text amendments are consistent with Goal
12.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation: Complies because the text amendments do not propose to change the County's
Plan or implementing regulations regarding energy conservation.
Goal 14: Urbanization: Complies because the text amendments do not propose to change the County's Plan or
implementing regulations regarding urbanization.
Goals 15 through 19 are not applicable to the proposed text amendments because the County does not contain
these types of lands.
D. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning: This chapter sets the Goals and Policies of how the County will involve the
community and conduct land use planning. As described above, the proposed regulations were discussed at
several work sessions with the Board of County Commissioners, as well as presented to the Planning Commission,
which is the County's official committee for public involvement. The Board of County Commissioners will receive
oral and written testimony. County staff also created and updated a webpage specifically for the proposed
marijuana text amendments. As part of the required Measure 56 notice, described above, County staff created
and mailed a flyer summarizing the proposed amendments as well as the public process to all landowners within
the affected districts. All of these actions demonstrate compliance with Section 1.2, Community Involvement.
Goal 1 of this section, Community Involvement, is to maintain an active open community involvement program
and are consistent specifically with Policies 1.2.3 through 1.2.5.
These actions also satisfy the Goals and relevant Policies of Section 1.3, Land Use Planning Policies. Goal 1 of this
section is to "maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective
evaluation of facts." Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board reviewed state rules and regulations as well
as those of other local governments when refining the County's reasonable regulations for time, manner, and
place of marijuana production. The above work sessions, staff reports, and public hearings comply with Section
1.3, Goal 1, but also its policies, specifically 1.3.1-1.3.4, and 1.3.6.
Chapter 2, Resource Management: This chapter sets the Goals and Policies of how the County will protect
resource lands, including but not limited to, Agriculture and Forest as well as Water Resources and Environmental
Quality.
Page 7 of 10 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies, states that Goal 1 is to "preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the
agricultural industry." Marijuana is considered an agricultural crop, grown on land zoned for farm use. The
proposed amendments strive to achieve balance between maintaining agricultural lands—by allowing marijuana
production—and mitigating any negative impacts, such as odor and noise.
Goal 2 promotes a diversified, sustainable, revenue -generating agricultural sector. Policy 2.2.10 calls for the
promotion of economically viable opportunities and practices while Policy 2.2.11 encourages small farming
enterprises including but not limited to, niche markets and organic farming and valued -added projects. The
proposed text amendments continue to diversify agriculture in the County by adding a revenue -generating crop.
By definition, the marijuana grown for recreational uses is a niche market.
Goal 3 specifies the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) policies, classifications, and codes are consistent with local and
emerging agricultural conditions and markets. The regulation of time, place, and manner of growing marijuana
are consistent with this goal. The County has spent extensive staff time, reviewed testimony of experts in the
industry and concerned citizens, irrigation districts, and State agencies to arrive at reasonable regulations to
ensure the viability of this emerging agricultural crop while mitigating potential land use conflicts.
Section 2.3 addresses Forest Land, which includes the F-1 and F-2 zones, neither of which are proposed as possible
locations for any marijuana -related land use activities. In terms of resource -zoned lands, the marijuana -related
land uses are only permitted in the EFU zone. Therefore, the Goals and Policies of this section are inapplicable.
Section 2.4 addresses Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, Open Spaces, and Aggregate, i.e.,
surface mining) resources. Goal 1 of this section of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect Goal 5 resources. The
County has an acknowledged list of significant and protected Goal 5 properties and sites. The proposed
amendments would not repeal those protections or Goal 5 listings, therefore the text amendment is consistent
with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2.5 concerns Water Resources; Goal 1 is to develop regional, comprehensive water management policies
while balancing the diverse needs of water users and recognize Oregon water law. Policy 2.5.1 calls for working
cooperatively with stakeholders. Goal 6 of this section calls for coordinating land use and water policies. Oregon
Water Resources Department (OWRD) will be invited to share its perspective on the proposed amendments to
DCC 18.116.330 and DCC 18.116.340, which addresses the reporting of annual water usage as well as the source
of the water to be utilized. Furthermore, applicants will continue to be required to demonstrate that they have a
legal source of water under State law. Thus, the proposed regulations comply with the relevant Comprehensive
Plan policies.
Section 2.6 addresses Wildlife goals and policies. The proposed regulations will not modify the County's Goal 5
inventory, its various wildlife area combining zones, nor its seasonal travel restrictions. Thus, the proposed
amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of this section.
Section 2.7 focuses on Open Spaces, Scenic Views, and Sites. The proposed regulations will not modify the Goal
5 inventory nor lands zoned for Open Space and Conservation (OSC). Any property used for marijuana production
must conform to the setback, screening, lighting, and allowable colors of building and fencing materials
requirements. In many cases, the proposed amendments increase the setback distances from the previous
iteration of the code. Thus, the proposed amendments are consistent with the relevant goals and policies of this
section.
Section 2.8 devotes its energy to Energy Policies. Goal 1 is to promote energy conservation and applicable Policies
2.8.2 and 2.8.4 look at reducing energy demand through efficiency and conservation, respectively. Goal 2
promotes affordable, efficient, reliable, and environmentally sound energy systems for individual home and
business consumers. In terms of growing operations, the combination of Central Oregon's numerous sunny days,
greenhouses, and modern building technologies make for highly energy efficient operations. Utilities serving the
Page 8 of 10 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
county's recreational production sites will be invited to share their perspective on the proposed amendments,
which requires that a statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation be provided, stating
that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, and noting if upgrades to the system will be
necessary to serve the proposed use. Taken together, the marijuana regulations thus comply with these goals and
their relevant policies.
Section 2.9 consists of Environmental Quality Policies. Goal 1 is to maintain and improve the quality of air, water,
and land with Policy 2.9.2 to maintain County noise and outdoor lighting codes and revise as needed. The
marijuana amendments will not repeal the County's applicable ordinances regarding noise and lighting. Goal 2
promotes sustainable building practices and Goal 3 encourages recycling. Marijuana waste continues to be
required to 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. Additionally, modern greenhouses are energy efficient and thus
sustainable and the unused portions of marijuana can be recycled under a secured system. Finally, the proposed
amendments require applicants to document the manner in which water runoff will be addressed. Taken together,
the proposed amendments comply with the applicable goals and policies.
Section 2.10 regards Surface Mining Policies. As the regulations will not change the Goal 5 inventory of surface
mining sites and the County code requires properties with a quarter -mile of an SM zone to sign a waiver of non -
remonstrance, the regulations are consistent with the applicable goals and policies of this section.
Section 2.11 focuses on cultural and historic resources. The proposed regulations will not modify the County's
Goal 5 inventory for cultural and historic resources. Thus, the proposed amendments are consistent with the
relevant goals and policies of this section.
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management: This chapter sets the goals and policies on who the County will manage
the development of the lands outside of urban unincorporated communities such as Terrebonne and Tumalo.
Section 3.3 consists of Rural Housing Policies. Given the regulations are for non-residential uses, the goals and
policies of this section are not applicable.
Section 3.5 is Natural Hazards with Goal 1 being to protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the
environment from natural hazards. The goals and policies are not directly applicable with the possible exception
of Policy 3.5.3, which requires coordination with emergency service providers when new development is
proposed. When a property is proposed to develop, the County sends a transmittal notice to the fire agency that
would respond in an emergency. As the marijuana land uses cannot occur in F-1 or F-2 zoned lands, wildfire is not
an issue. The County code does not allow development in the 100 -year floodplain, which is consistent with Policy
3.5.10. The amendments comply with the applicable goal and policies of this section.
Section 3.6 addresses Public Facilities and Services; Goal 1 is to support the orderly, efficient, and cost-effective
siting of rural public facilities and services. As these proposed regulations are for private development, the goal
and policies of this section do not apply.
Section 3.7 is Transportation and is covered under the findings for Goal 12.
Section 3.8 is Rural Recreational Policies, which deal with access to public lands, planning for public parks and
recreation, trail design, etc. The goal and policies are not applicable.
Section 3.9 is Destination Resort Policies and is not applicable as the regulations will not amend the County's
Destination Resort Overlay map nor change the criteria for siting a Goal 8 destination resort.
Section 3.10 Area Specific Policies describe the following geographic areas: South Deschutes County (which was
completed and ultimately became the following Section 3.11), Oregon Military Site south of the fairgrounds,
Page 9 of 10 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
Crooked River Ranch, and Deschutes Junction. The underlying zoning in these areas remains unchanged and these
proposed amendments will not change the zoning.
Section 3.11 Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County. The vast majority of this area is zoned
either F-1, F-2, RR -10, or Flood Plain, which are not being amended by this proposal.
Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management: These policies deal with urban, rural and resort unincorporated
communities of Sunriver, Terrebonne, and Tumalo, Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek,
and various Rural Service Centers, which are not being amended by this proposal.
Section 4.3, Unincorporated Communities, has no goals or objectives, with the exception of Tumalo and
Terrebonne, which are discussed in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 below. The proposed text amendments comply with OAR
660-022, which identifies and lists the types of unincorporated communities in the State, including those in
Deschutes County, and the uses allowed in each type. The proposed regulations are consistent with OAR 660-
022.
