OR's rec. battle begins: A call to action

[Beta Test Team]

Hold on to your hats!

If either of these two bills pass then OR recreational industry is in big trouble:

Senate bill 162:
Prohibits licensed producers, processors and sellers from being located within 1,000 feet of a school.

House Bill 2041:
Prevents licensed retail stores from being located within a mile of a school.

If OR goes the way WA went, with a 1,000 ft. buffer rule as the crow files from schools, etc., companies that want to operate in OR that want to be close to developed areas (i.e. towns and cities) had better be ready for lots of head ache in terms of finding land and/or a building.

The Fed. rule is 100' by common path of travel (like taking turns down a road). WA's law is 1,000 ft. as the crow files (a straight line). These two rules proposed use the 'as the crow flies' measurement, which is bad news.

WA's law is so onerous, in cities well over 50% of possible buildings are a no-go because they're within 1,000 ft. of a daycare, for example. And that's after accounting for the fact industrial zone (or similar type) are generally the only zones in cities where businesses are allowed to locate (to grow and processes Cannabis).



Senate bill 162 (and it's sister Senate bill 124) are the brain child of a husband and wife politician team, Mr. and Ms. Whitsett:

- Senator Doug Whitsett (Senate bill 124 & 162)
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/whitsett

- Representative Gail Whitsett (Senate bill 124 & 162)
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/whitsettg

- Here's the full text Senate bill 162:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB162/Introduced



For House bill 2041 things are just as bad, using a 1,000 ft. buffer between two retail stores for medical or recreational Cannabis(!), 1,000 ft. buffer for production and processing, and even worse, with a mile buffer between retail stores and schools...seriously. A mile. That's 5,280 feet.

- The genius behind House bill 2041 (and related House bill 2040) is Representative Greg Smith:
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/smithg

- Here's the full sad text of House bill 2041:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2041




Anyone who cares about this matter may want to email and call these three to politely and factually explain to them why this is a bad idea.

Also, call and email members of the Oregon Legislature's "joint committee on marijuana" because they're the ones that will have big influence on these bills. In the next post you'll find all the members of the joint committee on marijuana.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Here's a good news story, detailing the joint marijuana committee:

"Ginny Burdick and Ann Lininger will co-chair marijuana committee in Oregon Legislature"
http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/12/ginny_burdick_and_ann_lininger.html

So thankfully both of those women are Democrats! And at least one of them voted for and supports for I-91. That at least bodes well for Senate bill 162 and House bill 2040 dying on the vine.

Here's the committee roster. I think emailing and calling each of them to offer opinions about killing Senate bill 162 and House bill 2040 would be a good idea! (I'll add their contact info soon.)

Co-Chairs of the committee:
Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland
Rep. Ann Lininger, D-Lake Oswego

Vice-chairs on the panel:
Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene
Rep.Carl Wilson, R-Grants Pass

Other members are:
Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg
Sen. Lee Beyer, D-Springfield
Sen. Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day
Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland
Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany
Rep. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton

 

[Mad Lab]

Here's a good news story, detailing the joint marijuana committee:


Here's the committee roster. I think emailing and calling each of them to offer opinions about killing Senate bill 162 and House bill 2040 would be a good idea! (I'll add their contact info soon.)


Co-Chairs of the committee:
Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland
Rep. Ann Lininger, E-Lake Oswego

Vice-chairs on the panel:
Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene
Rep.Carl Wilson, R-Grants Pass

Other members are:
Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg
Sen. Lee Beyer, D-Springfield
Sen. Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day
Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland
Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany
Rep. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton

Great call, i will do the same.

The problem with Portland as opposed to WA, it already has very limited industrial space for lease, ESPECIALLY that comply with the standard 1000ft from school zoning regulation.

I'm curious if anyone is educated on the rest of Oregon. Say Bend, Salem or other outer Portland metro areas like Oregon city.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Great point about Portland and building space; the same goes for pretty much all of OR, I think. Compared to WA (which isn't great itself), in OR there's less industry, fewer buildings, and less investment capital (not to forget considerably fewer potential in-state customers).

And aside from the potential 1,000 ft buffer (which I think we can still prevent, look at CO for an example, at 500', and the Fed's at 100'), most cities (at least in WA) only allow production and processing in industrial, agricultural, and commercial zones; with retail in business or commercial zones. So that right there reduces the pool of potential building space or even land to buy or lease. Then, adding a 1,000 ft. buffer rule (or 1 mile!), especially 'as the crow files,' really limits the overall pool of possible options.

This is my biggest worry about OR's rules.

