Front Page  »  

SLO County supervisors disagree on all things cannabis

August 25, 2020

By KAREN VELIE

San Luis Obispo County supervisors failed to agree on any proposed changes to the county cannabis ordinances last week, with supervisors Bruce Gibson and John Peschong butting heads with supervisors Debbie Arnold and Lynn Compton.

As a result of the death of Supervisor Adam Hill, if the board is split 2-2, nothing passes. In this case, the board majority failed to agree on any of the staff’s phase three cannabis ordinance suggestions.

In 2019, Peschong, Arnold and Compton voted to instruct staff to produce amendments that would help protect residents through increased setbacks, required ventilation for indoor grows and consideration of prohibiting outside grows.

Staff came back with the following proposed phase three amendments:

  • Establish enforcement-related remedies for cannabis violations, including options and scenarios related to a “3-strike” policy;
  • Increase buffer distance from schools and other sensitive receptors;
  • Evaluate and analyze options to prohibit outdoor cultivation;
  • Disallow the payment of water offset fees over the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin;
  • Disallow re-permitting if an operation ceases or violation occurs (no “revolving door”);
  • Require enclosed ventilation systems on indoor grows;
  • Evaluate and analyze drying in hoop houses;
  • Revise standards for ancillary nurseries to be encompassed in the overall cannabis cultivation area.

Following more than three hours of public comment on the proposed phase three amendments that was preceded by cannabis industry lobbyists battling against the proposed changes, Peschong moved from his request to amend the ordinance to supporting no changes.

Peschong explained his change, noting that only six cannabis cultivators have been approved by both the state and the county. In addition, Peschong voiced concerns over changing rules midstream after growers had spent large amounts of money to comply with the current ordinance.

Arnold was seeking the amendments primarily to help stop conflicts between growers and residents. While she supported cannabis cultivation in the county that was to support the small growers, most of whom had been pushed out.

Compton and Arnold primarily voiced concerns over the impacts of cannabis cultivation on residential properties and conflicting agricultural concerns.

On the other side, Peschong and Gibson were supportive of the growers and wanted no changes.


Loading...
Related:


11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What? “help protect residents”. WTF? This is the wackiest thing I’ve ever heard. It makes it seems like cannabis plants are walking around attacking people. Maybe the BOSs would consider protecting me from the tweakers looking for their next fix. No, that would be too hard.


SLO county government is stupid and corrupt. Cannabis was more legal before it became legal. Allowing local governments to insert their corruption into the practice was probably seen as a way to help it pass, but who could have imagined how bad it would get. We have a bajillion acres of grapes in SLO county, but I can’t grow cannabis outside on my own property? Many people depend on cannabis as medicine and can’t afford to pay $300 for an ounce of something that costs about $20/pound to grow. Dirty, ugly corruption.


9

Many who live in this county are financially stable. Sadly, all levels of Government do not follow the financially stable practices of the taxpayer. We have allowed Government to price themselves out of business. As a result we find ourselves focused on money as the primary justification for many permissions. If we were to publicly state and accept that reality, we could then legislate the budget remedies of Nevada and make everything legal. What happens in America stays in America, right? In my opinion, “Wrong”, the real justifications should be about family, good health, and education to protect tomorrow’s future. Sure, plant your whatever for yourself but don’t commercially do it for others and expect the neighbors to accept the consequences of your personal gain.


1

I wonder if Pershing’s long time friendship with Jamie Kirk Jones, of Kirk Consulting, had anything to do in changing his mind? Jamie is a consultant/lobbyist for the cannabis industry and anytime one of her clients has an issue with the county she phones Peschong for help. Big John should be careful. Cozy relationships with “consultants“, cannabis entrepreneurs and developers is what tripped up Adam Hill.


26

Ms Kirk is a very well connected

person in this county.but it is her job and she does it openly.The Cannabis industrie could be a asset for the county,Adam Hill and Ellen Beraud understood that.

There are a lot of oppositio from wine makers towards cannabis.Ms arnold herself is a grape grower.Cannabis needs the water that could be used for grape.

This anti canabis politic is ran by old school Trumpist leaders ,Arnold and Compton.Mr peschong is the smartest one ,i will advice our 2 supervisors to follow his lead on this issue.Mr Gibson understood a long time ago that you do not go against people vote cannabis was voted a legal product.

And about Adam:in the last election Adam almost lost the support of Edna valley grappe grower and had to vote no on some cannabis resolution .So sir your statment is false.Hello Ccn, again you are did not do you investigative job, sleeping at the wheel?


-22

Spell much?


10

I am glad it bothered you.


1

While Jamie Kirk is well connected, married to Adam Hill’s best friend while siding up to Lynn Compton, I do not agree with the rest of your statement.


California cannabis growers are growing nine times the pot that is sold in the state. Meaning criminals take the rest to the black market, mostly smuggled out of state.


Ellen Beraud and Adam Hill did not care about the impact to residents, only their own greed as the worst in the industry threw money at Hill and Beraud, two politicians who clearly support organized crime.


Debbie Arnold’s children have a small winery, but good try with a little false information apparently meant to mislead.


10

California cannabis growers are growing nine times the pot that is sold in the state.Meaning criminals take the rest to the black market, mostly smuggled out of state.


False logic. Cannabis is decriminalized in all but 3 states at this point. Not every state can grow cannabis — just like not every state can grow grapes.


California doesn’t consume all of the wine grown here, just like it doesn’t consume all of the cannabis grown here — nor would it make sense in either case.


0

You’re an interesting one varian08, a chameleon.

Trying awfully hard to look uneducated. Comments on earlier posts are pretty good. Why the recent change in writing style?


1

Red Bull training, Dud.


-3

Hill never was and never will be in the same league as John, period. Hill for many obvious reasons had not a bag of controversial reasons, but a trunk full.


2