The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-339-Minutes for Meeting July 17,2019 Recorded 7/31/2019BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal CJ2019-339 07/31/2019 8:39:32 AM IIIIIIlIIIIIIIII 1111111 HI II FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BOCC MEETING MINUTES 10:00 AM WEDNESDAY, July 17, 2019 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson, Patti Adair, and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and identified representatives of the media were in attendance. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 10:00 am PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: The Commissioners reported on events they attended last evening and this morning hosted by Pacific Power regarding the energy market. BOCC MEETING JULY 17, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 6 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. ADAIR: Move approval DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2019-562, and Acceptance of Dedication Deed, Document No. 2019-563, and Temporary Construction Easement, Document No. 2019-564, from Tony A. and Teresa M. Burdick for Right of Way for the SW Canal Blvd/SW Helmholtz Way Intersection Improvement Project 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2019-565, and Acceptance of Dedication Deed, Document No. 2019-566, from James D. and Peggy L. Woods for Right of Way for the SW Canal Blvd/SW Helmholtz Way Intersection Improvement Project 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2019-579, and Acceptance of Slope Easement, Document No. 2019-580, and Temporary Construction Easement, Document No. 2019-581, from Joseph A. and Barbara A. Lochner for Right of Way for the SW Canal Blvd/SW Helmholtz Way Intersection Improvement Project 4. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2019-582, and Acceptance of Dedication Deed, Document No. 2019-583, from Patricia Anne Young for Right of Way for the SW Canal Blvd/SW Helmholtz Way Intersection Improvement Project 5. Approval of Minutes of the May 1, 2019 BOCC Meeting 6. Approval of Minutes of the June 3, 2019 BOCC Meeting 7. Approval of Minutes of the June 5, 2019 BOCC Meeting BOCC MEETING JULY 17, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 6 8. Approval of Minutes of the June 11, 2019 BOCC Meeting 9. Approval of Minutes of the June 12, 2019 BOCC Meeting 10.Approval of Minutes of the June 14, 2019 BOCC Meeting 11.Approval of Minutes of the June 17, 2019 BOCC Meeting 12.Approval of Minutes of the June 19, 2019 BOCC Meeting 13.Approval of Minutes of the June 26, 2019 BOCC Meeting ACTION ITEMS: 14.Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2019-532, Special Transportation Grant Funding Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp and Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council representatives Derek Hofbauer and Drew Orr presented the funding agreement for consideration. The Board asked as to the status of the transportation service route project from Sunriver to La Pine. DEBONE: Move approval of Document No. 2019-532 ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Discussion included various other COIC projects. BOCC MEETING JULY 17, 2019 PAGE 3 OF 6 15.Continued Deliberations: Marijuana Production and Processing at 25450 Walker Road Jacob Ripper, Community Development Department presented the continued deliberations (following requested reopen record period) for the application on the subject property. After discussion and review of the application including compatibility, health and safety concerns, the Board made the decision for denial. DEBONE: Move to deny the application for 25450 Walker Road ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried RECESS: At the time of 10:43 a.m., the Board went into recess and reconvened at in the Allen Conference Room at 11:02 a.m. OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner Henderson noted that Commissioner DeBone is the Liaison to 911 and asked for an update relative to issues discussed at/by the User Board at the meetings held yesterday and last month. Discussion as to operation and management of the shared switch. A report of a recent incident where the switch was down and DC911 was not timely notified. Staff compiling information for later Governing Body and User Board consideration. Discussion of possible funding issues at the State and how ODOT will proceed relative to the statewide radio system. DC911 is a partner with ODOT but does not control the switch. BOCC MEETING JULY 17, 2019 PAGE 4 OF 6 Commissioner Henderson stated he wants more timely information updates specific to the radio system. • County Administrator Anderson reported on a notice received from the Secretary of State's Office regarding the legislative vacancy for Representative Mike McLane's seat. When a vacancy occurs in a legislative district encompassing two or more counties, each county is entitled to a certain number of votes. The vacancy must be filled by appointment by August 13, 2019. Commissioner DeBone will contact fellow commissioners. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 11:30 a.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 12:04 p.m. At the time of 12:05 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 12:42 p.m. OTHER ITEMS continued: • Commissioner DeBone suggests a discussion by the Governing Body relative to a policy regarding delayed public streaming of 911 radio traffic. County Administrator Anderson advised that law enforcement supports the delayed feed due to public safety concerns. BOCC MEETING JULY 17, 2019 PAGE 5 OF 6 ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:47 p.m. DATEDthis7 Day of Commissioners. RECORDING SECRETARY BOCC MEETING 2019 for the Deschutes County Board of PHILIP G. H DERSON, CHAIR PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR ANTHONY DEBONE, COMMISSIONER JULY 17, 2019 PAGE 6 OF 6 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BOCC MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2019 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.org/meetings. 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2019-562, and Acceptance of Dedication Deed, Document No. 2019-563, and Temporary Construction Easement, Document No. 2019-564, from Tony A. and Teresa M. Burdick for Right of Way for the SW Canal Blvd/SW Helmholtz Way Intersection Improvement Project 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2019-565, and Acceptance of Dedication Deed, Document No. 2019-566, from James D. and Peggy L. Woods for Right of Way for the SW Canal Blvd/SW Helmholtz Way Intersection Improvement Project Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 17, 2019 Page 1 of 3 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2019-579, and Acceptance of Slope Easement, Document No. 2019-580, and Temporary Construction Easement, Document No. 2019-581, from Joseph A. and Barbara A. Lochner for Right of Way for the SW Canal Blvd/SW Helmholtz Way Intersection Improvement Project 4. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2019-582, and Acceptance of Dedication Deed, Document No. 2019-583, from Patricia Anne Young for Right of Way for the SW Canal Blvd/SW Helmholtz Way Intersection Improvement Project 5. Approval of Minutes of the May 1, 2019 BOCC Meeting 6. Approval of Minutes of the June 3, 2019 BOCC Meeting 7. Approval of Minutes of the June 5, 2019 BOCC Meeting 8. Approval of Minutes of the June 11, 2019 BOCC Meeting 9. Approval of Minutes of the June 12, 2019 BOCC Meeting 10.Approval of Minutes of the June 14, 2019 BOCC Meeting 11.Approval of Minutes of the June 17, 2019 BOCC Meeting 12.Approval of Minutes of the June 19, 2019 BOCC Meeting 13.Approval of Minutes of the June 26, 2019 BOCC Meeting ACTION ITEMS 14. 10:15 AM Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2019-532, Special Transportation Grant Funding - Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator 15. 10:30 AM Continued Deliberations: Marijuana Production and Processing at 25450 Walker Road -Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner LUNCH RECESS OTHER ITEMS Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 17, 2019 Page 2 of 3 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 1111 Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need ri accommodations to make participation possible, 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 questions, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 17, 2019 Page 3 of 3 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 BOCC Wednesday Meeting of July 17, 2019 DATE: July 8, 2019 FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Continued Deliberations: Marijuana Production and Processing at 25450 Walker Road BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners held deliberations on May 1 and May 8, 2019, and discussed the topics listed in the April 24 Staff Memo and decision matrix. On May 1 the Board found the applicant had met the requirements for YACs, percent of crop processed, utility verification, odor control, and site plan review. Additionally, the Board determined that the proficiency or capability of a fire department was not a factor in this decision. The Board discussed the noise control requirement and an arrest in La Pine and how it may be a factor in this decision. The Board did not reach final determinations on these two points and continued the deliberations until May 8. Between May 1 and May 8, staff received a request from the applicant to reopen the record to submit more information regarding the arrest and the credibility argument raised by the applicant. The record was reopened on June 14 and closed on July 5, 2019. The attached memo and updated decision matrix address the two points that the Board did not reach conclusions on (noise and credibility), as well as a summary of the Board's previous deliberations and new information and arguments submitted in the reopened record period. Application information and materials can be found in the February 6, March 11, March 13, April 24, and May 7 Meeting packets: https://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Calendar.aspx and on Dial, the County's property information website: http://dial.deschutes.org/Real/DevelopmentDocs/177285 File number: 247-19-000178-A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner DATE: TO: FROM: RE: UNE' Y k,L STAFF MEMORANDUM July 10,2019 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Jacob Ripper, AICP, Senior Planner Continued deliberations of a marijuana production and processing facility, following a reopened record period. I. Background Information FILE NUMBERS: 247-19-000178-A (appeal of 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 505 -AD, 506 -SP). APPLICANT: Mark Weisheit APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Stephanie Marshall, Bennu Law LLC APPELLANT: Rowan Hollitz APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: Elizabeth Dickson, Dickson Hatfield LLP LOCATION: The subject property has a situs address of 25450 Walker Road, Bend. It is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map No. 17-14-28, as tax lot 2902. HEARING DATE: March 20, 2019 RECORD PERIOD: The record was closed at 5:00 pm on April 17, 2019. Pursuant to Board Order No. 2019-013, the record was reopened for new evidence and rebuttal beginning on June 14, 2019 and closed July 5, 2019. REVIEW PERIOD: The period for issuance of a final local decision ends August 20, 20191. 1 Pursuant to the dune 26, 2019 email exchange between staff and Mr. Weisheit, the applicant tolled (extended) the clock by 87 days when he requested that the record be reopened for the second time. This 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 $,:\ (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org spa www.deschutes.org/cd 11. Purpose The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners ("Board") held deliberations on May 1 and May 8 2019, and discussed the topics listed in the April 24 Staff Memo and decision matrix. On May 1 the Board found the applicant had met the requirements for YACs, percent of crop processed, utility verification, odor control, and site plan review. Additionally, the Board determined that the proficiency or capability of a fire department was not a factor in this decision. The Board discussed the noise control requirement and an arrest in La Pine (the "incident") and how it may be a factor in this decision. The Board did not reach final determinations on these two points and continued the deliberations until May 8. Between May 1 and May 8, staff received a request from the applicant to reopen the record to submit more information regarding the incident and the credibility argument raised by the applicant. The record was reopened on June 14 and provided periods for new evidence, rebuttal, and a final statement from the application. The reopened record closed on July 5, 2019. This memo and the attached updated decision matrix addresses the two points that the Board did not reach conclusions on (noise and credibility), as well as a summary of the Board's previous deliberations and new information and arguments submitted in the reopened record period. Additionally, the appellant was able to address a claim of new information being submitted in the applicant's original final argument. This memo and the attached matrix are designed to assist the Board in their continued deliberations. 111. Record The record, in its entirety, was presented to the Board as attachments to the February 6, March 11, March 13, April 24, and May 7 Staff Memorandums. Only those record items that have not been presented to the Board previously are attached to this memo. The record materials attached to this memo include materials submitted after the initial open record period closed and through the end of the reopened record period. This includes materials associated with the applicant's request to reopen the record for a second time. Binders containing copies of all materials in the record have also been prepared for and supplied to the Board and may be reference during the continued deliberations. IV. Discussion & Summaries The following is a summary of the arguments and points of contention and does not fully describe or explore all details raised in submissions. Section A are topics the Board has found were either met by the applicant or were not applicable to the proposal. Section B are those topics introduced would make the final decision deadline November 15, 2019, however, since the request to reopen the record was denied, staff recommends adhering to the August 20, 2019 deadline. 247-19-000178-A Page 2 of 7 during the reopened record period. Section C are those topics the Board has yet to reach a conclusion on, and are the topics appearing in the attached decision matrix. A. Previous Deliberations Topics that Address Approval Criteria: (Numbers reference the original decision matrix) 1. Youth activity center (YAC). The Board recognized its past decisions regarding YACs and recognized it as an evolving topic. Although not all Board members agreed generally what is and is not considered a YAC, all three Board members found that the nature, extent, frequency, and intensity of activities that had occurred at Boundless Farmstead did not rise to the level of a YAC. 2. 25% processing requirement. The Board found the requirement that at least one-quarter of all processed crops be grown on-site can be guaranteed through the existing condition of approval and the annual inspection process. 3. Utility verification letter. The Board found this requirement was met. The CEC will -serve letter was reviewed in deliberations and found it passed the "test" of showing the utility is aware of the use and service level they are being asked to serve. 4. Odor control. The Board discussed the proposed carbon filtration odor control system and all three Board members found the engineer's report adequately demonstrated the system could work properly. Staff discussed the option to amend a condition of approval to include the engineer's recommended filter change schedule. The Board supported the condition amendment 2-1, with one Commissioner finding the condition already required compliance with the report which included the filter change schedule and the extra language wasn't necessary. 5. Noise control. The Board discussed the engineer's noise report and the fact that 16 external HVAC units were a substantial amount of mechanical equipment. The question of how wind direction affects how noise is carried was also discussed. The Board recognized that the current code (DCC 18.116.330(B)) does not require the applicant to provide an engineer's report but that the applicant had done so. Two Board members were unsure about the level of evidence in the record, and whether the evidence supported a finding of compliance with the noise control requirements. This topic is presented in the updated decision matrix. 6. Site Plan approval criteria. The Board discussed the general concerns raised under Site Plan Review criteria (DCC 18.124) and in particular if the applicant would in the future have a locked gate on the access drive from Walker Road. The Board found the Site Plan Review criteria were met and all three Board members supported adding a condition of approval that, when and if a gate were to be installed, it be setback from Walker Road to allow stacking of vehicles outside of the right- of-way. 247-19-000178-A Page 3 of 7 Topics that may or may not address approval criteria: 1. Credibility of the applicant. The Board discussed the appellant's argument against the credibility of the applicant and especially his associates, and therefore the credibility of the applicant's materials in support of the application. The argument around credibility centered on an arrest of a business partner (Sam Onat) at another business partner's (Mustafah Soylemez) property for alleged crimes related to cannabis. One Board member found that criminal proceedings were outside the jurisdiction of the Board, while two Board members expressed a desire to learn the outcome of the District Attorney's proceedings and to have that information placed in the record. The applicant contacted staff with a request to extend the decision clock and reopen the record so as to address the topic of credibility. The applicant believed the information would be available from the DA by the end of May or early June and that it would provide clarity around any association with the people involved with the arrest. 2. Proficiency and capability of the Alfalfa Fire Department (AFD). The Board found the applicant met the requirement that processing facilities must be located within a fire protection district. The Board also found that AFD appeared capable of and prepared to respond to emergencies, but that ultimately the proficiency and capability of the AFD was not a decision point in this land use application. Topics that did not address approval criteria: Were not discussed in deliberations. B. Reopened Record Period Materials Open Record Period 1 (new evidence): Applicant: The applicant did not submit any new evidence beyond a request to reopen the record for a second time. The reasoning was to provide still -forthcoming information from the DA's office in an attempt to clear the name of the applicant's business partners, Jacob Onat and Sam Onat. Appellant: The appellant submitted a four-page statement with four exhibits, focusing on two topics - credibility of the applicant team including new arrest records for Jacob Onat, and a rebuttal to the applicant's previous final statement in regards to different types of butane used for marijuana processing. The appellant's exhibit Q addresses the links between five individuals including the applicant and his business partners, three companies, and three locations. It notes that on or before May 2 Mustafa Soylemez, Sam Onat, and Jacob Onat were removed from membership in High Dessert Agriculture, Inc. but that these individuals remained members of two other companies associated with Mark Weisheit, the applicant. 247-19-000178-A Page 4 of 7 Exhibit R contains correspondence between DA John Hummel and the appellant's attorney as well as letters regarding the arraignment of Sam Onat. The arraignment was scheduled for June 27, 2019, after the reopened record period for new evidence passed, meaning the outcome of that proceeding is not in the record for this application. Exhibit S contains arrest records for Jacob Onat that occurred on May 16. The charges listed are related to marijuana manufacture, possession, distribution, import/export, and related conspiracy charges. Exhibit T contains several articles about marijuana processing and the use of different types of solvents and the risks associated with those different types. The appellant has included these to rebut the applicant's claims that ntane is different from and safer than other types of butane solvents. It is unclear which specific approval criterion the appellant wishes to direct solvent fire risk to, beyond a general reference to public health and safety. Staff notes that in deliberations on May 1, the Board found the only requirement is that a processor be located within a fire district (or contract with one) and that proficiency of a fire district is not an approval criterion. Notwithstanding relevance to approval criteria, this submittal by the appellant resolves a potential procedural issue that the appellant previously argued, being that the applicant allegedly introduced new evidence about ntane and other types of butane in its original final statement. By granting the reopened record period, the Board has allowed the appellant to address and rebut the alleged new evidence, therefore curing any possible record issue. No other parties submitted materials. Open Record Period 2 (rebuttal) Applicant: The applicant submitted a one-page letter reflecting on the appeal and review process. The applicant points out that he did not expect his business partners to be "caught up in a potentially sordid affair" and that he is very alarmed as well. The applicant goes on to argue that this land use application is not a criminal trial of the Onats and it is premature to assume guilt. The applicant also states that the OLCC has rules and procedures in place to keep criminals out of the cannabis industry. Appellant: In a five-page rebuttal, the appellant revisits their two most recent and main points of argument along with a note that the appellant's summary of facts and arguments were presented to the Board in the original rebuttal submitted by the appellant. The first topic discussed is the arrests of Sam Onat and later Jacob Onat, both being arrested with charges related to illegal marijuana activities. The argument presented by the appellant is that these arrests show that the applicant's "team" or business partners are not credible because although they have claimed to be compliant with applicable laws, these arrests and charges prove they are not truthful. Therefore, the evidence and testimony presented by the applicant's business partners, assuminglyJacob Onat 247-19-000178-A Page 5 of 7 as he was the only one to provide testimony, are "properly reviewed with doubt". The appellant refers to the LUBA case Lee v Marion County, which the Board recently referenced in its Yee2 decision. The second argument made by the appellant focuses on the surrounding ntane and butane. Specifically, the appellant states that the applicant's claim that ntane is distinguishable from other petroleum distillates is false. The appellant references articles submitted to the record to argue ntane is similar to other petroleum distillates such as pentane and butane in terms of safety hazards. No other parties submitted materials. Open Record Period 3 (applicant's final statement) The applicant did not submit a final statement. C. Continued Deliberations Attachment 1 to this memo is an updated decision matrix designed to assist the Board in discussing the remaining appeal topics that have not been decided previously. The new matrix does not include any topic the Board has already reached a conclusion for. The Board, of course, may revisit any previously -discussed topics though, if needed. It appears to staff that the only remaining questions remaining for the Board are: 1. Is credibility of the applicant and/or the applicant's associates a factor in this decision, and if so, is there doubt about the truthfulness of any evidence? 2. Will the noise control requirement will be met? V. Conclusion & Next Steps Staff respectfully requests that the Board specify if they intend to approve or deny the application and to provide any additional findings for staff to include in the decision. At the conclusion of the deliberations, staff will draft a decision for Board consideration. The draft decision will be placed on a future meeting agenda to provide the Board with an opportunity to offer edits and feedback. Following edits, the final decision will be placed on a future meeting agenda for Board signature. VI. Record Attachments The following attachments are materials that have been entered into the record after the May 7, 2019 Staff Memorandum. Only those record items that have not been presented to the Board previously are attached to this memo. They are presented in reverse chronological order. 2 File No. 247-19-000161-A, Board Doc. No. 2019-479 247-19-000178-A Page 6 of 7 Attachments: 1. 2019-07-10 Decision Matrix v2 2. 2019-06-28 Reopened Record Period 2 - Applicant Submittal 3. 2019-06-28 Reopened Record Period 2 - Appellant Submittal 4. 2019-06-26 Email fr M Weisheit re clock extension & record dates 5. 2019-06-26 Board Order 2019-029 to consider request to reopening record 6. 2019-06-21 Reopened Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal 7. 2019-06-21 Reopened Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal - Exhibit Q 8. 2019-06-21 Reopened Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal - Exhibit R 9. 2019-06-21 Reopened Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal - Exhibit S 10. 2019-06-21 Reopened Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal - Exhibit T 11. 