2018-457-Minutes for Meeting September 24,2018 Recorded 11/1/2018BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal
CJ2018-457
11/01/2018 3:12:20 PM
IIIIIlUhIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1uii
WORK SESSION MINUTES
1:30 PM
MONDAY, September 24, 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; Adam Smith, Assistant
County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. No identified representative of the media
was in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant Application: Terrebonne Community
School
Chris Doty, Road Department Director requests approval to submit a grant
application to ODOT for part of the state wide program granting $15 million
per year for biking and walking plans near schools. Requirements are
infrastructure, Title I schools, and projects to be a part of a plan that is
already in existence. Looking at Terrebonne Community School for this
project to increase safety. This project would be a $436,000 project with a
20% match. The Board expressed support.
BANEY: Move approval of grant application
HENDERSON: Second
BOCC WORK SESSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 4
VOTE: BANEY: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
2. Youth Mental Health Grant Application Request
Jessica jacks, Health Department requests approval to submit a grant
application to the National Council for Behavioral Health's Youth Mental
Health to support youth engagement projects focusing on reducing
depression, anxiety, and suicide. Funding will be used toward current
staffing and training for staff and schools.
BANEY: Move approval of grant application
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: BAN EY: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
3. Marijuana Text Amendments
Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, and Tanya Saltzman, Community Development
Department presented this item for discussion. A public hearing was held on
August 28th. The packet includes a summary of the comments received.
Staff proposed medical marijuana regulations first and then addressing the
recreational marijuana. Commissioner Baney likes the idea of separating the
two regulations. Commissioner Henderson like the idea of separate
regulations but would like to finish up the recreational marijuana regulations
first. Commissioner DeBone commented on the regulations for the industry
and supports a separate discussion for each medical and recreational and
reasonable regulations. The Board discussed options of balance of how to
consider regulations and having support of legislation. Discussion held on
BOCC WORK SESSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 4
the challenges of the odor issues of the hemp industry. Discussion held on
reasonable, time, place and manner regulations. The proposed amendments
were included in the agenda packet and were reviewed. The Board
suggested language stating amendments reference state law. Staff will take
the language revisions and draft a matrix for the Board.
Commissioner Baney had to leave at 4:22 p.m. for another meeting.
COMMISSIONER UPDATES:
• Commissioner DeBone went to the AOC district 2 meeting Friday last week
and reported on regional planning discussions. He was re-elected for the
district chair again. He is going to NACo Washington DC meeting October 11.
• Commissioner Henderson commented on the audit proposals for the 911
radio system. The interviews for the 911 technical manager are scheduled
for tomorrow. County Administrator Anderson reported several other
applications have been received and the recruitment is open until hired.
• Commissioner Henderson reported the Cohesive Strategies Coordinator
interviews were done and there are two candidates for consideration.
OTHER ITEMS:
EXECUTIVE SESSION: None scheduled
BOCC WORK SESSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 4
ADJOURN
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:57 p.m.
DATED this Day of e��i 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
RECORDING SECRETARY
BOCC WORK SESSION
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, VICE CHAIR
TAMMY BANEY, COM
ISSIONER
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 4
•(E
0
p%� 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, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 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. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant Application: Terrebonne Community School -
Chris Doty, Road Department Director
2. Youth Mental Health Grant Application Request -Jessica Jacks,
3. Marijuana Text Amendments - Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
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.
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda
of 2
Monday, September 24, 2018 Page 1
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.org/meetingcalendar
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
Monday, September 24, 2018 Page 2
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of September 24, 2018
DATE: September 17, 2018
FROM: Chris Doty, Road Department, 541-322-7105
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant Application: Terrebonne Community School
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
"I move approval to submit a grant application to ODOT's Safe Routes to School program
for sidewalk improvements adjacent to the Terrebonne Community School"
ATTENDANCE: Chris Doty, Road Department
SUMMARY: Within HB 2017 the Legislature funded a significant increase to ODOT's Safe
Routes to School (SRTS) grant program. Once fully implemented, the program will fund
approximately $15M per year in infrastructure and non -infrastructure projects to increase
safety and encourage walking and biking to school.
ODOT recently issued a call for infrastructure projects for funding in 2019. Given a narrow
timeframe to issue funding, criteria have been established as follows:
1. Infrastructure only.
2. Must serve a Title I school (40% or greater free or reduced lunch).
3. The project must be contained within an approved plan (SRTS plan, TSP, etc).
In advance of this call for projects, Terrebonne Community School representatives raised an
issue regarding safety on the north side of the school (C -Avenue). The majority of walking and
biking traffic occurs from the north side of the campus and must cross C -Avenue (collector) to
access various neighborhoods north of the school. C -Avenue does not have sidewalk and
students must navigate parent pickup in addition to traffic on the road.
The proposed SRTS project will construct sidewalk on both sides of C -Avenue (US 97 to 6th
Street) and channelize student crossing to the 8th Street crossing location. The improvements
will accomodate parent loading/unloading on the north side in a more organized manner.
The proposed improvements are contained within Deschutes County's Transportation System
Plan (medium priority) and Terrebonne Community School is a Title I school, thereby meeting
the criteria of the SRTS program.
As a Title I school, the grant will fund 80% of the proposed project which is estimated at
$436,589. Deschutes County will therefore provide a 20% match ($87,318) and request
$349,271 in SRTS grant funding for the project. The SRTS program does not award bonus
points for a match contribution in excess of the required 20%. Assuming award next spring,
the project can be delivered in the summer of 2019.
The next SRTS call for projects will occur in two years and will include both infrastructure and
non -infrastructure projects.
Deschutes County SRTS Application
Terrebonne Community School Vicinity Map
.07 C'.AVE
SMITH ROCKWAY
Terrebonne Community School
Taxlot Lines
Feet
0 70 140 280 420 560
The information on this map was derived from the digital databases on the
Deschutes County's G.I. S. Care was taken in the creation of this map, but it is
provided "as is." Deschutes County cannot accept any responsibility for errors,
omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data or the underlying records.
There are no warranties, express or implied, including the warranty of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, accompanying this product.
However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
Map Printed on 09/17/2018
ArcLi,roducts,taps for ChnA0C...TSJ,98 .11
�ssr�s� � qE/�wro
\11
BEND—
OPINE
860Z/146/6
-
z3
o?,
0 mo
%�
w
al
eT
0
o
m
N003L10'3NNO93?J831
31tl0
1tlf11d30N00
rV )w
°A1
Ntlld 1f10AVl
sww•»n waw• iii
•°n, I�3.4151
I oxu3nws I ...ma wo
1`J3(Obd H1t1M341S 3NN083FJlB 1-
dve A 03N93N>
UV 0 .03NsVa0
3NN083ad313O KLIO
dde .fl NS53N
5No5 36
a 1 CO 1 0 1 0
(133N1S R11VW)
L6 AV/1111D111 SIl
to
-
Lo
off_ a� o.
6a
¢
t.
�i
a
'ki
3
o
_
0 o� �
1-4
-W oZ 133211S
A,
117
752
"►
=�
-s —
Qa N011VONIINO3
wd
803 50130
Y
335cc ;
¢ HL6
Q
ry
��
ao\
Jt
1 'C' AVENUE )exisnuo l
'
'
¢Wry
o
Ij'
V
uua
jIEj���QF
;Yt��{
/�x
4
p 32
i.
,L]J11LS
, ,�
•
1111
— —__„�
-- --
ro
3� w3
tg,¢gym
�1
9 wQ
F
3 z
..
„gym 2 —— —WM
—
13381s z
d
I
1
,h
aZ
1
h U
H18
1
,
—
1 --_ --
11
Z.
N
o 4°
Q
Vi¢
-■
'
5
Yni
3`
-;
oQ
4
71515
,<.
—
- _
H19
i
illi .
IQ,
N01100811N00
308
30063
33S
1
it
1
I
W2
a 1 m 1 0 1 0
-( ES
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 24, 2018
DATE: September 18, 2018
FROM: Jessica Jacks, Health Services,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Youth Mental Health Grant Application Request
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommend approval to apply for the Youth Mental Health grant.
ATTENDANCE: Jessica Jacks, Health Services Prevention Programs Supervisor
SUMMARY: The National Council for Behavioral Health's Youth Mental Health grant supports
youth engagement projects focused on reducing depression, anxiety and suicide. We propose
submitting an application that will expand our current evaluation of the Bend and Sisters Youth
Action Councils and help us prepare for program expansion and replication.
This aligns with Health Services' Strategic Goal #1: Promote Health and Prevent Disease and the
indicators for adolescent suicide risk. Specifically, we have prioritized the following change:
Decrease the percentage of 6th, 8th, and 11th graders reporting that they seriously
considered attempting suicide over the past year from 7.4%, 15.0%, and 19.3%,
respectively, to 6.4%, 14.0%, and 17.3%, respectively.
If awarded, the $100,000 grant would support and strengthen existing core programs, specifically
the delivery of Youth Action Councils in order to foster youth engagement and create school -wide
system change for mental health promotion and well-being. This funding would support existing
staff, contracted services, and materials and services and would allow us to expand evaluation and
consultation services. We anticipate the following breakdown over the course of the 1.5 year
grant:
• Salary and benefits 0.15 FTE $30,000
• Contracted services $30,000
• Materials and services $30,000
• Indirect cost $10,000
Deschutes County Health Services
GRANT APPLICATION REQUEST
Official Grant Title:
Youth Mental Health
Source of Grant Funds:
National Council for Behavioral Health
Funding Amount (include amount
per year if multiple years):
$100,000 over the course of one and a half years,
January 2019 -September 2020
Required Matching Funds (if
applicable):
n/a
Application Due Date and
Submission Method:
Electronic submission by Friday, October 5
FTE Required and Cost of FTE:
Grant would support 0.15 existing FTE
Staff Responsible:
Kelby Christ
Grant Administrator (if awarded):
Jessica Jacks
Please answer the following questions:
1. Briefly summarize what work the grant is intended to accomplish:
The grant supports youth engagement projects focused on reducing depression, anxiety
and suicide. We intend to submit an application that will expand our current evaluation of
the Bend and Sisters Youth Action Councils and help us prepare for program expansion
and replication. The main project components would be:
✓ Implement Youth Action Councils in the classroom at Bend High School and
Sisters High School
✓ Facilitate partner engagement with school administration, including Board, and
families
✓ Technical assistance and training on research methods for Deschutes County
Health Services (DCHS) staff
✓ Evaluate program design, implementation and outcomes
✓ Prepare for program expansion and replication to other areas of Deschutes
County
Project deliverables will be:
1) Evaluate the Youth Action Council model for improving student connection and
decreasing loneliness
2) Define and describe the Youth Action Council model for replication at other sites
3) Develop a "toolkit" for program expansion including necessary resources (staffing,
financial, resources, training, sustainability plan, etc.)
We believe the funder would be interested in our innovative approach to youth
engagement and want to support a rigorous evaluation for potential replication elsewhere
as well as set us up for success as we expand across Deschutes County.
2. What priorities in the Health Services Strategic Plan would this grant activity support?
Provide data to describe a documented health need that would be addressed and that is
consistent with the Strategic Plan.
Rev. 9/18/2015
This aligns with DCHS Strategic Goal #1: Promote Health and Prevent Disease and the
indicators for adolescent suicide risk. Specifically, we have prioritized the following
change:
Decrease the percentage of 6th, 8th, and 11th graders reporting that they
seriously considered attempting suicide over the past year from 7.4%, 15.0%, and
19.3%, respectively, to 6.4%, 14.0%, and 17.3%, respectively.
3. Would this support core program activities and, if so, which one(s)? Are additional funds
needed to support these activities?
Funding would support and strengthen existing core programs, specifically the delivery of
Youth Action Councils to foster youth engagement and create school -wide system change
for mental health promotion and well-being. Additional funds would be provided through
this grant opportunity to support core program expansion.
4. Does this funding add new program activities? If so, what are the activities? Is it
appropriate to add these new activities at this time?
The new activities that would be funded by this grant are expanded evaluation and
consultation services.
5. Is there a science base to support delivering the activities and services listed? Please
describe that science base.
Yes. The Youth Action Councils utilize the Youth Action Participatory Research
curriculum which is evidence based.
Relevant scientific evidence is:
Kornbluh, M., Ozer, EJ, Allen, CD, Krirshner, B. (2015). Youth Participatory Action
Research as an approach to sociopolitical development and the new academic standards:
Considerations for educators. The Urban Review 47, (5). 868-892.
Zeldin S, Collura J. (2010) Being Y -AP Savvy: A Primer on Creating and Sustaining
Youth Adult Partnerships. ACT for Youth Center of Excellence, June 2010.
6. How long would the funding be available? If the funding is for less than three years, what is
the plan to transition the work, staffing and expenses after the funding ends?
January 2019 -September 2020
7. What is the application deadline? Do you anticipate any problems meeting this deadline?
October 5, 2018. Given the simplicity of the application and our current state of
readiness, we will meet this deadline.
8. Do you have the staffing to write a competitive proposal? If not, how will you contract for
these services?
Yes, particularly because our current contractor, The InQuire Group, is willing to write this
in partnership with us.
Rev. 9/18/2015
9. Are there any matching requirements?
No.
10. What other partner organizations could potentially be applying? What is the plan to work
with them?
This grant opportunity is open to anyone in the nation. We are unaware of any community
partners currently pursuing this opportunity.
11. What are the potential political issues that could arise as a result of this application, funding,
and/or activity?
None of which we are aware. Youth Engagement is very welcomed in our communities.
12. What is the fiscal impact to the department if we are awarded this grant?
This funding would support existing staff, contracted services and materials and services.
We anticipate the following breakdown over the course of the 1.5 year grant:
• Salary and benefits 0.15 FTE $30,000
• Contracted services $30,000
• Materials and services $30,000
• Indirect cost $10,000
13. Will a contract be required if we are awarded this grant? If yes, is there sufficient time to
complete the contract process (estimated timeline: 4-6 weeks) prior to starting the work?
Yes, if awarded we would amend our current contract with The InQuire Group to expand
their evaluation and consultation services. There will be sufficient time to complete the
contract process.
Department Director Signature
Date
Director to Attend Board Meeting? (check one) C Yes ® No
Contract Specialist Review:
Board Meeting Date:
Time:
Grant Application Number:
Rev. 9/18/2015
-< 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 24, 2018
DATE: September 19, 2018
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Marijuana Text Amendments
This work session will address next steps for the marijuana text amendments, for which a
public hearing was held on August 28, 2018.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
DATE: September 19, 2018
SUBJECT: Marijuana Text Amendments - Work Session
CO WI • 'TY €:DEVELOPMMi ENT
I. OVERVIEW
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on August 28, 2018
from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., reconvening at 6:00 p.m., to consider Ordinance 2018-012, a series
of text amendments pertaining to the regulation and enforcement of marijuana on rural lands in
Deschutes County. The Board will conduct a work session on September 24, 2018 to review
options for next steps.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
Attachment 1 includes all testimony received during the open record period, from the conclusion
of the public hearing until September 14, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. The following individuals submitted
written testimony during this period:
• Bouziane • Ritter
• Celebrate Cannabis group • Sauerborn
• Cochrane • Schnieder
• Cook, C. • Sheridan
• Cook, S. • Silliman
• Fols • Simpson
• Gould • Stout
• Kellner Rode • Threlkeld
• Pate • Wattier
• Pederson
III. AGENCY AND UTILITY INVOLVEMENT
In order to provide professional opinions on specific aspects of the proposed regulations, staff
invited several agencies and utilities to provide testimony. The following agency and utility
partners provided written and/or verbal comment and in some cases, specific recommendations
concerning the code language. All agency testimony is included as Attachment 2:
• Kyle Gorman, Oregon Water Resource Department (OWRD) - submitted written
comments and proposed language edits:
o 18.116.330(B)(12)(b): Regarding provider Will Serve statement, remove
"certificated," replace with "valid"
o 18.116.330(B)(12)(c): Regarding proof of alternative water source, remove
"certificated"
o 18.116.330(B)(12)(d): Deleted "commercial" in description of wells to require water
meters; advised to check with legal counsel to determine if it is appropriate to
require meters
• Steve Hess, Midstate Electric Co -Op - co-signed with Central Electric Co -Op (see below)
• Quinn Keever, Bend Park & Recreation - submitted written comments
• Jeff Kitchens, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) - submitted written comments.
Additional verbal suggestions:
o 18.116.330(B)(6), Separation Distances: 18.116.330(B)(6)(v) should read "state, local,
and municipal parks" to minimize ambiguity. "National monuments" already falls
under federal land category and therefore is redundant. This assumes that there is
intent to include local and municipal parks.
o 18.116.330(B)(6)(vi): Agree with proposed change from "public" to "Federal" lands.
• Dave Markham, Central Electric Co -Op - submitted proposed language edits
IV. MEDICAL MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT ISSUES
During the public hearing, a significant amount of testimony may have been addressing the
negative effects—(noise, odor, etc.) of either medical or illegal grows—in other words, marijuana
production that is beyond the scope of the proposed amendments. As acknowledged during the
hearing, the County generally cannot identify the location of the majority of medical grow
operations unless a specific complaint has been lodged, owing to Oregon state statute.
One option to be considered is to classify lawfully established medical marijuana grow sites as
nonconforming uses, and expressly require existing legal medical marijuana grow sites to apply
for a nonconforming use verification. A brief overview of this option was submitted to the record
by staff and appears here as Attachment 3.
V. ADDITIONAL ITEMS SUBMITTED TO THE RECORD
Two additional documents were submitted to the public record by staff and are included as
Attachment 4:
Page 2 of 3
• A revised map showing potential production sites under the proposed regulations. This
map provides more detail than the original presented during the public hearing,
highlighting significant street names for clarity.
• Staff response to a citizen request for the number of parcels in the EFU zones in certain
size categories.
VI. NEXT STEPS
Staff seeks Board direction and offers the following suggested approach for next steps:
Medical Marijuana
1. Separate medical marijuana text amendments from recreational marijuana text
amendments, and address medical marijuana text amendments first.
