DCR Accepting Applications for Undue Concentration in Los Angeles

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on September 17, 2019


 

Don't panic. Although the first application cycle for cannabis retail licensing in the City of Los Angeles closed this morning, the real fun is only beginning. After today, the City’s Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) will begin to process and review applications submitted in Round 1. Over 800 applications were submitted in the first round, but only 100 applicants will be issued a license through this electronic process. Applicants who are unable to obtain a license in Round 1 of Phase 3 will be eligible to apply for one of the 150 licenses to be issued in Round 2, although it is anticipated that the final round will yield an even larger applicant turnout. However, applicants can apply for a license in an area of undue concentration, and there is no limit on the number of licenses that can be issued through the undue concentration process. Under Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) SEC. 104.20 (Part a.), the number of Social Equity licenses to non-Social Equity licenses is 2:1, which means that if 190 licenses were issues through Measure M Priority Round 1, 380 should be issued through a combination of Round 1 and Round 2 Phase 3 processing, and the "Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN)" process (for areas of undue concentration) described below. If the city abides by its own ratio, 130 retail storefront licenses will be authorized in addition to the 250 through the electronic process. 

WHAT IS "UNDUE CONCENTRATION?"

Phase 3 applicants are subject to the “undue concentration rule” passed into LAMC which restricts business location eligibility based on data from the 2016 American Community Survey, not on any state law requirements. The rule sets a limit on the maximum number of licenses that can be issued in each Los Angeles Community Plan Area. The implementation of undue concentration in Los Angeles further complicates what is already a difficult task for many hopeful cannabis entrepreneurs who have been verified for the City’s Social Equity program, which aims to provide priority licensing and accessibility to individuals who have been disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. Phase 3 Social Equity applicants must find properties that meet not only the plethora of other local requirements (e.g., correct zoning, 700 feet distance from any other dispensary or “sensitive use” areas) but also within specific communities that has not reached their license cap -- unless the candidate is able to successfully lobby City Council to approve them through the PCN process.

THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN) PROCESS

The "Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN)" process.  process was established by the City Council and passed into LAMC to provide applicants who wish to apply for a license in an area that has already met undue concentration a chance to appeal their ineligibility based on the undue concentration rule. Applicants must submit an online application and pay a $1,499 PCN request fee to be routed to the City Council. Then, applicants must lobby the City Council to receive their approval and become eligible to apply for a license in an area that is undue.

Six of the 36 Community Plan Areas in Los Angeles have already met undue concentration. These areas were deemed unduly concentrated (with zero licenses available) prior to the Round 1 application cycle which began on September 3rd. At that time, several other Community Plan Areas had as few as two or three licenses remaining. These numbers can be viewed for each Community Plan Area on the DCR’s interactive map. The DCR will only issue the number of licenses indicated as “available” on the map in each Community Plan Area during Round 1, and licenses will be distributed on a first-come-first-serve basis. Therefore, even individuals who applied for a Round 1 license in an area outside of the six that have already reached undue concentration are subject to the consequences of the regulation and may be routed to the PCN process. In its review of applications submitted during Round 1, the DCR will issue licenses to eligible applicants on a first-come-first-serve basis (i.e., applicants with an earlier application timestamp will be processed first).Once an area becomes unduly concentrated, Round 1 applicants with later submission timestamps will automatically be routed to the PCN process unless their location is within 700 feet of a sensitive use property or another dispensary. Although the application window for the 100 Round 1 licenses closed this morning, the online PCN application will remain open for applicants that did not apply during Round 1 and wish to apply for a license in an area of undue concentration.


Other cities and municipalities in California who have not enforced additional location requirements like the undue concentration rule -- including Oakland, the very city Los Angeles modeled its Social Equity program after -- attest to the rule’s redundant and excessive nature. The 187 businesses currently holding retail licenses in Los Angeles who applied in Phase 1 as Existing Medical Marijuana Businesses (EMMDs) were also not subject to this rule. In addition, places like the  Oaksterdam cannabis dispensary district in downtown Oakland have been havens of community, not crime. Moreover, the unfairness that can result from a system like the PCN process -- which has essentially no guidelines and is subject to the very sticky nature of local politics -- would be eliminated if the City simply allowed everyone who applied to run a dispensary, so long as they respected the sensitive use requirements other than the intradispensary buffer. Our firm will continue to advocate for the eradication of the undue concentration restriction but is helping applicants navigate the requirement and its consequences since the situation does exist presently. 

