Cannabis

Conclusions 22

• CL1
  The creation of a non-Brown Act Ad Hoc Sub Committee that was not open to the public led to a lack of transparency and distrust by Santa Barbara County residents.
• CL2
  The impact of cannabis production on the health and welfare of Santa Barbara County residents was inadequately weighed and considered by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
• CL3
  There has not been effective odor control at the boundary of cannabis cultivation and related activities, resulting in significant public outcry about odor, quality of life and health concerns.
• CL4
  The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors does not have a written Code of Ethics to formalize its ethical standards and guide its decision making processes.
• CL5
  The Board of Supervisors granted nearly unfettered access to cannabis growers and industry lobbyists that was undisclosed to the public during the creation of the cannabis ordinances.
• CL6
  The option taken by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to tax cannabis cultivation using a Gross Receipts method was less reliable than the Square Footage method used by the vast majority of California counties.
• CL7
  The Santa Barbara County Treasurer-Tax Collector was not included in the creation of the tax portions of the cannabis ordinance.
• CL8
  Members of the Santa Barbara County Chief Executive Officer’s office and Santa Barbara County Planning and Development staffs unduly and without apparent Board knowledge successfully sought changes to the April 26, 2019 Cannabis Advisory from the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, an independent agency, eliminating a one mile buffer recommendation.
• CL9
  The amount of cannabis production allowed under the current cannabis ordinances is excessive and has led to overconcentration in some portions of Santa Barbara County.
• CL10
  The conflict between cannabis production and traditional agriculture is a major concern for the continued existence of certain segments of traditional agriculture in Santa Barbara County.
• CL11
  The approval by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors of an unverified affidavit system does not require proof of prior cannabis operations to establish eligibility to continue to grow cannabis as a legal non-conforming use.
• CL12
  The affidavit system does not require proof of prior scope of the cannabis acreage.
• CL13
  Develop a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry to ensure production and availability of high quality cannabis products to help meet local demands and, as a public benefit, improve the County’s tax base;
• CL14
  Provide opportunities for legal commercial cannabis cultivation, testing, packaging, transportation, distribution, manufacturing, and retail sale in appropriate unincorporated areas of the County, consistent with state law and County regulations;
• CL15
  Develop a new regulatory program allowing for the orderly development and oversight of commercial cannabis activities and businesses, consistent with state law and existing agricultural industry practices, standards, and regulations;
• CL16
  Encourage commercial cannabis businesses to operate legally and secure a license to operate in full compliance with County and state regulations, maximizing the proportion of licensed activities and minimizing unlicensed activities;
• CL17
  Provide an efficient, clear, and streamlined commercial cannabis licensing and permit process and attainable regulations and standards to facilitate participation by commercial cannabis business in the unincorporated areas of the County;
• CL18
  Minimize adverse effects of commercial cannabis activities on the natural environmental, natural resources, and wildlife, including riparian corridors, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and water resources;
• CL19
  Promote energy and resource efficiency in all cannabis activities, consistent with existing agricultural and any other industry practices, standards, and regulations;
• CL20
  Establish land use requirements for commercial cannabis activities to minimize the risks associated with criminal activity, degradation of visual resources and neighborhood character, groundwater basin overdraft, noise nuisances, hazardous materials, and fire hazards;
• CL21
  Develop a regulatory program that protects the public health, safety, and welfare through effective enforcement controls(i.e., ensuring adequate law enforcement and fire protection services) for cannabis activities in compliance with state law, to protect neighborhood character and minimize potential negative effects on people, communities, and other components of the environment; and
• CL22
