Front Page  »  

This week’s San Luis Obispo County government meetings

February 26, 2024

By CalCoastNews staff

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will meet at 9 a.m. on Feb. 27 at the county building.

In an attempt to slow losses affiliated with the cannabis industry, under Item 1 on the agenda the supervisors will discuss raising the cost of filing a cannabis project appeal from $850 to $2,000.

Under Item 32, the board will receive and file an energy update report on the Diablo Canyon Power Plant and the proposed offshore wind farms, and provide direction as deemed necessary. There will be protesters in attendance advocating for no wind projects off our coast.

Offshore wind update:

  • Oct. 2018 – U.S. Department of Interior announcement
  • Oct. 2022 – Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) completed their environmental
    review for issuance of the leases
  • Dec. 2022 – BOEM concluded its lease auction for the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area (MBWEA)
  • Dec. 2023 – BOEM issued notice of intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement
  • Aug. 2022 – California Energy Commission (CEC) development off the California Coast Report
  • Feb. 2023 – CEC preliminary assessment of economic benefits of offshore wind report
  • April 2023 – CEC energy permitting roadmap report
  • Jan. 2024– CEC draft strategic plan published

The Arroyo Grande City Council will meet at 6 p.m. on Feb. 27 in the council chambers.

The City Council will discuss an update on goals and priorities  for fiscal years 2023 through 2025, under Item 11-a on the agenda, The goals include pursuit of a revenue measure and alternative funding sources for infrastructure needs. The council will consider public outreach, including the creation of a Citizen Committee.

The Atascadero City Council will meet at 6 p.m. on Feb. 27 in the council chambers.

The Grover Beach City Council will meet at 6 p.m. on Feb. 26 in the council chambers.

The City Council adopted a short-term rental (STR) ordinance on June 17, 2019. The ordinance authorizes the city manager to establish rules and regulations for the purpose of interpreting, clarifying, carrying out, furthering, and enforcing the requirements of the ordinance.

A maximum of 40 non-owner-occupied STRs will be allowed on properties within the Coastal Zone. A maximum of 60 non-owner-occupied STRs will be allowed on properties outside of the Coastal Zone. There is no limit for the number of STR permits issued for owner-occupied units. Permits are issued on a first come, first serve basis.

Under Item 6 on the agenda, the council will adopt revisions to the city’s short-term rental ordinance. The council plans to modify the city’s short-term rental waitlist procedures, local contact requirements, adjusting length of stay requirement for short-term rentals  within accessory dwelling units and minor changes and clarifications to definitions and permit revocation.

The Oceano Community Services District Board will meet Feb. 28 at 6 p.m. in the board room.

Under item 9-B on the agenda, the board will consider a conflict waiver for its former legal counsel, Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green LLP, to work for the Central Coast Blue Regional Recycled Water Authority.

The new district legal counsel, Rob Shultz, is recommending the board deny the request as AMMCG represented the district from 2013 in water maters in the Northern Cities Management Area of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, which could create a conflict of interest.

Shultz cites thirty-five entries from past legal bills where AMMCG charged to work on behalf of the district on items related to Central Coast Blue.

The Nipomo Community Services District Board will meet at 9 a.m. on Feb. 2 in the board room.

 


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The board of sup’s not happy with their cut of the cannabis deal thought it would bring them a ton of money to blow !! Such a beautiful pic of wind turbines. Maybe they can have some boat tours to show tourists the beauty of it all


5

SL County: the Board may be appointing a new CAO. 


From a few years of observation, I hope in the job description lists, the Board’s leadership is toxic, so you must do nothing that will show a contrast to the Board’s desired state, ineptitude. That means put in check on any dreams of innovation, leadership, and team building. The Board is very threatened by anyone who can thread the needle of success through the morass of the Board’s political infighting. The Board will punish you for being successful. 


So accordingly do not trust your Assistant County Administrator as she will do her very best to get you fired, including taking notes on everything you say and in hopes that it will be used against you. Do not trust Counsel and HR as they will gleefully turn on anyone the Board so decides, whether or not there is merit. 


For ultimate success, do nothing, say nothing, keep your head down, and you’ll meet the Board’s dream CAO expectation: mediocrity. 


1

SLO County, not SL County.


2

SLO County: Homeless manager raise. Given the abysmal and deadly failures of the Prado Shelter and the Oklahoma Safe Parking site, the county wants to increase the pay for its homeless division manager by calling it something else. Typical county, let’s promote ineptitude.


7

SLO County…Marijuana follies: Even if this action is approved, the county continues to subsidize the Marijuana industry with your general fund tax dollars ($ millions). Instead of fixing roads, acquiring new/safe playground equipment, or public safety needs, our Board continues to subsidize pot growers. No other ag industry is subsidized by the county. Given the SLO county supervisor history of being bribed by the pot industry, unspeakably, our elected leaders continue to favor the pot growers above all others. Makes me wonder how the pot owners continue to make puppets out of the Board? 


8

You wonder how the county continues to subsidize the Marijuana industry with general fund tax dollars. What industry? There’s no marijuana industry in this county. Of the 141 cultivation permits the county believed they’d have, how many are there? 4? 6? Add to that maybe 10 marijuana delivery and distribution businesses, and a couple manufacturers. That’s not an industry. The question should be, what happened to all the planning staff and sheriff and code enforcement hired on to process and inspect this now non-existent industry? Perhaps that’s where general fund money is going.


2

Bingo!


2