WHY YOU WANT US TO LOBBY FOR YOU

Over 800 applications were submitted in Round 1. It is likely that several more Community Plan Areas in addition to the existing six will become unduly concentrated and applicants in these Areas will be required to undergo the PCN process - regardless of whether or not their Area was one of the original six. Given the high degree of uncertainty regarding who will be subject to the PCN process, our team is proactively preparing to take the first steps of a PCN appeal for each and every one of our clients who applied during Round 1.

Margolin & Lawrence has obtained over 200 state and local cannabis licenses throughout California and one in Massachusetts. Our founding partners, Allison and Raza, have litigated cannabis and other drug cases throughout their careers ( 17 and 16 years, respectively ) across the state and federal courts of our country, and have appeared in Hawaii, Utah, Nebraska, and Nevada, just to name a few. Our years of experience trying marijuana cases in front of juries has trained us for the battleground that is city politics.

Their experience fighting the war on drugs and fighting for drug and marijuana defendants, specifically, gives them the credibility to discuss the Social Equity program and their clients' willingness to re-enfranchise those who have been systematically excluded. Our firm was founded on the same core values as those of the Los Angeles Social Equity program. Allison and Raza have demonstrated a passion for drug legalization and criminal justice reform throughout (and even before) their careers.

Allison began her drug law reform efforts at age 12 when she discovered the insanity of the drug war while writing her sixth grade DARE essay on the Medellín Cartel. Her parents' careers as criminal defense attorneys and advocacy for drug law reform gave her an early and rare insight into the traumas inflicted on people, by the criminal justice system. During her time as a Harvard law student, she published her thesis On the Right to Get High where she argues for the decriminalization of all drugs and states that current state and federal laws are unconstitutional.

Before working with Allison in 2009, Raza worked at the CATO Institute, the ACLU, and the Center for Individual Rights fighting on behalf of individuals who have been disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. He was also a federal clerk for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Together, Allison and Raza founded their 501c4-registered lobbying firm, Advocates for Healing America, in order to advocate for drug policy reform and provide support to political candidates with a like-minded agenda.

Margolin & Lawrence remains committed to our founding values and will continue to do everything in our power to ensure we help individuals who have been who have been disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. Our current efforts are aimed towards ensuring that victims of this war have the access they deserve to reparative government programs such as the Los Angeles Phase 3 Social Equity licensing process. 

If you have applied for a Round 1 retail license or if you are seeking to apply for a license via PCN or Round 2, we invite you to contact a member of our team immediately to discuss how we may be able to advocate on your behalf. We cannot take clients with retail properties that are within 700 feet of our current clients and are accepting new clients on a first-come-first-serve basis. Therefore, we recommend contacting a member of our team sooner than later to minimize the chances of conflict.

Northern california delivery applications

Posted by Sara Adams on July 25, 2019

 

Take Our Quiz to Find Out if You May Qualify for Social Equity

Posted by Zachary Tucker on June 13, 2019
 

Opportunity for Potential Investors to Join Pending Phase II Licenses

Posted by Raza Lawrence on May 17, 2019

 

Governor Releases Revised State Budget, Statutory Changes Affecting Cannabis in California

Posted by CA NORML Guest Blog on May 13, 2019

 

LA Phase 3 Major Updates

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on May 2, 2019

NEW PHASE 3 LEGISLATION APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL

On April 30th, the Los Angeles City Council approved new legislation to begin the third and final Phase of cannabis licensing within the City of Los Angeles no later than the end of next month.

Phase 3 will include two rounds of applications for Storefront Retailer Licenses in addition to one round of applications for Non-Storefront (i.e., Delivery) Retailer Licenses.

Priority will be given to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Social Equity Applicants for all three rounds. Additionally, each round will operate on a first-in-time rule. In other words, the first application submitted will be given priority over succeeding applications with premises within 700 feet of the property. Licenses will be issued on a first-come-first-serve basis.

