2018-450-Minutes for Meeting September 12,2018 Recorded 11/1/20180-t ES
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal
CJ2018-450
1110112018 2:11:04 PM
a ve.
WORK SESSION MINUTES
1:30 PM WEDNESDAY, September 12, 2018 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were
Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County
Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and representatives of the media
were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Pelton Round Butte Project Update (PGE)
Megan Hill and Brooke Berglund of Local Government Affairs presented an
update for the Pelton Round Butte Fisheries. The Deschutes Project refers to
the hydroelectric project. A copy of the slide presentation is attached to the
record. The continuous involvement incorporates the tribes, agencies,
regulators, and environmental groups. The Pelton Fund is used toward
expenses for the watershed restoration. In 2015 a water quality and algae
study was started. A report has been completed and is under review. Public
presentations will be schedule for this upcoming winter. Commissioner
Baney inquired on Deschutes County's role. Ms. Berglund noted updates will
be provided to the Commissioners.
BOCC WORK SESSION
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 5
2. Tanager LLC / Lot Line Adjustment Request
This item was audio recorded. Community Development Department staff
Peter Gutowsky and Anthony Raguine presented this item. Mr. Gutowsky
noted the Board is asked to consider option 2 which is to not prioritize but
process the applications similar to marijuana application and process the
applications based on the order they were received, issue an administrative
decision, and if appealed the Board would become the hearings body instead
of a hearings officer. Commissioner DeBone expressed his support of
calling this up in front of the Board. Commissioner Baney stated bringing it
before the Board makes sense. The consensus was to go with option 2.
3. Preparation for Noise Permit with Variance for Night Paving on
Deschutes Market Road Between 19th Street and Hamehook Road.
Peter Russell, Community Development Department presented the item that
will come before the Board on September 17. Notices were sent to
approximately 400 properties.
4. Potential Appeal of Marijuana Production at 70355 McKenzie Canyon
Road, Order No. 2018-061.
Matt Martin, Community Development Department presented the item.
BAN EY: Move approval of Order No. 2018-061
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: BAN EY: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC WORK SESSION
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 5
5. Discussion of Fuels Reduction on County Lands
County Forester Ed Keith and Property Manager James Lewis presented this
item. Mr. Keith explained the opportunity to apply for a grant we are eligible
for due to the Milli Fire. The funding can be used for hazard mitigation. A
project on fuels treatment could be considered on County land that has had
fires in the past. The parcel being considered is east of Redmond. The grant
funds would not be used solely to treat this property. Each land owner that
participates would need to pledge a match. This award may be received in
mid -2019. The proposal for this property would be would cost
approximately $750 per acre and Deschutes County would need to cover
25% of the costs. Mr. Lewis explained when reviewing the County properties,
this property is the most logical. A fire break would then be created for a
rapidly growing industrial area in Redmond as well as assist in preventing
issues with illegal activity on this parcel. The Board expressed support. Mr.
Anderson explained the 25% match could be designated as funding during
the next budget cycle. Commissioner Henderson suggested expanding the
project area to right up against the new affordable housing project
development. With the Board's approval, Mr. Keith will include in the
application the entire project for the scope of work. The Board expressed
support.
OTHER ITEMS:
• Commissioner DeBone shared an email invitation from the Oregon Water
Resource Department to a Deschutes Basin Summit at Eagle Crest on
October 21.
• County Administrator Anderson reported that he and Commissioner
Henderson had a meeting yesterday with Sunriver Owners Association on
Harper Bridge and they are concerned with trespassing on private property
BOCC WORK SESSION
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 5
so would entertain a solution. Mr. Anderson will set a meeting with USFS and
BLM for discussion on options.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 2:45 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session to
make the following motion:
BAN EY: Move to direct staff as discussed in Executive Session
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: BAN EY: Yes
HENDERSON: No
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
The Board went back into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property
Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session to make the following
motion:
BAN EY: Move to direct staff as discussed in Executive Session
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: BAN EY: Yes
HENDERSON: Absent, excused
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
The Board concluded Executive Session at 3:36 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS UPDATE:
• Commissioner Baney spoke on the Solar Farm on 97 and the tree screening
has died and asked Mr. Anderson to contact Code Enforcement.
BOCC WORK SESSION
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 5
• Commissioner DeBone reported on the Transportation Plan steering
committee meeting yesterday.
• Commissioner DeBone reported the executive body of Central Oregon
Intergovernmental Council voted yesterday and has offered the Executive
Director position to Tammy Baney starting January 1.
• Commissioner DeBone shared an email invitation for a White House
Conference with Oregon State and Local Leaders in Washington DC on
October 11 with a NACO dinner planned for October 10. This is a unique
opportunity. Commissioner DeBone may attend as Chair of Deschutes
County.
OTHER:
• County Administrator Anderson reported a letter was received from Jim
Johnson regarding his concerns of the three-way stop. Mr. Anderson recalled
the work session with Chris Doty for the report of the history of the
intersection.
ADJOURN
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
DATED this
Commissioners.
Day of ai-04_, 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of
RECORDING SECRETARY
BOCC WORK SESSION
ANTHONY DEQ °` i ,,IR
1-\,*
PHILIP G. - ENDERSON, VICE CHAIR
TAMMY BANEYeIC MISSIONER
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
PAGE 5 OF 5
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
Work Session, which are open to the public, allow the Board to gather information and give direction to staff.
Public comment is not normally accepted. Written minutes are taken for the record
Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or
discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics.
Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice.
CALL TO ORDER
ACTION ITEMS
1. Pelton Round Butte Project Update (PGE) - Brooke Berglund, Local Government
Affairs
2. Tanager LLC / Lot Line Adjustment Request - Nick Lelack, Community Development
Director
3. Preparation for Noise Permit with Variance for Night Paving on Deschutes Market
Road Between 19Th St & Hamehook Rd - Peter Russell, Senior Planner
4. Potential Appeal of Marijuana Production at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Order
2018-061 - Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
5. Discussion of Fuels Reduction on County Lands - Ed Keith, Forester
COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda
of 2
Wednesday, September 12, 2018 Page 1
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations
At any time during the meeting an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.5660(2)(e); real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h) litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b); personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions
are closed to the public; however ,with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the public.
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners with to discuss as part of the
meeting pursuant to ORS 192.640.
ADJOURN
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and
activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.or/meetincalendar
Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572.
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda
of 2
Wednesday, September 12, 2018 Page 2
(PLEASE PRINT)
AGENCY
S
(F
PAGE # OF PAGES
PLEASE RETURN TO BOCC SECRETARY
WORK SESSION Date: �
1�Q_Orci
G
Q
z
J
)i
o
L
a
0
0
oo
10
gr-
-43
a)
21 ,
-a = oo
1,0 a)
E 4-
..... o E
00 %WI 03
E
Wo 2 0
1 w al
LT, ,v
-0
i
ic:C a)
E 2 E a)
0 2
0
< ....c
0 t
(Dc 0 g
Z0 i . iCa
0 0
IALU
0) 0)
›, 0 M 1E
M 15 M r)
46,„ R z a) a)
LL LO 0 LL
LU
Z LL LO
.....
0 cks,i
Ce co 6
ILI 00 T --
LU CNI
0 0 ani
O
L
wo
>t
y.+
wW
,,..mo Q
y
o m
1.6
■ ■
passage wasn
moving to the dam
Juvenile salmon
passage from reservoir
0
LO
Temperature °F
Lr) 0 Ln
Ln
1 1 1
a. 2
L)
- a>
0
- o
z
-
0
CC)
Water downstream of
the Project was too
warm in the late
summer and fall
Do a.mleJadwai
Chinook and trout
co
LL
Pelton Round Butte MILESTONES
Lfl 2w
0 CI
0
-0 • -o
-• o
• -c
o •-•
0 ct 'to' a
0 c »a .0
(44 $2 u E
7..) ;.
co o
t() SEVESES,..
s
c IF,
r, co
cc c E
01 0 cn '-----
u
a) Cr u)
0- E
•0
cc ra
a
w
75'
c."
-c
„MN <
0
coi
45
(/) a)
environmental groups
Restore the entire Deschutes watershed to a more natura
Return sustainable harvestable salmon and steelhead to the
Upper Deschutes
+-+
a)
E
a)
0)
co
Cts
co
co CY)
CZ
La
0
.a)
cn
E
• •
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Branch of Natural Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
NOAA Fisheries
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Trout Unlimited
• Water Watch
• American Rivers
• Native Fish Society
Freshwater Trust
.
co
d
Z
V
N
w
cZ
w
Q.
a) • N
o t
la RsRS ca
di Q
o
co z
c O 01
L
O ,CO sz
=0
N RI Isis
33
0.
m �=
y
=p m
(1)(
RSy
• a)
o w2
tQ
d
N' 0—
0
6. �' RN
t.� C Q`~',4; V
> +II COD _ 'S 0 G
N V/ `- A, � R �- O
E E toO . cOZ 0m 6 0 Q 0,
0 0 .Q CD E,3 _03) ca c >+ c
CO atea R= G! N = , V 4
a O s 2 M C' 0 ca s O O O p R-
< = o V cn '0 c a Z F- co co E
G)
4l
0
cn
w
a.
0.
O
2
0)
0)
N
.76
.71
O
E
0)
10
0)
10
N.
4.0
0)
w
0 Rt 0 EO o G) d a)s t� O
-gcti
L.O N a a/) y-+= N c�.y: Os.ia
Ewca)
o")
co
co
a)
74=
co
CO
c
-C3
CO0)
E
0
°
a)
SWW surface flow (cfs)
8
CO CO
8;
(loou!110) eai ebessed annele
•
'V
a)
(i) +0
10 is) • •■• c c . .... ctIC (1„
(013 .40,0 (1)
.C) 4.. 41) 03 c = C (13 Cr) C ‘1. "C; 41+03
0CD CI) G) c . -Dg
• """ 0)
0 V) ovm 0 > = (I) 0 RI cD (I) ..... 15 C c°).0 0
dt,, (I) t3 i.
c .(i)••• ci .c 0 (,13 .4../' C3(/) 4c"jv3 ..):, "1..'' . U) " CD C CD (I)
0 N. 5(0C1.) cs "C) EC 0> E (
(l) 6 = avm - —'(1) ..O.."S.
mca)ZtpE0o1= 4
<(3 . .'L.r,.viex.• ..,coto)..
. 0
-o
0
s
+ci;
E
c
0
. _
-o
0
c
c
0
w
-o
co
>N.
q)co ° O .° .
U = 0 c RIS
ca a) 00 E Q
cn3�caVQN.-=
Use science -based decision making and adaptive management
Restore the entire Deschutes watershed to a more natural state
Deschutes River at RM 100.1 (Madras Gauge, USGS No. 14092500)
C7:;) co co CD CD 00
03 (N
1,0 1.0 Lc)
Restore the entire Deschutes watershed to a more natural state
0)
aE
)
Deschutes Myer at RM 100.1 (Madras Gauge, USGS No. 14092500)
(c) 0).