2. Direct staff to return with ordinance for amending medical marijuana regulations per
Board direction, potentially including nonconforming use/medical marijuana
amendments, with potential to be considered as emergency.
Recreational Marijuana
3. Following adoption of the medical marijuana text amendments ordinance, conduct a
work session to identify items in the recreational marijuana text amendments per
Board direction;
4. Schedule and conduct deliberations on the recreational marijuana text amendments
ordinance; or
5. Other action(s) as determined by the Board.
Attachments:
1. Written Testimony - From conclusion of public hearing to conclusion of open record
period
2. Agency/Utility Testimony
3. Medical Marijuana Enforcement Memorandum
4. Other Documents Submitted to Record
Page 3 of 3
Attachment 1:
Written Testimony from
Open Record Period
TO: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner, Deschutes County
FROM: James Bouziane, Rural resident and farmer (EFU), Deschutes County
SUBJECT: Open Record/Written Record Input — Marijuana Hearing 8-28-18
Tanya, please add the following comments as part of the Open Record/Written Record for the proposed
amendments to the marijuana policies and procedures as proposed by DC staff and presented and
discussed by the DC Commissioners.
Support the changes
I fully support all of the proposed changes to the polices and code as described, including the
suggestions by Bend Parks and Rec staff. Additionally, I would like to see production, sales, and
packaging occur in commercial/retail zoned areas of Bend and not in rural Deschutes County.
I believe the proposed changes were thoughtful, responsive to the on -the -ground reality of marijuana,
and were balanced for both opponents and proponents.
Water
I strongly encourage staff and the Commissioners to request and review all of the data and reports that
OWRD referred to at the meeting. As Liz Dickson articulated, I believe the complexity of surface water
rights and transfer of those rights, well water use, and depletion of the aquifer really need careful
analysis.
I do not believe it is in the best interests of the State and County to have surface water rights transferred
or vacated such that water is used in a greenhouse/indoor environment which may (has) caused fields
to fallow and other unknown potential damage to our fragile desert environment.
Legislators and subject matter experts must be the voices to represent our fragile desert ecosystem and
I still do not have confidence that these various interdependencies of irrigation water use, water rights,
federal nexus, well water, etc have been addressed and understood thoroughly.
Electricity
I strongly encourage staff and the Commissioners to request and review all of the data and reports that
CEC referred to at the meeting. The two representatives both presented concerning information about
the known use of electricity, the unknown/hidden use, and the potential unlawful use. They explained
severe damage to equipment, system stress, and lack of inter -agency information that would enable
them to determine what is occurring "behind the meter."
Inspections and Enforcement
I believe OLCC and DCSO both need more officers to inspect and enforce. Additionally, barriers to
interagency communications need to be broken down across OWRD, OLCC, Electric/utilities, police, fire,
healthcare to truly understand the scope of the issue.
Real world data to consider
Colorado experience
Excerpts from the Denver Post, 2017:
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/
"The number of drivers involved in fatal crashes in Colorado who tested positive for marijuana has risen
sharply each year since 2013, more than doubling in that time, federal and state data show."
"The trends coincide with the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado that began with adult
use in late 2012, followed by sales in 2014."
"We went from zero to 100, and we've been chasing it ever since," Greenwood Village Police Chief John
Jackson said of the state's implementation of legalized marijuana. "Nobody understands it and people
are dying. That's a huge public safety problem."
"The 2013-16 period saw a 40 percent increase in the number of all drivers involved in fatal crashes in
Colorado, from 627 to 880, according to the NHTSA data. Those who tested positive for alcohol in fatal
crashes from 2013 to 2015 — figures for 2016 were not available — grew 17 percent, from 129 to 151."
By contrast, the number of drivers who tested positive for marijuana use jumped 145 percent — from
47 in 2013 to 115 in 2016. During that time, the prevalence of testing drivers for marijuana use did not
change appreciably, federal fatal -crash data show."
said Barbara
Deckert, whose fiancee, Ron Edwards, was killed in 2015 in a collision with a driver who tested positive
for marijuana use below the legal limit and charged only with careless driving
�dEp
l:':
"Critics see the data as proving Colorado moved too fast in legalizing the drug without first
understanding its impact behind the wheel – as if handing over the keys to the car without knowing who
was driving."
"Colorado has chosen not to measure the outcomes of legalized marijuana, paying more attention to
the commercialization," said Ed Wood of DUID (Driving Under the Influence of Drugs) Victim Voices, an
organization he founded after his son's traffic death caused by a drugged driver. "People have
referenced this as the grand experiment, ... and the only outcome they measure is the tax revenue, and
that's shameful and a disgrace."
"Among The Post's other findings:
• Marijuana is figuring into more fatal crashes overall. In 2013, drivers tested positive for the drug
in about 10 percent of all fatal crashes. By 2016, it was 20 percent.
• More drivers are testing positive for marijuana and nothing else. Of the drivers involved in fatal
crashes in 2014 who tested positive for cannabinoids, more than 52 percent had no alcohol in
their system. By 2016, it had grown to 69 percent.
• The average age of drivers in deadly crashes in 2015 who tested positive for marijuana was
nearly 35, with a quarter of them over 40.
• In 2016, of the 115 drivers in fatal wrecks who tested positive for marijuana use, 71 were found
to have Delta -9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their
blood, indicating use within hours, according to state data. Of those, 63 percent were over 5
nanograms per milliliter, the state's limit for driving.
Washington State experience
"The trends in the state appear nearly identical in Washington state, where recreational marijuana was
legalized at about the same time. Officials there have been tracking the drug's impact on driving much
more carefully and for a longer period, statistics show.
which is gathering and studying the data."
Bend Oregon experience
We are determining that now! What story will be told in 3-5 years?
General thoughts
The following comments are for your consideration in your decision-making process:
➢ Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should do something. Some things in life,
once altered even with good intent, can never revert back to their previous state. Beautiful
Deschutes County/Central Oregon are at the tipping point now.
➢ Although the meeting, and input to the meeting, were about "land use," I believe it is really a
360 approach that needs to drive your strategy and tactics.
➢ There were comments made about the "open secret" that medical marijuana producers "are
the problem," and the black market is thriving in Bend and beyond. There are open -source
reports from various law enforcement and research agencies that discuss the marijuana -related
issues of human trafficking, theft, violence, degradation of safety and security, increased
transient populations and other unintended consequences and unfunded budget impacts of
"legalizing" an activity that is otherwise illegal at the Federal level.
➢ It has been verified that Oregon production far exceeds personal use, medicinal or recreation,
based upon the population of Oregon. Additionally, the retail price has fallen dramatically thus
providing financial incentive to pursue the black market. The production of all marijuana is a for-
profit endeavor.
Bend Bulletin — excerpts
On August 29, 2018 the Bend Bulletin published, "6 arrests in pot trafficking case."The article described
two vast interstate operations that delivered marijuana to Texas, Virginia, and Florida. Proceeds from
the black market sales returned to Oregon as cash stuffed in airplane luggage or through the U.S. mail,
said U.S. Attorney for Oregon Billy Williams.
"These cases provide clear evidence of what I have repeatedly raised concerns over: Oregon's
marijuana industry is attracting organized criminal networks looking to capitalize on the state's
relaxed regulatory environment," Williams said in a statement.
Williams has repeatedly called on Oregon regulators to tighten their monitoring of the marijuana
industry to limit diversion out-of-state.
Oregon's adult -use market has struggled for months with too much marijuana, an outcome fueled by
state regulations that didn't limit the number of growers and allowed each grower to have multiple
licenses.
As of June, there were nearly 1 million pounds of "usable flower" in the system, and an additional
350,000 pounds of marijuana extracts, edibles and tinctures.
Entrepreneurs, Rural lifestyles, and Bend Cultural Identity
At the 8-28-18 meeting, a marijuana attorney described the excitement of the "new" marijuana industry
in Bend, which she proclaimed is just like the Silicon Valley tech boom for start-up entrepreneurs. My
understanding of her message was that it is here to stay and no one can, or should, do anything about it.
I worked in Silicon Valley, CA from 1989 to 2014, and witnessed the busts, boom and negative quality of
life impact they had on the region. Legislators, city managers, mayors, police, fire and other entities are
currently grappling with multiple significant issues related to unanticipated and unintended
consequences of unfettered entrepreneurship that have occurred in the past 10 years there. The scale is
different but I think the analogy is worth considering:
➢ The area had accessible infrastructure and user-friendly downtown areas and affordable homes.
It was a "nice" place to live. Police, fire, public works, and other services were generally in parity
with the business demands. Now, people are fleeing the region, due to outrageous traffic
congestion, loss of quality of life, negative perception of safety and security, and home prices
over $2,500 per square foot.
➢ It is now a situation of the haves and have-nots. Many of the dot-com entrepreneurs made
hundreds of millions, others went bankrupt and left the wreckage behind for others to clean-up
after they left their failed businesses.
➢ High tech brought dual -advanced degree households with young employees easily making six
figure incomes.
➢ High tech companies funded new buildings for the cities, funded new fire engines and patrol
cars, and funded new staff either through increased taxes or contractually.
➢ Marijuana industry has not offered to fund any buildings, equipment or employees I am aware
of.
➢ Marijuana industry by contrast pays the majority of their employees minimum wage. The
investors and owners make the majority of the money.
➢ Marijuana industry is not building beautiful structures or grounds for public enjoyment which is
the case in the wine industry, for example.
➢ The marijuana industry does not "feel right" for this area.
My point is, the legislators and persons currently in positions of political and administrative power in
Deschutes County have the responsibility, authority and opportunity to make these decisions for our
future now. After you leave office, someone will have to live with the decisions we make now.
• Do we want to retain a "rural and bucolic" lifestyle in Bend?
• Can we effectively balance new industries with our current cultural heritage?
• Do we need to preserve it because it inherently has value in green pastures, environmental
preservation and stewardship of our natural resources?
Marijuana is a for-profit business and it is not being done to enhance our natural beauty here; that is
not one of its by-products or mission.
The marijuana business people, like the Silicon Valley analogy, want to be on the "bleeding -edge" of the
wave to make the early money. This is a risky position for them, but one they freely have chosen. It is
risky for many reasons including the fact that is still illegal on the federal level.
• If the Deschutes County proposed regulations are, as stated by the marijuana proponents,
"insane," "onerous," and "unfair," they are free to operate their business in any of the other
states, counties, locations that they deem compatible to their business model. That is the
fundamental fact of liberty and capitalism we embrace in the U.S.
• You are not under any obligation to make their business model work.
• As they stated in the meeting, they believe you "have failed leadership," "don't listen to them
for their input," and are bowing to the pressure of the "extreme and vocal minority." This is a
myopic view and felt like a personal attack on me for having an opposing view, and also you, for
taking the time to carefully follow the process that they in fact set up, guided, and had plenty
of input from start to present.
• The Commissioners and Planning should ask themselves:
o Why is it so critical that marijuana be grown here?
o Cheap land?
o Cheap water?
o Low level of government infrastructure and oversight?
■ Law enforcement, OLCC, Inspectors, Planners
o Container farming can be done anywhere
Conclusion
I wish to thank the Commissioners and DC staff for listening to our concerns and producing a set of
recommendations that capture most if not all of the concerns the rural residents have raised. I can be
reached for further input upon request. jbouziane@me.com
DocuSign Envmpo|o:co*000uo-3oaa-414r-BeAu1aCA*Fo41onA
01,4
iN 'NI
EDUCATE • COLLABORATE
OLLABORmTE • CELEBRATE ELEBRATE
Dear Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Henderson,
Please consider the foHowng comments on the proposed amendments to the
Deschutes County Code you are considering for adoption which would further
restrict production and processing of marijuana in the County. We urge you to
carefully consider all comments before deciding to enact an ordinance that will
increase the costs of the industry and potentially result in the very result that the
Commissioners wish to prevent — proliferation of the black market.
Many members of the public presented evidence that there is no demonstrated
need for more restrictive regulations of this agricultural use. The marijuana
regulations adopted by the County in 2016, set forth in the supplementary
provisions of the zoning code have not been established as "too lax," and have not
resulted in actionable proceedings by the County against any of the existing
marijuana grow or retail establishments in the two years the laws have been on the
books, The Commissioners answer to all voters in the County not just those
persons that are opposed to marijuana in principal. We ask that you consider not
only the voices of the nppononto, but the vast evidence in the record before you
that demonstrates responsible operation of cannabis farrns and facihties, and that
recognizes the substantial tax revenues the industry brings into the County.
Recreational marijuana was overwhelmingly approved by the voters of the State of
Oregon. The new laws considered for adoption by the County would undermine the
will of the peop|e, expressed at the ballot box. More impurtandy, the new taws
contain an implicit prejudice against marijuana producers and retailers, casting
them in an unfavorable light that in neither supportable nor constitutional.
CELEBRATE CANNABIS
#1,1734SVV[handierD/Bend, OR, 97702
Page 1/3 rl
onousignEnvelope ID: ou*0000e-3noo-414r-Bsxo1ooA4Fowssx
Two aspects of the proposed new regulations are of particular concern. Firoi, the
proposal to remove marijuana production from Right to Farm protections is simply
not supported by any findings. The Commissioners have not heard any evidence to
justify treating one type of farmer differently than another, simply by the type of
erop they decide to grow on property that has been designated for agricuJtural use.
This type of discriminatory regulation is prohibited by the equal protection clause
of the cnnstituhon, and should not survive a challenge on such basis. The fact
that some people are concerned about the "odor" of marijuana ptants does not
pass constitutional munter, considering that most, if not alt, farming operations
result in odor omissions. It is for this very reason that the County has decided
where to zone lands as exclusive farm use, and to require any new developrnent
near or adjacent to farms to acknowledge and waive the right to complain about
agricultural operations occurring on properly zoned lands.
Seoond, and perhaps of greater concern, is the proposal to subject marijuana
producers and processors to random inspections. This turns the notion of
"innocent until proven gui|ty^on its head. The County is in effect presuming that
these land owners will violate the law, based only on the type of crop they are
growing and processing. The County's code enforcement division does not have
authority to investigate potential code violations absent a report from a citizen.
Even then, the code enforcement officers must have probable cause to begin
investigatory proceedings; a notice of violation is not issued unless and until the
officer finds evidence that would support a potential finding of code violation.
Marijuana producers and processors would not enjoy the same rights that others
in the County enjoy if the new laws are adopted by you.
Fourth Amendment privacy rights come into play here, as well as violation of equal
protection rights by the County's potential decision to treat one class of farmers
differently than all others. The presumption that these citizens are any less
interested in owning and operating their property in a legal manner again is not
supported by any findings.
CELEBRATE CANNABIS
1734SVVChandler Dr#1. Bend, OR, 97702
heUo@ceiebrate'cannabis.org ° wwvv.ceiehrate-cannahis»rg
Page
oocuSignEnvelope ID: o04o0Da9-a��4147-BeA2-1aCA4p541B3m
The proposed changes to setbaoko, the setback exception and MUA zones also
have concerning aspects. Further Iimitatons on cornpatibe proprieties decreases
opportunities for Iocal farmers to create niche and value added farm products; the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for Deschutes County to
preserve farmland and protect both current and future agricultural opportunities.
We urge that you make a considered, and not reactionary decision based on the
facts before you. Fear, misunderstanding and unwarranted presumptions do not
make for good law. The County has two years of evidence of quiet and deliberate
compliance with the marijuana reguations that have been in place. Please reject
the invitation to single out cannabis business owners and treat them in a different
and unwarranted way than other farmers and business owners.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please do not hesitate to
contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
DocuSIgned by:
Lindsey Pate
Cannabis President
d relosou
` .,.A,~.~~
Jack Robson
dicmg Board Member
Gary Bracelin
wad-LR:g Board Member
Akil
Judy Campbell
Founding Board Member
,--DocuSigned by:
��/���0/�f�o
�^^`` ^'ow` '"''
Jennifer Clifton
,F—ED4nicieiJibvg Board Member
Hunter Neubauer
Board Member
(Aura 13ruf
Laura Breit
Member and Board
Ellen Parkin
Board Member
CELEBRATE CANNABIS
1734 SVVChandler Dr#1. Bend, OR, 97702
heiio@ceiebrate'cannabis.nrg ° vvwvv.ceiehrate-cannabis.org
Member
I encourage you to adopt the proposed amendments to
the Deschutes County regulations governing marijuana
production, especially the removal from MUA-10 zoned
property. At the very least strict limits to size and
growth should be institued as much of this zone is
comprised of small acreage residential neighborhoods.
For 26 years I have lived in Lake Park Estates, a
single family home owners association of approximately
190 two -five acre parcels located in north east Redmond.
For the past 3 years I have sought to educate myself
about Central Oregon marijuana production as my quality
of life has been increasingly impacted by the presence
of a commercial medical marijuana growing operation
located on adjacent property at 4288 NE 29th St. which
continues to this day. Grandfathered in with one green-
house in 2016, the site now has 2 greenhouses and a
pending application for a recreational grow shop of 1000
square feet with plans to the 2500 square foot maximum
allowed by OLCC. Since 2016, 6 applications have been
submitted to Deschutes County, all believed to be tied
to the establishment and expansion of this operation on
a 5.22 acre lot.Having 3 separate entities (OHI, OLCC
& Deschutes County) with 3 different sets of rules,
regulations and protocols has made gaining an understanding
highly challenging. Communication between these entities
as well as water and electric authorities has been
extremely poor in my opinion.
WATER - According to Sam VanLanihan, Assistant Water
Master for the Deschutes Basin (541 306-6885 Ext 104),
the ground water static water level decline in our area
has averaged approximately 1 foot per year historically.
At my 300 foot deep domestic well site the static water
level has declined 61 feet in 26 years (well over 2 feet
per year). My well went dry July 23, 2018 which to date
has cost me $8000.00 to deepen with more costs forth-
coming. Possible impacts to this rapid decline may include
the presence of the marijuana growing operation next door
as well as the establishment of a huge industrial well
and water storage tank off NE 9th Street just south of
our home owners association.
