PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FOR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FOR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING (AUDITORIUM) 155 N FIRST AVENUE, HILLSBORO, OR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2016 PUBLIC MEETING 6:30 PM Prior to scheduled public hearing items, the Planning Commission schedules time to receive briefings from county staff as work session items. These briefings provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to conduct informal communications with each other, review the agenda, and identify questions they may ask before taking action on the agenda items during the public meeting. No public testimony is taken on work session items. Following work session briefings, the Planning Commission considers items published in their agenda, including scheduled public hearing items and consideration of minutes. The public is welcome to speak during the public hearing portions of the meeting. The public may also speak on any item not on the agenda during the Oral Communications section of the agenda. Upon request, the county will endeavor to arrange provision of the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead-time as possible. If you need a sign language interpreter, assistive listening device, or a language interpreter, please call (or for Telecommunications Relay Service) by 5:00 p.m. on the Monday preceding the meeting date.

2 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING AUDITORIUM The Planning Commission welcomes your attendance at the Public Meeting. If you wish to speak on a public hearing agenda item or during Oral Communications, please feel free to do so. Time is generally limited to five minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for an authorized representative of a Citizen Participation Organization (CPO). The Chair may adjust the actual time limits. However, in fairness to others, we respectfully ask your cooperation on the following: Please follow sign-in procedures located on the table by the entrance to the auditorium. When your name is announced, please be seated at the table in front and state your name and home or business address for the record. Groups or organizations wishing to make a presentation are asked to designate one spokesperson in the interest of time and to avoid repetition. When more than one citizen is heard on any matter, please avoid repetition in your comments. Careful attention to the previous speakers remarks will be helpful in this regard. If you plan to present written testimony at the hearing, please bring 15 copies for distribution to Commission members and staff. PUBLIC MEETING DATES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSIONS 8:30 a.m. 1 st and 3 rd Tuesdays 2:00 p.m. 4 th Tuesday PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS 1:30 p.m. 1 st Wednesday 6:30 p.m. 3 rd Wednesday BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS 10:00 a.m. 1 st and 3 rd Tuesdays 6:30 p.m. 4 th Tuesday Note: Occasionally it may be necessary to cancel or add a meeting date.

3 PUBLIC MEETINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING WEDNESDAY JUNE 15, :30 PM AGENDA CHAIR: VICE-CHAIR: COMMISSIONERS: A. RICHARD VIAL LILES GARCIA ED BARTHOLEMY, TEGAN ENLOE, MARY MANSEAU, ANTHONY MILLS, JEFF PETRILLO, ERIC URSTADT, MATT WELLNER 1. CALL TO ORDER 6:30 PM 2. ROLL CALL 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 4. WORK SESSION PUBLIC MEETING (AUDITORIUM) a. Ordinance Briefing Proposed Ordinance No. 811 Flood Plain Maps Stephen Shane Transportation System Plan (TSP) update Steve Kelley 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 6. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES None 7. PUBLIC HEARING a. Ordinance No. 810 An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Relating to Marijuana Regulation 8. ADJOURN 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

4 June 8, 2016 To: From: Subject: Washington County Planning Commission Andy Back, Manager Planning and Development Services PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Relating to Marijuana Regulation STAFF REPORT For the June 15, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 6:30 pm) I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing; recommend approval of Ordinance No. 810 to the Board of Commissioners (Board). II. OVERVIEW Ordinance No. 810 proposes amendments to the Community Development Code that address commercial recreational marijuana regulation in Washington County as a result of recent changes to applicable state law. Specifically, the proposed amendments would: Prohibit the manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of marijuana for commercial recreational purposes in urban unincorporated residential land use districts; Require a Type II land use review for new buildings associated with any of the above marijuana activities in non-urban unincorporated land use districts; and Incorporate new rulemaking language from the state Department of Land Conservation and Development specific to marijuana activity on EFU lands. 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