2019-05-10 Board Order 2019-013 to Reopen Record 12. 2019-05-07 Continued Deliberations - Staff Memo 13. 2019-05-07 Continued Deliberations - Staff Memo - Attachment 1 Board Order 2019-013 14. 2019-05-07 Continued Deliberations - Staff Memo - Attachment 2 Appellant's Motion 15. 2019-05-07 Continued Deliberations - Staff Memo - Attachment 2 Appellant's Motion - Exhibit 0 16. 2019-05-07 Continued Deliberations - Staff Memo - Attachment 2 Appellant's Motion - Exhibit P 17. 2019-05-07 Continued Deliberations - Staff Memo - Attachment 3 Applicant's Response to Motion 247-19-000178-A Page 7 of 7 Decision Matrix - 25450 Walker Road/Weisheit Board Determination and Decision Points v. F- Nc.c ' o vmNa- pu2 w o .a c .. '-' Nc o W c o o m Lal ` o E W=a CW W O. o .L 0. m c W c -6c A a a) u W 0. o w a Wc a v L ° c m vwE m Y 0 avwW>3 QLa,_ N0 cy 0 w o ac a 6j ''' Ua 7 2 O c Nu O C1 c a E 0• u 0 Wa 0_0o N m J),.uG._ ..WWu_ '..O .V 2 ON W . W Nvi > d. o' > -O0.WV i .- Z N . N IQ L "O Q m U Has the applicant demonstrated compliance with the noise control standards of DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)? A. If yes, the application may be approved. B. If no, either: 1. Condition the decision to achieve compliance; or 1. Deny the application. Staff Comments % 'a U O o ,v E v- N m'o W c H L c ''W• c V3 m_ v -cv Jr• CN Y o ,-7, E oo. O J 0 OO.Ua'0eWWa-o .2.1 :� • -p N O WWO C N w L>. L m C. a7 '0 O2,..E 00 d .c W W ,W,, a .` W W u E c o c c A '0 3 u L W a 0) W o o C CO a W a y0 V L c a v_ a al .: o o m L 0 W a a3 G O W ` t o DUW 17 T 2 , v E -"- Y W wCK $ c c "ya 03 WmaN o N c C c c „ 2a ia° c vcmo w o E 0 N INlt tOW7->"2 C 0 p -N:N G 7° .W . N u C G csocaEL'a9- mc t NN '° C0 O W p.. > C u C) L w Y pu.0 E W o F m E wU £ �Yf, NY�.- E E a • • • The Board previously deliberated on this topic but did not reach a conclusion. • The maximum sustained noise generated from mechanical equipment cannot exceed 30.0 dB(A) at a property line, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Summary of Comments in Support 'O .5 D W L ° O V c o 1.^.. t'W W W '0 L ° CO O 8 N cN L C3 O O Od Na WC al CO uW WC m L s2 a • E N _a W a. N 0,p L0l o V 000 p, W ynW c L '6u «. ` 6' cd W '0 ' _? cG N N 03 g -p W al al al > al ai ° 0o'a«'m22 °r E c co Eo wm0 o y > A as > N L E C O a ucam w cO � W N .LCCU `0E" -c U>W 0) N J D O WYy0 C uO O W N a 0 C N AWCNy W N V 1mtL W S °c , oC O N m.6 Eco'5.0n cm o. 4,cdal .@ C W 0>c ap a Q. duv C a w E 3°- ` v o -a U a✓ W ' m . Y y O P. ii O ° O 'O mC G.o'°i u qb0aC y 0Eo a —j Ga° C. W VaU. JcN!mW p. c C O 6W U N C W C LL W J y Wy)0 `00W0 o o=-WL`o1-aEYoLLOLI-1- w.0 'O o o F- O m =' F-- ._ .' • • • • • • • The worst-case scenario noise model generated by the mechanical engineer demonstrates that the loudest the mechanical equipment will be is 27.3 dB(A) at the closest property line. This is with all equipment running simultaneously. • Mechanical equipment will never all be running at once, even in extreme summer weather. Summary of Comments in Opposition m aa `m E °_, E i °i° E CU vC E N v 0 J V L W W . c O L N L 'O v Wmya o C y-0 E U'Oiw . .2 .G CH u ° C 'N N- a, ' W -6e~0 -N W Y E WV� 0 W Woc0 No o N E a 2T -0 -O Q cL OD c NWv N v T W WN. -c< pit W L U . Fp'°N ri N 'u 0 N 0 Na V LH.SWd QWC ooaasa>°aC WL C C J'O XW ww T Q °- vQIW Y+ O N in CN alp d _ u 3 o -go NJ w 3 > F3%8 0n 0 °O °aj t U 0•0 IN 1-4 .2 u L- vN rOLW° 0 E 0 E W •c E 3• 3cau° 0 .° - o 3 W d p ' N -O W Vy W.c C 'y >. 0_ N W O. 0 j Oa N a! O p a 1- O.. 1 w 03Vi l o U 1- N 0) m m E 5 U w z m • • • • • Concern regarding noise from 16 HVAC units. Topiclssue c Ww O 'O N La To N C W ' N S W 'O• N 'C W 0 V T O WCr° N2 u 0 'N_E .Do o O 'pOynSu mm 0 u` m'0 8 3 - 3 o -o 'p a a' a W a u oru ZW E m 00O • oci ,- 0 , N 0 110 a 247-19-000178-A Dear Deschutes County Commissioners and Residents, We are disheartened as we prepare this final rebuttal. Going into this project, we tried to take a different approach than others in our industry. Not only do we believe in doing things differently, but we also wanted to be embraced by our neighbors and community. Instead of setting up traditional outdoor greenhouses, like most "pot growers," we tried to set a new standard for professional cannabis operations, designing a state-of-the-art facility in an aesthetically pleasing barn -like enclosure, without ugly gates and fences, that blended in harmoniously with the bucolic landscape. We wanted to give educational tours to our neighbors and local authorities, and break the negative stigma associated with the industry. We went out of our way to engage our neighbors in the process, incorporating their feedback into our designs. We wanted to set an example for the industry, to try to change it for the better. We didn't necessarily expect everyone to buy in, but we didn't expect the vociferous and vitriolic opposition we've received. At the same time, we didn't expect our partners to be caught up in a potentially sordid affair. We completely understand the concern about the "La Pine Incident," as we are alarmed ourselves, to say the least. However, we also believe that people in this country are innocent until proven guilty, and our partners have not yet had a chance to defend themselves. As such, we feel any judgement based on their arrests and charges alone are premature, unfair, and un-American. Yet, we understand the shadow that it casts on us. So, now 18 months into this journey, we find ourselves in what seems like a perfect storm. However, in this storm, we feel it is important to stay grounded and remember that this process is governed by rules and standards. And, the rules and standards do not allow for vindictive lawyers and unfortunate business relationships to prevent the use of our farm for marijuana production and processing. Our application meets all standards and criteria for this land use, which is why it was approved initially. In the last deliberation, two Commissioners seem to have determined that a "public safety" concern could be used to deny this application, based on the "La Pine Incident." Again, while we understand the concern about that incident, we don't see how a fully -legal and highly -regulated operation (which we are offering full transparency into) poses any safety issue, regardless of whom we might have done business with in the past. The OLCC has appropriate rules to keep criminals out of the cannabis industry, and we welcome their oversight in this area. We have spent countless hours (and taken too much of your precious time) responding to conjecture and inaccuracies, and explaining things beyond the requirements of the statute. We believe that everything is on the table regarding our application and business relationships, and we do not need to rehash anything about solvents and safety. We are not trying to deceive anyone and have nothing to hide. We simply ask that this decision be made based upon the letter of the law, and the facts provided. This process is not supposed to be a criminal trial of our partners, or a debate of the pros and cons of various solvents. This process is about determining if our land and proposed developments are suitable for the production and processing of marijuana, per the codes and statutes. Finally, we can assure the County Commissioners and the Deschutes County Public that if this application is denied, Alfalfa will be losing a business that could have contributed tremendously to the local economy and community, as well as an opportunity to help improve a nascent industry with a dark past, but potentially bright future. Thank you, Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit Jacob Ripper From: Mark Weisheit <mweishe@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 3:07 PM To: Jacob Ripper Cc: Adam Smith; 'Stephanie Marshall'; Jacob Onat Subject: Weisheit Rebuttal Attachments: Final Rebuttal.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Re: Weisheit Applications for Administrative Determination and Site Plan Approval, Deschutes County File Nos. 247-18- 000504-AD/505-AD/506-SP; Appeal Application File No. 247-19-000178-A Hello Jacob, Here is our rebuttal to the appellant's submission. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks and have a great weekend, Mark 1 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 June 28, 2019 Deschutes County Community Development Department Attn: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Board of County Commissioners 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 Re: Appeal of Administrative Decision to BOCC, de novo File No. 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 505 -AD, 506 -SP Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Applicant/Owner: Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit Dear Mr. Ripper, REnL JUN 28 2019 Deschutes County CDD Hand Delivered and by email Please find the enclosed Appellant's Second Rebuttal Submittal regarding the above referenced Appeal. Thank you, in advance, for your time regarding this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Dickson Attorney for Appellant eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com EAD/hoh Cc: client BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Appellant Hollitz's Second Rebuttal Submittal (Filed June 28, 2019) In the Matter of 247-19-000178-A: Appeal of Marijuana Production and Processing Facility Administrative Approval APPELLANT: ATTORNEY: Rowan Hollitz, ("Hollitz" or "Appellant") 62311 Dodds Rd. Bend, OR 97701 Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield, LLP 400 SW Bluff Dr., Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 Attorney for Appellant eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com STAFF REVIEWER: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 PROCEEDING: File No. 247-19-000178-A de novo Appeal of Deschutes County Administrative Determination, File No. 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 505 -AD, 506 -SP to Deschutes Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT PROPERTY: Assessor's Map Designation Township 17S, Range 14E, Section 28, Tax Lot 2902, commonly referenced as 25450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 97701, approximately 40 acres in size. PROPERTY OWNER: Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit 25450 Walker Road Bend, OR 97701 APPLICANT: Mark Weisheit 501 Herondo St. #70 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 In association with Jacob Onat, Sam Onat, Mustafa Soylemez REQUEST: Approval to produce and process Marijuana Appellant Hollitz Second Rebuttal Submittal in Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Page 1 15 A. Procedural Posture of Second Rebuttal Submittal Applicant submitted this application over 1 year ago, on June 20, 2018. After a series of delays, this Board granted Appellant's first request to stay the Record prior to final deliberations and decision by the Board and reopen the Record for full submittals effective June 14, 2019. This resulted in a second open record period, a second rebuttal period, and a second Applicant final argument. The Board denied Appellant's second request to stay the Record again on June 26, 2019. Rebuttal submittals are due on June 28, 2019. Applicant's Final Submittal is due on July 5, 2019. Deliberations and final decision of the Board will follow. B. The Weisheit Application is Properly Denied Applicant team does not prove it satisfies the required criteria by substantial evidence. Because of this, its burden of proof is not met, and the application is properly denied. Because of the unusual procedural posture of this case, Appellant's First Final Rebuttal Submittal, placed in the record on April 10, 2019, has previously summarized all other facts placed into evidence on the question of whether this application meets its burden of proof. This document would merely repeat those arguments here. We ask this Board to review Appellant's First Final Rebuttal Submittal for analysis of all prior evidence offered. Here, Appellant offers analysis of the new evidence submitted into the Record since that April 10 submittal as supplement to same. 1. Applicant has not established credibility to offer reliable evidence to the Board Applicant team requested a delay of approximately 2 months to provethe team's credibility. It proposed to do this by disprovingthe criminal charges pending against Sam Onat, business partner in the related entities. Entity relationships are documented in Oregon Secretary of State records. (See Appellant Exhibit Q filed June 21, 2019.) When the Record was reopened on June 14, the applicant team entered no new information. Nothing had happened in the 2 month break to disprove the criminal charges pending against Sam Onat. In fact, the criminal accusations against the applicant team worsened. Sam Onat was charged on June 6, 2019 with: Count 1: Count 2: Count 3: Laundering a monetary instrument Unlawful delivery of a marijuana item Unlawful manufacture of a marijuana item He was ordered to appear yesterday, June 27, 2019. Results of that proceeding would constitute new evidence submitted after the June 21, 2019 deadline and so are not included here. (See Appellant Exhibit R filed June 21, 2019.) Jacob Onat, another member of the applicant team, was also arrested on criminal charges during the 2 month Record stay period. He was arrested and charged on May 16, 2019 with: Count 1 Count 2 Count 3 Count 4 Count 5 Unlawful possession of marijuana Unlawful delivery of marijuana Unlawful manufacture of marijuana Unlawful import/export of marijuana item Criminal conspiracy Appellant Hollitz Second Rebuttal Submittal in Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Page 2I5 Count 6 Count 7 Count 8 Criminal conspiracy Criminal conspiracy Criminal conspiracy (See Appellant Exhibit S filed June 21, 2019.) All 11 counts filed against the applicant team are directly related to the request they make to this Board. Applicant asks for County approval to produce and process Marijuana. The applicant team is not just generally uncredible; they are charged with violating the laws that govern marijuana production and processing precisely. This Board has paid increasing attention to the issue of applicant credibility in the past few months. Deschutes County's most recent decision in the application of Applicant Cameron Yee/Owner David House (247-19-000161-A) to convert an existing medical marijuana production facility to a recreational marijuana production facility at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road included consideration of applicant credibility. Though the decision was not finalized until June 26, 2019, after the open record period on this application had closed on June 21, 2019, Board deliberations and decision votes clearly established that credibility was a factor in the Board's decision to deny the application. This Board has considered credibility of an applicant, and so the evidence they offer, to be a relevant factor in evaluating an application. Lee v. Marion County, LUBA No. 2018-137, February 28, 2019, affirms the power of a local government to assess the credibility of evidence offered by assessing the credibility of the applicant who offers that evidence. In Lee, the applicant was required to be a resident of the dwelling. Though she claimed she was a resident, Title board of commissioners concluded that the evidence in the record failed to establish that the bed and breakfast will be operated by a resident of the dwelling, because the board of commissioners doubted that petitioner is a `resident of the dwelling...."' Similarly, this applicant team has made claims of compliance with the law that have not proved truthful. Applicant has not proven that they are credible, so the proof they offer that they satisfy relevant criteria is similarly doubtful. All representations made by applicant team in reference to satisfaction of criteria are properly reviewed with doubt. Specific criteria are as follows: DCC 18.16.025(1) DCC 18.116.330 (B)(7) DCC 18.116.330 (B)(10) DCC 18.116.330 (B)(11) DCC 18.116.330 (B)(15) DCC 18.124 Minimum 25% site source crop processing ratio Separation Distance from youth activity center Odor Control Noise Control Utility Verification Site Plan Review (Processing) "safe...site development compatible with the natural and man- made environment." It is Applicant's burden to prove it satisfies these criteria by substantial evidence in the whole record. In every instance noted above, applicant team's credibility is a factor in compliance, undermining the assurances offered. This Board may reasonably deny the instant application. Appellant Hollitz Second Rebuttal Submittal in Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Page 3 15 2. Applicant's Proposal to use NTANE is a threat to Public Health, Safety, and Welfare Applicant Jacob Onat told this Board in Public Hearing on March 20, 2019 that he is the expert on processing on the Applicant team. He told this Board first that he'd use ice water to process, then on direct questioning from Commissioner Henderson, admitted that petroleum distillates would be used. He specified "Ntane" on the Record. (See Appellant Exhibit P, Submitted April 24, 2019 for transcription of public hearing.) Appellant has placed evidence in the Record to prove that petroleum distillates are highly dangerous when used to refine marijuana compounds. Applicant has tried to argue that Ntane, a hydrocarbon petroleum distillate related to Pentane or Butane, is distinguishable from other distillates, so that material submitted into the Record regarding the hazardous nature of Applicant's proposed processing operation is inapplicable. Appellant has performed further research, and submitted same (see Exhibit T, Submited June 21, 2019). These articles on Cannabis Extraction Technology offer evidence from various sources: Pages 1-10 Pages 11-12 Pages 13-20 Pages 21-26 Pages 27-28 Reuters, June 4, 2019, "Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard." Marijuana Business Magazine, October 2018, "Extraction Smackdown: Employee Safety" www.anaiyticglcannabis.coiii1 May 3 ,2018, "The best cannabis extraction methods for Marijuana Concentrates" Marijuana Business Daily, U.S. Edition, October 30, 2018, "Choosing the right cannabis extraction method: Experts weigh in on CO2, hydrocarbon & ethanol" Extractor Hub: Sharing Cannabis Extraction Technology "Which Ntane is the best for me?" These articles are offered to prove that "ntane" is not a unique and separate chemical that's safer than other petroleum distillates, as Jacob Onat claims. It is in a class of highly hazardous chemicals that must be heated to work, further exacerbating the fire and safety hazard. This class of chemicals is recognized by authoritative and respected journalistic sources (Reuters) as a "deadly, destructive hazard." It is used in various combinations with other similar chemicals to extract at least 113 cannabinoids sought by processors. C. Conclusion Appellant Hollitz appeals this administrative approval and has presented a strong case to this Board to deny the instant application. Applicant is legally required to satisfy relevant criteria, including: DCC 18.16.025(1) DCC 18.116.330 (B)(7) DCC 18.116.330 (B)(10) Minimum 25% site source crop processing ratio Separation Distance from youth activity center Odor Control Appellant Hollitz Second Rebuttal Submittal in Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Page 4 15 DCC 18.116.330 (B)(11) DCC 18.116.330 (B)(15) DCC 18.124 Noise Control Utility Verification Site Plan Review (Processing) "safe.. .site development compatible with the natural and man- made environment." Applicant has not met its burden to so prove. The application is properly denied. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Dickson Attorney for Appellant Hollitz c:\users\Iiz dickson\desktop\hollitz\appellant second rebuttal submittal june 28, 2019.docx Appellant Hollitz Second Rebuttal Submittal in Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Page 5 15 Jacob Ripper From: Mark Weisheit <mweishe@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 12:21 PM To: Jacob Ripper; 'Stephanie Marshall; Adam Smith Subject: RE: Weisheit Applications - Request for Extension of Record Hi Jacob, That sounds good, thank you! From: Jacob Ripper <Jacob.Ripper@deschutes.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 8:00 AM To: 'Mark Weisheit' <mweishe@yahoo.com>; 'Stephanie Marshall' <stephanie@bennulaw.com>; Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Weisheit Applications - Request for Extension of Record Importance: High Mark, Thank you for your email. According to my records, the clock has already been extended by 128 days. Pursuant to DCC 22.20.040(C) and ORS 215.427(5) the 150 -day clock can only be extended by a total of 215 days, which leaves 87 days left, just short of three months. If September 30 were the reopening date, that doesn't leave enough time for the Board to deliberate, staff to write a decision, and bring the decision back for edits and signature by the Board. I'd proposed reopening the record one week earlier on September 23. Please confirm ASAP as we will draft the order this morning and attempt to bring this before the Board today. Thank you, Jacob Ripper, AICP 1 Senior Planner 117 NW Lafayette Ave 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 385-1759 1 Mail: PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708 000 Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey 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. From: Mark Weisheit <mweishe@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 7:48 PM To: 'Stephanie Marshall' <stephanie@bennulaw.com>; Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org>; Jacob Ripper <Jacob.Ripper@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Weisheit Applications - Request for Extension of Record Hello Jacob and Adam, Apologies for not following protocol here, but we are trying to save money on legal costs. I will confer with Stephanie in the morning, but given the time -sensitivity, and to try to get the ball rolling, please consider this formal notice that we would like to toll the clock and re -open the record. Given that the DA has not yet concluded his investigation into the La Pine incident, we (the applicants) request that the Board further table its deliberations at this point, and extend the clock for 3 months (pursuant to DCC 22.24.160), to provide ample time for a decision to be made on charges associated with the La Pine incident. Based on this timeline, 1 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Re -opening the Record for the Submittal of Written Materials on File Numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18- 000506 -SP and 247-19-000178-A * * * ORDER NO. 2019-029 WHEREAS, the Appellant, Rowan Hollitz, appealed the Planning Division's decision in application numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18 -000506 -SP; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") agreed to hear this appeal, file number 247-19- 000178-A, de novo under Order No. 2019-004; and WHEREAS, the Board conducted a public hearing and established post -hearing periods, for the submittals of written materials; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, Mark Weisheit, has agreed to extend the land use clock by 87 days pursuant to an email exchange with Mr. Weisheit ("Weisheit email exchange"), and attached as Exhibit A to this Order, making the last day on which the County shall take final action on these applications November 15, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a re -opening of the public hearing record for the submittal of written materials via the Weisheit email exchange, and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that additional testimony and information regarding this matter is of paramount importance in this proceeding; and WHEREAS, the Board may at its discretion reopen the record in accordance with DCC 22.24.160; and, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The record on file numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18 -000506 -SP and 247-19-000178-A shall be reopened on September 23, 2019, for written evidence and argumentation. Section 2. The written record for all parties for new evidence and argumentation is extended to 5:00 p.m. September 30, 2019, but only for written evidence and argumentation. Section 3. The written record of all parties is extended to 5:00 p.m. October 7, 2019, but only for response to the evidence and argumentation per Section 2. Section 4. The written record for final argument by the Applicant is extended to 5:00 p.m. October 14, 2019. Section 5. The Planning Division shall give written notice to all parties that the record is being reopened, in accordance with DCC 22.24.160(B)(2). HI Page 1 of 2- ORDER NO. 2019-029 Dated this of June, 2019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner EXHIBIT A — Weisheit email exchange dated June 26, 2019 Page 2 of 2- ORDER NO. 2019-029 EXHIBIT A Jacob Ripper From: Jacob Ripper Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 8:00 AM To: 'Mark Weisheit'; 'Stephanie Marshall'; Adam Smith Subject: RE: Weisheit Applications - Request for Extension of Record Importance: High Mark, Thank you for your email. According to my records, the clock has already been extended by 128 days. Pursuant to DCC 22.20.040(C) and ORS 215.427(5) the 150 -day clock can only be extended by a total of 215 days, which leaves 87 days left, just short of three months. If September 30 were the reopening date, that doesn't leave enough time for the Board to deliberate, staff to write a decision, and bring the decision back for edits and signature by the Board. I'd proposed reopening the record one week earlier on September 23. Please confirm ASAP as we will draft the order this morning and attempt to bring this before the Board today. Thank you, Jacob Ripper, AICP 1 Senior Planner 117 NW Lafayette Ave 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 385-1759 1 Mail: PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708 Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey 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. From: Mark Weisheit <mweishe@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 7:48 PM To: 'Stephanie Marshall' <stephanie@bennulaw.com>; Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org>; Jacob Ripper <Jacob.Ripper@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Weisheit Applications - Request for Extension of Record Hello Jacob and Adam, Apologies for not following protocol here, but we are trying to save money on legal costs. I will confer with Stephanie in the morning, but given the time -sensitivity, and to try to get the ball rolling, please consider this formal notice that we would like to toll the clock and re -open the record. Given that the DA has not yet concluded his investigation into the La Pine incident, we (the applicants) request that the Board further table its deliberations at this point, and extend the clock for 3 months (pursuant to DCC 22.24.160), to provide ample time for a decision to be made on charges associated with the La Pine incident. Based on this timeline, the applicants propose re -opening the record on Monday, September 30, 2019, followed by a 7-7-7 extended record and final argument schedule. If a decision is made public sooner than that, then the applicants would alert you (and the Board and Counsel Smith), and request that a 7-7-7 extended record and final argument schedule commence sooner than September 30, 2019. Thank you, Mark Weisheit & Elizabeth Weisheit 1 BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Appellant Hollitz's Second Open Record Period Submittal (June 14 -June 21, 2019) In the Matter of 247-19-000178-A: Appeal of Marijuana Production and Processing Facility Administrative Approval APPELLANT: ATTORNEY: Rowan Hollitz, ("Hollitz" or "Appellant") 62311 Dodds Rd. Bend, OR 97701 Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield, LLP 400 SW Bluff Dr., Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 Attorney for Appellant eadickson a@dicksonhatfield.corn STAFF REVIEWER: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 PROCEEDING: File No. 247-19-000178-A de novo Appeal of Deschutes County Administrative Determination, File No. 