CO CN CO
LC) (0) LO
Restore the entire Deschutes watershed to a more natural state
Deschutes River at RM 100.1 (Madras Gauge, USGS No. 14092500)
44
C) 0) C) C2,? CD 0)
CD 06 (0 CD 0:3 LO
(.0 (.C) 1.0 ((0 "4"
-0
„
20>
(9.
cy.
09,
CX
' (9
CY.
6),
,
<00
/09
<2,
'/0
Co
0
0
(75
• Measure the current conditions in the lower Deschutes Rivers, the
reservoirs, and tributaries.
0,
c5)
as
cf)
a)
ca (IS
CO
-0 a
0
0 0
CO 5
C*0
"57
cs\I
1.6
ci
CN (1)
0
cf)
(f) .75
a) co
o
0 < >
• •
0,
0
0
eL
0
w
E
a)
0)
co
z
E
Q.
e▪ rs
co
c
m
tn
ca
E
c
.0 O
'v s
0
a) /MU 14 a) co
• mc •
a TIE 1746 -
CI) cn
= N o
iszi ▪ c
s
g >Lco
parameters:
• Water Chemistry
• Zooplankton
• Light measurements
■ Flow measurements
o
o
o
o
co
e
c
d
E
• ...,E
0
v
E
L
6)0
0
. y
i--
co
LL
2015, 2016, 2017
..c
. cn
a) 0 a) .0 0
a 4' 0, a 176 a to 0
Wxn .cu -i ><= >,<_cul
(9 co 0- .w 0 co 0- co cr cn CD
Winter 2018
Summer 2018
Summer 2018
6 ai-
a) a)
......, :4—
E E
Field data collection
Calibrate models
0
a)
E
cu
0)
E
TIS
0
2
co
0
co
a)
Draft report complete
Summer 2018
Summer 2018
w cicn
o o
lijs 6 a -{t'
> X
o- a) co o
2 < ce 2 <
0
0
a-)
co
Reviewer comments
CO CX)
CD
CN CN
co
LL
Winter 2018
w
(5 E 0
0_ 0 CL
43)
1.c
O
151
st3z
c O
zcz (,)
E
43)
•
n® _
coy
MEL
o a)
cG)
O u)
1 1
N
O O O
P01001100 TUOOJOd
O
O
bloe
eloe
CD
o 46."' ,0
N
00
w
„,,,
O O Ay
G)
Restore the entire Deschutes watershed to a more natural state
L.
L
Ew
L CM
0
0
0-
-w
4
(
Ez
CD CI. U
t
2 60 45
CL c
0
wE
0
04-
03 0
sEow
�1_
(1)
w
00-0
-
0
)
03 CO
Go 0
o
0
T. T.2 o
g;
1.
Ia.
i
Q
E
a)
Ems
clo.ow8
CV
0
CV
Lc).
c=
0
(w) Ladea
Restore the entire Deschutes watershed to a more natural state
a)
co
Deschutes River at RM 100.1 (Madras Gauge, USGS No. 14092500)
U
.0
z
1,5
O
a
. d
rn
c
7
7
2
2
.0
. 0
u.coc
co Il) CO N r O CO CO h CD It)
V. (" r T r T r
7i
if/
NO'.
0
(ao) dwej xew - e6eJene Aea L
WPP Temperature
w
(73
U
®Observed Temperature 2016
=es AsCLy
13
0
v
0C
a9 R 6l
ANN
o
Q
Q
0
DO Grab Samples 2017
9s
IGDO Grab Samples 2017
0
N
liD
Figures from Khangaonar and Nugraha 2017
0
0)
co
sim
a)
■5
�
�
its
0
as
E
8
ea
a
0
4
Lawsuit- portlandgeneral.com/deschutesfiling
Macroinvertebrate report- portlandgeneral.com/studiesdeschutes
Study reports- portlandgeneral.com/deschutesstudies
Fish Counts- portlandgeneral.com/fishcounts
.state.or.us/fish/local_fisheries/deschutes
ODFW Deschutes studies- https://
Summer Temperature Cycle 1953
Before Pelton and Round Butte Dams
0
0
.4.1
aoorur •.oin. • ,>.w1 MOO
k
g�
of
1
Siuniner Temperature Cycle 2013
2
With Temperature Management
Et
re
0
0
ro,plo
aeo.�la� •.u�w. • . )a.•o.Wa� Al
Use science -based decision making and adaptive management
A% ( ®1°f®)
CD ai
1 1 1 1
COOi
'
'
o \ o 0
Gci . N
® CD
June 13-14
Tetherow Resort, Bend, Oregon
Wednesdey, June 13
Jessica Graeber, PRB License Manager at PGE
Bobby Brunoe, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Micah Bennett, Fisheries Biologist at PGE
Coffee and refreshments
Attendee sign -in
Welcome
Tribal Interests and the Reintroduction of Native Fish
Juvenile Fish Passage Accomplishments
Juvenile Migration Test and Verification Study
Adult Salmon and Steelhead Migration
Questions and Answers Session
Break
Large Wood Management Plan
Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
Water Quality Monitoring and Management
Questions and Answers Session
Lunch
Welcome Back & Fish Committee Update
Lower Deschutes River Fish Population Status
C. Shasta Monitoring in Lake Billy Chinook
and Deschutes River
Questions and Answers Session
Break
Whychus Creek and Metolius Project Updates
Log Springs Meadow Restoration Design
Lake Billy Chinook Shoreline Erosion Monitoring
Questions and Answers Session
Jessica Graeber, PRB License Manager at PGE
Summary of the Day and Preview of Tomorrow
0
TE
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 Work Session of September 12, 2018
DATE: September 6, 2018
FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Tanager LLC / Lot Line Adjustment Request
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion item.
ATTENDANCE: Nick Lelack, Community Development Director
SUMMARY: On September 5 during public comments at a business meeting, Ken
Katzaroff, representing Tanager Development, LLC, respectfuly asked the Board of County
Commissioners to direct Planning staff to issue an administrative decisions with a Board
call-up when the decision is appealed, and to prioritize eight lot line adjustment
applications since these applications replace an existing pending application
ES
COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT
TO:
FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director
Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager
DATE: September 6, 2018
SUBJECT: Tanager Development, LLC / Lot Line Adjustment Applications
MEMORANDUM
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
I. BACKGROUND
On September 5 during public comments at a business meeting, Ken Katzaroff, representing Tanager
Development, LLC, asked the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to direct Planning staff to issue an
administrative decision with a Board call-up when the decision is appealed, and to prioritize eight lot line
adjustment applications since these applications replace an existing pending application.'
Mr. Katzaroff further stated that since the burden of proof is complete, staff typically issues administrative
decisions on lot line adjustment applications, and therefore, there is not a need for a Hearings Officer and
the Board to conduct the same reviews of these applications.
These applications pertain to a recent Board decision on August 23 approving:
• Conditional Use Permit for surface mining of non -goal 5 mineral and aggregate resources;
• Quasi-judicial plan amendment to add the subject property to Table 5.8.2 of the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan, the "Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory;"
• Conditional use Permit, Site Plan Review and Landscape Management Review for a recreation -
oriented facility; and,
• Conditional Use Permit, Surface Mining Impact Area Review, and Tentative Plan Review for a Planned
Unit Development.
Mr. Katzaroff requested the eight serial lot line adjustment applications be processed administratively in one
decision, with notice, consistent with Bowerman v. Lane County, 291 Or App 651 (2018).2 Eight lot line
1 The lot line adjustment applications, 247 -18 -000718 -LL, 719 -LL, 720 -LL, 721 -LL, 722 -LL, 723 -LL, 724 -LL, and 725 -LL were
submitted on September 5, following Mr. Katzaroff's request to the Board.
2 https://www.courts.oregon.gov/publications/coa/Pages/default.aspx (A164236)
adjustment applications were previously included with the above referenced applications. Seven of the eight
were subsequently withdrawn due to the Court of Appeals not initialing ruling on Bowerman v. Lane County,
LUBA decision No. 2016-008.3 The eighth was withdrawn on September 5, 2018. To the extent there is an
appeal of an administrative decision, he asked the Board to hear it directly, as opposed to a hearings officer.
He is also willing to cover the actual cost of services for a Board hearing.
II. DISCUSSION
In response to Mr. Katzaroff's requests:
• Mr. Katzaroff stated that staff has already reviewed the burden of proof and it is complete. This may
be correct, but staff will not know until case planner Anthony Raguine compares the new burden of
proof for the eight lot line adjustments with the prior burden of proof.
• Mr. Katzaroff is correct that staff typically issues administrative decisions on lot line adjustment
applications. However, the Tanager Development, LLC applications relate to a much larger
development approval that has been and will continue to be litigated. Consequently, these are not
typical lot line adjustment applications.
• The Board directed staff to issue administrative decisions on marijuana applications with a Board Gall-
up in order for the Board to directly interpret and apply the County's new marijuana regulations. This
is the not the case with lot line adjustment applications. Altering the development review process for
this project will result in current and future applicants requesting the Board to conduct a similar
expedited review process and bypass a hearings officer.
• Prioritizing these lot line adjustment applications will move them above 310 active applications. Given
the controversy and litigation surrounding Tanager Development, LLC's recent approvals, the review
and hearings process will consume significantly more resources than typical lot line review adjustment
applications, and consequently delay the time to process active applications. These lot line adjustment
applications could have been resubmitted immediately following the Bowerman v. Lane County, 291
Or App 651 (2018) decision. It is not uncommon for applicants to withdraw and resubmit or modify a
revised land use application(s). Newly submitted applications are processed in the order in which they
are received.
III. OPTIONS
Options for the Board's consideration:
1. Prioritize and process the applications similar to marijuana applications. Per Mr. Katzaroff's request,
prioritize the lot line adjustment applications ahead of active applications, issue an administrative
decision, and if appealed, the Board will become the hearings body instead of a hearings officer,
consistent with DCC 22.28.050.
2. Do not prioritize, but process the applications similar to marijuana applications. Process the lot line
adjustment applications based on the order in which they were received, issue an administrative
https://www.oregon.Bov/LUBA/docs/Opinions/2017/01-17/16008.pdf
-2-
decision, and if appealed, the Board will become the hearings body instead of a hearings officer,
consistent with DCC 22.28.050.
3. Status Quo. Process the lot line adjustment applications based on the order in which they were
received, and send the applications directly to a hearings officer due to opposition (standard practice).
-3-
September 12, 2018
Via Entail to adain.smith e chutes.org
Deschutes County Board of County Cominissioners
Deschutes County
1300 NW Wall St.
Bend, OR 97703
Re: Response to 1isbops Letter Dated September 12, 2018
Dear Chair DeBone & Commissioners,
This letter is submitted in response to Ms. Jennifer Bragar's letter, submitted directly to the Board
on behalf of the Bishop Family Trust and dated September 12, 2018. We keep our response abbreviated in
respect for the Board's time.
