Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-31 - Marijuana Advisory Committee Minutes MINUTES MARIJUANA ADVISORY COMMITTEE DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 MEETING #6: MARCH 31, 2016 – 4:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by facilitator Mary Orton from The Mary Orton Company. Members present were: Josh Rodriguez, Matt Cyrus, Steve Swisher, Andrew Anderson, Jeff Ingelse, Glenn Kotara, Larry Fulkerson, Hunter Neubauer, Alison Hohengarten, Lindsey Pate, Liz Lotochinski, Sam Davis, Tim Elliott. Staff present were: Nick Lelack, CDD Director and Matt Martin, Associate Planner. II. INTRODUCTIONS AND OPENING REMARKS Nick discussed upcoming meetings for the committee and the Board, and possible timelines for adopting regulations or opting out. He introduced County staff and other resources present. MAC members introduced themselves. Mary and the committee spoke about formats and input for minutes and the remaining meeting. For future write-ups of the various points of view for the report to the Board, she asked that writers refrain from characterizing the points of view of those with whom they disagree. She noted that the deadline for signing on to the points of view in the report is tomorrow noon, and the group agreed that if someone has additional points to make in addition to the arguments presented in the draft report, they would be noted under that person’s name in the report. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jeff Glasburg, a resident of Tumalo, said that the committee is charged with recommending reasonable regulations to the Board and suggested they not engage in discussions about what may or may not prevail in a right-to-farm action or to discuss farming regulations. He thinks it would be very beneficial to have a back-and-forth exchange as to what is reasonable from the members’ points of view. He said this is not about the preservation or economic benefits of the marijuana industry. Nunzie Gould said that many hours of the meetings have been held during the workday and during the workweek. It is important to have the public hearing during a time when the public can attend and not at 10:00 am during the business day. Many here are in the marijuana 2 industry and there is a lopsided amount of representation for the industry. She has not seen any staff here from counties that have opted out of whom this committee could ask questions specific to setbacks and regulations. There are land use challenges moving forward, and this committee is not receiving balanced input from those adjacent counties that could have been invited. Lee Felberg said she lives in Bend and likes the rural atmosphere. Many are concerned that the City and County officials would be too interested in getting tax revenue from marijuana. The citizens are more concerned with their quality of life. How many licenses will be issued? Will the County be overrun with greenhouses? What about the safety of children and neighbors? She said they want to see agricultural farming but no outsiders coming and taking over huge acreages of land to grow pot. The definition of “reasonable” is very subjective, and some of the regulations may not be what residents consider “reasonable.” She cautioned against going down the wrong road and having extreme consequences of crime, use of water and electricity, and other issues. This whole process is moving too fast, and the County needs to do the right thing for the citizens. IV. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ON DRAFT REPORT FORMAT Mary asked for comments on the draft report with regard to two things – the first page narrative, plus the way the recommendations are laid out. Starting with the recommendations (page 3), she has numbered them to make it easier to discuss them. For the non-consensus items, there are positions in favor and not in favor shown, as drafted by MAC members. One of the members suggested adding the section name to the footer/header. With regard to the first page, a reference to the committee working “collaboratively” was removed, and it was agreed that the number of consensus decisions would be noted. The sentence about more time resulting in more consensus decisions was deleted. (The following discussion of the report occurred later in the meeting but is reported here for clarity.) Mary brought up a write-up on odor that characterized the point of view opposite to the point of view of the writer. Some committee members objected to how their point of view was characterized in that write-up. Mary said she would add a sentence to the report stating that the sentence does not accurately characterize some members’ points of view. Members considered whether or not to discuss property values in the write-ups and report. The charge to the committee says they should not address moral, social, economic, public health, or similar issues. Another member suggested prefacing the write-ups so that the Board knows some members did things differently from how others did. Mary suggested that the members not be too concerned about mention of property values or changing the write- ups, and that everyone should be cognizant of the restrictions in the charge during discussion and in the report. She will also add language to item #9 clarifying the ages are for entry into medical and recreational establishments. V. POWER COMPANY PRESENTATIONS Dave Markham, President and CEO of Central Electric Cooperative (CEC), spoke about electric cooperatives and their service territory in rural Deschutes County. The reason electric cooperatives were formed was because the for-profit companies would not provide 3 power in