[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/201...162/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/201...ocument/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"
https://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/inde..._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]

Originally Posted by Beta Test Team

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]

Originally Posted by Beta Test Team

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.

Originally Posted by Mad Lab

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.

Originally Posted by Mad Lab

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.)

Originally Posted by Mad Lab

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):
https://www.rsmeans.com/models/warehouse/
https://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]

Originally Posted by 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...A9ZTNzPkJilVCQ

[Beta Test Team]

Originally Posted by Mad Lab

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.