Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Consumption Pilot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves pilot to allow on‑site cannabis consumption and farm retail; adds conditions for enforcement and staff training
Summary
The Board of Supervisors approved ordinances to permit cannabis consumption lounges and a pilot allowing farm‑adjacent retail sales, with a vote to allow higher daily purchase limits and later direction for staff to add enforcement language and seek training funding.
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted March 25 to authorize two changes to county cannabis regulation: a pilot allowing licensed cannabis consumption lounges and an ordinance permitting retail sales at licensed cultivation sites (farm retail). Supervisors also directed staff to return with additional enforcement language and to seek funding for server-training and public‑education efforts.
The primary ordinance to authorize on‑site consumption and farm retail was adopted after an extended public hearing that included law‑enforcement, public‑health, tourism and cannabis‑industry testimony. Supervisor Chris Koenig made the motion to adopt the ordinance; Supervisor Zach Cummings seconded. On final vote, the motion passed 3–2 (Ayes: Koenig, Cummings, Chair Hernandez; Noes: DeCerpa, Martinez). Supporters argued consumption lounges would create a safer, more educational environment and strengthen tourism; opponents warned of impaired driving and impacts to youth.
The board also added a set of post‑adoption directions. Supervisor Martinez successfully moved, and the board unanimously approved, a directive asking staff to return with proposed code language allowing county action — including suspension or revocation of a license — if evidence shows on‑site consumption leads to impaired driving that causes injury or damage. Martinez’s motion also asked staff to include farms and farm retail in any county effort to seek funding for server/host training and public‑education materials.
County staff said the ordinances would be implemented as a 3‑year pilot, with licensing and operational conditions designed to reduce public-safety risks: onsite consumption would be prohibited for drivers, facilities would have to comply with state workplace‑safety rules and applicants would face a public‑notification process before a license could be issued. The staff report said the Cannabis Licensing Office would have broad discretion to assess site appropriateness, including visibility from roadways and access from public roads. Supervisors also directed staff to develop additional license conditions such as reservation systems, shuttles or other measures to limit on‑site consumption by motorists.
Public comments highlighted differences of view: retail operators and growers emphasized potential new income and tourism; public-health officials and school representatives argued for greater safeguards and pilot testing; law enforcement flagged DUI enforcement challenges. The board approved motions requiring staff to return with specific enforcement language and to explore grants or other funding for training and public‑health education before the new rules take full effect.
Ending: The ordinances will be implemented as a pilot with additional license conditions and performance monitoring. The board directed staff to return with drafted enforcement language and a plan to fund server‑training and public‑education before the program expands. The county will evaluate impacts during the pilot period and may revise the program based on data and results.
