Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants, licensees and neighbors ask commission to deny appeal, trust staff and state agencies
Summary
Consultants and local licensees told the Planning Commission the proposed licensed farm met state and county requirements, that state agencies had inspected the site, and that the appeal appears driven by "NIMBY" concerns rather than evidence.
A range of speakers including the applicant, the project's consultant and other licensed growers told the Planning Commission that the application had been vetted under county and state rules and urged the commission to deny the appeal.
"This farm has done everything that they are required and the program . . . is in compliance and is ready to be licensed," consultant Liza Wisniewski said, clarifying that "the map just reflects what's on-site currently" and that the appendix C still contemplates 50,000 gallons of water storage. Licensee Matt Jefferson called the appeal "frivolous" and said permitted farms are more regulated than illegal grows; he asked the commission not to waste staff time on appeals that lack evidentiary basis.
Applicant Maria Ignacia Cole ("Nacha") told commissioners the project is "small, and we are simply asking for the same opportunity to use our property to support our family." Other neighbors and supporters said the applicants are upstanding community members and that the county and state have established inspection and mitigation regimes for water and biological resources.
Supporters emphasized that state agencies'including the State Water Resources Control Board and CDFW'have reviewed the site and that the county's Appendix C and site management plan include mitigation measures for runoff and setbacks. Several speakers urged the commission to rely on those technical reviews when evaluating the appeal.
