In Nick Welsh’s Santa Barbara Independent article “Cannabis Farm Passes Smell Test,” he wrote: “This was the first of many such appeals that cannabis critics will be filing. Some planning commissioners opined it was long on emotion and short on legally supportable grounds.”
In fact, while the county has not been long on emotion, it
has been extraordinarily short on legally supportable grounds. To paraphrase
the planning commissioners’ words, perhaps the county is more accurately
described as “long on greed and short on legally supportable grounds.” I base
this admittedly harsh judgment on the following:
- The regulatory scheme of S.B. County has relied
heavily on the county designation of sites as Legal Nonconforming Users,
allowing such sites to grow cannabis prior to being permitted. Under California
law, such a designation can only be made upon the county finding that the claimant has presented substantial evidence in a public forum to meet its burden
of proving (1) that the Legal Nonconforming Use exists and (2) the
size of that Legal Nonconforming Use. - By its own admission in its Letter of
Authorization to the State, the county
has not heard any evidence in a public or private forum to support a
Legal Nonconforming Use designation. - Absent strict adherence to the above California
process, the county designation of Legal Nonconforming Use is invalid and the
sites should not have received the benefits of Legal Nonconforming User status,
which for many of these sites should have resulted in the immediate shutting
down of the cannabis operations, pending completion of permitting. - California law also clearly states that a
governmental entity determining Legal Nonconforming Use status cannot waive
adherence to the process. The “Letter of Authority” sent by the county to the state,
by its own words, acknowledges that it has waived such adherence. - The county, under the guise of public safety,
hid the identity of the sites claiming Legal Nonconforming Use status from the
public for over 18 months. This secrecy made a timely public forum for public
input impossible. - License stacking and other unique county
policies that overwhelmingly favor the interests of cannabis growers and county
revenue over other legitimate community interests have made Santa Barbara
County the most intensely cannabis-cultivated California county.
As to Marc Byers of Byers Scientific putting together expert
and impartial testing of odor control for the county to rely on, I suggest
there is a clear conflict of interest. There can be no dispute that an
impartial, expert test must have total separation from a party that may benefit
from the results. The county cannot delegate its responsibility to an
interested party. It was unacceptable enough when the county accepted the Byers
system as “best available” when, by its own words, the certification was based
on the assumption that all of Byers marketing claims were true and, further, the
certifying entity did not investigate other available systems before certifying the Byers system as the “best available.”