 

 

 

PHASE 3: ROUND 1, ROUND 2, & DELIVERY PILOT PROGRAM

The upcoming Phase of cannabis licensing will give priority to applicants under the Social Equity Program, a program designed to provide reparations to individuals who have been disproportionally impacted by the war on drugs. Social Equity Applicants will receive expedited application review among other benefits through the program. Eligible applicants in the program will be classified as either Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants, depending on the criteria they meet. To qualify for Tier 1 or Tier 2 Applicant status, individuals must have lived in a Disproportionately Impacted Area (DIA) for a minimum amount of time and cannot own an Existing Medical Marijuana Business (EMMB). The City of Los Angeles has listed a set of zip codes that currently qualify as DIAs. The City announced that it may add additional zip codes to this list in the future.

ROUND 1 (STOREFRONT RETAIL LICENSING)

After all Tier 1 and Tier 2 Applicants have been verified and notified by the DCR, the DCR will begin accepting applications for Round 1 of Phase 3. Only verified Tier 1 or Tier 2 Social Equity Applicants will be eligible to submit an application during Round 1. Applicants must submit all required documents (see table) within a 14-day period to be announced by the DCR. The dates of the 14-day period have not yet been identified, but the City Council has ordered the DCR to begin this period no later than September 3, 2019. The DCR will distribute 100 licenses during Round 1 to the first 75 eligible Tier 1 Applicants and the first 25 eligible Tier 2 Applicants. Verified Tier 1 or Tier 2 Applicants can only apply for one license during Round 1.

ROUND 2 (STOREFRONT RETAIL LICENSING)

Following the 14-day period of Round 1, the DCR will host a second round of Storefront Retail License application processing. Round 2 will only accept applications from verified Tier 1 and Tier 2 Applicants, just as in Round 1. For the second round of application processing, the DCR will accept applications during a 30-day period that has yet to be determined. Specific documents will be due within the 30-day application period, while all additional documents will be due within 90 days (see table). The first 150 eligible applicants will be issued licenses. The DCR may issue additional licenses until each Community Plan Area (CPA) has reached Undue Concentration. Tier 1 or Tier 2 Applicants who were issued a license during Round 1 may not apply for a license in Round 2. 

DELIVERY PILOT PROGRAM (NON-STOREFRONT RETAIL LICENSING)

The DCR has announced that it will launch a Delivery Pilot Program, where it will issue Non-Storefront Retail (i.e., Delivery) Licenses to the first 60 eligible applicants. The Delivery Pilot Program will accept applications from verified Tier 1 and Tier 2 Applicants as well as General Applicants. The DCR announced that delivery will be restricted to addresses within City limits unless special permission is granted by the DCR. 

 

 

 

  

PRE-VETTING PROCESS FOR SOCIAL EQUITY APPLICANTS

Applicants that qualify as Tier 1 or Tier 2 Social Equity Applicants must submit a preliminary application along with supporting documents to the Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) in order to have their Tier 1 or 2 status verified. The Ordinance voted into law yesterday identifies an unspecified 60-day period in which these preliminary applications will be received. Although the exact dates of the application window have yet to be determined, the City Council approved a motion ordering that the 60-day period begin no later than May 28, 2019. The DCR will not accept applications or supporting documents after the 60-day period. After the 60-day period ends, the DCR will determine whether or not applicants are verified as Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants and notify all applicants of their final, non-appealable decision prior to the beginning of the Phase 3 Round 1 application window.

 

 

L.A. Retail Cannabis Legislation Moves Forward: What Happens Now

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on April 22, 2019

 

 

Wednesday, April 17 - The City of Los Angeles Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee discussed and approved an April 12, 2019 report and proposed ordinance from the LA City Attorney regarding cannabis licensing, with recommendations to make some amendments.

All recommendations were approved and will be redrafted for Council consideration and presented on Tuesday, April 30.

Today’s meeting moves the City closer to the opening of the highly anticipated Phase 3, which is the first chance that will allow the general public to receive dispensary licenses. The City Attorney was directed to make requested changes to the proposed new ordinance, to present for City Council consideration on April 30.

 

Notable Takeaways from Wednesday’s Meeting

The City of Los Angeles and the DCR have been hard at work in recent months, particularly as they sort through the specifics of Phase 3. While Phases 1 and 2 focused on existing cannabis dispensaries, non-retailers (i.e. growers and manufacturers), and social equity applicants, Phase 3 has been the main attraction for many entrepreneurs and would-be business owners looking to break into the industry.

