Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-126-Minutes for Meeting February 27,2019 Recorded 4/11/2019
�wTES COG BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2019-126 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners'Journal 04/11/2019 3:57:06 PM 2019-126 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY Q � s 1:00 PM WEDNESDAY, February 27, 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 staff and no identified representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Commissioner Henderson reported that Secretary of State Dennis Richardson passed away last night. The Board considered drafting a Proclamation in his honor. ACTION ITEMS 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2019-003, Adopting Amended Bylaws for Deschutes County Public Safety Coordinating Council Community Justice Director Ken Hales recalled the prior discussion at a Work Session earlier this year regarding the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council committee appointments and the proposed bylaws changing terms BOCC WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 27, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 6 of appointments from two years to four years. Commissioner Henderson explained he doesn't recall a discussion regarding a proposed change in the bylaws and prefers the appointed terms remain at two years instead of the proposed four year term length. Commissioner DeBone sees the Public Safety Coordinating Council as a vehicle for public safety and the value to our community. Commissioner Henderson does not support this Resolution. Commissioner Henderson explained his concern with having a broad enough representation of committee members recommended to the Board. Commissioner DeBone supported the Board being more involved in selecting members to the committees. The Resolution changing the bylaws was not approved. 2. Review of Potential Appeal of Marijuana Processing Approval and Consideration of Order No. 2019-009. The appeal period on this application expired at 5:00 p.m. yesterday and no opposition was voiced and was not appealed. 3. Public Hearing Preparation - Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval (70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Bend) Matt Martin, Community Development Department planner presented this item for discussion. The proposal for this facility is below the 5,000 square foot mature canopy threshold. On the neighboring property to the south, it is reported there are 4H activities conducted. Commissioner Adair explained there is no fire district supporting that area. Commissioner DeBone would be interested in driving past that subject property. Commissioner Henderson requested a map showing the location. Mr. Martin explained the electrical service line crosses the property to the south via a gentleman's agreement however the neighboring property owner will not agree to an easement for the purposes of a marijuana production BOCC WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 27, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 6 facility. Regarding water, the water rights with Three Sisters Irrigation are being questioned for the usage of the subject property. OTHER ITEMS: Dr. George Conway presented information as continuation of the Business Meeting discussion on House Bill 3063 that removes the ability of parents to decline required immunizations on behalf of a child for reason other than a child's indicated medical diagnosis. Representative Helt requested the Health Services department prepare a technical packet and an editorial to describe the underlining science of preventable diseases. Dr. Conway asked the Board to consider and approve the publication of the editorial in local newspaper, The Bulletin. There are people in our country that believe they don't need to immunize their children. Commissioner Henderson feels the last sentence should be reworded to reflect a statement from Dr. Conway as a medical professional. Commissioner Adair commented on the important impact on the health of our citizens. 4. Fair & Expo Director Interview Participation Discussion County Administrator Tom Anderson and Human Resources Analyst Jason Bavuso presented this item. There are six proposed finalists for the Fair and Expo Center Director interviews are scheduled for Tuesday, March 12. Interview panels consist of community stakeholders, Fair Board, Fair Board Association, COVA, County Counsel, Administration, and the Board of Commissioners. The proposed format is two interview panels and one presentation panel. A three panel scenario was presented for the interviews. The schedule will run from 8:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. A tour of the facility will also be incorporated for each candidate. Mr. Bavuso presented a draft schedule for the interviews. BOCC WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 27, 2019 PAGE 3 OF 6 Discussion held on the process of final decision and selection of the candidates. Commissioner DeBone shared the process of prior interviews and discussions held by interview panels where each panel discusses each candidate. 5. Future BOCC Meeting Schedule Discussion Commissioner Henderson presented an item for consideration regarding the meeting schedule of the County Commissioners. Holding business meetings prior to Work Sessions seems backwards. He proposed a Work Session on Monday and a longer Business Meeting on Wednesday. Tuesday's could be used as additional preparations on reviewing the meeting materials. Commissioner Henderson also spoke on time assignments posted on the agendas. County Administrator Anderson expressed the challenges the Board faces with all of the land use issues. Public hearings could be held and noticed at multiple times on Wednesday and would also allow for a lunch break during the day. Mr. Anderson also suggested placing typical presentations on the agendas of Wednesday as well. Commissioner DeBone expressed his prior experience of meeting formats with agenda items and hasn't felt conflict with the Monday and Wednesday calendar. Needing to look at the agendas on Fridays is important to the Board to prepare for the meetings prior to Monday. Commissioner Adair likes the idea of intensive meeting schedules and wants departments to feel like she is prepared for the information. Commissioner Henderson recommends trying the new meeting schedule format. Commissioner DeBone expressed support. Commissioner Adair suggested starting the work session at 1:00 p.m. on Mondays. Commissioner Henderson proposed to remove the Monday morning meeting and schedule the Wednesday meetings to be scheduled for a full day. On the Monday's of Association of Oregon Counties then there would need consideration of a different date for the afternoon session. The Board would consider possibly doing work session formats on Fridays. The new meeting format would begin in March. BOCC WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 27, 2019 PAGE 4 OF 6 @ ■�- __11 Community Development Department Director Nick Lelack presented a revised presentation for the Senate Committee on Business and General Government hearing that is scheduled for Thursday, February 28, 2019 as directed in this morning's Business Meeting. Tomorrow in the Allen Conference Room we will have the hearings available for conference call. • Trott Report: Commissioner Henderson spoke on the obligation to share the report with the media. The report could be discussed on the Monday Work Session agenda. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: None reported EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 2:57 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 3:30 p.m. OTHER ITEMS (continued): • County Administrator Anderson reported the US Fish and Wildlife wants the County to be a cooperating agency and is requesting consideration for Deschutes County to sign a Memorandum of Understanding. Commissioner DeBone spoke on resources and the potential impact on staff. County Counsel stated the draft MOU is asking for staff resources and not money. The MOU would be sent to the Board for consideration. BOCC WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 27, 2019 PAGE 5 OF 6 MR -MM" �t Ei.�'i S„�" Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:34 p.m. ATTEST* EC SEC R E'TIRT--- BOCC WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 27, 2019 PAGE 6 OF 6 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 1:00 PM, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 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. Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice. CALL TO ORDER ACTION ITEMS 1. Community Renewable Energy Association - Brian Skeahan Pulled 2. 1:00 PM Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2019-003, Adopting Amended Bylaws for Deschutes County Public Safety Coordinating Council - Ken Hales, Communityjustice Director Add -On 3. 1:15 PM Review of Potential Appeal of Marijuana Processing Approval and Consideration Of Order 2019-009 - Isabella Liu, Associate Planner Add - On 4. 1:30 PM Public Hearing Preparation - Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval (70355 McKenzie Canon Road, Bend) - Matthew Martin, Associate Planner 5. 1:45 PM Fair & Expo Director Interview Participation Discussion Add -On Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, February 27, 2019 Page 1 of 2 6. 2:00 PM Future BOCC Meeting Schedule Discussion Add -On COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES EXECUTIVE SESSION 2:30 PM Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations and ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Pending Litigation 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 wish 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, February 27, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA 7�i�;Iii���il�l�i�3i7_ � � �I;�i ilii u � ► • : . 1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 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 Boards ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice. CALL TO ORDER ACTION ITEMS 1. 1:30 PM Community Renewable Energy Association - Brian Skeahan 2. 2:00 PM Consideration of Letter of Support for Public Health Reaccreditation - Hillary Saraceno, Health Services Deputy Director 3. 2:15 PM Public Hearing Preparation - Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval (70355 McKenzie Canon Road, Bend) - Matthew Martin, Associate Planner COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES EXECUTIVE SESSION Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, February 27, 2019 Page 1 of 2 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 wish to discuss as part of the meeting pursuant to ORS 192.640. 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, February 27, 2019 Page 2 of 2 ES CO 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 February 25, 2019 DATE: FROM: Ken Hales, Juvenile Community Justice, 541-317-3115 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2019-003, Adopting Amended Bylaws for Deschutes County Public Safety Coordinating Council Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschute" AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of February 20, 2019 DATE: February 7, 2019 FROM: J. Kenneth Hales Community Justice 541 317 3115 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Resolution to appove amendment to the Deschutes County Public Safety Coordinating Council. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: At the January 2, 2019 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (Board) work session the Board decided to solicit application for citizen member appointments to the Deschutes County Public Safety Cordinating Council (LPSCC). As discussed at the January 2 work session, I subsequently made motion at the February 5, 2019 LPSCC meeting that LPSCC recommend the Board amend LPSCC bylaws to change the term of citizen member appointments from two to four years. A term more suitable for the new appointment process. Motion made and passed. Attached is a resolution to amend the baylaws. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Approve resolution to amend bylaws. ATTENDANCE: Please place on Consent Agenda. DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Original to I:,aura Skundrick secretary to the Deschutes County Public Safety Cordinating Council. 3/6/17 DESCHUTES COUNTY DOCUMENT SUMMARY (NOTE: This form is required to be submitted with ALL contracts and other agreements, regardless of whether the document is to be on a Board agenda or can be signed by the County Administrator or Department Director. If the document is to be on a Board agenda, the Agenda Request Form is also required. If this form is not included with the document, the document will be returned to the Department, Please submit documents to the Board Secretary for tracking purposes, and not directly to Legal Counsel, the County Administrator or the Commissioners. In addition to submitting this form with your documents, please submit this form electronically to the Board Secretary.) Date: Iebruary 7, 2019 Please complete all sections above the Official Review line. Department: lCommunity Justic Contractor/Supplier/Consultant Name: N� Contractor Contact: RAA Contractor Phone #: N� Type of Document: Board Resolution Goods and/or Services: NA Background & History: At the January 2, 2019 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (Board) work session the Board decided to solicit application for citizen member appointments to the Deschutes County Public Safety Cordinating Council (LPSCC). As discussed at the January 2 work session I made motion at the February 5, 2019 LPSCC meeting that LPSCC recommend the Board amend LPSCC bylaws to change the term of citizen member appointments from two to four years. A term more suitable for the new appointment process. Motion passed. Attached is the resolution to change the baylaws and agenda request. Agreement Starting Date: N❑A Ending Date: N® Annual Value or Total Payment: N -A NA Insurance Certificate Received (check box) Insurance Expiration Date: N❑A Check all that apply: NA RFP, Solicitation or Bid Process NA Informal quotes (<$150K) NA Exempt from RFP, Solicitation or Bid Process (specify — see DCC §2.37) NA Funding Source: (Included in current budget? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA If No, has budget amendment been submitted? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA Is this a Grant Agreement providing revenue to the County? NA Yes ❑ No 2/7!2019 NA Special conditions attached to this grant: NA Deadlines for reporting to the grantor: NA If a new FTE will be hired with grant funds, confirm that Personnel has been notified that it is a grant -funded position so that this will be noted in the offer letter: ❑ Yes ❑ No Contact information for the person responsible for grant compliance: Name: Phone #: Departmental Contact and Title: Ken Hale Phone #: 1541 317 3115 Department Director Approval: February 7, 2019 Signature Date Distribution of Document: Who gets the original document and/or copies after it has been signed? Include complete information if the document is to be mailed. Official Review: County Signature Required (check one): X BOCC (if $150,000 or more) — BOARD AGENDA Item ❑ County Administrator (if $25,000 but under $150,000) ❑ Department Director - Health (if under $50,000) ❑ Department Head/Director (if under $25,000) Legal Review Date (YL- 2/7/2019 MZWL LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON A Resolution Adopting Amended Bylaws for Deschutes County Public Safety Coordinating * RESOLUTION NO. 2019-003 Council WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 423.560, the Board of County Commissioners has convened a local public safety coordinating council (LPSCC); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2011-030, the Board adopted Bylaws for LPSCC to govern the proceedings of the LPSCC; and WHEREAS, the LPSCC has prepared and recommended Board approval of amended bylaws to govern the proceedings of the LPSCC; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Board to adopt the amended bylaws for the LPSCC, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON as follows: SECTION 1. Proceedings of the Deschutes County Public Safety Coordinating Council shall be governed by the amended bylaws dated February 20, 2019, which are marked Exhibit A, attached hereto, incorporated herein and are hereby approved. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESC14UTES COUNTY, OREGON Dated this of 52019 PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ATTEST: ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner Recording Secretary PAGE 1 of 1— RESOLUTION NO. 2019-003 D I A aA 0: H m A -- "Am"ll kk BYLAWS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL Article I. NAME and PRINCIPAL OFFICE The name of this group shall be the Deschutes County Public Safety Coordinating Council ("Council") and its principal office shall be Suite 200, Deschutes County Services Building, and 1300 Wall Street, Bend, Oregon 97703. Article II. PURPOSE Section 2.01 The Council shall perform the duties prescribed in ORS 423.560 and ORS 426.565. Section 2.02 The Council shall develop and recommend to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners a plan or plans for use of state resources to service the local offender population and the use of state and local resources to serve the needs of that part of the local offender population who are at least 15 years of age and less than 18 years of age. Section 2.03 The Council shall develop and recommend to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners a plan for use of state resources to serve the local youth offender population. Section 2.04 The Council shall coordinate local juvenile justice policy among affected juvenile justice entities. Section 2.05 The Council shall develop and recommend to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners, a plan to prevent criminal involvement by youth. Section 2.06 The Council shall coordinate a local criminal justice policy among affected criminal justice entities. Section 2.07 The Council may make other recommendations to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners for the betterment of the Deschutes County criminal and juvenile justice systems. Article III. MEMBERS and TERMS of MEMBERSHIP Section 3.01 Council membership will comply with ORS 423.560. Section 3.02 The members shall include: 1) The City of Bend Chief of Police; 2) The City of Redmond Chief of Police; 3) The Deschutes County Sheriff, 4) The Deschutes County District Attorney; Resolution No. 2019 - 003 February 20, 2019 Page 1 of 3 5) The presiding judge of the 1 lth Judicial District or a state court judge selected by the presiding judge; 6) A public defender or defense attorney appointed by the presiding judge of the 1 lth Judicial District 7) The Court Administrator of the 1 lth Judicial District; 8) The Deschutes County Community Corrections Director; 9) The Deschutes County Juvenile Department Director; 10) The Deschutes County Health Services Department Director; 11) A Deschutes County Commissioner selected by the Commissioners; 12) The Deschutes County Administrator or the Deschutes County Administrator's designee; 13) The Director of Deschutes County 911; 14) A City Councilor or Mayor selected by the cities in Deschutes County; 15) A City Manager or other city representative selected by the cities in Deschutes County; 16) A non-voting Oregon Youth Authority representative selected by the Oregon Youth Authority Director; 17) A non-voting Oregon State Police representative, selected by the Superintendent of the State Police; 18) Three citizen member s appointed by the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners one of which shall be a person involved in child abuse detection and intervention. Section 3.03 At the discretion of the Deschutes County Community Justice Department Director, the Community Justice Department Director may serve in lieu of the Deschutes County Community Corrections and or the Juvenile Department Director. Section 3.04 Members shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority or until the member no longer holds the public office described. Citizen members shall serve terms of four years. Citizen members may serve more than one term. Section 3.05 The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners may appoint additional citizen members for terms of "up to" four years. Article IV. OFFICERS and DUTIES Section 4.01 The officers shall be a Chair and a Vice -Chair. Officers shall be elected by a majority of members of the Council and shall hold office for terms of three years. Section 4.02 The Chair shall preside at meetings, form subcommittees, including the subcommittee required by ORS 423.565(4), and form task forces. The Chair shall, appoint subcommittee and task force members. The Chair shall perform all other duties necessary or incidental to the office. The Vice -Chair shall carry out the responsibilities of the Chair in the absence of the Chair. The Vice -Chair shall fill Resolution No. 2019 - 003 February 20, 2019 Page 2 of 3 out the term of the Chair if the office becomes vacant. The Chair shall appoint a Vice -Chair to complete the term of Vice -Chair if the office becomes vacant. Section 4.03 The Chair shall notify the relevant appointing authority in writing if at any time a member appears unable to serve, a position appears vacant, or upon the expiration of the term of any citizen member if the Chair has not received notice of reappointment. Article V. MEETINGS, VOTING and RECORDING Section 5.01 The Council shall meet no less than once per quarter. Special meetings may be called by the Chair or by 2/3 of the Council members. All proceedings of the Council shall be open to the public in accordance with and subject to the provisions of ORS 192.610 to 192.690. Section 5.02 All votes of Council members and minutes of the meetings shall be recorded and shall become matters of public record. A quorum for the transaction of official business shall consist of a majority of the current voting members of the Council. A member must be physically present at the meeting to be counted as part of the quorum. Article VI. BYLAWS Section 6.01 Except for section 3.03 and any other provision relating to Council membership, the Council may amend these bylaws. Section 6.02 A copy of all proposed amendments to these bylaws shall be mailed to each member of the Council at least ten days prior to the date at which action is to be taken on the amendment. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Council members shall be necessary to amend these bylaws. Resolution No. 2019 - 003 February 20, 2019 Page 3 of 3 ES CO o c 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 February 25, 2019 DATE: February 14, 2019 FROM: Isabella Liu, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Review of Potential Appeal of Marijuana Processing Approval and Consideration Of Order 2019-009 Attendance: Izze Liu, Associate Planner Summary: On February 13, 2019, staff issued an approval of a marijuana processing facility located at 4859 N Highway 97, Redmond. The 12 -day appeal period ends on February 25, 2019. Attached is Order 2019-009 that would allow the Board to review any timely filed appeal of file nos. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP. STAFF MEMORANDUM Date: February 25, 2019 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Izze Liu, Associate Planner Re: Administrative Decision (File Nos. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP) to Hear Potential Appeal The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a work session on February 25th at 1:30 PM and will consider hearing a potential appeal of an administrative decision (File Nos. 247 -18- 000887 -AD, 888 -SP) approving a marijuana processing application. 1. Application On November 21, 2018, a proposal was filed for an Administrative Determinations (AD) and a Site Plan Review (SP) to establish a marijuana processing facility at 4859 N Highway 97, Redmond. The applicant is proposing to utilize three structures for the processing use but will not exceed a total area of 1,630 square feet. II. Decision On December 22, 2018, the administrative determination application was deemed complete. The Planning Division issued an administrative decision without a public hearing on February 13, 2019, determining the applicant met the applicable criteria (Attachment 2). Notice of the decision was sent to neighboring property owners within 750 feet and parties that provided comments. The decision becomes final if not appealed by 5:00 PM on February 25, 2019. III. Appeal Although no appeal has been filed yet and no public comments were submitted, staff considers an appeal is probable based on the nature of the application. IV. 150 -day Issuance of a Final Local Decision The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision is currently May 20, 2019. V. Board Options Section 22.28.050 of the Deschutes County Code authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to initiate review of any administrative action or a Hearings Body's decision within 12 days of the date of mailing of the final written decision of the Planning Director or lower Hearings Body. The 12th day following the mailing date of this decision is February 25, 2019. Attachment 1 is a Board Order to initiate a de novo review of this file, should a timely appeal be filed. Attachments: 1. Board Order to Initiate Review 2. 2019-02-13 - Findings & Decision, Notice of Decision 3. 2019-02-07 - C. Butler Comment 4. 2019-02-07 - Notice of Application to Redmond Fire & Rescue 5. S. Nelson Comment 6. 2018-12-17 - M. McIntosh Comment 7. 2018-12-16 - D. Downing Comment 8. 2018-12-12 - R. Scheid Comment 9. 2018-12-07 - Pate Response to P. Russell Comment 10.2018-12-07 - P. Russell Comment 11.2018-12-04 - Notice of Application 12.2018-11-30 - Land Use Action Sign Affidavit 13.2018-11-21 -Application Ex. M - Redmond Fire & Rescue Map 14.2018-11-21 - Application Ex. L - 1000 Foot Buffer Map 15.2018-11-21 - Application Ex. K - Topography Map 16.2018-11-21 - Application Ex. J - Photos of Property 17.2018-11-21 -Application Ex. I - Utility Verification Letter 18.2018-11-21 - Application Ex. H - Water Right 19.2018-11-21 - Application Ex. G - Odor and Noise Report 20.2018-11-21 - Application Ex. F - Greenhouse Floor Plan (Confidential) 21.2018-11-21 - Application Ex. E - Agricultural Support Structure Floor Plan (Confidential) 22.2018-11-21 - Application Ex. D - Vicinity Map 23.2018-11-21 - Application Ex. C - Landscape Plan 24.2018-11-21 - Application Ex. B - Site Plan 25.2018-11-21 -Application Ex. A - Deed 26.2018-11-21 -Application Exhibit E and F of the submitted application materials have been marked as confidential by the applicant. These documents include elevation drawings and floor plans for the greenhouse and agricultural support structure. Staff will provide a hard copy of Exhibit E and F during the work session. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 2 of 2 N WED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Accepting Review of Administrative Decision in File Nos. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP ORDER NO. 2019-009 WHEREAS, on February 13, 2019, staff issued an Administrative Decision on Application Nos. 247 -18- 000887 -AD, 888 -SP; and WHEREAS, Section 22.28.050 of the Deschutes County Code authorizes the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") to initiate review of any administrative action or a Hearings Body's decision within 12 days of the date of mailing of the final written decision of the Planning Director or lower Hearings Body; and WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. Should a timely appeal of Administrative Decision on Application Nos. 247-18-000887- AD/888-SP be filed, the Board of County Commissioners will serve as the hearings body for the appeal consistent with applicable provisions of DCC, including DCC 22.32.027(B)(4). Section 2. The review shall be heard de novo in order for the Board to interpret DCC 18.116.330 and other applicable provisions. Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to be given to persons or parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.24.030 and 22.32.030. Dated this 25' of February, 2019 ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 1 OF 1- ORDER No. 2019-009 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT/OWNER: FINDINGS AND DECISION 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Lindsey & Christopher Pate Mailing Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of an Administrative Determination and Site Plan review to establish a marijuana processing facility in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. STAFF CONTACT: Izze Liu, Associate Planner 1. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18, of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone Chapter 18.56, Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) Combining Zone Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance II. BASIC FINDINGS A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 4859 North Highway 97, Redmond; and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map No. 14-13-28, as tax lot 1000. B. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record pursuant to County file no. LR - 92 -85. C. ZONING: The property is zoned EFU and within the SMIA and LM Combining Zones. D. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Administrative Determination and Site Plan review for a new marijuana processing facility. Marijuana processing is proposed within a greenhouse, agricultural support structure, and a shipping container. The proposed use will not exceed a total area of 1,630 square feet. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 1 (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd E. LAND USE HISTORY: In April 2017, the subject property was approved for a marijuana production facility through land use file numbers 247 -17 -000040 -AD and 247 -17 -000041 -LM. As part of this approval, a 1,680 -square -foot agricultural support structure and a 10,320 - square -foot greenhouse were approved. The applicant is proposing to utilize a portion of these approved buildings for the processing use. F. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 15 acres in size and irregular in shape. The property is accessed from a private drive that connects to Highway 97 to the east. The private drive runs along the southern property boundary and is shared with the adjacent neighbor. The subject property is developed with a single-family dwelling and several accessory structures. The location for the proposed use is relatively level, but the property has a sloping grade with an approximate 80 -foot change in elevation from east to west. Vegetation consists of native grasses, brush, and juniper. Figure 1 - Subject Property G. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application on January 23, 2018, and received comments from the following agencies: 1. Deschutes Counter Planning Division: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner, provided the following comments on December 7, 2018: 1 have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-18-000887-AD/888-SP for a marijuana processing operation on 15 acres in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Landscape Management (LM) zones at 4859 N. Hwy 97, aka 14-13-28, Tax Lot 1000. This site was previously approved for a marijuana production (growing) operation under 247-17-000040- AD/041-LM. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 2 of 37 The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook does not contain a category for marijuana processing. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Manufacturing (Land Use 140) based on the processing activities and employees of this activity. Manufacturing generates weekday daily trips at a rate of 3.93 trips per 1,000 square feet based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 101 edition. The application indicates the site will use portions of three buildings approved in 247-17-000040-AD/041-LM for a total of 1,630 square feet of cannabis processing and support. The resulting trip rate would be 6.4 daily trips (3.93 X 1.630). Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no further traffic analysis is needed if there are 50 or less new weekday trips generated from the use. The proposed land use will not meet this minimum threshold for additional traffic analysis. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $4,240 per p.m. peak hour trip. The ITE indicates Manufacturing generates 0.67 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet, which in this instance would result in 1.09 p.m. peak hour trips (0.67 X 1.630). Thus the applicable SDC would be $4,622 (1.09 X $4,240). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. Staff notes the previous land use, 247-17-000040-LM/041-LM, had an SDC of $12,712. There is no record of this having been paid. Board Resolution 2013-020 in Section 5 (Collection) lists potential County actions at Section 5(E) which the County can use in instances when the SDC has not been paid: 1. Refuse to issue a Certificate of Occupancy, 2. Refuse to issue any permits of any kind to the delinquent permittee for any development, 3. Condition any development approval of the delinquent permittee on payment in full, including penalties and interest, 4. If the property becomes occupied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, initiate code enforcement proceedings, 5. For purposes of this section, delinquent permittee shall include any persons controlling a delinquent corporate permittee, and, conversely, any corporation controlled by a delinquent individual permittee. Normally, the County would consider exercising these options, but based on the March 8, 2018, Annual Report the production approved under 247-17-000040-AD/041-LM has not been initiated as the greenhouses were not built at the time of that site visit. The applicant should provide further clarification if the marijuana being processed under this application is from either medical marijuana, which predates the County's regulations, or is from the production approved by247-17-000040-AD/041-LM. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant responded to Mr. Russell's comments and stated that the approved marijuana production facility has not yet been initiated on the subject property. The applicant also stated that the proposed marijuana processing facility is for recreational marijuana licensed by the OLCC. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 3 of 37 2. Deschutes County Building Division: Randy Scheid, Building Official, provided the following comments on December 12, 2018: Notice: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. 3. Central Oregon Irrigation District: Daniel Downing, GIS/Operations Technician, provided the following comments on December 16, 2018: COID FACILITIES: • The subject's property has the F -lateral that runs through the northern portion o It has 75' canal right of way along with a 20'road right of way on the north side o No permanent structures are allowed within COID's easement o No excavation is allowed within COID's right of way without first obtaining permission. o Any crossing above ground or below ground of a COID facility needs to have a crossing license COIR WATER RIGHTS. • None COID GUIDELINE STATEMENT • None 4. Redmond School District: Michael McIntosh, Superintendent, provided the following comments on December 17, 2018: I am the Superintendent for the Redmond School District. I have become aware of the application to locate a large marijuana production and processing facility on Highway 97 just north of Cinder Butte. We at the school district are strongly opposed to this application for a number of reasons. First, this facility would be located within close proximity to a number of public and private schools in Redmond. Terrebonne Community School, Tom McCall ElementarySchool and Elton Gregory Middle School are within short distances both north and south of the proposed site. That proximity concerns us deeply as there has been documentation that marijuana is being promoted and used by students at both Redmond and Ridgeview high schools as well as our middle schools. Second, as you know, because of restrictions under federal law, these operations are conducted on a cash basis which invite a significant new level of potential conflict and criminal activity. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 4 of 37 Some have argued that this is just ordinaryfarm use. That is not true. We are comparing apples and oranges. What other farm use needs to have security cameras? What other farm use cannot deposit their monies into a bank? What other farm use is illegal under federal law? In what other farm use has there been, at least anecdotal and probably statistical data of criminal activity associated with these types of operations, particularly in light of the fact that these marijuana crops have significantly higher value and there is always a large amount of cash involved. Third, we clearly understand negative impacts on school and family culture. The possession of marijuana is still against the law for minors as it should be. School officials and the parents of all children deserve the opportunity to work and attend school without the increased availability of these and other drugs. The presence of this facility will only create a higher risk of student involvement in the drug culture. If that is indeed the case, then we are failing in our most fundamental duty to our citizens, the safety of our community and particularly our children. On behalf of the Redmond School District, its employees and particularly its students, we urge you to deny this application, as we believe it will be very detrimental to the Redmond community and impose serious conflicts for both the school district and the community at large. 5. Deschutes County Sheriff's Office: Sherriff L. Shane Nelson provided the following comments: Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and set backs of the property in this type of request and how it affects the livability of our community members; in conjunction with the issue that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. In addition, we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are increasing. There should be no deviation or any exceptions made to any state or county regulations on the books. No new grows or retail operations should be approved. Marijuana production is against Federal Law There are several rural residents who have issues with smell, sound and sight issues related to marijuana grows and how these affect qualify of life. For the last 2 years there has been an overproduction of marijuana in our state. Our Sources are: U.S Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon, former OSU Professor Seth Crawford, Draft OSP Marijuana Analysts report and the recent marijuana report from the Oregon/Idaho HIDTA. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 5 of 37 6. Redmond Fire & Rescue: Clara Butler, Deputy Fire Marshal, provided the following comments on February 7, 2019: Thank you for forwarding me the application for this project. I have completed comments for this project several years ago and met with the owners on the fire requirements, see attached. I have also attached a copy of the turn around requirements as the site is quite a ways from the road. The owners also came in and we discussed the requirements. All fire code requirements will need to be met in order for the processing of marijuana, this includes access and water requirements. Note: Water and access requirements must be met. WATER: Area without Fire Hydrants: NFPA 1142 Requirements o If the structure is being built in an area without a public water supply system, then the water flow requirements will come from NFPA 1142. o Note: The following information will need to be provided in order to determine accurate water flow requirements. ■ Building height, length and width ■ Use of the building ■ Type of construction ■ Whether the structure 100 sq ft or larger and within 50 feet of any other structures Structures with Automatic Sprinkler systems - 2012 NFPA 1142 Chapter 7 o The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to waive the water supply required by this standard when a structure is protected by an automatic sprinkler system that fully meets the requirements of NFPA 13 or NFPA 13D o Note: Contact Deschutes County Building Plans review staff for other options. ACCESS. • Premises Identification -2014 OFC 505.1 o Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and visible at night. Number/letter shall be a minimum of 4"high and a 0.5"stroke width. • Fire Apparatus Access Roads - 2014 OFC Section 503 & Appendix D o Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 ft of all portions of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 6 of 37 o Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. o Fire apparatus roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of 70,000 lbs and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. o The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be 30 feet inside and 50 feet outside. o The grade of the fire apparatus access roads shall be within the limits established by the fire code official (10%). Fire Lanes - 2014 OFC 503.3 & Appendix D o Approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. Such signs or notices shall be kept in legible conditions at all times. The stroke shall be 1 inch with letters 6 inches high and read "No Parking Fire Lane". Spacing for signage shall be every 50 feet. • Recommended to also (in addition to Fire lane signs) paint fire lane curbs in bright red paint with white letters. o Appendix D Section 103.6.1 Roads 20-26 Ft. Wide: Shall have Fire Lane signs posted on both sides of afire lane. o Appendix D Section 103.6.2 Roads more than 26 Ft. Wide: Roads 26-32 ft wide shall have a Fire Lane signs posted on one side of the road as afire lane. Aerial Access Roads - 2014 OFC Appendix D, Section 105 o Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads and capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadways. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, all access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. • Dead -Ends - 2014 OFC Section 503.2.5 o Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for requirements. o OFC Table D 103.4 Dead Ends over 750 Feet- Require special approval. If approved, there shall be a turn -around no more than every 1000 feet with a bulb of 60 feet across and the width of the road shall be a minimum of 26 ft clear for fire apparatus. • Additional Access - 2014 OFC Section 503.1.2 o The fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, conditions or terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 7 of 37 Emergency Access Road Gates - 2014 OFC Appendix D 103.5 o Minimum 20 feet wide. o Gates shall be swinging or sliding type. o Shall be able to be manually operated by one person. o Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening by emergency personnel & approved by fire official. o Locking devices shall be fire department Knox Key Switch purchased from A-1 Lock, Safe Co., Curtis Safe & Lock, on line at www.knoxbox.com or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. o Section 503.3: Install a sign on the gate "No Parking -Fire Lane" Key Boxes - 2014 OFC Section 506.1 o An approved key box shall be installed on all structures equipped with afire alarm system and /or sprinkler system. Approved key boxes can only be purchased at A-1 Lock Safe Co., Curtis Safe and Lock, on line at www.knoxbox.com, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. Commercial & Industrial Development - 2014 OFCAppendix D 104 o Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height shall have at least 2 means of fire apparatus access for each structure. o Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. o Where 2 access roads are required, they shall be placed not less than % the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 7. The following agencies did not respond or had no comments: Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Department of State Lands, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Deschutes County Road Department, Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District, and the Watermaster - District 11. H. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed a written notice of this application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on December 4, 2018. In addition, the applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.23.030(B) of Title 22. The applicant has submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit for the application dated November 30, 2018, which indicates that the applicant posted notice of the land use action on November 29, 2018. Staff did not receive any public comments. I. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on November 21, 2018. The application was deemed complete on December 21, 2018. The 150`h day on which the County must take final action on this application is therefore May 20, 2019. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 8 of 37 III. FINDINGS TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING CHAPTER 18.16, EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES. Section 18.16.025. Use Permitted Subject to Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 or DCC Section 18.16.042 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 where applicable. 1. A facility for the processing of farm crops, or for the production of biofuel as defined in ORS 315.141, if the facility is located on a farm operation that provides at least one-quarter of the farm crops processed at the facility, or an establishment for the slaughter, processing or selling of poultry or poultry products pursuant to ORS 603.038. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to process marijuana within three separate structures but will not exceed a total area of 1,630 square feet. As part of the marijuana production approval, a 1,680 - square -foot agricultural support structure and a 10,320 -square -foot greenhouse were approved. The applicant is proposing to utilize part of these approved buildings for marijuana processing. The applicant is proposing to utilize 350 square feet of the agricultural support structure, 1,080 square feet of the greenhouse, and is proposing to place a new shipping container on the propertyto utilize approximately 200 square feet for the proposed use. At least one-quarter of the marijuana processed on-site as measured by weight is to be produced at the facility in any calendar year. A condition of approval will be included to ensure compliance. In addition, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Division written documentation of compliance with the requirement in paragraph DCC 18.16.025(1) by submitting processed crop summaries to the Planning Division on request, and no less frequently than on an annual basis by January 31 of each year. 1. if a building is established or used for the processing facility or establishment, the farm operator may not devote more than 10,000 square feet of floor area to the processing facility or establishment, exclusive of the floor area designated for preparation, storage or other farm use. FINDING: As stated above, the applicant is proposing to utilize a total of 1,630 square feet for the marijuana processing use. This criterion will be met. 2. A processing facility or establishment must comply with all applicable siting standards but the standards shall not be applied in a manner that prohibits the siting of the processing facility. FINDING: Staff finds that the processing facility, as proposed and conditioned, can comply with all applicable siting standards identified in this decision and that these applicable standards have not been be applied in a manner that prohibits the siting of the processing facility. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 9 of 37 3. The County shall not approve any division of a lot or parcel that separates a processing facility or establishment from the farm operation on which it is located. FINDING: No division of a lot or parcel is proposed. L. Marijuana processing, subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.16.025(1) and 18.116.330. FINDING: The proposed marijuana processing facility is permitted outright in the EFU zones, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.16.025(l),18.116.330, and 18.124. Compliance with these provisions are addressed in this decision. 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: The applicant has stated in their burden of proof that the proposed structures for processing will not exceed 30 feet in height. A condition of approval will be included to ensure compliance. Section 18.16.070. Yards. A. The front yard shall be a minimum of., 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. in addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDING: The subject property does not have direct frontage on a road but has access from a private driveway that connects to Highway 97 to the east. The nearby properties have an eastern front lot line abutting Highway 97. The definition of "lot line, front" per DCC 18.04.030 states, "In the case of a lot that does not front directly on any street, the front lot line shall be that lot line parallel to and facing the same direction as the front lot lines of the majority of the other properties in the immediate area". Therefore, the front yard on the subject property is the eastern property line 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 10 of 37 which has a setback of 40 feet. The minimum side and rear yard setbacks are 25 feet because the applicant is not proposing to establish a nonfarm dwelling. The submitted plot plan indicates that the proposed structures will be setback more than 100 feet from the northern, southern and eastern property boundaries and 38 feet from the western property boundary. The required yard setbacks of subsections (A), (B), and (C) will be met. Any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes will be addressed during building permit review. CHAPTER 18.56, SURFACE MINING IMPACT AREA COMBINING ZONE Section 18.56.140. Exemptions The following shall be exempt from the provisions of DCC 18.56: A. Uses in the SMIA Zone which are not within one-half mile of any identified resource in the SM Zone after reclamation has occurred. B. Continuation and maintenance of a conforming or nonconforming use established prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 90-014. C. The employment of land for farm or forest use. D. Additions to noise -sensitive or dust -sensitive uses or structures existing on the effective date of Ordinance No. 90-014 or established or constructed in accordance with DCC Chapter 18.56 which are completely screened from the surface mining site by the existing use or structure. FINDING: The subject property has been approved for marijuana production and is proposing a new marijuana processing facility. The processing use is considered accessory to the approved marijuana production facility. The processing use is proposed within three structures and will not exceed a total area of 1,630 square feet. Staff finds the applicant meets the requirements of item C above and is exempt from the provisions of DCC 18.56. CHAPTER 18.84, LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE Section 18.84.020. Application of Provisions. The provisions of DCC 18.84 shall apply to all areas within one-fourth mile of roads identified as landscape management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Map. The provisions of DCC 18.84 shall also apply to all areas within the boundaries of a State scenic waterway or Federal wild and scenic river corridor and all areas within 660 feet of rivers and streams otherwise identified as landscape management corridors in the comprehensive plan and the County Zoning Map. The distance specified above shall be measured horizontally from the center line of designated landscape management roadways or from the nearest ordinary high water mark of a designated landscape management river or stream. The limitations in DCC 18.84.20 shall not unduly restrict accepted agricultural practices. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 11 of 37 FINDING: North Highway 97 is identified as the LM feature. The majority of the property falls within the LM Combining Zone associated with the highway except for a small section in the southwest portion of the site. As mentioned previously, the applicant is proposing to establish the processing use within two structures that have already been approved. The applicant is also proposing to establish the processing use within a new shipping container. The applicant did not include any design details for the shipping container except that the shipping container will contain a walk-in freezer. Pursuant to DCC 18.84.050, Landscape Management review for the shipping container may be required if the Building Safety Division requires an agricultural exempt or building permit. A condition of approval will be included to ensure compliance. CHAPTER 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS Section 18.116.020. Clear vision areas. A. In all zones, a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. A clear vision area shall contain no planting, fence, wall, structure or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or, where no curb exists, from the established street centerline grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight feet above the grade. B. A clear vision area shall consist of a triangular area on the corner of a lot at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. Two sides of the triangle are sections of the lot lines adjoining the street or railroad measured from the corner to a distance specified in DCC 18.116.020(8)(1) and (2). Where lot lines have rounded corners, the specified distance is measured from a point determined by the extension of the lot lines to a point of intersection. The third side of the triangle is the line connecting the ends of the measured sections of the street lot lines. The following measurements shall establish clear vision areas within the County. 1. In an agricultural, forestry or industrial zone, the minimum distance shall be 30 feet or at intersections including an alley, 10 feet. 2. In all other zones, the minimum distance shall be in relationship to street and road right-of-way widths as follows: Right -of -Way Width Clear Vision 80 feet or more 20 feet 60 feet 30 feet 50 feet and less 40 feet FINDING: Based on the submitted site plan, no clear vision area will be obstructed with this proposal. This criterion is met. Section 18 116.030. Off Street Parking and Loading. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 12 of 37 A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and evidence are presented to show how the off-street parking and loading requirements are to be met and that property is and will be available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18 FINDING: The off-street parking requirements for the proposed processing facility are addressed below. B. Off -Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows: 1. Commercial, industrial and public utility uses which have a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or more shall provide truck loading or unloading berths subject to the following table: Sq. Ft. of Floor Area No. of Berths Required Less than 5,000 0 5,000-30,000 1 30,000-100,000 2 100,000 and over 3 3. A loading berth shall contain space 10 feet wide, 35 feet long and have a height clearance of 14 feet. Where the vehicles generally used for loading exceed these dimensions, the required length of these berths shall be increased. FINDING: The proposed marijuana processing use is most similar to an industrial use in nature and requires compliance with this standard. The proposed marijuana processing will occur within three structures but will not exceed a total area of 1,630 square feet. The area dedicated to the processing use falls below the threshold for requiring a loading berth. Therefore, no berth is required. C. Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set forth in DCC 18.116.030 for all uses in all zoning districts. Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building existing on the effective date of DCC Title 18 is changed. D. Number of Spaces Required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows: 7. Industrial. Use Requirements 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 13 of 37 Manufacturing 1 space per employee on establishment the largest working shift 9. Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate parking as required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The above list shall be used as a guide for determining requirements for said other uses. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish a new marijuana processing facility, which is an industrial use but it's not specifically listed in this section. The use is comparable to what is described under DCC 18.116.030(D)(7). The applicant has stated in their burden of proof that the processing use will include up to six employees during the largest working shift. The applicant is proposing a minimum of eight parking spaces on the northern side of the existing dwelling. An existing secondary parking area is also located in the northwest portion of the property. This criterion will be met. E. General Provisions. Off -Street Parking. 1. More Than One Use on One or More Parcels. In the event several uses occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirement for off-street parking shall be the sum of requirements of the several uses computed separately. 2. joint Use of Facilities. The off-street parking requirements of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking or loading space used jointly to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators of the uses, structures or parcels that their operations and parking needs do not overlap at any point of time. If the uses, structures or parcels are under separate ownership, the right to joint use of the parking space must be evidence by a deed, lease, contract or other appropriate written document to establish the joint use. FINDING: No other uses or businesses will be sharing the proposed off-street parking spaces. Therefore, these criteria are not applicable. 3. Location of Parking Facilities. Off-street parking spaces for dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling. Other required parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel or another parcel not farther than 500 feet from the building or use they are intended to serve, measured in a straight line from the building in a commercial or industrial zone. Such parking shall be located in a safe and functional manner as determined during site plan approval. The burden of proving the existence of such off - premise parking arrangements rests upon the applicant. FINDING: All required parking spaces are located on the subject property. The applicant is not proposing to utilize parking on another parcel. This criterion is not applicable. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 14 of 37 4. Use of Parking Facilities. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. FINDING: A condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance. S. Parking, Front Yard. Required parking and loading spaces for multi family dwellings or commercial and industrial uses shall not be located in a required front yard, except in the Sunriver UUC Business Park (BP) District and the La Pine UUC Business Park (LPBP) District and the La Pine UUC Industrial District (LPI), but such space may be located within a required side or rear yard. FINDING: The required parking spaces for the proposed marijuana processing facility will be located outside of the required front yard. This criterion will be met. 6. On -Street Parking Credit. Notwithstanding DCC 1&116.030(G)(2), within commercial zones in the La Pine Planning Area and the Terrebonne and Tumalo unincorporated communities, the amount of required off-street parking can be reduced by one off-street parking space for every allowed on - street parking space adjacent to a property up to 30% of the required off- street parking... FINDING: The applicant is not requesting off-street parking credit. This criterion is not applicable. F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off -Street Parking Areas. Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private parking area, including commercial parking lots, shall be developed as follows: 1. Except for parking to serve residential uses, an off-street parking area for more than five vehicles shall be effectively screened by a sight obscuring fence when adjacent to residential uses, unless effectively screened or buffered by landscaping or structures. FINDING: The applicant has stated in their burden of proof that six employees will be on-site during the largest working shift. The parking will be established on the north side of the existing dwelling. An existing barn will shield the proposed parking area from the residential propertyto the east. The applicant is also proposing to plant additional trees between the parking area and the barn to the east to provide additional screening. This criterion will be met. 2. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 15 of 37 FINDING: The applicant is not proposing to install lighting to illuminate off-street parking areas. This criterion is not applicable. 3. Groups of more than two parking spaces shall be located and designed to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right of way other than an alley. FINDING: Based on the submitted site plan, staff finds the proposed parking spaces are located and designed to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right-of-way. 4. Areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved surfaces adequately maintained for all weather use and so drained as to contain any flow of water on the site. An exception may be made to the paving requirements by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon finding that. a. A high water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface to reduce surface water runoff problems, or b. The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties, or C. The subject use will be in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial District in an unincorporated community and dust control measures will occur on a continuous basis which will mitigate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. FINDING: The subject property is located outside of an unincorporated community. The applicant has stated that the parking spaces will be graveled and maintained in a manner in which it will not create dust problems for the neighboring properties. Staff finds this standard can be met through a condition of approval requiring the areas used for vehicle standing and maneuvering associated with the marijuana processing use shall be constructed with a surface that is adequately maintained for all weather use and maintained in a manner that will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. S. Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering. FINDING: The applicant has stated that the access aisles will be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering and provided a site plan showing a one-way loop that is approximately 100 feet wide. A condition of approval will be included to ensure that the access aisle meets the requirements of the Redmond Fire & Rescue District. 6. Service drives to off-street parking areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic, provide maximum safety of traffic access and egress and maximum safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic on site. The number of service drives shall be limited to the minimum that will accommodate and serve the traffic anticipated. Service drives shall be clearly 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 16 of 37 and permanently marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. Service drives to drive in establishments shall be designed to avoid backing movements or other maneuvering within a street other than an alley. 7. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right of way line and a straight line joining said lines through points 30 feet from their intersection. FINDING: The applicant is not proposing to utilize service drives. This criterion is met. 8. Parking spaces along the outer boundaries of a parking area shall be contained by a curb or bumper rail placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. FINDING: The proposed parking area is not located near any property boundary or street right-of- way. No curb or bumper rail is required to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. G. Off -Street Parking Lot Design. All off-street parking lots shall be designed subject to County standards for stalls and aisles as set forth in the following drawings and table: (SEE TABLE 1 AT END OF CHAPTER 18.116) 1. For one row of stalls use "C" + "D" as minimum bay width. 2. Public alley width may be included as part of dimension "D," but all parking stalls must be on private property, off the public right of way. 3. For estimating available parking area, use 300-325 square feet per vehicle for stall, aisle and access areas. 4. For large parking lots exceeding 20 stalls, alternate rows may be designed for compact cars provided that the compact stalls do not exceed 30 percent of the total required stalls. A compact stall shall be eight feet in width and 17 feet in length with appropriate aisle width. FINDING: The proposed parking area complies with these requirements with a stall width of 9 feet and stall depth of 20 feet. The parking area is accessed from a one-way loop that connects to the existing private driveway. New development and any construction, renovation or alteration of an existing use requiring a site plan review under DCC Title 18 for which planning approval is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance 93-005 shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.031. A. Number and Type of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required. 1. General Minimum Standard. a. All uses that require off-street motor vehicle parking shall, except as specifically noted, provide one bicycle parking space for every five required motor vehicle parking spaces. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 17 of 37 b. Except as specifically set forth herein, all such parking facilities shall include at least two sheltered parking spaces or, where more than 10 bicycle spaces are required, at least 50 percent of the bicycle parking spaces shall be sheltered. C. When the proposed use is located outside of an unincorporated community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial zone, exceptions to the bicycle parking standards may be authorized by the Planning Director or Hearings Body if the applicant demonstrates one or more of the following: i The proposed use is in a location accessed by roads with no bikeways and bicycle use by customers or employees is unlikely. ii. The proposed use generates less than 50 vehicle trips per day. iii. No existing buildings on the site will accommodate bicycle parking and no new buildings are proposed. iv. The size, weight, or dimensions of the goods sold at the site makes transporting them by bicycle impractical or unlikely. V. The use of the site requires equipment that makes it unlikely that a bicycle would be used to access the site. Representative examples would include, but not be limited to, paintball parks, golf courses, shooting ranges, etc. FINDING: The subject property is located outside of an unincorporated community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial zone, thereby eligible for exceptions to the bicycle parking standards. Staff finds the proposal is allowed an exception to the bike parking standards because the subject property takes access from Highway 97 which does not have bikeways, bicycle use by employees is highly unlikely, and the proposed use will generate less than 50 vehicle trips per day. Section 18.116.330, Marijuana Production. Processing. and Retailing. A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: 1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and Rl zones. 2. Marijuana Processing in the EFU, MUA-10, TOC, TOCK, TUC, Tul, Rl, and SUBP zones 3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TOC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RC, Rl, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP zones. 4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TOC, TeCR, TUC, RC, SUC, and SUBP zones. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish a new marijuana processing facility in the EFU Zone. B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria. 1. Minimum Lot Area. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 18 of 37 a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. FINDING: The subject property is 15 acres in size. This criterion is met. 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the MUA-10 zone, marijuana production and processing shall be located entirely within one or more fully enclosed buildings with conventional or post framed opaque, rigid walls and roof covering. Use of greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures is prohibited. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. C. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. FINDING: The subject property is within the EFU Zone. The applicant is proposing to establish the marijuana processing use within three structures and utilize a total area of 1,630 square feet. The applicant was approved to construct a 10,320 square -foot greenhouse and a 1,680 -square -foot agricultural support structure for the marijuana production facility through land use file numbers 247 -17 -000040 -AD and 247 -17 -000041 -LM. The applicant is proposing to utilize 350 square feet of the agricultural support structure, 1,080 square feet of the greenhouse, and approximately 200 - square feet of a new shipping container for the proposed use. As an ongoing condition of approval, marijuana production and processing is prohibited in any outdoor area. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that. i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. C. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to orgreater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 19 of 37 FINDING: The applicant is not proposing to modify their approved mature plant canopy size. These criteria do not apply. 4. Maximum Building FloorArea. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area. 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to orgreater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. FINDING: The subject property is not located in the MUA-10 Zone. These criteria do not apply. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. FINDING: The proposed use includes one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production site. An ongoing condition of approval will be included to ensure that only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the marijuana production and processing use. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. 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. FINDING: The submitted plot plan indicates that the approved greenhouse and agricultural support structure for the marijuana production and processing use will be sited 100 feet or more from all property lines except for the western property boundary. The applicant has received a setback exception from the western property boundary for the greenhouse and agricultural support structure under land use file numbers 247 -17 -000040 -AD and 247 -17 -000041 -LM. This decision states: The applicant is seeking an exception to the 100 foot property line setback to the west in order to place the greenhouse as far away as possible from the single family dwelling to the east, in order to mitigate the visibility of the marijuana production site. The applicant stated in the burden of proof that they have discussed the operation with the western neighbor, of which they will be seeking the exception next to, and he is in support of the application. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 20 of 37 Staff applies these findings to the proposed marijuana processing use because the processing use will utilize a portion of both approved structures. The applicant is also proposing to place a shipping container on the property for the processing use which will meet all required setbacks. These structures will also be sited more than 300 feet from any off-site dwelling. These criteria will be met. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school, ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school, iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center, and V. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. C. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon, or iii. Lawfully established. FINDING: According to the applicant's burden of proof, there are no uses requiring a separation distance located within 1,000 feet from the proposed processing use. Based on the County's GIS mapping tool, staff has confirmed that there are no uses listed above within 1,000 feet of the proposed uses. These criteria will be met. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 squarefeetof canopy areaformature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road, or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property - 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 21 of 37 C. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall. i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information, ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation, and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. FINDING: The applicant is proposing a marijuana processing facility. These criteria do not apply. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. C. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15. 10, Outdoor Lighting Control. FINDING: The applicant has stated that the indoor lighting for the marijuana processing facility will not be visible outside the building from 7:00 pm to 7:00 am. The applicant states that external lights will be on motion sensors and pointed downwards. A condition of approval shall be added to ensure compliance. 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. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 22 of 37 d. The odor control system shall. i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. FINDING: The applicant has submitted an odor report dated November 21, 2018, by Laura Breit, P.E., a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon (#79874PE). As mentioned previously, the subject property has obtained approval for marijuana production within an agricultural support structure and a greenhouse. As part of the marijuana processing use, the applicant is proposing to utilize 350 square feet of the approved agricultural support structure to produce rosin and dry sift hash. The odor report submitted for the proposed processing use includes new mitigation methods for the area where the processing is proposed. These findings do not undermine the odor mitigation findings previously made under land use file numbers 247 -17 -000040 -AD and 247 -17 -000041 -LM. The proposed shipping container will be used to produce ice water extract which will essentially consist of a walk-in freezer. The odor report provided with this application addresses odor mitigation in both of these structures. The report states odor will be neutralized with carbon filters attached to inline fans. The inline fans will circulate and scrub air at either end of the hallway near the exits. The proposed shipping container for ice water extract will use a single carbon filterwith inline fan within the walk-in freezer. The HVAC system will use mini -split heat pumps to condition both structures without need to exhaust air outside. The report suggests that the applicant change the pre -filter every three months along with the activated carbon filter every six months. Per the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Condition Engineers, the filter life could be much shorter or longer than six months depending on the concentration of the contaminants, and the report suggests that the applicant monitor the breakdown of the carbon filter and change more frequently if necessary. The report states that detectable odor is the evidence of a breakdown. As an ongoing condition of approval, the proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property and 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 10.00 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. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 23 of 37 FINDING: The applicant has submitted a noise analysis written by Laura Breit, P.E., after conducting a site visit to the subject property on November 15, 2018. Ms. Breit recorded the ambient noise levels near the proposed greenhouse site, nearthe existing dwelling, and near the main access onto the property. The analysis states that the ambient noise levels were much higher than most properties ColeBreit have reported on, due to the proximity to Highway 97. For the analysis, Ms. Breit provided the equipment information and sound ratings as shown in Table 3. Equipment „... Tag ....... �. Serves dBA Rating Quantity Mini Split A MS -1 AG Support Structure 58 1 Mini Split A Mini Split 8 Compressor �w MS 2 MS -3 Ct7MP AG Support Structure 58 1 IwE Building 63 IwE Building 7fi 1 1 I ODIC J. ryv^'— Gr44J1PFfFCf vr.1iea.,.,-4., Ms. Breit simulated noise using DBmap, a computer software that automates noise calculations in accordance with ISO 9613, Parts 1 & 2. ISO 9613 is an international standard for calculating outdoor sound propagation. This program allowed Ms. Breit to manually input data, place buildings and equipment, place receivers at chosen points along each property boundary, and adjust settings to the match the characteristics of the subject property to give an accurate approximation of noise levels. Noise receivers were modeled at the nearest, loudest, or most significant points along each property line at a height of 1.5 meters. Based on the results from DBmap, Ms. Breit has determined that the noise from the odor mitigation and HVAC system will not exceed a 30 dBA contribution to any property line as shown in Table 4. Receiver mark Final simulated dBA contributed by equipment Final predicted dBA levels from combined simulated equipment and 50 dBA, the lowest recorded ambient noise level 19.6 50.0 50.0 50.0 B C 19.1 D 18.6 50.0 50.0 E 23.3 F 12 50.0 50.0 G 1.3.7 H 1 11.9 50.0 t t vie 4. ttnut preutuivu 11--v 1-1a uc 1+4i.0 1— r cMo V 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 24 of 37 shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. C. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation, the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act, or agricultural use of the land. FINDING: The subject property is within the LM Combining Zone associated with Highway 97. The decision for the marijuana production facility included LM findings for the agricultural support structure, the greenhouse and the additional fencing. The applicant is proposing additional vegetative screening beyond what was already approved under land use file numbers 247 -17- 000040 -AD and 247 -17 -000041 -LM. As an ongoing condition of approval, the existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. These criteria will be met. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department, or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider, or C. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. FINDING: The applicant provided a final order from Oregon Water Resources Department (T-12264) that approved a transfer of 0.4 acres of water rights to the subject for marijuana production. Delivery of irrigation water is during the irrigation season of March 1 It through October 31 Stas stated in the final order. This criterion is met. 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with afire protection district. FINDING: The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Redmond Fire and Rescue district. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 25 of 37 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. FINDING: The applicant provided a "will serve" letter from Pacific Power dated January 17, 2017. The letter states that Pacific Power has certified rights to provide the subject property with electrical energy and is willing to serve this location in accordance with the rates, rules, and regulations of the company. This criterion is met. 16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. FINDING: The applicant states the security cameras will be in a secure location in accordance with OLCC requirements. The cameras will be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way. An ongoing condition of approval will be included to ensure compliance with DCC 18.116.330(B)(16). 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). FINDING: The applicant states that a metal dumpster with commercial grade locks will be used to securely store anywaste associated with marijuana. As an ongoing condition of approval, marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. 18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property. a. An owner of the subject property, b. A holder of an OLCClicense for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property, or C. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. FINDING: The subject property is not in the MUA-10 Zone. This section does not apply. 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to june 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authorityshall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(8)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(8)(10-12, 16,17) by December 8, 2016. FINDING: In 2017, the subject property was approved to convert the lawfully established medical grow site to a recreational grow site licensed with the OLCC. This criterion does not apply. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 26 of 37 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited. i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop, ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(0), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop, iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop, and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. C. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana production: I. Guest Lodge. ii. Guest Ranch. iii. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort. V. Public Parks. vi. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. viii. Bed and Breakfast. ix. Room and Board Arrangements. FINDING: As an ongoing condition of approval, the uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production and processing is conducted on the site. D. Annual Reporting A. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits. ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timelysubmit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code, authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. C. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 27 of 37 applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17). FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting obligation of this section is required. As an ongoing condition of approval, the annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. CHAPTER 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW Section 18 124.030. Approval Required. A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to DCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following. 1. All conditional use permits where a site plan is a condition of approval; 2. Multiple family dwellings with more than three units, 3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities, 4. All industrial uses, S. All other uses that serve the general public or that otherwise require parking facilities, including, but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries, mausoleums, crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales yards, and 6. As specified for Flood Plain Zones (FP) and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones (SMIA). FINDING: Marijuana processing is considered an industrial use.' However, the proposed processing represents a small fraction of the total use at the site while the approved marijuana production is considered the dominate use on the property. Therefore, staff finds that the use of the land is not primarily for the manufacture, processing, storage or wholesale distribution of products, goods or materials, which would make it a commercial use 2. Nevertheless, since the proposed marijuana processing use is a use that requires parking facilities and site plan review pursuant to DCC 18.16.0253, the provisions of this chapter are applicable. ' DCC 18.04.030 - "Industrial use" means the use of land primarily for the manufacture, processing, storage or wholesale distribution of products, goods or materials. It does not include commercial uses. 2 DCC 18.04.030 - "Commercial use" means the use of land primarily for the retail sale of products or services, including offices. It does not include factories, warehouses, freight terminals or wholesale distribution centers. 3 DCC 18.16.025 - Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 or DCC 18.16.042 and Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 where applicable. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 28 of 37 Section 18 124.060. Approval Criteria. Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria.- A. riteria.A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. FINDING: The subject property is 15 acres and irregular in shape. The proposed location of the greenhouse, agricultural support structure and shipping container is relatively level, but the property has a sloping grade with an approximate 80 -foot change in elevation from east to west. The subject property is developed with a single-family dwelling and several accessory structures. Highway 97 is located to the east and access is from a private drive that begins in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property is surrounded by farm and residential properties. The majority of the residentially development properties to the west appear to be engaged in some form of hobby farming such as irrigated pasture. Redmond is the closest city which is approximately a half -mile to the south. The applicant is proposing to establish a new marijuana processing facility on a property already approved for marijuana production. The processing facility, which is subject to site plan review, will utilize a total area of 1,630 square feet. The decision for the marijuana production facility approved a 10,320 square -foot greenhouse and a 1,680 -square -foot agricultural support structure. The applicant is proposing to utilize 350 square feet of the approved agricultural support structure, 1,080 square feet of the approved greenhouse, and 200 -square feet of a new shipping container for the proposed processing use. The parking area is located to the north of the existing dwelling which is in close proximity to the greenhouse, agricultural support structure, and the proposed shipping container. As mentioned previously, the applicant is proposing to plant additional vegetation to provide additional screening from the proposed use to the adjacent property to the east. Based on this information, staff believes the proposed marijuana processing will relate harmoniously to the existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. FINDING: The applicant is proposing a marijuana processing facility on the property within two structures that have already been approved for the marijuana production use approved in 2017 and within a new shipping container. The total area for the processing use is approximately 1,630 square feet. The parking area will be established near these structures by the existing driveway. A secondary 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 29 of 37 parking area is located in the southwest corner of the property. The proposed marijuana processing facility will not have any impacts to the landscape and existing topography. This criterion is met. C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. FINDING: As mentioned previously, a marijuana production facility was approved on the subject property in 2017. Through this decision, the applicant was approved to construct a new greenhouse and an agricultural support structure for the production facility. The applicant is proposing a new marijuana processing facility but will be utilizing these two approved structures and an additional shipping container for the proposed use. These structures are clustered near the existing development Parking and maneuvering areas will be located on the north side of the existing dwelling which is near the proposed location for the greenhouse, agricultural support structure, and shipping container. The layout of the existing driveway together with the proposed parking areas, loading area, structures, and existing vegetation provides appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. Marijuana processing can include unusual levels of fire safety hazard but the subject property is located in the Redmond Fire and Rescue District. As a condition of approval, the use shall comply with the applicable building, fire, and OLCC safety standards. This standard is met. D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. FINDING: The County Building Safety Division will review specific ADA requirements during building permit review. This criterion will be met. E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. FINDING: The applicant proposes to continue to use the existing access to reach the proposed facility and parking area. Based on the site plan submitted by the applicant, staff finds that the circulation pattern and arrangement of parking areas shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets or surface and subsurface water quality. FINDING: There is no evidence in the record that the site has a history of adversely impacting the surface water drainage pattern in the area. The site is relatively level near the existing development and the parking area will be graveled to prevent erosion and impacts on neighboring properties. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 30 of 37 The applicant also states that water from the proposed use will be managed with the use of an evaporation pool and cisterns as needed. Staff finds that the site will not adversely impact on neighboring properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality. G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDING: Based on the size of the property, consolidated building footprint, existing vegetation, topography, and development on the property, the applicant indicates the proposed development will be adequately buffered and screened. The parking area will be located between the existing dwelling and the existing barn on the property, which provides a buffer from the neighboring property to the east. The applicant is also proposing to plant additional vegetation between the parking area and the existing barn. Natural vegetation, topography, and existing development provide screening between the facility and all surrounding residences and neighboring properties. Staff finds that the site layout, as conditioned, will be designed, located, buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. H. All above ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDING: No new utility installations are proposed. 1. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.) FINDING: Each zone affecting the subject property is identified in this decision. The applicable criteria for each zone are addressed in the findings above. J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. FINDING: As a condition of approval, all exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use. 1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance, turn and acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of-way, roadway surfacing and widening, and bicycle and pedestrian connections, shall be identified. 2. Mitigation for transportation -related impacts shall be required. 3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 17.16 and DCC 17.48, applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) mobility and access standards, and applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 31 of 37 FINDING: No transportation infrastructure deficiencies or requirements were identified by the Deschutes County Road Department or the Deschutes County Transportation Planner. Section 18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards. A. Private or shared outdoor recreation areas in residential developments. FINDING: No residential units are proposed. This criterion does not apply. B. Required Landscaped Areas. 1. The following landscape requirements are established for multi family, commercial and industrial developments, subject to site plan approval. a. A minimum of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped. b. All areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved shall be landscaped. FINDING: These criteria only apply to multi -family, commercial and industrial developments. As discussed above, the marijuana processing use can be considered an "industrial use". However, the applicant is proposing to utilize a total area of 1,630 square feet on a 15 -acre property. Based on the proposal, staff finds the use does not make the primary use of the property "industrial development". Moreover, the primary use of the property will continue to be marijuana production, which is not an industrial use and is not subject to site plan review. 2. In addition to the requirement of DCC 18.124.070(8)(1)(a), the following landscape requirements shall apply to parking and loading areas: a. A parking or loading area shall be required to be improved with defined landscaped areas totaling no less than 25 square feet per parking space. b. In addition to the landscaping required by DCC 18.124.070(8)(2)(a), a parking or loading area shall be separated from any lot line adjacent to a roadway by a landscaped strip at least 10 feet in width, and from any other lot line by a landscaped strip at least five feet in width. C. A landscaped strip separating a parking or loading area from a street shall contain: 1) Trees spaced as appropriate to the species, not to exceed 35 feet apart on the average. 2) Low shrubs not to reach a height greater than three feet zero inches, spaced no more than eight feet apart on the average. 3) Vegetative ground cover. d. Landscaping in a parking or loading area shall be located in defined landscaped areas which are uniformly distributed throughout the parking or loading area. e. The landscaping in a parking area shall have a width of not less than five feet. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 32 of 37 f. Provision shall be made for watering planting areas where such care is required. g. Required landscapingshall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. h. Maximum height of tree species shall be considered when planting under overhead utility lines. FINDING: The parking area is not adjacent to a property line or roadway and surrounded by native landscaping and existing development. The applicant is proposing additional landscaping between the parking lot and the existing barn. As a condition of approval, the landscaping in the vicinity of the parking adjacent to the buildings used for marijuana processing shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. C. Nonmotorized Access. 1. Bicycle Parking. The development shall provide the number and type of bicycle parking facilities as required in DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035. The location and design of bicycle parking facilities shall be indicated on the site plan. FINDING: Compliance with DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035 is discussed in findings for those sections, above. 2. Pedestrian Access and Circulation: a. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be provided in new commercial, office and multi family residential developments through the clustering of buildings, construction of hard surfaced walkways and similar techniques. FINDING: This criterion does not apply, as the facility is not a commercial, office, or multi -family residential development. b. Pedestrian walkways shall connect building entrances to one another and from building entrances to public streets and existing or planned transit facilities. Onsite walkways shall connect with walkways, sidewalks, bikeways, and other pedestrian or bicycle connections on adjacent properties planned or used for commercial, multi family, public or park use. C. Walkways shall be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width. Walkways which border parking spaces shall be at least seven feet wide unless concrete bumpers or curbing and landscaping or other similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles from obstructing the walkway. Walkways shall be as direct as possible. d. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the walkway system crosses driveways, parking areas and loading areas, 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 33 of 37 the walkways must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar method. e. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the primary building entrance and any walkway that connects a transit stop to building entrances shall have a maximum slope of five percent. Walkways up to eight percent slope are permitted, but are treated as ramps with special standards for railings and landings. FINDING: Staff believes that (b) through (e) apply to any use subject to site plan review. The applicant is proposing marijuana processing within three separate structures which will require paved pedestrian walkways to each structure. No nearby public streets with sidewalks or public transit stops to connect to exist nearby. A condition of approval will be included to ensure compliance. D. Commercial Development Standards... FINDING: The proposed facility is not a commercial development. These criteria do not apply. Section 18.124.090. Right of Way Improvement Standards. Any dedications or improvements to the road right of way required under DCC 18.124 shall meet the standards for road right of way improvements set forth in DCC Title 17 and any standards for right-of-way improvements set forth in DCC Title 18 for the particular zone in question. FINDING: No transportation infrastructure deficiencies or requirements were identified by the Deschutes County Road Department or the Deschutes County Transportation Planner. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings, staff concludes that the proposed marijuana processing facility can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. V. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $4,240 per p.m. peak hour trip. The ITE indicates Manufacturing generates 0.67 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet, which in this instance would result in 1.09 p.m. peak hour trips (0.67 X 1.630). Thus the applicable SDC would be $4,622 (1.09 X $4,240). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 34 of 37 VI. DECISION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. VII. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Use & Location: Marijuana processing is conditionally approved within the approved greenhouse, agricultural support structure, and new shipping container. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. B. Processing: The applicant shall assure that at least one-quarter of the farm crops processed at the facility in any calendar year, measured by weight, are produced at the farm operation on the subject property. In addition, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Division written documentation of compliance with the requirement in paragraph DCC 18.16.025(1) by submitting processed crop summaries to the Planning Division on request, and no less frequently than on an annual basis by January 31 of each year. C. Landscape Management: Landscape Management review will be required prior to the placement of the proposed shipping container if a building permit or agricultural exempt permit is required by the Building Safety Division. D. Building Height: No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. E. Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met at all times: a. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day; b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part; and c. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. F. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. G. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. H. Prohibited Outdoors: Marijuana processing is prohibited in any outdoor area. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 35 of 37 I. Parking Facilities: Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. J. Vehicle Standing and Maneuvering: The areas used for vehicle standing and maneuvering associated with the marijuana processing use shall be constructed with a surface that is adequately maintained for all weather use and maintained in a manner that will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. K. Access Aisles: Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering and be constructed to meet the requirements of the Redmond Fire & Rescue District. L. Pedestrian Walkways: a. Walkways shall be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width. Walkways which border parking spaces shall be at least seven feet wide unless concrete bumpers or curbing and landscaping or other similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles from obstructing the walkway. Walkways shall be as direct as possible. a. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the walkway system crosses driveways, parking areas and loading areas, the walkways must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar method. M. Fencing: Any fences constructed on the subject property as part of the proposed development shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. N. Vegetative Screening: The existing vegetation screening the development from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. O. Landscaping: The landscaping in the vicinity of the parking adjacent to the buildings used for marijuana processing shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. P. Security Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record onlythe subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC. Q. Waste: Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 36 of 37 R. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. S. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits. ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and maybe relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. VIII. DURATION OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall complete all conditions of approval and obtain building permits for the proposed use (if required) within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Written by: Izze Liu, Associate Planner ®/ n Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 37 of 37 a s n. a m a D_ N N N N N N N 00 W 00 00 00 00 00 00 W 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 DD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a a T T DO DO DO T OO v )a„ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +, LL LL LL LL LL LL LL J Z J O W N N J N w cr = Z wuj W Z 000 W = c0 O N l0 LD LD W Ln Ln r- Lf) r- N r I� Il O) rl 0) n 0) O 01 _N D w cc 1= r4 O O O Z o vO o CL c c Ln c O Z O iv 4-1 E E E - v v d cu Ow v o cr- w Ln w m cc LU Q � J � W = D 0 N w N 0 Z m v N h U_ O U w Y O 0) } Zo O C7 O > v u LA wZ LL N Z N V, Ln M a) -o w -1 Ln d' w J Ln O M M Ln w N W M i -'I w c -I w d' J Z J O W N N J N w cr = Z wuj W Z 000 W = c0 O N W I - Z _N D r4 LU g Z o vO = Ln D Ln 0 O N o � Ln � J W = 0 N co m O N O = O C7 O > v u u LL N N V, 0 0 w O w 0 Z Z Z_ j O O = Q = J V)0 V) Z N H 3 W W W w W w Q 0 0 W w 0 0 0 m NOTICE OF DECISION The Deschutes County Planning Division has approved the land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBER: 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 4859 N. Highway 97, Redmond; and is further identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map No. 14-13-28, as tax lot 1000. OWNER/APPLICANT: Lindsey and Christopher Pate SUBJECT: The Deschutes County Planning Division has approved an Administrative Determination and Site Plan review to establish a marijuana processing facility in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. STAFF CONTACT: Izze Liu, Associate Planner, isabella.liu@deschutes.org, (541) 388-6554 DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and http://dial.deschutes.org APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Planning Division reviewed this application for compliance against criteria contained in Chapters 18.16,18.56, 18.84, 18.116, and 18.124 in Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, as well as against the procedural requirements of Title 22 of the DCC. DECISION: Staff finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and approval is being granted subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Use & Location: Marijuana processing is conditionally approved within the approved greenhouse, agricultural support structure, and new shipping container. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 N (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd B. Processing: The applicant shall assure that at least one-quarter of the farm crops processed at the facility in any calendar year, measured by weight, are produced at the farm operation on the subject property. In addition, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Division written documentation of compliance with the requirement in paragraph DCC 18.16.025(1) by submitting processed crop summaries to the Planning Division on request, and no less frequently than on an annual basis by January 31 of each year. C. Landscape Management: Landscape Management review will be required prior to the placement of the proposed shipping container if a building permit or agricultural exempt permit is required by the Building Safety Division. D. Building Height: No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. E. Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met at all times: a. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day; b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part; and c. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. F. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. G. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. H. Prohibited Outdoors: Marijuana processing is prohibited in any outdoor area. I. Parking Facilities: Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. �. Vehicle Standing and Maneuvering: The areas used for vehicle standing and maneuvering associated with the marijuana processing use shall be constructed with a surface that is adequately maintained for all weather use and maintained in a manner that will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 2 of 4 K. Access Aisles: Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering and be constructed to meet the requirements of the Redmond Fire & Rescue District. L. Pedestrian Walkways: a. Walkways shall be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width. Walkways which border parking spaces shall be at least seven feet wide unless concrete bumpers or curbing and landscaping or other similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles from obstructing the walkway. Walkways shall be as direct as possible. a. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the walkway system crosses driveways, parking areas and loading areas, the walkways must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar method. M. Fencing: Any fences constructed on the subject property as part of the proposed development shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. N. Vegetative Screening: The existing vegetation screening the development from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. O. Landscaping: The landscaping in the vicinity of the parking adjacent to the buildings used for marijuana processing shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. P. Security Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record onlythe subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC. Q. Waste: Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. R. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. S. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department bythe real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 3 of 4 ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and maybe relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the appeal fee of $250.00 and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. This Notice was mailed pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.24. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 4 of 4 CL a a a a a a m m m m a m m N N Ln N N Ln N N N (n N N (n Ln 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 W 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 DO 00 a0 a0 00 a0 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a -a w w 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP DO OP 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLO O O O O O O O O O O O O O z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 0 m Lo m w r- kD1.0 m m w t.D r- m Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln C a)am 0 rn 0) 0) a)M M 0 am M ccl cc w w n cr m w n w m 0 O O LL O O M O O O M O Z O O D z 0 0 p 0 0 0 p O z 0 °) Q z z O z Zz z z z O z m O O m O O w 0 0 0 o O m 0 0 N 2 2 w > > cc o >. 0 0 OC 0 O J 0 0 0 0 OC 0 Z 4+ W W W W W D W W W W W W W u a' w H w K U= w w U w H= m } a � Ol Ol J J J CL _ � LLn -1-1 N = � cr-I O = U M -1 L~ C z X X X X N X X 11J u z X X m v 00 of m m m m M m m Z of V-1 m m Ln 0 00 0 0 0 0 Ln O O r -i-1 LLn X 0 0 Lr) (c a o. n. a rl a a Ln -1 d' a a LO LU z a z U J = J W J Y M 06 m g O w Qj o o M U O c O a J J J J mJ J Ln a (a (a = U LU O O L D 00 C4 co z a O O O j Y 0 cr-O D LL L z LU w Q Z Q 0-6 m 06 CL w LU Ln 0 = O N � J z O 0 a Z� m O m Ln L U oc V J W U m m V w oC Oc >_ F- cu J OC U J J J OC J J O 3 a a 0 0 a J a a= J a Z a Z 0 n. = m x Ln > _ = U > I— 0 = �2 From: Clara Butler To: Isabella Liu Subject: Re: Agency Comment for MJ Processing Facility Date: Thursday, February 07, 2019 10:16:34 AM Attachments: imare001.ona imaae002.pna imaae003.pna imaae004.pna AD 247-17-000040 LM 41 Lindsey & Christopher Pate Establish a marijuana production facility 1413280001000.docx Good morning, Thank you for forwarding me the application for this project. I have completed comments for this project several years ago and met with the owners on the fire requirements, see attached. I have also attached a copy of the turn around requirements as the site is quite a ways from the road. The owners also came in and we discussed the requirements. All fire code requirements will need to be met in order for the processing of marijuana, this includes access and water requirements. Please let me know if you have questions regarding this. Thanks, Clara Butler Deputy Fire Marshal Redmond Fire and Rescue Office- 541-504-5016 Cell- 948-7887 Red mondfireandrescue.org From: Isabella Liu <Isabella.Liu@deschutes.org> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 8:53:14 AM To: Clara Butler Subject: Agency Comment for M1 Processing Facility Hi Clara, I am currently working on an application for a marijuana processing facility within the Redmond Fire & Rescue District. The Notice of Application is attached. I think we missed you the first round but I wanted to make sure we received your valuable comments. https:Hdial.deschutes.org/Real/index/l 28403 Dial - Deschutes County Property Information dial. deschUtes. ory Deschutes County Property Inforl"Ylatlon Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, c, Izze Leu Associate Planner 4'` i.. I' C C 1 i S Iv � {VTV i V ! l ! r "t 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 ( Bend, Oregon 97708 41OWN Tel: 541 388-6554 1 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. Redmond Fire and Rescue Commercial Comments Redmond Fire & Rescue City of Redmond 341 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 541-504-5000 Fax: 541-548-5512 www.redmondfireandrescue.org Date: January 27, 2017 Location: 4859 N Hwy 97, 1413280001000 Subject: AD 247-17-000040 LM 41, Lindsey & Christopher Pate, Establish a marijuana production facility From: Clara Butler, Deputy Fire Marshal If there are questions regarding Fire Code issues, please contact the Redmond Fire and Rescue Deputy Fire Marshal at 541-504-5016 or email at clara.butlerkredmondf"ireandrescue.org . Note: Water and access requirements must be met. WATER: Area without Fire Hydrants: • NFPA 1142 Requirements o If the structure is being built in an area without a public water supply system, then the water flow requirements will come from NFPA 1142. o Note: The following information will need to be provided in order to determine accurate water flow requirements. ■ Building height, length and width ■ Use of the building ■ Type of construction ■ Whether the structure 100 sq ft or larger and within 50 feet of any other structures • Structures with Automatic Sprinkler systems — 2012 NFPA 1142 Chapter 7 o The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to waive the water supply required by this standard when a structure is protected by an automatic sprinkler system that fully meets the requirements of NFPA 13 or NFPA 13D o Note: Contact Deschutes County Building Plans review staff for other options. ACCESS: • Premises Identification — 2014 OFC 505.1 o Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and visible at night. Number/letter shall be a minimum of 4" high and a 0.5" stroke width. Fire Apparatus Access Roads — 2014 OFC Section 503 & Appendix D o Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 ft of all portions of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. 2/8/2019 Redmond Fire & Rescue City of Redmond 341 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 541-504-5000 Fax: 541-548-5512 www.redmondfireandrescue.org o Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. o Fire apparatus roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of 70,000 lbs and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. o The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be 30 feet inside and 50 feet outside. o The grade of the fire apparatus access roads shall be within the limits established by the fire code official (10%). Fire Lanes — 2014 OFC 503.3 & Appendix D o Approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. Such signs or notices shall be kept in legible conditions at all times. The stroke shall be 1 inch with letters 6 inches high and read "No Parking Fire Lane". Spacing for signage shall be every 50 feet. • Recommended to also (in addition to Fire lane signs) paint fire lane curbs in bright red paint with white letters. o Appendix D Section 103.6.1 Roads 20-26 Ft. Wide: Shall have Fire Lane signs posted on both sides of a fire lane. o Appendix D Section 103.6.2 Roads more than 26 Ft. Wide: Roads 26-32 ft wide shall have a Fire Lane signs posted on one side of the road as a fire lane. Aerial Access Roads — 2014 OFC Appendix D, Section 105 o Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads and capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadways. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, all access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. Dead -Ends — 2014 OFC Section 503.2.5 o Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for requirements. o OFC Table D103.4 Dead Ends over 750 Feet- Require special approval. If approved, there shall be a turn -around no more than every 1000 feet with a bulb of 60 feet across and the width of the road shall be a minimum of 26 ft clear for fire apparatus. • Additional Access — 2014 OFC Section 503.1.2 o The fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, conditions or terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. 2/8/2019 Redmond Fire & Rescue City of Redmond 341 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 541-504-5000 Fax: 541-548-5512 www.redmondfireandrescue.org • Emergency Access Road Gates — 2014 OFC Appendix D 103.5 o Minimum 20 feet wide. o Gates shall be swinging or sliding type. o Shall be able to be manually operated by one person. o Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening by emergency personnel & approved by fire official. o Locking devices shall be fire department Knox Key Switch purchased from A-1 Lock, Safe Co., Curtis Safe & Lock, on line at www.knoxbox.com, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. o Section 503.3: Install a sign on the gate "No Parking -Fire Lane" Key Boxes — 2014 OFC Section 506.1 o An approved key box shall be installed on all structures equipped with a fire alarm system and /or sprinkler system. Approved key boxes can only be purchased at A-1 Lock Safe Co., Curtis Safe and Lock, on line at www.knoxbox.com, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. Commercial & Industrial Development — 2014 OFC Appendix D 104 o Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height shall have at least 2 means of fire apparatus access for each structure. o Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. o Where 2 access roads are required, they shall be placed not less than V2 the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 2/8/2019 2007 Oregon Fire Code Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access Road Turnaround Table D103.4 Requirements for Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access Roads Le,iV,,-tli (ft) Width (ft) Tuniarounds Recluffied 1_150 20 None recluffied 120 -ft Halimierhead, 60 -ft "Y" or 96- 15) 1-5(_}(_} 20 ft -diameter cul-de-sac flil accord.alice with Fkglire D 103.1 12( --)-ft Halranerhead., 60 -ft "Y" or 96- 501-7750 26 ft -diameter cul-de-sac Hil accordalice with Fk6alre D1 03,1 Over '7750 Special approval recluff' ed 10 Figure D 103.1 26' R 28' R TYP.' TY P.' 20' 96' DIAMETER CUL-DE-SAC �1104 ._7 28' R TY P.' 120' HAMMERHEAD 20'71L 26' 20 204 60"'Y" MINIMUM CLEARANCE AROUND A FIRE HYDRANT 28' R 7 OU 20'—T 2fl K#] ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO 120' HAMMERHEAD From: Isabella Liu To: "clara butler(a)redmondfireandrescue ora" Subject: Agency Comment for MJ Processing Facility Date: Thursday, February 07, 2019 8:53:15 AM Attachments: 18 -887 -AD NOA.Ddf image001.pna imaae002.r)na image003.pna image004.Dna Hi Clara, I am currently working on an application for a marijuana processing facility within the Redmond Fire & Rescue District. The Notice of Application is attached. I think we missed you the first round but I wanted to make sure we received your valuable comments. https://diaI.deschutes.org/Rea1/1ndex/`l28403 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, S Izze Liu Associate Planner p.�.