PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Relating to Marijuana Regulation STAFF REPORT

Transcription

1 July 12, 2016 To: Washington County Board of Commissioners From: Andy Back, Manager Planning and Development Services Subject: PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Relating to Marijuana Regulation STAFF REPORT For the July 19, 2016 Board of Commissioners Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 10:00 am) I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing for Ordinance No Hear the staff report and public testimony, provide direction for possible engrossment and continue the hearing to August 2, II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission (PC) considered Ordinance No. 810 at its June 15 and July 6 public hearings. Upon conclusion of public testimony at the July 6 hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6-0, with one abstention, to approve Ordinance No. 810 as filed, with minor text clarifications as recommended by staff and the following amendments: 1. Prohibit all commercial recreational marijuana businesses in the Future Development Districts (FD-10 and FD-20). 2. Require a temporary use permit for all commercial recreational marijuana businesses in Urban Reserves. 3. Limit the number of commercial recreational marijuana business types (production, processing, wholesale, or retail) to one per tax lot. 4. Apply buffer requirements to commercial recreational marijuana growing operations in areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary. The PC also directed staff to seek Board input on whether to include an on-site posting requirement for any new commercial recreational marijuana activity requiring at least a Type II land use approval and located within the UGB. Additional discussion of these recommendations is included in this staff report. Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14, Hillsboro, OR phone: fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

2 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 2 of 22 Additional information will be brought to the Board at the July 19 public hearing. Should the Board agree with or wish to amend the above recommendations, applicable CDC language will need to be developed by staff for the August 2 meeting. III. OVERVIEW Ordinance No. 810 proposes amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) that address commercial recreational marijuana regulation in Washington County as a result of changes to applicable state law and in response to potential issues and concerns with their implementation. As filed, the proposed amendments would: Prohibit the manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of marijuana for commercial recreational purposes in residential land use districts in the urban unincorporated area; Require a Type II land use review for new buildings associated with any of the above commercial marijuana activities in non-residential land use districts in the urban unincorporated area; and Incorporate new rulemaking language from the state Department of Land Conservation and Development specific to marijuana activity on EFU lands. IV. BACKGROUND State Marijuana Regulation In November 2014, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 91, becoming the fourth state in the nation to authorize a commercial recreational marijuana industry. The measure allowed individuals to possess up to four mature marijuana plants and up to eight ounces of marijuana for personal use beginning July 15, Commercial recreational marijuana businesses will be state-regulated through required licensing for growing, processing, wholesale activity, and retail sale of recreational marijuana and marijuana derivatives, such as edibles, liquid extracts, and topical products. These activities, along with testing and research facilities for marijuana and marijuana products for the recreational market, became legal business opportunities as of January 1, Measure 91 tasked the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) with creating a statewide tracking and licensing system for each of the above commercial recreational marijuana business types. Individuals or businesses may engage in more than one business type (e.g., growing and processing) with each type of activity requiring its own unique license from the OLCC. The OLCC began issuing producer licenses at the end of April, Currently, the agency is releasing licenses for all marijuana business types with the exception of retail facilities. The first retail licenses are expected to be released in October, 2016 (Figure 1). At the time this report was written, the OLCC has approved 13 licenses in Washington County, all for marijuana production.

3 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 3 of 22 Legislation : The Oregon Legislature passed ten bills during the 2015 and 2016 legislative sessions that created or amended regulations pertaining to recreational and medical marijuana. The most comprehensive of these was House Bill (HB) 3400A, which reflected the intent, opportunities, and limitations of Ballot Measure 91. The bill, effective June 30, 2015, provided direction on the regulatory obligations of the OLCC and Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and the responsibilities and operating requirements of dispensary owners, medical and recreational marijuana growers and processers, and wholesale and retail recreational marijuana businesses. The legislation required the adoption of new state regulations to address the recreational marijuana industry no later than January 1, Generally, the rules give local jurisdictions the opportunity to regulate where, how, and when recreational marijuana businesses can operate. However, there are requirements of the program that are applicable statewide, including the prohibition in residential areas of commercial wholesale and retail marijuana activities and for marijuana processing that uses volatile compounds such as butane, hexane, or propane to extract cannabinoids from the marijuana plant. Security requirements, including eight-foot fencing around outdoor grow operations, video surveillance and alarm systems, and a security plan approved by OLCC prior to licensing are also required by state law. Licenses for each facility must be renewed annually and can be denied or withdrawn if a record of infractions is associated with a particular use or site. Important elements of HB 3400A include: The authority of local jurisdictions to regulate time, manner, and place activities for all commercial recreational marijuana operations; The requirement that all marijuana businesses licensed with the OLCC obtain a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) from a local government specifying that the proposed use is appropriate for the zone; State recognition of marijuana as a farm crop, thereby allowing right-to-farm opportunity in any location; The prohibition of marijuana wholesale, retail, and hydrocarbon-based processing activities in residential areas; The requirement that the OLCC establish a seed-to-sale tracking system for products and activity generated by each recreational marijuana business type; Options for local governments to opt out of any one or more categories of marijuana businesses types; The requirement that OHA, in consultation with the OLCC, establish standards for packaging, labeling, and testing of marijuana items and to establish public health and safety standards for processing of cannabinoid edibles, concentrates, and extracts; and Provisions for state and local taxation of recreational marijuana and marijuana-derived products. The bill retains the existing state requirement of a 1,000-foot buffer between schools and marijuana retail outlets (dispensaries and recreational) but amends existing law to allow an operating and licensed medical marijuana dispensary to renew its operating license if a new

4 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 4 of 22 school is opened within 1000 feet of the facility 1. A new buffer regulation bans local jurisdictions from requiring a distance buffer of greater than one thousand (1000) feet between licensed retail marijuana outlets. Specific farm zone limitations and buffer requirements are also included in HB 3400A. In Exclusive Farm Use zones, an individual is prohibited from applying income generated from a marijuana crop toward the required income thresholds for obtaining a new dwelling in a stateregulated farm zone. 2 Farm stand activity and some limitation on agricultural-related commercial activities are likewise not allowed in conjunction with marijuana activities. While HB 3400A was the most significant regulatory bill on marijuana to come out of the legislature in the last two years, other important marijuana-related bills became law during this time as well. Senate Bill 460A allowed medical marijuana dispensaries to sell limited amounts of marijuana for recreational purposes to adults 21 and older, beginning October 1, 2015 and terminating December 31, Authorization of recreational sales through dispensaries provided recreational marijuana users a legal basis to purchase limited amounts of marijuana until retail recreational marijuana facilities become operative later in House Bills 4014, 1598 and 1511 contain multiple related components that collectively work toward aligning the OMMP and the recreational marijuana program. Procedures, regulations, and limitations for the commercial growing, processing, wholesale, and retail activity of recreational marijuana are found in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 845, Division 25. The rules were permanently adopted by the OLCC on June 16, A new set of temporary rules to account for marijuana-related bills that passed the legislature in winter and spring 2016 was also adopted on this date. The OLCC will begin final review and permanent adoption of these temporary rules in summer 2016 (Figure 1). Figure 1 1 Prior state law required the OHA to not reissue a license to any dispensary within 1000 feet of a school. 2 Income standards of $80,000 on EFU lands. OAR and CDC Section

