Board of Supervisors — 2019-08-20

CEO’s Report

• The CEO’s office introduced Kelly Hubbard as the new Director of the Office of Emergency Management.
• Ms. Hubbard outlined her background in emergency preparedness and previous roles in the water district sector.
• The CEO thanked Assistant CEO Matt Pontus for his service as Interim Director.

Honorary Resolutions (Items A1–A3)

• The board approved Honorary Resolution items A1 through A3 via a unanimous motion.
• These resolutions included proclamations and recognitions designated for the county.

Drowning Prevention Awareness Season

• Supervisor Hartman sponsored a resolution to proclaim May 2018 through September 2019 as Drowning Prevention Awareness Season.
• Public Health and EMS officials highlighted the importance of injury prevention and community partnerships.
• The resolution was adopted as part of the unanimous vote on honorary items.

Local Vendor Preference Policy Update

• The item was pulled for public comment to allow for discussion on local hiring and purchasing priorities.
• A speaker advocated for prioritizing local hiring over union status to stimulate the local economy.
• Supervisor Hartman clarified that the item was intended to extend the timeline for staff to provide a comparative analysis.

2019 Groundwater Basin Summary Report

• The item was pulled for public comment to address questions regarding the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act process.
• The County Water Agency Manager explained that hydrogeologic studies will be used by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to develop plans.
• The item was included in the motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda.

Chapter 50 Licensing Amendments and Fee Ordinance Amendments

• Staff presented amendments to limit countywide cannabis cultivation to 1,575 acres based on accepted land use entitlements.
• The board discussed replacing the lottery system for retail licenses with a merit-based criteria scoring system.
• The board adopted the staff recommendations for licensing amendments, excluding the retail requirements for separate discussion.
• The board directed staff to develop a merit-based scoring system for cannabis retail licenses.

G&K Farm and K&G Flower Cannabis Cultivation Appeal

• The board reviewed an appeal regarding a 14.66-acre parcel proposing cannabis cultivation in existing greenhouses.
• Staff recommended denying the appeal and approving the project based on compliance with the Program EIR and zoning ordinances.
• The board voted to deny the appeal and approve the project.

Cannabis Development Plan (CDP) Appeal

• The board reviewed the first Cannabis Development Plan to reach this stage of review.
• Supervisor Lavagnino emphasized the need for independent third-party testing on odor control systems.
• The board voted unanimously to adopt Staff Recommendations A, B, C, and D.

Closed Session

• The board considered existing litigation involving the Santa Ana’s Band of Mission Indians and a real property negotiation.
• Staff reported that no reportable actions were taken during the closed session.

Meeting Opening and Roll Call

• The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors called the meeting to order, took a roll call, and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes

• A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the August 13 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

CEO’s Report

• The CEO’s office introduced Kelly Hubbard as the new Director of the Office of Emergency Management. Ms. Hubbard’s background, including her previous role at the Municipal Water District of Orange County and experience with emergency preparedness, was outlined. The CEO thanked Assistant CEO Matt Pontus for serving as Interim Director. Ms. Hubbard addressed the board, expressing excitement about joining the team and serving the community during the recovery period.

Announcements

• The Clerk announced that public speaker slips were required for two departmental items: Item D1 (Chapter 50 licensing amendments) and Item D2 (G&K Farm and K&G Flower Cannabis appeal). It was noted that Item D2 would be heard in the afternoon, estimated after 1:00 PM.

Honorary Resolutions (Items A1–A3)

• A motion was made and seconded to approve Honorary Resolution items A1 through A3. The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item A1: Drowning Prevention Awareness Season

• Supervisor Hartman sponsored a resolution to proclaim May 2018 through September 2019 as Drowning Prevention Awareness Season in Santa Barbara County. The resolution cited drowning as a leading cause of injury-related deaths among children ages 4 and under and highlighted efforts by the County EMS Agency, Parks Division, and Safe Kids Santa Barbara County to increase awareness through CPR training and water safety events.
• Discussion: Dr. Vonda Reynoso (Public Health Director) and Matthew Higgs (EMS Services Coordinator) spoke on the importance of injury prevention and community partnerships. Supervisor Hartman shared a personal anecdote regarding a near-drowning incident and emphasized the need for swimming education and constant supervision.
• Decision: The resolution was adopted as part of the unanimous vote on items A1–A3.

