Lompoc residents concerned over cannabis referendum

Following a series of one-sided hearings on a proposed cannabis use ordinance in Lompoc, many locals are very concerned at the policy that was adopted by council members Jim Mosby, Jenelle Osborne, and Victor Vega.

Following a campaign promise in 2016, Councilwoman Osborne led the crafting of the ordinance over the last several months. The first ordinance—prepared with input from professionals in all city departments—was soundly rejected by the council majority as being “too restrictive.”

This action set the stage for what became a license to steal for the cannabis industry. No other community in North County allows commercial sales within their boundaries, and the county is still pondering what to do about the issue in the unincorporated areas.

The cannabis industry needed a foothold to grow, process, and market their product, and they chose Lompoc as their target. Since the 2016 election, the City Council has eroded code enforcement regulations to the point that very little can be done about blight, and specifically directed the city to prepare an enabling ordinance.

They doubled down when the cannabis ordinance was crafted, and there are virtually no boundaries for the industry in the city.

Cannabis dispensaries can be located next to drug/alcohol treatment centers and houses of worship that host programs for children. The odors produced by the intoxicating smoke can drift into adjoining properties without restriction, and there are no limitations on either the number of licenses or the proximity of one business to another.

Commercial grows are permitted even though there are no agricultural zones within the city.

Other cities and counties throughout the state have allowed commercial operations but have imposed restrictions, so the idea of allowing dispensaries with all the limitations that industry critics in Lompoc were asking for wasn’t a new idea. The other jurisdictions used the more conventional approach to policymaking by allowing the policy to move its way methodically through the process.

Draft policies were vetted to include the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process and recommendations from public safety and planning commissions. The Lompoc City Council didn’t want to use this process, probably because they knew that the CEQA document would discover issues that they couldn’t avoid.

They instructed the city attorney to find a way to avoid this process, and he did what he was asked to do; thus, any view contrary to the industry would not be accepted.

During the workshop/hearing process, the council ignored anyone who objected to the way this policy was crafted. The city police chief was hired from Portland, Oregon, and has had considerable experience in a city and state where cannabis was legalized in 2014. He knows what the unintended consequences are, but his input was rejected as being “alarmist” by naive council members.

People who attended these hearings and voiced concerns were publicly ridiculed in meetings by cannabis proponents and privately harassed in on-line blogs and as they made their way through the city.

All this finally came to a head in the final public hearing to adopt the ordinance. Remaining faithful to her campaign promise, Councilwoman Osborne was going to get her way as she made a motion to adopt the seriously flawed policy.

Addressing local churchgoers’ testimony during the hearing and any others who had issues with the policy, she said, “I’ve had a phone call, I’ve had an email. That’s not participating. Tonight has been the first participation and it wasn’t strong enough to change because it didn’t have any legal boundaries I could respect.”

Of course, she was wrong as the public record shows, in the era of electronic communication both email and phone conversations are a legitimate way to communicate with elected officials. Agenda’s posted on the city website include emails and letters as public comment and are a part of the public record of hearings.

Now a group has formed to initiate a referendum petition on the policy; this will allow voters to determine if the policy the council approved meets community standards. Contrary to what cannabis advocates will tell you, it will not interfere with personal use or growth of six plants by people who use this as their intoxicant of choice.

Supporting this referendum simply puts the brakes on a seriously flawed process when measured by the actions taken by every other community in California that allows commercial sales within its borders. 

Ron Fink is a resident of Lompoc. Send your thoughts to [email protected].

Comments (0)
Add a Comment