5 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 5 of 22 Existing Marijuana Regulation: Washington County Washington County currently has regulations in place for medical marijuana dispensaries and retail recreational marijuana outlets. A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 792, adopted on October 28, 2014, amended the CDC to allow medical marijuana dispensaries as a Special Use within certain land use districts in unincorporated Washington County. Medical marijuana dispensaries are a key component of the OMMP through the provision of marijuana and edible marijuana-infused products to patients. The ordinance limited hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., required adequate lighting for entrances and parking areas, and limited the floor area of the facilities to 3,000 square feet in certain districts. A distance requirement of 2,000 feet from other dispensaries was also established. Currently there are seven known medical marijuana dispensaries operating in unincorporated Washington County. In early 2015, staff briefed the Board of Commissioners (Board) on the possibility of a future ordinance to address recreational marijuana businesses authorized through Measure 91. The Board directed staff to proceed with an ordinance that developed regulations for retail marijuana facilities only. Staff subsequently proposed applying the County's existing regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries to retail recreational marijuana outlets, as reflected in Ordinance No. 804, filed on July 13, Each facility would be regulated identically as Retail Marijuana Facilities. The PC considered Ordinance No. 804 at its August 19, 2015 public hearing and recommended adoption of the ordinance, with amendments. At the conclusion of the Board s first hearing on the ordinance the following month, the Board directed engrossment of the ordinance to include the PC s recommended changes. The changes were: To adopt a 1,000-foot buffer between recreational marijuana retail facilities and parks and youth-oriented recreational facilities owned and operated by Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District; and To reduce the existing buffer requirement between medical marijuana dispensaries from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet to align with the state law requirement that precluded local jurisdictions from enacting buffer regulations between retail recreational marijuana outlets of more than 1000 feet. The Board adopted A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 804 on October 27, 2015, with an effective date of November 27, Since the CDC only regulates retail marijuana sales, other marijuana activities will be addressed under the current existing allowances for similar types of uses. For example, farm use is allowed by right in any land use district and marijuana wholesale or processing activities are allowed where other wholesale or processing uses are allowed. Table 1 provides an existing overview of where the County CDC currently allows growing, processing, wholesale and retail recreational marijuana activities. Allowances denoted as potentially are where home occupation standards could be applied for that particular use if the applicant can meet the Home Occupation standards of CDC Section Home occupation approvals in the urban commercial districts are limited to existing non-conforming dwellings.

6 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 6 of 22 Table 1 Current Recreational Marijuana Activity Allowance by Land Use District Land Use District Production Processing Wholesale Retail OUTSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EFU, AF-20, EFC Districts 3 (10,000 sq. ft. building limitation in EFU/AF-20 per state law) Potentially 4 Potentially 4 AF-10, AF-5 and RR-5 Districts R-IND, R-MAE, and R-COM Potentially 4 (Non-hydrocarbon-based processing only per state law) (R-IND and R-MAE only) INSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY Potentially 4 (Non-hydrocarbon-based Urban Residential processing only per state law) No (Prohibited per state law) (R-IND and R- MAE; R-COM 7 ) No (Prohibited per state law) No (Prohibited per state law) (R-COM Only) No (Prohibited per state law) FD-20 and FD-10 Potentially 4 Potentially 4 Potentially 4 Urban Industrial Commercial: NC, OC, CBD, GC Potentially 4 Potentially 4 (CBD and GC) Potentially 4 (NC and OC) Transit Oriented Districts: Residential Transit Oriented Districts: Non- Residential North Bethany: Residential Potentially 4 (Non-hydrocarbon-based processing only in TOD: Residential) (TO:EMP only) Potentially 4 (Non-hydrocarbon-based processing only in TOD: Residential) No (Prohibited per state law) (TO:EMP only) No (Prohibited per state law) North Bethany: Non-Residential No Potentially 4 No (Prohibited per state law) (TO:RC, EMP, and BUS only) No (Prohibited per state law) (NC MU NB only) 3 In addition to other allowances, also potentially allowed as a home occupation. 4 Potentially allowed as a home occupation. Commercial home occupation allowance is for non-conforming existing dwellings only.

7 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 7 of 22 Ordinance Notification Ordinance No. 810 and an accompanying summary were mailed to citizen participation organizations (CPOs) and interested parties on May 16, A display advertisement regarding the proposed ordinance was published in the Hillsboro Argus and The Oregonian on May 25 and May 27, 2016, respectively. Individual Notice describing proposed Ordinance No. 810 was mailed to 312 people on the General Notification List on June 1, A copy of this notice was also mailed to the Planning Commission at that time. V. ANALYSIS Since the passage of HB 3400A, cities and counties where Measure 91 passed have had to consider the following: whether to put a potential ban of one or more recreational marijuana business types to a public vote this November ( opt out ), defer to state law when regulating new recreational marijuana uses, or enact specific time, manner, and place standards for recreational marijuana application requests. In western Oregon, Linn, Douglas and Marion Counties are putting the opt out question to voters this November and Clatsop, Tillamook, Curry and Josephine Counties are not enacting local regulations and will defer to state law. The remaining counties, including Washington County, have elected to enact varying degrees of time, manner and place regulations. Recently passed marijuana legislation and existing state rules in effect for recreational marijuana businesses are not overly prescriptive in regulating land use issues. Standards on the size of grow operations; prohibitions of certain processing activities, wholesale businesses and retail marijuana businesses in residential areas, required fencing for outdoor grow operations, security requirements, and the buffer and farm zone restrictions noted above are included in state law. Generally, however, HB 3400A gave local jurisdictions a fair amount of discretion in how to regulate recreational marijuana, under the reasonable limitations or time, manner and place provisions found in Section 33 of the bill. Within the last six months, neighboring counties have enacted ordinances that reflect a range of standards in regulating this industry. Recreational Marijuana Regulation in Adjacent Counties Clackamas, Multnomah, Yamhill, Columbia, Tillamook and Clatsop Counties all share a border with Washington County. As noted, Clatsop and Tillamook Counties have yet to enact recreational marijuana regulations and at least in the immediate future will defer to state law to regulate recreational marijuana business activity in their jurisdictions. Recreational marijuana regulation among the remaining four counties varies, with minimal regulation of recreational marijuana in Yamhill and Columbia Counties and more intensive regulation in Clackamas and Multnomah Counties.