rural areas. There are complex challenges when considering load growth in rural areas. Their business model and demographics served are different from those of investor- owned utilities. CEC serves an average of eight consumers per mile of power line; Pacific Power serves ten times that. CEC serves all of the medical facilities on the east side of Bend, and about 60% of the landmass of Deschutes County. They have 27,500 meters in the County. Pacific Power serves that many or more just within the City of Bend. CEC designed their system under a 20-year cycle with smaller loads and planning for slower growth. In the higher-density areas such as Sisters, they planned for that. They have been contacted by marijuana growers who need 12,500 kW, which is ten times greater than any of their individual consumers. There may be significant upgrades to the system that are necessary to support the capacity of marijuana growers in rural areas. It can take from 12 to 36 months to upgrade a substation. Bonneville Power provides energy to CEC, and when have are involved with upgrading, it can take two to five years. One concern about the marijuana industry is that the cooperatives may upgrade their systems to provide the power and then the industry could bust. Loads are also currently seasonal (peaking in the winter), which would change with marijuana growers. Sometimes the electric utility is the last contact in the planning phase, when it can take years for them to be able to provide sufficient power. He would like to see the committee recommend a requirement that prior to licensing, applicants must prove they has contacted the appropriate utilities. Dave Schneider, General Manager and CEO of Midstate Electric, said he agreed with Dave Markham’s comments. Midstate could have 15 miles between substations. With added marijuana growing operations, this could be insufficient. This is a real concern and similar utilities in rural Colorado have had to address these issues. Midstate also buys all of their power from Bonneville, which is a federal agency. They were concerned about providing power for something that is still federally illegal, but Bonneville Power has decided that they are providing power to the companies, who then provide power to the growers, so that will be feasible. However, federal rebates would not be available to marijuana operations for this reason. The utilities need to work with potential customers to make sure they can serve them. One committee member discussed a “will serve” letter demonstrating that the cooperatives could handle the necessary capacity. Another member asked if there was any way to make sure the growers, and not the existing customers, pay the increased costs. Would he, as a non-grower, have to pay an increased rate because of growers? Dave Markham said they would have to revisit their internal policies fairly quickly, and the increased costs should be passed on to the large consumers. Dave Schneider said they are also eight years into a 20- year contract with Bonneville, which as are tiers involved with power use; after a certain level of use is reached, the tier is increased and the increased costs are borne by all consumers. Dave Schneider also said trees and power lines do not mix, and asked the MAC to consider that when discussing screening. One of the members in the marijuana industry said he had paid for a recent upgrade for his electric service and it does seem that the customer is paying for the upgrades. He wants to be a sustainable business and will have solar on some of his property. He would like to see a program where they can sell back to the electric companies and work together. Dave Markham said while the customer pays for the upgrade, it is the company that maintains the upgrade, and this is figured into the bills. Another committee member wondered why the two CEOs did not sound happy about this potential growth, when it meant more business for them. Dave Markham said that growth is good, but they are concerned about someone putting large growth onto the system fast, for which it is not designed. They want to make sure it is done right. Dave Schneider echoed 4 that and said that overloading the system affects reliability, as well. They just need lead time, and they need to revisit some internal policies and adapt. VI. DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS BUILDING ON MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA REGULATIONS Maximum building floor size / enclosed production only / indoor-outdoor (including indoor processing) / limit number of licenses / size limits (production only) Minimum Building Floor Size The group discussed the state rules for recreational marijuana, which define, for indoor grows (meaning with grow lights) as “Tier I” for up to 5,000 square feet and “Tier II” for 5001-10,000 square feet. For outdoor grows, “Tier I” is up to 20,000 square feet and “Tier II” is 20,001 to 40,000 square feet. One member said there are already sufficient regulations for floor space. Another said that multiple producers could use one lot and have multiple licenses – each one may be limited to 5,000 square feet but there could be multiple licenses. Limit Number of Licenses One member said that having multiple licenses on each tax lot means you have to have separate addresses and owners. The question of being able to farm other types of crops was also considered. One member said that other growers might also want to lease out additional licenses, and in the rural residential areas if you have sub-leased growers using the property, they will not take care of the land the same way and be good neighbors. Some members said