The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-85-Minutes for Meeting January 23,2019 Recorded 3/8/2019• � ESBOARD COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2019-85 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 03/08/2019 2:38:11 PM n,`'��JTESICdG2� II'II��I'I"II"II��II II I �I� 2019-85 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY 1:30 PM WEDNESDAY, January 23, 2019 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson, Patti Adair, and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1. Adult Parole & Probation Performance Dashboards Community Justice Director Ken Hales introduced the update to the Board as a part of the 1St quarter performance measure update given to the Board at the December 17 2018 Business Meeting. Deputy Director Tanner Wark reviewed the information on the performance measure on service delivery for the Adult Parole and Probation department. BOCC WORK SESSION JANUARY 23, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 5 2. December 2018 Treasurer's Report and Financial Reports Finance Director Wayne Lowry presented the financials and treasurer's reports for the month of December. Commissioner Henderson requested a financial chart showing the past five years to use during discussion at the January 29 Planning Session. There were 50 vacant positions at the end of December. Commissioner Henderson asked for information on Administrative positions in Health Services. Mr. Lowry reported on capital improvement projects and recommended delegating authority on funding options to the Finance Director. The Board requested additional time to review that option. 3. Follow Up on Solid Waste Management Plan Communication Public Information Officer Whitney Hale and Solid Waste Director Timm Schimke presented the discussion. Commissioner DeBone envisions a phone survey for public communications and education. Commissioner Henderson also agrees with a phone survey instead of a focus group concept. The consultant anticipates 400 calls. Discussion held on the best option to reach the public. County Administrator Anderson inquired if the franchisees would be interested in a partnership for gathering public information and possibly sharing the cost of the public survey. 4. Grading Ordinance Working Group Update Community Development Department staff Nick Lelack and Nicole Mardell presented the update on the grading ordinance. A group of six individuals was formed to review the issues of the grading ordinance. The group held two meetings and did not reach a consensus. CDD staff presented the minutes from the meetings and asked the Board for direction. BOCC WORK SESSION JANUARY 23, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 5 Commissioner DeBone explained he doesn't see a need for a grading ordinance for all instances and supports community discussions. Mr. Lelack commented on the concerns of the grading ordinance for the irrigation districts. Commissioner Adair feels it is important to keep it simple and would like to review the rules adopted byr Klamath County. Commissioner DeBone suggests to list the key issues that are needing to be corrected. Mr. Lelack would offer bringing the items back with options to consider which may not include a grading ordinance. A map of the subject property will be sent to the Board. S. Revision to DCC 17.16.105 for Access Requirements for Subdivisions Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner presented this item for discussion and reviewed access to subdivisions. A workshop was held with the Planning Commission in November and a public hearing was then held in December. This recommendation to modify the text of the County Code was then sent to the Board of Commissioners and a public hearing is scheduled forJanuary 30. Mr. Russell reported on the history of funding for the Road Department for road maintenance. 6. Non -Resource Lands/Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments Community Development Department staff Peter Gutowsky and Nick Lelack presented and reviewed the history of the scope of work and the definition of the subject lands. Mr. Gutowsky reported there was a soil study completed and distributed a map to the Board. Staff inquired for direction whether to initiate legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Henderson inquired on the rural lands 10 acre zones in terms of housing. Mr. Gutowsky and Mr. Lelack explained Goal 14 and land use system and the exceptions process. Commissioner Henderson likes the definition of non -prime resource lands instead of non -resource lands and requested to review maps. Commissioner DeBone supported the idea of proceeding. Mr. Gutowsky outlined the scope of public meetings that will be held throughout the county. BOCC WORK SESSION JANUARY 23, 2019 PAGE 3 OF 5 7. Deliberation Preparation - Appeal for Marijuana Production Approval, 24350 - 24360 Dodds Road Community Development Department staff Matt Martin presented information in preparation for deliberations on January 30. Mr. Martin provided materials that have been received since the public hearing of December 19. Commissioner Adair inquired on the proposed water usage for the facility. Mr. Martin explained the materials detailed in the record. Mr. Gutowsky reported on the equine use on the property for training, riding and education which appears to qualify as farm use. The applicants assert that the property is identified as farm use and not a youth activity center. Commissioner DeBone reported he will not be present at the business meeting due to other scheduled obligations. Mr. Martin noted the 150 day obligation for a decision is February 24. RECESS: The Board took a recess at 4:43 p.m. and reconvened at 4:48 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 4:48 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session 4:56 p.m. OTHER ITEMS: • 2019 Planning Session: County Administrator Anderson presented the draft agenda for the January 29 Board Planning Session. Mr. Anderson asked Department heads to provide a brief list of department issues for the upcoming year and he will present it to the Board prior to Tuesday. Commissioner Henderson suggested site visits on January 31 and February 1 BOCC WORK SESSION JANUARY 23, 2019 PAGE 4 OF 5 to Lane, Marion, Washington, and Clackamas Counties to their stabilization centers. The fire resilient building codes will be removed from the Planning Session agenda and replace it with the stabilization center in consideration of time. COMMISSIONER UPDATES Commissioner DeBone advocated for Fair Board appointment to be decided upon. Commissioner Henderson expressed desire to meet with the two candidates that Commissioner Adair met with. mamma } F a Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m. BOCC WORK SESSION JANUARY 23, 2019 PAGE 5 OF 5 \)I ES E S COG Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2019 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. Adult Parole & Probation Performance Dashboards - Ken Hales, Communityjustice Director 2. December 2018 Treasurer's Report and Financial Reports - Wayne Lowry, Finance Director/Treasurer 3. Follow -Up on Solid Waste Management Plan Communication -Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer 4. Grading Ordinance Working Group Update - Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner 5. Revision to DCC 17.16.105 for Access Requirements for Subdivisions -Peter Russell, Senior Planner 6. Non -Resource Lands / Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, January 23, 2019 Page 1 of 2 7. Deliberation Preparation - Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval (24350/24360 Dodds Rd) - Matthew Martin, Associate Planner COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES EXECUTIVE SESSION Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations At any time during the meeting an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.5660(2)(e); real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h) litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b); personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however ,with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the public. OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners with to discuss as part of the meeting pursuant to ORS 192.640. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.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 Wednesday, January 23, 2019 Page 2 of 2 \iIESCO 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 January 23, 2019 DATE: January 17, 2019 FROM: Ken Hales, Juvenile Community Justice, 541-317-3115 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Adult Parole & Probation Performance Dashboards RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED• As part of the Quarter 1 2019 Performance Measure Update at the December 17, 2018 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Business Meeting, the department was to report progress on the service goal to provide solution -oriented service that is cost-effective and efficient by ensuring quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology systems. In lieu of the department making report on December 17, the department request this opportunity and venue to better demonstrate the functionality of the performance dashboards. ATTENDANCE: Director J. Kenneth Hales and Deputy Director E. Tanner Wark Adult Parole and Probation Performance Measure (Service Delivery) • Service Delivery - To provide solution -oriented service that is cost- effective and efficient by ensuring quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology systems. • Dashboards -Adult PP working in conjunction with County IT staff to develop dashboards from newly acquired extracts received from the Department of Corrections . Background • In early 2017 the department was looking at contracting with Multnomah to provide the department with dashboards that Multnomah County had developed for their Community Corrections agency. • By July of 2018 the IGA had yet to be agreed upon, so the department decided to take on the project internally. • By September of 2018 we developed how first dashboard. Applications • Offender management at the PO level (Shows what is urgent and what is not) • Caseload management at the PO level(Shows what is urgent and what is not) • Team Management at the supervisor level p (PO s/Support Staff) • Sharing information between departments (P&P, DCSO, DA, BH) • Grant reporting and management (JRP FSAP • Research and program design • Program management ( Cognitive programing,, g g, MRT /Moving On) FOLDERS (10,i ANALYST FOLDER LJ cs Data Sourcesr--n Lj datasets Er,.?l ... Exmlfive Rew,orts --- JRP Ken r--n Lj M57 Supervisors POWER BI REPORTS (28) , 2505 DASH9,,--A jjjj 1506 AND 59 --).ASH BOA; 510 DASH R-',-,ARD 1515 a4SHBOCARD 1527 DASHBCAR:--, 1533 DASHBOARD 1538 DASHBOARD 1153 dAS H 5 OARD 1550 AND 51 DASH 130A; 1555 ANID 56 DASHB0.41t; 1557 DASHa-CARDA ai#I1558DASHBOAR0 .1561- AND 6 DASHBO.41-1 1.563 DASHBOARD '1565 DASHBOARD -1574 DAISHBDARD 1575 DASHBIC-ARD�Ik 1576 --).A.SHBI--,.AF,,D !7,111i 1580 AND 81 D.ASHBQAr- 15&4 DASHSOARD 1585 AND 86 DASHBOA; case-aank Cesh DESCHUTES COG PROGRAMS P P a r,5 J a, i f� Po p u I at i o Sancanc Fv Se;x Gffe,,ider Dash Sex -Offender Dash a2 PAGINATED REPORTS (14) After �iours Calls - lavision IF-11] Roll UPRepc,�t After �-fours Calls -Employee Detail Caseloac Distibolons 17-h, Caselbac Dist�-ibut.-om cy ... 11111 Casebac Number 17N Caseicac DistribLtf'onE by 19 CaseloacType FL Case�oa^-,DisbribLtonsb�v --- W11 Location l7b, [d Days, Between Sanctions Dashboard Timeline OC MgihIAV Mmov, - 18 t O'd,181 i ,I �,l I 19) Aw-1-9 Mar -19 PO Dashboard 2.0 00, 19 19 E S r/ 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 January 23, 2019 DATE: January 16, 2019 FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance, 541-388-6559 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: December 2018 Treasurer's Report and Financial Reports RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion of December 2018 Treasurer's Report and Financial Reports ATTENDANCE: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director/Treasurer SUMMARY: Monthly Report C O t M N U ►�ODO�T tfiNCOiM w 0 N N 00 o 0 �q T j= - ■ r ■ 0 E000 hOfO 0000L M N 0N0)NOf s N O O Cl) It N M E M coo o � m' jp1 O N G e- Cf)E N fn 7 H '0v C Lo a 7 y of a F- VV cS E 4 00 \ O �q T j= - ■ r ■ `e g E000 .r Q 0000L M co 0N0)NOf s N O O Cl) It N Ui N E N O � m' jp1 O r M Cf) G e� Cf)E N fn 7 H '0v C Lo a 7 y of 00 �1A� l.J �q T j= - ■ r ■ O N .r Q 0000L M Dui 0N0)NOf s N O O Cl) It N N 0) 0i (Q � m' jp1 O • r M Cf) � •N --t Cf)E N fn 7 H '0v C Lo 1C Ow»V 7 y of G F- VV cS E d D �Ouj C I C C Yp_I .a o eE o � of o o Itf V O O ti N N N N E c C E 0 W O C d N C H d g ELL a E y 6 a r > �o ccl! a v °c n cV a g �co 031, . m `t « L ai m m O C C1� IN d o ~ Im v N !YO (� N M UziJ U_m1=�U 00 CD O a" @c r w E O N 00 0000L c &q,5a E "S Dui 0N0)NOf s N O O Cl) It N N Lf) 0) 0i (Q � m' jp1 O U r M Cf) M •N --t N1 --L N fn 7 H 64 7 y of C M c C m y a" @c r w E 0oU~�° c &q,5a E "S �« 0—O O 2Ur:jU--iU.1- N d � � o F D O N! � m' jp1 O U w pZ N fn 7 H U 7 y of G F- Y cS d D �Ouj C � _mm N (D o W C d d g � LLQ O �o a Y C Cm cV « L h LL d Cl) J O N Management Delalle - Inveatmenle r 31, 2018 HMY6 3133EGAV7 14OBJ6 89PB6 76116FAAS 76116FAAS 7331 HML4 12.82OF62 51214BK8 3130Al )128284Y3 )53oi5AO5 3128281.65 g40093R25 45905U7J7 4590suifil 76116FAF-.7 3130AF5G8 492244OV'I 3130AFB71 3134GBX56 3134GBJH3 3134GSK87 3136G4NN9 695114CM8 695114CM8 3134GSK79 3134GSWC: 3134GSN68 Purchase Maturity Days To Ratings coupon Oat. Data -Maturity Moody.. 86P(fltch Rel. YTM 388 Sscurily oroaer Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 1 t Federal Agriculture Mtg Corp CASTLE U.S. Treasury CASTLE 1 U.S. Treasury CASTLE Commonwealth SK Auslr NY CASTLE Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE LLS- Treasury CASTLE Oregon State Lottery CASTLE "FIGO Strip CASTLE International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 1 U5 Bancorp CASTLE t MUFG Union Bank CASTLE MUFG Union Bank CASTLE Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE 1 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE National Credit Union Assoc CASTLE Deschutes County Ore Sch Dist PJ Washington County SD Municipal PJ U.S. Treasury PJ 1 'T. University of California CASTLE 1 �,RFSCP STRIP PRIM CASTLE 1 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp _CASTLE U.S.Treasury DA DAV 1 CALIFORNIA ST HOUSING FINAN CASTLE Federal National Mtg Assn - CASTLE Toronto Dominion Bank CASTLE U.S. Treasury CASTLE U.S Treasury CASTLE SAN JOSE EVERGREEN COMM (PJ Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE. Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE= :JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N CASTLE !JPMorgan Chase - CorporateN CASTLE -FICO Strip CASTLE Federal National Mig Assn CASTLE Fedowl National Mtg Assn CASTLE "Federal National Mig Assn CASTLE Federal National Mig Assn CASTLE RFSCP STRIP PRIN CASTLE RFSCPSTRIP PRIN CASTLE Rr-SCP STRIP PRIN .CASTLE Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE US Bancorp CASTLE "U.S. Treasury CASTLE Westpac CASTLE _. "U.S. Treasury PJ Wells Fargo Corporate Nate CASTLE' Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE Federal National Mtg Assn PJ Federal Home Loan Bank R W B ;Microsoft Corp CASTLE " Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE Toyota MV Grad - Corp N CASTLE U.S. Treasury DA UAV California St VINISP Federal Home loan Mig Corp CASTLE Westpac CASTLE Federal Home Loan MI9 Corp CASTLE _ "portlandCommunity College PJ "Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE Salem-KeizerSchool District CASTLE Oregon School Boards Assoc DA DAV Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE Wells Fargo Corporate Note PJ Federal National M19 Assn MORETN Federal National Mig Assn MORETN U S Bank - Corp Note CASTLE Federal Home Loan Bank MORETN U.S. Treasury :MORETN AUTOMATIC DATA CASTLE U.S, Treasury CASTLE "Washington Univ Higher Ed PJ International Bonds for Recons CASTLE International Bands for Recons CASTLE "CASTLE �RFSCP STRIP PRIN 990;960 "Federal Homo Loan Bank CASTLE Kern Community College CASTLE Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE -Federal Home Loan Mt9 Corp CASTLE 'Federal Home Loan Mig Corp CASTLE Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp MORETN Federal National Mig Assn 'CASTLE . Pacific Corp CASTLE Pacific Corp CASTLE Federal Home Loan Mt9 Corp MORETN Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp R W B international Bonds for Recons CASTLE. Pacific Carp CASTLE Oregon School Boards Assoc .MORETN, Local Govt Investment Pool 1,068,820 'First Interstate PJ1512019 Par Market Value Value 5/11201'7 2/2212016 9/1812017 5/SFti20/8 12/20/2018 112312019, 22 1.270 1.400 3.000,000, 2,998,500 2- 12912018 2/1572019 45 1.913 1.997 2,000,000 1,094,500 1 2 2/28/2019 58 Aaa 1.375 2.060 1,720 3.000,WO 2,600,000 2,995.110 2,597,244 2 3113+2079, 71 A83 2250" 2002 '2.090 1,020,000 1,014,013 1 21'712.078 3/15+2011 311572019 73 73,Aaa O.00D 2.538 77,000 76,639 415/2017 4/112019 90,Aa2 1.602 1.581 1,000,000 997,540 1 51112018 4/572010 94 Aaa 9.700 2.344 2,050,000 2,089,381 2 2/1512016 4/2612010 115 Aaa 1 250 1.500 2,000000 1,991,500 2 2i2212017 4/2612019 115 At 1.400. _2.000, 1,000,000_ 995,320; 12/612017 5/6/2019 125 A2 2.250 2.185 1,352,000 1,347,674 1 6/6/2018 516/2019 125 A2 2250 2.650 1,648,000 1,642,726 1 1/15/2017 5/1512019 134 At 5450 1.950 1,000,000 1,009,1'70 1 311/2018 5117!2019 136 Aaa iA70 2.210 2,000,000 1)90,220 1 3129/2018 6!1212019 162. Aaa 3.000 2.301 1,240,000 1,241,624 1 8/16/2016 6/15120191 165 Aat 1.360 1.360 245,000 243,537 5/11/2017 6/15/2019 165"Apt 1.488 1488 2 667 400,000 3,000,000 397,748 2,981,250 1127/2018 613012019 180 Aaa 1,250 1.796_ 2.774 1,500.000`. 1493,340 1/29/2018 7/1/2019 181,A0 2.655 2.768_ 3,000,(!00 2,958,270 1130/'1.018 7/2012.016 71757'1019 7119/2019 195 199 Aaa 0.875 0.957. 1,U0.000� 990;960 1/27/2018. 713112.019 211 Asa 1,625 2.610 3,000,000 7,070,000- 2,983,950 1,46.3,409 11/2/2017 81112019 212A1 213.Aaa 1,952 0,875 1.850 1.000 1,000,000 989,900 8118/2016 2/5.'2018 81212019. 8113/2019 224 Apt 7.450 2.360 5.06{),000 4,955.400 512412018 8/1512019 226 Asa 0.000 2494- '2.,000.000 1,068,820 3/21/2018 PJ1512019 226Aaa 3.625- 2.250 2,000,000 2,012600 499,300 615x2018 9111'2.019 24TAa1 2.657 2.659 500,000 11/3/2016 0111!2.019 253 At 2.300 1.532 1,6'75,000 1,606.290 512/2018 9(15!2019 257 2,422 2 5551 1,020,000 999,641 6128/2017 9123/2019 265 Aa2 1.650 1.840. 1,300.000 1,288,040 4/10/2017 97231'2(119 26.5 Aa2 3.414 2.350 3,000.000 3,000,900 9/26/2019 268 Ase 8,600 2.709 2,800,000 2,918,580 1214/2015 10!912019 281 1-891 2.031 1,400000 1,370,852 (111712016 10/972019 281 1.665 1,774 6001'X)0 400,000 58'7,508 391,672 818/2016 1019/2019 281 1.252 1.318 11/22/2017 1079!2019 281 1.928 2.030 3,690,000 :4.6125.046 9127!2017 14/1572019 287 1.499 1,572 1,000,000 979.310 979,310" 7/19/2018 10/1552019 287 2,566 2,560 2.636 2.688 1,000,00 2.000,000- 1,958,620 91121'2018 11/1012016 t0J15!-019 IOJ24/2U19 287, 206,Aas 1,000 1.173 2,000UD0� 1,973,500 11i19I2,018 1012BJ2019 .300 At 2125, 3.050" 1.008 1,600,000 2.,000000 7,588,704 1,981,32,0 7011112016 10/31/2019 303'Aaa 7.500 4.876 1.626 2,000,000, 2,037,020 813012017 11119/2019 3.22'Aa3 2.000 2,000,000, 1,080,080 111612018 112312018 72/312019 111512020 364 Asa 379 Aa2 1.625; 2.400 2.444 3,000.000 2,9'14,4'10 1211012018 1/1712020 381 Ann 1,500 2.770 1,500,000 2,000,000 1.483,170 1,980,100 12/2112018 112112020 385 Aaa 1,025 1,680 2.665 2:602 2.000,ODO 1,980,420 12/21/2018 8/8/2016 2/7/2020 2/12/2020 402 Aaa 407 As 1,850 1.298 1,000,0(C1 991,490 3/12/2018 212012020 415 Asa 2.150 2.360 3.301 925.000. 2,o0D.000 919,792 1.976.840 12712/2018 3/1272(1261 436 Aa3 2,150 1.375 2.760 2.000,000 1,970.620 912012018 313112020 455 Aaa 456A83 1.800, 1.800 760,000 769,626, 9/21/2017 4119/2.016 4/112020 412312020 478 Aaa 2.500 2.511 2.000,000 1,997,220 812112010 5)26/2020 511 Asa 2.300 3,015 1,000.000 988,420, 2,961,840 711312017 5129/2.020 514.Ana 1.625 1,671 3,000,000 515,000 Slit 256 11/270018 611/2020 517 Apt 3.126 2.063 3.126 2.349 1,000,000 955,650 3115.2017 ('1130/207,0 546,Aa2 2.107 1.778 2,310,000 2;2,88,286 7/2612017 613012020 546 Aa2 5.313 20!10 075,00(1 908,7'75 1112/2015 613072020 6r3012G20 546 Aa2 546 Aa2 5.373 500.000 519,300 CV2412016 1/1912077 712212020" %8 A2 - 2.300 2 570 0 7 000000 990.310 72113/2018 7/24/2020 570 Aaa-800 1,257,533 987.180 12/13/2018 7/2412020 570 Aaa 2820 1,000000 1,496,400 12/18/2018 7/24/2020 570 Al 1.830 2.892,737 8 ,000 2 000,000 1,877 240 12/21/2016 9128/2018 7/29/2020 8/31/2020 575 Aaa 608 Aaa 2.625 2,818 2,000,000 2,002,660 2/'2612016 977512020 623 Aa3 `2.250 2.570 2,751 2,710,000 2,000.000 2,695,149 1,960,70 9/1772018 9/30/2020 fp6Aaa 1.376 1.970, 400,00 420,780 111912017 21,912018 10/1/2020 10/512020 639,Aa3 643 Asa 5.030 L625 2.474 2,000,000 1,970,240 10/26/2018 1015/2020 643Asa 1.625 2,764 3.065 2.951 820,000 2445.000 807,798 2,:433,288 1014/2018 1012212018 10/1512020 10122r2020 653 660�Arm 3.000, 3000 2.000000 2,001,760 11115/2016 1111120'2.0 670 2.89:3 3.050 1..800 3.049, 500,000. 3,000,000, 501,270 3002,670._ 11/7512018 1211:412017 11/2/2020 1112412020 671 Aaa 693 Asa 2.250' 2 172- _ 3,000.000 ?„962,000. - 12)27/2017 211712021 778 Aaa _ 2000. 1,715 2,000,000'. 2,000,000 1,998,960 2,000,620 12/26/2018 3/26/2021 815 Aaa 3.000 2.060. 3.001 2000.. 1,080,000, 10/18/2017 512412021, 674 Aaa 3,850, 3.350 1,170,000, .1,061,186 1,188,147 11/29/2018 6/15/20211 896 At 3,850 3351 842,873 7216/2018 12/20/2018 6/75/20211 6/28/2021 896 At 960 Aaa 3.034 3,030 3.000,000" 3.002490 12121/2018 9127/2021 969 Aaa 3 030 3.032.900 1 3,000.000 2,000,000 ,000 2 00 8,380 ,212112018 9127/2021 994 Aaa 2.000 2.967 2,000.000 1,941,400 7116!2019 912812027 2/112022 1001 Aas 1127Af 2.950, 3.320 700,000 692,587 9/2572018 6130120'22- 12'76.Ao2 5,480 3.120, 925,000 1,009.665. 911412.018 . 2.750 2.750 53,949,829 53,949,029 2.750 2,760 5,622,515��>022L5t5�-. AAA AA - AAA AAA AA- A A AA - "AAA AAA AA 1212-0 .AAA .AAA AA- AAA AAA AA• AA AA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AA- .AAA AA - AAA AAA AA .AHA A+ AAA AA- AA- . AAA A- AAA AAA AA - AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA a/a AAA A+ Walk Call 'aloe Data 999,168 - .999.764 ,995.257 - - ,996:763 - - ,602,708 - - ,015,859 76,621 • - ,000,0.53 • ,088,707 - - .000,000 - - 998,116 3126/2019 ,352,247 4/612019 ,645,746 41612019 ,01?,777 - ,992,283 ,243,785 - 245.000 400,000 - 1,980,660 7492,%06... - 2,956,859 - - 999,556 • . ?„983,069 - - 7,070,618 - 999278 - • 4,972,694 • 7,97026 - - 2,016,697 - 500.000 - - 1,f412,887 g11112019 1002,3112 - 1,291,387 812372019 3.006.584 - - 2,919,177 - 1,179.336 - - 592.202 - - 398,091 . 3,545.922 - - 988,052 980,019 - - 7,959,185- - • 1,997.246 - - 1,568A42 972612019 2,00807.5 - 205'J.,538 . 1,997..699. - 2,998,676 - - 7.480.522 - - 7,978,484 - 1,978,405 - - 7,005,996 111212020 924,468 212(112019 1,873,7$2 - 1,966.429 - 790.006 - - 1,999.793- 990,?.9D - - 2,999,146 512912019 515000 - 969,146 - 2,37.0,962 - 916,301 527.415 . 1,003.778 - - 1,264,268 112412079 984,496 1/2412079 1,496,519 6124/2020 7,973,585 - - 7,993,784 . 2,695,751 8115(2,020 7,953,608 � - 426.600 - 1,978,248 415/2079 803.$98 4!512019 2,322,416 2,000,000 472212018,. 509,62.7 '. 3000.000 5!21'1.019 3.000.000 - 1,999,037 2/1772019 2,000,000 31261241e 1,080,000 2724/2019 1,183,640 377511.027 839,670 3/1512021 3,000,000 617.812019 2,998,506 2/'2712019 2,000,000 $1'1772019 1,949.793 692,481 11/1/'1021 General Fund Schedule of Financial Operating Data Year to Date July 1, 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 (50% of the year) Of Actual Actual I Budget Revenues Property Taxes -Current $ 26,803,012 $ 25,654,144 94% a) $ 27,337,385 $ 27,530,754 193,36 - Property Taxes - Prior 500,406 278,955 75% 74% b) 370,000 2,685,500 370,000 2,755,500 70,000 Other General Revenues 3,190,552 1,987,956 451,071 52% c) 870,658 870,658 Assessor 847,520 1,796,418 796,563 45% 1'782;7000 1 712,050 (34(650) County Clerk 12,468 6,903 54% c) BOPTA 226,561 38,357 10% f) 389,782 389,782 - District Attorney 201,617 126,680 64% c) 198,950 198,950 - Tax Office 162,223 45,761 27% g) 166,423 166,423 - Veterans Property Management 99,502 10,000 8% h) 120,000 33,938,668 120,000 34,166,987 - 228,319 Total Revenues 33,840,279 29,396,391 87% Expenditures 4,240,703 2,217,173 46% d) 4,802,452 4,704,485 97,967 Assessor 1,529,074 831,022 45% d) 1,845,477 1,837,608 7 870 County Clerk 65,271 35,435 48% d) 73,125 73,068 57 BOPTA 6,601,913 3,274,919 44% d) 7,372,932 7,016,057 356,875 District Attorney 158,160 62,400 36% 173,129 165,129 8,000 Medical Examiner 791,044 404,289 46% d) 872,020 856,543 15,477 Tax Office 492,616 291,095 51% d) 572,287 571,834 453 Veterans Property Management 253,495 137,359 48% d) 287,858 284,266 3,592 Non -Departmental 1,259,222 632,780 45% 1,401,829 17,401,109 1,401,829 16,910,818 490,291 Total Expenditures 15,391,498 _ 7,886,471 159,065 45% 49% e) 326,122 289,065 (37,057) Transfers In 17,420,195 9,033,319 49% 18,403,681 18,403,681 - Transfers Out 32,811,693 16,760,725 47% 35,478,668 35,025,434 453,234 Total Exp & Transfers 1,028,586 12,635,665 (1,540,000) (858,447) 681,553 Change in Fund Balance 10,917,957 11,946,543 110% 10,890,000 11,946,543 1,056,543 Beginning Fund Balance $ 11,946,543 $ 24,582,209 $ 9,350,000 $ 11,088,096 $ 1,738,096 Ending Fund Balance Expenditures Recap by Budget Category 5,595,737 46% 12,080,220 Personnel 10,617,386 4,606,437 2,241,830 43% 5,252,889 Material & Services 167,675 48,904 72% 68,000 Capital Outlay $ 15,391,498 $ 7,886,471 45% $ 17,401,109 Total by Category a) Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May. TAV came in 0.3% higher than budgeted. b) PILT payment of $500,000 received in July. Includes $91,104 of Marijuana tax. c) A & T Grant received quarterly. Q1 - July; Q2 - October; Q3 - January; Q4 - April. d) Savings related to FTE vacancies YTD and forecasted vacancy rates consistent with YTD experience. e) Repayment to General Fund from Finance for ERP Implementation and Humane Society loan closeout. f) Criminal Justice grant of $152k awarded in October, yet to be drawn upon. g) Oregon Dept of Veteran's Affairs grant reimbursed quarterly. h) Interfund land -sale management revenue recorded at year-end. 1 Revenues OYA Basic & Diversion ODE Juvenile Crime Prev Leases Inmate/Prisoner Housing DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712 Food Subsidy Gen Fund -Crime Prevention Interest on Investments OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065 Contract Payments Case Supervision Fee Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Transfers Transfers In -General Fund Transfers Out-Veh Reserve Total Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Community Justice- Juvenile Schedule of Financial Operating Data Year to Date July 1, 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 (50% of the year) % of Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance $ 417,385 $ 96,547 24% a) $ 407,113 $ 407,113 $ - 67,130 - 0% g) 91,379 91,379 - 86,315 44,092 52% e) 85,000 87,000 2,000 133,500 40,500 58% b) 70,000 85,000 15,000 35,220 17,472 50% 35,000 35,000 - 22,206 5,992 32% d) 18,744 16,000 (2,744) 20,000 5,000 25% c) 20,000 20,000 - 21,264 14,371 57% 25,000 25,000 - 17,107 15,057 89% b) 17,000 26,000 9,000 8,075 3,837 48% 8,000 8,000 - 6,087 3,011 43% 7,000 7,000 - 3,359 863 42% 2,050 2,050 - 837,648 246,743 31% 786,286 809,542 23,256 5,149,243 2,672,643 47%0 5,705,245 5,534,582 170,662 1,226,264 586,336 44% h) 1,327,658 1,300,000 27,658 - 7,566 95% i) 8,000 7,566 434 6,375,507 3,266,546 46% 7,040,903 6,842,149 198,754 5,597,643 2,915,509 50% 5,831,015 5,831,015 - 69,000 43,500 50% 87,000 87,000 - 6,528,643 2,872,009 50% 5,744,015 5,744,015 - (9,217) (147,794) (510,602) (288,592) 222,010 1,358,098 1,348,881 112% 1,200,000 1,348,881 148,881 $ 1,348,881 $ 1,201,088 $ 689,398 $ 1,060,289 $ 370,891 a) Quarterly payments received after reimbursement requested. b) Projected upward due to year to date revenue received. c) Quarterly payments. d) Projected downward due to year to date revenue received. e) Leases paid month in advance. Increased projection due to short-term lease ending December 2018 f) Projected downward based on detention and community service vacancies experienced to -date. g) Quarterly payments after reimbursement. 1 st quarter payment received 1/8/19. h) Projected downard due to lower than budgeted offender services expenditures. i) One-time expense. Projection updated. 2 Sheriff's Office and LEDs Schedule of Financial Operating Data Revenues Year to Date July 1, FY 2018 2018 through December 31, 2018 FY 2019 (50% of the year) I Property Taxes of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues LED #1 Countywide Property Taxes Current Year $ 22,428,903 $ 23,248,256 94% a) $ 24,792,245 $ 24,922,722 $ 130,477 Prior Year 360,299 215,121 72% 300,000 325,000 25,000 Foreclosed Properties 33,979 - 0% - - - Interest 157,047 100,639 69% 145,000 235,000 90,000 Total LED #1 Countywide 22,980,228 23,564,016 93% 25,237,245 25,482,722 245,477 LED #2 Rural Property Taxes Current Year 10,058,115 9,400,653 94% a) 10,043,598 10,077,740 34,142 Prior Year 163,202 97,244 65% 150,000 146,000 (4,000) Foreclosed Properties 15,221 - 0% - - - Interest 124,758 77,690 65% 120,000 185,000 65,000 Total LED#2 Rural 10,361,296 9,575,587 93% 10,313,598 10,408,740 95,142 Sheriffs Office Revenues 7,746,923 3,381,021 49% 6,929,945 6,924,745 (5,200) Total Revenues 41,088,446 36,620,624 86% 42,480,788 42,816,206 335,418 Expenditures Sheriffs Services 2,604,354 1,360,350 45% b) 2,997,984 2,993,572 4,412 Civil/Special Units 1,364,969 616,465 52% 1,181,695 1,198,707 (17,012) Automotive/Communications 2,363,693 1,098,503 42% c) 2,644,786 2,657,395 (12,609) Detective 1,886,714 1,076,047 53% d) 2,033,077 2,120,721 (87,644) Patrol 9,660,880 4,831,146 48% 10,003,953 9,943,617 60,336 Records 793,478 437,373 50% 881,182 973,097 (91,915) Adult Jail 16,858,723 8,482,049 46% e) 18,630,764 17,763,448 867,316 Court Security 490,186 265,884 48% 551,494 542,517 8,977 Emergency Services 388,607 145,590 44%0 328,581 318,138 10,443 Special Services 1,570,443 729,339 48% 1,520,623 1,491,888 28,735 Training 693,517 388,721 58% g) 667,647 776,485 (108,838) Other Law Enforcement Services 834,610 506,892 50% 1,017,266 1,052,021 (34,755) Crisis Stabilization Center 71,424 4,654 1% h) 559,308 559,308 - Non -Departmental 52,077 4,164 4% i) 108,329 108,329 - Total Expenditures 39,633,673 19,947,179 46% 43,126,689 42,499,243 627,446 Change in Fund Balance 1,454,773 16,573,445 (645,901) 316,963 962,864 Beginning Fund Balance 13,418,672 14,873,445 107% 13,837,807 14,873,445 1,035,638 Ending Fund Balance $ 14,873,446 $ 31,446,890 $ 13,191,906 $ 15,190,408 $ 1,998,502 a) TAV came in 0.3% higher than budgeted for LED #1 and 0.2% for LED #2. b) Parking Lot project phase 3 pending. c) New & Current Automotive supplies will catch up in Q3. d) Vehicles budgeted for FY19 all purchased in Q2. e) Significant savings from vacant FTE, partially offset by higher overtime costs. f) Overtime savings experienced YTD. g) Firearms and Ammunition purchases occur at the beginning of the year. h) Money for this project has not been spent yet. i) Includes annual transfers from Fund 701/702 to Fund 256 for Equipment Reserve. NOTE: Personnel savings are reflected assuming current vacancy rates experienced will be maintained throughout the year. K Revenues State Grants CCBHC Grants OHP Capitation Environmental Health Fees Federal Grants Patient Fees (including State) Local Grants Title 19 State Miscellaneous Liquor Revenue Divorce Filing Fees Interfund Contract -Gen Fund Vital Records Interest on Investments Other Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Transfers Transfers In - General Fund Transfers In - PH Reserves Transfers Out Total Transfers In / Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Health Services - All Divisions Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Budget Projected I Variance $ 12,496,729 Year to Date July 1, 47% 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 8,095,540 (50% of the year) 7% a) 5,327,800 % of Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Budget Projected I Variance $ 12,496,729 $ 6,275,874 47% $ 13,243,852 $ 13,291,041 47,189 8,095,540 373,708 7% a) 5,327,800 5,809,701 481,901 8,835,600 4,451,221 51% b) 8,652,200 10,201,219 1,549,019 963,885 641,466 55% e) 1,169,600 1,027,488 (142,112) 477,203 100,266 14% c) 729,000 878,000 149,000 1,944,011 881,735 64% d) 1,383,668 1,705,888 322,220 888,375 572,103 47% 1,208,623 1,276,279 67,656 1,450,730 795,636 59% d) 1,345,100 1,699,368 354,268 1,238,534 181,636 20% 899,734 1,152,136 252,402 604,464 61,660 41% 151,000 151,000 - 131,745 157,603 100% 157,603 157,603 - 127,000 50,791 40% 127,000 127,000 - 240,496 111,736 53% 212,000 231,900 19,900 114,846 84,293 62% 135,000 145,500 10,500 753,233 233,417 55% 422,593 447,345 24,752 38,362,392 14,973,144 43% 35,164,773 38,301,468 3,136,695 27,549,618 14,656,560 46% f) 31,775,838 29,896,866 1,878,972 13,714,180 4,896,120 39% g) 12,534,845 12,933,474 (398,629) 117,629 24,780 6% h) 384,000 384,000 - 41,381,427 19,577,459 44% 44,694,683 43,214,340 1,480,343 4,584,193 3,039,111 50% 6,078,223 6,078,223 - - 289,669 101% i) 288,000 289,700 1,700 490,320 94,344 50% 188,688 188,688 - 4,093,873 3,234,437 52% 6,177,535 6,179,235 1,700 1,074,839 (1,369,879) (3,352,375) 1,266,363 4,618,738 8,229,713 9,304,552 129% j) 7,202,714 9,304,552 2,101,838 $ 9,304,552 $ 7,934,673 $ 3,850,339 $ 10,570,914 $ 6,720,576 a) CCBHC wraparound payments are reimbursed on a quarterly basis. Projection updated to include year 1 CCBHC Expansion. b) Coordinated Care Organization payment received from Pacific Source. New contract effective 01/01/2019 reflects an increase. c) SAMSHA Crisis Co -responder grant; quarterly reimbursements begin in January 2019. Notice of Award received for crisis grant, of which $149,000 will be received and expended this fiscal year. d) There is an uptick in patient visits, and resulting revenue, relative to budgeted expectations. e) The majority of Environmental Health Fees are assessed/collected at the end of calendar year 2018. f) Savings are anticipated from a slow -down in hiring and future vacancy rates forecasted. g) Notice of Awards received for crisis grant and CCBHC expansion not reflected in budgeted amounts. h) $350k is budgeted to be spent to furnish a Crisis Stabilization center facility. i) Amounts transferred from Public Health Reserves to Public Health Operations per budget deliberations. j) Both an increase in CCHBC clients served, and an increase to the CCBHC reimbursement rate, during the last few months of FY18 contributed to larger than projected revenues for FY18. CI Revenues State Grants CCBHC Grants OHP Capitation Federal Grants Patient Fees (including State) Local Grants Title 19 State Miscellaneous Liquor Revenue Divorce Filing Fees Interfund Contract -Gen Fund Other Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Transfers Transfers In - General Fund Transfers Out - Dept Admin Total Transfers In / Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Health Services - Behavioral Health Division Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance $ 9,727,563 Year to Date July 1, 48% 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 7,422,784 (50% of the year) 9% a) of Actual Actual I Budget FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance $ 9,727,563 $ 4,920,511 48% $ 10,168,869 $ 10,168,869 - 7,422,784 373,708 9% a) 4,381,400 4,863,301 481,901 8,835,600 4,451,221 51% b) 8,652,200 10,201,219 1,549,019 172,019 52,188 19% c) 278,096 427,096 149,000 518,984 335,366 91% d) 368,400 646,108 277,708 11,928 - 0% e) 412,987 412,987 - 1,450,730 795,636 59% d) 1,345,100 1,699,368 354,268 731,145 3,735 1% 351,200 355,000 3,800 604,464 61,660 41% 151,000 151,000 - 131,745 157,603 100% 157,603 157,603 - 127,000 50,791 40% 127,000 127,000 - 359,761 133,317 40% 334,545 341,925 7,380 30,093,723 11,335,736 42% 26,728,400 29,551,476 2,823,076 16,306,247 8,729,703 45% f) 19,246,611 17,861,738 1,384,873 6,632,028 2,152,414 36% g) 6,055,277 6,364,500 (309,223) 32,579 24,780 7% h) 379,000 379,000 - 22,970,853 10,906,897 42% 25,680,888 24,605,238 1,075,650 1,734,107 1,141,290 50% 2,282,708 2,282,708 - 5,402,700 3,124,278 50% i) 6,248,940 6,248,940 - (3,668,593) (1,982,988) 50% (3,966,232) (3,966,232) - 3,454,277 (1,554,149) (2,918,720) 980,006 3,898,726 2,174,468 5,628,745 142% j) 3,976,398 5,628,745 1,652,347 $ 5,628,745 $ 4,074,596 $ 1,057,678 $ 6,608,751 $ 5,551,073 a) CCBHC wraparound payments are reimbursed on a quarterly basis. Projection includes revenues from CCBHC Expansion Grant. b) Coordinated Care Organization payment received from Pacific Source. New contract effective 01/01/2019 reflects an increase. c) SAMSHA Crisis Co -responder grant; quarterly reimbursements begin in January 2019. Notice of Award received for an additional crisis grant, of which $149,000 will be received and expended this fiscal year. d) There is an uptick in patient visits, and resulting revenue, relative to budgeted expectations. e) This is a local grant from Pacific Source collected on a quarterly basis, after request is made. f) Savings anticipated from a slow -down in hiring and future vacancy rate of 6% forecasted. g) Notice of Awards received for crisis grant and CCBHC expansion not reflected in budgeted amounts. h) $350k is budgeted to be spent to furnish a Crisis Stabilization center facility. i) Amount represents the funding transferred from Behavioral Health to Department Admin for support. j) Both an increase in CCHBC clients served, and an increase to the CCBHC reimbursement rate, during the last few months of FY18 contributed to larger than projected revenues for FY18. 5 Health Services - Public Health Division Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Budget I Projected Variance Revenues Year to Date July 1, 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 (50% of the year) $ 2,769,165 of Actual Actual I Budget FY 2019 Budget I Projected Variance Revenues State Grants $ 2,769,165 $ 1,355,363 44% $ 3,074,983 $ 3,122,172 47,189 Environmental Health Fees 963,885 641,466 55% a) 1,169,600 1,027,488 (142,112) Patient Fees (including State) 1,425,027 546,370 54% b) 1,015,268 1,059,780 44,512 Federal Grants 305,185 48,078 13% c) 382,000 382,000 - Local Grants 876,447 572,103 72% i) 795,636 863,292 67,656 State Miscellaneous 507,389 177,901 32% j) 548,534 797,136 248,602 Vital Records 240,496 111,736 53% 212,000 231,900 19,900 Other 374,434 93,216 118% d) 79,048 93,420 14,372 Total Revenues 7,462,028 3,546,232 49% 7,277,069 7,577,188 300,119 Expenditures Personnel Services 6,512,999 3,498,124 47% e) 7,462,095 7,132,500 329,595 Materials and Services 1,833,637 647,664 34% 1,923,694 2,013,100 (89,406) Capital Outlay 74,995 - 0% - - - Total Expenditures 8,421,631 4,145,788 44% 9,385,789 9,145,600 240,189 Transfers Transfers In - General Fund 2,850,086 1,897,821 50% 3,795,515 3,795,515 - Transfers In - PH Reserves - 289,669 101% f) 288,000 289,700 1,700 Transfers Out - Dept Admin 2,009,844 1,037,070 50% g) 2,074,366 2,074,366 - Total Transfers In / Out 840,242 1,150,421 57% 2,009,149 2,010,849 1,700 Change in Fund Balance (119,361) 550,864 (99,571) 442,437 542,008 Beginning Fund Balance 933,059 813,698 139% h) 583,802 813,698 229,896 Ending Fund Balance $ 813,698 $ 1,364,562 $ 484,231 $ 1,256,135 $ 771,905 a) The majority of Environmental Health Fees are assessed/collected at the end of calendar year 2018. b) Patient fees include fee-for-service payments from the State, Commercial Insurance, and Patients. c) Received on a quarterly basis, after request is made. d) An unanticipated donation of $11 k to maternal/child health was received during the year. e) Savings are anticipated from a slow -down in hiring and future vacancy rate of 4% forecasted. f) Amounts transferred from Public Health Reserves to Public Health Operations per budget deliberations. g) Amount represents the funding transferred from Public Health to Department Admin for support. h) Savings from a hiring slow -down around the previous budget development provided additional savings in FYI 8, over projected. i) Local grants are paid out in semi-annual, or annual, amounts toward the beginning of the year. j) Funding from House Bill 3391 (Family Planning Exp Project) coming in higher than anticipated. Quarterly collections. no Health Services - Administration Division Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Budget Projected I Variance Revenues Year to Date July 1, 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 (50% of the year) $ 672,756 of Actual Actual I Budget FY 2019 Budget Projected I Variance Revenues CCBHC Grants $ 672,756 $ - 0% a) $ 946,400 $ 946,400 - Federal Grants - - 0% b) 68,904 68,904 - Interest on Investments 114,846 84,293 62% 135,000 145,500 10,500 Other 19,038 6,884 76% c) 9,000 12,000 3,000 Total Revenues 806,640 91,177 8% 1,159,304 1,172,804 13,500 Expenditures Personnel Services 4,730,372 2,429,602 48% d) 5,067,132 4,902,628 164,504 Materials and Services 5,248,515 2,096,042 46% 4,555,874 4,555,874 - Capital Outlay 10,056 - 0% 5,000 5,000 - Total Expenditures 9,988,943 4,525,645 47% 9,628,006 9,463,502 164,504 Transfers Transfers In - General Fund - - 0% - - - Transfers In - Dept Admin 7,412,544 4,161,348 50% e) 8,323,306 8,323,306 - Transfers Out 490,320 94,344 50% 188,688 188,688 - Total Transfers In I Out 6,922,224 4,067,004 50% 8,134,618 8,134,618 - Change in Fund Balance (2,260,079) (367,464) (334,084) (156,080) 178,004 Beginning Fund Balance 5,122,187 2,862,108 108% 2,642,514 2,862,108 219,594 Ending Fund Balance $ 2,862,108 $ 2,494,644 $ 2,308,430 $ 2,706,028 $ 397,598 a) CCBHC wraparound payments are reimbursed on a quarterly basis. Amounts received are for CCBHC-related staff, and additional expenditures under the CCBHC Expansion Grant. b) Includes funding from Crisis Co -responder grant and Oregon Meaningful Use Program. c) Payments for leased space from medical professionals. Utilities reimbursements from Mosaic medical. d) Savings anticipated from a slow -down in hiring and future vacancy rate of 3% forecasted. e) Amount represents the funding required from Behavioral Health & Public Health for Department Admin. 0 Community Development Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance Revenues Admin- Operations Year to Date July 1, $ 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 152,400 $ (50% of the year) Admin- Code Enforcement 581,209 % of Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance Revenues Admin- Operations $ 134,969 $ 76,628 67% a) $ 114,500 $ 152,400 $ 37,900 Admin- Code Enforcement 581,209 333,642 50% a) 664,291 691,950 27,659 Building Safety 3,113,439 1,590,202 48% a) 3,312,714 3,433,639 120,925 Electrical 765,399 374,417 47% 804,849 809,333 4,484 Env Health- On Site Prog 809,187 376,699 48% a) 782,984 877,259 94,275 Planning -Current 1,813,228 918,090 47% b) 1,945,453 1,906,093 (39,360) Planning- Long Range 559,223 411,029 50% a) 828,955 847,092 18,137 Total Revenues 7,776,653 4,080,706 48% 8,453,746 8,717,766 264,020 Expenditures (by Division) Admin -Operations 1,905,335 1,173,373 47% c) 2,480,694 2,388,726 91,968 Admin -GIS 200,208 - 0% - - - Admin -Code Enforcement 412,921 217,672 47% c) 466,550 448,766 17,784 Building Safety 1,364,198 785,256 46% c) 1,717,925 1,652,744 65,181 Electrical 339,953 218,854 48% c) 455,905 450,261 5,644 Env Health -On Site Pgm 471,314 287,828 46% c) 621,107 589,235 31,872 Planning -Current 1,301,029 731,572 47% b), c) 1,560,577 1,489,093 71,484 Planning -Long Range 360,795 244,729 49% c) 503,344 490,073 13,271 Total Expenditures 6,355,753 3,659,283 47% 7,806,102 7,508,898 297,204 Net from Operations 1,420,900 421,423 65% 647,644 1,208,868 561,224 Transfers Out To CDD Reserve Funds 1,058,963 686,250 50% d) 1,372,679 1,767,750 (395,071) Net Transfers In/ Out (1,058,963) (686,250) (1,372,679) (1,767,750) (395,071) Change in Fund Balance 361,937 (264,827) (725,035) (558,882) 166,153 Beginning Fund Balance 2,167,678 2,529,615 115% 2,203,711 2,529,615 325,904 Ending Fund Balance $ 2,529,615 $ 2,264,788 $ 1,478,676 $ 1,970,733 $ 492,057 a) Projection increased due to higher than expected volume b) Change in accounting procedure for hearings officer deposits (Deposits held as liability instead of passing through budget). c) Projection decreased due to year to date unfilled positions. d) Year end projections increased to reflect ORS requirements to account for surplus building safety and electrical revenues seperately. Road Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Variance Revenues Motor Vehicle Revenue $ Year to Date July 1, $ 8,636,243 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 400,000 (50% of the year) 1,574,248 2,153,308 % of Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Variance Revenues Motor Vehicle Revenue $ 14,111,188 $ 8,636,243 53% a) $ 16,234,849 $ 16,634,849 $ 400,000 Federal - PILT Payment 1,574,248 2,153,308 113% b) 1,900,000 2,153,308 253,308 Other Inter -fund Services 1,069,766 149,234 14% c) 1,044,353 954,353 (90,000) Federal Reimbursements 509,127 363,910 67% 544,000 544,000 - Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine 537,224 129,935 20% d) 635,000 635,000 - State Miscellaneous 721,797 656,177 89% 739,811 739,811 - Forest Receipts 882,985 - 0% e) 963,410 963,410 - Sale of Equip & Material 378,623 68,248 19% 365,000 365,000 - Mineral Lease Royalties 59,341 1,992 1% f) 175,000 175,000 - Assessment Payments (P&I) 91,803 4,740 7% 70,000 70,000 - Interest on Investments 116,447 110,747 69% 160,000 175,000 15,000 Miscellaneous 73,077 32,428 72% g) 45,000 115,000 70,000 Total Revenues 20,125,626 12,306,962 54% 22,876,423 23,524,731 648,308 Expenditures Personnel Services 5,852,960 3,059,545 46% h) 6,595,561 6,443,561 152,000 Materials and Services 6,995,505 2,376,681 29% i 8,094,192 6,777,192 1,317,000 Capital Outlay Total Expenditures 141,885 12,990,350 - 5,436,226 0% 37% - 14,689,753 - 13,220,753 - 1,469,000 Transfers Transfer In- Solid Waste Payment 402,725 - 0% - - - Transfers Out 6,000,000 8,232,154 57% 14,464,308 14,464,308 - Total Transfers (5,597,275) (8,232,154) 57% (14;484,308) (14,464,308) - Change in Fund Balance 1,538,001 (1,361,419) (6,277,638) (4,160,330) 2,117,308 Beginning Fund Balance 8,776,841 10,314,842 119% 8,693,653 10,314,842 1,621,189 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,314,842 $ 8,953,423 $ 2,416,015 $ 6,154,512 $ 3,738,497 a) Motor vehicle revenue is higher than anticipated b) A reduction to timber revenue received in FY18 resulted in a positive impact to the FY19 PILT amounts received. c) Reduction due to more vehicles participating in Vehicle replacement fund (680). d) City reimbursements for work performed by the County are received towards the end of the FY, after work is completed e) Forest receipts are anticipated to be received from the State in May 2019. f) Mineral Lease Royalties are primarily received in the last few months of the Fiscal Year. g) Anticipated restitution for accident damage to La Pine State Rec Road guardrail h) Savings from unfilled positions and associated benefits of $177k. Additional expense of $25k anticipated for uplanned retirement. i) $1.2 million reduction in paving materials due to materials purchased at end of FY 18; $100k reduction in fuel cost estimates, $17k reduction in estimated shop supplies and tools Road CIP Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Budget Projected LVariance Revenues State Miscellaneous Year to Date July 1, - 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 (633,104) (50% of the year) 120,460 96,401 % of Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Budget Projected LVariance Revenues State Miscellaneous 643,091 - 0% a) 853,104 220,000 (633,104) Interest on Investments 120,460 96,401 91% 106,000 140,000 34,000 Total Revenues 120,460 96,401 10% 959,104 360,000 (599,104) Expenditures Materials and Services 35,701 36,576 50% 73,153 73,153 - Capital Outlay 2,897,925 3,095,944 38% b) 8,236,348 8,613,439 (377,091) Total Expenditures 2,933,626 3,132,520 38% 8,309,501 8,686,592 (377,091) Transfers Transfer In 4,578,054 6,232,154 45% 13,811,725 13,811,725 - Total Transfers 4,578,054 6,232,154 45% 13,811,725 13,811,725 - Change in Fund Balance 1,764,889 3,196,035 6,461,328 5,485,133 (976,195) Beginning Fund Balance 7,823,938 9,588,827 125% 7,687,037 9,588,827 1,901,790 Ending Fund Balance $ 9,588,827 $ 12,784,862 $ 14,148,365 $ 15,073,960 $ 925,595 a) Anticipated reimbursable work will not be completed in FY 19. b) Work not completed in FY 18, will be completed in FY 19. Part of this work is reimbursable. Proiect Description Actual Burgess Road / Day Road Intersection 643,091 Deschutes Market/ Dale Road Intersection 1,254,168 Erickson Road Paving 468,544 Old Bend Redmond Highway Phase II 204,898 3rd Street Drainage Extension 112,655 US 20 at Tumalo 300,000 Quail Road Improvements 100,000 La Pine Guardrail Repair 12,588 3,095,944 10 Adult Parole Probation Schedule of Financial Operating Data Revenues FY 2019 Budget Projected I Variance DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145 $ Year to Date July 1, $ 2,390,802 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 - (50% of the year) 844,831 844,831 77. 0f Actual Actual I Budget Revenues FY 2019 Budget Projected I Variance DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145 $ 4,333,329 $ 2,390,802 50% a) $ 4,781,604 $ 4,781,604 $ - CJC Justice Reinvestment 844,831 844,831 100% b) 844,831 844,831 - DOC Measure 57 233,900 233,900 100% b) 233,900 233,900 - Electronic Monitoring Fee 149,997 47,528 475% c) 10,000 55,000 45,000 Probation Superv. Fees 191,722 85,579 41% e) 210,000 180,000 (30,000) DOC -Family Sentence Alt 114,683 114,683 100% b) 114,683 114,683 - Interfund - Sheriff 50,000 25,000 50% 50,000 50,000 - Gen Fund/Crime Prevention 50,000 12,500 25% d) 50,000 50,000 - DOJ/Arrest Grant 11,684 - 0% - - - Alternate Incarceration 6,908 - 0% - - - State Subsidy 16,336 8,168 48% a) 17,000 17,000 - Interest on Investments 36,963 35,878 90% h) 40,000 65,000 25,000 Probation Work Crew Fees 1,966 1,092 27% e) 4,000 2,500 (1,500) State Miscellaneous - - 0% 4,300 4,300 - Miscellaneous 503 2,949 590% 500 3,000 2,500 Total Revenues 6,042,821 3,802,909 60% 6,360,818 6,401,818 41,000 Expenditures Personnel Services 4,226,603 2,256,768 48% f) 4,656,363 4,557,163 99,200 Materials and Services 1,548,670 777,353 43% g) 1,828,765 1,628,765 200,000 Capital Outlay 31,960 - 0% 20,000 20,000 - Total Expenditures 5,807,233 3,034,121 47% 6,505,128 6,205,928 299,200 Transfers Transfers In -General Fund 451,189 142,595 50% 285,189 285,189 - Transfer Out -Vehicle Repl/Maint 44,000 60,000 50% 120,000 120,000 - Total Transfers 407,189 82,595 50% 165,189 165,189 - Change in Fund Balance 642,777 851,382 20,879 361,079 340,200 Beginning Fund Balance 1,690,943 2,333,720 106% 2,200,000 2,333,720 133,720 Ending Fund Balance $ 2,333,720 $ 3,185,103 $ 2,220,879 $ 2,694,800 $ 473,921 a) Quarterly payment in advance. b) One-time/annual payment. c) Prior electronic monitoring arrangement was budgeted to expire July 1st, 2018, but activity extended thru August 2018. d) Quarterly payments. e) Projected downward due to less than anticipated revenue. f) Savings from unfilled vacancies YTD. g) Projected downward due to lower than budgeted offender services expenditures. h) Projected upward due to higher than budgeted revenue. 11 Operating Revenues Franchise Disposal Fees Private Disposal Fees Commercial Disp. Fees Franchise 3% Fees Yard Debris Recyclables Sale of Equip & Material Special Waste Interest Leases Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Operating Expenditures Transfers Out SW Capital & Equip. Reserve Total Transfers Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Solid Waste Schedule of Financial Operating Data 6,091,577 2,502,365 1,905,165 273,532 203,247 15,833 8,952 23,143 8,101 57,217 11,089,132 FY 2019 Variance $ 31298,902 Year to Date July 1, 6,497,675 $ 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 2,709,370 (50% of the year) 1,145,060 56% % of Actual Actual Budget 6,091,577 2,502,365 1,905,165 273,532 203,247 15,833 8,952 23,143 8,101 57,217 11,089,132 FY 2019 Variance $ 31298,902 51% $ 6,497,675 $ 6,497,675 $ - 1,222,224 45% 2,709,370 2,709,370 - 1,145,060 56% 2,042,050 2,042,050 - 31,993 12% a) 265,000 265,000 - 135,444 62% b) 216,761 216,761 - 6,028 33% c) 18,000 12,000 (6,000) 14,003 93% d) 15,000 20,000 5,000 27,428 62% 44,000 49,900 5,900 1 0% 10,801 10,801 - 30,114 60% 49,955 49,955 - 6,911,196 50% 11,868,612 11,873,612 4,900 2,173,108 1,150,475 46% e) 2,504,623 2,356,113 148,510 4,684,108 1,927,044 40% 4,772,158 4,772,158 - 89,501 57,287 33% f) 173,000 173,000 - 861,102 310,425 36% g) 860,938 860,938 - 7,807,819 3,446,230 1 41% 8,310,719 8,162,209 148,610 2,580,000 2,125,015 45% 4,688,023 4,688,023 - 2,680,000 2,126,016 45% 4,688,023 4,688,023 - 701,313 340,952 (1,130,130) (976,720) 153,410 1,237,677 1,938,991 112% 1,730,130 1,938,991 208,861 1,938,991 $ 2,279,942 $ 600,000 $ 962,271 $ 362,271 a) Due April 15, 2019. b) Revenue is seasonal with higher utilization in the summer months. c) Pricing is lower than expected in the recycling markets. d) Revenue source is unpredictable; dependent on special clean-up projects. e) Savings from unfilled vacancies YTD and with an expected vacancy rate of 5%, on average, going forward. f) Capital purchases are in process. g) Principal and interest payments due in Nov and May. NOTE: Revenue projections, as a whole, still reflect management's best estimate of revenues to be collected. 