Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs staff to craft cannabis odor rules requiring scrubbers and property‑line standards
Summary
After months of complaints from Carpinteria residents and industry input, the Board directed staff to draft ordinance amendments requiring carbon scrubbers (or equivalent), to phase out vapor‑phase masking, include property‑line odor thresholds and provide board review of exemptions.
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors directed county staff on Jan. 14 to draft ordinance amendments aimed at reducing cannabis odors from mixed‑light greenhouse operations, including a requirement for carbon‑scrubber or equivalent odor‑abatement technology and a plan to phase out vapor‑phase masking. Supervisors Capps and Nelson co‑sponsored the proposal after public testimony from Carpinteria residents who described years of chronic odor impacts.
The board letter asked for several detailed elements to be returned with a formal ordinance: a 12‑month implementation timeline (with amortization for existing operations), a path for board review of exemption and extension requests, site‑specific engineering review of scrubber sizing, and property‑line odor measurement standards. Planning staff said they will use an independent county consultant to review site‑specific odor‑abatement plans and that planning commission hearings and state noticing requirements set the earliest realistic timeline for ordinance hearings in late March 2025.
Growers and industry representatives urged flexibility and argued a single technical mandate could be premature; several operators and small growers told the board that some single‑technology carbon scrubbers have worked well on their sites and warned against a one‑size‑fits‑all mandate. Technical commenters, including consultants and academic testing advocates, asked the county to require empirical validation (continuous VOC/GC measurements) and a performance standard so alternate technologies can qualify by outcome.
Supervisors asked staff to preserve a path for newer technologies that are “equivalent or better,” to craft a property‑line threshold standard that will be enforceable, and to include enforcement pathways up to license revocation and permit suspension for persistent noncompliance. The board voted unanimously to send the package to the planning commission and directed staff to return with draft ordinance language, enforcement language, and cost/implementation analysis; the planning commission was scheduled to consider the item in late January/February and staff said they will seek a March timeframe to bring an ordinance back to the board for final action.
