HomeMy WebLinkAboutWashington_685_689_PA-T1-2019-00077From: M,ichael Broz <Michae.Bmz@haimom>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2O 201912:29PM
To: Aaron Anderson; Arnold Ava|oo
Cc Regan Trapp; Liz Hamilton
Subject: RE: Type 1 appeal 1uplanning commission
Aaron and Regan,
Thanks very much for following upwith us. Wehave carefully considered the possible grounds for appeal and have
decided not to move forward given that the use set forth in the ap�lication does not appear to violate the Ashland
Municipal Code. Nevertheless, we would like to reiterate that the concerns set forth in our correspondence remain
regarding the impact onour operations imAshland.
From: Aaron Anderson <aaron.anderson@ashbod/7r.ux> '
Sent: Wednesday, November 2D,2O191-25PK4
To: Michael Broz <K&icbee|.Bmoz0Dha|n.uanm>; Arnold Avaim»<ArnoKd.Ava|on@ha|o.curn>
Cc: Regan Trapp <Regan.Trapp@ashland.or.us>; Liz Hamilton <liz.hamilton@ashland.or.us>
Subject: RE: Type 1appeal toplanning commission
Hello Michael & Arnold,
Regan contacted both mfyou yesterday regarding the incomplete status mfyour appeal. This message isLnremind you
thattheappHcatiomfurtheappes||s|mcemnp|etmumh|sochtirnemsvvmnamekmthofoeandappUicatimnmsprnvidmdim
AMC 18.5.1.050.G
The deadline for this appeal is4:30pmtoday /11/2D/19\.
lf you have a,ny questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me at the number below.
Kind regards,
Aaron Anderson, CFK4
Assistant Planner
City ofAshland, Community Development
51VV|nburnWay, Ashland, Oregon g7S20
541-552-2052,TTY-800-73,5-Z9O0FAX -541'SS2-2050
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland , and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for
disclosure and retention. if you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2052. Thank you.
From: Regan Trapp
Sent: Tuesday, November 19\Z01912:12PKA
Cc: Aaron Anderson<aaron.andersontaiashland.or.us>
Subject: Type 1 appeal to planning commission
Michael & Arnold,
Please see the application to appeal to planning commission. The deadline for the application and payment of
$150.00 is due in our office by 4:30 on 11/20/2019. Please call us if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Permit Technician — Community Development
City of Ashland
Regan.Trapp@ashiand.or.us
541-552-2233
TTY 800-735-2900
541-488-6006 (fax)
This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure
and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2233. Thank you.
64
a% biro,
R" 990 1 v
E (o J)VA "' E
'4
of�liuu"�ptl�"�, k
The Haiti Celestial Group, Inc.
Worldwide Headquarters
III I Marcus Avenue -Lake Success, NY 11042-1034 - plioim + 1 (516) 587-5000 -fax: +1 (516) 587-0208 - www,hain.corn
VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX
Ashland Planning Commission
51 Winbum Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Noveniber 18, 2019
Re: Planning Action: PA-T 1 -2019-00077 (685 /689 Washington Street)
Dear Sir or Madam,
We write on behalf of The Haiti Celestial Group, Inc. ("Haiti Celestial"). This letter shall
serve as Hain Celestial's notice of appeal, pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO)
18 �5.1,050(G), of the Community Development Director's final decision dated November 8,
2019 (the "Decision") approving Joe and Jill Rice's (the "Applicants") application (the
"Application") in Planning Action PA-TI-2019-00077 (the "Planning Action"). Haiti Celestial
has standing to, appeal the Decision as it is a party of record and property owner within 200 feet
of 685 and 689 Washington Street (the "Subject Property"),
In the Decision, the Director approved the Applicants' request to conduct marijuana
processing and wholesaling at the Subject Property. In doing so, the Director stated, "[t]he
application demonstrates that the conversion of the tenant space to a commercial facility for
processing marijuana will have no greater impact upon the site, or vicinity, than the prior,
approved use." Decision at I (emphasis added). We submit that this is not true, As most
municipalities recognize, marijuana processing , is different from, and more disruptive than, other
commercial uses, Nothing in the Application demonstrates that the intended use will not have an
impact on neighboring businesses, including Hain Celestial.
Haiti Celestial submitted a letter dated October 28, 2019 (tile "Letter") —during the
public comment period --outlining its concerns with the proposed use.' To summarize, Hain
Celestial manufactures nut butter products at a facility immediately adjacent to the Subject
Property and has a reasonable and significant concern that its products will be contaminated as a
result of the pungent odors emitted from marijuana processing. As a concession, the Director
imposed a condition requiring that, in the event of "substantiated complaints regarding
objectionable odor[s]," the processing facility will have to "utilize an air filtration system which,
to the greatest extent feasible, confines objectionable odors to the premises." M.
While we appreciate the inclusion of this condition, it does not allay Hain Celestial's
concerns for several reasons. First, odors are not always consistently present and are sometimes
difficult to report and substantiate. Second, whether all odor is "objectionable" is a subjective
question. Something may be "objectionable" in a way that prevents Haiti Celestial from being
able to consistently manufacture high quality products but is not viewed as "objectionable" by
the City of Ashland. Third, the condition states that the processing facility will need to "utilize
an air filtration system which, to the greatest extent feasible, confines objectionable odors to the
prernises." (emphasis added). This leaves the possibility that the Applicants will say it is not
feasible to prevent odors from emanating from the Subject Property, and that those odors will
prevent Hain Celestial from being able to manufacture products. Such a situation could not be
remedied after the fact, and as a result, the Application should be denied. Fourth, "to the greatest
extent feasible" is riot defined. If expense is a factor in determining feasibility, this condition
may very well be meaningless, so to the extent the inclusion of this condition is what gives the
Director comfort in granting the Application, such Application should be denied. Finally, even
if: (a) the City agrees that an odor is objectionable; and (b) the Applicants successfully install an
air filtration system that effectively confines the odor to the Subject Property, by the time that
occurs, that odor will have already had an opportunity to contaminate our products and may
require us to temporarily cease production. While Hain Celestial will hold the Applicants
responsible for any such contamination and interruption in production, we respectfully request
that the City consider the possibility of such interruption before granting the Application.
Hain Celestial does not dispute that the intended use of the Subject Property is in
accordance with the special permitted use rules for the relevant zoning district. But if that was
all the Director needed to consider in this process, there would be no reason to solicit comments
from the public. Hain Celestial is not a service -oriented business, like an accounting or law fain,
that could deal with an unpleasant odor for a period of time pending recognition of the issue by
the City, and installation of an air filtration system. We produce food products for public
consumption that are susceptible to such odors during the manufacturing process. Assuming it is
"feasible" to use an air filtration system to mitigate the emission of odors, the time it takes to get
the City to recognize the existence of such odors, to require installation of an air filtration
system, and to actually have the system installed will be extremely detrimental to our business,
I A copy of the Letter is attached as Exhibit A, hereto. For the avoidance of doubt, the issues being raised on appeal
were raised in the Letter, which was submitted during the public comment period. Thus, the conditions of ALLJO
18.5.1.050(G) are satisfied.
IF"I E." C/0',0,1 Epmo 11,
2 N OA/ 19 2 0 19
For the foregoing reasons, Hain Celestial respectfully requests that the Commission
overturn the Decision and deny the Application. To the extent approval of the Application is
deemed appropriate upon imposition of a condition meant to address our concerns, that condition
should be the installation of an air filtration system bqfore marijuana processing commences; not
after a problern is identified. Then, it can be determined whether it is "feasible" to contain the
odors before such odors have an opportunity to negatively impact Hain Celestial's business, and
the Application may be appropriately denied.
Sincerely,
Michael Broz
Associate General Counsel,
Litigation and Compliance
(516) 587-5014
rnichael.broz@hain.coj
0
C) -1
Arnold Avalos
Ashland Plant Manager
(541) 708-6508
arnold.avalos achain.com
ffdj��T 1pq
PRO 01% kof, Elow I'M
I W-04 lei
WE C I �1
11) 21,119
City
Jgip IM.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
Worldwide Headquarters
�; � G/ IVEP
I Marcus Avenup - Lake Sucocs% NY 11042-1034 • phone: + 1 (516) 587.5000 $ fax; +1 (516) 587-0208 - www1ain.com
Ashland Planning Division
Community Development &
Engineering Services Building
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re: P1Pr!niqg_ActI ni: PA-TI-2019-00077
Dear Sir or Madam,
1`11,11 E` (JA2
N 0 V
0f,ASMt,/M1(i"
October 28, 2019
I write on behalf of The Haiti Celestial Group, Inc. ("Hain Celestial") in response to a solicitation
for written comments received from the City of Ashland Planning Department (the "Planning
Department") In connection with Planning Action, PA-TI-2019-00077 (the 'Planning Action"), We
understand that the Planning Department is considering an application to allow LaNler Land Consulting
(the "Applicant") to engage in marijuana processing and wholesaling at 685 and 689 Washington Street
(the "Subject Property").
Haiti Celestial Is a consumer packaged goods company that manufactures and Sells food,
beverages and personal care products: under a variety of brands, including Celestial Seasonings, Terra,
Sensible Portions, Earth's Best, and Maranatha, Hain, Celestial manufactures and sells nut butter
products under the Maranatha brand, These nut butters are produced in Ashland at a Hain Celestial -
owned facility located at 710 Jefferson Avenue,, directly across the street from the Subject Property.
Additionally, Haln Celestial leases another facility located at 691 Washington Street which is used as a
warehouse, and to store maintenance equipment.
As a food manufacturer, I -lain Celestial is very conscious of air quality and other environmental
factors that could result In contamination of food products. F-urther, given the industry in which it
operates, Hain Celestial is subject to laws and regulations to ensure the quality of Its products, Given
the proximity of the Subject Property to our manufacturing facility— tough IV 100 feet away—liall,
Celestial is exceedingly concerned about its ability to consistently produce saleab,le, high quality
products should the application be granted. The processing of marijuana Is highly regulated and is
generally not permitted within city lirnits in most municipalities because of the strong odor It emits,
While such an odor Is arguably a nuisance for all adjacent businesses, Hain Celestial may very well not be
able to continue using property that it owns for its intended purpose If it cannot produce nut butter
products due to the activities conducted at the Subject Property.
Many states and municipalities with liberal rules relating to marijuana cultivation and processing
are currently deating, with an Immense number of complaints and litigation sternming from the odor
emitted by marijuana -related businesses. in fact, this very Issue is currently the Subject of litigation In
Oregon (see, e.g,, Morntazi Family, LLC v. Wagner, 19 Civ. 00476, 2019 WIL 4059178 (1), Or. Aug, 27,
2019) (marijuana processing and production facility opened next to a vineyard and the plaintiffs allege
their grapes were contaminated by marijuana smell).' Most municipalities In the State of California that
permit inarijuana-related businesses enact regulations mandating that marijuana odors must not be
noticeable,2 In Los Angeles County, the "rules state that air vented from marijuana businesses Must be
filtered so that odors can't be detected outside, or in adjoining sites, by a person with a 'normal sense of
smell."'I Nevertheless, authorities recognize that odor complaints are difficult to investigate because
smells dissipate quickly and the offensiveness of smells may be subjective.
In Ashland, regulations pertaining to marijuana -related businesses do not address odor, This is
somewhat surprising given that the regulations concerning: (1) autornobile and truck repair facilities4; (il)
bottling plants, cold storage facilities and creameries5; (III) commercial laundry, dry-cleaning and dyeing
facilities'. and (Iv) food products manufacturers all include limitations on odor emissions. In the absence
of such restrictions, the Planning Department should at least impose the standard applicable to Food
Products Manufacture which states that "(a)Il objectionable odors associated with the use shall be
confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible." The regulation
further states that "the character of the neighborhood In which the odor is made and the odor Is
detected" should be taken into account in, determining what odors are "objectionable."' certainly,
odors that contaminate products produced by other manufacturers in, the neighborhood should be
considered objectionable. To the extent the Applicant cannot, with a high degree of precision and
certainty, contain such odors, the application should be denied.
1 A copy of the Court's decision Is attached as Exhibit A hereto.
2 Brooke Staggs, Marijuana stinks. ifere's what cities, businesses and neighbors can do about it,. The Orange County
Register, Sept. 11, 2018; See also, Thomas Fuller, 'Dead Skunk' Stench rrorn Marijuana Forms 01ittages
Californians, The New York Times, Dec, 19, 2018, Copies of these articles are attached as Exhibit B hereto,
3 id.
City of Ashland Land Use Ordinances at 18.2.3.0SO
ld, at 3.8,2.3.060
Id, At 18,23M0
91 ell
as) E I
I'M P4 T'ay/m , ;, ,
NOV , (,
19 2019
( rM,
% P O Cl
,�At,y f
For the foregoing reasons, Hain Celestial respectfully requests that the Planning Department
deny the Applicant's application, Should the application be granted, Hain Celestial requests that the
Applicant and/or property owner be required to employ measures and install systems, including but not
limited to a high-powered ventilation or odor control system (e.g., charcoal filters; scrubbers; fogger), to
neutralize and mitigate the noxious odors emitted from tile processing of: marijuana at tile Subject
Property.
Sincerely,
Michael Broz
Associate General Counsel,
Litigation and Compliance
(516) 587.5014
_michael.broz(,rIiainxoni
cc: I John Oleksa —Vice President, Operations
Arnold Availos
Plant Manager
(541) 708.6508
arnold.avalos(p1iain.com
101
p/, m R El Cam
NOV 19
A
)V 0`v"""l
_, j� CITY yOF
T1S H LA V D
November 8, 2019
Notice of Final Decision
On November 8, 2019, the Community Development Director approved the request for the
following:
Planning Action: PA-TI-2019-00077
Subject Property: 685/689 Washington
Applicant: Joe and. Jill Rice/LaNier land Consulting
Description: A request for Site Design Review to allow marijuana processing and
wholesaling located at 685 and 689 Washington St. The property is 0.72 acers and is developed
with an approximately 12,000 square foot industrial building. The applicant proposes to occupy
two suites; one identified as 685 Washington which is 2320 square feet and will be used for
office space and wholesale operations, and 689 Washington St, a 2000 square foot suite that will
be used for processing. There is no proposed marijuana production associated with this
application. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1;
ASSESSOR'S MAP 9: 391E14AB; TAX LOT: 2500.
The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 121h day
after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all
conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project
completion.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are
available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51
Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of
Ashland copy fee schedule.
Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may
request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO)
18.5.1.050(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO
18.5.1.050(G). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached.
The appeal may not be rnade directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Aaron Anderson in the
Cornmw-Aty Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 It
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO:541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www-ashland.or.us : ILA
SECTION 18.5.1.050 Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision with Notice)
E. Effective Date of Decision. Unless the conditions of approval specify otherwise or the decision is appealed pursuant to
subsection 18.5.1.050.G, a Type I decision becomes effective 12 days after tine City mails the notice of decision.
F. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider a Type I decision as set forth below.
1. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City department may request reconsideration of the action
after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no
fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the Staff Advisor, might affect the decision.
Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence
during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity
to respond to the issue prior to making a decision.
2. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five days of mailing the notice of decision. The Staff Advisor shall
decide within three days whether to reconsider the matter.
3. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the
decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten days to affirm, modify, or reverse
the original decision. The City shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any
party entitled to notice of the planning action.
4. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the
reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration.
G. AppeaI of Type I Decision. A Type I decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to the following:
1. Who May Appeal. The following persons have standing to appeal a Type I decision.
a. The applicant or owner of the subject property.
b. Any person who is entitled to written notice of the Type I decision pursuant to subsection
18.5.1.050.B.
c. Any other person who participated hn the proceeding by submitting written comments on the application to the
City by the specified deadline.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.050.G.1, above, may
appeal a Type I decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this
subsection. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community
organizations recognized by the City and whose boundaries include the site. If an appellant prevails at the hearing
or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded.
b. Thne far Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of
decision is mailed.
c. Content ofNotice ofAppeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee and shall contain.
i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision.
ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal.
iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal.
iv. A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public comment period.
d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by tine City as a
jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
3. Scope of Appeal. Appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before the
Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation,
and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and
arguments. The Conunission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant
ordinance provision.
4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow the Type II public hearing procedures,
pursuant to section 18.5.1.060, subsections A -- E, except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final
decision of the City on an appeal of a Type I decision. A decision on an appeal is final the date the City mails the
adopted and signed decision. Appeals of Conunission decisions must be filed with the State Land Use Board of
Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel:541-A88-5305
51 Win burn Way Pax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.onus 74
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2019-00077
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 685/689 Washington
OWNER: Joe and Jill Rice
APPLICANT: Lanier Land Consulting
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review to allow marijuana processing and
wholesaling located at 685 and 689 Washington St. The property is 0.72 acees and is developed with an
approximately 12,000 square foot industrial building. The applicant proposes to occupy two suites; one
identified as 685 Washington which is 2,320 square feet and will be used for office space and wholesale
operations, and 689 Washington St, a 2,000 square foot suite that will be used for processing. There is no
proposed marijuana production associated with this application.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; MAP: 3 9 1 E 14AB; TAX
LOT: 2500
SUBMITTAL DATE:
October 4, 2019
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE:
October 15, 2019
STAFF APPROVAL DATE:
November 8, 2019
DEADLINE TO APPEAL (4:30 p.m.):
November 20, 2019
FINAL DECISION DATE:
November 21, 2019
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE:
May 21, 2021
DECISION
The application is for a Site Design Review approval for the property at the south-west corner of the
intersection of Washington St. and Jefferson Ave. which is developed with a 12,720 square foot light
industrial building housing eight separate business spaces. The application indicates that the suites
addressed as 685 and 689 Washington St. are to be used as marijuana related businesses. The applicant is
proposing to use the business suite identified as 685 Washington St. for the marijuana wholesale
operations, and the suite identified as 689 Washington St. for marijuana processing. The suites are 2,320
and 2,000 square feet respectively. The proposed change of use requires Site Design Review.
