Another Santa Barbara County Cannabis Appeal Falls Short with Coastal Commission

In just the latest example of a Santa Barbara County cannabis appeal squashed by the California Coastal Commission, an appeal of a 25,000-square-foot G&K Farms processing plant at 3561 Foothill Road in Carpinteria fell through during Wednesday’s meeting, but not before commissioner (and Santa Barbara city councilmember) Meagan Harmon shared her frustration with the never-ending wave of marijuana-related appeals coming out of the county.

“It’s not without some frustration that I find us again having another conversation related to a cannabis appeal,” Harmon said. “It’s clear there are obvious issues at the county level that must be addressed.”

This most recent appeal was filed by Carpinteria resident Sarah Triguero, who has been no stranger to fighting the spread of the cannabis industry in the county. Triguero has filed multiple appeals of cannabis projects, including an earlier appeal against G&K Farms and one of its co-owners, Graham Farrar of Glass House Farms. 

Triguero, who lives in the La Mirada neighborhood nearby, previously appealed the same Foothill processing warehouse project in June 2021 at the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, arguing that the “noxious cannabis fumes” put the neighboring residents’ quality of life and health at risk. The Planning Commission struck down the appeal 4-1.

This time around, Triguero filed an appeal of the same property, contending that the project would affect the water quality in nearby creeks by releasing chemicals into the environment during the “vapor phase odor control” process and that the 25-foot-tall cannabis processing plant would affect public view from the Toro Canyon Ridge Trail.

During that commission hearing, Triguero also argued that the county’s decision last year to change the cannabis acreage cap to make processing plants exempt has essentially allowed “unlimited cannabis processing acreage for the most odorous aspect of cannabis production.”

She worried that governing boards were too focused on a “narrow, blinders-on, standard-only” review process, and that projects should be looked at within the greater context. She also contended that cannabis growers were taking advantage of “more permissive” codes in coastal areas, and that if the project were located more inland, “it would not be allowed.”

The Coastal Commission staff report found no substantial issues regarding what was included in the appeal, saying that the processing facility would be equipped with all necessary odor-abatement equipment and that G&K Farms has obtained all proper permits for the property, which already has been in agricultural production using greenhouse equipment for more than 45 years.

Regarding the argument that the building would affect public views, Coastal Commission staff said that the Toro Canyon Ridge Trail was more than a mile away and “most of Carpinteria Valley is visible from the trail,” so the public views are protected by distance.

The commission received eight public letters in support of the appeal, though commission staff said none of the letters raised any new issues that were not already addressed.

All 11 commissioners unanimously agreed that there was no substantial issue with the project, ruling that it was consistent with the policies and provisions in the county’s local coastal plan.

Despite the ruling, Commissioner Harmon thanked the appellant and other outspoken community members for the “watchdog role that they play in our county,” saying that although there was no legal issue with this project, their work is helping county leadership come to terms with changes that are needed in cannabis legislation.

“That’s clearly very important and changes are being made,” Harmon said. “Not quickly enough, certainly, but moving in the right direction.”