1. Tanager does not seek special treatment. As the staff memorandum shows, property line
adjustments (PLAs) are typically administrative actions. The only reason to overlay additional
land use procedures is because Bishops have created controversy. This is directly stated in the
staff merno. Because PLAs are handled administratively, to require applicant to go through a
hearings officer first actually provides special benefits and unwarranted treatment to the Bishops
and not to applicant.
2. The proposed process is the same used for other administrative actions, All marijuana
administrative decisions follow the same route. This process follows state land use laws and the
Deschutes County Code.
3. The public interest is not served by additional process. The PLAs were part of applicant's original
proposal. The PLAs were discussed in detail, including legal briefing, during both review
hearings related to the planned development. Therefore, they've already been thoroughly
reviewed with opportunity for comment. The outcome of those hearings was a decision that
reviews and found the PLAs to be feasible.
4. The Bishops failed to substantively address the PLAs during the previous review process. That
was their choice and they should not he rewarded by penalizing the applicant here. If the Bishops
choose to appeal the PLAs, they may do so. Processing the PLAs as requested does not limit
public participation because an appeal may be made to the Board or directly to LUBA. We ask
that the Board accept review so that it may make a decision interpreting its code that is consistent
with the August 23rd decision on the Tanager project.
5. Additional process would be government waste. Bishops are asking the County to first send the
PLA.s to a hearings officer. This requires applicant to pay significant additional fees, as well as
countless hours of staff time, litigating issues that have already been resolved by the Board. For
ANAGER
example, Bishops are still asserting before the Court of Appeals that we have existing code
violations that prevented the County from issuing its August 23rd decision on the Tanager
project. Proceeding to a hearings officer first risks creating inconsistent rulings that ignore the
rulings made by the Board.
6. Applicant did not reapply for the PLAs because of Court of Appeals decisions. Applicant was
forced to withdraw and reapply consistent with those decisions. It has done so now, in an effort to
comply with and be consistent with the August 23rd decision on the Tanager project.
Bishops are merely trying to further obstruct an approved project If they want to appeal the approved
PLAs, they may do so. We were simply asking that the County use the appropriate review process and
allow applicant to move forward as approved - including the expeditjous execution of the landscape plan.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
j L-
J. Kenlieth Katzaroff
General Counsel
Tanager Development, LLC
KC Development Group, LLC
503-453-0873
rirl
TOMASI SALVER MA 211 N
i I V
Jennifer M. Bragar 121 SW Morrison St, Suite 1850
Attorney Portland, Oregon 97204
Admitted in Oregon, Washington, Tel 503-894-9900
and California Fax 971-544-7236
jbragar@tomasilegal.com www.tomasilegal.com
September 12, 2018
DELIVERED BY EMAIL (with hard copy to follow by mail)
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97708-6005
RE: Opposition to Preferential Treatment Requested by Tanager, LLC Regarding Lot
Line Adjustment Applications - on Work Session Agenda, for Sept. 12, 2018
Dear Chair DeBone and Commissioners:
As you know, this office represents Thomas and Dorbina Bishop, Trustees of the Bishop
Family Trust; who reside on property adjacent to property that is the subject of a set of eight lot
line adjustment applications submitted by Tanager, LLC. This letter is written in opposition to
the Cadwell Family and Tanager Development LLC's (collectively, "Tanager") request of
September 5, 2018 for special treatment by the county in the handling of Tanager's applications
for lot line adjustments (Files 247-17-000718 thru -725, inclusively).
Tanager's request is for the Board to grant special treatment for its own failure to
promptly re -file its actions under what it believes to be authority expressed in Bowerman v. Lane
County, 291 Or App 651 (2018). The Bowerman decision issued on May 9, 2018. Tanager's
failure to make business decisions sooner about withdrawing and refiling lot line adjustment
applications should not be rewarded with any special treatment, any expeditious process, or in
any other way than the County normally treats controversial land use decisions.
Nick Lelack's and Peter Gutowsky's September 6, 2018 memorandum provides ample
reasons for you to deny or otherwise disregard Tanager's request. The Bishops offer the
following additional reasons to treat Tanager's lot line adjustment applications like any other
application, without special priority.
The county put the Cadwells and their development entity on notice with John Laherty's
July 25, 2014 letter that they would not receive any special treatment from the county by moving
forward with unpermitted development. The last paragraph of the letter read as:
"Please inform your client (again) that Deschutes County will review any future
land -use or building permit application on its own merits, and the County's
decision on such application will be governed solely by consideration of
appropriate criteria. Your client's decision to expend resources on improvements
BISHOP -LU 13'v004251118.000
TOMASI SALYER MARTIN
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
September 12, 2018
Page 2
prior to obtaining necessary County approval for his intended development
project will not be given undue weight or consideration in this process."
It is unreasonable and contrary to the public interest for Tanager now to seek or obtain
expedited processing by the county of its applications related to that unpermitted development
and to do so in a manner that would also limit the public's opportunity to participate in the
review process. Mr. Katzaroff transparently and outrageously requested as much for Tanager, in
his response to the following question from Commissioner Henderson at the Board's meeting on
September 5, 2018:
"You asked us to direct the CDD staff to make an administrative decision. Isn't
that what they would do anyway with this application?"
Mr. Katzaroff responded:
"... CDD, in your code, has its own ability for the director, Mr. .Lelack, to say Tin
going to treat any development action like a land use action' which means it
would go to a hearings officer, and there is really no way around that. The only
way far it to get to you is if it is in fact processed like every other property line
adjustment, as a development action, administratively, and then the Board, if it's
appealed, can call it up on its own..."
There is good reason for Mr. Lelack to consider treating the group of Tanager
applications as if it were a land use action application. He indicated as much in his September 6
memorandum by stating that "these are not typical lot line adjustment applications." In Option 3
of his memorandum he is contemplating the possibility of sending "the applications directly to a
hearings officer due to opposition (standard practice)."
As you know, there is ongoing litigation regarding the excavation, construction, and land
uses occurring since 2014 on the subject properties prior to obtaining necessary county or
Oregon Water Resources Department permits. Decisions made by the county during August
2018 with respect to the uses and proposed uses are at issue in this litigation and are also pending
appeal to LUBA, so final permit approvals have not been obtained. The premise that the
applied -for land uses will achieve final approval is speculative. Mr. Lelack should process these
applications as he would any other controversial land use matter.
We remind you that the Cadwells' KC Development Group, LLC ("KCDG"), with which
Tanager is affiliated, jumped the gun in 2014 by engaging in excavation, construction, and land
uses without having applied for permits (which, when pursued after -the -fact, were denied in
now -final decisions by the county in 2016) and filling its reservoirs with water illegally (as
determined by the Oregon Water Resources Department). They ignored many of the county's
land use rules as evidenced by being required to obtain an after -the -fact rock crushing permit,
TOMASI SALYER MARTIN
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
September 12, 2018
Page 3
issuance by the county in August, 2014 of a stop -work order and on October 10, 2014 of a
Notice of Violation for using one of its lakes for water skiing recreation and then continuing
water skiing on it later in that same month despite having received such notice.
Despite the foregoing, once again the developer seeks to disregard the normal order and
processes and limit or avoid public participation in land use matters with its "ask" of you for
special treatment on September 5, 2018. This should not be allowed. It is unfair to the public,
including my clients, and the county staff, for them to do so - especially considering their pattern
and practice of disregarding land use and water use approval processes.
It would be a disservice to the public interest for the Board to act in accordance with
Tanager's request of September 5. To do otherwise sends a message far and wide that this
county inexplicably caves in to the Cadwells and KCDG/Tanager's whims at almost every tum.
Jennifer M. Bragar
JMB/jr
cc: Nick Lelack (by e-mail)
Peter Gutowsky (by e-mail)
Anthony Raguine (by e-mail)
Dave Doyle (by e-mail)
0
W
�( E
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 Work Session of September 12, 2018
DATE: September 6, 2018
FROM: Peter Russell, Community Development, 541-383-6718
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Noise Permit with Variance for Night Paving on Deschutes Market Road Between 19Th St
& Hamehook Rd
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
After discussion, agree to hear item at 9/17 business meeting.
ATTENDANCE: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
SUMMARY: The Board has previously approved the Road Department's 5 -year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) and paving Deschutes Market Road from 19th Street to Hamehook
Road was included in the CIP. The Road Department will be seeking approval of a Noise
Permit under Document 2018-602 which is part of File 247-18-000655-V. Due to the high
traffic volumes on this segment of Deschutes Market Road, the Road Department will be
paving at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to reduce inconvenience to the traveling public and to
ensure the safety of workers in the construction work zones. The Road Department
anticipates the paving to occur between October 1 and October 31. The Board will hear the
Noise Permit with a variance for nighttime paving at its September 17 business meeting.
ES
C MUNITY DEW I,.•PMENT
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: September 5, 2018
WORK SESSION: September 12, 2018
RE:
Deschutes County Road Department is requesting a nighttime (10 p.m.
- 7 a.m.) noise variance to remove the existing pavement and then
repave Deschutes Market Road between 19th Street and Hamehook
Road. (247-18-000655-V)
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will hold a public hearing on September 17, 2018, at
10:00 a.m. to hear a noise permit application (Document 2018-602) submitted by the Deschutes
County Road Department with a nighttime variance for the repaving of Deschutes Market Road
between 19th Street and Hamehook Road. (Please see attached map for project limits).
I. Summary
The Board approved the Road Department's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan, which included
Deschutes Market Road/Dale Road intersection improvements and the repaving of Deschutes
Market Road. Deschutes Market Road is a County -maintained arterial with an average daily traffic
(ADT) of 7,552 ADT in the 2016, the most recent count. Deschutes Market Road has some of the
highest ADT in the County system. The night paving will reduce overall inconvenience to the
traveling public due to fewer vehicles being stopped, not requiring lengthy out -of -direction travel in
the daytime due to lane closures, and increase worker safety in the construction work zone.
If nighttime paving is not permitted, the Road Department anticipates that daytime work zone traffic
will result in lengthy queues backing up onto US 97 to the north and City of Bend streets south of
the project.
11. Staff recommendation
In the interest of the safety and convenience of both the traveling public and the workers within the
construction work zone, staff recommends the noise permit and its nighttime variance be approved.
development. These are discussed more fully below. While various other issues were raised by
public testimony and staff, the hearings officer purposely limited the analysis to whether the topic
Figure 1, EAE Open Space, aka Common Area, 14-10-33D, Tax Lot 99
Figure 2, EAE Paved Taxiway
Page 2of6
was relevant to the specific question asked in 247 -18 -000138 -DR: "Declaratory ruling that the paved
taxiway does not violate 'open space' requirement."
II. 150th day issuance of a local land use decision
The 150th day for a local land use decision for 247 -18 -000138 -DR is October 27, 2018. As this is a
Saturday, the final day to issue a decision is Friday, October 26.