Page 10 of 10 - EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-012
Attachment 2:
Public Comment Received to Date
August 11, 2018
Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 6005
Bend, OR 97708
Attention: Tanya Saltzman
Dear Ms Saltzman,
We received a notice of the proposed amendments to marijuana production.
Unfortunately, we will be out of town on August 28 so cannot attend the meeting.
We want the board to know that we strongly support the proposed changes. We
have a home on Old Bend Redmond Highway that includes 6 acres. We love it and
it is our dream location. We have friends that bought property in Cave Junction
and built their dream home on the property. It turns out that they were
surrounded by marijuana farmers. They were not friendly hippies growing a little
pot. They were very unpleasant people and they were eventually forced to sell
their home and move to a different town. We are not opposed to the legalization
of pot but we do believe that the production should be closely regulated.
Thank you in advance for making our opinion known to the board.
p�, .li►1�"- & iaJir--
Linda Barbaro
14
Vii= �
Michael Barbaro
64315 Old Bend Redmond Hwy
Bend, OR 97703
(541) 508 7595
Tanya Saltzman
From: Dale Leshaw <dleshaw@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 5:01 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Deschutes County Marijuana Text Amendments
I believe these amendments are a good step in right direction. I would have only suggested reducing the grow site size.
However, ultimately I believe the market will take care of that. It is clear that the short term, the market for recreational
marijuana is no where near the size necessary to clear the market of the production capability now being permitted. It
is also obvious that the excess will attempt to be exported to other states which is a Federal crime. What is the state's
position or the county's position with regards to assisting Federal authorities if asked, in enforcing Federal law? What is
the state's and the county's preparation and planning in protecting the public should violent criminal activity break out
in regards to the export of excess marijuana? That is something I would not be surprised to see. I also see a paragraph
regarding the cover of razor wire or fences. There is no mention of exposed high voltage security fence. There is a
facility in Tumalo with high voltage fence surrounding the property - or at least that's what the sign states. It would
seem to me that exposed high voltage wire runs totally contra to any sensible building code and is liable to hurt or kill
animals including dogs, cats, deer, foxes or children. Is that actually legal? If so, the county should have their collective
heads examined.
I understand that regulation of hemp is not subject to the same restrictions as marijuana. I have noticed the rapid
expansion of hemp growing all through Tumalo, along Highway 20 and up north of Redmond on Highway 97. It is clear
that there is a significant odor problem from hemp yet there does not appear to be any regulation. To me, this seems to
run along the same lines as growing onions or garlic or having a dairy or pig farm... however the smell of hemp is a bit
worse. Am I missing something or is there any regulation regarding odor from hemp grown outdoors.
Dale Leshaw, Tumalo
1
Tanya Saltzman
From: melstout@ykwc.net
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 8:49 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Deschutes County Marijuana Text Amendments
Dear Ms Saltzman and Board of Commissioners:
We have reviewed the proposed text amendments at:
www.deschutes.org/marijuana and approve of and support all changes. We urge the Board of Commissioners to
approve all proposed changes. We very much appreciate staff and Board efforts to make these changes to help protect
public safety and protect our rural property values and livability.
Sincerely,
Mel and Marsha Stout
65965 White Rock Loop
Bend, Oregon 97703
1
Bend Park &
Recreation
(DISTRICT
August 15, 2018
Tanya Saltzman
Deschutes County Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Deschutes County Marijuana Text Amendments
Dear Ms. Saltzman,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Deschutes County's Marijuana Text
Amendments.
As the provider of public parks in the community, the District is concerned about the potential
impacts marijuana production and retail facilities could have on the public's use, enjoyment and
safety in parks.
We appreciate that the text requires property line separations from marijuana properties and
National monuments and state parks, but unfortunately, this text does not address separation
from local parks. Because the District owns land in the County, we strongly encourage you to
add text that addresses local parks as well.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please don't hesitate to contact me at
541-706-6130, or quinn@bendparksandrec.org.
Sincerely,
Quinn Keever, Park Planner
Bend Park and Recreation District
District Office I Don Horton, Executive Director
799 SW (:olamhia Sr,, Bend, Oregon 977513 ( ww benciparksandrreorg 1 (541) 3139-7275
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: b ! w
Name S-A -ev C.e)
Address
Date: eld-r/i(
,
-OR F2 7 3
Phone #s
E-mail address S Ii e 5 s yn S E. C o o?
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
ot+' 1Ah� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: ; 'llate:
Name
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor
171 Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
#10
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Subject:
Name
Address
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Date:
AP,
E-mail address
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? / Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
"_ 6... ,
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
80/28/2018
Dear Chair Baney, Commissioner DeBone and Commissioner Henderson,
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to provide feedback on the recently proposed amendments to
the Deschutes County Code that were discussed during eight work sessions starting on Aug 2, 2018. The
proposed changes to the code will make programmatic changes to the regulation and enforcement of
marijuana production on rural lands. I am concerned about the proposed text amendments because
they will impact the workability for farmers in Deschutes County and continue to set precedence that
farming rights and farmland will not be preserved. The proposed text amendments are not reasonable
additions to the code and should not be adopted.
I would like to ask the a board to please listen to the Planning Commission work session that reviewed
these rules. This can be found at the following address:
There was certainly a tone of apprehension in addition the discussion that these rules overstep what is
reasonable in specific cases.
In my reading of the code I wanted to highlight just a few of my many concerns: Increases in setbacks
coupled with removing the setback exception could make it very challenging to utilize pre existing
infrastructure; this would be the case for both a new applicant or a pre existing producer who is a
approved but looking to adjust their land use. This seems unnecessarily burdensome to a business
navigating the code and could force additional properties to be used for cannabis give non-conformance.
The increase in neighbor notification is concerning, and would likely trigger even more public input,
making this process on the country even more financially burdensome. The changes to odor and noise
will continue to add the burden the application process put on the application. I know I am not alone in
my concerns and that others have taken time to also express their concerns.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for Deschutes County to preserve farmland
and protect both current and future agricultural opportunities via the Exclusive Farm Use Zone by
supporting stakeholders in studying and promoting economically viable agricultural opportunities and
practices (DCCP, Policy 2.2.10) and encouraging small farming enterprises, including, but not limited to,
niche markets, organic farming, farm stands or value added products (DCCP, Policy 2.2.11). I do not
believe that the proposed amended changed meet these guidelines as they do not encourage small
farms or the other goals mentioned above.
As always, I want to thank you for considering my comments and look forward to finding workable
regulations for our farmland.
Lindsey Pate
CEO and Co -Founder, Glass House Grown
President, Celebrate Cannabis
Terrebonne EFU Zone
541-923-0420
GLASS
HOUSE
GROWN
www.GlassHouseGrown.com
Integrity Excellence Transparency Service
80/28/2018
Dear Chair Baney, Commissioner DeBone and Commissioner Henderson,
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to provide feedback on the recently proposed amendments to
the Deschutes County Code that were discussed during eight work sessions starting on Aug 2, 2018. The
proposed changes to the code will make programmatic changes to the regulation and enforcement of
marijuana production on rural lands. I am concerned about the proposed text amendments because
they will impact the workability for farmers in Deschutes County and continue to set precedence that
farming rights and farmland will not be preserved. The proposed text amendments are not reasonable
additions to the code and should not be adopted.
I would like to ask the a board to please listen to the Planning Commission work session that reviewed
these rules. This can be found at the following address:
There was certainly a tone of apprehension in addition the discussion that these rules overstep what is
reasonable in specific cases.
In my reading of the code I wanted to highlight just a few of my many concerns: Increases in setbacks
coupled with removing the setback exception could make it very challenging to utilize pre existing
infrastructure; this would be the case for both a new applicant or a pre existing producer who is a
approved but looking to adjust their land use. This seems unnecessarily burdensome to a business
navigating the code and could force additional properties to be used for cannabis give non-conformance.
The increase in neighbor notification is concerning, and would likely trigger even more public input,
making this process on the country even more financially burdensome. The changes to odor and noise
will continue to add the burden the application process put on the application. I know I am not alone in
my concerns and that others have taken time to also express their concerns.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for Deschutes County to preserve farmland
and protect both current and future agricultural opportunities via the Exclusive Farm Use Zone by
supporting stakeholders in studying and promoting economically viable agricultural opportunities and
practices (DCCP, Policy 2.2.10) and encouraging small farming enterprises, including, but not limited to,
niche markets, organic farming, farm stands or value added products (DCCP, Policy 2.2.11). I do not
believe that the proposed amended changed meet these guidelines as they do not encourage small
farms or the other goals mentioned above.
As always, I want to thank you for considering my comments and look forward to finding workable
regulations for our farmland.
Lindsey Pate
CEO and Co -Founder, Glass House Grown
President, Celebrate Cannabis
Terrebonne EFU Zone
541-923-0420
GLASS
HOUSE
GROWN
www.GlassHouseGrown.com
Integrity Excellence Transparency Service
August, 28, 2018
Dear Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Henderson,
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to provide feedback on the recently proposed
amendments to the Deschutes County Code that were discussed during eight work sessions
starting on Aug 2, 2018. The proposed changes to the code will make programmatic changes
to the regulation and enforcement of marijuana production on rural lands. I am concerned about
the proposed text amendments because they will impact the workability for farmers in
Deschutes County and continue to set precedence that farming rights and farmland will not be
preserved. The proposed text amendments are not reasonable additions to the code and
should not be adopted.