REVISION: Total cost of new well drilling to date (8-31-18)
has reached $18,000.00
page 1 of 3
MARIJUANA
A.) MEDICAL - The Oregon Health Authority administers
all activities (855 244-9580). No written rules and
regulations governing such are available. Recently
8 Senate bills and 4 House bills have been enacted
which adopt or change existing rules in Oregon. HIPA
laws restrict sharing of any information specific to
particular medical marijuana activities, even with law
enforcement on a 5 acre property in the MUA-10 zoned
area such as the one next door to me. A grower can
have up to 8 carded customers, grow 6 mature plants each
(48 total) plus 96 immature plants over 24 inches tall
plus an unlimited number of immature plants less than 24
inches tall. Reports indicate 791-984 permits issued
in Deschutes County and 20,000 in Oregon.
My neighbors aspirations were a pound of trimmed bud per
plant. OHA claims to have inspected medical grows in my
neighborhood and found no compliance issues with their
regulationslwhich are woefully inadequate. OHA by their
own admission are relying on local jurisdictions to
establish and enforce regulations on water, odor, lighting,
etc. Please do so.
B.) RECREATIONAL - A few OLCC regulations are: No hoop
or greenhouses for growing. Hard structures are limited
to 2,500 square feet in size. Only one permit is allowed
per property. Matt at OHA claims OLCC is responsible for
the discontinuence of a medical permit if a recreational
permit is issued to the same grower/property. No private
residence well water is to be used for growing.
C.) Deschutes County Community Development (541 388-6575)
As you know administers marijuana production in our County
with it's own ever-changing rules and regulations which
were initially adopted in June of 2016. Growing structures
established prior to that date have been "grandfathered"
into existance today. John Griley (541 480-6183) or
(541 617-4708) is one of two Code Enforcement Technicians
assigned to check into compliance issues such as noise, odor,
lighting, disposal, structure expansion, etc. I arranged
page 2 of 3
for him to visit my property on July. 26, 2018 to observe
the adjacent property grow activity from my land. After
hearing of the verbal assault and aggressive demeanor
directed at me by my neighbor which occurred earlier in
the season, he was uncomfortable walking out with me to
my property line for fear of confrontation. The Deschutes
County Sheriffs Office has been informed of some of the
medical grow addresses in our area in the event of future
trouble.
It appears as though a Code Violation has been issued to
this property (4288 NE 29th St.), but I don't know what
for or what County actions may be forthcoming, if any.
Despite having filed a .written questionaire with the
County Community Development on March 17, 2018, filing
complaints with OHA and Deschutes County Community
Development on July 20 and July 23, 2018 and August 25,
2018. I have heard nothing about actions taken.
Thank you for your time and diligence in establishing
reasonable standards with which a peaceful and quality
living standard can be had by all in Deschutes County.
Sincerely yours,
Charles E. Cook, Jr.
541 441-0101
page 3 of 3
Tanya Saltzman
From: Dan C <cochranedan@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 9:39 AM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Marijuana Land Use
To the Deschutes County Commissioners and whom it may concern,
My letter today is to request that Deschutes County cease and desist any further efforts to intentionally
thwart the existing cannabis (aka marijuana) cultivation, manufacturing, or retail markets. All of the proposed
amendments appear to be cost prohibitive and onerous for any crop, let alone one that is experiencing such
challenges as the current cannabis market. Cannabis is a crop. To remove it from the Right To Farm ordnance
is absurd, and clearly shows a different agenda than that of the will of the people, or of state definition as
stated by The Farm Bureau. None of these new rules apply to any other farm types or crops including hog and
cattle farms, hop or vineyards, hazelnut or alfalfa crops etc. Each of the aforementioned examples have more
significant impact on smell, noise, and/or water use than cannabis, and if they are not included in similar
regulation and definition changes, this will open the county up to future litigation for which we do not wish to
pay. The state has set forth very reasonable guidelines that every county that has opted in for cannabis and
measure 91 abide by without issue. It is therefore clear that this effort is put forth by an agenda outside the
best interest of the people, but rather is for a small number that reside in the effected areas that have issue
with the legalization of cannabis. These are not reasonable or needed changes, and the decrease in land under
this proposal that will be available for cannabis farming is over 75%. That is unreasonable at least, and
industry destroying at worst. These farms have been in operation in our county for nearly 3 years now
(medical cannabis grows have been here for decades now) with little to no negative impact on the public at
large. In fact, they have increased jobs (Oregon now has over 19,000 employees in the cannabis industry and
does not account for ancillary job creation), taxes in the form of cannabis tax that benefits state, city, and
county coffers, police, schools, drug treatment and additional taxes in the form of income taxes that are very
significant in the cannabis industry. Land owners express concern for property values however, farm land has
continued to increase in states with legal cannabis, including Oregon and Deschutes County. Further, great
expense has been made by companies investing in this industry and in this county on many of the small farms
that would be cut by these proposals which is very unAmerican, and not the Oregon I have grown up in and
love.
The county commissioners were given a warming when they drafted the original version of these divisive
ordinances by the state yet you continue to push forward with additional prohibitive and arguably
unconstitutional ideas. Now, they are warning you again, and we are too. As an Oregon native and long time
resident, business and home owner in Deschutes County, I implore you to discontinue these
efforts immediately and follow the lead of the state, and other reasonable counties and allow cannabis
farming to continue as outlined by the state and current local law.
Sincerely,
Dan Cochrane
Cochrane Appraisals LLC.
State Certified Residential Appraiser
FHA and VA Approved Appraiser
AGA- Earth Advantage Accredited Green Appraiser
Bend, OR
1
541-390-2742
cochranedan(a?hotmail.com
2
August 30, 2018
My name is Suezan Hill -Cook. I live at 2975 NE Yucca Ave.,
Redmond, OR (corner of Yucca Ave. & 29th St.) in the Lake
Park Estates Subdivision a single-family development of
5 acre parcels. It is zoned MUA-10. The original intention
of the developers was to offer home owners land with space
for horses or goats, maybe a cow or chickens, orchard,
vegetable garden and open space for those who choose not
to live in town. NOT AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL FARM USE.
My husband moved to this home 26 years ago with 2 small sons
and has worked tirelessly moving rocks, making raised beds
for flowers and veges creating a beautiful sanctuary. That
was until 2016 when the property behind us was purchased
by commercial medical marijuana growers. They constructed
one GIANT greenhouse then another (which we are not sure
was approved under their original licensing/permit?). This
brings in large trucks delivering soils and other accoutrements,
18 wheelers delivering supplies, heavy equipment, noisy fans
and bright lights, itinerant workers camped out, increasing
traffic on our dirt roads causing dust and more noise, etc.
I won't labor on.
We spent the better part of August 2018 dealing with a dry well.
The first question asked by the well drilling team as they
looked across our fence line at the green tropical forest of
marijuana plants "how much water are THEY using?" GOOD QUESTION!
Nobody seems to know. They do all their watering with well
water.
QUESTION? Where REALLY is all this massive amount of "weed"
actually going? Across state lines? black market?
Having recently relocated from living many years in Josephine
County to Deschutes County I can say thru personal experience
with 100% confidence the majority of medical marijuana
growers are mostly "posers". Black market and out of state
transfer of marijuana is rampant in Josephine County and
Jackson County. Deschutes County is no different.
page 1 of 2
cont. statements written by Suezan Hill -Cook August 30, 2018
MY ..FEAR - Our neighbor commercial medical marijuana grower
located at 4288 NE 29th St., Redmond, OR is supposedly
"grandfathered" for medical marijuana. He has/is
applying for a building permit (expansion?) and license
to grow recreational. Seems his operation continues to
grow larger.
QUESTION - As a "grandfathered" medical grow will he be
allowed to also grow recreation? Resulting in unlimited
"weed" allowed which results in using more water, noise,
odor, traffic, itinerant workers, etc? Who can guarantee
he will = t use well water?
At prsent ne grows indoors and outdoors.
All summer greenhouse doors remained wide open. fans are loud.
Last summer a worker shot my 12 year old dog in the ear with
a bb *un as we walked on our daily walk arawfel our fenced
perime` e- of land.
We recently filed a compint with the Deschutes County
Community Development.
Thank you
Suezan Hill -Cook
541 660-0049
page 2 of 2
Testimony in addition to the oral testimony submitted by Al Fols at the Deschutes County
Commissioner's Hearing held on August 28, 2018
Topic: Legislative text amendment to Deschutes County Code (DCC), Title 9, Public Peace and
Welfare, Title 18, County Zoning, and Title 22, Development Procedures
After listening to the concerned public, marijuana producers, County Commissioners, and
representation from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bend Parks and Recreation, Oregon
Department of Water Resources, and two local electric power supply companies; I have some pertinent
testimony to add.
➢ The text would change Separation Distances definition from "Public Land" to Federal Lands.
While Separation Distances should exist for Federal Land, I agree with Bend Parks and
Recreation that the same Separation Distance should exist for their properties. The same
should apply to all State, County, and City Parks. Federal, State, County, and City offices should
also be included with the same Separation Distances.
➢ I agree the boundary of any local jurisdiction that has opted out of Oregon's recreational
marijuana program; and any other lot or parcel approved by Deschutes County for marijuana
production should also require the same Separation Distances.
➢ The apparent reason for the Separation Distance text addition: "ix. Any other lot or parcel
approved by Deschutes County for marijuana production" is an effort to minimize production
site density; I agree with the text. But the text should not discriminate between "Any other lot
or parcel approved by Deschutes County" and existing unidentified production sites (i.e.
unidentified medical production sites). Wording of text should include language that requires
identifying existing production sites within the Separation Distance and the Separation Distance
should be enforced. The individual addresses within the Separation Distance would be
submitted to the appropriate State agency for identification.
➢ With the additional number of locations requiring application of Separation Distances,
including existing production sites, it would be onerous to increase the separation distance to
2,640 feet. The current distance of 1,000 feet would be adequate.
➢ I agree that the applicant should obtain written consent to utilize an easement or private road
for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or
easement when the marijuana production site takes access via a private road or easement
which serves other properties. Many times these roads have become "public" roads when they
are within subdivisions. These "public" roads are constructed and maintained with private funds
(Homeowner's funds) and should have the same restrictions as private roads.
➢ Clarification of Federal Law offered by a Bureau of Land Management representative at the
hearing highlighted the severity of marijuana production penalties. The text changes should
include language requiring applicant's sworn testimony that they are not/will not subject
Deschutes County to liability by using Federal funds to purchase production sites or operation of
the site.
➢ I agree marijuana should be prohibited on MUA-10 zoned properties.
➢ I agree The Deschutes County Right To Farm Ordinance does not apply to marijuana production
operations.
Al Fols
Deschutes County, Oregon
Tanya Saltzman
From: Nick Lelack
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 7:30 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Cc: Nunzie
Subject: Fwd: public input to County mj code language
For the record.
Nick Lelack, AICP
Deschutes County
Community Development Director
541-639-5585
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nunzie <nunzie(d pacifier.com>
Date: August 28, 2018 at 5:00:18 PM PDT
To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>
Subject: public input to County mj code language
Please consider the following input to Deschutes County's mj code language.
18.116.330 Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing
B. 1 Minimum lot Area
a. change five (5) acres to 40 acres; the reason 5 acres was chosen was because MUA zone was previously included. The
5 acre standard no longer applies in the EFU zone; as citizens in the MAC requested: 40 acres be the minimum size for
EFU. I again make this suggestion: in EFU minimum 40 acres.
B. 2. a. Strike greenhouses, hoop houses and similar structures because no building permit is required for such a so if the
objective is to produce or process in a building, then these 3 structures do not qualify as buildings. In the EFU zone,
marijuana production and processing shall only be located in
buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures.
B. 3. The five acres needs to be removed.
B. 5. Setbacks should be measured from the property line (it is clear that the county has no resources to measure or survey
buildings or processing locations within a taxlot and therefore it is much more uniform to measure setbaks from the property
line.
B. 5. a. This distance should be 1000 feet from the property line
B.5.b. Setback from adjacent dwelling should be 5000 feet.
B.5.v. please add Bend metropolitan Park and Recreation District land and also Redmond Area Park and Recreation District land
B.6.vi please add State Lands to Federal Lands
B 6. ix. please add at end and/or marijuana processing
B 7. please add d. to require that the easement be recorded against all benefited or eased properties
B. 9.b.i. The mechanical engineer's qualifications and experience with the specific system design and operational audits of the
specific effective odor control and mitigation systems:
Because no building permit is needed for a greenhouse, a hoop house or similar structure, I suggest that these be excluded
from the definition in item a.
11c. Please add: No Razor wire shall be allowed in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. Fencing in the Wildlife Area Combing
Zone shall meet ODFW approval.
12 Comment: annualized water does not indicate the season of water use. I suggest that a chart showing monthly water
use be used such that it can be sychronized to the discussion in item 12 a " proper classification of water .. during the
season of use"
12b. The source water provider shall provide a Will Serve statement identifying the water right certificate number to be
utilitized and a Will Haul provider shall identify the water right certificate number for any water hauled for the subject land
use together with vehicle trips per month
12 c this language needs tightening up... imagine if every producer just identified they would roof harvest water to get a
permit, then when they tie into a well, how would the county regulate ? We are in the high desert, not in the valley...
1
12 d. please delete on-site commercial wells and replace with the well that is proposed to be used (including on site or off
site)
13. please add: on properties zoned industrial.
18 a. i. Please add to Prohibited: campers and RV's used as dwellings on EFU
19 Compliance: The County needs to be able to implement it's code and not merely bat compliance to private
action. Please beef up the language in 19 a and 19 b so that the County's code enforcement can make appropriate actions
to cause a bad apple to comply with odor control plan and noise control plan..perhaps a revocation of permit or other?
Mj Retailing
notice in item 6 the additions made for distance separations and types of land:
I suggest under mj retailing that these also have a distance separation from mj retailing:
distance from Federal land to be 5000 feet
distance from County land to be 5000 feet
distance from Bend Metropolitan Parks and Recreation land to be 5000 feet
distance from Redmond Area Park and Recreation District land to be 5000 feet
7. please add that all easements shall be recorded against the eased and benefited property
18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing
A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to:
1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, iMUA- 0, and RI zones.
2, Marijuana Processing in the EFU, IMA -10, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RI, and SUBP zones
3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RC, RI, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP
zones.
4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, RC, SUC, and SUBP zones
please strike all TuC and Tul in A 1., A2., A3. of 18.116.330
in 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing Separation Distrance
item B 6 a.
"the applicant property line" ... supposing the applicant is not the property owner?
please tighten up the language to refer to the property line of the property under application
item B 6 a. vi. in addition to Federal Lands please add lands owned by Deschutes County, Bend Metro Park and
Recreation District and Redmond Area Park and Recreation District
B 6. a. iii please stirke the last sentence "This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in
residential structures" Comment: certainly children who attend licensed child care in residential structures should be
protected from mj.
Thank you
Nunzie Gould, Rural County resident and property owner in Deschutes County.
2
Tanya Saltzman
From: Abby Kellner -Rode <abbymkr@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 2:10 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: proposed marijuana regulations changes
I would like to be on the record as SUPPORTING the proposed changes to marijuana regulations, making the regulations
tighter and limiting the placement and amount of land that can be devoted to growing pot. I made a statement to that
effect at the public hearing, but wanted to make sure it was entered into the record.
Thank you,
Abby Kellner -Rode
25360 Walker Rd.
Bend, OR 97701
Sent from my iPad
1
Tanya Saltzman
From: Lindsey Pate <Iindsey@glasshousegrown.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 8:28 AM
To: Tanya Saltzman; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone; Phil Henderson
Cc: Judy Campbell; Hunter Neubauer; Jack Robson; Jennifer Clifton; Gary Bracelin; Ellen
Parkin; Laura Breit
Subject: Follow up testimony, August 28th, Public Hearing for proposed text amendments
Attachments: Celebrate Cannabis Letter to BOCC 9.13.18.pdf
Dear Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Henderson,
Thank you for keeping the written record open in order to provide a follow up from the hearing on August 28th,
2018 for the proposed text amendments that will ultimately impact cannabis businesses in unincorporated
Deschutes County. Please see the attachment and let me know if you have any issues viewing it. I have CCed
the Celebrate Cannabis Board members on this email as we have all signed the testimony.
Tanya, thanks for your work as well!
Sincerely,
Lindsey Pate
President, Celebrate Cannabis
CEO, Glass House Grown
http://celebrate-cannabis.org/
www.GlassHouseGrown.com
Lindseyna,glasshousegrown.com
G LA 5 5
H OU S E
G ROWN
1
Tanya Saltzman
From: Pete and Gretchen Pederson <pondhawk2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 3:41 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Comments on marijuana regulations
Board of County Commissioners and Tanya Saltzman:
We attended the public hearing on August 28, 2018 regarding marijuana regulations (Ordinance 2018-012) and made a
public statement at that time, but we would like to emphasize two points that are of particular concern to us.
The proposed increase in setbacks would decrease the density and negative impacts of grow sites in any one area, but it
is extremely important they be measured from property lines. Some people believe that having setbacks measured from
buildings is adequate, but we strongly disagree. In this scenario, any single parcel could be surrounded on all sides by
marijuana grow sites. This is unfair. It would drastically reduce the property value of even a spectacular home and has
the potential to produce disturbances from all directions.
Secondly, we continue to worry about a shortage of water. Kyle Gorman or the Oregon Water Resources Department
stated that Jeremy Giffin, Watermaster District 11, had checked the water use of 5 marijuana grow sites in Tumalo and
found that it was minimal. A grow site near my home has legally acquired water rights from a totally different area.
There are currently additional greenhouses that are partially constructed on the property. Although the use determined
by Mr. Giffin may seem low now, the amount used can be far higher at other times or if production increases.
There are numerous unknowns about the future of water resources in our county. In The Bulletin on Friday, September
7th there was a front-page article "Water Woes at Wickiup". It stated that the reservoir is approximately 7% full, and
that Ochoco Reservoir is 20% full. An article (attached) in the Capital Press published September Th is titled, "Oregon's
Extreme Drought Triples in Size". A number of wells have gone dry. The piping of canals will change the way that the
aquifer is recharged. Limited snowpack, climate change, and a rapidly growing population will also affect water
availability. Because of these factors, I think that there should be a moratorium on any new transfers of water rights
from distant sources. Why rush to promote a water -thirsty industry before more is learned about one of our most
precious resources?