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 505 -AD, 506 -SP to Deschutes Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT PROPERTY: Assessor's Map Designation Township 17S, Range 14E, Section 28, Tax Lot 2902, commonly referenced as 25450 Walker Road, Bend, OR 97701, approximately 40 acres in size. PROPERTY OWNER: Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit 25450 Walker Road Bend, OR 97701 APPLICANT: Mark Weisheit 501 Herondo St. #70 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 In association with Jacob Onat, Sam Onat, Mustafa Soylemez Appellant Hollitz Second Open Record Period Submittal in Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Page 1 1 4 A. Procedural Posture of Second Open Record Period Submittal This Board has granted Appellant request to stay the Record prior to final deliberations and decision by the Board, and reopen the Record for full submittals effective June 14, 2019. Prior to that time, these procedures had occurred: 6.20.18 Application filed 7.20.18 Incomplete Letter sent 1.16.19 2.05.19 2.19.19 3.20.19 4.03.19 4.10.19 4.17.19 4.24.19 5.01.19 5.08.19 Jacob Onat request to join application Administrative Decision issued Appeal filed Public Hearing on Appeal before BOCC Open Record Submittals filed Rebuttal Submittals filed Applicant Final Argument filed Appellant Motion to Strike filed BOCC Deliberations #1 BOCC Deliberations #2 (Applicant request for stay granted) Applicant requested the approximately 6 week stay to allow pending criminal charges against Applicant's business partner, Sam Onat, to be favorably resolved, and so conclusively answer concerns expressed by the Board about the credibility of the Application team. This submittal is offered as a supplement and update to Appellant's prior submittals and testimony already in the Record. B. New Evidence 1. Credibility of Applicant Team is Further Damaged A). Vertical cannabis monopoly with interlocking directors still related. Applicant Weisheit has associated with Mr. Jacob Onat and his father, Sam Onat, as established by Jacob Onat's 1.16.19 admission and their testimony in Public Hearing. We now know these parties are associated by interlocking entities that together would comprise a fully integrated vertical cannabis monopoly, including production, processing, retailing, and apparently criminal activity associated with these operations. See Entity Chart, with updates effective 5.2.19, attached as Exhibit Q. • Page 1 is the original entity structure, a chart prepared by Steven Paulding. • Page 2 reflects changes made as of 5.2.19 which attempt to remove the connection of Sam Onat and Mustafah Soylemez, updated by Steven Paulding by state records. Appellant Hollitz Second Open Record Period Submittal in Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Page 2 14 • Page 3 is the original Articles of Incorporation for High Desert Ag, Inc. with registered agent Mustafah Soylemez and incorporation by him, with Mark Weisheit, Jacob Onat, and Sam Onat listed as members. • Page 4 shows the original Treasurer as Mustafah Soylemez. • Page 5 is the Amended Annual Report. • Page 6 reflects the 5.2.19 change listing Mark Weisheit as President and Secretary. It is important to note that this change to High Desert Ag Inc. does not change the other interlocking directorate relationships in the related entities. This attempt by Mr. Weisheit to shield himself from the bad acts of his associates and business partners is too little, too late. B). Sam Onat charged with three felony counts, not exonerated as Applicant claimed. Applicant claimed on the Record to the Board and to neighbors that Sam Onat was innocent of charges related to his La Pine arrest in February. The Deschutes County District Attorney has since charged him with: 1) Unlawful manufacture of marijuana 2) Unlawful delivery of marijuana 3) Laundering a monetary instrument See Exhibit R, District Attorney Information on Sam Onat. This packet supplied by D.A. Hummel includes confirming correspondence in summary, the District Attorney Information document, and charging letter compelling Sam Onat to appear in court on 6.27.19. C). Jacob Onat arrested 5.16.18, charged with 8 crimes. Applicant team member Jacob Onat has also been arrested since Applicant requested a six week stay to clarify the credibility of the Applicant team. He has been charged with: 1) Unlawful possession of marijuana 2) Unlawful delivery of marijuana 3) Unlawful manufacture of marijuana 4) Unlawful import/export of marijuana item 5-8) Four counts of criminal conspiracy See Exhibit S, Oregon Arrest Record of Jacob Connor Onat. Jacob Onat entered into the Application on 1.16.19. He was introduced to the Board in the 3.20.19 Public Hearing by Mr. Weisheit as his expert and partner. Jacob Onat's role as a co -applicant in this proceeding further calls into question the credibility of this applicant team, and so the evidence they offer for the truth of their intentions if permitted to build a production and processing facility in Deschutes County. Appellant Hollitz Second Open Record Period Submittal in Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Page 314 2. Jacob Onat's claim that Ntane processing is distinguishable from Pentane or Butane, and so is safe, is false. Jacob Onat claimed that Ntane is different and better than other distillates commonly used for processing of cannabis, in his public hearing testimony. Applicant's Final Argument contained the claim that Ntane, a hydrocarbon petroleum distillate related to Pentane or Butane, is distinguishable from other distillates, so that material submitted into the Record regarding the hazardous nature of Applicant's proposed processing operation is inapplicable. This Board, without benefit of chemists or cannabis processing experts, is faced with determining whether the processing proposed on site will pose a risk to public health and safety. It should not be the Board's responsibility to research such a claim, nor should it be Appellant's role to bring independent findings before the Board to investigate such a claim. The question of whether a processing proposal is safe is properly Applicant's responsibility, or burden, to so prove. This Board is elected to protect the public from hazards to public health and safety, particularly in a land use application where Applicant openly admits they propose to use a known hazardous material in the process. These hazards are documented in the following short articles on use of hydrocarbons in cannabis processing to distill concentrates. Some are from highly authoritative independent sources (Reuters) while others are industry insider "how to" pieces. We offer these to provide additional information to this Board, should it decide to further evaluate the potential hazards of Applicant's proposed practices. See Exhibit T, Cannabis Extraction Technology articles. Appellant Hollitz strongly encourages this Board to deny the instant application. These persons do not conduct themselves in accordance with applicable laws and then ask to be trusted as they propose to utilize a known hazardous methodology to produce concentrates. This application should not be approved, allowing them to establish a marijuana production and processing operation in Deschutes County. Elizabeth A. Dickson Attorney for Appellant Hollitz Exhibits: Q, R, S, T as noted above c:\users\liz dickson\desktop\hollitz\appellant second open record period Gune 14 - )submittal.docx Appellant Hollitz Second Open Record Period Submittal in Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Page 4 1 4 La Pine Property III Owner: Mustafa Soylemez Drug raid arrest: Sam Onat Weisheit, Onat & Soylemez Connections Retail Store Property Owners: Mustafa Soylemez Jacob Onat Walker Rd Property Owners: Mark Weisheit Elizabeth Weisheit •LM Management Services LLC Members High Desert Agriculture, Inc Members High Desert Equity Partners, Inc Members Company Connections Mustafa Soylemez Mustafa Soylemez Mustafa Soylemez Mark Sam Weisheit Onat Mark Sam Weisheit Onat Mark Weisheit Jacob Elizabeth Onat Weisheit Jacob Onat Exhibit 'age of La Pine Property MI 1 Owner: Mustafa Soylemez Drug raid arrest: Sam Onat Weisheit, Onat & Soylemez Connections Retail Store Property Owners: Mustafa Soylemez Jacob Onat Walker Rd Property Owners: Mark Weisheit Elizabeth Weisheit LM Management Services LLC Members High Desert Agriculture, Inc Members High Desert Equity Partners, Inc Members Company Connections Mustafa Mark Soylemez Weisheit Mark Weisheit (as of 5-2-2019) Mustafa Mark Soylemez Weisheit Sam Jacob Onat Onat Elizabeth Weisheit Exhibit Page 2- of ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION Corporation Division www.filinginoregon.com E -FILED Jun 08, 2018 OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE REGISTRY NUMBER 144806890 TYPE DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION 1. ENTITY NAME HIGH DESERT AGRICULTURE, INC. 2. MAILING ADDRESS 1760 MONROVIA ACE STE A9 COSTA MESA CA 92627 USA 3. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS 1216 NE 1ST ST BEND OR 97701 USA 4. NAME & ADDRESS OF REGISTERED AGENT MUSTAFA SOYLEMEZ 1216 NE 1ST ST BEND OR 97701 USA 5. INCORPORATORS MUSTAFE SOYLEMEZ 1760 MONROVIA ACE STE A9 COSTA MESA CA 92627 USA MARK WEISHEIT 501 HERONDO ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 USA JACOB ONAT 23225 NE UNION HILL RD REDMOND WA 98053 USA SAM ONAT 10606 428TH AVE SE # A NORTH BEND WA 98045 USA 6. INDIVIDUALS WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE MUSTAFA SOYLEMEZ Exhibit 6 Page 3 of Page 1 Corporation Division www,filinginoregon.Com OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE 1760 MONROVIA ACE STE A9 COSTA MESA CA 92627 USA JACOB ONAT 23225 NE UNION HILL RD REDMOND WA 98053 USA MARK WEISHEIT 501 HERONDO ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 USA SAM ONAT 23225 NE UNION HILL RD REDMOND WA 98053 USA 7. NUMBER OF SHARES 1000 6. OPTIONAL PROVISIONS The corporation elects to indemnify its directors, officers, employees, agents for liability and related expenses under ORS 60.387 to 60.414. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that this document does not fraudulently conceal, fraudulently obscure, fraudulently alter or otherwise misrepresent the identity of the person or any officers, directors, employees or agents of the corporation on behalf of which the person signs. This filing has been examined by me and is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct, and complete. Making false statements in this document is against the law and may be penalized by fines, imprisonment, or both. By typing my name in the electronic signature field, I am agreeing to conduct business electronically with the State of Oregon. I understand that transactions and/or signatures in records may not be denied legal effect solely because they are conducted, executed, or prepared in electronic form and that if a law requires a record or signature to be in writing, an electronic record or signature satisfies that requirement. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE NAME MUSTAFA SOYLEMEZ TITLE TREASURER DATE SIGNED 06-08-2018 Exhibit Page Page 2 AMENDED ANNUAL REPORT Corporation Division www.filinginor gon.com E -FILED May 02, 2019 OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE REGISTRY NUMBER 144806890 REGISTRATION DATE 06/08/2018 BUSINESS NAME HIGH DESERT AGRICULTURE, INC. BUSINESS ACTIVITY AGRICULTURE MAILING ADDRESS 501 HERONDO ST APT 70 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 USA TYPE DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION PRIMARY PLACE OF BUSINESS 25450 WALKER ROAD BEND OR 97701 USA JURISDICTION OREGON REGISTERED AGENT MARK L WEISHEIT 25450 WALKER ROAD BEND OR 97701 USA If the Registered Agent has changed, the new agent has consented to the appointment. PRESIDENT MARK LAWRENCE WEISHEIT 501 HERONDO ST APT 70 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 USA SECRETARY MARK L WEISHEIT 501 HERONDO ST APT 70 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 USA Page 1 Corporation Division www.filinginoregon.com OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE I declare, under penalty of perjury, that this document does not fraudulently conceal, fraudulently obscure, fraudulently alter or otherwise misrepresent the identity of the person or any officers, directors, employees or agents of the corporation on behalf of which the person signs. This filing has been examined by me and is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct, and complete. Making false statements in this document is against the law and may be penalized by fines, imprisonment, or both. By typing my name in the electronic signature field, I am agreeing to conduct business electronically with the State of Oregon. I understand that transactions and/or signatures in records may not be denied legal effect solely because they are conducted, executed, or prepared in electronic form and that if a law requires a record or signature to be in writing, an electronic record or signature satisfies that requirement. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE NAME MARK L WEISHEIT TITLE PRESIDENT DATE SIGNED 05-02-2019 Exhibit Page & of 0 Page 2 From: John Hummel <John.Hummel@dcda.us> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:33 AM To: Elizabeth A. Dickson <eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com> Subject: RE: Criminal Investigation of Marijuana Production Applicants - Record Closes Friday, June 21 Hello Liz, Mr. Onat is charged with unlawful manufacture of marijuana, unlawful delivery of marijuana, and laundering a monetary instrument (charging document attached). His arraignment will be held on June 27th at 9:00 (letter informing him of this attached). Be in touch if you have questions. John 1 Exhibit 14 eage _./___ of`.(, 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 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES STATE OF OREGON Case No. Plaintiff, vs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY INFORMATION ONAT, SAM (2084/77)Co f 45 >8ila SID#: / Control #: jdes119006380 Defendant. For Violation of ORS: 164.170 F/B 475B.346 F/C 4758.349 FIA 2019-00047645/DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE The above-named defendant is accused by this information of the offenses of: Laundering a Monetary Instrument (Count 1), Unlawful Delivery of a Marijuana Item (Count 2), Unlawful Manufacture of a Marijuana Item (Count 3); committed as follows: COUNT 1: LAUNDERING A MONETARY INSTRUMENT - ORS 164.170: That the said defendant, on or about February 12, 2019, in Deschutes County, Oregon, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form, though not necessarily which form, of unlawful activity, did unlawfully and intentionally conduct or attempt to conduct a financial transaction that involved the proceeds of unlawful activity with the intent to promote the carrying on of unlawful activity. COUNT 2: UNLAWFUL DELIVERY OF A MARIJUANA ITEM — ORS 475B.346: That the said defendant, on or about February 12, 2019, in Deschutes County, Oregon, did unlawfully and knowingly deliver a marijuana item. The state further alleges that the above-described offense is a Class C Felony and was a delivery of a marijuana item involving more than 16 times the applicable maximum amount specified in ORS 475.337 (1)(a), (c), (d), (e) or (0. Page 1- District Attorney Information (CLJ0213526) Exhibit John Hummel, Deschutes County District Attorney 1164 NW Bond Street, Bend, Oregon 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6520 I Fax: (541) 330-4691 l info@dcda.us rage of COUNT 3: UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURE OF A MARIJUANA ITEM - ORS 475B.349: That the said defendant, on or about February 12, 2019, in Deschutes County, Oregon, did unlawfully and knowingly manufacture a marijuana item. The state further alleges the above-described offense is a Class C Felony and that: 1. The Defendant unlawfully manufactured marijuana; and 2. The total number of marijuana plants involved in the above-described offense exceeded 12 plants. The State further alleges the above listed offenses are of the same or similar character, and/or are all based on the same act or transaction, and/or are all based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. Contrary to the statutes, regulations and such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Oregon. By CLIFF LU OSB#890765 Deputy District Attorney Date: June 6, 2019 By the above signature, the District Attorney and/or Deputy District Attorney certifies that under the penalties described in ORS 133.992, there are sufficient grounds to believe, and the District Attorney and/or Deputy District Attorney does believe, that the defendant named in the Information committed the offense(s) specified in the information. Page 2- District Attorney Information John Hummel, Deschutes County District Attomey 1164 NW Bond Street, Bend, Oregon 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6520 Fax: (541) 330.46911info@dcda.us (CU0213526) Exhibit f'ap, ..3 of e7 June 6, 2019 Sam Onat 52848 Wayside Loop La Pine, OR 97739 John Hummel District Attorney 1164 NW Bond Street • Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 388-6520 • Fax: (541) 330-4691 Grand Jury Fax: (541) 330- 4698 www.dcda.us RE: DESCHUTES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO — You have been charged with the offenses of Laundering a Monetary Instrument, Unlawful Delivery of Marijuana for Consideration, Unlawful Manufacture of Marijuana Within 1,000 Feet of School by the Deschutes County District Attorney's Office. If you are represented by an attorney, please give this letter to your lawyer. We are writing you under the assumption that you are NOT represented by counsel. You will be afforded an opportunity to make a voluntary appearance in court in this matter. You will need to report to the Circuit Court at 1100 NW Bond Street, Bend, Oregon, on 06/27/2019 at 9:00 AM. It is extremely important that you appear on time. If you do not appear the District Attorney's Office will ask that a warrant be issued for your arrest to compel your appearance in court. If you wish the assistance of an attorney you may apply to the court for a court-appointed attorney or hire a lawyer of your choice. Esta carta esta disponible en espanol. Si desea una copia en espanol, o si desea hablar con alguien para que le expliquen la forma, por favor llame al: 541-388-6520 o 541-385-3243. Deschutes County District Attorney's Office cc: Deschutes County Circuit Court Page 1- Letter of Appearance Exhibit % o 0213526 John Hummel Deschutes County District Attorney Malllna Address Phvslcal Address 1164 NW Bond St. 1100 NW Bond St. Bend, OR 97703 Bend, OR 97703 john.hununel@dcda.us dcdaus 541-317-3134 From: Elizabeth A. Dickson[mailto:eadicksonPdicksonhatfield.com) Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 3:54 PM To: John Hummel <John.Hummel@dcda.us> Subject: Criminal Investigation of Marijuana Production Applicants - Record Closes Friday, June 21 John, I represent Rowan Hollitz, a nearby neighbor opposed to the establishment of a grow on the Weisheit property in Alfalfa. As you may recall, you were most helpful in the County's consideration of the Weisheit - Onat marijuana production application considered in March, where Mr. Weisheit's letter to the neighbors misrepresented the status of your investigation. Credibility of evidence, and so the credibility of the applicant offering it, is a legally considerable factor in land use cases. Your email to me is attached and was submitted to the Record as Exhibit G. It was offered for the credibility of the applicant, showing that he had misrepresented the case status. The Board scheduled this matter for deliberations and decision in May. The Board found the credibility information interesting, and asked for details. As a decision was about to be made by the Board, the applicant asked for a recess until June 15. They claimed that your office would make a decision on the Mustafa Soylemez - Sam Onat investigation on the La Pine marijuana operation by June 15. They assured the Board that on further investigation, these parties would be exonerated, removing any question of their lack of credibility. Also attached is a chart prepared by an investigator showing the interconnection between Soylemez and Sam Onat and Jacob Onat (Sam's son) and the Weisheits (owners of the subject property). It is based on Oregon Secretary of State public records. It shows the interconnection between these parties. Jacob Onat operates the retail store and is offered as an "expert" in marijuana cultivation and processing by the applicant, and is also a co -applicant in the grow operation application. We see in the paper that Jacob Onat has since been arrested for marijuana -related criminal activity, as well. The new Open Record period on this application closes this Friday at 5 pm. No new information may be entered after Friday. Will you please provide an update on the La Pine incident investigation and also Jacob Onat's arrest and details as they are available? We will submit these into the Record this Friday, if available. Thanks, in advance, for any assistance you can provide in this matter. Liz Dickson 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 0: 541.585.2229 F: 541.330.5540 2 Exhibit r2 eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information, Any unauthorized review, use, discourse or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. TAX ADVICE NOTICE: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that, if this communication or any attachment contains any tax advice, the advice is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. A taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if the advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent requirements. Please contact us if you would like to discuss our preparation of an opinion that conforms to these IRS rules. 3 Exhibit /.- rsa ;t. ...� 0f, Jacob Onat Mugshot 1 05/16/19 Oregon Arrest Page 1 of 3 First Name Last Name Oregon Search Home Counties Search Tagged Contact Arrest Information Ads by Revconlent Weather Girl Quits On Dogs That Immediately Do This Immediately if Economic Dark Camera After The Regret Their Decisions You Have Diabetes Window Could Be Your Unthinkable Give 11 Love (Watch) Chance to Become LiIOe Iy Healthy Partisan Dent Research Oregon ► Deschutes County Arrest Information Full Name: Jacob Connor Onat Date:05/16/2019 Time: 2:18 PM Arresting Agency: DESCHUTES COUNTY SO Total Bond: $80000 Personal Information Arrest Age:23 Gender: Male Height: 6'02" Weight: 200 lbs Hair Color: BLK Eye Color: BRO Tag this Mug Shot Tagged as Hottie Jacob Onat See Jacob's Criminal Record Exhibit Page of https://oregon.arrests.org/Arrests/Jacob_Onat_40717886/ 6/7/2019 Jacob Onat Mugshot 1 05/16/19 Oregon Arrest Page 2 of 3 Search For Jacob's :`ar, i Reccuds Name State Jacob Onat OR CGet Report -4- Sponsored 4 Sponsored Content Charges #1 UNLAWFUL POSSESS MARIJ - 2 BOND: $10000 #2 UNLAWFUL DELIVER MARIJ - 3 BOND: $10000 #3 UNLAWFUL MANUF MARIJ BOND: $10000 #4 UNLAWFUL IMPORT/EXPORT OF MARIJUANA ITEM BOND: $10000 #5 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - 2 BOND: $10000 #6 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - 2 BOND: $10000 #7 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - 2 BOND: $10000 #8 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - 2 BOND: $10000 Add Comment Add your comment 4Jsign in Be respectful. We do not allow any comments that are vulgar, racist, sexually suggestive, or contain threats of violence. 