From my experience in WA's I-502, buying land far away from cities and building a custom designed facility, or buying/leasing an older building and renovating, to produce, process, and breed Cannabis is the best option for the least headaches, lower costs (operating and start-up), and more welcoming local governments (in some cases, especially depending upon whether they're hard up for cash).

The only way I would try to find property in a city or town is for a retail location.

 

[Bradley_Danks]

The only way I would try to find property in a city or town is for a retail location.

Bingo! and well said

 

[Mad Lab]

So you would be going with land in an agriculture zone for production?

What kind of facilities are some of the options when doing your own build out. Obviously greenhouses, but any other structure's that are cheaper to build out than say a traditional insulated warehouse like you would find in an industrial warehouse. Metal structure's that will pass inspection? Im not educated on the building codes that would be required. I'm assuming their must be other options considering greenhouses are really just metal structures.

Of course, If I bought land I would put a greenhouse, gavitas and blackouts but just trying to get some good info out there for people who want options and need some answers regarding the toughest hurdles associated with starting in the recreational industry: regulations and build codes.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Sorry I just only now noticed your post.

So you would be going with land in an agriculture zone for production?

Not necessarily. But away from cities and largeish towns, for sure.

From my experience, industrial or commercial zones (where allowed by the gov.) are better suited to finding property and a building to lease or buy (if growing indoor). I have yet to find industrial zones disallow Cannabis producing and processing in areas (town, cities, and counties) that allow such businesses, except when there's more than one level of industrial zone (in that case Cannabis is often placed into the heaviest industrial area).

For outdoor or greenhouses, in areas that allow Cannabis production and processing in Ag zones (not all govs. do), Ag zones are a great resource. Also, look for counties and towns that are hard up for jobs and money, because they're more likely to greet you with open arms.

Of course, If I bought land I would put a greenhouse, gavitas and blackouts but just trying to get some good info out there for people who want options and need some answers regarding the toughest hurdles associated with starting in the recreational industry: regulations and build codes.

Building codes are not generally a problem, they're generally standard fare. The regulations are what can cause headaches. For example, indoor facility would need to have four walls and secured entrance, and outdoor would need to be secured behind a large fence. (And I would likely suggest ePapillion instead of Gavita for a greenhouse if only as supplemental lighting.)

What kind of facilities are some of the options when doing your own build out. Obviously greenhouses, but any other structure's that are cheaper to build out than say a traditional insulated warehouse like you would find in an industrial warehouse. Metal structure's that will pass inspection? Im not educated on the building codes that would be required. I'm assuming their must be other options considering greenhouses are really just metal structures.

I don't know of a cheaper structure to build (in areas where the winters are cold), if year-round growing is the goal, than galvanized steel siding with steel frame and insulation.

Likely the cheapest (and best) way to go if you're building a structure to grow indoors is galvanized steel siding with steel load bearing frame and load bearing roof (for RTUs if using RTUs), and sufficient insulation.

If you're buying land and building your own facility, you're golden, as long as you don't mind locating a good drive from metropolitan areas. It's when one tries to lease land or a building, or find something near populated areas, that serious headaches begin.

Here's a good resource for those thinking about building their own warehouse (be prepared for greater than $50 per square foot):
http://www.rsmeans.com/models/warehouse/
http://thegordiangroup.com/Solutions/RSMeans.aspx

 

[Beta Test Team]

I wanted to bump this thread to say I'll post a draft version of the email I'm sending to this thread. As well as the email addresses of all the people listed above. Then it's easy for other people here to edit the draft as they see fit and send it as well.

One thing I didn't consider that was raised during the business seminar tonight, was the issue of information privacy. With Sunshine laws it could be lots of info about the company and its owners and employees could be made public. For example, in WA the business location, names, phones numbers, email addresses, etc., are all public record. So that's something I'm concerned about, for example, listing bank names and other bank info, which would have happened in WA if the WA legislature didn't amend the law on the books to prevent such disclosure from I-502 companies.

 

[Mad Lab]

(And I would likely suggest ePapillion instead of Gavita for a greenhouse if only as supplemental lighting.)

why would you choose epapillion instead of gavitas??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KssVhjA4DUs&list=UUQt38ngErA9ZTNzPkJilVCQ

 

[Beta Test Team]

And I would likely suggest ePapillion instead of Gavita for a greenhouse if only as supplemental lighting.)

why would you choose epapillion instead of gavitas?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KssV.

Because ePapillion has much better irradiance uniformity and only slightly lower photosynthetic efficiency vs. Gavita, while Gavita has a very considerable 'hot spot' and poor uniformity.

So for a greenhouse type of setup, going with ePapillion as supplemental lighting is what I would choose. ePapillion is better for lighting a large area, Gavita is better for lighting a smaller area (like narrower rows) when the walls are far away.