  Limit potential for adverse impacts on children and sensitive populations by ensuring compatibility of commercial cannabis activities with surrounding existing land uses, including residential neighborhoods, agricultural operations, youth facilities, recreational amenities, and educational institutions. 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 25 Appendix 2 Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15043, 15092, and 15093, any unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the project (as modified by incorporation of EIR mitigation measures, and development standards shown in RV 01) are acceptable due to the following environment benefits and overriding considerations: A. The project provides for a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry to ensure production and availability of high quality cannabis products to help meet local demands, and, as a public benefit, improves the County’s tax base. B. The project enhances the local economy and provides opportunities for future jobs, business development, and increased living wages. Moreover, the project promotes continued agricultural production as an integral part of the region’s economy by giving existing farmers access to the potentially profitable cannabis industry, which in turn would provide relief for those impacted by competition from foreign markets and rising costs of water supply. C. The project expands the production and availability of medical cannabis, which is known to help patients address symptoms related to glaucoma, epilepsy, arthritis, and anxiety disorders, among other illnesses. D. The project allows for the orderly development and oversight of commercial cannabis activities by applying development standards that require appropriate siting, setbacks, security, and nuisance avoidance measures, thereby protecting public health, safety, and welfare. E. The project provides a method for commercial cannabis businesses to operate legally and secure a permit and license to operate in full compliance with County and state regulations, maximizing the proportion of licensed activities and minimizing unlicensed activities. Minimization of unlicensed activities will occur for two reasons. First, the County will be providing a legal pathway for members of the industry to comply with the law. Secondly, the County will use revenue from the project to strengthen and increase code enforcement actions in an effort to remove illegal and noncompliant operations occurring in the County unincorporated areas. F. The project establishes land use requirements for commercial cannabis activities to minimize the risks associated with criminal activity, degradation of neighborhood character, groundwater basin overdraft, obnoxious odors, noise nuisances, hazardous materials, and fire hazards. G. The project minimizes the potential for adverse impacts on children and sensitive populations by imposing appropriate setbacks and ensuring compatibility of commercial cannabis activities with surrounding existing land uses, including residential neighborhoods, agricultural operations, youth facilities, recreational amenities, and educational institutions. H. The project provides opportunities for local testing labs that protect the public by ensuring that local cannabis supplies meet product safety standards established by the State of California. I. The project protects agricultural resources, natural resources, cultural resources, and scenic resources by limiting where cannabis activities can be permitted and by enacting development standards that would further avoid or minimize potential impacts to the environment. 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 26

Observations 12

• OB1
  Ad Hoc Committee - The use of an Ad Hoc Sub Committee that was not open to the public and not subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act).2
• OB2
  Robust Cannabis Industry - The approval of the primary objective of the Cannabis Ordinance Project to be the development of a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry.
• OB3
  Access Granted To the Cannabis Industry - The granting, by the Board, of nearly unfettered access to cannabis growers and cannabis industry representatives during the creation of the ordinances. 2 The Ralph M. Brown Act, codified as California Government Code 54950 et seq. 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 3
• OB4
  Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts.
• OB5
  Rejection by the Board of Environmentally Superior Alternatives - The rejection of Project Alternatives including the Environmentally Superior Alternative of Reduced Registrants. 6. “Skunky” Smell - The allowance of unpermitted operators to continue to operate with no effective odor control in place.
• OB6
  Impact on Agriculture - The failure to consider the impacts of cannabis cultivation on traditional agriculture knowing the State of California requirement of testing for pesticides on cannabis.
• OB7
  Legal Non-Conforming Status.
• OB8
  Affidavit System - The employment of an unverified affidavit system to qualify growers as legal non-conforming and the failure to determine the scope of the claimed qualifying use.
• OB9
  Taxation - Santa Barbara County was one of only a few counties within the State that did not tax cannabis cultivation on a square footage basis. In addition, the Santa Barbara County Treasurer- Tax Collector, an elected position, was excluded from the creation of the tax portion of the License ordinance. Also, the allowance for cannabis acreage far exceeded the demand in California.
• OB10
  Statement of Overriding Considerations.
• OB11
  The Interference with the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District - The Santa Barbara County Chief Executive Office’s (CEO) staff and P&D staff interceded and revised the Cannabis Air Quality Advisory issued by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), an independent agency.