Support for the local farmers and residents will only help the community grow as a whole. If the
community cannot depend on the local farmers then the community losses out. The new laws
and regulations should help the community progress with new roofs over schools, as many had
collapsed last year. The money from the hard working farms will be put to use to making this a
better, safer place. Please do not take the rights our forefathers fought so hard for.
Again, I want to thank you for considering my comments and look forward to finding workable
regulations for our farmland.
Sincerely,
Daniel Plauche
60870 Diamond Rd bend or 97702
4062744695
August, 28, 2018
Dear Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Henderson,
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to provide feedback on the recently proposed amendments
to the Deschutes County Code that were discussed during eight work sessions starting on Aug 2, 2018.
The proposed changes to the code will make programmatic changes to the regulation and
enforcement of marijuana production on rural lands. I am concerned about the proposed text
amendments because they will impact the work -ability for farmers in Deschutes County and continue
to set precedence that farming rights and farmland will not be preserved. The proposed text
amendments are not reasonable additions to the code and should not be adopted.
I am an commercial grower here in Deschutes county. Our grow is east of town. We at 2HD Ag, have
jumped thru every hoop we have been asked to jump through. I now look at all the Hemp fields going
up around our grow site. Our grow has smell mitigation and setbacks which the Counsel have put in
place. These hemp Fields next door have many acres of hemp which produce the same Terpene
Profile as our cannabis plants, but they are treated as a regular commercial crop with no setbacks
other than stated in regulations and don't have to worry about smell Mitigation. How is this fair? We
just want the same playing field as everyone else in the farming community.
Then we have people who have set up residence on E.F.U. land; Exclusive farm use. They are upset
and that is understandable but if someone were to put a pig farm next to their property, they
wouldn't be able to say a word about it other than at the land use hearing. Just like with a hemp farm,
the pig farm would be a regular farm in many peoples eyes, so they are exempt from smell
Mitigation? What sense does any of this make. I'm sorry they bought land years ago and put up
residence, but unless the land gets rezoned I don't see where that is an argument.
Again, I want to thank you for considering my comments and look forward to finding workable
regulations for our farmland.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Armstrong
541-610-3939
casca@bendcable.com
August, 28, 2018
Dear Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Henderson,
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to provide feedback on the recently proposed
amendments to the Deschutes County Code that were discussed during eight work sessions
starting on Aug 2, 2018. The proposed changes to the code will make programmatic changes
to the regulation and enforcement of marijuana production on rural lands. I am concerned about
the proposed text amendments because they will impact the workability for farmers in
Deschutes County and continue to set precedence that farming rights and farmland will not be
preserved. The proposed text amendments are not reasonable additions to the code and
should not be adopted.
I wish I could physically attend this week's hearing but I'm attending a marketing conference in
Vancouver, BC. I think it's really important for people to understand that the proposed changes
are reducing current rural cannabis farmland by 75%.
My business partners and I attended the Marijuana Regulations in Deschutes County talk at the
Library this week where I asked the question about the economic impact of the proposed
changes, specifically reducing the number of potential production sites by 75%. As I understand
it, we currently have over 200,000 acres of available farmland which will be reduced to less than
50,000 acres if the proposed changes take affect. When I asked what the economic impact
would be as a result of the changes, the response from the County Community Development
Director, Nick Lelack, was that the county actually hasn't analyzed the impact. This seems
irresponsible for the County Commissioners to propose such changes without knowing how it's
going to affect the county economically. It seems that the proposed changes are a reaction to
social issues over economic issue. I ask that the county commits to an economic impact
analysis prior to setting precedence that farming rights and farmland will not be preserved.
Again, I want to thank you for considering my comments and look forward to finding workable
regulations for our farmland.
Sincerely,
Sarah Thornburg
(541)-306-1144
August, 28, 2018
Dear Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Henderson,
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to provide feedback on the recently proposed amendments to the
Deschutes County Code that were discussed during eight work sessions starting on Aug 2, 2018. The
proposed changes to the code will make programmatic changes to the regulation and enforcement of
marijuana production on rural lands. I am concerned about the proposed text amendments because they
will impact the workability for farmers in Deschutes County and continue to set precedence that farming
rights and farmland will not be preserved. The proposed text amendments are not reasonable additions
to the code and should not be adopted.
The current code provisions in place coupled with the regulations imposed by OLCC are more than
sufficient to keep the legal operators in this county in check. I worry that that regulations that are too
burdensome may drive some farmers to begin illegitimate operations rather than farming in compliance
with the requirements.
Again, I want to thank you for considering my comments and look forward to finding workable regulations
for our farmland.
Sincerely,
Alison Hohengarten
14'3
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: /°_
71J)ti' Date:
Name ,L//•
Address ��4 `44 2 /: J rte.• / 2// J '
Phone 2/7.5-"1//—
E-mailil address
In Favor Neutral/Undecided
- Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes LNo
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: /URA)CTh 1-6_5 kg- Aga-047\179 Date: 4a6 zq 18
t
Name i t!� ► +�val`I
Address /3 2 f3,44 /-)- % D- , ix it 6v414 -G0.%)
Phone #s ,•54-/ 3 5 $ • 0324 2
E-mail address pc.)0cLha_uok Z C/30 L Cc)4/
I;51- In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Comments on the proposals to be considered in Ordinance 2018-012 at the Deschutes County Public
Hearing on August 28, 2018 regarding marijuana regulations, Board of County Commissioners
"My name is Robert Pederson and I live in rural Deschutes County. I have a prepared
statement which I will read and I am happy to answer questions afterwards.
I applaud the County Commissioners efforts and the outcome of the new proposals for
marijuana regulations.
They give hope to the rural residents of Deschutes County. We have been troubled since
the marijuana growers descended upon us. The fear of having to pay the cost of drilling
new deeper wells because the marijuana growers sucked them dry is already happening.
So is the disturbance from bright lights, loud fans and obnoxious smells.
Spreading the proximity of growers away from each other, locating them in specific
zones, and increasing setbacks for grow facilities will help insulate their endeavors and
keep the value of most properties from dropping.
The plans for law enforcement to freely be able check on compliance will greatly
facilitate keeping the rules in place and slow down the rate of smuggling to other states.
Now will come the inevitable attack on the proposals, the nibbling away at the setbacks,
the arguing for fewer and more lenient rules, and an attempt by some in the marijuana
industry to keep law enforcement out of their businesses. Your new proposals are right
on for most of us rural residents. (pause) Stand your ground, don't waffle. We are not
the special interest group.
Thank you.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: Y,. Date:
Name_.,..
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Comments on the proposals to be considered in Ordinance 2018-012 at the Deschutes County Public Hearing
on August 28, 2018 regarding marijuana regulations, Board of County Commissioners
My name is Gretchen Pederson and 1 have lived in Bend for 30 years and in rural Deschutes County for 18 of these.
Thank you, commissioners for the time and effort that you have taken to develop these proposals in an attempt to
please so many of the people you represent. Overall I am in favor of your suggestions.
The increased setbacks from existing grow sites and away from youth activity centers and federal lands are a
tremendous improvement, but I think it would be appropriate to include local parks as well. Marijuana -related
operations should not be close to public parks frequented by children, families, and pets.
I would prefer an even greater setback from existing marijuana sites to reduce the possibility of high density in any one
area. A buffer of % mile is good, but even more than that would further diminish the impacts to neighbors. I think that it
is important that setbacks be measured from property lines, not from buildings within a parcel.
I am adjacent to several properties zoned MUA 10 and am grateful that these are off-limits in your proposals.
Water use remains a big concern of mine, and I am pleased to see that proposals target this issue. There is a potential
shortage of water in our high desert environment as the population continues to grow and drought, climate change,
dwindling snowpack, and the piping of irrigation canals contribute to the many unknowns for the future. Marijuana is
unlike any other crop grown here. Traditional farming in this area relies on surface water for irrigation during the
growing season only. Cannabis growers often prefer ground water that is free of contaminants, and they require water
year-round. This is a big difference and has locals worried about their domestic wells running dry. Having meters on
wells used at large grow sites would be extremely helpful. Because marijuana is so different from traditional crops, it
should not be given "right to farm" protection.
The reduction in the area of land available to marijuana operations is an extremely important improvement. This change
would protect tracts of valuable farmland. Bend is known for its healthy, outdoor lifestyle yet resource demands are
high in marijuana growing. A recent state report* specified that a single mature plant can require the same electricity as
a refrigerator running for a year and to produce a single kilogram (2.2 pounds) of finished flower, 4.6 tons of CO2 are
released, the same amount as a passenger car in a year. Having limits on this industry is good for our community. The
value of marijuana products has dropped significantly due to overproduction, and the black market is rampant.
Curtailing the amount of land where cannabis sites are permitted could help with many of these problems and could
also benefit responsible growers who comply with the regulations.
Commissioners, you have worked hard as a team to get to this stage, and I congratulate you for that and hope that you
can set these proposals in place as soon as possible.