That link you posted is not really worth the effort they put into it considering the conclusions they draw. And they used a less then accurate sensor, so I don't have much faith in the values listed. Also, they should have used 3'x3' if they wanted to list their values as PPF (aka PAR aka PPFD), not 5'x5'; the 5'x5' testing is worthwhile but it's not PAR.

The reason they go so wrong is they average the irradiance over the area and then claim that's the PPF, but that's not correct unless outside under the sun over a 3'x3' area (sun PPF measurement doesn't require any averaging, because the sunlight is very uniform over that 3'x3' area). What matters for indoor plants is the umol over a much smaller area, like per inch squared or few inches squared. This is because with Gavita, the hot spot below the lamp may be 1,000 umol but the edge of the would be around 100 to 300 umol, so some plants get too much radiation while others don't get enough, and only a few get the just right amount. Granted, when multiple fixtures are hung correctly in the same area the overlapping photons increase the uniformity, but Gavita still cannot compare with ePapillion in that respect.

What I described above is the exact error Gavita makes in their marketing, and what they tell growers. I am no fan of Gavita just for the that, and their claim that 1,000 PPF is the goal (when it most certainly is not).

In that video you can see how poor the uniformity of the Gavita is, for example, divide the lowest umol listed by the greatest umol listed, and multiply by 100. Then do the same for ePapillion. The lower the value the worse the uniformity.

See this thread I wrote for a much better way to compare the two:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=297147

Basically, they both are capable to provide ideal amount of photons, and both are very efficient (Gavita slightly more so), but only ePapillion does it with decent uniformity.

 

[Mad Lab]

So ePapillion for summer and switch out to gavita for winter? Might be expensive. Why not raise gavitas higher in summer instead?

thanks for your link, I will look into it more.

But a 3x3 area is not a good lighting grid example. Im not going to put a light every 3x3 area in a GH am i?

And HOW much better is the GH plants going to preform under ePaps over gavitas? Any somewhat controlled tests done?

 

[Beta Test Team]

So ePapillion for summer and switch out to gavita for winter? Might be expensive. Why not raise gavitas higher in summer instead?

thanks for your link, I will look into it more.

But a 3x3 area is not a good lighting grid example. Im not going to put a light every 3x3 area in a GH am i?

And HOW much better is the GH plants going to preform under ePaps over gavitas? Any somewhat controlled tests done?

I would go with ePapillion all year round, no need to switch to Gavita in the winter. Sorry if I made it sound like that's what I was suggesting. And if the sunlight isn't the primary source of light, I'd also adding CMH or MH at least.

And how you're growing should also be taken into account. For ecample, if you're growing a few large trees than Gavita would be okay (but I'd still go with ePapillion), but if you're growing large canopies of bushes or SCROG (in my opinion) Gavita wouldn't be a good choice.

The 3'x3' (meter squared) area is the defined area for PPF. So using 5'x5' average they aren't listing a PPF value. They're listing a value for umol/1.5 meter squared/second. If they wanted to list PPF by averaging measurements they should have used 3'x3'.

And remember that over lapping photons from other fixtures will change those data from that video and my thread. For example, I for one wouldn't use Gavita over a 5'x5' area, even with a bunch of them in a room or greenhouse (if they're primary light source like in the winter). The uniformity would be too poor. However, using them as supplemental lighting means the lower uniformity has less of an impact if the sun is bright.

I don't know about controlled tests in a greenhouse comparing both. But the study I cite in my thread will interest you, I think (it's about greenhouse lighting). The ePapillion would provide greater uniformity but not less PPF when placed appropriately, however, the Gavita would provide less uniformity but not less PPF when placed appropriately.

Cannabis like many plants uses much of the photoassimilates (products from photosynthesis) locally, in the laves and 'buds' near the incident site. So if all areas of the whole canopy (and of each plants' canopy) get near ideal umol then yields and growth are better, rather than if only some areas of the canopy (and parts of each plants' canopy) gets ideal umol while others get low or high umol.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Mad Lab, if you're planning a greenhouse and using supplemental lighting, you may like to see this thread I just created for such a use. This allows you to calculate the PPF where your greenhouse will be located, any day or time. That will help you in planning your greenhouse.

Also, you can account for PPF loss through greenhouse panes to find an approximate PPF your plants will get at any time or day.

The most accurate calculation are for summer near noon.

"Online sunlight PPF calculator"
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=6788521

 

[petert]

Sorry I just only now noticed your post.


Not necessarily. But away from cities and largeish towns, for sure.