12 Risk Management Schedule of Financial Operating Data Year to Date July 1, 2018 FY 2018 through December 31, FY 2019 2018 (50% of the year) Of Actual Actual I Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues Inter -fund Charges: General Liability $ 1,051,283 $ 531,838 50% $ 1,063,675 $ 1,063,675 $ Property Damage 391,542 197,145 50% 394,291 394,291 Vehicle 195,085 97,625 50% 195,250 195,250 - Workers' Compensation 1,242,317 623,640 50% 1,247,279 1,247,279 Unemployment 356,545 147,772 53% 280,921 280,921 Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property 336,022 27,753 10% 269,198 269,198 Process Fee-Events/Parades 1,800 450 25% 1,800 1,800 Miscellaneous 1,548 - 0% 530 530 - Skid Car Training 39,382 20,790 65% 32,000 32,000 Interest on Investments 86,122 64,201 76% 85,000 118,000 33,000 TOTAL REVENUES 3,701,647 1,711,214 48% 3,569,944 3,602,944 33,000 Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY Settlement / Benefit 69,537 27,200 Defense 78,349 175,390 Professional Service 12,545 5,000 Insurance 212,132 247,670 a) Repair / Replacement 20,247 3,081 Total General Liability 392,809 458,341 51% 900,000 1,050,000 (150,000) PROPERTY DAMAGE Property Damage Charges 235 120 Insurance 173,873 144,421 b) Repair / Replacement 30,900 24,446 Total Property Damage 205,008 168,987 23% 728,398 800,000 (71,602) VEHICLE Insurance 5,101 7,505 Loss Prevention 1,717 7,518 Repair/ Replacement 109,130 39,003 Total Vehicle 115,948 54,903 46% 120,000 140,000 (20,000) WORKERS' COMPENSATION Settlement / Benefit 860,322 409,691 Professional Service 40,999 9,380 Insurance 168,955 123,379 Loss Prevention 57,266 34,433 Miscellaneous 51,236 12,643 Total Workers' Compensation 1,178,778 589,526 45% c) 1,300,000 1,250,000 50,000 UNEMPLOYMENT - Settlement/Benefits 30,960 - 0% d) 150,000 100,000 50,000 Total Direct Insurance Costs 1,923,503 1,271,756 40% 3,198,398 3,340,000 (141,602) Insurance Administration: Personnel Services 360,138 181,847 47% 387,349 387,349 Materials & Srvc, Capital Out. & Tranfs. 195,293 80,264 29% 275,518 275,518 Total Insurance Administration 555,431 262,111 40% 662,867 662,867 Total Expenditures 2,478,933 1,533,868 40% 3,861,265 4,002,867 (141,602) Change in Fund Balance 1,222,713 177,346 (291,321) (399,923) (108,602) Beginning Fund Balance 5,359,570 6,582,283 118% 5,600,000 6,582,283 982,283 Ending Fund Balance $ 6,582,283 $ 6,759,630 $ 5,308,679 $ 6,182,360 $ 873,681 a) Annual insurance premiums are paid at the beginning of the fiscal year. b) Annual insurance premiums are paid later in the fiscal year. c) Current projection of $1.25M is reasonable per discussion with management. Pending claims and outside legal costs factor into this decision. d) Projected amounts will be updated after the 1 st invoice is received for the year. 13 DC 9-1-1 (Funds 705 and 707) Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance Revenues Property Taxes - Current $ 7,950,397 $ Year to Date July 1, 2018 FY 2018 through December 31, 8,350,160 $ 2018 (50% of the year) Property Taxes - Prior 126,401 % of Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance Revenues Property Taxes - Current $ 7,950,397 $ 7,788,828 94% g) $ 8,316,033 $ 8,350,160 $ 34,127 Property Taxes - Prior 126,401 74,850 68% 110,000 110,000 - Property Taxes - Jefferson County 32,003 30,691 102% 30,000 33,600 3,600 State Reimbursement 162,900 117,900 94% h) 125,000 125,000 - Telephone User Tax 911,753 248,030 28% a) 890,000 890,000 - Data Network Reimb. 67,875 - 0% b) 50,000 50,000 - User Fee 104,939 72,841 40% c) 180,000 180,000 - Police RMS User Fees 351,987 49,297 16% c) 300,680 300,680 - Contract Payments - - 0% c) 51,300 51,300 - Miscellaneous 18,647 9,277 133% 7,000 9,500 2,500 Interest 98,838 58,964 43% 138,000 138,000 - Total Revenues 9,825,738 8,450,678 83% 10,198,013 10,238,240 40,227 Expenditures Personnel Services 6,766,806 3,287,151 43% f) 7,646,307 6,929,072 717,235 Material and Services 3,301,199 1,784,245 53% d) 3,390,757 3,390,757 - Capital Outlay 1,797,372 256,839 11% e) 2,342,000 1,342,000 1,000,000 Total Expenditures 11,865,377 5,328,236 40% 13,379,064 11,661,829 1,717,235 Transfers Transfers in 1,300,000 - 0% - - Transfers Out (493,863) 0% - - Total Transfers Change in Fund Balance 806,137 - 0% - - (3,181,051) (1,423,589) 1,757,462 (1,233,502) 3,122,442 Beginning Fund Balance 7,261,002 6,027,500 100% 6,000,000 6,027,500 27,500 Ending Fund 705 & 707 Balance $ 6,027,500 $ 9,149,942 $ 2,818,949 4,603,911 $ 1,784,962 Ending Bal. DC Reserve (710) 2,633,115 2,653,630 2,687,000 2,697,261 10,261 Total of Funds 705, 707 and 710 $ 8,660,615 $ 11,803,572 $ 5,505,949 $ 7,301,172 $ 1,795,223 a) The State distributes payments quarterly, after the month ends. First payment is anticipated October/November. b) This is for billing to user agencies, billed out January 1 st. c) Reimbursements from other agencies, billed out January 1st. d) Annual maintenance agreements paid towards the beginning of the fiscal year. e) Capital budget available for Technology Improvements expenditures. Reduced due to CAD hold -back & radio progress delays. f) Savings are anticipated from FTE vacancies YTD and forecasted vacancies. Effective vacancy rate for year is estimated at 9%. g) Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May. TAV came in 0.3% higher than budgeted. h) Majority of state reimbursements billed annually toward year-end for system maintenance. 14 Health Benefits Fund Statement of Financial Operating Data Revenues: Year to Date July 1, 2018 FY 2018 through December 31, FY 2019 Internal Premium Charges 2018 (50% of the year) $ Actual Actual % of Budget i Budget - Projection $Variance Part -Time Employee Premium Revenues: Internal Premium Charges $ 17,573,923 $ 8,875,539 52.0% a) 17,052,000 17,751,078 699,078 Part -Time Employee Premium 2,303 808 31.5% a) 2,563 1,615 (948) Employee Monthly Cc -Pay 960,340 466,032 48.4% a) 963,000 932,063 (30,937) COIC 1,823,503 894,485 48.8% a) 1,834,000 1,788,970 (45,030) Retiree / COBRA Co -Pay 1,255,725 619,427 48.4% a) 1,280,000 1,238,854 (41,146) Prescription Rebates 64,110 35,467 59.1% 60,000 60,000 - Claims Reimbursements & Misc 116,243 19,887 N/A d) - 19,887 19,887 Interest 219,809 163,019 74.1% a) 220,000 326,000 106,000 Total Revenues 22,015,955 11,074,663 51.7% 21,411,563 22,118,467 706,904 Expenditures: Materials & Services Admin & Wellness Claims Paid -Medical 14,108,678 4,722,291 31.7% c) 14,900,000 13,403,000 1,497,000 Claims Paid -Prescription 1,304,662 479,562 34.9% c) 1,375,000 1,350,000 25,000 Claims Paid -Dental 1,722,019 663,130 40.6% c) 1,632,000 1,867,000 (235,000) Claims Paid -Vision 426,862 134,947 29.5% c) 458,000 380,000 78,000 Stop Loss Insurance Premium 440,144 262,938 58.4% b) 450,000 460,000 (10,000) State Assessments 10,585 - 0.0% - - - Administration Fee (TPA) 681,958 253,951 5B.4% b) 435,000 436,500 (1,500) Preferred Provider Fee 80,523 45,616 6o.o% b) 76,000 80,000 (4,000) Other - Administration 177,758 111,093 47.5% 233,777 233,777 - Other - Wellness 156,884 75,080 40.6% 184,870 184,870 - Admin & Wellness 19,110,074 6,748,608 34.2% 19,744,647 18,395,147 1,349,500 Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services 928,621 421,325 43.2% 975,000 970,500 4,500 Medical Supplies 88,436 32,246 40.3% 80,000 80,000 - Other 34,416 16,902 28.2% 59,864 41,864 18,000 Total DOC 1,051,474 470,473 42.2% 1,114,864 1,092,364 22,500 Deschutes On-site Pharmacy Contracted Services 308,693 132,793 39.5% 336,000 319,000 17,000 Prescriptions 1,750,513 788,294 42.6% e) 1,850,000 1,891,000 (41,000) Other 102,463 48,308 48.9% 98,744 97,000 1,744 Total Pharmacy 2,161,669 969,394 42.4% 2,284,744 2,307,000 (22,256) Total Expenditures 22,323,217 8,188,476 35.4% 23,144,255 21,794,511 1,349,744 Change in Fund Balance (307,262) 2,886,187 (1,732,692) 323,956 2,056,648 Beginning Fund Balance 15,382,578 15,075,316 93.9% 16,051,586 $ 14,318,894 15 075,316 $ 15,399,271 (976,270) $ 1,080,377 Ending Fund Balance $ 15,075,316 1 $ 17,961,502 a) Year to date annualized b) Year to date actual plus purchase orders and contracts outstanding. c) Current projected amounts in claims paid are compared against a rolling annual total for reasonableness. Amounts may fluctuate significantly due to unanticipated medical -intensive diagnoses. d) Current year FSA forfeiture was $13,840 e) YTD reflects only 5 months of invoices. 15 Revenues Court Fines & Fees Interest on Investments Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Total Expenditures Transfers Transfers In- General Fund Total Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Justice Court Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Variance $ 574,364 Year to Dat 1, 2018 FY2018 through December 31, $ 550,000 $ 2018 (50% of the year) 27,133 1,518 of Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Variance $ 574,364 $ 288,566 52% a) $ 550,000 $ 577,133 $ 27,133 1,518 1,400 70% 2,000 2,800 800 575,882 289,966 53% 552,000 579,933 27,933 462,655 253,144 50% 508,650 507,469 1,181 137,679 73,335 49% b) 149,431 148,050 1,381 600,334 326,479 50% 658,081 655,519 2,562 70,000 15,000 50% 30,000 30,000 - 70,000 15,000 50% 30,000 30,000 - 45,548 (21,512) (76,081) (45,587) 30,494 112,442 157,990 110% 144,000 157,990 13,990 $ 157,990 $ 136,478 $ 67,919 $ 112,404 $ 44,485 a) Year to date annualized for projected amounts. b) One-time software maintenance fee of $8,680 paid in July for entire year. W REVENUES Room Taxes Interest Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Administrative Auditing Services Temporary Help Interfund Contract ISF Public Notices Printing Office Supplies Postage Software Total Administrative Current Distributions Sheriff's Office Sunriver Service Dist COVA (20% of the 6%) COVA (100% of the 1%) Grants Third Party Grants Inter -fund Transfers Fair & Expo Center ME Reserve Fund Total Distributions Total Expenditures Change in Balance Beginning Balance Ending Balance Room Taxes (Funds 160 and 170) Schedule of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2018 thru December 31, 2018 Fund 160 - 7% of TRT Fund 170 - 1% of TRT Combined - 8% TRT Budget I Actual Budget I Actual , Budget I Actual % of Bu $ 6,352,500 $ 4,466,890 $ 907,500 $ 638,129 $ 7,260,000 $ 5,105,019 14,000 24,488 8,600 4,910 22,600 29,398 6,366,500 4,491,378 916,100 643,039 7,282,600 5,134,417 10,938 - 1,563 - 12,501 - 7,875 1,767 1,125 252 9,000 2,020 50,675 25,338 8,446 4,223 59,121 29,561 38,485 19,242 602 301 39,087 19,544 2,713 796 388 114 3,101 910 1,925 - 275 - 2,200 - 875 - 125 - 1,000 - 2,625 664 375 95 3,000 759 52,500 23,171 7,500 3,310 60,000 26,481 168,611 70,978 20,399 8,295 189,010 79,273 3,151,787 1,575,894 642,252 321,126 667,996 333,998 3,151,787 1,575,894 200,000 - 830,083 415,042 5,324,804 2,900,145 200,000 1,063,256 715,374 5,493,415 2,971,123 1,492,734 744,463 1,063,256 715,374 884,017 596,006 884,017 596,006 25,744 12,872 642,252 321,126 667,996 333,998 - - 830,083 415,042 830,083 415,042 5,324,804 2,900,145 1,472,335 736,168 6,797,139 3,636,313 5,493,415 2,971,123 1,492,734 744,463 6,986,149 3,715,586 873,085 1,520,255 (576,634) (101,424) 296,451 1,418,831 1,387,711 1,204,818 576,634 361,634 1,964,345 1,566,452 $ 2,260,796 $ 2,725,072 $ - $ 260,210 $ 2,260,796 $ 2,985,283 17 70.3% 130.1% 70.5% Fair Expo Center Schedule of Financial Operating Data Operating Revenues $ FY 2018 Year to Date July 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (50% of the year) 40% FY 2019 Actual Actual % of Budget Events Revenues Budget Projected Variance 33,944 Operating Revenues $ 455,732 $ 241,917 40% 602,000 $ 676,345 $ 74,345 Events Revenues 81,588 33,944 50% 68,000 98,944 30,944 Storage Camping at F & E 15,325 225 1% 101% 18,200 38,000 18,425 57,643 225 19,643 Horse Stall Rental 23,541 67,964 38,243 (12,609) -8% a) 164,204 178,391 14,187 Food & Beverage Activities, net 287,452 300,000 63% b) 472,998 384,000 (88,998) Annual County Fair (net) 30,000 16,000 53% c) 30,000 32,000 2,000 Interfund Contract 4,822 2,928 35% 8,400 7128 (1,272) Miscellaneous 966,424 620,647 44% 1,401,802 1,452,875 51,073 Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures, net of TRT: General F & E Activities 1,028,508 570,664 49% e) 1,161,582 1,228,207 (66,625) Personnel Services 978,354 396,355 48% f) 833,771 847 981 (14,210) Materials and Services Total Operating Exp, net of TRT 2,006,862 967,019 48% 1,995,353 2,076,188 (80,835) Other: Park Acq/Dev (Fund 130) 30,000 15,000 50% 20% 30,000 105,000 30,000 116,585 - 11,585 Rights &Signage 111, 499 486 21,485 273 -11% 2,400 (273) (2,673) Interest 141,985 36,212 26% 137,400 146,312 8,912 Total Other (310,159) (456,151) (477,000) (20,849) Results of Operations (898,453) Transfers in 1 Out neral Transfer In -General Fund 200,000 100,000 50% 200,000 200,000 - Transfers In - F 533,514 246,126 50% d) 50% 492,252 25,744 492,252 25,744 - Transfer In -Room Tax - (Fund 160) 25,744 12,872 358,998 717,996 717,996 - Total Transfers in 759,258 Non -Operating Rev & Exp- 101,824 56,103 55% Debt Service Total Non -Operating Expenditures 101 ,824 56,103 55% 101,136 101,136 - Change in Fund Balance (241,020)(7,264) 160,709 139,860 (20,849) Beginning Fund Balance 180,735 60,285 N/A (60,285) (60,285) Ending Fund Balance (60,285) $ 67,549 $ 160 709 $ 79,575 $ (81,134) a) See "Food & Beverage Activities Schedule" b) Revenues and Expenses for the annual County Fair are recorded in a separate fund and the available net income is transferred to the Fair & Expo Center Fund c) Reimbursement from RV Park for personnel expenditures recorded in F&E d) FY 2018 includes $100,000 originally planned to be received in FY 2019 e) Retirement payout of vacation for director (900 hours - $77k; includes benefits) f) Additional costs in association with higher events revenue. ` A' LO 0) V & O r N O) O N n tD a7 O M co 0) ti O LA d'! M M r N r en M M O DD d' E9 N ti to O O d' to 14 (F> O O 0 O O O O 0 o O O N O O O O M O O m O O O O a) O M 01 O M O N Lf) O) O r N~ CD N N r Q N O M 00 v- O r o N M (O O) o - qq' to O r• - Cl) N vi ONj � (D 0) (MD N rn OO M r-7 N 66 M N M M t7 M LL N N O N (D a M Ln 0 OD DD O w O o %r (D N Oo Cl) N � N"t (O O N �[- N O Ln 00 a0 M (O 06 O M M M N �' - r 0o r M (O oo o (O t- d' M e o O O) N 1- le O O r- O) tD O if N M (D (O Ln L' N tC P- M O 0 M O) 0) Cl) (M N 0 M Ln co r o cP Ln 0 OD O O OD co LO O Cl) LI) O O H O (Q O LL) M LL) N L6 't N It Cl) N (O 04 M N r M - M r N ItT (O Lo O r O o - I- w Ln e OD O O Ln i OD 4D � OD � co If w M Ln M M N •- d• O r r Cl) M M to O O LO (O r O - co LO LO qt (D M d• r O O 1- 00 Ln co ti OD - (7) O O M Ln OD I� M 'I• M N M r- Cl) r N M r 00 r M Co o 00 O N O e o Ln N �- !} O t- Cl Cl) W) 6Ni O V 011- M r d' O N LO OD N M M M N M O OO •- o d• (O N O o Cl) O N co Cl) rn It w Ln O Lr O L() r O ti N O G LO f- r - w d' O (O P d' N cli M N N M N OD N O d ol_ OO O OO O) to O O O O N to 1� N (0 coC14 W) It W) a) co r r N r Q O M M (O LO r a> LO d• 0) - qq' to O r• - N O N r (D M N Lf1 OO CD T- elf co > o)) c w > LL LL y C o a 4)a 6 d DD r M Ln %r (D N Oo Cl) r M l O L 4) C = p. N J N O •m in N tL N a � �' di 0o w (O oo a ti O O LO N O r N N r- - N N d r N N W 0 � r c 0 M Ln co O (O w r Ln N LC)- LO N N M M O r r N N W M t- w r r r ItT (O (o N N r N N LO W) N Ln i LO 0 r 0) to O O LO (O r Ln oo co Ln (O N 1, � r r W Lo r- N N Ln N co r L (Q M 0) r N m co LO M- IT 00 (�O d' N O N W r 01 ON co OD O M d (D � r 60 N O d ol_ to m a) V N Q m °S � L m a m o O a °o m Ln v N _ mcn elf 08 LL > o)) c w > LL LL y C o a 4)a 6 d DD d H w N N C '0 d) CL U r_+ O r+ O _ C > p) L 4) C = p. N J N O •m in N tL N a � �' 3 U •C o U O Ci - C O N d N .` i w _ o N (U W d = r `maw C W 0 o O r00 c 0 o Xao o c m p f- 0 0 O t- w I- 19 RV Park (Fund 618) Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Bud et Pro'ection $Variance Revenues RV Park Fees < 31 Days Year ate July 1, $ 268,034 2018 through FY 2018 December 31, 2018 117,400 (50% of the year) 11,900 3,625 of Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Bud et Pro'ection $Variance Revenues RV Park Fees < 31 Days $ 409,658 $ 268,034 79% a) $ 340,200 457,600 117,400 RV Park Fees > 30 Days 11,900 3,625 73% 5,000 6,000 1,000 Washer/Dryer 4,456 2,954 84% 3,500 5,000 1,500 Vending Machines 1,561 1,252 83% 1,500 2,100 600 Room Tax Collection Fee 2,205 1,399 N/A - 2,300 2,300 Good Sam Discounts (5,674) N/A - (9,600) (9,600) Good Sam Membership Fee - 1,225 N/A - 1,225 1,225 Cancellation Fees 8,936 5,467 137% 4,000 9,300 5,300 Total Revenues 438,716 278,282 79% 354,200 473,925 119,725 Expenditures Materials & Services 266,328 144,728 48% 298,870 298,870 - Total Expenditures 266,328 144,728 48% 298,870 298,870 - Net from Operations 172,388 133,554 55,330 175,055 119,725 Other Resources/Expenditures 6,094 5,531 126% 4,400 11,061 6,661 Interest on Investments Transfers In - Park Fund (130) 160,000 160,000 100% 160,000 160,000 - TRT Grant 35,088 - N/A - - " Debt Service 222,136 161,733 72% (223,101) (223,101) - Net Other (20,954) 3,798 (58,701) (52,040) 6,661 Change in Fund Balance 151,434 137,352 (3,371) 123,015 126,386 Beginning Fund Balance 292,046 443,480 139% 319,000 443,480 124,480 Ending Fund Balance $ 443,480 $ 580,832 $ 315,629 $ 566,495 $ 250,866 a) 7,762 RV spaces, 40% utilization YTD. KE \)I ES C C`WeIM 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 January 23, 2019 DATE: January 15, 2019 FROM: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services, 541-330-4640 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Follow -Up on Solid Waste Management Plan Communication ATTENDANCE: Timm Schimke, Solid Waste; Whitney Hale, Administration SUMMARY: Continuing our initial conversation about focus group / telephone survey options for the Solid Waste Management Plan. E s coy i SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE: SURVEY OPTIONS BOCC Work Session: January 23, 2019 TELEPHONE SURVEY • Estimated cost: $15,000 - $20,000 • Statistically valid • Based on the topic and our population size, Barney &Worth, Inc. recommends a sample size of 300 - 400 people participating in a survey that would last 10-12 minutes. o A sample size of 300 is estimated to cost $12,000 - $14,000 o A sample size of 400 is estimated to cost $16,000 - $19,000 FOCUS GROUPS • Estimated cost: $18,000 for two focus groups with 8-12 people in each • Not statistically valid • Are often combined with phone interviews • Are usually two hours long, held on a Saturday and are videotaped • A written report is produced at the end of the two focus groups • Participants are selected randomly to meet representative sample criteria �i E S C Deschutes Count Board of Commissioners y 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 January 23, 2019 DATE: January 14, 2019 FROM: Nicole Mardell, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Grading Ordinance Working Group Update ATTENDANCE: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner, Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager SUMMARY: Per the FY 2018-2019 Community Development Department (CDD) Work Plan, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to research and evaluate the potential for adopting a countywide grading ordinance. Following a staff presentation during the October 1, 2018 work session, the Board directed staff to form a Grading Working Group of community stakeholders to identify community concerns and potential solutions surrounding grading and disturbances commonly associated with development. Staff will provide an update to the Board and seeks direction on next steps. E $ �0 MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission FROM: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner DATE: January 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Grading Ordinance Working Group Update I. INTRODUCTION Per the FY 2018-2019 Community Development Department (CDD) Work Plan, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to research and evaluate the potential for adopting a countywide grading ordinance. Following a staff presentation during the October 1, 2018 work session', the Board directed staff to form a Grading Working Group of community stakeholders to identify community concerns and potential solutions surrounding grading and disturbances commonly associated with development. II. GRADING WORKING GROUP Community stakeholders who have experience or interest in the topic of grading were identified and invited to join the informal working group. The following individuals participated: • Jim Beeger, Planning Commissioner • Dale Crawford, Planning Commissioner • Karna Gustafson, Central Oregon Builders Association • Jer Camarata, Swalley Irrigation District • Rory Isbell, Central Oregon LandWatch • Julie Kisic, Save the Lava The initial meeting took place on November 1, 2018. It served as an introductory meeting to set expectations for the group and discuss concerns and perspectives related to grading. Three key issues were raised by proponents of a grading ordinance: 1. There is a gap in Deschutes County's regulations. Hauling more than 5,000 cubic yards of material from a property (unassociated with development) requires a permit because it constitutes surface mining. However, earthmoving of any amount on site (unassociated with development) and hauling below 5,000 cubic yards remain unregulated. 1 http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1939&Inline=True 2. Certain aesthetic resources warrant protection. Valuable natural resources include trees, vegetation, and ancient lava flows. 3. Neighborhood livability is compromised when earthen material is hauled away. The second meeting took place on December 12, 2018, and served as an opportunity to dive into the key issues, with each group member providing feedback and their preferred approach moving forward. The group did not reach consensus. Half the group favored a grading ordinance utilizing technical and compatibility criteria, while the other half rejected the need for one, emphasizing that the current land use requirements in effect remain sufficient. III. NEXT STEPS Attached are informal meeting minutes for Meetings #1 and #2, which have been reviewed by the working group members. The meeting minutes offer valuable insights into the discussion. Staff looks to the Board for direction on this topic. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Meeting # 1 Minutes 2. Meeting # 2 Minutes Page 2 of 2 Grading Ordinance Working Group Mtg #1 Notes - Nov. 1, 2018 Attendees: Jim Beeger (Planning Commissioner), Dale Crawford (Planning Commisioner), Karna Gustafson (COBA), Jer Camarata, Swalley Irrigation District / DBBC), Rory Isbell (COLW), Julie Kisic (Save the Lava), Nicole Mardell (Associate Planner), and Peter Gutowsky (Planning Manager) Nicole provided a PowerPoint outlining: • Introductions and expectations • Key questions • Deschutes County's existing requirements pertaining to grading • Other grading resources / requirements (Central Oregon Stormwater Manual / DEQ 1200C Permit) • Central Oregon characteristics • Two grading ordinances in Central and Eastern Oregon • Common purposes of grading programs • Program elements associated with grading What Problem are We Trying to Solve? The group wrestled with this question. Staff recapped the purpose of grading programs: • Preventing soil erosion Protecting water bodies from sedimentation under the federal Clean Water Act • Protecting species listed on the federal Endangered Species Act • Minimizing government exposure to a third party lawsuit under the federal Endangered Species Act • Preventing landslides • Complying with State Environmental Policy Acts • Single family lots are exempted from grading restrictions Some expressed concern about a loophole associated with grading undeveloped platted lots and hauling it offsite in Rural Residential subdivisions. Others felt protecting native vegetation and aesthetics on larger tracts (greater than an acre) are important features that are jeopardized by grading activities (excavation and fill). Some members questioned these both of these concerns because they do not directly relate to a grading program. Purpose /Why a Grading Ordinance? The group expressed split opinions on whether or not there is a need for a grading ordinance in Deschutes County. The conversation centered on the following elements; the summary denotes both the supportive and opposing comments provided in the discussion. 1. Gap in system / gray area between small scale earth moving (residential berm) and large scale earth moving (surface mining) • Desire for greater transparency outside of the land use process. Notice to neighbors/statement of intended us is ideal. • What is the limit/cap/scope of grading that requires a permit? Permitting does not stop development, but has the potential to limit removal of a natural feature. • Grading needed to prepare land for development but does not cross the threshold of being a "use", when does it become a property rights issue? • Deschutes River Woods main focus of discussion, group did not want to limit grading to one area, focus still on countywide ordinance. • Irrigation districts are often grading within the legal boundaries of code, additional regulations could impact their ability to pipe/maintain canals. • Most large communities have grading ordinances, Deschutes County is growing and should adopt now proactively vs. later. • Dust is not a significant issue warranting further discussion. 2. Aesthetics • Desire for protection of elements impacted by grading - trees/native vegetation, lava flow. • Concern regarding property value loss due to clear cutting, loss of natural feature. • Bend has Areas of Special Interest - could a similar system (outside of Goal 5) be used in the County to protect pre -defined areas from grading impacts? • Aesthetics are too objective, who decides when/where/how the code is applied? Traffic (minor concern) • Potential for dump trucks transporting soil through neighborhood. Next steps: Staff will reach each out to jurisdictions in Willamette Valley and Klamath/Grant counties to clarify the purpose of their grading programs. Do they address issues outside of water quality, endangered species protection, and steep slopes? Mtg # 2 is anticipated for late November or early December. -2- Grading Ordinance Working Group Mtg #2 Notes - Dec. 12, 2018 Attendees: Jim Beeger (Planning Commissioner), Dale Crawford (Planning Commissioner), Karna Gustafson (COBA), Jer Camarata, (Swalley Irrigation District / DBBC), Rory Isbell (COLW), Julie Kisic (Save the Lava), Nick Lelack (CDD Director), Nicole Mardell (Associate Planner), and Peter Gutowsky (Planning Manager) At the start of the meeting, staff provided a recap of the additional information gained from the City of Bend and Grant, Klamath, and Washington counties as requested during Mtg #1. Ms. Kisic provided additional commentary about the City of Bend's grading program and noted it may be a template for the County to work from, as it includes both technical requirements related to grading and also aesthetic requirements such as tree removal. Ms. Gustafson noted that the City of Bend and Washington County's ordinances target urban land uses, and therefore are not applicable to Deschutes County. The group then moved on to discussing the issue matrix included as Table 5 in the Mtg #2 staff memo. SUMMARY The working group did not find consensus on whether or not a grading ordinance should be developed within Deschutes County, but did provide feedback on topics for the Board of County Commissioners to consider in exploring the topic of grading. Staff will report the observations of the working group to the Board of County Commissioners on January 16, 2019, KEY ISSUE DISCUSSION 1. Gap in System / Deschutes County Does Not Regulate Earthmoving The group did not reach consensus in determining options to move forward. Three members were in favor of recommending no grading ordinance. The other three members were interested in recommending a hybrid solution within a grading ordinance, that addressed earthmoving thresholds and permitting requirements, while also requiring compatibility analysis similar to a land use application. Ms. Kisic expressed a desire for greater transparency in the development process, citing an experience she had with a neighbor in the Deschutes River Woods (DRW) area. She asked if there was the potential for the grading ordinance to apply to higher density areas of the County, such as Deschutes River Woods, where lots are smaller acreage (less than 1.5 acres) and more urban in feel. Ms. Gustafson suggested an overlay for the DRW area to target Ms. Kisic's concerns. Mr. Crawford stated he was opposed to the creation of a grading overlay, as it may set a precedent for other targeted overlays in the County. Mr. Lelack and Gutowsky offered the idea of a community plan within DRW to address some of the issues associated with grading in that area, specifically. Mr. Isbell stated he was opposed to a targeted overlay as the impacts of grading do not only affect one area, therefore a countywide program is preferred. Those in favor of developing a grading ordinance: Ms. Kisic stated there is a need for accountability - she is interested in ensuring development plans, permits, and onsite conditions should match, and be accessible for interested parties to review and comment. Therefore, a grading ordinance with land use compatibility criteria and notice to neighbors is preferred. Mr. Isbell noted that the purpose of several other counties' grading ordinances include runoff and erosion related to unregulated earthmoving and would prefer regulations that identify best management practices (BMPs) countywide in addition to land use compatibility criteria. Mr. Beeger stated the County is one of the fastest growing in Oregon and needs to plan ahead to regulate the taking, adding, and moving of soil on properties. He would also prefer requirements to include the protection of propertyvalues and mitigate neighborhood issues. Mr. Lelack referred to the City of Bend's grading ordinance and noted that the plan includes a purpose statement related to health, safety, welfare, and police powers. He believes the City of Bend uses these police powers to regulate the compatibility issues of grading - including tree preservation and neighborhood impacts. Those in favor of recommending no grading ordinance: Mr. Crawford and Mr. Camarata recommended no grading ordinance - the current policies and zoning codes in place address the issues presented by other members of the group. Camarata added that Irrigation Districts already need to comply with State -EPA, National - EPA, Clean Water Act regulations for their large-scale capital improvement projects, which included obtaining 1200c permits Ms. Gustafson recommended the county regulate noise, dust, and erosion control without a permitting system, but with requirements in the Deschutes County Code. Code enforcement could be utilized to ensure compliance with the requirements. 2. Aesthetic / Natural Resources The group did not reach consensus in determining options to move forward. Four members were in favor of recommending no grading ordinance. The other two members were interested in recommending a hybrid solution within a grading ordinance, that addressed earthmoving thresholds and permitting requirements, while also requiring compatibility analysis similar to a land use application. -2- Mr. Isbell discussed a desire to preserve the natural landscape of the County, including native vegetation and trees. Ms. Gustafson noted that notable features may be protected, but overgrown vegetation (like juniper trees) should not be protected as they don't serve an aesthetic purpose. Mr. Beeger noted the discussion of trees dilutes the issues of grading - aesthetics are tough to regulate as they are subjective. Mr. Camarata agreed. Ms. Kisic referred to the City of Bend's grading ordinance, specifically the regulations limiting the removal of native vegetation, trees, and rock. She noted the City of Bend is located within Deschutes County, and contains similar natural features. Therefore, a Deschutes County grading program could adopt similar requirements. Mr. Gutowsky noted some species of native vegetation in Deschutes County has adapted to be flammable and could present additional wildlife fire risk if removal limitations were to be included in a grading ordinance. Mr. Camarata spoke on behalf of the Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC) that there is a desire to protect the current zoning regulations permitting irrigation district operations and maintenance activities and the outright piping of canals. Irrigation districts are often removing and or relocating silt and vegetation and conducting earth moving activities as part of federally or state funded piping projects, or just as a part of their normal O&M activities. The piping of canals is currently allowed outright in most zoning districts in Deschutes County, and if the commission decides to entertain a grading ordinance, the DBBC requests that current exemptions granted to irrigation districts be honored and expanded to include SR2.5 and UAR10 zoned lands. Those in favor of developing a grading ordinance: Mr. Isbell and Ms. Kisic stated they were in favor of developing a grading ordinance to address aesthetic / natural feature concerns. The ordinance should include thresholds for triggering a grading permit, and review criteria which should apply to all areas of Deschutes County. Those in favor of recommending no grading ordinance: Mr. Crawford, Ms. Gustafson, Mr. Beeger, and Mr. Camarata stated they were not in favor of a grading ordinance to address aesthetic / natural feature concerns. 3. Traffic and Neighborhood Impacts Mr. Beeger asked how dust and noise were regulated in the development of solar farms in Deschutes County as the issue was notably contentious for a solar farm to the east of the city limits of Bend. Mr. Gutowsky explained many of the impacts were regulated during the land use review process as the application required a conditional use permit. Mr. Isbell noted there is a need for site disturbance and grading to be regulated before the land use review process begins. Ms. Kisic agreed and added that transparency and an ability for neighbors to review and comment on grading applications is needed. Those in favor of developing a grading ordinance: Mr. Beeger stated that although neighborhood impacts are of concern, he continues to support a grading ordinance with a focus on earthmoving and elevation changes from earth moving, as they are the key issues. He recommended a grading ordinance which includes some requirements around truck trips, volume of soil, dust mitigation, etc. Mr. Isbell agreed. Ms. Kisic also agreed and added that the surface mining definition only addresses earth being moved offsite. She went on to say the solution does not have to be an ordinance, as long as the issues she and others raised are addressed. Those in favor of recommending no grading ordinance: Mr. Crawford suggested revisiting the surface mining definition and amending the zoning code to regulate earthmoving as a conditional use permit, as long as the changes represent countywide needs and perspectives. Mr. Camarata found the current regulations in place to be effective, and that no additional regulations were needed. Ms. Gustafson left the meeting prior to the recommendation, but noted she was in favor of recommending no grading ordinance. IQ �\�i E S C O s I'V L�Z& 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 January 23, 2019 DATE: January 11, 2019 FROM: Peter Russell, Community Development, 541-383-6718 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Revision to DCC 17.16.105 for Access Requirements for Subdivisions RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: No decision at this time; this is a work session recapping 1) the Planning Commission's recommendation at its Dec. 13, 2018, public hearing on file 247 -18 -000872 -TA and 2) prepare the Board for its January 30, 2019, public hearing on the same matter. MEMORANDUM DATE: January 11, 2019 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner RE: January 23 work session on amending Deschutes County Code (DCC) 17.16.105 regarding access requirements to subdivisions The Community Development Department (CDD) has initiated a text amendment (247 -18- 000872 -TA) to ensure Planning Division practice is consistent with Board Resolution 2009- 118, which guides whether to accept new arterials or collectors into the County -maintained road system. The proposed language codifies existing Planning practice, BACKGROUND The Road Department requested CDD begin a text amendment to Title 17, specifically Deschutes County Code (DCC) 17.16.105 which deals with access to subdivisions. The County currently does not accept roads into the County -maintained system pursuant to Board Resolution 2009-118. This resolution does give the Board discretion to accept new arterials and collectors into the County maintained system. Its predecessor, Res. 2006-049, allowed no new roads, regardless of classification, to be accepted into the County - maintained system. Staff held a work session with the Planning Commission on November 29 and held a public hearing with the PC on December 13, 2018. No one testified either in writing or orally at the hearing. The PC closed the hearing that night, deliberated, and recommended unanimously that the Board approve the text amendment as proposed. CURRENT AND PROPOSED LANGUAGE Below is the current language of DCC 17.16.105: "No proposed subdivision shall be approved unless it would be accessed by roads constructed to County standards and by roads 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q1 (541) 388-6575 Ca-) cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd accepted for maintenance responsibility by a unit of local or state government. This standard is met if the subdivision would have direct access to an improved collector or arterial or in cases where the subdivision has no direct access to such a collector or arterial, by demonstrating that the road accessing the subdivision from a collector or arterial meets relevant County standards and has been accepted for maintenance purposes." Note the last sentence in DCC 17.16.105 reads "...the road accessing the subdivision from a collector or arterial meets relevant County standards and has been accepted for maintenance purposes." (Emphasis added.) DCC 17.16.105 was never amended to be consistent with Board Resolutions 2006-049 or 2009-118. Current planning practice has been to approve subdivisions if the road were built to County standards and operated/maintained by a special road district or a homeowners' association or subject to a similar maintenance agreement pursuant to DCC 17.16.040. The text amendment would align current planning practice with the BOCC policy of not accepting new roads by adding language to DCC 17.16.105 specifying additional road maintenance entities (road districts, HOAs, etc.) are acceptable maintenance authorities when determining access requirements for a subdivision. The text amendment will ensure planning practice is consistent with BOCC Resolution 2009- 118. Without such language, subdivisions that do not use County -maintained roads for access may not meet approval criteria. Here is the proposed language with deletions shown as striLothr^u -" and additions shown with underline: "No proposed subdivision shall be approved unless it would be accessed by roads constructed to County standards and by roads under one of the following conditions: A. Public roads with maintenance responsibility accepted fer GintenGnc-o responcihiliby a unit of local or state government or assigned to landowners or homeowners association by covenant or agreement, • or B. Private roads as permitted by DCC Title 18, with maintenance responsibility assigned to landowners or homeowners associations by covenant or agreement pursuant to ORS 105.175. Page 2 of 3 C. This standard is met if the subdivision would have direct access to an improved collector or arterial or in cases where the subdivision has no direct access to such a collector or arterial, by demonstrating that the road accessing the subdivision from a collector or arterial meets relevant County standards and that maintenance responsibility for the roads has been assigned as required by this section. 1gur-poses.„ NEXT STEPS: Staff will return to the Board for a public hearing on January 30. 2019. Page 3 of 3 ;ESC® ' .✓�'� Jnr /� �UL'1 q .1 F 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 January 23, 2019 DATE: January 16, 2019 FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Community Development, 541-385-1709 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Non -Resource Lands / Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments Attached are preliminary amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff seeks Board direction whether and when to initiate legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. knM MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Nick Lelack, AICP, Director OMMUN[ITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 16, 2019 SUBJECT: Non -Resource Lands Project / Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments I. BACKGROUND Last fall, staff formulated a Non -Resource Lands program tailoring comprehensive plan policies and in subsequent phases, two new zones that exclusively address: (1) Four platted subdivisions and Section 36;1 and (2) Lands one mile from the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that may be candidates for future urbanization. The platted subdivisions and Section 36 are subject to strict resource zoning requirements dictated by State law, for new dwellings, remodels, additions and accessory structures. A new Rural (formerly Non -Resource) Lands zone that incorporates rural residential zoning standards could permit these uses outright and remedy this financial hardship and inconvenience. Regarding lands near Bend's UGB, Deschutes County could establish a second Rural Lands zone that acts as a placeholder for an Urban Reserve Area designation and/or a future UGB amendment. This new zone could establish minimum parcel sizes and discrete land uses that ensure large parcels remain intact for future urbanization. II. BOARD DIRECTION AND TIMELINE Staff seeks Board of County Commissioners (Board) direction whether and when to initiate legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. To maximize public input, staff proposes mailing a project informational notice/brochure to affected property owners announcing public open houses convened by the Planning Commission in La Pine, Redmond, Sisters and Bend in addition to the first evidentiary hearing. Open houses could occur in late February through April with the first evidentiary hearing taking place in late April or May. III. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Attached are preliminary draft amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Table 1 provides an overview. The amendments rename "Non -Resource Lands" to "Rural Lands." ' The four subdivisions are Haner Park Subdivision, Meadow Crest Acres Subdivision, Skyline Subdivision and Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates I" Addition. Table 1— Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Amendments Comprehensive Plan Section Overview Adds Rural Lands to list of comprehensive plan map designations and Rural Lands -10 and Section 1.3 Land Use Planning Rural Lands -20 zones to list of zoning codes Amends Policy 2,2.3, allowing comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands qualifying Rural Lands defined in OAR 660-004-005(3) Adds Policy 2.3.13, allowing comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for Section 2.3 Forest Lands qualifying Rural Lands defined in OAR 660-004-005(3) Adds Section 3.11 Rural Lands to the list of sections associated with Chapter 3 - Rural Section 3.1 Introduction Growth Management Adds a bullet to a paragraph discussing Deschutes County growth potential, recognizing Section 3.2 Rural Development that some farm and forest lands meeting the definition of OAR 660-004-005(3) can be re -designated and rezoned to Rural Lands for low density rural development Adds a paragraph describing Rural Lands Amends Policy 3.3.1, clarifying that new rural residential parcels in Rural Residential Section 3.3 Rural Housing Exception Areas are 10 acres Adds two policies, Policy 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 which describe minimum parcel sizes for new rural residential parcels in the Rural Lands -10 zone and Rural Lands -20 zone Creates a new section, Section 3.11 for Rural Lands Adds 3 paragraphs describing Rural Lands and 4 Rural Lands goals: 1. Allow the designation of Rural Lands in Deschutes County 2. Resolve resource zoning restrictions applied to subdivisions platted prior to Statewide planning legislation and Section 36 3. Retain rural properties east of the City of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary for future urbanization Establishes 18 Rural Lands policies which address: o General Policies - Lists eligibility criteria o Committed Residential Use Policies Rural Lands -10 zone relate to four subdivisions and Section 36 Single family dwelling or manufactured home and accessory uses allowed Section 3.11 Rural Lands (New) outright Minimum parcel size (10 acres) Rural lands -10 zone is available only for the four subdivisions and Section 36 committed to residential uses because they are platted, parcelized, or partially developed. Lists additional eligibility criteria for these specific areas o Greater Bend Urban Growth Boundary Policies 4- Rural Lands -20 zone provides standards for low-density rural land use and development and balances public interest in the management of future urbanization 4k Applies to eligible properties up to one mile from Bend's UGB Minimum parcel size (20 acres) 4- If property is divided, requires a cluster development with an equivalent density of a five acre minimum lot size k Cluster development requires a shadow plat; dedicated open space must be made available for urbanization upon a UGB amendment -2- Attachments Section 1.3 Land Use Planning Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Section 2.3 Forest Lands Section 3.1 Introduction Section 3.2 Rural Development Section 3.3 Rural Housing Section 3.11 Rural Lands (New) -3- seo IA, -i ---.g La viol v se I>La w Background This section establishes the overall framework for the development and implementation of plans and policies for land use within the County. Statewide planning guidelines require each county to establish a land use planning process based on current issues and factual information. The policies in this section assure that the County's land use policies are current, fact -based and responsive to change. The policies recognize the need for coordination between the cities and the County and provide full public access to Plan documents and the information upon which land use decisions are based. As noted throughout this Plan, there are two important things to remember. First, the Oregon land use system draws a bright line between rural and urban lands and promotes new growth and infrastructure in urban areas. Growth on rural lands is limited in order to protect farms, forests, open spaces and natural resources. Deschutes County is required to plan in compliance with the State planning system in order to promote orderly and efficient growth and protect the resources important to Oregonians. Second, land use is often controversial because ultimately it can intermix community values with private property rights and expectations. A property owner may choose to keep pigs, or start a day care center or build a windmill. For each of those uses there may be impacts on the neighbors in the form of odors, traffic or blocked views. Land use regulations attempt to achieve a balance between giving property owners the freedom to use their property however they choose while maintaining the livability of the neighborhood and wider community. This Plan recognizes those tensions that occur when creating land use policies. Land Use Statewide Planning Goal 2 Land Use Planning, requires a fact -based land use planning process and policy framework to guide land use decisions. It requires comprehensive planning that identifies issues and complies with Statewide Planning Goals. Goal 2 also addresses the process to allow exceptions to Statewide Goals (see also Section S.10). In 1979 the County complied with the Statewide planning system by writing a Comprehensive Plan. From 1988-2003 the County underwent State mandated Periodic Review to ensure the Plan was still in compliance with changing State regulations. The 2008-2011 update was done outside of Periodic Review, which is no longer required for Oregon counties. Instead, the County recognized that to remain valid the Comprehensive Plan needed to be completely rewritten and updated. For historic reference, a copy of the Comprehensive Plan replaced by this Plan will remain available on the County website. This Plan is a policy document based on existing facts and community values. No specific land use designation changes are included in the 2008-2011 Plan update. Instead, this Plan revisits each Statewide Goal, its existing Goals and Policies, community values and new issues requiring policy direction. It lays out a blueprint for the future and defines what matters to County residents and businesses through updated Goals and Policies. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE The Comprehensive Plan is implemented primarily through zoning and the zoning code must be regularly reviewed for compliance with the Plan. However, there are other tools for implementation, such as capital improvement plans, partnerships or incentive programs. To assure this Plan remains useful, an action plan identifying various ideas for implementing Comprehensive Plan policies will be created. The action plan will be annually updated and reviewed to identify and prioritize work plans for the coming year. Land Ownership and jurisdiction When considering land use in Deschutes County two important factors are the amount of public ownership and which lands are under County jurisdiction. Table 1.3.1 shows nearly 80% of land in the County is publically owned. The implications of the large tracts of public land range from the loss of tax revenue to having vast open lands available for recreation for both tourists and residents. Table 1.3.1 — Public Land in Deschutes County 2010 Ownership Acres* Percent Total County Acres 1,913,482 100% Federal Government 1,466,067 76.6% State Government 53,051 2.8% Total Public Lands 1 1,529,552 1 79.9/ * Acres of parcels — does not include roads, right-of-ways, lakes, rivers or other publicly -owned parcels sucn as cities or park districts Source: County Geographical Information System Table 1.3.2 shows jurisdictional responsibilities. Note that the federal government, primarily through the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, owns over 76% of the land in the County. Federal lands are not required to conform to local regulations, such as zoning. They rely on their own resource plans. This means a majority of lands in the County are not under County jurisdiction. However, they remain in this Plan to encourage intergovernmental policy coordination. Table 1.3.2 — 2010 Land jurisdiction in Deschutes County 2010 Jurisdiction I Acres' I Percent Total County Acres 1,913,482 100% Bend Urban Growth Boundary 17,534 0.9% La Pine Urban Growth Boundary 4,008 0.2% Redmond Urban Growth Boundary 10,733 0.6% Sisters Urban Growth Boundary 1,023 0.1% Total Cities 33,298 1.7% Total Other jurisdiction 1,499,365 78.4% * Acres of Darcels — does not includes roads, right -of --ways, lakes and rivers In addition to Federal lands, four cities have primary jurisdiction over less than 2% of lands in the County. This includes lands outside the incorporated city boundaries, but inside urban growth boundaries. The urban growth boundaries define a municipality's 20 -year land supply to accommodate future growth. These lands are managed by the cities through intergovernmental DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE agreements between the cities and the County. The bottom line is that the County has land use jurisdiction over approximately 22% of the land base. Comprehensive Plan Map Designations The Comprehensive Plan Map (Map) illustrates the County's goals and policies. The Map describes land use categories that provide for various types of development and conservation for the rural area during the 20 -year planning period. Each Comprehensive Plan map designation provides the land use framework for establishing zoning districts. Zoning defines in detail what uses are allowed for each area. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps exist in official replica form as an electronic map layer within the County Geographic Information System. Other maps illustrating various Comprehensive Plan areas, such as rural commercial properties, are available to the public for informational purposes. The Comprehensive Plan map designations are defined below. Agriculture: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands for farm use. Airport Development: To allow development compatible with airport use while mitigating impacts on surrounding lands. Destination Resort Combining Zone: To show lands eligible for siting a destination resort. Forest: To conserve forest lands for multiple forest uses. Rural Lands To recognize lands defined in OAR 660-004-OOS(3) that cannot qualify for an exception pursuant to applicableplanning law but fail to satisfy the definitions of agricultural or forest lands contained in the Statewide Planning Goals Oregon Revised Statutes and implementing administrative rules. Open Space and Conservation: To protect natural and scenic open spaces, including areas with fragile, unusual or unique qualities. Rural Residential Exception Areas: To provide opportunities for rural residential living outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated communities, consistent with efficient planning of public services. Surface Mining. To protect surface mining resources from development impacts while protecting development from mining impacts. Resort Community: To define rural areas with existing resort development that are not classified as a destination resort, based on Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Rural Community: To define rural areas with limited existing urban -style development, based on Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Rural Service Center. To define rural areas with minimal commercial development as well as some residential uses, based on Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Urban Unincorporated Community. To define rural areas with existing urban development, based on Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Rural Commercial. To define existing areas of isolated rural commercial development that do not fit under Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE Rural Industrial: To define existing areas of isolated rural industrial development that do not fit under Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22. Urban Growth Boundaries: To define land that provides for urban development needs and identifies and separates urban and urbanizable land from rural land Bend Urban Area Reserve: To define lands outside of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary that were under the jurisdiction of the Bend Area General Plan. These areas were removed in September 2016 through the 2016 amendment to the Bend Urban Growth Boundary. These areas are now under the jurisdiction of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Redmond Urban Reserve Area: To define Redmond's additional 30 -year growth boundary for lands expected to be brought into the Urban Growth Boundary. Comprehensive Plan Map Designations and Associated Zoning Table 1.3.3 lists existing Comprehensive Plan designations and related Zoning districts. Some Plan designations apply County -wide and some only apply to designated areas of existing development. The Destination Resort designation is a combining zone that supplements the underlying zoning. Most of the area -specific designations fall under the State rules for Unincorporated Communities and are detailed in Chapter 4 of this Plan. The Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial areas are detailed in Chapter 3 under Rural Economy. Table 1.3.3 - Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Designations Comprehensive Plan Designation I Associated Deschutes County Zoning Code Agriculture Title 18 - All EFU subzones Airport Development Title 18 - AD, AS Destination Resort Combining Zone Title 18 - DR Forest Title 18 - F-1, F-2 Rural Lands Title 18 - RL -10 and RL -20 Open Space and Conservation Title 18 - OS&C Rural Residential Exception Area Title 18 - RR -10 and MUA-10 Surface Mining Title 18 - SM 18 -All and Inn of Resort Community I Mountain/Widgi Creek subzones Rural Community Title 18 - All Tumalo and Terrebonne subzones Rural Service Center Title 18 - All RSC zones Urban Unincorporated Community Title 18 - All Sunriver subzones Rural Commercial Title 18 - Rural Commercial Rural Industrial Title 18 - Rural Industrial Bend Urban Growth Area Title 19 - UAR-10, SM, SR 2 ''/i, RS, IL, FP Redmond Urban Growth Area Title 20 - UH -10 Sisters Urban Growth Area Title 21 - UAR-10, OA, FP Redmond Urban Reserve Area Title 18 - RURA 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE Intergovernmental and Other Coordination Regional Coordination Deschutes County is responsible for coordinating all planning activities affecting land uses within the County. ■ Coordinating population forecasts ■ Coordinating with special districts, including irrigation districts, park districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts ■ Establishing Cooperation Agreements with special districts that provide an urban service in a UGB ■ Coordinating with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management ■ Joint Management Agreements with municipalities for managing urban growth areas (areas outside city limits, but inside a UGB) ■ Establishing Urban Reserve Areas The County recognizes the importance of working closely and cooperatively with the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, as well as special districts and state and federal agencies, to ensure a coordinated approach to future growth and conservation. Cooperative Agreements Cities are required to enter into a cooperative agreement with each special district that provides an urban service within a UGB. The appropriate city may also enter into a cooperative agreement with any other special district operating within a UGB. Urban Service Agreements Deschutes County has the responsibility for negotiating urban service agreements with representatives of all cities and special districts that provide, or declare an interest in providing, urban services inside an Urban Growth Boundary. Urban service means: ■ Sanitary sewers; ■ Water; ■ Fire protection; ■ Parks; ■ Open space; ■ Recreation; and ■ Streets, roads and mass transit. ■ Special Districts Special Districts Special districts are defined in ORS 198.010 and are recognized as government bodies. Special districts include the following. Table 1.3.4 - Special Districts Utility district ( Rural fire protection district Cemetery maintenance district I uralnage alstrict Park and recreation district organized Water improvement district DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE Mass transit district Water control district Metropolitan service district organized Vector control district Special road district 9-1-1 communications district Road assessment district Geothermal heating district Highway lighting district Transportation district Health district Library district Sanitary district Soil & water conservation district Sanitary authority, water authority or joint water and sanitary authority Other Coordination Besides intergovernmental coordination, Deschutes County generally supports coordination and partnerships with non -profits and other organizations that are working with residents to improve the quality of life in the County. There are groups working to address issues from affordable housing to clean rivers, from economic development to fire -free neighborhoods. Two examples of community projects that were completed from 2006-2010 are the Bend 2030 Plan and the Deschutes County Greenprint, both created after extensive public outreach. Note that the nature and extent of the County's role will vary based on County priorities at any given time and that coordination on a project does not ensure County support of every action undertaken on that project. Still, partnering is an efficient and effective method of addressing important issues. County -Owned property When considering land use it is important to consider County -owned lands, which are managed through Deschutes County Code Title 11. As of 2009 there were nearly 700 individual parcels owned by the County, totaling almost 8,000 acres. Management of these properties consists of defining appropriate uses for different parcels, cleaning up illegal dumpsites, fire hazard reduction and public auction. Many of these properties were acquired through foreclosure for non-payment of property taxes. It is anticipated that the County will continue to acquire lands through foreclosure. Starting in 1994 the County began to designate certain sensitive properties along rivers, creeks or streams or with wildlife, wetlands or other values, as park lands. The intent was not to develop these lands for park use but rather to preserve lands with valuable resources. The park designation means that the lands would be retained in public ownership unless there was a public hearing and the Board of County Commissioners determined that selling was in the best interest of the public. ORS 275.330 governs the disposal of these lands, stating that if they are sold the proceeds must be dedicated to park or recreation purposes. As of 2009, there were approximately 70 properties designated as park lands under the following Orders. Order # 94-138 98-127 96-071 2004-001 97-147 2004-037 97-151 2006-019 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - ZU'I'I CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE Goals and Policies Goal 1 Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts. Policy 1.3.1 Protect the limited amount of privately -owned land in Deschutes County through consideration of private property rights and economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. a. Evaluate tools such as transfer of development rights programs that can be used to protect private property. Policy 1.3.2 Consider sustainability and cumulative impacts when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. Policy 1.3.3 Involve the public when amending County Code. Policy 1.3.4 Maintain public records which support the Comprehensive Plan and other land use decisions. Policy 1.3.5 Review the Comprehensive Plan every five years and update as needed, in order to ensure it responds to current conditions, issues and opportunities, as well as amended State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and case law. Policy 1.3.6 Maintain and enhance web -based property -specific information. Policy 1.3.7 The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map will be retained in official replica form as an electronic map layer within the County Geographic Information System and is adopted as part of this Plan. Policy 1.3.8 Implement, as appropriate, recommendations in the Final Report from the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning dated January 2009. Policy 1.3.9 A list of actions to implement this Comprehensive Plan shall be created, maintained and reviewed yearly by the Community Development Department and the Board of County Commissioners. Goal 2 Promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues. Policy 1.3. 10 Regularly review intergovernmental and urban management agreements, and update as needed. Policy 1.3.1 1 Participate in and, where appropriate, coordinate regional planning efforts. a. Provide affected agencies, including irrigation districts, an opportunity to comment and coordinate on land use policies or actions that would impact their jurisdictions. Policy 1.3.12 Support non-profit or public acquisition of lands determined through an extensive public process to have significant value to the community. Policy 1.3.13 Support implementation of the Bend 2030 Plan and incorporate, as appropriate, elements from the Bend 2030 Plan into this Plan. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 7 CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE Goal 3 Manage County owned lands efficiently, effectively, flexibly and in a manner that balances the needs of County residents. Policy 1.3.14 Where feasible, maintain and manage County owned properties as follows: a. Manage designated park lands to preserve the values defined in the park designation; b. Permit public access to County owned lands designated as parks unless posted otherwise; c. Encourage properties located along rivers, streams or creeks or containing significant wildlife, scenic or open space values to be designated as park land. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE FLAN - LUI l CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.3 LAND USE 5eOt*00, 2.2 Ac)rL'rRLtRraL Lavwls Background Protecting farm lands and the economic benefits of agriculture is one of the primary goals of the Oregon land use system. Statewide Planning Goal 3 establishes farmland identification and protection standards which must be met by local governments. The Goal requires farm lands to be preserved for farm uses, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space. Additional criteria for Goal 3 can be found in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 215 and in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-33. These criteria spell out in considerable detail which lands shall be designated as farm lands and what uses are permissible. The main concept is that local governments must inventory and protect farm lands though the use of Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zones that provide primarily for the continuation of commercial -scale agriculture, including farm operations, marketing outlets and the agricultural support system. To provide a science based method of identifying farm lands, Statewide Goal 3 defines agricultural lands primarily through soil classifications. However, other lands can, and often must, be classified for farming based on the criterion `suitable for farm use' or being near agricultural lands. Excerpt from Statewide Planning Goal 3 "Agricultural Land ... in eastern Oregon is land of predominantly Class 1, II, 111, IV, V and VI soils as identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of the United States Soil Conservation Service, and other lands which are suitable for farm use taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land -use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, or accepted farming practices. Lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands, shall be included as agricultural land in any event. More detailed soil data to define agricultural land may be used by local governments if such data permits achievement of this goal. Agricultural land does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exceptions to Goals 3 or 4." Besides Statewide Goal 3, farming is protected in Oregon by "right -to -farm" law (ORS 30.930- 047). This law protects commercial farms from nuisance suits brought about by generally accepted farming practices, such as noise, dust or odors. County Agricultural Designations Farm land designations in Deschutes County have been and continue to be highly controversial. In designating farm lands in the late 1970s, the County was hampered by the limited availability of soil maps. Where soil maps existed those were consulted, but the County also included irrigated lands and lands receiving farm deferrals for the previous five years. Ultimately, seven separate agricultural areas were identified, each specifying minimum lot sizes. In general, non- urban, non -forest, undeveloped and uncommitted lands were determined to be farm lands. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS Despite designating many agricultural areas by default, the 1979 Resource Element noted that based on agricultural determinants of soils, water, climate and economics, profitable farming in the County remained difficult. The findings for protecting non-profitable agricultural land noted the aesthetic value of farm land, the costs and hazards of allowing local development and the economic importance of rural open space. In 1992 a commercial farm study was completed as part of the State required periodic review process. The study concluded that irrigation is the controlling variable for defining farm lands in Deschutes County. Soil classifications improve when water is available. Seven new agricultural subzones were identified based on the factual data provided in the 1992 study and minimum acreages were defined based on the typical number of irrigated acres used by commercial farms in that particular subzone (with the exception of the Horse Ridge subzone). Like the 1979 Resource Element, the 1992 farm study noted the challenges of local commercial farming. The high elevation (2700-3500 feet), short growing season (88-100 days), low rainfall and distance to major markets hamper profitability. The 1992 study resulted in minimum lot sizes that are smaller than the State requirement of 80 acres for farm land and 160 acres for range land. These minimum lot sizes are unique in Oregon and were acknowledged as in compliance with Goal 3 by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. In general, County farm designations are effectively protecting farm lands while allowing limited land divisions. Deschutes County Agricultural Sub -Zones As noted above, the County maintains a unique set of farm sub -zones based on the average number of irrigated acres for each type of farm land as determined in the 1992 farm study. Irrigated land divisions in each sub -zone must result in parcels that retain the acreages shown in Table 2.2.1. Table 2.1.1 - Exclusive Farm, Use Subzones Subzone Name Minimum Acres Proftle Lower Bridge 130 Irrigated field crops, hay and pasture Sisters/Cloverdale 63 Irrigated alfalfa, hay and pasture, wooded grazing and some field crops Terrebonne 35 Irrigated hay and pasture Tumalo/Redmond/Bend 23 Irrigated pasture and some hay Alfalfa 36 Irrigated hay and pasture La Pine 37 Riparian meadows, grazing and meadow hay Horse Ridge East 320 Rangeland grazing Source: Deschutes county i 992 Farm Study Irrigation Districts As shown in the 1992 farm study, irrigation and irrigation districts are instrumental factors for Deschutes County agriculture. Irrigation districts in Oregon are organized as Special Districts under ORS Chapter 545. The districts are created for the purpose of delivering water to their patrons. As such they are effectively non-profit water user associations. In addition to irrigation, these districts also supply a number of other uses, including municipal, industrial, and DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS pond maintenance. However, by and large the districts exist for the purposes of delivering irrigation. Seven districts, which withdraw their water supply from the Deschutes River Basin, have formed an intergovernmental unit called a "board of control" under ORS 190.125. This organizational structure allows the districts to work together as a unit in implementing water conservation projects, providing educational resources, utilizing equipment and for other joint purposes. A key goal for the Deschutes Basin Board of Control is to preserve agricultural uses in those areas where irrigation improves soils to class VI or better. The six irrigation districts listed below serve residents or have facilities within Deschutes County and are members of the Deschutes Basin Board of Control. Arnold Irrigation District The present Arnold Irrigation District was first organized as the Arnold Irrigation Company on December 27, 1904 and became official on January 9, 1905. As of 2010 the district manages approximately 65 miles of canals, ditches and pipes in an area of approximately 18,560 acres. Central Oregon Irrigation District The Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) was established in 1918. The District provides water for approximately 45,000 acres within an 180,000 acre area in Central Oregon. More than 700 miles of canals provide agricultural and industrial water to irrigate Terrebonne, Redmond, Bend, Alfalfa and Powell Butte areas. In addition, COID provides water to the City of Redmond and numerous subdivisions. In Bend, many parks and schools receive water through the COID system. COID is also the managing partner in the operation of the 55,000 acre foot Crane Prairie Reservoir, located on the east side of the Central Cascades. North Unit Irrigation District The North Unit Irrigation District (NUID) was organized in 1916. As part of the Reclamation Act of 1902, Congress approved the Deschutes Project and in 1927 began construction of the project under the direction of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The project was completed in 1949 allowing NUID to serve nearly 50,000 acres. Today NUID is the second largest irrigation district in Oregon, serving approximately 59,000 acres in Jefferson County. NUID maintains facilities in Deschutes County, including Wickiup Dam, Bend Headworks and the North Unit Irrigation Canal. NUID has a long-standing relationship with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as a result of the Deschutes Project. Swalley Irrigation District The Swalley Irrigation District was organized as the Deschutes Reclamation and Irrigation Company (DRIC) in 1899. In 1994 the shareholders of the DRIC voted to incorporate as an irrigation district and took the name of Swalley Irrigation District. The District has 28 miles of canals and laterals providing water to 667 customers. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS Three Sisters Irrigation District The Three Sisters Irrigation District (formerly Squaw Creek Irrigation District) was founded in 1917 from the Squaw Creek Irrigation Company and the Cloverdale Irrigation Company. They were founded in 1891 and 1903 respectively, making Three Sisters Irrigation District one of the oldest such districts in Oregon. The District serves approximately 175 water users over approximately 7,568 acres. Tumalo Irrigation District Originally known as the Tumalo Project, Tumalo Irrigation District started in 1904. In 1922 the Project reorganized as an irrigation district under Oregon state laws. The District serves approximately 60 square miles, irrigating approximately 8,093 acres, and has over 80 miles of canals, laterals and ditches serving 635 landowners. Deschutes County Agriculture 2007 - 2009 The following statistics provide a snapshot of farming in Deschutes County. Source: County GIS data ■ Approximately 36% of the County or more than 700,000 acres are designated as Agriculture on the Comprehensive Plan map. Of that acreage, 69% is public, primarily Federal ownership leaving approximately 224,000 acres privately held. ■ 160,078 acres of privately owned farm lands in the County receive special tax assessment for farm use. ■ Of the acres receiving farm tax assessments, 44,221 are irrigated. ■ In 2008 there were 3,725 agricultural parcels less than five acres. Source: Oregon State University Extension Oregon Agricultural Information Network, Deschutes County Agricultural Commodity Soles for 2009 (preliminary estimate) ■ $19,792,000 in agricultural sales, a drop from the 2008 preliminary estimate of $25,991,000. This follows slight upturns in sales between 2006-2008. ■ 62% of agriculture sales are in crops and 38% in livestock. The primary crops are hay and alfalfa hay while the primary livestock is cattle. The biggest downturns for 2009 are non - alfalfa hay and cattle. Source: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 2007 Census of Agriculture ■ There are 1,405 farms in Deschutes County residing on 129,369 acres ■ Average farm size 92 acres ■ Approximately 24% of farms are under 10 acres and 78% are under 50 acres ■ Total net cash farm income is negative DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS 59% of farmers list their primary occupation as 'Other' rather than farming The above data highlights the fact that farming in Deschutes County is generally not commercially profitable. For a majority of farmers, farming is not a sustaining economic activity, but rather a lifestyle choice. Living on a farm and farming as a secondary economic activity acknowledge a shift from commercial farming towards the benefits of a rural lifestyle. Farm Trends 2010 Whatever the challenges, agriculture is part of Deschutes County's culture and rural lifestyle. During the public input process, various ideas were discussed on how to preserve agricultural lands, open spaces and rural character of the County, while enabling landowners to make a living. The following ideas identify current trends that could be promoted by the County in conjunction with the local extension service and other agencies and organizations. It is important to emphasize that new uses must conform to State regulations. Alternative energy. Development of small alternative energy projects would promote local energy self-sufficiency, using Central Oregon's sun, wind, thermal, hydropower and biomass resources. Larger agricultural parcels could be used as commercial wind or solar farms to provide renewable energy as well as income to landowners. Alternative uses: There is interest in allowing non-farm uses on farm lands to take advantage of agrarian lifestyles and Central Oregon's setting. Ideas being discussed include agri-tourism or hosting weddings. Nonetheless, new non-farm uses must be evaluated to ensure they are compatible with ORS and OARS as well as existing land uses and zoning. Local markets: Products from small farms are often sold to local markets. Additionally local consumption saves on transportation and energy, allowing better tracking of food sources thereby increasing food safety and improving freshness and quality. Buying local is a current trend that could benefit the County's many small farmers. Community Supported Agriculture is one popular method, where farmers obtain paid subscriptions from customers, who then receive fresh produce every week for the season. Farmers markets and farm stands are another aspect of the local food movement. Conservation easements: Many states are using programs to put permanent conservation easements on farm lands. As an example of a program that is not yet available in Oregon is the Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements (PACE). Funded by the federal government and a combination of other sources, PACE purchases development rights from farmers. Niche markets: Small quantities or specialized products can be raised to meet particular markets, like organic products or peppermint oil. Value-added products: Processing crops can increase profitability. An example would be making jam or jelly out of locally grown berries. Farm Councils: Farm councils are being initiated around the country to promote local sustainable food. The Central Oregon Food Policy Council (COFPC) formed in 2010 to lead the effort to a sustainable and just food system. The COFPC is made up of 12-15 volunteers including representatives from agricultural production, public health, government and others interested DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS in the local food system. Identified strategies include supporting access to local healthy food, advocating for public policies that increase sustainable food production and connecting stakeholders in the food systems field. Big Look In 2005 a task force was appointed by the Oregon Governor, Speaker of the House and Senate President to review the current land use system. The Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning was a 10 -member group representing various perspectives, charged with conducting a comprehensive review of the Oregon Statewide Planning Program. Called the Big Look Task Force, this group was asked to make recommendations for any needed changes to land -use policy to the 2009 Legislature. After three years of extensive input from experts and citizens throughout the State, the task force developed its findings and recommendations. One of the primary conclusions reached was that Oregon needs a more flexible land use system that responds to regional variations. Two of the primary recommendations from the Task Force addressed agricultural and forest lands, recommending: ■ Counties be allowed to develop regional criteria for designating farm and forest lands, if they also protect important natural areas and assure that development is sustainable. ■ Counties be allowed to propose specialized rules to decide what lands are designated as farm or forest land. 2009 Legislature / House Bill 2229 House Bill (HB) 2229 began as the vehicle for legislative recommendations for the Big Look Task Force. However, by the time the Legislature adjourned, very little of the Task Force's recommendations remained. HB 2229 does authorize counties to reevaluate resource lands and amend their comprehensive plan designations for such lands consistent with definitions of "agricultural land" and "forest land." For example, the County could add irrigated lands to the regional definition of farm lands to acknowledge the results of the 1992 farm study. Anything that does not qualify as farmland or forestland may be rezoned for non -resource use, subject to conditions that development in the non -resource zones be rural in character, not significantly conflict with surrounding farm and forest practices, and not have adverse affects on such things as water quality, wildlife habitat, and fire safety. County rezoning activities must be pursuant to a work plan approved by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. This effectively means the work will be done similar to periodic review with the Land Conservation and Development Commission expressly given exclusive jurisdiction to review a county decision. Future of Deschutes County Farm Designations and Uses Statewide Planning Goal 3 requires counties to preserve and maintain agricultural lands. However, in discussions on the future of agriculture in Deschutes County, there are still differences of opinion over which lands should be designated farm lands and what uses should be allowed. Farm lands contribute to the County in a number of ways. Agriculture is part of the ongoing local economy. Wide-open farm lands offer a secondary benefit by providing scenic open spaces that help attract tourist dollars. Farm lands also contribute to the rural character that is often mentioned as important to residents. Finally, it should be noted that agricultural lands are preserved through State policy and land use law because it is difficult to predict what DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS agricultural opportunities might arise, and once fragmented the opportunity to farm may be lost. On the other hand, there seems to be widespread agreement that much of the local farm land is marginal, particularly without irrigation. The climate, especially the short growing season, makes commercial farming challenging. Statewide Planning Goal 3 does not really account for the conditions in Deschutes County, resulting in agricultural zoning being applied to land with no history of farming and limited potential for profitable farming. The small size of agricultural parcels adds to the challenges. It has been argued that preserving farm lands benefits the wider public at the expense of agricultural landowners. There is considerable pressure to convert agricultural land to residential or other uses. The debate is complicated because there are impacts to the farming community from converting agricultural lands to other uses. It can be challenging for a farmer who has residential neighbors because farming activities can have noise, odor or dust impacts. The right -to -farm law discussed earlier offers some protection to farmers, but as residential uses grow there is pressure to convert, leading to a greater loss of agricultural lands. The goals and policies in this Section are intended to provide the basis for evaluating the future of agriculture in the County over the next twenty years. They are intended to provide, within State guidelines, flexibility to the farming community. County farm lands will be preserved by ensuring a variety of alternative paths to profitability. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS s��t%ow 2.2 �4g r'�cu.ltu.ral, t_ -a wds �ol,�c%�s Goals and Policies Goal I Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. Policy 2.2.1 Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning. Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. Exclusive Farm Use Subzones Subzone Name Minimum Acres Profile Lower Bridge Sisters/Cloverdale 130 63 Irrigated field crops, hay and pasture Irrigated alfalfa, hay and pasture, wooded grazing and some field crops Terrebonne 35 Irrigated hay and pasture Tumalo/Redmond/Bend 23 Irrigated pasture and some hay Alfalfa 36 Irrigated hay and pasture La Pine 37 Riparian meadows, grazing and meadow hay Horse Ridge East 320 Rangeland grazing Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including formes that qualifying -as nen i=eseurrzeRural 11 -ands defined in OAR 660-004-005(31, for indWidual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. Policy 2.2.5 Uses allowed in Exclusive Farm Use zones shall comply with State Statute and Oregon Administrative Rule. Policy 2.2.6 Regularly review farm regulations to ensure compliance with changes to State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and case law. Policy 2.2.7 Encourage water projects that benefit agriculture. Policy 2.2.8 Support a variety of methods to preserve agricultural lands, such as: a. Support the use of grant funds and other resources to assist local farmers; b. Work cooperatively with irrigation districts, public agencies and representatives and land owners; c. Encourage conservation easements, or purchase or transfer of development rights programs; d. Control noxious weeds; e. Encourage a food council or `buy local' program. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 8 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS Goal 2 Promote a diverse, sustainable, revenue -generating agricultural sector. Policy 2.2.9 Encourage farming by promoting the raising and selling of crops, livestock and/or poultry. Policy 2.2. 10 Support stakeholders in studying and promoting economically viable agricultural opportunities and practices. Policy 2.2.1 1 Encourage small farming enterprises, including, but not limited to, niche markets, organic farming, farm stands or value added products. Policy 2.2.12 Review County Code and revise as needed to permit alternative and supplemental farm activities that are compatible with farming, such as agri- tourism or commercial renewable energy projects. When a preferred alternative or supplemental use identified through a public process is not permitted by State regulations work with the State to review and revise their regulations. Goal 3 Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets. Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. Policy 2.2.14 Explore new methods of identifying and classifying agricultural lands. a. Apply for grants to review and, if needed, update farmland designations. b. Study County agricultural designations considering elements such as water availability, farm viability and economics, climatic conditions, land use patterns, accepted farm practices, and impacts on public services. c. Lobby for changes to State Statute regarding agricultural definitions specific to Deschutes County that would allow some reclassification of agricultural lands. Policy 2.2. 15 Address land use challenges in the Horse Ridge subzone, specifically: a. The large number of platted lots not meeting the minimum acreage; b. The need for non-farm dwellings and location requirements for farm dwellings; c. Concerns over the impact on private property from off-road vehicles, facilities, and trails located on adjacent public lands. Policy 2.2.16 Work with the State to review and revise accessory farm dwelling requirements to address the needs of local farmers. Policy 2.2.17 Encourage coordination between fish/wildlife management organizations and agricultural interests. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS S��t%D w 2.3 �DY�St l...a wDIS Background Protecting forests and their economic benefits are primary goals of the Oregon land use system. Statewide Planning Goal 4 establishes forest identification and protection standards which must be met by local governments. The Goal requires forests to be protected primarily for the growing and harvesting of trees, with environmental and recreational uses also being considered. Additional criteria for Statewide Goal 4 can be found in Oregon Revised Statue (ORS) 215 and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-006. The key concept is local governments must inventory forest lands and protect them through local regulations. County Forestry Designations In 1979 in order to meet the Statewide Goal 4 inventory requirement for forest lands, the County worked with the Oregon Department of Forestry to review timber productivity based on soils information. A resulting timber productivity map was created and three categories of forest lands were identified based on forest uses identified in Statewide Goal 4. In the 1990s, the Land Conservation and Development Commission initiated the Forest Rule, OAR 660-006, defining allowed uses, siting conditions and minimum lot sizes in forest zones. In 1992, as part of State mandated Periodic Review, Deschutes County revised its forest designations, reducing forest designations and associated regulations to two (F -I and F-2). County Forests 2007 - 2009 The following statistics provide a snapshot of forests in Deschutes County. Source: County GIS data ■ Approximately 52% of the County or over I million acres are designated as forest on the Comprehensive Plan map. Of that acreage, 92% is public, primarily federal, leaving approximately 78,000 acres privately held. ■ There are 475 forest special assessment accounts. ■ The largest privately owned forest land is the 33,000 acre Skyline Forest, formerly Bull Springs Tree Farm. Source: OSU Extension Service Silviculture and Fire Education Specialist ■ Total public and private timber harvest in the County in 2007 was 22.5 million board feet, in 2008, 36.1 million board feet and in 2009, 14.7 million board feet. Source: Deschutes County Forester ■ Since 2002 approximately 130,000 acres of public and private forest lands have burned in Deschutes County at a firefighting expense of approximately $60 million. Forest Trends 2010 As timber harvesting decreases, other uses for forest lands are emerging. State regulations permit five general types of uses, including forest operations; environmental, agricultural or recreational uses; two types of dwellings and locally dependent uses. Permitted uses are defined DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.3 FOREST LANDS and clarified in OAR 660-006. The following uses are becoming more prominent and likely to gain importance over the next 20 years. Secondary forest products (forest operations): There is an increasing use of secondary forest products, such as hog fuel (chipped wood) or wood slash, which can be used for everything from animal bedding to presto logs to biomass fuel. There is some concern that those uses will lead to increased logging and degradation of forests. However, there is considerable agreement that the high build up of debris in local forests increases the risk of forest fires. The use of secondary forest products can contribute to the health of the forest as well as the local economy. Recreation (environmental, agricultural and recreation uses): The proximity of federal forests for hiking, mountain biking, skiing, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing and other outdoor recreation draws tourists and residents alike. (see Section 2.6 for data on the economic impacts of wildlife tourism.) Alternative energy (locationally dependent): Commercial alternative energy projects are often locationally dependent. Forestry -related biomass plants and associated infrastructure are being considered in Central Oregon. Future of Forest Uses Most of the forest land in Deschutes County is owned and managed by the Federal government under Federal regulations. Forest practices on State or private forest lands are regulated by the Oregon Department of Forestry. The primary role of the County is to limit the impacts of development on private property in forest zones. Although most forest lands are not owned or managed by Deschutes County, forests contribute immeasurably to livability. Timber management and recreational tourism provide economic benefits and employment. Forests provide an impressive diversity of recreational opportunities. Forests also play a large role in maintaining clean air and water and they provide scenic beauty and habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals. It is important for the County to work cooperatively with forest landowners, including public agencies, non-profit organizations and private land owners. Residential Development The primary concern over changing forest uses is that as timber becomes less profitable, the pressure to develop forest lands for residential uses increases. State regulations limit the development of housing in forest zones, recognizing that fragmenting forests decreases productivity. The biggest challenge posed by residential fragmentation of forests is the danger posed by wildfire in heavily wooded areas. Fire danger has increased as dry conditions and disease have impacted the health of forest lands. Years of fire suppression and limited logging have contributed to a build up of wildland fuel that can spread fires quickly. In these conditions, residential uses in forests create conditions dangerous to homeowners and firefighters. Section 3.4, Natural Hazards, has more information on wildfire prevention. The second challenge posed by forest fragmentation is the threat to fish and wildlife. This is addressed in the Water and Wildlife sections of this Chapter. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.3 FOREST LANDS Skyline Forest HB 2228 As noted above, the goal of the Deschutes Land Trust is to purchase and manage as much of the Skyline Forest as possible for sustainable logging, wildlife, recreation and scenery. HB 2228, adopted by the 2009 Legislature, allows the owners of this land the right to build a clustered community of up to 282 dwelling units and associated services on 1,200 acres. An additional 1,800 acres must be in a conservation easement as a buffer to maintain wildlife habitat and minimize wildfire danger. In exchange for waiving State and local land use regulations to allow this development, the remaining 30,000 acres of the Skyline Forest and additional property in Deschutes and Klamath counties must be sold to a land trust and protected with a conservation easement. There are additional requirements attached to the Statue that provide more detail on items such as road access, master planning and permitted uses. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.3 FOREST LANDS �SeOt�ow 2.3 (west l-avots POU'OLes Goals and Policies Goal I Protect and maintain forest lands for multiple uses, including forest products, watershed protection, conservation, recreation and wildlife habitat protection. Policy 2.3.1 Retain forest lands through Forest I and Forest 2 zoning. Policy 2.3.2 To conserve and maintain unimpacted forest lands, retain Forest I zoning for those lands with the following characteristics: a. Consist predominantly of ownerships not developed by residences or non - forest uses; b. Consist predominantly of contiguous ownerships of 160 acres or larger; c. Consist predominantly of ownerships contiguous to other lands utilized for commercial forest or commercial farm uses; d. Are accessed by roads intended primarily for forest management; and e. Are primarily under forest management. Policy 2.3.3 To conserve and maintain impacted forest lands, retain Forest 2 zoning for those lands with the following characteristics: a. Consist predominantly of ownerships developed for residential or non -forest uses; b. Consist predominantly of ownerships less than 160 acres; c. Consist of ownerships generally contiguous to tracts containing less than 160 acres and residences, or adjacent to acknowledged exception areas; and d. Provide a level of public facilities and services, including roads, intended primarily for direct services to rural residences. Policy 2.3.4 Notwithstanding any other quasi-judicial plan or zone change criteria, lands designated as Forest under this Plan and zoned Forest 2 may upon application be redesignated and rezoned from Forest 2 to Exclusive Farm Use if such lands: a. Do not qualify under State Statute for forestland tax deferral, b. Are not necessary to permit forest operations or practices on adjoining lands and do not constitute forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources, c. Have soils on the property that fall within the definition of agricultural lands as set forth in Goal 3, d. Are a tract of land 40 acres or less in size, e. Do not qualify under State Statute and the terms of the Forest 2 zone for a dwelling, and; f. Were purchased by the property owner after January I, 1985 but before November 4, 1993. Such changes may be made regardless of the size of the resulting EFU zoning district. Such changes shall be processed in the same manner as other quasi- judicial plan or zoning map changes. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.3 FOREST LANDS Policy 2.3.5 Uses allowed in Forest zones shall comply with State Statute and Oregon Administrative Rule. Policy 2.3.6 Coordinate and cooperate with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and other public agencies to promote sustainable forest uses, including recreation, on public forest land, including: a. Using the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, or its successor, as the basis for mutual coordination and cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service; b. Using the Prineville Bureau of Land Management Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan, or its successor, as the basis for mutual coordination and cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management. Policy 2.3.7 Notify affected agencies when approving development that could impact Federal or State forest lands. Policy 2.3.8 Support the maintenance of the Skyline Forest as a Community Forest. Policy 2.3.9 Support economic development opportunities that promote forest health. Policy 2.3.10 Provide input on public forest plans that impact Deschutes County. Policy 2.3.1 1 Apply for grants to review forest lands based on ORS 215.788-215.794 (2009 HB 2229). Policy 2.3.12 Coordinate with stakeholders to support forest management projects that: a. Contribute to public safety by treating wildland hazardous fuels particularly in the designated Wildlland Urban Interface as identified in the Community Wildfire Protection Plans described in Section 3.5 of this Plan; b. Retain fish and wildlife habitat. Policy 2 3 13 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments including aualifyinQ Rural Lands defined in OAR 660-004-005(3) for Forest Use zoned parcels as allowed by State Statute Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Goal 2 Adequately address impacts to public safety and wildlife when allowing development on forest lands. Policy 2.3.134 Review County Code and revise as needed to ensure development in forest zones mitigates impacts, particularly impacts on fish and wildlife habitat and public fire safety. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.3 FOREST LANDS �Seat%Dw 3.1 lwtr00tRr'U0w Background People move to rural communities in Deschutes County for many different reasons, but the high quality of life was mentioned repeatedly in community meetings. Residents noted that rural living provides peace and quiet, room to breathe and a connection with the land, the natural world and a caring community. Retaining what people love about rural living while allowing growth can be challenging. This chapter looks at the functional and quality of life aspects of rural living and complements Chapter 2, Resource Management that discusses resource lands. This chapter is divided into eight sections. Seven Statewide Planning Goals apply to this chapter, along with associated Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) that provide more specific guidance on implementing the Goals. The first four sections are Rural Development, Rural Housing, Rural Economy and Natural Hazards. State regulations for housing can be found in Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing and OAR 660-008. Economic growth is considered in Statewide Goal 9, Economy of the State and OAR 660-009. Both Goal 10 and Goal 9 are intended to apply primarily inside Urban Growth Boundaries. Statewide Goal 2, Land Use and Goal 14, Urbanization, and OARS 660-004 and 660-014 address specific aspects of urban development on rural lands. Statewide Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards provides guidance on how to effectively protect development from natural hazards. The next two sections are Public Facilities and Services and Transportation. These areas are addressed in Statewide Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services and Statewide Goal 12, Transportation and associated OAR 660-011 and 660-012. The next two sections of this chapter are Rural Recreation and Destination Resorts. Statewide Planning Goal 8, Recreational Needs and Oregon Revised Statue 197.435-467 regulate these chapters. The final section discusses plans or policies to address site specific rural development issues. Purpose The purpose of the Rural Growth Management chapter is to coordinate with other chapters of this Plan to maintain the quality of life enjoyed by rural residents. This chapter is organized as follows: ■ Rural Development (Section 3.2) ■ Rural Housing (Section 3.3) ■ Rural Economy (Section 3.4) ■ Natural Hazards (Section 3.5) ■ Public Facilities and Services (Section 3.6) ■ Transportation System Plan (Section 3.7) ■ Rural Recreation (Section 3.8) ■ Destination Resorts (Section 3.9) ■ Area specific Plans and Policies (Section 3.10) ■ Rural Lands (Section 3.11) DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION Sect%O vi. 3.2 R.u.ra L DeVe ,OP wc.l° wt Background Oregon's land use system primarily directs growth into urban growth boundaries, to preserve rural lands for farming and forestry. Recent growth in the unincorporated areas of the County consists predominantly of residential development on lots existing prior to the adoption in the 1970s of the statewide planning program and Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan. New commercial, industrial or residential uses on rural lands are regulated by Statewide Planning Goals for farms, forests, urbanization and public facilities. State law restricts most rural commercial and industrial uses, so no significant growth in those areas is anticipated. Yet many people choose to live in rural areas. To understand demand, in 1979 the County noted that there were over 17,000 platted, but undeveloped lots and concluded that there was ample room for growth. In 2004 the County adopted Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000-2025 (see Section 4.2). As part of the population forecast, the County used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to analyze the potential for new development based on existing and potential dwellings. That analysis showed the County could serve anticipated rural population with existing lots. However, it was noted that the number of growth -dependent variables over potential new development made the analysis inexact. Growth Potential As of 2010, the strong population growth of the last decade in Deschutes County was thought to have leveled off due to the economic recession. Besides flatter growth patterns, changes to State regulations opened up additional opportunities for new rural development. The following list identifies general categories for creating new residential lots, all of which are subject to specific State regulations. ■ New lots can be created in destination resorts ■ Some farm lands can be subdivided to permit one or two `non-farm' parcels ■ New lots can be created based on the property rights legislation known as Measure 37 and Measure 49 ■ New lots can be created through the addition of sewer systems ■ New lots can be created in Unincorporated Communities (see Chapter 4) ■ 2009 legislation permits a new analysis of agricultural designated lands ■ Existing large forest or rural residential lots can be subdivided ■ Exceptions can be granted from the Statewide Planning Goals ■ Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses can be rezoned as rural residential ■ Some farm lands with poor soils can be rezoned into a new agricultural category with a smaller acreage requirement ■ Some farm and forest lands meeting the definition of OAR 660-004-005(3) but not satisfying the definitions of agricultural or forest lands contained in the Statewide Planning Goals Oregon Revised Statutes and implementing administrative rules can be re- designated and rezoned to Rural Lands for low density rural development. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT It is difficult to estimate how many additional lots could be created through these categories. Most of these possibilities are extremely site-specific requiring an analysis of each property. In community meetings for the 2008-2011 Plan update, the primary concerns raised over new growth were the impacts of destination resorts and non-farm dwellings. The wildcard in rural housing development is destination resorts (see Section 3.9). These developments are permitted on rural lands without taking a goal exception and are intended to attract tourists. State Statute on resorts allows them to have two houses for every overnight lodging unit, so the potential exists to add a considerable amount of new housing to rural Deschutes County. The challenge is that it is hard to analyze impacts from resort housing because it is not clear whether the housing is being used for full-time residences or second homes. Additionally, some of the second homes may become full-time residences when property owners retire. Non-farm refers to allowing one or two new parcels of up to five acres to split off of farm parcels as long as the remaining farm parcel retains the required acreage. This provides flexibility by allowing the creation of new rural housing while retaining the basic agricultural character of the area. Property rights Measure 37 could potentially have added a sizeable number of new lots, but as modified by Measure 49 the number is down considerably and at this point nearly impossible to track. Increased growth potential could follow the addition of sewer systems in south Deschutes County or in existing unincorporated communities, which could lead to smaller lot sizes. New lots can also be created in Unincorporated Communities, but only Tumalo and Terrebonne have the potential to add a substantial number of new lots. However, residents in those communities have expressed an interest in keeping their rural character (see Sections 4.5 and 4.6). Another opportunity for rural growth is found in Section 2.2 of this Plan, within a policy to initiate a study evaluating existing agricultural lands to determine which lands are unsuitable for farming and could be available for residential development. Other potential categories for new residential lots are not anticipated to add substantial new development. Z DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE ELAN - LU"I U CHAPTER I COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION Se0t1.OV6 3.3 Ru.raL 1'tou.sl,wg Background Housing is a basic need that provides not just shelter, but connection to a wider community. A variety of housing types and price points ensures options for people at different life stages and needs. Oregon's statewide planning program directs cities to retain an adequate amount of land to accommodate residential growth. Generally counties are directed to protect farms, forests and other rural resources like wildlife while limiting new rural development. This section of the Plan looks specifically at housing on existing and potential new parcels and how the County can support a diverse and affordable housing supply. Housing inside urban growth boundaries is addressed in Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing and OAR 660-008. Statewide Goal 2, Land Use and Goal 14, Urbanization both have sections that address rural housing, supplemented by OAR 660-004 and 660-014. These rules refine how new rural residential lots can be created. The Deschutes County housing policies provide the framework for residential development. The policies further delineate the role of the County in facilitating the availability of an affordable and quality housing stock within both urban and rural communities. Rural Residential Exception Areas In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was that many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted. In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of 20190 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through initiating a ne+�- taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and urbanization regulations, and following guidelines set out in the OAR. Rural Lands In 2019 the County amended its comprehensive plan to recognize opportunities to designate Rural Lands defined in OAR 660-004-005(3) in two specific areas: four subdivisions and Section 36 in the Exclusive Farm Use (FU)and Forest Use zones platted prior to State enabling planning legislation and EFU lands near the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Platted lots within these subdivisions and Section 36 are committed to residential uses. Unfortunates they are subject to strict resource zoning requirements dictated by State law for new dwellings remodels additions and accessory structures. A Rural Lands -10 zone customized for these subdivisions and Section 36 can incorporate rural residential zoning standards to permit these uses outright Regarding EFU lands predominantly east of Bend's UGB a customized Rural Lands -20 zone can establish minimum parcel sizes and discrete land DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.3 RURAL HOUSING uses that ensure parcels remain intact fora future Urban Reserve Area designation and/or UGB amendment. Rural Residential Exception Areas 2009 Source: County GIS data ■ 71,000 acres of Rural Residential Exception Area (including right-of-way) ■ 64,000 acres of Rural Residential Exception Area (excluding right-of-way) ■ 24,750 Rural Residential Exception Area lots ■ 18,100 Rural Residential Exception Area lots that are developed Future of Rural Housing in Deschutes County In looking at rural housing growth, it is important to find the balance between protecting rural values and protecting property rights. In community meetings some people expressed concern over the level of new development that has been allowed while others highlighted the restrictions on their property that do not permit it. Too much development can lead to the destruction of the qualities that bring people to Deschutes County, while too many restrictions keep out people who would choose a rural lifestyle. Housing Legality, Public Health and Safety One issue meriting attention is the need to be sure housing is legally developed. A house built without proper land use permits may not meet required setbacks or other regulations, causing legal disputes between neighbors. A house built without proper building permits could be constructed shoddily, causing safety issues. Land use and building permit requirements therefore are intended to safeguard the rights of property owners and neighbors. Historically, there have been problems in the County with substandard housing. Over the years substandard housing has become less of an issue. However, there are still areas where development has occurred without land use or building permits, leading to numerous code complaints. An area of south County, known as Section 36, has been identified as one place that the County could work closely with local residents to address health and safety issues. Another health and safety issue that came up in public meetings is the need to regulate large animals on residential lots. The idea is to control odors and flies that can accumulate and impact neighbors. Research on how large animals are regulated in other counties would provide some direction on this issue. Housing Diversity A challenge for the County given rural housing restrictions is how to support a diversity of housing to meet the needs of the community, while retaining the rural character important to residents. Deschutes County requires a 10 acre minimum lot size for new rural residential lots in order to protect the rural quality of life and its resources. Yet, the 10 acre minimum raises the cost of rural housing and may limit the rural lifestyle to households at the upper end of the income spectrum. Additionally much of the new rural housing being built is located in high-end destination resorts. This slant towards high priced rural housing is mitigated somewhat by the thousands of small lots that were platted before land use laws were enacted. These smaller lots provide an opportunity for less expensive housing. One way the County can address the need for housing options is to promote the idea of housing alternatives such as co -housing or accessory dwelling units. Currently these alternatives are not permitted by State regulations that protect rural lands. Co -housing involves creating a community through clustered housing. Accessory dwelling units, sometimes known as granny DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - ZU'I 1 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.3 RURAL HOUSING flats, are small units accessory to the main housing. Regulated correctly, housing alternatives could provide flexibility in rural housing. The first step in permitting housing variety is to initiate a discussion with the State on how and where these types of housing would be appropriate. Another way to support a diversity of housing is to work closely with agencies and jurisdictions that promote it. The public corporation responsible for promoting affordable housing initiatives in Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook Counties is the Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority, also known as Housing Works. Organized under the Oregon Housing Authority Law (ORS 456), this agency provides affordable housing services to low income households. They also engage in public/private partnerships to provide and manage affordable housing. Cities are also involved in providing a diversity of housing. Promoting a variety of housing choices and mix of price points can be achieved through cooperating with Housing Works and local cities, the donation of County property, or other means. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.3 RURAL HOUSING Sect�oVI, 3.3 Rural, H-ous`V60 J>oUc"es Goals and Policies Goal I Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County. Policy 3.3.1 The minimum parcel size for new rural residential parcels in Rural Residential Exception Areas shall be 10 acres. Policv 3.3.2 The minimum parcel size for new rural residential parcels in Rural Lands -10 zone shall be 10 acres. Policy 3.3.3 The minimum parcel size for new rural residential parcels in Rural Lands -20 zone shall be 20 acres. Policy 3.3.4 Incorporate annual farm and forest housing reports into a wider system for tracking the cumulative impacts of rural housing development. Policy 3.3.35 Address housing health and safety issues raised by the public, such as: a. The number of large animals that should be permitted on rural residential parcels; or b. The properties south of La Pine, in Township 22S, Range 10E, Section 36, many of which are not in compliance with planning and building codes. Policy 3.3.64 Encourage new subdivisions to incorporate alternative development patterns, such as cluster development, that mitigate community and environmental impacts. Policy 3.3.57 Maintain the rural character of the County while ensuring a diversity of housing opportunities, including initiating discussions to amend State Statute and/or Oregon Administrative Rules to permit accessory dwelling units in Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and Rural Residential zones. Goal 2 Support agencies and non -profits that provide affordable housing. Policy 3.3.86 Support Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority and other stakeholders to meet the housing needs of all Deschutes County residents. a. Assist as needed in coordinating and implementing housing assistance programs. b. Support efforts to provide affordable and workforce housing in urban growth boundaries and unincorporated communities. Policy 3.3.79 Utilize block grants and other funding to assist in providing and maintaining low and moderate income housing. 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - ZU1 "I CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.3 RURAL HOUSING Sect'Ow 3.11 R,urRt lRVyDjS Background Rural Lands which are also known under State law, OAR 660-004-005(3) as "Non -Resource" are areas with an exceedingly low capacity to be managed for commercial agriculture and forestry activities Rural Lands do not meet the definitions of either agricultural land or forest lands found in Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4 , State Statutes, and the accompanying Oregon Administrative Rules due to the presence of poor soil conditions, a lack of irrigation, climate conditions and other relevant factors, including but not limited to past use. Based on these conditions Rural Lands do not warrant protection for resource use under state and local programs to protect agricultural and forest lands and may be made available for other uses. They differ from Rural Residential Exception Areas and other rural areas not planned and zoned for farm and forest activities. Rural Lands are most often characterized by large tracts without an existing settlement pattern and supporting residential infrastructure. However, some areas contain platted subdivisions that existed prior to Senate Bill 100 and the Statewide Planning System. Over the past decade Deschutes County has supported and participated in numerous state legislative processes and coordinated with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)to study and legislatively update agricultural and forest land designations. Unfortunately, these efforts did not result in a clear path forward to undertake such a land use change Therefore in 2019 Deschutes County initiated its own process. The Comprehensive Plan already_ provides a general directive to consider "Non -Resource" lands proposals. To date, Deschutes County has amended its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map five times to accommodate such a request. Deschutes Count amended its Comprehensive Plan to recognize opportunities to designate Rural Lands defined in OAR 660-004-005(3) in two specific areas: four subdivisions and Section 36 in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Forest Use (F-2) zones platted or parcelized prior to the State enabling planning legislation and EFU lands near the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Platted lots within four subdivisions and Section 36 are committed to residential uses. Unfortunately, they are subject to strict resource zoning requirements dictated by State law for new dwellings, remodels, additions and accessory structures. A Rural Lands -10 zone customized for these subdivisions and Section 36 can incorporate rural residential zoning standards to permit these uses outright. Regarding EFU lands predominantly east of Bend's UGB a customized Rural Lands -20 zone can establish minimum parcel sizes and discrete land uses that ensure parcels remain intact for a future Urban Reserve Area designation or UGB amendment. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.11 RURAL LANDS Goal and Policies Goal 1 Allow the designation of Rural Lands in Deschutes County Rural Lands — General Policies Policv 3.1 1.1 A DrODosal to designate Rural Lands may be initiated by either a property owner or Deschutes County. Policy 3 1 12 The purpose of the Rural Lands designation is to allow low intensity rural development. Policy 3 1 13 To qualify for a Rural Lands comprehensive plan designation and Rural Lands zoning, a property must demonstrate: a The State's soil and definitional standards of agricultural land do not apply because: i A majority of the lot or parcel contains 51 % of Class VII or VIII soils as classified by the NRCS; ii. The site is not suitable for farm use: I It cannot be used for grazing or in conjunction with adjoining or nearby agricultural or grazing operations. 2. It has no availability of water for farm irrigation. 3 It cannot be combined with any other adjacent land for farming to occur 4 It is not intermingled with lands in Class 14I soils. S. It is unnecessary to allow adjacent properties to continue to function as agricultural land. b The State's soil and definitional standards of forest land or forest productivity potential do not apply by showing the entire parcel possesses a potential productivity of less than 20 cubic feet per acre per year, at culmination of Mean annual increment for one or more tree species native to Deschutes Count c. It does not contain Goal 5 natural resources; d It is located in a fire -protection district or can be annexed into one; e It does not significantly affect a County or State transportation system consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12; f If irrigation districts are impacted by a Rural Lands designation and if so, identify conditions of approval that should be placed on the property. Goal 2 Resolve resource zoning restrictions applied to subdivisionsIan tted prior to Statewide planning legislation and Section 36 in Township 22S, Range I OE Rural Lands — Committed Residential Use Policies Policy 3 1 14 The purposes of the Rural Lands -10 zone are to provide rural residential living environments; to provide standards for rural residential development; and to balance the public's interest in the management of community growth with the DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.11 RURAL LANDS protection of individual property rights through review procedures and standards. Policy 3.1 1.5 A single family dwelling or a manufactured home and their accessory uses shall be permitted outright. Policy 3.1 1.6 The minimum Darcel size for the Rural Lands -10 zone shall be 10 acres. Policy 3.1 1.7 The Rural Lands -10 zone is available only for the following properties committed to residential uses because they are platted, parcelized, or partially developed: a. Haner Park Subdivision b. Meadow Crest Acres Subdivision c. Section 36, Township 225, Range I OE d. Skyline Subdivision e. Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates I" Addition Policy 3.1 1.8 Notwithstanding Policies 3.1 1.3.a.i. and 3.1 1.3.a.ii.4., lots in Meadow Crest Acres Subdivision and Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates I'Addition with 51 or more Class I -VI soils or intermingled with Class I -VI soils remain eligible upon demonstration that the property is unsuitable for farm use based on its land use history and whether a reasonable farmer would put the land to agricultural use. Policy 3.1 1.9 Notwithstanding Policy 3.11.3b., lots in Haner Park Subdivision, Section 36, and Skyline Subdivision committed to residential uses that entirely possess a potential productivity of 20 or more cubic feet per acre per year, at culmination of mean annual increment, for one or more tree species native to Deschutes County remain eligible upon demonstration that the property is unsuitable for forestry use based on its land use history and whether a reasonable forester or farmer would put the land to forestry or agricultural use. Policy 3.1 1.10 Notwithstanding Policy 3.11.3.c. lands committed to residential uses with significant Goal 5 natural resources are eligible for a Rural Lands -10 zone subject to an ESEE analysis. Goal 3 Retain rural properties east of the City of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary for future urbanization Rural Lands — Greater Bend Urban Growth Boundary Policies Policy 3.1 I.1 1 The purposes of the Rural Lands -20 zone is to provide standards for low density rural land use and development: and to balance the public's interest in the management of future urbanization with the protection of individual property rights through review procedures and standards. Policy 3.1 1.12 The Rural Lands -20 zone is for eligible properties up to one mile from the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary. Policy 3.1 1.13 The minimum parcel size for the Rural Lands -20 zone shall be 20 acres. Policy 3.1 1.14 A single family dwelling or a manufactured home and their accessory uses shall be permitted outright. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.11 RURAL LANDS Policv 3.1 1.15 If_a proDerty is divided it shall be developed as a cluster development consistent with County code governing cluster developments. Policy 3 1 116 Cluster development shall be allowed with an equivalent density of a five acre minimum lot size similar to Rural Residential and Multiple Use Agricultural zones. Policy 3 1 117 Cluster development applications shall be required to submit a shadow plat to account for future urbanization. Policy 3 1 118 Dedicated open space required for cluster development shall be made available for urbanization upon an Urban Growth Boundary amendment. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.11 RURAL LANDS \)i 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 January 23, 2019 DATE: January 16, 2019 FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Deliberation Preparation - Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval (24350/24360 Dodds Rd) ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner MEMORANDUM DATE: January 16, 2019 TO: Board of County Commissioners COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner RE: Work Session: Preparation for Deliberations on an Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval (Land Use File Nos. 247-18-000127-AD/477-LR/877-LL/899-A) On January 23, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a work session in preparation for deliberations on an appeal, filed by Kim McCready, in response to approval of a proposal to establish marijuana production submitted by Waveseer of Oregon, LLC. I. BACKGROUND Waveseer of Oregon, LLC, applied for land use approval to establish marijuana production in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) at 24350/24360 Dodds Road, Bend. The proposed marijuana production consists of a maximum 10,000 square feet of mature marijuana plant canopy area and includes establishment of new structures for the use. On November 16, 2018, staff issued an approval of the proposal. The approval was timely appealed and on December 19, 2018, the Board conducted a public hearing for the appeal. At the conclusion of oral testimony, the Board established a deadline for each of the open record periods. The following materials (attached) were submitted into the record since the submittal of the staff memo prior to the public hearing: 2018-12-17 Celko E -Mail for Applicant 2018-12-19 Staff Hearing Presentation 2018-12-19 Staff Hearing Map 2018-12-19 Public Hearing Request to Speak Forms 2018-12-19 Jarod Wright Photos 2018-12-31 Celko E -Mail for Applicant (Open Record Period 1 - New Information) 2018-12-31 Dickson E -Mail for Appellant (Open Record Period 1 - New Information) 2019-1-11 Celko E -Mail for Applicant (Open Record Period 2 - Rebuttal) 2019-1-12 Dickson E -Mail for Appellant (Open Record Period 2 - Rebuttal) 2019-1-15 Celko E -Mail for Applicant (Open Record Period 3 - Final Argument) II. ISSUES RAISED A number of issues were raised during the land use process. Staff has prepared a matrix that identifies and summaries the issues and the Board decision points (Attachment 1). The matrix is contains three areas: • Identified Appeal Issues - Issues directed at applicable review criteria. • Associated Issues - Issues tangentially related but not directly tied to review criteria. • Other Issues - Issues not associated with review criteria. III. NEXT STEPS The Board is scheduled to conduct deliberations at the business meeting on January 30. Attachments: 1: Table 1. Issue Area Matrix 2: 2018-12-17 Celko E -Mail for Applicant 3: 2018-12-19 Staff Presentation 4: 2018-12-19 Staff Hearing Map 5: 2018-12-19 Public Hearing Request to Speak Forms 6: 2018-12-19 Jarod Wright Photos 7: 2018-12-31 Celko E -Mail for Applicant (Open Record Period 1 - New Information) 8: 2018-12-31 Dickson E -Mail for Appellant (Open Record Period 1 - New Information) 9: 2019-1-11 Celko E -Mail for Applicant (Open Record Period 2 - Rebuttal) 10: 2019-1-12 Dickson E -Mail for Appellant (Open Record Period 2 - Rebuttal) 11: 2019-1-15 Celko E -Mail for Applicant (Open Record Period 3 - Final Argument) 247-18-0001 27-AD/477-LR/877-LL/899-A Table 1. Issue Area Matrix Page 1 of 4 247-18-000127-AD/477-LR/877-LL/899-A Table 1. Issue Area Matrix Table 1. Issue Area Matrix ASSOCIATED SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY STAFF COMMENT ISSUES IN OPPOSITION IN SUPPORT t the • DCC 22.20.055(D) indicates the Planning Director shall have sole Issue 6 • The changes to the proposal constitute a modification of application • Since hang deemed complee in layout redsprior change cannotate aco const a authority/ to determine whether an applicant's submittal constitutes Modification of thereby requiring submission of a modification of application request. application a modification until the day a hearing is opened for receipt of oral Application modification of application as defined. Previous unrelated land use applications were required to submit testimony. No changes or modification to the proposal have been (DCC 22.20.0551) modification of application requests when changes were made and • The Lot Consolidation request did not alter any aspect of the use or made by the applicant since the hearing was opened. operation. The Lot Consolidation request solely removed a property line to support the fact that the proposed marijuana production • DCC 22.20.055(D) further specifies determination of whether an serve as precedent. facility would operate on a single site. applicant's submittal constitutes a modification shall be appealable only to LUBA and shall be appealable only after a final decision is The changes reduced the scale of the proposal. entered by the County on an application. • The de novo public hearing has provided opportunities for parties to submit testimony directed at the proposal as changed. • In the December 31, 2018, submittal the appellant incorrectly calculated the square footage of the proposed structures as changed. The identified square footage is larger than proposed. appellant cited several tions of the Deschutes County • Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Section 2.2 "Agricultural • Comprehensive plan policies are not applicable review criteria. Issue 7 The a PP secLands," it is the policy of the County to [r]etain agricultural lands Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Deschutes County Code Title 18, County Zoning, codifies an Comprehensive Plan through Exclusive Farm Use zoning." (Comprehensive Plan, Policy implements the policies of Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 requires protection 2 2 1) of "resource lands" as "available assets." • It is also the policy of the County to "encourage farming by promoting • In Section 2.2 it calls out the need to protect farm lands. the raising and selling of crops, livestock and/or poultry." (Comprehensive Plan, Policy 2.2.9) • The subject property is zoned EFU. Both the State of Oregon and Deschutes County have concluded EFU zoned land should be used for farming, including marijuana production. that nt ne or more ofthe 1 DCC 18.04.030 "Modification of application" means the applicant's submittal of new information after an application has been o changes deemed eo nplete setbacks, and prior to the points, building design, se ofthe record o ie or n a ndsng orientation, application parking, traffic would pedestrian circulation proposallrby changing h gi landscaping a manner that requires follwing previously described components: proposed uses, operating characteristics, intensity, scale, site lay out it but not limitedg the application of new criteria to the proposal or that would require the findings of fact to be changed. It does not mean an applicant's submission of new evidence that merely clarifies or supports the pending application. 247-18-000127-AD/477-LW877-LL/899-A Page 3 of 4 Table 1. Issue Area Matrix SUMMARYOF TESTIMONY OTHER ISSUESIN OPPOSITION SUPPORTIN Not applicable review criteria. Issue 8 Concern regarding enforcement ensuring compliance with No comments. • DCC 18.116.330(D) requires an annual report and opportunity for Enforcement regulations. inspection to verify compliance with applicable criteria and conditions of approval. • Community Development Department Code Enforcement investigates submitted complaints of alleged violations. The applicant's plan does not provide proof of compliance with fire No comments. Not applicable review criteria. Compliance with Fire Code standards is coordinated during building Issue 9 Compliance with Fire code standards. permit review and construction process. Code DCC definition of "Fame use" does not reserve farmland solely for soil- • Not applicable review criteria. Issue 10 • Siting indoor marijuana grows on high value farmland violates laws because it is not utilizing the soils of the property. dependent farm uses. Indoor Grow on High conservation Value Farm Land• Destruction of existing infrastructure and improvements for future non -industrial farming. • Creation of adverse impacts on nearby accepted farming practices. • Use will negatively impact property values and rural quality of life of No comments. Not applicable review criteria. Issue 11 Property Values and the area. Quality of Life . The use has no local benefit. • The Deschutes County Sheriff has commented on other marijuana No comments. Not applicable review criteria. Issue 12 Public Safety production proposals noting concern over odor, sights, sounds, and setbacks. • Concern over trespass and crime. House Bill 3400, now ORS 47513, • The State of Oregon deems marijuana to be a crop for farm use Not applicable review criteria. Issue 13 Measure 91 a roved in Oregon. pP as a crop. In doing so, the Legislature afforded purposes. (ORS 47513.526) Legalization of categorize marijuana the exceptional protections historically Recreational marijuana production Marijuana in Oregon reserved for Oregon's food -producing farmers. • Marijuana is federally illegal. Concern for overproduction and diversion to black market. Increased traffic in the area. No comments. Not applicable review criteria. Issue 14 Traffic • Records for tax lots 100 and 500 do not match, are not accurate, and No comments. Not applicable review criteria. The submitted documents are available on either tax lot 100 or tax Issue 15 Deschutes DIAL are unreliable and misleading. 500, both of which constitute the subject property. scanned documents • DIAL records misrepresent when comments and submittals were The identified date in DIAL is the date the documents were submitted. made. The date identified is when the documents are scanned. Page 4 of 4 247-18-000127-AD/477-LR/877-LL/899-A Matt maraca I Corinne Celko <corinne@emergelawgroup.com> From: Monday, December 17, 2018 6:34 PM Sent: Matt Martin To: Waveseer - Applicant's Response to Appeal Subject: Waveseer - Applicants response to appeal.pdf Attachments: Hi Matt, royal. Attached please find Waveseer's response to the issues raised on appeal of its marijuana production app forward it to Chair DeBone and each member Please place this letter in the official record of this proceeding, and please of the Commission prior to the hearing scheduled for December 19, 2018. Thank you for your continued time and assistance with this matter,. Best, Corinne Corinne Celko I Attorney EMERGE LAW GROUP 2400 805 SW Broadway, Suite Portland, OR 97205 0: 503.227.4525 F: 503.200-1124 D: 503.467.0396 o E: corinne@emergelawg p•o ►►/ emergelawgroup.com you should delete this communication and any attachments, This communication and any at may contain privileged oeconfidential information intended for a specific individual c purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, ion and are notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication and any attachments, or the taking o any based on it, is strictly prohibited. LAW 19EMERGEGROUP 805 SW Broadway, Suite 2400, Portland, OR 97205 December 17, 2018 VIA E-MAIL, AND HAND DELIVERY (MATT.MARTIN a DESCHUTES.ORG) Anthony DeBone, Chair Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County PO Box 6005 Attn: BoCC Bend, OR 97708-6005 Re: Waveseer of Oregon, LLC; Case File No. 247-18-000899-A Applicant's Response to Appeal Dear Chair DeBone and Members of the Commission: CORINNE CELKO Admitted in Oregon (503)467-0396 corinne@emergelawgrou p.com My law firm and I represent Waveseer of Oregon, LLC ("Waveseer") with regard to the above -referenced application and appeal of the County's decision approving Waveseer's marijuana production facility within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. As demonstrated in the challenged decision, and for the reasons stated below, Waveseer meets all of the approval criteria for a marijuana production facility, and the County's decision approving such facility should be upheld in its entirety. Waveseer's response to issues raised by the appellant in this appeal are set forth below. Please place this letter in the official record for this proceeding and deny this appeal. Approval Criteria for Administrative Determination -- Marlivana Production Approval or denial of an Administrative Determination for a marijuana production facility in the EFU zone shall be based solely on the standards and criteria as set forth in Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Chapter 18.16 (Exclusive Farm Use Zones), Chapter 18.80 (Airport Safety Combining Zone), and Chapter 18.116.330 (Supplementary Provisions for Marijuana Production). See ORS 215.416(8). The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA') has stated that the "standards and criteria" for permit approval must already exist in the plan and ordinance, and the local government cannot manufacture standards and criteria to apply to approve or deny a permit application. See Buel-McIntire v. City of Yachats, 63 Or LUBA 452 (2011) and Hoffman v. Deschutes County, 61 Or LUBA 173 (2010). Furthermore, LUBA has held that a local government's decision violates the law where the local government relies on "factors" or "considerations" unconnected to approval standards in its land use regulations to deny a permit application. Ashley Manor Care Centers v. City of Grants Pass, 38 Or LUBA 308 (2000). Some of the issues raised by the appellant are not related to the specific standards and criteria established in the ZDO as applicable to this application. Accordingly, such comments and concerns cannot form the basis to deny this application. EMERGE LAW GROUP December 17, 2018 Page 2 In this instance, the only criteria that the Board of County Commissioners may consider are those found in DCC Chapter 18.16 and Chapter 18.116.330 relating to marijuana production in the EFU zone, in DCC Chapter 18.80 relating to the Airport Safety Combining Zone, and other relevant definition sections. Other than the standards and criteria listed in those sections, no other factor may be relied upon by the County to deny this Application. Issues Raised by Appellant The appellant raised several issues as the bases for its appeal. Each issue is addressed in turn as follows: 1 The Auplication Was Not Modified. The appellant argues that changes made to the initial application constitute a modification that is sufficient to require a new application, review, and notice. However, the appellant misconstrues the timing and nature of Waveseer's additional submittals. As discussed in more detail below, Waveseer improved its project design prior to its application being deemed complete, and the addition of a Lot Consolidation submitted after being deemed complete supported the pending application but did not change the site layout. On or about February 5, 2018, Waveseer submitted its initial application for approval of an Administrative Determination for a Tier R marijuana production facility (the "Application"). On or about March 1, 2018, the County issued an incompleteness letter to Waveseer requesting additional information about the Application. Waveseer submitted additional information regarding the Application to the County in August, and on or about August 17, Deschutes County Planner Matt Martin deemed the Application complete. In addition, after receiving confirmation through a Lot of Record Determination that the subject property consisted of two (2) separate legal lots, Waveseer submitted a Lot Consolidation request as part of the Application in or around November, 2018. Notably, the Lot Consolidation request did not alter the uses, the characteristics, or the proposed site layout in any way. The only effect of the Lot Consolidation request was to eliminate a property line to further support Waveseer's Application for approval of one marijuana production facility on a single site. DCC Section 22.04.020 provides as follows: "'Modification of application"' means the applicant's submittal of new information after an application has been deemed complete and prior to the close of the record on a pending application that would modify a development proposal by changing one or more of the following previously described components: proposed uses, operating characteristics, intensity, scale, site lay out (including but not limited to changes in setbacks, access points, building design, side or orientation, parking, traffic or pedestrian circulation plans), or landscaping in a manner that requires the application of new criteria to the proposal or that would require the findings of fact to be changed. It does not mean an applicant's submission of new evidence that merely clarifies or supports the pending application." (Emphasis added). The appellant fails to identify Waveseer's submittals that allegedly contain modifications to the Application. Nevertheless, any submittal made before August 17, 2018 would not constitute a "modification" as defined by the DCC because the Application was not deemed complete until such date. Furthermore, to the extent appellant argues that the Lot Consolidation request submitted in November constitutes a "modification," she is mistaken. The Lot Consolidation request did not alter any aspect of the use or operation. The Lot Consolidation request solely removed a property line to support the fact that the proposed marijuana production facility would operate on a single site. __. _.. EMERGE LAW GROUP December 17, 2018 Page 3 For the reasons stated above, none of Waveseer's additional submittals constitute a "Modification of application" as that term is defined in the DCC. Therefore, a new application, review and notice are unnecessary and inappropriate in this matter. Appellant's argument should be rejected. 2. Waveseer's A lication.Meets AllRe uired Minimum.S arationDig ces. The appellant argues that Waveseer's Application does not meet the minimum separation distance from a "youth activity center" because 4H/FFA club meetings and home -schooling occur on residential properties within 1,000 feet from the proposed marijuana production facility. However, the appellant misconstrues the meaning of a "youth activity center" and alleges a definition that is overbroad and unreasonable. It is undisputed that the DCC does not provide a definition of the term "youth activity center." However, even assuming that the appellant is correct in looking to the "common and approved usage" of the words to determine their meaning, the appellant's analysis is flawed. While the appellant cites the Webster's Dictionary definition of "center" as "a facility providing a place for a particular activity or service," she fails to complete the analysis. In order to fully understand the common usage and meaning of the word "center," one needs to comprehend its meaning as a "facility." The online Merriam -Webster's Dictionary defines "facility" in the present context as "something (such as a hospital) that is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose." See itttps: _ `1`he example of a hospital is an apt one. A hospital is established for the specific purpose of caring for sick and injured persons. While I may care for my sick child or ailing parents at my home or on my residential property, the act of doing so does not turn my home or residential property into a hospital because my home/property was not built or established for the particular purpose of caring for the sick and injured. Similarly, hosting a 4H/FFA club meeting at a residential property does not turn such residential property into a "youth activity center" because a residential property was not built or established for the specific purpose of educating, developing, and providing recreational activities to, groups of children. If it did, where would the slippery slope end? Under the appellant's logic, the mere fact of having a play date at a residential home is enough to convert such home into a "youth activity center." Following this faulty logic essentially vitiates any real meaning of the term "youth activity center," since, according to the appellant, any residential property where children are present results in a "youth activity center." By choosing the term "youth activity center," the Board intended to locate marijuana production facilities at least 1,000 feet away from public places that were built for the specific purpose of having space for large groups of children to learn and play, such as parks and recreation facilities, community centers, and amusement parks. The Board did not intend to require marijuana production facilities to be at least 1,000 feet away from homes where children reside or visit. For the reasons stated above, Waveseer's proposed marijuana production facility meets all minimum separation requirements, and the appellant's argument should be rejected. 3 Waveseer's Application Meets All Renuirernents of the AirRort Safety Combining Zone. The appellant argues that Waveseer's proposed marijuana production facility does not meet the requirements of the Airport Safety Combining Zone. However, the appellant fails to adequately explain how the Application fails to comply. As cited by the appellant, the DCC prohibits "[i]neompatible uses ... that would intrude into areas used by aircraft." DCC 18.80.010. However, as the appellant concedes, "the northern portion of the Subject property is below the approach surface of the Juniper Airpark." See Notice of Appeal, Accompanying Narrative, p. 5 (emphasis added). Further evidence provided in Waveseer's initial application narrative confirms that the maximum height of all structures proposed at the facility will NOT extend into the horizontal surface of Juniper Airpark. EMERGE LAW GROUP December 17, 2018 Page 4 Moreover, Waveseer's initial application narrative explains that in order to prevent glare, none of the proposed structures will contain any reflective coating. Therefore, Waveseer's proposed use will not "intrude into areas used by aircraft" and does not violate such code provision. The appellant also cites "FAA / Part 77 and the Oregon Department of Aviation," which are not applicable approval criteria for this Application. Based on the above, the appellant has failed to state any basis for the allegation that vdoes not fly 'th the requirements fthe Airport Safety Zone. For these reasons, Waveseer's Application meets all requirements of he Airport SafetyComb nig Zone, he appellant's argument should be rejected. 4. Wavcseer's A lication Meets L Counti Odor and Noise Re uirements. Noise Issues Raised by Appellant The appellant suggests that the applicant provided general conclusions in the form of the Noise & Odor Technical Report. To the contrary, however, the report is a site-specific noise analysis that assesses the precise number, type, and placement of equipment that would be employed onsite. The appellant also argues that the Noise & Odor Technical Report dated July 31, 2018 ("Exhibit 4") provides results from a different configuration of operation than what is currently proposed and approved by the County. The appellant isolates one part of a sentence on Page 4 of Exhibit 4 that mentions the 36,000 square foot build and one 1,500 square foot building. However, when the sentence is read in its entirety it is clear that the Noise & Odor Report does, in fact, analyze both 1,500 square foot structures as described by the rest of the sentence which includes..."water treatment/recycle and the power & backup power system" and further identified in Exhibit B. Furthermore, from a noise assessment standpoint, the results of the study would not change whether water treatment and power systems were housed in one building or two. Odor Issues Raised by Appellant The appellant asserts that the proposed ionization system is not customized to the operation. To the contrary, however, the ionization system has been highly customized for Waveseer's proposed project design. DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d)(ii) expressly provides for an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by fans and carbon -based filters. Ionization technology is superior over carbon filter systems as noted on Page 2 of Exhibit 4. Moreover, the site-specific design of the odor control system also scrubs interior air within the indoor grow building. This added benefit improves the air quality for staff working inside the structure and, along with the consistently maintained slight negative air pressure in the building, eliminates the concern of odor escaping from a door left open. For the reasons stated above, as well as those contained in the Application and in the Noise & Odor Technical Report (Exhibit 4), Waveseer's Application meets all of the County's applicable odor and noise requirements, and the appellant's arguments should be rejected. 5 Waveseer has Provided Sufficient t tility Verification. The appellant argues that Waveseer's Application does not comply with the requirement to provide utility verification from an electric company. However, the appellant does not contend that Waveseer failed to provide a "will -serve" letter from an electric company; rather, the appellant argues that the one provided a Appl dation cient because it noted the need for system upgrades in the future. As discussed in more detail below, meets the criterion to provide utility verification, and the appellant cannot add a requirement that does not exist in the DCC. EMERGE LAW GROUP December 17, 2018 Page 5 DCC Section 18.116.330(B)(15) requires as follows: "Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided." In compliance with this requirement, Waveseer provided a letter from the Central Electric Co -Op, stating that it was able and willing to serve Waveseer's marijuana production facility. It also mentioned that its services will require system upgrades to their facilities in the area, but such language should not be read to suggest that those services are not feasible. To the contrary, the letter confirms that the company is willing and able to provide electrical service to Waveseer for its marijuana production facility. If upgrades were not possible, the company would not have said it was "able" to provide electrical service to Waveseer. The appellant's contention is pure speculation, and the argument adds a criterion of feasibility that is not expressly required by the DCC. For these reasons, Waveseer's Application meets all of the requirements for utility verification, and the appellant's argument should be rejected. 6 Public Health and Sa€etv Are Not Applicable Approval Criteria. The appellant argues that marijuana production facilities pose a risk to public health and safety based on a comment from the Deschutes County Sheriff in a different application. Since public health and safety are not approval criteria for this Application, the appellant has failed to state a basis for denial of this Application. In her appeal narrative, the appellant states as follows: "DCC 18.16.330 governs Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing. It makes no mention of public health and safety, or the evaluation of every land use application submitted to the County that should be considered in this light." Notice of Appeal, Accompanying Narrative, p. 7 (emphasis added). The appellant concedes that public health and safety are NOT listed as approval criteria for this Application. As previously mentioned, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") has stated that the "standards and criteria" for permit approval must already exist in the plan and ordinance, and the local government cannot manufacture standards and criteria to apply to approve or deny a permit application. See Buel McIntire v. City of Yachats, 63 Or LUBA 452 (2011) and Hoffman v. Deschutes County, 61 Or LUBA 173 (2010). For the reasons stated above, public health and safety are not applicable approval criteria and cannot form the basis for denial of this Application. Therefore, appellant's argument should be rejected. 7: 'Bend Fire D artment Comments Are Not -A lcable A roval Criteria. The appellant argues that Waveseer has not complied with the comments from the Bend Fire Department regarding this Application. Since comments from the Bend Fire Department are not approval criteria that are applicable to this Application, the appellant has failed to state a basis for denial of this Application. The Bend Fire Department has provided comments on this Application, citing provisions from the Oregon Fire Code. However, comments from the Bend Fire Department based on the Oregon Fire Code are not applicable approval criteria. The only approval criteria applicable to this Application are contained in DCC Chapter 18.16, Chapter 18.80, and Chapter 18.116.330. As mentioned above, LUBA has stated that the "standards and criteria" nance, and he local for permit and criteria to applyady exist in o approve orldeny a permie plan and tapplicat on. tSee Buel-McIntire, 63 Or LUBA 452 and ent cannot manufacture stand pp y p Hoffman, 61 Or LUBA 173. EMERGE LAW GROUP December 17, 2018 Page 6 For the reasons stated above, Bend Fire Department comments based on the Oregon Fire Code are not applicable approval criteria and cannot form the basis for denial of this Application. Therefore, appellant's argument should be rejected._ Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we believe that this Application meets all of the relevant standards and approval criteria under the Countyon c Therefore, de for a mar request that you uphold the County's decuana production facility, as described in the isi 'n Administrative Determination decis and deny the appellant's appeal. S'TA. , Corinne Celko Attorney cc: Client EMERGE LAW GROUP u `j u a n a P ro „. aAppeal File No. 247-18-000899-A (Appeal of 247 -18 -000128 -AD Applicant: A , 24350/24360 odd Waveseer Kim McCready o n A p p e a a u a n a P- File No. 247-18-000899-A (Appeal of 247 -18 -000128 -AD / 477 -LR / 877 -LL Address: Applicant: Appellant: 24350/24360 Dodds Waveseer of Oregon, Kim McCready Britigan, Alshawa, and Nizkorodov 800-- Pro -020 —� Pro -420 XT 400 Both and Only XT400 Only OFF 600 i Stage -3 Smog I Q t m 400 t N i stage.2 Smog 011SA STEL _ ----_— Sta a-1 Smo t 200 r __ f EPA 1 -hr NAAQS l----------------------- ------ EPA 8 -hr iVA -- -----_ 0_.. w ._.w. __ 0 50 100 150 200 Time (minutes) Figure 4. Back-to-back operation of two different air purifiers in the same office. First, Pro -420 is turned on for 60 min, followed by Pro -420 and XT -400 both on for the next 60 min, followed by XT -400 on for the next 60 min, followed by the decay of 03 after everything is turned off. Dashed lines correspond to EPA 1 -hr, EPA 8 -hr, and OSHA STEL standards. Dash -dotted lines are California stage -1, -2, and -3 smog alerts. kinds of indoor environments in that they have a rela- tively small volume, little or no furniture, and fairly un- reactive surfaces (ceramic tile, glass, enamel painted walls, etc.). As a result, even weak 0, generating appliances can be rather effective in building up large 03 concentrations in bathrooms. For example, Figure 2a shows that SI637, which has an 0„ emission rate of 2.2 mg/hr in dry air, can easily maintain levels of 03 in excess of 150 ppb in a small bathroom. EZ -COM, a 30 -times more powerful 03 gener- ator, only needs --15 min to reach the OSHA STEL 03 level of 300 ppb in a larger bathroom (Figure 2b). For this specific measurement, the steady-state level was not reached because of safety issues (a strong smell of 03 was detected in the adjacent rooms). The extrapolated steady- state value in Figure 2b is in excess of 1 ppm. Figure 2 also illustrates the effects of environmental variables on measurements in rooms. The 51637 measure- rnent in Figure 2a took ,10 hr from 9:30 a.m. in the morning until 8:00 p.m. in the evening on a Christmas day. The temperature in the bathroom was --5 'C higher in the afternoon (between—:1.2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.) compared with that in the morning and evening hours. This small temperature variation had a visible effect on the rate of 03 decomposition on the room surfaces. In- deed, the observed exponential lifetime for the first decay in Figure 2a is --20 min as opposed to 29 min for the second decay measured later in the evening. As a direct result of this temperature variation, the steady-state level achieved in the afternoon is somewhat lower than that in the evening, The temperature variation is also responsible for the observed decline in the steady-state 03 level be- tween 12:30 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. Figure 3 shows the result of using the same air puri- fiers, EZ -COM and SI637, in a ventilated furnished office room. Because of the increased room volume, larger avail- able area for 0` surface decomposition reactions, and presence of forced air ventilation with an air -exchange rate of --5 room volumes per hour, the observed increase in the steady-state O,j level is not as dramatic as in bath- rooms. SI637 increases the 03 level by ---9 ppb. EZ -COM is capable of driving the 03 concentration up by —240 ppb, which is higher than both 1 -hr and 8 -hr EPA NAAQS standards. The loss of 03 .from the air after the generator is turned off is considerably faster: the exponential life- times measured from data in Figures 3a and 3b are 13 - 3 and 12 ± 2 min, respectively. This is essentially identical to the time needed for the ventilation to displace one room volume (measured to be 12 + 1 min from the rate of filling a plastic bag of calibrated volume through the air inlet), suggesting that the removal of 03 from the office in this particular case is dominated by physical rather than chemical loss. More measurements in offices will be dis- cussed after introducing the kinetic model. Car Air Purifiers Two car air purifiers were tested as described in the exper- imental section. The observed 0,3 concentration behaved similarly to the results obtained in rooms: an increase in the steady-state concentration during the air purifier op- eration and an exponential decline after the air purifier is turned off. The observed 03 decay rate was very rapid (lifetime --2 min) presumably because of the presence of a number of reactive surfaces inside the car (e.g., leather upholstery, carpet floors, rubber, insulation) and also be- cause of a relatively facile exchange of air between the car interior and the outside (not quantified in this work). As a result, the incremental 0„ concentration increase caused by the air purifier was relatively small: <10 ppb ('fable 3). PAPS In addition to experiments with air purifiers designed for rooms and cars, several tests were done with PAPS. The previous findings of CARB researchers-" that PAPS can expose the wearer to 03 levels in excess of public health standards were fully confirmed by the present work. For example, in tests with Ioncare PAP worn by a human - sized doll, peak 03 concentrations near its "mouth" were as high as 700 ppb, and average concentrations were in excess of the EPA 1 -hr NAAQS standard of 120 ppb. The concentrations were highly variable and depended strongly on the pattern of air drafts in the room. Figure 5 shows the result of using Ioncare PAP in a quiet air envi- ronment, wherein the air currents are controlled solely by diffusion. One can see that the 03 level was quickly brought up to 120 ppb above the PAP. The results of Figure 5 were obtained with a 10 -cm separation between the PAP and the 03 meter sampling inlet; the measured concentration increased rapidly as this distance was re- duced, in agreement with the results of Phillips et al.-'. Kinetic Treatment The 0," concentration time dependence and steady-state level observed in experiments in closed volumes, such as rooms, cars, and Teflon bags, can be described by a simple model. The linearity of the initial 03 concentration rise in 600 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 56 May 2006 loncare PAP (0.51) mg/hour) in open air 160 _ OFF 140 • EPA 1 -hr NAAQ.S 120 --------• ----------1 $100 • a ETA tl-br NAAO S w80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 ^N' 60 ON O • 40 20 • 0 .5 0 5 10 15 20 Time (minutes) Figure S. Sample measurement for loncare PAP, Sampling takes place 10 cm above the PAP. Dashed lines correspond to EPA 1 -hr (80 ppb) and EPA 8 -hr (120 ppb) standards. Teflon bag measurements (Figure 1) suggests that the pro- duction of 03 by an air purifier is a zero -order process with respect to 03: �07d -a.