Gretchen Pederson
Deschutes County Resident
• An Initial Assessment of Cannabis Production, Distribution, and Consumption in Oregon 2018 —An Insight
Report; Oregon- Idaho High Density Drug Trafficking Area
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: /1//9/2 /j1/4.0v
Name 14 I:04S—
Address
hT--- Date:
(7e)4/ a,(P( ori- 97 7,__
Phone #s 3-47//- ( 99 6,
E-mail address ;2. III 6
x
In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
No
d
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Subject:
Name
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Date:
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
0
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Subject:
Name
Address
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Date:
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: rd./ F,, h C ,✓tt, j``
Name e.,11,0 .e.3 c D (L..
Address
Phone #s
Date: 5/Z1V/ a
2q? r ,i6 YvLCct.
Aire..
/Ze rota ir/�b /L 9 7 7.x-4
E-mail address
In Favor
x
Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
f1
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: /4,I/1/2/1/47v/TA' - /97/4)0
Name Ai/ //E
Date:
Address /7?M 6" 5(1/Mc k--.517P-CS ,7..,),
Phone #s 5'V/ 3
E-mail address WikE/,h9 x'6,5 / % 7 S 'x,1794 G : e 1714
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: Atli
Name ti 2 fJti�'
Date: P, - r
Address *0 Su) tele( r,uL- . 4 O
Phone #s 3-7(/ /06
n 5
E-mail address �- ` (/ckfi��t , dt`eikf
154_ In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: r
I t47e1.-b,- 41-
Name , y
Address
etc e�
Phone #s
4-/ti4Jp)
kf3
P O#I _ Date: S/ . ADl-
cg 'T -7O 2-
/ 5 oc - 2 �7
r/ '67/k
E-mail address GJ v s k. c ate.
l
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Subject:
Name
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
�CO (.�� Date:
n'CA
I D-7 Sw Ch and f iT A-7!, 1St(
Pe/c t f . l 7 0Z
Address
Phone #s i) 7017 -. 6,09 5
E-mail address e11 n 1-(e)v-6.1), �. /( -if1) a uu11 e C v
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
x
Opposed
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
2-o 18
CO
arra
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
*pig'
Subject: / VA/t/,4�. /�°l� % /�,��% % Date:
Name ON/ (7..-4RA4�_
Address 7/ N t,/ ELL7ro. %Aiki
R 9/746/0 0 E6 0A
`tel78 2cos-
E-mail addressl cr ye/ e,76?„, PO 1,9 c1� O'l
Phone #s
r1a(T
In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? XY.es
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
27 August 2018
From:
Ronald Caramella
2571 NW Euston Lane
Redmond, Oregon 97756
To:
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall
Bend, Oregon 97701
Subject: Testimony and arguments in opposition to amendments to existing
marijuana regulations.
In my rural neighborhood there exists a variety of activities. Some people raise
market lambs, other raise beef cattle. Some raise and train horses. There is a
menagerie of chickens, pigs, and goats. Some folks raise hay, alfalfa and grass. There
is an active cinder mine. There is even an airstrip where the owner flies in and out in
his private helicopter. We raise pasture grass, sunflowers, farm fresh eggs and wine
grapes in a small vineyard. Since 2014 there has been a cannabis growing operation
just across the lane. We all get along and no one bothers anybody. The odors and
noises are what is to be expected in a rural lifestyle, manure and machinery. The
cannabis operation is practically invisible; its existence has not altered our country
setting.
Here is a short background about cannabis and its prohibition. The major opponents
of cannabis and its use have been the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry, the
pharmaceutical industry, the private prison industry, and law enforcement agencies.
These industries and agencies have ulterior motives to back its prohibition and
those motives have nothing to do with public safety. As rich and powerful as these
industries are for decades they have been able to saturate the public with
misinformation feeding the masses with fear and paranoia. Unfortunately, many of
our fine citizens still believe all the propaganda that they have been fed and that is
why the Deschutes County Commission feels the need to increase the restrictions of
an already over restricted commodity. And, by increasing these restrictions the
Deschutes County Commission will legitimize unsubstantiated paranoia. Instead of
accommodating the paranoid, the Commission could be educating the public and
supporting a diverse agricultural community.
The proposed amendments talk a lot about the odors and noises associated with a
cannabis operation. My experience with a cannabis operation next door is that the
odors and noises are indiscernible. So instead of picking on the cannabis industry
for their so-called noise, maybe the Deschutes County Board of commissioners
should crack down on bailing equipment that operates all night long so that the
farmer can get the hay in before the next thunder shower, or outlaw the weaning of
calves and lambs, and roosters crowing at four A.M. Perhaps the Commission
should restrict the use of heavy equipment in the cinder pits at odd hours and
weekends. When we bought our home 22 years ago we had to sign an agreement
that we would not complain about the surface mining dust and noise. We had to pay
a $100 filing fee to the county to submit that document. Then, when we added a
room on the house we had to sign it again and pay another $100. Why can't that
same courtesy apply to a few exhaust fans at the cannabis farm? Now, regarding all
those smells, some people like the smell of manure; some people like the smell of
fresh cut hay. Some people even like the smell of cannabis buds at harvest time.
Although I cannot detect the neighbor's so-called cannabis odors, I sure can smell
the manure and hay. You want to smell agriculture that is really obnoxious, drive
through the Culver area during the mint harvest season. That odor is overpowering.
Perhaps if the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners needs something to do ,
they should get involved there.
So, what I'm saying here is that in our community we have people that have
marijuana paranoia exacerbated by decades of anti marijuana propaganda. And,
since they can't complain about it being an illegal substance any longer, they
complain about the smell. The stool that supports their anti cannabis opinion has no
legs. So, with no leg to stand on, make something up, "The Smell!!"
Let me tell you about my neighbor lady. She raises sheep, horses and has six barking
dogs. When the cannabis farm across the lane started in 2014, she let everyone
know through her social media accounts that the marijuana growers were "the scum
of the Earth." Then she proceeded to complain about the noise and smell. This lady
suffers from a debilitating disease. Someone recently gave her a topical cannabis
balm. She tried it; it relieved her symptoms; she got more of it and uses it daily.
Suddenly the smell of the pot farm doesn't bother her any more. This is one example
where the complaints are fictitious and miraculously go away with a little education.
Eliminating cannabis from the Right to Farm Ordinance and the odor abetment rules
proposed by the Deschutes Country Board of Commissioners are rules and
regulations in search of a problem. The smell isn't the problem; the problem is in the
nose of the beholder. Those who complain about cannabis odors remind me of the
pig farmer who complains about the smell of the feedlot down the road. Remember
the stories of the Wild West where the cattlemen were repulsed by the smell of
sheep? That scenario illustrates how a deep bias affects one's thinking.
Next let's address the 1000 foot buffer zone that the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners want to expand it to half a mile, talk about legitimizing the paranoid.
Yes, Oregon has a substance abuse problem.
The number one problem substance is the opioids. Opioids are over prescribed by
Doctors and are available at pharmacies. Pharmacies are allowed within 1000 feet of
schools, day care centers, churches, etc... Pharmacies are not required to check your
I.D. when you walk in the door! Children are allowed in pharmacies without their
parents! Since Opioids are a more serious problem than cannabis, Shouldn't the
Deschutes county Board of Commissioners focus on site planning and access to
pharmacies?
The number two substance abuse problem is alcohol. There is a grocery store across
the street from Redmond High School. That grocery store sells wine and beer.
Students have access to the store before and after school and during lunch. Next
door to the grocery store is a Mexican Restaurant where high school students can
get a burrito for lunch. That restaurant also serves tequila!! Shouldn't these grocery
stores and restaurant be sited at least 1000 feet from the school. I expect the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to get right on that and up the buffer
zone to 2640 feet. Also, Why doesn't Safeway require I.D. to walk down the beer
isle? Have you noticed that beer is located on the same isle as Fruit and Yogurt
Push -Pops and the wine is located next to the donuts? Do you see a problem there?
You are proposing tighter restrictions on cannabis while you ignore how the alcohol
industry targets youth.
Next in line for substance abuse is tobacco. Like with alcohol, children have free
access to stores that sell tobacco and no one has to show I.D. to stand near the
cigarette counter. Why is that?
So, why do we need a half mile buffer zone for marijuana? Decades of propaganda
and misinformation have created this cannabis paranoia. Don't accommodate the
paranoid. Educate them. Regulate the citing of sales and manufacturing of cannabis
with the same restrictions that you have in place for pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and
tobacco.
The amendments proposed by the Deschutes County Board of commissioners
transcend common sense border on harassment. I can waste all the water I want
growing grass hay, but if Wm growing marijuana, I have to report my water usage.
An indoor operation may only require a 1000 square foot building, and could easily
be located in an industrial warehouse or someone's outbuilding. But you are
proposing minimum lot size restrictions to five acres, illogical. Setbacks from 100
feet to 200 feet, why? The commissioners are telling me what color to paint my
fence, really? A winery can be a B&B but a pot farm cannot, what's with that? All
these restrictive regulations are harassment meant to appease the paranoid.
The rule that really gets my goat is the must be one half mile from Federal land rule.
Central Oregon is speckled with small parcels of BLM and Forest Service lands. It is
nearly impossible to be in Central Oregon and not be with in a half a mile of a small
parcel of public land. The commissioners know that. This half a mile from Ferarally
managed public land is a back door ban on cannabis cultivation. If the Commisioners
want to ban pot farms, then propose a ban on pot farms, but don't play games.