5 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 2 of 16 III. 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 state-wide 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 will license producers and testing facilities 1 first, since these businesses must be in place before all other license types can begin operation on a commercial scale. This will then be followed by processors, research facilities, and finally retail outlets, expected to be licensed and in operation by autumn 2016 (Figure 1). The OLCC approved the first group of producer licenses on May 2, 2016, including two sites outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in Washington County. Figure 1 1 State-licensed testing facilities were authorized under HB 3400A. HB3400A is discussed under Legislation

6 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 3 of 16 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. These rules form the basis of the state's recreational marijuana program. Generally, the rules give local jurisdictions the opportunity to regulate where, how, and when recreational marijuana businesses can operate. However, there are state-wide mandatory requirements of the program, 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 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. Prior to the passage of Measure 91, legal marijuana activity was limited to the state medical marijuana program. The medical marijuana program was authorized by Ballot Measure 67, adopted by voters in the November 1998 General Election. The Measure established the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP) and assigned rulemaking authority for its implementation and administration to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA). The program is intended to allow Oregonians with debilitating medical conditions the legal authority to use small amounts of marijuana when advised by a doctor without fear of civil or criminal penalties. Further background and discussion of the OMMP is found in County Issue Paper and the August 19, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report for Ordinance No 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 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 instructed the OLCC to adopt administrative rules to regulate recreational marijuana and marijuana-derived products no later than January 1, OAR consists of temporary administrative rules adopted by the OLCC in October These rules are expected to be adopted as permanent on June 16, The OLCC is also expected to adopt a new set of temporary rules in early summer 2016, to account for marijuana-related bills that passed the legislature in winter and spring, 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;

7 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 4 of 16 State recognition of marijuana as a farm crop, thereby allowing right to farm opportunity in any location; The prohibition of marijuana wholesale, retail, and certain 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. Specific farm use limitations and buffer requirements are also part of the bill. 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 state-regulated farm zone. 2 Farm stand activity and certain agricultural-related commercial activities are likewise not allowed in conjunction with marijuana activities under HB 3400A. The bill maintains the existing state requirement of a 1000-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 school is opened within 1000 feet of the facility 3. A new buffer regulation bans local jurisdictions from requiring a distance buffer of greater than one thousand (1000) feet between licensed retail marijuana outlets. 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, 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. Existing County Marijuana Regulation 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. The ordinance limited hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., required adequate lighting for entrances and parking 2 Income standards of $80,000 on EFU lands. OAR and CDC Section Prior state law required the OHA to not reissue a license to any dispensary within 1000 feet of a school. 4 This option for dispensaries sunsets December 31, 2016.

8 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 5 of 16 areas, and limited the floor area of the facilities to 3000 square feet in certain districts. A distance requirement of 2000 feet from other dispensaries was also established. Currently there are seven known medical marijuana dispensaries operating 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. In early 2015, staff presented the possibility of an ordinance to the Board of Commissioners (Board) that would address recreational marijuana businesses authorized through Measure 91. The Board directed staff to proceed with an ordinance that applied regulations for retail marijuana facilities only. Staff subsequently filed Ordinance No. 804 on July 13, 2015, and proposed applying the County's existing regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries to retail recreational marijuana outlets. Each facility would be regulated identically as Retail Marijuana Facilities. The Planning Commission (PC) considered Ordinance No. 804 at their 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 1000-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 2000 feet to 1000 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. 5 The Board adopted A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 804 on October 27, 2015, with an effective date of November 27, Table 1 provides an existing overview of where the county allows growing, processing, wholesale and retail recreational marijuana activities. Farm use is allowed by right in any land use district. 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. 5 Section 33(2) of HB 3400 does not allow a local jurisdiction to apply through regulation a buffer greater than 1000 feet between retail marijuana outlets