8 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 8 of 22 Clackamas and Multnomah Counties have enacted comprehensive development standards that seek to eliminate or mitigate potential impacts to adjacent properties from all recreational marijuana business operations. Examples of regulations required by these counties include the following: An air filtration system certified by a state licensed engineer that ensures odors associated with all marijuana operations within buildings are limited to the site; Lighting associated with growing marijuana cannot be visible outside a building or structure between sunset and sunrise; Noise associated with any marijuana activity cannot be heard beyond the property lines of the subject site (Multnomah); a noise study submitted by a licensed acoustical engineer that confirms all noise associated with growing and/or processing is less than 50 decibels (Clackamas); A minimum 100-foot setback from the property line: - For outdoor and indoor grow operations (Multnomah) 5 ; - For retail facilities when adjacent to residentially zoned properties and for outdoor grow operations in farm and forest zones (Clackamas); and A minimum 50-foot setback from the property line: - For any structure used for grow operations in rural five and ten-acre zones (Clackamas) 6 ; Multnomah County has adopted through ordinance the requirement that no more than one marijuana production, processing, retailing or medical dispensary business may be established on the same lot of record and has also enacted standards that address the types of required fencing around outdoor grow operations. Clackamas County has enacted minimum lot size requirements and unique setback requirements for growing and processing in certain rural zones. Neither county allows a recreational marijuana business in association with a home occupation. Recreational Marijuana Growing: Yamhill, Columbia, and Clackamas Counties prohibit growing (and processing) in urban residential zones. The growing and processing ban in these three counties results in a complete ban of any recreational marijuana business in urban residential areas given the state prohibition against locating wholesale and retail recreational marijuana facilities within residentially-zoned areas. Columbia, Yamhill, Multnomah and Clackamas Counties generally allow for growing in resource zones (exclusive farm land and commercial timber zones) and in specified industrial zones. Allowances for growing in rural residential areas outside the UGB vary by county. Table 2 provides a broad overview of how adjacent counties have addressed recreational marijuana growing. 5 An adjustment or variance is possible under this requirement. 6 Clackamas County has additional setback requirements to multiple uses, including but not limited to day care facilities, parks, and libraries.

9 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 9 of 22 Table 2 Recreational Marijuana Growing in Neighboring Counties Summary Allowed in County Rural Resource Zones Allowed in Rural Residential Allowed in Urban Residential Allowed in Commercial Allowed in Industrial Special Use standards Clackamas Certain zones No Certain zones Most Multnomah (outdoor only in forest zone) (indoor only) (indoor only) (indoor only) (indoor only) Yamhill No No No No No Columbia Rural Residential - 5 Acre (indoor only) No Rural Community Zone (indoor only) (indoor only) Washington County Cities Recreational Marijuana Regulation Washington County cities within the UGB have either recently amended their respective development codes or will consider amending their codes in 2016 to account for the legalization of commercial recreational marijuana activity. Currently, Washington County cities do not allow any commercial recreational marijuana uses within their residential areas, generally relegating recreational marijuana activities to their more intensive commercial zones and their industrial zones. According to the OLCC s marijuana website, the cities of Sherwood and Wilsonville will look to opt out of allowing any commercial recreational marijuana business pending a vote at November s General Election. Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) As part of the statewide marijuana tracking program, applicants for any of the recreational marijuana business activities discussed in this paper are required to provide the OLCC with a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) from the jurisdiction where they expect to operate. In January, Current Planning staff developed a County-specific LUCS form applicable for all commercial recreational marijuana requests. This form requires an applicant to submit the following to the County: a site plan of the property, a floor plan of all enclosed areas, an operating plan for what is proposed, and, for producers, an indication of the type of growing operation proposed for the site (indoor/outdoor/building use and size). As of July 1, LUT has received 127 LUCS for a proposed marijuana business (Figure 2). One hundred twenty-one (121) of these were for indoor and outdoor growing operations. One hundred fifteen (115) of this total are for growing operations located outside the UGB and six (6) are for grow operations inside the UGB. One of these sites is located in a residential district (R-5) and three (3) sites are located in the Future Development 20-Acre District (FD-20). Generalized locations of the County s LUCS sites are shown in Figure 2.

10 Figure 2 General locations of Land Use Compatibility Statement sites. Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 10 of 22 Proposed Ordinance No. 810 Provisions Knowing that the County would be receiving LUCS requests after January 1, 2016, discussion among LUT and members of the Sheriff s Office began in winter concerning potential CDC regulations for growing, processing and wholesale recreational marijuana business operations. Simultaneously, staff was tracking marijuana-related bills at the state legislature to determine how recreational marijuana land use regulation enacted under HB 3400A might be affected. By late spring of 2016, it was apparent that pending state legislation would not significantly alter the direction provided by HB 3400 for regulating recreational marijuana. Like other jurisdictions throughout the state, staff then began to develop a 2016 recreational marijuana ordinance to account for the legalization of this industry. The intent of proposed Ordinance No. 810 is to strike a balance between the right of individuals to engage in state-authorized business enterprise with potential livability and compatibility issues