This is The United State of America. Free market capitalism reigns. Overregulation
obstructs prosperity. Government is the problem. These mantras are so prevalent
today, especially by the Republican Party. Which, by the way, is the party of our local
government. So, aren't the Deschutes Commissioners being hypocrites? Aren't we
supposed to let the free market decide the number of and locations of our cannabis
farms? If one doesn't like where a farm is located, don't purchase their product. If
we have too many cannabis farms the supply goes high and the demand goes low
along with the prices. If the prices drop too low, farms shut down. The free market
will find the balance. Government is the problem and these rules and regulation
exemplify that.
So, why does the county Commission have to power to determine what I can and
cannot grow on my farm? What is it the Deschutes County Commissioners have
against freedom? For two years I lived in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and have
travelled the World. If they hate freedom so much, there are other paces in the
World that might be more to their liking.
In conclusion, to your credit, there are some rules that make sense, lighting for
example. If a cannabis farmer uses light 24-7, then they need to be indoors. But, the
majority of your proposed rules are strictly harassment. Your proposed rules aren't
designed to help entrepreneur farmers contribute to a robust economy. Your
proposed rules and regulations are harassment, designed to discourage cannabis
farming, and enable the paranoid. The State or Oregon rules and regulations for
Cannabis farming are already too restrictive; increasing those restrictions is not
good for Central Oregon.
Respectfully submitted,
w
0
k..fc
L-'
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen 'Input or Testimony
IT 16
Subject: ) U lla/ Ap'Y dyy) Date: ` 2e
Name O2,` -` Y' I \---6 'T' vY) e' k,a
Address ,25 91 NV, EcAfoC r LY1
601,m6yydJ
Phone #s (5d1 200 02
E-mail address aaprayn� ceoLr ite }'flat m
In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony?E Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
8/28/2018 Right to Farm Marijuana Regulations testimony 2018 - Google Docs
August 28, 2018
To:
Deschutes Board of County Commissioners
Hearings Officer Public Hearing
From:
Carrie Caramella
2571 N.W. Euston Lane
Redmond, Oregon
97756
(541) 280-0584
My husband and I have been residents of Deschutes County for 34 years. We lived in
the town of Redmond for 12 years. In 1996 we found 8 acres with 3 acres of irrigation
between Redmond and Terrebonne. For 3o years we worked full time and now are
both retired. At this time in our lives we have the time and energy to begin our farming
dream.
I believe it is important for you to know that for the last 4 years my husband and I have
lived about 700 feet away from several cannabis growing operations existing on a 20
acre rental property. The people who have lived there have all been very nice people.
Keeping mostly to themselves but welcoming our questions over the years. I suggest
the board of commissioners and others in opposition to cannabis growing might benefit
from having these real conversations with the growers. It might help diminish some
stereotypical assumptions about these people (fellow farmers) that they may have been
indoctrinated with over the last several decades.
So we are here to today to discuss: The Right to Farm, 9.12.020. and its "Purpose"
"The purpose of the DCC 9.12 is to protect farm and forest -based economically
productive activities of Deschutes County in order to assure the continued health,
safety and prosperity of its residents."
8/28/2018 Right to Farm Marijuana Regulations testimony 2018 - Google Docs
Since I live in the country, I was told by many ranchers to accept the smells, noises and
other seasonal discomforts of agricultural practices. And so I have. I have never , I
repeat, NEVER experienced any foul odors, noises or lighting coming from the
cannabis operations. But on the other hand, I have experienced odor, noise and lighting
issues on a regular basis from the "approved" farming practices of my nearby neighbors
and those a short distance away. How many commissioners on this panel and others
who have testified actually live or have lived near a cannabis growing facility? I
question their credibility in making decisions about regulating or restricting this 21st
century crop. I am afraid the commissioners may have wasted much of their time
preparing these documents and making these proposals. The future is here to stay. It
always has. New inventions cause distress, but that is the way of the world. They need
to get on board. They should not make decisions based on hearsay and fear. Decisions
need to be made on sound knowledge and experience. I encourage them to open their
minds to this new enterprise. Give these early growers their agricultural support and if
they are a farmer, give them well earned advice. We can all benefit from expanding (not
restricting further) opportunities to grow economically desirable crops in our area. It is
challenging enough to just grow pasture grass here in this region!
This spring and summer we have spent over $15,000 improving our water delivery
system to our land in order to use our allotted irrigation more wisely and efficiently.
We do not believe in wasting resources that we have gained through public and
environmental investments. Historically, this county's land is unfarmable unless there
is ample irrigation feeding the enterprises. We can thank our early founders for their
foresight in establishing our canal systems. We must also thank every public citizen for
continuing to agree to give up portions of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers to
farming. I also appreciate the efforts of the Central Oregon Irrigation District in their
continued (and sometimes annoying) pursuit of having us all use this water more
wisely.
So today we have a "modern" crop called cannabis. There is hemp and there is
marijuana. Both have health benefits that must be thoroughly considered before one or
both are struck from local cultivation. What I have researched, growing these plants is
similar to growing tomatoes and roses. They require a well drained soil. Our Central
8/28/2018 Right to Farm Marijuana Regulations testimony 2018 - Google Docs
Oregon soils are an excellent start and with the proper addition of other nutrients, they
can thrive here. Unlike other crops, cannabis must be grown organically because they
can not be "washed off' like other crops. How are these requirements a health and
safety hazard? I believe these crops are a welcome addition to our established local
farm crops since many of those require pesticides (health concerns) and excessive
water consumption (local prosperity).
This modern crop has the potential to improve Deschutes County's economic profile as
well. These crops could be a boon to our area. We all benefit when others, as well as
ourselves, have money to spend. I would welcome any neighbor who could improve
their property from the income they get from a cannabis crop. Unfortunately in my
situation, the cannabis grower we live by, as well as another neighbor, rent their land.
They have little incentive to improve the houses or properties. Nor do their landlords.
This impacts my property value. In addition I find it ridiculous that the commissioners
would even consider prohibiting cannabis crops for properties -amielepassoopes (MUA-10).
I live on such a property. This restriction would deny my right to farm, as well as many
others who have been economically unable to purchase larger acreages or chose not to
when they were affordable to young people decades ago. There is nothing "unsafe"
"unhealthy"about farming cannabis on acreage smaller than 10 acres. This additional
prohibition does impact my "prosperity"!
p poce)
In conclusion, I do not agree with the additional prohibitions and restrictions proposed
here today. There is nothing different about this particular crop that would necessitate
these amendments. Thank you for your time.
Carrie Caramella
2571 N.W. Euston Lane
Redmond, Oregon
97756
(541) 280-0584
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING'
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: os -e Date: - 2 201:
Name v p n
Address 2, Gomen
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes k
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
w
a
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: AAAvt4(Ak1e1 Tt.)(4 e$.1 wt. A-.
Name us : D.1%
Date: $/2 $%8
Address as 7 NV/ C, ov",) ✓t SS S
01Z 417703
(I/6S') 9Di 34
E-mail address auS�:,�,_. l�ne accou
Phone #s
In Favor
�J. C, 0141
Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: ctieot Thx
f
Name D/t'j (Iall
fti tine plivivN Date:
44,
Address 617,0 N V f3on St) t, 20
Bid OR 977 3
Phone #s
23
E-mail address
dq ye vk,frcd36bk car
In Favor Neutral/Undecided N Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
s. 1
K./ cvbth'ikez!r-
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: etorS: 0,4 (74Ao141_
Name 'rte -d /k -
Address (q -?c)- ))
Phone #s (3) CAA-- c9
E-mail address
In Favor
1kac✓11\. CO �.
Neutral/Undecided I� Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes LNo
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
-res
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
41 g-//
Subject: W\Pte—\ \J 9 r\, (ter)rR fi ate: $1 L 6
Name sk,Gootvrir
Address
13,so,) D 41-1-13\
Phone #s 5L(\ 3 62. 6 b4
E-mail address 644,6LIN, e6t,t v
In Favor Neutral/Undecided
gnteSubmittinwndocuments as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
w
TES
Subject:
Name
Address
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
f roQOQ\
-Co(
-Co( (w,nc ' Date: g i 2)6/1'8
4 exlnu e_lke-r'
e1 g Lv r.
O. q--12fl7
Phone #s ('fl(,') (got 22-7.3
E-mail address a(1nie,('0 c--@ .c -s -004 -
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Proposal for Extended Hours of Operation in Deschutes County
Presented by Cannabis Nation
56789 Lunar Dr. Bend, OR 97707
Cannabis Nation would like to propose the extension of the hours of operation in Deschutes County to match the State of
Oregon's allowable hours of operation between 7:00 am to 10:00 PM as defined by the State of Oregon in the OLCC's
Chapter 845, Division 25, rule 2800:
845-025-2800
Retailer Privileges; Prohibitions
(2) A retailer may:
(a) Between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM local time, sell marijuana items from the licensed premises to a
consumer 21 years of age or older;
Source: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/view.action?ruleNumber=845-025-2800
The City of Bend to the north of the Sunriver area within Deschutes County has already increased the time frame to match
the legally allowable hours of operation set down in 845-025-2800. The city of Bend's Standards of Operations for
Marijuana reads as follows:
Hours of Operation: Marijuana recreational retail facilities and medical marijuana dispensaries must not open
before 7 a.m. or remain open after 10:00 p.m.
