Tanya Saltzman Subject: Marijuana Regulation Update & and Luba
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Tanya Saltzman From: Robert Hunt <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 6:56 PM To: Tanya Saltzman Subject: Marijuana Regulation Update & and Luba Deschutes County Commissioners et al Cannot Attend Wednesday Hearing so hear is my testimony: > Deny all grow permits where the property owners cannot demonstrate adequate water rights and or a legal on site water supply approved by the state water board! Fact: Oregon’s water supply is being used / drained at a non‐sustainable rate! Marijuana plants demand more water to grow than any food source! The state legislature is mesmerized with related tax $$$ in their eyes. I want them to get out of Marijuana promotion business! If producers grow and process more product than the market can absorb. Tough sh..! Sherif Nelson simple does not have enough resources to keep us safe from crime / vehicle crashes related to the drug industry at large and motorists choosing to drive impaired wether by alcohol, marijuana, prescription or illegal drugs. DA John Hummel has been denied the resources to prosecute growing crime in Deschutes County. KTVZ gave some obscure budget committee the credit for that dumb decision. Vicki and I living in Deschutes County now consider it a threatening place to live. Please tell the Marijuana industry enough is enough. Don’t do anything to advance this over produced industry. Remember: It’s all about water! Robert Lee Hunt 17596 Cascade Estates Drive Bend, OR 97703 PO Box 2114, Sisters 97759 Tel: 971‐230‐8718 Sent from my iPad 1 From: Terri Silliman To: Tanya Saltzman Subject: Marijuana meeting - July 3 Date: Wednesday, July 03, 2019 8:01:45 AM Dear Tanya, I am writing to voice my support to opt out of any future marijuana operations in Deschutes county. I am concerned that the lack of regulations surrounding the growth of an agribusiness will have foreseen and unforeseen consequences. As a land owner in Tumalo, i use our well water for daily residential needs. A year ago we needed our well pump replaced and Cascade Irrigation, who did the job for us, noted that our well water levels were significantly lower. We have 3 separate households , comprising 10 acres, that utilize this well for our household needs. My major concern is the use of this ground water, being unregulated, by the grow houses that will be built for marijuana production. As you know, each marijuana plant needs a great deal of water (and electricity), and the unregulated draw from the ground water scares me. I really hope that you, and the other commissioners, will opt out on this land use approval and instead take the time to seek out the changes that may cause unfair burdens on the families that currently live in this rural area. I am very grateful for what has been done so far by your commission to keep the current operations under strict guidelines - setbacks, inspections, light and noise regulations. Thank you for that. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Teresa Silliman 18945 Pinehurst Rd. Tumalo. Deschutes County Commissioners July 3, 2019. Page 1 of 4 Re: Testimony for Public Hearing on Ordinance Number 2019-012 Dear Chair Henderson, Commissioner DeBone, and Commissioner Adair, Thank you for considering my comments on Ordinance Number 2019-012, more specifically the reconsideration of text amendments to the Deschutes County Code refining the regulation and enforcement of marijuana production on rural lands, which were originally adopted as Ordinance No. 2018-012. As mechanical engineers, we believe that our role in the context of DCC marijuana odor and noise ordinances is to ensure that the emerging cannabis industry peacefully exists alongside the rural communities of Deschutes County. As professional engineers, regardless of personal opinions, we are obliged to uphold an ethical code in which decisions are based on quantifiable data, or in data’s absence, based on educated and clearly stated assumptions. As such, the work we do depends largely on the specific verbiage and requirements of code. We do not believe it should be our duty on a project by project basis to define what is or is not “reasonable”. Rather, our role should be taking advantage of our expertise to demonstrate a site’s compliance (or path to compliance) with clear, measurable rules. None of this is made easier by the pervasive subjectivity throughout the industry. Simply, some people hate cannabis, while others rely on it as their livelihood, with many views between. This makes it both difficult and incredibly important to put generous time and thought into these regulations. There should be full protection for both parties - homeowners should not feel threatened or displaced, and growers should not have to fear repercussions from biased complaints. This should be in the form of clearly defined parameters in the code, where everyone can feel confident that compliance equates to these protections, with minimal