• OB12
  Ethics - The acceptance of campaign contributions by Board members at or near the time the donor had a matter pending a decision before the Board. Ad Hoc Committee On February 14, 2017, the Board voted to establish an Ad Hoc Sub Committee (Ad Hoc) consisting of two Supervisors. The stated purpose was to review and create regulations for adult use and cannabis cultivation in the County.3 The Ad Hoc was created as a body not subject to the Brown Act and not open to the public. The Board decision not to have open meetings on the ordinances created issues. One issue was the lack of transparency that inevitably results when the public is excluded from the process, especially on such a controversial matter as cannabis. In contrast, the 2015 Board, which included some current Board members, voted to create an Ad Hoc Sub Committee, subject to the Brown Act and open to the public, to engage in discussions with the Santa Ynez Valley Band of Chumash Indians regarding similarly controversial land use issues. Of concern to the Jury was the fact that agendas were not prepared and minutes were not taken for the Ad Hoc meetings. The Jury learned that notes and minutes were not prepared in order to avoid any Public Records Act Requests for such documents. The lack of a paper trail does not fit with the concept of open government which seeks input from all interests. This unchecked process led to an imbalanced perspective. 3 February 14, 2017 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting “Board Letter” santabarbara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2957248&GUID=605FD80A-4670-40ED-B1DD- EDBDB3C7A65D&Options=&Search= 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 4 A major issue according to witnesses interviewed by the Jury was that the process created by the use of the Ad Hoc resulted in a top down decision making process. The normal process provides for multiple public meetings held by the P&D staff with community input. The normal process allows for exploration of potential impacts to the various parts of the County prior to Board involvement. The Ad Hoc inserted the Board at the beginning of the process and not at the conclusion after community input. A recent example of the normal process would be the proposed amendment of the LUDC to adopt new development standards, permit requirements and procedures regarding winery developments. The Board directed P&D staff to update the then current winery regulations as part of the 2011/2012 Long Range Planning Annual Work Program.4 As the November 1, 2016 Board letter recounts, the staff conducted extensive stakeholder engagement and public outreach to gather information and discuss winery ordinance issues that should be addressed in the ordinance update. The public outreach included eighteen separate group meetings with wine industry and agricultural groups, neighborhood groups and non-profit organizations. In addition, there were five public meetings, beginning in August 2012 continuing through February 2013, which discussed among other topics, neighborhood compatibility and wine ordinance structures, permitting, monitoring and enforcement. In March 2014, based on the community input received during the public outreach process, the P&D staff prepared draft ordinance language for public review. In June of 2014, the staff revised and finalized the draft ordinance. There were hearings before the Planning Commission that occurred in August and September of 2016. The matter finally came before the Board on November 1, 2016. In the matter of the cannabis ordinances, the Ad Hoc put the Board at the start of the process and not at the conclusion after community input. Public comment, for the cannabis ordinances, came after the forming of the ordinances had already occurred in the Ad Hoc. This is not good government, unsurprisingly leading to a seriously flawed law. Robust Cannabis Industry In 2017, P&D staff worked with the AD Hoc to determine the type of environmental document that would be required under CEQA to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the new cannabis ordinance. The Ad Hoc concluded that an EIR was the appropriate document and directed staff to take the actions necessary for its preparation. The purpose of this EIR was for use by government bodies to review and consider the environmental impacts of the Project as part of its decision-making process. The P&D staff decided to consider the EIR a Program EIR. As was described in the Final EIR document, “As a Program EIR, the level of detail included in the project description and methodology for impact analysis is relatively more general than a project-level EIR, as individual cannabis activity site-level details are not available for prospective license applications or would be considered too speculative for evaluation. This approach allows the Board to consider broad implications and impacts associated with the project while not requiring a detailed evaluation of individual properties.”5 4 November 1, 2016 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting “Board Letter” https://santabarbara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858292&GUID=882F40A4-1328-4B74-9465- CCE36E9E75C9&Options=&Search= 5 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program Volume 1 http://cannabis.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/cannabis/Documents/Final_PEIR/Santa%20Barbara%20_Cannabis%20FE 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 5 The Program EIR allowed for a more cursory analysis rather than project level as was performed in other counties .When considering the EIR was “cranked out in less than thirty days” by the P&D staff, the use of a Program EIR becomes telling.6 CEQA guidelines require that the EIR project description include a statement of the objectives of the cannabis Ordinance. The objectives were created in the Ad Hoc. A complete list of the objectives can be found in Appendix 1. The first listed primary objective was as follows: “Develop a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry to ensure production and availability of high quality cannabis products to help meet local demands, and, as a public benefit, improve the County’s tax base.” This objective became the guiding principle for the Board. The many actions that were then taken along the way in the creation and passage of the cannabis ordinances reflect this objective including the allowance