11 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 11 of 22 specific to commercial marijuana activities. Ordinance No. 804, adopted in 2015, allowed for recreational retail facilities in specified districts and applied regulations. Of the remaining recreational marijuana business activities regulated by the OLCC (growing/processing/wholesale and testing/research facilities), recreational marijuana growing has the potential to have the most impact to surrounding properties, through issues around plant odor, lighting, noise, and visitation and increased traffic from workers at the grow facility. The filed ordinance has three components, as follows: 1. In consideration of urban residential densities, the key component of Ordinance No. 810 is to amend the CDC to prohibit recreational marijuana growing in urban residential areas of unincorporated Washington County; 2. The requirement for a Type II land use procedure for any new structure used for growing recreational marijuana in non-residential districts within the urban area; and 3. To add amendments to CDC Section 340 (Exclusive Farm Use) and Section 344 (Agriculture and Forest 20-Acre) to align with adopted 2016 legislation specific to approval criteria when applying for a new dwelling in these districts and for marijuana activity at farm stands. Issues noted below were discussed through the winter and spring of 2016 by LUT staff and members of the Sheriff's Office prior to the filing of this ordinance. Following this is a discussion of new issues raised by staff from certain Washington County cities. Issues Considered: Medical Marijuana Due to issues of medical privacy and the limited public information provided by the OHA, County Code Enforcement staff has never been able to accurately track where and how many medical marijuana growing operations are occurring throughout the county. A few locations have been identified through complaints made to either LUT or the Sheriff s Office. Through legislation in 2016, the state has begun the process of creating rules that align the two separate components of the industry so that growers for each side of the industry (medical and recreational) are able to sell to the other market. Some medical marijuana growers have testified at OLCC hearings within the past year that they are interested in being able to sell to the recreational side of the marijuana market. To do so, they will need to be licensed with the OLCC and will need to have their products labeled and tracked seed-to-sale in the OLCC's statewide tracking system. The OHA is also working toward more accountability and regulation in the OMMP for those that wish to remain outside the recreational/olcc tracking system. This should facilitate more accountability in the medical program at the same time that a number of medical growers will affiliate with the more intensively tracked OLCC recreational program. Given the changing regulatory environment, the lower number of medical growers than potential recreational growers, and the lack of multiple complaints regarding impacts from medical marijuana growing and processing, staff believe creating land use regulations at this time for medical marijuana is not necessary.

12 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 12 of 22 Issues Considered: Odor from Grow Operations To date, the sole issue reported to LUT and the Sheriff s Office has been the impact to adjacent property owners from the odor of budding marijuana plants. While the County has not received a large number of complaints related to marijuana, complaints received by LUT and the Sheriff s Office have been intensely conveyed by individuals who felt they could no longer use their property as they previously could once a marijuana grow operation started adjacent to their property. At least one of these complaints reached Board members and the County Administrative Office. Complaints specific to odor from recreational marijuana grow operations have the potential to be more numerous than complaints received to date for medical marijuana grow operations. This is due to larger grow operations allowed under state law for recreational marijuana and the larger number of people that are expected to be involved in growing for the recreational marijuana market. The OLCC has publicly stated that they do not intend to cap the number of recreational grow licenses or to geographically regulate the number of licenses in any way. Prohibiting recreational marijuana growing in urban unincorporated residential areas, as proposed in Ordinance No. 810, would proactively limit the number of odor complaints from areas where residential density is highest and where impacts from commercial farm activity do not typically occur. Issues Considered: Time/Manner/Place Provisions State law allows local jurisdictions to regulate how recreational marijuana businesses can operate, including reasonable limitations or time/manner/place provisions. As noted in this report, some neighboring jurisdictions have adopted regulations intended to minimize potential impact of commercial marijuana operations to surrounding properties. Regulations in other jurisdictions address odor and noise requirements, fencing specifications, and increased setbacks for marijuana activities beyond the setback minimum in certain zones. For areas inside the UGB, proposed Ordinance No. 810 would regulate where recreational marijuana growing is allowed rather than how that use might be allowed. It s unclear how or if mitigating operating procedures, such as carbon filters to control odor, or noise limitation requirements at a property line would consistently limit negative impacts from a marijuana operation to properties located in dense urban settings. Also, increased setbacks on smaller urban lots may not be adequate to limit odor or noise impacts to adjacent properties even with such mitigation. These issues are discussed further under the PC amendments section. A ban on commercial marijuana growing activities in urban residential areas can therefore help to maintain neighborhood livability and can avoid the possibility for an increased number of marijuanarelated complaints to Code Enforcement staff. As filed, proposed Ordinance No. 810 would not restrict recreational marijuana growing outside the UGB given the typically larger lot size of rural tax lots, state designation of marijuana as a farm crop and to recognize the state s broad right-to-farm entitlement for rural residents. Staff is not recommending additional regulation of commercial marijuana activities outside the UGB for reasons of consistency in the CDC as well as the noted right-to-farm and lot size considerations.

13 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 13 of 22 Marijuana Business Activity in the Future Development Districts Ordinance No. 810, as filed, does not include provisions to regulate recreational marijuana activity in the County's two Future Development Districts (FD-20 and FD-10), 7 with the exception of a Type II requirement for new structures associated with a recreational marijuana activity, applicable in all urban non-residential districts. Outdoor marijuana grow operations would be allowed without a land use review or permit requirement in these districts. When rural land is brought into the UGB, the County's FD-20 land use designation is applied through ordinance. The intent and purpose of the FD-20 District found in CDC Section is as follows: The FD-20 District applies to the unincorporated urban lands added to the urban growth boundary by Metro through a Major or Legislative Amendment process after The FD-20 District recognizes the desirability of encouraging and retaining limited interim uses until the urban comprehensive planning for future urban development of these areas is complete. The provisions of this District are also intended to implement the requirements of Metro s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Most of the FD-20 District areas along the county's urban/rural divide have at a minimum been conceptually planned, with some cities having completed the more detailed level of community planning that typically includes residential locations and density requirements, general locations for transportation, trails, and parks, and often a preliminary funding plan for future development. Concept planning for the FD Districts adjacent to Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Cornelius and Wilsonville has been completed. After the ordinance was filed, staff from the cities of Forest Grove, Hillsboro, and Cornelius submitted testimony requesting Ordinance No. 810 be amended to preclude commercial recreational marijuana activities in the Future Development Districts adjacent to their cities (See for comment letters). Wilsonville's Planning Director conveyed a similar request to staff by telephone. The issues raised by the cities in their testimony addressed the potential for future non-conforming uses, county/city legal agreements, and the likelihood of future annexation of properties with existing commercial marijuana activities. City staff has noted that future city zoning for the FD-10 and FD-20 areas adjacent to their respective cities will not allow for commercial recreational marijuana activities. Any existing commercial marijuana use allowed by the County within an FD District adjacent to the boundaries of the above cities would therefore become a legal non-conforming use that would likely be incompatible with the intent and purpose of each city s projected zoning, once the area is annexed. Under state law, this use could continue in spite of a change in jurisdiction. This grandfather right is codified in state law at ORS (5), which states: The lawful use of any building, structure or land at the time of the enactment or amendment of any zoning ordinance or regulation may be continued 7 The County stopped applying FD-10 to new land inside the UGB in June 1999.