- i Air Oa �lt/t = k,� l""(cm S ) Rate(rngl hr) V(cu.tt.j The measured 03 emission rates for several air purifiers are reported in Table 2. The zero -order assumption was ob- served to be valid for all of the air purifiers listed in Table 2 for 03 mixing ratios in the ppb -low ppin range. The conversion factor in eq 1 is valid for 1 atm, 25 °C, and for volume measured in the units of cubic feet (1 ft = 30.48 cm). Equation 1 implicitly assumes that the rate of mixing of air within the room volume, V, is considerably faster than the rate of 0.; removal from the room. This condi- tion was satisfied for all of the measurements reported here (except for measurements with PAPs). The loss of 0; from the room is, in principle, a com- plicated process because of the presence of multiple sur- faces with varying degree of reactivity toward 03 (includ- ing the body of the air purifier itself), complicated pattern of air mixing in the room, and coupling between air - transport and surface kinetics ._13 However, in the present measurements in closed, well -mixed indoor environ- ments, the observed 03 decay could be described as a first -order process to an. excellent degree of approxima- tion (i.e., there were no apparent deviations from the first -order kinetics within the measurement uncertain- ties): d[O;"l 0;, > products _elf - _-k,,>sJs-')[Os7 (2) The decay rate constant, kt,,,,, is a combination of physical removal because of the air exchange, chemical removal because of heterogeneous reactions on surfaces, and chemical removal because of reactions with air impuri- ties." In cases when the wall loss dominates, the decay rate -constant can be related to the deposition velocities Britigan, Alshawa, and Nizkorodov customarily reported in the research literature on surface decay rates: 1 kips, _ ti I A X vj (3) where A is the surface area, uJ is the deposition velocity of 0„ on that particular type of surface, and the summation extends over all of the available surfaces in the room. The inverse of the decay rate constant, k10,11, can be viewed as the characteristic lifetime of 03 in a given environment. It can range from several hours in a highly unreactive Teflon bag (e.g., 5 hr in Figure 1) to just a few minutes in a well -ventilated office (Table 3). The decay rate constants measured here (Table 3) are consistent with previous measurements of similar parameters in houses and offices.9,54 In well -ventilated, sparsely furnished rooms, the 03 decay rate is observed to be very close to the air -exchange rate, which suggests that the decay is dominated by physical removal of 03 from the room. However, when the air -exchange rate is slow or the room contains reactive surfaces, the observed decay rate should be faster than the air -exchange rate. hi this case, the removal is mostly because of the chemical reactions with. the surfaces and/or with gas -phase organics. The effect of air exchange and transport limitations on concentrations of indoor air pollutants is discussed in more detail in refs. Equations 1 and 2 can be integrated to give the 03 concentration buildup after the air purifier is turned on (assuming very low background 03 concentration): k, -011,k, CO37(t) __ kill" -(I - e--k1� , (4) The 03 concentration builds up from zero to a steady- state value in which the emission rate is exactly balanced by the decomposition rate: k 300 x Ruts (inglln) CO -375s = orO .,,(ppb) __ k,,,,,(nnn .. `) X V(Cufl.) (5) Once again, eq 5 is valid only when the rate of mixing of air within the room volume is considerably faster than the rate of 03 removal from the room. The conversion factor in eq S is equal to 300 purely by accident; it is valid for the conditions of 1 atm, 25 °C, and the specified set of units. In cases where the 0, loss is dominated by the wall decomposition, the product k,,,,, x V in the denominator can be equivalently replaced by the product of the depo- sition velocity and the room surface area, A x U,,. After the air purifier is turned off, the 0. concentra- tion decays exponentially: K):;7(f) = j0,J,,c-k1„:,t (6) with the decay rate constant, k,,,,,. Figures 2-4 provide clear examples of this behavior. Except for measurements Volume 56 May 2006 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 607 Britigan, Alshawa, and Nizkorodov inside Teflon bags, no significant deviations from the single exponential decay were observed in this work. Verification of the Kinetic Model Equation 5 has several interesting ramifications. for ex- ample, it confirms the suggestion of ref. sr that the effect of putting several 03 generators in the same room is additive, with contributions of each generator to the total steady-state 0, concentration being proportional to its 0_; emission rate. Indeed, if there is an additional source of 0, present, for example, from a steady intake of polluted air from the outside or from another Os -generating device inside, it will create a background concentration of 03, k(,. 103.1"9 = (7) Insx' where k_,. is the effective zero -order rate constant for the background source, and kr,„, is the first -order 03 decay rate constant for the room (or any other closed space in question). A simple exercise in kinetics shows that turn- ing on an air purifier with 03 emission rate constant will further increase the steady-state 03 concentration to 1O'Jll = - _ 1U3.bb I_V1.1- k . , 8 j,,,., i„s_; The last term in this equation is exactly equal to the steady-state level of 03 that the air purifier would have produced in the absence of the background 0, source. This additivity of contributions from different 0,3 sources was explicitly tested by running two air purifiers in the same room at the same time. Figure 4 shows the result for operating Pro -420 in a ventilated office for an hour, followed by simultaneously operating Pro -420 and XT -400 for another hour, followed by operating XT -400 for another hour. The measured steady-state levels of 03 for individual air purifiers (corrected for the small back- ground level of 8 ppb) are 307 ppb (Pro -420 only) and 276 ppb (XT -400). The uncertainties in the measured steady- state values are —5 ppb. The sum of these values, 584 ppb, is essentially identical to the steady-state level of 582 ppb measured during the Pro -420 and XT -400 concurrent op- eration. To further test the predictive power of eq S, Figure 6 compares incremental 10311, measured in experiments (Table 3) with 10371, calculated from the room volume, measured decay rate constant for the room, and the air purifier 03 emission rate measured in separate expert- rnents in a Teflon bag. The data in Figure 6 reflect the results obtained for several ionic and ozonolysis air puri- fiers operated in cars, offices, bathrooms, and bedrooms. The 03 emission rates of air purifiers in Figure 6 span 3 orders of magnitude (from 0.4 mg/hr to 3S7 mg/hr in dry air). Nevertheless, the agreement between the measured values and those predicted from the simple kinetic model can be regarded as excellent over the entire range of environmentally relevant 03 concentrations (10-1000 Ppb). 1000 0 a 100 0 0/ / / i / 10 100 1000 Measured [03],, (ppb) Figure 6. Comparison of the measured steady-state O; concen- trations with those calculated using eq 5 from the decay rate con- stants, air purifier O,, emission rates, and room volumes. Plot in- cludes all data from Table 3. Sources of the scatter are discussed in the text. Possible sources of scatter in Figure 6 include: (1) use of 0_j emission rates for dry air (fable 2) instead of those for the actual RH in the room (in this work, RH was 40% -- 5% in offices and S0 ± 10% in the house); (2) uncer- tainties in measuring k,,,, (10-20°h); and (3) air -transport limitations. The last source refers to either inhomoge- neous or insufficiently rapid mixing of air across the room volume by the fan. These two conditions required for the validity of eqs 1 and 5 are not always trivial to meet in actual environments because of the presence of furniture, sharp room corners, temperature and pressure gradients across the room, and nonuniform distribution of 0„ dep- osition velocities ori the room surfaces. In spite of all these limitations, the model performs quite well; the larg- est deviation between measured and observed steady-state concentrations in Figure 6 is by a factor of 2. Implications of the Model In the absence of indoor O„ -generating sources, indoor 03 concentration is known to track the outdoor 03 concen- tration.9 The observed ratios of indoor -to -outdoor 03 lev- els (1/0) are generally in the range of 0.1-0.7,9 with larger values correlating with higher air exchange rates between the inside and outside. Operation of an 0, -generating air purifier can make the'l/0 ratio considerably larger than 1, with the incremental increase in indoor 0,; level being directly proportional to the air purifier 03 emission rate. Therefore, people occupying rooms with an operating 03 -generating air purifier are more likely to be exposed to levels of 03 in excess of the public health standards. Depending on the way the air purifier is used, the expo- sure level can be as high as the equivalent of stage -1 or even stage -2 smog alert (Figures 2-4). For reference, the last smog -2 alert in the South Coast Basin, which includes Los Angeles, occurred in 1988, and there was only one smog -1 alert in this area between 1999 and 2003.5' Equations 3 and 5 suggest that the increase in 03 concentration driven by an air purifier should be in- versely proportional to the total roorn .surface area in the limit when the 03 removal from the room is dominated by the wall loss and the surfaces in the room have similar reactivity toward 03 (i.e., similar 03 deposition veloci- ties). Everything else being equal, operation of an 03- 606; Journal o1 the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 56 May 2006 generating air purifier in rooms with smaller floor areas (i.e., bathrooms) should produce higher steady-state lev- els of 0,;. In the limit when the 03 removal is dominated by air exchange, the steady-state increase in 03 level is inversely proportional to the room volume instead of the total surface area. Again, the prediction is that operation of an air purifier in smaller rooms should result in larger 03 level rises. Data in Table 3 fully confirm these predic- tions. As a final note, eq 5 can be of some potential value for future regulatory decisions affecting 03 -generating appli- ances and for checking compliance with already existing regulations. Consider an example of a calculation of the maximal 03 emission rate for a medical device subject to the Gode of Federal Regulations 21 CPR 801.415 set forth by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1976. Accord- ing to the code, such a device should not generate 03 at a level in excess of 50 ppb in an "enclosed space intended to be occupied by people for extended periods of time.1149 Assuming that the device is to be operated in a 2000-ft3 enclosed space characterized by an 03 lifetime of 30 min, one calculates 11 mg/hr for the maximal 03 emission rate under such conditions. The chief advantage of eq 5 is that one does not need to conduct actual measurements of 0„ concentrations to obtain the steady-state level of 03 re- sulting from the device. Indeed, the room volume and surface area can be easily measured, 03 emission rate is an intrinsic property of the device, and the 03 decay rate can be estimated from deposition velocities for surfaces used in construction. Tables of 03 deposition velocities are available from Multiple sources. 9,37,38 Educational Considerations 03 generators are useful for demonstrating simple kinetic and indoor air pollution phenomena in classes designed for high school, undergraduate, and continuing educa- tion students. Based on the results of this work, we de- signed a 4 -hr teaching laboratory for a summer training program for high school science teachers. The laboratory was offered for the first time in July 2005 to a class of 20 teachers. The teachers (in groups of two to three people) were able to measure the 0,, emission rates from two randomly selected indoor air purifiers. They used their data to calculate the expected 03 concentration resulting from placing such air purifiers in a typical room and compared the results with the health standards (Table 1). In addition, they measured 03 concentrations produced by a PAP under realistic conditions. They used their data to estimate 03 exposure for several scenarios of using such air purifiers. Such projects are highly effective in educat- ing the public about the issues associated with indoor air pollution. CONCLUSIONS Operation of an 03 -generating air purifier in a closed indoor environment results in an increase in the steady- state 0;, concentration that is directly proportional to the 03 emission rate of the air purifier. Depending on the mechanism of. 03 removal from the room, the magnitude of the increase is inversely proportional to either the surface area of the room (the loss is dominated by heter- ogeneous removal on surfaces) or the total volume of the Britigan, Alshawa, and Nizkorodov room (the loss is dominated by air exchange). In either case, the largest increase in the steady-state 0,, level is anticipated for small, poorly ventilated rooms, especially if they are constructed from materials with low reactivity toward 03. In such rooms, even a device with an 0,-; emission rate of a few milligrams per hour can maintain an 03 level in excess of public health standards. The 03 level generated by an air purifier is in addition to the normal indoor 03 level resulting from the air exchange between inside and outside. Therefore, persons operating 03 -generating air purifiers in their houses and/or offices may be more frequently exposed to 03 levels in excess of the health standards compared with an average person living in the same area. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by the National Science Foun- dation through Environmental Molecular Science Insti- tute program grant CHE-0431312. The authors thank Dr. James Pitts, Jr., for many stimulating discussions and sug- gestions and Dr. Charles Weschler for reviewing the paper before its submission. REFERENCES i. Air Cleaners: Behind the Hype; Consumer Reports. 2003, 68, 26-29. 2. Li, N.; Sioutas, C.; Cho, A.; Schmitz., D.; Misra, C.; Sempf, J.; Wang, M.; Oberley, T.; Proines, J.; Nel, A. Ultrafine Particulate Pollutants Induce Oxidative Stress and Mitochondrial Damage; Environ. Health Perspect. 2003, 771, 455-460. 3. von Klot, S.; Woelke, G.; Tuch, T.; Heinrich, J•; Dockery, D, W.; Schwartz, J.; Kreyling, W.G.; Wichmann, 1 -IM; Peters, A. Increased Asthma Medication Use in Association with Ambient Pine and Ultra - fine Particles; Eur. Respir. J. 2002, 20, 691-702. 4, Pope, C.A., ill; Burnett, R,T.; Thun, M.J.; Calle, E.E.; Krewski, D.; Ito, K.; Thurston, G.D. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long -Term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution; J. Air & Waste Manage, Assoc. 2002, 287, 1132-1141, S. Delfino, R.J.; Geiger, R.S.; Seltzer, J,M,; Street, D.H.; McLaren, C.E. Association of Asthma Symptoms with Peak Particulate Air Pollution and Effect Modification by Anti-inflammatory Medication Use; Envi- ron, Health Perspect. 2002, 110, A607 -A617. 6. Brown, S.K. Assessment of Pollutant Emissions from Dry -Process Pho- tocopiers; Indoor Air 1999, 9, 2S9-267. 7. Leovic, K.W.; Sheldon, L.S.; Whitaker, D -A.; hetes, R.G.; Calcagni, J.A.; Baskir, J.N. Measurement of Indoor Air Emissions from Dry -Process Photocopy Machines; /. Air& Waste Manage, Assoc. 1996, 46, 821-829. 8. Finlayson -Pitts, B.J.; Pitts, J.N. Chemistry orthe Upper and Lowen Atmo- sphere: 'Theory, Experiments, and Applications; Academic Press, San Di- ego, CA: 2000. 9. Weschler, CJ. Ozone In Indoor Environments: Concentration and Chemistry; Indoor Air 2000, 70, 269-288, 10. Bailey, P.S. Organic Chemistry, Vol. 39, PL 1: Ozonation in Organic Chendstry, Vol, 1: Olefinic Compounds; Academic Press, New York, NY: 1978. 1.1. Nazaroff, W.W.; Weschler, C.J. Cleaning Products and Air Fresheners: Exposure to Primary and Secondary Air Pollutants; Ahnos. Environ. 2004, 38, 2841-2865, 12. Bailey, P.S. Organic Chemistry, Vol. 39, Pt. 2: ozonation in Orgastic Chemistry, Vol. 2: Nonolerinic Compounds; Academic Press, New York, NY: 1982. 13. Wesdrler, C. J. New Directions: Ozone -Initiated Reaction Products Indoors May Be More harmful than Ozone Itself; Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 5715-5715. 14. Wolkoff, P,; Clausen, P.A.; Wilkins, C.K.; Nielsen, G.D. Formation of Strong Airway Irritants in Terpene/Ozone Mixtures; Indoor Air 2000, 10, 82-91. 15. No{gaard,.I.K.; Christensen, K.B.; Wolkoff, P. The Effect on Human Eye Blink Frequency of Exposure to Limonene Oxidation Products and Methacrolein; Toxicol. Lett. 2005, 156, 241-251. 16. Wilkins, C.K.; Wolkoff, P,; Clausen, P.A.; Ilarnmer, M.; Nielsen, G.D. Upper Airway Irritation of rerpene/Ozone Oxidation Products (TOPS). Dependence on Reaction Time, Relative Humidity and Initial Ozone Concentration; Toxicol. Lett. 2003, 143, 109-114. IT Kleno, J.; Wolkoff, P. Changes In Eye Blink Frequency as a Measure of Trigeminal Stimulation by Exposure to Limonene Oxidation Products, Volume 56 May 2006 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 609 Britigan, Alshawa, and Nizkorodov Isoprene Oxidation Products and Nitrate Radicals; fill Arch Occup En- viron health. 2004, 77, 23.5-243. 18. Paulson, S.ti.; ("hung; M.Y.; Hasson, A.S. OH Radical Formation from Gas -Phase Reaction of Ozone with'reinimal Alkenes and the Relation- ship between Structure and Mechanism; J, Phys. Chem. A. 1999, 103, 8125-8138. 19, Kroll, J.H.; Clarke, J,S,; Donahue, N.M.; Anderson, J.G.; Denteriian, K.L. Mechanism of HOx Formation in the Gas -Phase Ozone -Alkene Reaction. 1. Direct, Pressure -Dependent Measurements of Prompt OH 19eids; J. Phys. Chevy, A. 24101, 105, 1554-1560. 20. Rickard, A.R.; Johnson, D.; McGill, C.D.; Marston, G. OH Yields in the Gas-Pbase Reactions of Ozone with Alkenes; /. Phys. Cherrr. A. 1999, 103, 7656-7664. 21. Atkinson, R.; Arey, J. Gas -Phase Tropospheric Chemistry of Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds; A Review; Atmos. Frr,lrrn. 2003, 37, S 19 7-5219. 22- Liu, X.; Mason, M,; Krebs, K,; Sparks, L. Pull -Scale Chamber Investiga- tion and Simulation of Air Freshener Emissions in the Presence of Ozone; Environ. Sci. Todmol, 2004, 38, 2802-2812. 23. Roht, A.C.; Weschler, (..J.; Kotn akis, P.: Spengle[, LU. Generation and Quantification of Ubratine Particles Through Terpene/Ozone Reaction in it Chamber Seizing; Acvosol ci. '1celrrrot 2003, 37, 65.78- 24. Wainrnari j,; Zhang, J.; Weschler, C.J.; Lioy, P.J. Ozone and Limonene in Indoor Air: A Source of Submicron Particle Exposure; Environ. Health Perspect, 2000, 108, 1 139-1 145. 2S. Ozone Generators That. Are Sold as Air Cleaners: An Assessment of Effectiveness and health (.nnSC(pler1ee5; available on U.S, Environ- mental 11rotectlon Agency web site, litil)://wAw.epa,gov/iaq,ptibs/ ozoncgen,hhm (accessed March 24, 2000+). 26, Boeniger, M.E. Use of Ozone Generating Devices to Improve Indoor Air Quality; Am. Incl. H};S. Aswc. 1. 1995, 56, 590-598. 27. ARB Warns, Danger from Popular "Air Purifying" Machines; ARB Press Release OS -02, California Environmental Protection Agency: Sacra- mento, CA, 2005. 28. Indoor Air Pollution in Californta: Report to the Caiffoinla Legislature; California Air Resources Board: Sacremeuto, CA, 2005. 29. I-loeppe, P.; Pranil, G.; Rabe, G.; Lindner, J,; Fruhmann, G.; Kessel, R. Bnvbonmental Ozone Field Study on Pulmonary and Subjective Re- sponses of Assumed Risk iiroups; E17010n_ Res. 1995, 71, 109-121. 30. Nielsen, G.D,; Hougaard, K.S.; Larsen, S.T.; Hammer, M.; Wolkoff, P.; Clausen, P.A.; Wilkins, C.K.; Alarie, Y. Acute Airway Effects of Form- aldehyde and Ozone in BALB/c Mice; Hrnnan F,xp, Toxicol, 1999, 18, 400-409 31, Alexeeff, G.V.; Budroe, J.D.; Collins, J.F,; Lam, R.H.F.; Lewis, D.C.; Lipsett, M.J.; Marty, M.A.; Parker, T.R. Determination of Acute Refer- ence Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants; Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment: Sacremewo, CA, 1999. 32. Moore, C.; Bates, D_ Smog: Nature's Most PoWertul Purifying Agent. hi Health & Clean Air Newsletter; 2002. Available cru the health & Clean Air Web site, Irttp://wA,w-healthandcleanair.org/ (accessed March 24, 2006). 33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Devel- opment, National Center for Environmental Assessment. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants; 2006; avail- able on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency web site., http://cfpu- b.epa.goy/nccre/cfmirecta'display.chn7d6d- 137307 (accessed March 24, 2006). 34. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, (Ed. 2). WHO Regional Publications, liurolwan Series, No. 91; World health Organization: Geneva, Switzer- land, 2000. 35. Bell, M.L.; McDermott, A.; Leger, S.L.; Samet, J,M.; Dominici, R Ozone and Short -Term Mortality in 95 US Urban Communities, 1987-2000; J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 2004, 292, 2372-2378. 36. Moriske, H -J.; Ebert, G,; i<onieczny, L.; Menk, G. Concentrations and Decay Ratea of Ozone in Indoor Air in Dependence on Building and Surface Materials; Toxicol. Leit, 1998, 96, 319-323. 37. Grontoft, T.; Raychaudhini, M.R. Compilation of Tables of Surface Deposition Velocilies for 0;,, NO, and SO2 to a Range of indoor Surfaces; Wows. I3nirnn. 2004, 38, 533-544. 38. Klerio, J.G.; Clausen, P.A.; Weschler, C.J.; Wolkoff, P. Determination of (.)zone Removal Rates by Selected Building Products Using the FLEC Emission i ell; Ibrvhott. Sci. '1'eehnol. 2001, 35, 2548-2553. 39, Sabvrsky, R.11,; Sinema, 11,A,; Shan, P.H. Concentrations, Decay Rates, and Removal of Ozone and 'i heir Relation to Establishing Clean In- door Air; httvirorr..Sci, 'lic'hnol. 1973, 7, 347-353. 40. lhonias, F.R.; frost, G,,; Rudich, Y, Reactive Uptake of Ozone by Proxies for Organic Aerosols; Surface -Hound and Gas -Phase Products; 1, Geophys. lues. 2001, 106, 3045.3056. 41. Lai, C.C.; Yang, S.H.; Finlayson -Pitts, B_L Interactions of Nionolayets of Unsaturated I'll osphochofities with (hone at the Air -Water inter- face; Laugruuiy, 1994, 10, 4637-4644, 42. Moise, "1',; Rudich, Y. Reactive Uptake of Ozone by Aerosol -Associated LI nsathrated Fatty Acids: Kinetics, Mechanism, and Products; j. Phys. Chat). A. 2002; 106, 6-469.6-176. 43. Dubowski, Y.; Vieceli, J.; Tobias, D, J.; Gornez, A,; I..In, A.; Nizkorodov, S.A.; McIntire, T.M,; Finlayson -Pitts, B.J. Interaction of Gas -Phase Ozone at 296 K with Unsaturated Self -Assembled Monolayers: A New Look at an Old System, 1, Phys- Client. A. 2004, 108, 10473-10485. 44, Knudsen, I1.N.; Nielsen, P.A.; C:linrsen, PA,; Wilkins, CK.; Wolkoff, 11. Sensory Evaluation of Emissions from Selec=ted Ouilding Products Ex- posed to Ozone; Indoor Alt 2003, 13, 223-231, 45. Weschler, Cj.; Hodgson, A.T,; Wooley, ).D. Indoor Chemistry: Ozone, Volatile Organic (Ann Point cls, and Carpets; Envhou, Sci. Technvl. 1992,. 26, 2371-2377. 46. Morison, G.C.; Na/buff, WAVA'he Rate of t17c rie Uptakeon Carpets: f.xperi file] tal Studies; riiviron. ii:i. 'IechneL 2000, 34,4963-49d',8. 47. Nionl%ou, G,C.; Nazaroff, NVAV. Ozone Interactions with Carpet: Sec- ondary Pniissions of Aldahydcs; F.m'itwv Sci, 'Icelmol. 2002, 30, 218S- 48, California Adopts New Ozone Standard. Children's health Focus ofNew Requirement; ARIL Press Release 05-08, California Environmental Pro- tection Agency: Sicremento, CA, 20OS. 49. Maximum Acceptable Level of Ozone; Code offederal Regrdations, fart 801.415, Title 21, 1976. 50, Mauersherger, K.; Hanson, D.; Barnes, J.; Morton, J. Ozone Vapor Pressure and Absorption Cross -Section Measurements: Iltr'oduction of an Ozone Standard; /. Geophys. Res. 1987, 92, 8480-8482. Sl, Phillips, T,J.; Bioudoff, D.P.; Jenkins, P,L.; Stroud, K.R, Ozone Emis- sions From a "Personal Air Pm'ifier"; /. P.xpo. Anal. Environ, Epiderniol. 1999, 9, 594-601, 52., Poesch1, U.; Letzel, T.; Schauer, C,; Niessner, R. interaction of Ozone and (-Vater Vapor with ',park, Discharge Soot Aerosol Pattieles Coated with Benzolalpyrene: O; and 11,0 Adsorption, Benzolalpyrene Deg- radation, and Aunospheri( implications; 1. Phys, Chem, A. 2001, 105, 4029-4041. 51 Cano-Ruiz, J.A.; Kong, D,; Balas, R -B.; Nazaroff, W.W. Removal of Reactive Bases at Indoor Surfaces: Combining Mass Transport and Surface Khtetfcs; Armos. Fnriron. 1993, 27A, 2039-205(1, 54. Lee, I<,; VaOarino, J,; Duntyalui T.; Ozkaynak, H.; Spengler, J.i). Ozone Decay Rates In Residences; J. Air & Waste Mana,Se. Assoc 1999, 49, 1238112,11, 55- South Coast Alt Quality Management District. FlisloricOzove=llr(?aal. ity'Trends: available on the Air Quality Management District well site, htlp;l/www.atpncLgov/snxrl;io3tmnd,ithni (accessed 1March 24, 20(161, About the Authors Nicole Britigan is a junior undergraduate student majoring in chemistry at the University of California Irvine. Ahmad Alshawa is a University of California Irvine graduate student specializing in chemistry of ultrafine aerosol particles. Sergey A. Nizkorodov is an assistant professor of chemistry at the same school. Address correspondence to: Sergey A. Nizkorodov, Department of Chemistry, 377 Rowland Hall, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697; phone: +1-949- 824-1262; fax: +1-949-824-8571; e-mail; nizkorod@ uci.edu, 610 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 56 May 2006 Matt Martin From: Corinne Celko <corinne@emergelawgroup.com> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 2:01 PM To: Matt Martin Cc: William Groves; Rob Williams Subject: Waveseer of Oregon, LLC - File No. 247-18-000128 AD - Rebuttal Submittal Attachments: 2019-01-11 Waveseer LT Deschutes County Board - Rebuttal Period (entire packet).pdf Hi Matt and Will, As you know, this office represents Waveseer of Oregon, LLC. Attached please find the applicant's rebuttal submittal in the second post -hearing open record period. This letter is timely submitted, and please place this letter before the Board of County Commissioners and in the official record of this proceeding. Please also confirm receipt of this letter and attachments. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best, Corinne Corinne S. Celko I Attorney EMERGE LAW GROUP 805 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 0: 503.227.4525 F: 503.200.1124 D: 503.467.0396 E: corinne@emergelawgroup.com 111 emerge lawgroup. com This communication and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. if you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and any attachments, and are notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication and any attachments, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. 805 SW Broadway, Suite 2400, Portland, OR 97205 January 11, 2019 VIA E-MAIL (MA TT.MARTIN@DESCHUTES.ORG) Anthony DeBone, Chair Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County PO Box 6005 Attn: BoCC Bend, OR 97708-6005 Re: Waveseer of Oregon, LLC; Case File No. 247-18-000899-A Applicant's Submittal in Rebuttal Period Dear Chair DeBone and Members of the Commission: CORINNE CELKO Admitted in Oregon (503) 467-0396 Corinne@emergelawgroup.com As you know, my law firm and I represent Waveseer of Oregon, LLC ("Waveseer") with regard to the above -referenced application and appeal of the County's decision approving Waveseer's marijuana production facility within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. This letter is timely submitted within the second post -hearing open record period and rebuts the new evidence and argument provided by the appellant in the first open record period. Please place this letter in the official record for this proceeding and deny this appeal. A The Subiect Property is Zoned EFU and Intended for Farming. It is undisputed that Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policies regarding farmland and the EFU zoning of the subject property are relevant to this application. Appellant's attorney, Ms. Dickson, concedes that Chapter 2 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan requires protection of "resource lands" and calls out the need to protect farmlands, particularly where irrigation is available. See Appellant's first open record submittal, dated December 31, 2018, p. 5. However, Attorney Dickson mistakenly contends that such farmland must be reserved for "soil -dependent" farm uses. Id. To the contrary, both state law and County regulations deem marijuana production to be a farm use, regardless of the method of cultivation. See ORS 475B.526 and Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 18.16. As discussed further below, Waveseer proposes to utilize the subject property for the exact purpose for which the property was zoned, and appellant's argument should be rejected. Attorney Dickson provides no evidence for her contention that farmland must be reserved solely for "soil - dependent" farm uses (there is none). DCC Chapter 18.04 defines "Farm use," in part, as follows: "'Farm use' means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or by feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur - bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof." EMERGE LAW GROUP January 11, 2019 Page 2 This is the same definition of "farm use" under state law at ORS 215.203. There is no express requirement that such farm uses be soil -dependent. Several of the stated farm uses, such as breeding of poultry or honeybees, do not involve the use of soil at all. Furthermore, farming is commonly undertaken using established farming practices. Hydroponics, the method of growing plants without soil, is a recognized and customary farming practice first published in a book in 1627. See Iittps: /_erl_.w kipedia.cert «-iki/Hydroponics. Hydroponics has been used to grow everything from herbs to lettuce and tomatoes. Id. Due to technological advancements within the industry and numerous economic factors, the global hydroponics market is forecast to grow from $226.45 million USD in 2016 to $724.87 million USD by 2023. Id. Attorney Dickson asks this Board to retain the stagnant and unproductive character of the subject farmland so that her client can retire there. However, doing so would be contradictory to the express purpose and intent of such prime farmland. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan directs the County to encourage farming by promoting the raising and selling of crops, without any limitation or restriction as to the method of farming. See Comprehensive Plan, Policy 2.2.9. Waveseer proposes to do just that — it will raise marijuana crops and sell them, farming the land as it was intended. For these reasons, appellant's argument should be rejected. B There Has Been No "Modification" of Application. It is undisputed that in order to constitute a "modification" of application, which requires a new application and new notice, the applicant must have submitted new information alter an application has been deemed complete. See DCC 22.04.020. Attorney Dickson concedes that "Applicant's counsel correctly notes that the date of modification for this purpose is measured between the date the application is deemed complete and the date the application is finally evaluated for approval or denial." Appellant's first open record submittal, dated December 31, 2018, p. 3. However, appellant fails to cite to any new site plan information submitted by the applicant AFTER the date the application was deemed complete; therefore, the appellant's argument should be rejected. Waveseer did make changes to its site plan. However, the changes to Waveseer's site plan were submitted to the County on August 1, 2018, and County Planner Matt Martin deemed the application complete sixteen days later, on August 17, 2018, See Letter from Alex Berger of Emerge Law Group, dated August 1, 2018, and attachments, attached hereto as Exhibit 1; see also Findings & Decision document, "I. Review Period," p. 11 ("The Planning Division received the requested items and deemed the application complete on August 17, 2018.). Notably, appellant never provides evidence to demonstrate that site plan changes were submitted by the applicant AFTER the application was deemed complete on August 17, 2018 (there is none). For this reason alone, there has been no "modification" of the application as defined in the DCC, and no new application nor notice is required. C. FAA / Part 77 Is Not an Applicable Approval Criterion. Attorney Dickson contends that Waveseer must file a Form 7460-1 with the FAA. Such form is entitled, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration." Form 7460-1 is attached as Exhibit 2. Pursuant to FAA Section 77.7, "Foran and time of notice," submittal of such form is required "at least 45 days before the start date of the proposed construction ... or the date an application for a construction permit is filed, whichever is earliest." Id. Waveseer cannot start construction or apply for a construction permit yet because it must first have County land use approval, which is the purpose of this current application. FAA Form 7460-1 is more akin to a building permit, something to be acquired AFTER land use approval is obtained. The purpose of the current application is to obtain approval to use the subject F,FU land for a marijuana production use. Once land use approval is obtained, Waveseer must then, and only then, obtain necessary building and trade permits in order to construct the structures that comprise the marijuana production operation so that such structures meet structural building code regulations, electrical regulations, plumbing regulations, and mechanical EMERGE LAW GROUP January 11, 2019 Page 3 regulations. At the time of construction, Waveseer may also be subject to other regulations, including OLCC regulations, as well as FAA regulations. To the extent that Waveseer must comply with separate FAA regulations, such regulations are not approval criteria applicable to this Application and, therefore, cannot serve as a basis for denial of this Application. See Buel- McIntire v. City of Yachats, 63 Or LUBA 452 (2011) and Hoffman v. Deschutes County, 61 Or LUBA 173 (2010). As previously mentioned, if the Board desires, it may impose a condition of approval requiring that Waveseer comply with all applicable FAA regulations. For purposes of this Application, Waveseer meets all requirements of the Airport Safety Combining Zone, and the appellant's argument should be rejected. D The Application Complies with the 1.000' Youth Activity Center Buffer Requirement. Attorney Dickson concedes that the activities taking place at the Gallucci Property (mailing address of 24375 Dodds Rd. and situs address of 61.311 Williamsen Ranch Rd.) do, in fact, require a County permit. In Appellant's first open record period submittal, Attorney Dickson states as follows: "The County's Event Permit Code, read in the context of 4H meetings, or home schools, or other youth gatherings, may reasonably be construed to require an Event Permit for such meetings. Thus, these meetings do require a permit, and the properties of the Organizer on which they are held may be properly required to obtain an Event Permit for such activities." Appellant's first open record period submittal, dated December 31, 2018, p. 7. However, appellant has failed to provide evidence that the County has issued the required permits for activities at the Gallucci Property. The issuance of required permits is a threshold issue.' In the absence of issued permits for activities at the Gallucci Property, the County does not even reach the question of whether the Gallucci Property constitutes a Youth Activity Center. In other words, just because a permit is issued for an event does not mean that such event constitutes a Youth Activity Center. In the instant matter, we do not reach the second part of the analysis because the County has not issued any permits for activities on the Gallucci Property. Furthermore, since Waveseer's application is first in time, any subsequently established Youth Activity Center within the buffer area will not affect Waveseer's validity or ability to continue. Stated differently, since a Youth Activity Center has not previously been established at the Gallucci Property (or anywhere within 1,000' of the subject property), Waveseer may remain at its' location because it submitted an application with public notice of its request for approval of a marijuana production facility prior to the County issuing any permit for a Youth Activity Center? This is similar to how the state handles the establishment of new schools after a license has been issued to a marijuana retailer. If a school is established within 1,000' of the premises of a licensed marijuana retailer, the marijuana retailer may remain at that location because it was first in time. ORS 475B.115. In sum, appellant concedes that County permits are required for the activities occurring at the Gallucci Property, and testimony by County staff at the hearing demonstrated that no pen -nits had yet been issued (or applied for). The mere requirement of a permit does not mean that the event giving rise to such permit requirement is a Youth Activity Center. The County does not reach an analysis of whether an event constitutes a Youth Activity I Waveseer believes that activities at the Gallucci Property fall under a Type 1 or Type 2 Limited Use Permit for agri-tourism or commercial events or activities on EFU land, as opposed to an Event Permit. See, Applicant's submittal in first open record period, dated December 31, 2018. Either way, no permits have been applied for or issued. 2 Attorney Dickson raises the existence of the Oregon National Guard Youth Challenge Program, but concedes that it is located approximately 2,900' from the subject property, which is well outside of the buffer requirement. EMERGA LAW GROUP January 11, 2019 Page 4 Center unless and until all required permits are issued. hi this case, it means that no activities currently occurring at the Gallucci Property can be considered part of a Youth Activity Center, and appellant's argument should be rej ected. E. Waveseer Meets All Odor and Noise Control Standards. The appellant argues that ionization is not a good alternative technology for odor control because it creates ozone. However, ozone occurs naturally in the air we breathe, and Aerisa, the manufacturer of the ionization equipment, has demonstrated that their technology does not increase the levels of ozone. As rebuttal evidence, Waveseer submits the "Response to Appellant McCready Open Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899- A, dated December 31, 2018", dated January 11, 2019 by mechanical and acoustical engineer, Roger Whitaker. This Response is attached as Exhibit 3. As noted therein, ozone levels can be easily recorded and Aerisa has performed such measurements at various enclosed facilities that employ their ionization technology. In all cases, ozone measurements recorded both outside and inside the buildings were the same (0.02 to 0.03 ppm) demonstrating that Aerisa's ionization technology does not increase the levels of ozone. See ht,tp ,,.,, \vac r. s co ii braryi (click the tab labeled "Videos" to see two videos showing ozone recordings). Additionally, since ionization will not increase ozone levels, no additional noise -generating equipment is necessary, and Mr. Whitaker's prior noise report and findings are valid and complete. See Mr. Whitaker's Response. For the reasons stated above, as well as those contained in the Application, in the Noise & Odor Technical Report, and in the Supplemental information for Odor Control, Waveseer's Application meets all of the County's applicable odor and noise requirements, and the appellant's arguments should be rejected. F. Waveseer has Provided Sufficient Utility Verification. By letter dated February 1, 2018, Central Electric Cooperative ("CEC") affirmatively stated that CEC is "willing and able to serve" Waveseer's marijuana production facility. GEC's will -serve letter is attached as Exhibit 4. Despite such letter, appellant contends that utility verification is insufficient because CEC noted the need for system upgrades. To the contrary, however, Kevin Rohde, Sr. Distribution Engineer at CEC, has definitively stated that "the system upgrades that will be required will not prevent Mr. Winsor from being provided service" to the subject property. The email from Mr. Rohde is attached as Exhibit 5. Wavesecr's Application meets all of the requirements for utility verification, and the appellant's argument should be rejected. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we believe that this Application meets all of the applicable standards and approval criteria under the County's code for a marijuana production facility, as described in the County's Administrative Determination decision. Therefore, we respectfully request that you uphold the County's decision and deny the appellant's appeal. Sincerely, Corinne Celko Attorney cc: Client EMERGELAW GROUP LAW Admitted J• BERGER in Oregon 19EMERGEGRO nSDC, District of Oregon V 1� (503) 688-1322 alex@emergelawgroup.com 805 SW Broadway, Suite 2400, Portiand, OR 97205 August 1, 2018 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Matt Martin Deschutes County — Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97708 Matt.Martin@deschutes.org Re: File No. 247 -18 -000128 -AD Dear Mr. Martin: Our firm represents Waveseer of Oregon, LLC ("Waveseer" or the "Applicant"). We are writing in response to the staff comments enumerated in the letter from your office dated March 1, 2018 and enclosed for your reference as Exhibit 1. Please see our responses below and corresponding exhibits. Comprehensive revised plans for the facility are attached as Exhibit 2. 1. "Lot of Record" — Tax Lot 500. The Applicant previously addressed this comment by submitting to your office a lot of record application. 2. Mature Canopy Area. Waveseer proposes a maximum mature plant canopy area of 10,000 square feet pursuant to the canopy limit for an Oregon Liquor Control Commission ("OLCC") Indoor Tier 11 Recreational Marijuana Producer License. As depicted in Exhibit 2, pages 1, 4, and 6, the sole production building will include 14 "Smart Rooms," each containing 680 square feet of mature canopy for a total of 9,520 square feet. 3. Setbacks. See Exhibit 3, which depicts property lines and setbacks from the production building to each property line. 4. Odor and Noise. A report from mechanical engineer, Roger Whitaker, P.E., enclosed as Exhibit 4, details site-specific information regarding odor and noise control measures pursuant to the County's requirements. 5. Additional Water Source. Waveseer proposes to supplement its 44.0 acres of seasonal irrigation water with water from private water hauler, Bend Water Hauling LLC. See the revised Irrigation Water Management Plan enclosed as Exhibit 5 and the "will serve" letter enclosed as Exhibit 6. EMERGE LAW GROUP EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 1 6. "Secured Waste Receptacle." Waveseer proposes to use a 25' x 30' portion of the southern steel building to the immediate east of the production facility to secure its marijuana waste. The area will be secured by four steel walls, a door with non-residential commercial grade locks, and surveillance camera coverage for the footpath between the secured waste area and the production facility. See Exhibit 2, pages 3 and 8, and Exhibit 3. Within the secured waste area, waste will be collected in 5 - gallon bucket increments where it will be ground in MJ Granulator and treated with Bokashi Culture mix. The waste will then be emptied into a 55 -gallon drum where it will ferment. During fermentation, pathogens are destroyed, and no putrefaction, unpleasant odor, vermin, or insects will occur. The resultant bio -pulp will be tilled into soil for use in subsequent marijuana cultivation cycles. We believe the information provided herein and the enclosed exhibits sufficiently complete Waveseer's application. Please let us know if we can provide any further information or documentation. We look forward to your determination. Sincerely, Alex J. Berger Attorney for Waveseer of Oregon, LLC Enclosure(s) cc: client EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 2 March 1, 2018 David Rosen Waveseer of Oregon, LLC 24350 Dodds Road Bend, OR 97701 EXHIBIT 1 Community Development Department Planning Division SuRding Safety Division Environmantai Soils Division Re: File No. 247 -18 -000128 -AD P,O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http,,//www.deschutes.org/cd Dear Mr. Rosen, am reviewing the Administrative Determination application for a marijuana production facility that was submitted on February 7, 2018. The application is not complete because it lacks information related to land use approval criteria under the Deschutes County Code (DCC) sections and subsections identified below. TITLE 18. COUNTY ZONING. Section 18.04.030 Definitions Lot of Record" means: A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means: 1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92; 2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, riled with the Deschutes County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk; 3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat; 4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the Deschutes County Record of Plats; or 5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot or parcel. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's burden of proof states the total lot of record area is 100.49 acres and includes the property identified on the Deschutes County Assessor's Map as 18-13-12 as Tax Lot 100 and 18-14-07 as Tax Lot 500. Tax Lot 100 was platted as Parcel 2 of Minor Land Partition MP -81-43 and is 78,79 acres in size. Tax Lot 500 was not included as a part of this EXHIBIT 1 QiiAliti/ Services Perli?rmed will: Pride PAGE 3 EXHIBIT I partition and has not been verified as a legal lot of record. The applicant must verify Tax Lot 500 is a legal lot of record before any land use approvals or building permits may be issued on the property. Section 18.116.330, Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: i, The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015, and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. C. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. STAFF COMMENT: Although the applicant may be eligible for up to 40,000 square feet of mature canopy area, the applicant is proposing a maximum mature plant canopy area of 10,000 square feet. It is currently unclear to staff the exact square footage to be used for the mature canopy area. In order to ensure this requirement is met, the applicant must submit a narrative and site plan that identifies the location and square footage of each space to be used for the mature plant canopy area. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. C. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. STAFF COMMENT: The site plan submitted in the Burden of Proof does not clearly show property lines and identifies areas generally as "wetlands" to the south of the property. The applicant shall provide a to -scale site plan that accurately depicts property lines and the setbacks from the production area to each property line. File: 247 -18 -000128 -AD Page 2 of 5 EXHIBIT 1 PACE 4 EXHIBIT 1 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors` use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. C. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: I. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 d8(A) measured at any property line between 10:00pm and 7.00am the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant did not include a report from a mechanical engineer in accordance with 10(b) above. This report is required for review of the application. Per the Board of County Commissioners (Board) decision on Evolution Concepts', the Board determined applicants must provide site specific information regarding odor and noise control measures including: • Siting of the building; • Specific odor control measures (fans and filters) proposed for each odor -producing room; Specific noise generating sources (fans, pumps, condensing units, air handlers, air recyclers), location of those sources, and the expected decibel level; • Location and type of noise reduction measures (sound wall, landscaping, berm) and the expected noise level; and • Topographic features surrounding the building site. The applicant shall provide an engineer's report including site specific information as required in the Evolution Concepts decision for all structures associated with the marijuana production use. ' Land use file nos. 247 -17 -000172 -AD, 173 -SP, 180 -AD, 803-A; Board Document No. 2017-733 File: 247 -18 -000128 -AD Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 5 EXHIBIT 1 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department, or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider, or C. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant provided a letter from Central Oregon Irrigation District stating the property has 44.0 acres of seasonal irrigation water. The letter also states "an additional source (not from COID) of water is necessary to irrigate from November 1St through March 31St» Assuming year-round production is proposed, the applicant must provide additional information on how water will be provided to the property between November 15t through March 31St. Additionally, based on testimony from Kyle Gorman, Oregon Department of Water Resources, the Board of County Commissioners requests that all "will serve" letters from water haulers provide detail stating the source of the water to be hauled. If water hauling is proposed, this information must be included in the will serve letter. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). STAFF COMMENT: In order to verify compliance with this criterion, the applicant must provide more detail on the type of secured waste receptacle to be used and its location onsite. Completeness Determination Your application will be determined to be complete in accordance with ORS 215.427 when you have submitted in writing one (1) of the following: 1. All of the missing information; Z Some of the missing information and a written notice to the County that no other information will be provided; or 3. Notice that none of the missing information will be provided. If you submit one of the items noted above, within 180 days from the date the application was first submitted, approval or denial of the application will be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted. if you fail to respond within 180 days, the application will be void on the 18111 day after being submitted, pursuant to ORS 215.427(4). No refund is available on applications which become void. As noted in ORS 215.427, the total period for the County to issue a final decision on your application may be extended for a specific period of time by submittal of a written request from you. However, the total extension of time approved for a final decision shall not exceed 215 days. File: 247 -18 -000128 -AD Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 6 EXHIBIT 1 Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about this matter at (541) 315-3157 or Nicole. Mardell@deschutes.org. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION ��-�(aw Z Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Cc: Corinne Celko, Emerge Law Group File: 247--18-000128-AD Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 7 m EXIT 2 Q -- nti d3 J ua 8 .._ <�� w� p 00s ZC) o w =03~ o� `n cv u z �WrL oc� p� z z OQz� �Q 0 a p M1 U I— a dx z� � wtz w u+$ ujZ O < �n0' W ( J LD 0 tLIJ o L Q W = Qpo w� ZOOM Qv,o o U m ¢ wan Lu OC(,j S=IN Q� p 0 f1D 00 10 _�003 w0 = LL W Z 99 Q O co ri LL W IDl 2 L X1J ..._ W W CJ W Z ci2l 7_� Ogg OZQa LLiz W _ (( w W �QCL vi WWQw ❑❑+ .s �O Q ,p ��„ 2 2 a Q T �a r r - hh a. � U=X O o �` NU N oar a g wy ¢6 t ti x z o CO l� isps�.S$ a g y pxx��jj n a AT Z¢ cc) O w > Q 1—i w Q U Qv� c)2 3 Z d 4� f> U a. � � O w Ln O a Y, W N < u a 2U � <c-, o u m U w w cr e (� U z z n �< O ¢ O Q �� 0 cn O w =y s i U O 3 •. d, r u iw.I w x Q x 0 ui d r b 7 w O N a N ¢o W ? 3R n OC7g " z z n r o r LU :E IBIT 1 -co r Q PAGE 1 PAGE 8 �m 04 �....R...—j _u I N --EIRIBIT I PAGE 2 PAGE 9 0 10 LLJ co LL k 80 0 Ln (5 C14 Cf) uj -an0 OFO 0 ©IQ LUof0 0 (D U� j�� \\ 0 00 � <G§^ < p: bo ui Z CID LU o s � \ �) \ \{ | § { «(/� \.� f -K 0 §q&k��\\/§ :\ gig \/( //:�� Eli � \\� � � �` |� )� _u I N --EIRIBIT I PAGE 2 PAGE 9 EXI _FMT 2 --11— — - ----- t LD z < I o I 7 Z 0 I PAGE: PAGE 10 10 0 0 !Q 2 9— --- .0 C'4 y U- 80 () LU 0 0 K 0 to og L) co Lu Z rN 0 wl 5 :::� umj!t 6 01.00 C5 0 (UDJ 0- 8 z < LO 0 L) <00 Q:: p oe 0 < < o W 00 uj 10 Z U-1 Q iz iz: I PAGE: PAGE 10 N �2p Q 0 N a a N o U Z LLJ d U x O 00 O r w a � O U Lu °C a O w�n O n rw a °` n OZ a d U n O � o z O U ,10 LLI p 0 I�z 1- r w O �g U i Lu 4 ce r a� Q 2 d J (� O_ N Q 0 f U-1 w O ° <X1 Z i� qq dp r - H Q O Cic 0 w17.1z o jac�0 ci(ppVQ] p.x cy- w Vill x N V M Q V) a �y J V f U-1 w m - CO3 W�'-- ° <X1 Z i� qq dp r - ;%I R --—E*fiIBIT 1 PAGE 4 PAGE 11 V 9 ° V)ui U o cy- Vill a_ �y j IE � ° s O Y$w WWR9 w z Q O U LUU Lj— o a w 0 c� Z a VO U-5 Ne Z N�O Od Q J _ Z03�¢ U-��U Z a Q 0z a UzViax� opZtz OZ -a �o 0 W��xU k�—tz�- K 01 - z S Z6 O H a O 0 o <UJa-m, a � Z4� ��No m 0 ,00� O O c ae pin n �v 4 a r Z `i z �ad od ¢U�O ww<Ul6 O ; E?°�-OU Z N C� ;%I R --—E*fiIBIT 1 PAGE 4 PAGE 11 g 10m N m v m 0 9 Q GCS d�tx Ta y�_.. Ii PAGE 5 PAGE 12 m Jr.- It II L U- N P LL Q LL ri y X CN X ttz � II a V Cc M ril U m Oa U `~ `V x x � Ow O Z U a LU U OO rL N Q O LU OW LL O U U = U U O i m 0 0 Q z 0 o CZ o0 II ri X x y LL 0. vLL II ry x X �p 3 a I O z a a O 0 a Q GCS d�tx Ta y�_.. Ii PAGE 5 PAGE 12 g P w N ^ II N LL u rL a O 11 11 t b It L 'm tz II OOm O O nwi it app t7 Y tz >( 8 x O X ri W M X N II ri X x y LL 0. vLL II ry x X �p 3 u I O z a a O 0 a w° z X r� J S �> VO OC i O w o Z Q a z o a in X 3 I N 0 O ILL-� z w < i � < a � n Y O i< O aOc 3 O O w O 0 w u O < w a O O z a xxt �7 O O O ul w OZ Q 3 Q o a u a m o o 0 o�a�o��000 Q GCS d�tx Ta y�_.. Ii PAGE 5 PAGE 12 al N m EXWBIT 2 a LL LL N N O O � II I� x x N C O w LL O O O Q w W LU W a N W N � W- 0 O d oc O Q U fy W W oe O Q Q -H 0 a 0 a O 0 a LL � O °- z O z O U < W D r Z � O O O Z Q w Z W LL Z 0 a00 BOO ohm N (� LL Z z0t= za QUp Ow? N a N ?