The Santa Barbara County grand jury criticized county supervisors this week for allowing “unrestricted access” to marijuana lobbyists, as the board voted to allow cannabis cultivation to explode in the Valley Valley region. Santa Ynez and Carpinteria with little regulation and a flimsy tax regime that has deprived the county of millions of dollars.
The 26-page report released Tuesday cited emails showing the close relationship that developed between the industry and two supervisors, along with a top member of the county’s executive staff. At times, the grand jury wrote, it seemed that lobbyists not only recommended how supervisors should vote, but tried to “order” them.
Typically, land use policy begins with large public meetings and country planning staff, who then make recommendations to the board. But in this case, the grand jury wrote, the policy recommendations were drawn up by an ad hoc committee of two supervisors, Das Williams and Steve Lavagnino, that was not subject to the open meeting laws. The committee then directed staff on how they wanted the industry to be regulated.
Supervisors frequently met with lobbyists and major producers, often just a day or two before the board’s critical cannabis hearings.
“The Board of Supervisors granted almost unlimited access to cannabis growers and industry lobbyists that was not disclosed to the public during the creation of the cannabis ordinances,” the jury wrote.
“On March 20, 2018, the most extreme example was an email sent by a Board member to a lobbyist, during a Board meeting, asking if he agreed with a [planning and development] staff recommendation. “
By its rules, the jury does not identify anyone by name, but since it focused on the two-person ad hoc committee, it was clear from many references that the individuals were Williams and Lavagnino.
The jury wrote that “the government in this matter took the form of some Supervisors aggressively pushing their own agendas while other Supervisors meekly followed or resigned themselves to the inevitable.”
Lavagnino suggested Thursday that the jury was against the legalization of marijuana. “The demographics of the grand jury do not reflect the county as a whole,” he said. “I am not at all surprised that a group of predominantly white older people feel uncomfortable accepting that cannabis is now a mainstream. We will review your recommendations and respond to them as necessary. “
Williams said the jury only sought “one side of the story.”
The grand jury is made up of citizens charged with serving as a watchdog. for agencies within the county. The report’s findings echo largely those of a Los Angeles Times investigation published in June 2019.
At the time, Santa Barbara had licenses for 35% of all cannabis cultivated area in California, while Humboldt County, the historic center of marijuana, had 22%.
While supervisors deferred to the industry, the jury found that they ignored complaints from residents, schools, and wine tasting rooms about the acrid smell of the crop, and concern that grape growers and avocado growers could not. use pesticides on their crops for fear of contaminating the $ 10 million marijuana fields in the wind.
“The action taken by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to certify the development of a strong cannabis industry as the primary objective of the cannabis ordinances has altered the quality of life in Santa Barbara County, perhaps to always, “wrote the jury.
Supervisors started the marijuana fever in 2017 when, unlike any other county in the state, they decided not to limit the size of the marijuana crop and opened a back door for anyone who wanted to get into business before the county. a licensing and tax regime.
All you had to do was claim in an affidavit that you had been growing medical cannabis on your property in January 2016. The county would not verify if your claim was true, or even had any connection to that property.
People from all over the state formed companies and filed affidavits saying they had been growing, when many clearly had not. Residents in the Santa Ynez Valley observed how long hoop greenhouse tunnels began to appear for the first time. A state-registered producer as a limited liability company in Agoura Hills just three weeks after supervisors voted for no limits. At the end of the year, he had permits to grow on 60 acres.
“Without a doubt, one of the most perplexing decisions made by the Board was the use of an unverified affidavit system. . .. “wrote the jury.
In Carpinteria, the old cut flower greenhouses soon released the smell of marijuana skunk throughout the city.
The Carpinteria School District sent two letters to the board saying that the air quality in the high school “was being compromised by strong cannabis smells to the point that in the afternoon students and staff reported harmful effects, such as pain head over heels from the foul smell. ” according to the report. The jury found no evidence that any board member has contacted the district to discuss buffer zones between schools and growth.
The jury questioned why the county ever thought the industry would be long-term and viable, when its own hired expert warned that there was excess cannabis in the state. California consumed between 1.5 million and 2.5 million pounds, but was producing 13.5 million.
The consultant stated: “Santa Barbara is only one of 58 counties in California, but with nearly 500 registrants seeking up to 1,365 separate cultivation permits, county growers could potentially produce. . . .more than double the legal amount of cannabis consumed statewide. “
State law prohibits transporting the crop out of state.
Williams and Lavagnino ignored such concerns and focused on the tax windfall they said the county would receive.
“I’m trying to generate what could be $ 20 [million] to $ 40 million a year for the county, “Lavagnino said at a board meeting in February 2019.
But he and Williams were pushing for a tax system that would make it easier for producers to avoid paying. Most counties collected taxes based on the square foot of cultivation allowed. It was a simple system that made cheating difficult. Santa Barbara voted to collect the gross revenue, but the county had no way to verify that revenue to see if the producers were reporting truthfully. The jury noted that the county tax collector did not even participate in this discussion before the decision was made.
The results: Santa Barbara County raised $ 6.8 million in tax revenue in fiscal year 2018-2019 from its 217 allowed acres, the jury found. In the same year, Monterey County raised $ 15.4 million from 62 acres.
Per acre Monterey was collecting eight times as much as Santa Barbara.
“The jury believes that the Board of Supervisors, in its arrogance, failed the people of Santa Barbara County,” the report says. “Now they must amend the cannabis ordinances to regain people’s trust.”