��. .117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 w:a PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 388-6554 1 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE L, Shane Nelson, Sheriff Proudly Serving Our Community Comment from Sheriff L. Shane Nelson: Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and set backs of the property in this type of request and how it affects the livability of our community members; in conjunction with the issue that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. In addition, we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are increasing. There should be no deviation or any exceptions made to any state or county regulations on the books. No new grows or retail operations should be approved. • Marijuana production is against Federal Law • There are several rural residents who have issues with smell, sound and sight issues related to marijuana grows and how these affect quality of life. • For the last 2 years there has been an overproduction of marijuana in our state. Our Sources are: • U.S Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon, former OSU Professor Seth Crawford, Draft OSP Marijuana Analysts report and the recent marijuana report from the Oregon/Idaho HIDTA. Main Office 63333 W. Highway 20 Bend, OR 97703 541-388-6655 sheriff.deschutes. adult Jail ;hway 20 IR 97703 188-6661 Ashley Williams From: gina.blanchette@redmondschools.org on behalf of Mike McIntosh <mike.mcintosh@redmondschools.org> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 1:54 PM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: Appeal of Proposed Land Use Application Attachments: Land Use Appeal.pdf Anthony, Please find my attached letter opposing the Proposed Land Use Application File Numbers: 247 -15 -000887 -AD, 247 -18 -000888 -SP. Thank you, Mike Michael D. McIntosh Superintendent Redmond Schooi District P: 541.923.8267 1 mike mcintosh(a)redmondschools.ora Re dmi-rnd SGHOOI 015TRICT December 17, 2018 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 P: 541.923.5437 F: 541.923.5142 145 SE Salmon Dr I Redmond, OR 97756 www.redmond.k 12.onus Re: Land Use Appeal of Marijuana Production and Processing Facility at 4859 N. Highway 97, Redmond, OR, File Numbers: 247 -15 -000887 -AD, 247 -18 -000888 -SP Dear Commissioners: I am the Superintendent for the Redmond School District. I have become aware of the application to locate a large marijuana production and processing facility on Highway 97 just north of Cinder Butte. We at the school district are strongly opposed to this application for a number of reasons. First, this facility would be located within close proximity to a number of public and private schools in Redmond. Terrebonne Community School, Tom McCall Elementary School and Elton Gregory Middle School are within short distances both north and south of the proposed site. That proximity concerns us deeply as there has been documentation that marijuana is being promoted and used by students at both Redmond and Ridgeview high schools as well as our middle schools. Second, as you know, because of restrictions under federal law, these operations are conducted on a cash basis which invite a significant new level of potential conflict and criminal activity. Some have argued that this is just ordinary farm use. That is not true. We are comparing apples and oranges. What other farm use needs to have security cameras? What other farm use cannot deposit their monies into a bank? What other farm use is illegal under federal law? In what other farm use has there been, at least anecdotal and probably statistical data of criminal activity associated with these types of operations; particularly in light of the fact that these marijuana crops have a significantly higher value and there is always a large amount of cash involved. Third, we clearly understand negative impacts on school and family culture. The possession of marijuana is still against the law for minors as it should be. School officials and the parents of all children deserve the opportunity to work and attend school without the increased availability of these and other drugs. The presence of this facility will only create a higher risk of student involvement in the drug culture. If that is indeed the case, then we are failing in our most fundamental duty to our citizens, the safety of our community and particularly our children. On behalf of the Redmond School District, its employees and particularly its students, we urge you to deny this application, as we believe it will be very detrimental to the Redmond community and impose serious conflicts for both the school district and the community at large. Sincerely, Michael D. McIntosh Superintendent Ashley Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Daniel Downing GIS/ Operations Technician Central Oregon Irrigation District Direct line: (541) 504-7579 DanDowning <ddowning@coid.org> Sunday, December 16, 2018 1:33 PM Anthony Raguine COID's comments on 247 -18 -000887 -AD/ 247 -18 -000888 -SP 247 -18 -000888 -AD 888-SP.docx CENTRAL OREGON ? a g DISTRICT ne 91A ATTENT: Anthony Raguine FROM: COID REGARDING: 247 -18 -000887 -AD 247 -18 -000888 -SP DATE: 12/16/2018 COID COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT COID FACILITIES: a The subject's property has the F -lateral that runs through the northern portion o It has a 75' canal right of way along with a 20' road right of way on the north side o No permanent structures are allowed within COID's easement o No excavation is allowed within COID's right of way without first obtaining permission. o Any crossing above ground or below ground of a COID facility needs to have a crossing license COID WATER RIGHTS: a NONE COID GUIDELINE STATEMENT a NONE Daniel Downing GIS/Operations Technician 1055 SW Lake CT Redmond, OR 541.504.7579 ( direct 541.548.6047 office 1055 SW Lake Ct. Redmond, OR 97756 541-548-6047 coid.oig Ashley Williams From: Randy Scheid Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 10:05 AM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: FW: Electronic Transmittal Attachments: 18 -887 -AD NOA.pdf; Planning statement Building Safety Divisions code required Access.doc Anthony, Please apply my standard comments on the attached AD and SP. Thanks, Randy. Randy Scheid Building Official n 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oi egon 97703 Tel: (541) 317-3137 Goo Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survev Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. Every Time Standards We respond in a timely and courteous manner, identifying customer needs and striving for solutions. We set honest and realistic expectations to achieve optimum results. We provide knowledgeable, timely, professional, respectful service. We take ownership of customers' needs and follow through. We value our customers and approach them with on open mind. From: Ashley Williams Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 8:29 AM To: Randy Scheid ; Todd Cleveland ; Peter Russell Subject: Electronic Transmittal Ashley Williams I Administrative Assistant 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon Mail: PO Box 6005 I Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 617-47071 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. NOTICE OF APPLICATION COMMUNffY DEVELOPMENT T The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the proposed land use application described below: FILE NUMBERS: 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 247 -18 -000888 -SP OWNER/APPLICANT: Lindsey and Christopher Pate PROPOSAL: Administrative Determination and Site Plan review to establish marijuana processing on the subject property, which was previously approved for marijuana production under land use file nos. 247 -17- 000040 -AD and 247-17-000041-1-M. The applicant proposes to use up to 350 square feet within the previously approved 1,680 -square -foot support structure for processing. The applicant proposes to use up to 1,080 square feet within the previously approved 10,320 -square -foot greenhouse for storage of processing equipment, packaging and supplies. Finally, the applicant proposes to use a 200 -square -foot shipping container for cold temperature processing. In total, 1,630 square feet of structural space will be dedicated to marijuana processing. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 4859 N. Highway 97, Redmond; and is further identified on County Assessor Tax Map 14-13- 28, as tax lot 1000. STAFF CONTACT: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner anthony.raguine@deschutes.org, (541) 617-4739 DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and http://dial.deschutes.org STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone Chapter 18.56, Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Qi (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. The Planning Division is located in the Community Development Department Office at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon. Any interested person may submit written comments on the proposed land use action. Your input is important to us. ALL WRITTEN TESTIMONY MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING. Notice of the decision will be provided by a separate mailing. For more information or to request copies of the findings and decision, contact the assigned planner. This Notice was mailed pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapters 22.20 and 22.24. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 2 of 2 NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. Randy Scheid January 15, 2019 Ashley Williams From: Lindsey Pate <lndsey@glasshousegrown.com> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 3:00 PM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: Re: FW: MJ processing off 97 (18 -887 -18/888 -SP) Hi Anthony, Responding on my cellphone, sorry for typos. 1: have you initiated marijuana production on the subject property? No, we have not started producing Rec/OLCC flower. I know I need to file for an extension for that land use very very soon. 2: The applicant should provide further clarification if the marijuana being processed under this application is from either medical marijuana, which predates the County's regulations, or is from the production approved by 247-17-000040-AD/041-LM. The application is for Recreational (OLCC) Processing of Rec/OLCC Cannabis flower. There's not a dime left worth squeezing in the medical market. On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:56 PM Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Ragu, inegdeschutes.org> wrote: Hi Lindsey. Below are comments from our Senior Transportation Planner. Please provide a response to the comment that is highlighted. Also, have you initiated marijuana production on the subject property? Thanks. Anthony Raguine Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 617-4739 Gas Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey From: Peter Russell <Peter.Russellkdeschutes.org> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 1:20 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Ra ug ineAdeschutes.org>; Chris Doty <Chris.DotyAdeschutes.org>; Cody Smith <Cody.Smith(a�deschutes.org> Ce: Peter Russell <Peter.RussellAdeschutes.org> Subject: MJ processing off 97 (18 -887 -18/888 -SP) Anthony, I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-18-000887-AD/888-SP for a marijuana processing operation on 15 acres in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Landscape Management (LM) zones at 4859 N. Hwy 97, aka 14-13-28, Tax Lot 1000. This site was previously approved for a marijuana production (growing) operation under 247-17-000040-AD/041-LM. The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook does not contain a category for marijuana processing. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Manufacturing (Land Use 140) based on the processing activities and employees of this activity. Manufacturing generates weekday daily trips at a rate of 3.93 trips per 1,000 square feet based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10' edition. The application indicates the site will use portions of three buildings approved in 247-17-000040-AD/041-LM for a total of 1,630 square feet of cannabis processing and support. The resulting trip rate would be 6.4 daily trips (3.93 X 1.630). Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no further traffic analysis is needed if there are 50 or less new weekday trips generated from the use. The proposed land use will not meet this minimum threshold for additional traffic analysis. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $4,240 per p.m. peak hour trip. The ITE indicates Manufacturing generates 0.67 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet, which in this instance would result in 1.09 p.m. peak hour trips (0.67 X 1.630). Thus the applicable SDC would be $4,622 (1.09 X $4,240). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. Staff notes the previous land use, 247-17-000040-LM/041-LM, had an SDC of $12,712. There is no record of this having been paid. Board Resolution 2013-020 in Section 5 (Collection) lists potential County actions at Section 5(E) which the County can use in instances when the SDC has not been paid: 1. Refuse to issue a Certificate of Occupancy; 2. Refuse to issue any permits of any kind to the delinquent permittee for any development; 3. Condition any development approval of the delinquent permittee on payment in full, including penalties and interest; 4. If the property becomes occupied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, initiate code enforcement proceedings; 5. For purposes of this section, delinquent permittee shall include any persons controlling a delinquent corporate permittee, and, conversely, any corporation controlled by a delinquent individual permittee. Normally, the County would consider exercising these options, but based on the March 8, 2018, Annual Report the production approved under 247-17-000040-AD/041-LM has not been initiated as the greenhouses were not built at the time of that site visit. The applicant should provide further clarification if the marijuana being processed under this application is from either medical marijuana, which predates the County's regulations, or is from the production approved by 247-17-000040-AD/041-LM. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks. fl Peter Russell I Senior Transportation Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 383-6718 1 wwwjeschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. Thank you, Lindsey Pate CEO and Co -Founder at Glass House Grown, Award Winning Craft Cannabis President at Celebrate Cannabis, Central Oregon's Cannabis Business Advocacy Group Lindsey&glasshousegrown.com 541-213-9306 G L A S S H 0 U S E G R 0 W N Ashley Williams From: Peter Russell Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 1:20 PM To: Anthony Raguine; Chris Doty; Cody Smith Cc: Peter Russell Subject: MJ processing off 97 (18 -887 -18/888 -SP) Anthony, I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-18-000887-AD/888-SP for a marijuana processing operation on 15 acres in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Landscape Management (LM) zones at 4859 N. Hwy 97, aka 14-13-28, Tax Lot 1000. This site was previously approved for a marijuana production (growing) operation under 247-17-000040-AD/041- LM. The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook does not contain a category for marijuana processing. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Manufacturing (Land Use 140) based on the processing activities and employees of this activity. Manufacturing generates weekday daily trips at a rate of 3.93 trips per 1,000 square feet based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 101h edition. The application indicates the site will use portions of three buildings approved in 247- 17-000040-AD/041-LM for a total of 1,630 square feet of cannabis processing and support. The resulting trip rate would be 6.4 daily trips (3.93 X 1.630). Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no further traffic analysis is needed if there are 50 or less new weekday trips generated from the use. The proposed land use will not meet this minimum threshold for additional traffic analysis. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $4,240 per p.m. peak hour trip. The ITE indicates Manufacturing generates 0.67 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet, which in this instance would result in 1.09 p.m. peak hour trips (0.67 X 1.630). Thus the applicable SDC would be $4,622 (1.09 X $4,240). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. Staff notes the previous land use, 247-17-000040-LM/041-LM, had an SDC of $12,712. There is no record of this having been paid. Board Resolution 2013-020 in Section 5 (Collection) lists potential County actions at Section 5(E) which the County can use in instances when the SDC has not been paid: 1. Refuse to issue a Certificate of Occupancy; 2. Refuse to issue any permits of any kind to the delinquent permittee for any development; 3. Condition any development approval of the delinquent permittee on payment in full, including penalties and interest; 4. If the property becomes occupied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, initiate code enforcement proceedings; 5. For purposes of this section, delinquent permittee shall include any persons controlling a delinquent corporate permittee, and, conversely, any corporation controlled by a delinquent individual permittee. Normally, the County would consider exercising these options, but based on the March 8, 2018, Annual Report the production approved under 247-17-000040-AD/041-LM has not been initiated as the greenhouses were not built at the time of that site visit. The applicant should provide further clarification if the marijuana being processed under this application is from either medical marijuana, which predates the County's regulations, or is from the production approved by 247-17-000040-AD/041-LM. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks. Peter Russell I Senior Transportation Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 383-6718 1 www.deschutes.org/cd Uas Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. NOTICE OF APPLICATION The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the proposed land use application described below: FILE NUMBERS: 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 247 -18 -000888 -SP OWNER/APPLICANT: Lindsey and Christopher Pate PROPOSAL: Administrative Determination and Site Plan review to establish marijuana processing on the subject property, which was previously approved for marijuana production under land use file nos. 247 -17- 000040 -AD and 247-17-000041-1-M. The applicant proposes to use up to 350 square feet within the previously approved 1,680 -square -foot support structure for processing. The applicant proposes to use up to 1,080 square feet within the previously approved 10,320 -square -foot greenhouse for storage of processing equipment, packaging and supplies. Finally, the applicant proposes to use a 200 -square -foot shipping container for cold temperature processing. In total, 1,630 square feet of structural space will be dedicated to marijuana processing. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 4859 N. Highway 97, Redmond; and is further identified on County Assessor Tax Map 14-13- 28, as tax lot 1000. STAFF CONTACT: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner anthony raguine@deschutes.org, (541) 617-4739 DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from: www buildingpermits.oregon.gov and http•//dial.deschutes.org STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone Chapter 18.56, Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18:124, Site Plan Review Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. The Planning Division is located in the Community Development Department Office at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon. Any interested person may submit written comments on the proposed land use action. Your input is important to us. ALL WRITTEN TESTIMONY MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING. Notice of the decision will be provided by a separate mailing. For more information or to request copies of the findings and decision, contact the assigned planner. This Notice was mailed pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapters 22.20 and 22.24. 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 888 -SP Page 2 of 2 247 -18 -000887 -AD, 247 -18 -000888 -SP 4859 N. Highway 97, Redmond W IM CL a m a a m 0_ 0_ m 0_ m a m a s 0_ m a 0_ 0_ a a m m m L-� ll� v? Ln vi v? U? v? cn v? Ln Ln vt to N to N "? N U? N N N to 00 w 00 00 00 w 00 0o w w 00 00 00 00 00 m 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a _0 00 00 m m 00 00 m m 00 00 00 00 m 00 m 00 00 00 00 m 00 m m m 00 -a o0 o0 o0 00 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 00 o0 o0 OP O0 00 O0 00 00 00 OP 00 O0 0 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 v Q Q a a a Q Q a Q a a Q a Q a a Q a a a a a a Q a 6.0000000000000000000000000 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z O o L.0 w m Ln r, w � m rnLr) (71F. Ln m Ln w m n r�LnU)nn rl oo n o 01 N a -i m Ol rn ri N Ol I- n a) (3)n N a) GG M O O O w OC O p O O w Q, 0) m m n O W m w p n r n rl 0 0^ ^ O m m O O m ai zdwm "6 rn m rn 0 0 z m m m 'c -c O W 0 O Z O CL ,*' m z Z Z m Z Z z u E c-- p -p p p 2 E E 2 > 0 OG T m -6 m p U v c c p a Z c Z z p -0 6 p O J z + w O) w w �- = F- m Q cn m m w w w w w w w a a W w p w z W m m m m w z w z m U m rn W O F— O 02 N v � U �r °30-4 0 6 "' J LL O 3 w Ln LU Z N omN Ln WD S u Q Z N m p n CCO W m Ln ^® o t} w a m 0 Q Y J N Y Ln W Q � U U U N>- U 00 M S .m =} j a 00 a) Z >j U X �j X 0 0 E 00C 0G 0 `� _ W X X Co W Z U z O to X U Ln v1 v m m Z m cn U U v m t m m Ln o v`�i m m vwi m Z rn Ln O o O r`�I N n- J J-1 m J O O Ln LO m m 0000 O t O't Ln rl m m C_ 14 O_ LA N n W W w to lD W a C. w N lD M d N W Q Z Z U C_' J J S J w p Z z J Y m Z m O O) w 06 w o� `JD g -W w m O Z JLU LU LL C t7 S Z w p >- W v O m O 2 m c°A0 v m v=i a u-- Q g 0 V) J_ O N � p z F-: Q J ES N Z a Z p Cd m Z Q LL Z J U N W Q U a W F- S < <-I S O D w Ln w ° °� H m v N m O p Q 0 z C7 Z w LL z 0 n z 66 vi m U Q z a o w c p 2 p a O— j �O p Y 66 z N > Q W Z O w a J W p 021 uj o0 <cowccvZi� g L aQO�oZfQ� Z Uw 0' F- 000000 0,6 00J==`^=w QLum�zoQUc.�UUuu2 YU Na Ln CL N O p~ C7 V) w w w w w w V, p c m p p w Q Q Ln J m Z LL LL I- F- F- F- F- F- Um f0z z W L^ oC w a 0 0 S 2 2 S S S m -� U C O C O w O U ui Q1 z �-- U U U UV) U U J' U �n U W C C J 3 z Z� W W W W LLJJ LLJJ LLJJ -<' 0 z c O J Q LU O Q Q J a O m U U U 0 0 p p p 0 p p S Y Y J 0 0 n. w m an F- > Community Development Department pl&min Oivisbnn Banding 5a" D4vision Ensirotitrwntai Sells Obvision <7 P.Q. BOX 6005 117 NW Lafayette AVC -nue &encs, Oregon 97708- U05 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-176-1 http,,A/w.,ww°.deschu'L s,orgtcd LAND USE ACTION SIGN AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OREGON ) FILE NUMBER ) ss. COUNTY OF DESCHUTES ) I �w�s�rly Pbeing first duly sworn, depose and state as follows: (name) placed a Notice of Land Use Action sign on the Applicant's property on �7 p'ti` -1r� date) 2018, where it can be clearly seen from I -N "'i i RWQ (name of road) If the land use sign notices a hearing, the hearing is to be held on N ZA 2018. (date) Dated this �_ day of�, 2018• Fig ,Affiant Subscribed and sworn to before me this day ofLgA,2 OFFICIAL STAMP Notary tis: n JUDY KAY HACKETT D NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON My Co C COMMISSION NO. 948168 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 09, 2020 Updated 1/18 Exhibit M Deschutes County Property Information - Dial Fire Tax District Map for account 128403 (,A I I f %'-,Y ki: REDMOND FIRE & RESCUE IYU WvIi 11HEIL NE N E I L VVA .J REDMOND Deschutes County GIS, Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAH Map and Taxiot: 1413280001000 Exhibit L "chutes County GIS, Source: sri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 9eographics, CNES/Airbus DS, SDA, USGS, AemGRID, IGN, and the OS UserCommunity Exhibit K Deschutes County Property Information - Dial Zoning Map for account 128403 P +-ISM Il4tl(ltl EFL ITRB tvN_tA1 � IIH1u S rces: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment Corp,, GEBCO, U.T S, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IG N, Kadaster NL, Ordnance S ey. Esri Japan, $HETI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, M pmylndia, © OpanStreetMap contributors, and the G IS User Community, D schutes County GIS Map and Taxlot: 1413280001000,�,��� C�C� n Exhibit J EF I -A C Deschutes County Property Information - Dial Zoning Map for account 128403 TER: E F Uf FP IHA I EF IE4-1-.I R' R P LM)i Tro 1.3 EFUTE EFS TRB [W 7L �EF! EFUTRB is 'D F FF1j4L F EFUTRB .0 R Sources: Esti, HERE.. rrmnin, Interm ap ncrement P Corp., GEBCO, bBa-e ' I G USES, FAO, NP$, NR N, G,bBa el I N, Kadaster NL, Ordnance h H C F Survey, Esri Japah, ME I,MJhjinja(H g Kong), swisgopo.@ .- I nta 'ors t Ij %Jpunoul uVid contri tors.-andtheGI User Community, Deschu 8 RI County GIS Map and Tax1ot: 1413280001000 Exhibit SILL SL--R\JL CC i 7E' --K 5W6�� PACIFIC POWER A DIVISION OF PACIFICOFP 1/17/2017 Lindsay Pate 2660 NE Hwy 20 Bend, OR 97701 Will Serve: 14132800000 tax lot 1000 Dear Lindsay Pate 328 NE Webster Bend, Oregon 97701 This is to advise you that Pacific Power has electrical distribution facilities near 14132800000 tax lot 1000 in Deschutes, Oregon; and Pacific Power has certified rights to provide electrical energy in this area. Pacific Power will provide electric service to this project within a reasonable time after service is applied for. These extensions are provided under our Rules and Regulations as filed with the Oregon State Public Utilities Commissioners. These Rules and Regulations require that under some situations, the developer or customer will be rgquired to participate in the line extension costs. Electric service to this project is in accordance with the Rates, Rules and Regulations of Pacific Power's files Electric Tariff. If you have questions please give me a call at 541 388 7132 Respectfully Dan McDevitt Redmond Estimating 1Owem_ SeTUF 1P*oFK POYVER COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONEE114MMOWTAW ...I #...r ►.. ►h? F.N,wn►n. n.do..ad ►n unur Mh Bus ea Information Business or Customer Name: IASS�n�� Request Number: Address: Person resp onsible r ad and contract billing (if different than monthly billing customer): Name: Gkk 1*' 't'.- Address:---!; 622,. .- Phone No.: E-mail Address: • Fax No; _ - Building Square Footage: oFF� ate breakdorun Into nor (i.e.: office, usanrhorarel Hours of ration include da (ir hours : G %bE'S o69c.0 Sc�A S itDts Service Descripti n Desired Secondary Voltage: O 3 Phase 120/208V ^3 Phase 277/480v Now Not all voltages maybe available D 1 Phase 120/240v 01 Phase 120v Only 0 Other ----- Panel Size (in Amps): (06 Total number of meters: _j.c Nearest Pole or Equipment number: Type of Service Desired: f7 Overhead ndeergrou Electrical Contractor: 1>e1Aso 1rlo�'}shone No.: Sjl-;W_ �Wbe'wvis SAA_ Load List (attach additional sheets if necessary) Phase and New Load Load to be Total Connected Description Voltage to be added removed Load after chnm Unit Tons' _ ! 4 w 2 9&.-WTons Tons' Retri enation Total (do not convert to kW) : ExhaustFans .N 01 $X - HP HP _ s V EMU) HP Small Motors 3. HP Air Compressor 3 �� X c Hp w P x HP Lar est Motor not included above Total (do not convert to ktM : 3 HP Electric Heat = �p ODt)rt .2 kW kW Heatin -x 15 w V iW , y kW Li htin -6 �1 es 110 as t(• O y0u� kW Outlets-GReew Noase- A w ,2 kW Office EquiEment eDw 7 kW Kitchen vi menti o rt- 'i � rw Commuters. _„., • wr kW it is important to provide the most accurate information available, as it is used by the Estimator to design Pacttic.orp ! facilities and dere a the customer's costs. Please sign and date this form before giving it to your estimator. 1/9117 Customer Signature Date • Tau - t11V 1:,000 Revised 23OW012 Py Exhibit H A -T ET�, �-� T (�- is BEFORE THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of Transfer Application T-12264, Deschutes County FINAL ORDER APPROVING A CHANGE IN POINT OF APPROPRIATION, A CHANGE IN PLACE OF USE, AND A CHANGE IN CHARACTER OF USE Authority Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 537.705 and 540.505 to 540.580 establish the process in which a water right holder may submit a request to transfer the point of appropriation, place of use, or character of use authorized under an existing water right. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 690, Division 380 implement the statutes and provides the Department's procedures and criteria for evaluating transfer applications. Applicant LINDSEY PATE, GLASS HOUSE, INC. DBA GLASS HOUSE GROWN 4859 N. HWY 97 REDMOND, OR 97756 Findings of Fact On February 1, 2016, LINDSEY PATE, GLASS HOUSE, INC. DBA GLASS HOUSE GROWN filed an application to change the point of appropriation and to change the place of use and to change the character of use under Certificate 90952. The Department assigned the application number T-12264. 2. Notice of the application for transfer was published on February 9, 2016, pursuant to OAR 690-380-4000. No comments were filed in response to the notice. 3. On December 22, 2016, the Department contacted the applicant's agent to notify them of deficiencies in the application and map. On January 27, 2017, the applicant's agent submitted new maps and amended application pages resolving the deficiencies. 4. On December 8, 2015, Transfer Application T-12214 was filed, on December 10, 2015, Transfer Application T-12215 was filed, on January 11, 2016, Transfer Application T-12241 was filed, on February 1, 2016, Transfer Applications T-12263 and T-12265 were filed. These transfers all modify the same right, described by Certificate 90952, that has been This final order is subject to judicial review by the Court of Appeals under ORS 183.482. Any petition for judicial review must be filed within the 60 -day time period specified by ORS 183.482(l). Pursuant to ORS 536.075 and OAR 137-003-0675, you may petition for judicial review or petition the Director for reconsideration of this order. A petition for reconsideration may be granted or denied by the Director, and if no action is taken within 60 days following the date the petition was filed, the petition shall be deemed denied. T-12264.fo.approve.sah Pagel of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page 4016 proposed to be modified in T-12264. Certificate 90952 shall be canceled after all transfer applications are processed. 5. On June 16, 2017, the Department mailed a copy of the draft Preliminary Determination proposing to approve Transfer Application T-12264 to the applicant. The draft Preliminary Determination cover letter set forth a deadline of July 16, 2017, for the applicant to respond. 6. On July 21, 2017, the Department received a request to extend the completion date to five years, the completion date will now be October 1, 2023. 7. On September 5, 2017, the applicant's agent provided the necessary information to demonstrate that the applicant is authorized to pursue the transfer. The applicant requested that the Department proceed with issuance of a Preliminary Determination. On October 11, 2017, the Department issued a Preliminary Determination proposing to approve Transfer T-12264 and mailed a copy to the applicant. Additionally, notice of the Preliminary Determination for the transfer application was published on the Department's weekly notice on October 17, 2017, and in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on October 14, and 21, 2017, pursuant to ORS 540.520 and OAR 690-380-4020. No protests were filed in response to the notices. 9. The portion of the right to be transferred is as follows: Certificate: 90952 in the name of NIKKIA SUMMER RAIN MALLOY (perfected under Permit G-11126) Use: IRRIGATION OF 0.4 ACRE Priority Dates: OCTOBER 12, 1990 FOR IRRIGATION USE Rate: 0.009 CUBIC FOOT PER SECOND (CFS) FOR IRRIGATION Source: ONE WELL, within the DESCHUTES RIVER BASIN Authorized Point of Appropriation: I Twn ......... ---------- Rna-� Mer SecT Q -Q _ Measured Distances —_ 17 S 1� E WM lb SE NE 640 FEET NORZ'1-t AND 1400 FEES' EAST FROM THE C 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 16 Authorized Place of Use: IRRIGATION 7 Rn MeSec r SQ-Q Acres 17 S 13 E WM 16 =NENE _ 0.4 10. Certificate 90952 does not specify the irrigation season, nor is an irrigation season specified by basin program or decree. Consistent with OAR 690-250, the irrigation season is March I through October 31. 11, Transfer Application T-12264 proposes to move the authorized point of appropriation annroximately 15 miles from the existing point of appropriation to: Rng Mer Sec Q -Q Measured Distances 14 S 13 E WM 28 SW SE 150 FEET NORTH AND 270 FEET EAST FROM THE Sl/4 CORNER OF SECTION 28 T- 12264.fo.approve .sah Page 2 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page aL001 12. Transfer Application T-12264 proposes to change the character of use to nursery use. 13. Transfer Application T-12264 also proposes to change the place of use of the right to: 14. The amount of water used for NURSERY OPERATIONS is limited to a diversion of 0.15 cubic foot per second per acre and 5.0 acre feet per acre per year. For the irrigation of containerized nursery plants, the amount of water diverted is limited to ONE -FORTIETH of one cubic foot per second (or its equivalent) and 5.0 acre feet per acre per year. For the irrigation of in -ground nursery plants, the amount of water diverted is limited to ONE - EIGHTIETH of one cubic foot per second (or its equivalent) and 2.5 acre feet per acre per year. The use of water for NURSERY OPERATIONS may be made at any time of the year that the use is beneficial. For the irrigation of any other crop, the amount of water diverted is limited to ONE -EIGHTIETH of one cubic foot per second (or its equivalent) and 2.5 acre feet per acre during the irrigation season of each year. 15. Using the nursery rate and duty described in Finding of Fact No. 14 above, the rate of diversion, place of use, and quantity of water for the proposed nursery use under the portion of the right for irrigation use shall be limited to a maximum rate of diversion of 0.009 cubic foot per second (cfs) during the irrigation season of each year, a place of use of 0.06 acre in area (0.009 cfs _ 0.15 cfs/acre = 0.06 acre), and a total volume diverted of not to exceed 0.3 acre foot (0.06 acre x 5.0 acre feet = 0.3 acre foot) during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31, further limited to: Containerized nursery plants - A maximum rate of diversion of 0.009 cfs, a place of use of 0.36 acre (0.009 cfs _ 0.025 cfs/acre), and a maximum total volume diverted of 1.8 acre feet (0.36 acre x 5.0 acre feet per acre) during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31, or In -ground nursery plants- A maximum rate of diversion of 0.009 cfs, a place of use of 0.72 acres (0.009 cfs _ 0.0125 cfs/acre), and a maximum total volume diverted of 1.8 acre feet (0.72 acre x 2.5 acre feet per acre) during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31. Transfer Review Criteria (OAR 690-380-4010) 16. Water has been used within the last five years according to the terms and conditions of the right. There is no information in the record that would demonstrate that the right is subject to forfeiture under ORS 540.610. 17. A pump, pipeline, and sprinkler system sufficient to use the full amount of water allowed under the existing right were present within the five-year period prior to submittal of Transfer Application T-12264. 18. The proposed changes, as conditioned, would not result in enlargement of the right. T- 12264.fo.approve.sah Page 3 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page ;L1b NURSERY USE - Twp Rn Mer Sec Q -Q Acres 14 S 13 E I WM 1 28 1 SW SE 1 0.4 14. The amount of water used for NURSERY OPERATIONS is limited to a diversion of 0.15 cubic foot per second per acre and 5.0 acre feet per acre per year. For the irrigation of containerized nursery plants, the amount of water diverted is limited to ONE -FORTIETH of one cubic foot per second (or its equivalent) and 5.0 acre feet per acre per year. For the irrigation of in -ground nursery plants, the amount of water diverted is limited to ONE - EIGHTIETH of one cubic foot per second (or its equivalent) and 2.5 acre feet per acre per year. The use of water for NURSERY OPERATIONS may be made at any time of the year that the use is beneficial. For the irrigation of any other crop, the amount of water diverted is limited to ONE -EIGHTIETH of one cubic foot per second (or its equivalent) and 2.5 acre feet per acre during the irrigation season of each year. 15. Using the nursery rate and duty described in Finding of Fact No. 14 above, the rate of diversion, place of use, and quantity of water for the proposed nursery use under the portion of the right for irrigation use shall be limited to a maximum rate of diversion of 0.009 cubic foot per second (cfs) during the irrigation season of each year, a place of use of 0.06 acre in area (0.009 cfs _ 0.15 cfs/acre = 0.06 acre), and a total volume diverted of not to exceed 0.3 acre foot (0.06 acre x 5.0 acre feet = 0.3 acre foot) during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31, further limited to: Containerized nursery plants - A maximum rate of diversion of 0.009 cfs, a place of use of 0.36 acre (0.009 cfs _ 0.025 cfs/acre), and a maximum total volume diverted of 1.8 acre feet (0.36 acre x 5.0 acre feet per acre) during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31, or In -ground nursery plants- A maximum rate of diversion of 0.009 cfs, a place of use of 0.72 acres (0.009 cfs _ 0.0125 cfs/acre), and a maximum total volume diverted of 1.8 acre feet (0.72 acre x 2.5 acre feet per acre) during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31. Transfer Review Criteria (OAR 690-380-4010) 16. Water has been used within the last five years according to the terms and conditions of the right. There is no information in the record that would demonstrate that the right is subject to forfeiture under ORS 540.610. 17. A pump, pipeline, and sprinkler system sufficient to use the full amount of water allowed under the existing right were present within the five-year period prior to submittal of Transfer Application T-12264. 18. The proposed changes, as conditioned, would not result in enlargement of the right. T- 12264.fo.approve.sah Page 3 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page ;L1b 19. The proposed changes would not result in injury to other water rights. 20. All other application requirements are met. Conclusions of Law The change in point of appropriation, change in place of use, and change in character of use proposed in Transfer Application T-12264 are consistent with the requirements of ORS 537.705 and 540.505 to 540.580 and OAR 690-380-5000. Now, therefore, it is ORDERED: 1. The change in point of appropriation, change in place of use, and change in character of use proposed in Transfer Application T-12264 are approved. 2. The right to the use of the water is restricted to beneficial use at the place of use described, and is subject to all other conditions and limitations contained in Certificate 90952 and any related decree. 3. Water right Certificate 90952 is cancelled. A new certificate will be issued describing that portion of the right not affected by this transfer and transfers T-12214, T-12215, T-12241, T-12263 and T-12265. 4. The quantity of water and place of use allowed for the proposed nursery use under the portion of the right for irrigation use shall not exceed a rate of diversion of 0.009 cubic foot per second (cfs), a place of use of 0.06 acre in area, and a total volume diverted of not to exceed 0.3 acre foot during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31. Containerized nursery plant use shall be limited to a rate of diversion of 0.009 cfs and a place of use of 0.36 acre in area, further limited to a total volume of water diverted of 1.8 acre feet during the irrigation season of March I to October 31. In -ground nursery plant use shall be limited to a rate of diversion of 0.009 cfs and a place of use of 0.72 acres in area, further limited to a total volume of water diverted of 1.8 acre feet during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31. 5. The quantity of water diverted at the new point of appropriation shall not exceed the quantity of water lawfully available at the original point of appropriation. 6. Water shall be acquired from the same aquifer (water source) as the original point of appropriation. 7. The former place of use of the transferred right shall no longer receive water under the right. 8. Water use measurement conditions: a. Before water use may begin under this order, the water user shall install a totalizing flow meter, or, with prior approval of the Director, another suitable measuring device at each new point of appropriation. b. The water user shall maintain the meter or measuring device in good working order. 'C- 12264.fo.approve.sah Page 4 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page 2�� c. The water user shall allow the Watermaster access to the meter or measuring device; provided however, where the meter or measuring device is located within a private structure, the Watermaster shall request access upon reasonable notice. 9. Full beneficial use of the water shall be made, consistent with the terms of this order, on or before October 1, 2023. A Claim of Beneficial Use prepared by a Certified Water Right Examiner shall be submitted by the applicant to the Department within one year after the deadline for completion of the changes and full beneficial use of the water. 10. After satisfactory proof of beneficial use is received, a new certificate confirming the right transferred will be issued. -n ( Dated at Salem, Oregon this day of November, 2017. Dwight Fr c at fight Services Administrator, for Thomas yler, at Oregon W r Resources Department Marling date: ___ NOV 2 9M7 T- 12264.fo.approve.sah Page 5 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page 2.%aa Exhibit G Page I1 Glass Nouse Grown Cannabis Odor and Noise ReportOPR0 G I N FF SAO kr 'P 79874PE4; rte. ' To: Lindsey & Christopher Pate��� 1 OREC,OK From: Laura Breit, PE Date: November 21, 2018 �4q •g QUALIFICATIONS I am a mechanical engineer licensed in Oregon, #79874PE. Our company has provided several dozen of these reports since 2016. While not a qualification by itself, this has involved extensive research, development of our own techniques, and a deeper understanding of the factors at play, including: -Common practices and requirements from other jurisdictions, and the effects of these as the cannabis industry matures -Efficacy and required maintenance of various methods, such as carbon filtration and fogging -Increasingly sophisticated simulation software, and continued research on alternative standards SUMMARY This report addresses odor & noise mitigation for a processing facility located at 4859 N Highway 97, Redmond, OR 97756. The purpose of the facility is agricultural support for a permitted cannabis cultivation greenhouse in Deschutes County. This facility will be used for cannabis processing, including production of three forms of solventless cannabis concentrates: rosin, ice water extract (IWE), and dry sift hash. No volatile substances, CO2, or harmful chemicals are used in these processes. Rosin and dry sift hash will be processed in the main structure, and IWE will be processed in a separate 10' x 20' building housing a walk-in freezer. Other rooms may be subject to cannabis odors as well, and will be used for drying, trimming, packaging, and storage. These aforementioned rooms will be referred to as "processing rooms" in this report. The support structure also includes employee spaces not used for cannabis processing or storage. The support structure is of solid, insulated construction, and the IWE building is a modified shipping container. Support structure peak roof height is 11'7", although ceilings are 7' 11". Average roof height of 9' 9" will be used in volume calculations for the sake of conservative calculation. The IWE building has a 8'6" ceiling. Odor in both structures will be neutralized with carbon filters attached to inline fans placed throughout the facility. The HVAC system will use mini -split heat pumps to condition both structures without needing to exhaust air to outside. Additionally, a compressor may be located outside the IWE structure to operate the walk-in freezer. No noise mitigation measures will be required, and the facility will only be staffed during normal working hours. Page 12 Further considerations of odor and noise from grow spaces, facility operation, and all exterior equipment will be discussed within this report. SUI IPPQ,RT SMRD`CiTlllME IFIL(GQR 1P%,AN 6w OA' tai 1e, +�c D esc u -k s ll NW L " aic, Ave Ped U2 9-1'101 Fig. 1: Simple Floor Plan See Appendix for further information about the site layout and location. Specification sheets on all MVAC and outdoor equipment can be found in Appendix B. Site geography and equipment positioning will impact the propagation of noise from this equipment. This will be discussed further, and photographs taken by ColeBreit Engineering during a site visit on November 15th, 2018 can be found in Appendix C. CANNABIS ODOR ANALYSIS AND CALCULATION Applicable Standard The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(8)(10) reads: 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. Page 13 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: L Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. Odor Mitigation Technology Review Activated Carbon Filtration has been utilized in many industries for many years, and is considered a proven technology. Due its relatively low first cost, it is a common odor control choice for cannabis facilities. See Appendix D for information gathered, including: A. Technology Overview B. Activated Carbon as a recognized odor control method in cannabis C. Activated Carbon as a recognized odor control method in other industries D. Activated Carbon has lowest first cost See Appendix E for odor control requirements of other jurisdictions. Proposed Odor Mitigation Design No air will be exhausted from processing rooms, and exchange of "smelly" air with non- production spaces will be minimal. Two carbon filters with inline fans will circulate and scrub air at either end of the hallway near the exits to improve the likelihood that fugitive odors will be neutralized before they are able to leave the structure. Suggested carbon filter and fan products, placement, and sizing is shown on the following pages. The IWE Building should use a single carbon filter with inline fan within the walk-in freezer. ColeBreit does not anticipate any functionality issues with operating a carbon filter and inline fan within a cold space. COLEBRENT IN A « 1 di fo IN IR fl 7i (a 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541728 3293 colebreit.com Page (4 Room name Room Notes Width Length Square Height Room Volume Filter & Fan Filtration PROCESSING ROOM Footage 10" Max -Fan w/ (rounded up) PROCESSING Production of cannabis 13' 16'10" 219 SF 91911 2136 CF ROOM concentrates 550 CFM 160 CFM 75 Filter PACKAGING Packaging of processed 11' 10' 11" 120 SF 9' 9" 1170 CF ROOM cannabis concentrates Can 100 Filter DRY ROOM 1 459 CF TRIM ROOM Trimming of cannabis 21' 12' 252 SF 9' 9" 2457 CF DRY ROOM 1 Drying of cannabis 12' 11' 9" 141 SF 9' 9" 1375 CF DRY ROOM 2 Drying of cannabis 12 11' 9" 141 SF 9'9- 1375 CF FINISHED Storage of finished 12' 11'9" 141 SF 9' 9" 1375 CF PRODUCT cannabis concentrates (2) 8" Max -Fan w/ 1100 CFM 245 CFM HALLWAY Irregular dimensions, see WALK-IN FREEZER 263 SF 9' 9" 2565 CF 266 CFM site plan 75 Filter WALK-IN Separate structure for IWE 10' 10' 100 SF 8' 6" 850 CF FREEZER processing, see site plan Table 1: Room inTormaavrr Room name 1/3`d of Room Suggested Carbon Supplied Carbon Excess Filtration Volume Filter & Fan Filtration PROCESSING ROOM 712 CF 10" Max -Fan w/ 834 CFM 122 CFM Can 100 Filter PACKAGING ROOM 390 CF 8" Max -Fan w/ Can 550 CFM 160 CFM 75 Filter TRIM ROOM 819 CF 10" Max -Fan w/ 834 CFM 15 CFM Can 100 Filter DRY ROOM 1 459 CF 8" Max -Fan w/ Can 550 CFM 91 CFM 75 Filter DRY ROOM 2 459 CF 8" Max -Fan w/ Can 550 CFM 91 CFM 75 Filter FINISHED PRODUCT 459 CF 8" Max -Fan w/ Can 550 CFM 91 CFM 75 Filter HALLWAY 855 CF (2) 8" Max -Fan w/ 1100 CFM 245 CFM Can 75 Filter WALK-IN FREEZER 284 CF 8" Max -Fan w/ Can550 CFM 266 CFM 75 Filter Table Z: Carnonlntration vy rvvrn � E `� � 11 � 0 q> _ ' -E N cC t N HE iE 'R ;I :M :6 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 cofebreit.com Aft =300,147� iRanamcmz� n edl&hmnft c1Ftp0t. m CRW /' 1141( m-* ®` 01.11 SEE ammfixtt ti ,' rtmakh:: `its; m ilrrmwearm: (Mviih pr "ltbv),, � (Dwttsiaiia� (Qianmefien:: 4@ amwl /,` 11Qf,5," • Hileii�htt:11(QJ� amm /i �A? 41„' VQiGtii�ItlC: 47/ k1 /'10 km 2'arbaml WW : V kS // 11TI.5Obs, ca"6m email Depok. & 5 0 m /' Z5Q6” Mn coperswM9 : WC U 176 EF dkl v at nnralotc : T82pah Page 16 1i? uorm� r,rn eltaz}I EidkaUM cm: tam c FW /' il@ 33k ® CD sate amitinme akwaimimm: (wi&) pnw-f lb m)) @xut�inl� �iemn>Qtten:: 4171 amm /' 11bh5"' H Wyj tt:7/5>amm//ZY.S Tatal g00/WS%A: 31ib Nq G'7/9 lbs Q'wb msea Mt:&Saim AZ51b" NNW c4paraldimsTamp: WC/'TINSfF Pmsmm dkV aft mires CM:11Wpm // .7%3"'wS iR€ amn re 4 eY Fm t: 1i2poommem11rA IFam: Ribemd AWn 1Filktefed xo 1FA41M1 cfw 1'dCMits FA IM CFW WbAL-6 1141"' fOdgvarlFarmTr"' 91883 za tr,111AkottJMTMII= 41713 1121' tD h*wparm , 1120 409 TV MWOFam,,,", 774171 mi Tr. cw,-Farm No M Ma TV" Qm,-Fare HO 5% 2m w, IAQs%t4Fwirm ffi3A1 228 W"' IC W04Farm w 5% 1*2 1101" 771 W, (Car~ Ho sm zw ar.lNAiacx-IFa►mTm- S�Qp 1165 (CamrfFamf" 40P T30 a" tCam4%e- HO m 2711 V CanAFwP Nil® 3383 113;x, COLEBREIT IE A M 11 In IE 1E In 51 IN Ci Fig, 3: Can -Filters' Can 75 & Can 100 Filter 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541 728 3293 colebreit.com (ORVA Iw at MTW I'M% uhm. amts WA AM r" I -Ivw 11-51Wlin vac deft WA mtd ffl fQVA, GM I (WM Mdi Page 1 '10" Max -Fan, SM "SUM (CRO Imm aft fmtm 2P)m ffoms: WA An= GM I (WM Mdi I'-tuo.Xr F"WrAttlatochty, rfiltur mot M3 I-ts 75 Q65 322- M, 211 187 13 tL%* wwfiffth 294* tIS 66 Q.5& 253 1309'2" Z38 22t MR 175 1241 1225 43 9a 1 N/4 1; ilAfts 49 1 Mwfium Z35T TVs 53 a49, 1_76 153 t3l �M 82 N. , AWA t=Zl ma 179. ts 467' 650 1 630 610 SM 520 420 1 150 100 11" . ......91 molt 213 618 '40 2�111 I': 3tJQ"� Y15 18 465 270 all, 1 0 t'40 22& 70,51 1 55 r "71 Page 18 Odor Mitigation System Maintenance From the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (ASHRAE), "the life of activated carbon in odor control systems ranges from a few weeks to a year or more, depending on the concentration of the odorous emission". [2016 ASHRAE Handbook — HVAC Systems and Equipment, see Appendix F] This is in-line with the information we have received from the filter manufacturer, "The life of a filter is determined by the concentration of the contaminant, the relative humidity and the volume of air being cleaned. Unfortunately, there is no indicator light on the filter that tells you when it is ready to be replaced. Typically 12-18 months is expected of the Original Can -Filter, although many of them have lasted much longer." Our recommendation is to change the pre -filter every three months along with the activated carbon filter every six months. Per ASHRAE, depending on the concentration of the contaminants, the filter life could be much shorter or longer than six months, so it is imperative that the facility manager keep a close eye on the "breakdown" of the carbon filter and change more frequently if required. Detectable odor is the evidence of breakdown. Replacement of carbon filters and prefilters and maintenance of fans will be the responsibility of the site owner. Odor Mitigation Conclusion This odor control system will satisfy the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d)(i), and prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. NOISE ANALYSIS AND CALCULATION Applicable Standard The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a) reads: Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. Noise Calculation and Analysis At the time of this report, the buildings described herein are not yet constructed, and no equipment was available for on-site testing. Instead, three ambient noise readings were taken during a morning site visit on November 15tt', 2018 at approximately 7 am, and a virtual noise model was performed to estimate noise levels contributed by future HVAC equipment. Comparing these two analyses, with results shown in Figure 5 below, demonstrates how this site complies with the language and intent of Deschutes County code, and will not present a nuisance to neighboring properties. Due to the irregular shape of the property, tabulated results from the noise model will refer to the receiver points marked on Figures 5 & 7, rather than by the typical cardinal directions. COLEBREIT E :N <rs M IN IE IE IR 11 IN C6 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541728 3293 colebreit.com Page 19 Fig. 5: Existing ambient noise levels and expected equipment noise contributions at property lines (no equipment or cannabis -related structures installed). Ambient noise levels are marked on Figure 5 at the approximate location that each recording was taken, with the approximate average and the lowest level detected during each recording period. These are much higher ambient noise levels than most properties ColeBreit has reported on, due to the proximity to Highway 97. It can be expected that highway noise will significantly reduce perceptible noise from this site at all property lines, especially so on the eastern half. As an approximate demonstration of this effect, adding the western peak level of 28.2 dBA to the nearby ambient low of 50.0 dBA, resulting noise levels are still 50.0 dBA. This is due to the logarithmic nature of combining noise levels. In other words, equipment noise will be completely "washed out" by typical highway noise across the site. See below for the method of simple decibel arithmetic: trDgdibeiwidlition.and'UtAradt on ci(11111d: (tiVttis uw- cjttlrr}L'} Y. wdatiu"ta'm dr"4:0-11<„ %Vlfutys a[@• I@?(Itittbtn1(' and. t almoP ilk inftnq?tliai1Tq:4vlltxritr howq t:(MjUjttd: j," its a: Imcrttr 431 'fttu; muM Ilt stnitlttq: (4-10r Humble: add! W ht1lttWJ, and: ttIG" tur9: t1min rr0rtim Irr tht ibJiUwi�rg �vrsy: OL: 'IM L0.9:'a ( i =1' i=crztx.�tntlli?:�titlugpihtr,��I[aw31r�9���9(�f3.�-�t4Ct �� Q,d906 91Q>�b i M-11 `IB COLEBRENT eE !N C8 tl IN tE is LR I N C6 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541728 3293 colebreit.com Page 110 Equipment information and sound ratings have been tabulated below. The compressor serving the IWE Building was chosen to represent the loud end of typical compressors for walk-in freezers, refer to Appendix B for more information. Any model of compressor may be installed, provided the sound rating does not exceed the 76 dBA shown here. Equipment Tag Serves dBA Rating Quantity Mini Split A MS -1 AG Support Structure 58 1 Mini Split A MS -2 AG Support Structure 58 1 Mini Split B MS -3 IWE Building 63 1 Compressor COMP IWE Building 176 1 Table 3: HVAC Equipment and Noise Ratings Sound will propagate from the levels provided by each piece of equipment out towards each property line. As the sound waves travel further from these sources, they become increasingly dispersed and less powerful at any given point. As this occurs, sound is also partially absorbed and partially deflected by ground, trees, vegetations, and structures, and is affected by atmospheric conditions. There are many factors that affect this manner of propagation across an outdoor space, far exceeding what could be presented with simple equations in this report. Due to this complexity, rather than being calculated by hand, noise is simulated with computer software called "DBmap". This software automates all of these calculations in accordance with ISO 9613, Parts 1 & 2. ISO 9613 has been in place since 1996, and is an international standard for calculating outdoor sound propagation. Please refer to Appendix G to review the equations and general calculation process described by ISO 9613 Part 2 in detail. ISO 9613 Part 1 further details atmospheric effects on propagation, and can be provided upon request. These equations are an internationally accepted set of calculation methods that can be applied to any typical outdoor space. By manually inputting data into this software, placing buildings and equipment, manually placing receivers at chosen points along each property line, and adjusting settings to match the site in question, this simulation gives an accurate approximation of noise levels, with all factors considered, at this specific site. Ground hardness factor is a scale of noise absorption from flat pavement at 0.0 to a soft, densely vegetated field at 1.0. A ground hardness factor of 0.5 was assumed to reflect: -Flat, sandy ground with some grass coverage surrounding where the structures will be located -Dispersed tree coverage and areas of uneven ground throughout the property Noise receivers were modeled at the nearest, loudest, or otherwise most significant points along each property line at a height of 1.5 meters, the approximate height of a human listener. The model includes full, simultaneous operation of all equipment in approximate locations respective to the building. Equipment was modeled slightly outside of the dotted line surrounding each building; this line is called the "facade level' and placing equipment slightly outside of it will additionally model the reflection of noise off of the structure wall. A closeup of the building with noise propagation, a diagram of the whole site and receiver locations, and a table of final noise levels are on the following pages. E's imgM �R Emma IE NG IN�EfEIR I WIG 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541 728 3293 calebreit,com Page Ill Fig. 6. Equipment placement in relation to structures, and color -coded noise propagation, enlarged view COLEBRENT A9 'M M a W ra it it ri " M 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541728 3293 colebreit.com Page 112 Fig. 7: Expected peak noise levels (calculated) at property lines with all future equipment operating. Note location of callout for Figure 6. COLEBRENT f11'RI iti 1 * IF if; IN rl fM CG 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541 728 3293 colebreit.com Page 113 Receiver mark Final simulated dBA contributed by equipment Final predicted d8A levels from combined simulated equipment and 50 dBA, the lowest recorded ambient noise level A 28.2 50.0 B 19.6 50.0 19.1 50.0 0 18.6 50.0 E 23.3 50.0 F 12 50.0 G 13.7 50.0 H 11.9 50.0 Table 4: Final prea►crea noise ►evens ur rnuar,eu ►e4eivuia Equipment noise is not expected to exceed a 30 dBA contribution at any property line, regardless of ambience or operating schedule. This simulation does not account for uneven, hilly ground, or tree coverage in areas around the site, which could further dampen noise. Noise Mitigation Conclusion Given the simulations and considerations shown above, the facility will comply with DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a). CELEN, 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:541728 3293 colebreit.com Page 114 Appendix A —Site Plans Figs. A2: Satellite image showing location of property and surrounding area 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 COLE13REIT o.541 728 3293 re rN (6 1 a rY f6 rR r1 q0 (6 colebreit.com Page 115 Appendix B — System Specifications `Submittal Sheet FT3X(ST2-LV`JU // R/XST 2LUJU mar(o,Rlmwil wwmwd HiNtpaup SPAM it k� Complete warranty details available from your local dealer or at www daikincomfort com To receive the 12 Year Parts Limited Warranty, online registration must be completed within 60 days or installation Online registration is not required in California or Quebec If product is installed in o commercial opplicaGon, limited warranty period is 5 years Ylniloorspoefta WMM I W AS rff tnv, Rotw(i7fttd) younagDmiyi � ,g5rilsi.7�1�91/ f� 1&//�//�l1�6 ,� Hll,rJy/,u psu rntrnnuunnttlen+.VP:nI3lOni; ltis5%1l'•as39i']Y2'tifhJYlU !T:t. it rI crnr Sn'e'titi�ftalo� (Compre9wr•� Nermetioally;9eoledl9'winwTf,,pe, R&tin omit R44il M rRdtigerenC@SII ItkfE lf�pKii ASrHbwrRtltm(Mnr)I .