The application for Site Design Review included a complete set of findings addressing the Special Use
Standards (AMC 18.2.3.190) and the Site Development and Design Standards in recognition of the pre-
existing approved business parr uses and site configuration. The application demonstrates that the
conversion of the tenant space to a commercial facility for processing marijuana will have no greater
impact upon the site, or vicinity, than the prior approved use.
The subject parcel is 0.72 acres in size and is located in the E-1 zoning district. Marijuana processing is a
special permitted use within this zone. The surrounding property is also zoned E-1 with C-1 to the
northwest along Washington just south of the intersection of Ashland Street. Adjacent properties are
developed with various commercial and employment uses. The existing commercial/light industrial
building was approved by Planning Action #83-56. The site is improved with the building, landscaping,
and 24 parking spaces as well as loading facilities. The application states that no exterior modifications to
the building are proposed.
PA-TI-2019-00077
685 & 689 Washington St./aa
Page 1
Marijuana business are subject to the special use standards as provided in AMC 18.2.3.190.B. The
applicant's findings address each of these requirements in detail, including the requirements of meeting
all provisions of the Oregon Building Code, separation requirements, and providing a written declarations
waiving any claim to hold the City liable as provided in AMC 18.2.3.190.B. l .g. The applicant states there
will be no security bars or grates on windows or doors. There is no expected generation of noise, light or
glare. The applicant also details that the type of processing (rosin press) will not include the use of solvents
or other hazardous chemicals.
Additionally, Marijuana business that are involved in Processing, or Wholesale must also meet the
requirements of AMC 18.2.3.190.B.2. A marijuana processing facility may be no closer than 200 feet
from a residential zone, and that marijuana wholesale operations be located at least 1,000 feet from another
like -kind facility. Review of this proposal includes a determination that these minimum distances to the
portions of the building to be used for marijuana processing and wholesale have been met.
During the public comment period of this application staff received two letters expressing opposition to
the proposed marijuana processing and wholesale facility. The primary concerns were that the location
was inappropriate when considering surrounding development and odor. The location, as mentioned
above, is zoned E-1 which allows for light industrial and employment uses. Should the City receive
substantiated complaints regarding objectionable odor that violate AMC 9.08.060, a condition has been
added to this approval requiring that at that time the processing facility utilize an air filtration system
which, to the greatest extent feasible, confines objectionable odors to the premises consistent with AMC
6.5.060F.
In accordance with the requirements of Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.2.3.190 there will be no
storage of any marijuana related material outdoors and that secure disposal of any marijuana remnants
shall be addressed consistent with the applicant's proposal. Furthermore, the proposed processing facility
is in the process of being registered with the Oregon Health Authority and shall meet the applicable
requirements set forth in Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules, and shall obtain any
applicable licensing through the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) .
Conditions of approval are attached to the decision to ensure these requirements are met before operation
of the marijuana processing facility.
The criteria for Site Review Approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.2,050, as follows:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying
zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions,
density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other
applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public
Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may
approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the
PA- T 1-2019-00077
685 & 689 WasMigton St./aa
Page 2
circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing
structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially
negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the
stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the
minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the
exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the
Site Development and Design Standards.
The criteria for Marijuana related businesses are described in AMC 18.2.3.190
B. Marijuana -Related Businesses.
1. Marijuana -related businesses may require Site Design Review under chapter 18.5.2 or a
Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4. See Table 18.2.2.030 — Uses Allowed by Zone for
zones where marijuana -related businesses are allowed. See definition of marijuana -related
businesses in part 18.6. Marijuana -related businesses shall meet all of the following
requirements.
a. The business must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo
container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor marijuana production, cultivation, and storage of
merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the business are prohibited.
b. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the business must be
consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Design Review approval if
required by section 18.5.2.020. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are
prohibited.
c. The business must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products; such
remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the business' exterior refuse containers.
d. Light and Glare. Shield lighting systems and use window coverings to confine light and glare
from light systems associated with indoor cultivation so as to confine light and glare to the
interior of the structure. Grow light systems within a greenhouse are prohibited.
e. Building Code. Any structure, accessory structure, electrical service, plumbing, or
mechanical equipment (e.g., lighting, fans, heating and cooling systems) associated with a
business shall satisfy the Building Code requirements and obtain all required building
permits prior to installation.
f. Methodology for Measuring Separation Requirements. The following methodology shall be
used for marijuana related- businesses that are required to be separated by a specific
distance (i.e., marijuana production facility, marijuana wholesale facility, marijuana retail
outlet). For the purposes of determining the distance between a marijuana related -business
and another marijuana -related business, "within 1,000 feet" means a straight line
measurement in a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less in every direction from the closest
point anywhere on the premises of an approved marijuana related- business to the closest
point anywhere on the premises of a proposed marijuana -related business of the same type.
If any portion of the premises of a proposed marijuana related -business is within 1,000 feet
of an approved marijuana related business of the same type, it may not be approved. For
the purpose of this section, premises is all public and private enclosed areas within a
building at the location that are used in the business operation, including offices, kitchens,
PA-T 1-2019-00077
685 & 689 Washington 5t./aa
Page 3
rest rooms, and storerooms.
g. The property owner shall record a declaration which waives any claim or right to hold the
City liable for damages they or a tenant may suffer from state or federal enforcement actions
for activities the City permits as a result of its approval of the proposed use or development
once such approval is granted. Furthermore, the owner and tenant agrees not to
unreasonably disobey the City's order to halt or suspend business if state or federal
authorities order or otherwise subject the City to enforcement to comply with laws in
contradiction to the continued operations of the business as permitted under section
18.2.3.190.
h. A marijuana -related business must obtain an approved license or registration from the State
of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative
Rules.
2. Marijuana Laboratories, Processing, Production, and Wholesale. In addition to the
standards described in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1, above, marijuana laboratories, processing,
production, and wholesale shall meet the following requirements as applicable. See definition of
marijuana processing and production in part 18.6.
a. Marijuana laboratories, processing, production, and wholesale shall be located 200 feet or
more from residential zones.
b. Marijuana Production.
i. Marijuana production shall be limited to 5,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area
per lot.
ii. A marijuana production facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another
marijuana production facility. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for
measuring the required distance between marijuana related -businesses.
c. Marijuana Wholesale. A marijuana wholesale facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet
from another marijuana wholesale facility. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology
for measuring the required distance between marijuana related -businesses.
The application with, the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances.
Planning Action HT1-2019-00077 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more
of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action
##T1-2019-00077 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
here.
2) In accordance with AMC 18.2.3.190.B.1.g that the property owner shall record a declaration
which waives any claim or right to hold the City liable for damages they or a tenant may suffer
from state or federal enforcement actions for activities the City permits as a result of its
approval of the proposed use or development once such approval is granted. Furthermore, the
owner and tenant agrees not to unreasonably disobey the City's order to halt or suspend
business if state or federal authorities order or otherwise subject the City to enforcement to
comply with laws in contradiction to the continued operations of the business.
3) That the applicant shall furnish a code analysis demonstrating that the building occupancy is
approved for marijuana processing and wholesale storage, or that a building permit to modify
PA-T i-2019-00077
685 & 689 Washizigton St./aa
Page 4
the occupancy classification of the space shall be applied for and approved by the Building
Department prior to any operation of the marijuana related businesses.
4) That, in the event the City determines the marijuana related businesses produce objectionable
odors that violate AMC 9.08.060, the business shall immediately install an air filtration system
which, to the greatest extent feasible, confines objectionable odors to the premises consistent
with AMC 6.5.060.1i .
5) That the marijuana related businesses shall comply with all requirements of AMC
18.2.3.190.B.1 and 18.2.3.190.B.2
6) That no retail marijuana sales shall be permitted on -site.
7) That a sign permit in accordance with AMC 18.4.7 shall be obtained prior to the installation of
any signage that is visible from the public right-of-way.
8) That the marijuana -related businesses shall obtain approved licenses or registrations from the
State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative
Rules.
9) A formal letter, or other legal evidence, demonstrating that the applicant has approval from
Oregon Health Authority to operate a marijuana processing facility small be provided to the
Staff Advisor prior to operation of the marijuana related businesses.
10) That the applicant shall obtain business licenses from the City of Ashland prior to operation of
" marijuana related businesses.
ill Molnar,
Development
Date i
PA-T1-2019-00077
685 & 689 Washington St./aa
Page 5
F11 a a I $11-ILY51
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department,
2. On 11/8/191 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope
with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each
person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list
under each person's name for Planning Action #PA-T1-2019-00077, 685/689
Washington.
Signature of Employee
Document2 111812019
PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 2700 PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 2000 PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 1600
693 WASHINGTON STREET LLC ARO PARTNERS CULLENIBECK PROPERTIES LLC
518 CROWSON RD 1015 CHESTNUT AVE A3 574 WASHINGTON ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 1200 PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 1400
EQUITY TRUST COMPANY GUST FBO ERICKSON PAMELA MAY
LESTER RAY 642 WILSON RD
100 S FOOTHILL RD ASHLAND, OR 97520
MEDFORD, OR 97504
PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 1100
MORNINGSTAR HOWARD W/SUE M
534 WASHINGTON ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E 14AB 2400
NSPIRED NATURAL FOODS
710 JEFFERSON AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 2600
RICHARDS CREEK LLC
695 WASHINGTON ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077391E14AB 100
WALKER GRACE D ET AL
611 S OAKDALE AVE
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 1300
NICKELS JACIRICHARDSON DAVID
PO BOX 1348
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 200
OPTIONS HOMELESS RESIDENTS
ASHLAND DBA
PO BOX 1133
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 2300
ROGUE VALLEY TWO LLC
400 COPPER DR
GRANTS PASS, OR 97527
PA-T1-2019-00077
AURUM REFINERY LLC
355 INDUSTRIAL CIRCLE, STE. C
WHITE CITY, OR 97503
PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 2400
MARANATHA ACQUISITION CORP
710 JEFFERSON AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 2400
NSPIRED NATURAL FOODS HAIN
CELESTIAL GROUP
1111 MARCUS AVE
NEW HYDE PARK, NY 11042
PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 2500
RICE JOE CIJILL R
PO BOX 374
LOLETA, CA 95551
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 2800
SOUTH ASHLAND BUSINESS PARK LLC
100E MAIN STE A
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA-T1-2019-00077
RAPTOR DISTRIBUTION
355 INDUSTRIAL CIRCLE, STE. C
WHITE CITY, OR 97503
PA-T1-2019-00077 PA-T1-2019-00077 6851689 Washington
LANIER LAND CONSULTING LLC PAMELA ERICKSON NOD 1118119
355 INDUSTRIAL CIRCLE, STE. C 558 WASHINGTON 20
WHITE CITY, OR 97503 ASHLAND, OR 97520
R E
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
Worldwide Headquarters
III I Marcus Avenue - Lake Success, NY I 1042-1034 -phone. +1 (516) 587-5000 - fax: +] (516)587-0208 ® www.hain.com
Ashland Planning Division
Community Development &
Engineering Services Building
51 Winbuirn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
October 28, 2019
Re: Planning Action: PA-TI-2019-00077 (685 /689 Washingtgn Street)
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write on behalf of The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. ("Hain Celestial") in response to a solicitation
for written comments received' from the City of Ashland Planning Department (the 'Planning
Department") In connection with Planning Action: PA-TI-2019-00077 (the "Planning Action"). We
understand that the Planning Department is considering an application to allow LaNier Land Consulting
(the "Applicant") to engage in marijuana processing and wholesaling at 685 and 689 Washington Street
(the "Subject Property").
Hain Celestial is a consumer packaged goods company that manufactures and sells food,
beverages and personal care products under a variety of brands, including Celestial Seasonings, Terra,
Sensible Portions, Earth's Best, and Maranatha, Hain Celestial manufactures and sells nut butter
products Linder the Maranatha brand. These nut butters are produced in Ashland at a Hain Celestial -
owned facility located at 710 Jefferson Avenue, directly across the street from the Subject Property.
Additionally, 11ain Celestial leases another facility located at 691 Washington Street which is used as a
warehouse, and to store maintenance equipment.
As a food manufacturer, Hain Celestial is very conscious of air quality and other environmental
factors that could result in contamination of food products. Further, given the industry in which it
operates, Hain Celestial is subject to laws and regulations to ensure the quality of its products. Given
the proximity of the Subject Property to, our manufacturing facility —roughly 100 feet away —Hain
Celestial is exceedingly concerned about its ability to consistently produce saleable, high quality
products should the application be granted. The processing of marijuana is highly regulated and is
generally not permitted within city limits in most municipalities because of the strong odor it emits.
While such an odor is arguably a nuisance for all adjacent businesses, [lain Celestial may very well not be
able to continue using property that it owns for its intended purpose if it cannot produce nut butter
products due to the activities conducted at the Subject Property.
Many states and municipalities with liberal rules relating to marijuana cultivation and processing
are currently dealing with an immense number of complaints and litigation stemming from the odor
emitted by marijuana -related businesses. In fact, this very issue is currently the subject of litigation, in
Oregon (see, e.g., Momtazi Family, LLC v. Wagner, 19 Civ. 00476, 2019 WL 4059178 (D. Or. Aug. 27,
2019) (marijuana processing and production facility opened next to a vineyard and the plaintiffs allege
their grapes were contaminated by marijuana smell).' Most municipalities in the State of California that
permit marijuana -related businesses enact regulations mandating that marijuana odors must not be
2
noticeable. In Los Angeles County, the "rules state that air vented from marijuana businesses must be,
filtered so that odors can't be detected outside, or in adjoining sites, by a person with a "normal sense of
smell,""' Nevertheless, authorities recognize that odor complaints are difficult to investigate because
smells dissipate quickly and' the offensiveness of smells may be subjective.
In Ashland, regulations pertaining to marijuana -related businesses do not address odor. This is
somewhat surprising given that the regulations concerning: (1) automobile and truck repair facilities; (ii)
bottling plants, cold storage facilities and creamerles'; (iii) commercial laundry, dry-cleaning and dyeing
facilities; and (1v) food products manufacturers all include limitations on odor emissions. In the absence
of such restrictions, the Planning Department should at least impose the standard applicable to Food
Products Manufacture which states that "[aJI1 objectionable odors associated with the use shall be
confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible," The regulation
further states that "the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is
detected" should be taken into account in determining what odors are "o,bjectionaible "7 Certainly,
odors that contaminate products produced by other manufacturers in the neighborhood should be
considered objectionable. To the extent the Applicant cannot, with a high degree of precision and
certainty, contain such odors, the application should be denied.
1 A copy of the Court's decision is, attached as Exhibit A hereto.
2 Brooke Staggs, Marytiona stinks. Here's what cities, businesses and neighbors can do about it, The Orange County
Register, Sept. 11, 2018; see also, Thomas Fuller, 'Dead Skunk'Stench From Marijuana Forms outrages
Californians, The Newyork Times, Dec. 19, 2018. Copies of these articles are attached as Exhibit B hereto,
3 Id. NO
Ifflo
ii
WIXOM
City of Ashland Land Use Ordinances at 18-2.3.050
' Id. at M2.3.060
6 Id. At 18.23.080
7 Id.
offl,
4
10
For the foregoing reasons, Hain Celestial respectfully requests that the Planning Department
deny the Applicant's, application. Should the application be granted, Hain Celestial requests that the
Applicant and/or property owner be required to employ measures and install systems, Including but not
limited to a high-powered ventilation or odor control system (e.g,, charcoal filters; scrubbers; fogger), to
neutralize and mitigate the noxious odors emitted from the processing of marijuana at the Subject
Property,
Sincerely,
'A.
Michael Broz
Associate General Counsel,
Litigation and Compliance
(516) 587-5014
michael.broz@ ,jaain.com'
cc: John Oleksa — Vice President, Operations
'11A—
Arnold Avalos
Plant Manager
(541) 708-6508
i 01
R ECEIVEC
0(""j (� , "
1 0
it Of
Mointazi Family, LLC v, Wagner, Slip Copy (2019)
2019 W L 4059178
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Oregon.
MO,MTAZI FAMILY, LLC, Plaintiff,
V.
Mary E. WAGNER; Richard Wagner; Steven R.
Wagner; and Yarnbill Naturals, LLC, Defendants
3-19-cv-O 0476-BR
Signed 08/27/2019
Attorneys and Law Firms
RACHEL E. MCCART, Preserve Legal Solutions, P.C.,
38954 Procter Blvd., Ste. 186, Sandy, OR 97055, (844)
469-2388, Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ALLISON C. BIZZANO, MAT HEW A. GOLDBERG,
Lotus Law Group, 5200 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 500,
Portland, OR 97239, (503)606-8930, Attorneys for
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
ANNA J. BROWN, United States Senior District Judge
*I This matter comes before the Court our the Motion (#9)
to Dismiss with Prejudice filed by Defendants Mary E,
Wagner, Richard Wagner, Steven R. Wagner, and
Yanibill Naturals, LLC. Tile Court concludes the record is
sufficiently developed, and, therefore, oral argument is
plot necessary to resolve Defendants' Motion.
For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES
Defendants' Motion.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff NIonitazi Family, LLC, filed a
Complaint against Defendants for violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962. 'File following facts are taken
from Plaintiff's Complaint and the pleadings filed by the
parties.
Plaintiff is an Oregon limited liability company that
operated the Monitazi Vineyard, a certified biodynarnic
vincyard, on property in McMinnville, Oregon (tile
Mointazi property). From 2016 through 2018 Plaintiff
grew grapes oil the property and sold the grapes to other
wine producers including Maysara Winery, which
Plaintiff also owns. On August 1, 2018, Plaintiff began
leasing tile Monitazi property to Maysara, which now
operates the vineyard.