Source: https://www.bendoregon.gov/home/showdocument?id=25942
Additionally, the City of La Pine to the south of Sunriver extended operating hours to the State of Oregon allowable hours:
Amendment No. 1. Section 6.6 of the TPM Ordinance is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
"(6.6 Operating Hours. Daily operating hours for retailers and wholesalers must be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. or
later than 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday."
Source:http://www.lapineoregon.gov/sites/default/files/imageattachments/ord res/3151/ord 2017-
09 amending ordinance no. 2016-10 tpm.pdf
Currently, the allowable operational hours of dispensaries outside of Bend City Limits and La Pine City Limits in Deschutes
County is 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Cannabis Nation would like the opportunity to provide the same hours of service for the
population of rural Deschutes County that the dispensaries in Bend and La Pine are able to provide to city residents.
Our proposed hours of operation would be:
9:00 AM — 8:00 PM Sunday, Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday
9:00 AM — 10:00 PM Thursday, Friday & Saturday
As Cannabis Nation Sunriver has been operating just over 2 months, we have seen that the customer traffic is much higher
in the evening than in the morning. In the first hour of 9 am — 10 am in the Month of July 2018, only 4.96% of sales
occurred. However, during the last hour of 6 pm — 7pm in July 2018, over 2x that many sales occurred at 11.6%. There
have been a handful of occasions during closing shifts that customers have continued to arrive after closing at 7:00 pm
and must be turned away. Employees perform closing duties until around 7:45 p.m. and have seen people come by as late
as that. In addition, many phone calls asking if we are still open have been received between 7:00 p.m. and the time
employees leave. This indicates that the ability to operate to the legally allowed time of 10 pm will benefit not only our
customers, but our employees and the State of Oregon as well.
Benefits for the increased hours of operation include:
• Additional hours of workable time for all locally -hired employees, potentially generating the need for added
positions to be filled by locally sourced staff.
• Residents of rural Deschutes County and vacationing individuals in the area would not feel the need to drive down
the hill to the City of Bend for the legal purchase of Marijuana if they did not make it to our location before 7 pm,
keeping the roads safer with decreased potential for individuals driving 20 minutes to and from Bend while tired
after a long day of work or physical activity or in potentially dangerous weather conditions. We do not serve to
individuals who appear intoxicated in accordance with OLCC rules.
• Increased operational hours result in an increase in sales and the 17% sales tax generated for the State of Oregon.
In the first full month of operations, July 2018, Cannabis Nation Sunriver averaged $47.53 in sales tax per hour of
being open. With an extension of 1 additional hour of operation 4 days of the week ($190.12 extra in state sales
tax) combined with 3 additional hours of operation 3 days of the same week ($427.77 in extra state sales tax),
with only 13 hours of additional hours of operation over the course of only one week, Cannabis Nation Sunriver
could have generated an additional $617.89 in 17% sales tax revenue to the State of Oregon. This may seem small,
but one week multiplied by 52 weeks in a year, comes out to a potential of $32,130.28 in additional tax revenue
for a full year to be generated for the State of Oregon.
A similar proposal is being made for our Cannabis Nation location in the City of Seaside. Cannabis Nation Sunriver and
Cannabis Nation Seaside are very close in customer purchases. The benefits of extending the hours of operation from an
8pm closing time to a 10 pm for that location, which has been open since 2015, can be seen in the following data:
• For the month of July 2017, Cannabis Nation Seaside generated $31,264 in sales the last hour of being open
(7pm — 8pm) with 17% sales tax for ONLY the last hour of every day of the month totaling $5,314.88.
• If operating hours are extended an additional 2 hours to 10 pm, financial data forecasting shows that it could
lead to roughly $10,600.00 in additional tax revenue to the State of Oregon for only 1 month.
Individuals living in, as well as those visiting, rural Deschutes County and the Sunriver area work and play all hours of the
day. If a working individual is not able to make it into the dispensary before 7 pm or a vacationing individual does not, for
example, come down from Mt. Bachelor in time, they are not being afforded the same opportunity to legally purchase
marijuana as the citizens of the City of Bend and the City of La Pine. We would like the opportunity to provide the local
community and numerous visitors with the State of Oregon's authorized legal right to purchase marijuana during
operating hours that fall within the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
Thank you,
Cannabis Nation Team
Point of Contact: Annie Rothrock
Operations & Compliance Manager I Cannabis Nation
Cell: (916) 601-2273 1 annie.rothrock@cannabisnationinc.com
Five closest Dispensaries to Cannabis Nation Sunriver known as competitors
Green Knottz
51546 Hwy 97 #7
La Pine, OR 97739
Monday -Saturday: 9am - 10pm
High Desert Botanicals
51456 Hwy 97 Suite #3
La Pine, OR 97739
Monday -Saturday 9am - 9pm
Tokyo Starfish South
61230 S Hwy 97
Bend, OR 97702
Monday -Saturday: 8am - 10pm
Sunday: 9am - 8pm
Miracle Greens
905 SE 3rd St.
Bend, OR 97702
Monday -Sunday: 8am - 10pm
Dr. Jolly's
415 SE 3rd Street
Bend, Oregon 97702
Monday -Saturday: 9am - 9pm
Sunday: 9am - 7pm
Oregoi
a Tax Reve ue [) s ributian
Education
Mental Health
State Law Enforcement
To Cities - Based on Population
To Counties - Based on Population
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention
40%
20%
15%
10%
10%
5%
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' `MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen ;Input or Testimony
Subject: Date:
Name
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided rp Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ,
ir 1 "."'°(, cit,-.-- rn c:51"e- 5 tte.1.-c, ti O rt i
7--kt 6--e--- to no — ,,'o ..e / Ai 0( 0 U 4 Yom, a3Z°) +41. t .: °
5�
Loc.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
D o c J
-)C one, .. m rdzot-oLy--9-0Lr
w
0
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
{
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: md. H tis Date: J
9
Name /�, j 'rte
Address ��i S- as • l� �'•�,-• ,I o
/10�--
Phone #s
E-mail address pA , / N t' tt , Q rkut,t ,! 1 01(21
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
August, 28, 2018
Dear Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Henderson,
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to provide feedback on the recently proposed
amendments to the Deschutes County Code that were discussed during eight work sessions
starting on Aug 2, 2018. The proposed changes to the code will make programmatic changes to
the regulation and enforcement of marijuana production on rural lands. I am concerned about the
proposed text amendments because they will impact the workability for farmers in Deschutes
County and continue to set precedence that farming rights and farmland will not be preserved.
The proposed text amendments are not reasonable additions to the code and should not be
adopted.
I've been a medical cannabis cultivator here in Deschutes County for the past 13 years. I
grew my gardens size based on three things, 1) the applicable laws and regulations; 2) my
patient's needs; and finally, 3) according to quality test results. I never grew more than what my
patents prescription called for and what I could provide to a medical dispensary. As the laws
have changed, over the past 3 years, I have had to totally shut down my medical garden. This is
due to the OLCC shutting down most to all medical dispensaries in this state. As a result of the
increased regulatory requirements, it has had a devastating impact on my ability to provide for
my patents and the medical community.
Since the shutting down of my medical garden, I have been following Deschutes County
laws and regulations and have had the good fortune to purchase a 22 -acre farm here in rural
Deschutes county (Terrebonne) with my business partners. We are currently in the final stages
(we hope) going through the land -use process for our mixed Tier 1 recreational grow. With the
constant changing of the laws and regulation surrounding the cannabis community, one can't
help but think that the governing bodies are trying to circumvent the will of the people. No other
farm or ranch in Deschutes County has to put up with the constant changing of the laws and
regulations with regards to their industry, that we the cannabis community has to. Deschutes
County does not have the same regulatory requirements for Hops farms or Vineyards. We as a
community are being treated as if we are going against the will of the people in the state of
Oregon and Deschutes County. Tabacco farmers, breweries, wineries and distilleries don't even
have the same regulatory land use requirements throughout the United States that Deschutes
County is trying to pass.
I know that the cannabis farming industry is still in its infancy and that to ensure
responsible farming and long term health of the industry some laws and regulations are required.
However, the new laws this body is considering will be detrimental to the community and the
citizen of Deschutes County and the state of Oregon. All I am trying to do is be a responsible
citizen, good neighbor and farm my land responsively.
Very Respectfully,
Edwin Price
�6 " al o./
Bend, OR 97701
541-771-1557
JT
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: s r r .:.Y 3,, r , Date:
Name 7,
Address`£,
Phone #s
E-mail' address
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided (` Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
ori
Subject:
Name
Address.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen 'Input or Testimony
Date:
Phone #s
E-mail address',
In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
s
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
G" 3
Subject: _ C- , Date:'Z�'/%zz
Name d � (61
Address Lj '0 ,) Pq irc/ /14 Laktsa
e,p7c,O. e
Phone #s S O,- 7 0 `l - L-1 S.