We urge the Board to reach a decision on all the proposals in consideration before the current board is dissolved. All the
work and effort put forth by you commissioners, involved agencies, the Sheriff's department and the public will be
wasted if you do not act now.
Sincerely,
Gretchen and Robert Pederson
Deschutes County residents
1
Tanya Saltzman
From: Susanne Ritter <susanneritter@outlook.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:45 AM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Fw: Marijuana Deschutes County Code/Regulation Amendments - Comments to
proposals
Dear Mrs Saltzman, dear Commissioners,
Below, please find my input re. the proposed Marijuana Regulations:
Distance from grow to BLM, public lands, neighbors
Please at least make the distance half a mile, better a mile, from any BLM land, if possible from the next
house/family. Why?
- interference with wildlife - because of the fences and security wildlife cannot cross, gets disrupted from food
and breeding/living grounds
- odor - it stinks to high heaven, 12 months a year, carbon and other filters, do you want to live next to a hog
farm or feed lot, why not?
- water - wells are running dry, growers pull water from domestic wells, 5 acres water rights means spray on 5
acres not just into a greenhouse
- waste water - toxic waste water cannot just be allowed to sicker into our groundwater, full of very
toxic pesticides, herbicides, residues
- electric - power outages are increasing around grows because of their huge power consumption
-property values - noone wants to live next to these, esp not families with young children who are the majority
of buyers of rural properties
-undesirable people in the area - pickers are paid in cash, no experience needed, no background check, perfect
jobs for felons
- increased traffic - problems with parking, accidents
Odor
Make the growers prove that the odor system works, before approving any application, do not just take their
word for it. It should be the right of any neighbor to not smell skunk for the rest of their lives just because a
grower "thought" it might work.
Water
If a grower wants to use a well, make a regulation that it has to have a meter and the meter has to be read
every month. Also, inspect every well before approval of any application. Make sure it is an irrigation well, not
a domestic well. These grows pull insane amounts of water and it is unfair to the neighbors to have to dig new
wells for many thousands of dollars because of a grow.
If a grower wants to use irrigation, make sure they understand 5 acres of water rights means irrigate 5 acres,
not irrigate on greenhouse on 1/4 acre.
If a grower buys mitigated water rights, make them understand that does not mean they can just pull water
willi nilly. It still needs to go through an application process with Salem which takes a year and will most likely
be denied.
1
Electric
Oregon law states that every electrical system needs to be inspected. Order those inspections for all grows.
Water and electricity do not mix. Have the electric company serving the grow sign off on it before operation to
ensure it can take the load
Traffic
Have the traffic officials sign off on the application to ensure it is safe before any approval.
ELECTION
Have the population vote again to stop any more grows in Deschutes County. We have suffered enough.
Tax revenue
Oregon LOOSES MONEY because of Recreational Marijuana. The new tax revenue is less than the cost this
issue generates, such as
2 out of 3 grows in Deschutes County do not have a license to sell, an OLCC license. Who do they sell to? The
black market. Do they pay taxes? No. Do they sell out of the state? Why not, they do not even obey the clearly
stated law and noone punishes them, why should they follow any other law or regulation. Will they sell out of
state whic is againsat the law? Why not, noone controls their sales.
Law Enforcement
The need to enforce regulations and laws will only increase, with the wholesale price is plummeting, the
market being saturated in Oregon. The cartels are moving in. Do they obey the law?
Our youth is getting sick and unproductive
High School and College kids are using this drug more and more. With all the Marketing and available supply
and de-criminalization of this drug they think it is "normal" and "ok". Coaches and teachers and the entire
College system are getting concerned and start to take action. Do we need more emotional and mental
disease amongst out young? What does that translate to in terms of lost productivity in the workforce?
Medical cost
Hyperemesis and Psychosis from ingesting this drug is becoming a common occurrence in the Emergency
room. Who pays for this?
Regulation Cost
The Commissioners spend a lot of their time and resources on this issue. Why, if the market is saturated and
there are all these issues
Look to other states who have experience with this problem. They are not happy. Stop these problems before
they becomes worse.
In advance, thank you for your consideration.
Susanne and family, Deschutes County Residents
2
Tanya Saltzman
From: Eleanor sauerborn <eleanor@happyharvestingco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 3:29 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Proposed Regulation Testimony
Greetings Mrs. Tanya Saltzman,
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to provide feedback on the recently proposed amendments to the
Deschutes County Code that were discussed during eight work sessions starting on Aug 2, 2018. The
proposed changes to the code will make programmatic changes to the regulation and enforcement of
marijuana production on rural lands. I am concerned about the proposed text amendments because they will
impact the workability for farmers in Deschutes County and continue to set the precedence that farming rights
and farmland will not be preserved. The proposed text amendments are not reasonable additions to the code
and should not be adopted.
The cannabis community is working diligently to work with the county and state to help create
reasonable and realistic laws. It is counterproductive to integrate unnecessary regulations. Cannabis is an
agriculture product. It is a plant, a plant that heals and creates. It creates jobs, time, money, happiness and
more. As a community in Deschutes County, we can no longer afford to keep spending tax dollars to appease
the opposer. Productivity is what is needed most. The community needs to work together to find common
ground. There are at least a thousand jobs in Deschutes County alone that have been provided by the
cannabis purveyors. The careers created, directly affect the community because they are here in our county
supporting our local community. By integrating an extension of the current regulations, we create a new bottom
line to the startup cost. Increasing those startup costs make it more difficult for local, law-abiding
citizens to be able to enter into the legal cannabis market. The increase in cost will ultimately result in
larger corporations, i.e. big pharma, to come in from out of state and incentivize them to take away
financials affairs from the local community. Oregon is a state that thrives on its local economy. In order to
keep it local, with smaller farms, we must steer away from those types that will only stand to hurt our local
community. Large corporations only care about their bottom dollar. With that being said, they would not care
about the land the same way as our local community has. This is our home and we don't want it to be
destroyed by big corporations coming in and creating erosion/corrosion on our land and taking the funds
generated out of state. When we try to stop an industrialist product that is creating finances for local events,
road work, school systems, police force, jobs it will inevitably hurt the community.
I would like to address directly the proposed code for addition separation from 1,000ft to 2,640ft. It is almost as
if someone went on Google Earth and created a measured distance that would make it nearly impossible for
someone to be able to find a property to abide by that regulation. This proposed change is not even close to
the liquor store, paper mill, brewery, cattle farms, dairy farm, or pig farm's criteria. All of those listed can, at
times, definitely smell worse than any cannabis farm ever could. By considering these proposed set back you
open a new door to a conversation about other types of farms, such as cow, dairy, & corn farms. We don't
have the same requirements for even hop farm's which create one of the most dangerous drugs to date, killing
around 88,000 people a year. Cannabis is misunderstood. By creating unrealistic regulations you only
encourage the potential generated revenue to be absorbed out of state by either Big Corps/Pharma or
the Black Market.
Now let's talk about the proposed Odor Amendments. 1 will only support this if we can require it for Dairy,
Poultry, Cattle, Hop, Soy, and every other farm that is in existence that smells rancid. Farms create
odor, there's no way around it. The most that can be done is a reduction, but it will never be fully neutralized.
Most, if not all, of these proposed amendments, are going to create issues within the farming industry.
Cannabis deserves to be slightly more regulated but it does not deserve to be so heavily regulated that it
1
pushes farmers into the black market, out of business or to Big Money Corps. We need to work together to
flourish together, not against.
Cannabis business owners have only proved themselves to be vital & remunerative to the state and local
community. Since 2016, Bend alone has generated over $800,000 in state and local tax from cannabis
sales. This money was generated from local, law-abiding cannabis purveyors. When you push them out, you
send their money with them. Adopting these proposed regulations could be detrimental to our
community and state. With that being said, I strongly oppose many of the regulations proposed.
Again, I want to thank you for considering my comments and look forward to finding workable regulations for
our farmland.
Kindly,
Eleanor A. Sauerborn
Owner
Happy Harvesting Co.
Phone: (541)408-1037
www.HappyHarvestingCompany.com
www.instagram.com/HappyHarvestingCo/
www.facebook.com/HappyHarvestingCo/
2
Tanya Saltzman
From: Randy Schneider <Procyon2007@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: New and modified restrictions on marijuana industry
Hello, I'm writing to provide input on the subject regulations. I understand and agree with the idea that using land that
has good soil for a greenhouse crop is not the best use of the land. However I don't understand why we plan to restrict
the industry from operating near public lands. I also find it funny that people complain about the odor but have no
problem with the odor for horses, cows and feed lots. I was also shocked to see the regulations would result in a 75%
decrease. I'm afraid what's happening is that a few loud voices are being hear on the one side and only the industry
seems to be objecting which doesn't carry much weight. So please take this as one vote from a country resident to not
overreact in modifying the regulations.
Thank you
Randall Schneider
6 Dixie Mt. Lane
Sunriver, OR
1
Tanya Saltzman
From: Danny S <tovaholwen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:02 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Public comments regarding new "marijuana" regulations.
Dear Deschutes County government officials:
I object to the proposed rules regarding "marijuana" growing. I believe the term itself is racist and it should
be called cannabis in all regulations, either high THC cannabis or Low The cannabis / hemp.
Marijuana has been designated a farm crop by the Oregon legislature. When it is grown in a farm zone, it
should not be more heavily regulated than other farm crops. Throughout the County's discussion of the draft
text amendments, we are troubled by the County's failure to recognize that its exclusive farm use zone has
been designed for agricultural use, with the associated noise, odor, lights, irrigation, and other activities
associated with a farm use. Instead, the County seems to want to treat its farm zone akin to a rural residential
or mixed agriculture zone due to the smaller parcel size of farm parcels in many parts of the County. This
approach violates Goal 3, which requires the preservation and maintenance of agricultural lands for farm use,
consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products. See OAR 660-015-0000. If the County
believes its exclusive farm use zone is no longer suitable for farm use, it should begin the process for rezoning
the land, not adopt unreasonable restrictions on a farm use some dislike.
While we are troubled by the entirety of the text amendments being considered by the County, we want to
call the following specific issues to your attention:
1. Right to Farm (Chapter 9.12.020)
Deschutes County may not change its Right to Farm ordinance in a manner that is inconsistent with Oregon
law. Oregon's Right to Farm law, ORS 30.936, provides that "no farming or forest practice on lands zoned for
farm or forest use shall give rise to any private right of action or claim for relief based on nuisance or
trespass." ORS 475B.526 expressly provides that marijuana is a crop as defined under Oregon's Right to Farm
Law, ORS 30.930. Through its amendment to Chapter 9.12.020, Deschutes County seeks to remove marijuana
from the prohibition on nuisance and trespass lawsuits.
The legislature did not grant any exemptions to ORS 30.936, the nuisance and trespass shield, when
authorized the limited carve out to ORS 30.935 for local regulation. Instead, the legislature expressly provided
that marijuana, as a legal crop, is protected for purposes of nuisance and trespass lawsuits. Deschutes County
may not alter state law through a text amendment, and it lacks the authority to adopt a text amendment that
is inconsistent with the legislature's express intent and with Oregon law. We urge you not to adopt the
proposed changes to Chapter 9.12.020.
2. Buffer Distances (Chapter 18.116.330(6)(6))
We urge you not to move forward with the proposed buffer distances proposed between marijuana grow
sites, or with federal land, urban reserves, and opt out jurisdictions. Such restrictions, particularly those
between grow operations, exceed the scope of reasonable regulation of marijuana and set a dangerous
precedent for all of agriculture. It is fundamental in the prohibition on local regulation contained in ORS
30.935 that counties should not dictate where or how farmers farm within their jurisdiction. Farmers compete
on a state, national and global market, and burdensome local regulation and reduce competitiveness and
market access, create inconsistent regulation between counties, and subject farming to the whims of the
public, who may know little about how to farm. While we understand that some in Deschutes County dislike
marijuana as a crop, it has been designated a legal crop nonetheless, and is not subject to unreasonable
restrictions under 4756.486 and ORS 4756.928. Providing for a 1/2 mile buffer distance between operations is
unreasonable because it limits a farmer's ability to engage in the full range of farm practices on their
operation, which undermines the very purpose of Goal 3 and farmland protection. We urge you to abandon
the proposed buffer distances, particularly those between grow operations.
3. Light, Noise, and Odor Regulations (Chapter 18.116.330(B)(8-10, 19))
The County's proposed light, noise and odor regulations far exceed the scope of reasonable regulations
allowed under 475B.486 and ORS 4758.928. First of all, by its plain language, the lighting ordinance applies to
all "inside building lighting" regardless of whether the building is being used for marijuana production or not.
See Chapter 18.116.330(8). Regulation of crops other than marijuana is not allowed under the limited carve
out contained in 475B.486 and ORS 475B.928. As such, this provision violates ORS 30.935 and is illegal. Even
were it limited to marijuana, it is still unreasonable. During peak seasons, lighting may be required in
greenhouses overnight and a requirement to make the walls opaque could limit natural light during the day
and significantly increase energy and production costs.
Similarly, the requirements around noise and odor abatement far exceed the scope of reasonable regulation.
Chapter 18.116.330(9-10). It is patently unreasonable to require odor and noise abatement plans and
extensive engineering to protect neighbors from a farm crop in a farm zone. In Oregon's Right to Farm laws,
the legislature acknowledged that farming can be loud and occasionally farm uses can carry an odor that may
be offensive to residential populations. The purpose of Goal 3 — and Oregon's land use planning system - is to
protect farm lands from regulation associated with urban sensitives. Again, if the County desires to promote a
more urban or mixed use of their lands zoned for exclusive farm use, it should consider rezoning those areas it
deems not longer valuable for agriculture. Excessive regulation of noise and odor from a farm crop is not
reasonable and should not be allowed.
Additionally, we must remind you that the County may not authorize private rights of action, especially those
that are expressly prohibited under Oregon law. See Chapter 18.116.330(19). As such, we urge the County to
delete the section where it purports to authorize private rights of action for compliance where they are
otherwise allowed under state law. Only the state may create new causes of action, not the County. And in
this case, whether a cause of action for nuisance or trespass would be allowed is expressly dealt with in
Oregon's Right to Farm law, which the County may not alter.
4. Water Metering Requirement (Chapter 18.116.330(B)(12))
The County may not independently require a water meter for permitted water uses. Water use is regulated by
the Oregon Water Resources Department ("OWRD"), who already has a metering requirement associated with
any new water right they issue. While we support the County verifying that the applicant has a legal source of
water, we do not believe the County has authority to require metering for production sites with 5,000 square
feet of canopy, or any other agricultural operation. The regulation and enforcement of water rights is solely
within the discretion of OWRD. Indeed, OFB is supporting additional resources for OWRD in 2019-2021
specifically to deal with the increased workload they are experiencing due to marijuana.
5. Water Quality Plans (Chapter 18.116.330(B)(14)(b))
We also have concerns about the County requiring a statement of how water runoff is being addressed. As
farm uses in farm zones, any water quality issues associated with marijuana production are regulated under
the Oregon Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Water Quality Management Program ("SB 1010"), which
regulates water quality from agricultural activities. If the County has concerns about any marijuana operation,
they should call ODA and express their concerns. ODA is the only entity which is permitted to evaluate
compliance with SB 1010 and the associated rules and plans, and the County should not be putting itself in the
2
position of judging the effectiveness of water quality plans. The County lacks the requisite expertise and is not
permitted to regulate agricultural water quality under SB 1010.
6. System Development Charges (Chapter 18.116.330(B)(14)(f))
We have previously written the County expressing our concerns with its assessment of System Development
Charges for a farm use in a farm zone. The County's reply did not alleviate our concerns. Despite the County's
attempt to analogize payment of property taxes to payment of SDCs, property taxes are assessed on all
landowners based on their zoning and use of the property. The SDCs in this case were assessed solely on the
basis of one type of agricultural production. We continue to believe this violates the state legislature's
prohibition on local governments imposing a tax or fee on the production of marijuana items under ORS
4756.491. We urge the County to reconsider its imposition of these fees on marijuana growers. As such, we
also oppose adding payments of SDCs as a prerequisite for land use approvals.
7. Site Plan Review (Chapter 18.124.060)
We have heard significant concerns about implementation of the site plan review process and urge you to
abandon this approach. As stated above, marijuana production is a farm use in a farm zone, and utilizes much
of the same infrastructure other farming operations utilize, including greenhouse flower and vegetable
producers, greenhouse nurseries and other similar operations. The site plan review process is not well suited
to an agricultural use, and the factors outlined by the County seem to contemplate a new industrial type
business with significant traffic, public access, and new site development. There is no basis in fact for applying
these assumptions to any agricultural operation. They do not match the reality of greenhouse agricultural
operations, irrespective of crop. We urge you to abandon the site plan requirement.
I believe the county is doing the wrong thing by increasing its regulations on this farm crop in an arbitrary and
capricious manner. I own EFU land and will be directly affected. I am also concerned that if the county
successfully passes these regulations they will attempt to do similar regulations on Hemp, which may be
permanently legalized very shortly via the Farm Bill which currently has a temporary program allowing its
registration.
Sincerely,
Daniel Sheridan
3
Tanya Saltzman
From: Terri Silliman <tsilliman2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 6:20 AM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Marijuana regulations comment
Hi Tanya,
I am a resident on Pinehurst Road, one property away from the Oregrown property off Mock Rd in Tumalo. I live on a 10
acre parcel that is divided among two other families. We all use the same well for our daily home use. Even though the
3 different families that live on this 10 acre plot are not related, just good neighbors, we all are conservative water
users. All of us use TID water during the flow season to water our small plots. We save our well water for home use -
drinking, showering etc. The concern we share is the big and possibly, unregulated, draw of water from our well water
source to maintain a marijuana grow operation. We are all aware of the amount of water needed to grow marijuana
and in the off season (no TID water supply), what will the marijuana operations be using to create their product? Or if
they don't have rights to TID water, will they will using a aquifer source?
