Direction Re: Amendments to the Cannabis Ordinance in Santa Barbara County

Dear Board of Supervisors:

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing on behalf of the Board of the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, a collective voice for responsible Cannabis cultivation in Santa Barbara County. 

When Chapter 50 [Licensing of Cannabis Operations] was created, many of the issues we now face were not envisioned. After 6 years, however, we have learned what works, what does not, and how we might amend our Cannabis-specific Ordinance to make things “right.” It’s for this reason that we applaud your decision on November 28th to explore Ordinance options. That said, we wanted to address the issues raised at the Hearing in an attempt to provide direction to the Board and Staff:

1. Any changes to the Cannabis-specific Licensing Scheme would only affect Cannabis: Cannabis is a Schedule I federally illegal drug, with licensing exclusively governed by Chapter 50. It is regulated by the State’s Department of Cannabis Control and not the Department of Agriculture. Cannabis is not considered a “crop” under the Right to Farm Act, nor is it covered by the Williamson Act. In other words, it is sui generis, and any changes to Chapter 50 would affect only Cannabis.

2. The California Coastal Comission does not have to approve amendments to Chapter 50: On numerous occasions our Coastal Commission has taken the unusual step of publicly expressing their negative opinion re: Chapter 50. Indeed, the Commission's own Chairperson Donne Brownsey, stated in February, “I think underlying all of this is really the issue with the Santa Barbara ordinance with regards to cannabis. It seems to me that it may be time for the county to revisit this ordinance and not put the commission in a difficult spot…” 

This acknowledgment from the CCC underscores the need to amend our Ordinance. And, more to the point, any change in Chapter 50’s Licensing Scheme does NOT require CCC approval. 

1. Carbon Filters do not have fans/make noise.  Fans are a part of all Greenhouses and as such have nothing to do with Carbon Filter technology.

2. Our current Tiered System is flawed, unworkable, and requires far too much regulatory intervention: Given the complete lack of oversight and enforcement, it is clear that our Tiered Scheme has not worked. The odor complaint system does little more than frustrate and defeat even the most ardent complainants. This is not evidence that there are no odor issues; it is evidence that the system is broken.  There is no better evidence of this then the fact that after thousands of complaints, there is not a single Tier Three grower. This has left us with no choice but to push forward with privately funded litigation proving that Chapter 50 needs to be amended and yes, given our success, this is a Public Nuisance.  As the Board discusses options, the answer is not to increase enforcement OR tweak a broken regulatory scheme (a recently submitted OAP proposed a “Fourth Tier”), especially in a sector that doesn’t cover costs (we include State fees, County budget costs, and Sheriff budget costs). Instead, the answer is to phase out the Tiered System entirely.

3. Remove oversight responsibilities from Planning and Development: Santa Barbara County is one of the only jurisdictions that allows Mixed Light/Vented Greenhouses to grow Cannabis. This required the creation of a unique and wholly invented Odor Abatement System—most likely something the Board never considered before passing the Ordinance. Thus far, only Envinity has developed and proven the efficacy of an Odor Abatement System in a large-scale vented environment. Frankly, our Planning and Development Department is not technologically equipped to vet the myriad of Carbon Systems now being suggested.  The proposed Ceres Farms OAP is indicative of the problem:

•  The proposed Clean Leaf system has not yet been tested/proven in a vented environment. Nor was the system itself originally designed for Cannabis.

• Given the number of square cubic feet, Clean Leaf’s own specifications would require 331 units compared to what Ceres proposed which was just 52! 

• If installed to spec, the system would require 297KW of power vs. Envinity at 69KW 

• The above technical OAP review was something we paid for and could likely not have been done by P&D, i.e., land use expertise has nothing to do with odor science expertise.

Without a scientific study in a Vented Greenhouse setting, there will not be clarity regarding the efficacy of a proposed system, leaving us, yet again, in a trial-by-error loop. Perhaps a Preferred Vendor list with ministerial permitting for County-approved/scientifically proven system(s) provides a path forward. 

