Supervisors Formally Deny Proposed Cannabis Farm West of Temecula

RIVERSIDE - The Board of Supervisors today unanimously affirmed its prior decision to reject a proposed commercial cannabis cultivation site just west of Temecula, despite an appeal by the property owner, who suggested the supervisors were not behaving like a "neutral third party.''

"It should be OK to cultivate cannabis on one's property,'' Samuel Hazelip, owner of Fuego Farms, told the board. "I've done every single thing, one after another after another (to meet the county's permitting criteria). It frustrates me when my next-door neighbors are telling me what I can do with my property and that I'm a bad guy.''

Hazelip brought two attorneys and multiple contractors who had been retained to work on the proposed commercial cannabis grow with him to the board's confirmation of denial hearing, which was scheduled as a matter of routine following the supervisors' decision last month to formally end proceedings related to Fuego Farms' application.

Hazelip denounced the public campaign against his project, which included not only De Luz residents in the area of Carancho and El Calamar roads, abutting the Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve, but also the cities of Murrieta and Temecula.

"There's been a lot of fear-mongering and nonsense,'' he said. "This is unfair and not right. I'm not infringing on the rights of my neighbors.''

Attorney John Armstrong urged the board to reconsider its denial, saying the 72-acre agricultural project would make a "good test case for the county, just to see how it goes.''

"The idea is to move people out of the black market (of cannabis cultivation),'' Armstrong said.

The board has not approved permits for any outdoor commercial cannabis grow sites in unincorporated communities. The county's 2018 Marijuana Comprehensive Regulatory Framework, codified under Ordinance No. 348, provides for steps that prospective businesses must take to be eligible for permits. Safety and health safeguards are part of the regulatory system.

Hazelip said the Planning Commission's narrow 3-2 vote last fall in favor of the proposal reflected wisdom, and argued that the "intelligent choice for the Board of Supervisors is to move forward in the same direction.''

The comment irked Supervisor Karen Spiegel, who admonished Hazelip that his choice of language was "not quite the way to address a body that's going to make a decision'' regarding an appeal.

"It's not a fun time for me to listen to someone belittling us,'' she said, reiterating that Fuego Farms' representatives never made an effort to contact her office in the months preceding the board's initial hearing on the project to offer evidence in support of permits for the site.

Supervisor Kevin Jeffries expressed sympathy, saying he understood the applicant's frustration, but added that "this is still an issue of compatibility and how this fits in the community. It doesn't quite fit. You chose to go into a community that doesn't have anything like this, and it's just something the community doesn't want to see up there.''

Only 4.3 acres were slated for development specifically for marijuana cultivation, leaving the remainder of the property vacant or for other crops, such as citrus. The project called for 15, 3,841-square-foot greenhouses, two 2,800-square-foot greenhouses, eight 3,000-gallon water tanks and a 4,800-foot administration building.

Upward of 600 residents signed petitions and sent emails opposed to the proposal over public safety, noise, odor, lighting and water use concerns.

More than 50 appeared at last month's board hearing, speaking in opposition.

Hazelip and his team attempted to assure the board that the property would be well secured with armed guards, that lights emanating from the greenhouses and perimeter fencing wouldn't ruin area residents' views of the night sky and that cannabis odors would be filtered to lessen their impacts.

Copyright 2022, City News Service, Inc.