14 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 14 of 22 Future annexation of the property may also be difficult given each city s voluntary annexation policy. City staff expressed concern that there would be a disincentive for property owners engaged in marijuana production to voluntarily annex into a city where commercial recreational marijuana activity is prohibited, given the potential revenue associated with growing marijuana and the investment required to establish a viable commercial marijuana grow operation. Effective planning and orderly development of the area could be precluded as a result. City testimony also references County and City planning agreements relative to the FD Districts. Testimony from Forest Grove and Cornelius references their respective Urban Planning Area Agreements with the County, each noting in particular that the City shall be responsible for comprehensive planning in the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the City s planning area. The Forest Grove letter notes city policy that prohibits any marijuana activity in city residential areas and expresses concerns with allowing non-industrial uses in areas that may be zoned industrial, citing limits to job creation and property tax revenue generated by marijuana activities relative to typical industrial uses. Included in the attachments to the letter of testimony from Hillsboro is a copy of Resolution and Order , approved on October 20, 2015 by the Board of Commissioners in support of Hillsboro s establishment of the North Hillsboro Industrial Renewal District. The city has stated that future zoning of the area will prohibit any commercial recreational marijuana activity. Allowing commercial recreational marijuana activities in the FD Districts may not meet the letter and intent of these agreements with the cities. Currently, LUT has approved two LUCS in areas designated FD-20 and expected to be annexed by Hillsboro and Wilsonville, respectively. One of the LUCS sites is located in the Coffee Creek Planning Area, planned as a future industrial area by Wilsonville. Wilsonville s Planning Director has noted the city's concern with adding this new allowed use in the FD-20 District. The other LUCS site is located within the South Hillsboro Planning Area. Hillsboro has planned the majority of this area for residential use, including the area where the LUCS site is located. City zoning which will implement the future residential plan designations will not allow marijuana production as a permitted use. The County has yet to receive a LUCS request for FD-20 areas within the city of Forest Grove s future annexation area. Forest Grove has completed planning for their FD-10 area northwest of the city and has yet to determine land uses for the FD-20 District area on the city s northern boundary. Based on the above considerations, staff recommends the Board direct engrossment of Ordinance No. 810 to add language to the CDC that would prohibit all commercial recreational marijuana activity in the County s Future Development Districts.

15 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 15 of 22 Planning Commission Proposed Amendments On July 6, the PC held their second public hearing on Ordinance No Upon conclusion of public testimony and deliberation, the PC members voted 6-0, with one abstention, to recommend the Board adopt Ordinance No. 810 as filed to include minor text changes as recommended by staff and to consider the following recommendations for engrossment: 1. Prohibit all commercial recreational marijuana activities in Future Development Districts (FD-10 and FD-20). 2. Require a temporary use permit for all commercial recreational marijuana businesses in Urban Reserves. 3. Limit the number of commercial recreational marijuana business types (production, processing, wholesale, or retail) to one per tax lot. 4. Apply buffer requirements to commercial recreational marijuana growing operations in areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary. The PC also directed staff to seek Board input on whether to include an onsite posting requirement for any new commercial recreational marijuana activity requiring at least a Type II land use approval and located within the UGB. The PC opted not to recommend amendments to the ordinance on several issues they discussed. These issues were the possibility of new regulations specific to home occupation allowances for commercial recreational marijuana, new CDC language for marijuana odor control, and to require a neighborhood meeting prior to the onset of any commercial marijuana activity. The PC recommended amendments are discussed in detail below. 1. Prohibit all commercial recreational marijuana activities in Future Development Districts (FD-10 and FD-20). Ordinance No. 810 as filed did not propose specific regulations for the Future Development 10-Acre (FD-10) and Future Development 20-Acre (FD-20) Districts. As in other districts, commercial marijuana growing would be allowed outright as a farm use and commercial processing of marijuana would be allowed under the home occupation standards of the CDC. For issues of building safety, the filed ordinance proposed amending the CDC to require a Type II land use review for new buildings associated with a commercial recreational marijuana grow operation in non-residential urban areas of the county, which includes the FD-10 and FD-20 Districts. As noted above, staff from the cities of Hillsboro, Forest Grove, and Cornelius submitted testimony that addressed issues and concerns with allowing any commercial recreational marijuana activity in areas designated FD-10 or FD-20 adjacent to their cities. Issues raised in the letters of testimony are discussed in pages of this staff report. During public testimony at the July 6 hearing, Colin Cooper, Planning Director for the city of Hillsboro, and Jon Holan, Community Development Director for the city of Forest Grove, reiterated their

16 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 16 of 22 city s position requesting a prohibition on commercial recreational marijuana in the Future Development Districts adjacent to Hillsboro and Forest Grove. Stephen Holmes also testified in support of allowing commercial recreational marijuana activities in the Future Development Districts. Mr. Holmes owns property north of Hillsboro designated FD-20. Both Clackamas and Deschutes Counties have adopted prohibitions of commercial marijuana activities in their future development zones. Based on this fact and further consideration of city concerns, staff recommended engrossment of the ordinance at the first PC hearing on June 15 to prohibit all commercial recreational marijuana activity in the Future Development Districts. During deliberation, some PC members expressed concern with this recommendation, noting the limitations this would place on property owners in the Future Development Districts. PC members deliberated about how to ensure economic opportunity for property owners while also addressing the requests of Washington County cities to preclude this activity in these districts. Suggestions to address both scenarios included: Requiring a property owner to sign and submit to LUT a consent to annex form prior to the onset of any commercial marijuana activity in these districts and a signed remonstrance/waiver of the property owner s right to continue the commercial marijuana activity once the adjacent city was ready to annex the property; and Allowing commercial recreational marijuana activity as a temporary use. One PC member also noted that Urban Reserves, like the Future Development Districts, are areas where adjacent cities have a planning and development interest. Following discussion, the PC requested staff to also consider Urban Reserves when addressing options for commercial marijuana uses in future annexation areas of a city. The staff report and presentation for the July 6 hearing addressed these options and noted examples of why staff believes the first option has a greater potential for regulatory and/or legal issues. While situations exist where the County requires property owners to annex as a condition of development (such as the requirement to connect to existing urban services), requiring an applicant to sign a consent to annex form strictly for a development right is not typical County policy when services aren t needed. The above cities also have a policy of voluntary annexation, which leaves the choice of annexing to the property owner. The County could potentially be an unwilling participant in future annexation discussions between a city and a property owner. At the conclusion of public testimony and PC deliberation, PC members agreed with the cities requests and staff s recommendation to prohibit any commercial recreational marijuana activities in the Future Development Districts. They further recommended applying temporary use regulations to allow commercial marijuana activity in Urban Reserves, as discussed below.