From my experience, industrial or commercial zones (where allowed by the gov.) are better suited to finding property and a building to lease or buy (if growing indoor). I have yet to find industrial zones disallow Cannabis producing and processing in areas (town, cities, and counties) that allow such businesses, except when there's more than one level of industrial zone (in that case Cannabis is often placed into the heaviest industrial area).

For outdoor or greenhouses, in areas that allow Cannabis production and processing in Ag zones (not all govs. do), Ag zones are a great resource. Also, look for counties and towns that are hard up for jobs and money, because they're more likely to greet you with open arms.


Building codes are not generally a problem, they're generally standard fare. The regulations are what can cause headaches. For example, indoor facility would need to have four walls and secured entrance, and outdoor would need to be secured behind a large fence. (And I would likely suggest ePapillion instead of Gavita for a greenhouse if only as supplemental lighting.)



I don't know of a cheaper structure to build (in areas where the winters are cold), if year-round growing is the goal, than galvanized steel siding with steel frame and insulation.

Likely the cheapest (and best) way to go if you're building a structure to grow indoors is galvanized steel siding with steel load bearing frame and load bearing roof (for RTUs if using RTUs), and sufficient insulation.

If you're buying land and building your own facility, you're golden, as long as you don't mind locating a good drive from metropolitan areas. It's when one tries to lease land or a building, or find something near populated areas, that serious headaches begin.

Here's a good resource for those thinking about building their own warehouse (be prepared for greater than $50 per square foot):
http://www.rsmeans.com/models/warehouse/
http://thegordiangroup.com/Solutions/RSMeans.aspx

I'm hoping to go the Rec route after growing medically since the inception of the law. I have several acres in the Columbia River Gorge and have started the process of building a 30 X 48 Semi-Gable greenhouse and outfitting it with everything short of the heater and supplimental lighting for winter growing. My plan is to see how it pans out the first year and if it looks like its a go, then invest in the lighting and heat.

 

[panick503]

So is there going to be a 1000ft buffer between grows, or just retail facilities (assuming these bills pass)?

 

[Beta Test Team]

So is there going to be a 1000ft buffer between grows, or just retail facilities (assuming these bills pass)?

It will likely be a buffer from the boundary line of any listed entity by the OLLC from the boundary line of the buseinss (retailer, producer, processor, and wholesaler), such as a library, licensed child care center, primary school and secondary school (not higher education), game arcade, public park (those that are developed), play ground, and maybe even a church (though I doubt it strongly).

The boundary will likely be measured 'as the crow flies,' which means a straight line, rather than 'common path of travel,' which means following the path a human would have to take to get there (like down streets, take turns, etc.).

All of those except churches are listed in WA, and I assume in CO, as well.

 

[Aotf]

The only thing worse than a republican is a democrat.

 

[panick503]

If that means fuck em both then amen

 

[BadPenny]

Might want to worry more bout medical than rec.....?!

Might want to worry more bout medical than rec.....?!

Voters approved legalization of recreational marijuana in November, now the Oregon Liquor Commission is racing to complete regulations as the Legislature debates changing the law. A growing body of lobbyists seeks to influence both.

SALEM — Oregon’s nascent legal recreational marijuana industry has hired a battery of lobbyists to influence the shape of the state’s regulatory scheme.

Lawmakers and state regulators are both working to establish Oregon’s new legal recreational pot system under Measure 91, which voters passed in November. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is writing rules to implement the new law, and a legislative joint committee is considering bills that range from technical fixes sought by regulators to major changes to Measure 91.

Businesses and cannabis industry associations hired nearly a dozen lobbyists, and lobbyists for local governments are also involved.

The joint legislative committee working to implement Measure 91 is just getting started, with sessions such as a Wednesday night informational hearing on marijuana processing and packaging, labeling and potency of edible and topical products. Eleven bills are currently assigned to the committee.

Many groups are just starting to spend and report money this year, although several — Grow PAC, Oregon SunGrown Growers Guild, Phylos Bioscience, Compassionate Oregon and the Oregon Cannabis Business Council — had already retained lobbyists in 2014.

Grow PAC stands out for its spending on lobbyists and campaign contributions. The political action committee reported raising $52,0000 since the November election and spending $42,000, according to state campaign finance data. Grow PAC spent most of that money on lobbyists, and contributions to Democratic leadership campaign committees and the leaders’ own committees.