Administrative Item A10: Local Vendor Preference Policy Update

• This item, from General Services, was pulled for public comment.
• Public Comment: Andy Caldwell of COLAB spoke in favor of local hiring and purchasing to stimulate the local economy through the multiplier effect. He argued that local hiring should be prioritized over union status and raised concerns about the Monterey Bay Power Authority contract, noting that some power is sourced from British Columbia, which he argued negatively impacts local jobs.
• Board Response: Supervisor Hartman noted that the item was intended to extend the date for staff to provide a comparative analysis, which was necessary regardless of the board's stance on the policy change.

Administrative Item A13: 2019 Groundwater Basin Summary Report

• This item, from the Public Works Board of Directors Water Agency, was pulled for public comment.
• Discussion: Supervisor Hartman asked how the report links to recharge basin studies and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) process. Fray Crease, County Water Agency Manager, explained that the agency has conducted hydrogeologic studies (e.g., Kuyama, San Antonio Basin) to identify recharge areas. He stated that these studies will be used by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to develop sustainability plans and that the process varies by basin.
• Decision: The item was included in the motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda.

Balance of Administrative Agenda

• A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda (including items A10 and A13). The motion passed.

General Public Comment

• One speaker, Renee O’Neill, addressed the board regarding the county budget and cannabis enforcement. She expressed concern over the use of cannabis revenue for library funding while enforcement staff (Sheriff’s deputies and Planning & Development) remained understaffed. She requested that excess cannabis revenue be used to hire more staff to address illegal operations and asked that water usage by the cannabis industry be considered in SGMA studies.
• Board Response: The Chair noted that the enforcement budget had been increased by 50% and that Planning & Development was actively interviewing for open positions, citing a lack of qualified applicants rather than funding as the current barrier.

Departmental Item D1: Chapter 50 Licensing Amendments and Fee Ordinance Amendments

• The County Executive Office presented amendments to the Chapter 50 licensing of commercial cannabis operations ordinance and the cannabis business licensing fee ordinance, based on board directions from July 9 and July 16.

Presentation by Staff (Dennis Buzanich)

• Staff presented the following proposed amendments: 1. Cultivation Cap: Limit countywide cannabis cultivation to the acreage of accepted land use entitlement applications as of July 9, 2019, while maintaining the 186-acre cap for the Carpinteria Agricultural Overlay (CARP) district. The countywide cap is calculated at 1,575 acres (1,264 acres in the queue + 311 acres already approved + 2% buffer). 2. Odor Control: Require cultivators to demonstrate the effectiveness of odor control systems during the business license application review process. 3. Concurrent Processing: Allow concurrent processing of land use permits and business license applications by requiring submission of land use entitlement or evidence of application acceptance. 4. Eligibles List: Place operators in the CARP overlay on an eligibles list for the 186-acre cap upon approval of land use entitlements. A similar eligibles list mechanism is proposed for the countywide cap. 5. Hearing Officer: Expand the definition of who can serve as a hearing officer to match County Code Section 24A. 6. Clarification: Replace the term "inland boundaries" with "unincorporated area outside of the Carpinteria Agricultural Overlay" to avoid confusion with coastal zone areas. 7. Fee Amendments:
• Add Community Services Department staff to the schedule of hourly rates for reviewing energy plans.
• Establish a cannabis retail storefront pre-qualification application fee to cover review costs.
• Fees are based on full cost recovery.

Retail Storefront Process

• Staff outlined the existing requirements for cannabis retail storefronts:
• Limit: Maximum of eight retail storefronts countywide (one per community plan area for six specific areas, plus two for areas outside those plans).
• Selection: Currently a random selection (lottery) process from an eligibles list.
• Requirements: Applicants must complete land use permitting and business licensing. Only one application per person per proposed operating location is accepted.
• Regulations: Annual licenses, no transfer of licenses, background checks for ownership changes (20%+ stake), premise restrictions (no alcohol/tobacco sales/consumption), security plans, live scan checks, video retention, theft notification, and 24/7 community relations contact.