17 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 17 of Require a temporary use permit for all commercial recreational marijuana businesses in Urban Reserves. At the July 6 public hearing, staff provided the following options that would allow commercial recreational marijuana activities in the Future Development Districts as a temporary use, in response to the respective concerns of PC members and the cities. Require a Type I development permit for outdoor growing operations, valid for a period of up to five (5) years. A Type I annual renewal permit would be required after this period. Require a Type II land use review for any new building used for indoor marijuana production, valid for a period of up to five (5) years. A Type I annual permit renewal would be required after this period. The intent was to allow cities to effectively zone and regulate their areas of interest while also giving county residents the opportunity to engage in a lawful farming activity on their property. Consistent with the intent and policy of the Future Development Districts, recreational marijuana grow operations would be a limited interim use for a five-year period, subject to renewal on an annual basis after that. When an adjacent city was ready to annex a property where commercial marijuana activity was occurring, the existing permit would be allowed to run its course and a renewal permit would not be granted. As noted above, the PC agreed with staff's recommendation to prohibit commercial recreational marijuana activities in the Future Development Districts. However, the PC added a recommendation to instead adopt the above standards into the CDC for recreational marijuana activities in Urban Reserves. Urban Reserves are areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) intended to provide a 50 year land supply for future residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Metro is required by state law to ensure an ongoing 20-year supply of available land for residential and employment uses, as determined by a regional land need assessment that must be conducted every six years. Analysis and recommendations of this work are contained in Metro s Urban Growth Report, which informs the decision on whether to expand the UGB. Metro s determination of whether to add land from Urban Reserves into the UGB will next occur in If Metro doesn't add land from the Reserves into the UGB at that time, the next scheduled review is in Individual Urban Reserves or areas within them have not been prioritized for inclusion into the UGB and it is conceivable that certain Urban Reserve areas could remain so for a considerable period of time. Regulation of commercial marijuana activities in Urban Reserves was not requested by cities nor was it included in staff recommendations for this ordinance. Preliminary analysis shows that three LUCS have been issued for properties located in an Urban Reserve. Urban Reserve areas do not have special interim use designations, as do the FD Districts. Future

18 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 18 of 22 urbanization of these areas is potentially in the distant future. These areas are designated EFU, AF-20 or one of the other rural districts, all of which allow recreational marijuana uses. Staff will provide further analysis at the Board hearing; however, staff s preliminary recommendation is not to apply further regulation of marijuana uses in Urban Reserves. Staff requests Board direction on whether to develop amendments to applicable sections of the CDC to reflect the PC recommendation. 3. Limit the number of commercial recreational marijuana business types (production, processing, wholesale, or retail) to one per tax lot. The definition for what constitutes a licensed premise for a commercial recreational marijuana grower is found in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Prior to June 30, the rule defined the licensed premise of a producer as follows: (1) The licensed premises of a producer authorized to cultivate marijuana indoors includes all public and private enclosed areas used in the business operated at the location and any areas outside of a building that the Commission has licensed. (2) The licensed premises of a producer authorized to cultivate marijuana outdoors includes the entire lot or parcel, as defined in ORS , that the licensee owns, leases or has the right to occupy. (3) A producer may not engage in any privileges of the license within a residence. (4) The licensed premises of a producer may not be located at the same physical location or address as a marijuana grow site registered under ORS 475B.420. Subsection (1) of this rule allowed property owners to lease multiple enclosed grow operations to individual licensees on one tax lot, as long as the individual grow operations were enclosed. The closest analogy to this type of activity is a community garden, where a property owner leases plots to individuals that do not own the property. The term condo grow has been applied to this type of grow operation in some media reports. The County has received three LUCS that indicate they will establish these types of condo grow operations. The three areas are located outside the UGB, with the largest site anticipated to accommodate 30 individual licensees on a single tax lot. Significantly, the state rule was silent about how or if the state canopy size limit of 10,000 square feet for indoor grow operations applied when multiple individuals are conducting indoor grow operations on one tax lot. Because of this, condo grows could result in a cumulative canopy size on one tax lot that far exceeds the 10,000 square foot limit. The rule was clearer for outdoor grows. For outdoor grows, the entire tax lot was the licensed premise. Therefore, the canopy size limit for growing outdoors was set at 40,000 square feet, as required (for outdoor grows) by state law.

19 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 19 of 22 On June 30, the state Department of Land Conservation and Development adopted new temporary rules that included amendments to the above Administrative Rule. The new rules reflect changes to state law as a result of 2016 Legislative activity specific to marijuana and to recommendations made by the OLCC marijuana rules committee. Subsection (2) and subsection (4) of the above rule were eliminated as part of the changes to state law. The result is that the condo grow model that was only applicable to indoor grow operations prior to June 30 is now also applicable to outdoor grow operations. Other jurisdictions are seeing condo grow requests with their respective LUCS applications. Multnomah County has adopted regulations to allow only one marijuana business per each type (e.g., growing, processing, etc.) for each lot of record under the reasonable time/manner/place provisions afforded to local jurisdictions under state law. Jackson County staff has confirmed that they are also seeing these types of condo grows and has elected not to regulate at this time. At the June 15 hearing, some PC members expressed concern about the establishment of grow operations on individual tax lots that could exceed the current state canopy limits. Staff's recommendation did not include regulating this type of grow activity in rural areas and nonresidential urban areas more restrictively than state law allows. The PC recommended amending the ordinance to only allow one commercial recreational marijuana business per type (e.g., only one grow operation, one processing operation) for an individual tax lot for both indoor and outdoor grow operations. Staff will continue to research this issue and may provide additional detail at the Board hearing. Pursuant to the recommendation of the PC on this issue, staff requests Board direction on whether to amend Ordinance No. 810 to allow only one commercial recreational marijuana business type per tax lot in rural areas of the county. 4. Apply buffer requirements to commercial recreational marijuana growing operations in areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary. The PC raised the possibility of establishing a setback requirement for marijuana grow operations at both the June 1 ordinance briefing and the June 15 public hearing. PC members expressed concerns about trespass, including from minors, and potential odor impacts from budding plants, noting in particular a concern about potential impacts to adjacent residential areas. Suggestions for setback minimums of 100 feet and 250 feet were made at that time. Staff has received a limited number of complaints from property owners adjacent to existing medical marijuana growing operations. These complaints were all specific to the odor of budding marijuana plants, which is pungent and can carry on the wind. This was a strong consideration in staff s recommendation to preclude recreational marijuana production in the County s urban residential areas, where density is highest. The OLCC requires an eight-foot fence enclose outdoor grow operations. The County requires a building permit for a fence of this height and the fence would have to meet setbacks, which