0 comments * Best is Oldest a Newest Be the first to comment! Page No claims to the accuracy of this information are made. The information and photos presented on this site have been collected from the websites of County Sheriff's Offices or Clerk of Courts. The people featured on this site may not have been convicted of the charges or crimes listed and are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Do not rely on this site to determine factual criminal records. Contact the respective county clerk of State Attorney's Office for more information. All comments and opinions are submitted by Internet users, and in no way reflect the views or opinions of this site's operators. https://oregon.arrests.org/Arrests/Jacob_Onat_40717886/ 6/7/2019 Jacob Onat Mugshot 105/16/19 Oregon Arrest Page 3 of 3 Copyright 2019 - Arrestsorg Ex 11 hp¢ Page https://oregon.arrests.org/Arrests/Jacob_Onat_40717886/ 6/7/2019 Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard - Reuters Page 1 of 10 Discover Thomson Reuters Directory of sites Login Contact Support REUTERS Business Markets World Politics TV More SPECIAL REPORTS JUNE 4, 2019 / 4:38 AM / UPDATED 4 HOURS AGO Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil Labs pose deadly, destructive hazard Andy Sullivan 8 MIN READ f SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - On the afternoon of May 5, college student John Nothdurft was watching TV at his suburban San Diego home when a series of explosions shook the house. Around the corner, on Sunny Meadow Street, flames billowed from a neighbor's garage. Exhibit https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugs-insight-idUSKCNI T51 F4 6/4/2019 Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard - Reuters Page 2 of 10 A man was running down the street. He was on fire. Nothdurft, 18, tried to comfort the man as a neighbor sprayed him with a garden hose. "His skin kind of looked like it had melted off," he recalled. Investigators quickly determined the cause of the blaze: a butane -gas explosion resulting from an illegal attempt to make a concentrated form of marijuana. Known as hash o11 or honey oil, the product can be consumed in vape pens, candies, waxes and other forms that are increasingly popular. The Sunny Meadow Street explosion illustrates a growing danger as marijuana moves from the counterculture to the mainstream, law enforcement officials told Reuters. With cannabis now legal for medical or recreational use in 33 states and the District of Columbia, users are discovering new ways of consuming the drug. Nationwide, concentrated products accounted for nearly a third of the $10.3 billion legal market in September 2018, double their share in 2015, according to the New Frontier Data research firm. In states like California and Colorado, where marijuana use is legal, state -licensed producers of hash oil use sophisticated systems that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. But those seeking to make hash oil at home don't have to spend that much. YouTube Exhibit 3'agc of 001 6/4/2019 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugs-insight-idUSKCN1 T51 F4 Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard - Reuters Page 3 of 10 videos demonstrate how to strip the psychoactive THC compounds from marijuana using a PVC pipe, a coffee filter and a $4 can of butane. Production is surging on the black market - especially in California, where the legal market is still dwarfed by an underground network that supplies users across the country. A "dab" of hash oil can contain up to 90 percent THC - more than four times the strength of typical marijuana buds. "I will never forget my first time I ever took a dab," said Sabrina Persona, assistant manager at Harbor Collective, a licensed marijuana dispensary in San Diego. "It's some pretty strong, pretty concentrated stuff." Making hash oil can be lucrative - Persona pointed to a small jar retailing for $45 - but it is also risky. Odorless and heavier than air, butane can build up quickly in enclosed spaces - until a spark from a refrigerator motor or a garage -door opener sets off an explosion that can knock a house off its foundation or destroy an apartment building. Nationwide, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says it received reports of 260 illegal hash -oil labs in 2017, a 38 percent increase from 2016. A quarter of those labs were discovered because they caught on fire, according to the agency's annual drug threat assessment. https://www.reuters. com/article/us-usa-drugs-insight-idUSKCN 1 T51 F4 Exhibit page 6/4/2019 Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard - Reuters Page 4 of 10 A suburban home that was the site of a hash oil extraction laboratory explosion is seen in the Mira Mesa area of San Diego, California, U.S., May 5, 2019. San Diego -Fire Rescue Department/Handout via REUTERS Those figures are far from comprehensive, as law enforcement agencies aren't required to provide reports to the DEA's national database. Even in California, which accounted for two-thirds of all reported Illegal hash -oil labs in 2017, officials could be undercounting the problem. Child -safety advocate Sue Webber -Brown estimates more than 40 adults and three children were injured from hash -oil lab explosions in the state in 2016 - far higher than the official DEA tally of 16 injuries. Exhibit Page L of „,7--.1` https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugs-insight-idUSKCN 1 T51 F4 6/4/2019 Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard - Reuters Page 5 of 10 Even so, the DEA reports that at least 19 people have been killed and 126 people injured by hash -oil fires in California since 2014. 'A WHOLE GARAGE OF AMMUNITION' On Sunny Meadow Street, the inferno blew a garage door 20 feet off its hinges and melted the windshield of a car. Dozens of butane cans exploded. "Boom, bang, boom bang. I thought it was a whole garage of ammunition," said Ken Heshler, 80, a neighbor. Three people were taken to the hospital with severe burns. The DEA says it discovered $75,000 worth of hash oil on the scene. The agency says it expects to bring criminal charges against those involved. According to the DEA, its first report of an illicit hash -oil lab came in 2005, in Oakland, Calif. By 2013, the U.S. Fire Administration was warning that explosions stemming from hash -oil production appeared to be increasing. Since then, officials say, the problem has grown worse. Narcotics officers in California say that the operations they encounter now tend to be larger than the home labs that proliferated earlier in the decade - with the amount of explosive chemicals measured in barrels, rather than milliliters. Exhibit Page C, of Aff https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugs-insight-idUSKCN 1 T51 F4 6/4/2019 Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard - Reuters Page 6 of 10 These solvents "want to go boom - they don't want to be confined, and with the slightest kind of nudge they're going to explode," said Karen Flowers, special agent in charge of the DEA's San Diego office. Less than two weeks after the explosion on Sunny Meadow Street, Flowers' office responded to another hash -oil fire in the suburb of El Cajon. That operation contained more than a dozen 55 -gallon drums of hexane, another volatile solvent. Firefighters were able to control the blaze before the chemicals exploded. The DEA also raided four other illegal hash -oil labs in the region, including one they said was capable of producing nearly a half million dollars' worth of product every two days. Explosions have been reported across the United States and Canada. In Battle Creek, Michigan, 80 people were left homeless after one destroyed an apartment building in July 2018. In Michigan's rural northeast corner, the Huron Undercover Narcotics Team routinely finds hash -oil equipment when it raids illegal growing operations, Detective Lieutenant Stuart Sharp said. "The more people growing marijuana, the more people are going to experiment with this kind of thing, and the more explosions and deaths we're going to see," he said. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugs-insight-idUSKCN1 T51F4 Exhibit Page ,i of 'I 6/4/2019 Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard - Reuters Page 7 of 10 SEARCHING FOR SOLUTIONS Slideshow (28 Images) Public -safety officials interviewed by Reuters say sales restrictions on butane could limit explosions from makeshift hash oil labs, just as limits on chemicals used in methamphetamine production have helped to curtail domestic production of that drug. The California legislature voted for statewide limits in 2017, but then -Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the measure, saying the legitimate hash -oil industry should be given a chance to comply with impending regulations. Since recreational marijuana sales became legal in 2018, the state has licensed 154 businesses to use butane or other explosive solvents to produce marijuana concentrates. Licensed businesses pay fees of up to $75,000 per year and must use equipment that keeps solvents contained. They must pass a fire -code inspection and train employees on safety standards. The risk remains. California regulators fined a licensed producer $50,000 in December 2018 after a propane explosion badly burned a worker. Chris Witherell, an industry consultant, says most of the hundreds of hash -oil operations he has inspected don't pass the first time he Exhibit r Page of .l p https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugs-insight-idUSKCN 1 T51 F4 6/4/2019 Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard Reuters Page 8 of 10 visits. Equipment is often poorly assembled or operating with incorrect parts, he said. Flowers said the DEA has dismantled 18 illegal hash -oil labs in San Diego this year, putting it on pace to nearly double the number in 2018. "I'm extremely concerned about what the next six months are going to hold," she said. Editing by Kieran Murray and Julie Marquis Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. PAID PROMOTIONAL LINKS Promoted by Dianomi These surprising tips wilt change your perspective on home ownership Frnm Marrill BioSig (Nasdaq: BSGM) Untocking Future of Bioelectronic Medicine https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugs-insight-idUSKCN1 T51 F4 Exhibit Page ... of . t7 6/4/2019 Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard - Reuters Page 9 of 10 MORE FROM REUTERS Battle -scarred U.S. flag from D -Day landing goes up for auction 04 Jun Mexico draws red line on asylum as Trump tariff risk rises 04 Jun PAID PROMOTIONAL LINKS Tips to unlock the value of your home and build equity where you live From Merrill Online Degrees: Current Prices Might Shock You Education I Sponsored Links Transfer Your Debt And Pay 0 Interest Until 2021 CompareCards.com Women's Approach To Giving And Investing From BofA Private Bank Top 10 Credit Cards For People With Excellent Credit CompareCards.com BioSig Technologies (Nasdaq: BSGM) Pivotal Moment BioSig Technologies Investments Donald Trump rocks the boat as he arrives for banquet with British... 03 Jun Global recession fears grow as factory activity shrinks 03 Jun Promoted by Dianomi Chart Of The Week: A Sobering Thought About Venezuela Aberdeen Standard See How Some Retirees Use Options Trading As A Safe Way To Earn Income TradeWins #1 Cash Back Credit Card Has a Surprise Bonus The Ascent 6 Credit Cards You Should Not Ignore If You Have Excellent Credit NerdWallet How Much Do People Really Get From a Reverse Mortgage? Lending Tree 2 Accounts That Pay 10x What Your Banks Pays MyFina nce https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugs-insight-idUSKCN 1 T51 F4 Exhibit i>uirt. q r at, Y' 6/4/2019 Exploding danger: U.S. marijuana oil labs pose deadly, destructive hazard - Reuters Page 10 of 10 Apps Newsletters Advertise with Us Advertising Guidelines Cookies Terms of Use Privacy f t in All quotes delayed a minimum of 15 minutes. See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays. © 2019 Reuters. All Rights Reserved. i xlnbi¢ Pageig rr1' _t https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugs-insight-idUSKCN 1 T51 F4 6/4/2019 EXTRACTION_ SMACKDOWN The most frequently told story of cannabis extraction gone wrong involves an unregulated, home-based facility and a large explosion. Usually the main victim in this story is using butane or propane as the solvent. Licensed operators, however, aren't immune from such risks. In fact, highly flammable hydrocarbon extraction remains the most dangerous of the three main types of extraction, ahead of ethanol and CO2. Ethanol is also flammable, but not to the same degree as butane and propane. "Hydrocarbon equipment is much more dangerous," Claywolf's Claypool said. Not only can the hydrocarbons start on fire, but they're also an asphyxiant that can kill a person. "If you were to have a large release of butane into your room, one of the dangers would be the extractor would then suffocate," Claypool said. Xtracted's Abernathy defends the safety of hydrocarbon extraction. He compares it to filling a car with gasoline at a gas station. "If you were to allow consumers to put gas into anything they wanted, it would be a highly dangerous place, and you would have explosions on a regular basis," he said. But sensible industry regulations create an extremely safe environment for extractors, according to Abernathy. The regulations vary from state to state — although municipalities can set them, too. In Colorado, for example, hydrocar- bon extraction must be done in a highly regulated environment that includes an exhaust system to prevent explosions. 62 • Marijuana Business Magazine • October 2018 David Vera works on vacuum filtration of plant wax inside an Organa Brands extraction facility hi Denver. Wax is often made using butane or other solvents. Photo by Matthew Stayer Puffin Farm's Wilhoit said his company chose to work with CO2 because it's safer than hydrocarbon. Wilhoit is comfortable that even though CO2 extraction requires high pressure, the machines he's using are sturdy enough to mitigate any risks. But, as with butane or propane, CO2 can suffocate workers if there's a leak and it replaces the oxygen in the room. To combat this, Wilhoit's Seattle facility has audio as well as visual alarms that arc triggered automatically when the sensors detect a leak. "I don't believe there's any danger of dying from asphyxiation in our facility," he said. Verdict: CO2 is the safest. While potentially fatal if leaking into a room without the proper sensors, CO2 won't turn your facility into an exploding fireball - unlike hydrocarbon extraction. • - Bart Schanernan Exhibit Page A. 0 EXTRACTION SMACKDOWN RESULTS D Cost of Production & Equipment Hydrocarbon extraction machines have lower starting costs, while CO2 equipment is the most expensive. Hydrocarbon Product Quality Hydrocarbon provides full - spectrum extract, while ethanol creates high - potency extract. CO2 extraction captures flavonoids and carotenoids, Too close to call PERIMENTI IG WITHINE E` I SOD ' Most extraction labs experiment with techniques beyond the "big three" options of hydrocarbon, ethanol and CO2. At MedPharm Holdings' lab in Denver, technicians are experimenting with a method using ethyl acetate that would increase throughput without an extrac- tion unit. CEO Albert Gutierrez wouldn't divulge much detail, but he said the process wouldn't require any expensive equipment. According to Gutierrez, this new technique would allow extractors to take flower right off the plant and extract it immediately - without wafting for it to be trimmed and cured, shaving days off his total extraction time. "You don't have to dry it or do any of the decar- boxylation or winterization;" he said. "You can do some distillation and have a really high-quality prod- uct within 30-45 minutes. It's really exciting." Jeff Wilhoit, the director of extracts at Puffin Farm in Safety In the wrong hands, hydrocarbon can turn a facility into a fireball. CO2 can suffocate users, but it is not as explosive. CO2 Efficiency Ethanol extraction is the most efficient at capturing simple cannabinoids, while hydrocarbon is most efficient at capturing the essence of the whole plant, Ethanol Seattle, has been experimenting with liquid nitrogen. Wilhoit said the process is similar to making bubble hash, and it allows users to press the resulting extract into a rosin with high terpene content. "That one's a lot of fun," he said. "You can take a whole plant live and extract it using liquid nitrogen. You can take plants right out of the field." The flower doesn't have to be trimmed or cured first. Most of the new or alternative methods are difficult to employ at a commercial scale, said Jim Makoso, co-owner of Lucid Labs in Seattle. But using rosin presses, dry sieves or molecular sifting are tried- and-true methods. "When it comes to people who want the cleanest product that hasn't touched a solvent, any number of those types of processes are normally what you'll see incorporated into the process;" Makoso said. - Bart Schaneman Exhibit I Page AA- of 01-1 October 2018 • Marijuana Business Magazine • 63 I Article 1/articles) I The Best Cannabis Extraction Methods for Marijuana Concentrates' Articles 1 Analytical... Page 1 of 8 We've updated our Privacy Policy (/prIva6V-pelicv) to make it clearer how we use your personal data. We use cookies to provide you with a better experience, read our Cookie Polkv (/Cookies! Advertisement Comprehensive Cannabis Testing Leckie emerging regulations Agilent • I Understand (haps://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click7xal=AKAOjsuMf3Kki 6retBnJCK8Yh5TkwFbRIBKalrHAfAhFVtyRpuRQ3h8Ag3OO2oUsx• UxiikQ7ne7IPnylRdX-dLEYY1 elwcx7zeUsR9gc- uacvDeVJZtrttict4XFIjOfUvTcCY21ABmCrg137NtVQ&sig=CgOArKJSzIj033MfP15f&urifix=l &adurl=https:/lwww.agtlent.comlen/promotions/cannabls%3Futm_ca itg Subscribe For Free(http:(/go.technologynetworks.comisubscribe-to-analytical-cannabis-newsletters7_hstc=181257784.2d25966976c5caf00fae3ae59 (1) Home (/) Articles (/articles) News (/news) Videos (/videos) Resources (/resources) Webinars (/webinars) Events (/events) The Best Cannabis Extraction Methods for Marijuana Concentrates ) Artlele Vernetes) I 0 May 03, 20181 by Mike May Extraction techniques are used 10 separate the components of cannabis and remove them from the plant matrix. Various methods can divide cannabls plant material Into pans, or extracts, that contain different chemicals. With cannabis, extraction techniques are often used to isolate specific desirable compounds, and cannabis contains at least 113 cannabinoids (https://pubs.acs.org/do1110.10211acs.jnatprod.5b00949), including cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). On the other hand, a producer may seek to create a single extract with many desirable cannabis compounds; sometimes called whole plant extracts, Including the better- known cannabinoids, scientists have Identified more than 550 chemicals (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/fuIIl10.1021/acsomega,7b00996) in cannabis in general including components like terpenes. Extraction techniques are also used to concentrate chemicals of Interest, This article goes over the most common methods of cannabis extraction. Before discussing these methods, readers should keep in mind that cannabls extraction Is chemistry, not cooking. So, some skills in analytical methods plus real lab equipment is required to perform these methods correctly and safely. In many cases, the reagents and how they are used can create dangerous situations. Consequently, many of the techniques require safety equipment, like a fume hood. Just as important, the extraction process must be performed correctly to produce a safe product for human use, and the results should be confirmed independently with proper analytical testing. Cannabis alcohol extraction Several common forms of cannabis extraction rely on a solvent, such as alcohol. In brief, the cannabls soaks in alcohol, usually ethanol, the plant material Is then removed, the liquid filtered, and the alcohol is removed with some form of evaporation. One of the biggest challenges is the inherent polarity of solvents like ethanol—meaning it has a propensity to mix with water and dissolve water- soluble molecules like chlorophyll. Removing the chlorophyll You May Atso Like 0 Q This New Study Will Test Marijuana's Effect on Type 2 Diabetes (/articles/this-new-study-will-test- marque nas-effect-on-type-2-diabetes- 311769) Read More > (/articles/this-new-study-will- test-marc juan as-effect-on-type-2-dlabetes- 311769) ` Newa tinowe) l Pregnant Cannabis Use Linked to Preterm Births — Study (!news/pregnant-canna bis -use -linked - to -preterm -births -study -311767) Read More > (/news/pregnant-cannabis-use- I I nked-to-p reterm -blrths-study-311767) Advertisement W BINARS r. nalyticai Cannabis Healthy Soil, Healthy Plants: Understanding the critical role of soil analysis in the cannabis and hemp industry JULY i8, 2oag, sem BST 9At4 PDT 12 NOON ED, (Igo/A C/healthy-soil •h eaith y-plant-webina r-16th- july-311693) ) News (!news) Public Sewer Water Hints That Cannabis Legalization Is Hurting the Illicit Market (/news/public-sewer- water-hi nts-th at-cannabis-Iegalization- is-h u rting-th a-il l icit-m arket-311765 ) Read More > (!news/public-sewer-water- hints-that-cannabis-lega l ization-I s -hu rti ng - the -II I iclt-market•311765) I Article (rartletee)1 Exhibit t'nga /3 of https://www.analyticalcannabis.com/articles/the-best-cannabis-extraction-methods-for-ma... 6/21/2019 The Best Cannabis Extraction Methods for Marijuana Concentrates 1 Articles Analytical... Page 2 of 8 (https://extraktlab.com/2017/05/02/how-to•remove-dark-color-from-ethanol-extracts/) from the extract is important as it produces an undesirable, bitter flavor. A cannabis tincture created using alcohol -based extraction. This method can be performed at atmospheric pressure, but the temperature is carefully controlled, especially during evaporation. This process can also take time and must be done carefully to avoid danger as ethanol is highly inflammable. One of the biggest benefits of this form of extraction Is that there is no risk of leaving toxic residual chemicals in the final cannabis extract and, it enables the co - extraction of all compounds of Interest, chiefly cannabinoids and terpenoids. The Ethos -4 closed-loop ethanol extractor. Credit: Capna Fabrication YouTube Channel. (httpsd/www.youtube.com/watchn.lotAcjelqw) CO2 cannabis extraction Using a reagent of any kind can add cost and clean-up time, so various techniques should be considered, and one is CO2 extraction (https://en.wiklpedia.org/wlkilSupercritIcal_carbon_dioxide). Instead of using alcohol, this method removes cannabis components from the plant matrix with carbon dioxide. Here, though, high pressure and heat are used to turn the CO2 supercritical—meaning it is simultaneously like a liquid and a gas. Cannabis CO, extract being dispensed from a supercritical CO, system following extraction. Credit: Eden Labs LLC. (https://www.edeniabs.com/) The equipment cost for this method is orders of magnitude higher than alcohol extraction, but it produces higher yields and less valuable material is lost, Plus, this method can be adjusted to extract specific compounds by changing the temperature, pressure or runtime—more likely a combination of these. Moreover, one study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govipubmedl28926B63) found that different compounds get concentrated at different rates in the same process. So, the extract should be analyzed, especially where concentrations of specific compounds are desired. London's First Medical Cannabis Clinic Set to Open Its Doors (/articles/londons-first-m ed ical- cannabis-clinic-set-to-open-Its-doors- 311764) Read More > (/articles/londons-first-medical- ca n nabis-c Ii n ic-set-to•open-its-doors- 311764) (la4/etlesYoreg ° re a '-'l un �t�igemup• 1R ggriP-311763' ,t�4p f,ygs{oroaon•growers•arodryln tlbnne•a- Oregon Growers Are Trying to Define a Unit of Hemp (/articles/oregon- growers-are-trying-to-define-a-unit-of- hemp-311763) Read More > (/articles/oregon-growers-are- trying-to-define-a-un it -of -hemp -311763) Product News (/resources) New Pesticide CRMs Released Specifically for Cannabis Labs In California and Similar States (iproduct- news/new-pesticide-crms-released- spec ifically-for-cannabis-labs-ln- california-and-similar-states-311761) Read More > (/product-news/new-pesticide- crms-released-specifically-for-ca n nabis- tabs•in•california-and•s im ilar-states-311761) tNews (news) Young Adults Living Near Cannabis Dispensaries Use More Often — Study (/news/young-adults-I ivi ng-near- cannab is -dispensaries -use -more -often - study -311757) Read More > (/news/young-adults-living- near-cannabis-di aries.use.mnre.n/ten. ilaftly1644116Men 4h'161641 H!Nit=ji5Ytir="."a•your<uanceeol- cha nces-of-developing-a-cannabis- addiction-311756) (/articteslthls• eene-mayincrreeyaso-yourrrtccmhances• 01- i (otic nirnabliPprtion es (/articles/this-g ene-may-increase-yo ur- ch a n ce s-of-developing-a-cannab is - addiction -311756) Read More > (/articles/this-gene.may- i ncrease-you r-chances-of-developing-a- cannabis-addictiom311756) ( Ankle Vanities) 1 Colorado Has Made More Than $tbn From Legal Cannabis (/articles/colorado-has-made-more- than-1 bn-from-legal-cannabis-311755) Read More > (/articleslcotorado-has-made. more -than -1 bn-from-Iegalcannabis-311755) 1 News (Mews)] Cannabis Addiction Driven by Changes in the Brain's Reward System — Study (!news/cannabis-addiction-driven-by- ch anges-in-the-brains-rewa rd -system - study -311753) Read More > ((news/cannabis-addiction- driven-by-ch a n g es -I n -the -brains -reward - system -study -311753) https://www.analyticalcannabis.comlarticles/the-best-cannabis-extraction-methods-for-ma... 6/21/2019 Article (lerttttee) I The Best Cannabis Extraction Methods for Marijuana Concentrates 1 Articles 1 Analytical... Page 3 of 8 A selection of supercritical CO2 extraction equipment available from Eden Labs. Credit: Eden Labs LLC. (Mips://www.edenlabs.com/ With the cannabis components extracted, the supercritical CO2 goes into a condenser and tums into a liquid that can be filtered and used again. Consequently, very little reagent is used. That makes this method economical to run and reduces the need to dispose of waste. ANALYTICAL CANNABIS EXPO 2019 EXTRACTION, SCIENCE. TESTING. April 2-3, 2019 1 San Francisco, CA (htxpo.analyticalcan nabis.com/) (https://expo.ana lyticatca n na bls.co mt) Meet cannabis science experts (https://expo.analyticatcanna bis.coml) DISCOVER MORE ► (Https:lt Ex po.analyticalcan na bis.com/) In addition, if any CO2 remains In an extract after the process, it just evaporates. That is especially important for any preparations for medical uses as a producer using this method can guarantee that absolutely no residual solvent wit be present in the final product. Despite the need for some financial investment in a CO2 extraction system, a manufacturer can consider various levels of equipment For instance, Apeks Supercritical (http://www.apekssupercrltical.coml)makes introductory through high -production extraction systems and even offers refurbished systems. This gives customers a range of prices to consider, Cannabis butane or propane extraction Using butane as the extraction solvent creates what is known as butane hash oil. To do this, the process starts with cannabis and liquid butane In a pressurized and heated system, By using evaporation under a vacuum, it Is then possible to remove the butane solvent. The vacuum turns the butane from liquid to a vapor, making It easier to remove. This kind of extract is also known as shatter, which is a clear material that typically includes THC, CBD and other chemical components, including terpenes. To really make shatter, which is a hard version of butane hash oil, terpene content must be kept low or it works like a solvent that makes the extract soft. The right starting sample can help to reduce the terpenes present in the final product, such as by starting with cured flowers. On the other hand, the butane hash oll can be heated to remove terpenes after extraction as they are more volatile than cannabinoids like THC and CBD. Butane extract on the tip of a paperclip. Credit: Coasfer420 on Wiklmedla Commons (https://commons.wiklmed/a.org/w/ki/File:Butane Extract./pg) Even without any added steps, this method includes some potential hazards. For one thing, butane burns easily In its gas phase. So, the temperature used must be managed carefully otherwise there is a serious risk of the gas exploding. In addition, a system should Include circulators that remove and recycle the butane. The removal process should reduce any residual butane In an extract. In all cases, though, analytical testing should be done to ensure butane's removal, because Itis highly toxic to humans. (/articles/ensuring-a-contamkief -`lead^""""g'"'<o'am•fn (/asahli y wripameg( j rt -free -product -in - cannabis -311749) How to Ensure a Contaminant -free Cannabis Product (/articles/ensuring-a- contaminant-free-product-in-cannabis- 311749) Read More 1(/articles/ensuring-a- contam inant-free-product-in-can nabis- 311749) INews (Mews) I Smoking Marijuana Dates Back 2,500 Years Ago — Study (/news/smoking- marijuana-dates-back-2500-years-ago- study-311751) Read More 1(lnewstsmoking-marijuana- dates-back-2500-yearsago-study-311751) Cannabis and Fertility: Five Things Scientists Want You to Know (/articles/can nabis-and-fertility-five- things-scientists-want-you-to-know- 311750) Read More 1(/articles/cannabls-and-fertility- flve-thi einnHatn.u.anr.ynn.tn.Ygn.n. (Awed i it lin!t11Mtlnfl$'$!1.MItlf!dil1F4' ern`" d', """t ca n nabis-hyperemesis-syndrome-study- 311747) (/news/swiittcch 1pnngg•tto•edibtes•co�uldd.aa'lleviate • cat annaDISH peremenlPsynciii,��-01747) arra yperem sis Syndrome — Study (/news/switching-to-edibles- could-alleviate-cannabis-hyperemesis- sy n d rome-stu d y-311747 ) Read More > (/news/switching•to-edibles- cou Id a Ileviate-cannabl s-hyperemesls- synd rome-study-311747) News (lnews)) Medical Marijuana Doesn't Reduce Oploid Deaths — Study (/news/medical- marij uana-doesnt-reduce-opioid- d eaths-study-311743 ) Read More > (/news/medical-marljuana- doesnt-reduce-oploid-deaths-study-311743) Exhibit 7 - Page of 011 https://www.analyticalcannabis.com/articles/the-best-cannabis-extraction-methods-for-ma... 6/21/2019 The Best Cannabis Extraction Methods for Marijuana Concentrates I Articles 1 Analytical... Page 4 of 8 That danger can make this method a less desirable choice, especially for medicinal products. Increasing analytical testing and tighter regulations on acceptable residual butane levels could limit this method for many applications—unless, the user takes special precautions to limit any residual butane in the product and uses third -party analytical testing to confirm the safety of an extract. Nonetheless, butane extraction has been a popular method for extract producers and enthusiasts for years, largely due to the relatively low equipment and running cost. And, the fact that It produces flavorful extracts with higher terpene content than can be achieved by CO2 extraction, for example, The Summit T1 Extraction System from Summit Extraction Systems. Credit: Summit Extraction System YouTube Channel. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o3024T--9s) Instead of butane hash oil, some manufacturers opt to produce propane hash oil. In this method, liquid propane is used in the place of butane. Here, high pressure keeps the propane liquefied and extraction occurs at a lower temperature, because propane's boiling point is less than butane's. The extraction temperature impacts the components removed from cannabis. So, these two similar methods—butane and propane extraction—produce dissimilar extracts. In some cases, butane and propane extraction can be used in combination (https:llprecislonextraction.com/2016/10/blended-solvents-butane-propane-extraction!) to create a product with a broader chemical profile. Like the butane process, though, special care must be taken with propane extraction to remove as much of the chemical as possible and prove it, Solvent -free extractions It Is worth mentioning that more basic techniques also exist for preparing cannabis and extracting desirable components from the plant matrix. Kiel, for example, can be separated from cannabis buds simply by grinding and sieving, These crystalline formations make up part of structures known as trichromes which are found on many plants, including cannabis. Cannabis trichromes are primarily protective structures produced by female plants when flowering. Their intense bitter taste and strong aromas render the plant unpalatable to herbivores and, they are also believed to inhibit some fungal growth. When separated from cannabis inflorescence, kief looks Just like a powder or pollen. And, as cannabinoids and terpenoid production is particularly concentrated in trichromes this powder can be added to cannabis preparations to boost potency or consumed alone as a standalone product. The bottom part of a grinder with a layer of kief accumulated. Credit: James Kaliwae on Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wik!/Flle:Klefy_Ktef Catch.JPG). {https:/lcommons.wikimedia.org/wikitFite:Kiefy_Kief Catch.JPG) Traditional hash, or hashish, is another example of a solvent -free, more basic cannabis extract. Again, the idea is to separate the trichromes from the plant material as they contain the highest concentration of desirable compounds. Two main methods exist for creating hash, one involves laking frozen cannabis buds and breaking them Into smaller and smaller parts over a screen. In the process, trichromes are separated from the plant and fall through the sieve and then pressed Into Exhibit f Page /t4 y haps://www.analyticalcannabis.com/articles/the-best-cannabis-extraction-methods-for-ma... 6/21/2019 The Best Cannabis Extraction Methods for Marijuana Concentrates I Articles 1 Analytical... Page 5 of 8 blocks. The other primary method of solvent -free hash extraction involves using ice water to separate the trichromes from the bud. After drying they can then be pressed in a hash block. A block of cannabis hash. Credit: Nihilism.cc on Wikimedla Common (hitps://commons.wikimedia.org/wild/File:Resinecannabis.jpgjs (https://com mons.wiklmedia.org/wlki/File:Resinecannabis.jpg) Rosin has also become very popular over the last couple of years. Produced from flowers, hash or kief, rosin is a translucent substance typically with a sap -like consistency. It's made by applying heat and pressure to the material you wish to extract from and results in a product that's very similar to the more time-consuming, expensive and, solvent -based butane extraction. Analytical testing (https:/thightimes.comtgrow/grow-gear/rosin-tech-what-do-the-labs-have-to-say/) has demonstrated that this simple approach effectively extracts cannabinoids and terpenes with absolutely no risk of leaving behind toxic residual solvents like butane. The simplicity of this approach is without a doubt its biggest draw. Enthusiasts are able to produce highly potent rosin extracts with a hair straightener, some baking parchment, a collection tool and, some heatproof gloves. Commercial rosin presses (https:/Igopurepressure.com/) are also available to process material on a much larger scale but the concept is essentially the same. A flat heat press mechanism is used to squeeze the material but at a specific heat and pressure and the extract is scraped off. A Rosin lndustnes pneumatic heat press cannabis extraction unit. Credit: Rosin Industries. (https://www.rosinindustries.com0 VIM Comments Stay connected with the latest news In cannabis extraction, science and testing Get the latest news with the FREE weekly Analytical Cannabis newsletter Sign Up Here (http://go.technologynetworks.comisubscribe- to-ana lytical-cannabis-newsletters) Exhibit I-- Page/7 of f https://www. analyticalcannabis.com/articles/the-best-cannabis-extraction-methods-for-ma... 6/21/2019 The Best Cannabis Extraction Methods for Marijuana Concentrates I Articles I Analytical... Page 6 of 8 8 Comments Sort by Newest Add a comment .. Sheryl Coates can someone please tell me, if there is any danger In a small amount of alcohol still being present in extracted oil. Its already been put into caps.. so dont quite know whether it should be taken?? thanks in advance, Like Reply lw pit Tim Logan Y Well, if you eat enough of the capsules, you might get ever so slightly tipsy, but you would like need to eat an insane amount of them ) That's the only danger (unless you are allergic to alcohol) Like Reply 4d Sheryl Coates Tim Logan .. thanks. What if the alcohol isnt human consumption? Burns a bit on the way down apparently. The only product left was black tar like oil.. but dont want to poison someone with toxin. Like Reply 4d Jamie Young Sheryl Coates - solry Sheryl, unless it's ethanol then don't inject any of it Like Reply 3h leFaisal Arif Hasan Chard hury Hi I need help. We are planning to extract outdoor field grown cannabis and extract through Supercritcal CO2 process. What would be our challenge in term of QA. Like Reply 4w Jake Thomasson Coffee I need help. You guys look like u can.. I ended up with a lot of Exhibit Page /. Ye of ri https://www.analyticalcannabis. com/articles/the-best-cannabis-extraction-methods-for-ma... 6/21/2019 The Best Cannabis Extraction Methods for Marijuana Concentrates 1 Articles 1 Analytical... Page 7 of 8 Exhibit. 7 ._. vaa,t,. H. of r7 r https: //www.analyticalcannabis. com/articles/the-best-cannabis-extraction-methods-for-ma... 6/21/2019 The Best Cannabis Extraction Methods for Marijuana Concentrates 1 Articles 1 Analytical... Page 8 of 8 Advertisement CANNABIS LABORATORY LabX i.(441PN.E•!.T Alai "- RLN:.,, IN ( :4NNcfl (/go/AC/Iabx.Inrina-ba nne r -a c-28th-fe b-2019.311514) Analytical (annabis About Us (/about -us) Contact Us (/contact -us) Contribute (/contribute) Share Your Research (/share -your - research) Manage Your Subscriptions (http://go.analyticalcannabis.com/request- to-manage-your-subscriptions) Horne (/) News (/news) Articles (/articles) Resources (/resources) Webinars (/webinars) Events (/events) Videos (/videos) egai Terms & Conditions (/terms -conditions) Privacy Policy (/privacy -policy) Cookie Policy (/cookies) Copyright (/copyright) 02019 Technology Networks, all rights reserved (kopyrlght) 'Ai1F tri (https://www facebook.com/CannaScienc (http://www,twitter.com/cannabis_sci) 11111 (h"gwww.linkedin.com/groups/1210( (https://www.instagram.com/analyticalca https://www.analyticalcannabis.com/articles/the-best-cannabis-extraction-methods-for-ma... 6/21/2019 Choosing the right cannabis extraction method: Experts weigh in on CO2, hydrocarbon,... Page 1 of 6 INItIV#N Da ly fhttps://mjblzdaily,com) Select your Edition: V.S. (https://mjbizdaily.com) Jnternational (https://mjbizdailycom/int1/) Choosing the right cannabis extraction method: Experts weigh in on CO2, hydrocarbon & ethanol Published October 30, 2018 1 By Bart Schaneman f/about-us/staff/4teditorial-staffi f Share (https://vvww.facebook.com/sharer.php? u- Choosing the right cannabis extraction method: Experts weigh in on CO2, hydrocarbon,... Page 2 of 6 Business Magazine (https://mjbizmagazine.com/digital- issues/20 1 8- 1 0-Oct/56/).) CO2? Hydrocarbon? Ethanol? Which extraction method is best for your cannabis company? The answer boils down to what you hope to accomplish. Do you want to produce full -spectrum cannabis oil? Is safety your primary concern? Do you need to process a large amount of marijuana flower as soon as possible? (https://servedbyadbutler.com/redirect.spark? WE NEED YOUR FEEDBACK Help us gather data and information about trends impacting our industry. M I D=1 72085&plid=9641 91 &setl D=299585&channel I D=0&C1 D=309631 &ban ID=51972263 In CO2 extraction, carbon dioxide is pressurized in metal tanks until it becomes a supercritical fluid, then the fluid pulls out the desirable compounds from flower. The fluid is then separated, leaving only concentrates including hash oil, shatter and budder. Hydrocarbon extraction typically refers to using butane or propane as a solvent that's passed through the raw cannabis matter to collect cannabinoids and terpenes. The sal t. with essential oils ii.) i9ecn u ts://mjbizdaily.com/privacy-oolicy- eVappi cOakh61.11 tpmeuQ"pr6agteydeiamiiig Wig time. By continuing to use our site, you vielvatratv of cookies, our Cookie Policy (https://mjbizdaily.com/privacy policy-copyright/cookie-policy/), and our Privacy Policies (https://mjbizdaily.com/privacy-policy-copyright/). OK https://mj bizdaily. com/choosing-the-right-cannabis-extraction-method/ Exhibit Page 7—of p?d 6/21/2019 Choosing the right cannabis extraction method: Experts weigh in on CO2, hydrocarbon,... Page 3 of 6 Ethanol extraction is conducted by soaking raw cannabis in ethanol to pull trichomes into the solvent. The cannabis is then removed; the liquid is filtered and the alcohol purged from the extracted material. Whatever your goals may be, each of the three main types of cannabis extraction has its strengths and its weaknesses - with no hands -down favorite among industry executives. "It's tough to pigeonhole one extraction process as being optimal," said Jim Makoso, co-owner and vice president of Lucid Labs, an extraction branding and licensing company with locations in Nevada and Washington state. "There is no one process that's better over another without putting qualifying statements on there." Marijuana Business Magazine asked experts who make their living extracting cannabinoids to share their preferences as well as the pros and cons of their chosen method. Clicks on the links below to learn more about key criteria to evaluate extraction methods: T�iositet roaucii on described i uipmetitookie Policy (https://mibizdailv.com/private-oolicv- co ri • t/coo e-po icvi . you may c angge your settings at any time. By continuing to use our site, you �, . I• ,P ..�:. • ,�_ t .. +,tt► ,' �1 -"-/privacy-policy-copyright/cookie-policy/l, accept • .. - 10-OCt/spur Privacy Policies (https://mjbizdaily.com/orivacy-policy-copyright/l. OK https://mjbizdaily.cam/choosing-the-right-cannabis-extraction-method/ Exhibitry Page 2.! of 6/21/2019 Choosing the right cannabis extraction method: Experts weigh in on CO2, hydrocarbon,... Page 4 of 6 Quality of the end product (https://mjbizmagazine.cam/digital-issues/2018- 10-Oct/60/) Employee safety (https://mjbizmagazine.com/digital-issues/2018- 10-Oct/62/) Production efficiency and throughput (https://mjbizmagazine.com/digital-issues/2018- 10-Oct/64/1 f Share (https://www.facebook,corn/sharer.i:Thp? u==haps% A%21:0/b2Foljhizdaiiy.con %2Fchoosin ;-the- ri ;hrt-cannabis- extrac.Cion-methocI9 2F) tor Tweet (https://twitter.com/intent/tvieet? text=Choosing%2lithe%20right%2Ocannabis%2Oextraction%2.Omethod%3A%20Experts%io2O\N p-114978) Linkedin (https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle? trk=Choosing+thy +rigLit+cdruiabis+extraction+rnetl od%?A+Experts+weigh-+in+on+CO2%2C+ the -right -can na his -extra ction-i-n h od%2F) Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/submit? url -hrtp °'o3A%21:'o2Frrrjhi/daily.c.or7ic%,2Fclioosing-the- r iglit c ann rl>rs-extr ac:ti&.3n- rnethod 3 2F&trtle: Lhoosir g + the + r ighr-r czannabis -extraction+rnethod%3A+Experts+weig +in ►J Mail (mailto:? subject %2o body-.%201ittps%3A%2_F%2Fnnlhizdaily.com%2Fc! oosing- the-right-cannabis-extraction-method%2F) Categories: Featured Marijuana Business & Canna.bis:J S StirvkNeWSJescribed in our Cookie Policy (https://mjbizdaily.com/privacy-policy- (G,a.#t1(plKylfgaatt;Niedilat any time. By continuing to use our site, you 11: ,174 -t eta a no BMW z:$ ://mbizdail .com/.rivac -.otic co. ri•ht/cookie-policv/), (https://mjb •4119. products/), United States Cannabis Indttry & rivac -• olic -co• r•i • ht/ • Exhibit. rage ✓ 2 �, of .✓2- https://mjbizdaily.com/choosing-the-right-cannabis-extraction-method/ 6/21/2019 Choosing the right cannabis extraction method: Experts weigh in on CO2, hydrocarbon,... Page 5 of 6 Marijuana Business News (https://mjbizdaily.com/category/us/) Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Comment Name * Email * Website POST COMMENT This site uses cookies as described in our Cookie Policy (https://mjbizdaily.com/privacy-oolicy- copyright/cookie-policy/). You may change your settings at any time. By continuing to use our site, you s, our Cookie Policy (https://mjbizdaily.com/privacy-policy-copyright/ eklsiteld ji, Privacy Policies (https://rnjbizdaily.cbm/privacy-pll t� 0.0daily.com/pres ii.tatiilf.�� d� 1D.isi;(ss OK https://mj bizdaily.com/choosing-the-right-cannabis-extraction-method/ room/) Exhibit :l Page!—of 6/21/2019 Choosing the right cannabis extraction method: Experts weigh in on CO2, hydrocarbon,... Page 6 of 6 ABOUT US Marijuana Business Daily - the most trusted daily news source, exclusively written by professional journalists for the industry. Learn more > jhttps://mjbizdaily.com/a bout - us/) Advertise With Us (https://mjbizdaily.com/advE info/) Partner With Us (https://mjbizdaily.com/part Contact Us (https://mjbizdaily.com/abot us/contact-marijuana- business-daily/) Careers (https://annehollandventu re © 2012-2019 by Marijuana Business Daily, a division of Anne Holland Ventures, Inc. This site uses cookies as described in our Cookie Policy (https://mjbizdaily.com/privacy-policy- copyright/cookie-policy/). You may change your settings at any time. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, our Cookie Policy (httos://mjbizdaily.com/privacy-policy-copyright/cookie-policy/), and our Privacy Policies (https://mjbizdaily.com/privacy-policy-copyright/). OK https://mjbizdaily. com/choosing-the-right-cannabis-extraction-method/ Exhibit faker r9 coir.? 6/21/2019 6/7/2019 Which Ntane is the best for me? - Extractor Hub EXTRACTOR HUB Sharing Cannabis Extraction Technology OCTOBER 8, 2018 BY EXTRACTION PRO Which Ntane is the best for me? I'm opening this up to anyone who needs advice on cannabis extraction and which solvents to use. So lets get started... Ntane is the slang used when describing n -butane. N -butane is the basic, original solvent which really took hold and became the "baseline" hydrocarbon solvent for which most cannabis extractions begin. Currently, this is the solvent most commonly used in creating "crude," although the cleaner the solvent, the better the results. I am told that n -butane provides a 3% higher yield when creating crude. For the best solvents which are found to be of "ultra-high purity," please visit www.ecogreenindustries.net Recently found in the cannabis extraction boutique markets are products know as "custom blends." These blends contain 2-3 of the most commonly used solvents in cannabis extraction: n -butane, n -propane, and isobutane. EcoGreen Industries sell the most variety and purest (cleanest) solvent gas for the best prices. They also carry the 70/30N and 70/301 blends which are blends of 70 percent n -butane or isobutane with 30 percent propane. They have a 40/40/20 which they affectionately call their "shatter" blend. Their 40/40/20 custom blend is 40 percent n -butane, 40 percent isobutane, and 20 percent n -propane. This blend provides a cross section of 3 solvents to pull terpenes from while also providing a lighter end product. Isobutane is a rearranging of the n -butane molecular structure which alters it's boiling point and also changes it's terpine profile. Therefore the pressure is a bit different. Also please keep in mind that when using isobutane, your end product should turn out significantly lighter to a brighter yellow hue. hibi9 r Page ;22 of www.extractorhub.com/which-ntane-is-the-best-for-me/ 1/2 6/7/2019 Which Ntane is the best for me? - Extractor Hub N -propane is much harder to work with and ones product may not come out very stable if the temperatures are not low enough. It's boiling point is far lower which creates higher pressures when using. I have heard that if you can keep your temperatures under zero, then this is the way to go for creating some killer product. Anyway, please check out this link to visit EGI and see their UHP solvents: https://ecogreenindustries.net/product/r600-n-butane-50-size-99-995-purity/ Thanks, MadDabz r GENERAL EXTRACTION, SOLVENTS Exhibit El Page of _0? -47 www.extractorhub.com/which-ntane-is-the-best-for-me/ 2/2 Mailing Date: Friday, May 10, 2019 May 10, 2019 Re: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners Order to reopen the record for file no. 247-19- 000178-A1, an appeal of an application fora marijuana production and processing facility at 25450 Walker Road, Bend. Dear Land Use Participant: You are receiving this letter because you are a party to the land use action proceedings referenced above, pursuant to Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.24.080. The attached order outlines an open record period beginning on June 14, 2019 and includes the following dosing dates: 1. New evidence: All parties may submit new written evidence and argument beginning June 14, 2019 until June 21, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. 2. Rebuttal: AH parties may submit written rebuttal and response until June 28, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. 3. Final Statement: Only the applicant may submit a final written argument with no new evidence until July 5, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call the ADA Coordinator at (541) 617-4747. DOCUMENT SUBMISSION Any person may submit written comments on a proposed land use action. Documents may be submitted to our office in person, U.S. mail, or email. In Person U.S. Mail We accept all printed documents. Deschutes County Community Development Planning Division, Jacob Ripper P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 1 Appeal of file nos. 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, and 247 -18 -000506 -SP. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org ) www.deschutes.org/cd Email Email submittals must comply with the following guidelines: • Submission is 20 pages or less • Documents can be printed in black and white only • Documents can be printed on 8.5" x 11" paper Any email submittal which exceeds the guidelines provided above, must be submitted as a paper copy. Limitations • Deschutes County does not take responsibility for retrieving information from a website Zink or a personal cloud storage service. It is the submitter's responsibility to provide the specific information they wish to enter into the record. We will print the email which includes the link(s), however, we will not retrieve any information on behalf of the submitter. • Deschutes County makes an effort to scan all submittals as soon as possible. Recognizing staff availability and workload, there is often a delay between the submittal of a document to the record, and when it is scanned and uploaded to Accela Citizen Access (ACA) and Deschutes County Property Information (DIAL). For this reason, the official record is the file that resides in the Community Development office. The electronic record in ACA and DIAL is not a substitute for the official record. • To ensure your submission is entered into the correct land use record, please specify the land use file number(s). • For the open record period after a public hearing, electronic submittals are valid if received by the County's server by the deadline established for the land use action. • IF YOU WISH TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DECISION RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION, YOU MUST PROVIDE A MAILING ADDRESS. Sincerely yours, DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner 247-19-000178-A Page 2 of 2 For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON. An Order Re -opening the Record for the Submittal of Written Materials on File Numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18- 000506 -SP and 247-19-000178-A * * * ORDER NO. 2019-013 WHEREAS, the Appellant, Rowan Hollitz, appealed the Planning Division's decision in application numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18 -000506 -SP; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") agreed to hear this appeal, file number 247-19- 000178-A, de novo under Order No. 2019-004; and WHEREAS, the Board conducted a public hearing and established post -hearing periods, for the submittals of written materials; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, Mark Weisheit, has agreed to extend the land use clock by 58 days pursuant to an email from Mr. Weisheit's legal counsel Stephanie Marshall ("Marshall email"), and attached as Exhibit A to this Order, making the last day on which the County shall take fmal action on these applications August 20, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a re -opening of the public hearing record for the submittal of written materials via the Marshall email, and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that additional testimony and information regarding this matter is of paramount importance in this proceeding; and WHEREAS, the Board may at its discretion reopen the record in accordance with DCC 22.24.160; and, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The record on file numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18 -000506 -SP and 247-19-000178-A shall be reopened on June 14, 2019, for written evidence and argumentation. Section 2. The written record for all parties for new evidence and argumentation is extended to 5:00 p.m. June 21, 2019, but only for written evidence and argumentation. Section 3. The written record of all parties is extended to 5:00 p.m. June 28, 2019, but only for response to the evidence and argumentation per Section 2. Section 4. The written record for fmal argument by the Applicant is extended to 5:00 p.m. July 5, 2019. Section 5. The Planning Division shall give written notice to all parties that the record is being reopened, in accordance with DCC 22.24.160(B)(2). /1/ Page 1 of 2- ORDER NO. 2019-013 Dated this EXHIBIT A — S. Marshall email dated May 8, 2019 Page 2 of 2- ORDER NO. 2019-013 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, ON PHILIP G. HE ERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair aoe,9 ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner Exhibit A, ORDER No. 2019-01: Jacob Ripper From: Stephanie Marshall <stephanie@bennulaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:51 PM To: Adam Smith Cc: Amanda La Bell; Jacob Ripper; Mark Weisheit Subject: Re: Weisheit Applications - Request for Extension of Record Yes, thank you Adam. On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 12:46 PM Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> wrote: Stephanie , Following up our phone conversation today at roughly 12:30 pm, please confirm that you agree to toll the clock from today, 5/8/19, to 6/14/19 (a total of 58 days) based on the Board's verbal agreement to re -open the record. The record will thereby be re -opened for 7 days for any evidence from 6/14/2019 to 5:00 pm on 6/21/2019, followed by a 7 -day rebuttal period from 6/21/19 to 5:00 pm on 6/28/19, followed finally by a 7 -day period for the applicant to submit final legal argument from 6/28/19 to 5:00 pm on 7/5/2019. After 7/5/2019, the clock will again start ticking with whatever time is currently left. Staff will proceed with drafting a Board order reflecting the aforementioned time frames, but for the record please reply that you concur with these dates. Thanks, -Adam D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam. sm ith Ad esch utes. orq THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS 1 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 70 i N. N N^ N N. N N N. 00 N N. N. N N. N. N. ob N a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 —1 ,-1 'O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 I - ai rn rn m m rn rn m rn rn rn o a rn rn o o o o U a1 a-1 a1 a1 a-1 a •-1 a1 a1 a1 a--1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a -1 a1 a1 a1 a1 L L L L L L L 16 L 'C 'C L L L L L L L L CU 0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0) Q. 7▪ 1.3 7,212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N c a) on a) O 501 Herondo St. #70 Mark Weisheit Tiburon, CA 94920 60 Red Hill Circle Elizabeth Weisheit Bend, OR 97702 Greg Blackmore Bend, OR 97703 1530 NW 9th St Bend, OR 97701 1216 NE 1st St. U J J a) a) U a) c a▪ ) E O. a) a) 0 co 00 ._ C CO 1S O O E 0 0 St ▪ O O co Bend, OR 97701 Cr) a1 N a) N CU Q 0 0 c a) a) w V m s 4/1co 2 CU c ca CL v V) N Bennu Law LLC Bend, OR 97701 25360 Walker Road Boundless Farmstead Bend, OR 97701 -c) tea) 2 2 a -0Q 0) ▪ 0 -0 -0 Lnca CO N O O Z to Z Brooke Klein Charles K and Janet Nash c ea •00 c c aJ O V Bend, OR 97701 25360 Walker Road Boundless Farmstead David Kellner -Rode Bend, OR 97701 26285 Walker Road Wildflower Farm aJ a) 2 00 i7 Bend, OR 97701 25285 Walker Road Joanna Booser c 0 (o U C L O Bend, OR 97701 62311 Dodds Road Mar More Farms Margot Barron Bend, OR 97701 25360 Walker Road Boundless Farmstead Bend, OR 97701 Bend, OR 97701 "0 0 CO CO en 4/1 -a -a O 00 a1 0 M 1.0 N N l0 t0 Mar More Farms 00 c_ C .111 Li c 0- C C C C CO ca OA a) d Bend, OR 97701 19845 JW Brown Road Nunzie Gould STAFF MEMORANDUM CO!/l l ?i JN I" Y DEVELOP DATE: May 7, 2019 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner RE: Continued deliberations of a marijuana production and processing facility, and consideration of a request to reopen the record. File no. 247-19-000178-A (appeal of Administrative Determination file nos. 247- 18 -000504 -AD, 505 -AD, 506 -SP). 1. Purpose The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners ("Board") held deliberations on May 1, 2019 and discussed the topics listed in the April 24 Staff Memo and the attached decision matrix. The Board found the application met the requirements for YACs, percent of crop processed, utility verification, odor control, and site plan review. Additionally, the Board determined that the proficiency/capability of a fire department was not a factor in this decision. The Board discussed the noise control requirement and an arrest ("south county incident") and how it may be a factor in this decision. The Board did not reach final determinations on these two points and continued the deliberations until May 8. This memo addresses two developments in this application. Specifically, a request from the applicant was received to reopen the record for new evidence with a corresponding clock extension, and a motion from the appellant to strike certain statements in the applicant's final written statement. 11. Reopening the Record On Tuesday, May 7, the applicant requested that the record be reopened towards the end of May to allow new evidence for consideration by the Board, in the three-week "7-7-7" format. The 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 k (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org/cd applicant is extending the clock until June 14th to accommodate this request. The open record period would be to address and respond to the deliberations, specifically the "south county incident". The applicant states in the attached email that their business partner, Jacob Onat, reached out to the District Attorney and received guidance from the DA that the investigation into the "south county incident" should be concluded at the end of May 2019. The applicant further states that they believe this information will provide clarity around any association with the people involved with the incident. The applicant requests that the Board table deliberations for the time being, until the DA's investigation is complete and a decision is made on charges associated with the "south county incident". Staff notes the open record period could also settle a procedural issue regarding the record and a motion submitted by the appellant in response to the applicant's final legal argument, discussed in more detail below. If the Board's direction is to reopen the record, staff will provide notice to all parties. A Board Order to reopen the record is attached to this memo. III. Applicant's Final Written Argument The appellant submitted a "Motion to Strike Portion of Applicant's Final Rebuttal as New Evidence", specifically concerning the type of butane solvent proposed for marijuana processing. The appellant argues that hearing testimony referenced "n-tane" and "medical grade" butane. In response, the appellant submitted information regarding "medical grade butane", specifically, "Pentane" and "Quintane". The appellant then argued that the applicant has introduced new evidence by asserting in the final statement that it will not be using "medical -grade" butane and will be using "n-tane". The appellant recommended that if the Board found new evidence in the submittal that the Board could: 1). Strike the applicant's references on p. 14 to "n-tane"; 2). Reopen the record to allow rebuttal; or, 3). Exclude consideration of new evidence and note that it does not form any basis for this decision. The applicant responded that the proposal is to use "n-tane", that the terms "medical grade" and "high quality and pure" are synonymous, and that "n-tane" is an extremely high-quality and pure form of butane. The applicant states "N-tane" (C4H10) is chemically different than "pentane" (C5H12). The applicant further states that they did not make the alleged assertion in the final argument that the applicant will not be using "medical -grade" butane. When asked previously if the applicant wished to extend the clock and reopen the record to address the appellant's motion, the applicant indicated they did not wish to do so, believing the argument did not address approval criteria. Pursuant to the Board's determination in the May 1 deliberations, the only applicable criterion is that the processing facility is located within a fire protection district. Assuming the record was reopened and it was determined that new evidence was submitted in the final argument, it does not appear to staff that this information would be pertinent to the decision-making process. 247-19-000178-A Page 2 of 3 IV. Conclusion & Board Options The Board may choose to: 1. Reopen the record and postpone deliberations. 2. Proceed with deliberations and leave the record closed. Attachments: 1. Board Order 2019-013 a. Exhibit A - S. Marshall email re reopening the record 2. Appellant's "Motion to Strike Portion of Applicant's Final Rebuttal as New Evidence" a. Exhibit 0 - Applicant's final legal argument b. Exhibit P - Partial hearing transcript 3. S. Marshall letter - Response to appellant's motion 247-19-000178-A Page 3 of 3 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Re -opening the Record for the Submittal of Written Materials on File Numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18- 000506 -SP and 247-19-000178-A * * * ORDER NO. 2019-013 WHEREAS, the Appellant, Rowan Hollitz, appealed the Planning Division's decision in application numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18 -000506 -SP; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") agreed to hear this appeal, file number 247-19- 000178-A, de novo under Order No. 2019-004; and WHEREAS, the Board conducted a public hearing and established post -hearing periods, for the submittals of written materials; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, Mark Weisheit, has agreed to extend the land use clock pursuant to an email from Mr. Weisheit's legal counsel Stephanie Marshall ("Marshall email"), and attached as Exhibit A to this Order; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a re -opening of the public hearing record for the submittal of written materials via the Marshall email, and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that additional testimony and information regarding this matter is of paramount importance in this proceeding; and WHEREAS, the Board may at its discretion reopen the record in accordance with DCC 22.24.160; and, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The record on file numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18 -000506 -SP and 247-19-000178-A shall be reopened on May 24, 2019, for written evidence and argumentation. Section 2. The written record for all parties for new evidence and argumentation is extended to 5:00 p.m. May 31, 2019, but only for written evidence and argumentation. Section 3. The written record of all parties is extended to 5:00 p.m. June 7, 2019, but only for response to the evidence and argumentation per Section 2. Section 4. The written record for final argument by the Applicant is extended to 5:00 p.m. June 14, 2019. Section 5. The Planning Division shall give written notice to all parties that the record is being reopened, in accordance with DCC 22.24.160(B)(2). /// Page 1 of 2- ORDER NO. 2019-013 Dated this of , 2019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair Recording Secretary ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner EXHIBIT A — S. Marshall email dated May 7, 2019 Page 2 of 2- ORDER NO. 2019-013 EXHIBIT A Jacob Ripper From: Stephanie Marshall <stephanie@bennulaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:45 PM To: Jacob Ripper; Adam Smith Cc: Mark Weisheit; Amanda La Bell Subject: Weisheit Applications - Request for Extension of Record Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Jacob and Adam, Hi Jacob and Anthony, The applicant and I have discussed the issues on which the Commissioners appeared to be focused during deliberations last week and would like to request the record to be reopened and the clock extended as described below. The applicant's partner, Jacob Onat, reached out to the DA and received guidance from him that the investigation into "the La Pine incident" should be concluded by the end of May 2019. The applicant is confident this decision will provide clarity to all parties and the Board regarding their "association" with the people involved in this incident, and should properly be before the Commissioners on the record. The applicant requests that the Board table its deliberations at this point until a decision is made on charges associated with the La Pine incident, expected by the end of May 2019. This is accompanied by a formal request to extend the record to a date certain, June 14, 2019, which we hope will allow ample time for the DA to make his decision. If the Commissioners desire to leave the record open for response by the appellant to the DA's decision as new evidence, the June 14 date should allow for a 7 -day period thereafter, followed by a 7 -day final argument period for the applicant on this limited issue. Thank you, Stephanie Marshall 1 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 April 24, 2019 Deschutes County Community Development Department Attn: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Board of County Commissioners 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 Re: Appeal of Administrative Decision to BOCC, de novo File No. 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 505 -AD, 506 -SP Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Applicant/Owner: Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit RECEIVED APR 2 4 2019 Deschutes County CDD Hand Delivered and by email Dear Mr. Ripper, Please find the enclosed Motion to Strike in 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, t', Eliz both A. Dickson Attorney for Appellant eadickson clicksonhatfieldsom EAD/hoh Cc: client 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 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ROWAN HOLLITZ, Appellant, vs. MARK AND ELIZABETH WEISHEIT, Applicant File No. 247-19-000178-A MOTION TO STRIKE PORTION OF APPLICANT'S FINAL REBUTTAL AS NEW EVIDENCE Appellant Rowan Hollitz ("Hollitz" or "Appellant") formally objects to Applicant's introduction of new evidence in Final Rebuttal and moves this Board to strike a portion of Final Rebuttal submitted by Applicant Weisheit ("Weisheit" or "Applicant") as new evidence. In the alternative, this Board may properly reopen the Record to allow Appellant to allow review and rebuttal, or categorically exclude consideration of the new evidence. It is Appellant's substantial right [ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B)] to rebut relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant if it is a fact offered to demonstrate compliance with the standards relevant to the decision, pursuant to ORS 197.763(9)(b). Applicant requests permission to process marijuana on site. Processing on site requires proof of safety from fire hazard. Applicant offers the following on Page 14 as proof of fire safety: 1 -- APPELLANT HOLLITZ' MOTION TO STRIKE 400 SW BLUFF DR., STE. 240 BEND, OR 97702 (541) 585-2224 (P) 1(541) 330-5540 (F) 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 "[T]he Applicants will be doing the vast majority of their processing using water and ice. Mr. Onat testified at the hearing that the remainder will use n-tane, which is an extremely high quality and pure form of butane solvent. The purity (free from accelerants, mercaptans, etc.) renders it extremely predictable and results in a higher quality product for the consumer. This predictability, along with the proposed state-of-the-art closed-loop system and fire detection and prevention systems (described in previous submissions) is what ensures a safe processing environment." See Exhibit 0, attached and incorporated by reference. Applicant initially claimed they were using only "water and ice" to process marijuana on site in Public Hearing, March 20, 2019. When pressed by Commissioner Henderson, Applicant's business partner, Jacob Onat, admitted some chemical materials would be required for processing. His testimony and his interaction with Commissioner Henderson is transcribed as Exhibit P, incorporated by this reference. Mr. Onat stated for the Record that the "ntane" product is medical -grade butane. Appellant then researched this compound and practice of refinement and submitted evidence into the Record regarding dangers of medical -grade butane products when used for marijuana processing, based on Mr. Onat's testimony to Commissioner Henderson. Applicant now claims that all that evidence is irrelevant because it does not relate to "ntane." "All comments and attachments provided by the Appellant regarding different solvents and processing methods are irrelevant, as Applicant has not proposed the use of entane or pentane...." Exhibit 0, Page 14. The safety of this proposal is pivotal to its approval. Applicant is now asserting in Final Rebuttal that it will not be using medical -grade butane, as claimed in the Public Hearing. 2 - APPELLANT HOLLITZ' MOTION TO STRIKE 400 SW BLUFF DR., STE. 240 BEND, OR 97702 (541)585-2224(P)1(541) 330-5540 (F) Applicant claims that properties of "ntane" are distinct and superior from Pentane/Quintane, the compound research provided in Appellant's Exhibit M. Exhibit M, page 4 of 33, expressly notes that "Pentane is an organic compound with the formula C5H12 — that is, an alkane with five carbon atoms. The term may refer to any of three structural isomers, or to a mixture of them: in the IUPAC nomenclature, however, pentane means exclusively the n -pentane isomer; the other two are called isopentane (methylbutane) and neopentane (dimenthylpropane). Clyc.lopentane is not an isomer of pentane because it has only 10 hydrogen atoms where pentane has 12. Pentanes are components of some fuels and are employed as specialty solvents in the laboratory. Their properties are very similar to those of butanes and hexanes." If Applicant proposes to use C5H12 (Pentane) to process marijuana on site, then Appellant's Exhibit M research and conclusions are applicable, and the proposed process is hazardous because it is highly volatile. If Applicant now claims that "ntane" will be used, and that "ntane" is different and distinct from the "medical -grade butane" Mr. Onat claimed would be used in his Public Hearing testimony, then this is new evidence and it is Appellant's right to rebut such evidence within this Record. Appellant moves this Board to take one of these actions to remedy this violation of Appellant's substantial right: 1. Strike Applicant's references on Page 14 to "n-tane" butane solvent; 2. Reopen the Record to allow Appellant to respond to the new evidence; 3. Categorically exclude consideration of the new evidence as not considered and not forming any basis for the decision. 3 - APPELLANT HOLLITZ' MOTION TO STRIKE 400 SW BLUFF DR., STE. 240 BEND, OR 97702 (541) 585-2224 (P) 1 (541) 330-5540 (F) Dated this- day oi' of (' , 204. Respectfully Submitted, Dickson Hatfield, LLP ""4- 162‘ / izabeth A. Dickson 400 SW Bluff Dr., Ste. 240 Bend, OR 97702 Phone: (541) 585-2224 Email: eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com dicksonhatfield.com Exhibits: Exhibit 0: Applicant's Final Rebuttal Submitted 4.17.19 Exhibit P: Transcription of Public Hearing Portion 3.20.19 4 — APPELLANT HOLLITZ' MOTION TO STRIKE 400 SW BLUFF DR.. STE. 240 BEND, OR 97702 (541) 585-2224 (P) 1 (541) 330-5540 (F) Ashley Williams From: Stephanie Marshall <stephanie@cliftonlawllc.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 4:39 PM To: Jacob Ripper Cc: Mark Weisheit; Jacob Onat; Amanda La Bell Subject: Re: Weisheit Final Written Argument Attachments: 1078_001.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I am not sure the attachment was included. Here you go! Stephanie Marshall Senior Attorney at Clifton Law LLC Address 1735 SW Chandler Ave., Suite 3, Bend, OR 97702 Phone (541) 3064441 Mobile (541) 977-1483 Email 5tephanieiacliftonlawlic,cont Website www,cliftonlawllc,com 13 r This email message, including any attachments, is from Stephanie Marshall and may contain privileged or confidential information. The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments, if any, are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof, If you are not the named addressee, or iFyou believe this message has been addressed to you in error, you ate requested not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this infomtation Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality_ if you have received this hansnussion in error, please alert the sender by reply a-mailit is also requested that you immediately delete this message and its attachments if any. From: Stephanie Marshall Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 4:37 PM To:Jacob.Ripper@deschutes.org Cc: Mark Weisheit; Jacob Onat; Amanda La Bell Subject: Weisheit Final Written Argument Hi Jacob, Attached please find the Applicant's final written argument for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thank you, Stephanie Marshall 1 Exhibit —�) Page / or �i Stephanie Marshall Senior Attorney at Clifton Law LLC Address 1735 SW Chandler Ave., Suite 3, Bend, OR 97702 Phone (541) 306-4441 Mobile (541) 977-1483 Email $tcphanie4 )cliftonlawlJc.com Website www.cliftonlawlle.com ©CID Thus email message, including any attachments, is from Stephanie Marshall and may contain privileged or confidential iufonrtarion, The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments, if any. are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. If you are not the named addressee, or if you believe this message has been addressed to you in error, yon are requested not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this information, Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any sway to waive confidentiality. If you have recei, ed this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail It is also requested that you immediately delete this message and its attachments Wally, 2 Exhibit 0 Page 2- of„ CLIFTON CANNABIS LAW April 17, 2019 Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 1735 SW Chandler Avenue. Ste. I Bend, OR 97702 a (541) 306-4441 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 tit (601) 452-0974 info(a)cliftonca nne bislaw.corn re: Weisheit Applications for Administrative Determination and Site Plan Approval, Deschutes County File Nos. 247-18-000504-AD/505-AD/506-SP; Appeal Application File No. 247-19-000178- A DearJacob, Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit, the applicants for the referenced permit applications respectfully submit this final argument for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners for Deschutes County with respect to the appeal application filed by Rowan Hollitz and the referenced files above. The Applicant incorporates by reference their application and supporting documentation, all exhibits, testimony and legal argument in the record, as previously submitted to the Board. We respectfully request that this letter be included in the record. Context for Decision -Making The Board should deny the appeal and grant the subject applications. All applicable criteria are met, as shown by substantial evidence in the record. Opponents have not presented evidence, as the term is defined by the Oregon Legislature, to support a denial. Supposition, inference and unsubstantiated fears are not a legal basis for denial. See ORS 197.835(8)(a)(C) (decision must be based on substantial evidence); ORS 197.763(9)(b) (defining evidence); ORS 215.416(8)(a) (decision must be based on adopted criteria).1 The proposed use is a farm use under Oregon law and is not, as the appellant's attorney has attempted to characterize it, subject to any more stringent review of site plan review for the processing aspect of the use. ORS 4756.526; see also DCC 18.16.020(A), (S) (marijuana production allowed outright in the EFU zone); DCC 18.16.025(L) (marijuana production allowed I ORS 215.416(8)(a) states, "Approval or denial of a permit application shall be based on standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the county and which shall relate approval or denial of a permit application to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the area in which the proposed use of land would occur and to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the county as a whole." Argument does not constitute evidence. ORS 197.763(9)(a). Argumentative statements made by attorneys do not transform into "evidence" if unsupported by facts, documents, data or other information." 