EAE submitted 247 -18 -000138 -DR on February 18 and the Planning Division deemed it complete on
March 9. A public hearing was held May 22, at which time the applicant and opponents agreed to
the following timeline: May 29 for additional written comment, June 5 for mutual rebuttal, and June
18 for final rebuttal. After final rebuttal, the attorney for the opponent argued the applicant's lawyer
had submitted new evidence as part of final rebuttal. The applicant agreed to toll the clock for an
additional 10 days to give the hearings officer sufficient time to review the issue. The hearings
officer ruled no new evidence had been submitted and issued his decision on July 25. The various
tollings moved the 150th day initially from August 6 to September 12. The EAE HOA president
notified staff via an August 13 e-mail to toll the clock for 45 days, resulting in the current 149th day
of October 26.
Mike Morgan, an EAE resident who submitted written testimony, filed a timely appeal on August 6,
requesting the Board hear an appeal of the hearings officer's decision and that it be held de novo.
(Attachment 1.) The Board at an August 22 work session agreed to hear the appeal and to hear it de
novo, passing Board Order 2018-057.
(There is a scheduled October 23, 2018, hearing before a Code Enforcement hearings officer on the
paved taxiway. Staff has coordinated with the Code Enforcement specialist handling the case
against EAE to reschedule that hearing, if needed, to a date certain after the Board's decision in 247-
18-000626-A.)
III. Key issues in hearings officer's decision
Many issues were raised in the written and oral testimony regarding 247 -18 -000138 -DR. The
hearings officer's decision repeatedly turned on the sole question posed in the land use application
that the paved taxiway did not violate the 65% open space requirement of Eagle Air Estates.
(Attachment 2.)
In Table 1, staff calls out the several major issues and the hearings officer's determination on the
applicability of the topic to the declaratory ruling. The hearings officer only ruled on topics germane
to the fact -specific controversy.
Page 3 of 6
The paved taxiway lies within the common area of EAE on land zoned Rural Residential (RR -10). The
hearings officer's decision on pages 11-13 summarized the major issues and which ones were within
his purview to rule upon based on the subject application and which were not. The hearing's officer
in his decision narrowed down the focus to determining what is meant by the following key issues:
• Definition of Present Use
• Definition of Open Space
• Definition of Development
• Definition of Enhance Recreation Opportunities
Table 1. Hearings Officers Ruling on Relevance to Paved Taxiway in Open Space
Topic
Relevant
Page(s) in HO Decision
Paved taxiway allowed in Open Space
Yes
12
Paved taxiway violate 65% Open Space
Yes
12
Open Space definition
Yes
19-20
Present Use definition
Yes
17-22
Flying as recreational activity
Yes
21
Development definition
Yes
17-22
Paved taxiway allowed in RR -10
No
11
Taxiway not shown on EAE final plat
No
11
Status of legal access to Sisters Airport
No
12
Safety of location of paved taxiway
No
13
Paved taxiway and runway flooding
No
13
Home setbacks from runway
No
13
Calculation of 65% Open Space
No
Not addressed
The hearings officer found "present use" as used in PL -15 Section 1.030(80), which was the
controlling document at the time of the application of CU-89-68/TP-89-701, meant the condition of
the land prior to the presence of the subdivision and its paved taxiway. Please refer to Pages 17-22
of the hearings officer's decision.
The hearings officer focused his decision on the section of the CU-89-68/TP-89-701 where that 1989
hearings officer on Page 2 of his approval findings described the then -present use of the land as
follows:
"The subject area is approximately 60 acres in size, and consists of four (4) tax lots. The
topography is generally level and has a vegetative covering of bunch grasses,
bitterbrush, juniper and pine trees. The site is undeveloped and has an old mining
pit..."1 (Emphasis added.)
The hearings officer's decision cited the applicable land use code in 1989, Public Law PL -15 and the
definition of Open Space. PL -15 at Section 1.030 (80) Open Space:
1 Quoted on Page 20 of hearings officer's decision in 247 -18 -000138 -DR, which in turn quotes Page 2 of CU-89-68/TP-89-
701.
Page 4 of 6
"Land used for agricultural or forest uses, and any land area that would, if preserved
and continued in its present use conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources;
protect air, streams, or water supply: promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches, or
marshes; conserve landscaped areas such as public or private golf courses; that reduce
pollution and enhance the value of abutting or neighborhood parks, forests, wildlife
preserves, nature reservations or other open spaces; enhance recreational
opportunities; preserve historic, geological and archeological sites; promote orderly
urban development; and minimize conflicts between farm and non-farm uses."(Emphasis
added.)
The hearings officer also referenced PL -15 Section 8.050 (16) which states in relevant part regarding
cluster developments:
"...the human activities, including all development and alterations of the natural
landscape, will be limited to 35 percent of the land and 65 percent will be kept in open
space." (Emphasis added.)
The applicant had argued the present use was a paved taxiway which in turn enhanced the
recreational opportunity of flying. Based on the above, the hearings officer decided that the term
"present use" meant prior to the land use approved by CU-89-68/TP-89-701, a paved taxiway was
development due to the placing of asphalt on the land; a paved taxiway, being development, was
not allowed in Open Space.
The hearings officer agreed that flying private planes was a form of recreation and that either a
paved or unpaved taxiway did enhance those opportunities and thus complies with PL -15 Section
1.030(80). Please refer to Page 21 of hearings officer's decision.
While public testimony raised the issue of how the 65% open space requirement is calculated and
shown on the approved EAE plat, the hearings officer limited his ruling specifically and purposely to
the application's ruling request of whether a paved taxiway violated the open space requirement.
The hearings officer did not rule on how the 65% open space was calculated.
IV. Appellant's statement
Mike Morgan in his Notice of Appeal raised several issues, including compliance with the 65% open
space requirement from a mathematical calculation standpoint and alleged elements of the
recorded plat were inconsistent with DCC 17.24 (Final Plat). The appeal submittal questioned
whether common space and open space are synonymous; what is meant by the term development
as it applies to the 65% requirement; what is the measurement tolerance for the 65% calculation;
and what is meant by the term sufficient In DCC 17.24.100(B).
Mr. Morgan stated "[A] de novo review will be required because an amended plat for Eagle Air
Estates will be submitted."
Page 5of6
Staff Comment: This is an appeal of a declaratory ruling, which under Deschutes County Code
(DCC) 22.40.010(A)(2) involves interpreting "a provision or limitation in a land use permit issued by
the County...in which there is doubt or a dispute as to its meaning or application." In this case, the
contested term was open space, which led to determinations on the relationship between the terms
present state, development, and enhanced recreational opportunities.
While parties can introduce new materials in a de novo hearing, a modification of the plat approved
under CU-89-68/TP-89-701 cannot be modified by a declaratory ruling. Specifically, DCC
22.40.010(C) states "[D]eclaratory rulings shall not be used as a substitute for an appeal of a land
use decision or fora modification of an approval." Declaratory rulings are for the resolution of fact -
specific controversies, as noted in DCC 22.40.010(B). In this case, the hearings officer ruled the
applicable fact -specific controversy was whether a paved taxiway violates the 65% open space
requirement. Please see Page 8 of hearings officer's decision.
Staff notes the hearings officer did not rule on the calculation of the 65% open space or the details
of what was or was not shown on the approved plat. Regarding compliance with DCC 17.24, staff
notes the appeal period for CU-89-68/TP-89-701 and its final plat expired almost three decades ago.
V. Next steps
After the Board receives oral and written testimony in the September 5 public hearing, the Board
has several options. These are presented in no particular order of priority.
• Continue the hearing to a date certain
• Close the oral record and leave the written record open to a date certain
• Close both the oral and written record and set a date certain for deliberation
• Close both the oral and written record and deliberate
Attachments
1. Mike Morgan appeal materials
2. Hearings Officer's decision
Page 6of6
Deschutes Mkt Rd 19th-Hamehook Paving
247-18-000655-V
ROG!: RS RD
ILIMALG flD
0 PL
S
rk
P pertyg
0".
okmit
LU ,),401'.'11.',CliVir L
Z
.41:1Re()R 7
r WM 11,±1 fi 1) BUTLER MARKET RD
4) ! a
t
17, LI.Ilice
BEND :--.., Pine
1--:,
,.....;
.., Nu rs e:ry
,1• —, .;')1Park u
0 L, < 1I—[
.n 1
LJco! :
—11
Z
I.,:
O4,
1,8 ..:::":2: '7 H i---iWT:A 41 , 61,
arreN .
1 . Deschutes County GIS, liiurces: Esri, USGS, NOAA
REVII 'W ED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
NOISE PERMIT
PURSUANT TO DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE (DCC) CHAPTER 8.08
I.00ATION: Deschutes Market Road from 19th Street to Hamehook Road.
FILE NUMBER: 247-18-000655-V
OWNER: Deschutes County Road Department
OPERATOR: Cody Smith PHONE: (541)322-7113
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval of a noise permit to allow nighttime construction to
address deteriorating pavement conditions, ruts, and operational issues. The project will include removing the
existing pavement surface and repaving,
DATES AND TIMES OF PROJECT: Nighttime construction activities are anticipated to begin no sooner than
October 1, 2018 and are anticipated to be completed no later than October 31, 2018. Nighttime construction will
occur Sunday night through Friday morning, between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
FINDINGS: The Board of County Commissioners ("Board") finds that a public necessity exists for granting this
permit for construction hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Board bases the findings on evidence in the
record and testimony at the hearing. These findings include:
I. A need to maintain and improve the roadway surface on Deschutes Market Road;
2. A desire to conduct construction from 10:00 p.rn, to 7:00 a.m. to minimize traffic delays, decrease the risk
of construction related accidents on Deschutes Market Road, and reduce potential traffic queues affecting
US 97 and City of Bend streets.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
I, Construction activities may be conducted beginning Sept. 15, 2018.
2. Fifteen days prior to commencing any construction activities, the Owner shall notify all property owners
who testified at the public hearing for this permit of the dates and times the construction activities will
occur.
3This permit expires Oct. 31, 2018.
4. THE APPROVED PERMIT SHALL BE RETAINED ON-SITE UNTIL THE PROJECT IS
COMPLETE.
5. BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PERMIT, OWNER/OPERATOR CONSENT TO ALLOW BOTH
COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL TO COME ON THE
PREMISES FOR WHICH THE PERMIT HAD BEEN GRANTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INSPECTION AND ENFOR.CEMENT OF TI IE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT AND
DCC 8.08, AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS OR ORDINANCES.
PAGE 1 OF 2- DOCUMENT No. 2018-602
Dated this of , 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2- DOCUMENT No. 2018-602
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Vice Chair
'JAMMY I3ANEY, Commissioner
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 Work Session of September 12, 2018
DATE: September 6, 2018
FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Potential Appeal of Marijuana Production at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Order 2018-
061
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
On August 31, 2018, planning staff issued an approval to allow Ted Price to establish
marijuana production at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Terrebonne. The 12 -day appeal
period ends on September 12, 2018. Attached is an order that would allow the Board to
review any timely filed appeal of 247 -18 -000379 -AD.
ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
STAFF MEMORANDUM
Y EVELOPM ENT
Date: September 12, 2018
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner
Re: Administrative Decision (File No. 247 -18 -000379 -AD) to Hear Potential Appeal
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a work session on September 12, 2018 at
1:30 PM and will consider hearing a potential appeal of an administrative decision (File No. 247 -18-
000379 -AD) approving a marijuana production application.
I. Application
On April 27, 2018, an application was filed for an Administrative Determination (AD) to establish
marijuana production at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Bend. The subject property is located within
the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), Flood Plain (FP), and Wildlife Area Combining (WA) zones. The
proposed marijuana production consists of a maximum 4,960 square feet of mature marijuana
plant canopy area.
II. Decision
On June 7, 2018, the application was deemed complete. The Planning Division issued an
administrative decision without a public hearing on August 31, 2018, determining the applicant met
the applicable criteria (Attachment 1). Notice of the decision was sent to neighboring property
owners within 750 feet and those that provided comments. The decision becomes final if not
appealed by 5:00 PM on September 12, 2018.
III. Appeal
Although no appeal has been filed yet, staff considers an appeal is likely based on public comments.
IV. 150 -day Issuance of a Final Local Decision
The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision is currently November 4, 2018.
V. Board Options
Section 22.28.050 of the Deschutes County Code authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to
initiate review of any administrative action or a Hearings Body's decision within 12 days of the date
of mailing of the final written decision of the Planning Director or lower Hearings Body. The 12th day
following the mailing date of this decision is September 12, 2018.
Attachment 4 is a Board Order to initiate a de novo review of this file, should a timely appeal be
filed.
Attachments:
1. Administrative Decision for File No. 247 -18 -000379 -AD
2. Plot Plan
3. Area Map
4. Board Order to Initiate Review
247 -18 -000379 -AD Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT 1
Administrative Decision
for File No.
247 -18 -000379 -AD
This page intentionally left blank
FINDINGS & DECISION
FILE NUMBER: 247 -18 -000379 -AD
APPLICANT: Ted Price
70355 McKenzie Canyon Road
Terrebonne, OR 97760
OWNER: Marian Bertotti
863 Summer Sound Road
Piney Flats, TN 37686
AGENT: Adam Stephens
c/o Steele Associates Architects
686 NW York Dr., Suite 150
Bend, OR 97703
Mailing Date:
Friday, August 31, 2018
'TY DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: Administrative Determination to establish marijuana production in the
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone.
STAFF CONTACT: Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.16. Exclusive Farm Use Zones
Chapter 18.90. Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone
Chapter 18.88. Wildlife Area Combining
Chapter 18.96. Flood Plain Zone
Chapter 18.116. Supplementary Provisions
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
II. BASIC FINDINGS
A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road,
Terrebonne, and is identified on County Assessor Tax Map 14-11-23 as Tax Lot 100.
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541)388-6575 @ccidEideschutes .org q wvvw.deschutes.org/cd
B. LOT OF RECORD: The property is a legal lot of record as found in lot of record determination
LR -02-28.
C. ZONING: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend, Flood
Plain (FP), and Wildlife Area (WA) Combining. Staff notes the subject property is not located
in a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat (SBMH) Combining zone but the zone is addressed
herein noting the presence of Golden Eagle nests in the area.
D. PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing marijuana production on the subject property in the
EFU zone. The proposed maximum mature plant canopy size is 4,960 square feet in area.
The proposed development is clustered in the western portion of the property and includes:
• 5 greenhouses - 4 flowering, 1 vegetation
• 1 trim building
• 1 storage facility
• 1 storage container
• 1 shop building (existing)
• Other ancillary site improvements
E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is irregular in shape with frontage on McKenzie
Canyon Road, a private road, along the entirety of the eastern property line. Vehicular access
is via a driveway off McKenzie Canyon Road. The topography of the property is relatively level
in the eastern portion of the property and rising toward the rim of the canyon to the west.
Existing development is generally concentrated in the western portion of the property and
includes a shop building, a pond, fencing and other ancillary improvements.
Photo 1. Aerial Photo of Subject Property (Source: Deschutes DIAL)
247-18-000379-AD/Price
Page 2 of 28
Photo 2. Composite Image of Subject Property Viewed from the Southeast Corner. (Source: staff photo)
F. NOTICE OF APPLICATION: In accordance with Title 22, the Deschutes County Procedures
Ordinance, the Planning Division sent notice of this application to property owners within
750 feet of the subject site and affected agencies on May 7, 2018. Additionally, the applicant
complied with the posted notice requirements of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Section
22.24.030(B). The applicant submitted a Land Use Sign Affidavit, dated May 7, 2018,
indicating the land use action sign was posted at the site on May 7, 2018.
G. AGENCY COMMENTS: The following comments were submitted in response to mailed notice
of application:
1. Deschutes County Building Division:
NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress,
Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed
during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and
occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
2. Deschutes County Transportation Planner:
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -18 -000379 -AD for a marijuana
production (growing) operation in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), Wildlife (WA), and Rood
Plain (FP) zones at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, aka 14-11-23, Tax Lot 100.
Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(8)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access
to the property or access from a private easement for a grow of more than 5,000 square
feet of mature canopy. The proposal is for 4,960 square feet of mature canopy, so the
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 3 of 28
access requirement does not apply. The traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are
not applicable for this marijuana production operation as the application is not going
through site plan review and thus does not need to show compliance with DCC
18.124.080(1), which references the County's traffic study requirements.
The applicant should provide proof a driveway access permit or as a condition of approval
be required to obtain a driveway access permit to ensure compliance with DCC
17.48.210(A).
(Staff Comment: McKenzie Canyon Road is a private road adjacent to the subject
property. Pursuant to DCC 17.48.210(A), a permit is only required for access onto
public right of way. Therefore, a driveway access permit is not required as a condition
of approval.)
Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of
$3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers
(ITE) Trip Generation Handbook does not contain a category for marijuana production. In
consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has
determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage
requirements and employees of this activity. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32
p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The applicant has proposed 4,960 square feet
of production, but the County considers all space used for production and support when
calculating SDCs. The applicant has identified 8,400 square feet of greenhouses (four at
2,100 square feet each); a single large greenhouse of 3,900 square feet; two buildings, one
existing and one new, totaling 3,985 square feet; and a 320 -square -foot shipping
container. All these structure total 16,605 square feet (8,400 + 3,900 + 3,985 + 320), which
would result in 5.31 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 16.605). Thus the applicable SDC would
be $20,905 (5.31 X $3,937). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if
a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land
use decision becoming final.
3. Deschutes County Sheriff:
Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and set backs of the property in this type of
request and how it affects the livability of our community members; in conjunction with
the issue that marijuana is illegal on a federal level.
In addition, we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are
increasing.
4. Oregon Department of State Lands:
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 4 of 28
Mapped wetland/waterway features:
® The national wetlands inventory shows a waterway on the property.
Oregon Removal -Fill requirement (s):
® A state permit is required for 50 cubic yards or more of removal and/or fill in wetlands, below ordinary
high water of streams, within other waters of the state, or below highest measured tide where applicable.
Your activity:
A state permit will not be required for the proposed project because based on the submitted site plan
the project appears to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters.
The following organizations and agencies did not respond or had no comments:
Bureau of Land Management, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental
Soils, Deschutes County Road Department, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Liquor Control Commission, Oregon State Fire
Marshal, Oregon Water Resource Department, Three Sisters Irrigation District, and
Watermaster - District 11.
H. PUBLIC COMMENTS: As of the date of this decision, staff received correspondences from 10
parties, some with multiple submittals, expressing opposition to or concern with the
application. The opposition and concerns identified include:
1. Odor/Air quality
2. Water
3. Light
4. Noise
5. Security
6. Electrical service
7. Youth activity center/4H activities
8. Wildlife habitat
9. Fire hazards
10. Traffic
11. Road condition
12. Property values
13. Visual impacts
14. Quality of life
15. Children live nearby
16. Crime
17. Federally illegal
18. Property configuration
STAFF COMMENT: Applicable criteria and standards of the Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 18, County Zoning, are addressed below. The sections DCC Title 18 pertaining
specifically to marijuana production in the EFU zone do not include approval criteria or
standards related to the issue areas listed in items 9-18 above. For this reason, staff does
not address those issues in this land use decision.
REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on April 27, 2018. Because the application
was missing essential information, staff mailed the applicant a letter on May 25, 2018,
notifying them that their application was incomplete and requested the necessary items.
The Planning division received the requested items and deemed the application complete
on June 7, 2018. Based on this information, the 150th day upon which the county must issue
a final local decision is currently November 4, 2018.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 5 of 28
111. FINDINGS
Title 18 DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING
A. CHAPTER 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM ZONES
1. Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish marijuana production on the subject property, a
use permitted outright subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
Compliance with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330 is addressed below. The proposal includes the
development of several structures to support the proposed use.
Record submittals argue the proposed structures do not conform to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) definition of accessory structure and should not be allowed. No
development is proposed in the mapped floodplain and provisions of DCC 18.96 and/or FEMA
floodplain regulations do not apply to this application. DCC Title 18 is the guiding document for this
land use review and DCC 18.04.030 states:
"Accessory use or accessory structure" means a use or structure incidental and subordinate to the
main use of the property, and located on the same lot as the main use. Accessory uses include
drilling for, and utilization of, low temperature geothermal fluid in conjunction with the main use
of the property.
Staff finds the proposed greenhouses, trim building, and converted shop building are part of the
main marijuana production use of the property and the storage facility and storage container are
accessory to said use.
2. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards.
E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to
exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040.
FINDING: As shown on the submitted plot plan (sheet no. A1.00), the applicant is proposing several
new buildings including five greenhouses, one trim building, one storage facility, and one storage
container. As shown on the submitted elevation drawings (sheet nos. A2.00, A2.10), all of the
proposed structures will comply with the 30 -foot height limit of the EFU zone.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 6 of 28
3. Section 18.16.070. Yards.
A. The front yard shall be a minimum of:• 40 feet from a property line fronting
on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street,
and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street.
B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm
dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently
employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the
side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet.
C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling
proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently
employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the
rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet.
D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by
applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon
and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.
FINDING: The front property line of the subject property is adjacent to McKenzie Canyon Road, a
private local road, thereby requiring a minimum 40 -foot setback from the front property line. The
proposed use is not a nonfarm dwelling, thereby requiring a minimum 25 -foot setback from side
and rear property lines. As shown on the submitted plot plan (sheet no. A1.00), all of the proposed
structures are located over 100 feet from any property line and comply with the setback
requirements of the EFU zone.