Please take into consideration all of the families that rely on the precious resource of our well water to live year round.
We have measured our well levels and will be monitoring them over this concern of unregulated and unprecedented use
of aquifer water.
Thank you so much for listening.
Terri Silliman
18945 Pinehurst Rd.
Tumalo
1
Tanya Saltzman
From: redarrow55 <redarrow55@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 9:40 AM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Marijuana proposals
We support the new regulations. 1. It is a industrial crop and should not be in a agricultural area just because
there is land. 2. We don't like the criminal aspect of it, fences with barb wire, security and as one of the
speakers at the meeting said by having more restrictions you will be turning the growers into criminals That
says a lot! 3. Noise. 4. Traffic. 5. Smell. 6. Water. 7. Electrical issues, look at Lapine. 8. Our rights to livability
on our property. 9. The market is saturated with grows. Thank you. Rick and Debbie Simpson, Alfalfa Market
Rd. Bend
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
1
Tanya Saltzman
From: melstout@ykwc.net
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2018 12:55 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Cc: marsha
Subject: Draft Marijuana Text Amendments
To: Tanya.Saltzman, Deschutes County Community Development
From: Mel & Marsha Stout
65965 White Rock Loop
Bend, OR 97703
541-323-1879
We support the Draft Marijuana Text Amendments and proposed changes to the Deschutes County Code concerning the
regulation and enforcement of marijuana production and processing as presented by staff at the August 28th Public
Hearing.
We support the Draft Findings and recommendations for approval of changes to the Code for the proposed text
amendments at:
www.deschutes.org/marijuana and approve of and support all changes. We very much appreciate staff and Board
efforts to make these changes to help protect public safety and protect our rural property values and livability.
We urge the Board of Commissioners to approve all proposed changes.
Sincerely,
Mel & Marsha Stout
1
Tanya Saltzman
From: td tammy <shortshuffle@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 4:53 AM
To: Tanya Saltzman; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone; Phil
Subject: Proposed New Rules And Regulations / Marijuana
Tanya,
I am responding to the proposed rules and regulations.
As all the BOCC members (Tammy, Tony and Phil) And many of us rural residents have learned a lot of
knowledge since this "Legal Recreational Marijuana" has integrated into our county. I feel we have just begun
to see the "REAL" effects of the over abundance of Pot that our County has. Our State is seeing it also. We all
know a number of liveability issues Marijuana growing has: Sickening Smell, Constant Loud
Noise, Undesireable Strangers in our neighborhoods and around our homes, Home values depleted, high
volume of more impaired drivers on our neighboring roads just to mention a few. Our livelyhood resources
being depleted- Water, Electricity.
We all have to go by rules and regulations: To legally drive our vehicle: we must have a valid drivers license,
current tags, insurance, valid license plates,the car its self has to have working lights, mirrors, nothing in or on
the vehicle obstructing the visability to see and in some states an car inspection is required.
So I cant understand why a legal recreational or medical marijuana grower would have a problem with any of
the rules mentioned at the meeting, it will only be to their benefit in the long run as it will aleveate the non -legal
pot growers from the legal transparent pot growers. To make a better industry.
I commend the BOCC for "sticking to their guns on regulations" as Oregon "free for all" counties are suffering
horribly as of right now.
I am requesting the new rules and regulations be implemented and enforced ASAP to make this new industry
thrive legally and with transparency. Every other agricultural farming industry has had to strive with hard work
in order to survive, this new agricultural industry should not be treated special because they are " different "
Rules and regulations should be in place to strengthen the industry and some should lead by example. I am
pretty sure the county would rather have ten good marijuana growers than thirty bad ones ? the rules that have
been brought to the table are not unreasonable, since these changes to the rules are the issues that have been
causes of a number of appeals. I grew up in farming in oregon and this is an industry much more
complicated due to it having to be protected from crime, due to it being a drug, cash involvement and truthfully
not always upstanding business owners. It is NOT like a normal agricultural farming crop, because it really
isn't. I know there is a lot of money and pressure against these new rules being implemented and I can only
hope the county has heard what is most important to us long time property owners of the need of stricter rules
and regulations as it hasnt been working with the current ones. Enforcement still is not capable of taking care of
the items not strict enoungh by us as a county.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Tammy Threlkeld
Ken Clouse
23344 Alfalfa Market RD
Bend, OR 97701
i
Tanya Saltzman
From: MARIA WATTIER <mariawattier@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 12:33 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Cc: Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone; Phil Henderson
Subject: Marijuana Grow Public Hearing Feedback
Tanya and Commissioners,
We were at the public hearing this last Tuesday. First, would like to commend
you all for the time, effort, energy and attention that you have given this
matter. I had a version of an ice cream freeze headache by the end of that
hearing. You all seemed calmed and collected and listening.
We like the direction in which the new rules are going.
Seems like the most effective one is your proposal to limit available land. There
is already more marijuana than is useful and this would be a way of containing
the locations.
Continuing to put pressure where it will do the most good to obtain a list of
medical grows for enforcement seems crucial. You are not asking for a list of
patients... simply the location. Is there anything citizens can do to help this
process along? 700 plus grows seems excessive. Didn't know we had that many
ill people with medical marijuana cards!
On the cannabis side, we can understand their concern about hemp growers
having much more freedom about where and how they grow hemp. Will have to
educate ourselves on what happens to mature hemp and exactly what it is used
for. I'm guessing this issue will come up for you as planners and commissioners -
more than it already has. If the cannabis growers are to be held to high
standards, would the same be true of hemp?
Thank you for hanging in there.
Dick and Maria Wattier
1
Attachment 2:
Agency/Utility Testimony
Tanya Saltzman
From: GORMAN Kyle G * WRD <Kyle.G.Gorman@oregon.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 8:04 AM
To: Tanya Saltzman; Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky
Subject: Hearing yesterday
Attachments: 247_18 000540_to_marijuana_text_amendments_Kyle Gorman comments.docx
Good Morning,
Thank you for allowing me to speak (maybe a bit incoherently) at the hearing yesterday regarding text amendments to
Marijuana rules for Deschutes County. I have attached a word document with some suggested edits to the text in
section 312 — Water. Although I felt as though I did not do a very good job at articulating points at times and seemed a
bit nervous, due to the fact that I was unsure what the Commissioners wanted to hear from me and the fact that I was
up there first; hopefully, I made some sense. Unlike me, I was very impressed with Tanya's opening presentation and
speaking skills. You were clear, incorporated timely pauses, your voice inflections were great and you were without
"um's" or "ahh's." Well done.
I have posed the question about a response to the letter the Commissioner's had sent to director Byler and I am
awaiting a reply from our senior Policy Analyst. I will let you know what they say and when we can get a response back
to you.
In regards to water measurement, my discussions with our Salem staff astutely reminded me that I should not be
offering legal advice and would be best if the commissioner's sought input from their legal counsel.
Let me know if you have further questions or need clarification.
Have a great day!
Kyle
Kyle Gorman
Manager, South Central Region
Oregon Water Resources Department
231 SW Scalehouse Loop, Suite 103
Bend, OR 97702
541.306.6885
e-mail : Kyle.G.Gorman@oregon.gov
1
Chapter 9.12. RIGHT TO FARM
9.12.020. Purpose wad Scope.
* * *
9.12.020. Purpose And Scope.
A. It is the purpose of DCC 9.12 to protect farm and forest -based economically productive activities of
Deschutes County in order to assure the continued health, safety and prosperity of its residents. Faun
and forest uses sometimes offend, annoy, interfere with or otherwise affect others located on or near
faun and forest lands. Deschutes County has concluded in conformance with ORS chapter 30 that
persons located on or near farm and forest lands must accept resource uses and management practices.
B.DCC 9.12 is intended to Inuit the availability of remedies based on nuisance or trespass, rights of action
and claims for relief and issuance of citations for violations over which Deschutes County has
jurisdiction, when they otherwise would either have an adverse impact on farm and forest uses that
Deschutes County seeks to protect, or would impair full use of the farm and forest resource base within
Deschutes County.
1;3C. Scope. DCC Chapter 9.12 (The Deschutes County Ri<Publo 1 nm Ordinance). does not aippk to
marijuana production operations whether permitted by Deschutes County Oregon Lit.uos Control
Commission Oicy_onHealth Authority. orotherwise.
(Ord. 2018-xxx §x, 2018; Ord. 2003-021 §21, 2003; Ord. 95-024 §2, 1995)
Chapter 9.12 1
Chapter 18.24 REDMOND URBAN RESERVE AREA COMBINING ZONE
18.24.030. Conditional Uses Permitted. Prohibition.
* * *
18.24.030. Conditional Uses Permitted; 6 - i g ipo.
A. Subject to the prohibitions provided for in DCC 18.24.030(13), uses permitted conditionally in the
RURA Combining Zone shall be those identified as conditional uses in the underlying zoning
districts. Conditional uses shall be subject to all conditions of those zones as well as the requirements
of this chapter.
B. 'I'M ibllowino uses are prohibited and not )r mrtted in the RURA Combining Zone:
1. Marijuana production: and
2. Marijuana processing..
(Ord. 2018-xxx §x, 2018)
Chapter 18.24 1
Chapter 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
18.116.330 Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing
18.116.340 Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)
*
18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing
A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to:
1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA 10, and RI zones.
2, Marijuana Processing in the EFU, MUA 10, TeC, TeCR, TuC, TuI, RI, and SUBP zones
3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, TuI, RC, RI, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP
zones.
4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, RC, SUC, and SUBP zones.
B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana
processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria:
1. Minimum Lot Area.
a. In the EFU and MUA 10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum
lot area of five (5) acres.
2. Indoor Production and Processing.
a. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in
buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures.
b. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area.
3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy arca 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.
hall bo:
�c
a.Parccls from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b.
! e . ..
54. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control
Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA)
Chapter 18.116
1
registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot.
65. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing
areas and buildings:
a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 2 100 feet.
b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 5300 feet.
For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site
dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to
submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County.
c.Fr �rtixi lrry-reduet ion to-hies,-s:thal quirelnel s- may be4_nnned-try-ihc-1?lanning-
t-ieetof or l It atiogs-l3ody-pro i<led- he applicantdeir7on tr ,tem-th-fedneed-setirseks
or- a atei miti a ion -e -i-sy a!; odoa
-npaets:
76. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows:
a. The use -applicant property line shall be located a minimum of 1000 2,640 feet from:
i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory
under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school;
ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as
described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and
any property used by the school;
iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool.
This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in
residential structures;
iv. A youth activity center; and
v. National monuments and state parks:,.-
vi.
arks:_vi. PublicFederal lands: and
vii. Redmond Urban Reserve VArea; _
viii.The boundary of any local jurisdiction that has opted out of Oregon's recreational
marijuana program; and
ix. Any other lot or parcel approved by Deschutes County for marijuana production.
b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)a6), all distances shall be measured from the lot
line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)(a) to the closest point
of the buildingsand-land-areaapplicant's property line of land occupied by the
marijuana producer or marijuana processor.
c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)`6) shall
not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC
18.116.330(B)(6) if the use is:
i. Pending a local land use decision;
ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or
iii. Lawfully established.
87. Access. Marijuana production .
}Tants-sites shall comply with the following standards.
a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state
road; or
b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property.
c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other
properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private
road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the
private road or easement. The written consent shall:
i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information;
Chapter 18.116 2
ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a
recorded interest in the private road or easement;
iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana
processing operation; and
iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement.
98. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows:
a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures,
used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from sundown to
sunup 7 -{00 -trig -toy. OO, n-owaw-fallo by+w_ da -v.
b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly
by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected
below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with
DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
109. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(910), building means the building, including
greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or
marijuana processing. Odor produced by marijuana produc tion and processin g shali comply
with thelollowing:
a.5t and ard._1 o prevent vent unreasonable iuterfei once of nc rghbors use and enjoyment of their
property no adverse or noxious odors sh all be detec table hyped the p licant's
properiyline,
b` Odor control stn_ 1 o ensure th at the standard stated in DCC 18. i 163 30jfl(9j>s_
continuously met. applicant shall submit an odor control plan prepared and stamped
b) a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Cheg<m that incl tides the Ibllov mf _
r 1 lie mechanical engineer's qu dr1rcttions and experience N rth system design and
operational audits ofeffccti e odor control and mitigation systems;
ii A detailed analysis of the methodology, which has been independently researched
effectively, subject
and tested, Haat will be relied upon to control odor the sub___
)ro aerty;
iii.A detailed description of any odor control systems that will be utilized, ince }chez.
operational schedules and maintenance intervals;
ry C ontinaence measesifany tweet of the odor control plan fails or is not
followed, or if it is otherwise shown that the standard stated in DCC
18.116 ,30(13E ) is not met:
v_"ltcst11 4J4_otocols and intervals: and
yr Idenlifrc i ionofthe responsible parties tasked with implementing each aspect of
the odor control plan.
Compliance. On compliance with the odor control plan is mandator andshall
1_8.116.33003V. IY_providedinapplicable state statutes,prtvatc actions, alleging
c.hlodriications Modifications to theodor control plan shall be approvedrn the same
manner as a modification to a land use action pursuant to DCC 22.36.040.
a 1 he: huilding-shall be c gni spe s ith eticetiswedor oontto-l-s sts01-- rh1ch 1n11st at all
time s -lir eat -tear ,3 0 3abl tc a terenee-of bo sl use and enjoyment of-tkeir
1➢r'op0I ':
ham-eda tre6ysiem darned pem aed ply ori r -t e-applietantsatbmitsit
report-ray-ta-iasechanieal-e-nt ineerl;centxad-ia--tl c `itat -551 Oregon
demonstratingss -em-dela rand credo kauditoi=e#cctiv ly operatK 3 ]C s-
authorrzedystem wail effectively -and -cam aria,caotrsteerRfol-odtn ;oz sots
Chapter 18.116 3
unreasentably-inter-1erwith neighbews use a<Ienjeyrwe Beim t3peeEy
e:--I'a-i��airaa�tic�ras rrl}e�iragritti<�a3aee <�t-tier:pass-a:rFie+ate<1-��itli-<;clC>riaxrl�tszr
atathos-i<t. ii=at-all,-ae-t3foviele -in ppligab e te-s- acute:
d-..--113<oder centrirl--system-shall
4:C'onsist-Along-ormo e -fans ethin th-sbaklth ized-#sae-cubic—i peem-trara,rtc
(C' 4
equivalent to-tk<: vol are-e#-tlm building-(1-aygtt nultiptie<4-by-w ie sir
m licit -b height) -d ed- -)lar 1� e fibers-shalhr tied for the-+equne4
(4M --:-o
ii:l It liy.c- an alter=nativ- triol}od-or lcehnolo} -R, •ae h'eve-e l p t) t<3 -o greater er let+
mitigationtha,rp tiled- `(-i-) a <:
e. 1 h -sv t r -chi la--at-all--a acs he rtta stained-in-wor kN gthrde -and-sbal be rn-tts-e.
1110. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply
with the following:
a -S siet, td arise tfcinr meelirrg equiprr nr: iset'er l eating, - entrk er ,-a rz xt ii ti r3
ode =eanturl;- ins- 4 is-milifunetions-slratl-not e ed--- 113.0 - ensured at ring
pr kyr-hne-between-19;10-1 rii-a rum 00 -nth the followira„-day
b--Suainc aorsr-#rraar3 rr arrtant�lR3dtro trorr r pieru itz>n, protea tions el -D(2( -9-1-2
and -ORS 3{139.5-_-Riglrt to -1 artir:-hate:i-nritte3t-none..flan-gegept-eththi-nirnL poastrc«-;s
permitted,
a$t anda d. I o prevent unreason able nneritr c ncc of neighbors use !Ind enjoyment of
theipproper tv sustained noise shall not be detectable beyond the applicant's prcipertZ_
line above 30 d13(A) between 10:00 pm and 7_00 am the followiiii dam.
1 orpauposesof DC(( 18.1 I 6.3 3011.3)11 0)"sustained noise shall mein noise
lastinR metre, than two continuous minutes or two total minutes in a one hour period
from mechanical equipment used for heating. ventilation. air condition, odor
control fans an similar functions associated with magi rsan i production and
processing,
b. Noise conte ol,plan ''Io ensure th 11 the st ind trd_tated in DCC 18_116 330 13 1 0) is
continuously met. the applicant shall submit a noise control plan prepared and stamped
ba mechanical engineer licensed in the State ofOrei on that includcs the IbIIlowind:
r 1lie mcch micas engineer's ecu 1111 citrons !and experience with system deli n and
operational audit of effective noise control and mitigation systems;
n Adetailed analsts of the methodology that will be relied upon to effectively
control noise on file subject property;
111 Adetailed description of !my noise contiol systems that will be utilized. including
operational schedules and maintenance intery ils;
tv Contin <ncc measures if any aspect of the noise eontrolLpl n fails or isnot
followed or if it is otherwise shown that the standard stated in 1X'C
1811.6.33003) to) is not met
v I estinf protocols and intervals; and
vt Ide ntifrc )tion of the responsible parties tasked with implcmertung each aspect of
the noise contr of plan.
18.116. (B)(1)_ Ifpr. yided in applicable state statutes,privatc actions alleging
c.Modifications.Modifications to the noise c ontrotlan shall Jl approved in the same
manner as a modification to a land use action pursuant to DCC 22,36.04,0.
-1-211. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to
greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for
Chapter 18.116
4
marijuana production and processing:
a. All marijuana uses, buildings structures fences, and storage and parking areas,
whether a building permit is rettuired or not, in the Landscape Management Combini g
Zone shall cc plv with and require Subject- to -DCC 18.84, Landscape Management
Combining Zone approval i-1',sl:rlicabl.
b. Fencing and screening 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.
4-312. Water. Applicant shall state the anticipated amount of water to be used on an annual
basis. Water use from any source for marijuana production shallc onTly with all applicable
state statutes cid regulations. applicant shall provide:
a.
b.
Oregon Water Resource Department; orOregon Water Resources Department (OWRD)
Certificate(s), permit, or other water use authorization proving necessary water supply
of proper classification will be available for intended use during required seasons,
regardless of source.