of an excessive amount of acreage and the excessive grants of business licenses. The information reviewed by the Jury describes the Board being cautioned at a Board hearing on December 14, 2017 by their retained expert, a former Board member of Humboldt County and now member of Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates Companies7 (HdL), that there was a glut of cannabis statewide. He testified that the statewide cannabis production level was 13.5 million pounds with a statewide demand between 1.6 and 2.5 million pounds. In addition, the report prepared by HdL for the Board stated as follows: “Santa Barbara is just one of 58 counties in California, but with almost 500 registrants seeking as many as 1,365 separate cultivation permits, the County’s growers could potentially produce over 3.7 million pounds of cannabis per year, which is more than double the legal amount of cannabis consumed by the entire state.” On matters regarding Planning and Zoning, County Counsel advised the Board that they must operate under the review standard that their decisions must have a rational basis.8 The decision by the Board that the primary objective of the cannabis ordinances was to develop a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry in the face of that information does not appear rational. Access Granted To the Cannabis Industry The testimony obtained from witnesses during the investigation, as well as documents produced pursuant to a request by the Jury, describe the granting by the Board of easy and frequent access to cannabis industry lobbyists during the creation of the ordinances. The Jury sought to interview a cannabis industry lobbyist and additional cannabis growers, but received no response. The Jury’s review of emails and interviews with Board members showed that cannabis industry lobbyists were very aggressive in their attempt to have the ordinances be as favorable as possible to the cannabis industry. This effort was amplified by some of the cannabis industry lobbyists having recently left the employment of Santa Barbara County. It was described to the Jury that some of these cannabis industry lobbyists could be regularly seen roaming the halls of the Board’s offices. IR-Volume%201.pdf 6 Video of October 17, 2017 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting http://sbcounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=3123&meta_id=345212 7 https://www.hdlcompanies.com/ 8 Video of February 6, 2018 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting http://sbcounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=3228&meta_id=354710 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 6 To be clear, this report should not be seen as commenting on the actions of the lobbyists. They are working to promote their clients’ interests. Rather, this report demonstrates that the Board did not set reasonable limits as to the number of contacts, both written and in private meetings. Most importantly, there was an apparent lack of limits as to when these contacts occurred, including just prior to or even during Board meetings with cannabis decisions on the agenda Evidence obtained in the Jury’s investigation showed cannabis industry representatives had two meetings, one on January 30, 2017 and one on February 9, 2017, with a Board member prior to the matter of cannabis first being added to the Board agenda on February 14, 2017. Further documents reviewed by the Jury show a Board member meeting with cannabis industry representatives throughout 2017 including on October 16, 2017 on the topic of non-conforming uses that was to be discussed by the Board on October 17, 2017. Another member of the Board met with different cannabis lobbyists on October 11, 2017 to discuss the same topic. Other examples of meetings just prior to a Board meeting include a Board member having two meetings with different cannabis lobbyists on November 13, 2017, the day before a Board meeting on November 14, 2017 that was to hear discussion on Letters of Authorization for Temporary State Cannabis Licenses. Those two meetings repeated with the same Board member on December 13, 2017 for the Board hearing on December 14, 2017 where the Board approved the Santa Barbara County letter to the State of California regarding Temporary State Licenses and discussed the taxation of cannabis. Those meetings create the appearance of an imbalance of access and undue influence. Perhaps most concerning to the Jury was a meeting by a Board member just before the Board meeting of February 6, 2018. The Board member accepted an invitation to tour a cannabis operation on February 1, 2018 to discuss with the owner the issue of how to measure the distance from a cannabis operation to a sensitive receptor, such as a school. On February 5, 2018, the owner sent an email to the Board member advocating for the measurement of the buffer distance to be the property line of the sensitive receptor to the premises of the cannabis operation instead of the Planning Commission recommended buffer distance of property line to property line. This would allow his cannabis operation to remain open. The Board rejected the recommended measurement procedure and instead voted to measure the buffer from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the premises of the cannabis operation. Documents obtained by the Jury, that had not been previously disclosed to the public, show voluminous emails from cannabis lobbyists and cannabis growers to Board members. While the Jury understands that sending emails to advocate positions favorable to the interests of their client is part of the job of a lobbyist, it was unnerving to the Jury to see both the tone and timing of these emails. The tone of these emails appeared at times as if to direct specific actions to the Board members and gave the perception of an attempt to command instead of recommend. Understanding that no such authority exists with the lobbyists, the Jury felt that limits on such direct conversations should have been established by the Board members receiving these emails. The timing of these emails was also concerning to the Jury. The documents reviewed show many being sent the day before a Board meeting, with some confirming the discussions had that day at a meeting with a Board member. The Jury also found two emails sent from a cannabis lobbyist to a Board member the morning of a Board of Supervisors meeting. On March 20, 2018, the most extreme example was an email sent by a Board member to a lobbyist, during a Board meeting, asking the lobbyist if they agreed with a P&D staff recommendation. 