Proposed indoor facility near Templeton gets green light from supervisors despite staunch opposition from neighboring residents
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY — In what was at times a contentious meeting, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors gave the green light to a proposed cannabis cultivation operation on a location east of Templeton despite the protests of nearby residents. The four-person board (District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson was absent for the item) unanimously denied an appeal by Templeton resident Robert Ballo of the County Planning Hearing Officer approving the project in January.
The project proposed by Elizabeth Ross (Eden’s Dream LLC) is for a phased Minor Use Permit (DRC2018-00183) to establish up to 22,000 sq. ft of indoor cannabis cultivation. Originally proposed as site including both indoor and outdoor cultivation components in 2019, the proposal went through a few changes, submitted without the outdoor aspect, leaving it a 22,000-square-foot canopy in a 35,500-square-foot greenhouse. That proposal was approved by the Planning Officer on Jan. 17 of this year.
Bolla, a local resident and filmmaker, filed an appeal of that decision 13 days later on behalf of the “Save Our Templeton Neighborhoods” organization, citing issues with notification to residents, lack of impartiality at the planning meeting, inadequate analysis of environmental concerns, and incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
Bolla spoke first to support his appeal, and began by showing a two-and-a-half minute video stating the “myths” of the cannibis facility’s right to build at the location, and reasons why the business is incompatible with the area, citing smaller-than-expected tax revenue, the failure of the applicant to comply with county regulations, the facility’s effect on local water supply, as well as that on energy use, odor control, and noise. It ends with the plea of “Don’t let Eden’s Dream become our nightmare!”
After the video, Bolla continued to speak about how the facility isn’t compatible with the neighborhood, and the support he and his organization has to prevent the proposal.
“This proposal is just not working with our environment,” he said. “In this area, we have houses, children, family, activities, and this is going to be right in the middle of that.”
Bolla also said a petition he has started has shown the opposition local residents have to the project.
“I sent out the petition and over 525 people have signed it,” he said. “I look on the county website and I don’t see 525 people saying they want it. We the people have spoken up and we will continue to until it goes away.”
After Bolla’s presentation, Ian McCarville of Kirk Consulting spoke on behalf of the applicants, beginning with a quick run-through of the history of the proposal and the changes made to it, and reiterating the applicant’s position that the project is compliant and addressed Bolla’s points made in his presentation.
McCarville said most of the opposition toward the project expressed at the January planning hearing and in the petitions was from people living outside the area, and the area was zoned correctly, noting that with the project tucked into a canyon and “natural screening” from the rest of the area, most of the operation would be out of sight from the neighbors.
McCarville also said most of the effects on groundwater, energy use, odor control, and noise look to be less than claimed by opponents, according to recent studies, with the applicants accepting conditions from the county to continue to comply.
“This project is approved, and concerns have been thoroughly addressed,” McCarville said. “We request the board deny the appeal and accept the project.”
The board then went to public comment on the item, though not before Chairperson Ortiz-Legg disqualified some of the requested speakers because their names were listed on the appeal with Bolla’s, and were limited to the earlier 10-minute presentation.
Of the people who did speak, all were opposed to the project, with most saying they had no problem with the business, just the location.
“I don’t smoke pot, but I have no issue with you growing pot. My concern is where you do it,” said Templeton resident Brenda Thomason. “We also have people here who raise pigs, but you don’t keep the pigs on Main Street. Put them in places where they don’t have impacts.”
The issue then went back to the board, with the supervisors addressing the appellants’ claims, with Paulding confirming with County Counsel Jon Ansolabehere that the board must vote within the county laws in considering the project, or as Ansolabehere said, “You can’t just say ‘I don’t like cannabis. I reject it.’ It needs to fall within rules, and cannabis is legal.”
Moreno was the first to state she would deny the appeal, citing her disagreements with a couple of the appellants’ claims on access and community opposition.
“I’m personally not a cannabis consumer, but I need to make the decision on current policies in place,” she said. “I’ve been to the property, I’ve seen how shielded it is. Also, in the petition, of the 525, 109 are in Templeton, the others are across the county, from Oakland to San Diego, and in 18 different states.”
Paulding said he would also deny the appeal for the same reasons as Moreno. “The project is in compliance with regulations; it will not be within 1,000 feet of any homes or schools. This is the factual basis for the decision the board is empowered to make.”
Paulding made the motion to deny the appeal, with Ortiz-Legg seconding. The board voted 4-0 (Gibson absent) to deny the appeal, and in turn, approve the Eden’s Dream project.
The Board of Supervisors will next meet on Tuesday, Aug. 5, at 9 a.m.
