Commercial cannabis growers in Santa Barbara County may have to abide by more stringent policies if supervisors approve two changes at an upcoming meeting.
The July 9 hearing will take place more than a year after the county approved its existing commercial cannabis ordinances. The two amendments would increase the number of people who are notified when growers submit cannabis operation applications to the county and would require operators to obtain higher-level permits in certain parts of the county.
The latter amendment would require all commercial cannabis operations in the county’s Agricultural-I zone, which includes smaller plots of land in urban and rural areas, to obtain a conditional use permit rather than a land use permit like they do under the existing ordinance. The conditional use permit process takes longer and costs more, but it allows for public input, according to a staff report from the June 18 Board of Supervisors meeting.
“The expanded process associated with a [conditional use permit] (including the public hearing) would result in an increase in time and cost … for commercial cannabis activities, but would also increase the opportunity for public participation,” the staff report states.
When the Board of Supervisors first approved its existing cannabis ordinances in 2018, it intended to follow up with amendments and other necessary measures, county supervising planner David Lackie told the Sun.
During a Jan. 29 Board of Supervisors meeting, county staff presented the board with possible amendments to pursue, and supervisors directed staff to follow up on amendments regarding the Agricultural-I zone regulations and the notification process.
Staff initially presented options for the two amendments to the Planning Commission in April, and then again on May 1. At the May meeting, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 for staff to recommend the amendments to the supervisors, with commissioners John Parke and Cecilia Brown voting against the move.
Prior to the final vote, Parke made a motion to approve an alternative to the Agricultural-I zone amendment that would have prohibited cannabis completely in some agricultural zones. The measure was voted down with only Parke and Brown voting in favor of the move.
“There’s been such an explosion of growth … certainly there hasn’t been equity for the community in the ordinances,” Brown said at that meeting. “And I think we need to tip the scales to achieve a balance.”
The notification requirement amendment proved less divisive, with the Planning Commission unanimously approving the measure. The amendment would require that all residents within existing developed rural neighborhoods receive a notification if a cannabis application is submitted for a project in the neighborhood, or if the cannabis operation would use a public roadway that runs through the neighborhood.
Currently, only residents within 1,000 feet of potential cannabis project sites are notified when an application has been submitted, which is already more than the 300 feet required for other projects, planner Whitney Wilkinson said during the May Planning Commission meeting.
During its meeting to discuss these ordinances, the Planning Commission received more than 200 pages of public comments on the amendments. In their feedback, residents raised concerns about the odor that cannabis plants emit, a fear of increased crime occurring at cannabis grow sites, and other concerns.
These amendments, and public concerns, come at a time when county residents have questioned the county’s process of drafting and implementing its cannabis ordinances. In response to rumors about a lack of transparency, the county released an open public letter to residents in late May trying to address concerns.
In its letter, the county discussed the public meetings it’s held on cannabis regulations, as well as the county’s criminal enforcement actions against illegal cannabis growers and operators. Following the release of the letter, County Deputy CEO Dennis Bozanich told the Sun that some of the public debate has led to misinformation, which the county is attempting to resolve.
“Let’s reset the foundational facts of what’s happened here regardless of what people are saying,” Bozanich said.
A representative from the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis publicly questioned the county’s transparency at its June 18 meeting regarding a cannabis update staff presented to supervisors. The board also approved the July 9 hearing at this meeting.
County staff provides supervisors with quarterly updates on the county’s revenue from cannabis, as well as its criminal enforcement operations. At the June 18 meeting, the update was placed on the board’s administrative agenda, which consists of numerous items supervisors can approve without discussion.
The coalition representative said the group would like to see the county place future cannabis updates, as well as other cannabis related issues, on the board’s departmental agenda, which consists of items that require hearings and public presentations.
“Because of all the interest, we believe it’s prudent for your board to schedule updates on cannabis related issues and information as departmental items with broad notice given to those who have requested to be kept appraised of cannabis ordinance related matters,” the representative said.
According to the staff report on the quarterly update, from February through April, the county carried out 12 enforcement actions against illegal cannabis operators, which resulted in the eradication of 38,800 plants worth about $9.7 million. The county also seized 14,900 pounds of processed cannabis, worth about $15 million.
Additionally, the county collected $1.4 million in tax receipts from cannabis operators from February through April. Throughout this fiscal year, the county has received $4.6 million from cannabis and is expected to receive about $5.7 million by the end of the fiscal year.
Reach Staff Writer Zac Ezzone at zezzone@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jun 20-27, 2019.