County targets cannabis odor with proposed ordinance changes

Your weekly dose of local news, arts, and culture. Our News Wire newsletter lands every Thursday with the stories shaping Northern Santa Barbara County

SEND ME THE HEADLINES!

With more than 3,700 complaints about cannabis odor since 2018 and zero enforcement, the time is right to make a change, 2nd District Santa Barbara County Supervisor Laura Capps said during the board meeting on Jan. 14.

“We know what works. The complaint system hasn’t worked. Folks are fed up, and we do have an answer out there, and I feel as though it’s our job to achieve that and pursue that answer that is working,” Capps said, adding that it would mean “less acrimony, less litigation, less money, less time here, less time for you in the Planning Commission, and we can move on to other things.” 

Capps’ and 4th District Supervisor Bob Nelson’s offices have worked together for nearly a year to come up with a solution to the county’s cannabis odor woes, specifically attempting to address issues in Carpinteria, where the proliferation of cultivation greenhouses has raised the ire of neighbors. 

On Jan. 14, their offices presented a solution that included requiring indoor cannabis cultivation operations to install multi-technology carbon filtration or the equivalent technology to mitigate odor concerns. The number and location of those carbon scrubbers would be determined based on the size and layout of each individual facility, and cannabis businesses would have on year to comply with the new rules once they’re passed with an extension process for operators who have legitimate challenges with complying, according to the staff report.

First District Supervisor Roy Lee, who was recently elected to represent Carpinteria, asked what penalties would be involved if businesses didn’t comply with the mandate in the required 12 months and whether the board would mandate phasing out existing technology that uses vapors to mask the odor. 

“Carpinteria Valley was ground zero for cannabis policy,” he said.

Nelson said he assumed that cannabis operators would voluntarily phase out one technology in favor of another, but he wasn’t opposed to specifying it as a requirement. He added that the board would be directing staff down two pathways—one for the business license approval through the County Executive Office and the other through the land use process, which needs to go before the Planning Commission before coming back to the board for approval. 

Then it would need to go to the California Coastal Commission, which Capps said had promised the county an expedited process.

“We’re giving them a good lead time on preparation,” Nelson said of the industry. “We’ve had these conversations for over a year, so many of them have had time to think about it.” 

Supervisor Joan Hartmann from the 3rd District said that linking the mandate with revoking business licenses would be the county’s strongest tool to ensure compliance. The proposed changes for indoor cultivation also need to include what the county is hoping to achieve in terms of odor abatement, she said. 

“What is the result?” she asked. “We have a terrible system now. … We need a threshold standard, and I believe that that is being developed, and I believe that that is absolutely critical to a complete system.” 

What if someone’s able to comply with odor mitigation mandates without mutli-technology carbon scrubbers, David Van Wingerden asked during public comment. His operation, Farmlane, installed carbon scrubbers when the technology first came out four years ago, he said.

“We’ve not had one complaint,” he said. “If what we have is working, why would we need better technology?”

Nelson responded to the comment, saying that was why the language about equivalent technology was included in the proposed changes. 

The board directed staff to develop the proposed changes and add in options for board review of extensions, phasing out vapor technology, including a measure of odor at the property line, and including potential business license revocation as part of compliance. 

The proposal is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission on Jan. 29 and back to the board in late March. 

This article appears in Jan 16-26, 2025.