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 '®' (541) 3064441 infoPcliftoncannebislaw.con, 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 7 ExhibiWfi°1 0974 Page —3 of /i'. outright in EFU zone subject to site plan review). ORS 4758.454 confirms that the provisions of ORS 4756.010 to .545 "are designed to operate uniformly throughout the state and are paramount and superior to and fully replace and supersede any municipal charter amendment or local ordinance inconsistent with the provisions of ORS 475B.010 to 4756545. Amendments and ordinances that are inconsistent with the provisions of ORS 4758.010 to 4758,545 are repealed." The Board has been presented with hundreds of pages of materials for this Application, most of which are irrelevant to its consideration in this hearing. The Board is limited in its quasi-judicial decision-making role. ORS 215.422. That the hearing is de novo does not grant the Board any additional powers not granted to it as a quasi-judicial decision -maker by the Oregon Legislature. The Board is not a legislative body considering policy matters in this context, including, but not limited to whether marijuana businesses should be allowed in the County.2 That decision has already been made in the affirmative.' Nor is it deciding whether new protections should be codified or enforced with respect to other nearby agricultural uses in the EFU zone, under the guise of "youth activity centers."4 The Board cannot amend the Code by interpretation to add new requirements regarding minimum processing requirements (including but not limited to shipping and storage of any off-site materials received), "fire safety," or confirmation from any utility that it is "willing to serve" via a system that does not necessitate any upgrades (for which the Applicant will pay). The County has decided to allow marijuana within its jurisdiction, and the Board's limited charge is to determine if the Application meets the codified requirements for such a use at this location. DCC 22.04.010 states: DCC Title 22 is enacted to provide a uniform procedure for the grant or denial and processing of applications, approvals and determinations by the Planning Division of the Deschutes County Community Development Department under the applicable County comprehensive plan, land use regulations, subdivision and partition ordinance, and other ordinances which by their terms incorporate by reference the procedures in this title, 2 The Commissioners are constrained to put aside any personal opinions concerning marijuana in this quasi-judicial hearing. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 687 (2005). The Commissioners must be capable of reaching a decision by applying relevant standards to the evidence before them, E.g. Pend -Air Citizens Comm'n v. City of Pendleton, 29 Or LUBA 362 (1995) (emphasis added). 3Compare the definition of "land use action" in DCC 22.04.020, which is "any consideration for approval of a quasi- judicial plan amendment or zone change, any consideration for approval of a land use permit, and any consideration of a request for a declaratory ruling," with the definition of "legislative changes," which "generally involve broad public policy decisions that apply to other than an individual property owner. These include, without limitation, amendments to the text of the comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, or the subdivision or partition ordinance and changes in zoning maps not directed at a small number of property owners." See also definition of "land use permit" in DCC 22.04.020. ' See DCC 22,12.010. "No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless otherwise required by state law." 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 '9" (541) 306-4441 t info@cliftoncannabislaw.com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 93,1910. 9 Exhibits) 452-M4to Page j of (emphasis added). The Application is for a "land use permit," defined in DCC 22.04.020 as one that "includes any approval of a proposed development of land under the standards in the County zoning ordinances or subdivision or partition ordinances involving the exercise of significant discretion in applying those standards." (emphasis added). DCC 22.08.040 similarly requires that, "[w]ith respect to the acknowledged portions of the County's comprehensive plan, the standards and criteria applicable town application shall be the standards and criteria applicable at the time the application was first submitted if the application and requested information, if any, are received within 180 days of the time the application was first submitted." See also DCC 22.24.120(E), stating, in relevant part, that the Hearings Body "shall list applicable substantive criteria, explain that testimony and evidence must be directed toward that criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations that the person believes to apply to the decision." Any other standards the Board attempts to imposed on the Applicant in this quasi-judicial proceeding would be an invalid exercise of legislative authority. See, e.g., ORS 215.503 (legislative act by ordinance and mailed notice to individual property owners required). The Board is deciding whether the Application meets the site plan criteria set forth in DCC 18.124, and the supplementary provisions governing marijuana in DCC 18.116.330. Substantial evidence in the record supports an affirmative finding with respect to each and every criterion. See DCC 22.04.020, defining "evidence" as "facts, documents, data or other information" offered to demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with the standards relevant to the decision. See also ORS 197.763(9)(b). The Board not only has prescribed criteria for evaluating the Application, but has been prescribed what it can consider in evaluating these criteria. Failing either charge, the Board would be committing clear, reversible error. The following sections address the points made in Hollitz/Dickson final submission: 1. Credibility Hollitz and his attorney claim that the applicant is not credible because of (1) an OLCC warning letter to The Local Market; and (2) a statement made by the applicant commenting on an unrelated incident in La Pine. Neither of these instances support a finding that the applicant has not been truthful about any information in the subject application, or that the applicant in general is not credible. Furthermore, as set forth in the Applicant's testimony and argument at hearing and in open record submittals, allegations concerning credibility do not provide a basis for the Board to conclude that any particular criterion for approval is not met in this case. Compliance with criteria has been documented in record exhibits, such that the Board need not make any "competing" evidence determination. In other words, the Board is not asked to find either the applicant or the appellant "more credible" on any particular criterion, because the exhibits speak for themselves. Moreover, Hollitz and his attorney rely on supposition and fear, rather than competing evidence, in urging the Board to deny the Application. They have not offered one piece of evidence regarding the Applicants themselves, their proposed facility (including the actual odor mitigation system, extraction methods, and safety measures to be employed) on 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 fiend, OR 97702 ' (541) 306-4441 info(a7cliftoncannabislaw,com 2905 Canon Stree Sap iego., Cn nA 106 9 Exi11 d611 p�,1 Page -5 of� which the Board could find "substantial evidence" to support a finding any criterion will not be met. The Board has no authority to deny an application on the basis that it does not "approve" of the applicant, his business, or business partners.s Case law cited by appellant's attorney does not warrant any other result. Weighing of credibility must be tied to a specific criterion on which the Board believes the opponents are more credible than the Applicant; this requires a weighing of evidence in the record produced by the Applicant against any rebuttal evidence (not merely speculation or surmise) of opponents. See ORS 215.416(8)(a)("Approval or denial of a permit application shall be based on standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the county and which shall relate approval or denial of a permit application to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the area in which the proposed use of land would occur and to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the county as a whole"); ORS 197.835(8)(a)(C) (substantial evidence requirement). Again, argument and unsubstantiated, fear -based statements do not constitute evidence. ORS 197.763(9)(a); see also ORS 197.763(9)(b) (defining "evidence"). The Applicant would like to submit the following summary of their own, previously made statements regarding credibility: We take the taw, authority, standards and our commitments very seriously. Credibility and ethics are of utmost importance to us. It is painful that our credibility is being attacked and that some neighbors have lost their trust in us through this process. We have tried from the beginning to be proactive, forthright, and open with our neighbors. We reached out personally to every person who submitted public comments, in attempt to truly listen to their concerns, educate them, and update our plans to accommodate them where possible. We tried to keep them updated on our perspective and plans along the way, and even though that is now being used against us, we pledge to continue this approach going forward. We believe in rising above the attacks and doing our best to inform people and answer their questions to the best of our ability. By doing this, we retain our faith that whatever the outcome, we arrived at it with our integrity intact. 'Contrary to Ms. Dickson's argument, the Applicant's attorney has not stated that "credibility is irrelevant." Rather, a generalized determination of credibility, when it is not tied to any applicable criterion, is not a factor for denial. This is black letter law under ORS 215.416(8)(a) and ORS 197.835(8)(a)(C). Ms. Dickson has not cited any case law or statute that gives the Board discretion to deny a land use application for reasons other than a finding of non- compliance with applicable criteria. Lee v. Marion County, cited by Ms. Dickson, does not grant any authority to deny an application on a generalized determination of "credibility," The decision concerned the weighing of competing evidence — not unsupported arguments as here — on specific approval criteria. There, the question the Board weighed was competing evidence on whether and how often the applicant occupied the dwelling, which was relevant to the question of whether the proposed use would be "subordinate" under the applicable standards. Lee, pages 10-11. The situation here, however, does not present any competing evidence for the Board to weigh with respect to any criterion. The Board is asked instead to rely on unsubstantiated assumptions and fears that the criteria will not be met, rather than any hard, substantial evidence to support any finding contrary to those determined by staff in its administrative approval of the applications. 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste, 1 Bend, OR 97702 V (541) 306-4441 eo infola'�cliftoncannabislaw.com 4 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 06 9 Exhibt• 1) 4,5974 qs Page 6 of it We are not perfect, and we have made some mistakes that we acknowledge might be cause for concern. However, we believe that when viewed in the context of our actions, our intentions and character come through. Intentions and character are the foundation of credibility, and we are comfortable offering ourselves up to scrutiny in this regard. Regarding the OLCC warnings, we take these very seriously. We have set a standard that everything we do at The Local Market must follow all laws and standards. This is evident in the outcome of all 6 of the site visits conducted by the OLCC: • One undercover minor attempting to purchase marijuana (which resulted in the commendation letter attached in our previous submission) • Two unscheduled site visits by the OLCC that resulted in no issues of any kind • One unscheduled thorough audit of our store, inventory and book-keeping, which resulted in no issues of any kind • And even in our actions around the two incidents that caused the warning. The first incident was triggered by a hardware malfunction, to which we responded by immediately notifying our IT vendor to troubleshoot the potential issue (at that point, we thought maybe we were misreading the system that was still new to us, or the video was recoverable). Our first priority was getting it working, so that we would not be out of compliance. Once the technician confirmed there was in -fact an issue, we proactively notified the OLCC with an email that clearly demonstrated that compliance is our top concern (full email attached to our earlier submission), dosing with "If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at anytime of the day. We want to make sure we are following all OLCC requirements/procedures and staying within full compliance." The subsequent warning from the OLCC was due to the delay in notifying them. The reason the OLCC knew about this delay was because we proactively notified them of the video outage AND honestly admitted that we had known about it for a few days before notifying them. We could have lied and told the OLCC that we had only just discovered the issue. We could have even tried to cover up the fact we lost video footage, and never reported it to the OLCC. Instead, we chose to be proactively truthful, even though it resulted in a warning for our business. This is consistent with credibility in our book, and we are proud of how we handled this situation and the fact that no similar issues have occurred since (we now have a formal policy of notifying the OLCC upon immediate suspicion of an issue, rather than waiting for confirmation of an issue). The second incident was mischaracterized by Hollitz/Dickson as a "practice of marketing to minors." We have never marketed to minors, and as parents and grandparents of young children, find that reprehensible. The incident was a verbal explanation from the OLCC that a product we carried "risks being attractive to minors." This product is a popular, award-winning strain that has been around for at least 7 years (well before we even got into this business). We did not name the product, and we were required by the OLCC to use the correct and accurate name of it with our consumers. As such, we labeled the product correctly on shelf, and simply took a picture and posted it to Instagram to alert our customers (who we know are all over 21, since we are extremely 0 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 W' (541) 306-4441 cc) infoPcliftoncannabislaw.com 5 2905 Canon Street San fano, CA 92106 9 Exhit iti) 4570974 sP Page / of strict about checking ID's) that we had this product on shelf. This is all we did. A "practice of marketing to minors" would have resulted in evidence of our own attempts at reaching out to minors, naming products or writing advertising copy that is appealing to minors, etc. There is none. Once we were notified of this "risk," we immediately took down the label and the Instagram post in question, and we have taken extra care with all product that we carry since, as evident by the absence of incidents since. Regarding the "La Pine" incident, and as stated previously, we do not believe that the DA's plan to charge someone with a crime "conclusively and independently proves that Sam Onat and Mr. Solymez are not reasonably deemed innocent," as Hollitz and Dickson suggest, especially since Mr. Soylemez was not arrested. This goes against the very principles of this country's legal system and our Bill of Rights (not to mention international standards for human rights). More importantly, neither Sam Onat nor Mustafa Soylemez are involved in the land use Application in question or the subsequent business plans for the property. However, we understand that Sam Onat's arrest and the news reports about it raise suspicions, and our association with him and our communications about the Incident might call into question our credibility, As such, we again offer the following summary of context we've provided in the hearing and previous submissions about our relationship with each of them, our response to the situation, and clarifications on the email communication from Mark Weisheit. While we continue to hold the presumption that Mr. Onat (Sr.) is innocent, given his lack of ongoing contribution to the business and the risk that his situation poses to our business (The Local Market), we have mutually agreed with him to remove him from the business, As such, we have filed a request with the state to remove him from our license. We had previously notified him that if he was found guilty of any serious charge, then he would forever forfeit his stake. That is the standard we have set for doing business with us. As stated previously, he was never an active or managing partner in The Local Market business. We simply rewarded him with a small stake (1.75%) in return for the introduction to his son. As such, his removal is of no consequence to the operations of The Local Market. He is not involved in the plans for 25450 Walker Road, so even if neighbors or the Board (or even we) doubt his credibility, then there should be no concerns about how we will operate our business on Walker Road. Regarding Mustafa Soylemez, he is an active partner in The Local Market, and continues to be so. Mr. Soylemez was not arrested or charged in the La Pine incident. It is our understanding that he was not involved in the La Pine operation (whether it was legal or not), so we have no reason to change our business relationship with him at this point. If this should change, then we will take appropriate steps to end our business relationship with him. Given that he is an active partner in The Local Market, we do not know exactly what that path would look like at this time. Regardless, he is not involved in the plans for 25450 Walker Road, so even if neighbors or the Board doubt his credibility, then there should be no concerns about how we will operate our business on Walker Road. 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. I Bend, OR 97702 Qs info(c7cliftoncannabislaw.com s' (541) 306-4441 6 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 9416 6 9 Exhii t4520074 v. Page 431o Finally, regarding the email sent by Mark Weisheit that has been cited as a reason to question his credibility, as stated in the previous submission, Mark's intention was to update the neighbors of the facts as he knew them: 1. Jacob's father was arrested on suspicion of an illegal grow 2. Subsequently, he notified the authorities of the granted hemp license 3. The arraignment was cancelled 4. No charges were filed And, more importantly, to assure neighbors that that situation had no bearing on what was going on next door (omitted from Ms. Dickson's email was the final sentence: "Furthermore, his father is not involved in our plans for Walker Road at all, and we have no insight into or involvement in anything he is doing, in La Pine or elsewhere. As such, we do not feel this has any bearing on our application.") Contrary to Dickson's statement in her email to the DA, Mark did not claim the news reports were false. He simply listed the 4 facts above, which are all irrefutably true, in the order that he was made aware of them. He also never said that charges would not be filed, as he had no knowledge of the DA's plans. Thus, the only thing in his email that we can discern might be incorrect or misleading is the implied cause and effect between facts 2 and 3 & 4 (by using the words "As such, his arraignment was cancelled, and no charges were filed" (emphasis added). In hindsight, this inadvertent connection might be characterized as irresponsible, but it was in no way intended to mislead. The other possibility is that the DA was responding to Dickson's untrue statement that "Mr. Weisheit claims this [news] report is false," in which case the DA's assessment of Mark's email is unfair (given that it would have been in response to a false statement made by Dickson). 2. Minimum Processing Requirements Hollitz and his attorney continue to complain that the application should be denied because the Applicant cannot give precise calculations of crop yields and amounts to be processed. That is not a standard required in the Code however; denial on this basis would be contrary to law. What is required is that a minimum of 25% of crops processed on site were provided by the farm operation. DCC 18.16.025(1). This provision is a subsection of DCC 18.16.025, which lists uses permitted in the EFU zone, subject to special provisions under DCC Section 18.16.038 (not applicable here), DCC Section 18.16.042 (not applicable here) and a review under DCC Chapter 18.124 where applicable (site plan review, applicable). It states: I. 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, 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 24 infot cliftoncannabislaw.com 'r (541) 306-4441 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 2106 9 Exhibitoq 4 7 O974 Page '7 ofJ 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. The Applicant has shown throughout the record that this standard will be met. To summarize the calculations of Applicant's estimated production and processing volumes provided in the previous submissions: First Crop & Initial Yearly Estimates: • Total yield in first crop: 75 pounds • Amount of first crop to be processed: 25 pounds (33%) • Total amount processed: 25 pounds (100% of processing volume) • Total amount grown in year 1: approximately 300 pounds • Total amount processed in year 1: approximately 100 pounds (33% of amount grown, with 100% of processing volume provided by the farming operation) Year 3 Estimates: • Total annual yield: approximately 562 pounds • Total amount processed annually: approximately 197 — 281 pounds (35% - 50% of amount grown, with 100% of processing volume provided by the farming operation) It is Applicant's intention to continue to grow all of the marijuana processed onsite. However, if market conditions dictate an opportunity to process more than Applicant can grow, then the Applicant would be within compliance if they increased processing volume up to 3 times the volume of their production (to stay within the 25% limitation). As previously stated, there is ample storage and transport space for this potential additional input material shown on the site plan in the freezer and storage rooms, and all inventory will be tracked, reported and audited according to rigid OLCC requirements, Incremental delivery and shipment of even the maximum amount of input material and finished product in any scenario would be zero to negligible, as the volume and weight of these goods is relatively low, Even in the most extreme (and extremely unlikely) scenario, this would result in about 70 pounds per month being delivered, which could easily fit into one small delivery van. Efficiency dictates limiting the number of trips to at most a few a month, which was considered in the transportation study. The concerns about delivery trucks lining up in the street are completely unfounded. 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 rag infoPcliftoncannahislaw.com lk (541) 306-4441 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 Exhibit@u 450974 sr Page /0 ofJ Compliance with the 25% standard can only be assured via a condition of approval, and the Applicant would stand to lose its approval if it does not meet that minimum. Moreover, the Applicant is required to comply with reporting requirements set forth in DCC 18.16.025(1) and DCC 18.116.330(D) by submitting processed crop summaries to the Planning Division on request and no less frequently on an annual basis by February 1 of each year. The Applicant has also stated they are willing to voluntarily submit to more frequent audits and inspections as a condition of approval. Therefore, compliance is not determined merely on "applicant assurance," but a real, definable, and measurable standard on which approval is based. Staff properly recognized that a condition of approval is the only way to ensure the standard is met, because the proposed use is not in operation. No matter what the Applicant states (and regardless of all of Hollitz/Dickson's imagined potential outcomes), if the Applicant fails to comply with the minimum requirement for processing, which should be included both as a condition of approval and subject to annual reporting requirements, they would lose their approval. Why would the Applicant risk losing its substantial investment in the property, improvements to the property, its application, attorneys' fees, engineering fees, etc. by failing to ensure at least 25% of the amount processed on site is grown on site? That is an absurd assumption, contrary to substantial evidence in the record. The Board is reminded that the crops grown on site will be grown in the very same building in which processing is proposed to occur, which will make compliance with a 25% processing standard simple and straightforward. The Applicant does not know the yield of crops that have not even been planted, nor is it required to have such information for approval of the applications. The Applicant has provided more information than is even required for approval, however. This includes first crop and initial yearly estimates, and year three estimates, set forth in Applicant's April 10, 2019 letter. The Applicant has also agreed to more frequent inspections than required under Code. The Applicant has nothing to hide, but stands to lose everything if they take in more than 75% of material processed on site from another source. The proposed use is consistent with the standard in DCC 18.116.025(1). Opponents have not offered any proof (e.g. a business plan or report, etc.) to rebut this evidence, or that would warrant any other determination. 3. Youth Activity Center The Applicant incorporates by reference its arguments concerning the legality of the County's use of an undefined and unadopted standard concerning YACs, set forth in its March 20, 2019 letter, incorporated herein by this reference. The Board is not permitted to engage in ad hoc decision-making about what constitutes a YAC.6 6 Not only has the Oregon Legislature declined to require any separation distances from "youth activity centers" in ORS Title 475B with respect to marijuana, the term or phrase is not found in any state legislation, as well. 