On December 19, 2016, Defendants Mary and Steven
Wagner, husband and wife, purchased real property
adjacent to the Monitazi property, In January 2017
Defendant Richard Wagner, the soil of Mary and Steven,
moved onto the Wagner property.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants invested in the development
of tile Wagner property to produce and to process
marijuana, built structures and installed fixtures for the
production of marijuana, and moved large amounts of soil
to tile Wagner property to form terraces in order to
increase the size of the outdoor marijuana -grow area.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants market or intend to market
the marijuana grown on their property under the brand
name "Yanihill Naturals." Although Richard Wagner
directs the operations of Defendant Yarnhill Naturals,
Plaintiff alleges cacti Defendant will receive a portion of
the proceeds of the inarijuana operation.
According to Plaintiff, one of its custoiners cancelled an
order for six toils of grapes grown on Plaintiffs property
because of the marijuana operation on Defendants'
property. Plaintiff alleges the customer cancelled the
order because it contained grapes grown oil the section of
the Mointazi property adjacent to Defendants' property.
The custoincr believed the sincli created by the marijuana
contaminated the grapes and would affect the wine made
from those grapes. Plaintiff alleges it now is unable to sell
grapes grown on its property next to Defendants'
property.
Plaintiff also alleges the terracing oil Defendants'
property caused large amounts of dirt to flow downhill
into one of the fish -stocked reservoirs located on
Plaintiffs property. Plaintiff contends this created a
hazard to the fish and wildlife that form "art essential pail
"N"
#
��Ijlel i'4C (.1"in I to ori, im� I t J."'). (-"ovel'mnent Works. w o n
Morntazi Family, LLC v, Wagner, Slip Copy (209)
of Plaintiffs biodynarnic operation." Plaintiff also
contends Defendants or their agents trespassed onto
Plaintiff's property, killed a calf, and amputated part of
another cow's tail.
*2 In summary, Plaintiff alleges the marijuana operation
oil Defendants' property has "directly and materially
diminished the Monitazi property's fail- market value,"
decreased the -marketability of grapes grown on that
vineyard property," and decreased the rental income of
the property.
STANDARDS
1. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject -Matter
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1)
"[F]cderal courts are limited to deciding 'cases' and
`controversies.' " Bova v. Cilv qf1le4ford, 564 F.3d 1093,
1095 (9th Cir. 2009)(quoting United States Const. Art. 111,
§ 2). "Two components of the Article III case or
controversy requirement are standing and ripeness." Id. at
1096 (citing Colwell i� DelO oaf Health & Thanan Servs.,
558 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th Cir, 2009)), A motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) tests the subject -matter jurisdiction of a federal
court.
To satisfy the standing requirement of Article 111, a
plaintiff must show " 'all injury in fact; 'a causal
connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of and a conclusion that it is `likely,' as
opposed to merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be
,redressed by a favorable decision,' " Arizona Christian
Sch, Tuition Org'n v Jfhm, 131 S. Ct. 1426, 1437
(201 1)(quoting Lz�cm v. Defenders oj' ffildlife, 504 U.S.
555, 560-61 (1992)), See also Spokeo, hie. v. Robim, 136
S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). "The party invoking federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these
elements." Ltoan i> Dqfenders of Tflildlffie, 504 U.S. 555,
561 (1992). See also Renee v. Duncan, 623 1`3d 787, 801
(9th Cir. 2010).
as any other matter for which a plaintiff bears the burden
of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence
required at the successive stages of the litigation." Gest v
Bradbuq, 433 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2006). General
factual allegations of injury resulting from the alleged
wrongful conduct may suffice at the pleading stage. Id.
H. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to "state a claim for relief that is plausible oil its
face." Bell Atlantic v. Twomhly, 550 U.S. 544, 545
(2007). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. Id. at 556, "The plausibility standard
is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' bit( it asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully," Asherqf1 v. I(lbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009)(quoting lli,ombly, 550 U.S. at 546). When a
complaint is based on facts that are "merely consistent
with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line
between possibility -,in(] plausibility of entitlement to
relief,"' Icibal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 557). See also Bell Atlantic, 550 t).S. at 555-56. The
court must accept as true the allegations in the complaint
and construe them in favor of the plaintiff. Din v. Ker))�,
718 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir, 2013),
*3 The pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8 "does not require 'detailed factual
allegations,' but it demands more than all unadorned,
the-d efendant-un lawful ly-h a rmed-ine accusation," l(lbal,
556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombll,, 550 U.S. at 555). See
also Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). "A pleading
that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,'
" Id. (citing TwomblY, 550 U.S. at 555). A complaint also
does not suffice if it tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid
of "further factual enhancement." 1cl. at 557.
"In ruling oil a 12(b)(6) motion, a court may generally
consider only allegations in the pleadings, exhibits
I A
attachedto the complaint, all ula"Cl 8 properly SUVJM 40
miflp;�l t1m;nP " Rmm,tl I, VPAJr, r I P AU P IJ 7W, 71"1
The plaintiff must also establish standing for each form of
relief sought. F"riencis of the Earth Ina v. LaOlaij, Envi'l
Seriw, ]rue. (710C), 528 U,& 167, 185 (2000). See also
Alayfield v. U.S., 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The
"elements of standing must be supported in the same way
(9th Cir. 2007)(citing Jacobson v. Schii,a)-zenegger, 357
F, Supp. 2d 1198, 1204 (C.D. Cal. 2004)), A court,
however, "may consider a writing referenced in a
complaint but not explicitly incorporated therein if the
comp faint ietouumeat al Is alLIlenct, .
s .
2019 'i ; 10 111 �,() I 4 R\c k i C No (,I F i rn i o (Boil, o I I.I.S. (, OVC, I Ct 010 V) 410 r
Momtazi Family, lA.0 v. Wagner, Slip Copy (2019)
unquestioned." lei. (quoting Parriiio v. h"14P, /are., 146
F.3d 699,706 (91h Cir, 1998), sulmrseded by statute on
other grounds as stated hi Abrego v Dow Chein, Co., 443
F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 20,06)),
DISCUSSION
Defendants contend this Court lacks subject -matter
jurisdiction to decide this case because Plaintiff either
lacks constitutional standing under the United States
Constitution or statutory standing under RICO to assert its
claims. Defendants also contend Plaintiff fails to allege
facts that state a plausible RICO claim even if the Court
has jurisdiction.
1. Plaintiff has alleged facts that establish it has
constitutional standing.
Defendants contend Plaintiff cannot show a "personal
interest" in this lawsuit, and, therefore, Plaintiff lacks
standing under the United States Constitution. To support
its position Defendants' only argument is that "Plaintiff
cannot show ... it has a 'personal interest' in this lawsuit
because Plaintiff has already represented to another court
under penalty of Perjury that another entity is the real
party in interest." Defs,' Mot. to Dismiss (49) at 7.
Specifically, Defendants point out that Plaintiff has
represented in a related state -court case that Maysara
Winery, the current lessee of Plaintiffs property, "is the
one most immediately threatened by defendants'
anticipated development of a marijuana farm operation."
Decl. of Allison C. Bizzano (#10) at 2.
In response Plaintiff contends it has standing based oil the
allegation that it owns the Alonitazi property adjacent to
the Wagner property; that it operated a commercial
vineyard on the property until August 1, 2018; and that it
has sustained "injuries in fact" caused by Defendants'
illegal conduct.
A. Standards
As noted, the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of
standing consists of three elements The plaintiff must
have (1) suffered all itjury in 'fact Q), that_ is fairly
No dailn lo
traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant and
(3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1547. See also Lr�an, 504
U.S. at 560. To establish all injury in fact a plaintiff must
show lie suffered "all invasion of a legally protected
interest" that is "concrete and particularized" and "actual
or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical," Id. at 1548
(quoting Lujan, 540 U.S. at 560).
For all injury to be "pail icu I ari zed," it "must affect the
plaintiff in a personal and individual way." Id.
Particularization is necessary to establish injury in fact,
but the injury iq fact must also be "concrete," Id, A
"concrete" injury must be "de ,facto"; that is, it must
actually exist. Id.
B. Analysis
*4 As noted, Plaintiff states it owns the Nlointazi
property adjacent to Defendants' property. Plaintiff
alleges the value of its property has been diminished, it
has been unable to market its grapes, a reservoir on its
property was damaged, a calf was killed, and another cow
damaged as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
activities to grow marijuana oil their property. Plaintiff
also alleges all order for grapes was cancelled as a result
of the customer's concern that the grapes were
contaminated by the inarkittana smell, which would
adversely affect the wine made from the grapes. Plaintiff
further alleges it has beell Unable to sell grapes grown on
the Mointazi property adjacent to Defendants' property
because of buyers' concerns about contamination.
Plaintiff alleges this impact on the marketability of its
grapes has diminished the value of its property, including
rental fees charged for the property, In addition, Plaintiff
alleges the terracing on Defendants' property has caused
dirt to flow downhill into the reservoir oil Plaintiff's
property and has been damaging fish and, wildlife.
Oil this record the Court concludes Plaintiff has alleged
injuries in fact that are concrete, particularized, and
actual, These allegations are sufficient to establish
Plaintiff's constitutional standing, and, therefore, the
Court has subject -matter jurisdiction over this case.
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject -matter jurisdiction.
1
a �V T� 1200 P 1- 1
P F All
original U-S, 7V
1h $
10orritazi Family, LLC v. Wagner, Slip Copy (2019)
11. Plaintiff has alleged facts that establish its statutory
standing under RICO.
Defendant contends Plaintiff has not established it has
statutory standing tinder RICO.
A. Standards
RICO allows "[a]ny person injured in his business or
property by reason of a violation of"RICO to bring a civil
suit for damages. 18 US.C. § 1964(c). To show standing
tinder RICO a plaintiff must allege (1) lie suffered "harm
to a specific business or property interest" and (2) the
injury was "a proximate result of the alleged racketeering
activity." Alewcal, 513 F,3d at 1055, A plaintiff asserting
injury to property must allege (1) the injury is proprietary
as opposed to "personal" or "emotional" and (2) the
proprietary injury resulted in "concrete financial loss."'
Canyon Cljy 1,. Syngento See(ls, Inc., 519 F.3d 969, 975
(91h Ch% 2008). Whether all interest is proprietary is
"typically determined by reference to state law." Diaz
Gates, 420 F.3d 897, 90,0 (9th Cir, 2005).
B. Analysis
Defendants contend Plaintiff has not alleged a concrete
financial loss to a cognizable business or property interest
or that such alleged injuries were proximately caused by
Defendants' violation of RICO.
1. Concrete Financial Loss
Plaintiff alleges it suffered financial loss as a result of lost
sales of grapes, decreased marketability of its grapes,
reduced rental income for its property, and lost or
diminished value of two cows, Defendants, however,
contend none of these injuries are "concrete" under tile
Ninth Circuit's standard for recovery tinder RICO.
As noted, the Ninth Circuit in Canyon Counij, held an
alleged injury must be a concrete financial loss to a
recognized property interest. 519 F,3d at 975. Tile court
found the county's expenditures in providing public
services did not qualify as injury to property and that the
county did not have a properly interest in the set -vices it
rovided to enforce the law and to Promote p n ic
(9) 110il'.,301 I NO CIE".'111 t0'
welfare. Id. Similarly, in Imagineering, Ine. v. Kieivil
Pacitic Co., another case relied out by Defendants, the
Ninth Circuit held (here was not any proof of concrete
loss under RICO when the plaintiffs did not receive the
subcontracts to which they were entitled. 976 EU 1303,
1310 (9th Cir. 1992), Neither of these cases, however, is
factually oil point with the case now before this Court.
In this District tile court has held in two recent cases that
mere allegations of diminished use or enjoyment of
property or the costs of increased security measures as a
result of a marijuana -grow operation oil adjacent property
do not constitute injury to property. See, e.g., Aimworth v.
Oit,en�),, 326 F, Supp. 3d I I I 1 (1), 01% 20 18); Shoultz v.
Derrick, 369 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (D. Or. 2019). Each of
these cases turned oil whether all allegation of diminished
market value was sufficient to constitute injury. In
Ainsworth the court determined even though a reduction
in the fair market value of land is an injury to property, a
RICO claimant must also show proof of concrete financial
loss rather than mere injury to a valuable, intangible
property interest. 326 FSupp, 3d at 1] 24 (citing Chem, v
FleerlSkybox Ini'l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.
2002)). The court noted a plaintiff s alleged financial loss
cannot be "purely speculative." Id. (citation omitted). The
court held tile plaintiff had not alleged "specific prior
attempts to monetize a property interest and must
plausibly allege at least a present intent or desire to do
so"; i.e., the bare allegation of diminished value without
more was insufficient. Ict at 1126.
*5 Similarly, in Shoultz the court held a RICO plaintiff
]))List allege in good faith that she attempted or currently
desired to convert her property interest into a pecuniary
form, and the plaintiff failed to do so. 369 F. Supp, 3d at
1128. Again, the mere allegation of diminished market
value was insufficient.
Here Defendants contend Plaintiff has not suffered a
concrete financial loss because Plaintiff "fails to offer
even an estimate of the fair market value of its real and
personal property, let alone any sources or methodologies
for determining the vahte(s)." Defs.' Mot. (49) at 9.
Defendants' reliance oil Eclectic Prolmlies East, LLC 1).
Harcus & iWillichcil) Co., 751 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014), to
support their proposition, however, is misplaced. In
Eclectic the plaintiffs alleged a RICO claim) based on the
defendants' alleged fraudulent representation about the
value of file properties that the plaintiffs bought from the
defendants. The plaintiffs alleged the properties sold to
them for $30 million were, in fact, only worth $11.1
million and that the defendants spent $8.1 million on rent
to maintain the fraudulent price scheme until the
properties were sold. The defendants challenged the,,
IWO
lo
0"'xw,
pmg
ka
I m
ol iginal U. mt( VVol
Morritazi Family, LLC v. Wagner, Slip Copy (2019)
sufficiency of the plaintiffs' allegations. The Ninth Circuit
noted the predicate act for the plaintiffs' RICO claim was
alleged to be niail and wire fraud, which required the
pleading of,sufficient facts to establish a specific intent to
defraud. Tile court held the allegations in the plaintiff's
complaint (lid not state sufficient "factual specificity" to
infer reasonably that the defendants' conduct was
fraudulent. 75I F.3d at 998.
In this case Plaintiff has not alleged any "fraudulent
scherne" by Defendants that requires the "factual
specificity" as in Eclectic, Plaintiff merely alleges a
decrease in rental income and a decrease in tile
marketability of grapes grown oil the property as a result
of Defendants' marijuana operation. Plaintiff also alleges
at least one customer cancelled its order as a result of
concerns over the quality of grapes grown on the property
adjacent to Defendants' property. Thus, Plaintiffs losses
arise from injury to property and are not based merely on
Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of its property. Although
Plaintiff does not allege specific amounts of loss, the
amounts would be calculable in a pecuniary form based
on evidence that would be discoverable.
Out this record tile Court concludes Plaintiff's allegations
establish "injury to a property interest" that constitutes a
"concrete financial loss" sufficient for standing tinder
RICO.
2. Direct or Proximate Cause
Plaintiff must also plausibly allege any compensable
property injury was proximately caused by Defendants'
racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C' § 1964(c). Defendants
contend Plaintiff has failed to allege any of its injuries,
including the alleged cancellation of an order for wine
grapes based on the customer's subjective beliefs or tile
loss of Plaintiffs cattle, were directly caused by
Defendants' violations of RICO.
"When a court evaluates a RICO claim for proximate
causation, the central question it must ask is whether the
alleged violation led directly to the plaintiff's injuries."
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supl-71), Corp., 547 U.S. 451, 461
(2006). A plaintiff, however, need not plead lie is a victim
of the defendant's underlying crime. See Bridge v.
Phoenix Bond & Indem. CV, 553 U.S. 649, 649-50
(zuuo), III Plaintiff has alleged f0pic that state a 10"sil)IP
clafin for a RICO violation
*6 The Ninth Circuit has noted three factors are relevant
Defendants contend Plaintiff fai[,�;"',,A
No ol"lin-1 to or�(Owjl L) tip. ('30veinment VV0Ju-.
(M 9 '1 lo I
to determine whether a plaintiff has shown proximate
cause:
(1) whether there are more direct
victims of the alleged wrongful
conduct who can be counted oil to
vindicate tile law as private
attorneys general; (2) whether it
will be difficult to ascertain the
amount of the plaintiffs damages
attributable to defendant's
wrongful conduct; and (3) whether
the courts will have to adopt
complicated rules apportioning
damages to obviate the risk of
multiple recoveries.
Alewcal hichis., 513 F.3d at 1055. These factors are
"nonexhaustive" (Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit CO., 301 173d
1163, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002)) and no single factor is
dispositive (Canyon Cly., 519 F.3d at 983). The
controlling inquiry remains whether an injury is the
"direct" or "indirect" result of the defendant's conduct.
See U. at 982 (analyzing "whether the alleged violation
led directly to the plaintiff's injuries").
Here, as noted, Plaintiff alleges it has been unable to sell
grapes grown on its property because of Defendants'
marijuana -grow operation adjacent to Plaintiff's property.
As an example, one customer cancelled its order for
grapes over a concern that tile smell from tile marijuana
on Defendants' adjacent property would contaminate the
grapes and affect the taste of the wine made from those
grapes. The customer's concerns, whether valid or
invalid, arose directly from the proximity of Defendants'
marijuana -grow operation.
On this record the Court concludes Plaintiff has alleged a
direct link between its injuries and Defendants' alleged
violations of RICO, and:, therefore, Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged proximate cause for standing tinder
RICO. Accordingly, the Court deities Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss for lack of standing under Federal Rule
12(b)(6) based on this reason.
Monitazi Family, LLC v, Wagner, Slip Copy, (2019)
plausibly state a claim for relief under RICO. Defendants
contend Plaintiff fails to allege facts that tend to show
Defendants are conducting or participating in an
association -in -fact enterprise of racketeering activity.
A. Standards
Section 1962 prohibits "any person ... associated with any
enterprise ... to conduct or participate, directly or
indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs
through a pattern of racketeering activity." To show a
violation of RICO pursuant to § 1962 a plaintiff Must
allege "(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a
pattern (4) of racketeering activity," Sedinia, P.R.L. v,
Imi-ex Co., Ine., 473 t1S. 479, 496 (198,5). See also
Alewcal Inclus., 513 F.3d at 1055.