<Q<x OQ L W 1% i ELz0 dH U N W W 0 W z W z —EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 6 PAGE 13 W u 0 $_ Z 000 O LO W N tjM 010 NOS a g� WzQ a W � 0 j a� wm a Q m U S N U Z a i < d c5:', 9 x a Q Q 0 Wl CZ �W LL LL N N O O � II I� x x N C O w LL O O O Q w W LU W a N W N � W- 0 O d oc O Q U fy W W oe O Q Q -H 0 a 0 a O 0 a LL � O °- z O z O U < W D r Z � O O O Z Q w Z W LL Z 0 a00 BOO ohm N (� LL Z z0t= za QUp Ow? N a N ?<Q<x OQ L W 1% i ELz0 dH U N W W 0 W z W z —EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 6 PAGE 13 W u q ca N k e§ S 0 g /\ u2 /R O \ < < Q 7 \ w D 70 4 ) I | / 2 LUIL6 b z § \ \ § Q 2 j § z 2 (I§ /o )<§ © oIe p®a (}\ ) ou CK&§ ; -7}\} \ aU \ 6Eƒ ; )3§ '. \JqLLJ k 8 f kI§IT 1 G 7 PAGE 14 r_-] EIT 2 Q ..., �.._.... _�_,_. LU N W O O J ao U NZ$ U - U 8OR °, Q C', C' 000m 0 �--� W w s Wwo of o �nWw �IZOCN 6n G C J ,u Q40 ?Ln away U "'pt� fix"' C flj LU QLLJ w O N w ❑ Z VLLI ie N Z W C9 , 3 w Cn CL�� O . W J W Q U W. a_M - W J N LRY B { Y+ ya m� LU U a-$ 0 W !#P _ ujuj w V Q ��-. 00 Wg g P s # www 0 CI x 3wU >-: O W axHq e fy x afN W Z au SOr a In o o O M N LU UlUl zu poc o to (z �--� �nWw �IZOCN CN7 ..__.__._Mm._.�..___ O M O< Z Og h 0z< M; W W J J u W C9a� m� LU U a-$ 0 v _ ujuj w V Q ��-. www 0 3wU >-: Q fy x afN W Z au SOr a In o o x O o � -- kIBIT 1 co. _ Q PAGE 8 PAGE 15 EXHIBIT 3 f-o[i C ONSTRUC"HON s; j s WINAl13 CLIWAMON FAMLM 24350-24360 DODDS RD r [IBIT 1 )AGE 16 EXHIBIT 4 Noise & Odor Technical Report TO: Deschutes County Community Development Department FROM: Roger Whitaker, P.E. PROJECT: Waveseer Dodds Road Indoor Grow DATE: July 31, 2018 Summary This report documents the proposed odor control system and noise level estimates for the proposed indoor grow facility. In my professional opinion, the proposed odor control system meets the requirements of Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.116.330(B)(10) and will serve as an effective odor control system which will at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. In addition, the noise generated by the proposed mechanical equipment will meet the noise criteria of DCC 18.116.330(B)(11) and will not exceed 30 dBA as measured from any adjacent property line. Introduction The purpose of this report is to assess whether the proposed Waveseer Cannabis Grow operation lyse requirements 4of DCC 18116.330(B){10) an24360 SE Dodds Road, Bend d 8116.330(B)(1egon 97701 u11)d comply with the odor and not re q For ease of reference, the relevant sections of the DDC Chapter 18.116 are reprinted here: 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(8)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. Page 1 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 17 EXHIBIT 4 e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. Odor Control System The odors emitted by cannabis plants are primarily in the form of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Fragrant terpenes are what give the cannabis plant (and many others) their distinctive smells, thus the need to remove these odors prior to exhausting air from the facility. Several technologies were evaluated for this project. While carbon filtration is likely the most widely known odor control method for grow facilities in Deschutes, Waveseer decided to pursue an alternative technology for this project for the following reasons: • Carbon saturation. in the indoor grow house market, the exhausted air is full of moisture and this moisture will be absorbed into the carbon internal structure, rendering it useless (odors will flow right through). • Cost of ownership. Carbon, by definition, must be replaced or reactivated from time to time (depending on level of contamination). This can become expensive and create "down time" where odors will build up and escape the internal envelope. Energy consumption. When using carbon systems (and depending on type of unit being used), excessive pressure drop across the carbon filters can develop that must be compensated for by higher fan speeds. This is further exacerbated by the need for particulate filtration (pre and final filters) that, over time, will continue to increase in additional pressure drop. Solving the pressure drop related issue can translate into excessive energy consumption and higher noise levels. Noise control challenges. Carbon systems require additional fans and exhaust points which can increase exterior noise. Footprint. Carbon systems can be bulky and take up space either on the roof or adjacent to the building. Odor Control for 36,000 SF Indoor Structure For the indoor grow operations, Waveseer has selected to use ionization, a proven technology in the most demanding applications, such as wastewater treatment, food processing, casino, athletic, and transportation. The proposed ionization system is manufactured by Aerisa. Aerisa ionization technology for commercial applications is based on ions produced by an ion Page 2 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 18 EXHIBIT 4 generator, configured either with needlepoint brush electrodes or tubes. These ion generators are mounted either inside a building's air handler or in the supply ductwork. Highly ionized an with millions of ions (02+ and 02-) are delivered in each cubic foot of air through the ductwork and into the treated space. Because of their charge, these ions proactively attack the contaminants at their source to vastly improve indoor air quality. In cannabis grow operations, VOCs (the odor culprit) is oxidized by the highly ionized air which breaks the VOCs into simple harmless and odorless compounds. In addition, ions also oxidize the cell walls of bacteria, mold and virus. When the cell walls of these microorganisms are oxidized, they become sterile and are no longer ablEt�bul it �plmcludes more details on the procy die off ess of ionization aare s wellved a from the space. successful case study in Portland, Oregon. Aerisa manufactures several models of the tube style ionization equipment to suiium,t �yand degrees of pollutant load factors. The pollutant load factors include Low, el Heavy. The Aerisa Model 5550 is proposed for the project which is the model suited for a Heavy pollutant load factor (industrial facility, heavy manufacturing, garbage room). Each Model 5500 has an air flow capacity up to 10,000 CFM. The interior volume of the 36,000 SF building is 828,000 ft -3- The portion of the building volume that will contain (or potentially contain) odors (i.e., grow rooms, storage, processing, drying and inventory) is 762,650 W. The engineers at Aerisa recommend six (6) air changes per hour for indoor cannabis facilities based on many successful applications. Based on the building air volume of 762,650 ft3, the required air flow capacity of the ionization equipment is 76,265 CFM. Therefore, eight (8) Aerisa Model 5550s shall be installed in the supply ductwork providing up to 80,000 CFM of air flow capacity. It is concluded that the proposed Aerisa ionization system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. Noise Analysis Various mechanical equipment will be used for project. Some mechanical equipment will be installed inside the buildings and some will be located outside. The potential noise generation of all mechanical equipment was considered in the analysis. Manufacturer's noise emission data was used to estimate the projected noise levels at each of the four property lines to ensure compliance with the Deschutes County Code. Noise Modeling and Terminology The unit used to measure the loudness of noise is the decibel (dB). To better approximate the sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies, the A -weighted decibel scale was developed. Because the human ear is less sensitive to higher and lower frequencies, the A - weighted scale reduces the sound level contributions of these frequencies. The human ear is less sensitive to � terms of decibels on the A -weight d scale are denoted ,000 Hz. Noise as dBA.vels ated as sound pressure levels Noise levels decrease with distance from a noise source. Sound waves emanating from a point source, such as a heat pump or condenser unit, spread in spherical fashion through the air and, Page EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 19 EXHIBIT 4 as a result, the sound pressure levels drops with greater distance from the source. The spherical spreading of sound waves from a point source in a free field environment (no intervening structures or ground absorption) typically cause the sound levels to decrease at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. In addition to the reduction of noise levels over distance, excess noise reduction (attenuation) can be provided by vegetation, terrain, earth berms, and atmospheric effects that block or absorb noise. This study follows the common practice to ignore atmospheric effects in the estimating of noise levels to ensure the stated results are conservative. Noise impact Criteria The noise level limit for this project is 30 dBA as measured from any property line between the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Although not specified in the County Code, it was assumed that the 30 dBA limit is stated in terms of the instantaneous A -weighted sound pressure level (SPL), which would be considered one the most conservative interpretations of the Code. Consistent with this Code interpretation, all noise levels published in this report are in terms of A -weighted sound pressure levels (SPL) and denoted as dBA. For the purpose of this conservative analysis, it was assumed that all noise -generating mechanical equipment would be in full operating mode 24 hours per day. In reality, individual equipment would cycle on and off throughout the day and night depending on the demand loads of the interior spaces. Nonetheless, by assuming full operation all day ensures the stated results are conservative. Proposed Project Layout Waveseer of Oregon, LLC proposes to construct a 36,000 square foot (SF) building to house 13,198 SF of isolated indoor grow space and 22,802 SF of associated commercial space (e.g., office, reception, processing, etc.). Waveseer also plans to erect a 1,500 SF commercial steel building to house the water treatment/recycle system and the power & backup power system. Exhibit B provides the general layout of the proposed structures and includes some level of detail on the arrangement of the grow rooms and commercial spaces within the larger 36,000 SF building. The layout includes installing the exterior mechanical equipment at ground level on the west side of the 36,000 SF building to assist in noise reduction at the nearest property line to the east. Noise Emission Ratings of Proposed Equipment The noise -generating mechanical equipment to be installed inside the 36,000 SF building includes the Subcooled 705 Dehumidifiers (ClimaDry 705) used to remove moisture in the indoor Smart Rooms. All noise -generating equipment scheduled for interior installation will be housed within insulated metal buildings and are, therefore, not expected to generate noise at any property line. Additionally, because the Aerisa Ionization Odor Control system to be used for the Smart Room is completely non -noise generating, it is not included in this noise assessment. Exhibit C includes manufacturers specifications and supporting information for the primary indoor equipment. Page 4 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 20 EXMrr 4 The mechanical equipment to be installed outside the project structures and, therefore, the focus of this noise analysis includes: Lennox Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF)10-ton Heat Pumps Trane XR14 5 -ton Condensers Exhibit D includes manufacturer's specifications and supporting information for the noise - generating equipment to be installed on the exterior of the 36,000 SF building. The number and type of noise -generating mechanical equipment along with the manufacture's published noise levels are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Noise Level Emission Ratings Number of Combined Total Equipment Type SPL @ 3 feet Units SPL @ 3 feet Lennox 10 -ton Heat Pump 60 dBA 17 72.3 dBA Trane XR14 5 -ton Condenser 76 dBA 17 80.3 dBA Manufacturer's noise emission data for all proposed equipment was used to estimate the total projected noise levels at each of the four property lines to ensure compliance with the Deschutes County Code. Table 2 presents the results of the noise projection analysis. Exhibit E provides an aerial view showing the proposed project boundaries, distances to neighboring property lines, and the estimated noise levels at the nearest point on each property line. The noise levels in the Table 2 assume all equipment would run continuously 24 hours each day and no deductions were given for atmospheric and vegetation absorption which would result in noise levels lower than presented here. The noise reducing effect of the 36,000 SF indoor grow building acting as a noise barrier to the exterior mechanical equipment was included for the eastern property line calculations. Table 2. Noise Level Estimates at Property Lines The projected noise levels at each property line is below the 30 dBA criteria, and therefore it is concluded that the proposed operation will comply the Deschutes County Code criteria. Page 5 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 21 Total SPL from Deschutes County Compliance Location Proposed Project Code Criteria Check North Property Line 12.5 dBA 30 dBA OK South Properly Line 29.2 dBA 30 dBA OK East Property Line 20.9 dBA 30 dBA OK West Property Line" 16.3 dBA 30 dBA OK The projected noise levels at each property line is below the 30 dBA criteria, and therefore it is concluded that the proposed operation will comply the Deschutes County Code criteria. Page 5 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 21 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT A Information for Aerisa Odor Control • Case Study - Portland Oregon • Product Selection Guide • Manufacturer's Spec Sheet • How it works • Testimonials E-1 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 22 EXHIBIT 4 Odors Eliminated Aerisa systems clean indoor and exhaust pollutants Odors present at cannabis facilities in Portland, OR must be controlled and eliminated prior to exhaust per City of Portland codes. The odors emitted by cannabis plants are primarily in the form of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Fragrant Terpenes are what give the cannabis plant (and many others) their distinctive smells thus, the need to remove these odors prior to exhausting air from the facility. Applications like this one (removing odors from exhaust air) ��typically use some form of carbon or chemistry at the exhaust fans prior to the air leaving the building. However, due to high humidity and the need for longer dwell times, those technologies are not sufficient. Because of this, a local cannabis farm turned to ACI Mechanical & HVAC Sales, Aerisa's Portland representative. Mr. Jarred Osborne of ACI Mechanical was able to provide Aerisa systems within the Variable Refriger- Aerisa Model 2000 produces a highly ionized air stream and the VRF equipment's duct work is used to distribute those ions. By treating the supply side removed as they are being produced. An additional benefit to treating the supply air is that any other odors present will also be treated. Industrial epoxy odors emanating from the concrete flooring at this local farm were present and believed to have been affecting the plants. These odors were removed with the same highly ionized supply air. A local cannabis grower recently said "We added ionization to our garden after an industry friend suggested it. The installation was simple, cost was similar to carbon bag filters with inline fans, and our energy use per unit went down from about 40OW to 16W." He further stated "We couldn't believe how well the ionizers removed odors! We also noticed that it helped reduce mildew outbreaks, and mold growing on the coils of our air conditioning units" About Aerisa: Aerisa manufactures bipolar ionization technology that results in dramatic air quality improve- ments in a wide array of markets including industrial, institutional, commercial and residential. Aerisa successes are found in the most demanding applica- tions, such as wastewater treatment, food processing, casino, athletic, and transportation. Contact Aerisa at 1-877-4-AERISA (237472) or visit www.aerisa.com. Aerisa 1 1214 W. Boston Post Road, Suite 410 1 Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Phone (480) 302-6300 1 1-877-4-AERISA I info@aerisa.com I www.aerisa.com EMBIT 1 92017 Aerisa All riahAGENed 3 When utilizing Aerisa's Tube style ionization equipment, it is important to select the most appropriate unit, tube length, and power setting. This guide will help you through this process. • Airborne particles • Corrosive gases • VOCs • Industrial processes • Bio -effluents • Mold, bacteria and viruses All these pollutants contribute to the quality of the indoor air. Aerisa's tube style ionization equipment will help in eliminating these contaminants thereby producing an indoor environment that is clean, healthy, and odor free. 'S PRODUCT SELECTION GUIDE MODEL 0 * CFM 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 ModllOW LOW POLLUTANTS - office, classroom, gymnasium, lobby ME D I U M POLLUTANTS -Arena, day care center, nursing home, locker room, health club HIGH POLLUTANTS -Animal hospital, light manufacturing, casino, beauty parlor HEAVY POLLUTANTS - Industrial facility, heavy manufacturing, garbage room *MULTIPLE UNITS REQUIRED 1214 W. Boston Post Road, Suite 410, Mamaroneck NY 10543 Tel., 480-302-6300 www.aerisa.com EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 24 EXHIBIT 4 ,AE'R/SA The scierrcp ai c;lean air The Aerisa Model 5550 is a five tube ionizer that produces positive and negative ions to improve air quality. A five position dial allows for ion output (50 to 100%) selection. The unit may be either mounted in a metal supply duct or installed inside an HVAC unit. Using the predrilled housing and sheet metal screws, the Model 5550 mounts into a duct cutout. A separate mounting bracket or rack is required for HVAC unit installation. The Model 5550 accepts 115V AC power. Power to the Model 5550 may be interlocked directly with the system fan, or by using an air flow switch, pressure switch, or HVAC unit door switch. A low voltage connection provides for remote monitoring of the Model 5550. Air Flow Capacity: ............. .... Up to 10,000 CFM Pressure Drop: ..................... See Figure 1 Electrical: Voltage: ..................... ... 115V Power Consumption: ...... —. .... 50 watts Current Draw: ................... 0.3A Frequency:..................50/60 hertz Internal Fuse: ............ . ..... 1.OA Field Electrical Connection: ....... 3/8" flexible metal conduit (BX) Ionization Tube: Number of Tubes: ..... ........... Five Material: ....................... . Glass, stainless steel Size: .......................... 550 (mm nom.) Length: ....... .......... ........21inches Life:............................8,800 hours Housing Material: .................. 22 gauge steel Weight; , . ......................... . 18 pounds Maximum Operating Temperature:.... 140° F (60° C) Dimensions: See Figure 2 Optional Accessory: ................ Pressure Switch Certifications: Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Standards UL 867 and UL1995 Classified as plenum rated per UL 2043, file #E364224 AERISA 1214 W. BOSTON POST ROAD, SUITE 470, MAMARONECK, NY 10543 480-302-6300 877 4-AERISA info@aerisa,comwww•EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 25 EXHIBIT 4 How It Works This information can be found at http://www.aerisa.com/commercial/how-it-works/ Aerisa ionization technology for commercial applications is based on ions produced by an ion generator, configured either with needlepoint brush electrodes or tubes. These ion generators are mounted either inside a building's air handler or in the supply ductwork. Highly Ionized air with millions of ions (Oz" and OZ) are delivered in each cubic foot of air through the ductwork and into the treated space. Because of their charge, these ions proactively attack the contaminants at their source to vastly improve indoor air quality. These positive/negative oxygen ions are not stable and, of course, the natural state of all matter is to be stable. So, as soon as they are created, they seek to "become whole" again. This is done by either shedding an additional electron or picking one up. They get/give these electrons from other airborne gases. A gas, such as Ammonia (NH3), will either pick up or give up an electron. As soon as that happens, that molecule "breaks" up into its individual components. f 3a This Oz molecule becomes p' a positive Ion IOz+) 1 imparted mEnergy is artd to ' neutral � ,�--�—► �� '�� 4 mase charged ions a a neutral combine with other .---'� O=molecules forming clusters 2 The molecule --V is "ionized"end emits an electron 3b This electron is captured by another O,; molecule creating a rvegative ion 10;F) Aerisa ionization technology provides four primary benefits: Airborne Particulate Removal A University of Minnesota study shows that 98.5% of airborne particles are smaller than 0.5 microns. This means that these particles will not "fall out of the air" nor will they be caught in particulate filters. Because the ions have a charge, these airborne particulates agglomerate and increase in size. Larger particles are trapped more efficiently by even poor quality return air filters. Larger particles also settle much faster and may then be removed by housekeeping. Either way, previously airborne particles are removed from EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 26 MCMIT 4 the breathing zone. Particulate may contain bacteria, virus, mold and other allergens— thus, their removal creates a much healthier environment. o ° 0oal o e MMORMMM,, Moss 0 11019otft 00 00 p o Cwftminarb 0 O p O o 0 .ham -- 10 0.001o r(Microns) aMcle Sire Odors Aensa ionization technology "casts a broad net" over a host of odorous compounds found in commercial applications, to include ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and acetaldehyde. Highly ionized air oxidizes these odor causing compounds into less objectionable molecules such as water, nitrogen gas and elemental sulfur. Following is an example of how Ammonia (NH3) is oxidized and broken down into its individual components. The process of ionizing a molecule is instantaneous and irreversible. EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 27 EXHIBIT 4 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) New carpeting, paint, furniture, office equipment, glue and solvents are only a few commercial materials that emit VOCs. Like that for odors, highly ionized air oxidizes VOCs, breaking these chemicals into simple, harmless compounds. This is particularly important in new construction where all materials are new and emit VOCs at very high levels. Bacteria, Mold and Virus As mentioned above, ionization will help smaller particulate matter agglomerate and fall out of the air or be caught in particulate filters. These particles will absorb airborne bacteria, mold and virus thereby removing them from the breathing zone. However, ions will also oxidize the cell walls of bacteria, mold and virus. when the cell walls of these microorganisms are oxidized, they become sterile and are no longer able to multiply. When this happens, they simply die off and are permanently removed from the space. EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 28 EXHIBIT 4 Testimonials • Cannabis Facility, Portland, Oregon • Facility Owner • Palm Valley Water Reclamation Facility, Goodyear, Arizona • Bob Dodds, President— Liberty Utilities CAN fAto lA • PERC Engineering • Santa Paula EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 29 EXHIBIT 4 Tom Bradley Terminal LAX EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 30 EX Darr 4 EXHIBIT B Architectural Drawings of Proposed Project • General building layout and setbacks • Identification of specific buildings • Compliance letter from Accredited Laboratory • Details of 36,000 SF building components • Plan and elevation views of 36,000 SF building E-2 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 31 m EXHIBIT 4 [401' FOR C014S I ULIL; I IUIA CANNA1113 -ATM FACUM 350-24360 DODDS RD BtfID. CIREMM (IBIT 1 PAGE 3 2 N Q 0° EN\ IBIT 4 w ---- GO 'o gz,_.co= W C'4 LL � U Ln 0 tt��jj co Q� O c4O O wzp W W s$ w p F- W � 1 wm� O Cn 3< Q LU Qmu Q 9 x J N u .NU1"'- Q W W Qov `S Z 4k . ? cQj Lu o W or O o0 Q Z Q- a �Z W 0��£ < uj o u U C/) o z w J :z �o u LU P. LU 4 Ua a' O LL- F, g O O Oo § �/ N 00 z CN Lq LV 83y e rZ0.ot Q O m d ZpZU wow 0 a. N 0— a. LU co0Z 2W w Ufl� �C4 m J r OZ UWd oweC�m � z z W ~ N F w�� Q 3Wv N tz O O_ Q N w h N o R N n o U O N u Q Z b +u IL Oz c N Q U z g w .0d ° � Z � kIBIT 1 PAGE 33 N mQ 0X+11B1T 4 Fw� �co 00 3 Q O ry z how` qwm OTm N0^ O V lZu QX fk OVLL,LL W wzo Q OZ cj lim O�w es OO X� X 59� wXQQOO W�Q � x v U a OC O o wm ZOOM QNoh C:) w� max° N ,moo o �C11 �r�N Q�v w a0 OD Zo u z� r OX �wo> � o ! �. LU W U' 0 w � Z ROD ' ?co � pCJo .z_ 1 OQz wn �<Lu }., Q ri vk w W Q v Q� r�a0 O �e a- t 0 Z N yhb 4 yyN�t b 4}� Lo f�� } c u x Lu RAW y° x� M � pf§ �$ Z qgq Z i. J, Z as F y yyp fy$ CL Z¢ X O XFt1YY tT L 3` Z Cv `i O St0 in LL Qc �m < z 0 U N w w it ua p azQ� O Q, Z �,�'� ` 2 � w n Q Z Q M O Y m W R u Z C9LLJ U oe f1 O Q 0 V ` I G J :E S,0 u00 3 w t 02 U 0 M > t K N QL ? + Q Z m a U O IV O w {f, O U i a W r a U LL 00 u 04 h5 33 W o J wwm z ¢ x `t' 0 0 ' @ %^ 'otio N / o 0 v Z Z c U w 8 HISIT 1 PAGE 34 & co ESI 4 m ) � § � < � (§ \{ � e� EkkIBIT l « PAGE 35 k �m w » .o ! %oo /\ \ I� 0 ~ / §3 .o m 2ok« S R m S L5@ 0 O»§ «§ \ RS * \; ooS \ jG °� @§ ^ \ § 3 tyW) \ <C) / $/§ < 10 6 @ @3$� � (§ \{ � e� EkkIBIT l « PAGE 35 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT C Proposed Indoor Equipment • Subcooled 705 Dehumidifier (Climadry 705) E-3 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 36 Subcooled 705 Dehumldifler EXHIBIT 4 Subcooled 705 Dehumidifier (Climadry705) • Commercial dehumidifier • Removes 705 pints of water per day (ARAM conditions: 80F, 60% rh) • 115 volt • Dual supply air temperature • Connects to standard 5 ton air conditioner condenser. This all aluminum, commercial -grade dehumidifier removes up to 705 pints of water per day (ARAM conditions; 80F, 60%rh) from air in your building. Dual temperature provides cool or warm dry air from one unit. A wall mounted humidistat allows you to set the desired room humidity level. .., rad€FeF..:'�, t Dimensions 47"D x 42"L x 27"H Weight 300 pounds Power 115V, single-phase Amperage 4.8 amps Warranty one year Warranty Information Limited Warranty: One year warranty on any defective parts. Limitation of Liability: To the extent allowable under applicable law, Subcooled Air's liability for consequential and incidental damages Is expressly disclaimed. Subcooled Air's liability in all events is limited to and shall not exceed the cost of repair. Shipping damage is not covered All information contain herewithin is subject to revision by Subcooled Air, L.P. 07/2017 Features ♦ Humidistat controlled drying ♦ Stainless steel: drain pan and 314 inch drain coupling ♦ 1,000 cfm (nominal) supply air blower ♦ Quiet operation, low static (ductable) ♦ Made in the USA ♦ Designed for commercial use ♦ Auto defrost allows operation in cool buildings ♦ HVAC technician friendly design ♦ 2 -inch pleated MERV 3 through 11 air filter compartment ♦ Aluminum skid with forklift pockets and comer eyes ♦ Cabinet constructed from pre -painted aluminum sheet metal ♦ Thermostat controlled reheat delivers cool or warm air 4512 5 Hwy 35 Alvin, TX 77511 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 37 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT D Proposed Exterior Equipment • Lennox VRF 10 -ton Heat Pump • Trane XR14 5 -ton Condenser E-4 EXHIBIT I PAGE 38 � •+ s 1 • A • I • esult A.Project Overview B. Material List Model Project Name Description VPA120H4M-2G 1 DC Inverter Heat Pump VHIA072S4-2P Country High Static Pressure Duct _ U.S. Touchscreen Programmable Local Controller V8IDBPO3 State Distributor fl -1/8 Oregon Copper Pipe City 20.0 ft Copper Pipe Roberts Fld Copper Pipe Address Client name Client address Reference Revision Project date 4 / 26 / 2018 Altitude 3084 ft Cooling condition:indoor dry bulb 80 F Cooling condition:indoor wet bulb 67 ° F Cooling condition:outdoor dry bulb 90.2 ° F Heating condition:indoor dry bulb 70 F Heating condition:outdoor dry bulb 5.6 F Heating condition:outdoor wet bulb 3.7 ° F B. Material List Model Qty Description VPA120H4M-2G 1 DC Inverter Heat Pump VHIA072S4-2P 2 High Static Pressure Duct VOSTAT5IP-2 1 Touchscreen Programmable Local Controller V8IDBPO3 1 Distributor fl -1/8 10.0 ft Copper Pipe f7 8 20.0 ft Copper Pipe fl/2 30.0 ft Copper Pipe EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 39 EXHIBIT 4 HP -1 1. 1 Material List (HP -1) Model Qty Description VPA12OH4M-2G 1 DC Inverter Heat Pump VHIA072S4-2P 2 High Static Pressure Duct VOSTATb1P-2 1 Touchscreen Programmable Local Controller V$IDBPO3 1 Distributor fl -1/8 10.0 ft Copper Pipe f7/8 20.0 ft Copper Pipe fl/2 30.0 ft_ Copper Pipe EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 40 1 a C V id OL N O W 0 T Y ro ro U b0 T C •N .H.,4 N (dd ^ O cj � � U 7 O cc Y b 0 Y Cu 0 x� E� N 41 rd U A N �¢ N ti O co E- L) U 41 W bD U 0 N O U 0 41 U tio G N "ClO y d •rt i•i O U v O O d b O 41 -,W3 n-, m N p • to m •a Q) a V7 00 1 d 0.' -0 d is +' N CO U O ~ wHrA w ax`=No W a ~UOw U roW [7 by cad N cxd CV y O C to O •.+ H C7. o C', �op� cHd u41 a6i fia .+ O H Y fi ^O O co Y C N y N U c a C.ti OCD cp O O U E «i A HQW z O zH�w� 1� rri O EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 41 Ln U'3 a \ LO m W LO to bo u^ ..r 0 rn to Lo Lo v o i W U Lf d i0 + N IN m to S'. to CSC U \ N C\ C13 m v d' cC, Ln � Ln CL b d � ti � � O O G tv 41 j LO Lo L d ti c•• � H O W ^ to LO by CL EOE to � Y G A Q G H Cl7 M N O C LO u m C 0. N N .~ rn I I ` � La iMF iMF ^ �n LLa V C Ov NN �� \ 1 1 A 00 W ^G LO V� Nc F Y 0 i V) p O O Z5 Y tb bd "Cbp N N H 1 o 3 � 1 a C V id OL N O W 0 T Y ro ro U b0 T C •N .H.,4 N (dd ^ O cj � � U 7 O cc Y b 0 Y Cu 0 x� E� N 41 rd U A N �¢ N ti O co E- L) U 41 W bD U 0 N O U 0 41 U tio G N "ClO y d •rt i•i O U v O O d b O 41 -,W3 n-, m N p • to m •a Q) a V7 00 1 d 0.' -0 d is +' N CO U O ~ wHrA w ax`=No W a ~UOw U roW [7 by cad N cxd CV y O C to O •.+ H C7. o C', �op� cHd u41 a6i fia .+ O H Y fi ^O O co Y C N y N U c a C.ti OCD cp O O U E «i A HQW z O zH�w� 1� rri O EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 41 Ln U'3 a \ LO m W LO to bo u^ ..r 0 rn to Lo Lo v o i cn U i0 + m C13 m V Ln CL b rn L- � ti � j L O O EOE to G A Q G 1 a C V id OL N O W 0 T Y ro ro U b0 T C •N .H.,4 N (dd ^ O cj � � U 7 O cc Y b 0 Y Cu 0 x� E� N 41 rd U A N �¢ N ti O co E- L) U 41 W bD U 0 N O U 0 41 U tio G N "ClO y d •rt i•i O U v O O d b O 41 -,W3 n-, m N p • to m •a Q) a V7 00 1 d 0.' -0 d is +' N CO U O ~ wHrA w ax`=No W a ~UOw U roW [7 by cad N cxd CV y O C to O •.+ H C7. o C', �op� cHd u41 a6i fia .+ O H Y fi ^O O co Y C N y N U c a C.ti OCD cp O O U E «i A HQW z O zH�w� 1� rri O EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 41 1.4 Piping and Mode Selection Devices (HP -1) IMPORTANT REFRIGERANT PIPING INSTALLATION INFORMATION PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT FULLY BEFORE COMMENCING WITH YOUR PIPE WORK INSTALLATION The piping diagram or diagrams included within this document have been prepared based on the information provided to the Lennox VRF applications department. If no information was available at the time of preparing this document, all identified lengths and quantity of fittings have been assumed by Lennox VRF applications to enable the completion of this document. When the indicated lengths (whether these were provided as an accurate assessment of the proposed installation or assumed by Lennox VRF applications department) change from the figures stated within this document, it is imperative that priorto the commencement of the refrigerant pipe work installation, Lennox VRF applications department are informed of these proposed changes. Upon receipt of this new Information the Lennox VRF applications department will confirm any changes that may be applicable to this installation. If changes are required, a new piping diagram will be produced and will supersede all other previously provided documents. Failure to provide this information regarding changes to the original design may lead to insufficient capacity, equipment failure, warranty being made void and the refusal to commission the system. For any questions please contact us at: (844) GET-VRF1 (844) 438-8731 vrftechsupport@lennoxind.com EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 42 EXHIBIT 4 LE NO IDU quantity 2/20 Combination ratio 120.00% Additional refrigerant charge 2.53 lbs = 31,60(1/2) * 0.08 Factory refrigerant charge 28.70 lbs Total refrigerant charge 31.23 lbs Total pipe length 31.6 ft/3280 ft Furthest actual 20 ft/574 ft Furthest equivalent 21.6 ft/656 ft Furthest equivalent from first branch to IDU 10 ft/132(295) ft Drop height between IDU and IDU 0 ft/98 ft Drop height between IDU and ODU 0 ft/230 ft Available Capacity Cooling 116,492 Btu/h Available Capacity Heating 68,534 Btu/h 1 branch 1.6ft copper pipe. LUMKLC 1UJN wtrrim¢ry i s Altitude (Indoor Unit) 0.94 Altitude (Outdoor Unit) 0.98 Piping (Cooling) 1.00 Piping (Heating) 1.00 Defrost (Heating) 0.98 pipe No Length Gas Pipe Liquid Pipe (1) 10.0 ft fl -1/8 f1/2 (2) 10.0 ft f7/8 f1/2 (3) 10. 0 ft f7/8 f1/2 Distributor No Load Btu/h Model (1) 144,000 V81DBP03 Conversion bend to pipe length Pipe diameter of bend(inch) Equivalent length(ft) EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 43 off a0 04 tL O PAGE 44 04 tL O ro OD w C. w U- > 0 PAGE 44 LENN70D EXH[[Brr 4 1.6 Wiring Diagram (HP -1) ODU1 Ll,:,2 1ph 15.OA Wire Strandedl&ileld VOSTATMP-2 Controller Zone NOA F. POE 10 _L1L2208-230V-ljph-6GH17.5Al IDUl 0110 Y"YE Ll,L2.2CS-2;V-lph-60Rz7.5A! 'POE IM)2 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 45 T/P�INE� EXHIBIT 4 XR14 4TWR4 1 'J2 -5 Tons PUB. NO. 22-1765-10 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 46 EXHIBIT 4 Contents Features and Benefits Model Nomenclature General Data Product Specifications A -weighted Sound Power Level (dB(A)l Accessory Description and Usage AHRI Standard Capacity Rating Conditions Electrical Data Dimensions Mechanical Specification Options Features and Benefits • Efficiency up to 14.5 SEER and 8.5 HSPF • All aluminum SPINE FINTm coil • WEATHERGUARDTm fasteners • OUICK.SESSTm cabinet, service access and refrigerant connections with full coil protection • DURATUFFT�4 base; fast complete drain, weatherproof • COMFORT RTm mode approved • Glossy corrosion resistant finish • Internal compressor high/low pressure & temperature protection • 018, 030 ship with start kit • Compressor Sump Heat (060) • Liquid line filter/drier • Tarpaulin gray cabinet with anthracite gray badge • High pressure switch • Demand Defrost with Diagnostics • R-41 OA refrigerant • S.E.E.T. design testing • 100% line run test • Low ambient cooling to 20'F with AY28XO84 • Low ambient cooling to 55 OF as shipped • Extended warranties available 2 3 ►, I 4 5 5 13 14 2 22.1WMIBIT 1 02015Trane PAGE 47 EXHIBIT 4 Madel Nomenclature 4 T W R 4 0 3 6 D 1 0 Outdoor Units a e } 4 i 2=R 22 j FAIDA TRANE PNda6TYea W _ sp'.1 ifaat 1 u1 p 1 - $Fuca.+np Product Family 2-Locdor:hp Ter Singe I X i. ',-hip R rlp!ere IRum!i. R 9wiu LION Co easel FAmIIy SEER 4=1a 3=13 6=16 I11 4.14 0=ta 2 12 6 15 9^i0 Split Syetam Connactlana (, a: ed Nominal C9pacily in 0033 of alLe fkaJarnalUn N.oalHcatieoz ""--�' Powe: 5uppb t= 2'JaPJJt u'LU ar 20&-230rtlaD 3 = 20!,23013160 4 = 48013160 Secondary Function fklnoa aealan StaJlnceuam -- Unil parts iaandnar B. 175 -Cat ZWidth G:21.0 21.0' Caterlet Width 0= 24.5' Cahinel Wldih Heeling Input In loop's (BTUH) Boo - 80,000 1 114 Major Design Change 6 7 B f 000! I !i I I Voltage 9 =115 Volts 180 Hertz i Natural Gas A .115 Vols 150 Hertz 1 Natural Gas C=115 Voile f Natural Gas Qh Communicating Syolcm Control F .115 Volts, Naloml Gas with Integrated kiedrdnic 14ter D -115 Vairs I Nal,eal Gas Wlh Cn..mmunisating Sysll!m Control and Inlograted Eloctiordc filer At, Crcl for Cooling—�--N hEO Uon - -. 24a.�2Tot W-3Tm H3=3Ton4� 42.35Tons Vs=5Tons HS. STons 45 .4lorn4 48 4Tons 54. STons 80.5 Tans 72 6Tons TWI Inducer Spends 1 - Single Speed 2 = lY,n Speed V . Variah'o Spcid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 1011121 Air Handler G A M 5I a o d 3 6 Mk3 k1 Wand T . Behar ( 1 G - Goad Product TYPO A • r1r Hanolet 1 ConvoHaHlthy M.I ""2. M1•wny I I , F . Upgaa From Ruhl-, 3 way ! T • 3•way � I Product Tia! 2- d Entry kr-rel EsatLra Sal 4. Boost, Rela3 Replaeemont LRA Ellyj 5 . Botior, Entryy Lovas High EHyy„ 14altlSpoad I 7 =Boat. now Rd 'Econfll Ithlh [try.. Variable SWI i 8 = Bast, Roles Un,me o High EHy. . Va laieo Spetio Major Design Change _. i No Dowedplot 1 0 =Air Handler t Coll Silo tFooiprint) - -- -- A.1 Sx 1fr B . 21.0 x 21.5 y C=235921.5 r Conlin p Size: air Hwndiaror Coil------- -• 0.9 . AH Coll - tong BTtte fill 24, 30, 36. 42, 48, 601 Ald(owTYPe 6 0611bIllly --.. __ — S.1 SC, 1.5 Horn Tunnepu (clnmon) M. Mrd EHr Multi Spaod, 15 nom 7or4�aga (clMron? H . Hin, kty Mo'a pond. i 5 -para To"" Ri op0 mlon? V = High EllyVadal'n. 1.5 peer, Tonnogo (et'A I Powor SI ly.____.. I �20n2�'V60 System CW,017yr S>£londnrd 241AC C CIJI 13 8 VDC Unit Pana Idoollliol Heat Pump/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 £ Cooling Coils 4 T X C B 0 3 8 il fI-f�4i ( RofAgernni Typo 4. R410y Settee I <Ptali A Mart Vomyt bo1.Ya144 CP*"} C= S1nsd,uo fr4'<*=esti) Coil LMa gn X - Duacr Expanslen Empoclor Col Can Fast' w C . Cased A Coll I A> Unposed A Coil F - Cased Horizontal Plait Coil CUII Wldih (Ci seollUncesed) A - 14.5'!13.3' Bc 17.5'!16.3' G.2ik'l798' D 24.5" 123 3' N .70.5" Refrlgoront Lina Coupling 0 - Brazed Nominal Capacity In 1000'a (BTUH) Major Design Change Eflltiency C . Standard S- Hi Ef idli (derived from 10 SEER peoducls) Retfteront Control.—..-.---------____ _..__._..__. 3. TV - Non•BWod Alrtlow Cunfiyyurallon A. Up40w 0niy U . Upllow 7 Downnow H - Honzonial Gniv C. Game+IiWo - p0ow. Dowpo—, Leh or RighLNrllcw Minor Deelgn Change Service Digo-Not Orderohte ......__...__ ...__ Minor Design Change i 3 EXHIBIT 1 22-1765-10 PAGE 48 1 2 3 4 4 Gas Furnaces T U D ) Furnace contigumilun TU06.10 nal :i TD . DnNnllaa/Hndznmal E 80% Intluced Draft Standard D = 80% Inducetl Draft Pmmlam C = 90% Condansln0 Standard X = W, Condensing Pramium H = 95% Condensing Premium Numt!orot Howling Stages ---- 1 =Single Singe 2 _ Two Slane M. Mod,9atwg B. 175 -Cat ZWidth G:21.0 21.0' Caterlet Width 0= 24.5' Cahinel Wldih Heeling Input In loop's (BTUH) Boo - 80,000 1 114 Major Design Change 6 7 B f 000! I !i I I Voltage 9 =115 Volts 180 Hertz i Natural Gas A .115 Vols 150 Hertz 1 Natural Gas C=115 Voile f Natural Gas Qh Communicating Syolcm Control F .115 Volts, Naloml Gas with Integrated kiedrdnic 14ter D -115 Vairs I Nal,eal Gas Wlh Cn..mmunisating Sysll!m Control and Inlograted Eloctiordc filer At, Crcl for Cooling—�--N hEO Uon - -. 24a.�2Tot W-3Tm H3=3Ton4� 42.35Tons Vs=5Tons HS. STons 45 .4lorn4 48 4Tons 54. STons 80.5 Tans 72 6Tons TWI Inducer Spends 1 - Single Speed 2 = lY,n Speed V . Variah'o Spcid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 1011121 Air Handler G A M 5I a o d 3 6 Mk3 k1 Wand T . Behar ( 1 G - Goad Product TYPO A • r1r Hanolet 1 ConvoHaHlthy M.I ""2. M1•wny I I , F . Upgaa From Ruhl-, 3 way ! T • 3•way � I Product Tia! 2- d Entry kr-rel EsatLra Sal 4. Boost, Rela3 Replaeemont LRA Ellyj 5 . Botior, Entryy Lovas High EHyy„ 14altlSpoad I 7 =Boat. now Rd 'Econfll Ithlh [try.. Variable SWI i 8 = Bast, Roles Un,me o High EHy. . Va laieo Spetio Major Design Change _. i No Dowedplot 1 0 =Air Handler t Coll Silo tFooiprint) - -- -- A.1 Sx 1fr B . 21.0 x 21.5 y C=235921.5 r Conlin p Size: air Hwndiaror Coil------- -• 0.9 . AH Coll - tong BTtte fill 24, 30, 36. 42, 48, 601 Ald(owTYPe 6 0611bIllly --.. __ — S.1 SC, 1.5 Horn Tunnepu (clnmon) M. Mrd EHr Multi Spaod, 15 nom 7or4�aga (clMron? H . Hin, kty Mo'a pond. i 5 -para To"" Ri op0 mlon? V = High EllyVadal'n. 1.5 peer, Tonnogo (et'A I Powor SI ly.____.. I �20n2�'V60 System CW,017yr S>£londnrd 241AC C CIJI 13 8 VDC Unit Pana Idoollliol Heat Pump/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 £ Cooling Coils 4 T X C B 0 3 8 il fI-f�4i ( RofAgernni Typo 4. R410y Settee I <Ptali A Mart Vomyt bo1.Ya144 CP*"} C= S1nsd,uo fr4'<*=esti) Coil LMa gn X - Duacr Expanslen Empoclor Col Can Fast' w C . Cased A Coll I A> Unposed A Coil F - Cased Horizontal Plait Coil CUII Wldih (Ci seollUncesed) A - 14.5'!13.3' Bc 17.5'!16.3' G.2ik'l798' D 24.5" 123 3' N .70.5" Refrlgoront Lina Coupling 0 - Brazed Nominal Capacity In 1000'a (BTUH) Major Design Change Eflltiency C . Standard S- Hi Ef idli (derived from 10 SEER peoducls) Retfteront Control.—..-.---------____ _..__._..__. 3. TV - Non•BWod Alrtlow Cunfiyyurallon A. Up40w 0niy U . Upllow 7 Downnow H - Honzonial Gniv C. Game+IiWo - p0ow. Dowpo—, Leh or RighLNrllcw Minor Deelgn Change Service Digo-Not Orderohte ......__...__ ...__ Minor Design Change i 3 EXHIBIT 1 22-1765-10 PAGE 48 EXHIBIT 4 General Data Product Specifications Model No, 0 4TWR401 8D1 000A 4TWR4024E1000B 4TWR403OD1000A 4TWR4036D1000A Electrical DataV/Ph/Hz ® 208(230/1/60 208/2'/1160 208/230/1160 208122211/60 Min Cir Ampacity 9 25 25 35 Max Fuse Size {Amps) 15 CLIMATUFF® _ CLIMATUFF®-SCROLL CLIMATUFF® _ CLIMATUFFe- SCROLL Compressors RL AMPS - LR AMPS 6.4-38.6 10.9-62.9 11.3-68.2 16.7-79 0.95 Outdoor Fan FL Amps 0.77 0.64 1/8 0.93 1/5 115 Fan HP 1/8 24 24 22 22 Fan Dia (inches) Spine Fin"m _ .- Spine Fin"m Spine FinTm Spine FinTM Coil RefrigerantR-410A 5/14-LB/OZ 7105 810234 6(23B4OZ Line Size - (in.) O.D. Gas O 518 3/4 314 3/8 318 318 Line Size - (in.) O.D. Liquid O Dimensions H x W x D (Crated) 318 34 x 30.1 x 33 38 x 200.11 x 33 38.4 x 35.1 x 38.7 -- 38.4 x 35.1 x 38.7 Weight - Shipping 204 TAYREFLN950 TAYSVPANL3343A 273 239 229 198 W ' ht -Net 176 174 69 65 e1ki Start Components YES NO YES YES NO NO Sound Enclosure NO NO NO NO NO Compressor Sum Heat NO 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz Optional Accessories: O Anil -short TAYASCT501A TAYASCT501A TAYASCT501A TAYASCT501A Evaporator Defrost Control AIC AY28XO84 AY28XO94 AY28XO84 AY28XO84 Rubber Isolator Kit gBAYIS T101 BAYCC T300A BAYCCHT300A BAYCC T302A Crankcase Heater 68 67 BAYKSKT263 — BAYKSKT263 Hard Start Kit Scroll Extreme Condition Mounting Kit BAYECMT023 BAYECMT023 BAYEGMT004 BAYECMT004 Snow Leg - Base & Cap 4" High BAYLEGS002 BAYLEGS002 BAYLEGS003 BAYLEGS002 BAYLEGS003 BAYLEGS002 BAYBAYLENS003 Snow Leg - 4° Extension BAYLEGS003 BAYSDEN001 BAYSDEN001 76 83 Sound Enclosure Seacoast Kit BAYSEAC001 BAYSEAC001 BAYSEAC001 BAYSEAC001 Refrigerant Lineset ® TAYREFLN950 TAYREFLN950 TAYSVPANL3343A TAYREFLN7' TAYSVPANL3343A TAYREFLN7` TAYSVPANL3343A Service Valve Cover TAYSVPANL0032A 70 69 65 O Certified in accordance with the Nr -Source Unitary Heat Pump Equipment certification program which is based on AHRI Standard 2101240, O Calculated in accordance with NEC, Only use HACK circuit breakers or fuses. O Standard line lengths - 69. Standard lift - 60' Suction and Liquid lino. For Greater lengths and Ides rater to refrigerant piping sollware Pubo 32-3312-0t. (1denotes latest revision) O For accessory dewlptim and usage, soe page 5, O " -15, 20, 25, 30, 40 and 50 toot Lineset avallable. 12m-1 Power Level Note: Rated in accordance with AHRI Standard 270-2008 22-14MIBIT 1 4 PAGE 49 A -Weighted Full Octave Sound Power [dB] Model Sound Power Level [dB(A)] 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz 6000 Hz 4TWR4018D 76 73 75 70 74 72 69 67 60 60 53 50 47 4TWR4018D 71 77 72 71 68 67 68 69 67 63 59 55 4TWR4030D 76 75 84 75 70 72 67 62 57 50 4TWR4036D 76 83 7468 71 68 63 59 55 4TWR4042D 76 83 72 6 7 70 69 65 59 56 4TWR4048D 76 77 75 72 70 67 62 59 52 4TWR4060E 72 Note: Rated in accordance with AHRI Standard 270-2008 22-14MIBIT 1 4 PAGE 49 EXHIBIT 4 General Data Product Specifications Model No. (D 4TWR4042D1000A 4TWR4048DIDDOA 4TWR4060E10008 Electrical DataV/Ph/Hz ® 208/230/1/60 208/23011/60 208/230/1/60 Min Cir Ampacity 26 28 32 Max Fuse Size (Amps) 45 50 50 Compressors CLIMATUFF°- SCROLL CLIMATUFF°- SCROLL CLIMATUFFa-SCROLL RL AMPS - LR AMPS 19.9-109 21.8-117 23.7.152.5 Outdoor Fan FL Amps 0.86 0.86 2.60 Fan HP 1/5 1/5 1/3 Fan Dia (inches)._._ 22 24.71 29.15 Coil Spine Fin TM Spine Fin TM Spine Fin"m Refrigerant R-41 OA 718-LB/OZ 8/8-LB/OZ 10/09-LB/OZ Line Size - (in.) O.D. Gas O 3/4 7/8 1-1/8 Line Size - (in.) O.D. Liquid O 3/8 3/8 3/8 Dimensions H x W x D (Crated) 38.4 x 35.1 x 38.7 42.4 x 35.1 x 38.7 51 x 35.1 x 38.7 Weight - Shipping 253 269 332 Weight - Net219 _..___... Refrigerant Lineset © 234 295 Start Components NO NO NO Sound Enclosure NO NO NO Compressor Sump Heat NO _ NO YES Optional Accessories: Anti -short Cycle Timer TAYASCT501A TAYASCT501A TAYASCT501A Evaporator Defrost Control AIC AY28XO84 AY28XO84 AY28XO84 Rubber Isolator Kit BAYISLT101 BAYISLT101 BAYISLT101 Crankcase Heater BAYCCHT301A BAYCCHT301A — Hard Start Kit Scroll BAYKSKT263 BAYKSKT263 BAYKSKT263 Extreme Condition Mounting Kit BAYECMT004 BAYECMT004 BAYECMT004 Snow Leg - Base & Cap 4" High BAYLEGS002 BAYLEGS002 BAYLEGS002 Snow Leg - 4" Extension BAYLEGS003 BAYLEGS003 BAYLEGS003 Sound Enclosure BAYSDEN004 BAYSDEN004 BAYSDEN004 Seacoast Kit BAYSEAC001 BAYSEAC001 BAYSEAC001 Refrigerant Lineset © TAYREFLN7` TAYREFLN3' TAYREFLN3' Service Valve Cover TAYSVPANL3343A TAYSVPANLOO44A TAYSVPANL0046A G Cerfified in accordance with the Air -Source Unitary Heat Pump Equipment certification program which is based on AHRI Standard 2101240 Q Calculated in accordance with N.E.C.Only use HACR circuit breakers or ruses. OO standard line lengths -69, Standard fill • 60' Suclion and Liquid line. For Greater Ienglhallifts refer to reldgerant piping software Pub# 32.3312-01 (D For accessory description and Osage, seepage 5. O ' = 25, 30,40 and 50 fact lineset available. Accessory Description and Usage Anti -Short CycleTimer — Solid state timing device that prevents compressor recycling until 5 minutes have elapsed after satisfying call or power interruptions. Use in area with questionable power delivery, commercial applications, long lineset, etc. Evaporator Defrost Control — SPST Temperature actuated switch that cycles the condenser off as indoor coil reaches freeze-up conditions. Used for low ambient cooling to 30°F with TXV. Rubber Isolators — 5 large rubber donuts to isolate condensing unit from transmitting energy Into mounting frame or pad. Use on any application where sound transmission needs to be minimized. Hard Start kit — Start capacitor and relay to assist compressor motor startup. Use in areas with marginal power supply, on long linesets, low ambient conditions, etc. Extreme Condition Mount Kit — Bracket kits to securely mount condensing unit to a frame or pad without removing any panels. Use in areas with high winds, or on commercial roof tops, etc. 22-1765-10 C � U5 urs Intertek AHRI Standard Capacity Rating Conditions AHRI STANDARD 2101240 RATING CONDITIONS — (A) Cooling 80 IF DB, 67°F WB air entering indoor coil, 95°F DS air entering outdoor coil. AHRI STANDARD 270 RATING CONDITIONS — (Noise rating num- bers are determined with the unit in cooling operation.) Standard Noise Rating number is at 95°F outdoor air. EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 50 rte° EXHIBIT 4 Electrical Data Schematic Diagrams 4TWR4018D TO FORER SUPPLY PER UNIT NAMEPLATE AND LOCAL CODES CS MS I CSR•I CSR --)D AD 04) CAPACITOR °R -- 1' C FAN �BAMX ff C N oA�wt .Cr MTR) A CPA r �yl PURPLE RD+O BLACK BNtBI++ - - - -% CA COOLING ANTICIPATOR A CAUTION CRS COIL BOTTOM SENSOR HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE] CF FAN CAPACITOR CXDIRE CONNECTOR DESIGNED CPR COMPRESSOR INCEUDNNGTRENI DISCONNETRIC CTS [R NNN CAPACITOR MS -2 m CS 311911X6 CAPACITOR CSA CAPACITOR SWITCHING RELAY CONDUCTORS, DEFROST CONTROL FAILURE 10 DISCONNECT POWER F INDOOR CAN RELAY H1 HIGHIHG ANTICIPATOR HA DAMAGE TO THE EQUIPMENT! XPCO NIGH PAESSUAF CUTOUT 311. SEVERE PERSONAE INJURE OR DEATHI IOL INTERNAL OVERLOAD PROTECTOR TEC FFC. — — LEEp D CBS 6A�q Wi �B F T 5C •0l �DA---b--OA--0 � T MS NPCO /y8 -TL 7Ap-tr-I�-O--Yt LAD _l F ODT-B 10PIIOMALI —ez IAF -$AT — g nA-- OOT-A _ mPTIONAO NI RN RN--«�ODS-B - 1 1191HANDLt. I�+THERMOSTAT - - - CONTROLL$ LPCO LOM PRESSURE CUTOUT S/, NS COMPRESSOR MOTOR CONTACTOR BOA OUTDOOR ANTICIPATOR OFT OUTDOOR FAM THERMOSTAT 005 OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE SENSOR DOTOUTDOOR 1HEAWOSTAT RHS NES ISTANCE NEAT SWI TCN SC SWITCHOVER VALVE SOLENOID SN SYSTEM'ON-OFF• SWITCH TOL DISCHARGE LIME THEPNOS?AT TNS TRANSFORMER IS HEATING -CODLING THERMOSTAT TSH HEATING THERMOSTAT ' COLOR OF WIRE A /K BL BLACN WIRE WITH BLUE MARKER t- COLOR OP MARKER OKBLACK OR ORANGE YL YELLOW BL BLUE RD RED GR GREEN OR BROWN MH WHITE PR PURPLE NOTES: I. IF ODT-B IS NOT USED, ADD JUMPER BETWEEN 12 A W) AT AIR HANDLER, IF USED, ODT-B MUST BE MOUNTED REMOTE OF CONTROL BOY IN AN APPROVED WEATHER PROOF ENCLOSURE. 2. 11 IDT -1 IS NOT USED, ADD JUMPER BETWEER M! N 12 AT AIR HANDLER. S- LOW VOLTAGE (2A V.) FIELD WIRING MUST BE 10 AWG WIN, ff — 1-1 FOR CANADIAN INSTALLATIONS nL—QB ---_t ---- a I. POUR INSTALLATIONS CANADIENN[S rns Z1v `-O 1T ION: NOT SUITABLE FOR USE ON SYSTEMS EXCEEDING ISOV-TO-GROUND. AD----C>a----�-----Q---Y •'�UN I gqT��pT��E��pp: NE CONV IENT PAS AUX TO POWER SUPPLY(. INFLATIONS DE PLUS DE 150 V A PER LOCAL CODES 'T�. , , , J ,_, , . __ , . J �ILA TERRE . Printed from D157099POl 22-19MIBIT 1 PAGE 51 6 WARNING A CAUTION �I HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE] USE COPPER CONDUCTORS ONLY! ALL DESIGNED INCEUDNNGTRENI DISCONNETRIC CTS TO ACCEPTINALS OTHERATYPESTO ' BEFORE SERVICING. CONDUCTORS, FAILURE 10 DISCONNECT POWER FAILURE TO DO SG MAY CAUSE BEFORE SERVICING CAN CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE EQUIPMENT! SEVERE PERSONAE INJURE OR DEATHI — NOTES: I. IF ODT-B IS NOT USED, ADD JUMPER BETWEEN 12 A W) AT AIR HANDLER, IF USED, ODT-B MUST BE MOUNTED REMOTE OF CONTROL BOY IN AN APPROVED WEATHER PROOF ENCLOSURE. 2. 11 IDT -1 IS NOT USED, ADD JUMPER BETWEER M! N 12 AT AIR HANDLER. S- LOW VOLTAGE (2A V.) FIELD WIRING MUST BE 10 AWG WIN, ff — 1-1 FOR CANADIAN INSTALLATIONS nL—QB ---_t ---- a I. POUR INSTALLATIONS CANADIENN[S rns Z1v `-O 1T ION: NOT SUITABLE FOR USE ON SYSTEMS EXCEEDING ISOV-TO-GROUND. AD----C>a----�-----Q---Y •'�UN I gqT��pT��E��pp: NE CONV IENT PAS AUX TO POWER SUPPLY(. INFLATIONS DE PLUS DE 150 V A PER LOCAL CODES 'T�. , , , J ,_, , . __ , . J �ILA TERRE . Printed from D157099POl 22-19MIBIT 1 PAGE 51 U CAPACIiOA _11 O6 ¢ .(,' 'I t'A�SR ltAL E WIT Y.Y[RATG W LOCAL MET POINTED FAOlI D158595P02 AEYA 22-1755.10 7 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 52 N701 a LEGEND J D 1 LIN, m urKlta ----- raw INCTALL,O FACTORY VIRIN lKKltn n n r rtur �! "MET)C 0011 wFlm tmin NWNo U. 1CU.UYit W run �� rnu! K • JYACTIgI -jj- WACIlOA rM nfl ¢tnl ann n:Ttt r�In[ f./YFW xUtttr a VIAE NOF ON ' 4 T[d11AAt v tnlrnf Cfrw. wlta axtnrgr qtr MKMr �'�.�J mm FLOWN Ful, a! Noe �v yr�nflt•Wi. � IfbINAI YLIKUGatu bt1¢tt [rwtlf rttUIUraUW �f ACLAY COME 1N.01 IFa rrU � ALIAI COYTACI IY.CI xKunt lett raxxU. .I I I IU pr• Yt TNEW In. i A TW ACIVFTED NVITCN I Us r1x <urtlU tNgm WAt ,ss4a in Er"t, 1.111m, OYEIROM rgit Cr'. BN/BL n r rm FRENWE ACTUATE- WITCH ` nitt¢ • m1a y N[11ri[11 611 HEA IN EIFYCXF VINOIN rpWT�q 1 AN 9L C¢CNl'➢J 1ppY11l1[LIiyMM11HAltEI)"'lIM ® IFEYALI iEAYIIibAAA`W71M I A, LI Was: ( CDP 11 I. 0E 1W[ rORA IMIMI AN![4 VIV 1-11-T —"'a i. 1pEA VINiM NO iAW61N OF [OOIMtNI YUI tOrLl VI1N LOCA, Cwt. F c I.,xr n .. T6 it q. .1 ANN YI.— CpCJ I& A O0T-6 WIT M xl lm 1NA dT -A £f...T tfIMFDNi NL ON Ot ' ;6orA anqu�" xAtFftws Y¢ITMEI � i EYDK l r1m�r 1 . Im•1 minr. hlirrr i. 11Uxx¢I r..., � I � I r 1 � r" -_"'—A --i""""` f.l.l. rurltirY ax anx xUx nr.ux IU.rr rr Y.ffl. I • .. ," o iammr mn mu w w.ir+�. juRif- D ('\ .....,.....— .- rnn. �1f1llAt�!.¢!E Yl�.yl — — E 1 iunN: NO, urt.elt 10 ra "1 rr ON 11CUllr ix<•2i.a nlrtq nrtnla,rt turrtn fAl+r[ 4 Y --•-------fl^7—Fa uuw°e rY tt riff fa Ilr r A-6M- Y2Q U CAPACIiOA _11 O6 ¢ .(,' 'I t'A�SR ltAL E WIT Y.Y[RATG W LOCAL MET POINTED FAOlI D158595P02 AEYA 22-1755.10 7 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 52 Electrical Data Schematic Diagrams 4TWR4030D 10 POWER SUPPLY PER UNIT NAMEPLATE AND LOCAL CODES 1 . . .AT ' ' 1 CA COOLING ANTICIPATOR CFS CALL BOTTOM SENSOR LPCO LOM PRESSURE CUTOUT SW. MS COMPR CONTACTOR 1 CF AN CAPACITOR CN WIRE CONNECTOR CCN COMPgE550R ANTICIPATOR ODA OUTDOOR ANTICIPATOR ODE GLI'm FAN ER TUR5TAT 0U3 W7DOOR 1[MPEAATUA[ SENSOR m f 94 CS m MS - I __ CSR_ I CSR IVIS -2 m 1�1t w.r FA!@! AO �+'7(' BP•b- j T 1 OR • ..! C '!A {TO E S "" `" " — '� L7 D BAOfN q OR L AAfOt CR RUN CAPACITOR CS STARTING CAPACITOR CSR CAPACITOR 5117CHIO RELAY OF[ DCfROSi CONIROI F INDOOR FAN RELAY HA HEATING ANTICIPATOR HPCO HIPRESSURE CUTOUT SN. IOL INTERNAL OVERLORD PROTECTOR ODI OUTDOOR THERMOSTAT RHS RESISTANCE HEAT SNITCH SC SNITCHOVER YALYE SOLENOID SN SYSTEM'ON•OTf' SNITCX TML On CHARGE UNE THERMOSTAT TNS 7RANSfORNCR TS HEATING•COOLI NO THERMOSTAT ISH HEATING IHEPMOSTAI �• rAN C t! p CPR IOC MT itpURPIE Lf ODT-A IOPTIONALI I B'TO AE SERVICING CAN CAUSE W ` 'W RD�•O�""'� _� AT DFC L n �_v� rt CBSGR K.C. COM YL @M �- �,,,�__ ODS BIT � Bl S-0�%!'�'—'OR---O•^OA-46Y I— AL AIR!NANULE '� I FHCRNOSTAT NAZARDDUS YOLTAOE! 