�: iyesiing ;H- ; -+1� 20 41T 3191 Snund:Ruwarrl>Bvsl!(ftR�+is �� [?Ilmnro;mrti,lldn+lW:v.ii'1:{lrri; Z7: Slfftw3D,71'&'willciYA; JJiDl14±IilUVii 7.8, odlb[g ( Mooing 1 mit 2t$, ffa*F� 2a, Up Wn j Pminrmance i)t1�tl�utit �lala3ltMidl+�tr. sul�il�nbii.'�ii�u). I fN►dfflbrcl'tibtail/h � � tC�itlettiiE'dnr/��ilipl�.irfsev (tl''f "S�SHi � ,ncstrm,wrsrrr�ruam„a,,, • •,,,,.,• ,�• .. •••.. .. Ouldoun 9S'frOli135'kWB, un),.t,.a,:w..Ni..n. xrwiw.loM'M1rtr 4wilrWRILOilt, 1 s�i�'�7'fRdYa'btitiliNlKrtex�) 1NlA�DEN►I�IRV/nMA�O) i CAM D iQperoiitgiAatt;e' it !rCIMYkH,>alrryL'L'etlemo,if. ���,�,..,� ••. •••, •.-•• •••• Outeoor: 4V.'R09J4VR W8r a:iRitE3UNn.7tltn,',LmlNliinnt: Indme 711tH 0e16Wr Wb' Outdoan 1WRDW1WRW81 y Indoor: 7WrrDPd60'F W9! outdoor: 57RO815: RW11t �IM9nlbaCl XIIA0. gatedllondamp5(IQ, lW ldnunolonratettwtputdWl Liquid:(ln)I IV41 zDai6DJ,I1 zsolaojm 9y5tetmlt6ffAn 8;71, aim SyatnmMIX 1B, is Qomprlessor,14M 41T 3191 (Radbanfbmmij n1 RIAa .24, mLbihmrfWnmatanNf.- 291 7$1 Indbm•tteninalwR A 1s, IrrdimtdbrrmtttOurNti' 28f 11dt XIIA0. gatedllondamp5(IQ, lW ldnunolonratettwtputdWl Liquid:(ln)I IV41 rsa9,Nn)i �l:ea .. Cr7ein�8nl; 9L& Kllm IntarwrihPlpina;Lmlgt i(M) 811,6 Will, tntltrunihNaigjMfliffbfsntte((1)1 4912+ RNetgpie9a,{�} 3QL81 AmdltiimanfYlter�ml Ratr;apratth(pizl,(ti1 .zu Dallan.Norlh AtrierioadLC 9161:9an lbllpa; Suuo UDr4uur<an, �t477Q4G. (Qa11kn14,prodhofuare�subjeWUn�santtnuwu.improvementy, Daikin reserves•,then®hfttLLmolilfy.Rrollutltdtuifin; spotiilpationsandiinfofmfltlon�imthit.daltl�sheettwitboxc natloaanthviMwnincu rim&anri�llgptrans);• Submittal CreatlomData iuly,201W Aa6e•Lob44 Fig, 81: Mini Split A COLEBRENT A. 141 (6 11 IN ff. IE IR fl Ili (4 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541728 3293 colebreit.com r7 AMIN ,SubrdItWI DiftwShadt 40bwft 111+804fl Mbtdbm WAW RmxeAaLv" FEATURES 'D use mft ducbwfls mount! Cassano W'v"domll"dw U -ft BENEFITS a CHMpvnftw, Page 116 Q)*wHordtAvw"AlM SIM, Sbn Fe*&. SA&SWiHamsW:TM77M PRO 1 a'3' 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 COLEBREIT 0;54172 8 3293 It IN (6 4 (N Is NE fa I W 4 colebreit.com Page (17 `.. AIKIN StibMHWI `Sfiedl *Ibn,MUHU5pM11(4UIdW,Whi1: tRtMXMBLVffllM) RMX646LVJUI O wmurb%H ' 411bn Mu'MSpHiliuldoorrUMh puUWgrUMtddode(No, 1$. Heatdfump, RWedC0.IkM IondtIn- IMrhImN1 f}iOVJAii 86:179' RBlediioalarO iCapfdty,l®udnY. 48.OAD' Rated Meab10<wKhdbM: nldowffFMBAVHI 70170 AvddeMi'R DHWR):47;%43, MAtumoQ. Mp.ffep "(Slofah W'QQ9_/ RBted#M*V hbYV"h): aw"inpW'Par '(I ft 4173 RatedlHelg OVIete ift): 96A0 Rabd Hea1b94apaody,(ssuft 64;090.. S66R,(Mon•Duded*WdQd): Ism 11440 MealMniHeWagiCyfadry.{ltltulhll: 611090/ H92M (Hen•D6dadmudedY 11:3494 Henlllpi/Ip1dd'mMf (K1Vf: 4:26 Heablg d.D.P(IiMl+tBfdauDuoteuMl MZT 2W23090Jf1 ComfyeaaoJoc fnvww 1+eaeriSuppy.{VMLRa)r P~SupFAy.Connedr ; Lit ta- Ground Cap",C.W tAw" (A6): 29• f00. Mfr. CPMA-A)yps'MCA4A)1 ZrIm, AMOnfM,RM&(H)(CRM): 31M Mec•DverartrM4d?roborsrr{MOR)(A): 30.00 G"P" GD—Oke-(-hh 3W MM.Sh M,Cu-Md118O(A): LAWWRpe C.—Alan(WIM). 3!D RarodtoAd Amps RL MA): 23:3• 9ouedAraaauro (M) (MA): 59 Qpnemfonf(HWAW to): 52.1g16x3677Y8x•f257& �a�d:PaxiM•Uorm ldBA): ST Mel iV0 Witu): 299• UJAM Moftihn mYoa UDl S76T San FORM 9a le SM Houilon: TV, 7704E ODhn Cdy.Menereled 9oMrHtM Daly (DAi011'6 prod4d9are VA*d10 aWftl ganpVMrOft. D." 19eervae M04VMlo.ddyV duRMesW.epadfea0ona end k4wmaWon dM dGIm.MW%VAogtYWVe aed'mh"II Imwmn9 �Y•�4a»ral Ra00.2o13 Fig. B2: Mini Split B 1030 Band St., Suite 202 CBend, 97703 OLE 72 0:541 728 3293 fe A (G I IN fE ft: fit CI IN (6 colebreit.com Page 118 SCROLL COMPRESSORS Unit Specifications Fig. 83: Typical walk-in freezer compressors COLEBREIT A N <G it N tE ,E +R 4 IN f6 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541728 3293 colebreit.com Page 119 Appendix C—Site Photos Fig. Cl: Ground conditions looking northeast from future greenhouse location COLEBREIT re 'IN cs 4 'u re ie rp N FN cb 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541 728 3293 cofebreit.com Fig. 83: Typical walk-in freezer compressors 118 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541728 3293 E N G I N E E R I N G Coiebrelt.Conl 07'070M6 C ZS15K4E t!? PS 14 2 281J4 3%-5/4 19-3/4 2p9 71 C Z519K4E 1/2 7/C4 14 2 2i11 ill, 37 314 1I-314 218 73 D 1521K41. 11'2. Jir. 70 1 30 1/4 42-1/2 29-314 2g? ?2 D Z526K1C 12 7(& ZO i 30-114 42-112 29-314 290 74 PI)I D 7530K4E 1/2 1-1/8 ?+1 1 3(i -IM, 7? -1/Z 2 .314 TtJ 73 D ZS38K4`_ 7 17H 20 1 30-1M n2 -;f 29-31n _ 3n 7n D ZS4-51(43 1!11/g 20 30-1;1 12-1;2 i9-3/-0 317 7G BZ'L72tJ1.6 C ZF06K4E 11z 7/8 14 2 281'4 37-3M 19-3/4 201) 71 B7 02-'A69 7F08K4E li 7(Fi 14 7 18 il4 ;7 -?'4 11i-34 718 73 BZ'030L6 C ZF091W tl2 718 14 2 28 1!4� 37 3/M 19-3/4 ?18 71 87'0351..6 C Z_I-11 K4F 112 1s.? iq 7 19- n 217_ 73 FlL'045t D ZFI3KME 1I2 8 20 1 301,4 42 2 Z9-'4 '9 307 73 BZ'OSS1-6 D ZF15K4E 112 1 1/8 20 1 30 12 47 /� 29-3/4 '76 BZ'O60L6 D ZF 18K4E 1IZ 1-178 20 f i0 114 4? l 29-3/4 _ 317 Fig. 83: Typical walk-in freezer compressors 118 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 0:541728 3293 E N G I N E E R I N G Coiebrelt.Conl Page 119 Appendix C — Site Photos Fig. Cl: Ground conditions looking northeast from future greenhouse location COLEBRENT It: 1#4 % II M It It Lit CI A (ti 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o:SGl 728 3293 colebreit.com Page 120 Fig. C2: Ground conditions looking west from greenhouse location, typical to flat areas of site 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, 3 72 329 0:541 7Z8 3293 E N .G II .N IE X M I N tG colebreit.com Page 121 Appendix D — Odor Technology Review A. From "BiOdor Project Proposal Feasibility Study" Gingrich et al., Calvin College, 2015. Carbon Adsorption: In a carbon adsorber unit, the air stream passes over a bed of activated carbon and the contaminants adhere to the surface of the carbon, thus removed from the air stream. This is a relatively simple form of odor -control and the only real [operating] cost comes from purchasing new activated carbon after the old carbon has been spent. Moisture is a large limiting factor for carbon adsorption. It is imperative that the carbon be kept dry, lest the adsorptive capacity is greatly reduced. The disposal and replacement costs associated with carbon adsorption are also high compared to alternative technologies. Activated carbon removes hydrogen sulfide and other odor -producing compounds by catalyzing the oxidation of hydrogen sulfide, resulting in elemental sulfur and water according to the following reaction. Y 1 2H2S (9) + 02 (9) ' 4 S8 (s) + 2H20 (9) Most of the water produced from this process is lost to the air stream as it passes through the system, while the sulfur is adsorbed into the porous surface of the activated carbon. The adsorption continues until the pores can no longer take in sulfur. As the pores reach their capacity for sulfur uptake, the odor compounds begin to break through the media, meaning noticeable odors are released from the unit indicating the media needs to be replaced. B. From "Final Environmental Impact Report for the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program" County of Santa Barbara, California. December 2017, Appendix F: Cannabis Odor Control: Supplemental Odor Control Technology Research Summary. Introduction and Overview Effective technologies exist to suppress cannabis malodors. Activated carbon filtration systems have been proved to be effective for indoor cannabis facilities by Denver's Department of Environmental Health. Vapor -phase systems have been proven to be effective for outdoor odor mitigation by the City 1030 Bond St., Suite 202 LE" � �> Bend, 97703 72 CO O' 0:541 728 3293 E N 6 1 N E E R I N 6 colebreit corn Page'22 of San Diego's Department of Environmental Services, Air Pollution Control District, and Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, as well as greenhouse cultivation by established greenhouse growers in Carpinteria. These technologies could be implemented to effectively reduce cannabis malodors in Santa Barbara County. Additionally, counties have implemented agriculture buffer requirements which serve in part to reduce land use conflicts which arise from odors. Buffer requirements may be a useful strategy for cannabis odor mitigation within the County where neighboring land uses are far apart. Anecdotal evidence suggests that strong cannabis odors can still be detected large distances away from the source. Thus, buffers may be utilized but are likely to be more effective remote areas of the County where larger buffer distances could be implemented. In more urban areas, odor mitigation technologies would be more appropriate as they would significantly reduce odors over a shorter distance. Activated Carbon Filtration Ventilation System In this system, odor causing agents are adsorbed and filtered through activated carbon (Pennsylvania State University 2002). Odorous gas from the operation facility is collected via a ventilation system. Blowers then direct the gasses to the distribution system which uniformly delivers the gas to the filter. The filter sorbs and degrades the odors resulting in relatively odor -free exhaust. Supporting information and Current Usage The City of Denver's Department of Environmental Health regulates nuisance odors under Denver Revised Municipal Code, Chapter 4 — Air Pollution Control, Section 4-10. Under this rule, an odor control plan must be submitted 1) describing any odors anticipated to originate from the premises of marijuana growing, processing, and manufacturing facilities and 2) describing control technologies that will be used to prevent odors from leaving the premises (City and County of Denver 2017). The Department of Environmental Health states the, "rule recognizes carbon filtration as the current best control technology for marijuana cultivation and marijuana infused product facilities" (Denver Department of Environmental Health 2017). However, other odor control technologies are permitted so long as it can be demonstrated that the technology can effectively mitigate odors. The Director of the Environmental Quality Division of Denver's Department of Environmental Health (Denver Director) was contacted by phone on November 30, 2017 to discuss how effective carbon filtration is, where it has been applied, and if it had the potential to impact product quality. The Denver Director stated that approximately 60 percent of indoor grow operations in Denver had installed odor mitigation control prior to the rule, and that 98 percent of those who installed odor mitigation had utilized carbon filtration. In creating the rule, input from indoor grow operators and HVAC control technicians was included to ensure the regulations would reflect technical and economic feasibility. City officials toured the cultivation facilities to determine the effectiveness of the carbon filtration technology. City officials determined that carbon filtration was effective in removing odors. However, the Denver Director stated that carbon filtration is only effective for processing facilities and indoor grows, which was the only type of cultivation facility in Denver at the time of the ruling. The Denver COLE a 13 6 N 6 1 N E E R I N 0 Page 123 Director noted that the initial cost of investment for a carbon filtration system is $10,000-$15,000 for a medium-sized 10,000 square foot indoor facility with an additional $2,000-$3,000 per year in operation and management costs. The Denver Director also stated that the carbon filtration technology would not impact the quality of the cannabis. Finally, the Denver Director stated that the quality of cannabis would only be impacted if the HVAC system, not the carbon filtration system, malfunctioned and humidity was not properly controlled. A grower in Carpinteria was contacted by phone on November 19, 2017. The grower utilizes vaporphase technology (discussed below) to mitigate cannabis odors from his greenhouse in Carpinteria. He had considered carbon filtration, but stated that he did not use it because he would not have been able to control the internal environment of his greenhouse. The grower noted that carbon filtration would be appropriate for manufacturing, indoor grows, drying rooms, and packaging. A Code Compliance Officer for the Portland Cannabis Program (Portland Officer), stated that there is no specific odor requirement for the City of Portland. If odor complaints are made, then an action plan is required to reduce odors. Portland's Zoning Code Section 33.262.070 simply states that "continuous, frequent, or repetitive odors may not be produced" (City of Portland 2017a). Portland's code guide for cannabis businesses states that "all exhaust and relief air should be filtered or scrubbed" in order to comply with the zoning code (Portland Bureau of Development Services 2017). The Portland Officer stated that retailers, wholesalers, and processors use countertop carbon systems in order to mitigate odors. Large ventilation systems with activated carbon filters are used for indoor cultivation. These systems are scaled proportionately to the size of the facility. However, Portland does not currently have any greenhouses and the Portland Officer does not know of any odor mitigation strategies for greenhouses. Canisters Activated carbon ventilation systems which are supported by activated carbon gas canisters. Supporting information and Current Usage The Director of the Planning and Development Department of the City/County of Pueblo, Colorado (Pueblo Director), was contacted by phone on December 1, 2017. The Pueblo Director stated that Pueblo only regulates odor for cannabis in industrial zones and that agricultural zones is exempt from cannabis odor mitigation. Pueblo County Code Title 17 Chapter 17.120.190 requires that all cannabis establishments in the central business zoning district (B-4) have odor mitigation. "The building (term includes buildings, greenhouses, and hoop houses) shall be equipped with a ventilation system with carbon filters sufficient in type and capacity to eliminate marijuana odors emanating from the interior to the exterior discernable by a reasonable person..." (County of Pueblo 2017). The Pueblo Director stated that mitigate odors in greenhouses, some growers are using canisters with activated carbon inside to filter the air. This works similarly to the ventilation activated carbon systems used in indoor grows but can be used for greenhouses. The Pueblo Director and officials from the Department of Public Health and Environment plan to use an olfactometer to test the effectiveness of this technology in greenhouses on December 21st. R�$'`x�x E N 0 1 N E E A I N 6 Page 124 C. From "Odor in Commercial Scale Compost: Literature Review and Critical Analysis Washington State University & State of Washington Department of Ecology. October 17, 2013. The fourth major odor -control strategy includes incorporation of carbon -based materials to piles, including activated carbon, high carbon wood ash, and biochar. Among these, activated carbon is generally understood to be technically effective but too expensive for widespread use in compost odor control. D. From "Evaluating Odour Control Technologies Using Reliability and Sustainability Criteria: Odour control technology at wastewater treatment or water recycling plants. NJR Kraakman, J Cesca. November 2012. Activated Carbon Filter (AC): A granular impregnated AC bed (density 450kg/m^3), including a pre -filter operated at an EBRT of 2.5 sec, a system pressure drop of 900 Pa (excluding the pressure drop of an upfront pre -filter of 250 Pa) and a cost of $6 per kg was used as a model adsorption filter. The most common practice in AC filtration involves two filters (one filter in operation and one in standby to allow bed replacement). Bed replacement is based on empirical experience because carbon manufacturers typically do not guarantee carbon life in wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) applications. A standard carbon life of 12 months was used for stand-alone applications and the inlet concentrations of 10 ppm. No regeneration of the AC was considered. Disposal costs as a hazardous waste of $500 per kL were used for landfill. COLEY E N 0 1 N 9 E R 1 N 6 Page 125 Appendix E — Odor Control Requirements of Other Jurisdictions A. From Happy Valley Municipal Cade 16.49.030 Happy Valley Municipal Code 16.49.030 (D & E): D. Odor. As used in Section 16.49.030, building means the building, or portion thereof, used for marijuana production or processing and shall be regulated as follows: 1. The building shall be equipped with an activated carbon filtration system for odor control to ensure that air leaving the building through an exhaust vent first passes through an activated carbon filter; 2. The filtration system shall consist of one or more fans and activated carbon filters. At a minimum, the fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the applicable CFM; 3. The filtration system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. The filters shall be changed a minimum of once every three hundred sixty-five (365) days; 4. Negative air pressure shall be maintained inside the building; 5. Doors and windows shall remain closed, except for the minimum length of time needed to allow people to ingress or egress the building; 6. The filtration system shall be designed by a mechanical engineer licensed tin the State of Oregon. The engineer shall stamp the design and certify that it complies with this subsection (D); and 7. An alternative odor control system is permitted if the applicants submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the alternative system will control odor as well or better than the activated carbon filtration system otherwise required. E. Noise. The applicant shall submit a noise study by an acoustic engineer licensed in the State of Oregon. The study shall demonstrate that generators as well as mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilating, air conditioning, or odor control will not produce sound that, when measured at any lot line of the subject property, exceeds fifty (50) dB(A). COLE01 l E N 6 1 N 0 E R I N 6 Page 126 B. From Estacada Ordinance Series of 2016, No. 005, 16.07.010 (C) C. Odor. As used in subsection 16.65.020 (C), building means the building, or portion thereof, used for marijuana retailing. 1. The building shall be equipped with an activated carbon filtration system for odor control to ensure that air leaving the building through an exhaust vent first passes through an activated carbon filter. 2. The filtration system shall consist of one or more fans and activated carbon filters. At a minimum, the fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the applicable CFM. 3. The filtration system shall be maintained in good working order and shall be in use. The filters shall be changed a minimum of once every 365 days. 4. Negative air pressure shall be maintained inside the building. 5. Doors and windows shall remain closed, except for the minimum length of time needed to allow people to ingress or egress the building. 6. The filtration system shall be designed by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon. The engineer shall stamp the design and certify that it complies with subsection 16.65.020 (C). 7. An alternative odor control system is permitted if the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the alternative system will control odor as well or better than the activated carbon filtration system otherwise required. C. From Kalamazoo County, Michigan, Ordinance N. 595 d. Odor. It is the intent of this ordinance that no odor shall be detectable outside of any building where marijuana is present. As used in this subsection, building means the building, or portion thereof, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. L The building shall be equipped with an activated carbon filtration system for odor control to ensure that air leaving the building through an exhaust vent first passes through an activated carbon filter. ii. The filtration system shall consist of one or more fans and activated carbon filters. At a minimum, the fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the applicable CFM. COLE,— fir' 9 N 0 1 N E E R I N G Page 127 iii. The filtration system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. The filters shall be changed a minimum of once every six (6) months or as manufacturer recommended. iv. Negative air pressure shall be maintained inside the building. V. Doors and windows shall remain closed, except for the minimum length of time needed to allow people to ingress or egress the building. vi. An alternative odor control system is permitted if the special use permit applicant submits and municipality accepts a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the state of Michigan demonstrating that the alternative system will control odor as well or better than the activated carbon filtration system otherwise required. The municipality may hire an outside expert at the applicant's expense, to review the alternative system design and advise as to its comparability and whether in the opinion of the expert it should be accepted. D. From Regulatory Guidance for Licensed 1-502 Operations in Spokane County Air Quality and Odor Controls: Odor— All businesses must comply with Spokane Clean Air's odor regulation. Odor control measures may include, but are not limited to: use of carbon adsorption media or other controls at all exhaust air discharge points, use of vertical exhaust vents or stacks, and/or completely enclosing the operation and recirculating ventilation air within the enclosure. coLEs� E N G I N E E R I N G Page 128 Appendix F -- ASHRAE Statement Regarding Carbon Filter Life A. From 2016 ASHRAE Handbook — HVAC Systems and Equipment "Incineration and scrubbing are usually the most economical methods of controlling high concentrations of odorous compounds from equipment such as cookers in rendering plants. However, many odors that arise from harmlessly low concentrations of vapors are still offensive. The odor threshold (for 100% response) of acrolein in air, for example, is only 0.21 ppm, whereas that for ethyl mercaptan is 0.001 ppm and that for hydrogen sulfide is 0.0005 ppm (AIHA 1989; MCA 1968). Activated carbon beds effectively overcome many odor emission problems. Activated carbon is used to control odors from chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing operations, foundries, sewage treating plants, oil and chemical storage tanks, lacquer drying ovens, food processing plants, and rendering plants. In some of these applications, activated carbon is the sole odor control method; in others, the carbon adsorber is applied to the exhaust from a scrubber." "The life of activated carbon in, odor control systems ranges from a few weeks to a year or more, depending on the concentration of the odorous emission. COLE.,v E N 6 1 N E E R I N 6 Appendix G — ISO 9613, Part 2: General Method of Calculation INTERNATIONAL ISO STANDARD 9613-2 First edition 1996-12-15 Reviewed and confirmed in 2017 Acoustics -- Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors — Part 2: General method of calculation ACOUSfigUe—An6nuation du son fors de sa propagation � Pair fibre — Partie 2: Wthode gen6rale de calcul C 0 L E 1B R E I i N 6 1 N E B R I N 0 Reference number IS0 9613-2'11996(E) Page 129 Page 130 ISO 8613-2:1986(E) Foreword ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide fed- eratiun of national standards bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out thruugh ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been ostablishod has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISR also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization. Draft International Standards adopted by the technical committees are circulated to the member bodies for voting. Publication as an International Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the member bodies casting a vote. International Standard ISO 9613-2 was prepared by Technical Committee ISOITC 43, Acoustics, Subcommittee SC t, Noise. ISO 9613 consists of the following parts, under the general title Acous- tics—Attenuarion of sound during propagation outdoors: -- Part t: calculation of fhe ebscuptiuri of sound by the atmosphere -- Part 2: General method of calculation Part 1 is a detailed treatment restricted to the attenuation by atmospheric absorption processes. Part 2 is a more approximate and empirical treat- ment of a wider subject — the attenuation by all physical mechanisms Annexes A and 8 of this part of ISO 9613 are for infonnatiun urdy. 0 ISO 1CAR All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication moy bo reproduCeal or utlliiea in any torm or by any means, elecironlC or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without permimon in voiGnu from tho pubiiohor. International Organization for Standardization Case Postale 56 • Ctf-1211 Geneve 20 - Smtzerland Printed in sWizerland COLE �' 01 �F� e ,, E N G I N E E R I N G _n� n Q ISO Introduction Page (31 ISO 9612-2:1996(E) The ISO 1996 series of standards specifies "nethods for the description of noise outdoors in community environments. Other standards, on the other hand, specify methods for determining the sound power levcln emitted by various noise sources, such as machinery and specified equipment (ISO 3740 series), or industrial plants (ISO 8297). This part of ISD 9613 is intended to bridge the gap between these two types of standard, to en- able noise levels in the community to be predicted from sources of known sound emission. The method described in this part of ISO 9613 is general in the sense that it may be applied to a wide variety of noise sources, and covers most of the major mechanisms of attenuation. There are, however, constraints on its use, which arise principally from the description of en- vironmental noise in the ISO 1996 series of standards N 6 1 N 8 9 R 1 N 6 );j This pR9P intentlonallY left blank COLE D! IRS - e N 6 1 N E E R 1 N 6 Page 132 Page 133 INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ® ISO ISO 9613-2:1996(E) Acoustics — Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors — Part 2: General method of calculation 1 Scope This part of ISO 9613 specifies an enginooring method for calculating the attenuation of sound during propa- gation outdoors In order to predict the levels of en- vironmental noise at a distance from a variety of sources. The method predicts the equivalent continu- ous A -weighted sound pressure level (as described in parts 1 to 3 of ISO 1996) under meteorological con- ditions favourable to propagation from sources of known sound emission. These conditions are for downwind propagation, as specified in 5.4.3.3 of ISO 1996-2:1987 or, equivalently, propagation under a well-developed moderate ground- based temperature inversion, such as commonly oc- curs at night. Inversion conditions over water surfaces are not covered and may result in higher sound press- ure levels than predicted from this port of ISO 9613. The method also predicts a long-term average A - weighted sound pressure level as specified in ISO 1996-1 and ISO 1996-2. The long-term average A - weighted sound pressure level encompasses levels for a wide variety of meteorological conditions. The method specified in this part of ISO 9613 consists specifically of octave bond algorithms (with nominal midband frequencies from 63 Hz to 8 kHz) for calculat- ing the attenuation of sound which originates from a point sound source, or an assembly of point mumps The source (or sources) may be moving or stationary. Specific terms are provided in the alyoiithrns for the following physical effects: — geometrical divergence; — atmospheric absorption; ground effect; reflection from surfaces; screening by obstacles. COLE RCE E N 6 1 N E E R I N 6 Additional information concerning propagation through housing, foliage and industrial sites is given in an- nex A. This method is applicable in practice to a great variety of noise sources and environments. It is applicable, directly or indirectly. to most situations concaming road or rail traffic, industrial noise sources. construc- tion activities, and many olhei gruund-based ❑vise sources. It does not apply to sound from aircraft in flight, or to blast wavou from mining, military or similar operations. To apply the method of this part of ISO 9613, several parameters need to be known with respect to the ge- ometry of the source and of the environment, the ground surface characteristics, and the source strength in terms of octave -band sound power levels for directions relevant to the propagation. NOTE 1 if only A -weighted sound power levels of the sources are known, the attenuation terms tot 500 Hz may be used to estimate the resultiiiy dRenudliun. The arcurary of the method and the limitations to its use in practice are described in clause 9. 2 Normative references The following standards contain provisions which, through reterence in this text, constitute provisions of this part of ISO 9613. At the time of prrbliratinn, the editions indicated were valid. All standards are subject to revision, and parties to agreements based on this part of ISO 9613 are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of the standards indicated below. Members of IEC and ISO maintain registers of currently valid International Starn- dards. ISO 1996-1:1982, Acoustics Description and meas- urement of environmental noise — Part 1: Basic quantities and procedures. ISO 9613-2:1996(E) ISO 1996-2:1987, Acoustics -- Description and meas- urement of envirunrnental noise — Part 2: Acquisition of data pertinent to land use. ISO 1996-3:1987, Acoustics — Description and meas- urement of environmental noise — Part 3: Application to noise limits. ISO 9613-1:1993, Acoustics — Attenuation of sound during propagdtivrr ouldOOrS — Part 1: Calculation Of the absorption of sound by the atmosphere. IEC 651:1979. Sound level meters, and Amend- nwnt 1:1993. Page 134 LA.1. =10lg I L (VT)fo PA2(t)dr] PCLJ dB (1) where pA(4 is the instantaneous A weightod sound pressure, in pascals; P0 is the reference sound pressure (= 20,< 10-6 Pa); T is a specified time interval, in seconds. 3 Definitions The A -frequency weighting is that specified for sound For the purposes of this part of }SO 9613, the defi- level meters in IEC 651, nitions given in ISO 1996-1 and the following defi- nitions apply. (See table t for symbols and units.) NOTE 2 The tirne interval T should be luny anuuyh to average the effects of varying meteorological paramotors 3.1 equivalent continuous A -weighted sound Iwo different srtmtions are considered in this part nt pressure level, L.A7. Sound pressure level, in decibels, 150 9613, namely short -tern downwind and long term overall defined by equation (1}: average - Table 1— Symbols and units mbol Definition Unit octave band attenuation dB met rA meteorological correction dB d distance from point source to ceceiver (see figure 3) m dr, distance from point source to receiver projected onto the ywund plane (see figure 1 } nn ds.0 distance between source and point of reflection on the reflecting obstacle (see figure 8) m dor distance between point of le(lectiun un the re(lerainy obsldcle and receiver (see figure 8) m d„ distance from source to (first) diffraction edge (see figures 6 and 7) m dsr distance Gunn (seuund) di(Itacliun edge to receiver (see figures 6 and 7) m D, directivity index of the point sound source DF screening Atenuatiun e distance between the first and second diffraction edge (see figure 7) m G ground factor h mean height of source and receiver In lte height of point source above ground (see figure 1) m rrr height of receiver above ground (see figure 1) M hn, mean height of the propagation path above the ground (see figure 3) m Hmax largest dimension of the sources In trm� minimum dimension (length or height) of the reflecting plane (see tigure 81 m L sound pressure love) dB a atmospheric attenuation coefficient dBlkm 9 angle of incidence rad p sound reflection CoelfiCient — 2 E N 6 1 N E E R 1 N G m ISO 3.2 equivalent continuous downwind octave - band sound pressure level, Lp(DW): Sound pressure lovol, in decibels, defined by equation (2): Lf (DW)=1019 (VT)j0 pL2(t)di Po 2} d8 l (2) where pl(r) is the instantaneous octave -band sound pressure downwind. in pascals, and the subscript ) represents a nominal midband frequency of an octave - band filter. NOTE 3 The electrical characteristics of the octavo -bund Idlers shnulrf rnmply at Inast with the class 7 renwremenis of IEC 1260. 3.3 insertion toss (of a harrier): Difference, in den - bels, between the sound pressure levels at a receiver in a specified pusi[ion under two conditions: a) with the barrier removed, and b) with the barrier present (inserted), and no other signitrcant changes that attect the propagation of sound. 4 Source description The equations to be used are for the attenuation of sound frurn point sources. Extended noise sources, therefore, such as road and rail traffic or an industrial site (which may include several installations or plants, together with traffic moving on the site) shall be rep- resented by a set of sections (cells), each having a certain sound power and directivity. Attenuation calcu- lated for sound from a representative point within a section is used to represent the attenuation of sound from the entire section. A line source may be divided into line sections, an area source into arca sections, each represented by a point source at its contra. Hnwaver, a group of point sources may ha dpqrrihpri by an equivalent point sound source situated in the middle of the group, in particular if a) the sources have approximately the some strength and height above the local ground plane, b) the same propagation conditions exist from the sources to the point of reception, and c) the distance d from the single equivalent Poll)[ source to the receiver exceeds twice the largest dimension Hm x of the sources (d > 2Hmax). COi.E1 t E E N G I N E E R I N G Page 135 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) If the distance d is smafier (d -_ 2H,r,9x), of if the propagation conditions for the component point sources ore different (o.g, due to scrocning), the total sound source shall be divided into its component point sources. NOTE 4 In addition to the real sources described above, image sources will be introduced to describe the reflection of sound from walls and ceilings (but not by the ground), as described in 1.5. 5 Meteorological conditions Downwind propagation conditions for the method specified in this part of ISO 9613 are as specified in h 43 A of ISO 1996-719W, namety — wind direction within an angle of i 45° of the di- rection connecting the centre of the dominant sound source and the centre of the specified re- coiver region, with the wind blowing from source to receiver, and -- wind speed between approximately 1 m/s and 5 m/s, measured at a height of 3 rn to 11 rn above the ground. The equations for calculating the average downwind sound pressure level LAI(DW) in this part of ISO 9613, including the equations for attenuation given in clause 7, are the average for meteorological con- ditions within these limits. The term average here means the average over a short time interval, as de- fined in 3.1. These equations also hold, equivalently, for average propagation under a well-developed moderate ground- based temperature inversion, such as commonly oc- curs on clear. calm nights. 6 Basic equations The equivalent continuous downwind octave -band sound pressure level at a receiver location, Lf {DW, shall be calculated for each point source, and its im- age sources, and for the eight octave bands with nominal midband frequencies from 63 Hz to 8 kHz, from equation (3): Lf,(DW)=Lw+Uc—A ... (3) where Lu, is the octave -band sound power level, in decibels, produced by the point sound source relative to a reference sound power of one picowatt (1 pW); 3 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) Dc is the directivity correction, in decibels, that describes the extent by which the equivalent continuous sound pressure level from the point sound source deviates in a specified di rection from the level of an omnidirectional point sound source producing sound power level Lw; Dc equals the directivity index Dt of the point sound source plus an index no that accounts for sound propagation into solid angles loss than 4n steradians; for an omni- directional point sound source radiating into free space, Dc = 0 d8; A is the octave -band attenuation, in decibels, that occurs during propagation from the point sound source to the receiver. NOTES b The letter symbol A (in italic type) signifies attenuation In this part of 130 9613 except in subscripts, where it desig- nates the A -frequency weighting (in roman type). 6 Sound power levels in equation (3) may be determined from measurements, for example as described in the ISO 3740 series (for machinery) or In ISO 6297 (for indus- trial plants). The attenuation term A in equation (3) is ,given by equation (4): A =Adv+Aatm+Aar +Ahar+ Am, ... (4) whera Aa;v is the attenuation due to geometrical diver- gence (see 7.1); Aatm is the attenuation due to atrnospheric ab- sorption (see 7.2); Aar is the attenuation due to the ground effect loco 7.3); Aoar is the attenuation due to a barrier (see 7.4 Amisc is the attenuation due to miscellaneous other effects (see annex A). General methods for calculating the first four terms in equation (4) are specified in this part of ISO 9613. In- formation on three contributions to the last term, Amisc (the attenuation due to propagation through foliage, industrial sites and areas of houses), is given in an- nex A. The equivalent continuous A•weighted downwind sound pressure level shall be obtained by summing the contributing time -mean -square sound pressures calculated according to equations (3) and (4) for each 4 ��� �t ��t 'ut COLEY E N G I N E E R I N G Page 136 also point sound source, for each of their image sources, and fur each octave band, as specified by equation Ni L"(DW)=1019�1410ol�cn�(i)�It dB (5) Miele n is the number of contributions r (sources and paths); j is an index indicating the eight standard octave -band midband frequencies from 63 Hz to 8 kHz: Ar denotes the standard A -weighting (see IEC 651). The long-term average A -weighted sound pressure level LAt L1) shall be calculated according to LAT (LT)= LAT (DW)—Curet where Cm, is the meteorological correction described in clause 8. The calculation and significance of the various terms in equations (1) to (6) are explained in the following clauses. For a more detailed treatment of the at- tenuation terms, see the literature references given in annex B. 7 Calculation of the attenuation terms 7-1 Geometrical divergence (Adie) The geometrical divergence accounts for spherical spreading in the free field from a point sound source, making the attenuation, in decibels, equal to Ad,v=j20lg(d/do)+11j dB ...17) where d is the distance from the source to receiver, in metres; do is the reference distance (= I m). NOTE 7 The constant in equation I/) relates the sound power level to the sound pressure level at a reference dis- tance do which is 1 m from an omnidirectional point sound source- 7.2 Atmospheric absorption (Aau„) 1 he attenuation due to atmospheric absorption Asim, in decibels, during propagation through a distance d, in metres, is given by equation (8): Aatm = W/1 000 _0 where a is the atmospheric attenuation coefficient, in decibels per kilometre, for each octave band at the midband frequency (see table 2) For values of a at atmospheric conditions not covered in table 2, See ISO 9613 1. NOTES 8 The atmospheric attenuation coefficient depends strongly on the frequency of the sound, the ambient tem- perature and relative humidity of the air, but only weakly on the ambient pressure. 9 For calculation of environmental noise levels, the at- mospheric attenuation coefficient should be based on aver- age values determined by the range of ambient weather which is relevant to the locality. 7.3 Ground effect (Aar) Page 137 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) The downward -curving propagation path (downwind) ensures that this attenuation is determined primarily by the ground surfaces near the scarce and near the receiver. This method of calculating the ground effect is applicable only to ground which is approximately flat, either horizontally or with a constant slope. Three distinct regions for ground attenuation are specified (see figure. 1): a) the source region, stretching over a distance from the source towards the receiver of 30hs, with a maximum distance of dr, (;Is is the source height, and all, the distance from source to receiver, as prn)acted on the ground piano).- b) iano):b) the receiver region, stretching over a distance from the receiver beck towards the source of 30h,, with a maximum distance of dr, (h, is the re- ceiver height); c) a middle region, stretching over the distance be- tween the source and receiver regions. If d,, < (30hs + 30hr), the source and receiver regions will overlap, and there is no middle region. According to this scheme, the ground attenuation does not increase with the size of the middle region, but is mostly dependent on the properties of source and receiver regions. 7.3.1 General method of calculation The acoustical properties of each ground region are Ground attenuatinn, A ,, is mainly the result of sound taken into account through a ground factor l;. Three reflected by the ground surface interfering with the categories of reflecting surface are specified as fol- sound propagating directly from source to receiver. lows. Table 2 - Atmospheric attenuation coefficient a for octavo bands of noiso Tempera- Relative Atmoapharic attenuation coefficient a, dB1krn Nominal midband frequency. Hz tura humidity 1C % 03 125 250 500 1 000 2000 1 4 000 8 000 10 70 0,1 0,4 1,0 1,9 3,7 9,7 32,8 117 20 70 0,1 0,3 i,1 2,8 5,0 9,0 22,9 76,6 30 70 0,1 0,3 1,0 3,1 7,4 12,7 23,1 59,3 15 20 U.3 0.6 1,2 2,1 8.2 211.2 88,8 202 15 50 0,1 0,5 1,2 2,2 4,2 10,0 36,2 129 15 RD 0.1 U,3 1,1 2.4 4.1 R3 23,7 R'L,R hs Y { s Sou Middle region _ Receiver region_1-,?''- Figure t -Three distinct regions for determination of ground attenuation OLE - fVA r �i E N 6 1 M E E R 1 H G ISO 9613.2:1996(E) a) Hard ground, which includes paving, water, ice, concrete and all other Around surfaces having a low porosity. Tamped ground, for example. as of- ten occurs around industrial sites, can be cun- sidered herd. For hard ground G – 0. NOTE 10 It should be recalled that inversion con drtions over water are not covered by this part of ISO 9813. b) Porous ground, which includes ground covered by grass, trees or other vegetation, and all other ground surfaces suitable for the growth of veg- etation, such as forming land. For porous ground C= 1. c) Mixed ground: if the surface consists of both hard and porous ground, then G takes on values 0 6 n r. ICA Page 138 0 ISO ranging from 0 to 1, the value being the fraction of the region that is porous. To calculate the ground attenuation for a specific oc- tave band. first calculate the component attenuatlons As for the source rctgivn specified by the ground factor G5 (for that region), A, for the receiver region specified by the ground factor Gr, and Am for the middle region specified by the ground factor Gm, using the expres- sions in table 3. (Alternatively, the functions a', b', c' and d in table 3 may he obtained directly from the curves in figure 2.) The total ground attenuation Tor that octave band shall be obtained from equation (9). Aor _ AS + Ar + Am ... 19) NOTE 11 In regions with huildings, the infhianca ni the ground uu suund propagation may be changed isee A 3) 8 h>1,Sm h=10rn 6 h=6.0in L h=7,sm h '- 10,0 m 20 50 125 2S0 500 1000 2 000 Distance d,. m B 6 m 4 4 2 h=I'S m h=2.Um h=Z,Sm n -3'0M h=3,;m I? = 4.0 in n=s.um h - 10.0 m 20 50 125 250 500 1000 UUU Distance d,,, m a h=ISm 6 n h = 1.75 m t7 n=2.Om 4 h -2,5m 2 rr -3,0m h=1,Sm he3,Um 20 So 12S 2S0 S00 1000 2 000 20 so 12S 2S0 500 1000 2 000 Distance do, m aielance d" In Figure 2 — Functions a', 6', c' and it reprosenting the influence of the source -to -receiver distance dp and the source or receiver height h, respectively, on the ground attenuation Ay, (computed from equations in table 3) a COLEY [ E N a I N E E R I N 6 Page 139 also ISO 9613-2,1996(E) Table 3 — Expressions to be used for calculating ground attenuation contributions As. A, and Am in octave bands Nominal midband frequency AS or Add A n Hz dB dB 63 -1.6 - 1.5 + G x d(h) 3q 21 125 - 3q(1 - Gm) 250 - 1,5 + G x Y(h) 5p0 -1,5 + G x,1h) 1 000 - 1,5 + G x d(h) 2 000 4000 -1,511-1j 8 000 - 1,5( 1 - G) NOTES 1,5+3,0xe-0.i2(h-5}2!1_e-d,1501/+5.7xe 0,09'' r_e 2.8.i° 0xdnzi l ) b'(h)=1,5+8,6xe-O.asn2(1-e-oor5ol r'(h)=1.5+14,Oxp 0.4oh?(\1-P-Jptsa) )/ d'(h}=1.5+5.Oxe Osn2(1_e dorso\ \\ 1) For calculating As, takeG = GS and h = Its. For calculating Ar, take G = Cf and h = It, See 7.3,1 for values of G for various around surfaces 2) q = 0 when d,, -1 330(hs + hr) q=1-3ah1s+14) when dP>30(hs+tr,) P where dP is the sourCP•tf�fP.C.P.NP.r distanCP, in fnetrP_s, projected onto the ground planes. 7.3.2 Alternative method of calculation for A -weighted sound pressure levels Under the following specific conditions only the A -weighted sound pressure level at the receiver position is of interest, — the sound propagation occurs over porous ground or mixed ground most of which is porous (see 7.3.1), — the sound is not a pure tone, and for ground surfaces of any shape, the ground at- tenuation may he calculated from equation (10): Agr = 4.8 - (2h,n1 d) [17 + (300/d)] :r 0 d8 ... (10) where his the mean height of the propagation path above the ground, in motres; C 0 L E DPS E N G 1 N E E R I N 6 d is the distance from the source to receiver. in metres. The mean height hm may he. evaluated by the method shown in figure 3. Negative values for A9, from equation (10) shall be replaced by zeros. NOTE 12 For short distances d, equation (10) predicts no attenuation and equation (9) may be niuie accurate. When the ground attenuation is calculated using equation (10), the directivity correction D° in equation (3) shall include a term Do, in decibels, to ac- count for the apparent increase in sound power level of the source due to reflections from the ground near the source - oil = 10 19 11 + [dl + (h, - 14)'11 ource_ Dn=101911+[d2+(h5-14)211 [dn2+(hs+hr)2dB where hs is the height of the source above the ground, in metras; 7 ISO 9813-2:1998(E) h, is the height of the receiver above the ground, in metras; dp is the source -to -receiver distance projected onto the ground plane, in metres. 7.4 Screening (Abar) An object shall be taken into account as a screening obstacle (often galled a harrier) if it meets the follow- ing requirements: — the surface density is at least 10 kg/m2; Page 140 the object hos a closed surface without large cracks or gaps (consequently process installations in chemical plants, for example, are ignored); — the horizontal dimcnoion of the object normal to the source -receiver line is larger than the acoustic wavelength X at the nominal midband frequency for the octave band of interest; in other words 11 + lr > A. (see figure 4). Fach ohjact that tultils these requirements shall be represented by a barrier with vertical edges. The top edge of the bauier is a straight line that may be slop- ing. Receiver h,n = F(d, where F is the area Figure 3 — Method for evaluating the mean height h,,, i S R i NOTE — An object is only considered to be a screening obstacle when its horizontal dimension perpendicular to the source - receiver line SR is larger than the wavelength: (1 + If) > A Figure 4— Plan view of two obstacles between the source (S) and the receiver (R) 8 �t COLE E N G I N E E R I N G i 1i_D R 5 NOTE — An object is only considered to be a screening obstacle when its horizontal dimension perpendicular to the source - receiver line SR is larger than the wavelength: (1 + If) > A Figure 4— Plan view of two obstacles between the source (S) and the receiver (R) 8 �t COLE E N G I N E E R I N G For the purposes of this part of ISO 9613, the attenu- ation by d barrier, Ab,,,, stieli be given by the insertion loss. Diffraction over the top edge and around a verti- cal edge of a barrier may both be important. (Sec fig ure 6.) for downwind sound propagation, the effect of ditlracLlon (in deribeis) over the top edge shall be cal- culated by Aber = Oz – Ayr > 0 .. , (12) and for diffraction around a vertical edge by Auar = Dz > 0 ... (13) where DZ is the barrier attenuation for each octave band isee equation (1411; A9r is the ground attenuation in the absence of the barrier (i.e. with the screening obstacle removed) (see 7.3). R Figure 5 — Different sound propagation paths at a barrier NOI ES 13 When Abar as defined by equation (12) is substituted in equation 441 to find the total attenuation A, the two A9, terms in equation (4) will cancel. The barrier attenuation D= in equation 02) then includes the effect of the ground in the presence of the barrier. 14 For large distances and high barriers, the insertion loss calculated by equation (12) is not sufficiently confirmed by measurements. 15 In calculation of the insertion loss for multisource in- dustrial plants by high buildings (more than 10 m above the ground), and also for high -noise sources within the plant, equation (13) should be used in both cases for tletermining the long-term average sound pressure level fusing equation (6)1 16 For sound from a depressed highway, there may be attenuation in addition to that indicated by equation (12) along a ground surface outside the depression, due to that ground surface. COLE 'M E N G 1 N 9 E R 1 N 6 Page {41 ISO 91319-2:199610 To calculate the harrier attenuation f}z, assume that only one significant sound -propagation path exists from the sound source to the receiver. If this asswnp- tion is not valid, separate calculations are required for other propagation paths (as illustrated in figure 5) and the contributions from the various paths to the squared sound prassura at the receiver are summed The barrier attenuation D2, in decibels, shall be calcu- lated for this path by equation 1141: Dz=101g[3+(Cz/A)C3;KmetI dB .. (14) where C2 is equal to 20, and includes the effect of ground reflections; if in special cases ground reflections are taken into account separately by image sources, C2 = 40; C3 is equal to 1 for single diffraction (see fig- ure 61; C3=[1+(5A14 V[(v3) + (6,14] ...(16) for double diffraction (see fiquie 7), A, is thP. wavelP.ngth of sound at the nominal midband frequency of the octave band. in metres; z is the difference between the pathlengths of diffracted and direct sound, as calculated by equations (16) and (17), in metres; ' mel is the cmrertlnn factor for meteorological effects, given by equation (18): e is the distance between the two diffraction edges in the Casa of doirhia diffrarhon (see figure 7). For single diffraction, as shown in figure 6, the path - length difference z shall be calculated by means of equation (16): r z=L(dss+dsr)2 11/2+nZ1 —d (16) where dss is the distance from the source to the (first) diffraction edge. in metres; dsr is the distance from the (second) diffraction edge to the receiver, in metres; a is the component distance parallel to the barrier edge between source and receiver, in metres 9 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) �14's (ly Figure 6 — Geometrical quantities for determining the pathlength difference for single diffraction Figura 7 — Geometrical quantities for determining the pathlength difference for double diffraction If the line of sight between the Source S and receiver H passes above the top edge of the barrier, ; is given a negative sign For double diffraction, as shown in figure 7, the path length difference r Shall t7P raIr..Ulated by (' t(2 ltd,,+dS,+e)2+al –d 1171 The correction factor K.., for meteorological con- rlrtinns, In equation (141 shall be calculated using equation (18): Kmo1=exp[–(V2000) 2t,dtirrh�lt}� tOry�O J {7N) Kin, =1 for; <o 10 COLEBM E 111' E N 0 1 N E E R 1 N 6 Page 142 also for lateral diffracliun dtuund obstacles, i1 shall be as. oumod that K,n, – 1 (see figure 5). NOTES 17 For source -to -receiver distances lass than 100 m, the calculation using equation 1141 shows thaf K_t may hP aG aumed equal to 1, to an accuracy of 1 EJB 1A Equation (15) provides a continuous transition from the Case of single diffraction le = U1 where C3 = 1, rn 1hal of a well -separated double diffraction (e 3„a 4) where C, = 3 19 A barrier may be loss effective than cotculaied by equations (12) to (18) as a result of rntlnchnnc Irnm other ecoustically hard Surfaces neat Ulu suund path from Inc Source to the receiver or by multiple reflections between on aCouStleally hard barrier and thn srn,rcP ® ICS0 The barrier attenuation D, in any octave band, should not be taken to be greater than 20 dB in the case of single diffraction (i.e. thin barriers) and 25 dB in the case of double diffraction (i c. thick barriers). The barrier attenuation for two barriers is calculated using equation (14) for double diffraction, as indicated in the lower part of figure 7. The barrier attenuation for more than two barriers may also be calculated approximately using equation (14), by choosing the two most effective barriers, neglecting the offocts of the others. 7.5 Reflections Reflections are considered here in terms of image suuruus. These reflections are fruit) outdoor ceilings and more or less vertical surfaces, such as the fa- pades of buildings, which con increase the sound pressure levels at the receiver. The effect of reflec- tions from the ground are not included because they enter into the calculation of As,. The reflectiviis from an ubslacle stroll be calculated for all octave bands for which all the following require- ments arc met: — a specular reflection can be constructed, as shown in figure R; -- the magnitude of the sound reflection coefficient for the surface of the obstacle is greater than 0,2, the surface is large enough for the nominal mid - band wavelength R lin metres) for the octave hand under consideration to ohey the nalationship 1/% >[2/(Imin CUSP) 2 ] (dS,Ado,rl (ds,° Id.,)] (ly) where Page 143 ISO 9613.2:1996(E) A is the wavelength of sound (in metres) at the nominal midband frequency f (in hertz) of thu ot;lave band ;L= 340 m/s f d o is the distance between the source and the point of reflection on the obstacle; dor is the distance between the point of re- flection on the obstacle and the receiver; /i is the angle of incidence, in radians (see figure 8); 1mm is the minimum dimension (length or height) of the reflecting surface (see fig- ure 8). If any of these conditions is not met for a given octave band, then reflections shall be neglected. The real source and source image are handled sepa- rately. The sound power level of the source image LW im shall be calculated from Lwim – Lry + 10 )g (p) dB i Dtr ... (20) where p is the sound reflection coetticient at angle fi on the surface of the obstacle (? 0,2) (see f iqule 8); Utr is the directivity index of the source in the di- rection of the receiver image. If specific data for the sound reflection coefficient are not available, the value may be estimated using table 4. For the sound source image, the attenuation terms of equation (4), as well as p and Dir in equation (20), shall be determined according to the propagation path of the reflected sound NnTF —A path 1410 + do, connecting tha source S and receiver R by reflection from the obstacle exists in which fl, the angle of incidence, is equal to the angle of reflection. The reflected sound appears to come from the source image Si. Figure 8 — Specular reflection from an obstacle 11 C�CILE ry Via, NEW 1W E N G 1 N E E R I N 6 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) Table 4 — Estimates of the sound reflection coefficient p Page 144 D ISO Object P Flat hard walls 1 Walls of building with windows and small additions or bey 0,8 Factory walls with 50 % of the surface consisting of open- 0,4 inga, installations or pipes Cylinders with hard surfanes (tanks, silos) D sin(0/2) .t 1d9, where D is the diameter of the cylinder: dsc is the distance from the source to the centre C of the cylinder; 0 is the supplement of the ang(P hPlwPPn lines SC and CR. Open installatinns (pipes, towers, etc.) 0 `) This expression applies unly if the distance d_ from the source S to cylinder C is much smaller than the distance dv from the cylinder to receiver; zoo figure 9. D R figure 9 — Estimation of sound reflection coefficient for a cylinder 8 Meteorological correction (Curet) Use of equation (3) leads directly to an equivalent continuous A -weighted sound pressure level LAI at the receiver for metenrologiral renditions which are favourable for propagation from the sound source to that receiver, as described in clause 5. This may be the appropriate condition for meeting a specific com- munity noise limit, i.e. a level which is seldom ex- ceeded (see ISO 1996-31. Often, however, a long term average A -weighted sound pressure 19Vel LAI (LT) is required, where the time interval I'm several months or a year. Such a period will normally include a variety of meteorological conditions, buth favoutable and un- favourable to propagation. A value for LAT(LT) may be obtained in this situation from that calculated for LAr(DW) via equation (3), by using the meteorological correction Curet in equation (6). A value (in decibels) for CmB1 in equation (6) may be calculated using equations (21) and (22) for the case of a point sound source with an output which is ettec- lively constant with time: Cmc( = 0 if d - 10(h, + h,) 12 COLE B, 1, E N a I N E 0 R 1 N 6 C,,,a, =Ce 11-10(h,+h,)IdpI ()7) if do> 10th, I fir) where hs is the source height, in metres; h, is the receives lieiyht, in metres: dp is the distance between the source and re- ceiver projected to the horizontal ground plane, in metres; Co is a factor, in decibels, which depends on local meteorological statistics for wind speed and direction, and temperature gradients The effects of meteorological conditions on sound propagation are small for short distances do, ano for tnnoer distances at greater source and receiver heights. Equations (21) and (22.) account approxi- mately for these factors, as shown in figure 10. Page 145 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) 0 NOTES 20 40 100 zoo 400 1000 2000 Distance d,,, m Figure 10—Meteorological correction Cmel 20 A value for Cc in equations (21) and 122) may be esti- mated from an elementary analysis of the local meteoro- logical statistics. For example, if the meteorological conditions favourable to propagation described in clause b ale found to occur for 50 % of the time period of interest, and the attenuation during the other 50 W is higher by 10 dR or mnm. then the sound energy which arrives for meteorological condiliun5 unravourab)e to prupdgation may be neglected, and CO will be approximately + 3 dI9. 21 The meteorological conditions for evaluating C0 may be established by the local authorities. 22 Experience indicates that values of Cu in practice arc limited to the range from zero to approximately + 5 dB, and values in excess of 2 dB are exceptional. Thus only very elementary statistics of the local meteorology are needed for a ± 1 dB accuracy in Co. For a source that is composed of several component point sources, 6, in equations (21) and (22) represents the predominant source height, and dp the distance from the centre of that source to the receiver. 