argument over interpretation. The verbiage utilized within the code leads us to believe that experts in the sound and odor fields have not been consulted to draft the standard. It is our strong suggestion that the County Commissioners involve industry and code writing experts in the further development of these standards, especially as they relate to odor and sound. We will address odor and noise regulation individually, to share our experience and better express what this may require for each. Odor is especially difficult to quantify. The innumerable variety of aromatic compounds, the chemistry of how odor is produced and detected, and the psychological aspect of judging an odor’s adversity combine to prevent any simple, objective approach. There are no existing instruments that can outperform a human nose, in terms of odor recognition and hedonic analysis. However, this analysis depends deeply on individual memories and associations. It is simply not possible to show that “no adverse or noxious odors are detectable”, due to these layers of subjectivity, and the impossibility of showing that there are absolutely zero odorous particles present in a space. This is not just semantics – in the absence of feasible, quantifiable targets, there is little an engineer can ever do other than state an assumption. We also believe that removal of the “⅓ CFM” method further removes the code from objectivity. While not a comprehensive guarantee in itself, it is still valuable for appropriately sizing odor control systems, and can offer a more complete solution in conjunction with other methods of proof. Deschutes County Commissioners July 3, 2019. Page 2 of 4 Re: Testimony for Public Hearing on Ordinance Number 2019-012 Given the unavoidable subjectivity, we believe the most successful approach to odor control has been with field olfactometry. This method uses small teams of trained individuals, equipped with an olfactometer such as La Croix Sensory’s Nasal Ranger. Precise doses of clean, filtered air and sampled, “smelly” air are mixed and compared to the point where odor can be detected. By quantifying an odor’s strength through these “Dilution-To” ratios, and comparing adversity between several unbiased testers, this methodology removes much of the uncertainty. The Nasal Ranger has a history of success in meat packing, agriculture, waste treatment, and Colorado’s recreational cannabis industry. Objective noise measurement is somewhat more approachable than odor. However, we have found that compliance with the current regulations still requires arguments of interpretation. The problem is that 30 dBA is not a feasible target. We have visited a number of sites to record noise levels before 7:00am, and have rarely, if ever, seen levels below 30. We believe that the code should be adjusted to specifically address the noise contribution of a grower’s equipment, rather than the net levels at a property line. Due to the particular way that sound levels increase with multiple sources, and propagate over distance, this approach will give a much clearer view of a system’s potential for nuisance. It should be noted that Clackamas County’s cannabis regulations require that the noise contribution from growing equipment should be 50 dBA at any property line. This can be either simulated or measured, is practical to achieve, and additionally guards against excessive noise during the day. With Deschutes code as written, the only path to truly comply is to not run equipment at night. This verbiage essentially offers an impossible requirement and a single way around it, rather than comprehensive protection for the grower and their neighbors. Many growers, during their permitting phases, do not have equipment on site that can be measured. We believe that the code should include accommodation for reaching noise mitigation conclusions based off of calculations and simulations, with field verification required after installation. Free software such as MAS Environmental’s DBMap can estimate sound propagation, calculating net sound levels from a group of equipment, accounting for obstructions and site conditions. Purchased software is also available, such as CadnaA, which complies with ISO 17534 and DIN 45687 (both are standards for software for calculation and prediction of outdoor sound). Below is a summary of our comments as they pertain to the specific sections of the code revision: ODOR From Chapter 18.116.330.B.9: Section a: Standard. To prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors’ use and enjoyment of their property, no adverse or noxious odors shall be detectable beyond the applicant’s property line. • As stated in the verbiage above, the requirement of “no”, meaning zero, is simply not reasonable, as this is highly subjectable. • We’d recommend consulting with odor experts or other jurisdictions to determine an appropriate standard of measurement and level of odor that is acceptable. • An olfactometer could be considered an approved method to determining if the standards are met.