Legalized cannabis lounges to finally get a county vote on Tuesday
The only legal venue to smoke a joint in Santa Cruz County is a private residence with the consent of the property owner, a fact that may surprise the many residents and visitors who feel pot smoke is the unofficial incense of local beaches, parks and sidewalks.
The letter of the law sometimes differs from its cultural practice, but the two may more closely align after Tuesday, when the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on whether to legalize cannabis smoking and consumption lounges at existing pot retailers.
Interest in allowing on-site consumption lounges stretches back to 2020, but took on new life in November 2023 when Supervisors Manu Koenig and Felipe Hernandez proposed a cannabis omnibus package to allow lounges at existing retailers, as well as permit cannabis farms to offer vineyard-style experiences such as tastings, retail and tours.
The supervisors punted on a decision, deciding it first needed more public input. The county held a series of town halls in 2024, in which meager attendance skewed toward people in the cannabis industry, who heavily support what they view as a necessary economic boon to an ailing legal pot marketplace. The supervisors have discussed it now on multiple occasions, slowly massaging the policy. Now, 16 months after Koenig and Hernandez floated the idea, county staff have an ordinance ready for a supervisors vote on Tuesday.
However, the recent election of two new supervisors with health care backgrounds — Monica Martinez (District 5) and Kim De Serpa (District 2) — has added a new dimension to the debate. In January, Martinez, the former CEO of health and human services nonprofit Encompass Community Services, sought feedback on the proposal from the county’s Health Services Agency. To some, consulting the county’s health officers might have seemed an obvious step; yet, they had been largely left out of the cannabis policy discussion.
Now, the agency has published a four-page report, outlining its concerns that opening retail cannabis lounges and allowing consumption at farms could negatively impact youth, raise the rate of impaired driving, and create added risks related to secondhand smoke.
Over the past 16 months, Koenig, Hernandez and District 3 Supervisor Justin Cummings have supported moving the idea forward, and there has been no indication that the three-vote majority has shifted. In January, just as their predecessors were, De Serpa and Martinez seemed skeptical.
So, while the election might not have shifted the balance of the dais on this issue, it has deepened the discussion around it and could lead to a different kind of debate before the official vote Tuesday. Stay tuned.
The Lookout Santa Cruz app is available now in both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Learn more here.
OF NOTE
Is the battery facility proposed for South County safer than Moss Landing or just different? In the wake of January’s fire at a Moss Landing battery plant, Santa Cruz County residents are pushing back against a proposed Watsonville storage facility. While developers tout new safety measures, experts warn that next-generation batteries come with different risks — not necessarily fewer.
Justin Cummings’ future on the Coastal Commission now uncertain: Just a few months ago, locals cheered when Cummings was announced as the new chair of the powerful California Coastal Commission, a state agency that oversees land use along the state’s shores. Now, his future on the board is uncertain as Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has reopened the application process for Cummings’ seat. This comes as the Coastal Commission has received heightened scrutiny from the Trump administration and federal and state lawmakers for what some view as burdensome coastal protections, which I cover in a story set to publish Tuesday.
California seized half-a-billion-dollars in illegal cannabis last year: The number is astounding. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office announced last week that law enforcement seized roughly $534 million worth of illicit pot in 2024, part of a broader crackdown on the black market that is helping to drive the state’s legal cannabis industry woes.
POINTS FOR PARTICIPATION
Santa Cruz City Council to vote on first-of-its-kind housing development: Last month, I wrote about how the 313 Swift St. development proposed for Santa Cruz’s Westside might offer a new solution to the city’s housing crisis. The four-story, 100-unit project would offer subsidized housing to employees of the Santa Cruz City Schools district. If the Santa Cruz City Council approves the project on Tuesday, it will mark the first housing project in which a person’s housing is tied directly to their employment.
Watsonville City Council to decide on “tiny village” appeal: The 34-unit tiny village project, which aims to offer stable housing for people experiencing homelessness, has received steady pushback from neighbors of its proposed Watsonville address, who claim the project will bring more “homeless-related” crimes to the neighborhood. As my colleague Tania Ortiz reports, state law has paved the way for this development, and while the appeals are “unlikely to stop” the project, they have delayed it by several months. The meeting begins at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday.
ONE GREAT READ
Can the media’s right to pursue the powerful survive Trump’s second term? By David Enrich for The New York Times Magazine
The 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times Company v. Sullivan sits near the foundation of the U.S.’s unparalleled press freedom. The unanimous decision created the standard known as “actual malice,” in which public figures who bring libel and defamation lawsuits against the press must prove an outlet either acted recklessly with regard to accuracy or knew that what it was publishing was false. It’s a high burden that few have cleared.
Chief Justice Earl Warren’s court argued that inaccuracies and erroneous statements were inevitable in free debate, and writers and publishers must be able to pursue truth without worrying that a slip-up could cause financial ruin. However, after years of tests, the Sullivan ruling has started to bend. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan have voiced skepticism of the “actual malice” standard, particularly in how it applies to the social media and clickbait age. President Donald Trump has also shown a willingness to push against it through his own bevy of defamation lawsuits.
As New York Times Magazine reporter David Enrich writes, this “indispensable safeguard for American journalists and everyday citizens who hoped to hold their leaders and other powerful actors to account” finds itself beneath growing pressure, coinciding at a time when the news industry is teetering on the edge.