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 (541) 306-4441 info(a)cli koncannabislaw,com 9 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 Page /( —077 A law is void for vagueness where it does not give men or women "of common understanding adequate notice of what the regulation proscribes." See, e.g., State v. Darlene House and James House, 260 Or, 138, 489 P.2d 381 (1971); Haviland Hotels v. OLCC, 20 Or.App. 115, 530 P.2d 1261(1975); see also ORS 227.173(1) (requiring standards that are dear enough for an applicant to know what he or she must show during the application process). The Board lacks authority to decide on a case-by-case basis that certain operations are within a YAC, and others are outside a YAC with an obvious lack of criteria and/or via inconsistent decisions on the term "YAC," where there is no notice to the community of the meaning of the regulation in the regulation itself. Application of this vague regulation to deny the Application also would violate state and federal due process protections. See State v. Plowman, 314 Or 157, 162, 838 P2d 558 (1992). On judicial review, neither LUBA nor an appellate court is required to defer to a local government's interpretation of its regulations if that interpretation is contrary to a state statute, statewide planning goal or administrative rule. ORS 197.829. The County cannot now "change the goalposts" by reinterpreting the YAC provision, to match the opponents' desired more expansive application, E.g., Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 154 Or App 450, 962 P2d 701, rev den 328 Or 115 (1998) (local government not permitted to change interpretations regarding applicability of approval criteria). To do so would constitute reversible error where different interpretations are the product of a design to act arbitrarily or inconsistently from case to case. Alexanderson v. Clackamas County, 126 Or App 549, 552, 869 P2d 873, rev den 319 Or 150 (1994); Friends of Bryant Woods Park v, City of Lake Oswego, 126 Or App 205, 207, 868 P2d 24 (1994). As noted above, such action would constitute improper legislating action by the Board, Neither Hollitz nor his attorney have addressed, much less, acknowledged these legal arguments, which were presented in the Applicant's March 20, 2019 letter and in the Applicant's open record submittals. "Boundless Farmstead" is not designed for a youth gathering purpose. It is a farm, used as an agricultural operation. That children may come to an operating farm under the auspices of a separate, independently operated organization (Central Oregon Locavore) and observe farming operations, does not convert that use (farming) into a "youth activity center," The Board is reminded that the record confirms that: (1) field trips are not the primary permitted use of the property; (2) no future field trip events are scheduled; (3) Boundless Farmstead does not hold itself out as a field trip destination, or center or other "facility" for youth -centered activities; (4) Deschutes County has not issued any permits or licenses to Boundless Farmstead to operate any business, youth club, youth organization or school, as shown on the Deschutes County Property Information http_s://dial.deschutes.org/ReaJ/DevelopmentDocs/131889 (March 14, 2019); and (5) there are no structures permitted on the property for the purpose of housing youth gatherings or for other instructional purposes. For the County to change the applicable standards by "interpretation" here impermissibly changes the goalposts and constitutes arbitrary and/or inconsistent decision-making subject to reversal on appeal. Dickson argues that the Waveseer decision "supersedes" the Board's decision In High Desert Nectar in which the Board specifically stated that its legislative intent in adopting a separation distance requirement from "youth activity centers" in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a)(iv) was to require separation distances from "licensed, permitted or otherwise lawfully established uses." This 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste, I Bend, OR 97702 r (541) 306 4441 ca info(alcliFtoncannabislaw.com 11) 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 Exatat452,074 �. Page //" of /6 argument is flawed and cannot constitute a basis for denial of the applications here, for the following reasons. First, the Board did not rule that High Desert Nectar was "superseded" by its Waveseer decision; the Board set forth its legislative intent specifically in High Desert Nectar and failed to make a decision that complied with this specific statement of the law in Waveseer. This inconsistency, as the Applicant has pointed out, raises serious questions concerning ad hoc decision-making and void for vagueness challenges, which also implicate due process considerations. Second, Dickson alleges that the Applicant argued Waveseer is "undefined" and "unadopted." Clearly, Dickson did not carefully review the Applicant's arguments in this regard. The Applicant's argument is directed at DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a)(iv) itself, which uses a term "youth activity center/' which itself is undefined. The Board has not adopted by legislative authority any standard to direct its decision-making on YACs, even assuming, arguendo, that its statement on legislative intent in High Desert Nectar complies with notice requirements for adoption of code criteria. Finally, CDD staff submitted a memorandum into the record after the public hearing, which confirms that staff was aware of the Waveseer decision and its ruling on YACs. Staff's review of the Boundless Farmstead farm use confirmed that the facts in the record support a finding that the farm is not a YAC, under even the most expansive interpretation of the term under Waveseer, Among other things, field trips are noncommercial in nature, relatively infrequent and are "accessory and subordinate to the primary farm use," Boundless Farmstead is not a YAC; the Application should not be denied on this basis. 4. Odor Control In the Appellant's second round open record submittal, Hollitz and his attorney again attempt to discredit odor control technology that is not even proposed by the Applicant. The Applicant has made it clear, repeatedly, that they are not proposing ionization. Therefore, all "evidence" on ionization is irrelevant. The Applicant stands on its first round open record period submittal on odor control, as well as the County's own CDD findings that odor mitigation criteria has been met via use of carbon filtration technology by other marijuana production and processing facilities throughout the County. The Applicant also stands on the 66 -page technical engineering odor and noise report prepared by its expert witness, ColeBreit, that specifically reviews the proposed odor system and technology for the subject application. Finally, the Applicant stands on the testimony provided at the public hearing and in the second round rebuttal in which Mr. Onat demonstrated a thorough, expert -level analysis of carbon filtration, adsorption technology and ionization, including benefits and drawbacks of each. Opponents have not produced any discrediting testimony on the system proposed by the Applicant. They stand on generalized comments by another engineer providing testimony in another hearing, offered to support that applicant's proposed odor control system for the purposes of that application's approval. Mr. Whitaker was not asked to review the Application before the Board in this matter. He did not review the proposed odor control system. He did not review the proposed structure in which marijuana would be grown and processed. He did not even review carbon filtration technology directly, but provided an opinion that, in some cases, 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 (541) 306-4441 infoPcliftoncannabislaw.com 11 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 97106 9 Exhigxt 452(974 It Page of /d he believed ionization is preferable. Dickson herself has shot that theory down, however, by the information she has provided in the record about the flaws of ionization technology. This can be determined to be indirect support for the type of system proposed by the Applicant here, which does not require use of ionization. Regarding the letter submitted by Ms. Gould, the one question she raises is how Applicant will take deliveries or make shipments without exposing the interior air outdoors. The answer is in the dual -stage filters that have been referred to a number of times in previous submissions by the Applicant. The rooms with product will be airtight and contained within interior walls. Whenever odorous air is vented from those rooms, it will be filtered and vented into the secondary interior areas (e.g. - hallways). Typically, this air will not be odorous (since it went through the first stage of filters), so no odor will be expelled when an exterior door is opened. However, if an internal room's door releases any odor into the secondary areas, then it will be vented through the external (second stage) filters to clear out the secondary areas to prevent unintended external release. 5. Fire Protection The Code requires only that the subject property be located within the boundaries of a fire protection district, DCC 18.116.330(14). It is. That fact has not been challenged, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Hollitz and his attorney request the Board to amend the Code via interpretation to require proof regarding fire safety, and proof that the Alfalfa Fire District is "capable" of serving the subject property, The Board has no authority to do so in these proceedings. That said, the record is replete with evidence showing the Applicant's proposed building and processing methods will be constructed, maintained and conducted in a safe environment. All comments and attachments provided by the Appellant regarding different solvents and processing methods are irrelevant, as Applicant has not proposed the use of entane or pentane, and will certainly not be making hash oil at home, given they are not permitted to build a home on the property. As stated previously, the Applicants will be doing the vast majority of their processing using water and ice. Mr. Onat testified at the hearing that the remainder will use n-tane, which is an extremely high quality and pure form of butane solvent. The purity (free from accelerants, mercaptans, etc.) renders it extremely predictable and results in a higher quality product for the consumer, This predictability, along with the proposed state-of-the-art closed-loop system and fire detection and prevention systems (described in previous submissions) is what ensures a safe processing environment. 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste.1 Bend, OR 97702 17 (541) 306-4441 ea info(alclikoncannabislaw.com 12 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA ie oo,CA 92106 9 Eidtat52 0l1 W Page Any process can be dangerous if not done correctly. All statements and submissions made by the Appellants are referring to unsafe methods, and therefore irrelevant to this Application. 6. Power Supply The Applicant believes this has been sufficiently addressed in previous submissions, and to further support those submissions, spoke to Christy Ward at the CEC to confirm testimony of Mr. Onat at the public hearing. She confirmed that the language around requiring upgrades is standard, used in many cases (although not all) for facilities in multiple industries, and in no way should cast doubt on the CEC's ability to provide power to the site. 7. Site Plan Review Standards With respect to the site plan standards that Hollitz/Dickson vaguely says will not be met, the Board is directed to the following summary of their submissions and Applicant's responses thereto: • Appeal - page 6: Hollitz does not include citation to any specific standard with which he alleges the application is inconsistent. The appeal includes a narrative objection that it is unclear "what the applicant intends to do inside the building." Dickson argues that there is a "deeper examination of an application that would otherwise receive minimal review as just another farm use." Oregon law provides otherwise. ORS 475B.526; ORS 30.930; ORS 4756.454. • Appeal page 6: Hollitz included vague assertions that the applicant may make sales from the site and allegation that it could be a commercial use with different standards. The Applicant addressed this assertion in its March 20, 2019 letter, and noted there are no separate standards for site plan review that depend on the category of proposed use (commercial, industrial, etc.) • First open record period letter: No argument. Reference to "see appeal and public hearing testimony." • Second rebuttal letter: No argument from Hollitz/Dickson. They include an unsupported assertion that the applicant has not met standards, without citation to the Code or any evidence. • Argument at hearing: Dickson alleged that site plan review standards not met with respect to natural environment, landscaping, etc. The Applicant addressed all such arguments in its first open record period letter, as well as in its original application and supporting materials submitted to the County. 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 as info@cliftoncannabislaw,com S' (541) 306-4141 I3 2905 Canon Street San Elieo, CA 92. 6 9 EXh4bit52- 4 It Page / of % Opponents have not offered any specific argument or evidence concerning site plan criteria. Staff made the following findings (among others) in the Administrative Decision, at pages 30-34, which are supported by substantial evidence in the record: • Views in all direction from the subject property include some large undeveloped areas along with various sizes and intensities of farm operations and associated agricultural development • It does not appear that any natural or topographic features would be impacted by this proposal as it is located in the central buffering from off-site development ▪ The proposed landscaping adjacent to the building and the park • The proposed development is consistent with existing agricultural development within the general area of Alfalfa As proposed and conditioned, the processing use will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development by minimizing visual impacts and riot impacting any natural features including views and/or topographical features None of the existing vegetation will be impacted by this proposal • No alterations to the existing topography are proposed or necessary with this development •: The layout of the driveway, parking area, and proposed structure provide appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private space, and is a safe environment for vehicles to enter, leave and maneuver on the property • The parking area is set back more than 460 feet from the southern property line, which is the nearest property boundary. Additionally, it is screened from view by proposed building and landscaping • The proposed building, in which the processing facility will be located, is set back from all property lines by several hundred feet • The application materials and plans indicate the processing facility will be equipped with special odor control ventilation that will reduce sparks. • No changes in the existing circulation patterns on site are proposed with the exception of a new parking area. The parking area and proposed building are located adjacent to each other in the central portion of the property • The processing facility will be buffered from neighboring properties by both distance and landscaping • Given the relatively Targe size of the property in relation to the size of the parking lot and building footprint, and the location of the development, runoff from the building and parking area will be contained on-site • The parking area proposed on site is located more than 460 feet from the nearest property line. The parking and loading area is located where it will be visually shielded from Walker Road • The applicant proposes to establish landscaping areas around the parking area to more fully screen the development from neighboring properties and the public • Waste storage will be located inside the proposed marijuana production and processing building on site, thereby reducing any potential visual impacts 14• 7 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 c!e infoPdiftoncannabislaw.com '@ (541) 306-4441 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 Exhibtil) 4974 17 Page 4 of a • Transportation access to the site is from Walker Road, a County -maintained public right-of-way. No transportation deficiencies or improvements were identified by the Deschutes County Transportation Planner or the Deschutes County Road Department The Senior Transportation Planner's comments indicate that marijuana processing, the only aspect of the proposal that requires Site Plan Review and Is subject to this criterion, will generate 4.5 trips •: The Senior Transportation Planner's comments also include an analysis of the marijuana production aspect of this proposal, which will generate 32.4 trips. Together, the marijuana production and processing will generate a total of 36.9 daily trips, below the 50 trip minimum threshold to require a Site Traffic Report Conclusion Local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. E.g., 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 82-83, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre v, Bd. of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 745, 750-52, 588 P2d 640 (1978). Local decision makers are expected, however, to: (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding individual permit applications, and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v, City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005); see also Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or LUBA 137, aff'd 183 Or App 581, 54 P3d 636 (2002) (citing 41 Op Atty Gen 490 (1981), setting forth factors to be considered in determining whether an elected official must refrain from decision-making due to bias). The Board must be capable of making a fair decision in the matter considering all of the evidence and arguments presented. See 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 80-85, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Spiering v, Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695, 702 (1993). Where there is a "strong emotional commitment" by a decision -maker to approve or defeat a land use application, bias is established. E.g., Catholic Diocese of Baker v. Crook County, 60 Or LUBA 157 (2009). Bias implicates the substantial rights of the Applicant to a full and fair hearing. E.g. Halverson v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702 (2001). The Commissioners are reminded of their sworn obligations to put aside politics and personal negative views of marijuana in this quasi-judicial proceeding. The Board cannot change the goalposts applicable here by applying an ad hoc determination of YACs, or by adding new requirements to the Code via "interpretation" to deny the Application. For the reasons set forth herein, and based on the Applicant's previously submitted materials and public hearing testimony, we respectfully request that the Board approve the subject applications and deny the appeal. Thank you for your consideration of this information. 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 's' (541) 306-4441 p9 info(o?cliftoncannabislaw.com 15 2905 Canon Street San Dieao, CA 92) 6 9 Exhla ,2• 4 '0' Page /7 of a Sincerely, Stephanie Marshall cc: Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 it (541) 306-4441 en info@cliftoncannabislaw,com 16 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 EXh1gh 450974 W Page ILofL INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: EAD FROM: AMBER SUBJECT: HOLLITZ APPEAL (WEISHEIT APPLICATION) DATE: ARPIL 24, 2019 CC: Transcript of Jacob Onat testimony from hearing before BOCC on March 20, 2019 (testimony at 2:59:53). COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: What kind of a solvent is that? ONAT: Water. Water is considered a solvent. There's two types of solvents that people are using. The one they were using in that home that exploded was an illegal grow, in all actuality, because they were doing what was called open blasting. Just to give you guys a little bit of a background. And that's generally people who gerry- rig tools and run solvent through and there's things that can happen. WEISHEIT: That's typically a hydro carbon - ONAT: Yes. Any solvent can be used. Butane. Hydrocarbon or anything. So, what we are proposing is to do a majority, probably about 70 percent of our product, to be conducted in a solvent -less manner. Which means what we'll do is we'll grow some weed, harvest it, put it in a bag and freeze it. 24 hours later we are going to get that and put it in a bucket like a washing machine with ice and water. We're going to turn it on and it's going to spin for about 30 or 40 minutes. The residual that is collected at the bottom is then dried out. That's it. There's no nasty chemicals and there's no nothing that's used. That's - I don't know if you guys reviewed our floor plan. That's in one room. We've actually segregated solvent -less with solvent. Because to be in this industry, you need to also have a solvent. However, the solvent used is very important. Most people with these explosions are using butane. If we do decide to go down the solvent route, we will use entane. It's a medical grade propane. And just so you guys know, I don't know if anyone read the burden of proof or narrative that we put together, but the room's layout has spark arresters, it's explosion -proof, there's exhaust fans that are hooked up to emergency kick -ons in case they were to go off, you know, for whatever reason. So, at the end of the day, we are doing everything that we can to your guys' code and OLCC code. And we can sit here and guesstimate all day, "Well, what if that fails and what if the fire department's not ready?", but at the end of the day, I've got to - I spoke many times with Ron Thompson. He said, "We will serve your property." He actually was intrigued onto how we were doing it. He was like, "Oh, wow" - you know - "it sounds like you guys are going down a different path." So -- Exhibit Page / of COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: May 1 interrupt you a second? The solvent you are using is what? ONAT: We are doing two solvents. One solvent; water. It's technically a solvent. The other one we'd be using would be an entane, or a propane mix. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Are you saying E -N -T -A -N -E? ONAT: You can Google Entane. Entane. It's a medical grade solvent. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: I was just asking how you spell it. ONAT: "N". Like the letter "N"; Nancy. And then tane. T -A -N -E. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Ntane. ONAT: Like I said, it's a medical grade butane. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: So. it's still butane. ONAT: Correct, but it leaves a - very little to minimal residual. Like it's - it's able to be used in hospitals for consumption. So - COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: And you're saying you use 30 percent of that? ONAT: That's the max. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: So that's why. ONAT: Honestly, we don't even want to use it at all, but the market - if the market's demanding it, we are going to do it a little bit. But for the first year we are probably going to be doing 80 percent -- COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: The market seems to be demanding all sorts of things. The market is demanding butane and honey oil. I mean, that's what blows up things. There must be something -- ONAT: -- butane honey oil isn't what blows up things. It's people who don't understand and have a set operating - I could be incorrect, but 1 haven't heard of any OLCC licensed, at least in Deschutes County, processing facilities blowing up. Because you have to go through stringent engineering requirements to even set one up, unless I'm incorrect. (testimony ends at 3:03:04) End Transcript. 2 Exhibit Page '34 of CLIFTON CANNABIS LAW April 25, 2019 Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 2905 Canon Street Bend, OR 97702 San Diego, CA 92106 IP (541) 306-4441 (601) 452-0974 info(c7i cliftoncannabislaw.com re: Weisheit Applications for Administrative Determination and Site Plan Approval, Deschutes County File Nos. 247-18-000504-AD/505-AD/506-SP; Appeal Application File No. 247-19-000178- A Dear Jacob, We have received the Appellant's motion to strike comments about n-tane from Applicant's final submission, and do not believe they constitute new evidence. They are consistent with the comments made by Jacob Onat at the hearing: Applicant is proposing to use n-tane, which is a medical -grade / high-quality version of butane. N-tane/Butane (C4H10) is chemically different than pentane (C5H12), which is why Applicant has called Appellant's submission of articles about pentane irrelevant. Additionally, Ms. Dickson's claim that "Applicant is now asserting in Final Rebuttal that it will not be using medical -grade butane" is false. Applicant did not make that assertion anywhere in their final rebuttal. In fact, at the bottom of page 12, Applicant reiterates that they will be using "n-tane, which is an extremely high quality and pure form of butane solvent." "Medical grade" and "high quality and pure" and synonymous. However, if the Board deems that it is new evidence, we accept it being stricken from the record, as there is no criteria that it is relevant to (the criteria only require that the property is within a fire district). Sincerely, Stephanie Marshall cc: Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste, 1 Bend, QR 97102 (541) 306-4441 Qq info@cliftonoannabialaw,com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 (601) 452-0974 v