1. Our scheme should require proven efficacy in a Vented Greenhouse setting and/or property line odor testing with various Dilution-to-Threshold (D/T) standards for licensing approval/renewal: Unlike other Counties, we allowed Vented Greenhouses, Indoor Greenhouses, and Outdoor Grows.  Vented Greenhouses allow Growers to grow at a much lesser cost when compared to sealed Indoor Greenhouses with similar product quality and enhanced indoor pricing. Unfortunately, they also required a system to be invented to control odor.  Between the cost of litigation, R&D, installation, and fees, The Coalition together with certain responsible growers, spent millions of dollars to generate the November 2022 SCS Efficacy Report re: the Envinity System, that proves Envinity “works” in a vented setting.  It’s the reason why this 41-page Report is dispositive and why the City of Carpinteria relied on it to pass its Carbon Scrubber Resolution. The County needs to remove the over-worked and under-staffed P&D Dept.  from the process and embed certain basic standards re: manufacturer specs, manufacturer installment affidavits, efficacy testing and D/T odor benchmarks into the annual licensing process.

 A “Nuisance” is a nuisance regardless of where you reside, i.e., there are no “second class” County residents. We therefore advocate for a more holistic Cannabis scheme—one that addresses odor similarly across the ENTIRE County. Our position is based on a variety of truths that we have learned over the past 6 years:

• Noticeable odor has been scientifically measured to travel for one mile or more and, as such, an outdoor “OAP” is an oxymoron. For example, West Coast Farm’s 52 acre grow uses a parameter Fog System (six-inch pipe!) that required this Board to overrule the PC based not on science/testing but rather on a “trust me” standard. This type of patchwork, take them as they come, OAP submissions are completely unworkable. And, given the hundreds of North County complaints surrounding grows with P&D approved OAP’s proves it!

• Our current Ordinance is uniquely different—not in a good way—as it relates to its lack of meaningful setbacks, grow-size-to acre ratios (vs. property line-to-property line) and/or the use of overlay districts.  Like Humboldt, Mendocino, etc., these standards could have been included in our Ordinance, but they were not.

• Our Nuisance and Trespass (Terpenes have mass) lawsuits have the same Causes of Action in both North and South County because, as stated, a “Nuisance” is a nuisance. 

• Because there is a huge difference in indoor crop value/outdoor crop value, we suspect that the lion’s share of our $6M in Cannabis Tax comes from indoor grows making the mountain of Cannabis-costs inefficient and over bloated. In other words, where the external impact is greatest (e.g., 100-acre outdoor grow) the County benefit is the most miniscule which is wholly counterintuitive.

Therefore, as the Board discusses a possible tax-related Ballot Measure, we ask you to consider a minimum per acre Cannabis tax based on indoor Cannabis revenue and/or a single SF tax rather than one that graduates from outdoor to indoor. Further, we strongly advocate for the permitting of Cannabis Greenhouses in North County that would be required to use proven Carbon Scrubber technology.  This, together with property line odor testing, should be the standard in BOTH North and South County.

Cannabis is a new industry and unlike traditional AG has not had the benefit of 150 years of regulatory development. Further, because our Ordinance did not receive adequate input from the public, other jurisdictions, or experts in the field it screams for reexamination. This, together with the evolving technology, means thoughtful ideation should be embraced, not raged against. 

The Coalition, and by extension, residents from each district continue to spend millions of dollars in lawsuits not to gain monetary settlements but instead to cure a problem. Our successes have proven that this is, indeed, a Public Nuisance caused by a flawed Ordinance. Please, revisit the Ordinance, not to “kill” Cannabis but to develop a fair scheme that respects the rights of both businesses and residents.

On behalf of the entire Coalition Board, I want to thank you in advance for your consideration.

Lionel Neff, Director