Deschutes County commissioners uphold denial of Juniper Preserve psilocybin center in a familiar 2-1 vote

For Phil Chang, it was second losing vote in 3 days, after colleagues moved ahead on comprehensive plan

BEND, Ore. (KTVZ) – Deschutes County commissioners voted 2-1 Wednesday to uphold a hearings officer’s decision and reject a proposed psilocybin treatment facility at Juniper Preserve, saying transporting the federally illegal psychedelic mushrooms across BLM land could threaten the resort's right-of-way access agreement.

Commission Chair Patti Adair and colleague Tony DeBone voted to deny the proposal, while colleague Phil Chang disagreed and voted no. He argued (as did the applicant at a July hearing) that psilocybin, like cannabis a state voter-approved but federally illegal drug, is transported across across federal lands all over the state, on state and federal highways, without any legal repercussions.

Chang also pointed out that the applicants had agreed to accept a condition if imposed that the treatment center would close if the BLM took action to revoke the resort's access right of way.

It was the second time in three days that Chang was on the losing end of a 2-1 vote on a policy issue, and made clear his displeasure. He had called in vain one more time at a Monday work session for several significant revisions to the county’s updated 20-year comprehensive land-use plan.

At Wednesday's psilocybin deliberations, Associate Planner Audrey Stuart led commissioners through the steps. They first decided not to reopen the record, as someone had requested to respond to the applicant's final legal arguments. If they had done that, the applicant would get to respond yet again, as the land-use process dictates they get the final word, which could just lead to a repeat situation.

Commissioners also agreed fairly quickly on how to proceed on other issues the hearings officer raised and the applicant addressed in a revised site plan, such as a clear-vision area for a service drive and landscaping for adequate screening from nearby homes, where many residents had voiced opposition to the plans.

But when it came to the psilocybin transportation issue and access across BLM land from Powell Butte Highway, things got more divided.

Planner Stuart noted that the applicants argued a third-party contract between the resort and BLM should not have been part of the hearings officer’s denial decision, and that psilocybin and cannabis facilities are permitted uses in county code, despite the federal government's stance of illegality.

DeBone said the situation involving psilocybin is not the same as marijuana, in federal eyes, and “I do support this (transport issue) as a reason to deny” the application.

Adair agreed: “It would seem appropriate at this time to uphold the hearings officer’s decision. I can’t see it any other way. We did receive a letter from the BLM stating that issue quite a few months ago.”

Chang disagreed: “We have this very complicated interaction between state law and federal law here,” and he noted the common transport of psilocybin and cannabis on many Oregon highways across federally managed land.

“If the federal government is not stepping in in all of those cases and asserting federal controlled substance law (for) transporting materials, I don’t see a real threat of BLM revoking the right of way for Juniper Preserve,” the former Pronghorn Resort.

But DeBone held his ground: “It’s pretty clear. Why would we step outside of the law?” So he moved to uphold the hearings officer’s denial, and Adair seconded the motion before the 2-1 vote.

But it wasn't over, as Chang weighed in on the “bigger policy issue.” He noted that Deschutes County voters had decided twice to allow psilocybin service centers on rural county lands, leading to development of county regulations involving the time, place and manner of such facilities, of which this would be the first.

“This (transporting) issue was not raised,” he said, and “we provided a very, very small window of opportunity in terms of eligible lands for siting of these (facilities).”

“Closing that tiny keyhole is violating the will of the voters,” Chang said, adding that he’d be “glad to go back” and revise the time, place and manner rules to “create conditions around this specific issue.”

Neither DeBone nor Adair responded, and they moved on.

Chang: Colleagues' actions 'shameful' on 20-year comprehensive plan

As for the county’s update of its 20-year comprehensive plan, called Deschutes 2040, in the works for months, Chang last Friday posted to his commissioner Facebook page the reasons he planned to vote no on the plan as drafted.

He said he’d proposed many revisions in the draft over the past five months “so that our county can grow well and honor the hopes and values of the several hundred citizens who provided input.”

But Chang wrote (with an accompanying video) that his two colleagues “have refused all except my most minor proposed revisions,” rejecting goals and policies to prevent more groundwater wells from growing dry, among other issues.

He stressed his position on Monday: “This document is supposed to be a vision for the future of this community. I believe this process to date has not done that.”

“A couple of very strong personality members of the Planning Commission shaped the draft we received,” Chang continued. “I did not feel they were an accurate reflection of the hopes and dreams and values of this community.”

The final draft “is not adequately protective of groundwater resources,” Chang said, as “probably thousands have wells that are going to run dry.” He said the draft plan “doesn’t care about preserving farmland or the rural character of much of Deschutes County.”

DeBone countered that much of the “resource-zoned land has never been farmed for profit,” with “minimal feed value” for grazing,

“I support the concept of open space land,” DeBone said, while noting, as is often noted, that 79% of the county is already “publicly owned open space and forest.”

But Chang said that view “glosses over the hundreds and hundreds of acres of land that has been irrigated in the past, that’s been rezoned” as rural residential or industrial zoning “just in the the last couple years” by the county. “There’s a whole bunch of land that could be decent dry-land grazing.”

DeBone said, “I’m not looking for every excuse,” but pointed to population growth, development opportunities and private property rights as reasons he supported the draft as written.

“It’s not paving over paradise,” he said. “So there’s a balance in there … This document hangs together very well.” And he pointed to the “great work” of “a lot of people" to get to this point.

Chang agreed, partially, pointing the finger instead to his colleagues.

“There’s been a tremendous amount of community engagement,” he said. “But what this Board of County Commissioners has done with all that hard work is shameful.”

After all that, a familiar debate tone which involved some sharp words but no raised voices, DeBone told Chang, “Thanks for the conversation.”

“You’re welcome,” Chang replied.

It wasn’t quite over, as Chang pulled out his “20 dog-eared pages of revisions,” and made a motion for them to be incorporated in the draft document.

After a few moments of silence, Chang's motion died for lack of a second.

The draft plan will be finalized and formatted by a consultant and staff for a likely first reading at the board's Sept. 11 meeting.