Board of Supervisors — 2025-03-14

Odor Threshold Standards

• Staff and the Planning Commission recommended a Dilution to Threshold (D/T) standard of 7 as the legally defensible point where nuisance begins.
• Residents and the City of Carpinteria advocated for a zero-odor standard or lower thresholds, citing health concerns and property rights.
• Industry representatives argued that a zero threshold is scientifically impossible and that levels below 7 D/T risk false positives from non-cannabis sources.

Verification Technology and Systems

• Participants debated the use of the portable "Nasal Ranger" device versus gas chromatography for more precise, continuous chemical monitoring.
• Staff confirmed that vapor phase misting systems will be discontinued as the new carbon filtration mandate addresses odor at the source.
• Public commenters suggested implementing a mobile app for real-time, geocoded reporting to improve enforcement responsiveness.

Compliance Extensions

• The majority of public commenters opposed granting any extensions, stating the community has endured odor issues for years.
• Industry representatives highlighted logistical challenges, including permit timelines and infrastructure upgrades, that could delay full compliance.
• No formal decision was made on extensions during this informational workshop, as final action is reserved for the upcoming regular Board meeting.

Closed Session

• No closed session report was generated for this special forum meeting.

Agenda Item: Special Forum on Cannabis Odor in Carpinteria

Overview and Purpose

• The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors convened a special meeting in Carpinteria to facilitate a dialogue regarding cannabis odor issues specific to that community. Chair Capps clarified that the meeting was intended as a workshop to gather input on three specific topics prior to a formal Board hearing scheduled for the following Tuesday. It was explicitly stated that no votes, formal actions, or directives to staff would be taken during this session. The Chair noted that a previous 5-0 Board vote had already directed staff and the Planning Commission to mandate multi-technology carbon filtration systems, a decision also supported by the Planning Commission.

Discussion Topic 1: Odor Thresholds

• The Board and public discussed the appropriate Dilution to Threshold (D/T) standard for cannabis odor.
• Staff Presentation: County staff explained that D/T measures the number of times air must be diluted before an odor is no longer detectable. The Planning Commission had recommended a threshold of 7 D/T, noting that nuisance typically begins when levels exceed this number.
• Public Comments:
• Residents and Advocates: Many residents and representatives of the Carpinteria Valley Association advocated for a "zero odor" standard beyond the property line, arguing that any detectable odor constitutes a nuisance and an infringement on property rights. Some residents cited health issues, such as allergies and asthma, linked to the odor and misting systems. Several speakers argued that a threshold of 7 D/T still allows for noticeable odor and suggested lower thresholds (e.g., 2 or 4 D/T) based on standards used by other jurisdictions for facilities like wastewater treatment plants.
• Industry Representatives: Cannabis operators argued that a zero threshold is scientifically impossible as all environments contain some level of odor. They cited engineering studies and the GeoSyntec report commissioned by the County, which identified 7 D/T as the legally defensible standard where nuisance begins. Operators noted that levels below 7 D/T could result in false positives from non-cannabis sources (e.g., plants, food). They emphasized that properly engineered carbon scrubbers significantly reduce emissions and that the industry has invested heavily in these technologies.
• City of Carpinteria: The City's Community Development Director expressed concern that 7 D/T represents a "mild to sustained odor" and recommended a lower threshold to better protect residential neighborhoods.

Discussion Topic 2: Technology for Verification

• The meeting addressed the technology used to measure and verify odor thresholds.
• Nasal Ranger: Staff and industry representatives discussed the "Nasal Ranger," a portable device used to measure D/T levels. Industry representatives noted it is the most practical and cost-effective tool for on-site testing, though some residents questioned its calibration and accuracy.
• Alternative Technologies: Several residents and experts suggested alternative technologies, specifically gas chromatography, which can identify specific chemical compounds (terpenes) associated with cannabis odor. Proponents of this method argued it allows for 24/7 monitoring at exhaust vents and provides more precise data than human olfactory testing.
• Misting Systems: The discussion included the phase-out of vapor phase/misting systems. Staff confirmed that the upcoming Board action would discontinue the use of these systems, as the new carbon filtration mandate is intended to address odor at the source, rendering misting redundant.
• Enforcement and Reporting: Residents highlighted the failure of the current complaint-based system, citing thousands of unverified complaints. Suggestions were made to implement a mobile app for real-time, geocoded reporting to improve trend analysis and enforcement responsiveness.

Discussion Topic 3: Extensions for Compliance

• The Board and public discussed whether to grant extensions to operators for installing the required carbon filtration technology.
• Public Comments: The majority of public commenters opposed any extensions, stating that the community has endured odor issues for years and that operators have had sufficient time to comply. Some noted that while some operators had installed scrubbers, others had not, and extensions would prolong the nuisance.
• Industry Comments: Industry representatives acknowledged the mandate but noted logistical challenges, such as the time required to obtain electrical permits and upgrade infrastructure, which could delay installation. They emphasized their commitment to installing the technology but highlighted the costs and technical hurdles involved.

Decisions and Outcomes

• Action Taken: No formal motions were moved, seconded, or voted upon during this special forum. The meeting was designated as an informational dialogue to inform the Board's upcoming decision-making process.
• Next Steps: The Board indicated that final action on the cannabis odor ordinance, including the mandate for multi-technology carbon filtration and the specific odor threshold, would occur at the regular Board meeting on Tuesday, March 18.
• Vote Outcome: No vote was held during this session.

Non-Agenda Public Comment

• Following the forum, the Chair opened the floor for public comment on non-agenda items. One resident requested more advanced notice for future meetings to ensure broader community representation. The Chair acknowledged the feedback and noted that the meeting was being broadcast on YouTube for those unable to attend. The meeting was adjourned.