Santa Barbara County supervisors looking toward booting Los Alamos cannabis operator | Agriculture

Frustrated by long delays in getting four cannabis dispensaries — and one in particular — up and operating prompted the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to consider pulling that one operator’s authority to set up a retail site.

Supervisors voted unanimously to request information on the process of abandoning the permit for Haven X LLC to operate a storefront retail cannabis business at 520 Bell St. in Los Alamos.

The vote also included a request for the treasurer-tax collector to bring the board a report on the audits being conducted on existing cannabis operations as well as accepting the fourth quarter report on cannabis taxes and enforcement.

Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson brought up the proposal to abandon Haven X’s permit after hearing a status report on where the four operators that have yet to open their doors are in the process and when they estimate opening.

Carmela Beck, cannabis program manager, said Haven has yet to pay the fees for the Planning and Development Department to begin the plan check process and the business currently estimates opening between January and March of 2026.

The other three — Dr. Greenthumb’s in Orcutt, Island Drift in Eastern Goleta Valley and Santa Claus Lane in Toro Canyon/Summerland — all are estimating opening dates next year.

Delays have been tolerated by county staff and the board as long as the operators have been making progress in the complex process of getting their doors opened to the public.

Deputy County Executive Officer Brittany Odermann said the county is regularly requesting updates on progress from the operators, and those who fail to respond are warned they could lose their retail permits.

“It’s a very slow-moving ship, but things are happening, so to date, everyone is being responsive,” she said.

But Nelson was particularly dissatisfied with Haven’s failure to pay fees and move forward on the process of preparing to open, and he suggested holding an abandonment hearing so Haven could present its case.

“I don’t think they’re making a good-faith effort to comply here,” Nelson said, later adding, “At this point, I’m a little less receptive to the timeline that’s being proposed. … I mean, that’s a best-case scenario.”

Odermann said the county would have to give Haven due process, and Board Chairman and 5th District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino asked what the process would be for abandoning Haven’s permit.

“I mean, this was supposed to be the Golden Ticket and no one is cashing it,” Lavagnino said.

Odermann said Haven is vested in its land use permit and has obtained a grading permit but is apparently trying to work out some issues with a neighbor.

She pointed out there was only one other applicant for the single permit to open a Los Alamos storefront, and that operator may no longer be interested, which would mean reopening the process of taking and evaluating applications — if any are received — which could take years.

“If other operators are not interested, maybe Los Alamos doesn’t have a [dispensary],” Nelson said. “I just know at this point, all the good will has been used up.”

Second District Supervisor Laura Capps was concerned about the audits being conducted on growers’ revenue reports and taxes, noting this year the county spent $132,000 on audits but hasn’t seen the results.

“The board put a lot of emphasis on the value of those audits,” Capps said, asking that information to be provided with the next update. “I won’t be satisfied with the answer, ‘Oh, it’s confidential.’”

Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann agreed, pointing out the board held off on making changes to the cannabis tax structure until hearing the results of the audits.

“So we held off, and now it’s a black hole,” Hartmann said. “I think this deserves more public discussion.”

She said she isn’t interested in information on individual operators but wants to see a broader picture.

“What are the trends?” Hartmann said. “What are people seeing? Are we getting better at pricing? Does there seem to be accuracy in what we’re permitting and what people are actually reporting? These are questions I think we all deserve answers to.”

The cannabis report

Highlights of the fourth quarter report on cannabis in Santa Barbara County include:

• Cannabis gross tax receipts collected in the fourth quarter of the 2023-24 fiscal year were $1.8 million.

• County collected a total of $5.8 million in taxes for the entire fiscal year.

• Total tax revenue collected from 2018 to 2024 is just under $55.2 million.

• Peak annual total tax collected was a little less than $15.7 million in 2020-21.

• The six-year average of annual tax revenue is $9.2 million.

• Of the county’s 56 operators, 40 reported gross receipts and paid taxes, 11 reported no gross receipts and five did not report and will not have county licenses renewed.

• Sheriff’s Office took five enforcement actions in the fourth quarter, confiscating 271 pounds of dried product with an estimated street value of $180,000.

• Barriers to entering the legal cannabis market are limited access to capital, poor market conditions, high regulatory hurdles and high costs of infrastructure, permitting, licensing and appeals.

No Byline Policy

Editorial Guidelines

Corrections Policy

Source