E-mail address
In Favor
S�
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Opposed
To: Deschutes County Commissioners,
via Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
From: Susan Payne, Deschutes County resident
7107 SW Wickiup Ave
Redmond, OR
Subject: Deschutes County Marijuana Tax Amendments
Date: 24 August 2018
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed text amendments.
I am a resident in rural Deschutes County, and live on a 10.0 -acre EFU parcel with four
neighbors all on EFU parcels ranging from 5.3 to 10.06 acres. My domestic water well is
shared with two of these neighbors. None of these parcels are irrigated and none are
farmed. My property is flanked by BLM lands, and by a Rural Residential (RR10)
subdivision.
I support the amendments that are provided in the version at www.deschutes.org/marijuana.
I have some additional observations and suggestions that I include in the attached two
pages.
Thank you.
1
118.116.330(B)(1) Minimum Lot Area
A part of farm protection under Goal 3 involves the preservation of the aesthetics of
farmland and the open space that it provides. Such a landscape is an asset that attracts
tourist dollars as well as being important to residents and to wildlife. Just witness the
establishment of scenic highways and bikeways through the county, assets that bring and
keep visitors here supporting the economy.
Small EFU parcels that cannot support typical agriculture often end up functioning more
like Rural Residential properties and have developed as such with residences and
outbuildings. (And owners no longer receive the EFU tax exemption). A 5 -acre parcel
used for marijuana production would have at least one additional building, the grow
greenhouse, the equivalent size of an average residence. A 10 -acre parcel could have
multiple buildings the equivalent size of two or up to four such residences. Likely, other
outbuildings would be needed for support of the operation.
Thus, allowing marijuana production and processing on small EFU acreages will likely
result in an erosion of the desirable visual and wildlife qualities creating a condition that
is more suburban than rural. Parcels crowded with buildings can also make the
establishment of managed fire buffers difficult.
Further, noise and odor control are much more likely to affect neighboring properties if
the development is allowed on small parcels.
I suggest that marijuana production and processing should not be placed on EFU acreages
of 10 acres or less.
118.116.330(B)(6) (a)(v) Separation Distances
I would suggest changing (v) to "National monuments and parks, National Wild and
Scenic Rivers, state parks and State scenic waterways".
The purpose would be to preserve the aesthetics of the Deschutes River (in particular)
which is is heavily used for recreation by boaters, fisherman, cyclists and walkers of all
ages. These are often visitors to the County drawn to the River by the peace, quiet,
beauty, and wildlife.
118.116.330(B)(10) Noise
We should recognize that there are people who work at night and sleep during the day.
There are also many people who enjoy sitting outside during the day to enjoy the peace
and quiet of a rural area - a primary reason for 'living in the country' for many. And in
our area, there are many retirees who are at home all day.
Intrusive and unwanted noise can be very annoying - leading to impacts that can affect a
person's health and well being. Not being able to open windows at night or even during
the day due to unwanted noise is problematic for many without air -conditioners.
Thus, requiring a level of 30 dB(A) or less only at night is not adequate protection.
2
I would suggest that the allowable noise during the period 7 am to 10 pm be such that the
overall sustained level at a property line should not be 5 dB(A) above the background
noise. In addition, there should be a maximum level established so that any obnoxious
and deleterious intermittent noise source can be addressed.
118.116.330(B)(12) Water
It is not clear to me what the rule means concerning domestic wells and the use of water
from these for a grow or processing operation.
Domestic wells are exempt uses of groundwater - they have a permit but they do not need
or typically have a water right. They have limited allowances of withdrawal of
groundwater for basic residential and landscape purposes only. Commercial farming is
not one of these uses.
Further, domestic wells can be shared by up to three residences even though total output
is relatively modest - in my area about 25 gpm. Use of a shared well by a grow or
processing operation could jeopardize the availability of water to the other partners on a
shared well.
I suggest that a clause be added that explicitly denies the use by a grow or processing
operation of a groundwater from a well drilled for domestic purposes. All new wells for
such purpose should need to be permitted for commercial use.
118.11.6.330(B)(16) Secure Waste Disposal
I do not see any clause relating to disposal of garbage, or of chemicals, fertilizers, or
other items that might affect water or air quality, or that might attract pests. And, there
is no mention of whether burning of plant or other waste is prohibited.
I would suggest some language be added to consider these issues providing references to
other ordinances or statutes that deal with these.
The above changes and additions are also suggested, where applicable, for 118.116.340.
3
Tanya Saltzman
From: Frank Spiecker <mfrankspiecker@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 1:20 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on August 28, 2018
Dear commissioners and planners, 8-27-18
Please submit this letter as testimony on the proposed changes to marijuana grow operations. I have read them
and agree they should be approved. DCC 18.124.060 adds the provision that proposed development shall relate
harmoniously to the natural and man made environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts
and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. This provision is crucial to those of
us who value our open, scenic rural landscapes.
Of special concern to us lately is a proposal to build a 10,000 sq. ft. production and processing facility at 25450
Walker Rd. here in Alfalfa (file# 247-18-000504-AD/505-AD/506-SP). My parents settled in southwest Alfalfa
in the early 70's. I am now 68 and very fortunate to live on a small piece of the old farm. We live within 1/4
mile of 25450 Walker Rd.
Our good friends at "Boundless Farmstead" live even closer to the proposed marijuana facility and are very
concerned. 1 hope all of you will find an opportunity to visit this very productive farm in the near future. It's a
real farm, organic, sustainable, growing healthy food for people. CSAs like this have a bright
future. Marijuana proposals like the one on Walker Rd. look to be a different model of the future, completely
self-contained, not using the sun or the native soil. This is because they don't intend to farm the land. These
models are warehouse factories. They don't relate harmoniously to anywhere except on industrial zoned
lands. I urge you to adopt the new marijuana text amendments.
Thank you,
Frank Spiecker
25261 Alfalfa Mrkt. Rd.
Bend, OR 97701
541-382-8316
i
/7
Tanya Saltzman
From: Rehome <gary@riversedgegolf.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 8:36 AM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Marijauna Text Amendments
Hi Tanya,
My wife and I own a 25 acre EFU property. We have reviewed the proposed text amendments applicable to the EFU and
MUA-10 properties. We support the proposed changes and would also suggest that any previously existing approvals
that have been granted to MUA-10 landowners for marijuana production expire when the property is sold rather than
simply grandfathering in the future buyers. Thanks,
Gary & Tessa Cox
67167 Highway 20
PO Box 2198
Sisters, OR 97759
Tanya Saltzman
From: Marcy Monte <marcylmonte@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:29 AM
To: Nick Lelack; Tanya Saltzman; Phil Henderson; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone
Subject: Hats off to you Commissioners considering Ordinance 2018-012
Thank You Commissioners for allowing Bend and Deschutes County Residents to come before you and
comment on the Marijuana Regulations.
1 do hope that these set backs and regulations are passed.
As a 30 year teacher in Bend La Pine Schools I am not supportive in anyway for the growth of Pot in our area.
#1 Kids do have access (no matter what you think you should see what they get out of their parents homes), #2
water use- I would like everyone to get in a plane and fly over Bend/Redmond OH HIGH DESERT! We
have limited water here and we are not in a drought yet....the rest of the world is though, #3 Property and living
next to a marijuana field would be horrible and I would have to move. There is a great example of homes for
sale on HWY 20 on the way to Sisters. There are pot fields very close to the Hwy and the homes around those
fields are for sale. As I drive by the smell is horrible.
I hope you take very seriously the comments today and also realize that most of us are at work or we would be
there at this meeting.
Most Sincerely,
Marcy Monte
30 year resident of Bend
1
Tanya Saltzman
From: Dale Clark <daleclark.bend@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:05 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman; Phil Henderson; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone; Nick Lelack
Subject: Marijuana Regulations
To all,
I am a resident of rural Deschutes County — living in the Tumalo area for almost 14 years.
I know finding acceptable compromises to the marijuana regulations has been difficult. Though not pleased that I am
close to grow zones, I appreciate all the work you've done and wish to express my support for the proposal to be
considered in Ordinance 2018-012 at the public hearing on August 28, 2018.1 hope you are able to approve these
regulations as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Dale Clark
64100 Tyler Road, OR 97703
,'%'" , ,viii - � :o%r vy r y,
August 28, 2018
Deschutes County Commission
Deschutes Services Building
1300 NW Wall Street, 2nd Floor
Bend, Oregon 97703
VIA EMAIL: Tanva.Saltzman a;deschutes.org; board(rcdeschutes.org
RE: Deschutes County Text Amendments Re: Marijuana Production
Dear Commissioners:
The Oregon Farm Bureau ("OFB") and Deschutes County Farm Bureau ("DCFB") write to
express our grave concerns regarding the proposed text amendments regarding marijuana
production currently under consideration by the Deschutes County Commission
("Commission"). The proposed text amendments exceed the scope of the "reasonable time, place
and manner" carve out to Oregon's Right to Farm law granted by the legislature, violate
Oregon's Right to Farm and land use planning goals, and undermine the integrity of the
exclusive farm use zone. We urge the Commission not to adopt them.