20 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 20 of 22 vary from five to thirty feet, depending on the district. Outdoor grow operations would have to meet these same setbacks. The following table lists setbacks requirements for marijuana activity in other Oregon counties: Table 3: Setback Comparisons Setback Jurisdiction (Indoor) Applies to Setback (Outdoor) Applies to Multnomah County 100 from property lines Both production and processing. Applies to buildings and structures constructed after December 31, from property lines Applies to canopy and buildings and structures constructed after December 31, 2015 Clackamas County 50 from property lines Any structure used for production in rural residential and farm forest districts 50 from property lines from property lines Structures used for production in the rural residential and farm forest districts All outdoor production in the Ag/Forest, EFU, and Timber Districts Deschutes County 100 from property lines from off-site dwellings All marijuana production and processing areas 100 from property lines from off-site dwellings All marijuana production and processing areas Jackson County 250 Measured from Incorporated City Limits and the White City Urban Unincorporated Community Boundary Land or structures Lane County 30 setback from all property lines setback from existing off-site dwellings Any structure used for production or processing 100 setback from all property lines Production Washington County District setbacks apply Any structure 8 fence must meet district setbacks Structures

21 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 21 of 22 The filed ordinance does not include additional setbacks for marijuana activities in the rural zones given marijuana s farm crop designation and the typically larger lot sizes in these districts being better able to accommodate marijuana growing operations. In not adding additional setback requirements, staff was attempting to maintain consistency in the CDC, in that the CDC does not apply additional setback requirements on farm uses with the potential for negative impacts to adjacent properties, such as commercial animal farms. Staff recognizes, however, that increased setbacks are a viable option in minimizing potential negative impacts to adjacent properties from commercial marijuana growing operations. Pursuant to the recommendation of the PC on this issue, staff requests Board direction on whether to amend Ordinance No. 810 to apply setbacks to indoor and outdoor grow operations in the rural area, as discussed above. The PC recommended an amendment to Ordinance No. 810 to apply a 50-foot setback from the property line for all new buildings associated with indoor growing of marijuana for commercial recreational purposes and a 100-foot setback from the property line for outdoor grow operations and processing outside the UGB. Staff requests Board direction on this recommendation. The Planning Commission also asked staff to seek Board input on whether to include an on-site posting requirement for any new commercial recreational marijuana activity located within the UGB that requires a Type II or Type III land use review. Additional information on this issue will be provided at the Board s first hearing. Summary of Discussion This staff report provides information and analysis from the July 6 Planning Commission public hearing, including a discussion of PC recommendations for engrossment. Ordinance No. 810, as filed, and proposed amendments to the Community Development Code that would: Prohibit the manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of marijuana for commercial recreational purposes in residential land use districts within urban unincorporated areas of the county. Require a Type II land use review for new structures associated with any of the above marijuana activities in non-residential land use districts within urban unincorporated areas of the county. Incorporate new rulemaking language from the state Department of Land Conservation and Development specific to marijuana activity on EFU lands. Based on city testimony, staff recommended engrossment of Ordinance No. 810 at the second PC hearing on July 6. The recommendation was to prohibit all commercial recreational marijuana activity in the county Future Development Districts and to make minor clarifying amendments to the ordinance.

22 Board of Commissioners Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 July 12, 2016 Page 22 of 22 At their July 6 hearing on Ordinance No. 810, PC members voted 6-0, with one abstention, to recommend the Board adopt Ordinance No. 810 as filed to include minor text changes as recommended by staff and to consider the following recommendations for engrossment: 1. Prohibit all commercial recreational marijuana businesses in the Future Development Districts (FD-10 and FD-20). 2. Require a temporary use permit for all commercial recreational marijuana businesses in Urban Reserves. 3. Limit the number of commercial recreational marijuana businesses (production, processing, wholesale, or retail) to one business per type per tax lot. 4. Apply the following buffer requirements to commercial recreational marijuana growing operations in areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary: 50-foot setback from the property line for all new buildings associated with indoor growing of marijuana for commercial recreational purposes and a 100-foot setback from the property line for outdoor grow operations and processing outside the UGB. At the conclusion of the public hearing for Ordinance No. 810, staff requests Board direction for possible engrossment of the ordinance and to continue the hearing to August 2, Attachments Attachment A: Draft PC deliberations : Comment Letters received as of July 12, 2016 s:\plng\wpshare\2016 ord\ord810_marijuana\staffreports_ppts\boc\071916\810_bc_sr_ docx

23 Attachment A WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2016 Proposed Ordinance No. 810 An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Relating to Marijuana Regulation Draft Deliberations Planning Commission (PC) members present: A. Richard Vial, Liles Garcia, Ed Bartholemy Tegan Enloe, Mary Manseau, Anthony Mills, and Matt Wellner. PC members absent: Jeff Petrillo, and Eric Urstadt. Staff present: Andy Back, Theresa Cherniak, Stephen Shane, John Floyd, and Susan Aguilar, Long Range Planning (LRP) section of the Planning and Development Service (PDS) division; Jacquilyn Saito-Moore, County Counsel. Summary Theresa Cherniak, Principal Planner, and Stephen Shane, Senior Planner from the Community Planning section of LRP provided a PowerPoint presentation on Ordinance No Staff discussed amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC), and prior testimony submitted. Staff addressed concerns by the PC members from the June 15, 2016 public hearing and provided recommendation options. Next step The first Board hearing is scheduled for July 19, 2016 Oral/Written Testimony regarding Ordinance No. 810 Letter received on June 2, 2016 from Jon Holan, Community Development Director City of Forest Grove, 1924 Council Street, Forest Grove, OR Letter and oral testimony expressed concern regarding the allowance of commercial recreational marijuana facilities within the FD (Future Development) Districts adjacent to the city. Mr. Holan also discussed Urban Reserves adjacent to Forest Grove in response to PC questions. Letter received on June 8, 2016 from Colin Cooper, Planning Director City of Hillsboro Planning Department, 150 E Main St, 4 th Floor, Hillsboro, OR Letter and oral testimony expressed concern regarding the allowance of commercial recreational marijuana facilities within FD Districts. Mr. Cooper also discussed Urban Reserves adjacent to Hillsboro in response to PC questions. Barbara Glidewell 4070 SW 109 th Ave, Beaverton, OR Provided oral testimony regarding awareness and neighborhood impacts from recreational marijuana establishments in urban residential areas. Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350 MS 14 Hillsboro, OR Phone: Fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