there are smaller residential lots on EFU and there needs to be some kind of size limit. Nick requested clarification of the definition of a building – one that requires a permit or a hoop house? A suggestion was made that, since the state has clarified spacing limits, instead of talking about specific buildings, the committee could limit the licenses to one every 20 acres, for example; so 100 acres could have five licenses. Nick read canopy size limits from Division 25 of the OLCC rules. One of the members said he had recently flown around the County, and horse barns and riding arenas are by far the biggest structures. The definition of “building” was discussed, and it was noted that the committee defined a building as “any building used for marijuana production or processing” with regard to odor regulations. One member felt that the function of the committee was not to compare regulations with other facilities such as horse barns, as they were talking about regulations particular to this industry. Another member said that one person could have multiple canopies according to the statute, and the spaces must be separated by an internal wall or ten feet of open space. For production, the statute trumps County Code for defining indoor versus outdoor. Grow lights in a hoop house make it an indoor grow operation, according to the state. Nick said that he recalled another county limiting production in rural residential zones to indoor grows. It is unclear if that can be applied in EFU and what is reasonable. Nick said that the Planning Commission recommendation was for one license per 20 acres. The proposal was made to limit licenses to one per 10 acres or portion thereof. This was put on hold as the group decided they should first discuss minimum lot sizes. Minimum Lot Size A proposal was made for minimum lot sizes in EFU of 10 acres for Tier 1 and 20 acres for Tier 2. Indoor means using grow lights: if there are no grow lights, it is considered outdoor. 5 A member said that as long as it is zoned EFU, the group should not say this crop cannot be farmed; and ten acres is probably reasonable for a small operation. The whole point of EFU is “exclusive” farm use. Nick was asked if there are lots in the County that are zoned EFU that are less than 10 acres, in which this proposal would prohibit this use. Perhaps the minimum lot size in EFU should be considered. An EFU-zoned property has special tax benefits. Nick said that for EFU-zoned parcel sizes in the County, there are 4,428 parcels of 0-5 acres (many of these are in destination resorts or subdivisions); 980 parcels of 5-10 acres; 1,084 parcels of 10-20 acres, 956 parcels of 20-40 acres, and 966 parcels of more than 40 acres. One member said she was on 15 acres and plans to use less than one-half acre to produce cannabis. For small farmers, this means autonomy. The MAC should consider small farmers who are already in this industry. There are good and bad operators, as there are in every industry. The goals for agricultural lands as stated in the County Comprehensive Plan include promoting diverse and sustaining agricultural economies, supporting stakeholders in viable activities, and encouraging niche markets. Another member asked what problem we are trying to solve. Right now there are probably very few parcels under ten acres that are actually used for farming in EFU. Many people just enjoy the rural life and its ambiance. If we limit grow operations to 20 acres, it will only affect the ability to grow marijuana on a small parcels. He said he could not make a living growing on five acres or ten acres. He supports a minimum of 20 acres for indoor grows. If you have a ten-acre lot and a 20,000-foot outdoor grow, no one could live near that. Another member agreed that it is not easy to create economic stability on small lots; it is unfair for growers to be put in this situation and unwelcomed when they provide a real economic potential for properties that have been properly zoned and classified. In addition, anyone who moves to EFU land knows they are subject to farming practices, which have implications for noise, odor, and light. Now, if we throw away an opportunity for small business to continue to preserve farming, we will have a hard time when the state statute gives us the right to grow an agricultural crop. The possibility of using setbacks instead of minimum lot sizes was considered. One member felt that allowing marijuana on every farm parcel was not going to protect everyone – if it is not economic to grow on a property, it is not up to this committee to fix that problem. The County does not need to pass a rule to allow a bad investment to make a profit. Another member asked why the Planning Commission chose 20 acres and above. It was stated that at the time, they were looking at odor and lighting as critical issues, and then they considered setbacks. Odor and lighting were considered more important at the time, and if the lot size was discussed first, it might have been different. A member pointed out that noise, odor, and lighting for production and processing EFU was already addressed by the MAC with consensus agreements. One member said that if you look at rural votes, 53% said “no” to Measure 91, which did not include anything about EFU land, so marijuana growers may not be wanted. Also, the County lot sizes have been subdivided and yet what is being proposed by the industry is the absolute maximum for tier growing on all the lots. She said the group could not have it both ways. The MAC is trying to mitigate nuisances for rural property owners. People are living here for the benefits of a rural lifestyle, and this, too, is