B. Analysis
The Court finds the reasoning in the Ai mm,orlh case,
which was also a marijuana -grow case, persuasive on the
issue of whether Plaintiff has a plausible claim under
Rico. The Ainsworth court relied on Safe Streets Alliance
v. Hickenloolm- in which the Tenth Circuit "methodically
walkcd through the Supreme Court's various formulations
of the 'indirect injury' limitation and easily concluded
that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a direct link
between the defendants' marijuana operation and the
claimed reductions in property value," Ainsworth, 326 F,
Stipp, A at 1127 (citing Sq/e Streets Alliance i,.
Hickenloolmr, 859 F.3d 865, 890-91 (1 Oth Ch% 2017)).
*7 The court explained that the landowners were suing
to "recover for injuries to their own land, not harms to
third parties," and that "no intermediary [had broken]
the causal chain ,, between the enterprise's foul
emissions" and (lie plaintiffs' claimed property injuries.
In addition, it reasoned that the declines in property
value were "caused by the Marijuana Growers'
criminal cultivation of marijuana itself' and that the
defendants' enterprise was the "direct source of all the
alleged injuries to the [plaintiffs'] land." "[flt is
sufficient," the court concluded, that the plaintiffs'
reduced property, values were the "direct by[ -]product[
] of the location and manner in which the Marijuana
Growers [were] conducting their operations."
between (lie defendants' marijuana -grow operation and
the plaintiffs' alleged inluries.
Defendants point to no persons more directly injured by
their alleged racketeering activities. If Plaintiffs cannot
sue to vindicate the federal drug laws and recover for
any compensable injuries, it is difficult to imagine a
Person who could. In addition, there is no reason to
assume that ascertaining the existence and amount of
Plaintiffs' damages attributable to Defendants'
racketeering activity will be too difficult. Plaintiffs
allege facts detailing how and why Defendants'
activities are causing a present drop in the fair market
value of their properties, and "[flt is, inappropriate at
this stage to substitute speculation for the complaint's
allegations of causation." If, as alleged, Defendants'
activities are producing putrid odors, constant noise,
excessive traffic, and reputational harms, a decline in
the fair market value of Plaintiffs' land "is at least
plausible enough to survive a motion to dismiss,
whatever difficulty might arise in establishing how
much lower" the values have become.
Id. at 1128 (citations omitted). The Court finds the same
reasoning applies to Plaintiff's factual allegations in this
case: "The presence of the Marijjuana Operation on the
Wagner Property and the effects of its operation on the
Monitazi Property have directly and materially
diminished the Monitazi Property's fair market value,"
the marketability of grapes grown on the Monitazi
Property has declined as a direct result of the Marijuana
Operation's to the Morniazi Property," and "the rental
income that Plaintiff receives from renting the Mointazi
Property is materially less that it would be without the
presence of the Marijuana Operation on the Wagner
Property." Co nip 1. (# I ) at' 21..
On this record the Court concludes Plaintiff has stated "a
claim for relief [against Defendants] that is plausible on
its face" under RICO, and, therefore, the Court denies
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
12(b)(6) based on this reason.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants'
Motion (#9) to Dismiss.
Ainsworth, 326 F. Supp. 3d at 1127. The Ainsworth court IT IS SO ORDERED,
P-
concluded the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a direct link (0 2019 p hoio,ori Root(i 1c cl� fo io olig)ina I U 13. Covemrn,.Ilt
V 4,
! :
Nomb§ Family,LLC w Wagner, Slip Cow (m§M
All Citations Slip Copy, 3 WL40§g 78
�.... �.. . .....�� � .. ... . .....� .. .. ... . . � .�. .��..... ... . ... ..
FR of Document w 3a;homan&uGs+ ±m to criginalmVDemme, Work5
. \/..\ r \� \\ j . : § o \\ w
\2\or.\}\\/\\\.
,.. . .. . . �.. . ....
Lt«»"
. % 3 � �Rw % w6na y y .. �
y
Marijuainastinks, Here'swhatcifles, businessesandneighborscall.... 2018 VVLNR 27731964
I
9/11/18 Orange County (Cal.) Reg. (Pg. Unavail, Online)
2018 WLNR 27731954
Orange County Register, The (CA)
Copyright @ 2018 The Orange Cotint:3, Register
September 11, 2018
Marijuana stinks. Here's -what cities, businesses and neighbors can do about it
Brooke Staggs; The Orange County Register
Sept., I I —Even the most ardent marijuana lovers cant deny it: The plant, at least to some noses, stinks.
Marijuana odors have triggered lawsuits against cannabis companies. "They've led residents to try to block commercial
operations from coming to California and the other eight states where recreational cannabis is legal and, increasingly, big
business.
Odor even has sparked some neighborhood friction, too, as marijuana smoke, drifts froin one apartment or yard to the next.
There are products oil the market that claim to test for smells, block all odors fi-orn wafting out of indoor operations, and even
help control the stench of outdoor marijuana farms.
Long before legalization, (lie cannabis industry grew accustomed to working underground -- making growers and processors,
and distributors pretty good at hiding the smells associated with their businesses. While that might ease the possibility of
odor -related friction, it doesn't foster industry-xvide communication about new ideas for tackling the issue, even as new
anti -odor technologies are coming to market,
Only now -- with odor control an area that's both problematic and ripe for technical solutions -- are marijuana entrepreneurs
starting to share ideas about their industry's stink factor.
"That's probably the biggest hurdle now, for everybody involved, is knowing what's available as best practices, and what's
feasible," said Dana Pack with Fogco, an Arizona -based company that makes systems to neutralize unwanted smells.
Cities can mandate odor -control systems for horse growers, or as a condition for approval of marijuana-relatcd business
permits.
But sonic in the industry note that odor requirements aren't yet universal, and that odor control is yet another element of the
marijuana business in which regulators aren't keeping pace with the spread of legalization.
"The licensing agencies are still in a learning curve," said Chuck McGinley, technical director of St. Croix Sensory, a lab in
Minnesota that tests for odors and makes products that help others do so in the field. "This is a very young industry."
Neighbors fight back
Residents claim the stench of weed disrupts their quality of life, lowers their property values and causes problems for people
with respiratory issues such as asthma.
In June, after the city of Palm Springs issued what might be tile first permit for a cannabis lounge in SouthrjlCalifunjiaj the, il" r-
-,7,7
Cr 20,19 ol ol 1 1 [itcl-,J; I p to ol iclif la I U. G� o\,C, f I ole nt k(Vol* s,
e
ff
J'q
"d
lftrijuanastinks, Here'swhatcifles, bLisliiessesandiielghboi�scan-., 2018 WLNR 27731954
owner of a spa next -door threatened to leave town.
Since January 2016, the South Coast Air Quality Management District -- which monitors air qLlBlity issues for 111OSt Of LOS
Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties -- has received I I complaints of odors allegedly created by
marijuana growers, dispensaries or processing facilities, according to spokesman Sam Atwood,
Santa Barbara County and cities in its boundaries have received more permits to grow marijuana than any other county in
California, Now residents of the beach town Carpenteria say they're stuffing pillows under their doors to block odors coming
from nearby cannabis farms.
In Colorado, three years ago, owners of residential property sited a marijuana farm that was set to open next -door, claiming
cannabis -related odors would ruin their horse rides and harm flicir property values. The lawsuit cited racketeering laws,
typically used to prosecute organized crime rings, since marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
A federal district court initially dismissed the Colorado claim, but an appeals court in 2017 cleared the case to move forward.
That paved the way for a number of other lawsuits that raise racketeering charges while also citing odor and other nuisance
concerns, and similar suits have been filed in Massachusetts and Oregon.
Some of those suits have been settled or dismissed. Others are pending, raising concerns within the industry about how
state -legal marijuana programs might be upended by legal battles that often start with simple complaints about smell.
Solutions are out there
Most odor control solutions for the marijuana industry involve tweaking products that are already used by landfills,
wastewater treatment plants and other businesses that generate offensive smells.
The most common fix is to add carbon filters, or -scrubbers," to ventilation systems, As air passes through, odor molecules
bind to the activated charcoal. As long as everything is properly installed and maintained, McGinley said the air that comes
out of the vents should be virtually odorless.
But carbon filters have to be replaced often, making them price), for large operators. Carbon filters also rely on a lot of
electricity, making them less than ideal for many environmentally conscious greenhouse owners. And, of course, air filters
can't do anything about the smell generated by outdoor farms.
That's where fog systems might come into play.
These systenis involve placing nozzles at the spot where air from a grow operation will be expelled. The system mixes water
with an odor -neutralizing chemical and forces that mixture through the nozzles at high pressure. The water instantly
evaporates, leaving the chemical in the air to attract and neutralize an), cannabis smells.
"The idea is to build a barrier of fog between the odorous air and community," said Pack Nvith Fogco.
Such systems don't need to be in constant use, so Pack said energy use and maintenance are "a fraction" of what's required to
use carbon filters.
Mark Stanley, a vice president with Palm Springs -based MicroCool, which also makes a fog odor -control system, said
marijuana growers are showing enough interest in his company's products that it's hard to keep tip with demand.
Pack, of Fogco, said that while greenhouse operators are his companys biggest clients, his company also sets tip systems to
control odors from outdoor farms. They line the perimeter of the farm with nozzles, which they can turn on when plants are
flowering and monitors show that wind speed and direction might carry the scent to neighbors.
Some online grower forunis recommend "ozone generators," which can disrupt smells by converting oxygen into ozone. But
the California Air Resources Board advises against using the devices with people around since, to remove odors, they have to
(0,20'W Tho(,son Remtor.,, [,!oclaiwto ori�.,,Jj�jpl Ll 1-111i-jeijj
0",
Iftrijuanastinks, Here'swha te i ties, businessesandneighborscan.... 2018 WLNR 27731964
create ozone molecules at levels that aren't safe for humans to breath.
Local law rules
With such a wide range of techniques available, Santa Monica -based cannabis attorney Michael Jensen said it's key to write
odor -control regulations that leave room for innovation,
Currently, California law doesn't do much, to address odors, requiring only that marijuana businesses limit emissions from
generators and from the solvents used in the extraction of certain marijuana compounds. Otherwise, state agencies overseeing
cannabis have said odor control is a local issue,
Most California jurisdictions ban all marijuana businesses. And many cities and counties that do permit them simply include
a line or two in their regulations that say marijuana odors can't be noticeable.
Los Angeles's marijuana regulation rules run 33 pages, only three sentences of which address odor control. Tile rules state
that air vented from marijuana businesses must be filtered so that odors cant be detected outside, or in adjoining sites, by a
person with a "normal sense of smell."
Long Beach requires businesses to submit odor control plans when they apply for local permits, and the systern must be
certified by a licensed engineer.
Local authorities are also the go -to source for complaints about inarijuana odors.
While it's legal in California for adults 21 and over to consume marijuana, and grow tip to six plants at home, residents
bothered by the smell can report it as a nuisance to their local code crtforcernent office. If the neighbor lives in an apartnient,
under a homeowner's, association or has a landlord, residents might have better hick reporting complaints through those
entities, since tile), can ban smoking and cultivation in their units.
Enforcement challenges
Odor complaints are tricky to investigate, according to Alan Abbs, executive director of the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association, Smells tend to dissipate quickly, and the offensiveness of certain smells can be subjective.
One way to remove some of that subjectivity is to use devices called field olfactonieters, which offer science -backed data
about the intensity of odors.
McGinley's lab makes a field olfactometer called the Nasal Ranger. It looks like: a telescope with a mask on the skinny end
and a rotating dial out the fatter end. Users adjust that dial, then hold the Nasal Ranger up to their nose and breath in. Carbon
filters purify some of the air. Then, based on the dial's setting, the device mixes the filtered air with the air corning in from
outside before it gets to the user's nose. The more dilution required to get rid of the smell, the stinkier the outside air would
be.
Denver has set odor standards for marijuana and other stinky businesses based on the measurements tracked by the Nasal
Ranger and similar devices. But for now, many California cities and counties rely on repeated complaints as evidence of a
problem.
In Santa Barbara County, for example, if county authorities get three odor complaints from a business in a year, the company
must take steps to fix the problem. And if the business doesn't stop file stench, the county may revoke local permits.
"There's going to be a tough learning curve," Jensen said. "Time will tell whether this becomes all issue."
An carlier version of this story misstated the number of recent complaints to South Coast Air Quality Management District
related to marijuana odors due to incorrect information provided to the Orange County Register, The story bas been updated.
(0 2011 hornm?t i I 1,eutei s. k�c (1&ircl to of ion nel U.8 \Alol k"",
4,
Marijuanastinks. Here'swhatclfies, bus inessesand tie ighbo rs ca n- 2018 WLNR 27731954
®® Index References ----
Company: FOGCO SYSTEMS INC
Industry: (Environmental (IFN24); Environmental Problems (JEN46); Environmental Services (IEN69); Environmental
Solutions (IEN90); Municipal Solid Waste Disposal (IMUI I)-, Pollution (IPOIO))
Region: (Americas (IAM92); California (ICA98); Colorado (ICO26); North America (IN039); U.S. West Region
(I WE46); USA (I US73))
Language: EN
Other Indexing: (south coast air) (Michael Jensen; Dana, Pack; Mark Stanley; Sam Atwood; Chuck McGinley; Alan Abbs)
Word Count: 1554
Flild ol Dioullivill V 2011) 1 hotwy)n Re tit cis No chim: I o m i, I I laI I S G m eT I I n)u I) t Wor I's
NewsRoom
'Dead Skunk' StencliFi,oni[Viar!jLtaiiaFariiisOtitragesCali,forilians, 2018 WI-N11 39689921
Nemlrsftorn
12/24/18 Int'l N.Y. Times 13
2018 WLNR 39689921
International New YorkFimes
Copyright (C) 2018 International New York Times
December 24, 2018
Section: us
'Dead SkunkSteticli From Marbitana Farms Outrages Calliforiiiians
THOMAS FULLER
CARPINTERIA, Calif.
CARPINTERIA, Calif. —They call it fresh skunk, the odor cloud or sometimes just tile stink
Mike Wondolowski often finds himself in the middle of it. He may be on the chaise longue on his patio, at his computer in
the house, or tending to his orange and lemon trees in the garden when the powerful, nauseating stench descends on him.
Mr. Wondolowski lives a half -mile away from greenhouses, that were originally built to grow daisies and chrysantlielnums
but now house thousands of marijuana plants, part of a booming — and pungent — business seeking to cash in on
recreational cannabis, which has been legal in California since January.
"If someone is saying, 'Is it really that bad"?' I'll go find a bunch of skunks and every evening I'll put them outside your
window," Mr. Wondolowski said. "It's just brutal."
When Californians voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2016,, there were debates about driving under the influence and
keeping it away from children. But lawmakers did not anticipate the uproar that would be generated by the funk of millions
of flowering cannabis plants.
As a result of the stench, residents in Sonoma County, north of San Francisco, are suing to ban cannabis operations from their
neighborhoods. Mendocino County, farther north, recently created zones banning cannabis cultivation — the sheriffs deputy,
there says the stink is tile No. I complaint.
In Santa Barbara County, cannabis growers confronting the rage of neighbors are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars
installing odor -control systems that were designed for garbage dumps.
The smell from commercial cannabis farms, which brings to mind a mixture of rotting lemons and sulfur, is nothing like the
wafting cloud that might hover over a Phish show, pot farm detractors say.
"It's as if a skunk, or multiple skunks in a family, were living under our house," said Grace Guthrie, whose home sits on the
site of a former apple orchard outside the town of Sebastopol. Her neighbors grow pot commercially, "It doesn't dissipate,"
Ms. Guthrie said. "It's beyond anything you would imagine."
When cannabis odors are at their peak, she and lier husband, Robert, sometimes wear respirators, the kind one might put on
to handle dangerous chemicals. During Labor Day weekend, relatives came to stay at the house, but cut short their visit
because they couldn't stand the smell.
.;I Cc) ?O19,1hoinsoll I'Iclutes. 1\1(1 chin) to ork in'd VVojks.
'Dead Skunk' Ste n ch F rom Ma rij uarial'a rms 0 utrages Calif orn ians, 2018 VVLNR 39689921
"I can't be outside more than 30 minutes," Mr. Guthrie said of peak odor times, when the cannabis buds are flowering and
the wind sweeps the smell onto his property. "The windows are constantly closed. We are trapped inside. There's no escape."
After nearly one year of recreational sales in California, much of the cannabis, industry remains underground. Stung by taxes
and voluminous paperwork, only around 5 percent of marijuana farmers in the state have licenses, according to Hezekiah
Allen, the executive director of the California Growers Association, a marijuana advocacy group. Sales of legal cannabis are
expected to exceed $3 billion this year, only slightly higher than medical marijuana sales from last year. Tax revenues have
been lower than expected, and only about one -fifth of California cities allow sales of recreational cannabis. The dream of a
fully regulated market seems years off.
The ballot measure legalizing recreational marijuana passed in 2016 with a comfortable majority of 57 percent, Many,of
those complaining about cannabis odors say they were among those who supported it. They just don't want it stinking up
their property, they say,
"Just because you like bacon doesn't mean you want to live next to a pig farm," said Lynda Hopkins, a member of the
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, whose office has been inundated with complaints about the smell.
The odor question is also roiling local politics.
Marijuana businesses in Carpinteria recently donated $28,000 worth of lab equipment to Carpinteria High School, according
to Philip Greene, the chief of operations for Ever -Bloom, a cannabis producer that helped coordinate the donation. The high
school is flanked by cannabis greenhouses that ]lave sent odors wafting in. In tile past two years, students have complained of
headaches, parents have grown angry and the high school has had to warn visiting sports teams that they might encounter the
odor.
The donation has not yet been inade public, but is seen by some as an effort to offset the damage done by the stench. In ail
interview, Maureen Foley Claffey, a member of file Carpinteria School Board, said it would send a "confusing and
problematic" message to students to accept it. Ms. Claffey lashed out at the superintendent, Diana Rigby, for soliciting
donations from the cannabis industry at a time when members of the community are battling the stink.