24 Attachment A Planning Commission Deliberations July 6, 2016 Page 2 of 5 PC Concerns / Recommendations PC members discussed concerns from the June 15, 2016 meeting and voted on various options listed in the staff report, as follows: 1. Whether to allow or prohibit commercial recreational marijuana activity in the County s Future Development Districts and in Urban Reserves. Commissioner Manseau moved to amend filed Ordinance No. 810 to include a prohibition of all commercial marijuana establishments in both FD Districts (FD-10 and FD-20) and to require a temporary use permit for a five year period with a one-year annual renewal after for commercial recreational marijuana activity in the Urban Reserve areas. Commissioner Wellner seconded. Vote: Motion passes. Commissioners Bartholemy Enloe Garcia Manseau Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner Vote Abstained No Absent Absent No 2. Whether to limit the existing state allowance to have multiple marijuana production licenses on one tax lot ( condo grows ). Commissioner Wellner moved to recommend Option C of the staff report restricting the number of marijuana businesses to one per tax lot for both indoor and outdoor production. Commissioner Manseau seconded. Vote: Motion passes. Commissioners Bartholemy Enloe Garcia Manseau Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner Vote Abstained No No Absent Absent

25 Attachment A Planning Commission Deliberations July 6, 2016 Page 3 of 5 3. Whether to allow commercial recreational marijuana activity under the County s home occupation provisions. Commissioner Manseau moved to recommend Option C of the staff report to prohibit commercial marijuana activity as a home occupation in all land use districts in both urban and rural areas. No second was received. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Wellner moved to recommend Option A of the staff report to not restrict existing potential to conduct commercial marijuana activity as a home occupation as filed and recommended by staff. Commissioner Mills seconded. Vote: Motion passes. Commissioners Bartholemy Enloe Garcia Manseau Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner Vote Abstained No Absent Absent No 4. Whether to apply increased setbacks between commercial recreational marijuana activities and adjacent uses and whether to require an air filtration unit for all indoor growing and processing activity. Commissioner Mills moved to recommend Option A of the staff report to rely on existing land use district setbacks and not require air filtration for indoor grows and processing as recommended by staff. Commissioner Garcia seconded. Vote: Motion failed. Commissioners Bartholemy Enloe Garcia Manseau Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner Vote Abstained No Absent Absent No No

26 Attachment A Planning Commission Deliberations July 6, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Wellner moved to recommend Option B of the staff report to establish additional setbacks from the property line for commercial recreational marijuana production uses: 100 feet from the property line for outdoor grow operations and not require air filtration for all indoor growing and processing as recommended by staff. Commissioner Manseau seconded. No vote was taken at this point in time. Commissioner Wellner amended motion to recommend Option B of the staff report to establish additional setbacks from the property line for commercial recreational marijuana production as follows: 50 feet for indoor grow operations and 100 feet for outdoor grow operations and processing in the rural area and not require air filtration for indoor grow and processing. Vote: Motion passes. Commissioners Bartholemy Enloe Garcia Manseau Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner Vote No Abstained No Absent Absent 5. Whether to require a neighborhood meeting for commercial recreational marijuana activities Commissioner Manseau moved to recommend Option A of the staff report to not require a neighborhood meeting for commercial recreational marijuana activities with an additional provision that staff will seek Board direction on whether to require posting of new recreational marijuana businesses inside the Urban Growth Boundary. Commissioner Wellner seconded. Vote: Motion passes. Commissioners Bartholemy Enloe Garcia Manseau Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner Vote Abstained Absent Absent

27 Attachment A Planning Commission Deliberations July 6, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Final Vote Commissioner Manseau moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 810 to the Board to include minor text changes for clarity and to direct staff to develop language to address the proposed additional amendments voted on by the PC for Board consideration. Commissioner Mills seconded. Vote: Motion passes. Commissioners Bartholemy Enloe Garcia Manseau Mills Petrillo Urstadt Vial Wellner Vote Abstained Absent Absent End of deliberations.

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94 June 1, 2016 Individual Notice No At your request, Long Range Planning is providing you with Individual Notice No which describes proposed Land Use Ordinance No Ordinance Purpose and Summary Who is Affected What Land is Affected Key Provisions Ordinance No. 810 proposes amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) that address the growing of marijuana for commercial recreational purposes in urban residential areas of unincorporated Washington County. Additionally, the ordinance proposes a requirement of a Type II land use procedure for any new structure used for growing recreational marijuana in non-residential districts and adds clarifying language to relevant CDC sections based on modifications to state law. Property owners within the urban unincorporated area or within the EFU, AF-20, or R-COM land use districts. Tax lots located in the urban unincorporated area or within the EFU, AF-20, or R-COM land use districts. To prohibit the manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of marijuana for commercial recreational purposes in residential land use districts within urban unincorporated areas of the county. To require a Type II land use review for new structures associated with any of the above marijuana activities in non-residential land use districts within urban unincorporated areas of the county. To incorporate new rulemaking language specific to marijuana activity on EFU lands from the state Department of Land Conservation and Development. Initial Public Hearings Time and Place Planning Commission 6:30 pm June 15, 2016 Board of Commissioners 10:00 am July 19, 2016 Hearings will be held in the auditorium of the Charles D. Cameron Public Services Building, 155 N First Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon. On July 19, 2016, the Board of Commissioners (Board) may choose to adopt the ordinance, make changes to it, continue the hearing to a future date, or reject the ordinance. If it is adopted on July 19, 2016, the ordinance would become effective on August 18, Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14, Hillsboro, OR phone: fax: lutplan@co.washington.or.us