Board Discussion

• Selection Method: Supervisor Hartman expressed concern that a lottery system creates a monopoly and windfall, suggesting a merit-based or grant-like system with points for community benefits, including public health outreach. Supervisor Adam and Supervisor Williams agreed, preferring a ranked scoring system to incentivize better operators and include criteria for labor practices (union membership) and public health education. Supervisor Hartman noted that other jurisdictions use criteria-based scoring.
• Staff Input: Staff noted that a criteria-based system creates a "cart before the horse" issue because business licensing typically follows land use permitting. They suggested that a ranking system might require a less onerous land use path (e.g., zoning clearance) for selected applicants. Staff also noted that no applicants are currently in the storefront retail process, though four are in the non-storefront retail process.
• Chair’s Concerns: The Chair expressed concern about the communication gap with the public regarding the delay of the lottery and the potential for collusion or subjectivity in a grading system. He noted that the industry had requested a change to a graded system, while the public had not. He emphasized that regardless of the selection method, community opposition to retail locations would likely persist.
• Due Process: Staff clarified that license revocation or non-renewal requires cause (e.g., nuisance activity) and due process.

Public Comment on D1

• Seventeen speakers requested to address the board. The following comments were recorded: 1. Renee O’Neill: Urged the board to enforce existing laws against illegal and non-compliant operators, arguing that the county is wasting resources on non-compliant applicants. 2. Lil Clary: Urged a firm cap on cultivation acres and questioned why operators with prior cultivation claims are not taxed or required to use track-and-trace systems. Staff responded that provisional license holders are required to pay taxes and use track-and-trace. 3. Jim Worthen: Argued against a merit-based system, citing potential for corruption and subjectivity. He supported the lottery system, noting its use in liquor licensing, and suggested that community benefits could be addressed through fees and taxes. 4. Devin Wardlow (Coastal Dispensary): Urged the adoption of a merit-based process, citing experiences in other cities where merit-based systems yielded better outcomes. He warned that a lottery system would attract out-of-town operators with significant capital, potentially displacing local operators. 5. Nancy Emerson: Supported a cap on cultivation but argued that 1,575 acres is too high. She requested a per-property cap and public review of retail locations before final selection. 6. Sharon Merritt: Argued that the current ordinance causes over-concentration of cannabis operations, negatively impacting neighboring agriculture (e.g., pesticide application issues, odor). She requested a per-parcel cap and CUPs for all applications to prevent monopoly effects on adjacent agricultural lands. 7. Anna Carrillo: Stated that the 186-acre cap in Carpinteria is too high for the small area, leading to over-concentration. She requested a reduction to 150–160 acres or a per-parcel limit. She supported a merit-based retail selection process and public health outreach requirements. She also requested a specific date for the abatement of provisional licenses. 8. Jay Freeman (Isla Vista Business Owner): Expressed concern regarding the random selection process for dispensary licenses, noting that the previous "per person per location" rule allowed for "stacking" (multiple small entities at one location). Noted that the proposed amendment changes this to a "per property" limit. Stated that the public prefers a ranked-choice or merit-based system over random selection to ensure the selected operator is suitable for the local community, particularly in dense areas where a single operator creates a local monopoly. 9. Jackie Thiel (Resident, Lompoc): Requested a per-parcel cap on cannabis growing to address odor issues. Cited a specific 130–150 acre grow operation across the river from her residence, describing the odor as severe and persistent compared to other agricultural activities. 10. Stephen Janes (President, Santa Barbara Vintners): Presented evidence from the Australian Wine Research Institute and local studies suggesting that cannabis terpenes (specifically eucalyptol/sentinel) drift onto grape tissue, potentially tainting wine. Cited a consumer rejection threshold for eucalyptol in wine and argued that cannabis terpenes are more potent. Requested an independent study before approving large-scale grows and suggested forcing cannabis into greenhouses with carbon filtration as a long-term solution. 