•
water providerhauler; erSource water provider Will Serve statement referencing
€ e« i fieuteEl a valid Water Right to be utilized, if any, as well as a Will Haul
statement, including the name and contact infonnation of the water hauler.
*.._ . .. .
In the alternative to (a) and (b) above, proof
from Oregon Water Resources Department that the water supply to be used does not
require a Certificated Water Right for the specific application use classification,
volume, and season of use (i.e., roof -collected water).
d. For production sites with 5,000 square feet or more of mature canopy, a water meter for
all on-site eernrnereial wells shall beIrequire4
-1-413. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid
extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under
contract with a fire protection district.
4-514. Utility Verification. l statements identifyingtisca)roposed operation. or operational
characteristics such as required electrical to cl and timing of such electrical loads and Aa
statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such
company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. The utility shall state
whether system upgrades will be required to serve the proposed use, and that the use will
not be served until such upgrades are completed to protect existing service to neighboring
users. This may also be included as a condition of approval if appropriate, insuring
applicant participation in upgrade costs.
Chapter 18.116 5
Commented [kggl]: You will want to check with your legal
counsel as to whether this is appropriate.
-1-615. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the
subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements
of the OLCC or the OHA.
-1716. Secure Waste Disposal.
a.Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and
under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site
(PRMG).
b.lAstatement is also required deseribiaohow any_water runoffisbeing. addressed. 18.
dwelling unit on the subject property:
a. An owner of the subject property;
•
c.A person registered with the OHA as a per, n designated to produce marijuana by a
property:
1-917. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8,
2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with Oath 2016-015 andwith-the
provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of
DCC 18.116.330(B)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016.
2018. Prohibited Uses.
a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited:
i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop;
ii. A faun stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in
conjunction with a marijuana crop;
iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a),
carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and
iv.Agri-tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a
marijuana crop.
eb. Imthe EFU, MUA 10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on
the same property as marijuana production:
i. Guest Lodge.
ii. Guest Ranch.
iii. Dude Ranch.
iv. Destination Resort.
v. Public Parks.
vi. Private Parks.
vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings.
viii. Bed and Breakfast.
ix.Room and Board Arrangements.
19.Compliance.
a.Odor. On-going compliance with the odor control plan is mandatory and shall be ensured
with a pennit condition of approval. The odor control plan does not supersede required
compliance with the standard set forth in DCC 18.116.330(B)(9). If provided in
applicable state statutes, private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with
odor impacts are authorized.
b.Noise. On-going compliance with the noise control plan is mandatory and shall be
ensured with a permit condition of approval. The noise control plan does not supersede
Chapter 18.116 6
required compliance with the standard set forth in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10). If
provided in applicable state statutes, private actions alleging nuisance or trespass
associated with odor impacts are authorized.
C. Marijuana Retailing. Marijuana retailing, including recreational and medical marijuana sales,
shall be subject to the following standards and criteria:
1. Hours. Hours of operation shall be no earlier than 9:00 a.rn. and no later than 7:00 p.m. on
the same day.
2. Odor. The building, or portion thereof, used for marijuana retailing shall be designed or
equipped to prevent detection of marijuana plant odor off premise by a person of normal
sensitivity.
3. Window Service. The use shall not have a walk-up or drive-thru window service.
4. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the
possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA registrant.
5. Minors. No person under the age of 21 shall be pennitted to be present in the building, or
portion thereof, occupied by the marijuana retailer, except as allowed by state law.
6. Co -Location of Related Activities and Uses. Marijuana and tobacco products shall not be
smoked, ingested, or otherwise consumed in the building space occupied by the marijuana
retailer. In addition, marijuana retailing shall not be co -located on the same lot or parcel or
within the same building with any marijuana social club or marijuana smoking club.
7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows:
a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from:
i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory
under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school;
ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as
described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and
any property used by the school;
iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool.
This does not include licensed or unlicensed family child care which occurs at or in
residential structures;
iv. A youth activity center;
v. National monuments and state parks; and
vi. Any other marijuana retail facility licensed by the OLCC or marijuana dispensary
registered with the OHA.
b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(4'B)(7), distance shall be measured from the lot line
of the affected property to the closest point of the building space occupied by the
marijuana retailer. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(€L3)(7)(a)( vi), distance shall be
measured from the closest point of the building space occupied by one marijuana
retailer to the closest point of the building space occupied by the other marijuana
retailer.
c. A change in use to another property to a use identified in DCC 18.116.330(413)(7),
after a marijuana retailer has been licensed by or registered with the State of Oregon
shall not result in the marijuana retailer being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(€13)(7).
D. Inspectionsand 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
Chapter18.116 7
following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted
in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form:
a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
i. Land use decision and permits.
ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws.
iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
b.A statement of annual water use.
8.116.330(DC)(1)(a) shall serve as
under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or
e 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 is a condition of approval. the applicant must consent in W i rtu> , ti allow DeSCIIII1CS
County to r ndoml and without prior notice,inspect the premises and ascertain the
extent and effectiveness of the odor control system(s), compliance with the Deschutes
County Code, and applicable conditions of approval. Inspections may be conducted by
the County up to four (4J timestaer calendar year, including one inspection prior to the
initiation of use.
4 nuk'< ml -Plan to establrshcd ood—
inaMtained-1301-ecommmiMy 1`<. aorrnetst-D aai
e,Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the
Community Development Department.
e .fDocumentation that System Development Charges have. been paid.
g. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17).
h. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or
to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(D)(1)(a) shall serve as
acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed
use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation
under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or
license renewal(s) for the subject use.
(Ord. 2018-xxx §x, 2018; Ord. 2016-015 §10, 2016)
18.116.340. Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)
A. Applicability. Section 18.116.340 applies to:
I. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016; and
2. All marijuana production registered by OHA on or after June 1 2016 until the effective date
of Ordinances 2016-015, 2016-16, 2016-17, and 2016-18, at which time Ordinances 2016-
015 through Ordinance 2016-018 shall apply.
B. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016 shall comply with the
following standards by September 15, 2016:
1. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows:
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.sundown to sunup on,r,,, ` liowing da y
Chapter 18.116 8
C.
b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly
by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected
below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with
DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016 shall comply with the
following standards by December 15, 2016:
1. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.3430(f113)(4-0}; building means the building, including
greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or
marijuana processing.
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.
An odor control system is deemed pennitted 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.
Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are
authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute.
The odor control system shall:
i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute
(CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width
multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required
CFM; or
ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor
mitigation than provided by i. above.
e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use.
2. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply
with the following:
a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition,
odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any
property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day.
Sustained noise from marijuana production is not subject to the Right to Farm
protections in DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395. Intermittent noise for accepted farming
practices is however pennitted.
3. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses,
hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production
and processing:
Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if
applicable.
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.
Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that
blends with the surrounding natural landscape.
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.
a.
b.
c.
d.
b.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Chapter 18.116 9
4. Water. The applicant shall provide:
a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the
Oregon Water Resource Department; or
b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with
the name and contact information of the water provider; or
c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a
source that does not require a water right.
5. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the
subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements
of the OLCC or the OHA.
6. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the
possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for
the Grow Site (PRMG).
7.Inspections and Annual Reporting. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June
1, 2016 shall comply with DCC 18.116.340(D)(8) when site locations are identified or
otherwise disclosed by the State of Oregon.
D. All new marijuana production registered by OHA on or after June 1, 2016 shall comply with
DCC 18.116.3430(A-1)(') and the following standards:
1. Shall only be located in the following zones
a. EFU; or
b. P,4 A 4-4); or
e.b. Rural Industrial in the vicinity of Deschutes Junction.
2. Minimum Lot Area.
a. In the EFU and MUA 10 zones, the subject property shall have a minimum lot area of
five (5) acres.
b. Parcels equal t or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet.
43. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production areas and
buildings:
a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 1200 feet.
b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 5300 feet.
For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site
dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to
submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County.
c..l x-eeption Roduetion te-tliese-sethaelF-roqui eiwn »aay-be *remted-at thedisejei-e;�9=
the -F' i+3ngd}ifeete; or 11eatings F3o anw-ided tlac applicant-cle men tortes -thank e
feclueekiketf ael affi-wc-1-equal of f_ ea mitiggatier «l v-asuaa.-odes aF ise li ht ;
j3Es,
54. Indoor Production and Processing.
c vering. Use f greenhouses, h p houses, and similar n n rigid structures io
a In the EFU zone, marijuana production shall only be located in buildings, including
greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures.
b. In all zones, marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area.
65. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for
mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows:
Chapter 18.116
10
a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet.
b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square
feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to
10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that:
i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1,
2015; and
ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact
of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts
associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation.
c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000
square feet.
d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000
square feet.
e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet.
76. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows:
a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 2,640 feet from:
i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory
under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school;
ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as
described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and
any property used by the school;
iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool.
This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in
residential structures;
iv. A youth activity center; and
v. National monuments and state parks:_
vi. PublicFederal lands: and
vii.Redmond Chuan Reserve Area;
viii. The boundary of any local jurisdiction that has opted out of Oregon's recreational
marijuana program; and
ix. Any other lot or parcel appy oved by Deschutes County for production.
b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.3430(13)(76), all distances shall be measured from the
lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.3430(1)13)(26)(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 18.116.3430(1)13)(26)
shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of
DCC 18.116.330(B)(26) if the use is:
i. Pending a local land use decision;
ii. Registered by the State of Oregon; or
iii. Lawfully established.
87. Access. Marijuana production
planlssites 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
Chapter 18.116
11
road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the
private road or easement. The written consent shall:
i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information;
ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a
recorded interest in the private road or easement;
iii. Include a description ofthe proposed marijuana production or marijuana
processing operation; and
iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement.
a.An owner of the subject property; or
twel3e4Y-
108. Inspections and Annual Reporting. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, of marijuana
production registered ed by 01 IA. each February 1, documenting all ofthe following as of
December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current
County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form:
a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
i. Land use decision and permits.
ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws.
iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
b. A statement of annual water use.
b.Failure to timely submit the annual report, fcc, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to
8.116.3430(C)(8)
Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or License
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. klanjtoana Control Plan -to be establi-sited and -n maintained by Me Community
Development -Depatr4mtnty-As a condition of approval, the applicant must consent in
writing to allow Deschutes County to, randomly and without prior notice, inspect the
premises and ascertain the extent and effectiveness of the odor control system(s),
compliance with the Deschutes County Code, and applicable conditions of approval.
Inspections may be conducted by the County up to four (4) times per calendar year
including one inspection prior to the initiation of use.
:ornotice up tofoul.(1)times_percalendaiyearinspect the premises toascertain the
Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community
Development Department.
e. Documentation that System Development Charges have been paid_,_.
fThis information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17).
g. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises fonn or
to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.340(C)(8) 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 pennit revocation
Chapter 18.116 12
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.
119.d Uses.
a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited:
i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop;
ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in
conjunction with a marijuana crop;
iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a),
carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and
iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a
marijuana crop.
eb. In the EFU, MUA 10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on
the same property as marijuana production:
Guest Lodge.
i. Guest Ranch.
ii. Dude Ranch.
iii. Destination Resort.
iv. Public Parks.
v. Private Parks.
vi. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings.
vii. Bed and Breakfast.
viii. Room and Board Arrangements.
(Ord. 2018-xxx tix, 2018.Ord. 2016-019 §1, 2016)
Chapter 18.116 13
Chapter 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW
18.124.060. Approval Criteria.
* * *
18.124.060. Approval Criteria.
Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria:
A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural and man-made environment and
existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and
topographical features.
B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering
development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs
shall be protected.
C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities
for privacy and transition from public to private spaces.
D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for
wheelchairs and Braille signs.
E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation pattems, separations between
pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to
buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures.
F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties,
streets, or surface and subsurface water quality.
G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires,
and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located
and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties.
H. All above -ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and
neighboring properties.
I. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks,
etc.).
J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site.
K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use.
1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance, tum and
acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of-way, roadway surfacing and widening, and bicycle and
pedestrian connections, shall be identified.
2. Mitigation for transportation -related impacts shall be required.
3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 17.16 and DCC 17.48, applicable
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) mobility and access standards, and applicable
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.
(Ord. 2018-xxx fix, 2018; Ord. 2010-018 §2, 2010, Ord. 93-043 §§21, 22 and 22A, 1993; Ord. 91-038 §1,
1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
Chapter 18.124 1
Chapter 22.24. LAND USE ACTION HEARINGS
22.24.010. Filing of Staff Report for Hearing.
22.24.020. Hearings Body.
22.24.030. Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action.
22.24.040. Contents of Notice.
22.24.050. Burden of Proof.
22.24.060. Nature of Evidence.
22.24.070. Limitation on Oral Presentations.
22.24.080. Standing.
22.24.090. Record.
22.24.100. Disclosure of Ex Parte Contacts.
22.24.105. Disclosure of Personal Knowledge.
22.24.110. Challenge for Bias, Prejudgment of Personal Interest.
22.24.120. Hearings Procedure.
22.24.125. Setting the Hearing.
22.24.130. Close of the Record.
22.24.140. Continuances or Record Extensions.
22.24.150. Objections to Jurisdiction, Procedure, Notice or Qualifications.
22.24.160. Reopening the Record.
22.24.010. Filing of Staff Report for Hearing.
A. At the time an application that in the judgment of the Planning director requires a hearing is deemed
complete, a hearing date shall be set.
B. A staff report shall be completed seven days prior to hearing. If the report is not completed by such
time, the hearing shall be held as scheduled, but any party may at the hearing or in writing prior to the
hearing request a continuance of the hearing to a date that is at least seven days after the date the initial
staff report is complete. Pursuant to DCC 22.24.140(A)(3), grant of a continuance under these
circumstances shall be discretionary.
C. A copy of the staff report shall be mailed to the applicant, shall be made available to such other persons
who request a copy and shall be filed with the Hearings Body.
D. Oral or written modifications and additions to the staff report shall be allowed prior to or at the hearing.
(Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §11,1995; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.020. Hearings Body.
A. The following shall serve as the hearings body:
I. Hearings Officer.
2. Planning Commission, as specified by DCC 22.24.020(C).
3. Board of County Commissioners, except where an applicable joint management agreement within
an acknowledged urban growth boundary specifies a city governing body as the final appeals body.
B. The Hearings Body order shall be as set forth in DCC 22.24.020(A), except that the Board may call up
an administrative decision for review without the necessity of an application going before the Hearings
Officer.
C. Where the Hearings Officer declines to hear a matter on the grounds of a conflict of interest, the
Planning Commission shall substitute for the hearings officer. In the Redmond Urban Area, the initial
Hearings Body for a quasi-judicial plan amendment or zone change may at the discretion of the Planning
Director be either the Planning Commission or the Hearings Officer. Additionally, in the Redmond
Chapter 22.24 1
Urban Area, the initial Hearings Body for Declaratory Rulings and revocations of land use approvals
may, at the discretion of the Planning Director, be the Hearings Officer, the Redmond Urban Area
Planning Commission or the Redmond City Council.
(Ord. 2001-045 §1, 2001; Ord. 2000-003 §1, 2000; Ord. 99-031 §5, 1999; Ord. 98-019 §3, 1998; Ord. 96-
071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §11A, 1995; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.030. Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action.
A. Individual Mailed Notice.
I. Except as otherwise provided for herein, notice of a land use application shall be mailed at least 20
days prior to the hearing for those matters set for hearing, or within 10 days after receipt of an
application for those matters to be processed administratively with notice. Written notice shall be
sent by mail to the following persons:
a. The applicant.
b. Owners of record of property as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll of
property located:
1. Within 100 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where any part of the subject
property is within an urban growth boundary;
2. Within 250 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where the subject property is
outside an urban growth boundary and not within a farm or forest zone, except where
greater notice is required under DCC 22.24.030(A)(4) for structures proposed to exceed 30
feet in height; or
3. Within 750 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where the subject property is
within a farm or forest zone, except where greater notice is required under DCC
22.24.030(A)(4) for structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in height.
4.Within 1000 feet of the property that is subject of a marijuana production or processing
notice where the subject property is within a faun zone.
c. For a solar access or solar shade exception application, only those owners of record identified in
the application as being burdened by the approval of such an application.
d. The owner of a public use airport if the airport is located within 10,000 feet of the subject
property.
e. The tenants of a mobile home park when the application is for the rezoning of any part or all of
a mobile home park.
f. The Planning Commission.
g. Any neighborhood or community organization formally recognized by the board under criteria
established by the Board whose boundaries include the site.
h. At the discretion of the applicant, the County also shall provide notice to the Department of
Land Conservation and Development.
2. Notwithstanding DCC 22.24.030(A)(1) (b)(1), all owners of property within 250 feet of property
that is the subject of a plan amendment application or zone change application shall receive notice.
3. The failure of a property owner to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate any land use approval if
the Planning Division can show by affidavit that such notice was given.
4. For structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in height that are located outside of an urban growth
boundary, the area for describing persons entitled to notice under DCC 22.24.030(A)(1)(b) shall
expand outward by a distance equal to the distance of the initial notice area boundary for every 30
foot height increment or portion thereof.
B. Posted Notice.
1. Notice of a land use action application for which prior notice procedures are chosen shall be posted
on the subject property for at least 10 continuous days prior to any date set for receipt of comments.
Such notice shall, where practicable, be visible from any adjacent public way.
Chapter 22.24 2
2. Posted notice of an application for a utility facility line approval shall be by posting the proposed
route at intervals of not less than one-half mile. The notice shall be posted as close as practicable to,
and be visible from, any public way in the vicinity of the proposed route.
3. Notice of a solar access application shall be posted as near as practicable to each lot identified in the
application.
C. Published Notice. In addition to notice by mail and posting, notice of an initial hearing shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the County at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in
Deschutes County.
(Ord.2018-xxx jx, 2018i Ord. 99-031 §6, 1999; Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-071 §1, 1995; Ord.
95-045 §12, 1995; Ord. 91-013 §7-8, 1991; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.040. Contents of Notice.