B. CHAPTER 18.88. WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE
1. Section 18.88.020. Application of Provisions.
The provisions of DCC 18.88 shall apply to all areas identified in the Comprehensive
Plan as a winter deer range, significant elk habitat, antelope range or deer
migration corridor. Unincorporated communities are exempt from the provisions of
DCC 18.88.
FINDING: The subject property is within the Metolius Deer Winter Range. Therefore, the provisions
of this chapter apply.
2. Section 18.88.030. Uses Permitted Outright.
In a zone with which the WA Zone is combined, the uses permitted outright shall be
those permitted outright by the underlying zone.
FINDING: The proposed marijuana production is a permitted use in the EFU zone and, therefore,
a permitted use in the WA Zone.
3. Section 18.88.060. Siting Standards.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 7 of 28
A. Setbacks shall be those described in the underlying zone with which the WA
Zone is combined.
FINDING: As previously found, the proposed development complies with the setback requirements
of the underlying EFU zone.
B. The footprint, including decks and porches, for new dwellings shall be located
entirely within 300 feet of public roads, private roads or recorded easements
for vehicular access existing as of August 5, 1992 unless it can be found that:
1. Habitat values (i.e., browse, forage, cover, access to water) and
migration corridors are afforded equal or greater protection through
a different development pattern; or,
2. The siting within 300 feet of such roads or easements for vehicular
access would force the dwelling to be located on irrigated land, in
which case, the dwelling shall be located to provide the least possible
impact on wildlife habitat considering browse, forage, cover, access
to water and migration corridors, and minimizing length of new access
roads and driveways; or,
3. The dwelling is set back no more than 50 feet from the edge of a
driveway that existed as of August 5, 1992.
FINDING: The siting standard above apply to the footprint for new dwellings. The proposed
development is not a new dwelling. Therefore, these criteria are not applicable.
4. Section 18.88.070. Fencing Standards.
The following fencing provisions shall apply as a condition of approval for any new
fences constructed as a part of development of a property in conjunction with a
conditional use permit or site plan review.
A. New fences in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone shall be designed to permit
wildlife passage. The following standards and guidelines shall apply unless
an alternative fence design which provides equivalent wildlife passage is
approved by the County after consultation with the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife:
1. The distance between the ground and the bottom strand or board of
the fence shall be at least 15 inches.
2. The height of the fence shall not exceed 48 inches above ground level.
3. Smooth wire and wooden fences that allow passage of wildlife are
preferred. Woven wire fences are discouraged.
B. Exemptions:
1. Fences encompassing less than 10,000 square feet which surround or
are adjacent to residences or structures are exempt from the above
fencing standards.
2. Corrals used for working livestock.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 8 of 28
FINDING: The fencing standards of this section are applicable to any new fences constructed as
part of development of a property in conjunction with a conditional use permit or site plan review.
Record submittals contend these criteria are applicable. DCC 18.16.020(S) lists marijuana
production is a permitted use in the EFU zone and does not require a conditional use permit or site
plan review. Therefore, these criteria are not applicable. Nevertheless, the submitted burden of
proof statement indicates no fencing is proposed.
C. Chapter 18.90. SENSITIVE BIRD AND MAMMAL HABITAT COMBINING ZONE - SBMH
1. Section 18.90.020. Definition of Sensitive Habitat Area.
A. The sensitive habitat area is the area identified in the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Resource Element inventory and site specific ESEE for
each sensitive bird or mammal site. The sensitive habitat area to be
protected by the provisions of DCC 18.90 is defined as the area:
1. Within a radius of 1,320 feet of a golden eagle, bald eagle, prairie
falcon nest, or a Townsend's big eared bat hibernating or nursery site.
2. Within a radius of 300 feet of a great blue heron rookery or osprey
nest.
3. Within a radius of 900 feet of a great grey owl nest site.
8. Inventoried sensitive bird or mammal sites located on federal land are not
subject to the provisions of DCC 18.90 unless the sensitive habitat area
identified in DCC 18.90.020(A)(1) extends onto nonfederal land.
FINDING: According to the Deschutes County Zoning Map the subject property is not located in the
SBMH Combining zone nor does the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Resource Element
inventory and site specific economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analyses include sites
near the subject property. Therefore, the proposed development is not subject to the provisions of
the SBMH Combining zone.
Record submittals indicate there is a golden eagle nesting site in the vicinity of the proposed
development. In response, staff contacted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and confirmed
there are two nests in the vicinity of the proposed project. The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service stated, "Any activity that might result in disturbance would require a permit." Because the
nesting sites are not included on the County Zoning map or in the Comprehensive Plan, said permit
from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service cannot be made a condition of this land use
approval. Nevertheless, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service requires compliance with
applicable criteria, standards, and permitting as it relates to these nesting sites. This approval does
not relieve the applicant of any obligations or requirements that may affect development of the
property under state or federal regulations.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 9 of 28
D. CHAPTER 18.96. FLOOD PLAIN ZONE - FP
2. Section 18.96.20. Designated Areas.
The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration
in a scientific and engineering report entitled "Flood Insurance Study for Deschutes
County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas" revised September 28, 2007, with
accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps is hereby adopted by reference and
incorporated herein by this reference. The Flood Insurance Study is on file at the
Deschutes County Community Development Department.
The Flood Plain Zone shall include all areas designated as "Special Flood Hazard
Areas" by the Flood Insurance Study for Deschutes County. When base flood
elevation data has not been provided in the Flood Insurance Study, the Planning
Director will obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation or
floodway data available from federal, state or other sources, in determining the
location of a flood plain or floodway.
FINDING: An area in the eastern portion of the subject property in close proximity to McKenzie
Canyon Road is zoned Flood Plain. No portion of the proposed development is located in this area.
Therefore, the provisions of this chapter are not applicable.
E. CHAPTER 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
1. Section 18.116.330, Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing.
A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to:
1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish marijuana production in the EFU Zone. This
section applies.
B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and
marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria:
1. Minimum Lot Area.
a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall
have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres.
FINDING: The subject property is approximately 21.99 acres. This criterion is met.
2. Indoor Production and Processing.
a. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only
be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses,
and similar structures.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 10 of 28
b. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are
prohibited in any outdoor area.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to use greenhouses, fully enclosed site building structures,
and a storage container for marijuana production. Thus, the proposed operation will be indoor. It
shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this
criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: As an ongoing condition of approval, marijuana production is
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.
FINDING: The subject property is approximately 21.99 acres and the applicant is proposing 4,960
square feet of mature plant canopy area. Based on this information, staff finds the proposed
mature plan canopy area complies with the maximum mature plant canopy area allowed for a
parcel of this size.
4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum
building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana
production and processing on the subject property shall be:
a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500
square feet.
b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 11 of 28
FINDING: The subject property is zoned EFU, not MUA-10. Therefore, these standards are not
applicable.
5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1)
Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana
production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical
marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to associate one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC)
marijuana production license with the subject property. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval
to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the
marijuana production use.
6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana
production and processing areas and buildings:
a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet.
FINDING: The submitted plot plan (sheet no. A1.00) identifies that all areas and buildings used for
marijuana production are setback more than 100 feet from any property line. Staff finds this
standard is met.
b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet.
For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes
those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit
application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission
of the marijuana production or processing application to
Deschutes County.
FINDING: The submitted plot plan (sheet no. A1.00) identifies the distance from the off-site dwelling
on the property to the north is greater than 300 feet from all areas and buildings used for marijuana
production. Staff utilized DIAL, the Deschutes County online property information system, to
confirm this dwelling is over 300 feet from the proposed development and is the closest dwelling to
the proposed development. This standard is met.
c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be
granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the
applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or
greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and
access impacts.
FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") in
the following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 12 of 28
247-17-000962-A - The exception should be an attempt to seek balance between the proposal and
the surrounding area whether in public or private ownership. However, having public lands adjacent
to a subject property intended for marijuana production should not be a driving force or justification
to allow such an exception. The Board collectively and generally agrees that the applicant did not
demonstrate the reduced setbacks will afford equal or greater mitigation of the marijuana
production facility to the surrounding public and private properties.
The applicant is not requesting a setback exception. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as
follows:
a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from:
i. A public elementary or secondary school for which
attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes
339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant
thereto and any property used by the school;
ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school,
teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a),
including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any
property used by the school;
A licensed child care center or licensed preschool,
including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any
property used by the child care center or preschool. This
does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which
occurs at or in residential structures;
iv. A youth activity center; and
v. National monuments and state parks.
b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7), all distances shall be
measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in
DCC 18.116.330(8)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and
land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana
processor.
c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC
18.116.330(8)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or
marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) if
the use is:
i. Pending a local land use decision;
ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or
Lawfully established.
FINDING: The submitted burden of proof statement indicates there are no uses requiring a
separation distance located within 1,000 feet from the proposed marijuana production use. Record
submittals indicate that youth are invited to the adjacent property to the south for 4-H related
activities and contend this constitutes a "youth activity center" requiring compliance with this
section. "Youth activity center" is not defined in the County Code. Staff believes that permitted
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 13 of 28
community, recreation, or museum, where such use included youth -focused activities would
potentially constitute a youth activity center. Presently no permits have been obtained by the
nearby properties for uses beyond residential or farm use including associated accessory uses. In
the EFU zone, where the adjacent properties are located, the following uses could potentially
constitute or include youth activity centers:
18.16.025. Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 or
DCC Section 18.16.042 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 where applicable.
C. Churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches consistent with ORS
215.441 and OAR 660-033-0130(2) on non -high value farmland.
J•
Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities subject to DCC
18.16.042.
18.16.030. Conditional Uses Permitted -High Value and Non -high Value Farmland.
The following uses may be allowed in the Exclusive Farm Use zones on either high
value farmland or non -high value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.16.040 and 18.16.050, and other applicable sections of
DCC Title 18.
E. Commercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use, but not including
the processing of farm crops as described in DCC 18.16.025.
H. Public park and playground consistent with the provisions of ORS 195.120,
and including only the uses specified under OAR 660-034-0035 or 660-034-
0040, whichever is applicable.
Community centers owned by a governmental agency or a nonprofit
organization and operated primarily by and for residents of the local rural
community.
1. A community center authorized under this section may provide
services to veterans, including but not limited to emergency and
transitional shelter, preparation and service of meals, vocational and
educational counseling and referral to local, state or federal agencies
providing medical, mental health, disability income replacement and
substance abuse services, only in a facility that is in existence on
January 1, 2006.
2. The services may not include direct delivery of medical, mental health,
disability income replacement or substance abuse services.
M. Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
1. The home occupation shall:
a. be operated substantially in the dwelling or other buildings
normally associated with uses permitted in the EFU zone;
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 14 of 28
b. be operated by a resident or employee of a resident of the
property on which the business is located; and
c. employ on the site no more than five full-time or part-time
persons.
2. The home occupation shall not unreasonably interfere with other
uses permitted in the EFU zone.