9 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 6 of 16 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 Yes Yes 6 (10,000 sq. ft. building limitation in EFU/AF-20 per state law) Potentially 7 Potentially 7 AF-10, AF-5 and RR-5 Districts R-IND, R-MAE, and R-COM Yes Yes INSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY Potentially 7 (Non-hydrocarbon-based processing only per state law) Yes (R-IND and R-MAE only) No (Prohibited per state law) Yes (R-IND and R- MAE; R-COM 7 ) No (Prohibited per state law) Yes (R-COM Only) Urban Residential Yes Potentially 7 (Non-hydrocarbon-based processing only per state law) No (Prohibited per state law) No (Prohibited per state law) FD-20 and FD-10 Yes Potentially 7 Potentially 7 Potentially 7 Urban Industrial Yes Yes Yes Yes Commercial: NC, OC, CBD, GC Yes Potentially 7 Potentially 7 Transit Oriented Districts: Residential Transit Oriented Districts: Non- Residential North Bethany: Residential Yes Yes Yes Potentially 7 (Non-hydrocarbon-based processing only in TOD: Residential) Yes (TO:EMP only) Potentially 7 (Non-hydrocarbon-based processing only in TOD: Residential) No (Prohibited per state law) Yes (TO:EMP only) No (Prohibited per state law) North Bethany: Non-Residential Yes No Potentially 7 Yes (CBD and GC) Potentially 7 (NC and OC) No (Prohibited per state law) Yes (TO:RC, EMP, and BUS only) No (Prohibited per state law) Yes (NC MU NB only) 6 In addition to other allowances, also potentially allowed as a home occupation. 7 Potentially allowed as a home occupation. Commercial home occupation allowance is for non-conforming existing dwellings only.

10 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 7 of 16 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 Oregonian and Hillsboro Argus newspapers on May 27, 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. IV. 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 autumn, 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. Regulations on the size of grow operations, prohibitions of certain processing activities, wholesale businesses and retail marijuana businesses in residential areas, fencing for outdoor grow operations, security requirements, and the buffer and farm zone restrictions noted above are required 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 some level of regulation in Yamhill and Columbia Counties and more intensive regulation in Clackamas and Multnomah Counties. 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;

11 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 8 of 16 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) 8 ; - 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) 9 ; Multnomah County has also enacted standards that address the type of fencing required around outdoor grow operations and will enforce a limit of one recreational marijuana business type per tax lot. 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 of 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. 8 An adjustment or variance is possible under this requirement. 9 Clackamas County has additional setback requirements to multiple uses, including but not limited to day care facilities, parks, and libraries.

12 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 9 of 16 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 Yes Certain zones No Certain zones Most Yes Multnomah Yes (outdoor only in forest zone) Yes (indoor only) Yes (indoor only) Yes (indoor only) Yes (indoor only) Yamhill 10 Yes No No No No No Columbia Yes Rural Residential- 5 Acre (indoor only) No Rural Community Zone (indoor only) Yes (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 state-wide 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 2016, Current Planning staff developed a County-specific LUCS 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 June 3, 2016, LUT had received 118 requests for a LUCS for proposed marijuana businesses (Figure 2). One hundred eleven (111) of these were for indoor and outdoor growing operations located outside the UGB. One LUCS request is located in a residential District (R-5) and two requests are located in the Future Development -20 (FD-20) Acre District. Generalized locations of the County s LUCS requests are shown in Figure 2. Yes Yes 10 Yamhill County information on this table is preliminary pending additional information.

13 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 10 of 16 Figure 2. General locations of Land Use Compatibility Statement requests. Current as of June 3, 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 Community Development Code (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 livability and compatibility issues 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 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