A. All mailed notices of a land use action hearing shall:
1. Describe the nature of the applicant's request and the nature of the proposed uses that could be
authorized.
2. List the criteria from the zoning ordinance and the plan applicable to the application at issue.
3. Set forth the street address or easily understood geographical reference to the subject property.
4. State the date, time and location of any hearing or date by which written comments must be
received.
5. State that any person may comment in writing and include a general explanation of the requirements
for submission of testimony and the procedures for conduct of testimony, including, but not limited
to, a party's right to request a continuance or to have the record held open.
6. If a hearing is to be held, state that any interested person may appear.
7. State that failure to raise an issue in person at a hearing or in writing precludes appeal by that person
to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), and that failure to provide statements or evidence
sufficient to afford the decision -maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to
LUBA based on that issue.
8. State the name of a county representative to contact and the telephone number where additional
information may be obtained.
9. State that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost.
10. State that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least seven days
prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost.
11. All mailed notices shall contain the following statement: NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,
LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU
RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
B. All mailed and published notices for hearings shall contain a statement that recipients may request a
copy of the staff report.
C. All mailed and published notices concerning applications necessitating an exception to one of the
statewide land use planning goals shall state that a goal exception is proposed and shall summarize the
issues in an understandable manner.
(Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §13, 1995; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.050. Burden of Proof.
Throughout all local land use proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the applicant.
(Ord. 95-045 §14, 1995; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
Chapter 22.24 3
22.24.060. Nature of Evidence.
All relevant evidence shall be received.
(Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.070. Limitation on Oral Presentations.
The Hearings Body may set reasonable time limits on oral testimony.
(Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.080. Standing.
A. My interested person may appear and be heard in a land use action hearing, except that in appeals heard
on the record, a person must have participated in a previous hearing on the subject application.
B. Any person appearing on the record at a hearing (including appeals) or presenting written evidence in
conjunction with an administrative action or hearing shall have standing and shall be a party. A person
whose participation consists only of signing a petition becomes a party only if his or her signature is
legible and his or her address is clearly written on the petition.
C. Additionally, any owner of property to be burdened by a solar access permit shall be considered a party
at every stage of the solar access permit decision process.
(Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §15, 1995; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.090. Record.
A. A tape record of the hearing shall be made.
B. All exhibits presented shall be marked to show the identity of the person offering the exhibit.
C. Exhibits shall be numbered in the order presented in two categories, proponents and opponents, and shall
be dated.
D. When exhibits are introduced, the proponent or opponent exhibit number or letter shall be read into the
record.
(Ord. 05-051 §1, 2005; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.100. Disclosure of Ex Parte Contacts.
Prior to making a decision, the Hearings Body or any member thereof shall not communicate directly or
indirectly with any party or his representative in connection with any issue involved in a pending hearing
except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. Should such communication - whether
written or oral - occur, the Hearings Body member shall:
A. Publicly announce for the record the substance of such conununication; and
B. Announce the parties' right to rebut the substance of the ex parte communication during the hearing.
Coimnunication between County staff and the Hearings Body shall not be considered to be an ex parte
contact.
(Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.105. Disclosure of Personal Knowledge.
A. If the Hearings Body or any member thereof uses personal knowledge acquired outside of the hearing
process in rendering a decision, the Hearings Body or member thereof shall state the substance of that
knowledge on the record and allow all parties the opportunity to rebut such statement on the record.
B. For the purposes of DCC 22.24.105, a site visit by the Hearings Body shall be deemed to fall within this
ride. After the site visit has concluded, the Hearings Body must disclose its observations and
conclusions gained from the site visit in order to allow for rebuttal by the parties.
(Ord. 95-045 §16, 1995)
Chapter 22.24 4
22.24.110. Challenge for Bias, Prejudgment or Personal Interest.
Prior to or at the commencement of a hearing, any party may challenge the qualification of the Hearings
Body, or a member thereof, for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. The challenge shall be made on the
record and be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should qualifications be challenged, the
Hearings Body or the member shall disqualify itself, withdraw or make a statement on the record of its
capacity to hear. A planning commission member with a conflict identified under ORS 215.035 or 215.244
must disqualify him or herself after disclosure.
(Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.120. Hearings Procedure.
A hearing shall be conducted as follows:
A. The Hearings Body shall explain the purpose of the hearing and announce the order of proceedings,
including reasonable time limits on presentations by parties.
B. A statement by the Hearings Body regarding pre -hearing contacts, bias, prejudice or personal interest
shall be made.
C. Any facts received, noticed or recognized outside of the hearing shall be stated for the record.
D. Challenges to the Hearings Body's qualifications to hear the matter shall be stated and challenges
entertained.
L. The Hearings Body shall list applicable substantive criteria, explain that testimony and evidence must be
directed toward that criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations that the
person believes to apply to the decision, and that failure to address an issue with sufficient specificity to
afford the decision -maker and the parties an opportunity to respond precludes appeal to LUBA based on
that issue.
F. Order of presentation:
I. Open the hearing.
2. Staff report.
3. Proponents' presentation.
4. Opponents' presentation.
5. Proponents' rebuttal.
6. Opponents' rebuttal may be allowed at the Hearings Body's discretion.
7. Staff comment.
8. Questions from or to the chair may be entertained at any time at the Hearings Body's discretion.
9. Close the hearing.
G. The record shall be available for public review at the hearing.
H. A form of preliminary statement incorporating the provisions of DCC. 22.24.120 is set forth as Appendix
A to DCC Title 22 for use by the Board of County Commissioners.
(Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.125. Setting the Hearing.
A. After an application is deemed accepted a hearing date shall be set. A hearing date may be changed by
the County staff, or the Hearings Body up until the time notice of the hearing is mailed. Once the notice
of hearing is mailed any changes in the hearing date shall be processed as a continuance in accordance
with DCC 22.24.140.
B. If an applicant requests that a hearing date be changed, such request shall be granted only if the applicant
agrees that the extended time period for the hearing shall not count against the 150 -day time limit set
forth in DCC 22.20.040.
(Ord. 99-031 §7, 1999; Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §17, 1995)
Chapter 22.24 5
22.24.130. Close of the Record.
A. Except as set forth herein, the record shall be closed to further testimony or submission of further
argument or evidence at the end of the presentations before the Hearings Body.
B. if the hearing is continued or the record is held open under DCC 22.24.140, further evidence or
testimony shall be taken only in accordance with the provisions of DCC 22.24.140.
C. Otherwise, further testimony or evidence will be allowed only if the record is reopened under DCC
22.24.160.
D. An applicant shall be allowed, unless waived, to submit final written arguments in support of its
application after the record in the initial hearing has closed within such time limits as the Hearings Body
shall set. The Hearings Body shall allow applicant at least seven days to submit its argument, which
time shall be counted against the 150 -day clock.
(Ord. 2006-010 §9, 2006; Ord. 99-031 §8, 1999; Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §19, 1995; Ord. 90-
007 §1, 1990)
22.24.140. Continuances or Record Extensions.
A. Grounds.
1. Prior to the date set for an initial hearing, an applicant shall receive a continuance upon any request.
If a continuance request is made after the published or mailed notice has been provided by the
County, the Hearings Body shall take evidence at the scheduled hearing date from any party wishing
to testify at that time after notifying those present of the continuance.
2. Any party is entitled to a continuance of the initial evidentiary hearing or to have the record left
open in such a proceeding in the following instances:
a. Where additional documents or evidence are submitted by any party; or
b. Upon a party's request made prior to the close of the hearing for time to present additional
evidence or testimony.
For the purposes of DCC 22.24.140(A)(2), "additional documents or evidence" shall mean
documents or evidence containing new facts or analysis that are submitted after notice of the
hearing.
3. The grant of a continuance or record extension in any other circumstance shall be at the discretion of
the Hearings Body.
B. Except for continuance requests made under DCC 22.24.140(A)(1), the choice between granting a
continuance or leaving the record open shall be at the discretion of the Hearings Body. After a choice
has been made between leaving the record open and granting a continuance, the hearing shall be
govemed thereafter by the provisions that relate to the path chosen.
C. Continuances.
I . If the Hearings Body grants a continuance of the initial hearing, the hearing shall be continued to a
date, time and place certain at least seven days from the date of the initial hearing.
2. An opportunity shall be provided at the continued hearing for persons to rebut new evidence and
testimony received at the continued hearing.
3. If new written evidence is submitted at the continued initial hearing, any person may request prior to
the conclusion of the continued hearing that the record be left open for at least seven days to allow
submittal of additional written evidence or testimony. Such additional written evidence or
testimony shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts the new written evidence or
testimony.
4. If the hearing is other than an initial hearing, any continuances are at the discretion of the hearings
body.
Chapter 22.24 6
D. Leaving record open.
If at the conclusion of the initial hearing the Hearings Body leaves the record open for additional written
evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least 14 additional days, allowing at least the
first seven days for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for
response to the evidence received while the record was held open. Written evidence or testimony
submitted during the period the record is held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts
previously submitted evidence or testimony.
E. A continuance or record extension granted under DCC 22.24.140 shall be subject to the 150 -day time
limit unless the continuance or extension is requested or otherwise agreed to by the applicant. When the
record is left open or a continuance is granted after a request by an applicant, the time period during
which the 150 -day clock is suspended shall include the time period made available to the applicant and
any time period given to parties to respond to the applicant's submittal.
(Ord. 99-031 §9, 1999; Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §18, 1995; Ord. 91-013 §9, 1991; Ord. 90-007
§1, 1990)
22.24.150. Objections to Jurisdiction, Procedure, Notice or Qualifications.
Any objections not raised prior to the close of oral testimony are waived. Parties alleging procedural error
shall have the burden of proof at LUBA as to whether the error occurred and whether the error has
prejudiced the party's substantial rights.
(Ord. 95-045 §20, 1995; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.24.160. Reopening the Record.
A. The Hearings Body may at its discretion reopen the record, either upon request or on its own initiative.
The Hearings Body shall not reopen the record at the request of an applicant unless the applicant has
agreed in writing to an extension or a waiver of the 150 -day time limit.
B. Procedures.
1. Except as otherwise provided for m DCC 22.24.160, the manner of testimony (whether oral or
written) and time limits for testimony to be offered upon reopening of the record shall be at the
discretion at the Hearings Body.
2. The Hearings Body shall give written notice to the parties that the record is being reopened, stating
the reason for reopening the record and how parties can respond. The parties shall be allowed to
raise new issues that relate to the new evidence, testimony or criteria for decision-making that apply
to the matter at issue.
(Ord. 99-031 §10, 1999; Ord. 96-071 §1D, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §21, 1995)
Chapter 22.24 7
Chapter 22.32. APPEALS
22.32.010. Who May Appeal.
22.32.015. Filing Appeals.
22.32.020. Notice of Appeal.
22.32.022. Determination of Jurisdictional Defects.
22.32.24. Transcript Requirement.
22.32.25. Consolidation of Multiple Appeals.
22.32.027. Scope of Review.
22.32.030. Hearing on Appeal.
22.32.035. Declining Review.
22.32.040. Land Use Action Hearings on Appeal From the Hearings Officer.
22.32.050. Development Action Appeals.
22.32.060. Rehearing.
22.32.070. Remands.
22.32.080. Withdrawal of an Appeal.
22.32.010. Who may appeal.
A. The following may file an appeal:
1. A party;
2. In the case of an appeal of an administrative decision without prior notice, a person entitled to
notice, a person adversely affected or aggrieved by the administrative decision, or any other person
who has filed comments on the application with the Planning Division; and
3. A person entitled to notice and to whom no notice was mailed. A person who, after such notices
were mailed, purchases property to be burdened by a solar access permit shall be considered a
person to whom notice,was to have been mailed; and
4. A city, concerning an application within the urban area for that city, whether or not the city achieved
party status during the proceeding.
B. A person to whom notice is mailed is deemed notified even if notice is not received.
(Ord. 95-071 §2, 1995; Ord. 95-045 §31, 1995; Ord. 90-007 § 1, 1990)
22.32.015. Filing appeals.
A. To file an appeal, an appellant must fde a completed notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the
Planning Division and an appeal fee.
B. Unless a request for reconsideration has been filed, the notice of appeal and appeal fee must be received
at the offices of the Deschutes County Community Development Department no later than 5:00 PM on
the twelfth day following mailing of the decision. If a decision has been modified on reconsideration, an
appeal must be filed no later than 5:00 PM on the twelfth day following mailing of the decision as
modified. Notices of Appeals may not be received by facsimile machine.
C.Unless a request for reconsideration has been filed for a mariivana production or processing
administrative decision, the notice of appeal and appeal fee must be received at the offices of the
Deschutes County Community Development Department no later than 5:00 PM on the fifteenth day
following mailing of the decision.
L D.If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and the Board declines review, a portion of
the appeal fee may be refunded. The amount of any refund will depend upon the actual costs incurred
by the County in reviewing the appeal. When the Board declines review and the decision is
subsequently appealed to LUBA, the appeal fee may be applied toward the cost of preparing a transcript
of the lower Hearings Body's decision.
Chapter 22.32
DE.The appeal fee shall be paid by method that is acceptable to Deschutes County.
(Ord.2018=xxx §x, 2018: Ord. 2015-017 §3, 2015; Ord. 99-031 §15, 1999; Ord. 98-019 §2, 1998; Ord. 96-
071 §1G, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §32, 1995; Ord. 94-042 §2, 1994; Ord. 91-013 §I1, 1991; Ord 90-007 §1,
1990)
22.32.020. Notice of Appeal.
Every notice of appeal shall include:
A. A statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings
Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue in dispute.
B. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating
the reasons why the Board should review the lower Hearings Body's decision.
C. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for
de novo review by the Board stating the reasons why the Board should provide de novo review as
provided in DCC 22.32.030.
(Ord. 95-045 §35, 1995; Ord. 94-042 §3, 1994; Ord. 91-013 §11, 1991; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.32.022. Determination of Jurisdictional Defects.
A. My failure to conform to the requirements of DCC 22.32.015 and 22.32.020 shall constitute a
jurisdictional defect.
B. Determination of jurisdictional defects in an appeal shall be made by the Hearings Body to which an
appeal has been made.
(Ord. 96-071 §1G, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §33, 1995)
22.32.24. Transcript Requirement.
A. Except as otherwise provided in DCC 22.32.024, appellants shall provide a complete transcript of any
hearing appealed from, from recorded magnetic tapes provided by the Planning Division.
B. Appellants shall submit to the Planning Division the transcript no later than the close of the day five
days prior to the date set for a de novo appeal hearing or, in on -the -record appeals, the date set for
receipt of written arguments. Unless excused under DCC 22.32.024, an appellant's failure to provide a
transcript shall cause the Board to decline to consider the appellant's appeal further and shall, upon
notice mailed to the parties, cause the lower Hearings Body's decision to become final.
C. An appellant shall be excused from providing a complete transcript if appellant was prevented from
complying by: (1) the inability of the Planning Division to supply appellant with a magnetic tape or
tapes of the prior proceeding; or (2) defects on the magnetic tape or tapes of the prior proceeding that
make it not reasonably possible for applicant to supply a transcript. Appellants shall comply to the
maximum extent reasonably and practicably possible.
D. Notwithstanding any other provisions in DCC 22.32, the appeal hearings body may, at any time, waive
the requirement that the appellant provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing.
(Ord. 2015-017 §3, 2015; Ord. 96-071 §1G, 1996)
22.32.25. Consolidation of Multiple Appeals.
A. If more than one party files a notice of appeal on a land use action decision, the appeals shall be
consolidated and noticed and heard as one proceeding.
B. To the extent its costs are less than the duplicate appeal fees received when multiple appeals are filed,
the Planning Division may refund a portion of the appeal fees to the appellants in an equitable manner.
C. In instances of multiple appeals where separate appellants have asked for a differing scope of review,
any grant of de novo review shall control over a separate request for a more limited review on appeal.
(Ord. 96-071 §1G, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §34, 1995)
Chapter 22.32 2
22.32.027. Scope of Review.
A. Before Hearings Officer or Planning Commission. The review on appeal before the Hearings Officer or
Planning Commission shall be de novo.
B. Before the Board.
1. Review before the Board, if accepted, shall be on the record except as otherwise provided for in
DCC 22.32.027.
2. The Board may grant an appellant's request for a de novo review at its discretion after consideration
of the following factors:
a. Whether hearing the application de novo could cause the 150 -day time lint to be exceeded; and
b. If the magnetic tape of the hearing below, or a portion thereof, is unavailable due to a
malfunctioning of the recording device during that hearing, whether review on the record would
be hampered by the absence of a transcript of all or a portion of the hearing below; or
c. Whether the substantial rights of the parties would be significantly prejudiced without de novo
review and it does not appear that the request is necessitated by failure of the appellant to
present evidence that was available at the time of the previous review; or
d. Whether in its sole judgment a de novo hearing is necessary to fully and properly evaluate a
significant policy issue relevant to the proposed land use action.
For the purposes of DCC 22.32.027, if an applicant is an appellant, factor DCC
22.32.027(B)(2)(a) shall not weigh against the appellant's request if the applicant has submitted
with its notice of appeal written consent on a form approved by the County to restart the 150 -
day time clock as of the date of the acceptance of applicant's appeal.
3. Notwithstanding DCC 22.32.027(B)(2), the Board may decide on its own to hear a timely filed
appeal de novo.
4. The Board may, at its discretion, determine that it will limit the issues on appeal to those listed in an
appellant's notice of appeal or to one or more specific issues from among those listed on an
applicant's notice of appeal.
(Ord. 99-031 §16, 1999; Ord. 96-071 §1G, 1996)
22.32.030. Hearing on Appeal.
A. The appellant and all other parties to the decision below shall be mailed notice of the hearing on appeal
at least 10 days prior to any de novo hearing or deadline for submission of written arguments.
B. Except as otherwise provided in DCC 22.32, the appeal shall be heard as provided in DCC 22.24. The
applicant shall proceed first in all de novo appeals.