By way of background, OFB is a voluntary, grassroots, nonprofit organization representing
Oregon's farmers and ranchers in the public and policymaking arenas. As Oregon's largest
general farm organization, its primary goal is to promote educational improvement, economic
opportunity, and social advancement for its members and the farming, ranching, and natural
resources industry. Today, OFB represents nearly, 7,000 -member families professionally
engaged in the industry and has a total membership of over 60,000 Oregon families. Over 6,200
of these families live in Deschutes County.
OFB closely followed the process leading to the adoption of the bills codified 475B.486 and
ORS 475B.928, which allow for the "reasonable" time, place and manner regulation of
marijuana production. The bills created a very limited carve out to Oregon's Right to Farm Law,
which otherwise strictly prohibits local governments from regulating farm uses in farm zones.
See ORS 30.935. In the 2017 session, OFB participated in discussions with legislators,
Deschutes County, and others about Deschutes County's excessive regulation of marijuana
production under the guise of "reasonable" time, place and manner restrictions, and Deschutes
County agreed to reevaluate its ordinances. The implication in this promise was that Deschutes
County would reconsider provisions such as its "dark skies" ordinance and scale back its
regulation of marijuana. We are disappointed the County has opted to go the opposite direction
and urge the County to reconsider its regulation of agriculture.
Marijuana has been designated a farm crop by the Oregon legislature. When it is grown in a
farm zone, it should not be more heavily regulated than other farm crops. Throughout the
County's discussion of the draft text amendments, we are troubled by the County's failure to
recognize that its exclusive farm use zone has been designed for agricultural use, with the
associated noise, odor, lights, irrigation, and other activities associated with a farm use. Instead,
the County seems to want to treat its farm zone akin to a rural residential or mixed agriculture
zone due to the smaller parcel size of farm parcels in many parts of the County. This approach
violates Goal 3, which requires the preservation and maintenance of agricultural lands for farm
use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products. See OAR 660-015-0000.
If the County believes its exclusive farm use zone is no longer suitable for farm use, it should
begin the process for rezoning the land, not adopt unreasonable restrictions on a farm use some
dislike.
While we are troubled by the entirety of the text amendments being considered by the County,
we want to call the following specific issues to your attention:
1. Right to Farm (Chapter 9.12.020)
Deschutes County may not change its Right to Farm ordinance in a manner that is inconsistent
with Oregon law. Oregon's Right to Farm law, ORS 30.936, provides that "no farming or forest
practice on lands zoned for farm or forest use shall give rise to any private right of action or
claim for relief based on nuisance or trespass." ORS 475B.526 expressly provides that
marijuana is a crop as defined under Oregon's Right to Farm Law, ORS 30.930. Through its
amendment to Chapter 9.12.020, Deschutes County seeks to remove marijuana from the
prohibition on nuisance and trespass lawsuits.
The legislature did not grant any exemptions to ORS 30.936, the nuisance and trespass shield,
when authorized the limited carve out to ORS 30.935 for local regulation. Instead, the legislature
expressly provided that marijuana, as a legal crop, is protected for purposes of nuisance and
trespass lawsuits. Deschutes County may not alter state law through a text amendment, and it
lacks the authority to adopt a text amendment that is inconsistent with the legislature's express
intent and with Oregon law. We urge you not to adopt the proposed changes to Chapter
9.12.020.
2. Buffer Distances (Chapter 18.116.330(B)(6))
We urge you not to move forward with the proposed buffer distances proposed between
marijuana grow sites, or with federal land, urban reserves, and opt out jurisdictions. Such
2
restrictions, particularly those between grow operations, exceed the scope of reasonable
regulation of marijuana and set a dangerous precedent for all of agriculture. It is fundamental in
the prohibition on local regulation contained in ORS 30.935 that counties should not dictate
where or how farmers farm within their jurisdiction. Farmers compete on a state, national and
global market, and burdensome local regulation and reduce competitiveness and market access,
create inconsistent regulation between counties, and subject farming to the whims of the public,
who may know little about how to farm. While we understand that some in Deschutes County
dislike marijuana as a crop, it has been designated a legal crop nonetheless, and is not subject to
unreasonable restrictions under 475B.486 and ORS 475B.928. Providing for a'' 'A mile buffer
distance between operations is unreasonable because it limits a farmer's ability to engage in the
full range of farm practices on their operation, which undermines the very purpose of Goal 3 and
farmland protection. We urge you to abandon the proposed buffer distances, particularly those
between grow operations.
3. Light, Noise, and Odor Regulations (Chapter 18.116.330(B)(8-10, 19))
The County's proposed light, noise and odor regulations far exceed the scope of reasonable
regulations allowed under 475B.486 and ORS 475B.928. First of all, by its plain Language, the
lighting ordinance applies to all "inside building lighting" regardless of whether the building is
being used for marijuana production or not. See Chapter 18.116.330(8). Regulation of crops
other than marijuana is not allowed under the limited carve out contained in 475B.486 and ORS
475B.928. As such, this provision violates ORS 30.935 and is illegal. Even were it limited to
marijuana, it is still unreasonable. During peak seasons, lighting may be required in greenhouses
overnight and a requirement to make the walls opaque could limit natural light during the day
and significantly increase energy and production costs.
Similarly, the requirements around noise and odor abatement far exceed the scope of reasonable
regulation. Chapter 18.116.330(9-10). It is patently unreasonable to require odor and noise
abatement plans and extensive engineering to protect neighbors from a farm crop in a farm zone.
In Oregon's Right to Farm laws, the legislature acknowledged that farming can be loud and
occasionally farm uses can carry an odor that may be offensive to residential populations. The
purpose of Goal 3 — and Oregon's land use planning system - is to protect farm lands from
regulation associated with urban sensitives. Again, if the County desires to promote a more
urban or mixed use of their lands zoned for exclusive farm use, it should consider rezoning those
areas it deems not longer valuable for agriculture. Excessive regulation of noise and odor from a
farm crop is not reasonable and should not be allowed.
Additionally, we must remind you that the County may not authorize private rights of action,
especially those that are expressly prohibited under Oregon law. See Chapter 18.116.330(19).
As such, we urge the County to delete the section where it purports to authorize private rights of
action for compliance where they are otherwise allowed under state law. Only the state may
create new causes of action, not the County. And in this case, whether a cause of action for
nuisance or trespass would be allowed is expressly dealt with in Oregon's Right to Farm law,
which the County may not alter.
3
4. Water Metering Requirement (Chapter 18.116.330(B)(12))
The County may not independently require a water meter for permitted water uses. Water use is
regulated by the Oregon Water Resources Department ("OWRD"), who already has a metering
requirement associated with any new water right they issue. While we support the County
verifying that the applicant has a legal source of water, we do not believe the County has
authority to require metering for production sites with 5,000 square feet of canopy, or any other
agricultural operation. The regulation and enforcement of water rights is solely within the
discretion of OWRD. Indeed, OFB is supporting additional resources for OWRD in 2019-2021
specifically to deal with the increased workload they are experiencing due to marijuana.
5. Water Quality Plans (Chapter 18.116.330(B)(14)(b))
We also have concerns about the County requiring a statement of how water runoff is being
addressed. As farm uses in farm zones, any water quality issues associated with marijuana
production are regulated under the Oregon Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Water
Quality Management Program ("SB 1010"), which regulates water quality from agricultural
activities. If the County has concerns about any marijuana operation, they should call ODA and
express their concerns. ODA is the only entity which is permitted to evaluate compliance with
SB 1010 and the associated rules and plans, and the County should not be putting itself in the
position of judging the effectiveness of water quality plans. The County lacks the requisite
expertise and is not permitted to regulate agricultural water quality under SB 1010.
6. System Development Charges (Chapter 18.116.330(B)(14)(f))
We have previously written the County expressing our concerns with its assessment of System
Development Charges for a farm use in a farm zone. The County's reply did not alleviate our
concerns. Despite the County's attempt to analogize payment of property taxes to payment of
SDCs, property taxes are assessed on all landowners based on their zoning and use of the
property. The SDCs in this case were assessed solely on the basis of one type of agricultural
production. We continue to believe this violates the state legislature's prohibition on local
governments imposing a tax or fee on the production of marijuana items under ORS 475B.491.
We urge the County to reconsider its imposition of these fees on marijuana growers. As such,
we also oppose adding payments of SDCs as a prerequisite for land use approvals.
7. Site Plan Review (Chapter 18.124.060)
We have heard significant concerns about implementation of the site plan review process and
urge you to abandon this approach. As stated above, marijuana production is a farm use in a
farm zone, and utilizes much of the same infrastructure other farming operations utilize,
including greenhouse flower and vegetable producers, greenhouse nurseries and other similar
operations. The site plan review process is not well suited to an agricultural use, and the factors
outlined by the County seem to contemplate a new industrial type business with significant
4
traffic, public access, and new site development. There is no basis in fact for applying these
assumptions to any agricultural operation. They do not match the reality of greenhouse
agricultural operations, irrespective of crop. We urge you to abandon the site plan requirement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Deschutes County's proposed Text Amendments
for marijuana production. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Mary Anne Cooper
Public Policy Counsel
Oregon Farm Bureau Federation
(503) 399-1701 x 306
maryanne@oregonfb.org
Matt Cyrus
President, Deschutes County Farm Bureau
Matt@aspenlakes.com
5