1 MS HPCO UNIT TERMINALS ARE NOT DE51ONED INCLUDING REMOTE DISCONNECTS TO ACCEPT OTHER TYPES OF +I ODT•n (OF1i0NA11 - Ix OfEi T _ "`�—_"'LJ�` CONI RbtRSI I ,C� Lf ODT-A IOPTIONALI I B'TO AE SERVICING CAN CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE EWIPMENTI _� COLOR OF WIRE BR/9L BLACK WIRE WITH BLUE MARKER COLOR OF MARKER BN BLACK OR ORANGE YL YELLOW BL BLUE RD RED 0R GREEN BR BROWN WH WHITE PA PUAPLE Z6 WARNING A CAUTION NAZARDDUS YOLTAOE! USE COPPER CONDUCTORS ONLTI DISCONNECT ALL ELECTRIC POWER UNIT TERMINALS ARE NOT DE51ONED INCLUDING REMOTE DISCONNECTS TO ACCEPT OTHER TYPES OF BEFORE SERVICING. CONDUCTORS. FAILURE TO DISCONNECT POWER FAILURE TO DO SO NAY CAUSE B'TO AE SERVICING CAN CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE EWIPMENTI SEVERE PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH! NOTES: I. IF ODT-B IS N.1 USED, ADD JUMPER BETWEEN 12 R WS AT AIR HANDLER. IF USED, ODT-B MUST BE MOUNTED REMOTE OF CONTROL BON IN AN APPROVED WEATHER PROOF ENCLOSURE. 2, IF ODT-A IS MOT USED, ADD JUMPER BETWEEN RI S 02 AT AIR HANDLER J. LOW VOLTAGE 124 V.) FIELD WIRING MUST BE IB ANG MIN. FOR CANADIAN INSTALLATIONS -----� ----F POUR INSTALLATIONS CANADIEN_NES -- TNS 24 VII I^ -0 C.h.ILT..IO :: NOT SUITABLE FOR USE DNND. SYSTEMS EXCEEDING 150V-TO-GR OU IAITENTIO : NE CONVIENT PAS AUX 10 OVER sUPPLT�� - INSTALLATIONS DE PLUS DE 150 V A PfR LOCAL CWEs T0, " _ .. —J ,_ .. _ .. J Ln 7ERRE. Printed from D157099POI B 22_1IBIT 1 PAGE 53 Electrical Data Schematic Diagrams 4TWR4036D TO POTTER SUPPLY PER UNIT NAMEPLATE AND LOCAL CODES � ......J I. J �.....� SEE 3[AVICE EAC ii FOR OPTIONAL CBS C01L BOTTOM SENSOR SIAAi 411 ACCESSORY —11 .o N.S•1 � C^'S`"� C'S R-1 C. S� NS'2W �..T %%��+AD �5-?I-b'UA�!•f'FJ'P�OKIBE�% ODA OUTDOON ANTICIPATOR OFT WTDOOR FAN THER MOSTAI ODS "EDWIN"ME,..ATURE SENSOR ODT OU7000R THERMOSTAT \ �AN l CAPACITOR ANS RESISIAMCC NE AI SNITCH CSR fAPACi TO SNITCHING RELAY DEC ACCONT AGE `N�` bKIDL. OR .0CPR OM F INDOOR FAN RELAY HAHEATING ANTICIPATOR .C" r " MTR •.A_ AROWK .'p - . • TS HE ATI NG -COOLING YNIRWESTAT R Nb-�-r2^^^ ...� ...� TSN HEATING THERMOSTAT C UAPIE L R DRI BI BLAfK F-DrC. LCD ...e..... A2 )t �} CBS AT OR NS N.C. CCa KIL.�-IflNL.M NA �4TNI c CA COOLING ANTICIPATOR LPCO LOW PRESSURE CUTOUT SIT CBS C01L BOTTOM SENSOR NS COMPRESSOR MOTOR CONIACTOA CrFAM CAPACITOR CN WI MECONNECTOR ODA OUTDOON ANTICIPATOR OFT WTDOOR FAN THER MOSTAI CPR COMPAESSOA CM RUM CAPACITOR ODS "EDWIN"ME,..ATURE SENSOR ODT OU7000R THERMOSTAT CS STARTING CAPACITOR ANS RESISIAMCC NE AI SNITCH CSR fAPACi TO SNITCHING RELAY DEC ACCONT AGE SC SNI iCNOY[M VALYL SOlCM01D SY SYSTEY 'OM•OFf' SNI ICN F INDOOR FAN RELAY HAHEATING ANTICIPATOR TOL DISCHARGE LINE THERYOSTAI TXS iRAW5f0AYER HPCO RIGH PRESSURE CUTOUT SW. TS HE ATI NG -COOLING YNIRWESTAT IOL INTERNAL OVERLOAD PROTECTOR TSN HEATING THERMOSTAT w 5COY J TTAICAi COLOR OF WIRE aYat--aj,o--•GM--LS-oA o Q -tel AIR NAn0. I THERNOSTA'T 0 JBL BLACK WIRE WITH BLUE MARKER MS --��0�--------=-�-COLOR OF MARKER - BLACK OR ORANGE YL YELLOW BL BLUE fl0 PEO GR GREEN o I BA BROWN WH WHITE PR PURPLE NPCO 8 LPCD O.Roi II -® NOTES Ili CS ( - (� r ODi-B TP [M01OT E- I {' - n I' -I .p•-t'�p-_%._..BA1 0014 (OPTIONALI 8E-.-0I-----I --- B L-0 r _ TO POWER S."LlPER LOCAL CODES NOTCS: I. IF OD"'IS NOF USED. ADO JUMPER BEIWCEN W2 1 WS Al AIR HANDLER. IE USED, ODI,B NUS1 BE MOUNTEO REMOTE OF CONIAOI 00, IN AM APPROVED ttATHER PROOF ENCLOSURE. F. IF ODI -A 11 MOT USED, ADD JUMPER 1'IWEEM NI S 11 AT AIA HANDLER S. LOW VOLTAGE Ili V.1 I"TG WIRING MUST BE IB AWG MIN, FOR CANADIAN INSTALLATIONS POUR INSTALLATIONS CANAOIENNES.__ S ON: PE01 SUITABLE [OR USE ON 5YS MS EXCEEDING 15OV-TO-GROUND. nTTj�lj.T l_ N: NE CONVI ENT PAS AUX 1 N$T AELA YY IONS DE PLUS DE 150 V A LA ifTtR6. Printed From D157061 P02 22-1765-10 9 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 54 Q VA""*© CAUTION HA7AWOpUS VOL INSET USE COPPER CONDUCTORS ONE" DISCONNECT ALL ELECTRIC POWER UNIT TERMINAL$ ARE H07 DESIGNED INCLUDING REMOTE DISCOMMEC15 TO ACCEPT OTHER TYPES OF BEFORE SENYICIX6. CONDUCTORS. FAILURE TO DISCONNECT POWER FAILURE TO DO SO NAY CAUSE BEFORE SERVICING CAM CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE EOUIPMENEI SEVERE PE050MAL INJURE OR OEATHI _ w 5COY J TTAICAi COLOR OF WIRE aYat--aj,o--•GM--LS-oA o Q -tel AIR NAn0. I THERNOSTA'T 0 JBL BLACK WIRE WITH BLUE MARKER MS --��0�--------=-�-COLOR OF MARKER - BLACK OR ORANGE YL YELLOW BL BLUE fl0 PEO GR GREEN o I BA BROWN WH WHITE PR PURPLE NPCO 8 LPCD O.Roi II -® NOTES Ili CS ( - (� r ODi-B TP [M01OT E- I {' - n I' -I .p•-t'�p-_%._..BA1 0014 (OPTIONALI 8E-.-0I-----I --- B L-0 r _ TO POWER S."LlPER LOCAL CODES NOTCS: I. IF OD"'IS NOF USED. ADO JUMPER BEIWCEN W2 1 WS Al AIR HANDLER. IE USED, ODI,B NUS1 BE MOUNTEO REMOTE OF CONIAOI 00, IN AM APPROVED ttATHER PROOF ENCLOSURE. F. IF ODI -A 11 MOT USED, ADD JUMPER 1'IWEEM NI S 11 AT AIA HANDLER S. LOW VOLTAGE Ili V.1 I"TG WIRING MUST BE IB AWG MIN, FOR CANADIAN INSTALLATIONS POUR INSTALLATIONS CANAOIENNES.__ S ON: PE01 SUITABLE [OR USE ON 5YS MS EXCEEDING 15OV-TO-GROUND. nTTj�lj.T l_ N: NE CONVI ENT PAS AUX 1 N$T AELA YY IONS DE PLUS DE 150 V A LA ifTtR6. Printed From D157061 P02 22-1765-10 9 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 54 TRANE. EXHIBIT 4 Electrical Data Schematic Diagrams (SEE LEGEND) 4TWR4042D TO POWER SUPPLY PER UNIT NAMEPLATE AND LOCAL CODES SEE SERVICE FACTS EEA OF 111___111111 START All ACCESSORY J R] MS MS-2 lM�S i `^^ CSR 1 CSR ' rAN \ CAPACITOR °A (,,0,.',,w,,`a CFH IDL BA,SL .�` MTR /_ _l -..._. ...v._ .. \M BROWN -to— ACA fl0 O �DKPLE �j B910E BL F.1 DFC /L-E�O N IL CDS MUNI AJ N.C. LUN ?T Yl NI LYTTT'J FF— eA 7, _----rhib— - b -11"'T CACOOLING ANTICIPATOR LPCO LOW PRESSURE CUTOUT SW. CSS COIL BOTTOM 5E115011 CE rAN CAPACITOR MS COMPRESSOR MOTOR CONTACTOR ODA OUTDOOR ANTICIPATOR CN WINECONNECTOR LPA COMPRESSOR OFT 01300011 FAN THERMOSTAT ODS OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE SEMSOA CR RUN CAPACITOR CS STARTING CAPACITOR OCT OUTDOOR THERMOSTAT PNS RESISTANCE NEAT SNITCH CSR CAPACITOR SNI ICBIMG RELAY DPC DEFRO51 CONTROL SC SWI CHOVER VALVE SOLENOID SYSTEM 'ON 'DIF' SWITCH 51"'IC F INDOOR FAN RELAY IDL 015CRARGE LINE HA HEATING ANTICIPATOA °PCO HIGH 1/111111 CUTOUT SN. IRS TRAXSfORMER IS HEATINO-COOLING THERMOSTAT IOL INTERNAL OVERLOAD PROTECTOR ISR HEATIMO THERM03TAT Q MRN INS _ Q CAUTION HAIARDOUS VOL7AGE1 USE COPPER CONDUCTORS ONLYt DISCONNECT ALL ELECTRIC POWER URIT TERMINALS ARE NOT DESIOMEO INCLUDING REMOTE DISCONNECTS /0 ACCEPT OTHER TYPES OF BEFORE SEDYICING. CONDUCTORS, FAILURE 10 DISCONNECT POWER FAILURE 70 DO SO MY CAUSE BEFORESERVICING CAN CAUSE DAMAGE 10 THE EOUIPMENTI SEVER, PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATHI S-o�DA—b DA �a� -- ! THERMOSTATS A�RICAIDtta� -- o-__�--=-o _) 4 r° -i G----- --t -o = HPCO = $ LPCO — ---- T'tiEAtCR T 1�—towtaatsl Notts IRI F t!°T.g tR[MOTfI iltrr� ODTT--,A. ^ fOPTIONAIM s—OK— COLOR OF WIRE BLACx WIRE WITH BLUE MARKER EKIECOLOR OF MARKER SN BLACK OR ORANGE YL YELLOW BL BLUE AD REO GR GRE EM OR BROWN WH WHITE PR PURPLE NOTES: I. 110°T -B IS MIT 0510, ADD JUMPER BETWEEN 12 1 113 " AIA HANDLER. It USED. 001-6 MUSt BE MOUNTED R(RDI( 0f COAIpOt Sot IM AN APPROVED WEATHER PP.00r [11[10511111 2, If 001-A tS NOT USED. ADO JUMPER BETWEEN 11 A 12 AI AIR HANDLE.. 3. LOW VOLTAGE 12A V., f.uo TIRING most B1 IO AW NIM. FOR CANADIAN INSTALLATIONS POUR INSTALLATIONS CANADIENNES _ 115 7y 22 V• AC U114H: 1111 NE SEE ALI FOR USE ON ad---t5p--–--+..�--�.''U`–��–�-0SiE Hi$OH XC DING CONVND IENT PAS G . AUX TO POWER SUPPLY LA NS LA TRTRE. ELAT IONS DE PLUS DE 150 V A PER LOCAL CODES Printed irom D157061 PD2 10 22-T71!'S-'f9'IBIT 1 PAGE 55 EXHIBIT 4 Electrical Data Schematic Diagrams 4TWR4048D I,CON !,,(I 1`11C+Pil ON LeCo C OF P(1j I; i : CC I M! 1 SP 'is C 11, 0 so, N. W,�O o1c, fou(sn" N ;1N It �,.t o;! 0,0vol. I vs ovf)T�, SIACT 'o C,I"( i 'Of, 'o , 1'[ OS INC I ISill-'r VIYCI COAC�I Jot. C, "CiiiK Kill g 90 ,T IF S( SA TC; � 1i �Sft!tilp SI M 1, lot Tr* 5 ON , 151, C i tln';� CC I 111 '. A I'IEA( iA� AICl FITOR ,M) ill,.,, " M PC Cow! it )Cp's IOi I �', 0'41Ki,C?0 PIOIIUC�, ti W� or , �• , iic ;it[ 171= t Jt CWz I, II If OH OIZ :NCE y N.J7 S OI,: P ! S !jfJT C51 C, ADD lunPC 51 TWE I 'i UX A 15 al Alk I A I'A"': I II usiv, 013] 1d51 6C NC)LU hIPTt (,I OMNI] M'NFP VC0 I FtUc,[�Iq 6C �v U: D T [if P C v - A, A A7 W CAAC-i". 111% Vul I AGI, ( 2 1 1; lIt I A�3� 1 "5 Pi I A 1 0 k C A N A D 1 A,4 lNr I MA ` I I POUR I NS At A S C A N A 1) 1 NA, I S � A I J Qti' N S t4l A 0 1 1 0 1 i ( I" I I I)% I Ill I I AS AL? NS I f19- L Al 10N5 W i -A JLR i I, PRINTED FROM D157059P01 22-1765-1011 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 56 hit It", hN 3- (HED wo 1 L D A Z I h� ' 10 OF " 116 W, IUS1 I sr,C,- PC Cs,l hil") :q ti W� or , �• , iic ;it[ 171= t Jt CWz I, II If OH OIZ :NCE y N.J7 S OI,: P ! S !jfJT C51 C, ADD lunPC 51 TWE I 'i UX A 15 al Alk I A I'A"': I II usiv, 013] 1d51 6C NC)LU hIPTt (,I OMNI] M'NFP VC0 I FtUc,[�Iq 6C �v U: D T [if P C v - A, A A7 W CAAC-i". 111% Vul I AGI, ( 2 1 1; lIt I A�3� 1 "5 Pi I A 1 0 k C A N A D 1 A,4 lNr I MA ` I I POUR I NS At A S C A N A 1) 1 NA, I S � A I J Qti' N S t4l A 0 1 1 0 1 i ( I" I I I)% I Ill I I AS AL? NS I f19- L Al 10N5 W i -A JLR i I, PRINTED FROM D157059P01 22-1765-1011 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 56 EXHIBIT 4 Electrical Data Schematic Diagrams (SEE LEGEND) 4TWR4060E TO PONEA SUPPLY PER UNIT NAMEPLATE AND LOCAL CODES r� �srrrr � 1 r . W SUMP HTR IDL [C BAIND art!-�AUik r�l�/A/1/AM�AlAtxr PO/R[E/Id.rOPYAPlE1MN 1 L .. l m z u Z CS STAWT R(1 MS•PO aHS-1 V I %�� CSft-I CSR IAAYAsxtaJ 1rvA .r6-)FVRwO-1 6T�rC1� — rORIDLr ••• A C D Met CPR FDC of r Cf I'T` CR •^'�^ . NF THEE YAt11 PROTCCITO �.� DLACA ARM tRITRMA, DFC.— LED Az —t a} }-itCBS M.C. ICN L��t 11. Nt ( 444 y} --}-OR Tom_ —`�—}-AA —elODS-0 p p ------OA OA• -C! - - S -1'-IL HEPIGt I ITYPICA — AIR HARDLEA� I' iTHERMOSTATLPCD FIFCO I I =- U --_ ---- 0 - �p_.L.p CDA A .. A •;__ I---.C�1 ... .... :---�—'� 4 JAI," �X17[S DDT-A••i[�UY!'� J f10T-A _ IIOXALI IOP -1 IOP-}.—BA—....N 10 POIIEfl SUPPLY ((��' -11 • 12 CA CODLING ANTICIPATOR LPCO LOW PRESSURE CUTOUT SW. CAS COIL BOTTOM SEN50R MS COMPRESSOR MOTOR CONTACTOR Cr fAN CAPACITOR ODA OUTDOOR ANTICIPATOR CA WIWC CONNECTOR 01, OUTDOOR WAN THE RMOSTAi CPR COMPRESSOR DOS OUTDOOR iEMP[RATURE SENSOR (ARUM CAPACITOR DDT OUTDOOR THERMOSTAT CS STARTING CAPACITOR ANS RESISTANCE NEAT SWITCH CSR "A"CIIOR SNITCHING RELAY SC SJITCHOYCR VALVE SOLENOID DFC DEFROST CONTROL 5M SYSTEM 'Do -OFF, SWITCH F INDOOR WAN RELAT TOL DISCHARGE LIME TNCNMDSTAT HA HiATIMG ANTICIPATOR TNS 1AARSFDAMFR HPCO NIGH PRESSURE CUTUUT SW. " HEATI"!CODHERLIMG THERMOSTAT IOL INTERNAL OVERLOAD PROTECTOR 738 MEATI XO TWEA110510 TOR TIME DELAY RELAY A WARNING m CAUTION HRARDOUS V01TAGEI USE COPPER CONDUCFOA5 ONLY[ DISCONNECT ALL ELECTRIC POWER UNIT TERMINALS ARE MDT DESIGNED I NCLUDIMG DEMOTE DISCONNECTS TO ACCEPT OTHER TYPES OF BEFDAE SERVICING. COADUCTOAS. FAILURE TO OISCOMNECT POWER FAILURE TO DO 50 MAY CAUSE BEFORE SERVICING CAW CAUSE OAMARE TO THE EW IPMEMTI SEVERE PERSONAL IRJUNY OA DEATHI /-'� COLOR OF WIRE BKABL BEACH WIRE WITH BLUE MARKER COLOR OF MARKER AN BLACK OR ORANGE YL YELLOW AL BLUE RD RED08 GREEN BR BROWN IN WHITE PR PURPLE NOTES: 1. if ODT-B IS NOT USED, ADD JUMPER BETWEEN 12 1 W3 AT AIR HANOLER. If USED. ODT•B MUST BE MOUNTED REMOTE Of CONTROL BOR IM AN APPROVED BE PROOF ENCLOSURE. 2, AT OOT NANCLEOT USED. ADD JUMPER BETWEEN WI 1 12 0. LOW VOLTAGE 121 V.1 FICLD WIRING MUST BE IA ARG MIN. FOR CANADIAN INSTALLATIONS POUR INSTALLATIONS CANADIENNES AU- f NOT SUITAOLE WOR GO EXCEEDING EUNND . NECONVIENT PAS SNE�IOS DE PLUS DE 150 V A ILA TERRE. Printed From MS7472P02 1 Tj. ,VtIBIT 1 PAGE 57 EXHIBIT 4 Dimensions 4TWR4 Outline Drawing Note: All dimensions are in MM (inches). 10? Dl SCNAPDt #I(A 1NQDiP e1 "I'll (G Af L[A57 13XI 1} TEETI AMYL UNIT. DN 11 5NDu1D PI Ni#CED 30 AOOf ADN•Olf AAits M..% 401 AOSF PI WI.' ON DAIT. AND S'I'D e[ I LE157 Tal lVI TAG WAIL AAD ALL"'FAA TWO SIDE$ U.0r SINICIto'.IDES. ELECTAICAL ANO NEf A1611ANT COMPONENT CLEAAAN[LS NEA NAEVAILIAG CODES :a t ITieia A rT,r N NC.0 iN 1 x AA. f4t #1 ltdAE [t(C 1£ICAL AImIt 110010 14 415(AY ICF YA1Yl,— iA f(Yll( 8A#7( S#I --(,AS (INI III ILIA eAll SLAVIC! YAt ,ONY(i[10A Nllk III' 1 AA( TA(SSUAI IAA TIf"Na3 I.D. T`NA(T HAA(lD C1M.1110N t+in I!I- SAI MODELS BASE A B c D E .-__ _ F ... D H J K 4TWR4018D 3 4TWR4024E 3 730 (28-3/4) 641 (32-3/4) 829 (32-518) 829 (32-5/8) 756 (29-3/4) _ 756 (29-3/4) 5/8 3/4 3/8 318 127 (5) 127 (5) 76 (3) 76 (3) 197 (7-3/4) )_./ 197 (7.3/4) 57 (2.114) 60 (2.3/8) 508 (20) 508 (20) 4TWR4030D 4 841 (33-1/8) 946 (37-1/4) 870 (34-1/4) 3/4 3/8 152 (6) 98(3-7/8) 219(8-518) 86(3-3/8) 508 (20) 4TWR4036D 4 841 (33-1/8) 946 (37-1/4) 870 (34-1/4) 3/4 3/8 152 (6) 98 (3-718) 219(6-5/8) 86(3-3/8) 508 (20) 4TWR4042D 4 _ . 4T._WR4048D 4 841 (33-1/8) 943 (37118) 946 (37-1/4) 946 (37-1/4) 870 (34-1/4) 670 (34-1/4) 3/4 7/8 3/8 3/8 152 (6) 152 (6) 98(3-7/8) 98(3-7/8) 219(6-5/8) 219(8-5/8) 86 (3-3/6) 86(3-3/8) 508 (20) 508 (20) 4TWR4D60E 4 1147(451/8) 946(37-1/4) 87D(34-1/4) 7/8 3/8 _152 (6) 98(3-7/8) 219(8-5/8) 86(3-3/8) 613 (32) 22-1765.10 13 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 58 0- 7jVWE11 Rane www.Imnexon? EXHIBIT 4 Mechanical Specification Captions General The 4TWR4 is fully charged from the factory for up to 15 feet of piping. This unit is designed to operate at outdoor ambient temperatures as high as 115 OF. Cooling capacities are matched with a wide selection of air handlers and furnace coils that are AHRI certified. The unit is certified to UL 1995. Exterior is designed for outdoor application. Casing Unit casing is constructed of heavy gauge, G90 galvanized steel and painted with a weather -resistant powder paint on fan top cover and louvered panels, prepaint on all other panels. Corrosion and weatherproof CMBP-030 base. Refrigerant Controls Refrigeration system controls include condenser fan and compressor contactor. High and low pressure controls are inherent to the compressor. A factory installed liquid line drier is standard. Compressor The compressor features internal over temperature and pressure protection and total dipped hermetic motor. Other features include: centrifugal oil pump and low vibration and noise. Condenser Coil The outdoor coil provides low airflow resistance and efficient heat transfer. The coil is protected on all four sides by louvered panels. Low Ambient Cooling As manufactured, this unit has a cooling capability to 55°F The addition of an evaporator defrost control with TXV permits low ambient cooling to 20° F. Accessories Thermostats — Cooling only and heatilcooling (manual and automatic changeover). Sub -base to match thermostat and locking thermostat cover. C I us uanno tntertek 08115 Trane has a policy of continuous product and product data improvement and it reserves the right to change design and specifications without notice. EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 59 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT E Acoustical Analysis Map E-5 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 60 T9 T s }Ti, $ 11 L a m !0 Z CL in a 9 m m L Y 3 2 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 62 EXHIBIT 5 7 ryC LCL c C C QI 3 0' L !o ,QE ° a E Tvl �! _ m— �y o a d 10 C O J4 V -y a Dat yu 3 O 3 � a` Ou M Q c ° It to 11 !I /�'u°i tv C V g E O vNi v cc aC +i 0�3a Lin va2 M Q II °� a.� ro N n �+ m3 �I- w ma �'+ ` E+ d o c g a O4,a 0 o u �- x (Drwa= TO 0 ° `�' w « o 41 X a O a E 5 ° W G^!3 L o M m aro u o c a oro 0°00 O d a 0 x 9 O a E E WW a a'tw o Z (D ° a '� C >.. q ` ° w a a a �-w V�lir� N�'Ca 0 0?° !:z Q ` Yp !o a a ? p y" ( >t f Vi../' (♦�V\ Q 7 o N 2 0 ar 0, 2� 'M C L c.o o 2 sem+ 3 pOH• c� r7. +�+ a > m M. o a oYa °a H 3 u aa. a '° '° ` N c cucn,, y m a s N t 7 O C Y O N vOi a a N a y� �-00 vEinc a aQj to_ �a +' SE 2 Q f- u 9 z +� d � a oa a(U U 'a (U 3u a.r�moE�i NG O " �Q r0 O cc p L um L-�� GIG um N=.tri 3L �� o,c*'CL w W-0 *a'+'O-�� ro 0 m� N a�a;+,y�= lncmc._33 3 c1 m0=.cc av,naN+1n 41 roa +�L GlOC moact-o3 �' ro n�aci°O `u w VO°!p mi>>O t2C n n cla cu 0 5. zowmom2 'gym -O +I +n�mn'arE°W2015vY°i - ao,"c ~�maa 41 mw>.E(u > C L t0 L In �+ E;f, MMU 00 C u-4> c N a2_u 40p c °° �WwEa�ro cO >m+1m � E _ ro 3cm�-3mroro =- wLm °c4.°a'0t0u�m oma tw '3WWM04LiG«'m E °3.+�fwOJ W. -0L. c j� E.Gj 0Ln-o�lnmron 3: 0wrote d a 'LEa .Q�od."'.fl.Z� mmPOA.-C c �2 yv�uc�°m?iV t°OC u of scE �- w u POA.- 0 m OO','°"r- u m s-Zin .L- a m }Ti, $ 11 L a m !0 Z CL in a 9 m m L Y 3 2 EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 62 w W Z h WCL H CC ti Q 3Z3 CC w a � O 3� 11: a 0 0w m a >° z0 (7 0� a oc J LU J dz¢ a= U, v>i � �z z 4 H 'Sz O w Q o � D J LU W :) � 6T7 w cc o� i J LU ¢ t N w �i 0 wa WW- �U LU w j 3� O N o 0$�¢ Z Z, O oJ z �mF- x O z w � ? a d�WHz mQ3?LL �u Ana i cc '0 ) J LL IX O I LL V) O i LL N J I F 10 i 0 W ZW v0 ~ a Z Z aO O= U J W J m�3uj a� EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 63 EXHIBIT 6 22166 Nelson Road Bend, OR 97701-9790 06/11/18 Waveseer 24350-24360 Dodds Rd Bend, Or. 97701 To whom it may concern: The water we haul as part of our delivery service is from either municipal or quasi- municipal sources. Our source of water for this customer is Avion Water Company. Waveseer has set up an account for 50,000 gallons of potable water to be delivered to the address mentioned above for farming and agricultural use. Sincerely, 'Idlj w W Kimberlee Nunez Manager/Member EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 64 NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION § 77.7 Form and time of notice. (a) If you are required to file notice under §77.9, you must submit to the FAA a completed FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. FAA Form 7460-1 is available at FAA regional offices and on the Internet. (b) You must submit this form at least 45 days before the start date of the proposed construction or alteration or the date an application for a construction permit is filed, whichever is earliest. (c) If you propose construction or alteration that is also subject to the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), you must submit notice to the FAA on or before the date that the application is filed with the FCC. (d) If you propose construction or alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 ft. in height above ground level (AGL), the FAA presumes it to be a hazard to air navigation that results in an inefficient use of airspace. You must include details explaining both why the proposal would not constitute a hazard to air navigation and why it would not cause an inefficient use of airspace. (e) The 45 -day advance notice requirement is waived if immediate construction or alteration is required because of an emergency involving essential public services, public health, or public safety. You may provide notice to the FAA by any available, expeditious means. You must file a completed FAA Form 7460-1 within 5 days of the initial notice to the FAA. Outside normal business hours, the nearest flight service station will accept emergency notices. § 77.9 Construction or alteration requiring notice. If requested by the FAA, or if you propose any of the following types of construction or alteration, you must file notice with the FAA of: (a) Any construction or alteration that is more than 200 ft. AGL at its site. (b) Any construction or alteration that exceeds an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at any of the following slopes: (1) 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 ft. from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport described in paragraph (d) of this section with its longest runway more than 3,200 ft. in actual length, excluding heliports. (2) 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 ft. from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport described in paragraph (d) of this section with its longest runway no more than 3,200 ft. in actual length, excluding heliports. Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, TX 76193 Fax: (8 17) 321-7765 Phone: (817) 321-7750 Website: https://oeaaa.faa.gov (3) 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 ft. from the nearest point of the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport described in paragraph (d) of this section. (c) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for mobile objects, of a height which, if adjusted upward 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, 15 feet for any other public roadway, 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road, 23 feet for a railroad, and for a waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it, would exceed a standard of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. (d) Any construction or alteration on any of the following airports and heliports: (1) A public use airport listed in the Airport/Facility Directory, Alaska Supplement, or Pacific Chart Supplement of the U.S. Government Flight Information Publications; (2) A military airport under construction, or an airport under construction that will be available for public use; (3) An airport operated by a Federal agency or the DOD. (4) An airport or heliport with at least one FAA -approved instrument approach procedure. (e) You do not need to file notice for construction or alteration of: (1) Any object that will be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial nature or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and will be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where the shielded structure will not adversely affect safety in air navigation; (2) Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing aid, aircraft arresting device, or meteorological device meeting FAA - approved siting criteria or an appropriate military service siting criteria on military airports, the location and height of which are fixed by its functional purpose; (3) Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FAA regulation. (4) Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height, except one that would increase the height of another antenna structure. IBIT 2 PAGE 1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FAA FORM 7460-1 PLEASE TYPE or PRINT ITEM #1. Please include the name, address and phone number of a personal contact point as well as the company name. ITEM #2. Please include the name, address and phone number of a personal contact point as well as the company name. ITEM #3. New Construction would be a structure that has not yet been built. Alteration is a change to an existing structure such as the addition of a side mounted antenna, a change to the marking and lighting, a change to power and/or frequency, or a change to the height. The nature of the alteration shall be included in ITEM #21 "Complete Description of Proposal". Existing would be a correction to the latitude and/or longitude, a correction to the height, or if filing on an existing structure which has never been studied by the FAA. The reason for the notice shall be included in ITEM #21 "Complete Description of Proposal". ITEM #4. If Permanent, so indicate. If Temporary, such as a crane or drilling derrick, enters the estimated length of time the temporary structure will be up. ITEM #5. Enter the date that construction is expected to start and the date that construction should be completed. ITEM #6. Please indicate the type of structure. DO NOT LEAVE BLANK. ITEM V. In the event that obstruction marking and lighting is required, please indicate type desired, If no preference, check "other' and indicate "nn" eference" DO NOT LEAVE BLANK. NOTE: High Intensity lighting shall be used only for structures over 500' AGL. In the absence of high intensity lighting for structures over 500' AGL, marking is also required. ITEM #8. If this is an existing tower that has been registered with the FCC, enter the FCC Antenna Structure Registration number here. ITEM #9 and #10. Latitude and longitude must be geographic coordinates, accurate to within the nearest second or to the nearest hundredth of a second if known. Latitude and longitude derived solely from a hand-held G P S instrument is NOT acceptable. A hand-held GPS is only accurate to within 100 meters (328 feet) 95 percent of the time. This data, when plotted, should match the site depiction submitted under ITEM #20. ITEM #11. NAD 83 is preferred; however, latitude and longitude may be submitted in NAD 27. Also, in some geographic areas where NAD 27 and NAD 83 are not available other datum may be used. It is important to know which datum is used. DO NOT LEAVE BLANK. ITEM #12, Enter the name of the nearest city and state to the site. If the structure is or will be in a city, enter the name of that city and state. ITEM #13. Enter the full name of the nearest public -use (not private -use) airport or heliport or military airport or heliport to the site. ITEM #14. Enter the distance from the airport or heliport listed in #13 to the structure. ITEM #15. Enter the direction from the airport or heliport listed in #13 to the structure. ITEM #16. Enter the site elevation above mean sea level and expressed in whale feet rounded to the nearest foot (e.g. 17'3" rounds to IT, 17'6" rounds to 18'). This data should match the ground contour elevations for site depiction submitted under ITEM #20. ITEM #17. Enter the total structure height above ground level in whole feet rounded to the next highest foot (e.g. 17'3" rounds to 18'). The total structure height shall include anything mounted on top of the structure, such as antennas, obstruction lights, lightning rods, etc. ITEM #18. Enter the overall height above mean sea level and expressed in whole feet. This will be the total of ITEM #16 + ITEM #17. ITEM #19. If an FAA aeronautical study was previously conducted, enter the previous study number. ITEM #20. Enter the relationship of the structure to roads, airports, prominent terrain, existing structures, etc. Attach an 8-1/2" x 11" non -reduced copy of the appropriate 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Map MARKED WITH A PRECISE INDICATION OF THE SITE LOCATION. To obtain maps, contact USGS at 1-888-275-8747 or via Internet at "httplisto_I_g usgs,gov_. If available, attach a copy of a documented site survey with the surveyor's certification stating the amount of vertical and horizontal accuracy in feet. ITEM #21. • For transmitting stations, include maximum effective radiated power (ERP) and all frequencies. • For antennas, include the type of antenna and center of radiation (Attach the antenna pattern, if available). • For microwave, include azimuth relative to true north. • For overhead wires or transmission lines, include size and configuration of wires and their supporting structures (Attach depiction). • For each pole/support, include coordinates, site elevation, and structure height above ground level or water. • For buildings, include site orientation, coordinates of each corner, dimensions, and construction materials. • For alterations, explain the alteration thoroughly. • For existing structures, thoroughly explain the reason for notifying the FAA (e.g. corrections, no record or previous study, etc.). Filing this information with the FAA does not relieve the sponsor of this construction or alteration from complying with any other federal, state or local rules or regulations. If you are not sure what other rules or regulations apply to your proposal, contact local/state aviation's and zoning authorities. P,oMworkaeducrlon Work Act Statement: This it, formation is collected I(1 evaltleta Iha effect of proposed censt.tlion er eflem Ilan on air nav:gallon and Is net canfidereW Pm,Nmr; this Infanitellen IS mandril Ur/ er anyC proposing consimction or aIta'alm Ihal meals or exceeds the criteria contained in 14 CFR, par[ 77 We estimate that the 6,rdon a(Ihis collection is An average 19 minutes per response, intluding the time far reviewing inalrtctions, searching adding data eru s, gathering and maintaining the dais needed, completing and reviewing [he ca'llerson of information. A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not requiree to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to s penally for failure to comply with a collection of inrpnnagan subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Retina- Act unless that w11ectmo of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number The OMB control number associated with this collection is 212D.0001 Commons concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggeslions lar o dudng (he burden should be directed la the FAA ist 800 mdepenmm- Ave S W, Wach'.nyton, DC 20591, Alun: Inrorrnation Collection Clearance Offi r , AES -YOU. Form 7460-1 (2-12) Superseded Previous Bdilior. Electronic Version (Adobe) NSN: 0052-00-ORNHIBIT 2 PAGE 2 Please Type or Print on This Farm Form Approvetl OMB No, 120-0001 4W Failure To Provide All Requested Information May Delay Processing of Your Notice US. Department./ Transportetien Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Federal Avletion mministrallon FOR FAA USE ONLY Acronouticnl Swdy Number 1. Sponsor (person, company, etc. proposing this action): Attn. of: Name: 9. Latitude: 0 ' % Longitude: ° — 11. Datum: ❑ NAD 83 ❑ NAD 27 ❑ Other 12. Nearest: City: State 13. Nearest Public -use (not private -use) or Military Airport or Heliport: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone: Fax: 14. Distance from #13. to Structure: Direction from #13. to Structure: 16. Site Elevation (AMSL): ft. 17. Total Structure Height (AGL): 18. Overall Height (#16 + #17) (AMSL): ft. 19. Previous FAA Aeronautical Study Number (ifapplicable): __ -OE 2. Sponsor's Representative (if other than #1): Attn.15. Name: of. Nam Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone: Fax: -- -- 20. Description of Location: (Attach a USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle Map with the precise site marked and any certified survey) 3. Notice of: New Construction Alteration ❑ ❑ ❑Existing 4. Duration: ❑ Permanent ❑ Temporary ( — months, _days) S. Work Schedule: Beginning End 6. Type: ❑ Antenna Tower ❑ Crane ❑ Building ❑ Power Line ❑ Landfill ❑ Water Tank ❑ Other 7. Marking/Painting and/or Lighting Preferred: ❑ Red Lights and Paint ❑ Dual - Red and Medium Intensity ❑ White -Medium Intensity ❑ Dual - Red and high Intensity ❑ White -High intensity ❑ Other 8. FCC Antenna Structure Registration Number (if applicable): 21. Complete Description of Proposal: Frequency/Power (kW) Notice is required by 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 77 pursuant to 49 U.S.C., Section 44718. Persons who knowingly and willingly violate the notice requirements of part 77 are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per day until the notice is received, pursuant to 49 U.S.C., Section 46301(a) hereby certify that all of the above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, I agree to mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking & lighting standards as necessary. Date Typed or Printed Name and Title of Person Filing Notice Signature I -AA Form /460-1 (2-12) buperseoes i-revious toition NSNNAI}MPA' . 0''� PAGE 3 /( RSW ENGINEERING ( 11 920 NW Bond Street, Ste 200 \ f j Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)640-9146 Mechanical and Acoustical Engineering — Regulatory and Permitting Support — Public Meetings and Technical Presentations Response to Appellant McCready Open Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899-A dated December 31, 2018 TO: Deschutes County Community Development Department � �, Vftore e, I N 6, "0 FROM: Roger Whitaker, P.E. a v 7sz;+�rG j PROJECT: Waveseer Dodds Road Indoor Grow ORMON DATE: January 11, 2019 0 6t? A .E PAN This memorandum provides responses to the Appellant McCready's open record comments dated December 31, 2018 pertaining to noise and odor for the proposed Waverseer Dodds Road indoor grow. Odor On page 8 of the Appellant's December 31, 2018 open record submittal, the attorney for the Appellant, challenged the safety of ionization odor control based on the potential for the creation of the by-product ozone. We agree with the Appellant that ground -level ozone is a regulated pollutant and has been found to be harmful to humans and animals above certain concentration Ievels. However, we respectively disagree that the Aerisa ionization equipment we have specified for the Waveseer Dodds Road project would generate ozone to the extent that it would be a health risk to the onsite employees or the neighbors. In fact, Aerisa specifically engineers and manufactures its ionization equipment to operate at relatively low voltage levels such that no increase in the level of ozone occurs during operation. Ozone occurs naturally in the air we breathe and typical baseline readings range between 0.01 to 0.04 ppm (parts per million). Ozone levels can be easily recorded and Aerisa has performed such measurements at various enclosed facilities that employ their ionization technology. In all cases, ozone measurements recorded both outside and inside the buildings were the same (0.02 to 0.03 ppm) demonstrating that Aerisa's ionization technology does not increase the levels of ozone. The Aerisa website has two videos showing ozone recordings. Please see I�tt:llw4v,aerisa.t:amAil�rary/. Near the top of that webpage there are four tabs including Data Sheets, Case Studies, Videos and Tech Info. Select Videos and the two ozone reading videos are available for viewing. Noise On page 9 of the Appellant's December 31, 2018 open record submittal, the attorney for the Appellant, challenged the noise analysis based on the assumption that the control of ozone may require additional noise -generating equipment not included in the study. Because ozone generation will not be an issue, the noise report and its findings are valid and no other analysis is required at this time. Page 1 EXHIBIT 3 PAGE 1 -r CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. www.coc.coop • P.O. Box 846, Redmond, OR 97756 • Office: 541.548.2144 Fax: 541.548.6366 February 1, 2018 Peter A Winsor C/O Robert Singer 24350 Dodds Rd Bend, OR 97701 RE: Will Serve Letter for 24350/24360 Dodds Rd In response to your inquiry, please be advised that property located in T.18S., R.14/13E., W.M., Section 07/12, Tax Lot 500/100, Deschutes County, Oregon, are within the service area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (New Services to 24350/24360 Dodds Rd, 2,000 amp, 480v three phase) associated with the submitted cannabis growing operation and has determined that the combination of these services will require {, system upgrades to our facilities in the area. Central Electric Cooperative is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies of Central Electric Cooperative. Sincerely, Emily 8 Faddis Customer Service Rep EXHIBIT 4 PACE 1 From: Rohde, Kevin <krohde@cec.coop> Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 201910:08 AM To: Corinne Celko <corinne@emergelawgroup.com> Subject: RE: CEC will -serve letter From: Fowler, Robert <rfowler cec.coo > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 1:30 PM To: Rohde, Kevin <krohde@cec.coop> Subject: FW: CEC will -serve letter Corinne, the system upgrades that will be required will not prevent Mr. Winsor from being provided service to 24350/24360 Dodds Rd. Thanks, Kevin Rohde- Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. a Sr. Distribution Engineer Office: 541.312.7787 1 Fax; 541.312.7733 krohde@cec.conp 2098 NW 6th St, PO Box 846, Redmond OR 97756 wwwwcec.coop From: Corinne Celko <corinne@emereelaweroup.cam> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 11:55 AM To: Fowler, Robert <rfowler a�cec.coop> Subject: CEC will -serve letter EXHIBIT 5 PAGE 1 .................................................................................................................. 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. e ........... .................................... ................ ................... ............ ....... ........ .............. .., Hi Bob, Thanks so much for speaking with me this morning. As discussed, attached is the "will -serve" letter my client received from CEC. Could you please comment on whether the system upgrades mentioned in the letter will impair CEC's ability to provide electrical service to the property? Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter. Best, Corinne Corinne S. Celko I Attorney EMERGE LAW GROUP 805 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 0: 503.227.4525 F: 503.200.1124 D: 503.467.0396 E: corinne@emergelawgroup.com //► emerg_elaweroup.com This communication and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and any attachments, and are notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication and any attachments, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. EXHIBIT 5 PAGE 2 Matt Martin From: Elizabeth A. Dickson <eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 3:07 PM To: Matt Martin; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Appellant McCready Final Record Submittal to Record File NO. 247-000899-A Attachments: Final Record Submittal 1.12.19.pdf Matt and Peter, Attached please find Appellant McCready's Final Submittal to the Record in this matter. Please acknowledge receipt, since I am unable to hand deliver on a Saturday. My cell phone is 541-410-4900. Liz Dickson 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 O: 541.585.2229 F: 541.330.5540 eadickson(a)dicksonhatfield.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, discourse or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. TAX ADVICE NOTICE: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that, if this communication or any attachment contains any tax advice, the advice is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. A taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if the advice is reflected In a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent requirements. Please contact us if you would like to discuss our preparation of an opinion that conforms to these IRS rules. BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Appellant Mc Cready's Final Record Submittal In the Matter of 247-18-000899-A APPELLANT: Kim McCready Owner of property at 25356 Dodds Road Bend, OR 97701 ATTORNEY: Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield, LLP 400 SW Bluff Dr., Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 Attorney for Appellant 7dickstjt<clicicsr�l,ltfinlcic,c�rn STAFF REVIEWER: Matt Martin Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 PROCEEDING: File No. 247-18-000899-A De nova Appeal of Deschutes County Admin. Determination File No. 247 -18 -000051 -AD to Deschutes Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT PROPERTY: Assessor's Map Designation Township 18S, Range 13E, Section 12, Tax Lot 100, and Township 18S, Range 14E, Section 7, Tax Lot 500, together commonly referenced as 24350 and 24360 Dodds Road, Bend, OR 97701 PROPERTY OWNER: Peter Winsor 889 S. Main Street #175 Willits, CA 95490 APPLICANT: Waveseer of Oregon, LLC By David Rosen 1248 West Altgeld St. Chicago, IL 60614 Appellant McCready Final Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899-A Page 1 1 9 1. The Waveseer/Winsor Application has been Significantly Modified The case for Application modification was developed in detail in Appellant McCready's Open Record Submittal dated 12.31.18, on pages 2-4, detailing the ways the application was changed after Notice was mailed, and after comments were provided to the County. It is important to note further the inaccuracy of the County's DIAL record for this application, the source on which most citizens rely in tracking a pending land use application. There are two significant problems with the DIAL records: A. Records for Tax Lot (TL) 100 and TL 500, both Subject Property for the instant application, do not match are not both accurate so are unreliable and misleading. See Exhibit G, attached and incorporated by reference, Appellant submitted a Subject Property DIAL Document Log previously in Appellant's 12.31.18 submittal as Exhibit B. However, that one was for TL 100, under the assumption both were the same since both were subject of the same application and TL 100 is significantly larger so would be the primary subject. They are not the same. Exhibit G shows both TL Document Diaries. It's reasonable for older entries to be different, because they report on different properties. However, the current application is for both properties, so they should be identical. They are not. This means that interested members of the public tracking the pending application get significantly different information depending on which TL they happen to review. Our review indicates that TL 500, though significantly smaller, is the TL with the more complete record. DIAL records, relied upon by the public to understand and track an application, did not accurately give the public notice of the status of the instant application. They not only did not receive Notice of the extensive revisions to the application, but they also did not have accurate access to the Record on consideration by the County between the time they commented and the time the Administrative Determination was entered. B. DIAL Records misrepresent when Comments & Submittals were made. The DIAL Development Document Diary shows two sets of Comments and Submittals made by Agencies and citizens; one in February -March, 2018 and another set in November, 2018, immediately prior to the Staff Determination issued. In reality, no new comments were made after the February - March, 2018 Notice, except by Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell, It is understandable that Peter Russell made an updated comment to the modified application, because he is the only person who received a new Notice after the application was modified. Attached for ease of reference is the DIAL Development Document Diary for both tax lots. See Exhibit G. See highlighted Comments and Submittals re -logged as if newly entered on November 17, 2018. See actual dates of submittal noted in the far -right margin. It is unknown to Appellant why the DIAL Document Diary contains the same comments twice, the second time as if they were received in November. It is important, however, not to be misled by the inaccurately dated entries. With the exception of Peter Russell's additional comment made immediately after receiving a separate modified Notice, all comments received by the County on this application were made to the original application, the one without changes to 2 3,600 sf greenhouses, a Phase II, 25 parking spaces, the main building depicted as 7,290 sf smaller, 2 1,500 sf buildings instead of 2 3,000 sf buildings. C. Deschutes Countv Precedent necessitates requiring Aplid cant to file a Modification. Deschutes County has applied the modification requirement of DCC 22.20.055(B) a number of times in the past. Here are a few examples for ease of reference: Appellant McCready Final Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899-A Page 2 1 9 o File #MA -13-1, V-13-1, LL -13-3: Thompson/Rief, Adams was a property line adjustment to adjust a property line, and a variance to the lot width requirements was required. The addition of the variance required a modification. File #MA -08-1, SP -07-54, LM -07-178: Faith Lutheran Church was a Landscape Management and Site Plan review for a new church in La Pine. Because the applicant decided to remove one tax lot from the application, a modification was required, e File #CU -02-115, CU -02-116, MP -02-42, MA -08-7: Willett was a minor partition and request for non-farm dwelling conditional use permits. A different parcel configuration required a modification. In each case, the County required a modification to the original application because of changes to the application. By requiring the modification, other parties received notice of the changes. As a lot changed, a modification was required. Here significantly more changes occurred as noted above and described in detail in Appellant's 12.31.18 Submittal. One lot was even eliminated entirely by a lot consolidation here. A modification is properly required by the County Code in such a situation, and we ask this Board to require that a modification be filed in this instance, following County precedent. 2. Oregon's Recreational Marijuana Grow Statute Yields Bad Results in Deschutes County Oregon's voter -approved initiative allowing adult recreational possession and consumption (Measure 91, November 2014) was the third attempt to legalize recreational pot use in Oregon, after failures in 1986 and 2012. Despite opposition of the Oregon District Attorneys Association, the Oregon State Sheriffs Association, and the American Pediatric Society, it passed in 2014 by 6%, and carried 14 of 36 counties. It also won in Deschutes County, where the urban voters outnumber rural votes. This vote meant that one third of the area of the state (urban, heavily populated) again forced the other two thirds (rural, sparsely populated) to have their lives changed by a policy in which they wanted no part. And this was just the beginning. Prepared, well -funded, and pinpointed lobbying by the cannabis industry convinced the Oregon Legislature in Spring, 2015 to take that win and run with it, expanding the voter approval to include cannabis production and processing in state. House Bill 3400, now ORS 475E and related regulations, even categorized the drug as a "crop." (ORS 475B.526). In doing so, the Legislature afforded marijuana production the exceptional protections historically reserved for Oregon's food -producing farmers. It's this final reach that creates the conflict epitomized by this appeal. 3. Siting Indoor Marijuana Grows on High Value Farmland Violates Conservation Laws Oregon's Land Use system is complicated, with few clear rules of priority. One rule predominates: Conservation of resource lands, particularly our highest value farmlands. The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Act of 1973, also knows as Senate Bills 100 and 101, was implemented as the Statewide Planning Goals. Applicable to this matter is Goal 3: Agricultural Lands, adopted as OAR 660-015-0000(3). It reads: "To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Appellant McCready Final Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899-A Page 319 Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700. * * * * IMPLEMENTATION Zoning applied to agricultural land shall limit uses which can have significant adverse effects on agricultural and forest land, farm and forest uses or accepted farming or forest practices." Cannabis lobbyists and industry representatives thought that by convincing the Joint Committee on Implementation of Measure 91 to define marijuana as a "crop," they would shoehorn the drug grow operations into Goal 3, piggybacking on the protections granted to farming. But Goal 3's wording also protects existing uses from new ones if the new uses are incompatible, in the form of protecting "accepted farm practices." Grows such as the one proposed by Applicant here damage farming in two ways: A. Destruction of existing .infrastructure and irnoroovements fol future non -industrial farming; and B, Creation of adverse impacts on nesrby accepted farming -practices. The MRCS Soil Classification System used in Oregon gives some indication of a soil's productive value, and is the basis of our subzone minimum acres, ranging from 23 to 320 acres. Elevation and irrigation water availability make up the remaining factors for evaluation of farm soils in our basin. The land Applicant proposes to occupy is Class VII irrigated soil, the highest classification found in Deschutes County. It is "high-value farmland." It is made of sand and organic material sufficient to hold water and release nutrients and can grow crops seldom successful in Deschutes County. This soil is truly a rare and valuable resource. As a matter of public policy, it should not be wasted. Waveseer / Winsor proposes to construct industrial -style buildings over 2 acres of this high-value farmland, wasting its highest resource value. They propose to cut off irrigation water from the built -over soils that have grown food and feed for a century. They propose to make what is prime farmland into an industrial desert. When the growers lose interest, the drug falls out of fashion, or the operation is squeezed out by overproduction's falling prices, the irrigation water will no longer be appurtenant to the soils, having been transferred to other irrigable acreage, and the site will be covered with broken-down steel structures, water and wastewater pipes in the ground, and whatever top soils existed will likely be scraped away in the interest of structural leveling. Zombie pot farms will replace rural Deschutes County family farms. Farmland, once improved with residential, commercial, or industrial structures, is customarily not returned to farming because it is no longer viable for such use. (Mining sites suffer a similar problem, realistically unable to replace reserved overburden to restore farmland.) Commitment of the Subject Property to an industrial -style improvement plan such as the Site Plan proposed is likely a permanent commitment, even when the drug operation ends. This use does not maintain this property as truly agricultural land consistent with accepted farm practices, as required by Goal 3, despite the zone. The proposed use will have adverse impacts on nearby accepted farming practices as well. This concept is generally addressed by the DCC odor, noise, utility, and water controls in Chapter 18.116.330. The language of Statewide Planning Goal 3 is broader, however, and so encompasses all impacts on accepted farming practices in the Dodds Road area. The analysis imposed on non-farm dwellings is analogous to the present proposal, where the 2 acres of steel structures proposed will Appellant McCready Final Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899-A Page 4 1 9 materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of t_he area. Building industrial -style steel structures covering high value farmland irreversibly commits that farmland to another use just as a non- farm dwelling would. A method such as the Sweeten Test (LUBA No. 89-024, 17 Or LUBA 1234,1247-1248 [1989]) is used to consider impacts of a pattern of proposed development. This test requires a similar study of the cumulative effect of proposed structures on other farmland properties in the area. Projecting the worst- case scenario, rural Deschutes County, particularly the best irrigated farmland in Deschutes County, could be covered by monolithic steel warehouses. This is not a plan to preserve the stability of the area for continued accepted farming practices. Once the thin layer of sandy soil is removed, impenetrable depths of basalt bedrock are all that's left. Deschutes County's bedrock is only usable for building foundations, roads, and mining pits. Preservation and maintenance of high value farmland for future farm uses is foundational in Deschutes County's land use code and policies as well. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2011 includes Chapter 2 which focuses on Resource Management. Section 2. 1, Introduction of the Comp Plan puts it this way, "Purpose: The concept of sustainability is that resources used today should be managed so that there are still resources available for future generations." Winsor's class VII irrigated soil is a rare and valuable resource. This application proposes to build an industrial -style steel compound of structures on top of it and ruin it for soil -based farming in the future, and the generations this provision works to protect. The instant application violates Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan. Appellant is cognizant of the fact that cannabis industry representatives have shaped statewide land use policy to limit objections that individual local governments and the citizens who elect them may raise or consider, as marijuana production applications are considered on EFU land. However, even Ms. Celko has cited to state statute requiring local decisions to comply with local comprehensive plans. Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2011 to cover the years 2010-2030. Section 1.1, Introduction, states: "While compliance with the statewide system is required, it is also important for a comprehensive plan to reflect local needs and interests. This Plan balances statewide requirements and local land use values." These 2011 words have new meaning in 2019. Deschutes County's Code requires all marijuana grows to take place indoors. That reflects Deschutes County's local land use values. ORS 47513.526 complicates matters by defining marijuana as a "crop." To date all Deschutes County growers have elected to use hydroponic grow systems that nevera//ow a growing plant's roots to utilize the soil Itis puzzling at best to rectify the concept of a "crop" that doesn't use soil and is grown indoors with permitting a marijuana grow on high value farmland when it doesn't need or use that soil resource. Such a use is wasteful when evaluated according to the values of common sense. Such a use is violative of Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan when evaluated according to the meaning and intent of the law. 4. Applicant does not satisfy relevant approval criteria. A. The Proposed Development is incompatible with existing established uses. Appellant McCready Final Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899-A Page 5 19 Appellant McCready and her neighbors rely upon Deschutes County's local land use values in other ways as well. She understands that basic tensions exist between rights of individual property owners to exercise their own will over their own land and the rights of surrounding property owners to be protected from the adverse or unwanted impacts of such activity on the lands of others. The Comp, Plan Introduction on Page 5 words the conflict well: "The challenge is that most people want impacts from their neighbors' land uses controlled, but they also want the right to use their own properties without restrictions. This makes land use decisions often deeply personal and highly controversial. While consensus may not be possible, one strategy is to search for common ground by building on community values." Again, the overarching tension between values arises. Deschutes County passed limited "opt -in" code allowing marijuana production in June of 2016. Since that time, the Commissioners have listened to cumulative days of testimony from the community. The May and November local elections of 2018 included candidate positions for and against marijuana production in Deschutes County. Based on voters' decisions, the essence of "community values" on this topic is becoming clear. Every single Deschutes County candidate who supported recreational marijuana production in the county was voted out or down. Applicant Waveseer / Winsor asks this Board to allow them to build and operate an indoor marijuana grow in rural Deschutes County. They propose a series of structures in a compound approximately 2 acres in size on an approximately 100 -acre parcel. Such wide spacing would seem to make the grow unnoticeable to neighbors, at least on paper. However, physical spacing is not enough to protect neighbors from impacts of this use. Deschutes County's Code goes beyond physical setbacks. This county requires specific proof that the proposed use will not adversely impact neighbors. Applicant fails to prove compliance with odor control, noise control, and proximity to protected uses. 1) Airport Safety Combining Zone Compatibility is Not Proven. FAA / Part 77 and the Oregon Department of Aviation require review of all proposed structures to be built on lands within AS Combining Zone jurisdiction. We ask this Board to require the Applicant to comply with necessary reviews in the AS zone. Until the FAA signs off on the application, airport safety combining zone compatibility is not proven. It is Applicant's burden to so prove. 