The Oregon cannabis industry lobby currently includes:

• Geoff Sugerman, Molly McGrew and Alan Tresidder, Grow PAC

• Gary Oxley, New Approach Oregon which campaigned for Measure 91

• Niki Terzieff for the Oregon Cannabis Business Council

• Jonathan Manton, Oregon SunGrown Growers Guild and PAC

• Darlene Hooley and Lisa Naito, Phylos Bioscience lab in Portland

• Anthony Taylor, medical cannabis PAC Compassionate Oregon, Oregon Cannabis Industry Association

• Marshall Coba, Oregonians for Better Health, a nonprofit membership association for the medical pot industry

• Mary Botkin and Judi Mehrens, Oregon Infused Topical Association

• Beth Cook, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 555

Anthony Johnson, executive director of New Approach, said the group is working to make sure lawmakers and regulators follow the will of the voters who passed Measure 91.

“Until it’s implemented, we don’t know what changes need to be made,” Johnson said of the law.

A top concern for lobbyists who represent the medical marijuana industry is fending off efforts to consolidate Oregon’s medical marijuana and recreational marijuana programs. Currently, the Oregon Health Authority oversees the medical program and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission will regulate the new recreational system.

“Oregon has such a great opportunity to be leader in medical marijuana,” Coba said. He added that keeping the current medical program is crucial to that success.

Taylor said a priority for Compassionate Oregon is HB 2821, which would expand the list of conditions that qualify people to participate in the medical marijuana program. The bill would also prohibit physicians from refusing to dispense or prescribe medications to a patient based on that person’s status as a medical marijuana patient, and it would provide legal protections for people who possess pot and are in the process of applying to the Oregon medical marijuana program.

Manton said members of the SunGrown Growers Guild also want to preserve the existing medical marijuana system.

“The issues that the SunGrown Growers Guild are really concerned about is protecting the interests of patients first and foremost, and then also small, rural family farmers who are growing medicine,” Manton said. Members of the guild grow cannabis outdoors.

Sugerman said Grow PAC represents cannabis businesses across the state, including processors, indoor and outdoor growers, medical dispensary operators and people who want to participate in the new recreational system. Grow PAC would like the state to set up a single system to issue licenses to growers, processors and other businesses, while at the same time maintaining aspects of the existing medical system such as the ability for patients to work directly with growers.

Terzieff said her client, the Oregon Cannabis Business Council, is an industry association that represents growers, marijuana testing labs, processors and dispensaries. One of the group’s primary goals is to maintain Oregon’s medical marijuana cardholder system, Terzieff said.

Botkin said the Oregon Infused Topical Association includes about 10 businesses that produce products such as oils people can apply to treat skin conditions such as eczema and pain from arthritis and other conditions.

Currently, marijuana products can only be sold at medical dispensaries and, starting sometime in 2016, at recreational pot stores. Producers of topical products want the state to allow them to sell the items elsewhere, such as at farmer’s markets. “The process of producing topicals, it takes out all of the hallucinogenics,” Botkin said.

UFCW Local 555 is also paying attention to cannabis legislation, because the union is working to organize employees in pot retail stores, said Botkin, who also represents another union, AFSCME.

Industry groups in flux

Just as Oregon’s marijuana laws and regulations are changing rapidly, so are the groups that represent the industry. The Oregon Cannabis Industry Association is one group undergoing changes. Taylor took over as interim director in December, after then-executive director and chief Measure 91 sponsor Anthony Johnson resigned.

“I have been asked to kind of step in, and assess the viability of the Oregon Cannabis Industry Association and its membership and see if we really want to keep going with that organization,” Taylor said recently. “It just got a little side tracked with its mission during the campaign.”

Taylor said the cannabis industry needs a strong association similar to the Oregon Association of Nurseries, and he hopes OCIA can fill that void.

“Many of us that have been at this along time have wished there was a statewide organization that everybody could call to get an answer for stuff,” Taylor said.


Regulators already friendly with industry


The Oregon marijuana industry already has a close relationship with state regulators and other officials, including pot czar Tom Burns.

In December, the Oregon Cannabis Industry Association held its “next step fundraiser” at the Slide Inn in southeast Portland. For $40, attendees could rub elbows with “special guests” including Tom Burns, at the time Oregon’s top medical marijuana regulator and now the director of marijuana programs for the OLCC, and several pot industry representatives.

Karynn Fish, a spokeswoman for the OLCC, noted that Burns did not work for the OLCC at the time of the fundraiser.

“We get invited to events all the time,” Fish said. “We’re still figuring out as an agency what our approach will be.”

 

[BadPenny]

Portland, no grow buffer zones

Portland, no grow buffer zones

http://navigator.state.or.us/apps/schools_locator/index.html

Medford

http://navigator.state.or.us/apps/schools_locator/index.html

Eugene

worst than Ptown

http://navigator.state.or.us/apps/schools_locator/index.html