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 7 This kind of direct access far outweighs the access of others which was typically through emails complaining of odor and other issues, or the three-minute public comment at a Board meeting, limiting the opportunity for exchange with the Board members. Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts The EIR assessed potential environmental impacts that could occur with the implementation of the Project. These included potential direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts. Four categories described as classes were used.9 This report will examine Class I. “Class I - Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Significant impacts that cannot be feasibly mitigated or avoided. No measures could be taken to avoid or reduce these adverse impacts to achieve insignificant or negligible levels. Even after application of feasible mitigation measures, the residual impact would be significant. If the project is approved with significant and unavoidable impacts, then the decision-makers are required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Section 15093. This CEQA section requires the explanation why benefits of the Project outweigh the potential damage caused by these significant unavoidable impacts.” The analysis completed in the EIR found that implementing the proposed Project would create significant and unavoidable direct or indirect impacts. Two of the impacts were: “Agricultural resources - the loss of prime soils due to the unavoidable installation of greenhouses and similar agricultural structures for agricultural uses.” “Air quality and greenhouse emissions - cannabis activities involve emissions from additional vehicle travel as well as ongoing stationary operations. In addition, the scent of cannabis plants can produce a variety of odors, especially during the flowering phase, which is often considered and perceived by some individuals as objectionable or offensive. Despite mitigation implementation, this nuisance may not be entirely removed and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.” Documents reviewed by the Jury demonstrate that P&D and the Board were made aware in a presentation at the February 14, 2017 Board hearing by a member of the CEO’s office that the State of California would require nonmedical marijuana to be comprehensively tested by independent testing services for the presence of contaminants, including mold and pesticides, before it could be sold by licensed businesses. With that information in hand, the Jury questions why the issue of the conflict between traditional agriculture and cannabis grows was omitted in the EIR. It was hardly a secret that traditional agriculture in Santa Barbara County necessarily utilizes insecticides in dealing with destructive pests and fungicides for mold and mildew. That glaring omission is very hard to understand and is very troubling. It will be discussed separately in this report. The EIR acknowledges that the odor of cannabis plants is a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment. The odor issue is of such consequence that it also merits separate discussion in this report. 9 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program Volume 1 http://cannabis.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/cannabis/Documents/Final_PEIR/Santa%20Barbara%20_Cannabis%20FE IR-Volume%201.pdf 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 8 Rejection by the Board of Environmentally Superior Alternatives Section 15126.6(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the EIR to assess a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. These included alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant effects of the proposed Project. Alternatives typically involve changes to the location, scope, design, extent, intensity, or method of construction or operation of the proposed project. A fundamental mandate of CEQA is that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the projects.”10 The EIR analyzed four alternatives to the Project. These are described as follows: The No Project Alternative Alternative 1: Exclusion of Cannabis Activities from the AG-1 Zone District Alternative 2: Preclusion of Cannabis Activities from Williamson Act Land Alternative 3: Reduced Registrant Alternative Each of the alternatives was evaluated based on significance, location, extent and magnitude of impacts, potential benefits, and relative impacts in comparison to other alternatives. The alternative with the fewest adverse impacts was then considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The No Project Alternative was rejected in the EIR. The finding was that under the No Project Alternative, the banning of cannabis, the direct impacts associated with licensing of an expanding cannabis industry would not occur. This alternative, however, would not address unregulated and illegal cannabis activities. Further, it would not offer an avenue for licensing and permitting, thus it was likely that illegal cannabis activities would continue to exist. Under the No Project Alternative, the EIR found that aesthetic and agricultural resources impacts would likely be reduced but other environmental impacts would not be due to the illegal cannabis operations. The EIR stated that the Project, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would all result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources, air quality, noise, and transportation. Only Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to agricultural resources to a less than significant level. Alternative 1: Exclusion of Cannabis Activities from the AG-1 Zone District. Under this alternative cannabis related activities would not be allowed within the AG-1 zone districts throughout Santa Barbara County. This alternative would reduce the areas of eligibility in the County, in particular the Carpinteria Valley and the Santa Ynez Valley. The EIR found that Alternative 1 would reduce the total amount of eligible area and sites as compared to the proposed Project and would require substantial relocation or abandonment of existing cannabis operations. Existing cultivators would need to find locations within the reduced area of eligibility. While adoption of Alternative 1 would achieve most of the Project objectives, the EIR found that it failed as it would not achieve Project Objective 1, the development of a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry or Objective 4, encouraging businesses to operate legally and secure a license to operate in full compliance with County and State regulation. The EIR states that Alternative 1 also 10 California Public Resources Code section 21002. 