11. Blair Pence (Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis): Criticized the proposed 1,565-acre cap as arbitrary, arguing it should be based on geographic distribution and sensitive receptors rather than application dates. Noted that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not adequately address license stacking. Raised concerns about falsified affidavits and asked for a recusal of Supervisor Lavagnino based on campaign contributions. 12. Diane Pence (Resident, Buellton): Highlighted the impact on the Santa Ynez Valley’s tourism and wine industry, specifically the Santa Rita Hills ABA. Presented slides showing proposed cannabis parcels along Highway 246. Cited reports of children in Carpinteria schools experiencing headaches and respiratory ailments due to cannabis odor. 13. Nick Bobroff (City of Carpinteria): Stated that the proposed amendments to Section 50-8 are a positive step but fail to address all impacts. Requested that the ordinance require provisional cultivators to demonstrate effective operation of lighting, noise, and odor control plans upon issuance of land use entitlements. Requested a monitoring component to ensure continued compliance, arguing the county cannot rely solely on public complaints for enforcement. 14. Maureen Claffey (Resident, Carpinteria): Described herself as a "canary in the coal mine" regarding enforcement challenges. Cited a noise complaint against a neighbor that the Sheriff’s Department could not enforce due to property access restrictions. Reported two break-ins at a neighboring cannabis farm. Suggested a ramped-up cap over five years rather than an immediate maximum, and called for stricter enforcement. 15. Brad Vapnik (Lowell Farms): Supported the cap and amendments. Requested clarity on the ability to modify projects based on community input, specifically asking to swap cultivation space for on-site processing space without losing their place in the queue. Argued that on-site processing reduces odor and safety risks compared to outdoor drying. 16. John Raish (Clerk of the Board): Asked for clarification on whether applicants with land use permits approved prior to July 9 but business licenses submitted after that date are included in the cap. Asked how the "next in line" is determined for the 1,575-acre cap. 17. John DeFriel (Cannabis Farmer, Santa Ynez Valley): Represented the North County Farmers Guild. Described voluntary odor mitigation strategies, including cryogenic freezing of crops to prevent terpene evaporation during drying. Cited third-party odor studies showing "no detects" at the fence line. Noted that many common agricultural plants (e.g., pepper, lavender) produce similar terpenes to cannabis. Announced plans for a cross-industry dinner to improve dialogue between cannabis and wine industries. 18. Tracy Farhad (Resident, Santa Ynez Valley): Former Executive Director of the Solvang Conference and Visitors Bureau. Urged the Board to protect the wine industry and tourism economy, warning that cannabis agritourism could displace wine tourism revenue and jobs. 19. Matt Allen (General Counsel, Central Coast Agriculture): Raised concerns about applicants stuck in the land use permit process who may not be able to obtain a business license due to the cap. Suggested a mechanism to allow conditional business license approval prior to land use permit completion to protect applicants who were in line before July 9. 20. Brandon Gusecki (Attorney): Praised county staff for their efforts in managing the new regulatory process. Noted that his clients have undergone extensive vetting by state and local agencies. Raised concerns about the financial impact on dispensary applicants who invested based on the previous lottery system, which is being replaced by a merit-based system. 21. Sabrina Noah (Cresco California): Provided compliance statistics for her company, including multiple state inspections with no violations. Addressed Supervisor Hartmann’s question regarding co-located medical and adult-use dispensaries, describing operational protocols such as VIP desks and valet parking for medical patients. 22. Ben Condren (Coastal Dispensary): Supported the shift from a lottery to a merit-based application system for retail licenses. Cited the City of Santa Barbara’s merit-based process as a positive example and the City of Goleta’s first-come, first-served policy as a negative example that led to investment firms acquiring licenses without operational intent. Urged the County to adopt a merit-based approach to ensure community-aligned operators.

