Local marijuana cultivation ordinance moves forward
The Bishop Planning Commission deliberated during their 4-hour-long Tuesday evening meeting on the separate issues of a marijuana cultivation and vaping ordinance.
Commission members as a whole were clearly, from the very beginning, not impressed with the ordinances that had been presented to them by the Bishop City Staff, represented by Planning Director Gary Schley and City Attorney Ryan Jones. Two sample ordinances were selected by City Council members to be looked at and discussed by the Commissioners
Jones explained that there were three options the Commission could take: Recommend a total ban or a very restricted approval process or simply taking no action at all.
The Commissioners showed considerable independence and careful consideration, noting that it was clear from those in attendance that the consensus as a whole was for either “let the state decide” or “place the least amount of restrictions on patients that use medical marijuana and want to grow their own.”
While Commission Vice Chair Mark Heckman was the most vocal critic of the ordinances, saying that having so much of the licensing process going through the police department was like “having the fox guard the hen house,” the majority of the other commissioners were highly critical of the ordinances as well.
What was presented was characterized by almost every commission member as “heavy-handed,” “specious,” “overly-regulated and costly to patients” who want to grow their own medical marijuana, and involving all kinds of “unnecessary involvement by the Bishop Police Department” on matters that were clearly not in their job description but rather in the realm of enforcing building codes and building inspectors. Most of the restrictions on growing indoors were also felt to be unnecessarily restrictive and costly. The heavy reliance on the involvement of the police in the licensing process and, to some extent, additional involvement by other City departments was also felt by some to be needlessly intimidating —especially law enforcement—and quite likely intrusive and in violation of HEPA rules, if not outright violations of patient-doctor confidentiality and relationships.
While some commissioners appeared to be willing to allow outdoor cultivation, in the end they decided to allow only indoor growing restricted to 100 square feet of space in a single-family home and not the 25 square feet originally proposed in the ordinance. They also recommended having licensing handled by the City’s administrative offices; to follow the state criteria for a 600-foot buffer between the operation and schools; and to allow enforcement of Public Nuisance complaints to be based only on calls directly related to the grow operation.
In the end, recommendations for both the cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use and vaping ordinances were passed by the Planning Commission, the first on a 6-1 vote, and the vaping ordinance on a 5-2 vote, although both with the strong recommendation that they be sharply reduced in size, scope, and stripped of restrictions and language considered as heavy-handed, intrusive, and even specious.
The Planning Commission’s recommendations will now go back to a City Council, which must decide just how deep they want to step into morass of patients’ rights to access of medication when they are allowed by law to grow as much as needed to meet their medical needs.
There are many who feel that the City Council should take a pass on creating any local ordinance on the cultivation of medical marijuana. That was clearly the opinion of the two- dozen or so supporters in attendance at the Commission meeting. It was the thought expressed by several speakers who were against the ordinance at the Planning Commission meeting as well. The Inyo County Board of Supervisors have apparently decided to let the state decide the matter.
As to “when” the state might have their own regulations in effect, Jones said it was not likely until late 2016 or even 2017. However, the state legislature has given local governments a choice and a deadline of March 1, 2016, to come up with their own regulations in lieu of defaulting to whatever law the state eventually decides upon. Given that The California Compassionate Use Act, which took effect on Nov. 6, 1996 as part of the California Health & Safety Code, made it legal for patients and their designated primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana for their personal use,” and that Prop. 215 specifically allows patients whatever amount of marijuana they need for their own medical use, Councilmembers are going to have to serious ask themselves “Do we really want to step into this mess?”
If the City Council decides to move forward to adopt their own ordinances, another public hearing must be held along with two readings of the ordinance before becoming law.