9 Accuracy and limitations of the method The attenuation of sound propagating outdoors be- tween a fixed source and receiver fluctuates due to variations in the meteorological conditions along the propagation path, Restricting attention to moderate downwind conditions of propagation, as specified in clause 5, limits the effect of variable meteorological conditions on attenuation to reasonable values - IN ms E N G I N E 9 R 1 N 6 valua� in motres There is information to support the method of calcula- tion given in rlauses 4 to 8 (see annex R) for broad- band noise sources. The agreement between calculated and measured values of the average A - weighted sound pressure level for downwind propa- gation, [.AT(DW), supports the estimated accuracy of calculation shown in table 5. These estimates of accu- racy are restricted to the range of conditions specified for the validity of the equations in clauses 3 to 8 and are independent of uncertainties in sound power de- termination. NOTE 24 The estimates of accuracy in table 5 are for downwind conditions averaged over Independent situations (as 6peuifiud in clause 51. They shuuld nut uecussarily br: expected to agree with the variation in moosurements made at a given site on a given day The latter ran he ex- pected to be considerably larqer than the values in table 5. The estimated errors in calculating the average downwind octave band sound prossure lovefs, as well as pure -tone sound pressure levels, under the same conditions, may be somewhat larger than the esti- mated errors given for A -weighted sound pressure levels of broad -band sources in table 5. In table 5, an estimate of accuracy is not provided in this part of ISO 0613 for distances d greater than the 1 000 m upper limit. Throughout this part of ISO 9613 the meteorological conditions under consideration are limited to only two cases: a), moderate downwind conditions of propagation, or their equivalent, as defined in clause 5: b) a variety of meteorological conditions as they exist over months or years. 13 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) The use of equations (t) to (5) and (7) to (20) (and therefore also table 5) is limited to case a): meteoro- logical conditions only. Case b) is relevant unly to the use of equations (6), (21) and (22). There are also a substantial number of limitations (non meteorological) Page 146 0 ISO in the use of individual equations. Equation (9) is, for exampla, limited to approximately flat terrain. These specific limitations are described in the taxt ac- companying the relevant equation. Table 5 — Estimated accuracy for broadband noise of LAT(DW) calculated using equations (1) to (10) Height, h Distance. d 1 0<d<100m 100m<d<1000m O<h<5m ±3 dB 13 dB 5m<h<30m ±1 dB t3 dB -r his the mean height of the sowce and receiver. d is the distance between the suumce and receiver. NOTE —These estimates have been made from situations vnccrc there ore no effects due to reflection or attenuation due to screening. 14 COLEY l E N G I N E E R I N e ra 190 Page (47 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) Annex A (informative) Additional types of attenuation (Amisc) The term A,nsc in equation (4) covers contributions to the attenuation from miscellaneous effects not ac- cessible by the general methods of calculating the at- tonuotion specified in clause 7. Those contributions include — Arai, the attenuation of sound during propagation through foliage, — A$11e, the attenuation during propagation through an industrial site, and — At, s, the attenuation during propagation through a built-up region of houses, which are all considered in this annex. For calmilating thesP additional contributions to the attenuation. the curved downwind propagation path may be appruxirnated by an arc of a circle of radius 5 km, as shown in figure A.1. A.1 Foliage (Ai,l) The foliage of trees and shruhs provides a small amount of attenuation, but Only if it is sufficiently dense to completely block the view along the propa- gation path, i.e. when it is impossible to see a short distance through the foliage. The attenuotion may be by vegetation close to the source, or close to the re- ceiver, or by hnth situations, as illustrated in figure A.1. Alternatively, the path for the distances d1 and d2 may be taken as falling along lines at propdydtion an- gles of 151 to the ground. The first line in table A.1 gives the attenuation to be expected from dense foliage if the total path length through the foliage is between 10 m and 70 m, and the second line if it is between 20 m and 200 m. for path lengths greater than 200 m through dense ruli- age, the attenuation for 200 m should be used. NOTE — dr = di + dy For calculatlnq dr and dz, the curved path radius may be assumed to be 5 km. Figure A.1 — Attenuation due to propagation through foliage increases linearly with propagation distance dr through the foliage Table A.1— Attenuation of an octave band of noise due to propagation a distance df through dense foliage Propagation distance dr Nominal midband frequency He m 83 1 125 250 1 500 1 000 2 0001 4 000 1 B 000 Attenuation, dB: 105 df 620 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 Attenuation. dB)m* 20 . df _- 200 0.02 L 0,03 0.04 0,05 0,06 q08 0,09 0,12 A 011 Elf 1 11 E N G i N E 6 R I N 6 15 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) A.2 Industrial sites (Asite) At industrial sites, an attenuation can occur due to scattering from installations (and other objects), which may he descrihed as Aire, unless accounted for under AS,,,. or the sound source radiation specification. The tem, installations includes miscellaneous pipes, valves, boxes, structural elements, etc. As the value of A,ir, depends strongly on the type of site, it is recommended that it is determined by measurements. However, for an estimate of this at- tenuation, the values in table A.2 may be used. The attenuation increases linearly with the length of the curved path ds through the installations (see fig (ire A.2), with a maximum of 10 dB. A.3 Housing (Ahous) A.3.1 When either the source or receiver, or both are situated in a built-up region of houses, an attenua- tion will ucuur due to screening by the houses. How- ever, this effect may largely be compensated by propagation between houses and by reflections from other houses in the vicinity. This combined effect of screening and reflections that constitutes Ahous can be calculated for a specific situation, at least in principle, by applying the procedures for both Aw, and reflec- tions described in 7.4 and 7.5. Because the value of Ahous is very situation -dependent, such a calculation may be justified in practice. A more useful alternative, particularly for the case of multiple reflections where the ancuracy of calculation suffers, may be to measure the effect, either in the field or by modelling. Page 148 C Iso A.3,2 An approximate value for the A -weighted at- tenuation A,,.,s, which should not exceed 10 dB, may also be estimated as follows_ There are two separate contributions Ahous ` Ahous,l i Ahous,2 (A.1) A.3.3 An average value for Ahou,.l (in decibels) may be calculated using the equalion AnOus.t = 0,1Bdb dB (A.2) where B is the density of the buildings along that path, given by the total plan area of the houses di- vided by the total ground area (including that covered by the housesj; db is the length of the sound path, in metres, through the built-up region of houses, de- termined by a procedure analogous to that shown in figure A.1. the path length du may include a portion d, near the source and a pnrtion d2 near the receiver, as indicated in figure A.1. The value of Annus shall be set equal to zero in the case of a small source with a direct, unobstructed line of sight to the receiver down a corridor gap between housing structures. NOTE 25 The A -weighted sound pressure level at specific individual positions in a region of houses may differ by up to 10 dD from the average value predicted using equations (A-11 and (A 21. Table A.2 — Attenuation coefficient of an octave band of noise during propagation through installations at industrial plants Nominal midband frequency, I 63 125 250 500 1 000 2 000 4 000 8000 Aste, dBlm 1 0 1 0,015 1 0,025 0,025 0,02 0,02 U.015 I U.Ulb Figure A.2 —The attenuation Asite increases linearly with the propagation distance ds through the installations at industrial plants 16 COLEBREITMoRM E N G I N E E R I N G A.3.4 If there are well-defined rows of buildings near a road, a railway, or a similar corridor, an additional term Ahous,,, may be included (provided this term is less than the insertion loss of a barrier at the same position with the mean height of the buildings)= Ahous,2 r —10 Ig[1 — (p1100)) dB ... (A.3) where p (the percentage of the length of the fagades relative to the total length of the road or railway in the vicinity) is - 90 %. A.3.6 In a built-up region of houses, the value of Ahc,us t [as calculated by equation (A.2)) interacts as follows with the value for Ayr, the attenuation due to C 0 L E a R E IS e N G r N @ E R I N 6 Page 149 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) the ground [as calculated by equation (9) or equa- tion (10)). Let A9,3, be the ground attenuation in the built up re gran, and A,,,o be the ground attenuation if the houses were removed li.e. as raiculated by pquatrnn (4) nr equation (10)1. For propagation through the built-up region in general, Ay, b is assumed to Ge veru in euua• tion (4). If, however, the value of Ao, a is greater than that of Attous, then the influence of Ahoas is ignored and only the value of Agro is included in equation (4). The interaction above is essentially to allow for a range of housing density B. For low-density housing, the value of Agr is dominant, while for high-density housing Anous dominate::. 17 arui, Ok 'T10 rolei�relt s ern ISO 9613-2:1996(E) Annex B (informative) Bibliography Ill 130 266: 11, Acoustics — Preferred frequen- cies. 121 ISO 2204:1979, Acoustics — Guide to Interna- tional Standards on the measurement of airbome acoustical noise and evaluation of its effcct on human beings. t31 ISO 3710:1980, Acoustics — Determination of sound power levels of noise sources — Guide- lines for the use of hasic standards and for the preparation of noise test codes. (4) ISO 3744:1994, Acoustics — Optermrnatron of sound power revels of noise sources using sound pressure — Engineering method it) an essentially free field over a reflecting plane. 151 ISO 8297:1994, Acoustics ---- Determination of sound power levels of multisource industrial plants for the evaluation of sound pressure levels in the environment — Engineering method. 16) IEC 804:1986, Integrating averaging sound level meters, and Amendment 1:1989 and Amend- ment 2:1993. 1) To be published, IRevision of ISO 266:1975) 18 COLEBti E N G I N 9 E R I N O Page (50 also 171 IEC 1260:1995, Electroacoustics — Octave -band and fractional -octave -band filters. IHI ANSI 51.26.1978, Method for the calculation of the absorption of sound by the atmnsphere (American national standard) 191 BRACKENHOFF H.E.A. at al. Guidelines for the measurement and prediction of environmental noise from industry. Interdepartmental Commis- sion on Health, Report HR -IL -13-01, Delft, April 1981. (in Dutch) 1101 KRAGH J et 21 bnvironmentaf Noise from Indus- trial Plants: General Prediction Method. Danish Acoustical institute Report No. 32, Lyngby, 1982. (In English) 1111 VDI 7714-1988, Guidelines: Sound propagation outdoors. Verein Deutscher ingenieure. (In CP..r- mmll) 1121 VDi 2720-1:1996, Guidelines: Outdoor noise con- trol by means of screening. Verein Deutscher In- genieure. (in German) (131 Engineering Equipment Material Users Associa- tion, Publication 140, London, 1985. r 20" ��. Exhibit F SECRET Exhibit E CONFIDENTIAL / TRADE SECRET Exhibit D n..«a Esu mw�c1 sqw dem —Deis 1004, 1001,1700,1005M1, 1601,1007,1400,1401 14 13 28 Sect ion 28 T.14 S. R.13 E.W M. 502,,50, DESCHUTES COUNTY 1°= 400' 14 13 28 Exhibit C i 1 / ----- c__ -~--� : l * m � `| | ---'.-�'------------�-- {| 1 | _ - | ---'.-�'------------�-- - , - __-_---_-- Exhibit B 1 IO W co a a 0, 0 , , C , , CD �ID F11 i Z �� I / Exhibit A E(\it�13TT 0, Number: 99994^ VY es tern Title&Escrow 360 SW Bond, Suite 100 Christopher Jon Pate & Lindsey Pate lack Dale Smith and Denise Satterfield 4859 N. Hwy 97 Redmond, OR 97756 Until a'change is, requested, All tax statements shall be sent to the following address: Same as Above Deschutes County Official Records 2015-022169 Stn=4 BN 06/081201612:44:17 PM Stn $10.00 $11,00$10,00 $61,00 $21,00 $58.00 I. Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk for Deschutes County, Oregon, comity that the instrument Idenhtied hereln was recorded in the Clerk records. Nancy Blankenship - County Clerk Reserved for Recorder's Use STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED William C. Hobson and Linda L. Hobson, as tenants by the entirety, Grantor(s), convey and warrant to Christopher San Pate and Lindsey Pate and Jack Dale Smith and Denise Satterfield, Grantee(s), the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" Account: 128403 Map & Tax Lot: 14-13-28-00-01000 This property is free of encumbrances, EXCEPT: All those items of record, If any, as of the date of this deed, including any real property taxes due, but not yet payable. The true consideration for this conveyance is with requirements of ORS 93.030.) BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INS7,._ 911ti.5t,.. sRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17 CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS,2000, AND SECTIONS.2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. THISt INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE: APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPEKTY 01AERS IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 19S.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 324, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855,, OREGON LAWS 2009 AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. Return to Westem Tile & Escrow '�Jcjcq File No. 247- 1 � '0Mg9 7—A _ 000 r' -,w Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Otvtston Envnonmental Sods Division G.O. Bo'. ",:; , NV., Lafa.0tc n.enue Bend Oregon u7 -C::!-5.=,_3 Phone: ;= '- , Fa,: __.. -,�:'S-..,: LAND USE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate original signatures. To ensure timely processing of your application, all materials must be submitted on single -sided, 8.5" x 11" paper. Do not use binders, tabs/dividers, staples or tape. 2. This application shall include one full-sized plan set (to scale) and one plan set reduced to no larger than 11" x 17". Include a plot plan that shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc, 3. Include a copy of the current deed showing the property owners. 4. Attach correct fee. 5. All applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): Administrative Determination (AD) k Partition (MP) _ Conditional Use (CU) Subdivision (TP) _ Declaratory Ruling (DR) _ Temporary Use (TU) _ Applicant's Name (print): LINDSEY AND CHRISTOPHER PATE FEE: -P 3 y Uy - Site Plan (SP) k Variance (V) Setback Exception (SE) Other Phone:( 41) 213-9306 Mailing Address: 2660 NE HWY 20 STE 610-443 City/State/Zip: Applicant's Email Address: LINDSEY@GLASSHOUSEGROWN.COM Property Owner/s Name (if different): Phone: (_,� Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: BEND/OR/97701 1. Request: CANNABIS PROCESSING LAND USE 2. Property Description: Township 14 Range 13 Section 28 Tax Lot 00-01000 3. Property Zone(s): EFU Property Size (acres or sq. ft.): 15 ACRES 4. Lot of Record? (State reason): PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS DECISION 5. Property Address: 4859 N HWY 97 REDMOND OR 97756 (over) wm� Quality Servict's Per/urmiyl 114111 Pride 6. Present Use of Property: RESIDENCE AND MEDICAL CANNABIS PRODUCTION 7. Existing Structures: RESIDENCE PUMP ROOM, BARN, OLDER DWELLING, 3 SMALL OUTBUILDINGS 8. Property will be served by: Sewer Onsite Disposal System SEPTIC 9. Domestic Water Source: GROUNDWATER FOR RESIDENCE, WATER RIGHTS T-12264 CERT 90952 To the best of my knowledge, the proposal complies with all previous conditions of approval and all other applicable local, state, and federal laws. By signing this application, I acknowledge that Deschutes County planning staff may make a site visit(s) to the address(es) listed on this application in order to evaluate the property(ies) with the Deschutes County Code criteria applicable to the land use request(s) submitted. Please describe any special circumstances regarding a potential site visit: PLEASE CONTACT LINDSEY TO SCHEDULP A VISIT AND GET DIRECTIONS TO PROPERLY ACCESS THE SITE LINDSEY PATE, 541-213-9306 Applicant's Signature: Property Owner's Signature (if 1f Agent's Name (if applicable):_ Date: Phone: (.__� Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: Agent's Email Address: *If this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. By signing this application, the applicant understands and agrees that Deschutes County may require a deposit for hearings officers' fees prior to the application being deemed complete. If the application is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. 6116 SUMMARY- PATE BURDEN OF PROOF Applicant: Christopher Jon Pate and Lindsey Pate 2660 NE HWY 20 STE 610443 Bend Or 97701 Owners: Christopher Jon Pate and Lindsey Pate. 2660 NE HWY 20 STE 610-443 Bend Or 97701 Location/Zoning: The subject property is located on 4859 N HWY 97, Redmond, OR, 97756, at Township 14, Range 13, Section 28, Tax Lot 00-01000. The subject property is approximately 15 acres and is located on Exclusive Farm Use Land in the Terrebonne Subzone (EFUTE) and is designated agriculture by the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Additionally it is located within a Landscape Management Combining Zone for proximity to HWY 97 and within a Surface Mining Impact Area. Both Applicants, Lindsey and Christopher Pate, live on the subject property. Request: Administrative Determination and Site Plan review for Marijuana Processing. Applicable Criteria: Title 18 of the Deschutes County COde, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 18,16 EXCLUSIVE FARM USE (EFU) ZONES 18.16.020 Uses Permitted Outright 18.16.025 Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 or DCC Section 18.16.042 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 where applicable. 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. Chaeter 116.16 SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 18.116.030. Off-street Parking and Loading. 18.116.031. Bicycle Parking. 18.116.310. Traffic Impact Studies 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing. Chapter 18.56 SURFACE MINING IMPACT AREA COMBINING ZONE- SMIA 18.56.020. Location. 18.56.030. Application of Provisions. 18.56.040. Uses Permitted Outright. 18.56.070. Setbacks. 18.56.080. Use Limitations. 18.56.090. Specific Use Standards. 18.56.140. Exemptions. Chapter 18.84 LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING - LM ZONE 18.84.020. Application of provisions. 18.84.030. Uses permitted outright. 18.84.040. Uses permitted conditionally. 18.84.050. Use limitations. 18.84.060. Dimensional standards. 18.84.070. Application. 18.84.080. Design review standards. 18.84.085. Imposition of conditions. 18.84.090. Setbacks. Chapter 19.120 Exceptions 2 Chapter 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW 18.124.020. Elements of Site Plan. 18.124.040. Contents and Procedure. 18.124.050. Decision on Site Plan. 18.124.060. Approval Criteria. 18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards. 18.124.080. Other Conditions. 18.124.090. Right of Way Improvement Standards. Exhibits: Exhibit A: Current Deed Exhibit B: Site Pian Exhibit C: Landscape Plan Exhibit D: Vicinity Map / Tax Map Exhibit E: Floor plan and Building Elevation Drawings - Greenhouse Exhibit F: Floor plan and Building Elevation Drawings - Farm Accessory Structure Exhibit G: Odor and Noise Documentation Exhibit H: Water Right Documentation Exhibit I: Utility Verification Exhibit J: Colored Photos Exhibit K, Topo Map Exhibit L: 1000 Foot Buffer Map Exhibit M: Fire and Rescue Map APPLICABLE INFORMATION Location: The subject property is located on 4859 N HWY 97, Redmond, OR, 97756, at Township 14, Range 13, Section 28, Tax Lot 00-01000. The subject property is approximately 15 acres. Water Rights Application T-1 2264 and Certificate 90952. Zoning: The subject property is located on Exclusive Farm Use Land in the Terrebonne Subzone (EFUTE) and is designated agriculture by the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Additionally it is located within a Landscape Management Combining Zone for proximity to HWY 97 and within a Surface Mining Impact Area. Overview of Proposed Site Plan: Processing of all marijuana and storage of processing equipment and Non -cannabis supplies will take place in three structures. No more than 350 square feet of the approved 1680 square foot supportive structure is used for processing. No more than 1080 square feet of the approved 10,320 square foot greenhouse is used for processing storage, however no cannabis items will be present in this space; storage of processing equipment, packaging, supplies etc. In addition, the site plan proposes the use of a shipping container for cold temperature processing, with a total of 200 square feet. In total, 1630 square feet is used for processing, please see Exhibit E and F. Operational Characteristics: As a producer and processor of small batch craft cannabis, our products will be produced, processed and packaged on the subject property. There will be 9 employees regularly scheduled on the subject property, with 6 working shifts as the expected largest number of working shifts in a work day. Site Description: The proposed site plan is located in Rural Terrebonne and is surrounded by private property with access through a private road directly off HWY 97. The surrounding area consists of natural landscaping with juniper trees. 3 Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding land use around the proposed site plan is primarily EFUTE and SM. Both the Northern, Eastern and Western adjacent properties are zoned EFUTE and the Southern adjacent property are zoned SM. The South -Western tip of the the property is adjacent to a parcel of RR -10 not occupied with a residence. Landscape combining zone: All existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties will be retained to the maximum extent possible. Allowing the exception on the West setback for cannabis processing will increase the natural screening abilities. This pushes the infrastructure closer to property that is not residentially used, land used for cattle (EFUTE) and storage of equipment (RR10). We have a landscaping plan to increase native plants, reduce invasive weeds and irrigate and propagate the existing ponderosa pine. Application Contents: Land Use Application Visible Landscape Management Application Current Deed Applicable Information and Exhibits Review of Applicable Standards and Criteria REVIEW OF APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Chapter 18.04. Title Purpose and Definitions The intent or purpose of DCC Title 18 is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to carry out the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, the provisions of ORS 215, and the Statewide Planning Goals adopted pursuant to ORS 197. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 202 Agricultural Lands Policy Goal 1 Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. Policy 2.2.5 Uses allowed in Exclusive Farm Use zones shall comply with State Statute and Oregon Administrative Rule. 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 2.2.11 Encourage small farming enterprises, including, but not limited to, niche markets, organic farming, farm stands or value added products. Response: The proposed site plan is to establish vertically integrated processing of cannabis concentrates. More specifically the concentrates are made from mechanical means using heat, temperature, water and screens. The proposed site plan will NOT be processing extracts; NO chemical solvents under pressure will be used. Allowing processing on site will produce niche market, value added farm products and decrease the waste from the farm use. A: CHAPTER 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES Section 18.16.020 Uses Permitted Outright D. Accessory buildings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use. Response: The proposed site plan will utilize 3 structures for processing and processing storage. No more than 350 square feet of the approved 1680 square foot supportive structure is used for processing. No more than 1080 square feet of the approved 10,320 square foot greenhouse is used for processing storage, however no cannabis items will be present in this space; storage of processing equipment, packaging, supplies etc. In addition the site plan proposes the use of a shipping container for processing, with a total of 200 square feet. In total, 1630 square feet is used for processing. 4 S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330 Response: Production has been approved, please reference 247-17-000040-AD1247-17-000041-LM. Section 18.16.025 Uses Permitted Sub' ect to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 or DCC Section 18. 16.042 end a Review Under DCC Chapter 18,124 where applicable. A facility for the processing of farm crops, or for the production of biofuel as defined in ORS 315.141, if the facility is located on a farm operation that provides at least one-quarter of the farm crops processed at the facility, or an establishment for the slaughter, processing or selling of poultry or poultry products pursuant to ORS 603.038. 1. If a building is established or used for the processing facility or establishment, the farm operator may not devote more than 10,000 square feet of floor area to the processing facility or establishment, exclusive of the floor area designated for preparation, storage or other farm use. 2. A processing facility or establishment must comply with all applicable siting standards but the standards shall not be applied in a manner that prohibits the siting of the processing facility. 3. The County shall not approve any division of a lot or parcel that separates a processing facility or establishment from the farm operation on which it is located. Response: All processing will take place in the proposed buildings. At least one-quarter of the marijuana produced on-site as measured by weight is to be processed at the facility in any calendar year.No more than 350 square feet of the approved 1680 square foot supportive structure is used for processing. No more than 1080 square feet of the approved 10,320 square foot greenhouse is used for processing storage, however no cannabis items will be present in this space; storage of processing equipment, packaging, supplies etc. In addition the site plan proposes the use of a shipping container for processing, with a total of 200 square feet. In total,1630 square feet is used for processing and this does not approach the 10,000 square feet limitation set forth in this section. No division of a lot or parcel is proposed. L. Marijuana processing, subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.16.025(1) and 18.116.330. Response: The applicant is proposing marijuana processing on the subject property, a use permitted subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.16.025(1) as discussed above and DCC 18. 116.330 as discussed below. Section 18. 16.030. Conditional Use Permitted — High Value and Non -high Value Farmland. Response: The proposal does not include Conditional Use activities. Section 18. 16.031. Nonresidential Conditional Uses on c )High Value and Non -high Value Farmland. Response: The proposal does not include Conditional Use activities. Section 18. 16.033. Nonresidential Conditional Uses on High Value and Non -high Value Farmland. Response: The proposal does not include Conditional Use activities. Section 18.16.035. Destination Resorts. Response: The proposal does not include a Destination Resort. Section 1$.16.037. Guest Ranch. 5 Response: The proposal does not include a Guest Ranch. Section 18.16.038 Special Conditions for Certain Uses Listed Under DCC 18.16.025. Response: Marijuana processing is not listed as Certain Uses under Section 18.16.038. Section 18. 16.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses. Response: The proposal does not include Conditional Use activities. Section 18. 16.042, Agri- Tourism and other Commercial Events or Activities Limited Use Permit. Response: The proposal does not include Agri -Tourism, Commercial Events, or Activities under Limited Use. Section 18. 16.043. Single Permit. Response: The proposal does not include Single Permit activities. Section 18. 16.05. Standards to Dwellings in the EFU Zone. Response: The proposal does not include a dwelling. Section 18. 16.055. Land Division, Response: The proposal does not propose land division. 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040 Response: The proposed site plan will not utilize and buildings over 30 feet in height, please see Exhibit E and F. Section 18. 16.065. Subzones. Response: The proposal does not propose irrigated land division. Section 18. 16.067. Fara Management Plans. B. Conditional approvals. 1. For purposes of land use approval, in instances where at the time of application the subject land is not currently in farm use, a fa management plan will be deemed to demonstrate current employment of the land for farm use... Response: The subject property currently maintains a medical marijuana operation. The current employment of the property as 'farm use' is demonstrated by Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana production use of the property that is filed since 2015. Approval of this proposal allows the applicant to apply for OLCC processor license and to continue to employ the property for production and processing uses; a'farm use' per HB 3400 Subsection 34( 1)( a), as defined at ORS 215.203. Section 18. 16.870. Yards. Response: Current setbacks for existing agricultural structures on the subject property are discussed 51 herein. A Site Plan depicting the location of all processing facilities is included. The Site Plan demonstrates that the processing operations are operated in compliance with DCC 18. 16.070. A. The front yard shall be a minimum of: 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. Response: Front property setbacks are well over 500 feet from the nearest street, HWY 97, to the nearest structure on the subject property and comply with section A. B. Each side yard shalt be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. Response: Side Yard property setbacks are greater than 100 feet as demonstrated on the Site Plan and comply with section B. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. Response: Rear Yard property setbacks have been granted an exception previously approved by Deschutes County. The Greenhouse and the farm support structure have been granted an exception within the 100 -foot setback requirement from the western lot line. This allows a great setback between the proposed land use and the our amazing adjacent neighbor. D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. Response: Per Section D, additional setback requirements under DCC 18. 116.330(6)(6) are addressed below. Section 18. 16.080. Stream Setbacks. Response: The subject property does not contain or border streams or lakes. Section 18. 16.090. Rimrock Setback. RESPONSE: The subject property does not contain or border rimrock. B. CHAPTER 18.56 SURFACE MINING IMPACT AREA COMBINING ZONE (SMIA 18.56.020. Location. The SMIA zone shall apply to all property located within one-half mile of the boundary of a surface mining zone. However, the SMIA zone shall not apply to any property located within an urban growth boundary, city or other county. The extent and location of the SMIA Zone shall be designated at the time the adjacent surface mining zone is designated. Response: The proposed site plan is within one half mile of the SMIA zone. 18.56.030. Application of Provisions. The standards set forth in DCC 18.56 shall apply in addition to those specified in DCC Title 18 for 7 the underlying zone. If a conflict in regulations or standards occurs, the provisions of DCC 18.56 shall govern. Response: The proposed site plan complies with all standards in DCC Title 18 for our underlying zone. In addition the proposed site plan has no conflictions with DCC 18.56. 18.56.040. Uses Permitted Outright. Uses permitted outright shall be those identified in the underlying zone(s) with which the SMIA Zone is combined. Response: The proposed site plan for cannabis production and processing are allowable in the EFU zones, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. In addition, the following standards have been reviewed: DCC 18.116.030, DCC 18.116.031, DCC 18.116.310, DCC 18.56, and DCC 18.84. 18.56.070. Setbacks. The setbacks shall be the same as those prescribed in the underlying zone, except as follows: A. No noise -sensitive or dust -sensitive use or structure established or constructed after the designation of the SMIA Zone shall be located within 250 feet of any surface mining zone, except as provided in DCC 18.56.140; and Response: The proposed site plan will not utilize any noise -sensitive or dust -sensitive use or structure. B. No noise -sensitive or dust -sensitive use or structure established or constructed after the designation of the SMIA Zone shall be located within one-quarter mile of any existing or proposed surface mining processing or storage site, unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use will not prevent the adjacent surface mining operation from meeting the setbacks, standards and conditions set forth in DCC 18.52.090, 18.52. 110 and 18.52.140, respectively. Response: The proposed site plan will not utilize any noise -sensitive or dust -sensitive use or structure. C. Additional setbacks in the SMIA Zone may be required as part of the site plan review under DCC 18.56.100. Response: The proposed site plan complies with all standards in DCC 18.56.100 D. An exception to the 250 -foot setback in DCC 18.56.070(A), shall be allowed pursuant to a written agreement for a lesser setback made between the owner of the noise -sensitive or dust -sensitive use or structure located within 250 feet of the proposed surface mining activity and the owner or operator of the proposed surface mine. Such agreement shall be notarized and recorded in the Deschutes County Book of Records and shall run with the land. Such agreement shall be submitted and considered at the time of site plan review or site plan modification. Response: The proposed site plan is over 250 from the current surface mining activity and will not utilize any noise -sensitive or dust -sensitive use or structure. 18.56.080. Use Limitations. No dwellings or additions to dwellings or other noise -sensitive or dust -sensitive uses or structures shalt be erected in any SMIA Zone without first obtaining site plan approval under the standards and criteria set forth in DCC 18.56.090 through 18.56.120. Response: The proposed site plan does not call for any dwellings or additions to dwellings or other noise -sensitive or dust -sensitive uses or structures to be erected. H 18.56.090. Specific Use Standards. The following standards shall apply in the SMIA Zone: New dwellings, new noise -sensitive and dust -sensitive uses or structures, and additions to dwellings or noise and dust -sensitive uses or structures in existence on the effective date of Ordinance No. 90.014 which exceed 10 percent of the size of the existing dwelling or use, shall be subject to the criteria established in DCC 18.56.100. Response: The proposed site plan does not call for any dwellings or additions to dwellings or other noise -sensitive or dust -sensitive uses or structures to be erected 18.56.140. Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of DCC 18.56: C. The employment of land for farm or forest use. Response: The subject property is currently used for farming cannabis under the Oregon Health Authority through the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program. The proposed site plan will continue to use the property for farm purposes, there for the exemption from the provision of DCC 18.56 applies. However the proposed site plan is still compliant with DCC. 18.56. C CHAPTER 18 84 LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING - LM ZONE 18.84.020. Application of provisions. The provisions of DCC 18.84 shall apply to all areas within one-fourth mile of roads identified as landscape management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Map. The provisions of DCC 18.84 shall also apply to all areas within the boundaries of a State scenic waterway or Federal wild and scenic river corridor and all areas within 660 feet of rivers and streams otherwise identified as landscape management corridors in the comprehensive plan and the County Zoning Map. The distance specified above shall be measured horizontally from the center line of designated landscape management roadways or from the nearest ordinary high water mark of a designated landscape management river or stream. The limitations in DCC 18.84.20 shall not unduly restrict accepted agricultural practices. Response: The proposed site plan is for an accepted agricultural practice and meets the requirements of all applicable standards for the subject property, specifically those found in DCC 18.16, DCC 18.56 and DCC 18.116.330. Due to the subject properties proximity to HWY 97, it is within one-fourth mile of roads identified as landscape management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan DCC 18.84. 18.84.030. Uses permitted outright. Uses permitted in the underlying zone with which the LM Zone is combined shall be permitted in the LM Zone, subject to the provisions in DCC 18.84. Response: The proposed site plan is for an accepted agricultural practice and meets the requirements of all applicable standards for the subject property, specifically those found in DCC 18.16, DCC 18.56 and DCC 18.116.330. 18.84.040. Uses permitted conditionally. Uses permitted conditionally in the underlying zone with which the LM Zone is combined shall be permitted as conditional uses in the LM Zone, subject to the provisions in DCC 18.84. Response: The proposed site plan is for an accepted agricultural practice and meets the requirements of all applicable standards for the subject property, specifically those found in DCC 18.16, DCC 18.56 and DCC 18.116.330. 18.84.050. Use limitations. A. Any new structure or substantial exterior alteration of a structure requiring a building permit or an agricultural structure within an LM Zone shall obtain site plan approval in accordance with DCC 18.84 prior to construction. As used in DCC 18.84 substantial exterior alteration consists of an alteration which exceeds 25 percent in the size or 25 percent of the assessed value of the structure. Response: The proposed site plan will have two new structures previously approved by Deschutes County in a land use decision, please reference file number 247-17-000040-AD/247-17-000041-LM. These buildings are a 10,320 square foot greenhouse and a 1680 square foot agricultural supportive structure. A 200 square feet shipping container for processing is proposed. We are requesting site plan approval in accordance with DCC 18.8.. There will be no substantial exterior alteration proposed to existing structures as defined above. B. Structures which are not visible from the designated roadway, river or stream and which are assured of remaining not visible because of vegetation, topography or existing development are exempt from the provisions of DCC 18.84.080 (Design Review Standards) and DCC 18.84.090 (Setbacks). An applicant for site plan review in the LM Zone shall conform with the provisions of DCC 18.84, or may submit evidence that the proposed structure will not be visible from the designated road, river or stream. Structures not visible from the designated road, river or stream must meet setback standards of the underlying zone. Response: Part of the proposed site plan will be visible from the designated road and will conform with the provisions of DCC 18.84 in addition to meeting all required setback standards in our underlying zone, DCC 18.16 and DCC 18.116.330. 18.84.060. Dimensional standards. In an LM Zone, the minimum lot size shall be as established in the underlying zone with which the LM Zone is combined. Response: The proposed site plan will not call for any change to the dimensional standards for the subject property. 18.84.070. Application. An application for site plan approval for development In the LM Zone shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Response: The site plan application is complete and includes the following: A. A site plan and plot plan, please see exhibit B B. A drawing of the proposed structure elevations showing, please see exhibit E and F. C. A landscape plan drawn to scale, showing, please see exhibit C. D. Colored photographs, please see exhibit J. 18.84.080. Design review standards. The following standards will be used to evaluate the proposed site plan: A. Except as necessary for construction of access roads, building pads, septic drainfields, public utility easements, parking areas, etc., the existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the designated road, river, or stream shall be retained. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act, or agricultural use of the land. 10 Response: The proposed site plan will retain the existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the designated road. B. It is recommended that new structures and additions to existing structures be finished in muted earth tones that blend with and reduce contrast with the surrounding vegetation and landscape of the building site. Response: The proposed site plan will utilize muted earth tones (forest green, tan and dark brown) that blend with and reduce contrast with the surrounding vegetation and landscape of the building site for new structures, and in addition to maintaining the muted earth tones (green and tan and natural barn wood) for the existing structures. C. No large areas, including roofs, shall be finished with white, bright or reflective materials. Roofing, including metal roofing, shall be non -reflective and of a color which blends with the surrounding vegetation and landscape. DCC 18.84.080 shall not apply to attached additions to structures lawfully in existence on April 8, 1992, unless substantial improvement to the roof of the existing structure occurs. Response: The proposed site plan will have a greenhouse with a roof made of 8mm twin wall polycarbonate. The agricultural support structure will have grey asphalt shingles. No changes to the existing building's roof are proposed. The shipping container will utilize muted earth tones (forest green, tan or dark brown). D. Subject to applicable rimrock setback requirements or rimrock setback exception standards in DCC 18. 84.090(E), all structures shall be sited to take advantage of existing vegetation, trees and topographic features in order to reduce visual impact as seen from the designated road, river or stream. When more than one nonagricultural structure Is to exist and no vegetation, trees or topographic features exist which can reduce visual impact of the subject structure, such structure shall be clustered in a manner which reduces their visual impact as seen from the designated road, river, or stream. Response: The proposed site plan complies with this standard as all structures are sited to take advantage of existing vegetation, trees and topographic features in order to reduce visual impact as seen from the designated road. We have reduced the visual impact as seen from the designated road for our structures by both retaining the trees and our gentle topographic features. The agricultural support structure and the greenhouse are in close proximity to cluster and reduce the impact visually. E. Structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height measured from the natural grade on the side(s) facing the road, river or stream. Within the LM Zone along a state scenic waterway or federal wild and scenic river, the height of a structure shall include chimneys, antennas, flagpoles or other projections from the roof of the structure. DCC 18.84.080(E) shall not apply to agricultural structures located at least 50 feet from a rimrock. Response: The proposed site plan will not have any structures that exceed 30 feet in height measured from the natural grade on the side(s) facing the road. The proposed greenhouse is 21 feet tall at the tallest point. The proposed agricultural support structure is 15 feet tall at the tallest point. F. New residential or commercial driveway access to designated landscape management roads shall be consolidated wherever possible. Response: The proposed site plan will not require additional driveway access. 11 G. New exterior lighting, including security lighting, shall be sited and shielded so that it is directed downward and is not directly visible from the designated road, river or stream. Response: The new exterior lighting on the proposed site plan will be sited and shielded so that it is directed downward and is not directly visible from the designated road. H. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require the establishment of introduced landscape material to screen the development, assure compatibility with existing vegetation, reduce glare, direct automobile and pedestrian circulation or enhance the overall appearance of the development while not interfering with the views of oncoming traffic at access points, or views of mountains, forests and other open and scenic areas as seen from the designated landscape management road, river or stream. Use of native species shall be encouraged. (Formerly section 18.84.080 (C)) Response: The proposed site plan is over 1000 feet from the designated road (HWY 97) and we do not believe that the benefit of additional screening outweighs the use of water to support added landscaping materials. However, if the Planning Director or Hearings Body requires the establishment of introduced landscape material to screen the development we will comply. Please refer to the Review of Applicable Standards, section E for details on the landscape plan, in addition to referencing exhibit B and C. 1. No signs or other forms of outdoor advertising that are visible from a designated landscape management river or stream shall be permitted. Property protection signs (No Trespassing, No Hunting, etc.,) are permitted. Response: The proposed site plan will not have signs or other forms of outdoor advertising. The use of property protection signs (No Trespassing, No Hunting, Slow Down for Best Neighbor Ever, etc.) may be visible as required to notify the public and staff memebrs of property boundaries. J. A conservation easement as defined in DCC 18.04.280 "Conservation Easement" and specified In DCC 18.116.220 shall be required as a condition of approval for all landscape management site plans involving property adjacent to the Deschutes River, Crooked River, Fall River, Little Deschutes River, Spring River, Whychus Creek and Tumalo Creek. Conservation easements required as a condition of landscape management site plans shall not require public access. Response: This standard is not applicable to the proposed site plan. 18.84.085. Imposition of conditions. The standards of DCC 18.84 may be met by the imposition of conditions drawn to ensure that the standards will be met. Response: The proposed site plan will adhere to all workable required conditions. 18.84.090. Setbacks. A. Except as provided in DCC 18.84.090, minimum setbacks shall be those established in the underlying zone with which the LM Zone is combined. Response: The proposed site plan is compliant with all setback requirements for the underlying zone, found in DCC 18.16 and DCC 18.56. We are asking for an exception to some of the setback set forth in DCC 18.116.330, this is detailed in the Review of Applicable Standards, section D, 18.116.330. B. Road Setbacks. All new structures or additions to existing structures on lots fronting a designated landscape management road shall be setback at least 100 feet from the edge of the 12 designated road right-of-way unless the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that: 1. A location closer to the designated road would more effectively screen the building from the road; or protect a distant vista; or 2. The depth of the lot makes a 100 foot setback not feasible; or 3. Buildings on both lots abutting the subject lot have front yard setbacks of less than 100 feet and the adjacent buildings are within 100 feet of the lot line of the subject property, and the depth of the front yard is not less than the average depth of the front yards of the abutting lots. If the above findings are made, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may approve a less restrictive front yard setback which will be appropriate to cavy out the purpose of the zone. Response: The proposed site plan is over 1000 feet from the designated landscape management road, HWY 97. The standard is met as this is greater than 100 feet. C. River and Stream Setbacks. All new structures or additions to existing structures shall be set back 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark of designated streams and rivers or obtain a setback exception in accordance with DCC 18.120.030. For the purpose of DCC 18.84.090, decks are considered part of a structure and must conform with the setback requirement. The placement of on-site sewage disposal systems shall be subject to joint review by the Planning Director or Hearings Body and the Deschutes County Environmental Health Division. The placement of such systems shall minimize the impact on the vegetation along the river and shall allow a dwelling to be constructed on the site as far from the stream or lake as possible. Sand filter systems may be required as replacement systems when this will allow a dwelling to be located further from the stream or to meet the 100 -foot setback requirement Response: This standard is not applicable to the proposed site plan as it is not in proximity to a river, lake or stream. D. Rimrock Setback. New structures (including decks or additions to existing structures) shall be setback 50 feet from the rimrock in an LM Zone. An exception to this setback may be granted pursuant to the provisions of DCC 18.84.090(E). Response: This standard is not applicable to the proposed site plan as it is not in proximity to a rimrock. E Rimrock Setback Exceptions... Response: This standard is not applicable to the proposed site plan as it is not in proximity to a rimrock. 18.84.095. Scenic waterway. Approval of all structures In a State Scenic Waterway shall be conditioned upon receipt of approval of the Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation. Response: This standard is not applicable to the proposed site plan as it is near a State Scenic Waterway. D. Chapter 116.16 SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS Section 18.116.010. Authorization of Similar Uses Response: The proposal does not seek an Authorization of Similar Use. The proposal seeks approval for a use permitted outright per 18. 16.020(S) and approval for a use permitted with special provisions per 18.16.025(L). Section 18. 1M020. Clear Vision Areas. A. In all zones, a clear vision area shall be maintained on 13 the corners of all property at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. A clear vision area shall contain no planting, fence, wall, structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet in height, measured from the top of the curb or, where no curb exists, from the established street centerline grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight feet above the grade. Response: The subject property is within an agricultural zone and is located directly of HWY 97, an extensive clear vision area is maintained on from the HWY. The clear area does not contain planting, fence, wail, structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet in height. There are no trees within the clear vision area. B. A clear vision area shall consist of a triangular area on the corner of a lot at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. Two sides of the triangle are sections of the lot lines adjoining the street or railroad measured from the corner to a distance specified in DCC 18.116.020(B)(1) and (2). Where lot lines have rounded corners, the specified distance is measured from a point determined by the extension of the lot lines to a point of intersection. The third side of the triangle is the line connecting the ends of the measured sections of the street lot lines. The following measurements shall establish clear vision areas within the County: 1. In an agricultural, forestry or industrial zone, the minimum distance shall be 30 feet or at intersections including an alley, 10 feet. Response: A clear vision area of 30 feet minimum distance is satisfied at the private road that serves the subject property. We will continue to maintains a clear vision distance at the entry point as permissible by the owners of the property. 18.116.030. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING. A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and evidence are presented to show how the off-street parking and loading requirements are to be met and that property is and will be available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18. Response: The proposed site plan will conform with all parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18. Please see exhibit B for parking spaces. B. Off -Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows: 1. Commercial, industrial and public utility uses which have a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or more shall provide truck loading or unloading berths subject to the following table: Sq. Ft. of Floor Area No. of Berths Required Less than 5,000 0 5,000-30,000 1 30,000-100,000 2 100,000 and Over 3 3. A loading berth shall contain space 10 feet wide, 35 feet long and have a height clearance of 14 feet. Where the vehicles generally used for loading exceed these dimensions, the required length of these berths shall be increased. 4. If loading space has been provided in connection with an existing use or is added to an 14 existing use, the loading space shall not be eliminated if elimination would result in less space than is required to adequately handle the needs of the particular use. 5. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to take care of parking needs. Response: The proposed site plan is for agricultural use and is not commercial, industrial and public utility. Space used for offices, staff facilities, trimming, processing and packaging of cannabis is under 5000 square feet. Therefore this standard is not applicable. However, the subject property has a loop (100 foot diameter) that allows for large trucks maneuver in. C. Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set forth in DCC 18.116.030 for all uses in all zoning districts. Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building Is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building existing on the effective date of DCC Title 18 is changed. Response: The proposed site plan will utilize off-street parking spaces that will be provided and maintained as set forth in DCC 18.116.030. Vehicles and truck access to the subject property is accessed directly from Hwy 97. After approval of the proposed site plan, the roads will have additional gravel added and increased signage along the private driveway posting a 5 mile per hours speed limit. Vehicles will have designated parking spots that are clearly marked and trucks will have a designated loading zone. Vehicle parking will not be used for truck loading or unloading. All road, parking and loading zone areas will be maintained as part of the standard operating procedures. D. Number of Spaces Required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows: 9. Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate parking as required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The above list shall be used as a guide for determining requirements for said other uses. Response: Cannabis production and processing is a use not specifically listed above. In order to provide adequate parking spaces for the proposed use, we have used the manufacture standard. The proposed site plan has 6 employees at the largest working shift therefore at least 6 parking spaces is the criteria to meet. The proposed site plan calls for a primary parking area with 8 spaces on the northwest portion of the subject property. A secondary parking area exists on the northwest portion of the property as well, this allows us to reduce the impact on our shared road if our amazing neighbor located to the east of the proposed site plan makes this request. E. General Provisions. Off -Street Parking. 1. More Than One Use on One or More Parcels. In the event several uses occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirement for off-street parking shall be the sum of requirements of the several uses computed separately. 2. Joint Use of Facilities. The off-street parking requirements of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking or loading space used jointly to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators of the uses, structures or parcels that their operations and parking needs do not overlap at any point of time. If the uses, structures or parcels are under separate ownership, the right to joint use of the parking space must be evidence by a deed, lease, contract or other appropriate written document to establish the joint use. Response: The proposed site plan is for cannabis processing and adequate parking spaces for the proposed uses have been evaluated. The proposed site plan has 6 employees at the largest working shift and over 6 parking spaces will be created. W 3. Location of Parking Facilities. Off-street parking spaces for dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling. Other required parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel or another parcel not farther than 500 feet from the building or use they are intended to serve, measured in a straight line from the building in a commercial or industrial zone. Such parking shall be located in a safe and functional manner as determined during site plan approval. The burden of proving the existence of such off -premise parking arrangements rests upon the applicant. Response: The proposed site plan is not in industrial or commercial zoned land. 8 parking spaces have been provided in the upper portion of the property and additional parking can be established in the lower portion of the property to reduce the impact if requested by the earlier mentioned amazing neighbor. 4. Use of Parking Facilities. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. Response: Parking facilities will not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. 5. Parking, Front Yard. Required parking and loading spaces for multi -family dwellings or commercial and industrial uses shall not be located in a required front yard, except in the Sunriver UUC Business Park (BP) District and the La Pine UUC Business Park (LPBP) District and the LaPine UUC Industrial District (LPI), but such space may be located within a required side or rear yard. Response: This standard is not applicable to the proposed site plan as this is an agricultural use, not multi -family dwellings or commercial and industrial uses. 6.OnStreet Parking Credit... Response: The subject property is in rural county and is surrounded by private property making this standard not applicable to the site plan as there is no access to on -street parking. F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off -Street Parking Areas. Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private parking area, including commercial parking lots, shall be developed as follows: 1. Except for parking to serve residential uses, an off-street parking area for more than five vehicles shall be effectively screened by a sight obscuring fence when adjacent to residential uses, unless effectively screened or buffered by landscaping or structures. Response: Screening will be effectively placed as required to shield the parking from the residence east of the proposed site plan. Please see the landscape plan in the Review of Applicable Standards and Criteria, section E and exhibit C. 2. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone. Response: There is no proposed lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas. 3. Groups of more than two parking spaces shall be located and designed to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right of way other than an alley. Response: This standard is not applicable, the parking area is no on a street or right of way. 16 4. Areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved surfaces adequately maintained for all weather use and so drained as to contain any flow of water on the site. An exception may be made to the paving requirements by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon finding that: a. A high water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface to reduce surface water runoff problems; or b. The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties; or c. The subject use will be in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial District in an unincorporated community and dust control measures will occur on a continuous basis which will mitigate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Response: The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. The farm will continue to maintain the gravel layer for the private road and the parking areas. 5. Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering. Response: The proposed site plan will have all access aisles be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering. 6. Service drives to off-street parking areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic, provide maximum safety of traffic access and egress and maximum safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic on the site. The number of service drives shall be limited to the minimum that will accommodate and serve the traffic anticipated. Service drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. Service drives to drive in establishments shall be designed to avoid backing movements or other maneuvering within a street other than an alley. Response: The proposed site plan will not utilize service drives. 7. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right of way line and a straight line joining said lines through points 30 feet from their intersection. Response: The proposed site plan will not utilize service drives. 8. Parking spaces along the outer boundaries of a parking area shall be contained by a curb or bumper rail placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. Response: The use of a curb or bumper rail to protect an adjacent property line or a street right of way is unnecessary given the nature of the property (rural farm land) and its proximity to other uses. G. Off -Street Parking Lot Design. All off-street parking lots shall be designed subject to County standards for stalls and aisles as set forth in the following drawings and table: (SEE TABLE 1 AT END OF CHAPTER 18.116) 1. For one row of stalls use "C" + "D" as minimum bay width. 2. Public alley width may be included as part of dimension "D," but all parking stalls must be on private property, off the public right of way. 3. For estimating available parking area, use 300-325 square feet per vehicle for stall, aisle and access areas. 17 4. For large parking lots exceeding 20 stalls, alternate rows may be designed for compact cars provided that the compact stalls do not exceed 30 percent of the total required stalls. A compact stall shall be eight feet in width and 17 feet in length with appropriate aisle width. Response: The parking areas consist of 8 and 4 parking stalls that are 20 feet x 9 feet and are accessed off a 12 foot wide one-way loop. The Loop itself is roughly 100 feet wide. 18.116.031. BICYCLE PARKING. New development and any construction, renovation or alteration of an existing use requiring a site plan review under DCC Title 18 for which planning approval is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance 93-005 shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.031. A. Number and Type of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required. 1. General Minimum Standard. a. All uses that require off-street motor vehicle parking shall, except as specifically noted, provide one bicycle parking space for every five required motor vehicle parking spaces. b. Except as specifically set forth herein, all such parking facilities shall Include at least two sheltered parking spaces or, where more than 10 bicycle spaces are required, at least 50 percent of the bicycle parking spaces shall be sheltered. c. When the proposed use is located outside of an unincorporated community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial zone, exceptions to the bicycle parking standards may be authorized by the Planning Director or Hearings Body if the applicant demonstrates one or more of the following: 1 The proposed use is in a location accessed by roads with no bikeways and bicycle use by customers or employees is unlikely. ii. The proposed use generates less than 50 vehicle trips per day. ill. No existing buildings on the site will accommodate bicycle parking and no new buildings are proposed. iv. The size, weight, or dimensions of the goods sold at the site makes transporting them by bicycle impractical or unlikely. v. The use of the site requires equipment that makes it unlikely that a bicycle would be used to access the site. Representative examples would include, but not be limited to, paintball parks, golf courses, shooting ranges, etc. Response: The proposed use is located in rural county farm land, outside of an unincorporated community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial zone. We are asking for an exception to the bicycle parking standards from the Planning Director or Hearings Body. We meet this exception for the following reasons: 1)The proposed use is in a location accessed by roads with little bicycle traffic and bicycle use by customers or employees is unlikely. The subject property is accessed off a section of HWY 97 that is not safe to promote increased bicycle traffic. 2) The proposed use generates less than 50 vehicle trips per day. 18.116.310 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES A. For purposes of DCC 18.116.310, the transportation system includes public and private roads, intersections, sidewalks, bike facilities, trails, and transit systems. B. The applicant shall meet with County staff in a pre -application conference to discuss study requirements, then generate the traffic study and submit it concurrently with the land use application. C. Guidelines for Traffic impact Studies 1. All traffic impact studies shall be stamped and signed by the registered professional 18 engineer who is licensed in the State of Oregon and is otherwise qualified to prepare traffic studies. 2. The County Engineer shall determine when the report has satisfied all the requirements of the development's impact analysis. Incomplete reports shall be returned for completion. 3. The following vehicle trip generation thresholds shall determine the level and scope of transportation analysis required for a new or expanded development. a. No Report is required If there are fewer than 50 trips per day generated during a weekday. Response: To the best of our knowledge, no Report is required for the proposed site plan as there are fewer than 50 trips per day generated during a weekday. If it is deemed necessary we will comply. 18.116.330. MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND RETAILING A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: 1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones. 2, Marijuana Processing in the EFU, MUA-10, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RI, and SUBP zones Response: Marijuana production has been approved by the county, please reference 247-17-000040-AD/247-17-000041-LM. This application is to request a processing use located on EFU land. B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Minimum Lot Area. a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. Response: The proposed site plan is located on a lot area of 15 acres of EFU, and is in accordance with the definition of lot area. 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the MUA-10 zone, marijuana production and processing shall be located entirely within one or more fully enclosed buildings with conventional or post framed opaque, rigid walls and roof covering. Use of greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures is prohibited. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. c. in all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. Response: The proposed site plan calls for all processing of marijuana to take place inside a fully enclosed building. 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: 1. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and 19 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. Response: The production land use has already been approved, please reference 247-17-000040-AD/247-17-000041-LM. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. Response: The proposed site plan is located on EFU zoned land, this is not an applicable standard. S. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. Response: The proposed use of the property includes only one Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) license holder on the tax lot located at Township 14, Range 13, Section 28, Tax Lot 00-01000. We are proposing that production and processing uses co exist as they are held by the same licence holder / business. 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. Response: We are asking for an exception on one of our setbacks (west boundaries) and adhering to the required setbacks for all other boundaries. Please see section C below for details on the setback exception. This exception has already been approved for the production land use and supportive structure. 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. Response: The proposed use is compliant with this standard, all marijuana areas and building used for processing are over 300 feet from the all off-site dwellings. 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. 20 Response: We are asking for an exception on one of our setbacks ( the west boundary) and adhering to the required setbacks for all other boundaries. By granting this setback exception we are able to increase the distance between our production infrastructure and our closest neighbor (2 acres of EFUTE) who lives east of the production site. If the exception is not granted it increases the visibility of the greenhouses and the agricultural support structure from our neighbor's kitchen window and their deck. It will also force additional buildings in areas that they will not harmoniously fit, for example native landscaping will be impacted. In addition we believe that by allowing this exception, our wonderful neighbor will enjoy increased privacy and mitigate intermittent noise not regulated by the standards. In addition to mitigating the impacts to our closest property owners, by allowing this exception we are also able to decrease the visibility of the infrastructure from HWY 97. Allowing this setback to be lifted allows us to keep more of the pre-existing trees on the property between us and the HWY. The western property line is shared with a large EFU parcel that is currently used for raising cattle. We have met the owner, he is supportive of us using the land for agricultural purposes and has no issue with our cannabis production. The RR10 parcel that touches the Southwestern corner of the subject property does not have any dwellings and is currently used for storing of equipment and vehicles. We have been in contact with the owner and no issue has occurred from our proposal. The above mentioned properties will not be affected by allowing this setback exception and our closest neighbor is positively affected in addition to the preserving the native landscape and native plants. The setback exception would result in there being 38 feet between the building and the edge of the processing storage space. Please note, we are still willing to work with any neighbors in terms of access on this side of the property in the event it becomes beneficial for them to have that access. Please see Exhibit B, and D. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: 1. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) if the use is: 1. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or Ill. Lawfully established. 21 Response: None of the above uses or property types are within 1000 feet from the proposed site plan. Please see exhibit L. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: 1. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; ill. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. Response: This is not an applicable standard for processing. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a.inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Response: The proposed site plan will not have lights inside a structure from external view between the hours of 7pm to lam on the following day. b.Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light - emitting part. c.Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. Response: The proposed site plan will not include any lighting that is projected upward. All external lights will be on a motion sensors and will be pointed downward. 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. Response: The proposed site plan will be utilizing carbon filters for the processing spaces, please see exhibit G for detailed description of odor control. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a 22 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. Response: The proposed site plan odor control system has been reviewed by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon and the report is attached. (Please see exhibit G). c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. Response: No response required. 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 fllter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or fl. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. Response: The proposed site plan odor control system has been reviewed by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon and a detailed report is attached. (Please see exhibit G). e. The system shall be maintained In working order and shall be in use. Response: The proposed site plan will utilize standard operating procedures that include regular maintenance of the the odor control system; ensuring that the equipment stays in working order and 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. Response: The proposed site plan has been reviewed by a licensed engineer in the state of Oregon, please see exhibit G. The use of consistently loud equipment will not occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a.Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. Response: The proposed site plan is Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone and a Landscape Management Application is included as part of this application packet. b -Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding 23 natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, If applicable. Response: The proposed site plan includes the addition of 10 foot tall fencing to enclose the premise. If allowable by OCC the fence height will be 6-8 feet tall, please see exhibit B. c.Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. Response: This standard is not applicable, as the proposed site plan will not include any razor wire or similar. d.The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right -0f -way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. Response: The proposed site plan will not include the removal of existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. 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. Response: The proposed site plan will be utilizing water rights sanctioned far cannabis production. Water Rights Application T-12264 and Certificate 90952. (Please see exhibit H). 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. Response: The proposed site plan is within the Redmond Fire and Rescue district, however this standard is not applicable as the proposed site pian is for concentrates only. Please see exhibit L. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. Response: The proposed site plan will be served by Pacific Power (Please see exhibit 1). 16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. 24 Response: The proposed site plan will utilize security cameras that will be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. 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 (PRMd). Response: The proposed site plan will utilize a metal dumpster with commercial grade locks to securely store marijuana waste. 18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property: a. An owner of the subject property; b, A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property; or c. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. Response: This standard is not applicable as the proposed site plan is located in EFU zoned land. 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016. Response: The property is a currently a medical marijuana grow site lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority will continue to comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.33 until recreational production has been established. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: 1. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on In conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. b. In the MUA-10 Zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use when carried on in conjunction with a marijuana crop. c. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited op the same property as marijuana production: I. Guest Lodge. fl. Guest Ranch. iii. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort. v. Public Parks. A. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. 25 viii. Bed and Breakfast. ix. Room and Board Arrangements. Response: The current uses on the property do not include any of the above prohibited uses. The proposed site plan will not include any of the above prohibited uses. C. Marijuana Retailing. Marijuana retailing, including recreational and medical marijuana sales, shall be subject to the following standards and criteria:... Response: Marijuana sales and retailing is not proposed. Activities on the subject property are and will be limited to production and processing operations -without any outlet for retail sales on the subject property. D. Annual Reporting 1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: I. Land use decision and permits. ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and 29 Consent to inspect Premises for to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330 (C)(I)( a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the other wise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal( s) for the subject use. c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17). Response: The applicant will comply with all applicable Deschutes County reporting as required. Chapter 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW 18.124.010. Purpose. DCC 18.124.010 provides for administrative review of the design of certain developments and improvements in order to promote functional, safe, innovative and attractive site development compatible with the natural and man-made environment. 18.124.020. Elements of Site Plan. The elements of a site plan are: The layout and design of all existing and proposed improvements, including, but not limited to, buildings, structures, parking, circulation areas, outdoor storage areas, bicycle parking, landscape areas, service and delivery areas, outdoor recreation areas, retaining walls, signs and graphics, cut and fill actions, accessways, pedestrian walkways, buffering and screening measures and street furniture. 18.124.030. Approval Required. A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to DCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform 26 Development Procedures Ordinance. B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following: 1. All conditional use permits where a site plan is a condition of approval; 2. Multiple -family dwellings with more than three units; 3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities; 4. All industrial uses; 5. All other uses that serve the general public or that otherwise require parking facilities, including, but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries, mausoleums, crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales yards; and 6. As specified for Flood Plain Zones (FP) and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones (SMIA). 7. Non-commercial wind energy system generating greater than 15 to 100 kW of electricity. C. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall not apply to uses involving the stabling and training of equine in the EFU zone, noncommercial stables and horse events not requiring a conditional use permit. D. Noncompliance with a final approved site plan shall be a zoning ordinance violation. E. As a condition of approval of any action not included in DCC 18.124.030(8), the Planning Director or Hearings Body may require site plan approval prior to the issuance of any permits. Response: The proposed site plan is for an accepted agricultural practice and meets the requirements of all applicable standards for the subject property, zoned EFUTE, specifically those found in DCC 18.16, DCC 18.56, DCC 18.84, DCC 18.124, DCC 18.116.330, DCC 18.116.030, DCC 18.116.031, DCC 18.116.310. Section 18. 124.030. Approval Required. A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to QCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following: 1. All conditional use permits where a site plan is a condition of approval; 2. Multiple family dwellings with more than three units; 3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities; 4. All industrial uses; 5. All other uses that serve the general public or that other uses require parking facilities, including, but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries, mausoleums, crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales yards; and 6. As specified for Flood Plain Zones ( FP) and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones (SMIA). Response: Marijuana processing is an industrial use (DCC 18.04.030 -"Industrial use" means the use of land primarily for the manufacture, processing, storage or wholesale distribution of products, goods or materials. It does not include commercial uses, however the proposed processing represents a small fraction of the total use at the site, which is dominated by marijuana production. Therefore, the use of land is not primarily for the manufacture, processing, storage or wholesale distribution of products, goods or materials. The use is not a commercial use ( 3 DCC 18.04.030 - " Commercial use" means the use of land primarily for the retail sale of products or services, including offices. It does not include factories, 27 warehouses, freight terminals or wholesale distribution center). However, the fraction of industrial use requires parking facilities and site plan review is required. 18.124.040. Contents and Procedure. A. Any site plan shall be filed on a form provided by the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by such drawings, sketches and descriptions necessary to describe the proposed development. A plan shall not be deemed complete unless all information requested is provided. B. Prior to filing a site plan, the applicant shall confer with the Planning Director or his representative concerning the requirements for formai application. C. After the pre -application conference, the applicant shall submit a site development plan, an inventory of existing plant materials including all trees six inches in diameter or greater and other significant species, a landscape plan end architectural drawings including floor plans and elevations. Response: The following have been provided. Site development plan (please see exhibit B, an inventory of existing plant materials including all trees six inches in diameter or greater and other significant species within the proposed site plan, a landscape plan with in the proposed site (please see exhibit C and review the details in this narrative), and architectural drawings including floor plans and elevations(please see exhibit E and F). D. The site plan shall indicate the following... Response: Please see all exhibits and review this narrative. E. The landscape plan shall indicate: 1. The size, species and approximate locations of existing natural plant materials proposed to be retained and new plant materials proposed to be placed on site. 2. Proposed site contouring. 3. An explanation of how drainage and soil erosion is to be dealt with during and after construction. Response: The subject property primarily consists of native landscaping and it is our intention use native plants to the maximum extent possible and to avoid the introduction of plants not tolerable to full sun and dry soil. All existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties will be retained to the maximum extent possible. Allowing the exception on the West setbacks for cannabis processing will increase the natural screening abilities. We have a long term plan to increase pollinator plants (Lavandula angustifolia, Salvia dorrii, Eriophyllum lanatum, Lupinus argenteus), reduce invasive weeds and irrigate and propagate the existing Pinus ponderosa. In addition, a strong emphasis will be put on retaining and propagating native plants (Artemisia tridentata, Purshia tridentata, Festuce idahoensis, Pseudoroegneria spicata, Poa sandbergi►) on the surrounding subject property. If screening is necessary for the proposed site plan we propose the use of Abies lasiocarpa (30-50 feet tall) or Juniperus occidentalis (15-30+ feet tall) as these trees are suited to the environment of the 28 Northwestern portion of the subject property. For the Southwestern portion of the property we propose the use of Ceanothus velutinus and Arctostaphylos patufa as they are both native and tolerant to our environment and do not exceed a height the will impede our greenhouse (6-8 feet tall). The use of Alnus tenuifolia (10 feet tall) can be used closer to the adjacent lot east of the proposed cannabis production. Please see exhibit C. To prevent erosion during construction we will use geotextiles barriers in addition to maintain sufficient gravel in high trafficked areas. After construction is completed the use of geotextiles will be used on conjunction with native vegetation to prevent erosion and maintain the native landscaping. The proposed structures have a gutter system in place that will feed into a drain. Again, we ask the County to thoughtfully consider the perceived need of screening and consider the required water usage that comes from requiring evergreen, non-native plants. 18.124.060. Approval Criteria. Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. Response: The proposed site plan has been tailored to relate harmoniously to the natural environment. Allowing the exception on the West setbacks for cannabis processing will increase the natural screening abilities and preserve native landscaping and gentle topographical features. The proposed new structures are located on open land that has been overrun by noxious weeds, perhaps from previous land owners. The building will allow the land to be used for niche market, value added farm products without making changes the to topographical features or existing tree coverage. Noxious weeds will be properly maintained after construction. C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. Response: The site plan has been designed efficiently and in a manner that creates a safe environment. We will continue to maintain the gravel road. We will continue to work with our adjacent property owners to provide aesthetically pleasing privacy. As detailed in the landscape plan, much attention has been put into the use of native plants with low water consumption to transition from the cannabis production to the adjacent eastern property. D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. Response: Because this is a farm use it is not anticipated to have farm employees in a wheelchair, however, the site plan includes the use of a handicap bathroom and handicapped accessible access to the agricultural support structure as this is the building in which a handicapped individual in a wheelchair 29 may find suitable roles in trimming, processing, propagating and/or packaging. Any other ADA requirements can be adhered to as required by the building permits. E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. Response: It is not anticipated to have public pedestrians on the subject property as is surrounded by private property and accessed through a private shared road. Please see exhibit B and D for points of access to the site, roads, and parking areas. Employee training will include sections to promote safety on the site and in parking areas. Walking paths will be clearly marked. F Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse Impacts on neighboring properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality. Response: There will be no changes to the current surface drainage for the farm support structure. Because the subject property is located in rural land, gravel will be maintained to prevent erosion and impacts on neighboring properties. Water from the agricultural use on the property will be managed with the use of an evaporation pool and cisterns as needed. G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. H. All aboveground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. Response: The site plan has been designed efficiently and in a manner that minimize adverse impacts. We will continue to work with our amazing adjacent property owners to provide aesthetically pleasing privacy. As detailed in the landscape plan, much attention has been put into the use of native plants with low water consumption to transition from the cannabis production site to the adjacent eastern property. I. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.). Response: The proposed site plan for cannabis production is in EFU zoned land, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. A full review of all applicable standards is found in this narrative, specifically those found in DCC 18.16, DCC 18.56, DCC 18.84, DCC 18.124, DCC 18.116.330, DCC 18.116.030, DCC 18.116.031, and DCC 18.116.310. J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. 30 Response: The proposed site plan utilizes exterior lighting that will be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use. 1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance, turn and acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of-way, roadway surfacing and widening, and bicycle and pedestrian conneptions, shall be identified. 2. Mitigation for transportation -related impacts shall be required. 3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 17.16 and DCC 17.48, applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) mobility and access standards, and applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. Response: The proposed site plan will have less than 50 trips per day and the current access to the site is sufficient. The owners of the subject property will continue to maintain the road with sufficient gravel and ensure safe access is maintained. 18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards. A. Private or shared outdoor recreation areas in residential developments. 1. Private Areas. Other than a development in the Sunriver UUC Town Center District, each ground -level living unit in a residential development subject to site plan approval shall have an accessible outdoor private space of not less than 48 square feet in area. The area shall be enclosed, screened or otherwise designed to provide privacy for unit residents and their guests. Response: This standard is not applicable to this proposed site plan as no residential structure is proposed. B. Required Landscaped Areas. 1. The following landscape requirements are established for multi -family, commercial and industrial developments, subject to site plan approval: a. A minimum of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped. b. All areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved shall be landscaped. Response: The subject property primarily consists of roughly 13 acres of native landscaping. All existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties will be retained to the maximum extent possible. The site plan includes a long term landscape plan to increase pollinator plants (Lavandula angustifolia, Salvia donii, Eriophyllum lanatum, Lupinus argenteus), reduce invasive weeds and irrigate and propagate the existing Pinus ponderosa. In addition, a strong emphasis will be put on retaining and propagating native plants (Artemisia tridentata, Purshia tridentata, Pestuca idahoensis, Pseudoroegneria spicata, Roa sandbergh) in the surrounding subject property. The remaining 2 acres of the property are either used for the residence, non -cannabis hobby farming, or the cannabis 31 production and processing land use and noxious weeds are controlled. In addition there are to two sections of land (one east and one south of the proposed site plan) that are being rehabilitated into grazing pasture for goats. 2. In addition to the requirement of DCC 18.124.070(B)(1)(a), the following landscape requirements shall apply to parking and loading areas: a. A parking or loading area shall be required to be improved with defined landscaped areas totaling no less than 25 square feet per parking space. Response: The proposed site plan is surrounded by native landscaping. In order to harmoniously blend our parking areas, the use of native landscaping will be used in addition to well maintained gravel areas to prevent dust, erosion, and invasion weeds. b. In addition to the landscaping required by DCC 18.124.070(B)(2)(a), a parking or loading area shall be separated from any lot line adjacent to a roadway by a landscaped strip at least 10 feet In width, and from any other lot line by a landscaped strip at least five feet in width. c. A landscaped strip separating a parking or loading area from a street shall contain: 1) Trees spaced as appropriate to the species, not to exceed 35 feet apart on the average. 2) Low shrubs not to reach a height greater than three feet zero inches, spaced no more than eight feet apart on the average. 3) Vegetative ground cover. Response: The proposed site plan parking areas are not adjacent to any property boundaries or roadways. However, the proposed landscape plan will utilize native landscaping and propagation around parking areas as this will harmoniously fit into the existing rustic barn and surrounding native vegetation. d. Landscaping in a parking or loading area shall be located in defined landscaped areas which are uniformly distributed throughout the parking or loading area. e. The landscaping in a parking area shall have a width of not less than five feet. f. Provision shall be made for watering planting areas where such care is required. g. Required landscaping shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. h. Maximum height of tree species shall be considered when planting under overhead utility lines. Response: The proposed site plan and landscape plan will adhere to these qualifications where applicable. C. Non -motorized Access. 32 1. Bicycle Parking. The development shall provide the number and type of bicycle parking facilities as required in DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035. The location and design of bicycle parking facilities shall be indicated on the site plan. Response: The proposed use is located in rural county farm land, outside of an unincorporated community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial zone. We are asking for an exception to the bicycle parking standards from the Planning Director or Hearings Body. We meet this exception for the following reasons: 1)The proposed use is in a location accessed by roads with little bicycle traffic and bicycle use by customers or employees is unlikely. The subject property is accessed off a section of HWY 97 that is not safe to promote increased bicycle traffic. 2) The proposed use generates less than 50 vehicle trips per day. If this exception is not granted we will adhere to all standards required in DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035. 2. Pedestrian Access and Circulation: a. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be provided in new commercial, office and multi -family residential developments through the clustering of buildings, construction of hard surface pedestrian walkways, and similar techniques. Response: The proposed site plan is not considered a commercial, office and multi -family residential developments, therefore this section is not applicable. Sufficient gravel will be maintained in trafficked areas to ensure that dust and erosion are prevented. b. Pedestrian walkways shall connect building entrances to one another and from building entrances to public streets and existing or planned transit facilities. On-site walkways shall connect with walkways, sidewalks, bikeways, and other pedestrian or bicycle connections on adjacent properties planned or used for commercial, multi -family, public or park use. Response: The proposed site plan is not adjacent to any public streets. Sufficient gravel will be maintained in trafficked areas, walkways and around the greenhouse and agricultural support structure. G. Walkways shall be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width. Walkways which border parking spaces shall be at least seven feet wide unless concrete bumpers or curbing and landscaping or other similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles from obstructing the walkway. Walkways shall be as direct as possible. Response: The proposed site plan is for agricultural processing and sufficient gravel will be maintained in trafficked areas, walkways and around the greenhouse and accessory support structure. It would be very cost prohibitive to require fully paved walkways both for the installation and the maintenance in rural farm land. d. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the walkway system crosses driveways, parking areas and loading areas, the walkway must be 33 clearly Identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar method. Response: The proposed site plan is for agricultural production and sufficient gravel will be maintained in trafficked areas. This is not a public facility and there are no proposed walkways or driveways. e. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the primary building entrance and any walkway that connects a transit stop to building entrances shall have a maximum slope of five percent. Walkways up to eight percent slope are permitted, but are treated as ramps with special standards for railings and landings. Response: The proposed site plan will comply with any workable required improvements by ADA. D. Commercial Development Standards: 1. New commercial buildings shall be... Response: The proposed site plan is for agricultural processing not a commercial building (as defined by DCC 18.04) therefore this standard is not applicable. 18.124.080. Other Conditions. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require the following in addition to the minimum standards of DCC Title 18 as a condition for site plan approval. A. An increase in the required yards. B. Additional off street parking. C. Screening of the proposed use by a fence or landscaping or combination thereof. D. Limitations on the size, type, location, orientation and number of lights. E. Limitations on the number and location of curb cuts. F. Dedication of land for the creation or enlargement of streets where the existing street system will be impacted by or is inadequate to handle the additional burden caused by the proposed use. G. Improvement, Including but not limited to paving, curbing, installation of traffic signals and constructing sidewalks or the street system that serves the proposed use where the existing street system will be burdened by the proposed use. H. Improvement or enlargement of utilities serving the proposed use where the existing utilities system will be burdened by the proposed use. Improvements may include, but shall not be limited to, extension of utility facilities to serve toe proposed use and installation of fire hydrants. I. Laj dscaping of the site. J. Traffic Impact Study as identified in Title 18.116.310. 34 K. Any other limitations or conditions that are considered necessary to achieve the purposes of DCC Title 18. Response: We will comply will all requirements. 18.124.090. Right of Way Improvement Standards. Any dedications or improvements to the road right of way required under DCC 18.124 shall meet the standards for road right of way improvements set forth in DCC Title 17 and any standards for right-of-way improvements set forth in DCC Title 18 for the particular zone in question. Response: The proposed site plan will meet all requirements for right of way improvement standards. OI E S C0G n ' 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 February 27, 2019 DATE: February 19, 2019 FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing Preparation - Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval (70355 McKenzie Canon Road, Bend) ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner SUMMARY: The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a work session to prepare for a public hearing regarding an appeal of an administrative decision approving marijuana production at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Bend. STAFF MEMORANDUM Date: February 27, 2019 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner Re: Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval (File Nos. 247-18-000379-AD/754-A) The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a work session on February 27, 2019, to prepare for a public hearing regarding an appeal of an administrative decision approving marijuana production at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Bend. The appeal materials identify several objections summarized in Section III below. BACKGROUND On April 27, 2018, the applicant, Ted Price of McKenzie Canyon Farms LLC, filed an Administrative Determination (AD) to establish marijuana production at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Bend. The subject property is located within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), Flood Plain (FP), and Wildlife Area Combining (WA) zones. The proposed marijuana production consists of a maximum 4,960 square feet of mature marijuana plant canopy area and the development of multiple structures. The Planning Division issued an administrative decision without a public hearing on August 31, 2018, determining the application met the applicable criteria. On September 17, 2018, the Board approved Order No. 2018-061 to serve as the hearings body if an appeal was filed. A timely notice of appeal (file no. 247-18-00754-A) was filed by Liz Dickson on behalf of Tim and Wendy DiPalo. On October 11, 2018, David Mullan of McKenzie Canyon Farms LLC, requested a 215 -day extension of the review time period. Based on the maximum 150 day time review time period (ORS 215.427) and the 215 day extension of the review time period, the final day on which the County must take final action on this application is currently June 6, 2019. The complete record for the project, excluding the notice of appeal and review time period extensions, was provided to the Board for the work session on September 12, 20181. Sept. 12, 2018 Board Work Session Documents: http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=1948 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The Planning Division mailed a written notice of public hearing to parties on February 13, 2019. Staff has not received any additional written testimony at the time of this memorandum. III. APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS SUMMARY The appellants, Tim and Wendy DiPalo, state several reasons for their appeal that are fully described in the Notice of Appeal (Attachments 1-8). In summary, the appellant's arguments include: A. Impact on Metolius Deer Winter Range. B. Unknown impact on Golden Eagle nesting sites. C. Separation distance from youth activity center. D. Motor vehicle access. E. Water and power feasibility. IV. NEXT STEPS The public hearing before the Board is scheduled on March 6, 2019. Attachments Attachment 1: Notice of Appeal - Cover Letter Attachment 2: Notice of Appeal - Appeal Application Form Attachment 3: Notice of Appeal - Letter of Authorization Attachment 4: Notice of Appeal - Accompanying Narrative Attachment 5: Notice of Appeal - Exhibit A Attachment 6: Notice of Appeal - Exhibit B Attachment 7: Notice of Appeal - Exhibit C Attachment 8: Notice of Appeal - Findings & Decision File No. 247 -18 -000379 -AD File Nos. 247-18-000379-AD/754-A Page 2 of 2 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 September 12, 2018 q®o Aiunop 991n4ase® Deschutes County Hand Delivered Attn: Matt Martin, Associate Planner Board of County Commissioners 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97703 Re: Appeal of Administrative Decision File No. 247-18-000379 Applicant/Owner: Ted Price and Marian Bertotti Dear Mr. Martin, Please find the enclosed Appeal Application, Narrative with Exhibits, Authorization letter and Decision on the above referenced Administrative Decision. Thank you in advance for your time regarding this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Eliza eth Dickson Attorney for Appellant eadickson@.crickso.nhatfield.com EAD/cm p Cc: Tim and Wendy DiPaolo via email �( ES C� -A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL APPLICATION - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. it is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues. Appellant's Name (print): Tim and Wendy DiPaolo Phone:5( 41 ) 923-8675 Mailing Address: 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road City/State/Zip: Terrebonne, OR 97760 Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247 -18 -000379 -AD Property Description: T ip 14 flan a \11 Section 23 Tax Lot 100 Appellant's Signature; r Date: i2 1 P _ BY SIGNING THIS APPLICATION AND PAYING THE APPEAL FEE, THE APPELLANT UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT DESCHUTES COUNTY IS COLLECTING A DEPOSIT FOR COSTS RELATED TO, PREPARING FOR, AND CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPELLANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTUAL COSTS OF THE HEARING PROCESS. THE AMOUNT OF ANY REFUND OR ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WILL DEPEND UPON THE ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNTY IN REVIEWING THE APPEAL. Except as provided in section 22.32.024, appellant shall provide a complete transcript of any hearing appealed, from recordings provided by the Planning Division upon request (there is a $5.00 fee for each recording copy). Appellant shall submit the transcript to the planning division no later than the close of the day five (5) days prior to the date set for the de novo hearing or, for on -the -record appeals, the date set for receipt of written records. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 *_%(541)388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org 0www.deschutes.org/cd NOTICE OF APPEAL Please see attached narrative. (This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.) ti 1�cla LLP - u rive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 September 4, 2018 Matt Martin, Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97703 Re: Letter of Authorization Dear Matt, I hereby authorize Liz Dickson of Dickson Hatfield, LLP, to act on my behalf regarding all land use matters before Deschutes County to which we are a party. Sincerely, Tim DiPaolo 70413 McKenzie Canyon Rd McKenzie Canyon Rd Terrebonne, OR 97760 97760 (541)923-8675 Wendy DiPaolo 70413 Terrebonne, OR (541)923-8675 BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTICE OF APPEAL ACCOMPANYING NARRATIVE APPELLANT: Tim and Wendy DiPaolo 70413 McKenzie Canyon Rd Terrebonne, OR 97760 ATTORNEY: Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield, LLP 400 SW Bluff Dr., Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 Attorney for Appellant eadicksonna dicks©nhatfieldcom STAFF REVIEWER: Matt Martin, Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 REQUEST: Appellant requests a de novo Appeal of Deschutes County Administrative Determination, File No. 247 -18 -000379 -AD to Deschutes Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT PROPERTY: Assessor's Map Designation Township 14S, Range 11E, Section 23, Tax Lot 100, commonly referenced as 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Terrebonne, OR 97760 OWNER: Marian Bertotti 863 Summer Sound Road Piney Flats, Tennessee 37686 APPLICANT: Ted Price 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road Terrebonne, Oregon 97760 AGENT: Adam Stephens Steele Associates Architects 686 NW York Dr., Suite 150 Bend, Oregon 97703 DIPAOLO, TIM AND WENDY- NOTICE OF APPEAL 247 -18 -000379 -AD Page 1 1 8 I. INTRODUCTION Applicant Ted Price and property owner Marian Bertotti (together "Applicant") have received conditional approval from staff to establish a marijuana production facility on Tax Lot 100 ("Subject Property) in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone with Flood Plain and Wildlife Area overlays. Applicant proposes 4,960 square feet of mature plant canopy area (4 mature plant greenhouses) to be served by: 1 immature plant building 1 trim building 1 storage facility 1 storage container 1 shop (existing) Other ancillary site improvements These 9 buildings are situated in the westernmost edge of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located in a very remote and inaccessible area of Deschutes County that backs up to approximately 4,750 acres of contiguous BLM land (TL 200) just west of the proposed development site, is not served by public roads, and is home to recognized herds of deer, elk, and nesting golden eagles. This area, west of Lower Bridge and east of Sisters, serves as a natural refuge for these wildlife and scattered farms nestled along McKenzie Canyon Road, a dirt road believed to be over 100 years old. Tim and Wendy DiPaolo ("The DiPaolos" or "Appellant") live on adjoining property north and east of the Subject Property. They and their neighbors oppose this proposal to introduce an industrial grow operation in a place where it is not compatible with existing uses and may not feasibly be introduced because of road, water, and power shortages in an already stressed area of the County. Staff has made significant interpretations of Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") criteria applicable to this proposal, without benefit of Board guidance as to the Board's explicit meaning or implicit intent regarding those provisions. As a result, the approved application does not satisfy the Code. The DiPaolos ask this Board to accept this Appeal and evaluate the substantial evidence we will provide to the Record, hearing this matter as a de novo proceeding. II. RELEVANT CRITERIA ON APPEAL Deschutes County Code: 18.88 Wildlife Area Combining Zone - WA 18.90 Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone - SBMH 18.116.330 Suppl. Provisions / Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing DIPAOLO, TIM AND WENDY- NOTICE OF APPEAL 247 -18 -000379 -AD Page 2 18 III. APPLICATION FAILS TO SATISFY RELEVANT CRITERIA A. Proposed development not compatible with Protection of the wildlife resource. DCC 18.88.010 states that, The purpose of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone is to conserve important wildlife areas in Deschutes County; to protect an important environmental, social and economic element of the area; and to permit development compatible with the protection of the wildlife resource. 1. Unknown Impact on Metolius Deer Winter Range Staff acknowledges that the proposed site is within the Metolius Deer Winter Range. However, staff then references 18.88.030, which states that a WA zone designation defers to the underlying zone, and if the use is permitted outright in that underlying zone, it's allowed in the Metolius Deer Winter Range. 2. Unknown Impact on Golden Eagle Nesting Sites Staff also acknowledges that the USFWS has verified 2 separate nesting sites within 300 feet of the subject property's western edge. DCC 18.90 narrowly defines a sensitive bird habitat as that "area identified in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Resource Element Inventory." Staff regrettably interprets this to mean that even though there are two proven and verified "nesting sites in the vicinity of the proposed project," if they are not on the County's inventory, he cannot address it. This approach defies the purpose of the wildlife protections that the County's Code supposedly serves. This means that the impacts of such a use on the deer winter range or the golden eagle nests are not identified, evaluated, or weighed against the benefits of allowing an application to go forward. An application is not even considered as possibly disruptive to the wildlife resources. The same is true for setbacks, and also for the footprint of the improvements, unless the improvements are new dwellings, in which case the dwelling must be within 300 feet of a road. Here, there is no consideration given in the staff decision for the impact to identified wildlife resources. Failure to even consider such impacts violates the purpose of this code provision as stated above. If the area is a wildlife resource area, that unique resource should be evaluated. Here it is not. Applicant proposes to build 8 structures on the western edge of the Subject Property, in addition to the one that is there. The plan is depicted in Applicant's Application Site Plan A1.00. (See Exhibit A, attached, and as with all exhibits, incorporated by reference.) By siting the structures so close to the property's western edge, Applicant disturbs the most valuable portion of wildlife habitat on the site, and also has the greatest possible impact on the approximately 4,750 acres of BLM land located immediately to the west. The existing shop, less than 300 feet from the western common boundary, is building #3 on DIPAOLO, TIM AND WENDY - NOTICE OF APPEAL 247 -18 -000379 -AD Page 3 18 the site plan. (See Exhibit B, attached.) The new buildings are proposed to be built between building #3 and the western property line, even closer to the treed and undeveloped area valued as habitat. The DiPaolos ask this Board to consider the impacts of this proposal on the identified wildlife resources, as is the stated purpose of the County's Code, before approving this application. B. Proposed development is incompatible with an existing use. 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 this Board. 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.... Staff notes on page 13 of the Decision that the applicant claims there are no uses requiring this separation distance, yet Mr. Calavan within 1000' feet notes that a youth activity center does operate on their property (See Exhibit C, Tax Map). This poses a problem for staff, where "youth activity center" is not a defined term in the 18.04 definitions. Staff proceeds to interpret the meaning of the term as restricted to only permitted uses. Staff then proceeds to screen for permits issued for "community, recreation, or museum" type uses, and finding none, concludes there are no youth activity centers in the area. Staff's election to make such an interpretation may be outside of the scope of staff's ministerial function, as restricted by state law. This term is critical to the determination of whether or not this application is approved. Staff's proper method of interpretation would have been to follow the Deschutes County Code. Method of interpretation is specified by Deschutes County Code at DCC 1.04.030 Interpretation of Language. 