In an earlier April meeting, the fate of Phase 3 was largely unknown due to funding. The DCR claimed that licensing was on hold as they awaited the Fee Deferral Program, which would allow Phase 3 to commence.

While a date has not been announced for the opening of Phase 3 applications, Wednesday’s meeting shed some light as to the direction the City and DCR are taking to solidify the process.

 

Among the notable new details that are coming out through these recent meetings and reports are:

● Changes to the Los Angeles Municipal Code establishing a first come, first served application process for retailer commercial cannabis activity licenses, with details regarding what is required for an application to be considered complete

● A proposal to allow applications for retail storefront dispensaries beginning January 1, 2020, in neighborhoods that have already exceeded Undue Concentration caps, with City Council approval

● Modifications to the process for issuing non-storefront retail licenses

● Allowing the Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) to grant Temporary Approval to Phase 3 storefront retail applicants

● Exempting Phase 2 applicants from the Undue Concentration requirements

● Setting deadlines for Phase 2 applicants to finalize their business location (May 15) and obtain Temporary Approval (substantial progress by July 1)

● Revising various requirements to qualify as a Tier 3 Social Equity Applicant and revising various benefits provided to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Social Equity Applicants

● Adding an additional reason to deny a license application — if the City has taken enforcement action against unlicensed cannabis activity at the same address since January 2018

● Clarifying the definition of license ownership relative to management companies

 

In addition, one of the recommendations to the draft ordinance that was approved on Wednesday was to instruct the DCR to finalize a timeline for all Phase 3 and Type 9 Pilot activities and post the information on the Department’s website. This indicates that an exact date for Phase 3 licensing could be established by April 30, if not sooner.

 

City Council Action Unanimously Passed Today

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on April 11, 2019

The LA City Council held a meeting today to follow up on the April 1 meeting of the Budget Committee and approve the recommendations made on April 1.  After a good deal of discussion about the enforcement efforts against unlicensed dispensaries, the City Council approved all the recommendations with only minor revisions.  This means the licensing process can now move forward. 

The funding approved today by the City Council will allow the Social Equity Program to move forward, which is an integral part of the upcoming Phase 3 licensing process awarding cannabis licenses to new businesses in the City of LA.  So far, the licensing has been delayed while the City has worked through issues surrounding the Social Equity Program.  We are still waiting for the City to announce details of the timing of the next phase of LA cannabis licensing.  This phase will start with the issuance of 200 retail storefront and 40 retail delivery licenses, issued largely to Social Equity applicants.  

Now that the City Council has approved the Social Equity funding, we expect the licensing to open up soon, and now is the time for anyone interested in applying to find a property and get all the elements of their applications in order.
Before the ruling on the Social Equity funding, there was an update on enforcement efforts against unlicensed cannabis businesses, including utilities disconnects, cease and desist letters, and search warrants.

So far, the City has been shutting down the illegal businesses bureau by bureau.  The City started the crackdown in the Valley, where it has gone to 22 locations, with 10 more scheduled for next week when it will be finished with the Valley.  Then, it will move to the South bureau, where it will start with 10 locations in the Harbor area, and then move to the Southeast.  The City has also been disconnecting utilities from unlicensed businesses in the past month.  $2.3 million has been set aside by the police department for cannabis enforcement. 

Governor Newsom Calls In the National Guard

Posted by Raza Lawrence on February 19, 2019

Are we about to see more enforcement against unlicensed cannabis?

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently announced he is calling for the California National Guard to work with federal officials to target the California illicit market.  Given the history of the war on drugs and the current federal laws imposing harsh criminal and civil sanctions for cannabis, the involvement of the National Guard and the federal government in a new crackdown is concerning.  Governor Newsom’s announcement of this increased enforcement, however, comes amid growing frustration with perceived dysfunction in the state regulatory system and a persistent illicit market that crowds out regulated cannabis.

California has a thriving illicit market in cannabis, estimated by New Frontier Data to be valued at $3.7 billion last year.  This is due to many factors, including California’s unregulated cannabis collectives and cooperatives that operated for years before licensing came, the slow speed at which state and local governments in California have issued licenses, the high taxes and burdensome regulations of the new licensing system, and the demand for California cannabis products throughout the country.