W. A living history museum.
18.16.031. Conditional Uses on Non -high Value Farmland Only.
The following uses may be allowed only on tracts in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones
that constitute non -high value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan and DCC 18.16.040 and other applicable sections of DCC Title
18.
8. Golf course and accessory golf course uses as defined in DCC Title 18 on land
determined not to be_high value farmland, as defined in ORS 195.300.
D. Private parks, playgrounds, hunting and fishing preserves and campgrounds.
Staff finds that a "youth activity center" would necessarily require land use review, either an
administrative determination or conditional use permit, and would not be allowed outright as part
of residential or agricultural use or any accessory use thereto. Since no such permits have been
obtained by any property within 1,000 feet of the subject property, staff finds that no permitted
"youth activity center" exists in this area. Further, staff finds the noted 4-H related activities are a
function of, and accessory to, the residential and farm uses of the adjacent property. Based on this
information, these criteria are met.
8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for
mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards.
a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed
public, county, or state road; or
b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the
subject property.
c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement
which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain
written consent to utilize the easement or private road for
marijuana production access from all owners who have access
rights to the private road or easement. The written consent
shall:
i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain
the following information;
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 15 of 28
ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and
properties holding a recorded interest in the private road
or easement;
Include a description of the proposed marijuana
production or marijuana processing operation; and
iv. Include a legal description of the private road or
easement.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing 4,960 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants.
Because this is below 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants, these criteria
are not applicable. Record submittals have expressed objection to the proposed use and concern
with transportation impacts in the area and on McKenzie Canyon Road, a private road for much of
the length of the road including adjacent to the subject property. While receptive to these concerns,
staff finds there are no other traffic or transportation criteria applicable to marijuana production in
the EFU zone nor does the County enforce compliance with any agreements to allow access to or
use of this private road.
9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows:
a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses,
and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not
be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the
following day.
FINDING: The applicant proposes to use greenhouses for marijuana production. The greenhouses
will be equipped with Gro -Tech System Automated Light Deprivation equipment. The applicant
indicates the light deprivation system will not be opened prior to either 7:20am or 20 minutes after
sunrise, whichever is later and will be closed each evening at either 6:40pm or 20 minutes prior to
sunset, whichever is earlier. The system will be programmed to occur automatically. Record
submittals expressed general concern with need for supplemental lighting but did not provide any
evidence that the proposed lighting and related equipment will not comply with this criterion. It
shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this
criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be
visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day.
b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all
light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or
indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the
horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
FINDING: The proposed Tight fixtures are either SPYDRx PLUS or VYPRx PLUS from Fluence
Engineering. The light distribution of these fixtures is 120 degrees and below the 180 degree
horizontal plane. Record submittals expressed general concern with need for supplemental lighting
but did not provide any evidence that the proposed lighting and related equipment will not comply
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 16 of 28
with this criterion. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of
compliance with this criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light
emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is
projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow
lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
FINDING: The applicant indicates any exterior light will comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting
Control. Record submittals expressed general concern with need for supplemental lighting but did
not provide any evidence that the proposed lighting and related equipment will not comply with
this criterion. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of
compliance with this criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing
lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(8)(10), building means the building,
including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used
for marijuana production or marijuana processing.
a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control
system which must at all times prevent unreasonable
interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property.
b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the
applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in
the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control
odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and
enjoyment of their property.
c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with
odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable
state statute.
d. The odor control system shall:
i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for
cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of
the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by
height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for
the required CFM; or
ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve
equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i)
above.
e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in
use.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 17 of 28
FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") in the
following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided.
King v. Deschutes County - LUBA No. 2017-126 - The "report" as required in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(b)
does not have to include an "as built" or "site-specific demonstration." Instead, the "report" may
"rely on the opinion of an expert licensed mechanical engineer" to determine "that the proposed
odor control system 'will control' odor such that the odor does not unreasonably interfere with
neighbors' use of their property."
The applicant submitted an odor report by Kevin Wooster, PE, a mechanical engineer licensed in the
State of Oregon (#72285PE). The report states odor will be mitigated as follows for the proposed
buildings:
For the pole barn:
No air will be exhausted to the outside environment; therefore, no odors will be emitted. Also,
odors from doors opening for personnel entry and exit will be contained by the design of the
structure. In the pole barn, each entrance will have a vestibule, or entry hall, with two doors, so
one set of doors will always be closed as a person passes through the vestibule.
For the green houses:
The odor control system design includes a Benzaco Scientific Odor Armor odor control system for
each greenhouse. This system is a high pressure, hose, and nozzle water scrubbing technology.
St. Croix Sensory, Inc, a lab that specializes in sensory evaluation, conducted an independent Odor
Armor system study, evaluating the efficacy of the system at a marijuana grow facility in Nevada.
The conclusion of the study was that there was "no discernible marijuana odor" at this facility.
Details of this study are included in the Appendix [of the mechanical engineer's report].
Another case study for odor control was conducted at an existing Colorado cannabis grow facility.
Neighbors of the facility were prepared to file suit with local jurisdiction to shut down the site due
to nuisance odor. After the Armor Odor system was installed, complaints dropped from 360 per
year to less than 2 per year. The complaining neighbors then submitted letters to the judge
encouraging permit renewal. Details of this study are included in the Appendix [of the mechanical
engineer's report].
Benzaco has a FAQ on Odor Control paper that is helpful with understanding the technology used
for odor mitigation. This FAQ is in the Appendix [of the mechanical engineer's report].
Given the structure and design of the pole barn and incorporating an Odor Armor odor control
system in the green houses as described above the property complies with the requirements of
DCC 18.116.330(B0(10)(d)(ii) and prevents unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and
enjoyment of their property.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 18 of 28
Record submittals express general concern with odor but do not challenge the effectiveness of the
proposed system to mitigate odor.
Based on this information, if the system described above is constructed within the guidelines and
maintained per the manufacturer's recommendations, the odor control system will control odor so
as to not unreasonably interfere with neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. It shall be an
ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent
unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control
system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use.
11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana
processing shall comply with the following:
a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating,
ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar
functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property
line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day.
b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from
protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm.
Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted.
FINDING: The applicant submitted a noise report by Kevin Wooster, PE, a mechanical engineer
licensed in the State of Oregon (#72285PE). The report states noise will be mitigated as follows for
the proposed buildings:
There are at least three noise mitigation factors to consider that are being used that allow the
facility to meet the noise requirement levels.
For the pole barn:
3. The HVAC equipment selected is a self-contained heat pump. An Aaon model 58 with
a water-cooled condenser was selected for this application. It will be installed inside a
mechanical room, inside the building, completely sealed from the outside environment.
Therefore, the building, i.e., exterior siding, insulation and interior siding, and the same
for ceiling and the roof, will contain the noise for this unit. No vents will lead to the
exterior since the cooled water from the water tower is removing the heat from the
condensing coil, so no outside cooling air is required. The circulating pumps will also
be installed in the mechanical room.
4. The water for the heat pump will be cooled with an adiabatic cooler located outside.
The model selected is a Guntner models-GFW 080. The manufacturer's specifications
state the noise level of the equipment to be 52 decibels at 30 ft. The specifications are
in the Appendix [of the mechanical engineer's report]. The laws of physics are such
that every time the distance from the source is doubled, the decibel level is reduced six
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 19 of 28
decibels. This is the inverse square law, 20Log(D2/D,) where D2 is the distance to the
property line and D1 is the distance from the source of the noise from the manufactures
test date. Therefore, with the property line setback from the cooler of 386 ft, the noise
level at the property line will decrease 22.2 decibels (20Log(386/30) to 29.8 decibels
(52-22.2). This is below the code requirement of 30 decibels.
5. The outdoor cooling towers will run intermittently when there is a call for cooling.
Therefore, the noise will not be sustained, and this is also in compliance with the above
code.
For the greenhouses:
1. The wall fans used are Quietaire model GCS2433, GCS42100, and GCS48150. Their
noise rating average is 66 dBs at 3 feet. Manufactures specifications are in the
Appendix [of the mechanical engineer's report]. Again, using the inverse square
law, the noise will reduce over the distance to the property line by 36.5 dBs
(20Log(200/3)), resulting in a property line noise level of 29.5 dBs (66-36.5). This will
be reduced significantly below 24 with the sound attenuation in the duct work as
discussed below, complying with the noise code.
2. The exhaust air will also be ducted away from the fan with sound attenuated ducting
using 1" K -Flex duct liner. According to the manufacturer's data, this could further
reduce the noise level at the source by 27 dBs, so the source becomes 66-27=39d8.
Recalculating the reduction in sound to the property line, the noise could be as low as
(39-36.5) approximately 3 decibels. The sound attenuation specifications are in the
Appendix [of the mechanical engineer's report].
3. The exhaust ducting will utilize two 90 -degree turns, which by acoustical standards
reduces the noise significantly more at the exhaust point.
4. The fans will be controlled by a thermostat based on air temperature, so they will
cycle on and off. Therefore, the noise will not be sustained, and this is also in
compliance with the above code.
5. Multiple sources of sound levels are not additive. With multiple sound sources, the
total sound level added is a function of the log of the number sources, 10 log(N)
where N is the number of sources. With four fans, N=4, the additive impact will be 6
dBs, added to the source of less than 24, to total less than 30 still complying with the
noise code.
For the Mothers room in the pole barn:
1. A Mitsubishi M series wall mounted ductless heat pump has been selected. Their noise
rating average is 51 des at 3 feet. Manufacturers specifications are in the Appendix [of
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 20 of 28
the mechanical engineer's report]. Sound level at the closest property line will be
reduced by 36 dBs (20Log (200/3)), resulting in 15 dBs (51-36) at the property line,
complying with the noise code.
Record submittals expressed general concern with noise but did not provide any evidence that the
proposed equipment and engineer's evaluation do not comply with the noise criteria. Based on the
report provided by Mr. Wooster, the design and operation of the mechanical equipment will comply
with this criterion. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of
compliance with this criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating,
ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A)
measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day.
12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply
to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land
areas used for marijuana production and processing:
a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone
approval, if applicable.
b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with
the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed
of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales,
tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area
Combining Zone, if applicable.
c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a
muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural
landscape.
d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development
from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be
retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does
not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead,
diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of
forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices
Act; or agricultural use of the land.
FINDING: The subject property is not located in the Landscape Management Combining Zone. The
applicant indicates no new fencing is proposed. Staff notes there is existing fencing along the
perimeter of property. The applicant indicates the existing trees and shrub cover will be retained
to the maximum noting the only tree or shrub removal will be immediately adjacent to the new
greenhouses. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of
compliance with this criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Fencing and retention of existing tree and shrub cover shall comply
with the fencing and screening standards of DCC 18.116.330(6)(12).
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 21 of 28
13. Water. The applicant shall provide:
a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use
authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or
b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private
water provider, along with the name and contact information of
the water provider; or
c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the
water to be used is from a source that does not require a water
right.
FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") in the
following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided.
King v. Deschutes County- LUBA No. 2017-126 - LUBA implicitly determined that a water hauler can
be a "water provider," and that a letter from a water hauler satisfies the "plain language of DCC
18.166.330(B)(13)" requiring "a statement that water is supplied from a ... private water provider,
along with the name and contact information of the water provider." Second, LUBA confirmed that
the only code at issue is DCC 18.116.330(B)(13)(b), and the County thereby is not required "to apply
any provision of the generically -described 'Oregon Water Law' to intervenors' application for an
administrative decision from the county and determine whether intervenors' application is
consistent with state laws governing water use."
The submitted application materials include a letter from Three Sisters Irrigation District dated
December 26, 2017, that indicates Certificate of Water Right #74135 includes 8.0 acres appurtenant
to the subject property. Also included in the application materials is Certificate of Water Right
#82185 that is appurtenant to the subject property. Record submittals scrutinize the type of water
right allocated to the subject property and the legal authorization to use the water for the proposed
marijuana production. In addition, record submittals question the adequacy of this water to
support the proposed use. These assertions may be true and valid as it applies to the legal provision
and use of said water rights but are not under purview of the Deschutes County Planning Division.
Instead, the allocation and enforcement of water rights in this location are the jurisdiction of the
Three Sisters Irrigation District and Oregon Water Resource Department.
The requirement of this criterion to submit a copy of a water right permit or certificate, which the
applicant provided. Based on the above information, staff finds the above standard is met. With
that said, any use of irrigation water rights shall be done legally and in compliance with terms of
said water right. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of
compliance with this criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall
comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340-
0010.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 22 of 28
14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of
cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located
within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection
district.
FINDING: The processing of cannabinoid extracts is not proposed. Therefore, this criterion does
not apply.
15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to
serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing
to serve the operation, shall be provided.
FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") in
the following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided.
247-17-000038-A - A utility statement simply identifying the property location and not identifying
the proposed operation, or operational characteristics such as required electrical load and timing
of such electrical loads is not sufficient evidence to approve the application.
The applicant provided a "will serve" letter from Central Electric Co -Operative (CEC), Inc. dated
October 19, 2017. The letter states the following:
Central Electric Cooperative has review the provided load information (Existing 200 amp three
phase 480 volt service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Facility and is willing and
able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies of Central Electric Cooperative.
Record submittals question the adequacy of this service to provide power the proposed marijuana
production and contend this power is used for a shared irrigation well pump. Additional record
submittals note the existing service line is provided across the adjacent property to south without
an easement or other formal agreement. Steve Calavan, the owner of the property to the south,
has indicated in submitted comments that he is not willing allow the use or upgrade of this electrical
service across his property for the proposed use.
Public comment calls into question the feasibility of using or upgrading the existing electrical line.
However, as specified in this criterion, the requirement is to provide a statement from each utility
company stating the company is able and willing to serve the proposed marijuana production. The
Board interpretation cited above requires this letter to the proposed use and electrical Toad. Based
on the submitted letter from CEC, staff finds this criterion is met.
16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed
to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as
required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 23 of 28
FINDING: The submitted burden of proof statement indicates cameras will comply with OLCC and
will not be pointed in the direction of neighboring properties. It shall be an ongoing condition of
approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property
and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC.
17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured
waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC
licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG).
FINDING: The submitted burden of proof indicates all waste will be stored in a secure receptacle,
approved by OLCC, located in the pole barn and under camera surveillance. Staff recognizes the
applicant did not explicitly indicate the receptacle would be in the possession of and under the
control of the OLCC licensee. With that said, staff finds this criterion can be met through the OLCC
licensing process and through an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of
compliance with this criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored in a secured waste
receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee at all times.
18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall
reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property:
a. An owner of the subject property;
b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided
that the license applies to the subject property; or
c. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to
produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder,
provided that the registration applies to the subject property.
FINDING: The subject property is not in the MUA-10 Zone. These criteria do not apply.
19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully
established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall
comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(8)(9) by September 8,
2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(8)(10-12, 16, 17) by
December 8, 2016.
FINDING: The subject property was not a lawfully established medical marijuana grow site. This
criterion does not apply.
20. Prohibited Uses.
a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited:
i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana
crop;
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 24 of 28
ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or
215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop;
A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c)
or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana
crop; and
iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities
in conjunction with a marijuana crop.
c. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following
uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana
production:
i. Guest Lodge.
ii. Guest Ranch.
Dude Ranch.
iv. Destination Resort.
v. Public Parks.
vi. Private Parks.
vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings.
viii. Bed and Breakfast.
ix. Room and Board Arrangements.
FINDING: The submitted burden of proof statement indicates none of the prohibited uses
described above will be present on the property. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to
emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(20) shall be prohibited on the
subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site.
D. Annual Reporting
1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each
February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the
previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current
County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises
form:
a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
i. Land use decision and permits.
ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and
laws.
State of Oregon licensing requirements.
b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to
Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC
18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real
property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is
not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 25 of 28
permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon
by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for
the subject use.
c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the
Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County
Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare.
d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by
the Community Development Department.
e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and
maintained by the Community Development Department.
f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS
192.502(17).
FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting obligation of this section is required. Compliance
with this requirement shall be a condition of approval.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings, staff concludes that the proposed marijuana production can
comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if
conditions of approval are met.
V. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDCs)
Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $3,937
per p.m. peak hour trip. The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Handbook does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with
the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use
is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The
ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The applicant
has proposed 4,960 square feet of production, but the County considers all space used for
production and support when calculating SDCs. The applicant has identified 8,400 square feet of
greenhouses (four at 2,100 square feet each); a single large greenhouse of 3,900 square feet; two
buildings, one existing and one new, totaling 3,985 square feet; and a 320 -square -foot shipping
container. All these structure total 16,605 square feet (8,400 + 3,900 + 3,985 + 320), which would
result in 5.31 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 16.605). Thus the applicable SDC would be $20,905 (5.31
X $3,937). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy
is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final.
VI. DECISION
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 26 of 28
APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval.
VII. ONGOING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the approved
grow building. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications,
and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change
in this approved use will require review through a new land use application.
B. Indoor Production: Marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area.
C. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature
marijuana plants shall not exceed 4,960 square feet at any time.
D. OLCC Licensee: Only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the
marijuana production use.
E. Lighting: Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible
outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Lighting fixtures
shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a
diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the
horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. The light cast by exterior light
fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor
Lighting Control.
F. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable
interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control
system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use.
G. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air
conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A)
measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day.
H. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the
public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent
possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal
of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products
in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land.
I. Water: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with
all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340-
0010.
247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 27 of 28
1•
Security Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject
property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of
the OLCC.
K. Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle
in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee at all times.
L. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(6)(20) shall be prohibited on the
subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site.
M. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be
met.
N. Permits: The applicant shall obtain any permits required through the Deschutes
County Building Division and Environmental Soils Division.
VIII. DURATION OF APPROVAL
The applicant shall complete all conditions of approval and initiate the use within two (2) years of
the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010
of the County Code, or this approval shall be void.
This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a
party of interest.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
Written by: Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager
247-18-000379-AD/Price
Page 28 of 28
ATTACHMENT 2
Plot Plan
This page intentionally left blank
woo'yo,e-alaa;s@o;u1 9198.59E-165 XVJ L996-Z9E-145 -%
£OLL6 210 'ON39 OS1# 3AI110ll90311MN999
S31YIDOSSV 31316 /
Ntlld 3115
110 3NN0831121-1LO NOANiO 3RN3W0WSCOL
A213M0210 NOANVO 31ZN3)13V
.L b miVC1a.011 UPIM1
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
00 0 0
�1"ce.F:i
0
0
>-
0
0
0
ro
S; 0
Po
01
00
0
0
0
IQ
0\0
0 i0
01 0 000
0 0 o 0°1� 0000
0 0 0
.',. 0 0
This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 3
Area Map
This page intentionally left blank
70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Terrebonne
Location Map
REDIV or
1-4,10401f3 I t),e;GeoEye, Earth star
SG 4rbG�t Ip, ION,' and the
This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 4
Board Order to Initiate Review
This page intentionally left blank
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 Work Session of September 12, 2018
DATE: September 5, 2018
FROM: Ed Keith, Natural Resources - Forestry, 541-322-7117
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Discussion of Fuels Reduction on County Lands
ATTENDANCE: County Forester Ed Keith and Property Manager James Lewis
To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Cc: James Lewis, Property Manager
From: Ed Keith, County Forester
Re: 9/12 work session discussion
Date: 9/5/18
NAT L RESOURCES
As discussed with you previously, Deschutes County has the opportunity to apply for a grant through the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Deschutes County is eligible for funding
due to the Milli Fire Management Assistance Declaration. Funds for mitigation activities under this program can total
up to $498,676 for the federal share. There is a minimum 25% cost share match, bringing the total grant program to
approximately $664,901. The scope of work, or area where these grant funds may be used to reduce hazardous fuels
is currently being developed, including commitments from landowners for their 25% share of the project costs.
There is an opportunity include a parcel of Deschutes County land in the scope of work. This is a parcel located east of
the City of Redmond that currently poses a wildfire risk to residential and industrial areas within Redmond, the
Redmond Airport, Highway 126 and other adjacent properties. As you are aware, this property has been the site of
numerous illegal activities. These activities have been the cause of wildfires in the past which have luckily been able to
be extinguished with minimal damages to date. However, this fuel type is the exact same fuel type (juniper and
bitterbrush) that caused the rapid spread and loss of homes and other structures in the Cloverdale fire earlier this
summer. Strategically located fuel reduction on this property will help to reduce anticipated fire behavior and provide
firefighters a safer environment to suppress future wildfires. It is also anticipated that fuel reduction will serve to limit
illegal activities such as dumping, camping and shooting which would serve as an added benefit of reduced law
enforcement calls and clean-up costs.
The purpose of the discussion during the work session would be to gauge support for this parcel being included in the
scope of work and the commitment and ability of the County to provide for 25% of the total costs as a match for the
grant funding. Current costs of treatment is this fuel type are approximately $600 to $900 per acre, with the period of
performance being three years once the grant is awarded. Acres treated could vary and would be placed in strategic
locations such as property boundaries, roads and other features.
61150 SE 27th Street Bend, Oregon 97702
(541)322-7117
ed.keith@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org
3
cn
cp.
0
LC)
-
—
0
Lf1
M
01
8
tn
M
M
Total Acres
L
8
Lf1
N
n
Ln
00
8
N
O
00
N
i-1
Z
Total acres
Buffer options
O
O
N
O
Z
N 200-500
9
w
0
> 0
m d O
O
Lf)
r
O
O —
cc
0
c
N N.
N
-C N
' m
W N
w Cr
N
0
Ln
Date: 9/10/2018