2) The 1000' Youth Activity Center buffer is not satisfied by Applicant. DCC 18.116.330 B.7.a.iv. specifies the separation distances which must be observed when siting a marijuana production facility near certain existing uses determined to be sensitive by the BOCC. This Board has elected to protect youth activity centers. The code provision states: 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from ... iv. [a] youth activity center.... DCC 1.04.030 Interpretation of Language states: All words and phrases not specifically defined in this title or elsewhere in this code shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the words or phrases. However, technical words and phrases and such others as may have acquired a Appellant McCready Final Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899-A Page 6 19 particular meaning in the law shall be construed and understood according to such particular meaning. This language requires a two-step analysis detailed in the Appeal Narrative on Page 3. Ms. Celko replies by inserting a new concept, that of "facility." It is up to this Board to interpret whether it intends this separation buffer to apply only to "facilities" as Ms. Celko suggests. Dodds Road is a particularly vital, rural, family farming community. It's a great example of the lifestyle people who buy farmland expect to be able to enjoy in exchange for their labors. Youth activity meetings are held regularly for 4H and related activities. They occur within 1000 feet of the entrance to the proposed compound, where shipments of goods will come and go, and where employees will line up during picking time. This is the same location where youth ride horses, wait for school busses, and run and play. Appellant McCready is asking this Board to visit Dodds Road, and picture life with and without the proposed drug product grow operation. The impacts of such activity will likely be the most acutely felt by the neighborhood's youth, as they and their club mates conduct the activities in the meeting homes, barns, pastures and roadways that make up the Dodds Road Community. If it is the Board's intent to separate youth activity centers such as those evidenced in this community from marijuana grows, Appellant McCready asks this Board to state that interpretation, and deny this application for violating the standard. 3) Odor Control proposed does not satisfy applicable approval criterion. Applicant argues that odor control will be accomplished using a new -to -Deschutes -County farming technology: Ionization. Evidence submitted shows that it may control the odor, but does not satisfy the whole criterion. The criterion states at DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(a): "The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property." The odor control system must do morethan control odor. it must at all times in its operation prevent unreasonable interference of [sic] neighbors use and enjoyment of their own property. This technology, as presented, may control the odor. But at what cost? Evaluation by experts from the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Department of Health and Human Services conclude that use of such technology in enclosed spaces is highly hazardous to human health both within and without the enclosure because of its by-product, ozone. See Appellant's Open Record Submittal dated 12.31.18, Exhibit F, including conclusive reports from these agencies and industry experts. Applicant's 12.31.18 Submittal did provide additional information about the ionization technology. Careful reading, however, reveals that every single document provided supporting use of the technology was from a source paid to make such statements, either the paid engineer hired by the applicant and employed by the industry, or the company who sells the product. These are not unbiased, empirical evaluations of this potentially dangerous technology. They are sources paid to say what they do. Like the Sharper Image materials ultimately determined to be false (See Exhibit F LA Times article and expert opinions), materials produced by a source paid to reach such conclusions are properly evaluated with that motivation in mind. Appellant McCready Final Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899-A Page 7 J 9 The byproduct of this technology, ozone, is a recognized type of air pollution, and does not comply with the criterion's strongly worded mandate to at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment oftheirproperty. Ozone is pollution, and pollution is unreasonable interference. On this failure alone, this application is reasonably denied. The August 17 submittal by Engineer Whitaker also evaluates carbon filtration systems, finding them vulnerable to saturation by moisture, expensive, needing "down time" for carbon filter replacement, consuming excessive amounts of energy, unreliable, noisy, and bulky. (See Exhibit 4 in Record, Page 2). Appellant McCready is in agreement with his analysis of carbon filtration systems. This means that unless there's another technology Applicant would like to modify and propose, it is reasonable to conclude there is no satisfactory method of eliminating odor from an indoor marijuana grow. The criterion must be satisfied for the Application to be approved. The criterion cannot be satisfied. The Application cannot be approved. 4) Noise control requirements are not proven satisfied. As noted in Appellant's 12.31.18 Submittal, the Applicant's engineering submittal references "various mechanical equipment." It does not recognize the ozone pollutant by-product documented in Exhibit F. Unless and until Applicant can safely control the odor and the ozone the ionization method will generate, there is no logical way to analyze what noise will be generated by such equipment. Like odor control, because Applicant has not demonstrated compliance, Applicant has not met the applicable criteria for approval, and the instant application is properly denied. B. Applicant's power feasibility requirement is not met. Applicant is legally required to demonstrate that Utility service is verified and has not done so. CEC had two chances, but did not satisfy the DCC in either statement. The first letter, dated February 1, 2018, stated that system upgrades in the area would be necessary to accommodate the load. This was not an assurance that service and supply is available. The most recent letter, dated February 15, 2018, instructed the applicant to apply for new electrical service, and further to provide the load and demand requirements. It concluded by stating: "CEC will determine if capacity is available." Appellant Mc Cready asks this Board to review the provided utility verification information and determine whether the applicable criterion has been met, based on best information in the whole Record. By Appellant's reading, CEC assurance has not been given to conclude feasibility. This application requirement is not satisfied. The Application is properly denied on this ground alone. 5. Appeal Conclusion Oregon's land use laws require an application submitted for approval only be granted that approval if the applicant has proven conclusively that all relevant approval criteria are satisfied. Admittedly, this is a heavy burden for an applicant. But it is the law, and a law based on good reasons. An application, if approved, will change a community forever, and also the lives of the people who live in that community. Such changes should only be made if they will add to, not detract from, that community. Appellant McCready Final Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899-A Page 8 1 9 In Deschutes County, voters have chosen the Board of County Commissioners carefully. This Board must now choose which outcome is best for the Dodds Road community. Kim McCready asks each Commissioner to deny the Waveseer / Winsor application to build another drug production operation in rural Deschutes County. They have not met their burden to prove they satisfy every applicable criterion, including those in State law, County Comprehensive Planning, and County Code. The application should be denied. Sincerely, E izabeth A. Dickson Attorney for Appellant Kim McCready Enclosure: Exhibit G c:\users\liz dickson\desktop\mccready\appellant final record submittal 1.11.19.docx Appellant McCready Final Record Submittal in Appeal No. 247-18-000899-A Page 9 19 Dial - Deschutes County Property Information Page 1 of 2 Deschutes County Property .information Documents for account # 308231 Account Information Mailing Name: WINSOR, PETER Map and Taxiol: 16140700WM Account: tOB231 Sllus Address:24350 DODDS RD, BEND. OR 97701 Tax Status: Assessable his account may have potential additional tax fiabifilies, Was due, or other special development conditions. Development Documents Date Document Type Description File Number Imoi9 Hearing Info 2018-12-1 Open Record Period 1 - Celko Email for applicant 247.18.1100899-A View Document 1/3/2019 Hearing Info 2015-12.31 Dickson Email for Appelanl 247-18.000899-A View Document 1 2/2 88 0 1 8 Hearing Into 2018-12-19 Christopher Olsen Request to Speak 247.18.000899•A View Document 1 212 88 01 0 Hearing Info 2016-12.19 Jarod Wright Request to Speak 247-18-000899-A View Document 1288(toi8 Hearing Info 2018.12.19 Jarod Wrighl Photos 247.18.000899-A View Document 1212BI2018 Hearing Info 201 BA2-19 18.899-A Staff Hearing Map 247-18.000899-A View Document 1212812018 Hearing Info 2018.12.19 18.699•A Staff Hearing Pre5enlation 247 -18 -DW 599-A View Document 17!2&8018 lido 2015-12-19 David Galluccl Request to Speak 247-18.000899-A View Document 12D 912018 Comments 8 Submittals - Public 2016.12-17 Celko Email 247-18-000899-A View Document 12/198018 Hearing Info 2018-12.19 BOCC Memo - Public Hearing w Attachment 247-1 B -000899-A View Document 121192018 Hearing Info 2018.11.30 NOPH Bulletin Affidavit 247-18.000899-A View Document 12/7/1018 Miscellaneous Documents Board Order 2018.075 - Appeal Cat Up 247-16-DDD128-AD View Document 12/18018 Hearing Info 18-128•AD, 447-1-11, 877 -LL, 899-A NOPH 247-16.000899•A View Document 11/3012018 Application Materials App. Malefials 247.18.000699,A Viaw Document 11808018 Decisions 18 -120 -AD, 477 -LR. 877 -LL FD & NOD 247 -18.000128 -AO View Document 11802018 Dedsione 18 -128 -AD, 477 -LR, 877 -LL FD & NOD 247.18-000877-1.1. View Document it/17801@ Application Materials i Add'I App. Melenal� 247 -18.000128 -AD View Document 11178018 Application Materials Odor and Noise Technical Report 247-16.000128-41) View Document 111172018 ADpllcalionMaladals Applicant response to Public Comments 247.18-D00128!AD View. Document 11n712016 I Comments & Submittals - Agencies Agency Comment -CEC 247.18.000128 -AD View Document 11/17/201 .Comment&$ Submittals -Agencies Agency Comment -Assessors Office 247 -18.000128 -AD Vlow Document 1.11117201 Comments & Submittals -Agencies Agency Comment - Building Safety 247 -18.000128 -AO View Document 11/17201 .Comments & Submittals -Agendas Agency Comment - Band Fire 247 -1 8 -000128 -AO VlewDoamell 11/17201 Comments & Submittals -Agencies Agency Comment -COID 247.18.000128 -AD View Documenl 11117#201 Comments Submittals - Agendas Age rwyCommanl.DSL 247.WOW128•AO View Document ...11117201--.Commons&.Submittals.PubW . - Public Comment-Lobufn 247.18.OD0128•AD View Document 1111712016,Miscellaneous Document's P_ubic.Camment _FollonsboaPetition 247.-1a>W0128•AD .View Document 180 day clack toff 247-18.OW12a-AD View Document 11/1512018 Application Materials App. Material 247 -18 -000877 -LL View Document wwr2018 ApplioaOon Maleriats App. Material$ 247 -18.000477 -LR View Document 312/2018 Incomplete Letters Incomplete LW. 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 212712018 Comments & Submittals - Public i i Public Comment - Swan 247 -116 -000i28 -A6 View Document 2278018 Comments & Submittals - Public i Public Comm ant - Nash 247 -18 -DW 128 -AD View Document omrnanls.aLSubmltiats—PAMc _„ Public Comment - Follansbee 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 2/278018 Decisions . 1 Public Comment - Wng ` 247 -18.000128 -AD View Document 2/218018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Krutzikowsky 247-18-WO128AD View Document ..-..21212018 — Commerne & Submittals - Public Public comment - Williamse- 247.113.OW128-AD .View Document 2/212018 Miscellaneous Documents Land Use Sign Affidavit 247.18 -000128 -AD View Document 2/168018 Nolices 18.128 -AD NO• 247.18.000128AD View Document 2198018. Apptcallon Malefiais .VuveDocumaot App, Malarial 247.118-DWi28-AD View Documenil ri Igo t i2i,21=001 Environmental Soils 1 r ARCHIVE View Dominant 12818000 Other ARCHIV9 View Document 1212WOW1 ther ARCHIVE View Document 121211t2W01 PlanNngj ARCHIVE` View Document V 1✓ i-� v V t� LZ 02, Is I8 (/ 02.20.18 02, 16 18 .02_14,18 Cf'>.7"i 18 03.06 18 i's Is 02 20.18 ✓ 0227.18 02„27,-18 Vy t/ L.� i/ rJ/ �F httn:/hiilil.deschntes nro/RpAj/nf-,vrinnmentnnre/1 nR711 f-- --- 11nv1n1 n rnm-o r r. Deschutes County Property Information Documents for account # 112522 Account Information Mailing Name: WINSOR, PETER Map and Taxtot: 1813120000100 Account: 112522 Situs Address: 24360 DODDS RD, BEND, OR 97701 Tax Status: Assessable Warning This account may have potential additional tax liabilities, taxes due, or other special development conditions. Development Documents Date Document Type Description File Number 12/7/2018 Miscellaneous Documents Board Order 2018-075 - Appeal Call Up 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11120/2018 Decisions 18 -128 -AD, 477 -LR, 877 -LL FD & NOD 247.18 -000877 -LL View Document 11/2012018 Decisions 18 -128 -AD, 477 -LR, 877 -LL FD & NOD 247.18 -000128 -AD View Document 11/17/2018 Application Materials Applicant response to Public Comments 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11/17/2018 Application Materials Odor and Noise Technical Report 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11/17/2018 Application Materiais Add'I App. Materials 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11/17/2018 _ Comments & Submittals -Agencies Agency Comment - SR. Transportation Planner 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11 /1 712 01 8 Comments & Submittals - Agencies Agency Comment - DSL 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11/17/2018 Comments & Submittals - Agencies Agency Comment - COID 247.18.000128 -AD View Document 11/1712018 Comments & Submittals - Agencies Agency Comment - Bend Fire 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11/17/2018 Comments & Submittals - Agencies Agency Comment - Building Safety 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11/17/2018 Comments & Submittals - Agencies Agency Comment- Assessors Office 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document i 11/17/2018 Comments & Submittals - Agencies Agency Comment - CEC 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11/17/2018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Follansbee Petition 247.18 -00012.8 -AD View Document 11/17/2018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Colhurn 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11117/2018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public comment - Samowski 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 11/17/2018 Miscellaneous Documents 150 day clock toll 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 1111512018 Application Materials App. Materials 247-1 B -000877 -LL View Document I 3/2/2018 Incomplete Letters Incomplete Ltr. 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 3/1/2018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Gottlieb 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 2128/2018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Wallace 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 2/27/2018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Gallucci 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document t 212712018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Follansbee 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document t 2/27/2018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Nash 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document i 212712018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Bradetich 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document l 212712018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Swan 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document 2/27/2018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Sandine 247 -18 -000128 -AO Vew Document t 2/27/2018 Decisions Public Comment - Winger 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document t 2/21/2018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Williamsen 247 -18.000128 -AD View Document ! 212112018 Comments & Submittals - Public Public Comment - Krutzlkowsky 247.18.000128 -AD View Document t 2/21!2018 Miscellaneous Documents Land Use Sign Affidavit 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document i 2/16/2018 Notices 18 -128 -AD NOA 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document L 2/1312018 Notices Prior Notice email 247 -18 -000128 -AD View Document l 2/9/2018 Application Materials App. Materials 247.18.000128 -AD View Document t 3/1112008 Planning MP8143 NOPH MP8143 Mew Document 1/31/2008 Planning MJP77-13 MJP7713 View Document 1/31/2008 Planning MJP77-13 MJP7713 View Document 1/16/2008 Planning CUB079 CU8079 View Document 12/11/2007 Planning MP8143 MP8143 View Document 9/25/2007 Planning V-81-10 View Document 414/2007 Planning CU80137 File Contents CU80137 View Document 2!712007 Planning MP8143 File Contents MP8143 View Document 1/1812007 Planning CUB0137 File Contents CU80137 View Document 1 /1 712007 � � View Document 12/21/2000 Environmental Solis ARCHIVE _ View Document 12/21/2000 Other ARCHIVE View Document 12/21/2000 Planning _ ARCHIVE _View Document f THE INFORMATION AND MAPS ACCESSED THROUGH THIS WEB SITE PROVIDE A VISUAL DISPLAY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ASSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA DESCHUTES COUNTYMAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TD TME CONTENT, SEQUENCE, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN. DESCHUTES COUNTY EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FORA PARTICULAR PURPOSE. DESCHUTES COUNTY SHALL ASSUME ASSUME NO LIAB!t1TY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSUMES NO LIARIUTY FOR ANY DECISIONS MADE OR ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKE[[JJ'f THE USER Of THIS INFORMATION OR DATA FURNISHED HEREUNDER ar�Tvri T+T+ /l1„s © 2019 - Deschutes County. All rights reserved . _ OF Matt Martin From: Corinne Celko <corinne@emergelawgroup.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 4:09 PM To: Matt Martin Cc: Rob Williams Subject: Waveseer of Oregon, LLC - File No. 247-18-000128 AD - Rebuttal Submittal Attachments: Waveseer LT Deschutes County Board - Final Argument (Final).pdf Matt, As you know, this office represents Waveseer of Oregon, LLC. Attached please find the applicant's final written argument. This letter is timely submitted, and please place this letter before the Board of County Commissioners and in the official record of this proceeding. Please also confirm receipt of this letter. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best, Corinne Corinne S. Celko I Attorney EMERGE LAW GROUP 805 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 0: 503.227.4525 F: 503.200.1124 D: 503.467.0396 E: corinne@emergelawgroup.com ► emergelawgroup.com This communication and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and any attachments, and are notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication and any attachments, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. LAW 19 GROUP 805 SW Broadway, Suite 2400, Portland, OR 97205 January 15, 2019 VIA E-MAIL (MATT.MARTIN(DESCHUTES.ORG) Anthony DeBone, Chair Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County PO Box 6005 Attn: BoCC Bend, OR 97708-6005 Re: Waveseer of Oregon, LLC; Case File No. 247-18-000899-A Applicant's Submittal in Rebuttal Period Dear Chair DeBone and Members of the Commission: CORINNE CELKO Admitted in Oregon (503)467-0396 corinne@emergelawgroup.com As you know, my law firm and I represent Waveseer of Oregon, LLC ("Waveseer") with regard to the above -referenced application and appeal of the County's decision approving Waveseer's marijuana production facility within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. This letter serves as the applicant's final written argument and is timely submitted. Please place this letter in the official record for this proceeding and deny this appeal. At the outset, it is important to note that at the core of this application is the proposal to cultivate a crop on farmland, which is permitted outright in the EFU zone. The crop j ust happens to be marijuana. Deschutes County subjects marijuana production to certain objective time, place, and manner restrictions, all of which County staff found have been met by Waveseer. Substantial evidence in the record supports County staff's decision to approve this application. At the end of the day, this appeal was brought for one reason: the appellant does not like marijuana. However, like it or not, Oregon has legalized marijuana and Deschutes County expressly permits it within its' jurisdiction. Waveseer's land use application is not the proper venue for opposing legalization of marijuana or the County's decision to allow it within its' borders. Waveseer's land use application is subject solely to the approval criteria in the Deschutes County Code ("DCC"). As demonstrated in the application materials, as well as at the hearing and in all of the post -hearing open record materials, Waveseer meets all County approval criteria. For those reasons, this appeal should be denied, and County staff's decision approving this application should be upheld. A. There Has Been No "Modification" of Application. 1 The County's DIAL prove .t'ecords stem is camp}ete and accurate. As a last-ditch effort to create confusion and the illusion of unfairness, appellant's attorney, Ms. Dickson, mistakenly contends that the County's DIAL property records website is unreliable and misleading. As an initial matter, even if such contention were true, an unreliable County property records EMERGE LAW GROUP January 15, 2019 Page 2 system does not constitute a "modification" of application by the applicant requiring a new application and new notice. Furthermore, with respect to Waveseer's underlying land use application, the DIAL property records system is complete and accurate. From the first entry showing Waveseer's application materials on February 9, 2018 until the County's decisions approving the application on November 20, 2018, the DIAL records for Tax Lot 100 and Tax Lot 500 are identical, with one exception. The exception is that for Tax Lot 500, DIAL records show a lot of record application filed on June 14, 2018. It makes sense that this record only shows in the DIAL records for Tax Lot 500 because a lot of record application was only required for that tax lot since the County already knew that Tax Lot 100 was platted as Parcel 2 of Minor Land Partition MP -81-43. Attorney Dickson never states exactly how the DIAL records for Tax Lot 100 and Tax Lot 500 are different or inaccurate, and that is because they are not.' Attorney Dickson also alleges that some Agency and citizen comments were logged in the DIAL records system twice; however, the DIAL records diary does not show any records that are logged twice. More importantly, Attorney Dickson fails to illustrate the relevance of Agency and citizen comments to the issue at hand, which is whether or not THE APPLICANT submitted significant new information after the date the application was deemed complete, thereby constituting a "modification" of application. The timing of Agency and citizen comments (as well as their substance) is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the application has been "modified" and requires a new application and new notice. Lastly, in the appellant's final record submittal, which was due on January 12, 2019, Attorney Dickson cites to three (3) unrelated cases with limited descriptions as alleged precedent for deeming Waveseer's application as a "modification" requiring a new application and new notice. To the contrary, however, each of these cases is distinguishable from Waveseer's application in the following ways: 1. The Thompson/Rief, Adams case involved the need for a variance, presumably because one of the approval criteria could not be met. In Waveseer's application, no variance was requested nor required in order to comply with all approval criteria; 2. The Faith Lutheran Church case involved the removal of part of the property from the development site. In Waveseer's application, the approximately 100+ acre development site has remained the same; and, 3. The Willett case involved a different parcel configuration for a partition. In Waveseer's application, the configuration of the approximately 100+ acre development site remained the same. In short, the appellant's arguments in its final record submittal fail to demonstrate that THE APPLICANT submitted any significant new information after the application was deemed complete, and the appellant fails to address any elements whatsoever of what constitutes a "modification" of application under the DCC. For these reasons, as well as those summarized below, the appellant's argument that Waveseer's application has been "modified" should be rejected. It is worth noting that Waveseer's original Land Use Application form clearly notes the property that is the subject of the application consists of Tax Lots 100 and 500. Any prudent person interested in the application would look at DIAL property records associated with both tax lots, not just one. EMERGE LAW GROUP January 15, 2019 Page 3 'fThe chafes To the a licatiml do not constitute a "modification." Pursuant to DCC 22.04.020, "Modification of application" is defined as "the applicant's submittal of new information after an application has been deemed complete ...." Notably, the appellant has never demonstrated which site plan layout changes were made by Waveseer after the application was deemed complete. This is because Waveseer never submitted any. Any and all site plan layout changes were submitted on August 1, 2018, prior to the application being deemed complete on August 17, 2018; therefore, by definition, such changes cannot constitute a "modification of application." Furthermore, pursuant to DCC 22.04.020, "'Modification of application' ... does not mean an applicant's submission of new evidence that merely clarifies or supports the pending application." While Waveseer submitted a Lot Consolidation Request after the application was deemed complete, such request merely removed a property line to support the fact that the marijuana production facility would operate on a single site. The Lot Consolidation Request did not alter the size or configuration of the 100+ acre property on which the facility would operate, nor did it alter the location, layout, or use of any structures on the site to be used in the operation. Therefore, the Lot Consolidation Application does not constitute a "modification of application." L']�he cleans to the sitelan la rout reduced the scale of the�ro op sed operation. gc When compared to Waveseer's original plans for the proposed marijuana production facility submitted on February 7, 2018, the revised plans submitted in Waveseer's August 1 submittal show the following changes: • The removal of two (2) 3,600 sf greenhouses; • The removal of a 25 -space paved parking Iot; • The removal of Phase II; and • A 6,000 sf increase in the size of the production building. The two (2) 1,500 sf non -production buildings remained the same .2 Taken together, the changes reflect a 1,200 sf REDUCTION in structures, as well as a reduction in impervious surfaces. The appellant has failed to explain how reducing the scale of the proposed operation prejudiced their ability to accurately comment on the application. If anything, any negative impact detailed by an Agency or citizen comment would have applied equally or less to the revised smaller -scale operation. There can be no argument that the reduced -scale operation would have more negative effects — at least, the appellant has not made any such argument. Moreover, the appellant had the chance to comment on the revised site plan layout at the hearing and during the extensive post -hearing open record period. At no time has the appellant explained why the revised, reduced -scale site plan layout results in worse or different impacts than the original site plan layout (it doesn't). For the reasons described above, as well as those in Waveseers' application materials, stated at the hearing, and provided in the post -hearing open record submittals, there has been no "modification of application," and no new application or new notice is required. Therefore, this Board should reject appellant's argument and deny this appeal. 2 Attorney Dickson states that Waveseer revised its' plans to increase the size of the two (2) non- production buildings to 3,000 sf each, but that is incorrect. See Applicant's Letter and Supplemental Materials submitted on August 1, 2018. EMERGE LAW GROUP January 15, 2019 Page 4 B. Tile_Subiect Pro jert is Zoned EFU and Waveseer Will Farm the Land. In the appellant's final record submittal, which was due on January 12, 2019, Attorney Dickson discusses the importance of preserving agricultural lands and utilizing the soil on such high value farmland. Interestingly, Attorney Dickson fails to explain how the use of such valuable farmland for her client's retirement or for the Rhinestone Ranch's commercial pony parties and camps comply with Statewide Planning Goals or Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policies for the area. More importantly, however, Attorney Dickson is wrong in asserting that Waveseer's proposed use will not maintain such agricultural land consistent with accepted farming practices solely because Waveseer will not be growing crops in the ground. DCC 18.04.030 defines "Agricultural use" as follows: "Agricultural use means any use of land, whether for profit or not, related to raising, harvesting, and selling crops, or by the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur -bearing animals or for honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof not specifically covered elsewhere in the applicable zone. Agricultural use involves the preparation and storage of the products raised on such land for human and animal use and disposal by marketing or otherwise. Agricultural use also includes the propagation, cultivation, maintenance and harvesting of aquatic species ...." As defined by the County's own code, "Agricultural use" includes many more farm uses than merely growing actin soil. definition lgsmention ta rt includes vitesthat do not involve soil, such as for honeybees o the cultivation of aquatic species, Furthermore, DCC 18.04.030 defines "Accepted farming practice" as "a mode of operation common to farms and ranches of a similar nature, necessary for the operation of such farms and ranches with the intent to obtain a profit in money, and customarily utilized in conjunction with farm use." Attorney Dickson states that "all Deschutes County growers have elected to use hydroponic grow systems that never allow agroraingl,�lanl's rools to uliliae the soil." (Emphasis in original). I don't know if that's true, but hydroponic grow systems are certainly a common mode of operation for marijuana growers, which are necessary for the operation of such farms that intend to make a profit, and that are customarily utilized in conjunction with farm use. See haps_/!en_�� Gt<i��edia,org/w�ki'1= +IE' }l' mcs. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan directs the County to encourage farming by promoting the raising and selling of crops, without any limitation or restriction as to the method of farming. See Comprehensive Plan, Policy 2.2.9. Waveseer proposes to do just that — it will utilize an "accepted farming practice" of hydroponics to raise marijuana crops and sell them, farming the valuable agricultural land as it was intended. Lastly, it is worth noting that Waveseer's operation will use less than 2 acres of a 100+ acre site. As mentioned at the hearing, Waveseer intends to continue to use the irrigated farmland for hay production, as well as for other farm uses in the future. For the reasons described above, as well as those in Waveseers' application materials, stated at the hearing, and provided in the post -hearing open record submittals, Waveseer's agricultural or farm use is consistent with the property's EFU zoning and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policies EMERGE LAW GROUP January 15, 2019 Page 5 e, this Board should reject appellant's argument and regarding agricultural use and farming. Therefor deny this appeal. C. Waveseer's A lication Meets All A licable A royal Criteria. In the end, Deschutes County expressly permits marijuana production on EFU land, without any limitation or restriction on the method of cultivation. Rather, the County subjects marijuana production uses to base zone and overlayzoneand mards, just annertations like any other use, in such marijuana production ition on In th el ofinstant or restrictions on the time, place dministrative Determination for a marijuana production matter, this means that approval or denial of an A facility in the EFU zone shall be based solely on the standards and criteria set forth in DCC Chapter 18.16 (EFU zones), DCC Chapter 18.80 (Airport Safety Combining Zone), and DCC Chapter 18.116.330 (Supplementary Provisions for Marijuana Production). See ORS 215.416(8). LUBA has stated that the "standards and criteria" for permit approval must already exist in the plan and ordinance, and the local government cannot manufacture standards and criteria to apply to approve or deny a permit application. See Buel-McIntire v. City of Yachats, 63 Or LUBA 452 (2011) and Hoffman v. Deschutes County, 61 Or LUBA 173 (2010). Furthermore, LUBA has held that a local rs" or government's decision violates the r law where val standards in i local land ernmentse rel a to dcny"facaopernvt s on "considerations" unconnected to app application. Ashley Manor Care Centers v. City of Grants Pass, 38 Or LUBA 308 (2000). Issues raised by the appellant, such as the history of legalizing marijuana in Oregon and Deschutes County and the alleged incompatibility of marijuana production with "community values," are unrelated to the specific standards and criteria established in the DCC as applicable to this application. Accordingly, such comments cannot form the basis cable eriy this ptlon. As discussed furtherand County staff's deci s no t Waveseer's application meets all of the app approval criteria, approve this application should be upheld. 1. Wveseerls..analiiction co flies with the /�ii�o�t Safety Combining "Lone. In the Airport Safety Combining Zone, the DCC prohibits "[i]ncompatible uses ... that would intrude into areas used by aircraft." DCC 18.80.010. As shown on the large, colored map on the wall at the hearing, Waveseer's proposed buildings will be built well to the south of the Juniper Airpark approach surface, and all activities associated with the proposed marijuana production facility will occur well to the south of the Juniper Airpark approach surface. In addition, the proposed buildings will not exceed any height restriction imposed by the County or the FAA. Furthermore, the top of each building will be finished with a non -glare or non -reflective surface coating to eliminate any possibility of glare as a hazard for general aviation pilots on final approach. For these reasons, the proposed marijuana production facility is compatible with the Juniper Airpark and complies with DCC 18.80.010. To the extent that Waveseer must file a Form 7460-1 with the FAA regarding "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration," FAA Section 77.7 and the form itself do not require filing of the form until "at least 45 days before the start date of the proposed construction ... or the date an application for a construction permit is filed, whichever is earliest." Waveseer cannot start construction or apply for a construction permit unless and until this application is approved and appellant's appeal is denied. The filing of Form 7460-1 with the FAA is not (and cannot) be an approval criterion because it is required if, and only if, this application is approved and Waveseer moves forward with construction. If the Board EMERGE LAW GROUP January 15, 2019 Page 6 desires, it may impose a condition of approval requiring that Waveseer comply with all applicable FAA regulations upon approval. For these reasons, as well as those in Waveseer's application materials, stated at the hearing, and provided in the post -hearing open record periods, Waveseer meets all requirements of the Airport Safety Combining Zone, and the appellant's argument should be rejected. 2. Wave -seer's a. `lication Coll lies with the 1.000' Youth Avity Center buffer rcqu ctiirement, The activities occurring at the Rhinestone Ranch on the Gallucci Property (mailing address of 24375 Dodds Rd. and a situs address of 61311 Williamsen Ranch Rd.) do not constitute a Youth Activity Center for three (3) reasons: a) such activities require a County permit, which has not been obtained; b) a reasonable interpretation of Youth Activity Center does not include activities involving children on residential property or ranches; and c) Waveseer's application is first in time. Therefore, Waveseer's application complies with the requirement that marijuana production facilities be at least 1,000 feet away from Youth Activity Centers. a. Unpermitted and unauthorized uses involving children are not Youth Activity Centers. It is uncontroverted that the commercial activities occurring at the Rhinestone Ranch on the Gallucci Property require permits, and that no permits have yet been issued by the County for such commercial activities. In Appellant's first open record period submittal, Attorney Dickson states as follows: "The County's Event Permit Code, read in the context of 4H meetings, or home schools, or other youth gatherings, may reasonably be construed to require an Event Permit for such meetings. Thus, these meetings do require a permit, and the properties of the Organizer on which they are held may be properly required to obtain an Event Permit for such activities." Appellant's first open record period submittal, dated December 31, 2018, p. 7. In addition to requirements under the County's Event Permit Code, the County expressly requires a Limited Use Permit for agri-tourism and other commercial events and activities in the EFU zone for properties with an existing farm use. DCC 18.16.042. The County describes "agri-tourism" as: "A commercial enterprise at a working farm or ranch that is incidental and subordinate to the existing farm use of the tract that promotes successful agriculture, generates supplemental income for the owner. Any assembly of persons shall be for the purpose of taking part in agriculturally based operations or activities such as animal or crop care, picking fruits or vegetables, cooking or cleaning farm products, tasting farm products; or learning about farm or ranch operations." DCC 18.04.030. EMERGE LAW GROUP January 15, 2019 Page 7 The County defines a "commercial event or activity" as: "[A)ny meeting, celebratory gathering, wedding, party, or similar uses consisting of any assembly of persons and the sale of goods or services. A commercial event or activity shall be related to and supportive of agriculture." Id. Under a Type 1 or Type 2 Limited Use Permit, the County allows only six (6) agri-tourism or commercial events or activities per year. DCC 18.16.042. Under a Type 3 permit, the County allows up to eighteen (18) events per year; however, such events must be necessary to support the commercial farm uses of the commercial agricultural enterprises of the area. Id. Permits for agri-tourism or commercial events/activities are required, in part, to ensure that the areas open to the public are safe for human occupation, that there are adequate sanitary/sewer facilities to accommodate the number of attendees, and that there are safe and adequate facilities for traffic and parking. It is undisputed that the Rhinestone Ranch has not obtained any type of permit authorizing the activities purportedly taking place on the Gallucci Property. The activities occurring at the Rhinestone Ranch are currently unpemvtted and in violation of County Code. Such unauthorized and unlawful activities do not (and cannot) constitute Youth Activity Centers that warrant buffer protection. b. A reasonable interpretation of Youth Activity Center does not include activities involving children on residential properties or ranches. As the appellant points out, the common dictionary definition of the word "center" is "a facility providing a place for a particular activity or service." haps men ian1- webstcr.con)idictiollary'cente.r. And the common dictionary definition of "facility" is "something (such as a hospital) that is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose." haps.;/iwwv<;cnerri<<m- Webster i citity. In both definitions, the focus is on something providing a place or being established for a particular activity or to serve a particular purpose. The mere act of hosting a 4H/FFA club meeting, offering home -schooling, or having youth gatherings, such as what allegedly occurs at the Gallucci Property, does not turn such residential property or ranch into a Youth Activity Center because the Gallucci Property is first and foremost a working ranch with a residential dwelling; it was not built or established for the particular purpose of educating, developing, and providing recreational facilities to, large groups of children. By choosing the term "youth activity center," the County intended to locate marijuana production facilities at least 1,000 feet away from public places that were built for the specific purpose of having space for large groups of children to learn, recreate, and feel safe, such as youth and family services, parks and recreation facilities, and community centers. The fact that such places may not currently exist within Deschutes County is immaterial. The separation distance requirement may apply to "youth activity centers" within city limits, even though the proposed marijuana production facility is located outside of city limits. Moreover, the separation distance requirement would apply prospectively to any such "youth activity centers" that may be established within the County in the future. A reasonable interpretation of the term "youth activity center' does not include any property where children are merely present, as the appellant encourages. A "youth activity center" must be a place specifically built or established for the particular purpose of educating, developing, and promoting recreation for, large groups of children. An unpermitted, unregistered, for-profit business operating on a working farm/horse ranch that offers horse -related services to both adults and children for a fee does not constitute a "youth activity center." EMERGE LAW GROUP January 15, 2019 Page 8 c. Waveseer's alaplication is first in lime and is not suh/ect to Youth-Ictdvity Cente,s e..rtahlt.'shedAl'TLR fKaveseer's application was subn>itled. Lastly, since Waveseer's application was submitted before any Youth Activity Center has been established within 1,000 feet of the subject property, Waveseer's application complies with all approval criteria, including all buffer requirements. Any subsequently established Youth Activity Center within the buffer area will not affect Waveseer's validity or ability to continue. Stated differently, since a Youth Activity Center has not previously been established at the Gallucci Property (or anywhere within 1,000' of the subject property), Waveseer may remain at its' location because it submitted an application with public notice of its request for approval of a marijuana production facility prior to the County issuing any permit for a Youth Activity Center.' This is similar to how the state handles the establishment of new schools after a license has been issued to a marijuana retailer. If a school is established within 1,000' of the premises of a licensed marijuana retailer, the marijuana retailer may remain at that location because it was first in time. ORS 475B.115. For these reasons, as well as those in Waveseer's application materials, stated at the hearing, and provided in the post -hearing open record periods, Waveseer complies with the 1,000 -foot Youth Activity Center buffer requirement, and the appellant's argument should be rejected. 3. Waveseer Meets All Odor and Noise Control Standards. As demonstrated by Waveseer's licensed mechanical and acoustical engineering expert, Roger Whitaker, P.E., his professional opinion is that the proposed odor control system meets the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) and will serve as an effective odor control system, which will at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. In addition, his professional opinion is that the noise generated by the proposed mechanical equipment will meet the noise criteria of DCC 18.116.330(B)(11) and will not exceed 30 dBA as measured from any adjacent property line. While Attorney Dickson suggests that Mr. Whitaker's opinion carries less weight because he is a lured hand, she provides no site-specific expert analysis to contradict Mr. Whitaker. Instead, she provides general and generic articles and reports about the dangers of ozone, which are unrelated to the specific site, specific building, and specific Aerisa technology proposed in Waveseer's application. Additionally, Attorney Dickson provides no evidence or expert opinion that ozone -reducing equipment will be required and that will affect Waveseer's noise control methods. Waveseer has proven, through site-specific engineering expert testimony, that the Aerisa ionization technology complies with all odor control standards, and that all noise control standards will be met. a. Odor control standards are met. DCC 18.116.330(8)(10)(d) allows for an alternative method or technology to achieve equal or greater odor mitigation than provided by the standard fan and filter approach. The proposed Aerisa ionization system shall achieve equal or greater odor mitigation than provided by carbon filters and therefore meets the requirements of the Code. As he testified at the hearing, Mr. Whitaker witnessed Aerisa's ionization technology in operation firsthand when he met with the owner of an existing 40,000 square foot indoor grow operation in Portland, Oregon. The system has worked as promised by Aerisa for several years and has continued to exceed that customer's expectations who opted out of using ' Attorney Dickson raises the existence of the Oregon National Guard Youth Challenge Program, but concedes that it is located approximately 2,900' from the subject property, which is well outside of the buffer requirement. rMrRGE I.AW GROUP January 15, 2019 Page 9 traditional carbon bag filters and fans for the same reasons the owner of Waveseer has chosen ionization over filters and fans. As described by Mr. Whitaker, ionization technology has proven effective in all types of environments ranging from classrooms to waste water treatment facilities. Several additional case studies and testimonials were provided as part of the engineering report that included statements directly from end users of Aerisa's technology. The end users included in the case studies and testimonials include representatives in both the private and public sectors. The Appellant has expressed concern over the generation of ozone as a by-product of ionization. As Mr. Whitaker explained, ozone occurs naturally in the air we breathe and typical baseline readings range between 0.01 to 0.04 ppm (parts per million). The threshold limit value of 0.10 ppm of ozone exposure for an 8 -hour -day exposure was established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and often cited by OSHA, FDA and many other governmental agencies. Aerisa specifically engineers and manufactures its ionization equipment to operate at relatively low voltage levels such that no increase in the level of ozone occurs during operation. Ozone levels can be easily recorded and Aerisa has performed such measurements at various enclosed wastewater treatment facilities that employ their ionization technology as shown in the previously supplied video weblinks of actual ozone readings. In each case, ozone measurements recorded both outside and inside the buildings were the same (0.02 to 0.03 ppm) demonstrating that Aerisa's ionization technology does not increase the levels of ozone even in the most demanding of odor control environments. For these reasons, as well as those in Waveseer's application materials, stated at the hearing, and provided in the post -hearing open record periods, Waveseer complies with all odor control standards, and the appellant's argument should be rejected. b. Noise control standards are met. As previously provided by Mr. Whitaker, a detailed, site-specific, and conservative noise analysis was performed for the proposed Waveseer marijuana production operation. As shown in Mr. Whitaker's report, the analysis was based on a specific and complete list of noise -generating mechanical equipment to be used. Noise emission ratings specific to the mechanical equipment to be used were obtained from each manufacturer to ensure the noise level projections at all adjacent property lines were as accurate as possible. To ensure the noise level estimates were conservative (i.e., erroring on the side of estimating higher noise levels than those actually expected to occur) it was assumed that all equipment would run continuously 24 hours each day and no deductions were given for atmospheric and vegetation absorption. As Mr. Whitaker previously testified, because the Aerisa odor control technology will not increase ozone levels over levels that occur in the air naturally, no ozone -reducing equipment is necessary. The prior noise analysis is complete and accurate, and projected noise levels at each property line are below the 30 dBA standard. For these reasons, as well as those in Waveseer's application materials, stated at the hearing, and provided in the post -hearing open record periods, Waveseer complies with all noise control standards, and the appellant's argument should be rejected. 4 Waveseer complies with the utility verification requirement. By letter dated February 1, 2018, Central Electric Cooperative ("CEC") affirmatively stated that CEC is "willing and able to serve" Waveseer's marijuana production facility. Despite such letter, appellant contends that utility verification is insufficient because CEC noted that it will determine if capacity is available or if system upgrades are needed. To the contrary, however, Kevin Rohde, Sr. Distribution Engineer at CEC, has definitively stated that "the system upgrades that will be required will not prevent MERGE LAW GROUP January 15, 2019 Page 10 Mr. Winsor from being provided service" to the subject property. The email from Mr. Rohde was provided in the applicant's rebuttal submittal, dated January 11, 2019. For these reasons, as well as those in Waveseer's application materials, stated at the hearing, and provided in the post -hearing open record periods, Waveseer complies with the utility verification requirement, and the appellant's argument should be rejected. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we believe that Waveseer's application meets all of the applicable standards and approval criteria under the County's code for a marijuana production facility, as described in the County's Administrative Determination decision. Therefore, we respectfully request that you uphold the County Staff's decision and deny the appellant's appeal. Sincerely, Corinne Celko Attorney cc: Client EMERGE LAVA' GROUP 1 \' -�S (- , 1 Board of County Commissioners' Planning Session January 29, 2019 • Commissioner Priorities 10:15 - 12 p.m. 0 Updates on Committee Work - Working Lunch - Additional Judge and Judge Ashby Jeff Hall 12 1 p.m. Courthouse Expansion Lee Randall 1 - 1:45 p.m. Future Capital Needs Lee Randall Project/ Issue Discussions: 1:45 p.m. - Harper Bridge Chris Doty 2:15 p.m. - Fire Resilient Building Codes Randy Scheid, Nick Lelack • 2:45 p.m, - Break 1:45 - 4 p.m. 3 p.m. - Marijuana Land Use Nick Lelack • 3:30 p.m. - 9-1-1 Issues / Future Sara Crosswhite Planning 4 p.m. - Stabilization Center (tentative) Dr. Conway