Page 1
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Six of this district on Friday stuck with the view it expressed in its initial opinion in the case on Oct. 29 holding, following a rehearing, that a petition for a writ of administrative mandate challenging the issuance of a county conditional use permit to cultivate cannabis on property that could only be accessed through an easement across an objecting party’s property was improperly denied in light of the illegality of the drug under federal law.
Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert authored the opinion, which was joined in by Justices Kenneth Yegan and Hernaldo J. Baltodano. Repeating what he said before, Gilbert wrote:
“The county grants a conditional use permit (CUP) for the cultivation of cannabis. To issue a CUP, the county’s land use code requires a finding that the streets and highways are adequate for the proposed use. A private easement over a neighbor’s land is the only access to the land subject to the CUP. The owner of the servient tenement objects to the use of his land to transport cannabis. The servient owner petitions for a writ of administrative mandate challenging the county’s grant of the CUP. The trial court denies the petition. We reverse because under federal law cannabis is illegal in California and everywhere else in the United States. The servient tenant’s objection on this ground is sufficient to defeat the CUP. That the possession and cultivation of cannabis have the imprimatur of legality in California is beside the point.”
Rehearing Petition
The County of Santa Barbara on Nov. 13 sought a second look at the case by Div. Six on the basis of two opinions from the Fourth District Court of Appeal that it had failed to cite earlier: Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim, decided in 2010 by Div. Three, and City of Palm Springs v. Luna Crest, Inc., a 2016 opinion from Div. Two. A rehearing was granted on Nov. 25.
Gilbert responded to the cases, saying:
“In Qualified Patients, the court held that federal law does not preempt the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) and the Compassionate Use Act of 1996….In City of Palm Springs, the court held that federal law does not preempt the city’s permit requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries….
“We are not concerned with federal preemption of the MMPA, the Compassionate Use Act, or city permit requirements. It remains that transportation of cannabis is a crime under federal law. The question here is whether JCCrandall has the right to prevent the use of its land for that purpose.”
Opening Paragraphs
Gilbert kicked off the opinion by remarking:
“Many Californians have high expectations that cannabis is legal in California. This is a reasonable assumption because Civil Code section 1550.5 says so.
“We regret to inform that cannabis is illegal in California because federal law says so. Not to worry — our holding does not concern the sale or personal use of cannabis.
“Instead here we consider cannabis as it applies to easements.”
On Dec. 19, the county moved for an order dismissing the appeal as moot. The motion was denied on Friday in a footnote.
The case is JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara, 2025 S.O.S. 35.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company