Board Discussion (Continued)

• Clarification on Planning Commission Role: Supervisor Hartmann clarified that the Board is currently deciding on the business license cap (1,575 acres), while the Planning Commission has been directed to study conflicts between different agricultural sectors (e.g., cannabis and wine) and recommend tools such as setbacks, buffers, or zoning changes. Supervisor Adams expressed frustration with the iterative process of sending items back to the Planning Commission, arguing that the Board should make a decision on the cap now.
• Staff Clarification on Cap Mechanics: Staff (Mr. Gazzone) explained that the 1,575-acre cap is applied at the business license phase, not the permit phase. Applicants with permits approved before July 9 are included in the eligible list. The cap is sequential based on land use permit approval. Staff noted that the Board retains authority to amend the code, and applicants who receive licenses may face non-conforming status if the code changes later.
• Debate on Cap Size:
• Supervisor Adams proposed reducing the cap significantly from 1,575 acres, suggesting a lower number to address agricultural conflicts and odor issues.
• Supervisor Lavagnino defended the 1,575-acre cap, noting that the Carpinteria cap of 186 acres was agreed upon previously and that the calculation methodology for canopy has changed. Lavagnino argued that the cannabis footprint is comparable to other agricultural crops (e.g., lemons) and that the Board needs to move forward with implementation rather than continuing to delay. Lavagnino also expressed frustration with the lack of progress and the repeated introduction of new issues.
• Supervisor Hartmann supported a merit-based system for retail licenses and emphasized the need for the Planning Commission to address agricultural conflicts through planning and zoning tools.
• Supervisor Adams reiterated the need to slow down the process to allow the industry to evolve and to prevent inadvertent harm to neighboring agricultural operations.
• Retail Licensing Process:
• Supervisor Lavagnino expressed concern about changing the retail licensing process midstream from a lottery to a merit-based system, noting the time and cost implications for applicants.
• Supervisor Hartmann supported a merit-based system, citing its use in other county processes (e.g., contractor selection) and the need to ensure fair and community-aligned outcomes.
• Supervisor Adams supported a merit-based system but emphasized the need for a deliberative process to define criteria and ensure fairness.
• Supervisor Stephan: Discussed the balance between providing a legal path for cannabis cultivation and enforcing regulations to protect other agricultural industries. She noted progress in odor control enforcement in the Carpinteria area, citing feedback from school superintendents that health issues and prevalent odor complaints have decreased. She emphasized that while land use regulations are important, many conflicts will ultimately be resolved through quasi-judicial decisions on individual project appeals. She stated that while she supports a legal path, she does not believe the county has a duty to maximize cultivation caps and is open to retiring acreage from caps after operations shut down.

Motions and Votes (D1)

• Motion 1: Supervisor Hart moved to adopt the staff recommendation (Actions A through H), with the exception of Action G (cannabis storefront retail requirements), to allow for separate discussion on that item. The motion included incorporating clarifying language regarding the unincorporated cap area.
• Second: Supervisor Hartmann.
• Vote Outcome: Passed.
• Motion 2: Supervisor Hart moved to direct staff to develop a merit-based criteria scoring system for cannabis retail licenses, replacing the previously recommended lottery-based system, and to return to the Board for further discussion on the details.
• Second: Supervisor Adams.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (4 to 1).

Closed Session Report

• Report: The Board entered closed session to consider two matters: existing litigation involving the Santa Ana’s Band of Mission Indians versus the Assessment Appeals Board, and a conference with real property negotiators concerning four parcels on Fernald Point Lane.
• Outcome: Upon reconvening, staff reported that there were no reportable actions taken during the closed session.

Agenda Item 2: GNK Farm / KNG Flower Cannabis Cultivation Appeal (Case No. 19-APL-18)

• Record Items: The Board voted to place eight letters received between August 16 and August 19, and four PowerPoint presentations (from Concerned Carpinterians, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Graham Farrar, and SCS Engineers) into the official record.
• Vote Outcome: Passed.
• Staff Presentation: Staff presented the appeal regarding a 14.66-acre parcel zoned AG-110, proposing the use of five existing greenhouses (356,070 sq. ft.) for cannabis cultivation. Staff noted the project was previously approved by the Planning Director and the Planning Commission, which denied the appeal and granted de novo approval. Staff addressed appeal issues regarding CEQA compliance, odor mitigation, air quality, and coastal land use plan consistency. Staff concluded that the project complies with Article 2 (Coastal Zoning Ordinance) and the Comprehensive Plan, and that the Program EIR (PEIR) constitutes adequate environmental review. Staff recommended denying the appeal and approving the project.
• Appellant Presentation: Counsel for the appellant (Concerned Carpinterians) argued that the county failed to conduct adequate environmental review under CEQA, specifically claiming that a tiered EIR or standalone EIR was required due to site-specific impacts not examined in the PEIR. Arguments included concerns about pesticide drift during summer inversions, impacts on sensitive receptors, the efficacy of the proposed odor mitigation system (Buyer’s system), and cumulative impacts from the clustering of cannabis projects in the Carpinteria Valley.
• Applicant Presentation: The applicant and their legal counsel argued that the project is a simple crop change using existing infrastructure and complies with all county regulations. They contended that the CEQA checklist approach was appropriate because all impacts were previously addressed in the PEIR. They refuted claims regarding ozone formation, pesticide drift (noting that illegal drift is not an environmental impact under CEQA), and changes in circumstances, stating that the concentration of cannabis in Carpinteria was anticipated in the PEIR.