In a sense, the entire cannabis market is an illicit market, as cannabis remains illegal under federal law, which makes any inconsistent California state law allowing cannabis invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. This federal illegality has caused most banks to refuse to do business with cannabis-linked companies, resulting in a largely cash business that is more difficult to track and regulate than it would be if banks were involved.  Federal illegality also makes it so the entire interstate market is illegal and unregulated, though lucrative. 

The California Bureau of Cannabis Control, tasked with regulating cannabis retail sales, has issued a few enforcement actions against some unlicensed dispensaries, but the efforts have been largely symbolic, against only a tiny fraction of the unlicensed operators.  Los Angeles and other cities have also filed misdemeanor cases against unlicensed operators for violations of local licensing laws, but unlicensed dispensaries seem to pop back up faster than they are shut down.

 In order for California’s regulatory project to succeed going forward, the state will need to convince more operators to move to the regulated market, through some combination of greater enforcement and lower taxes and regulatory burdens. 

The large illicit market and slow roll-out of the licensing process have shaken the confidence of many people who are attempting to comply with California laws.  Hopefully, state and local regulators will take advice from frustrated operators, learn from their mis-steps and continue to develop a functioning system.  The state and local governments are trying to find the right regulatory balance.  Over-regulation makes it so difficult and burdensome to comply that only rich people and companies with lots of resources can operate, and an expensive final product that leads many consumers to buy from the illicit market.

For now, many license holders are playing the long game, hoping the illicit market will shrink over time, and more consumers throughout the state (and eventually the country and world) join the regulated cannabis market.  Governor Newsom says that he expects it may take at least five years to develop its complex regulatory system.  If the state gets it right, this can be an industry that drives the state economy, creating more resources and jobs for everyone.

One approach that could be successful would be to offer a more simplified and inexpensive process to get new cannabis businesses up and running.  More burdensome regulations and higher taxes could kick in only after businesses have gotten through the startup phase and adapted to the regulations.  There could be a tiered or graduated system of compliance, taxes, and enforcement that is welcoming to new operators.  Startup costs for new businesses are already very expensive, and high licensing expenses and a burdensome application process can dissuade many people from pursuing licenses who might otherwise want to follow the law.  Lowering the tax rates in the beginning, while businesses get off the ground, could also encourage new entrants to the regulated market.  Once businesses become established and there is a healthy regulated market, taxes could be increased to desired levels.  The government has many tools available to help establish a functioning market.  We are optimistic that the future is bright for the cannabis economy in California.

North San Diego County Cannabis Update

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on January 18, 2019
While most of the attention on cannabis business in San Diego County has focused on the area in and around the City of San Diego, there are also a few jurisdictions in the northern half of the county with open cannabis license applications. Here's a breakdown of the licensing application processes in the cities of Vista and Oceanside.
 
City of Vista
 
The City of Vista is offering business licenses for medical dispensaries only, limited to one business per 10,000 residents of Vista (so the limit is currently 10).
 
Applications will open on January 22nd and remain open for 7 days. During this period, applicants must submit complete applications (including site plans, security plans, etc.) and a $100,000 deposit to be held by the city during the application process. Applications are limited to pre-existing registered collectives/cooperatives. If fewer than 6 businesses are granted licenses, another application period will be opened at a later time. 
 
The application form can be found online here.
 
Additionally, the city has released a list of potentially eligible locations where cannabis businesses may be located.
 
City of Oceanside
 
The city of Oceanside is  currently accepting applications for cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, testing, and non-storefront retail. From the city website:
 
The City has a limit of 5 licenses for Cultivation. There are currently 16 applications under review for cultivation.
The City has a limit of 2 local licenses for Non-Storefront Retail. There are currently 4 applications under review for Non-Storefront Retail.
There are currently 7 applications for Manufacturing and 6 for Distribution under review. There is no limit to the number of local licenses that will be issued for these types. 
The City has received no applications for Testing Labs.
 
To apply, businesses must obtain a zoning verification letter confirming their property's eligibility, and submit an application (including a business plan, security plan, etc.) along with an initial $3,471 application fee (not including the background check fees). Additional fees will be charged for each phase of the licensing application process.
 
The application form can be found online here.
 
Oceanside has also released a map of eligible zones, which can be found online here.
 
For more information on cannabis l icensing requirements in San Diego County or elsewhere in California, check our   guide to California's cannabis laws   or reach out to our cannabis attorneys directly at  info@margolinlawrence.com .
 