"Are we that desperate for cash that we are willing to take it from, anyone without regard to the: source and the message?" she
said. "I guess money talks."
Ms. Rigby, the superintendent, did not return phone calls or email requesting comment.
In Sonoma County, hearings on cannabis ordinances at the board of supervisors overflow with representatives from the
cannabis industry, who wear green, and angry residents, who weal- red.
Of the more than 730 complaints Sonoma County has received about cannabis this year, around 65 percent are related to
odor, according to Tim Ricard, the county's cannabis program manager.
"There's been a tremendous amount of tension in the community," said Ms. Hopkins, the Sonoma supervisor, "If I had to
name ail ice-creani flavor for cannabis implementation it would definitely be rocky road."
Cannabis executives recognize that pot grows can be odorous, but say their industry is no different from others that produce
smells.
"You have a smell issue that sometimes can't be completely mitigated," said Dennis Hunter, a co-founder of CannaCraft, a
large marijuana business based in Santa Rosa in Sonoma County. "But we have dairy farms here in the area or crush season
for the vineyards — there's agricultural crops, and a lot of them have smells,"
Britt Christiansen, a registered nurse who lives among the dairy farnis of Sonoma County, acknowledges that tier
neighborhood smells of manure, known locally as the Sonoma aroma.
(0 20'iP "l;ioni,,on Y-�cljte�s. Nk� 10 orinim;l 0-S. Govcmillelli Vkloi,ks. 2,
'tread Skunk' SterichfroiiiWiiar•ij4ranararmsOtitragesCaiifor°riians, 2018 UUl. NR 39689921
But she says she made the choice to live next to a dairy farm and prefers that smell to the odor that drifted over from the
marijuana farm next door to lien- house.
"We opened the door and the smell kicked us in the face," Ms. Christiansen said. Her neighbors banded together in October
and sued the operators of the pot business; the case is ongoing.
One problem for local governments trying to legislate cannabis odors is that there is no objective standard for smells. A
company in Minnesota, St. Croix Sensory, has developed a device called the Nasal Ranger, which looks like a cross between
a hair dryer and a radar girl). Users place the instrument on their nose and turd a filter dial to rate the potency on a numerical
scale. Charles McGinley, the inventor of the device, says a Level 7 is the equivalent of "sniffing someone's armpit without
the deodorant — or maybe someone's feet — a nuisance certainly."
A Level 4, lie said, is the equivalent of a neighbor's freshly cut grass. "It could still be a nuisance, but it wouldn't chive you
away from your front porch," Mr. McGinley said.
Standing next to a flowering cannabis bud, the sine]] would easily be a Level 7, Mr. McGinley said.
The Nasal Ranger is in use in Colorado, the first state to legalize recreational marijuana,, but California counties and cities are
still struggling with the notion that smells are subjective.
Ever -Bloom in Carpinteria is one of a number of marijuana businesses that have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to
mitigate the stink. Two previous systems failed, but the current one, modeled on devices used to mask the smell of garbage
dumps, sprays a curtain of vapor around the perimeter of the greenhouses. The vapor, which is made up of essential oils,
gives off a menthol smell resembling Bengay.
Dennis Bozanich, a Santa Barbara County official charged with cannabis implementation who has become known as the
cannabis czar, says the essential oil odor control has been largely successful But not every grower can afford to install it.
Oil weekends, Mr. Bozanich becomes a cannabis odor sleuth, riding his bicycle through Carpinteria sniffing the air for pot
plants. He recently drove through the area with a reporter, rolling down the windows oil a stretch of road with cannabis
greenhouses. He slowed the car and puzzled over where a cannabis odor was corning from.
".I've got one stinky location right here and I can't quite figure it out," lie said.
His description of the stink?
"Dead skunk."
---- Index References ----
Industry: (Agriculture (1AG63); Agriculture, Food & Beverage (1AG53); Commercial Horticulture (1CO07); Dairy Products
(IDA15); Floriculture (1FL98); Food & Beverage Production (11`079); Gardens & Gardening (IGA80)),
Region: (Americas (IAM9 ); California (ICA98); North. Arnerica (IN039); U.S. West Region (1WE46); USA (IU'S73))
Language: EN
Other Indexing: (CannaCraft) (Robert; Grace Guthrie; Lynda Hopkins; Philip Greene; Dennis Bozanicli; Dennis Hunter; "Tim
Ricard; Mike Wondolowvski; Maureen Foley Claffey; Diana Rigby; Charles McGinley; Britt Christiansen; Hezekiah Allen)
Keywords: Law and Legislation; Greenhouses; Suits and Litigation (Civil); Marijuana; Smells and Odors; Agriculture and
Farrningl(eywords:
1
@ 2019 i ilt)uaus 11 f W1,4e I\NCI "I -I to origif1Erl l:.S. (..',ovt';Y"1'1mcni WeII 's 1 .,
'Dead Skunk' Stenchl:-roniMarijtiaiiaFarins0titragesCaliforiiians, 2018 VVLNIR 39689921
Ticker Symbol: Law and Legislation; GreenflOUses; Suits and Litigation (Civil); Marijuana; Sine] Is and Odors; Agriculture
and Farming
Word Count: 1450
V`wl of Dovillmill 2019 1 hommii Remei,,. No L It im W M iVillil' 11.5. WOO;S.
r ay G
�.,
�. ,.
a,��
r
�..
wliiawmirii""'Planning Department, 51 Wjnb,—)Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY OF
p
541.488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TM 1-800-735-2900
-ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: PA-TI-2019-00077
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 685 / 689 Washington Street
OWN ERJAPPLI CANT: Joe and Jill RicelLaNier land Consulting
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review to allow marijuana processing and wholesaling located at 685 and 689
Washington St. The property is 0.72 acers and is developed with an approximately 12,000 square foot industrial building,, The
applicant proposes to occupy two suites; one identified as 685 Washington, which is 2320 square feet and will be used for
office space and wholesale operations, and 689 Washington St, a 2000 square foot suite that will be used for processing.
There is no proposed marijuana production associated with this application. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391 E14AB; TAX LOT: 2500
October 29, 2019
Subject Property
685/689 Washington: St.
PA-TI-2019-00077
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland,
Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to
surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property Wbmitthig application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than
45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to file same
properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staffs decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning
Division within 12 days frorn the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.G)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this, application are attached to this notice. Oregon iaw states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter,
or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes Your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA) on that issue.Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure
of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the
issue precludes an action for darnages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way,
Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-488-5305.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18,.5.2.050
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable, provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and
yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.
B. Overlay Zones:, The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18,3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18A, except as
provided by subsection E, beiow.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for
water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the
subject property.
E, Eyception to 1he Site Deveiopmeal and Des@n Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions, to the Site Development and Design
Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection I or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual
aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent
properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is
the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty,; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better
achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
MARIJUANA -RELATED USES
118.2.1190
B. Marijuana -Related Businesses.
1, Marijuana -related businesses may require Site Design Review Linder chapter 18,5.2 or a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18,5,4, See Table
.18,22030 — Uses Allowed by Zone for zones where marijuana -related businesses are allowed. See definition of marijuana -related businesses in part
18,6, Marijuana -related businesses shall meet all of the following requirements.
a. The business must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor marijuana
production, cultivation, and storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the business are prohibited.
b. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the business must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and
obtain Site Design Review approval if required by section 18,51.2,020. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited.
c. The business must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products; such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within
the business' exterior refuse containers.
d. Light and Glare. Shield lighting systems and use window coverings to confine light and glare from light systems associated with indoor
cultivation so as to confine light and glare to the interior of the structure. Grow light systems within a greenhouse are prohibited.
e. Building Code. Any structure, accessory structure, electrical service, plumbing, or mechanical equipment (e,g., lighfing, fans, heating and
cooling systems) associated with a business shall satisfy the Building Code requirements and obtain all required building permits prior to
instakation.
f. Methodology for Measuring Separation Requirements. The following methodology shall be used for marijuana related- businesses that are
required to be separated by a specific distance (i.e,, marijuana production facility, marijuana wholesale facility, marijuana retail outlet). For the
purposes of determining the distance between a marijuana related -business and another marijuana -related business, "within 1,000 feet"' means a
straight line measurement in a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less in every direction from the closest point anywhere on the premises of an
approved marijuana related- business to the closest point anywhere on the premises of a proposed marijuana -related business of the same type. If
any portion of the premises of a proposed marijuana related -business is within 1,000 feet of an approved marijuana related business of the same
type, it may not be approved. For the purpose of this section, premises is all public and private enclosed areas within a building at the location that
are used in the business operation, including offices, kitchens, rest rooms, and storerooms.
g. The property owner shall record a declaration which waives any claim or right to hold the City liable for damages they or a tenant may suffer
from state or federal enforcement actions for activities the City permits as a result of its approval of the proposed use or development once such
approval is granted, Furthermore, the owner and tenant agrees not to unreasonably disobey the City's order to halt or suspend business if state or
federal authorities order or otherwise subject the City to enforcement to comply with laws in contradiction to the continued operations of the
business as permitted under section 18,2.3-,190.
h. A marijuana -related business must obtain an approved license or registration from the State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised
Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules.
2. Marijuana Laboratories, Processing, Production, and Wholesale. In addition to the standards described in Subsection 18 23 - 190.B.1, above,
. . .............. ... marijuana laboratories, processing, production, and wholesale shall meet the following requirements as applicable. See definition of marijuana
processing and production in part 18,6.
a. Marijuana laboratories, processing:, production, and wholesale shall be located 200 feet or more from residential zones.
b. Marijuana Production.
I. Marijuana production shall be limited! to 5,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area per lot.
ii. A marijuana production facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana production facility. See subsection
18,23.1903.1.1 for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related -businesses.
Ci:ti,caiiiTTi-devNplanning\Planning Aclions\Noficing FoNeMlai led Notices & SignOOWPAJ I -2019-00077.docx
c. Marijuana Wholesale. AmarijUanF lesale facility shall be located more than 1,000 fe, another marijuana wholesale facility, See
subsection 1L8,2, 90H3o1,J methou—gy for measuring the required distance between m6,Ana related -businesses.
3, Marijuana Retail Sales. In addition to the standards described above in subsection 18,2,,31903A., marijuana retail sales shall meet the following
requirements. See defin4ion of marijuana retail sales in part 18,6.
a, Locaflon.
i. Marijuana retail sales are allowed if located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard.
fi. Marijuana retail sales, except as allowed above in subsection 18,21,3,190H3 _aj, Must be located 200 feet or more from a residential zone
and are subject to a Con0ional Use Permit under chapter 1854 ' iii. Marijuana retail sales are not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards Zones.
iv, A marijuana retail sales outlet shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana retail sales outlet. Medical and recreational
marijuana retail sales do not need to be separated by 1,000 feet if located together in one building if the configuration meets all applicable
Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules, No more than two registrations or licenses issued by the State of Oregon (e.g., a
medical dispensary registration and a recreational sales license) may be located in one Widing. See subsection 18,23,19031f for
methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related -businesses.
b. Drive -up Use. The marijuana retail sales outlet Must not include a drive -up use.
Acdms\N'oficing FoldeONfailed Notices& SibuisU019TA-11-2019-00017 docx
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duty sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, lin the Community Development Department,
2. On October 15, 2019 1 caused to be imailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to
each, person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list
under each person's name for Planning Action #PA-TI-2019-00077, 685/689 Washington
Street.
yW
Signature of Employee
G:kUsetslsrNlhdaAFNHEDesktopLAFFIDAVITOF?.thJLING-ds.dmxlO/l5f2Ol9
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 2700 PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 2000 PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 1600
693 WASHINGTON STREET LLC ARO PARTNERS CULLENBECK PROPERTIES LLC
518 CROWSON RD 1015 CHESTNUT AVE A3 574 WASHINGTON ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077391E14AB 1200
EQUITY TRUST COMPANY
CUST FBO LESTER RAY
100 S FOOTHILL RD
MEDFORD, OR 97504
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 1100
MORNINGSTAR HOWARD/SUE
534 WASHINGTON ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 2400
NSPIRED NATURAL FOODS
710 JEFFERSON AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 2600
RICHARDS CREEK LLC
695 WASHINGTON ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077391E14AB 100
WALKER GRACE D ET AL
611 S OAKDALE AVE
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA-T1-2019-00077
LANIER LAND CONSULTING LLC
355 INDUSTRIAL CIRCLE STE C
WHITE CITY, OR 97503
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 1400
ERICKSON PAMELA MAY
642 WILSON RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 1300
NICKELS JAC/RICHARDSON DAVID
PO BOX 1348
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 200
OPTIONS HOMELESS
RESIDENTS ASHLAND
PO BOX 1133
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 2300
ROGUE VALLEY TWO LLC
400 COPPER DR
GRANTS PASS, OR 97527
PA-T1-2019-00077
AURUM REFINERY LLC
355 INDUSTRIAL CIRCLE STE C
WHITE CITY, OR 97503
10/15/19
685 689 Washington NOC
19
PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E14AB 2400
MARANATHA ACQUISITION CORP
710 JEFFERSON AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-T1-2019-00077 391 E 14AB 2400
NSPIRED NATURAL FOODS
HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP
1111 MARCUS AVE
NEW HYDE PARK, NY 11042
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 2500
RICE JOE WILL R
PO BOX 374
LOLETA, CA 95551
PA-T1-2019-00077 391E14AB 2800
SOUTH ASHLAND BUSINESS PARK
100 E MAIN STE A
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA-T1-2019-00077
RAPTOR DISTRIBTUION
355 INDUSTRIAL CIRCLE STE C
WHITE CITY, OR 97503
Mi
RM
"A411
Rm
Em
Mm
a
11ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
CITY Of 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE # T) :�;260
ASry
HLAND
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT marijuana Processing and Wholesale
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address 685 and 689 Washington Street
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E 1 4AB
Zoning
a
Pursuing LEED@) Certification? 171 YES 19 NO
Tax Lot(s) 2500
Comp Plan Designation
Commercial
APPLICANT
Name Aurum Refinery, LLC./Raptor Distribution, LLC. Phone contact agent E-Mail contact agent
Address 355 Industrial Circle, Suite C
PROPERTTORIV-1ER
kl-2iae Joe and Jill RiA
Address PO Box 374
City White, City, OR Zip 97503
Phone contact agent E-Mail contact agent
City Loleta, CA
I=
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title Agent Name Megan LaMer, Langer Land Consulting, LLC. Phone 541-879-3477 E-Mail megan@lanlerlandconsulting.com
Address 355 Industrial Circle, Suite C
Tilde Name Phone
Address
City White City, OR
City
E-Mail
Zip 97503
Zip -
thereby certify that the statements and information containedin this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. Itif7derstaiidihatallpropertypinsmtjstbesliowtiot?tl7edfatlingsatidvisibleupotillie,5iteinspectiot7. 117the event the pins are riot shown ortheir
location found to be incorrect, the owner assurnes hill responsibility. / further understand that ff this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
7) that 1produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact fumishedjustifies the granting of the request
3)' 117al the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not one the request being set aside, but also possibly In my structures being built in reliance thereon bo#W required to
beremoved atinyexpense. If I have any doubts, lam advised to seek competent pro/essionaladvice and assistance,
Megan LaNier 10/4/2019
Applicant's Signature Date
As owner of the properly involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to ine as a, property
owner. See Letter of AuthorizatidRECEIVED
Property Owner's Signature (required) Date a
[To be compWed by Cq 814 JY IwW
Date Received Zoning Permit Type J�_ Filing Fee 1, �j cif Ash
- -1 6.Q C, -
n9y4flu,
G 'zornni-de0pl,"ningTo,ms & Handouls7uning Poi� Applicalimdoc
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND,
JACKSON COUNTY, ORE' GON:
IN THE MATTER OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW
TO PROCESS AND WHOLESALE MARIJUANA)
ON LAND ZONED EMPLOYMENT (EI) AND
DESCRIBED AS T.39 R.1E SEC.14AB, TAX LOT
25,00, WEST COAST EXTRACTIONS, LLC,
APPLICANT; LANIER LAND CONSULTING,
LLC., AGENT
FINDINGS OF
COMPLIANCE
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
OWNER: Joe and Jill Rice
PO Box 374
Loleta, CA 95551
APPLICANT: Aurum Refinery, LLC.
355 Industrial Circle, Suite C
White City, OR 97503
Raptor Distribution, LLC.
355 Industrial Circle, Stifte C
White City, OR 97503
AGENT: LaNier Land Consulting, LLC
355 Industrial Circle, Suite C
White City, OR 97503
RECEIVED
C�ty of'As[-dand
APPUCATION
This application is for site development plan review to allow marijuana processing and wholesaling
located at 685 and 689 Washington St. The property is a legal parcel described as 39-IE-14AB
Tax Lot 2500, zoned E- 1. The subject parcel consists of 0.72 acres as shown on the Site Plan Map
(EXHIBIT "B"). The subject parcel is generally consistent in size and orientation with the
surrounding properties with industrial uses and is a legally created parcel.
ZONING
The subject property is zoned Employment (E-1) as shown on the attached Zoning Map, (EXHIBIT
�4c'').
FIRE DISTIUCT & PROTECTION
The subject parcel is located within the boundaries of City of Ashland Fire and Rescue boundary.
As Shown on the Fire Boundary Map (EXHIBIT ",D") the nearest fire station is approxin-tately 3/4
miles west of the subject parcel, located at 1.860 Ashland Street.
ACCESS
The subject parcel has access from both Jefferson and Washington Street.
OVERLAYS
The subject parcel is located within the Detailed Site Review Zone.
WATER AND SEWER
The subject parcel currently served by City of Ashland water, sewer and stormwater.