in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The individuals who purchased residential parcels in EFU do not want to be affected by an industry they did not vote on and do not want in rural areas. A member said the committee is not supposed to discuss morality and whether people do or not want the industry; the committee is supposed to mitigate impacts on any size property by proposing solutions. Another member said this is a farm crop in EFU and complaining about it is not the right thing 6 to do. Farm properties should not have minimums. If someone owns a three-acre parcel zoned EFU, a 20-acre minimum for marijuana production is not fair. The fair approach is to have no minimum lot size and perhaps work with setbacks to mitigate nuisance impacts. Farming is part of the rural lifestyle on EFU. Several proposals were considered. Nick noted that the MAC is assuming the opt-out will be rescinded, so the County would have to allow marijuana grows on EFU but probably, according to state law, cannot limit it based only on adjoining properties. Matt Martin said that these standards are specific to recreational marijuana. Medical marijuana has a different measurement: a plant count rather than canopy size, and Tier 1 and Tier 2 terminology have nothing to do with medical marijuana. It was also stated that there were no minimum acreages for hog feeds, and a winery is allowed on 15 acres. Minimum lot size proposals considered for recreational marijuana production in EFU: 20-acre minimum plus no outdoor grows: 2 green cards, 8 red cards, 3 yellow cards. Larry will write the “pro”; Lindsey will write the “con.” No minimum lot size: 8 green cards, 5 red cards, 0 yellow cards. Alison will write the “pro,” Liz will write the “con.” 20-acre minimum, no outdoor grows, and no production allowed if adjacent parcels are zoned MUA-10 or RR-10: 3 green cards, 10 red cards. Sam will write the “pro,” Lindsey will write the “con.” Minimum lot size of 10 acres for Tier 1 and 20 acres for Tier 2: 0 green cards, 9 red cards, 4 yellow cards. No write-ups. The MAC discussed the size of medical marijuana grow operations. The OLCC considered the many ways to grow plants. For medical, there can be six plants for each patient. There will be monthly auditing and at some point, OHA wants to do inspections. Up until now, there has been no regulation for medical grows. For new medical marijuana grow operations, there is a maximum of 48 plants per registered grow site. If a medical marijuana grow operation was in existence by January 1, 2015, that site is allowed up to 96 plants per registered grow site. Proposals considered for medical marijuana production in EFU: No minimum lot size: 8 green cards, 5 red cards. Alison will write the “pro” point of view, and Liz the “con." 20-acre minimum, no outdoor grows: 4 green cards, 8 red cards, 1 yellow card. Larry will write the “pro,” Lindsey will write the “con.” Minimum lot size of 10 acres for up to 48 plants: 0 green cards, 11 red cards, 2 yellow cards. No write-ups. Limit Number of Licenses License limitations were considered and a proposal was made to allow one license per 10 acres or portion thereof (five acres could have one license; 11 could have two). Nick said usually the County would require 20 acres for two licenses of 10 acres were required for one. 7 It was decided for licensing that the discussion was for production only and not processing. The definition of “processing” recommended by the Planning Commission was “the processing, compounding, or conversion of marijuana into cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates, or cannabinoid extracts, provided that the marijuana processor is licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission or registered with the Oregon Health Authority.” Extracts are made with a process that could potentially explode; concentrates are considered to be less dangerous. Drying, curing, and packaging are part of production, per the state. Mary reviewed the Planning Commission recommendations. It was clarified that extracts may be processed on EFU with certain limitations since processing is allowed by the state in EFU for agriculture; the County can impose reasonable limitations. Proposals considered for limiting the number of licenses for production in EFU: 0-10 acres may have one license, 11-20 acres two licenses, and so on: 7 green cards, 4 red cards; 2 yellow cards. Alison will write the “pro”; Sam will write the “con.” 0-80 acres may have one license; 81-100 is allowed two, and so on: 9 red cards, 2 yellow cards, 2 green cards, 2 yellow cards. Liz will write the “pro,” Lindsey will write the “con.” VII. NEXT STEPS The next and last meeting of the MAC will be Thursday, April 7, 4-8 pm, at the County Services Building. The group acknowledged that they would not complete discussing all remaining issues at this meeting. They discussed how to prioritize issues beyond those already prioritized by the Board. Mary said she would send them a message the next day asking them to let her know by a date certain their highest-priority issues. A member suggested they could adopt the Jackson County regulations for all issues that were not addressed by the end of the next meeting. Mary suggested that the group review the Jackson County regulations so they could be prepared to act on that proposal. Mary noted that also at the next meeting, the group would have the opportunity to finalize all their provisional consensus agreements. She said that she would send them a message the next day asking them to let her know by a date certain whether they wanted to reconsider any of their provisional consensus agreements to date.