The 2018 Farm Bill: What it Means for Hemp and CBD

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on December 11, 2018

The House Committee on Agriculture is in the process of finalizing the 2018 Farm Bill, which is expected to go into effect later this month. It’s likely that the bill’s provisions will include the legalization of hemp, in the form of the removal of the plant from the government’s list of Schedule I Controlled Substances. Not only will this mean that hemp can be grown much more widely, it will also affect the production of hemp derivatives, including hemp-derived CBD. However, the legality of CBD products remains more complicated than this news may suggest.

As discussed in a prior blog post, the legal status of CBD can be very confusing to consumers, businesses, and lawmakers alike. As a substance that is derived from the cannabis plant, but is not cannabis’ main active ingredient, CBD currently occupies an unclear middle ground – particularly in California, where the state has imposed additional rules affecting how the various types of CBD may be legally used.

The legalization of hemp, though a step forward in the overall process of cannabis legalization, doesn’t do much to resolve the confusion surrounding CBD products. Even after hemp is legalized, CBD will be considered a drug and therefore subject to regulation by the FDA. Though the FDA has approved certain cannabis-derived CBD medications, CBD’s status as a drug makes it illegal to use as an ingredient in any kind of food or food additive.

Topicals, oils, and other non-edible forms of hemp-derived CBD, on the other hand, may not necessarily be banned once hemp is legalized. However, the FDA has yet to make a statement regarding this possibility – though they have sent unambiguous legal warnings to CBD businesses that make unsubstantiated or false claims about their products, indicating that they plan to regulate all CBD products to some degree, they’re less clear about the future legal status of hemp-derived CBD and non-edible hemp derivatives in general. 

In California, the law on CBD edibles will remain paradoxical even after hemp is legalized. While CBD products with THC levels of 0.3% or more will be treated as cannabis edibles and therefore legal, CBD products with lower THC levels – or no THC at all – will be considered food products and therefore banned, regardless of whether they’re derived from cannabis or hemp. However, hemp-based non-edible CBD products are not currently regulated by any state agency, meaning their legal status remains unclear. For the sake of the state’s cannabis consumers and businesses, hopefully California will respond to the new Farm Bill by clarifying the legal status of these products.

For more information on the legal status of hemp and CBD, check our Guide to California Cannabis Laws or contact our cannabis attorneys at info@margolinlawrence.com

Los Angeles Cannabis Update: November 29 LA Cannabis Regulation Commission Meeting

Posted by Raza Lawrence on November 30, 2018
Our cannabis attorneys attended yesterday's meeting of the LA Cannabis Regulation Commission. Here are our main takeaways on what was discussed.
 
1.  Enforcement Tactics Against Unlicensed Dispensaries
 
The following enforcement tactics are being considered by City Council:
  • Disconnecting DWP utility services to unlicensed businesses
  • Issuing citations to certain employees working in unlicensed businesses
  • -Sending cease and desist letters to businesses and landlords
  • Requiring all licensed retailers to display an emblem so the public knows whether a given business is licensed
  • Sending letters to creditors and contractors of unlicensed businesses 
  • Bringing civil and criminal cases against unlicensed businesses

2. Opportunity to Appeal Rejected Dispensary Permits


Applicants who applied in Phase 1 and were found to be ineligible based on failure to qualify as an Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensary were given a chance to appeal the written findings of the DCR. These parties were given an opportunity to present their points, with back-and-forth discussion on the points of the appeal with members of the commission.

Each Applicant appealing was allowed either have a single person present the appeal or to have multiple witnesses – each side was allowed to submit any documents up until a week before hearing, and given 10 minutes to present arguments and evidence. The DCR was then allowed to present its case and findings for 10 minutes. The hearing officer could grant either side more time if appropriate, and the applicant was allowed 5 minutes at the end of the session to address DCR’s comments, followed by discussion and questions.

The main issues in the appeal were whether the Applicant had a 2017 L050 BTRC or, if no 2017 BTRC, if the Applicant had a L050 2015 or 2016 BTRC and met all the pre-ICO requirements, including registering for the ICO in 2007.  One applicant was rejected who met all the requirements other than registering for the ICO in 2007 (the City reviewed records of office of city clerk regarding who was on the ICO registry), even though the business had BTRCs from 2007 to 2015 and had been paying taxes all along.

