The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission moved a vote on an appeal of a Carpinteria cannabis processing facility after some commissioners asked for more time to understand the proposal.

The commission approved the move in a 3-2 vote on Wednesday after Commissioner C. Michael Cooney expressed that he would vote against the facility if he had to vote that day.

The 25,000-square-foot processing plant is in the First District, which Cooney represents.

The appeal against the processing plant was submitted by Jill Stassinos, a resident who lives near the site.

In her comments to the commission, Stassinos said she believed that the building was too tall for the area and would ruin the view for residents.

She also noted odor complaints from residents, but commission chair Laura Bridley informed her that the appeal was about the design of the building.

She finished by asking the commission to require the installation of carbon scrubbers in warehouses and better screening to block the building from being visible from the road.

“In doing so, I believe Santa Barbara County officials will regain the public’s trust,” Stassinos said.

During the staff report, Willow Brown of the Planning & Development Department walked the commission through the county staff’s decision. Staff had recommended that the commission deny the appeal and approve the facility.

Willow said the county found that the building was similar to surrounding structures and was under the county’s height limit for building in an agricultural area.

Regarding the appeal and saying the warehouse would ruin the view for neighbors, Willow noted that county staff found that it was not visible from Via Real or Foothill Road.

Willow also said the review of the project found that the building would have no impact on the quality of life for the neighborhood, and that the claim that the facility would affect traffic was not part of the design — and, therefore, not part of the review process.

Jared Ficker, a representative for G&K Farms, said the processing facility would allow the farm to do more of the operation on-site and would reduce traffic since they will need to transport less product. He added that the types of trucks used would be smaller since they would be shipping less material.

“We do think this would result in less traffic, because when you have a fresh product, you need to move it and process it right away,” Ficker said. “So, we actually have to move stuff out of there on a much more regular basis under the current conditions.”

During deliberations, Cooney was given the first chance to comment on the building because of the project’s location.

He expressed concern about legal challenges and whether the project was compatible with the area. He said he wanted to be sure nothing would be overturned in the future.

“One easy decision would be for us to just say, ‘Oh, our hands are tied, we (…) didn’t have any discretion to do anything other than maybe talk about the paint color,’” Cooney said. “I think there is a larger issue. I would be embarrassed if this matter went to court.”

Commissioner John Parke said he would support Cooney’s motion since the project was in his district. Commissioner Vincent Martinez agreed with the sentiment of taking Cooney’s district into account.

The two votes against the continuance came from Bridley and Commissioner Roy Reed. Both commissioners stated that the commission’s role in the process was to approve the architecture based on county guidelines.

Bridley said she did not see the need for a continuance.

She added that she understood the public’s concerns but brought up the fact that the commission is working on amendments to the county cannabis ordinance, which will apply to all cannabis operators in the area when it goes into effect, including G&K Farms.

“I also think the point about how this is a new building so it will be guaranteed to be the best technology from the sticks up is something for us to keep in mind,” Bridley said.

In the end, the three commissioners in favor of continuing the item had the votes for the motion and the topic was moved to the commission’s March 5 meeting in Santa Barbara.