OCT 04 2019
opal i I Y ()If A!,'.."; C-i C r� d
11. SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIAL AND STANDARDS
This application is for site development plan review to allow marijuana processing and wholesaling
located at 685 and 689 Washington St. The property is a legal parcel described as 39-IE-14AB
Tax Lot 2500, zoned E- 1. The subject parcel consists of 0.72 acres. The City of Ashland t,and Use
Ordinance (LUG) allows for inari�juana processing and wholesaling in E- I zoned land based on the
applicable criteria and state law addressed in the findings below.
Below is a list of all applicable exhibits demonstrating compliance:
Exhibit A
— Deeds & Property Records
Exhibit B
— Proposed Site Plan Map
Exhibit C
— Zoning Map
Exhibit D
— Fire Boundary Map
Exhibit E
— O1..CC Wholesaler I..ist
Exhibit F
— Aerial Photo Map
Exhibit G
— OLCC LUCS
Exhibit H
— OI.CC Processor Detailed Product Description
Exhibit I —
Approved Marijuana Operations Map
The maps and documents listed above will be provided with the complete application. With this
review, the City of Ashland Community Development Department can find that this request is
consistent with applicable requirements established by the City of Ashland and the State of
Oregon.
111. DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE:
TITLE 18: LAND USE ORDINANCE
18.2 ZONING REGULATIONS
18.2.3.190 Marijuana -Related Uses
B. MaHjuana-Related Businesses
1. 11arUitana-related businesses array require Site Design Revieiv under chapter 18.5.2 oi- a
Conditional Use Permit under, chaper 18.5.4. See Table 18.2.2.030 — Uses Allolved by
ZSarre far
Zones 11VIlere inaNjuana-related husinessesare alloived See definition ofmarijitana-i'elated
businesses in part J& 6 Alfcv-�ivana-related businesses shall ineet all of the fallowing
requirements..
a. The business must be located in a perin anent building and may not locate in a
trailer, cargro conlainer, oi, wolor vehicle. Outdoor mary . uana production,
0 CT () 4: ?. 0 19
Uhl of; I'll IC11 ["I r
, 6
cultNation, and storage of merchandise, raii, materials, or other material
associated ivith the business are prohibited
FINDING: The proposed marijuana processing and wholesaling business will be located within
a permanent building located at 685 and 689 Washington Street (EXHIBIT "B,"). All addresses
are within a single, existing building with no proposed exterior expansions or modifications. No
marijuana production, cultivation, or storage of merchandise, raw materials or other materials
associated with the business will take place outdoors. The provisions of this section have been
met.
b. Any inodificafions to the suject site or exterior of a building housing the business
must be consistent i3Oth the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Design
Revieii, approval �freqtdred by section 18.5.2.(1W &curity bars or grates on
ii,indows and doors areprohibiled
FINDING: The proposed marijuana processing and wholesaling business will be located within
a permanent building located at 685 and 689 Washington Street as demonstrated on the attached
Site Plan Mal) (EXHIBIT "B") and the OLCC LUGS (EXHIBIT "G") for each of the proposed
operations. All addresses are within a single, existing building with no proposed exterior
expansions, building modifications or changes to the subject site. No security bars or grates oil
windows or doors are proposed. The site was previously used for manufacturing and construction
of geodesic domes and manufacturing and wholesaling of helicopter parts which were likely more
intensive than the proposed marijuana wholesaling and processing operations. The provisions of
this section have been niet.
C. The business must proWde for secure disposal of inarijuana remnants or by-
products; such reinnants or bye products shall not be placed ivithin the business'
exterior ref use containers,
FINDING: The proposed marijuana processing and wholesaling operation will provide for the
secure disposal of marijuana remnants and by-products in a secured and locked duiripster within
the building's interior and taken outdoors for pickup by Recology Ashland. Recology will be
provided access to the dumpster as necessary. The provisions of this section have been met.
d. Light and Glare. Shield lightings),steins and use windoiv coverings to confine light
and glareftomlight systems associated ivith indoor cultivation so cis to coifflne
light and glare to the interior of the structure. Group light sjWelns 1,01hin a
greenhouse are prohibited
FINDING: The existing building has windows with window coverings and windows with
reflective material that will confine any interior lighting or glare that may be produced by the
processing systems or associated indoor cultivation. The provisions of this section have been
met.
NORAINVAN MY/fill 01SHNNOM, OWMANW9 OJEW OWVNIVW f l 1f , N1 -111, 1 1 - I - --
0 19
C i ty of As 1-G k n id
e. Building Code, Any structure, accessory structure, electricalservice, lVionbing, or
niechanical equilmient (e.g., lighting, fans, heating and cooling sj;stenis) associated
with a businessshall sati�fy the Building Code requireinents and obtain all required
building per in its prior to installation.
FINDING: The proposed cannabis processing operation will use a solvent -free extraction
process, Aururn Refinery, LLC, has submitted a processing application to OLCC that includes the
use of a Sasquatch rosin press where raw cannabis flowers are placed in a micron mesh bag and
then between a piece of parchment paper to pressed at 550-1600 PSI. Once pressed, the rosin is
scraped off the parchment paper and placed in jar for packaging.
Raptor Distribution, LLC. has submitted a wholesaler to OLCC to wholesale marijuana, The
proposed warehousing operation will not require the use of any machinery or any Significant
changes to the building. Standard shelving, cabinetry and office furniture will be the only
additions to the wholesale space.
Both businesses have submitted Land Use Compatibility Statements to the City of Ashland
(EXHIBIT 11G11) identifying the proposed use/permit type sought. Considering the nature of the
businesses and that not all manufacturers or wholesalers can use the same manufacturing systems
or space configurations, some minor interior remodels may be required to begin the respective
operations. The applicant understands that any portion of the structure subject to remodel or used
for cannabis processing must satisfy the Building Code requirements and that all required permits
must be obtained prior to construction on site and that the applicant may be required to apply for
a change of occupancy. Based on Oregon Building Code guidelines for commercial marijuana
extraction, the solvent -free processing operation should be classified as an F Occupancy, while the
wholesale operation should be classified as a S Occupancy. Neither of the operations propose the
use of solvents or other hazardous chemicals that are flammable or support combustion. The
provisions of this section have been met.
9. The prolwrtj� oivner shall record a declaration u,hich ivaives an)� clahn or right to
hold the City livable for dainages they or a tenant inay safer
state ol-fiederal
eiffiorceinent aclionsfior actNities the Citypennits (is a result of its a1)1,n-oi,al of the
proposed use or deielol-nnent once such al)l)roval is, granted F'urtherinore, the
oivner and tenant agrees not to unreasonably disobeys the Cio)s order to halt ol-
suspend business if state or federal authorities order or otheriNse subject
iecl the City
to enforcenient to cony,?1j) ivith laivs in cont)-adiction to the continued 01�erations of
the business cis permitted under section 18.2.3. 190.
FINDING: The property owner understands the requireinent to record a declaration which waives
any claims or right to hold the City liable for damages they or a tenant may suffer from state or
federal enforcement actions. The property owner agrees to record the required declaration prior
to the issuance of building permits. The provisions of this, section have been met.
a MIM, MI "MI I I I EMM5 UNK (MAMMOVAMENMI� , I I
0 CT 0 4 2 019
C'�'Ity of ncl
h. A jnari'jtrana-r°elafed business must obtain an gpl3ros�ed license or• regish-ationcoin
the State of Oi-egon and nreel all al3plicable Oregon ReOsed Statutes and Oregon,
A(lininistrative Rules.
FINDING: The proposed marijuana processing and wholesaling operations are subject to the
licensing requirements of OLCC and the applicable ORS and OARS. The applicant is seeking
approval of the proposed uses concurrently with the application to OLCC for the marijuana related
operations. The applicant understands that the proposed processing and wholesaling operations
must obtain approval from OLCC prior to operation, and requests permission to submit the
approved OLCC license prior to certificate of occupancy or issuance of a city business license,
The provisions of this section have been niet subject to conditions of approval.
2. Aarijuana Laboratories, Processing, P'r•oclr,rrtion, and 117aolesale. In addition to the
standarcls described in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1, above, marijuana laboratories,
processing, lrroduction, and ii,holesale shall meet the folloiving requiremenis as
aplalicable. See definition of rnar�uana processing andlrroduction in part 18.6.
a. Marijuana laboratories, lrrocessing, production, and wholesale shall be located
200 feet or- rnor•e ftorn residential zones.
FINDING: The proposed marijuana. related business is in an area of industrial development away
from any residential zoning districts. As shown on the Approved Marijuana Operations Map
(EXHIBIT "I"), the closest residentially zoned property is more than 1,400 feet from the proposed
operation. The provisions of this section have been inct.
b. Allari uana Production.
i. �Irrr�ijr�crna,orodrrction shall be limited to 5,OOOsquare.feet vfgross leasable
.floor area per lot.
FINDING: The proposed marijuana processing and wholesaling operation is located within two
(2) separate spaces in a 12,720 square foot building (EXHIBIT "B"). As proposed, the wholesale
area will be located at 685 Washington Street and arse a portion of the building that is
approximately 2,320 square feet. The processing area also within the same building but is located
at 689 Washington Street and occupies an area that is approximately 2,000 square feet with a 400
square foot mezzanine. No additional processing or wholesale space is begin proposed at this time.
None of the building area is proposed for the production of marijuana. The provisions of this
section have been inct.
ii. A rncrrUrtarra lrr,odrrction facility shall be located more than 1, 000 feetfirorn
another nrar�uanaProdzrotion facility. &e subsection 1 ,2.3.190.B.1.ffor,
rnetlaodology for measuring the required distance betwureen mar°rjr.rana
related -businesses,
r II NaCSS(tll�l✓HN(EiliNI4PIiVi(!N1;YINVAINNiNXlfdfifND;411ll16Y"Af�1.01ftti1fllYtlQ(fiSWNN'fifYIINU1If(fNIA11�iINIiUId!NM14N/A�fGh4<XNNNrvMiIg6NIfNA16YA8hNINtllPo744flNNN1iWIbIiIWf'i"kAIC?NfUd,7wd44fNhPNRY,TRAttiYIkf,Mitts+M'J,NT!MINNIIIVIdN)1li4gIIUgV;NIWINIgI➢INMA'",A6N1Y'nN'H?bPAAIIDYMlASYh1iN01"1N)VN1JbHiPNfi)Y7614'NIYd)IV7,VNWDYA9iNWIVM1riN1)W1VINdtO%�r/A1YM)7/�4UUiNDYAYNd,7)i1W✓W1111B1N39tlNNYru7liVNn1V11141flV1C/r;OlNldhlY///dXfi�"It DIfHJL/Wflf1D/NNI✓/rUll!Mf,��PfiftYN4lIII,f6P7'rv1L/hhYlq/rlliNNiglddYiNrH�7NAVPNI dN(llHMfA . UYiYI n IdfNYiNU...
OCT 04 7019
(Y [ty of A,,,',r h � a n d
FINDING: The applicant is not proposing marijuana production as part of this application. The
provisions of this section are not applicable.
C. Allariivana Wholesale. A inarijuana ivholesalefiacilily shall be located more than
1,000 feet ftom another marFjuana wholesale fticililj� See subsection
.18.2J.19O.B.Iffior wethodologyfir weasuring the required distance betiieen
marijitana related businesses.
FINDING: As shown on the Approved Marijuana Operations Mal) (EXHIBIT "I") created using
a list of licensed wholesalers from 01,CC's website (EXHIBIT "Ell), the applicant has determined
that there are no rnarijuana wholesale operations located within 1,000 feet of this wholesale
facility. OLCC has confirmed that the previous application for processing within this building has
expired and is no longer valid. The provisions of this section have been met.
18.4 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation, and Design
18.4.2.040 Non -Residential Development
B. Basic Site ReWeiv Standards. Exce]w as otheritise required by an oierlay zone or
plan district, the J611mving requirements al)lWy to commercial, industrial, non-
residential and mixed -use deielolnnenf pursuant to section 18.5.2.020. See
concel-wial site plan of basic site reWeii, dei,clopment in Figure 18.4.2,040,11.
FINDING: The proposed Site Development Plan Review is for a change of use within 685 and
689 Washington Street from an existing commercial/manufacturing use to processing and
wholesaling of marijuana. No exterior changes to the building are proposed as part of this request,
therefore there are no proposed changes to building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions,
density and floor area, lot coverage, building height orientation, Special Use standards for
processing and wholesaling of marijuana in Section 18.2.3 apply to this request and are addressed
in the findings above. The provisions of this section have been met.
18.4.3 Pat -king, Access, and Circulation
Table 18.4.3.040 — Automobile Parking Spaces by Use
Industrial Categories
Industrial, Manufacturing and
Production, Rarehousing and
Ereight
.yl)ace per 1, 000 sq.,fi. qfgross.Hoerr area, or I space,for each 2
I II
Co T 0 4 2 019
ein],,lo),ees ii,hichever is less, plus I sl)ace per conilmny vehicle.
FINDING: The existing building is currently occupied, but previous uses have included
warehouse, manufacturing and production type operations which fall into this category. The
building is approximately 13,000 square feet in size and based oil the information in the table
above, the building, if used entirely for manufacturing would require 13 parking spaces. The
proposed use occupies approximately 4,720 square feet and would require five (5) parking spaces.
As seen on the Aerial Photo Map (EXHIBIT "F") and on the Proposed Site Plan Map (EXHIBIT
"B"), there are 24 parking spaces, exceeding the amount required for the proposed use. The
provisions of this section have been meet.
18.4.3.050 Accessible Parking Spaces
Accessible parking shall be provided consistent With the requirements of `the building code,
including but not limited to the inininnan intinber of sl.)acesfibr autoinobiles, van -accessible
slwces, location qfsj)aces relative to building entrances, accessible routes beht�eenparking
areas and building entrances, identification signs, lighting, and other design and
construction requireinents. Accessible parking shall be included and identified on the
planningapl-Vication subinittals.
FINDING: The building is approximately 13,000 square feet in size and based our the information
in the table above, the building, if used entirely for manufacturing would require 13 parking spaces.
The proposed use occupies approximately 4,720 square feet and would require five (5) parking
spaces. With the existing available parking, there is sufficient area to accommodate the required
assessible parking. The provisions of this section have been met.
18.4.3.070 Bicycle Parking
A. AI)plicability crud AIIiiiij)iiii;7,Reqiiireiiie)71. All uses, ivith the excepion ofresidential
units ivith a garage and uses in the C-1-1) zone, are required red to provide a RII . III . P7111)'I
of tivo sheltered bike parkingspacespursuant to this section. The required bicycle
parking shall be constructed it,hen can existing residential building or diielling is
altered or enlarged by the addition or creation Qf dwelling units, or ivhen a non-
residential use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating cql)acity, or
change in use.
FINDING: The building is approximately 13,000 square feet in size and based on the information
in the table above, the building, if used entirely for manufacturing would require 13 parking spaces..
The proposed use occupies approximately 4,720 square feet and would require five (5) parking
spaces, With the existing available parking, there is sufficient area to accommodate time required
bicycle pat -king. The provisions of this section have been met.
18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design
A. Parking Location.
1. Exceptfioisingle and livo-
finnil)) dii,ellings, requh-ed autoinobile pai*ing
facilities may be located on another parcel of land, pmvided saidparcelis
ivithin 200fieel of the use it is intended to ser-ve. The distance ' fi-oln the
measured lot to the use shall bmeasured ita ivalking distancefi-oin the
nearest parking space to an access to the building housing the use, along
a sidewalk or- o,lhey� pedestrian path separatedfi-oin street ti,qffic, S ch
. it
right to use the qff-site parking insist be evidenced ley a deed, lease,
easement; oi- shnilai- iviJlten insti,un7ent establishing such use,,f6l. the
duration of the use.
B, Parking area Design. Requiredpar-kingar-eas shall be designed in accordance
ivith the,161lowing standards and dimensions as illustrated in 18.4. 3.080. R S'ee
also, accessible par -king space requimaients in section 18.4.3.050 sand parking lot
and screening standar-ds in subsection 18.4.4.030.E
Pai-kingspaces shall be a inininmin of'9,feet by 18,pet.
2 Up to 50 percent qf the total automobile pat -king spaces in a parking lot
may be designatedfibi- compact cars. Allininnon diniensionsfiol, collipact
spaces shall be 8,feet 15j) 16.feel. &tchspaces shall be signed o)� the space
painted ii,ilh the ivords ""Compact Cat- Only. "
3. Parking spaces shall hare a back-up inanem,e)-ingspace not less than 22
'feet, except ivhem parking is angled, and Which does not necessitate
moving of other- i,ehicles.
C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. The intent of this subsection is to manage
access to land uses and on -site circulation and maintain fl-an.5po)*tationsj)s1e1n
safety and operations. T`oi- transportation hnpi-oi"e)nenf i*equilelnents, 1-qfei- to
chapter 18.4.6 Public Facilities.
2. Site Circulation. Neiv developnieni shall he required to provide a
chvidalion sjwein that accoinniodales expected traff
ic on the site. All on -
site circulation sj�steins shall incorporate street-likefeatul-es as described
in 1fit. 43,080, B, 4, Pedestrian connections on the site, including
connections thr-ough large sites, and connections betiveen sites and
a4jacent sideivalks must conform to the pi-ovisions ofsection 18,4.3.090.
FINDING: Parking for the building has already been established and meets the minimum
standards outlined above. The provisions of this section have been inet.
18.5 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES AND APPROVAL CRITERIA
18.5.2 Site Design Review
18.5.020 Applicability
Site Design ReWeit, is required for the fiollouing tyl)es of1)rojecIproposals.
A. Connnercial, Industrial, Non -Residential, and Allixed Uses. Site Design ReWeit,
aj)pIies to the.folloiOng t))]-)es of non-residential uses and project proj)osals,
includingproj-)osalsfioir connnercial, industrial, and mixed use projects, pursuant
to section 18.5.2.030 ReWeii, Procedures.
7 Any change of occulmney.fi-oin a less intense to a inore inlensh)e
occupancy; cis de it
,fined in the building code, oi- an change in use that
requires a greater niunber ofpcirkings1mces.