One applicant claimed another applicant mis-used the applicant’s ICO filing, applying under it for priority registration even though he was not an officer or director of the ICO registered entity. However, it turned out the ICO registered entity had registered as a sole proprietor “doing business as” a name similar to the current applicant, and the current applicant corporation was just using a similar same name as the 2007 entity but had a different legal name and different tax history and was a separate legal entity.

There were disputes during the appeals involving BTRCs issued with different account numbers or different entities, BTRCs that had been erroneously issued for addresses outside LA and then closed out, and BTRCs issued to related entities that had failed to follow merger process with the city. As a rule, only the same business entity that meets the eligibility requirements is eligible for priority processing.

Parties found ineligible for priority processing were encouraged to re-apply in Phase 3 general licensing, anticipated to open in 2019.  Going forward, the DCR will prioritize annual licensing for Phase 1 and 2 applicants first, then registration for social equity applicants, and then Phase 3 will open.

For more information on the cannabis licensing and social equity process in Los Angeles, keep checking this blog or reach out to our cannabis attorneys at info@margolinlawrence.com.

Sunset Clauses and California Cannabis

Posted by Jenna Rompel on November 27, 2018

Twilight is approaching in the state of commercial cannabis in California. Pursuant to the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulations and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), Business and Professions Code Section 26050.1, each of the state licensing authorities regulating commercial cannabis are subject to a Sunset Clause that prohibits the issuance or extension of temporary state licenses starting January 1, 2019.

What does this mean for you?

As a reminder, California has a dual-licensing system regulating commercial cannabis in the state. To operate legally, you must have both a local license issued by the local jurisdiction where your business is established, and a state license issued by one of the three state licensing agencies, the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Pursuant to MAUCRSA, the state temporary license enable business to operate while the state processes the annual license application. If you have already received a state temporary license and it expires prior to this date, you must submit an application for an annual license in order to receive the extension.

Each agency has set their own requirements dependent on the license type applied for and may be subject to compliance with ancillary agencies at the state level. Look through the application materials thoroughly, and consider consulting with an attorney to ensure you are in compliance with the necessary documentation.

To apply for a state temporary license, at a minimum you will need:

  • Local Authorization

  • Premises Information

  • Evidence of Legal Right to Occupy

Should the state deem any part of your application incomplete, they will notify the primary contact with an opportunity to rectify any insufficiencies. This will inevitably delay the review of your application until all deficiencies are rectified. We would like to reassure our readers this is a normal part of the licensing process and is common practice to go back and forth with the state to ensure your application is in line with the regulations.

DO NOT DELAY

We advise sticking to the state’s December 1 recommended deadline to submit your application for a temporary license. The review period can take up to several weeks so make sure to submit the application timely to ensure there is sufficient time to receive the license. You may still apply for an annual license after the new year, but are subject to the state’s review period until they issue the annual license. The review period of the annual application can take up to several months. If you do not hold a valid local and state license you are prohibited from conducting commercial cannabis operations in the state.

This can have an significant repercussions for businesses to take into consideration. For example, if you are paying rent on the property and cannot operate can cause significant financial strains. We recommend consulting with an attorney in preparation of the annual license.   

California Department of Public Health - Regulates Cannabis Manufacturing

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DFDCS/MCSB/Pages/MCSB.aspx

California Department of Food and Agriculture - Regulates Cannabis Cultivation

http://calcannabis.cdfa.ca.gov

Bureau of Cannabis Control - Regulates Cannabis Retail, Delivery, Distrbution, Testing, Microbusiness

https://bcc.ca.gov/

CBD Confusion

Posted by Raza Lawrence on November 14, 2018

Cannabidiol (CBD for short) is a naturally-occurring element of the cannabis plant that has recently exploded in popularity and availability.  Like tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), CBD is believed to have therapeutic and medical benefits, but unlike THC, CBD has no intoxicating effects.  Across the country, people can now find CBD products everywhere.  But are they safe and legal?

Many products advertised as CBD are imported from other countries or produced in unregulated, unlicensed operations, with no verification that they are free from toxic compounds or that they even contain CBD.  Even if the products contain “pure” CBD, knowledgeable experts contend that CBDs have little or no benefits when they are stripped from THC and other cannabinoids and compounds naturally occurring in the marijuana plant. CBDs appear to exhibit their medical and healing properties only when they are left combined with the other cannabinoids like THC, as they are found in nature.

