Santa Barbara: When You Control the “Conversation,” You Control the County

Very recently, we learned that at a Regular Planning Commission meeting set for September 25, the Commission will review suggested changes to our community-disastrous Cannabis Ordinance. This got me to wondering: Who controls the agenda and timing related to important County issues, i.e., who controls the “conversation”? 

The Planning Commission is an advice-driven part of our County government that is based on State law and enabling County statutes. It’s these statutes that call for staff from Planning & Development (P&D) to help set the agenda, as the Commission has no dedicated staff. Further, this legislation permits the Commission to have Special meetings “fixed at any date and time set by motion of the Commission…” This can happen if one of our five two-year term Commissioners makes such a motion. Big “IF”. 

Now, for land use/general plan issues, P&D works closely with our Supervisors and because they oversee it – and, in certain respects, rely on it – with the Cannabis industry itself. Given the industry’s influence (believe you me, these folks are “good”) and the two primary Cannabis engineers (Supervisors Williams and Lavagnino) do I believe that this agenda item bubbled-up organically based on P&D’s desire to work faster than even the Supervisors long range calendar (that staff also sets) would require? In a word, “NO WAY”. 

Please know that Cannabis can be “fixed” in a variety of ways. One involves the annual licensing scheme and the other involves land use. Most experts understand that licensing – which is Cannabis exclusive – is the quickest and easiest as it does not involve P&D, the Planning Commission or the Coastal Commission which would need to approve any land use changes, i.e., it involves more time, process and ongoing odor. 

Anyway, if there was political honesty in the process, a Special meeting would be a “given” based on the dark ad-hoc history of our Cannabis Ordinance, a history that resulted in a scathing Grand Jury report and 12 separate ethics-related recommendations. A deeply failed Ordinance that has resulted in a countywide Public Nuisance, resident-funded litigation and a groundswell of concerned community groups. 

Will our County, again, push what I can assure you will be very light/Cannabis-friendly suggestions forward – with the imprimatur of the Commission – without sufficient notice and public comment? Remember, these meetings are meant to “promote public interest in (and) comment on…general plan regulations.” Had P&D disclosed a draft for comment perhaps such a meeting would not be necessary, but they have adhered to their lockbox protocol, leading the community to be suspicious of both timing and process, especially given the topic! Unfortunately, in SB-land thoughtful engagement is rarely encouraged. 

Each Commissioner serves at the pleasure of their district Supervisor. Our Commissioner, C. Michael Cooney, is the longest serving Commissioner in SB history with more than 20 years of dedicated service stretching back to Supervisors Naomi Schwartz, Salud Carbajal and, most recently, Williams. He is by all accounts a gentleman and someone whose volunteerism earned him the Santa Barbara Foundation’s Outstanding Service award. That said – from the Commission to the Board of Supervisors – very much favors lame duck Supervisor Williams and not Supervisor Elect Roy Lee, who formally requested that the Commission hold a fully noticed Special meeting 30 days after P&D releases their report (as of this writing no report has been released), if for no other reason than to quash the appearance of politics or industry-meddling. 

I hope that Mr. Cooney and the Commission looks forward (Mr. Lee garnered 12,475 votes) because Cannabis, Transparency and Due Process, issues that were central to Mr. Lee’s success, demand it. So, who ultimately controls the conversation? Well, I’ll leave that for you to decide…  

Jeff Giordano, SB Country Resident