FINDING: The existing building is currently occupied, but previous uses have included
warehouse, manufacturing and production type operations which fall into this category. The
building is approximately 13,000 square feet in size and based on the information in the table
above, the building, if used entirely for manufacturing would require 13 parking spaces. The
proposed use occupies approximately 4,720 square feet and would require five (5) parking spaces.
As seen on the Aerial Photo Map (EXHIBIT"IF") and on the Proposed Site Plan Map (EXHIBIT
1113"'), there are 24 parking spaces, exceeding the amount required for the proposed use. The
provisions of this section have been inet.
18.5.2,040 Application Submission Requii-ements
B. Site Design ReWeii, h1forination. In addition to the general information required
for Site Design ReWeiv, the applicant shall provide the following iiffiorinalion.
8. NarratNe. Letter or narrative report documenting con7j)Iiance liith the
applicable aj)j,)roi,al criteria contained in section 18. 5,2 0'50. Specirlcally,
the narrath)e shall contain thefiollwidng.
a. For connnercial and industrial dei,elolmients:
The square footage contained in the area proposed to be
developed.
ii, The percentage of the lot coi,ered by structures.
iii. The percentage Qf the lot covered by other iny)er ipious
sto,faces.
iv. The total number qfparking spaces.
1). The total square footage of all landscaped areas.
MWOIHOAM9 A wam"I 'If I j INNO WON . al==ff�
(,)gym 0 4 2 019
FINDING: These findings of compliance serve as the necessary document to aid in determining
compliance with the approval criteria contained in Section 18.5.2.050�. The provisions of this
section have been islet.
18.5.2.050 Approval C °iteria
An a]-y- cation,for 91e Design Revieu,.shall he al)I)roved if the proj)osal ineels• the criteria
in subsections A, B, C, and D, heloiu,. The al-q)rou,al authority rimy, is al)l�roving the
(l)lalication, irrrlaose conditions of al-)I)roval, consistent i pith the aly,?licable criteria.
A. Undei,lying Zone. The jn-o,)osal corrrplies :with all of the aly.Wicable proWsions of
the underl)4ng zone 6aart 18.2), including but not Ihnited to: building and yard
selhacks, lot area and dirr°Tensions, densif)� andfloor area, lot coverage, building
height, building orientation, architecture, and other al)lVicahle standards.
FINDING: The proposed Site Development flan Review is for a change of use within 685 and
689 Washington Street from an existing; commercial/office use to processing and wholesaling of
marijuana. No exterior changes to the building are proposed as Dart of this request, therefore there
are no proposed changes to building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor
area, lot coverage, building height orientation. Special Use standards for processing and
wholesaling of marijuana in Section 18.2.3 apply to this request and have been addressed in the
landings above. The provisions of this section have been islet.
B. Oi,erlay Zones, The pioj�osal cornrplies ivilh applicable overlay zone requirerrrents
(1,wrt 18.3)..
FINDING: The subject property is located within the Detailed Site Review Overlay, The
requirements of Section 18.3.12.030 have been addressed in the findings above. The provisions
of this section have been duet.
D. City 17acilities. Thepr°oaosal corrrplies ivith the alaplicahle standards in section
18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of`City facilities for° iiwler,
sewer-, electricity, urban stown dr°ainog'e, paved access to and throughout the
property, and adequate, lranslaortation can and ivill he provided to the subject
prol7er°ty.
FINDING: The proposed use is located within an established building that has all necessary
public facilities including water sewer, electricity, storm as well as a paved access and required
parking. No expansion to the building is proposed as part of this change of use. The provisions
of this section have been net.
IV. SUMMARY:
In this application for site design review, the applicants have addressed all the applicable criteria
contained in the Ashland I.,UO, supporting approval of the proposed site design review.
cur i dP�frvNM�;lti r.. ; r v r s ,vw vavriurxm�uiu,rre�.mnrrnmir»rw;swri!mirwrrawniru�,ssnurwnMrymvuwairnrfrwrovrriwinreiwirrwrar r rvrwnvH�,rr�wN�axa�vrcw��ww�vw�irwamiswvmriraroa�iu+wrsvrnaw�u^mrmw;.umrr6�yraivwio,7wi�nvwhesrniuwawivwtiwmuwiwwr�amirewnvrruvemi�mimmaairaawmtivr�saa;tiurwumw�iaumr�rAmwromwaremmieowiuiar<emvtxr�rwrmrsarasvrtavmrwunmuaivac✓rrtonrvrar+swkrm�uwitisuhstiwiaNr�i rxMunwaNwrirw«rmuwa««rim,ruvuuurrrmurw�;nouriniu�rrrmNnn�u«nircnimwnmrnreumnnoimrvmwarcmrrrunrwr«u«Nnwcru YI 1 Nwf7iNN Nlw / d
() (],'T 04 0 1
This application, when approved will allow the processing and wholesaling of mariJuana. Impacts
will be minimal due to the use of the solvent -free processing operation.
Based on this information and exhibits attached, the applicants respectfully request approval of this
application.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Megan LaNier
Lcffier Lcmd Consulling, LLCM
CT 0 4 2 019
(,A Arhd,,('-j),"nd
r-39 lE 14A-1110 1 1-77752-4
ACCOUNT NOi.
OFFICIAL RECORD OF DESCRIPTIONS OF REAL PROPERTIES
DEPARTMENT OF ASSESS.JENT, J1%q?V_�?UNTY, OREGON
MAP & PARCEL PARENT 1 06
SECTION TOWNSHIP -
LOT BLOCK
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Ashland Commercial Building Co,
REMAP 'TO, TYPE 'IN" NON -CONFORMING PARCEL
REMOVE TYPE "IN"
ALMQUIST, GARY & CLAIRE
I
14-11 M11111YU 1.1
S-1
ACRES
REMAINING
0.1. 99-10436
JV 99-06412
N.W.1/4, N.E.1/4, SEC.14,139S., RAE.. W.M.
JACKSON COUNTY
» MAP39 11 1 ID
C-3
39 IE 14AB
ASHLAND
CANCELLTDTA' LOTTAIMBEU
isou
39 IE 14AB
ASS AND
NEw mAp OCTOPLR 1�,
,kry AUGU� �-, 2016
After recording return to:
First American Title
370 Lithla Way
Ashland OR 97520
Until a change Is requested all tax
statements shall be sent to the
following address:
Joe C, Rice and Jill R. Rice
PO Box 374
Loleta, CA 95551
File No.,. 7162-3242423 (IS)
Date: July 12, 2019
Jackson County Official Records 2019-020823
R-WD
Stn=10 SHINGUS 07/1912019 01:46:44 PIVI
$15.00 $10.00 $8,00 $11,00 $60,00 $104.00
` Christine Walker, County Clerk for Jackson County, Oregon, certify
that the Instrument Identified herein was recorded In the Clerk
records, Christine Walker- County Clerk
STATUTORY WARRANTY DIEM
Clailre H. Almquist, Trustee of the 2002 Gary and Claire Almquist Family Trust dated Mary. 18,
2002, who acquired title as Claire H. Almquist, Trustee, Almquist Trust, March 18, 2002,
Grantor, conveys and warrants to Joe C. Rice and ]sill R. Rice as tenants by the entirety, Grantee,
the following described real property free of liens and encumbrances, except as specifically set forth
herein.,
See Legal Description attached hereto as exhibit A and by this reference Incorporated herein.
Subject to:
1. The 2019 , 2020 Taxes, a lien not yet payable.
2. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements, If any, affecting title, wh1th may appear In the
public record, including those shown on any recorded plat or survey,
The true consideration for this conveyance Is $1,225,000.00. (Here comply with requirements of ORS 93.030)
Page I of 3
J),
C"T
4
2 01
APN: 1-077732.4 Statutory Warranty deed File No.: 7162-3242.423 (JS)
-continued
BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD
INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF .ANY, UNDER ORS 195,300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO
195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17,
CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. THIS
INSTRUMENT DOE'S NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN
VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING
THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE
APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFYTHAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING
TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010,
TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS
AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT' THE
RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 1.95.300, 195.301 AND 195.305
TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17,
CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010.
Dated this day of � .2041-11
SELLERS:
2002 Gary and Claire Alrnqu4'st Family Trust
dated March 18, 2002
Claire H. Almquist, Trustee
STATE OF Oregon
'Iss.
County of Jackson j
This Instrument Was acknowledged before me on this day of 20
by Claire H. Almqulst as Trustee of 2002 Gary and Claire Almquist Famlly,T.rust d t d March 18, 20 2, on
behalf of the trust.
EAIdIVOFFICIAL '''IAMp
NOTARY' PUBMME RUDISILL Nota ublic for Oregon,
COMMISSION Nd 9� 3� My commission expires:
4()' Ca1l�169IOM �g
Page 2 of 3
0 CT 014 2 01
APN: 1-077732-4 Statutory Warranty Deed File No,: 7162-3242423 (IS)
-condnued
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Real property In the County of Jackson, State of Oregon, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot One (1) in Block Two (2), Ashland Business Park
in Jackson County, Oregon, according to the Official Plat thereof, now of record; thence
North 00002'33" East, along the Easterly right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue, 124.79 feet
to a lead plug set in concrete for the point of beginning; thence continue North 0000,233"
East along said Easterly right-of-way line 119.78 feet, thence along the arc of a 20.00 foot
radius curve to the right (the long chord to which bears North 45005'58" East 28.31.feet) an
arc distance of 31.46 feet to a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of Washington Street;
thence South 89050'37" East, along said Southerly right-of-way line 203.66 feet to the
Northwest corner of the tract described in Jackson County Instrument No. 77-09634; thence
South 00009'23" West, along the Westerly line of said tract, 139.82 feet to a lead plug set in
concrete; thence North 89050'37" West 223.42 feet to the point of beginning.
NOTE: This legal description was created prior to January 1, 2008.
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT it B oil
(') (," 1' 0 4 2 0 19
i
89' 50' 37' E 203.695' Property lane
t
j Driveway
t S'—C} Utility Easement Landscaped Area
d
9uldirrg1. `Ara 12.Y2tI'sq Ft%`, tf ` /F`, fPARKING
xw/l
'/,, ,% Ef
' ;
X> I 1 Q
Lli
LU
Xz
u
C-4
PF OP SE L
0 3 °� � Property Area 31,169.57 Sq.
LLJ
Prdpased Property Partition Line 5 8V 80' 37' E 223. 2' :a
Site Plan
13-1 -14,AB TL 2500
N
•
Parking
= Wholesale Suite
Building
;Tax Lot
Taxiots
0 100
Feet
1 inch equals 100 feet
This map is based on a cl g€tal database
compiled by Jackson County GIs from
a variety of sources, and may include
LaNier Land Consulling, LLC. field
data conected using GPS. M cannot
accept responsibility for errors, cmis-
srorls:, or positional ac=acy. Them
nJ Cscssnl�>n;: l.Li. are no warranties, expressed or impl :d.
9fl02019
Camera a�
Camera #2
stairs to upstairs meeting room Camera #3
no cannabis viiMbe present
Camera #5
(Do 0 C.
r
I Camera #4 r M
Camera W6
Camera #7
Camera #9
Camera #8
Floorplan
Raptor Distribution LLC
13-IE-14ABTL2500
N
Legend
4) outdoor Camara
0164001 Camara
@Mown Detector
0 Door Cent ot
MMOY"hoadL
=Door
MlSuNalanco EcitApment
MftoMsale Licensed NoOsosi
MRSWOOM
E3 Pa Wm
013ulcliq
Max Lot
0 10
L -4
Feet
1 inch equals 10 reel
This map is WSO On 0 dgIA1 d1tabale
COMP,144 1,Y Jackson County GIs Ism
a w"ty or swces, MJ may mOoe
LaN,,,t L.-sd ConsubN, LLC told
data W",cctd Otto CPS We "-or
awql respamuly IV we., am,,,
tons, v p"I'Opw accuracy. Them
kLr. WJC—j,j14- , le. We - I.IWA145, txFrC55tdOr1MOtd
."o"
DVR in locked cage
Comers Nl. Camara fl2
10,
above office mezzanine for storage
south slide open to warehouse floor
40'
Grnera as
Entry Area Office
Cama
ra 114 0 0 0
J, Come. #6
A
T
Stairs to Mezzanine
Corners 47
Camera #10
Bathroom Eas"Camara a8
RM
Floorplan
Aurum Refinery, LLC
13.1 E-1 4AB TL 2500
N
Legend
@Cl Camera
indoor Camera
em'xonceteaw
0 Door Col
MOvernal
—Dm
iMDVR
EZ)UcensedkenVl
c3sathmm
raps"
moul
CITtil
o 10
I Feet
I Inch equals 10 feet
OCT 04 2019
Ti MZPiS I OM as got Ill
wrrfe" Vi Jaz'zl;n CcWt GIs kom
a Va"elf . I and
7" 'Iv'o i L.1d C"a""jr ii i
ltaTa �Vfotd used G" We W.D1
oc4ept seti (V vINS, —'s.
or pas,xxtrztl accraq jhl
oll
EX IBIT licly
4t 2 0 1,1")
WASHING TON ST
700 685 687 689
702
704
706
69:3
2
710
695
City of AsNand Address basemap
Zoning Map ty of Ashland
4 I'l.LM
OW
I inch = 60 feet
0 60 120
""' FeetDate Printed: 10/4/2019
VA ff d"u#1
mm""
ExHIBI
0
WMM���Ulllm*
Subject Parcel
Taxlots
Ashland
100 200
Feet
I inch = 100 feet
This map is based on a digital database
compiled by Jackson County GIS from
a variety of sources, and may include
field data collected using GPS. We cannot
accept responsibility for errors, cmis-
sions, or positional accuracy. There
are no warranties, expressed or implied.