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 9 does not achieve Objective 6, the minimization of adverse effects of cultivation, manufacturing and distribution activities on the natural environment. Next, consideration was given to Alternative 2: Preclusion of Cannabis Activities from Williamson Act Land. Under this alternative, cannabis activities would not count towards the minimum cultivation requirements to qualify for an agricultural preserve contract pursuant to the Williamson Act.11 While under this alternative cannabis activities would be considered compatible uses on lands that are subject to agricultural preserve contracts, they would be limited to a maximum of 22,000 square feet of cannabis canopy cover for each Williamson Act contract premises. The EIR notes that this alternative would result in limiting the potential for cannabis activities on over 50 percent of eligible County area and would eliminate hundreds of potential operations from occurring on Williamson Act lands. Although adoption of Alternative 2 would have met some of the Project objectives, such as a permitting process, the regulation of sites and premises to avoid degradation of the visual setting and neighborhood character, odors, hazardous materials, and fire hazards, it was rejected. The failing of Alternative 2 was that it did not achieve some of the basic Project objectives namely those related to development of a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry, Objective 1. That is understandable considering this alternative limits how robust the cannabis can then become. What is unclear is how this alternative prevents the accomplishment of Objective 4, encouraging businesses to operate legally and secure a license to operate in full compliance with County and State regulations, or Objective 6, minimization of adverse effects of cultivation and manufacturing and distribution activities on the natural environment. The last alternative considered was the Reduced Registrant Alternative. As described in the EIR, this would limit the total number of licenses issued by the County to one half of the number of each category of licenses that were listed as part of the 2017 Cannabis Registry. This would limit the representative buildout of the Project analyzed in the EIR by a commensurate 50 percent. The EIR goes on to state that existing cannabis operators that were identified in the registry would be prioritized for licensing, which would substantially reduce the net new buildout, while allowing for limited growth. Selection of Alternative 3 would result in substantial reductions in the severity of most impacts compared to the proposed ordinances. This alternative would reduce significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources to a less than significant level. However, the EIR found that it would not achieve the most basic Project objectives of the development of a robust and economically viable and legal cannabis industry, Objective 1, and encouraging businesses to operate legally and secure a license to operate in full compliance with County and State regulations, Objective 4. Alternative 3 was found to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative to the Project, as it would result in less severe impacts to the environment due to the limited extent of cannabis development and limited granting of licenses by the County. As stated in the EIR, “With implementation of mitigation measures, the Reduced Registrants Alternative provides a balance between meeting Project objectives, including quality of life concerns and addressing environmental impacts and allowing for limited amounts of growth in the cannabis industry.” Despite this statement, Alternative 3 was rejected in the EIR, as this alternative was found to not adequately meet Objective 1 of the Project, the development of a robust cannabis industry, and 11 The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 10 Objective 4, encouraging businesses to operate legally. Therefore, the EIR found the Environmentally Superior Alternative was infeasible. Skunky Smell The most complaints the Jury received about cannabis involved the skunky smell that is produced by cannabis operations. Perhaps the most surprising discovery was the willingness of the Board to justify subjecting Carpinteria, and the rest of the County, to a condition that affects the health and enjoyment of residents. This was not an unexpected result of the Board’s actions in creating the cannabis ordinances. They knew about the quality of life concerns and chose the revenue potential of cannabis instead. Board members received many emails, reflected in submissions for Board meetings from Carpinteria residents, explaining how this skunky smell was impacting their lives. The residents described that their health was being impacted. They told the Board that the way of life that they so cherished in Carpinteria was being ruined. They feared their property values were declining. There was no shortage of complaints, including from the City of Carpinteria itself, through its six letters to the Board. Most startling was that the Board received two letters from the Carpinteria School District prior to the passage of the cannabis ordinances. The letters detailed that the air quality in Carpinteria High School was being compromised by strong cannabis odors to the point that by afternoon the students and staff were reporting ill effects, such as headaches from the nauseating odor. The Jury found no evidence of a Board member contacting the Carpinteria School District to discuss the buffer zone distances and measurements prior to the passage of the ordinances. The School District sought buffers of 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet from the high school to the cannabis operation. The Board approved 600 feet from nursery operations and 750 feet from cultivation operations, ignoring Planning Commission and staff

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.