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 particular meaning in the law shall be construed and understood according to such particular meaning. Common and approved usage of this term as a unit is not available in any of the dictionaries searched. However, separate definitions of the terms are available. Webster's Dictionary defines the three terms in this context as follows: °youth° - the time of life when one is young; especially the period between childhood and maturity. DIPAOLO, TIM AND WENDY - NOTICE OF APPEAL 247 -18 -000379 -AD Page 4 18 "activity" - a pursuit in which a person is active, an organizational unit for performing a specific function. "center"- a facility providing a place for a particular activity or service. It is instructive to note that none of these definitions mention that a land use permit is required to qualify. if it is deemed appropriate that staff may make such an interpretation without precedent or Board guidance, the Code provision for interpretation of language is the best source of such methodology. That method would not likely yield the definition decided upon by staff. Alternatively, where such a term is used in legislation as recently as June of 2016 by the Board, the Board may properly be the interpreter, as the decision maker, as to its meaning. Appellant DiPaolo asks this Board to clarify its meaning in the Code, where it uses the term "youth activity center." In this context, the neighbors objected to the instant application as violating the code provision, since the 4H / FFA group referenced in the Record comment was based adjacent to the Subject Property. Children and teens meet as a group at the neighbor's property at least monthly throughout the spring, summer, and fall, as they raise their animals for fair and other competitions. The DiPaolos see this as involving youth (10-18 year olds) in an activity (4H/FFA) meetings in a center (neighbor's barn). The Board's intent in specifying this as a use that should be separated from a marijuana production facility seems clear and reasonable to the DiPaolos. Youths are not allowed to consume or possess recreational marijuana under current Oregon law. They can be attracted to it, however. In an instance such as this, where the area is very rural, screened by trees, unfenced, and the subject property will be uninhabited, it is reasonable to conclude that there may be increased risk of abuse by placing a youth activity center next to a marijuana grow operation. The DiPaolos ask this Board to review the meaning of the term "youth activity center" and apply it to the application being appealed in this action. Such interpretation will likely provide guidance to County staff in future applications as well. C. The Proposed Development's access does not meet health and safety standards. DCC 18.116.330 governs Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing. B.8. governs access, but does so only for production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants. This means that production proposals for 4,999 square feet of mature canopy do not need to comply with any requirements, by staff's interpretation. In this case, by evading the law with the omission of a 10'x 40' strip of mature canopy, the Applicant twists the law to benefit himself and harm the neighbors around him. This failure to regulate roadways also violates the County's responsibility to maintain public health and safety, both on the roads and around them. DIPAOLO, TIM AND WENDY - NOTICE OF APPEAL 247 -18 -000379 -AD Page 5 1 8 This site is located on McKenzie Canyon Road (See Exhibit C). This is a dirt road, minimally maintained, and kept up by private collection among the neighbors on an as - needed basis. It is rough, rutted, and narrow. It barely meets the needs of those using it already, and is not in condition sufficient to handle more traffic, particularly the 5.31 p.m. peak hour trips staff estimates will be created by this added use of 16,605 square feet. (See Decision page 4). Alternatively, if the County determines it is appropriate to add these trips for this use to a private road without the permission of its users, the least the County can do is make the roadway public and pave and maintain it in accordance with the new use being forced upon these neighbors. The $20,905 in SDCs being assessed will not pay for such an improvement, but since it's being collected, it may offset some of the cost necessitated by this use's approval in such a remote location. The Deschutes County Sheriff also commented on the unsafe location in the comment letter from that office. Interestingly, that comment seems to have been disregarded by staff in the Decision rendered that is now being appealed. (See Decision, Page 4.) The setback of the proposed use, some 3000 feet back from the only dirt road in the area, will make observation difficult and response time some 45 minutes to an hour; at a time when the Sheriff notes, "[W]e are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are increasing." Staff notes the Sheriff's comments, and seems to then disregard them. We ask this Board to consider the comments offered thoughtfully by the lead law enforcement department in the County and evaluate the safety concerns posed accordingly. In this case, access proposed is not safe, and should not be approved. The Board has the ability to so interpret its intent and we ask for that interpretation here. D. The Proposed Developments,water and_power feasibllity Is not met. Water supply requirements under the current code have proven to be somewhat unclear. As phrased, they do not meet the intentions of the Board literally, so it is up to the Board to interpret those requirements to reach the level of sureness the Board seeks when approving an application for a new marijuana production use. Here, the Applicant offers two sources of water: a Three Sisters Irrigation District irrigation right with a supplemental right. Staff cites to King v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2017-126, for authority that a letter from a water hauler seems to satisfy the County requirement, particularly where the Board approved the Tewalt application that offered such proof of water supply and the Board accepted it as compliant with DCC 18.116.330.B.13.b. LUBA deferred to a local government's right to interpret its own code, unless such interpretation appears clearly wrong. DIPAOLO, TIM AND WENDY - NOTICE OF APPEAL 247 -18 -000379 -AD Page 6 18 However, the subject application does not represent that it will use a water hauler. The subject application responds to this criterion as follows: "Applicant response: Please refer to written letter from Three Sisters Irrigation." The letter from TSID notes 8 acres of water appurtenant to tax lot 100. Other than that, it is a form letter noting that the subject property has irrigation water available to it from April 1 to October 31, depending on supply available. It does not say the water can be used for a federally illegal purpose. It does not say that the water can be used indoors. It does not say the location to which the water is appurtenant, but a quick examination of the Subject Property leads one to reasonably conclude it is likely appurtenant to the cleared area at the east end of the property that has been irrigated for many years, not the uncleared and rocky west end where the new facilities are proposed. There is a second water right certificated as Number 82185. It is issued to 4 owners including Ludi, who owned what is now the subject property. It is a shared right for supplemental water from a well on the subject property only during periods when TSID water is not available. It is limited to .56 CFS, with a very late priority date of 1981, as compared to the 1895 priority date of the underlying TSID right. Accompanying it is the well log of the source for the supplemental right, which is the only well on the Subject Property. This means that although there is a well on the Subject Property, it may not be used for marijuana production unless and until TSID runs out of water during the irrigation season. It may not be used under any circumstances out of irrigation season. In the unusual event that TSID would run out of water, the 4 users would share the water over the significant lands owned and cultivated by the 4 users. ' Sufficiency by this water source has not been demonstrated in such a way as to deem water supply feasible for this proposed use. The DiPaolos ask this Board to look closely at the demonstration offered by Applicant, and require a more thorough, thoughtful, and complete response than the short "please refer" answer provided above. Power source is the final, and perhaps most troubling, concern of Appellants. Power in the area is provided by CEC. The "will serve" letter provided by the Cooperative states that it is within the service area, that the existing service is sufficient, and it is willing and able to serve the location. What the letter does not say is that the existing service is sized and located solely to serve the supplemental well pump noted above and no other purpose. It was installed prior to land division of a large ranch that previously operated in the area, and without easement to do so. At that time, the entire line was under one ownership. Now the land through which the line travels is owned by Mr. Calavan who has expressly stated for the Record that he will not give permission for the upgrading of the line to required capacities (See Exhibit C). Without legal authority to pass through Mr. Calavan's property, the line may not be upgraded to the Subject Property, and so may not be made adequate to serve the needs of the proposed use. DIPAOLO, TIM AND WENDY - NOTICE OF APPEAL 247 -18 -000379 -AD Page 718 Deschutes County's Code requires that an applicant demonstrate that it is feasible to find water and power will be available to meet the needs of a proposed marijuana production facility. In this case, Applicant has not met either burden. IV. CONCLUSION Tim and Wendy DiPaolo live next to this property being proposed for marijuana production. The, neighborhood, as sparsely populated as it is, opposes the proposal because it would allow an industrial grow operation in a place where it is not compatible with existing uses and wildlife and may not feasibly be maintained because of road, water, and power shortages in an already stressed area of the County. Staff has made significant interpretations of Deschutes County Code criteria applicable to this proposal, without benefit of Board guidance as to the Board's explicit meaning or implicit intent regarding those provisions. As a result, the approved application does not satisfy the Code. The DiPaolos ask this Board to accept this Appeal and evaluate the substantial evidence we will provide to the Record, hearing this matter as a de novo proceeding. The submitted application does not meet code requirements or larger public policy needs of our community. Appellants Tim and Wendy DiPaolo ask this Board to accept this appeal and deny the subject application. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Dickson Attorney for Appellants Tim and Wendy DiPaolo Exhibits: A - Site Plan A1.00 B - DIAL measurement of existing building from BLM property line C - Tax Map of Calavan, Bertotti, DiPaolo and BLM properties referenced DIPAOLO, TIM AND WENDY- NOTICE OF APPEAL 247 -18 -000379 -AD Page 8 1 8 Exhibit page � \t /�—L OF� spy — 1', if Www"Alumt�Tit's UQ1,1 10 3.1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit C Mailing Date: Friday, August 31, 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS & DECISION FILE NUMBER: 247 -18 -000379 -AD APPLICANT: Ted Price 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road Terrebonne, OR 97760 OWNER: Marian Bertotti 863 Summer Sound Road Piney Flats, TN 37686 AGENT: Adam Stephens c/o Steele Associates Architects 686 NW York Dr., Suite 150 Bend, OR 97703 PROPOSAL: Administrative Determination to establish marijuana production in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. STAFF CONTACT: Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner 1. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16. Exclusive Farm Use Zones Chapter 18.90. Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone Chapter 18.88. Wildlife Area Combining Chapter 18.96. Flood Plain Zone Chapter 18.116. Supplementary Provisions Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance 11. BASIC FINDINGS A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Terrebonne, and is identified on County Assessor Tax Map 14-11-23 as Tax Lot 100. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 ( P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 j.(541)388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org 0www.deschutes.org/cd B. LOT OF RECORD: The property is a legal lot of record as found in lot of record determination LR -02-28. C. ZONING: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend, Flood Plain (FP), and Wildlife Area (WA) Combining. Staff notes the subject property is not located in a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat (SBMH) Combining zone but the zone is addressed herein noting the presence of Golden Eagle nests in the area. D. PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing marijuana production on the subject property in the EFU zone. The proposed maximum mature plant canopy size is 4,960 square feet in area. The proposed development is clustered in the western portion of the property and includes: 5 greenhouses - 4 flowering, 1 vegetation 1 trim building • 1 storage facility • 1 storage container • 1 shop building (existing) • Other ancillary site improvements E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is irregular in shape with frontage on McKenzie Canyon Road, a private road, along the entirety of the eastern property line. Vehicular access is via a driveway off McKenzie Canyon Road. The topography of the property is relatively level in the eastern portion of the property and rising toward the rim of the canyon to the west. Existing development is generally concentrated in the western portion of the property and includes a shop building, a pond, fencing and other ancillary improvements. Photo 1. Aerial Photo of subject Property (source: Deschutes DIAL) 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 2 of 28 Photo 2. Composite image of Subject Property Viewed from the Southeast Corner. (Source: staff photo) F. NOTICE OF APPLICATION: In accordance with Title 22, the Deschutes County Procedures Ordinance, the Planning Division sent notice of this application to property owners within 750 feet of the subject site and affected agencies on May 7, 2018. Additionally, the applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Section 22.24.030(B). The applicant submitted a Land Use Sign Affidavit, dated May 7, 2018, indicating the land use action sign was posted at the site on May 7, 2018. G. AGENCY COMMENTS: The following comments were submitted in response to mailed notice of application: 1. Deschutes County Building_ Division: NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates thatAccess, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. 2. Deschutes County Transportation Planner: I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -18 -000379 -AD for a marijuana production (growing) operation in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), Wildlife (WA), and Flood Plain (FP) zones at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, aka 14-11-23, Tax Lot 100. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access to the property or access from a private easement for a grow of more than 5,000 square feet of mature canopy. The proposal is for 4,960 square feet of mature canopy, so the 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 3 of 28 access requirement does not apply. The traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for this marijuana production operation as the application is not going through site plan review and thus does not need to show compliance with DCC 18.124.0806), which references the County's traffic study requirements. The applicant should provide proof a driveway access permit or as a condition of approval be required to obtain a driveway access permit to ensure compliance with DCC 17.48.210(A). (Staff Comment: McKenzie Canyon Road is a private road adjacent to the subject property. Pursuant to DCC 17.48`210(A), a permit is only required for access onto public right of way. Therefore, a driveway access permit is not required as a condition of approval.) Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook does not contain a categoryfor marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The iTE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The applicant has proposed 4,960 square feet of production, but the County considers all space used for production and support when calculating SDCs. The applicant has identified 8,400 square feet of greenhouses (four at 2,100 square feet each); a single large greenhouse of 3,900 square feet, two buildings, one existing and one new, totaling 3,985 square feet, and a 320 -square -foot shipping container. All these structure total 16,605 square feet (8,400 + 3,900 + 3,985 + 320), which would result in 5.31 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 16.605). Thus the applicable SDC would be $20,905 (5.31 X $3,937). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. 3. Deschutes County Sheriff: Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and set backs of the property in this type of request and how it affects the livability of our community members, in conjunction with the issue that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. In addition, we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are increasing. 4. Oregon Department of State Lands: 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 4 of 28 Mapped wetiandlwaterway features: ® The national wetlands inventory shows a waterway on the property. Oregon Removal -Fill requirement (s): ® A state permit is required for 50 cubic yards or more of removal and/or fill in wetlands, below ordinary high water of streams, within other waters of the state, or below highest measured tide where applicable. Your activity: SQA state permit will not be required for the proposed project because based on the submitted site plan the project appears to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters. The following oEganiggig05 gnd_ agenclu did,,00trespond or had;no comments: Bureau of Land Management, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Soils, Deschutes County Road Department, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Liquor Control Commission, :Oregon State Fire Marshal, Oregon Water Resource Department, Three Sisters Irrigation District, and Watermaster - District 11. H. PUBLIC COMMENTS: As of the date of this decision, staff received correspondences from 10 parties, some with multiple submittals, expressing opposition to or concern with the application. The opposition and concerns identified include: 1. Odor/Air quality 10. Traffic 2. Water 11. Road condition 3. Light 12. Property values 4. Noise 13. Visual impacts 5. Security 14. Quality of life 6. Electrical service 15. Children live nearby 7. Youth activity center/4H activities 16. Crime S. Wildlife habitat 17. Federally illegal 9. Fire hazards 18. Property configuration STAFF COMMENT: Applicable criteria and standards of the Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, County Zoning, are addressed below. The sections DCC Title 18 pertaining specifically to marijuana production in the EFU zone do not include approval criteria or standards, related to the issue areas listed in items 9-18 above. For this reason, staff does not address those issues in this land use decision. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on April 27, 2018. Because the application was missing essential information, staff mailed the applicant a letter on May 25, 2018, notifying them that their application was incomplete and requested the necessary items. The Planning division received the requested items and deemed the application complete on June 7, 2018. Based on this information, the 150th day upon which the county must issue a final local decision is currently November 4, 2018. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 5 of 28 Title 18 DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING A. CHAPTER 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM ZONES 1. Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright. S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish marijuana production on the subject property, a use permitted outright subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.116.330. Compliance with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330 is addressed below. The proposal includes the development of several structures to support the proposed use. Record submittals argue the proposed structures do not conform to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) definition of accessory structure and should not be allowed. No development is proposed in the mapped floodplain and provisions of DCC 18.96 and/or FEMA floodplain regulations do not apply to this application. DCC Title 18 is the guiding document for this land use review and DCC 18.04.030 states: "Accessory use or accessory structure" means a use or structure incidental and subordinate to the main use of the property, and located on the some lot as the main use. Accessory uses include drilling for, and utilization of, low temperature geothermal fluid in conjunction with the main use of the property. Staff finds the proposed greenhouses, trim building, and converted shop building are part of the main marijuana production use of the property and the storage facility and storage container are accessory to said use. 2. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: As shown on the submitted plot plan (sheet no. A1.00), the applicant is proposing several new buildings including five greenhouses, one trim building, one storage facility, and one storage container. As shown on the submitted elevation drawings (sheet nos. A2.00, A2.10), all of the proposed structures will comply with the 30 -foot height limit of the EFU zone. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 6 of 28 3. Section 18 16 070. Yards. A. The front yard shall be a minimum of: 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arteria/ street. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special. assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. in addition to the setbacks set forth herein, anygreater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDING: The front property line of the subject property is adjacent to McKenzie Canyon Road, a private local road, thereby requiring a minimum 40 -foot setback from the front property line. The proposed use is not a nonfarm dwelling, thereby requiring a minimum 25 -foot setback from side and rear property lines. As shown on the submitted plot plan (sheet no. A1.00), all of the proposed structures are located over 100 feet from any property line and comply with the setback requirements of the EFU zone. B. CHAPTER 18.88. WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE 1. Section 18.88.020. Application of Provisions. The provisions of DCC 18.88 shall apply to all areas identified In the Comprehensive Plan as a winter deer range, significant elk habitat, antelope range or deer migration corridor. Unincorporated communities are exempt from the provisions of DCC 18.88. FINDING: The subject property is within the Metolius Deer Winter Range. Therefore, the provisions of this chapter apply. 2. Section 18.88-030. Uses Permitted Outright In a zone with which the WA Zone is combined, the uses permitted outright shall be those permitted outright by the underlying zone. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production is a permitted use in the EFU zone and, therefore, a permitted use in the WA Zone. 3. Section 18.88,060, Siting Standards. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 7 of 28 A. Setbacks shall be those described in the underlying zone with which the WA Zone is combined. FINDING: As previously found, the proposed development complies with the setback requirements of the underlying EFU zone. 8. The footprint, including decks and porches, for new dwellings shall be located entirely within 300 feet of public roads, private roads or recorded easements for vehicular access existing as of August 5, 1992 unless it can be found that. 1. Habitat values (i.e., browse, forage, cover, access to water) and migration corridors are afforded equal or greater protection through a different development pattern; or, 2. The siting within 300 feet of such roads or easements for vehicular access would force the dwelling to be located on irrigated land, in which case, the dwelling shall be located to provide the least possible impact on wildlife habitat considering browse, forage, cover, access to water and migration corridors, and minimizing length of new access roads and driveways; or, 3. The dwelling is set back no more than 50 feet from the edge of a driveway that existed as of August 5, 1992. FINDING: The siting standard above apply to the footprint for new dwellings. The proposed development is not a new dwelling. Therefore, these criteria are not applicable. 4. Section 18.88.070, Fencing Standards. The following fencing provisions shall apply as a condition of approval for any new fences constructed as a part of development of a property in conjunction with a conditional use permit or site plan review. A. New fences in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone shall be designed to permit wildlife passage. The following standards and guidelines shall apply unless an alternative fence design which provides equivalent wildlife passage is approved by the County after consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: 1. The distance between the ground and the bottom strand or board of the fence shall be at least 15 Inches. 2. The height of the fence shall not exceed 48 inches above ground level. 3. Smooth wire and wooden fences that allow passage of wildlife are preferred. Woven wire fences are discouraged. B. Exemptions: 1. Fences encompassing less than 10,000 square feet which surround or are adjacent to residences or structures are exempt from the above fencing standards. 2. Corrals used for working livestock. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 8 of 28 FINDING: The fencing standards of this section are applicable to any new fences constructed as part of development of a property in conjunction with a conditional use permit or site plan review. Record submittals contend these criteria are applicable. DCC 18.16.020(S) lists marijuana production is a permitted use in the EFU zone and does not require a conditional use permit or site plan review. Therefore, these criteria are not applicable. Nevertheless, the submitted burden of proof statement indicates no fencing is proposed. C. Chapter 18.90. SENSITIVE BIRD AND MAMMAL HABITAT COMBINING ZONE - SBMH 1. Section 18 90.020, Definition of Sensitive Habitat Area. A. The sensitive habitat area is the area identified In the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Resource Element inventory and site specific ESEE for each sensitive bird or mammal site. The sensitive habitat area to be protected by the provisions of DCC 18.90 is defined as the area: 1. Within a radius of 1,320 feet of a golden eagle, bald eagle, prairie falcon nest, or a Townsend's big eared bat hibernating or nursery site. 2. Within a radius of 300 feet of a great blue heron rookery or osprey nest 3. Within a radius of 900 feet of a great grey owl nest site. B. Inventoried sensitive bird or mammal sites located on federal land are not subject to the provisions of DCC 18.90 unless the sensitive habitat area identified in DCC 18.90.020(A)(1) extends onto nonfederal land. FINDING: According to the Deschutes County Zoning Map the subject property is not located in the SBMH Combining zone nor does the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Resource Element inventory and site specific economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analyses include sites near the subject property: Therefore, the proposed development is not subject to the provisions of the SBMH Combining zone. Record submittals indicate there is a golden eagle nesting site in the vicinity of the proposed development. In response, staff contacted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and confirmed there are two nests in the vicinity of the proposed project. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service stated, "Any activity that might result in disturbance would require a permit." Because the nesting sites are not included on the County Zoning map or in the Comprehensive Plan, said permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service cannot be made a condition of this land use approval. Nevertheless, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service requires compliance with applicable criteria, standards, and permitting as it relates to these nesting sites. This approval does not relieve the applicant of any obligations or requirements that may affect development of the property under state or federal regulations. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 9 of 28 D. CHAPTER 18.96. FLOOD PLAIN ZONE - FP 2. Section 18.96,20, Designated Areas The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "Flood insurance Study for Deschutes County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas" revised September 28, 2007, with accompanying Flood insurance Rate Maps is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein by this reference. The Flood Insurance Study is on file at the Deschutes County Community Development Department. The Flood Plain Zone shall include all areas designated as "Special Flood Hazard Areas by the Flood Insurance Study for Deschutes County. When base flood elevation data has not been provided In the Flood Insurance Study, the Planning Director will obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation or f/oodway data available from federal, state or other sources, In determining the location of a flood plain or floodway. FINDING: An area in the eastern portion of the subject property in close proximity to McKenzie Canyon Road is zoned Flood Plain. No portion of the proposed development is located in this area. Therefore, the provisions of this chapter are not applicable. E. CHAPTER 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 1. Section 18.116.330 Mari'uana Production Processing. and Retailing. A. Applicability. Section 98.176.330 applies to: 1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and Ri zones. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish marijuana production in the EFU Zone. This section applies. B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Minimum tot Area. a. in the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. FINDING: The subject properly is approximately 21.99 acres. This criterion is met. 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, Including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 10 of 28 b. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to use greenhouses, fully enclosed site building structures, and a storage container for marijuana production. Thus, the proposed operation will be indoor. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: As an ongoing condition of approval, marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. in the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to orgreater 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 H. 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 orgreater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to orgreater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres In lot area. 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres In lot area. 40,000 square feet. FINDING: The subject property is approximately 21.99 acres and the applicant is proposing 4,960 square feet of mature plant canopy area. Based on this information, staff finds the proposed mature plan canopy area complies with the maximum mature plant canopy area allowed for a parcel of this size. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be. a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to orgreater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 11 of 28 FINDING: The subject property is zoned EFU, not MUA-10. Therefore, these standards are not applicable. S. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to associate one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (O LCC) marijuana production license with the subject property. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the marijuana production use. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from lot Lines: 100 feet. FINDING: The submitted plot plan (sheet no. A1.00) identifies that all areas and buildings used for marijuana production are setback more than 100 feet from any property line. Staff finds this standard is met. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling. 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. FINDING: The submitted plot plan (sheet no. A1.00) identifies the distance from the off-site dwelling on the property to the north is greater than 300 feet from all areas and buildings used for marijuana production. Staff utilized DIAL, the Deschutes County online property information system, to confirm this dwelling is over 300 feet from the proposed development and is the closest dwelling to the proposed development. This standard is met. C. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Board of County Commissioners ('Board") in the following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 12 of 28 247-17-000962-A - The exception should be an attempt to seek balance between the proposal and the surrounding area whether in public or private ownership. However, having public lands adjacent to a subject property intended for marijuana production should not be a driving force or. justification to allow such an exception. The Board collectively and generally agrees that the applicant did not demonstrate the reduced setbacks will afford equal or greater mitigation of the marijuana production facility to the surrounding public and private properties. The applicant is not requesting a setback exception. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school, ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school, iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures, iv. A youth activity center; and V. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCG 18.116.330(B)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed In DCC 18.116.330(8)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. C. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being In violation of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) if the use Is: i. Pending a local land use decision, ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or iii. Lawfully established. FINDING: The submitted burden of proof statement indicates there are no uses requiring a separation distance located within 1,000 feet from the proposed marijuana production use. Record submittals indicate that youth are invited to the adjacent property to the south for 4-H related activities and contend this constitutes a "youth activity center" requiring compliance with this section. "Youth activity center" is not defined in the County Code. Staff believes that permitted 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 13 of 28 community, recreation, or museum, where such use included youth -focused activities would potentially constitute a youth activity center. Presently no permits have been obtained by the nearby properties for uses beyond residential or farm use including associated accessory uses. in the EFU zone, where the adjacent properties are located, the following uses could potentially constitute or include youth activity centers: 18.16.025. Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 or DCC Section 18.16.042 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 where applicable. C. Churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches consistent with ORS 215.441 and OAR 660-033-0130(2) on non -high value farmland. J. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities subject to DCC 18.16.042. 18.16.030. Conditional Uses Permitted -High Value and Non -high Value Farmland. The following uses may be allowed in the Exclusive Farm Use zones on either high value farmland or non -high value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.16.040 and 18.16.050, and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18. E. Commercial activities thatare in conjunction with farm use, butnotincluding the processing of farm crops as described in DCC 18.16.025. H. Public park and playground consistent with the provisions of ORS 195.120, and including only the uses specified under OAR 660-034-0035 or 660-034- 0040, whichever is applicable. 1. Community centers owned by a governmental agency or a nonprofit organization and operated primarily by and for residents of the local rural community. 1. A community center authorized under this section may provide services to veterans, including but not limited to emergency and transitional shelter, preparation and service of meals, vocational and educational counseling and referral to local, state or federal agencies providing medical, mental health, disability income replacement and substance abuse services, only in a facility that is in existence on January 1, 2006. 2. The services may not include direct delivery of medical, mental health, disability income replacement or substance abuse services. M. Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 1. The home occupation shall., a. be operated substantially in the dwelling or other buildings normally associated with uses permitted in the EFU zone, 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 14 of 28 b. be operated by a resident or employee of a resident of the property on which the business is located; and C employ on the site no more than five full-time or part-time persons. 2. The home occupation shall not unreasonably interfere with other uses permitted in the EFU zone. W. A living history museum. 18.16.031. Conditional Uses on Non -high Value Farmland Only. The following uses may be allowed only on tracts in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones that constitute non -high value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and DCC 18.16.040 and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18. 8. Golf course and accessorygolf course uses as defined in DCC Title 18 on land determined not to be high value farmland, as defined in ORS 195.300. D. Private parks, playgrounds, hunting and fishing preserves and campgrounds. Staff finds that a "youth activity center" would necessarily require land use review, either an administrative determination or conditional use permit, and would not be allowed outright as part of residential or agricultural use or any accessory use thereto. Since no such permits have been obtained by any property within 1,000 feet of the subject property, staff finds that no permitted "youth activity center" exists in this area. Further, staff finds the noted 4-H related activities are a function of, and accessory to, the residential and farm uses of the adjacent property. Based on this information, these criteria are met. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. C. if the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement The written consent shall. I. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following Information; 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 15 of 28 11. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; III. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation, and Iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. FINDING: The applicant is proposing 4,960 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants. Because this is below 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants, these criteria are not applicable. Record submittals have expressed objection to the proposed use and concern with transportation impacts in the area and on McKenzie Canyon Road, a private road for much of the length of the road including adjacent to the subject property. While receptive to these concerns, staff finds there are no other traffic or transportation criteria applicable to marijuana production in the EFU zone nor does the County enforce compliance with any agreements to allow access to or use of this private road. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. FINDING: The applicant proposes to use greenhouses for marijuana production. The greenhouses will be equipped with Gro -Tech System Automated Light Deprivation equipment. The applicant indicates'the light deprivation system will not be opened prior to either 7:20am or 20 minutes after sunrise, whichever is later and will be closed each evening at either 6:40pm or 20 minutes prior to sunset, whichever is earlier. The system will be programmed to occur automatically. Record submittals expressed general concern with need for supplemental lighting but did not provide any evidence,that the proposed lighting and related equipment will not comply with this criterion. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fullyshielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or Indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. FINDING: The proposed light fixtures are either SPYDRx PLUS or VYPRx PLUS from Fluence Engineering. The light distribution of these fixtures is 120 degrees and below the 180 degree horizontal plane. Record submittals expressed general concern with need for supplemental lighting but did not provide any evidence that the proposed lighting and related equipment will not comply 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 16 of 28 with this criterion. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. C. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. FINDING: The applicant indicates any exterior light will comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. Record submittals expressed general concern with need for supplemental lighting but did not provide any evidence that the proposed lighting and related equipment will not comply with this criterion. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(8)(10), building means the building, Including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable Interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. C. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall. i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filters) 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 (1) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 17 of 28 FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") in the following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided. King v. Deschutes County- LUBA No. 2017-126- The "report" as required in DCC 18.116.330(B)(1 0)(b) does not have to include an "as built" or "site-specific demonstration." Instead, the "report" may "rely on the opinion of an expert licensed mechanical engineer" to determine "that the proposed odor control system 'will control' odor such that the odor does not unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use of their property." The applicant submitted an odor report by Kevin Wooster, PE, a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon (#72285PE). The report states odor will be mitigated as follows for the proposed buildings: For the pole barn: No air will be exhausted to the outside environment, therefore, no odors will be emitted. Also, odors from doors opening for personnel entry and exit will be contained by the design of the structure. in the pole barn, each entrance will have a vestibule, or entry hall, with two doors, so one set of doors will always be closed as a person passes through the vestibule. For the green houses: The odor control system design includes a Benzaco Scientific Odor Armor odor control system for each greenhouse. This system is a high pressure, hose, and nozzle water scrubbing technology. St. Croix Sensory, Inc, a lab that specializes in sensory evaluation, conducted an independent Odor Armor system study, evaluating the efficacy of the system at a marijuana grow facility in Nevada. The conclusion of the study was that there was "no discernible marijuana odor" at this facility. Details of this study are included in the Appendix [of the mechanical engineer's report]. Another case study for odor control was conducted at an existing Colorado cannabis grow facility. Neighbors of the facility were prepared to file suit with local jurisdiction to shut down the site due to nuisance odor. After the Armor Odor system was installed, complaints dropped from 360 per year to less than 2 per year. The complaining neighbors then submitted letters to the judge encouraging permit renewal. Details of this study are included in the Appendix [of the mechanical engineer's report]. Benzaco has a FAQ on Odor Control paper that is helpful with understanding the technology used for odor mitigation. This FAQ is in the Appendix [of the mechanical engineer's report]. Given the structure and design of the pole barn and incorporating an Odor Armor odor control system in the green houses as described above the property complies with the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(0(10)(d)(ii) and prevents unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 18 of 28 Record submittals express general concern with odor but do not challenge the effectiveness of the proposed system to mitigate odor. Based on this information, if the system described above is constructed within the guidelines and maintained per the manufacturer's recommendations, the odor control system will control odor so as to not unreasonably interfere with neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following.- a. ollowing.a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices Is permitted. FINDING: The applicant submitted a noise report by Kevin Wooster, PE, a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon (#72285PE). The report states noise will be mitigated as follows for the proposed buildings: There are at least three noise mitigation factors to consider that are being used that allow the facility to meet the noise requirement levels. For the pole barn: 3. The HVAC equipment selected is a self-contained heat pump. An Aaon model SB with a water-cooled condenser was selected for this application. it will be installed inside a mechanical room, inside the building, completely sealed from the outside environment. Therefore, the building, i.e., exterior siding, insulation and interior siding, and the same for ceiling and the roof, will contain the noise for this unit. No vents will lead to the exterior since the cooled water from the water tower is removing the heat from the condensing coil, so no outside cooling air is required. The circulating pumps will also be installed in the mechanical room. 4. The water for the heat pump will be cooled with an adiabatic cooler located outside. The model selected is a Guntner models-GFW 080. The manufacturer's specifications state the noise level of the equipment to be 52 decibels at 30 ft. The specifications are in the Appendix (of the mechanical engineer's report. The laws of physics are such that every time the distance from the source is doubled, the decibel level is reduced six 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 19 of 28 decibels. This is the inverse square law, 20Log(D2/Dd where D2 is the distance to the property line and D, is the distance from the source of the noise from the manufactures test date. Therefore, with the property line setback from the cooler of 386 ft, the noise level at the property line will decrease 22.2 decibels (20Log(386/30) to 29.8 decibels (52-22.2). This is below the code requirement of 30 decibels. 5. The outdoor cooling towers will run intermittently when there is a call for cooling. Therefore, the noise will not be sustained, and this is also in compliance with the above code. For the greenhouses: 1, The wall fans used are Quietaire model GCS2433, GCS42100, and GCS48150. Their noise rating average is 66 dBs at 3 feet. Manufactures specifications are in the Appendix [of the mechanical engineer's report]. Again, using the inverse square law, the noise will reduce over the distance to the property line by 36.5 dBs (20Log(200/3)), resulting in a property line noise level of 29.5 dBs (66-36.5). This will be reduced significantly below 24 with the sound attenuation in the duct work as discussed below, complying with the noise code. 2. The exhaust air will also be ducted away from the fan with sound attenuated ducting using 1" K -Flex duct liner. According to the manufacturer's data, this could further reduce the noise level at the source by 27 dBs, so the source becomes 66-27=39dB. Recalculating the reduction in sound to the property line, the noise could be as low as (39-36.5) approximately 3 decibels. The sound attenuation specifications are in the Appendix [of the mechanical engineer's report]. 3. The exhaust ducting will utilize two 90 -degree turns, which by acoustical standards reduces the noise significantly more at the exhaust point. 4. The fans will be controlled by a thermostat based on air temperature, so they will cycle on and off. Therefore, the noise will not be sustained, and this is also in compliance with the above code. 5. Multiple sources of sound levels are not additive. With multiple sound sources, the total sound level added is a function of the log of the number sources, 10 log(N) where N is the number of sources. With four fans, N=4, the additive impact will be 6 dBs, added to the source of less than 24, to total less than 30 still complying with the noise code. For the Mothers room in the pole barn: 1. A Mitsubishi M series wall mounted ductless heat pump has been selected. Their noise rating average is 51 dBs at 3 feet. Manufacturers specifications are in the Appendix [of 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 20 of 28 the mechanical engineer's report]. Sound level at the closest property line will be reduced by 36 dBs (20Log (200/3)), resulting in 15 dBs (51-36) at the property line, complying with the noise code. Record submittals expressed general concern with noise but did not provide any evidence that the proposed equipment and engineer's evaluation do not comply with the noise criteria. Based on the report provided by Mr. Wooster, the design and operation of the mechanical equipment will comply with this criterion. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing. a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. C. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation, the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act, or agricultural use of the land. FINDING: The subject property is not located in the Landscape Management Combining Zone. The applicant indicates no new fencing is proposed. Staff notes there is existing fencing along the perimeter of property. The applicant indicates the existing trees and shrub cover will be retained to the maximum noting the only tree or shrub removal will be immediately adjacent to the new greenhouses. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Fencing and retention of existing tree and shrub cover shall comply with the fencing and screening standards of DCC 18.116.330(B)(12). 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 21 of 28 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department, or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider, or C. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") in the following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided. King v. Deschutes County- CUBA No. 2017-126 - LUBA implicitly determined that a water hauler can be a "water provider," and that a letter from a water hauler satisfies the "plain language of DCC 18.166.330(B)(13)" requiring "a statement that water is supplied from a ... private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider." Second, LUBA confirmed that the only code at issue is DCC 18.1 16.330(B)(1 3)(b), and the County thereby is not required "to apply any provision of the generically -described 'Oregon Water Law' to intervenors' application for an administrative decision from the county and determine whether intervenors' application is consistent with state laws governing water use." The submitted application materials include a letter from Three Sisters Irrigation District dated December 26, 2017, that indicates Certificate of Water Right #74135 includes 8.0 acres appurtenant to the subject property. Also included in the application materials is Certificate of Water Right #82185 that is appurtenant to the subject property. Record submittals scrutinize the type of water right allocated to the subject property and the legal authorization to use the water for the proposed marijuana production. In addition, record submittals question the adequacy of this water to supportthe proposed use. These assertions may be true and valid as it applies to the legal provision and use of said water rights but are not under purview of the Deschutes County Planning Division. Instead, the allocation and enforcement of water rights in this location are the jurisdiction of the Three Sisters Irrigation District and Oregon Water Resource Department. The requirement of this criterion to submit a copy of a water right permit or certificate, which the applicant provided. Based on the above information, staff finds the above standard is met. With that said, any use of irrigation water rights shall be done legally and in compliance with terms of said water right. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340- 0010. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 22 of 28 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannobinold extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. FINDING: The processing of cannabinoid extracts is not proposed. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Board of County Commissioners ('Board") in the following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided. 247-17-000038-A - A utility statement simply identifying the property location and not identifying the proposed operation, or operational characteristics such as required electrical load and timing of such electrical loads is not sufficient evidence to approve the application. The applicant provided a "will serve" letter from Central Electric Co -Operative (CEC), Inc. dated October 19, 2017. The letter states the following: Central Electric Cooperative has review the provided load information (Existing 200 amp three phase 480 volt service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Facility and is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies of Central Electric Cooperative. Record submittals question the adequacy of this service to provide power the proposed marijuana production and contend this power is used for a shared irrigation well pump. Additional record submittals note the existing service line is provided across the adjacent property to south without an easement or other formal agreement. Steve Calavan, the owner of the property to the south, has indicated in submitted comments that he is not willing allow the use or upgrade of this electrical service across his property for the proposed use. Public comment calls into question the feasibility of using or upgrading the existing electrical line. However, as specified in this criterion, the requirement is to provide a statement from each utility company stating the company is able and willing to serve the proposed marijuana production. The Board interpretation cited above requires this letter to the proposed use and electrical load. Based on the submitted letter from CEC, staff finds this criterion is met. 16. Security Cameras. if security cameras are -used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OtCC or the OHA. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 23 of 28 FINDING: The submitted burden of proof statement indicates cameras will comply with OLCC and will not be pointed in the direction of neighboring properties. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). FINDING: The submitted burden of proof indicates all waste will be stored in a secure receptacle, approved by OLCC, located in the pole barn and under camera surveillance. Staff recognizes the applicant did not explicitly indicate the receptacle would be in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. With that said, staff finds this criterion can be met through the OLCC licensing process and through an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee at all times. 18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property. a. An owner of the subject property; b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property, or C. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. FINDING: The subject property is not in the MUA-10 Zone. These criteria do not apply. 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(8)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(8)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016. FINDING: The subject property was not a lawfully established medical marijuana grow site. This criterion does not apply. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited. i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 24 of 28 Ii. A form stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; Ili. A commercial activity, as described In ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop, and Iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. C. in the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the some property as marijuana production: I. Guest Lodge. ii. Guest Ranch. Ili. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort. V. Public Parks. vi. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. viii. Bed and Breakfast. Ix. Room and Board Arrangements. FINDING: The submitted burden of proof statement indicates none of the prohibited uses described above will be present on the property. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. D. Annual Reporting 1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: d. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: I. land use decision and permits. Ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. Ili. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code, authorizes 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 25 of 28 permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. C. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(97). FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting obligation of this section is required.. Compliance with this requirement shall be a condition of approval. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings, staff concludes that the proposed marijuana production can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. V. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDCs) Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The applicant has proposed 4,960 square feet of production, but the County considers all space used for production and support when calculating SDCs. The applicant has identified 8,400 square feet of greenhouses (four at 2,100 square feet each); a single large greenhouse of 3,900 square feet; two buildings, one existing and one new, totaling 3,985 square feet; and a 320 -square -foot shipping container. All these structure total 16,605 square feet (8,400 + 3,900 + 3,985 + 320), which would result in 5.31 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 16.605). Thus the applicable SDC would be $20,905 (5.31 X $3,937). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. VI. DECISION 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 26 of 28 APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. VII. ONGOING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the approved grow building. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. B. Indoor Production: Marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. C. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall not exceed 4,960 square feet at any time. D. OLCC Licensee: Only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the marijuana production use. E. Li htin : Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. F. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. G. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. H. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 1. Water: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340- 0010. 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 27 of 28 ). Security,Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC. K. Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee at all times. L. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(8)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. M. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. N. Permits: The applicant shall obtain any permits required through the Deschutes County Building Division and Environmental Soils Division. The applicant shall complete all conditions of approval and initiate the use within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Written by: Matthew Martin,.AICP, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 247-18-000379-AD/Price Page 28 of 28 Current Situation in Deschutes County as of February 7th, 2019 • On January 28th, Deschutes County Health Services received reports that a Clark County resident with measles symptoms visited Deschutes County on Saturday, Jan. 19 and Sunday, Jan. 20, during the early contagious period of the illness. • On January 30th, Oregon Health Authority confirmed that the Clark County resident who visited Deschutes County tested positive for measles. • The communicable disease team is actively working with health care providers and people who were exposed to contain disease spread. • There are no known cases of measles in Deschutes County. Communicable Disease Team Actions In response to this exposure, the communicable disease team took the following actions during the first week, January 28th through February 1 st: • Worked with the facilities where exposures occurred to get information about who may have been exposed. • Called and/or emailed 486 Deschutes County residents to notify them that they were at an exposure site and to help them take steps to stop the spread of the virus. • Reviewed immunization records of 388 people who were exposed to determine who was most at risk. • Answered 180 calls on the communicable disease reporting line, these included: 0 72 phone calls from healthcare providers seeking consultations, from 1/29-2/4 0 108 phone calls from concerned members of the public, from 1/29-2/4 • Nurses are actively monitoring 16 Deschutes County residents who are unvaccinated and were at one of the exposure sites. Active monitoring means that a nurse reaches out daily to check in and see if they are experiencing any measles symptoms until the incubation period ends (2/10). Communication Actions • 16 media interviews were completed. • 3 Health Alerts were sent to healthcare providers to ensure that they had current information and recommendations. o 175 healthcare providers are currently on the distribution list for Health Alerts. 2 Facebook Posts were published, each reaching over 23,000 people. 