Board of Supervisors — 2019-07-09

Cannabis Ordinance and Regulatory Framework

• Public testimony included arguments from cannabis cultivators for regulatory stability and against restrictive amendments.
• Wine industry representatives raised concerns regarding odor drift, pesticide drift, and impacts on the wine tourism economy.
• Legal counsel noted that the current framework allows for public participation and warned that a hastily drafted cap could be an illegal moratorium.
• The Board decided not to proceed with deliberations on the ordinance amendments at this time.
• The motion to adjourn and continue the discussion to July 16th in Santa Barbara passed.

Agenda Item: Public Comment on Cannabis Ordinance and Regulatory Framework

Discussion and Public Testimony

• The Board of Supervisors received public testimony regarding the regulation of the cannabis industry in Santa Barbara County. Speakers represented various sectors, including cannabis cultivators, the wine industry, and other agricultural producers.
• Cannabis Industry Representatives: Several speakers, including representatives from the Cannabis Business Council, Lowell Farms, and North County Farmers Guild, argued against further restrictive amendments to the current ordinance. They cited the economic benefits of the industry, including job creation and tax revenue, and emphasized the need for regulatory stability to allow businesses to operate and eliminate the black market. Some speakers highlighted the complexity and delays in the current permitting process, noting that applications submitted months prior had not yet been processed. Others proposed specific conditions for any potential acreage caps, such as protecting existing applicants, basing measurements on CDFA definitions, and setting expiration dates for the caps. One speaker announced plans for a new annual festival to promote the legal cannabis industry.
• Wine and Other Agricultural Industry Representatives: Speakers from the Santa Barbara Vintners and individual wineries expressed concern over the impact of cannabis cultivation on the wine tourism economy. They cited issues such as odor drift, pesticide drift, and the potential erosion of the region’s reputation for wine tourism. One winery owner described personal experiences with a neighboring cannabis grow, including concerns about drift and property interactions. Another fifth-generation farmer expressed opposition to additional government policy or caps on agricultural commodities, citing the need to compete in global markets.
• Legal and Regulatory Perspectives: Attorneys representing the North County Farmers Guild and other stakeholders discussed the legal implications of proposed changes. They noted that the current regulatory framework, including permits like LUPs and CDPs, provides ample opportunities for public participation and appeal. One attorney argued that a hastily drafted cap could constitute an illegal moratorium and recommended more time to develop a responsive cap. Another attorney referenced recommendations from the cities of Carpinteria and Goleta regarding uniform regulations in the coastal and inland zones.
• Community and Economic Impact: Speakers discussed the broader economic and social impacts, including the potential for CBD hemp to enter the market if local regulations are not approved, the importance of local jobs for families, and the need for a balanced approach that protects established industries while allowing for new agricultural development.

Motion and Decision

• Following the public comment period, Supervisor Steve Lavagnino stated that the Board would not proceed with deliberations at that time. Instead, the Board decided to continue the meeting to a future date.
• Motion: To adjourn the current meeting and continue the discussion to July 16th in Santa Barbara.
• Second: The motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: The motion to adjourn and continue the meeting to July 16th passed.
• Note: The transcript indicates that the Board did not vote on the specific cannabis ordinance amendments during this session but rather postponed the decision to allow for further consideration and potentially additional public input on the specified future date.