License No Lic Type Expiration Gate Status Full Name
AG-R1060889IHH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active 1010 FARMS LLC
AG-R1058161IHH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active AMBROSIA WHOLESALE GROUP LLC
AG-R10598591HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active APPLEGATE DISTRIBUTION
AG-R10636241HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active BIG GREEN ACRES LLC
AG-R10560081HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active CASCADIA BLOOMS NURSERY LLC
AG-R10627521HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active CHICKADEE REMEDY
AG-R10588521HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active CREEKSIDE HEMP INC
AG-R10610631HH
lHH
12/31/2019 Active DEC VENTURES
AG-R10493311HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active EEK INC
AG-R10565821HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active FANCY PANTS PRODUCTS LLC
AG-R1063658IHH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active FORIS FARMS LLC
AG-R1055441IHH
IHH
2/31/209 Active FROSTYS EXTRACTS LLC
AG-R1059089IHH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active GAAS INC
AG-R1048941IHH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active GALAXY FARMS LLC
AG-R10571911HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active GENESIS INC
AG-R10577041HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active GENESIS INC
AG-R1048828IHH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active GENESIS INC
AG-R10627541HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active GOLDEN DRAGON BIOLOGICAL INDUSTRY INC
AG-R10590901HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active HEAVEN AND EARTH MEDICINALS
AG-R10580791HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active HEMP WORLDWIDE FARMS
AG-R10632201HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active HILLSIDE LAND MANAGEMENT LLC
AG-R10636231HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active HORN CREEK FARMS
AG-R10500501HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active INNOVATIVE SEPARATIONS LLC
AG-R1063622IHH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active J AND S PACKAGING
AG-R10541831 H H
IHH
12/31/2019 Active JNV FARMS LLC
AG-R10610611HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active JOON FARMS LLC
AG-R10579791HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active KAREN SPRAGUE ESSENTIALS
AG-R10594451HH
lHH
12/31/2019 Active KNOW FUN RANCH INC
AG-R10625971HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active KODIAK LLC
AG-R10485011HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active KOLKHOZ LLC
AG-R10559261HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active L2F LLC
AG-R1057508IHH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active MARSHALL GROUP LLC
AG-R10447961HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active MCBAINGHAM LLC
AG-RlOS35131HH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active MCINTOSH, RANDALL
AG-R1054603IHH
IHH
12/31/2019 Active MEADOWCAMP LLC
Addr Line 1
MATTHEW HOUR
ISABELLA BALL
JORDANSCOTT
NICHOLAS OSSA
ANTHONY UMANN
VANESSA JACKSON
PHILLIP CORCORAN
DAVID CORBRIDGE
MIKE KIRKWOOD
ADAM LIPSKY
STEPHEN WURSTER
GREG BATUYIOS
REZA HAJIANGARZI
SEAN ROBERTS AND THOMAS LETCHWORTH
TREVOR MARION
TREVOR MARION
TREVOR MARION
CHAOHUI WAND
BRAD BOUCHER
LESLEY BRUNER
PATRICK BUTSCH
PAUL MURDOCH
JOSEPH MAZZA
JAMES MARTIN
NICO VANDERWEY
PETER A GRAVES
642 REITEN DR
5930 SWEET LN
JACK GALPIN
YURY KHANDROS AND MICHELLE JACOBS
RODNEY WOLTERMAN
DYLAN OWENS
DEREK MCBAINE
1586 ALTA VISTA RD
WILLIAM STACY PAGE
Person Id
524736
517427
522561
525210
515312
529866
521458
525071
499086
517609
531283
514323
521776
490922
49805
498059
498059
529967
520925
519393
522430
531075
499542
531034
506518
522858
477674
505436
525383
497310
502185
509573
488528
509560
511729
AG-RI0618031HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
METHOD SERVICES INC
QREGVVALKER
-- c�
52PD0
AG'R10487131HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
W1L1LL[
N|CHULASAKNS
4944 91
AG-R10420911HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
MNSOREG0NINC
EVANK4/TSUMOT0
478364
AG-R10568831HH
|HH
I2/31/2019ArtWe
NORTHWEST AGRICULTURE LLC
]AYSONK4ARKS
518731
'—
AG-RI0636351HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
NVFARMS LLC
N|[OVANDERVVEY
51!?,1,52
AG-R10553241HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
O&1EXTRACTS LLC
M|TRASTICKLE N
511319
AG-R10572711HH
|HH
12/31/I019
Active
ONE LOVE INDUSTRIES LLC
SHANEJATHQ
518264
4G-R1048381|HN
|HH
12/31/2019Active
0REGU0C8DPRODUCTS INC
ANDREVVR5CHER
496918
AG-R10618501HH
|HH
12/31/2019Aotive
OREGONDRYING TECHNOLOGIES LL[
8KADLEYDREEVES
527282
AG-R1OS77021HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
PAGU8OCONSULTING LL[
LUCAPAQELLA
520161
A5'R10552781HH
|HH
12/31/2019Aotive
PALEXENTERPRISES LL[
PEDRUMORALES
513528
AG-R10580811HH
|HH
I2/31/2019Ao1ive
PERFECT PARADOX LL[
CHARITY FOX
520703
AG-R10829441HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
PROFESSIONAL TESTING LABS INC
CHR|SATK|N3O0
530214
AG-R1057211]HH
|HH
12/31/20I9Active
REBEL ROOTS CONSULTING
N|LESCHR|STODQUL|D(S
519494
AG-R1059798|HH
|HH
12/31/2019Acdve
RED BEARD EXTRACTIONS LLC
TRAV|SEN6LEHART
522727
AG'R10579801HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
ROGUE 8|OSC|EN[ESLLC
PA|SLEYBREE[E
520709
AG-R10564961HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
ROGUE NATURALS LL[
CHR|ST|ANLE
517531
AG-R10501371HH
|HH
12/31/2018Active
ROGUE RIVER ORGANICS INC
8OBERTGUER|N
501343
AG-R1053319|HH
|HH
12/31/2019Autive
ROGUE SCIENCE LL[
BR|AN[ARSDN
508772
AG-R1062598|HH
(HH
12/31/2019AcLive
ROGUE VALLEY HANGARS LLC
JACKGALP|N
525384
AG-K18540871HH
{HH
12/31/2019Active
ROHLASLL[
JA|ARM3TKONG
51I314
AG-R10612301HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
SAFE AND SIMPLE LLC
YUVAL&nAG|D
532634
AG-R10576901HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
SEVENTH HILL RELEAFLLC
]ORDANDUNN
510219
AG-R10489521HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
SILVER LINING XTRA[TSLLC
KQ|[HAELZAC[AK|/\
500916
A5-R10515681HH
\HH
22/31/2019Active
SOUTHERN OREGONPREMIUM FLOWER
BRADBOU[HER
526724
AG-R10602731HH
}HH
12/31/2019Active
SOVEREIGN FIELDS LLC
ERiCF0STER
522650
AG-R10636351HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
SOVEREIGN FIELDS LL[
ER\CFOSTER
522650
AG-R18636I71HH
|HH
22/31/2019Art|ve
SOVEREIGN FIELDS LLC
ER|CFOSTER
522650
AG-RlU552761HH
|HH
1I/31/2019Active
SUK8AHOLDINGS LLC
THOK4A3MAUTUNE
514045
AG-R10447561HH
|HH
12/31/2019Aot1ve
SUN GOD HERBALS LLC
BRIE MALARKEY
487685
AG-R18546291HH
|HH
12/31/2019Actve
SUNNYLANDFARM LLC
DOUBNEUKQA0
504163
AG-R18636571HH
|HH
12/32/2019Autk/e
SWEET BLOOM lLC
AF|KG|L4D
532260
AG-R1057513|HH
|HH
12/3I/2019Active
TE%AGONLLC
[0LEK4ANHEMPH|LL
518627
A8-R10619361HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
THSERVICES LbC
]OEN|[KLES5
527866
AG-RI062486|HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active
THE LAB 0VV
]AYSONK8ARKS
529251
AG-R106146I1HH
!HH
12/31/2019Active
THETANSEED COMPANY LLC
N|CKM[NAK8ARA
526458
'quill 11
AG-R1057371]HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active TKO HOLDINGS INC
BRUCEBECKElT
506023
AG-R10605221HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active TULLARFIELDS LL[
DEREK8R|GR7
523305
AG'R20554431HH
|HH
1]/3]/20I9Active VICTORY BANNER FARMS LLC
Z728VVMAIN 5T
505528
AG-R10552771HH
|HH
12/31/2019Active WHITE QEO]5JELL[
DAV|DDECQSTE
514046
." Ha
��� Cz ��
()C T 0 4 21)
("""; , y uA- h kr, "I
•j=MEAL%3',*jjj
0 100 200
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
This reap is based on a digital database
compiled by Jackson County G[S from
a variety of sources, and may include
field data collected using GPS. We cannot
accept responsibility for errors, omis-
sions, or positional accuracy. There
are no warranties, expressed or implied.
101412.019
EXHIBIT "ue%"
OREGON LIQUOR CONTROLiCOMMISSION REQUEST
Land Use Compatibility Statement
. ....... . .... .
what is a land use compatibility statement (LUCS)? The LUCS is a form used by a state agency
and local government to determine whether a land use proposal is consistent with local govern-
ment's comprehensive plan and land use regulations.
Why is a LUCS required? OLCC and other state agencies with permitting or approval activities that
affect land use are required by Oregon law to be consistent with local comprehensive plans and to
have a process for determining consistency. Section 34(4)(a) of 2015 Oregon Laws, Chapter 614,
requires OLCC to request and obtain the LUCS and have a poslbve LUCS prior to issuing a license.
CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY
Date delivered by license applicant:
Received by (print):
lnitial:
When is a LUCS required? A LUCS is required for all proposed marijuana facilities before an OLCC license can be obtained.
How to cam lets a LUCS:
® Step 1: Applicant completes Section 1 of this form and submits it to the appropriate city or county planning office, Applicant
verifies with local Jurisdiction whether additional forms, applications, or permits are required,
® Step 2: Local jurisdiction completes Section 2 of this form indicating whether the proposed use is compatible with the acknowl-
edged comprehensive plan and land use regulations and returns signed and dated form to the applicant.
• Applicant completes payment to local jurisdiction for processing application.
• Local jurisdictions are NOT required to begin processing LUCS forms until January 4, 2016 at 8:30 AM.
0 Step 3: Applicant submits this date -stamped form and any supporting information provided by the city or county to the OLCC
with the license application. This form may be submitted while Section 2 is In process with the local governing body.
Applicant Name: iAltrurn Refinery UC Phone- 541-879-3477
Mailing Address: 355 Nitalustristl Circle Rm/Ste: C
City: 1white City State: C7Nt ZIP* E5=03
0 Site plan of the subject property and proposed development attached? (required)
Proposed washingloll Street Rm/Ste:
Premises Address: I I 1 11 1
City: lAshland County: Jackson ZIP: 197520
Tax Lot # 2500 Range/ 1E/14AB Latitude:
I I Section
Township*- 139 1 Map*: 139-1 E- 14AB-25 0=0 Longitude;
Proposed use/permit type, sought (A separate LUCS maybe necessary for each proposed use even if it is on the same property):
Producer ❑ Wholesaler V Processor E] Retailer Laboratory Research Certificate
Note indoor or List endorse -
outdoor below merits below
Details of proposed use (note any attachments);
"' E i
Concentrate, extract, edible, topical, industrial hemp
JUN 0117 2019
Site Location:
Inside city limits
Name of Jurisdiction:
Property Zoning of
Proposed Premises:
n Inside UGB C] Outside UGB
r] The proposed land use has been reviewed and is prohibited.
The proposed land use has been reviewed and is not prohibited.
If the proposed land use, is allowable only as a conditional use, permits are required as noted below,
Comments:
UAI 4e, P-
Name of Reviewing Local Official (print):
Title:
Date:
Email:
Phone:
Signature:
Check this box if there are attachments to this form:
39-1E-14AB
Tax Lot 2500
Lz CU
685 687
CIQ
700 Jefferson
Washington Washington
689
<
4-
Washington
C-)
702 Jefferson
Wholesaling
i
704 Jefferson
691
Washington
706 Jefferson
reli,
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
June 26, 2019
RE: Land Use Compatibility Statement for 689 Washington St.
Dear OLCC,
The property located at 689 Washington St. is zoned Employment (E-1). Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC) 18.2.2.030 allows marijuana processing as a use that is permitted subject to the special use
standards in AMC 18-23.190-13. Prior to operation of the marijuana processing operation and issuance
of a City of Ashland business license, the applicant must demonstrate that the use and site are in
conformance with the special use standards for marijuana businesses in AMC 18.2.3.190.13 (see
attached), Further details are provided below.
Air Filtration System — In accordance with AMC 6.50, the wholesale operation must have an air
filtration and ventilation system which, to the greatest extent feasible, confines all objectionable odors
associated with the dispensary to the premises.
Exterior Building and Site Modifications — The application should clarify whether any changes to
the exterior of the building or the site are proposed. Any exterior building changes must be consistent
with the Site Design standards in AMC 18.4 and requires a planning application and approval for Site
Design Review.
Building Occupancy — A planning application and approval are required if there is "any change of
occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the building code..." (see
AMC 18.5.2.020.A.7).
Building Code — In accordance with AMC 18.2.3.190.13.1,e, any building modifications or equipment
installations associated with the marijuana wholesale business shall satisfy the Building Code
requirements and obtain all required building permits prior to installation.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at (541) 552-2045 or maria.harris(cDashland.or.us.
Sincer y,
Maria Harris
Planning Manager
City of Ashland Planning Division
enclosed Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.2.3.190 Marijuana -Related Uses
r%ewl' I
Cornrnunl� Developmeat Tel: 5414a8-5305 k,
20 E, Main Sireet Fax: 541-488-6006
Ashland, Oregon 97520 M: 800-735-2900
L
m"Aj.ash1and,0rAJS
VA
copies Steve Matiaco, Building Official
Ralph Sartain, Division Chief, Fire Life and Safety
I I j
CommuniV DevelDpment To% 641A88-6305
20 E, Maln Street rax: 541,-488.6006
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735.29M trAI
wwashland.orms 1praaft
OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION REQUEST
Land Ue Compatibty Statement,
What Is a land use compatibility statement (LUCS)? The LUCS is a form used by a state agency
and local government to determine whether a land use proposal is consistent with local govern-
ment's comprehensive plan and land use regulations.
Why is a LUCS required? OLCC and other state agencies with permitting or approval activities that
affect land use are required by Oregon law to be consistent with local comprehensive plans and to
have a process for determining consistency. Section 34(4)(a), of 2015 Oregon Laws, Chapter 614,
requires OLCC to request and obtain the, LU:CS and have a positive LUCS prior to issuing a license.
CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY
Date delivered by ticense applicanU
Received by (print):
Initial:
When is a LUCS required? A LUCS is required for all proposed marijuana facilities before an OLCC license can be obtained.
How to complete a LUCS:
• Step 1: Applicant completes Section 1 of this form and submits it to the appropriate city or county planning office. Applicant
verifies with local jurisdiction whether additional forms, applications, or permits are required.
• Step 2: Local jurisdiction completes Section 2 of this form Indicating whether the proposed use is compatible with the acknowl-
edged comprehensive plan and land use regulations and returns signed and dated form to the applicant.
• Applicant completes payment to local jurisdiction for processing application.
• Local jurisdictions are NOT re ul'red to begin processing LUCS forms until January4, 2016 at 8:30A_M.
0 Step 3: Applicant submits this date -stamped form and any supporting information provided by the city or county to the OLCC
with the license application. This form may be submitted while Section 2 Is in process with the local governing body.
Applicant Name* Raptor Distribution lJ,C Phone:
Mailing Address: 1355 Industrial Circle I Rm/Ste:
City: I White City State: El ZIP: 197503
0 Site plan of the subject property and proposed development attached? (required)
Proposed
Premises Address:
5 Washington Street
City: Aslrlitnd
Tax Lot V: 2500
Township*: 139
Rm/Ste:
County: 1jackson ZIP:
Range/ IIYI4AB Latitude:
Section*: I
Map*: 139-IE-14AB-2500 Longitude:
Proposed use/permit type sought fit separate LUCS may be necessary for each proposed use even if it is on the some property):
EJ Producer V Wholesaler E] Processor E] Retailer Laboratory Research Certificate
Note Indoor or List endorse -
outdoor below ments below
Details of proposed use (note, any attachments): i"""w V
Marijuana wholesaling
Site Location:
Inside' city limits E] Inside UGB Ej Outside UGB
Pe
If the�,Proposed land use is allowable only as a conditional use, permits are required as noted below.
UHF
A,
6k
0
I V
Name of Reviewing Local Official (print):
Title:
Date:
Email:
Phone:
Signature:
Check this box if there are attachments to this form:
Z� �-
'! A -, -,
39-IE-14AB
Tax Lot 2500ry
685
687
700 Jefferson
Washington
Washington
689
Washington
702 Jefferson
Wholesaling
to
704 Jefferson
691
Washington
706 Jefferson
-2
CITY OF
AS H LAN D
.Tune 26, 2019
RE: Land Use Compatibility Statement for 685 Washington St,
Dear OLCC,
The property located at 685 Washington St. is zoned Employment (E-1), Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC) 18.2.2.030 allows marijuana wholesale as a use that is permitted subject to the special use
standards in AMC 18.2.3.190.B. Prior to operation of the marijuana wholesale operation and issuance
of a City of Ashland business license, the applicant must demonstrate that the use and site are in
conformance with the special use standards for marijuana businesses in AMC 18.2.3.190.13 (see
attached). Further details are provided below.
Previous LUCS — If 687 Washington St. has a previously approved marijuana wholesale license that
is approved and a business that is currently active, a wholesale use is prohibited under City standards
at the adjacent 685 Washington St. AMC 18.2.3.190.B.2.c requires marijuana wholesale facilities to
be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana wholesale facility.
The City of Ashland has record of three different LUCS for the building space located at 687 --- 2016
for retail, 2016 for processing and wholesale and 2017 for producer. I am unable to verify if the license
for any of these businesses was issued by OLCC because the OLCC Marijuana Business Licenses
Issued list does not include the city and address and the business name doesn't necessarily match the
applicant's name on the LUCS.
Air Filtration System -- In accordance with AMC 6.50, the wholesale operation must have an air
filtration and ventilation system which, to the greatest extent feasible, confines all objectionable odors
associated with the dispensary to the premises.
Exterior Building and Site Modifications — The application should clarify whether any changes to
the exterior of the building or the site are proposed. Any exterior building changes must be consistent
with the Site Design standards in AMC 18.4 and requires a planning application and approval for Site
Design Review,
Building Occupancy —A planning application and approval are required if there is "any change of
occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the building code..." (see
AMC 18.5.2.020.A.7),
Building Code -- In accordance with AMC 18.2.3.190.B.1.e, any building modifications or equipment
installations associated with the marijuana wholesale business shall satisfy the Building Code
requirements and obtain all required building permits prior to installation,
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at (541) 552--2045 or maria. harris .ashIand.or.us.
Communlly Development Tel: 541-488.5305
20 E. Main 5treel Fax: 541488.8006
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.736.2900 W
www,ashland.or,uS
Sincerely,
Ir P J
Is
Planning Manager
City of Ashland Planning Division
Enclosed Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.2.3.190 Marijuana -Related Uses
copies Steve Matiaco, Building Official
Ralph Sartain, Division Chief, Fire Life and Safety
Community Development Tel: 541488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TM 800-735-2900
wmashland.QrAIS
Eli
EX IBIT It H of/
f f
J
OCT 04 2010
OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL, COMMISSION
Xwv Supplemental Form:
Detailed Prodiuct Description
Product Name:
Rosin
Description of Product,
Rosin Batter
This product is a concentrate or extract; and
It will be used as an ingredient in a cannabinoid edible
Endorsements Used
P'l Concentrate
171 Extract
171 Edible
El Topical
El Industrial Hemp
C�annabinoid Starting Materials:
RV Usable marijuana (whole plant, flower, or trim) E]
Industrial hemp (whole plant, flower, or trim)
F/I Cannabinoid concentrate ❑
Industrial hemp concentrate
[21 made under this license
El received from an Industrial Hemp Handier
received from another OLCC license
El received from another OLCC license
El made under this license
Caninabinoid extract F]
Industrial hemp extract
El made under this license
El received from an Industrial Hemp Handler
El received from another OLCC license
El received from another OLCC license
El made under this, license
E] Other cannabinoid product (please describe):
Solvents:
F/I None El Butter
El Propane El Hexane
F-1 Ethanol 17-1 Coconut Oil
El Butane El CO2 (liquid or
❑ Isopropyl Alcohol El Olive Oil
El Glycerin supercritical fluid)
Other (please describe):
Other Ingredients:
Equipment Used:
i Sasquatch Rosin Press
Describe the Process:
Place Flower into a micron mesh bag. Then place the mesh bag with the flower inside
between a piece of parchment paper.
Place the Parchment paper between the sasquatch
rosin press. Set the press to 550-1600 PSI and press the flower. Once the rosin has been
pressed out, scrape it off the parchment paper and put it in a jar to package.
This product is intended to be consumed in the following! ways (check all that apply):
0 Smoked Orally ingested (e.g. eaten) ❑ Applied in mouth (buccal or sublingual)
El Vaporized 171 Applied to skin or hair El Administered nasally rv"
I J
F1 Other (please describe): T 0 4 2 01
[FORM Mi) 18-3002] mj_app_prc_prodLc'i page I f 1
/" �, U
u .apr. k� b I -�,r b E h 4...,, ( r� I��n,�
Zx�
a, q «: �� \� \ :_
mm
City of Ashland
Community Development Department
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Telephone: 541-488-5305
Inspection Line: 541-552-2080
Plan Type: Type I Planning Action
Work Class: Type I Planninq Action
PERMIT NUMBER
PA-T1-2019-00077
Apply Date: 101412019
Map & Tax Lot
Property Address
391E14AB2500
689 Washington St
Owner Information
Owner: Joe & Jill Rice
Owner Po Box 374
Address: Loleta, CA 95551
Phone: () -
Applicant:
Applicant Information
Applicant: LaNier Land Consulting
Applicant
Address:
Phone: (541)897-3477
Date:
LTataf Fees: $1,092.00