14 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 11 of 16 surrounding properties, through issues around plant odor, lighting, noise, and visitation and increased traffic from workers at the grow facility. The 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 so that recreational marijuana growing in urban residential areas of unincorporated Washington County is not allowed; 2. The requirement for a Type II land use procedure for any new structure used for growing recreational marijuana in non-residential districts, to ensure that applicable components of the building code are met; and 3. To add amendments to CDC Section 340 (Exclusive Farm Use) and Section 344 (Agriculture-Forest 20 Acre) to align with adopted 2016 legislation. CDC amendments from ordinance No 804 were taken from HB3400A and noted that farm dwellings could not be used in conjunction with a marijuana crop. The new language clarifies that farm use associated with marijuana cannot be used in approval criteria consideration when applying for a new dwelling in these districts. Ordinance No. 810 also follows 2016 legislation in modifying language specific to farm stands and marijuana. 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 is a discussion of new issues raised by several cities in the county and a discussion of Planning Commission comments from the June 1, 2016 ordinance briefing. Issues Considered: Medical Marijuana Due to issues of medical privacy and the limited public information provided by the Oregon Health Authority, County Code Enforcement staff has not 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 state-wide 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

15 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 12 of 16 marijuana growing and processing, staff believe creating land use regulations at this time for medical marijuana is not necessary. Issues Considered: Odor from Grow Operations To date, the sole reported issue 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 feel they can no longer use their property as they previously could once a marijuana grow operation begins adjacent to their property. At least one of these complaints reached Board members and the County s 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 and place provisions. As noted in this paper, 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 require increased setbacks for marijuana activities beyond the setback minimum in certain zones. For areas inside the UGB, Ordinance No. 810 creates regulations for 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 limitations at a property line would consistently limit negative impacts from the 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. 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 marijuana-related complaints to Code Enforcement staff. Ordinance No. 810 would allow 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. Other than the requirement for the Type II land use review for new structures associated with growing

16 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 13 of 16 marijuana, 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. New Issues for Consideration: Marijuana Businesses in the Future Development Districts When rural land is brought into the UGB, the County's FD-20 land use designation is applied through a land use 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 density calculations and locations, an updated transportation, trails, and parks system for the area, and a funding plan for development. 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), 11 with the exception of the Type II requirement for new structures associated with a recreational marijuana activity. Growing operations would be allowed as a farm use. After the ordinance was filed, staff from the cities of Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Cornelius and Wilsonville informed staff of their concern that recreational marijuana activities could occur under the ordinance in the County's Future Development Districts (See for comment letters). Each of these cities has developed concept plans for the FD-20 areas they expect to annex. Staff from each city believes that allowing for recreational marijuana activity in the Future Development Districts would not be compatible with future city land use zones once annexation occurs and city zoning is applied. Currently, LUT has approved two FD-20 District LUCS requests in areas expected to be annexed by Hillsboro and Wilsonville, respectively. One of the LUCS request is located in the Coffee Creek Planning Area, planned as an industrial area by Wilsonville. Wilsonville s Planning Director has expressed concern with adding new allowed uses in the FD-2 District. The other LUCS request 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 residential plan designations does not allow marijuana production as a permitted use. 11 The county stopped applying FD-10 to new land inside the UGB in June 1999.

