Planning Commission works on telecommunications ordinance

Takes break on cannabis

The Plumas County Planning Commission continued to navigate through a telecommunications ordinance at its meeting June 7. The commission, still missing one member from District 2, has been tasked with establishing recommended ordinances and policies concerning the Plumas County General Plan.

The commission is usually made up of five citizens appointed by their district supervisors. However, according to the board of supervisors’ agenda for its meeting June 12, District 2 Supervisor Kevin Goss plans to appoint Harry Rogers, a cannabis farmer and president of the Plumas County Growers Coalition, to the commission.

The commission has been working on establishing a telecommunications ordinance for the county for over a year. After a long workshop process, Planning Director Randy Wilson said the document should be ready for board review by July.

The purpose of the telecommunications ordinance is to establish standards for the placement and design of telecommunications facilities, such as cell phone towers, throughout the county.

When the ordinance is approved, the Planning Commission will begin to review other projects. Over the past couple years, the Planning Department has been occupied with the development of the commercial cannabis ordinance. However, at the Board of Supervisor’s Special Meeting on May 31, the board voted to suspend the development of the county’s draft ordinance to free up time for the planning department to work on other aspects of the general plan.

Wilson said at the Planning Commission meeting that the commission will not review the cannabis ordinance until after the November 2018 election. There will be a cannabis ordinance initiative on that ballot, that if passed, will render the county’s cannabis ordinance obsolete.

“Which frees you up to work on other planning matters,” said Wilson.

Click here to submit a letter to the editor about this post.

6 thoughts on “Planning Commission works on telecommunications ordinance

  • June 18, 2018 at 6:32 pm
    Permalink

    “Over the past couple years, the Planning Department has been occupied with the development of the commercial cannabis”
    The PC didn’t meet most of 2016, lack of appointed citizen volunteers and a Cannabis Working Group was formed, so they’ve never played a role. In late 2017 they were handed a cannabis ordinance draft, but couldn’t do anything since they had multiple other prioritized county items, example- telecommunications ordinance. The cannabis draft ordinance they received wasn’t up to current State law, it needed a thorough overhaul two weeks after it’s submission, luckily a citizens initiative began circulating by early 2018. The PC hasn’t played a contributing role in cannabis related county regulations since, well… ever.

  • June 18, 2018 at 6:35 pm
    Permalink

    “Over the past couple years, the Planning Department has been occupied with the development of the commercial cannabis ordinance”
    I’m assuming the journalist meant the Planning Commission, as the article was about the commission, and not the department, except this one sentence.

  • June 19, 2018 at 6:08 am
    Permalink

    Hold your horses.

    The cultivation issue is up to the voters now and it’s the only hope the growers have. It’s unlikely our board of supervisors would have approved commercial cultivation given so much opposition.

    Isn’t that what everybody wanted, to decide for ourselves?

  • June 19, 2018 at 10:56 pm
    Permalink

    Remember to vote NO on Measure B come November.
    Plumas County residents have nothing to gain from this poorly written self serving Measure B. Don’t be fooled when they say it will bring tax money to the county, the authors have put a 2% tax on NET Profits and even the Auditor- Controller has said the amount of revenue would be almost nothing.

  • June 21, 2018 at 8:24 am
    Permalink

    Correction..

    We might see 2% from the 10% of the growers who pay anything. Yup, once the gate opens it floods.

    Clearly it’s a no vote on Measure B.

  • June 21, 2018 at 2:30 pm
    Permalink

    Mauco’s 2% is a weak part of the Initiative. Interesting that the NO people always forget to mention the $521,000 to $776,000 of license fees that will go to the county each year.(Ref.impact report) A $2.00/sq.ft. canopy tax would have yielded another half a million or so. Let’s not forget the tremendous positive effect of the 100+ much needed jobs created. Mauco has many good points, with a bit of tweaking could really do some good here. Many cities and counties have have successful commercial cannabis ordinances that have mitigated the negative impacts, and benefitted their communities. It is a matter of getting the details right. Remember that a no vote on Mauco is not a no vote on commercial cannabis!

Comments are closed.