Inyo’s cannabis caravan rolls on – another meeting tonight

By Deb Murphy

The fifth of twelve community outreach sessions in Inyo County Planning Department’s pursuit of consensus on commercial cannabis was held for District 1 residents Thursday night at Northern Inyo Healthcare District’s board room.

With a smaller showing than the debut of the process in Big Pine last week, the eight residents, three of whom not from District 1, basically gave a thumbs up to a range of marijuana businesses. As to the smaller numbers compared to Big Pine, District 1 Supervisor Dan Totheroh hoped that reflected a confidence in the process by his constituents.

Interim Planning Director Cathreen Richards started with the basics, information she’ll probably be reciting in her sleep by the time the pot parade hits its final venue in Tecopa April 5.  She then went into a discussion of personal and commercial cultivation and the related businesses, soliciting comments along the way.

  • Personal Cultivation: District 1 Planning Commissioner Frank Stewart suggested a county-wide approach to regulatory ordinances rather than a neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach. “That will streamline the permitting process,” he said.

  • Commercial Cultivation: Many residential lots in the Dixon Lane/Meadow Creek and 40-Acres sections of District 1 are appropriately sized for a Type 1 (5,000 to 10,000 square feet) commercial cultivation permit. In response to a question on growing more conventional consumables, Richards said orchards, field crops and gardens are allowed in residential zones with no set-backs. Stewart suggested the conditional use permit process would allow neighbor input on the size and type of commercial operations in residential zones. All eight agreed on commercial cultivation in residential zones with some restrictions but no extreme set-backs.

  • Manufacturing: Assuming only Type 1, no volatile solvents, permits would be allowed outside heavy industrial zones, basically non-existent in the valley, everyone agreed with manufacturing in both commercial and light industrial zones.

  • Retail, Delivery, Microbusinesses: Again, the consensus was “yes” to all three in commercial zones. Microbusinesses can cover a range of small-scale operations including cultivation, manufacturing, retail, etc., everything but testing labs. However, agriculture and industrial activity is not allowed in commercial zones. The suggested solution was a rezoning to accommodate a microbusiness.

The next meeting will be held for District 3 residents at Jill Kinmont Boothe School Monday, March 20 starting at 6 p.m.

 

,

3 Responses to Inyo’s cannabis caravan rolls on – another meeting tonight

  1. LADWP March 19, 2017 at 9:19 pm #

    Funny… according to AB 266 “delivery services” are banned., unless its coming from a brick and mortar Retail store with less the 3 locations, currently Inyo County has 0. We here in the county whom are “Pro Cannabis” know Inyo County has delivery service(s) without store fronts question is… will Inyo County, or the City of Bishop allow store fronts? and when will the litigation start?

     
  2. CBD Oil Wiki March 19, 2017 at 11:59 pm #

    Appreciable initiative. Hope more people benefit from medicinal marijuana as it is rich in health benefits.

     
  3. James March 21, 2017 at 11:35 am #

    Mr LADWP after seeing your nice response on the local Sierra Wave i thought it would be only right to point out the true but misdirected statement that you put out.

    Under AB 266 you’re right on how deliveries must operate from a brick in mortar & also must obtain a certain license. However, you’re quoting a Bill that has yet to have any of its regulations in place. At this current time the county & state cannabis licensing branches have yet to be established therefore no dispensary or delivery in the state of California is operating under the bill you just quoted.

    Instead, all dispensaries & delivery services are currently operating under (Prop. 215 Sb 420) until the State Of California has all they’re licensing branches. Even when all the licensing branches have been established there will still be a “sunset clause” stating collectives & cooperatives that are operating in good faith under prop 215 Sb 420 with be protected from criminal prosecution for 2-3 years, depending on if there is a full ban of cannabis related activity in the City or County that the ban is enacted in.

     

Leave a Reply



KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design