17 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 14 of 16 The city of Hillsboro has also expressed concern about allowing recreational marijuana growing in their other FD-20 District areas, in particular the North Hillsboro Industrial Renewal Area (NoHi IRA). On October 20, 2015, the County supported Hillsboro s expected planning of this area as an industrial urban renewal district through adoption of Resolution and Order No Hillsboro has informed County staff that this area will be zoned Industrial Sanctuary (I-S Zone), where recreational marijuana production will not be 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 north boundary. The Planning Director for Forest Grove has submitted testimony noting city policy precluding any marijuana activity in city residential areas and expressing 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. Concern was also noted about the creation of a legal non-conforming use in future city zones and that grow operators might choose not to annex into the city given the potential revenue involved in this type of marijuana activity. Based on the above concerns, staff is assessing possible engrossment of the ordinance to prohibit recreational marijuana activities in the county s FD-10 and FD-20 Districts. Additional input on this subject will be sought from the PC and Board at the public hearings for this ordinance. Planning Commission Comments At the June 1, 2016 briefing on this ordinance, several commissioners noted concerns with the potential proximity of marijuana growing operations to adjacent residential lands. These concerns included the issues of odor and perceived security risks. The concern was primarily about urban residential areas abutting rural lands. Increased setbacks were discussed as a possible option and the increased setback requirements in adjacent counties were reviewed. Setbacks or other additional time, manner, and place regulations that would apply to marijuana activities outside the UGB were not recommended by staff under this ordinance. This was in recognition of the state's designation of marijuana as a farm crop and Oregon's strong right-tofarm laws. As noted above, the CDC does not require additional setbacks for other farm activities whose standard operating procedures may create some measure of negative impacts to adjacent properties, including commercial animal farms or from farm or timber operations where chemical application occurs, either by hand or by air. Rural lots can more easily accommodate marijuana growing due to their larger size relative to most urban tax lots. Outdoor marijuana growing operations are required to have eight-foot fencing around the perimeter of the operation and no part of the interior can be visible to the public. A building permit is required for the required eight-foot tall fencing, and since this exceeds typical fence heights these fences will need to meet building setbacks for the district. Security plans for all growing operations must be approved by the OLCC prior to issuance of a license. For the reasons described in this section, staff continues to believe that additional setbacks or regulations for growing marijuana outside the UGB are not necessary.

18 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 15 of 16 Other jurisdictions have been proactive about applying time/manner/place requirements on recreational marijuana activities. At its June 15, 2016 public hearing, the PC may wish to make specific time/manner/place recommendations to the Board prior to their vote on the ordinance. One PC member also questioned whether requiring a neighborhood meeting prior to the onset of operations for any commercial marijuana activity is merited. CDC Section includes the types of uses where a neighborhood meeting could be required, including subdivisions, partitions, and development review variances. There are currently no neighborhood meeting requirements for a farm use. Under Ordinance No. 810, recreational growing operations are not subject to land use review outside the UGB and would not be allowed in urban residential areas inside the UGB. Staff does not believe that adding marijuana activities to the list of activities that qualify for a neighborhood meeting is warranted. Finally, a PC member requested consideration of clarifying language specific to the term "manufacture" and to propose language for farm stands. The referenced language in the filed ordinance was applied verbatim from state administrative rule. Sections of the ordinance use the term "manufacture" instead of "process" which the PC member stated was reference language used by OLCC. In this case, staff believes it more appropriate to cite to state rulemaking regulation rather than agency regulation and believes the discrepancy is semantic in nature. However, the PC member s suggestion to add the term "marijuana" to the proposed farm stand language in the ordinance would clarify and improve the language. Because the proposed farm stand language is currently enforced under state rules and the suggested modification is relatively minor, staff believes an engrossment of this ordinance for this modification alone is not warranted. Staff will include this suggestion with the engrossed ordinance should the Board recommend engrossment. The PC is scheduled conduct the public hearing for Ordinance No. 810 on June 15, Additional discussion of the above topics and any other potential recommendations by the PC can occur at that time. Summary of Proposed Changes Ordinance No. 810, as filed, proposes amendments to the Community Development Code that address commercial recreational marijuana regulation in Washington County. Specifically, the proposed amendments would: Key Provisions 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.

19 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 810 June 8, 2016 Page 16 of 16 To incorporate new rulemaking language specific to marijuana activity on EFU lands from the state Department of Land Conservation and Development. ATTACHMENT A: Comment Letters received as of June 8, 2016 Sheriff Pat Garrett dated May 12, 2016 Deborah A. Raber City of Hillsboro dated May 24, 2016 Mary Timmerman dated May 26, 2016 Mark Clemons City of Hillsboro dated May 27, 2016 Jon Holan City of Forest Grove dated June 2, 2016 Ryan A. Wells City of Cornelius dated June 6, 2016 Colin Cooper City of Hillsboro dated June 8, 2016 s:\plng\wpshare\2016 ord\ord810_marijuana\staffreports_ppts\planning commission\ord810_pc_staffrept.docx

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

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