Public Comment

• Thirty-nine individuals requested to speak. Speakers expressed both support for and opposition to the project.
• Opposition: Speakers cited concerns about odor, air quality, pesticide drift affecting neighboring farms, cumulative impacts of clustering, and the inadequacy of the proposed odor mitigation system. Some speakers requested that the Board uphold the appeal and wait for new Planning Commission proposals regarding buffers and permitting levels.
• Gail Herson argued the project violates the Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Coastal Zoning Ordinance due to lack of adequate resources, potential water quality degradation, and public nuisance.
• Bernard Sturtevant (resident) reported persistent strong odors and stated that odor mitigation projects are ineffective.
• Gregory Gandrude (resident) reported health issues for his husband related to vapor emissions from a nearby nursery. He requested a closed-loop system with carbon scrubbing and supported the appeal.
• Kathleen Weigel (Concerned Carpentarians member) stated the Buyer system is not working as promised and that the county should require closed greenhouses with filtration. She requested postponement of approval until ordinance changes are made.
• Blair Pence (Coalition for Responsible Cannabis) argued that the Buyer system uses oils that attract terpenes, resulting in salt deposits that are toxic to wildlife and water. She stated there is no independent evidence-based research on drift and requested a standalone Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
• Joan Esposito (resident) reported health issues and headaches from odors. She stated that students at Carpinteria High School have never attended school without cannabis odor and requested the appeal be upheld.
• Mary Lee Pebbles (resident) argued that the project lacks specific conditions of approval and exceeds the square footage evaluated in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). She supported the appeal.
• Diane Pence (Buellton resident and former nurse) cited health impacts on children and residents in Buellton and Carpinteria. She requested that each grow be evaluated independently for cumulative impact.
• Paul Foley (Avocado grower and Concerned Citizens of Carpinteria member) raised due process concerns regarding the administrative hearing. He stated the appeal should be upheld.
• Support: Speakers supported the project, noting it is a compliant, non-operational project that should be allowed to proceed. One speaker provided data from a case study by SCS Engineers claiming the proposed vapor-phase odor control system achieved a minimum 98.7% reduction in odor.
• Peter DeGray (CARP Growers) stated that CARP members comply with county rules, use odor control technology, and avoid dangerous chemicals. He argued the project complies with codes and requested the appeal be denied.
• Tina Frentado cited her family’s history in Carpinteria and personal experience with medicinal cannabis. She described cannabis as environmentally friendly and requested the appeal be denied.
• Jason Downs expressed support for the applicant, citing community orientation and environmental caution.
• Autumn Shelton stated the operation utilizes pre-existing infrastructure, adheres to strict regulations by the California Regional Water Board and Fish and Wildlife, and reduces traffic and energy use compared to previous crops. She requested the appeal be denied.
• Devin Granados (Glass House Farms) emphasized the company’s focus on compliance and community contribution.
• Tara Gendron (Glass House Farms employee) expressed support for the company’s efforts to address community concerns and requested the board allow the project to proceed.
• Jason Rodriguez argued that previous hearings ruled in favor of the operator and that delays hinder the local economy. He requested the appeal be denied.
• Kapono Curry supported the applicant, citing agricultural economic data and challenging scientific arguments regarding eucalyptol levels in wine.
• Che Moosman (fourth-generation farmer) argued cannabis is a clean crop and that pesticide drift concerns apply more to other industries. He requested the appeal be denied.
• Mark Eisen (Glass House Farms Chief of Staff) highlighted employee benefits, wages, and workplace culture, requesting the appeal be denied.
• Dr. M. Scott Smith (Carpinteria resident and veterinarian) supported the industry as a fit for local infrastructure and requested the appeal be denied.
• Peter Melnick (Montecito resident and investor in Glass House Farms) stated he has no financial interest in the specific project under appeal but supported the applicant based on observed ethical conduct and odor mitigation efforts.
• Tara Stephan (Cresco employee) supported the applicant, citing the organization’s commitment to best management practices and community stewardship.
• Kyle Hardy (Cresco President) stated the applicant has a clean compliance record and created a model for county partnership. He requested the appeal be denied.
• Paul Kowalski (Cannabis Business Council Chairman) supported the staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal, citing the applicant’s compliance.
• Ivan Van Wingerden (Cannabis and Avocado Grower) addressed misinformation regarding cannabis caps and license stacking. He stated vapor phase odor control neutralizes odor and is safe. He requested support for compliant farms.
• Whitney Colley (Coastal Blooms employee) stated the project uses pre-existing infrastructure and that odor has reduced since the installation of abatement systems. She requested the appeal be denied.
• Ed Van Wingerden (Cannabis and Avocado Grower) stated no grower has failed pesticide testing due to aerial spraying and that odor mitigation technology is effective. He urged support for the staff’s recommendation.
• Winfred Van Wingeren (12th-generation farmer) argued that cannabis is necessary to keep the greenhouse industry alive and prevent development. He requested the appeal be denied.
• Procedural Note: The Chair noted that a speaker from the applicant’s contracted team (Nathan Eady of SCS Engineers) spoke during public comment. To ensure fairness, the Chair granted the appellant’s counsel additional time and instructed that other members of the applicant’s team should not speak during public comment but could use their allotted rebuttal time.