C. The order of Hearings Body shall be as provided in DCC 22.24.020.
D. The record of the proceeding from which appeal is taken shall be a part of the record on appeal.
E. The record for a review on the record shall consist of the following:
1. A written transcript of any prior hearing;
2. All written and graphic materials that were part of the record below;
3. The Hearings Body decision appealed from;
4. Written arguments, based upon the record developed below, submitted by any party to the decision;
5. Written comments submitted by the Planning Commission or individual planning commissioners,
based upon the record developed below; and
6. A staff report and staff comment based on the record.
No oral evidence, argument or comment other than staff comment based on the record shall be
taken. The Board shall not consider any new factual information.
(Ord. 97-008 §1, 1997; Ord. 96-071 *1G, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §36, 1995; Ord. 90-007 § 1, 1990)
Chapter 22.32 3
22.32.035. Declining Review.
Except as set forth in DCC 22.28.030, when there is an appeal of a land use action and the Board of County
Commissioners is the Hearings Body:
A. The Board may on a case-by-case basis or by standing order for a class of cases decide at a public
meeting that the decision of the lower Hearings Body of an individual land use action or a class of land
use action decisions shall be the final decision of the County.
B. If the Board of County Commissioners decides that the lower Hearings Body decision shall be the final
decision of the County, then the Board shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue
the appeal as provided by law. In such a case, the County shall provide written notice of its decision to
all parties. The decision on the land use application becomes fmal upon mailing of the Board's decision
to decline review.
C. The decision of the Board of County Commissioners not to hear a land use action appeal is entirely
discretionary.
D. In determining whether to hear an appeal, the Board of County Commissioners may consider only:
1. The record developed before the lower Hearings Body;
2. The notice of appeal; and
3. Recommendations of staff.
(Ord. 96-071 §1G, 1996; Ord. 95-045 §37, 1995; Ord. 94-042 §1, 1994)
22.32.040. Land Use Action Hearings on Appeal From the Hearings Officer.
Redundant testimony shall not be allowed.
(Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.32.050. Development Action Appeals.
Notice of the hearing date set for appeal shall be sent only to the applicant. Only the applicant, his or her
representatives, and his or her witnesses shall be entitled to participate. Continuances shall be at the
discretion of the Hearings Body, and the record shall close at the end of the hearing.
(Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.32.060. Rehearing.
Rehearings shall not be allowed.
(Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990)
22.32.070. Remands.
Applications shall not be remanded to a lower level Hearings Body after appeal.
(Ord. 90-007 §I, 1990)
22.32.080. Withdrawal of an Appeal.
An appeal may be withdrawn in writing by an appellant at any time prior to the rendering of a final decision.
Subject to the existence of other appeals on the same application, in such event the appeal proceedings shall
terminate as of the date the withdrawal is received. An appeal may be withdrawn under DCC 22.32.080
regardless of whether other non -filing parties have relied upon the appeal filed by the appellant.
(Ord. 95-045 §38, 1995)
Chapter 22.32 4
Tanya Saltzman
From: Markham, Dave <dmarkham@cec.coop>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:30 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Cc: Peter Gutowsky
Subject: RE: Deschutes County proposed marijuana amendments
Tanya & Peter,
With consensus from both Midstate and Central Electric, the language as drafted below works for both utilities. Thanks
again . - Dave
14. Utility verification. Utility statements identifying the proposed operation, or operational characteristics such as
required electrical load and timing of such electrical loads and 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. The utility
shall state that it has reviewed the new service or additional load request and determined if existing capacity can
serve the load or if a system upgrade is required. Any new service request or additional load request requiring an
upgrade shall be performed per the serving utility's stated policy.
Dave Markham
President/CEO
dmarkham(a)cec.c000
Office: (541) 312-7764
Fax: (541) 312-7733
Central Electric Cooperative, Inc.
2098 NW 611' St., PO Box 846, Redmond OR 97756
www.cec.c000
This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential.
Use by parties other than the intended recipient is unauthorized
and prohibited.
From: Tanya Saltzman <Tanya.Saltzman@deschutes.org>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 10:47 AM
To: Markham, Dave <dmarkham@cec.coop>
Cc: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org>
Subject: RE: Deschutes County proposed marijuana amendments
ATTENTION: This sender is EXTERNAL to our company. Please do not click links or open attachments unless
you requested them and know the content is safe.
Good morning Dave,
This language works for us. Please forward away as you see fit.
Thanks again,
Tanya
1
From: Markham, Dave <dmarkham@cec.coop>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:16 AM
To: Tanya Saltzman <Tanya.Saltzman@deschutes.org>
Cc: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org>
Subject: RE: Deschutes County proposed marijuana amendments
Good Morning Tanya — Please take a look at the re -drafted text below and let me know if this works for you, Peter and
Nick. If so, I will forward to Dave Schneider at Midstate Electric Cooperative and copy you on the email. If this language
does not work, Brad and I can take another run at it. Thanks. - Dave
14. Utility verification. Utility statements identifying the proposed operation, or operational characteristics such as
required electrical load and timing of such electrical loads and 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. The utility
shall state that it has reviewed the new service or additional load request and determined if a system upgrade is
required to serve the proposed use. Any new service request or additional load request requiring an upgrade shall
be performed per the serving utility's stated policy.
Dave Markham
President/CEO
dmarkham@@cec.c000
Office: (541) 312-7764
Fax: (541) 312-7733
Central Electric Cooperative, Inc.
2098 NW 6th St., PO Box 846, Redmond OR 97756
www.cec.coop
This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential.
Use by parties other than the intended recipient is unauthorized
and prohibited.
From: Tanya Saltzman <Tanya.Saltzman@deschutes.org>
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 10:15 AM
To: Markham, Dave <dmarkham@cec.coop>
Cc: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org>
Subject: Deschutes County proposed marijuana amendments
- ATTENTION: This sender is EXTERNAL to our company. Please do not click links or open attachments unless
you requested them and know the content is safe.
Good morning Dave,
Thanks again for your time regarding Deschutes County's proposed marijuana amendments. While the language in the
code concerning utility verification may be relatively short, your insights have been quite helpful and we appreciate it.
The language we arrived at yesterday was the following (new edits in bold):
2
14. Utility verification. Utility statements identifying the proposed operation, or operational characteristics such as
required electrical load and timing of such electrical loads and 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. The utility
shall state whether new service requests or system upgrades will be required to serve the proposed use. Any new
service requests and/or upgrades shall be completed per the utility's stated policy.
For reference, the previous language in the proposed amendments was the following:
14. Utility Verification. Utility statements identifying the proposed operation, or operational characteristics such as required
electrical load and timing of such electrical loads and 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. The utility shall state whether
system upgrades will be required to serve the proposed use, and that the use will not be served until such upgrades are
completed to protect existing service to neighboring users. This may also be included as a condition of approval if
appropriate, insuring applicant participation in upgrade costs.
Please review, run by whomever you deem appropriate, and let us know if this is the language that works best for you. The
open record period ends one week from today (September 14) at 5 p.m. so I respectfully request your response by then.
Thanks again,
Tanya
Tanya Saltzman, AICP I Associate Planner
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703
Tel: (541) 388-6528 1 www.deschutes.org/cd
Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal staternent made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and
shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights,
including any reliance rights, on any person.
3
Bend Park f
Recreation
DISTRICT
August 15, 2018
Tanya Saltzman
Deschutes County Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Deschutes County Marijuana Text Amendments
Dear Ms. Saltzman,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Deschutes County's Marijuana Text
Amendments.
As the provider of public parks in the community, the District is concerned about the potential
impacts marijuana production and retail facilities could have on the public's use, enjoyment and
safety in parks.
We appreciate that the text requires property line separations from marijuana properties and
National monuments and state parks, but unfortunately, this text does not address separation
from local parks. Because the District owns land in the County, we strongly encourage you to
add text that addresses local parks as well.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please don't hesitate to contact me at
541-706-6130, or quinn@bendparksandrec.org.
Sincerely,
Quinn Keever, Park Planner
Bend Park and Recreation District
District Office I Don Horton, Executive Director
799 S\\ Columbia Sr,, Rrnd, Oregon 9?7112 1 vvww endparksandrecort 1 (341) 389 7275
Tanya Saltzman
From: Jeffrey Kitchens <jhkitche@blm.gov>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 3:17 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Cc: Dennis Teitzel; Thomas Beaucage
Subject: Open record period - marijuana amendments
Hello Tanya
Per our discussion yesterday I wanted to share the following additional comments:
1). We do not have any specific guidance or direction to offer in regard to buffer distances. We believe the larger the
buffer the greater the likelihood that no unintended developments on neighboring properties will occur. However, as
indicated previously, we do encourage the county to, at a minimum, suggest to applicants that they get a property survey,
if one has not already been done, to confirm where boundary lines are.
2). We feel buffers should be considered for all federal lands as opposed to only being considered for those with
recreational or other public developments. We not have a specific opinion if buffers should be larger next to developed
areas as opposed to undeveloped.
3). We continue to support the requirement of legal access for any application the county is considering.
Thank you again for the opportunity to meet yesterday.
Sincerely
Jeff Kitchens
Deschutes Field Manager
******************************************
Jeff Kitchens
Deschutes Field Office Manager
USDOI - BLM - Prineville District
3050 NE 3rd Street
Prineville, OR 97754
Phone: (541) 416-6766,
Fax: (541) 416-6798
Cell: (541) 350-5955
Prineville District Office: (541) 416-6700
e-mail: jhkitcheAblm.gov
******************************************
1
Attachment 3:
Medical Marijuana Enforcement
Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
C O M U G`Z .1..F DEVELOPMENT
TO: Open Public Record (247 -18 -000540 -TA)
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
DATE: September 14, 2018
SUBJECT: Marijuana Text Amendments - Medical Marijuana Enforcement
I. OVERVIEW
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on August 28, 2018 to
consider Ordinance 2018-012, a series of text amendments pertaining to the regulation and
enforcement of medical and recreational marijuana on rural lands in Deschutes County.
Throughout the hearing, both the public and the Board discussed the complexities governing
medical marijuana grows and the County's ability to regulate and enforce these sites. One option
to be considered is to classify lawfully established medical marijuana grow sites as nonconforming
uses, and expressly require existing legal medical marijuana grow sites to apply for a
nonconforming use verification. It is important to note, however, that the legal landscape
surrounding marijuana is constantly shifting, and that this approach to medical marijuana
compliance may be subject to conflicting legal opinions.
II. NONCONFORMING USE VERIFICATION
1. Background
During the public hearing, a significant amount of testimony may have been addressing the negative
effects—(noise, odor, etc.) of either medical or illegal grows—in other words, marijuana production
that is beyond the scope of the proposed amendments. As acknowledged during the hearing, the
County generally cannot identify the location of the majority of medical grow operations unless a
specific complaint has been lodged, owing to state statute. How, then, can the County ensure that
any potential adverse impacts from medical grow sites are mitigated?
Current regulations require medical grow sites registered with the Oregon Health Authority prior to
June 1, 2016 to have complied with lighting standards (DCC 18.116.340(B)) by September 2016, and
with odor, noise, screening and fencing, water, security cameras, and secure waste disposal (DCC
18.116.340(C)) by December 15, 2016. Medical grow sites registered by OHA on or after June 1, 2016
must comply with the standards set forth in DCC 18.116.340(D). However, while the code requires the
aforementioned standards are met, due to privacy restrictions this is enforceable by the County only
if a complaint is received to a specific address.
2. Nonconforming Use Overview
A nonconforming use verification is required under DCC 18.120 to "maintain" a use that was
previously permitted and is no longer permitted under state or county law—it is essentially the
"grandfathering" of a use that was, at one time, legal.' Under the current code there is some
ambiguity whether lawfully established medical grow sites are required to obtain non -conforming
use verification. Were the Board to expressly require non -conforming use verifications for lawfully
established medical grow sites, it would present an option for gaining an understanding of the
locations of medical grow locations and incorporating them into the County's inspections and annual
reporting system.
The property, whose location would now be known by the County, would then be subject to DCC
18.116.340, Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority. If a property owner
chose to ignore the new law and did not apply for a nonconforming use verification during the
prescribed time period, he or she would risk code enforcement should the location of the site be
revealed, whether by an individual complaint or a larger -scale change to OHA's privacy policy.
The NCU verification process would require the following from the applicant:
1) Fee - details TBD. In order to encourage compliance, NCU verification should not be
prohibitively high. Staff recommends the Board consider establishing an initial low fee for a
brief period to incentivize compliance and then the standard nonconforming use verification
fee ($1,648/Declaratory Ruling).
2) Proof of compliance consistent with DCC 18.120.010(B), Verification of Nonconforming Use
and DCC 18.120.010(F), Procedure.2
3. Nonconforming Use: Process
The process to require nonconforming use verification for existing medical marijuana grow sites
would be as follows:
• County creates and adopts (potentially by emergency ordinance) nonconforming use
amendments to DCC 18.116.340, Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health
Authority for medical marijuana grow sites, stating who is required to obtain the verification,
how to do so, and in what time period
• County creates informational flyer explaining new law requirements for medical growers
1 DCC 18.120.010 -"...the lawful use of a building, structure or land existing on the effective date of DCC Title 18, any
amendment thereto or any ordinance codified therein may be continued although such use or structure does not conform
with the standards for new development specified in DCC Title 18."
2 https://weblink.deschutes.org/public/O/doc/4011/Pagel .aspx
Page 2 of 4
• Flyer is mailed by OHA (owing to confidentiality law) to all registered medical grows requiring
compliance and application within six months
• Reminder flyer sent by OHA after three more months
• Medical growers would be required to apply for and receive nonconforming use verification
during this time; afterwards, if State law changes and the locations are revealed, growers
would be out of compliance and subject to code enforcement
• Timeline requirements should take into account potential additional load on staff to process
applications.
4. NCU in Other Counties
One Oregon county, Jackson, has implemented the Nonconforming Use Approach to medical
marijuana grow sites. Please find below a summary of the approach. Of note: Josephine County has
also attempted to implement NCU verification with an explicit timeframe, but the ordinance
containing this requirement was appealed and the County is currently undergoing legal procedures
addressing their marijuana regulations more generally.
Jackson County
• When the state defined marijuana growing as a farm use, this essentially made medical
grows in residential areas illegal, since farm uses in rural residential were prohibited in
Jackson County. (Note - In Deschutes County, agricultural uses are allowed in rural
residential zones, similar to Jackson County. Agricultural use is defined differently from
farm use in County Code.)
• NCU verification allowed these growers (who had previously been operating legally) to be
grandfathered in, even though state rules had changed
• Created Targe staffing needs: code enforcement load doubled the first year and a new hire
was necessary just to process marijuana land use applications enforce codes. Planning:
high early volume, thought it would level off, but then continued volume with
property/grow expansions.
• No special standards for medical marijuana—general lawful pre-existing process
• No special notice given re: NCU requirement beyond normal processes
• No specific timelines or deadlines
• No special fee—basic Class 2 permit
• Jackson County does not distinguish between medical and recreational marijuana; they
require land use approval for more than 10 plants (4 personal, 6 medical for a patient)
• County relies on applicants showing their grow card and would assign 6 plants per card
(however, this could become a legal issue since the NCU is supposed to verify what was
actually being grown at the time, not what they were permitted to grow as defined by
cards)
• Odor is only regulated for processing, not production
• Complaints: first would be sent to code enforcement, which would then verify the NCU and
growing license as applicable. Property owners are given the opportunity to apply for a
permit.
Page 3 of 4
III. BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Board may consider this approach to verify existing medical marijuana growers as well as to
apply the annual reporting and inspection code requirements to ensure current and ongoing
compliance.
If the Board wishes to consider this approach, staff recommends the discussion of the following
items:
• Require NCU verifications for all existing medical marijuana growers in all zones or just
those in the Rural Residential -10 and Multiple Use Agricultural -10 Zone?
• What is the timeline to comply?
• If the growers do not apply for the NCU verification, what are the consequences, since their
locations would not be known?
• This likely will require additional staff (code enforcement and/or planning). Is the Board
supportive of adding an additional one or two FTE to process the applications?
• Prior to considering this approach, does the Board want to direct staff to contact OHA to
see if the agency will mail notices on behalf of Deschutes County at the County's cost? A
similar arrangement occurred during the first iteration of marijuana regulations in 2016.
Page 4 of 4
Attachment 4:
Other Documents Submitted
to Record
Tanya Saltzman
From: Tim Berg
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:39 AM
To: Nick Lelack; 'Nunzie'
Cc: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: RE: mj new regs map
Good Morning Nick,
The number of Exclusive Farm Use parcels within each acreage range is listed below.
5 - 9.99 acres: 314 parcels
10 - 19.99 acres: 363 parcels
20 - 39.99 acres: 302 parcels
40 - 79.99 acres: 141 parcels
80+ acres: 98 parcels
Thanks,
Tim Berg 1 Applications & Systems Analyst
117 NW Lafayette Avenue 1 Bend, Oregon 97703
Tel: (541) 330-4648
Original Message
From: Nick Lelack
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 5:03 PM
To: 'Nunzie' <nunzie@pacifier.com>
Cc: Tim Berg <Tim.Berg@deschutes.org>; Tanya Saltzman <Tanya.Saltzman@deschutes.org>
Subject: RE: mj new regs map
Hi Nunzie,
I will ask our IT staff Tim Berg if he can readily identify these numbers. He is currently covering for two IT staff positions
in our department.
In addition, you recently asked me about our hiring women planners, and I confirmed that we have proudly hired several
over the past few years. Please find below a link to an article featuring one of our new staff members:
https://bendmagazine.com/how-a-land-use-plan ner-added-personal-style-to-her-bend-apartment/
Have a nice weekend.
Nick Lelack, AICP 1 Director
Deschutes County Community Development
117 NW Lafayette Ave 1 Bend, Oregon 97703
1
Tel: (541) 385-1708 1 Cell: (541) 639-5585
Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey
Original Message
From: Nunzie <nunzie@pacifier.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 8:50 AM
To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>
Subject: mj new regs map
Hi Nick
in the mj map of properties in the new regs, please identify the numbers of EFU parcels of 5 acres, 10 acres, 20 acres, 40
acres and
80 acres.
Thanks
Nunzie
2