2 webpages were created: o For the general public: www.deschutes.org/measles o For healthcare providers: www.deschutes.org/health/page/measles-healthcare- providers Cost and Staff Time Analysis From the initial report on January 28, 2019 of a potential measles exposure in Deschutes County, 15 staff members have participated in the investigation response. This includes the core team of 7: the communicable disease team, epidemiologist, preparedness coordinator, and a public health manager. The additional 8 staff members who participated in the response include: the health officer, immunization clinic nurse, management, and administrative staff. Below are the total hours spent on the investigation and salary cost of the core team of 7 during the first week, January 28th through February 1 st. January 28th - February 1 st Running Total Hours (for the core team of 7 leading the investigation and response) 330 hours Running Total Salary Cost (not including benefits) $ 15,544 Below are the total hours spent on the investigation and salary cost during the first week, January 281h through February 1 st. January 28th - February 1 st Running Total Hours (for the 15 team members participating in the investigation and response) 430.19 hours Running Total Salary Cost (not including benefits) $ 17,555 General Information on Measles • Measles is a highly contagious, generally non -lethal, vaccine -preventable disease. • MMR vaccine is highly effective in preventing measles. Deschutes County's overall immunization rate for measles is: o Childcare/Preschool Facilities: 88% up-to-date for measles vaccination o K-12: 94% up-to-date for measles vaccination • The symptoms of measles start with a fever, cough, runny nose and red eyes, followed by a rash that usually begins on the face and spreads to the rest of the body. • People are contagious with measles for four days before the rash appears and up to four days after the rash appears. This means that people can be contagious days before they know they are sick. • People exposed to measles can become symptomatic up to 21 days after the exposure date. 80th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY --2019 Regular Session House Bill 3063 Sponsored by Representative GREENLICK, Senator THOMSEN, Representatives HELT, MITCHELL, SCHOUTEN, WILDE; Representatives DOHERTY, PRUSAK, WILLIAMS, Senator WAGNER SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Removes ability of parent to decline required immunizations on behalf of child for reason other than child's indicated medical diagnosis. Directs Oregon Health Authority to establish outreach and education plan regarding disease control in schools. Declares emergency, effective on passage. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to health care; creating new provisions; amending ORS 433.102, 433.267, 433.269 and 3 433.273; and declaring an emergency. 4 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 5 SECTION 1. ORS 433.102 is amended to read: 6 433.102. (1) Nothing in ORS 433.090 to 433.102 is intended to affect the responsibility of a parent 7 or guardian to have a child of that parent or guardian properly immunized. 8 (2) Nothing in ORS 433.090 to 433.102 is intended to require immunization or tracking of any 9 child otherwise exempt from immunization requirements under ORS 433.267 (1)(b) [or (c)]. 10 SECTION 2. ORS 433.267 is amended to read: 11 433.267. (1) As a condition of attendance in any school or children's facility in this state, every 12 child through grade 12 shall submit to the administrator, unless the school or facility the child at - 13 tends already has on file a record that indicates that the child has received immunizations against 14 the restrictable diseases prescribed by rules of the Oregon Health Authority as provided in ORS 15 433.273, one of the following: 16 (a) A document signed by the parent, a practitioner of the healing arts who has within the scope 17 of the practitioner's license the authority to administer immunizations or a representative of the 18 local health department certifying the immunizations the child has received; or 19 (b) A document signed by a physician or a representative of the local health department stating 20 that the child should be exempted from receiving specified immunization because of indicated med- 21 ical diagnosis[; or]. 22 [(c) A document, on a form prescribed by the authority by rule and signed by the parent of the 23 child, stating that the parent is declining one or more immunizations on behalf of the child. A document 24 submitted under this paragraph:] 25 [(A) May include the reason for declining the immunization, including whether the parent is de - 26 clining the immunization because of a religious or philosophical belief; and] 27 [(B) Must include either:] 28 [(i) A signature from a health care practitioner verifying that the health care practitioner has re - 29 viewed with the parent information about the risks and benefits of immunization that is consistent with NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. LC 2452 HB 3063 1 information published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the contents of the vac - 2 cine educational module approved by the authority pursuant to rules adopted under ORS 433.273; or] 3 NO A certificate verifying that the parent has completed a vaccine educational module approved 4 by the authority pursuant to rules adopted under ORS 433.273.1 5 (2)(a) A newly entering child or a transferring child shall be required to submit the document 6 described in subsection (1) of this section prior to attending the school or facility. 7 (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, a child transferring from a school in the 8 United States must submit the document required by subsection (1) of this section not later than the 9 exclusion date set by rule of the authority. 10 (3) Persons who have been emancipated pursuant to ORS 41913.558 or who have reached the age 11 of consent for medical care pursuant to ORS 109.640 may sign those documents on their own behalf 12 otherwise requiring the signatures of parents under subsection (1) of this section. 13 (4) The administrator shall conduct a primary evaluation of the records submitted pursuant to 14 subsection (1) of this section to determine whether the child is entitled to begin attendance by rea- 15 son of having submitted a document that complies with the requirements of subsection (1) of this 16 section. 17 (5) If the records do not meet the initial minimum requirements established by rule, the child 18 may not be allowed to attend until the requirements are met. If the records meet the initial minimum 19 requirements, the child shall be allowed to attend. 20 (6) At the time specified by the authority by rule, records for children meeting the initial mini - 21 mum requirements and records previously on file shall be reviewed for completion of requirements 22 by the administrator to determine whether the child is entitled to continue in attendance. If the 23 records do not comply, the administrator shall notify the local health department and shall transmit 24 any records concerning the child's immunization status to the local health department. 25 (7) The local health department shall provide for a secondary evaluation of the records to de - 26 termine whether the child should be excluded for noncompliance with the requirements stated in 27 subsection (1) of this section. If the child is determined to be in noncompliance, the local health 28 department shall issue an exclusion order and shall send copies of the order to the parent or the 29 person who is emancipated or has reached the age of majority and the administrator. On the effec- 30 tive date of the order, the administrator shall exclude the child from the school or facility and not 31 allow the child to attend the school or facility until the requirements of this section have been met. 32 (8) The administrator shall readmit the child to the school or facility when in the judgment of 33 the local health department the child is in compliance with the requirements of this section. 34 (9) The administrator shall be responsible for updating the document described in subsection 35 (1)(a) of this section as necessary to reflect the current status of the immunization of the child and 36 the time at which the child comes into compliance with immunizations against the restrictable dis- 37 eases prescribed by rules of the authority pursuant to ORS 433.273. 38 (10) Nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving agencies, in addition to school dis- 39 tricts, which are involved in the maintenance and evaluation of immunization records on April 27, 40 1981, from continuing responsibility for these activities. 41 (11) All documents required by this section shall be on forms approved or provided by the au - 42 thority. 43 (12) In lieu of signed documents from practitioners, the authority may accept immunization re - 44 cord updates using practitioner documented immunization records generated by electronic means or 45 on unsigned practitioner letterhead if the authority determines such records are accurate. [2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 HB 3063 (13) As used in this section: (a) "Newly entering child" means a child who is initially attending: (A) A facility in this state; (B) A school at the entry grade level; (C) Either a school at any grade level or a facility from homeschooling; or (D) A school at any grade level or a facility after entering the United States from another country. (b) "Transferring child" means a child moving from: (A) One facility to another facility; (B) One school in this state to another school in this state when the move is not the result of a normal progression of grade level; or (C) A school in another state to a school in this state. SECTION 3. ORS 433.269 is amended to read: 433.269. (1) Local health departments shall make immunizations available for administration under the direction of a local health officer in convenient areas and at convenient times. A local health department may not refuse to administer an immunization to a person because the person is unable to pay for the immunization. (2)(a) Each local health department, school and children's facility shall report annually to the Oregon Health Authority on: (A) The number of children in the area served by the local health department, school or children's facility; and (B) The number of children in the area served by the local health department, school or children's facility who are susceptible to restrictable disease as prescribed by the authority's rules pursuant to ORS 433.273. (b) Each school and children's facility shall report annually to the authority on the number of children in the area served by the school or children's facility who are in attendance at the school or children's facility conditionally because of an incomplete immunization schedule. (c) Each local health department shall make available to each school and children's facility in the area served by the local health department data on the immunization rate, by disease, of chil- dren in the area. Upon request, the authority shall assist local health departments in compiling data for purposes of this paragraph. (d) A child exempted under ORS 433.267 is susceptible to restrictable disease for purposes of this subsection. (3)(a) For the purpose of providing parents with the information necessary to protect their children's health, each school and children's facility shall make available the information reported and received by the school and children's facility pursuant to subsection (2) of this section: (A) At the main office of the school or children's facility; (B) On the school's or school district's website or on the children's facility's website, if avail- able; and (C) To the parents of the children who attend the school or children's facility, in the form of a paper document or electronic communication that includes the information in a clear and easy to understand manner. (b) The information required to be made available under paragraph (a) of this subsection must be made available at the beginning of each school year and not later than one month after the date that children may be excluded as provided by ORS 433.267. [31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 HB 3063 (4) The administrator of a school or children's facility shall maintain immunization records of children, including children who are in attendance at the school or children's facility conditionally because of an incomplete immunization schedule and children who are exempted as described in ORS 433.267 (1)(b) [and (c)]. SECTION 4. ORS 433.273 is amended to read: 433.273. The Oregon Health Authority shall adopt rules pertaining to the implementation of ORS 433.235 to 433.284, [which shall include, but need not be] including, but not limited to: (1) The definition of "restrictable" disease; (2) The required immunization against diseases; (3) The time schedule for immunization; (4) The approved means of immunization; (5) The procedures and time schedule whereby children may be excluded from attendance in schools or children's facilities under ORS 433.267 (1)(b) [and (c)], provided that the authority includes as part of those procedures service of notice to parents; (6) The manner in which immunization records for children are established, evaluated and maintained; (7) Exemptions for schools and children's facilities, including exemptions from the reporting re- quirements of ORS 433.269 (2) and exemptions from the requirement under ORS 433.269 (3) to make information available; and (8) The implementation of ORS 433.282 and 433.283[;]. [(9) The process for approving a vaccine educational module;] [(10) Criteria for a vaccine educational module, including the requirement that a vaccine educa- tional module present information that is consistent with information published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concerning:] [(a) Epidemiology;] [(b) The prevention of disease through the use of vaccinations; and] [(c) The safety and efficacy of vaccines; and] [(11) Documentation required to verify completion of a vaccine educational module, including the qualifications of persons who may certify the completion.] SECTION 5. Section 6 of this 2019 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 433.235 to 433.284. SECTION 6. The Oregon Health Authority shall establish an outreach and education plan related to the implementation of ORS 433.235 to 433.284. SECTION 7. (1) Section 6 of this 2019 Act becomes operative on January 1, 2020. (2) The Oregon Health Authority may take any action before the operative date specified in subsection (1) of this section that is necessary to enable the authority to exercise, on and after the operative date specified in subsection (1) of this section, all of the duties, functions and powers conferred on the authority by section 6 of this 2019 Act. SECTION 8. This 2019 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2019 Act takes effect on its passage. [4] FYI BOCC: Op -Ed from Dr. Conway with suggested edits Time to Take a Stance Against Preventable Diseases Since Edward Jenner's development of the first effective vaccine in 1796,$o prevent smallpox,__ medicine and public health have been able to greatly diminish many deadly infectious diseases through the widespread immunization of children. One example was diphtheria, which caused tremendous mortality among American children. After the introduction of an effective vaccine, the death rate dropped over 99% in the U.S. Likewise, my schoolmate, who was permanently disabled in the 1950s, was in the last American generation to suffer the ravages of polio. In order to keep these diseases from resurfacing, enough children need to be immunized to have effective "herd" protection within the school population. In the case of a highly -contagious childhood illness like measles, the effective level is between 96 and 99% immunized j(https•//*amanetwork com/iournals/iamapediatrics/fullarticle/2203906 ). When immunization -------- ------ rates fall below the necessary level for "herd immunity", it becomes very easy for an infectious disease to spread (https-://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/``whatifstop.htm). When we have high community immunization rates, we are not only protecting our own children from serious diseases, we are also protecting those in our community who are medically fragile or too young to receive vaccines. Unfortunately, due to the rise of misinformation and the fact that many U.S. parents haven't seen the devastating effects of these diseases, there has been an increase year after year of parents refusing vaccination for their children. Vaccination exemptions of children starting_ kindergarten in Oregon for non-medical reasons (attached graph),has continued upward (with one slight correction occurring in 2014-2015, due to the passage of SB 895 in 2014, which requires that parents receive vaccine education in order to claim a non-medical exemption for their child). While lack of vaccination and the resulting risk for vaccine -preventable diseases is generally concentrated in lower income (impoverished) populations worldwide, the pattern of non- medical exemptions in the U.S., particularly on the West Coast is the opposite, often concentrating in schools serving higher income communities. This pattern of immunization exemption rates is apparent in Deschutes county, which is now in the highest (> 8% non- medical exemptions at kindergarten entry) category in Oregon. This makes our children vulnerable to serious vaccine -preventable illnesses such as measles, which is what happened in Clark County, WA last month,Clark County now as 62 reported cases of measles, which is ---------------------- creating a significant community impact. The outbreak has spread to_nej.hborinLMultnomah County, and caused a measles exposure loc_ a11y_tWt .guired eschutes County Publlc ealth,to contact numerous families of exposed children and encourage the unimmunized to be immunized. Mercifully, no local cases have occurred in our county as a result, but the cost of this response has exceeded $20.000- ------ -- Deleted: Commented [WH1]-. I would recommend that we remove j hyperlinks within text and provide them as footnotes j (although they may get edited out altogether). 11 Deleted: school Deleted: Deleted: �D let with ith — {Deleted: also Deleted:, OR rDeleted: in multiple public places in Deschutes County Deleted: requiring Deleted:our �,= Deleted: public --_— Deleted: communicable disease team Deleted: K Measles is still a deadly disease worldwide, claiming the lives of 110,000 children in 2017, primarily in developing nations with inadequate vaccination programs. Before the introduction of measles vaccine in the U S, measles sickened one-half million children and killed 500 Americans each-- ear._ Since the introduction of measles vaccine in the U.S., cases and deaths deleted: annually v = —— have dropped over 95%, but outbreaks continue to occur among inadequately vaccinated populations. After measles rapidly spread at Disneyland during an outbreak in 2014 sickening hundreds of Deleted: L -------------------------- --------- -------------- — --- -- children, California removed its non-medical exemption option for childhood vaccination requirements for school attendance. It is time for Oregon to do the same, as an essential measure to keep our children safe and well. George A. Conway, MD, MPH Director, Deschutes County Health Services Department Bend, OR george.conway@deschutes.org (541)322-7502--""iCommented [WH2]: The Bulletin requires anaddress for ..---------------._-------- ----------------- .._.--------------------.-..-- --" verification. Additionally, this will need to be signed before ILI:submitted per their op-ed policy. Time to Take a Stance Against Preventable Diseases Since Edward Jenner's development of the first effective vaccine in 1796,$o prevent smallpox,___-_--- Deleted: medicine and public health have been able to greatly diminish many deadly infectious diseases through the widespread immunization of children. One example was diphtheria, which caused tremendous mortality among American children. After the introduction of an effective vaccine, the death rate dropped over 99% in the US. Likewise, my schoolmate, who was permanently disabled in the 1950s, was in the last American generation to suffer the ravages of polio. In order to keep these diseases from resurfacing, enough children need to be immunized to have effective "herd" protection within the school population. In the case of a highly-contagious childhood illness like measles, the effective level is between 96 and 99% immunized (https•//iamanetwork comZiournals/iamagediatrics/fullarticle/2203906 ). When immunization rates fall below the necessary level for "herd immunity", it becomes very easy for an infectious disease to spread (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm). When we have high community immunization rates, we are not only protecting our own children from serious diseases, we are also protecting those in our community who are medically fragile or too young to receive vaccines. Unfortunately, due to the rise of misinformation and the fact that many U.S. parents haven't seen the devastating effects of these diseases, there has been an increase year after year of parents refusing vaccination for their schoolchildren. Vaccination exemptions of children starting kindergarten in Oregon for non-medical reasons (attached graph) has continued upward (with one slight correction occurring in 2014-2015, due to the passage of SB 895 in 2014, which requires that parents receive vaccine education in order to claim a non-medical exemption for their child). While lack of vaccination and the resulting risk for vaccine -preventable diseases is generally concentrated in lower income (impoverished) populations worldwide, the pattern of non- medical exemptions in the US, particularly on the West Coast is the opposite, often concentrating in schools serving higher income communities. This pattern of immunization exemption rates is apparent in Deschutes county, which is now in the highest (> 8% non- medical exemptions at kindergarten entry) category in Oregon. This makes our children vulnerable to serious vaccine -preventable illnesses such as measles, which is what happened in Clark County, WA last month, now with 62 reported cases. The outbreak also spread to Multnomah County, OR and caused a measles exposure in multiple public places in Deschutes County requiring our public health communicable disease team to contact numerous families of exposed children and encourage the unimmunized to be immunized. Mercifully, no local cases have occurred in our county as a result, but the cost of this response has exceeded $20K. Measles is still a deadly disease worldwide, claiming the lives of 110,000 children in 2017, primarily in developing nations with inadequate vaccination programs. Before the introduction of measles vaccine in the US, measles sickened one-half million children and killed 500 Americans annually. Since the introduction of measles vaccine in the US, cases and deaths have dropped over 95%, but outbreaks continue to occur among inadequately vaccinated populations. After measles rapidly spread at Disney Land during an outbreak in 2014 sickening hundreds of children, California removed its non-medical exemption option for childhood vaccination requirements for school attendance. It is time for Oregon to do the same, as an essential measure to keep our children safe and well. George A. Conway, MD, MPH Director, Deschutes County Health Services Department Bend, OR seorge.conway@deschutes.org (541)322-7502 • An immunization rate of roughly 96-99% percent is necessary for a population to achieve "herd immunity" for measles (Maimuna S. Majumder, MPH',' et al. JAMA Pediatrics, 2015: 169(5): 494-495. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0384) • Schools with immunization rates lower than 95% are at greater risk for a vaccine preventable disease outbreak such as the measles outbreak happening in Clark County right now. • The best defense against vaccine -preventable diseases, such as measles, whooping cough, and polio, is a well -immunized community. When we vaccinate our children, we are not only protecting them from serious diseases, we are also protecting those in our community who are medically fragile or too young to receive vaccines. • Greenlick's bill would eliminate non-medical exemptions for unvaccinated school children. The goal is to protect those children who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons or who are too young to receive vaccinations. • In 2018, 372 of 1670 schools (22%) had 2 dose measles vaccination rates falling below 93%, the approximate herd immunity threshold for measles (includes grades K-12 and sites with 10 or more students) (Oregon Immunization Program, 2019). pp C0 LO d' co N Ir- O jdWGX3 W83,10d 9 Wz L HOZ 9 Wz 9 HOZ VWZ E HOZ ZIOZ �Wz 0 Wz 600Z 8002 LOOZ 9002 5ooz voOZ EOOZ ZOOZ WOZ OOOZ 666 866 L66� 966 966 V66� C66� Z66 X66 066 6861 886 L96� 986 0 0 N L 0 -0 cn aD U C Lancet retracts 12 -year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines Published at www.emaj.ca on Feb. 4 Twelve years after publishing a landmark study that turned tens of thousands of parents around the world against the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine because of an implied link between vaccina- tions and autism, The Lancet has retracted the paper. In a statement published on Feb. 2, the British medical journal said that it is now clear that "several elements" of a 1998 paper it published by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues (Lancet 1998;351[9103]:637-41) "are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation." Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, declined through a spokesper- son to speak to CMAJ about this issue. In the original paper, Wakefield and 12 coauthors claimed to have investi- gated "a consecutive series" of 12 chil- dren referred to the Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine with chronic enterocolitis and regressive develop- mental disorder. The authors reported that the parents of eight of the 12 chil- dren associated their loss of acquired skills, including language, with the MMR vaccination. The authors con- cluded that "possible environmental triggers" (i.e. the vaccine) were associ- ated with the onset of both the gastroin- testinal disease and developmental regression. In fact, as Britain's General Medical Council ruled in January, the children that Wakefield studied were carefully selected and some of Wakefield's research was funded by lawyers acting for parents who were involved in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. The council found Wake- field had acted unethically and had shown "callous disregard" for the chil- dren in his study, upon whom invasive tests were performed. When the original article was picked up by the general media, the findings Dr. Andrew Wakefield speaks to media in London, England on Jan. 28 after the Gen- eral Medical Council ruled that he acted unethically in doing his research into a link between Measles Mumps Rubella vaccinations and autism. were fuelled by speeches and public appearances in which Wakefield rec- ommended single vaccines rather than the combined MMR. Many parents seeking a cause for their children's ill- ness seized upon the apparent link between the routine vaccination and autism, say Canadian researchers who laud the retraction. "I think a lot of families were look- ing for a reason, so they were extremely vulnerable (to this explanation)," says Jeanette Holden, a geneticist at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. Holden, whose brother is autistic, heads the Autism Spectrum Disorders — Canadian–American Research Consor- tium. "The problem is that this had dra- matic health consequences, which was that people just didn't vaccinate their children," she adds. In the United Kingdom, the Health Protection Agency attributed a large CMA1 • MARCH 9, 2010 • 182(4) © 2010 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors measles outbreak in 2008 and 2009 to a concurrent drop in the number of chil- dren receiving the MMR vaccine. Pock- ets of measles — which can be fatal — have also cropped up in Canada and the United States as a result of parents' refusal to vaccinate. "In the course of my discussions with families it's almost invariable that the measles question comes into play," says Dr. Suzanne Lewis, a pediatrician and clinical professor of medical genet- ics at the University of British Colum- bia in Vancouver. "I was quite thankful to see the retraction — it's long overdue," she adds. Both Holden and Lewis, who is also a member of the Autism Spectrum Dis- orders — Canadian–American Research Consortium, questioned the article's original heft, given its small sample size. "Why The Lancet published it is completely beyond me," Lewis says. E199 "The risk -versus -benefit equation was really tipped the wrong way by this research that was so egregious." She also decried the "millions, if not tens of millions of dollars" that have been spent on additional studies to validate or disqualify the original Wakefield study. The Lancet first investigated the paper in 2004, after allegations of mis- conduct by Wakefield and the other authors came to its attention. But after an investigation, the Royal Free and University College Medical School and The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust published a statement in the journal say- ing that they were "entirely satisfied" that the children in the Wakefield study "had been subjected to appropriate and rigorous ethical scrutiny" (Lancet 2004. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15711-5). At that time, The Lancet said its edi- tors found no evidence that the authors intended to deceive them, including about the way the children were selected. However, the editors expressed regret that "aspects of fund- ing for parallel and related work and the existence of ongoing litigation ... were not disclosed to editors." But the journal did not withdraw the paper, cit- ing the "public interest in the issue." Despite the retraction, many autism advocacy groups and parents continue to defend Wakefield, as they are mak- ing clear on blogs such as the Age of Autism, in electronic comments responding to articles about the retrac- tion, and on the website of Generation E200 CMAJ • MARCH 9, 2010 9 182(4) Rescue, a group founded by actors Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. The "conspiracy theory" that vac- cine manufacturers are hiding the truth about MMR and autism is fuelled by parents' need to know what is causing autism, says Margaret Spoelstra, execu- tive director of Autism Ontario, despite the fact that no large study has repli- cated Wakefield's findings. "We know that autism has a genetic cause and that there are environmental factors that we don't understand yet," Spoelstra says. "There's enormous pressure in the field to come up with those answers." — Laura Eggertson, Ottawa, Ont. DOI: 10. 1 503/cmaj. 109-3179 N i 0 w 0, .� x ti z— C �_. W Ln �� O L.± � o 0 oC) Z o �- • yo r �o \ o O 6801 O w "' N O o co G1 N 0 0 � o ■� N U )o-0 000 a �. LO o UL- o :\moo ~ \° L� UOoo :. O 0 N _ dCD A aU �o x A 0 0- C14 1 00 V N�Cfl A �ob ° �o h M N 3e 5o 80- O ■0 aT7 co O � O uW ? c ao W o0 V �o r O m C N — L 0 M CM N O o F: r co C"! p 7�7N x Wcy? Ch 0 3 w� CD L 5o 80- O O aT7 co O � O ? c ao o0 00 co � / U CN R x a r y o O o — _ O U c�v o N .00) 0 O a� Q05 0 p M Z 04 1 1 O 00 ❑0❑ -00, C) o Imm o �. O O O CO 'o -O -0-0--o o d (0 0 o 1 00 V CV d' 0 A �C) IM at - N 0 O ur M Q. 00 � 00 � QOI W N J �00 LO o LO 0 0ll o � 0 Z o 3 wM C N C1 M a > c }� N v, J o O N O Ci M o U / / Cd o Lq A O �� O -y �o — U N Is � Is CN O. vi 0 0 N M y O OR vo o �. O O O CO 'o -O -0-0--o o d (0 0 o 1 00 V CV d' 0 A �C) IM No \C\ 0\ 00o It fl0 V N d 0 A n� N ,O Q -- E W M .v O � L O o, O CD Z p r N G?O t:mo N W � 0 .a N V M CQ 0 0 x Lo � O o C o Le, O �o � . o-0 110 N Z sow, 3 w� 0 0 x Lo � O o C o Le, 0 N o� o � °o U N 0 L � O M� o � N -11 0 M M m O N A N o \ , \ o N(0 Cp 00 1 00 V N (0 A as Em a o O M Iq U CN r O o 1 e 1` U co O O o O F5 M o� o � °o U N 0 L � O M� o � N -11 0 M M m O N A N o \ , \ o N(0 Cp 00 1 00 V N (0 A as Em �\ oLo �o 0 CO U' U' ch 0 LO 70 U �o �o o a ri �o N. 0 00 � � 0 Z O � a _rte :5o } co WD O � A m o \ \ \ o N�(0000 0 V N d'(0 A co `-m _ '79 -o'- V N d C0 A DDD �. N O � -o-' -o-'O N�0001 000 V Nd'A �. IN IN TIN U, 00 G� 0 yo h 0- q N 0 0 O 0 0 O (0 �. Ch U M o o 00 o\ \\-.,0 ;T(0 0 N 1 1 00 V Nd'(0 A �00 0 dC �o 3 � N O � O x o� o U M M on a N�CflaO00 V N d- CO A �o � N �T7 �to l W LO O Qi L Zo E U y Zo 3 N G1 p t r M N L 0 v O� /� �7 0o 00 bA O M s G Uco co sf oti P. co �00 0 dC �o 3 � N O � O x o� o U M M on a N�CflaO00 V N d- CO A .O E \� 0 W LO tQ C O •v � •a G1 d L E 0 C LO Z 0 = N 04 r N LMd i N co o m ~ 0 x 0 c co o� N 0 O � N x 0 N om a c6 N It C0 1 00 00 V N d' (0 A sem, 0 AS °m a � o S LO L6 a u F—I o C6 N It C0 1 00 00 V N d' (0 A r: o g Lo N oU-) O � N P N d' C0 'o -o' 0 00 V N d- (0 A U N (Cf L c 0 U (Cf O E 0 4- a� 0 E 0 O O ..0 U N N C 0 Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 718-725 �� doi: 10. 1093/jlb/lsw057 M Advance Access Publication 22 November 2016 New Developments Measles, misinformation, and risk: personal belief exemptions and the 10 IS I R"Mm- Johnathan Bowes Department of Science and Society, Duke University, Durham, NC. Corresponding author. E-mail: johnathanbowes(a)gmail.com INTRODUCTION Across the United States, children entering schools are required to get a series of vac- cinations that includes the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine! Designed to prevent those three devastating childhood illnesses, the MMR vaccine has proven highly effective and low risk. By the year 2000, decades of the vaccine's use in the US led to the official elimination of measles in this country;2 during those decades, chil- dren had severe, vaccine -associated adverse reactions so infrequently that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not report them as causally linked.' Nonetheless, a now -retracted 1998 paper linked the MMR vaccine with the devel- opment of autism. This paper set off the most -recent anti -vaccination movement—a wave of fear and mistrust of vaccines (and particularly of MMR) that persists in some communities to this day.' Because of a clustering of such communities in affluent re- gions of Cahfornia,5 epidemiological conditions in the state became favorable for a new, 1 State MMR Vaccination Requirements, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/schoolsurv/schimmrgmt.asp (accessed Oct. 6, 2016) (in `State Vaccina- tion Requirements' box, choose `MMR -Measles, Mumps, Rubella' from the dropdown menu labeled `Vaccine:'). 2 Declan Butler, Measles by the Numbers: A Race to Eradication, 518.7538 NATURE 148-49 (2015), http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/Sl8l48a (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines & Immunization: Possible Side-effects from Vaccines: MMR Vaccine Side-effects, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.litm#mmr (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 4 Andrew J. Wakefield et al., RETRACTED: Ileal -lymphoid -nodular Hyperplasia, Non -speck Col- itis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children, 351.9103 TIME LANcE'r 637-41 (1998), http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIISO140-6736(97)11096-0/falitext (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 5 Tracy A. Lieu et al., Geographic Clusters in Underimmunization and Vaccine Refusal, 135.2 PEDIATRIcs 280-89 (2015), http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/2/280 (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School. This is an Open Access arti- cle distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re -use, please contact journals.permissions &oup.com 0 0 0 CDQ 0 0 3 0 c ro 0 0 cc -n m 0° c W N 0 MOP Measles, misinformation, and risk . 719 widespread outbreak of measles.6 Such an outbreak began at Southern California's Dis- neyland in early 201 S.7 As the outbreak spread to 23 other states and the District of Columbia, it reignited debates about states' exemptions from their MMR mandates. Those exemptions fall into two categories: medical and non-medical. Generally, the latter category further di- vides into religious exemptions and philosophical exemptions; the latter of these often becomes the tool that anti -vaccine parents use to avoid MMR Though only two states (California and Vermont) have entirely eliminated their philosophical exemptions in response to the Disneyland outbreak, several other states have at least considered either restriction or complete elimination of philosophical exemptions as a means to improve vaccination rates. In doing so, those states have sparked debates about the ethics of MMR immunization mandates and their exemptions. This paper first outlines some of the basic science around measles and the MMR vaccine. This science is essential to understanding the debates around the vaccine ex- emption laws. This paper then discusses the different types of exemption laws with a focus on who uses them. After summarizing the specific circumstances of the 2015 Disneyland outbreak, this paper considers the two main sides of the ethical debate around vaccine exemption. This consideration leads to the conclusion that states con- sidering changes to their vaccine exemption laws should balance the concerns of both those who support and those who oppose vaccines. Striking that balance will be cru- cial to developing the right changes to the laws around the MMR vaccine—which will promote higher vaccination rates and prevent future harm to children from measles outbreaks. MEASLES AND ITS TRANSMISSION Measles is a viral infectious disease that affects humans—primarily young children. Measles' symptoms characteristically include generalized rash and fever; symptoms can include cold symptoms, conjunctivitis (pink eye), and Koplik spots (white spots on the inside of the cheeks). The rash lasts between a few days and a week, though the other symptoms tend to appear before the rash. Measles can be fatal in some cases.8 The measles virus is transmitted between people through one of two ways: (i) mi- croscopic droplets that remain airborne for up to two hours; or (ii) direct contact with secretions from an infected person's nose or throat.9 On average, it takes 10 days for the virus to incubate in the human body, and a person can be infectious several days before developing the rash associated with the disease. 10 Because of these factors, measles spreads both easily and quickly. Estimates for the transmissibility of measles (represented through the basic reproduction rate, or Ro) 6 Karen Kaplan, Vaccine Refusal Helped Fuel Disneyland Measles Outbreak, Study Says, L.A.'TIMrs (Mar. 16, 201 S, S:30 PM), http://wvow.]atimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-disneyland-measles-under-vaccination- 201S0316-story.html (accessed Oct. 6, 2016), Id. 8 Department of Health & Human Services, State Government of Victoria, Australia, Measles, https: //www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/infectious-diseases/disease-information-advice/measles (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). v Id. 10 Id. 720 . Measles, misinformation, and risk mark it as a disease that can easily cause epidemics. In North America, the Ro for measles has been roughly estimated at 12.5.11 In practical terms, this means that the average US child infected with measles would spread the disease to more than a dozen other children—were it not for measles vaccination through the MMR vaccine. THE MMR VACCINE AND ITS EPIDEMIOLOGIC EFFECTS The MMR vaccine is a multi -dose, live attenuated vaccine 12 most often required for US kindergarteners and seventh graders. (Some jurisdictions, such as Arkansas, also require that incoming college students have the vaccine; 13 others also offer a version of the vaccine that includes protection for varicella, or chicken pox, in addition to the standard three viruses.) The CDC recommends that children receive their doses of the vaccine while in two specific age ranges: one dose in the few months after their first birthday, and the second dose while between the ages of four and six.14 When given via this schedule, the standard vaccine confers immunity to measles (and the other two viruses) to 97% ofvaccinated children. The remaining 3% may still contract one of those diseases, though often with milder symptoms. is Beyond the fairly minimal risk of non -immunity, there remains some risk for a small number of adverse reactions. The most severe of those potential reactions include an acute allergic response to the vaccine's components, deafness, long-term seizures, and permanent brain damage. 16 However, such responses are rare: They only occur in one out of every one million cases (or 0.0001%). The vast majority of adverse re- actions, including rashes and fevers that occur in 5% and 16% of cases, respectively, are both temporary and mild. 17 Even with the rarity of severe reactions, clinicians dis- courage the vaccination of children if they show signs of susceptibility to those re- actions. Clinicians also discourage vaccination of children who are not well enough to receive the vaccine (eg those undergoing treatment for cancer or those who have HIV/AIDS).ls In ideal situations, both those who are immunized but not fully immune and those who cannot be immunized still receive the vaccine's full protection—albeit indirectly. That indirect protection, termed herd immunity, requires high rates of vaccination to surround and shield those vulnerable to the disease by those made invulnerable through vaccination. High rates of vaccination make it more difficult for a vulnerable person to be in close proximity to an infected one. Because proximity is necessary for the 11 Nigel J. Gay, The Theory of Measles Elimination: Implications for the Design of Elimination Strategies, 189 J. INFECT. Dis. (Supplement 1) S27-35 (2004), https://jid.oxfordjournals. org/content/189/Supplement'I/S27.full.pdf (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines &Immunization: Measles —Q&A aboutDisease&Vaccine, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supra note 1. 14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines & Immunization: Measles Vaccination, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 15 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines & Immunization: Measles — Q&A aboutDisease &Vaccine, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/fags-dis-vac-risks.htm (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 16 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccine Information Statement: MMR Vaccine, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.pdf (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supra note 3. 18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supra note 1.6. 0 0 0 v 0 - CD Q_ 0 3 v 3 0 C -0 0 0 3 v CD v w w N v w W CD 0 n CD a' c v N O Measles, misinformation, and risk . 721 transmission of measles, herd immunity makes it more difficult for children vulnera- ble to infection to actually become infected. To achieve herd immunity for measles, the vaccination rate must be roughly 96% or higher.19 As such, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several US territories require that children entering schools and childcare centers (even ones not operated by the government) be vaccinated with at least the MMR dosage recommended by the CDC. VACCINE EXEMPTION LAWS AND THEIR USERS Nonetheless, policy makers have left certain limited exemptions to their states' vac- cine mandates in place. Because of their eligibility limits, exemptions theoretically al- low for only a small number of children to avoid vaccination. As such, while main- taining a high immunization rate overall, exemptions recognize situations in which the vaccination of specific children would be inappropriate. Medical exemptions are al- lowed, for example, in situations where clinicians deem it medically unsound to vacci- nate a child—such as for children who are immunocompromised through chemother- apy or HIV/AIDS. But in addition to medical exemptions, most states have, at least historically, also allowed parents to receive exemptions for their children on two non-medical bases: religious beliefs and philosophical (ie non -religious, personal) beliefs. The religious belief exemptions focus on communities of faith. They take into ac- count that a number of religious groups and denominations follow doctrines incon- sistent with modern vaccination. Some of these groups disfavor only some vaccines because aspects of their production violate their beliefs; until recently, these groups in- cluded Roman Catholic congregations, which opposed the rubella 27/3 -strain vaccine because of its developmental origins in cells derived from an aborted fetus. 2' Others, including the Church of Christ, Scientist (often known as Christian Science), oppose vaccines in and of themselves. 21 Though not all members of these religious groups seek exemptions to states' MMRmandates, many of those who are strict adherents will. Be- fore 2015,48 states and the District of Columbia had laws allowing for religious exemp- tions to their vaccine mandates 22 (Figure la). Unlike these faith -based exemptions, philosophical exemptions focus on individu- als rather than on communities: In jurisdictions that do not combine their religious and philosophical exemptions, the latter cater to people who, for deeply held reasons, object to allowing the vaccination of their children. Many who have such personal beliefs con- sider themselves as part of an anti -vaccination movement that began in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This movement, which has its strongest influence in the US and the UK, got its start because of a 1998 `Lancet' paper linking the MMR vaccine to autism. Despite the subsequent retraction of that paper—and the medical community's repu- diation of its lead author, Andrew Wakefield—many anti -vaccine parents seek personal 19 Maimuna S. Majumder et al., Substandard Vaccination Compliance and the 2015 Measles Outbreak, 169.5 JAMA PEDIATRICS 494-95 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.201S.0384 (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 20 John D. Grabenstein, What the World's Religions Teach, Applied to Vaccines and Immune Globulins, 31.16 VACCINE 2011-23 (201.3), http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/SO264-410X(13)00189-8 (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 21 Id. 22 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supra note 1. 0 0 0 0 v Q w rl I 07 CD 0 -n m s= v N 0 722 . Measles, misinformation, and risk (a) (b) 1i Figure 1. (a & b) State vaccine exemptions. States in red allow medical, religious, and personal belief exemptions; states in yellow allow medical and religious exemptions; states in green only allow medical exemptions. (a) State vaccine exemptions before 2015. (b) State vaccine exemptions since 2015. In that year, California eliminated all its non-medical exemptions, and Vermont eliminated its personal belief exemptions. belief exemptions on the grounds that MMR and other immunizations pose a dan- ger to their children. 23 To ensure that such misunderstandings and misinformation do not influence the decisions of people seeking philosophical exemptions, some states have required that vaccine -objecting parents consult with a clinician before the state 23 Andrew J. Wakefield et al., supra note 4. Measles, misinformation, and risk . 723 grants an exemption. 24 Prior to 2015,19 states allowed for personal belief exemptions 25 (Figure 1a). Despite the individual focus of these exemptions, however, many people who use them have tended to cluster together and form communities.26 Tending to appear in affluent and homogeneously Caucasian areas—where access to a high standard of med- ical care is the norm—these communities inevitably led to childhood vaccination rates that fall far below the thresholds required for effective herd immunity. 27 Many com- munities with such sub -par rates of immunization have developed in California, where some schools and counties have seen MMR vaccination rates fall to only 25% for the 2014-15 school year. 28 THE DISNEYLAND MEASLES OUTBREAK AND ITS LEGAL EFFECTS Those conditions set the stage for an outbreak of one or more of the diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine. Beginning in late December 2014 and lasting well into 2015, such an outbreak began at the Disneyland amusement park in Anaheim, California. An unknown index patient (believed to have traveled from the Philippines) brought the measles virus to Disneyland in mid-December. Because of the incubation period for measles, that patient may not have shown any symptoms of the disease before ar- riving at the park. Similarly, children infected at the park often did not begin to show symptoms before returning home and passing the virus on to others. At its peak, the outbreak caused 113 children in multiple states to develop measles. Thankfully, the out- break caused no known deaths. 29 In the aftermath of the Disneyland measles outbreak, a number of states began to reevaluate their vaccine exemption laws—particularly their philosophical exemptions. By late July, California had repealed both of its non-medical vaccine exemptions; the state now joins Mississippi and West Virginia in having the least lenient exemption laws. Though nine other states had at least considered similar measures by the summer of 2015, only Vermont removed an entire class of exemptions (personal belief from its legal code (Figure lb). Meanwhile, none of the four measures introduced in 2015 to establish new philosophical exemptions succeeded.30 THE ETHICAL DEBATE ON MMR VACCINE EXEMPTIONS The legal reevaluations that the Disneyland outbreak sparked have reopened debates on the ethics ofvaccination mandates, particularly for MMR Generally speaking, two sides 24 National Vaccine Information Center, Vaccine Laws, http://www.nvic.org/vaccine-laws.aspx (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 25 State Allowable Exemptions for Schools, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/schoolsurv/scbimmrgmt.asp (accessed Oct. 6, 2016) (in the `State Allow- able Exemptions for Schools' box, choose 'All Grantees' from the dropdown menu labeled `Grantees:'). 26 Tracy A. Lieu et al., supra note S. 27 Matthew Bloch et al., Vaccination Rates for Every Kindergarten in California, THE N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 6 2015), http://www.nytimes,com/interactive/2015/02/06/us/california-measles-vaccines-map.html (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 2s Id. 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Measles Cases and Outbreaks, http://www.cdc.gov/measles/ cases-outbreaks.html (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 30 Y. Tony Yang et al., Measles Outbreak as a Catalyst for Stricter Vaccine Exemption Legislation, 314.12 JAMA 1229-30 (201,S),http://dx.doi.org/I0.I001/jama.201S.9579 (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 724 . Measles, misinformation, and risk exist in those debates: One side supports vaccine mandates as a public good and rejects at least some non-medical exemptions; 31 the other side insists that vaccine mandates in- fringe individual (parental) rights and duties that philosophical exemptions protect. 32 Taking the latter position, many non -religious `anti-vaxxers' sincerely believe that immunizations, and the MMR vaccine in particular, are either more dangerous than clinicians will admit or somehow not conducive to the natural development of a child.33 Parents opposed to vaccines on these grounds thus see their opposition as an essential means of protecting their children from harm. As such, they argue that non-medical exemptions based on personal beliefs help them to properly fulfill their responsibilities as parents. 34 Given the anti -authority bent of many such arguments, this fundamental proposition of the anti -vaccine side resonates with a high proportion of young people— many of whom have just reached typical parenting age in the US.35 For the rare immunization opponents, who both recognize the benefits of vaccines for the general populace while still fearing harm to their children from them, these parental rights positions take on a deontological character. Parents adopting such ar- guments hold that their individual duties as the protectors of their children's health takes precedence to any duty to protect the children of their neighbors—or to com- ply with state vaccination mandates. As such, though they do not want to block others from participating in state MMR mandates, they themselves use (and advocate for) philosophical exemptions. The other side of the debate (which includes the CDC, the American Medical As- sociation, and this country's most well-respected authorities on health and medicine) completely rejects the belief that the MMR vaccine is an unreasonably risky medi- cal intervention. Instead, these proponents of vaccination tout the fact that vaccine - preventable diseases (VPDs) pose a much greater threat to the health and wellbeing of children than the vaccines themselves; they thus support the vaccine mandates as the primary means of establishing medically effective herd immunity rates around the country. Health authorities have pointed to the documented connections between the Disneyland outbreak and low vaccination rate clusters to support their position. 36 If some anti -vaccine parents approach the issue of vaccine exemptions from a de - ontological basis, then most clinicians and medical lay people who advocate for fewer exemptions take a utilitarian stance. That stance focuses on achieving the greatest ben- efit for the most number of people. As such, it justifies the rare cases of serious harm (such as allergic reactions to the MMR vaccine) by balancing them against the exten- sive benefits that vaccines bring; after all, though one in one million children will have 31 Taylor Wofford, American Medical Association Announces New Mandatory Vaccine Policy, NEWSWEEK (Jun. 9, 2015, 4:27 PM), http://www.newsweek.com/american-medical-association-time-mandatory-vaccines- 341413 (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 32 National Vaccine Information Center, About National Vaccine Information Center, http://www. nvic.org/about.aspx (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 33 VacTruth.com,IOReasonsNotToVaccinate,http://vactruth.com/2014/12/12/10-reasons-not-to-vaccinate/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 34 California Coalition for Vaccine Choice, SB 277, http://www.sb277.org/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 35 Alexandra Sifferlin, Millennials More Likely to Say Vaccines are a Parent's Choice, TIME (Feb. 2 2015), http://time.com/3692402/young-people-vaccines/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2016). 36 Maimuna S. Majumder et al., supra note 19. Measles, misinformation, and risk . 725 a severe adverse reaction to their first MMR dose, most of the remaining 999,999 will not contract a life-threatening disease. IMPLICATIONS OF THE ETHICAL DEBATE The goal for state law- and policy -makers around the MMR vaccine must be to prevent future harm to children through measles outbreaks. The best way to do so is to raise vac- cination rates to the levels needed for herd immunity. But given the opposing concerns and approaches of the pro -vaccine side (public health) and the anti -vaccine side (indi- vidual liberty and individual health), achieving this solution unilaterally will be practi- o cally impossible. While state governments can usually succeed in making the case that public health concerns outweigh the parental duties claimed by anti-vaxxers, doing so cl does not encourage willing acceptance of necessary immunizations. Neither, too, does 3 writing off anti -vaccine parents as uninformed or unreasonable—in other words, as be- yond hope. Though their views do not align with mainstream science and medicine, the involvement of such parents will be necessary in any effort to improve vaccination rates. After all, parents must consent to any treatment of their children. 3 In working to avoid future outbreaks of measles and other VPDs in the US, it is im- perative for politicians and other policy makers to approach the issue of vaccine exemp- tions in a way that appeals to both sides—or at least in a way that shows both sides a 0 sufficient amount of respect. Doing so will ensure good vaccine policy. Doing so should 1� also encourage more willing compliance with that policy from the maximal number of parents. By approaching anti -vaccine parents in ways that demonstrate respect (rather than ways that cast policy makers as uncaring bureaucrats), they maybe more willing to W hear what policy makers have to say. The outcomes of better policy and better compli- ance would ensure the best possible situation for public health and measles prevention. w For states still considering changes to their vaccine exemption laws, this balanced w approach could take the form of regulatory parsimony. Often referenced by the Presi- dent's Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, the idea of regulatory parsimony Cn is to use the minimum amount of governmental power necessary to ensure ethical 0') behaviors. In the context of the MMR vaccine, these states could evaluate how little G' change is needed to adequately guarantee sufficient immunization rates for herd im- munity. In California, for instance, the vast majority of exemptions that parents sought CD for their children were philosophical ones.37 The state's elimination of religious exemp- tions will thus have an insignificant effect on the MMR vaccination rates in low -rate clusters; while those exemptions are of incredible importance for the small minority m that uses them, they have little actual importance to public health efforts to combat measles. Leaving religious exemptions largely intact (or only limiting them in cases of epidemics) could have effectively demonstrated a degree of concern for parental R decision-making rights while still decreasing the risk for future dangerous outbreaks. Cc Such a demonstration in other states could start to convince skeptical, anti -vaccine parents that their interests can be aligned with those of public health officials. More overtures towards anti -vaccine parents will likely need to follow, however. When policy makers engage with those who oppose vaccination for their children, protecting chil- dren from measles outbreaks will become much more feasible. 37 Matthew Bloch et al., supra note 27. 3 fD a a a a a a OF m u m n w m m m m m ry m m " �+ Z 7 V N Ro A S N O O 7a li m m C c 0 0 0 0 MZ n O � d � 3 0 � t+ ca 3 3 g 3 � O � d � 3 � � 0 3 � � N N 4l A w a ^ 3 p C � aai 0 9 N m vii W N W O � m » O � O O a � � 3 p � D m � a N O N W N > 0- 0 (D (D 0 (D (D (D C (D 0 1 --1 C: < (D(D o 0 = (T) F -i - (D (A N. 0 (A CPD A 0) (1) --.h Z3 Ln V) - 0) h j:�' fA n 0 E7 w ® ci 3 r+ a) ® (1) r+ C: 0 0 rD C: a) C: m :5 D _0 Qj r+ X x 0 l< l< --h (A -7 r+ r) (1) r+ LA (D r-+ a) (1) ET 0 < (D C: e-+ C: un 0 Ul) 3 (r) 0 r+ 3 c: (A < C: 5) _0 a) Ul) a) r) r+ FDr+ n 0- _0 0 (1) o r+ M 0 V) 0- (D aj 0 _0 0 n 0 0 0 r+ (1) e-+ < m r+ (D < LA e-+ r+ 0 r) (1) r) FA r) — (1) rl+ ai o- c a) C) r) (D (A (D e-+ r_ V) _0 u a) LA. 0 0 r) CD r+ Ul) (D U) C) < (D r-+ e-+ r-+ (1) V) rD (1) (D C) n -1 :3 n r+ C) :3 0 0 0 (D (A LA C) 0 o - c — 0 r+ < — (1) l< (1) r) 0- Z3 ® CDa) aj 3 0- a) r+ 0 -0 m 3 0- 0 0 Ln e -i- J - n -0 V) Ul) =3 co (D 0 e-+ r) 00 e 0 CJ 3 e-+ _0 -410- 0 Q) (D 3 Qj r+ -0 Ul) (D r) r+ (A Ur) c!1 PD n r+ (D LA r+ 0- ZT 0 0 (D C: E3 00 _0 �,-) C: r-+ :n D r+ Ul) 0 "o e-+ --% - (D l< r) Oj r+ -0 U) 0) 0ai C: Ln _0 Ul 3 CL 0) ni 0 r+ LA < l< C: 0 Ln 0- + CD Uo 0 r+ 0 (D m aj 3 r-tl -n I (D --h CD C -n (D LA m a) D&, 0 3 a FQ* 0N ® c ci r+ CD C e 3 (D (D (D DL 21,�i LA 0 < 0 0- (D 0 Q0 r+ (D (D l/� jll i j 11 i. L may. I t El hTv ` L I �jII I I r) N (A aj V � ® IX aj � (D w r- rt - (D m C • N r, 3 x • 4t 00 m un ® w 00 X 0 0� �.LA * , <; , 0 jll i j 11 i. L may. I t El hTv ` L I �jII I I • r, 3 x • �.LA * , <; , 0 •'• - • s rD Ul O •£ jll i j 11 i. L may. I t El hTv ` L I �jII I I m Or a rt 0 rD m Q ai V 9 Qj 00 0 00 11 0 rD QL �_ p J E Pja C 9