Staff and Supervisor Inquiry

• Supervisor Adams inquired about the distinction between acute and chronic exposure to the odor control system’s emissions, referencing a report provided by the applicant.
• Dr. Henning Ansorg (Public Health Officer) stated that the available data does not address long-term safety risks or health issues from ongoing low-level exposure. He agreed that a four-hour exposure study is not a long-term study and that reviewing cumulative exposure is reasonable.
• Chair Lavinino noted that this inquiry introduced new material and paused the rebuttal process to allow both parties to address the acute versus chronic exposure issue.

Rebuttal

• The Board allowed both the appellant and the applicant two minutes each to address the specific issue of acute versus chronic exposure raised by Supervisor Adams.
• Elise Kosar Daly (Appellant’s representative) noted that additional time had been allotted for rebuttal based on expert testimony.
• Appellant (Concerned Carpentarians): Elise Kosar Daly argued that the county lacked complete information necessary for informed decision-making and that further environmental review was required. She stated that the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) did not assess project-specific impacts, including drift, impacts on local vineyards, air inversions, proximity to sensitive receptors, and cumulative impacts. She contended that the checklist used by staff did not meet CEQA guidelines (Section 15168C4) because it lacked specific analysis of these impacts. She further argued that the conditions of approval were too general to be enforceable and suggested the Board consider a limited-duration approval (e.g., three years) to allow for re-evaluation of best practices.
• Applicant (G&K Farms / Graham Farrar):
• Nathan Eadie (SES Engineers): Stated that the county has stringent health risk assessment guidelines. He argued that because the odor neutralization system (EcoZorb) uses non-toxic ingredients, health risk models would predict zero risk. He noted that the chemical is designed for inhalation safety and is used in hospital HVAC systems.
• Jay Higgins (Applicant Representative): Clarified that expert testimony was intended to address general issues such as ozone studies and odor sampling.
• Dr. Will Visuete (Researcher): Presented data from studies in Colorado applied to Santa Barbara County. He stated that adding an estimated 5 tons of biogenic VOCs (terpenes) from cannabis cultivation to the existing 39,042 tons per year resulted in virtually no predicted impact on ozone levels. Even when increasing the emission estimate by a factor of 10 (50 tons), the maximum ozone increase was 0.297 ppb (0.6%), which he described as negligible. He explained that Carpinteria is "NOx limited" rather than "VOC limited" due to high existing biogenic VOC levels, meaning changes in VOCs have minimal impact on ozone formation compared to changes in NOx.
• Nathan Eadie (SES Engineers): Provided details on the odor neutralization system. He described the system as a perimeter piping network that ejects a vapor curtain to mix with and neutralize cannabis odors exiting the greenhouse vents. He explained that the process involves adsorption or absorption rather than the creation of new chemical compounds. He presented odor sampling data showing that the system reduced odor intensity from 163 units inside the greenhouse to baseline levels (zero or negative) outside, even under worst-case meteorological conditions (calm winds and steady winds). He compared the system to carbon filtration, noting that carbon filters degrade over time and are defeated when doors are opened, whereas the neutralizer maintains efficacy.

Staff and Agency Testimony

• Air Pollution Control District (APCD): Molly Pearson (Planning Division Manager) stated that the county is currently in attainment for ozone standards and is on the path to being redesignated as an attainment area. She noted that Carpinteria had zero days out of attainment for ozone in the current year, the first time in 40 years. She explained that the county has approximately 17 monitoring stations and that the Carpinteria station is located on Guerinador Canyon Road. She stated that the APCD believes the current monitoring network is sufficient for ozone and VOCs, though they are deploying "Purple Air" monitors for additional data.
• County Staff (Development Review Division): Dan Clemon (or representative) clarified the CEQA analysis process. He stated that staff did not rely solely on the checklist but also reviewed the PEIR and the entire administrative record. He explained that staff evaluated whether the project involved substantial changes, new circumstances, or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the PEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). Staff concluded that none of these triggers occurred for this specific application. He addressed concerns about the conditions of approval, stating that detailed plans (odor, noise, lighting, etc.) are reviewed and approved by the department prior to final project approval, and that the conditions of approval incorporate the requirements of the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance. He noted that if new impacts or non-compliance are found during plan review, staff will work with the applicant to resolve them before approval.

Board Questions and Discussion

• Odor Control Mechanism: Supervisor Hartman asked for clarification on how the odor neutralization system works with open vents. Staff and the applicant explained that the system creates a vapor curtain around the perimeter of the greenhouse structures to capture and neutralize odors as they exit the vents.
• Chemical Byproducts: Supervisor Hartman asked about the claim that the neutralizer creates a salt residue. The applicant stated that no new chemical molecules are created; the process is adsorption/absorption.
• Enforcement and Monitoring: Supervisor Hartman asked about the enforcement mechanism for odor complaints. Staff explained that the ordinance requires the applicant to bear the cost of monitoring and that a professional engineer or industrial hygienist will certify compliance with the odor control system upon installation and quarterly for one year. Staff stated that if the system is not effective, the county can require the installation of a different system or revoke the business license.
• Best Available Technology: Supervisor Hartman asked if the current system is the best available technology and what happens if better technology emerges. Staff stated that the county can require the installation of a system that works and that if new technology becomes available, the county can require its use upon license renewal.
• Long-term Health Studies: Supervisor Adams expressed concern about long-term health impacts and respiratory complaints. He suggested that a long-term study by a disinterested third party, such as the California Department of Food and Agriculture, should be conducted to address community concerns. Supervisor Williams agreed and suggested requesting assistance from the state agency.
• Cumulative Impacts: Supervisor Hartman requested additional study on the cumulative impact of the buyer's chemical.

Deliberations and Decision

• Supervisor Hartman: Stated she was prepared to support the applicant and deny the appeal, citing compliance with existing standards and the Planning Commission's work on odor control. She supported additional study on cumulative impacts.
• Supervisor Williams: Stated she was prepared to deny the appeal and approve the project. She noted that the PEIR anticipated many of the current issues and that the project is compliant with the ordinance. She emphasized that odor and concentration issues must be addressed, and this project meets those standards.
• Supervisor Adams: Stated he was prepared to deny the appeal. He emphasized the need for long-term health studies by a third party to address community safety concerns but noted that the project complies with current rules.
• Supervisor Hartman: Reiterated support for denying the appeal and approving the project.

Vote Outcome

• The Board voted to deny the appeal and approve the project.

Agenda Item: Cannabis Development Plan (CDP) Appeal

Discussion

• Supervisor Lavagnino addressed the committee, noting that this is the first CDP to reach this stage of review. He emphasized the importance of relying on expert scientific data rather than anecdotal evidence, referencing a historical example of misinterpreted scientific facts. He identified odor control as a primary concern for the project and acknowledged previous arguments regarding the effectiveness and safety of the air pollution control system. Although he noted that staff indicated no listed hazardous chemicals were present, he agreed that independent third-party testing is necessary. He stated his position that the appeal should be denied, pending the outcome of further testing, and indicated a need to establish a definitive timeline for moving forward or stopping the process.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made to adopt Staff Recommendations A, B, C, and D. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Hart. The committee voted on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment

• The meeting was adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for August 27 in Santa Maria.