CBD Production and Sales Remain a Federal Crime Without FDA Approval and a Doctor's Prescription

The law on CBD products is confusing, due to conflicts among local, state, federal, and international laws.  Under the Supremacy Clause to the US Constitution, federal law controls to the extent it conflicts with state or local law.  State law also controls to the extent it conflicts with city or county laws.  Federal law in this area is moving, but it is not clear in what direction.  Some predict the federal government will relinquish all regulation of CBDs and cannabis generally to the states, and keep a hands-off approach.  Others expect the federal government to strictly regulate CBDs and cannabis as they do with prescription drugs through the FDA, leaving the states with little control.  This approach was foreshadowed by the DEA’s recent memo announcing that drugs including CBD with THC content below 0.1% will be taken off of Schedule 1 of the controlled substances schedules, and moved to Schedule 5, which allows CBD products to be sold through traditional pharmacies with a doctor’s prescription so long as the particular product is first approved by the FDA. The order also disallows any importing or exporting of CBD products without a permit.

Under federal law, CBD with THC content above 0.1% remains classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, subject to severe criminal sanctions. The Rohrbacher-Farr amendment creates a limited exception, preventing the DOJ from prosecuting anyone in strict compliance with state medical marijuana laws (adult-use or recreational uses of CBD products may still be prosecuted).

Without Commercial Cannabis License, CBDs Are Banned in California Food Products

In California, the Department of Public Health recently issued a memo confirming that CBD products are not allowed in any food products in the state (unless the products are regulated as commercial cannabis edibles, which by definition contain THC levels of at least 0.3%). Thus, under state law, CBDs are allowed to be sold and ingested as long as they include THC, and are banned in food if they come from industrial hemp with little or no THC. The reason CBD products with no THC are banned by state law is that California incorporates federal law regarding food additives, dietary use products, food labeling, and good manufacturing practices for food.  Currently, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded that it is a prohibited act to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any food (including any animal food or feed) to which THC or CBD has been added.

This is regardless of the source of the CBD – i.e., whether the CBD is derived from cannabis or industrial hemp. CBD used as a topical or smokeable product could arguably be allowed under either federal or state law as it may not be considered to be a food that is ingested.

Los Angeles Allows CBD Businesses Without a Cannabis License to Register for Business Tax Certificate to Engage in Commercial Activities

The City of Los Angeles recently issued a form for businesses seeking a Business Tax Registration Certificate to engage in commercial activities related to industrial hemp and/or CBD derived from industrial hemp in the City of Los Angeles. This form allows your business to pay local taxes, but it does not protect you from criminal prosecution under state or federal law.  It likely also signals that enforcement of state CBD laws is not a high priority of the Los Angeles Police Department.

International Treaties Ban All Cannabis Extracts Including CBDs

In addition to local, state, and federal law, international treaties place obstacles to the sale of CBD products. The United Nations has had a series of International Drug Control Conventions (treaties of which the US and Canada are part), and while CBD is not specifically listed in the schedules of the Conventions, "extracts" of cannabis are apparently included within Schedule 1, meaning they are prohibited.

Given the controls required by the UN Conventions, the US would be unable to keep its obligations under the treaties if CBD products were de-controlled under federal law. The Federal Controlled Substances Act, moreover, indicates that scheduling decisions will be made in accordance with treaty obligations.  For example, under section201(d)(I) of the CSA, if control of a substance is required under an international treaty or convention in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General is required to impose controls on the substance by placing it under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations. 

The World Health Organization Expert Committee on Drug Dependence is scheduled to review the UN’s classification of CBD, THC, and cannabis in general at its November 2018 meeting, which could lead to a change in the international treaty.

The result of all these different layers of law leave many confused. We expect that the laws will adapt over time to allow for open sales of CBD products, whether or not they also contain THC.  For now, however, the law is full of problems for CBD products and cannabis in general, and we applaud those working to reform the laws for these products that are all around us.

Everything You Need to Know from the Pasadena Application Workshop

Posted by Raza Lawrence on November 14, 2018
On Tuesday   night, the city of Pasadena hosted a presentation on cannabis licensing with a planning consultant. Here is what we learned from the meeting.  
 
Regulations for cannabis businesses were voted in on   June 5th  by Pasadena voters. As a pragmatic and conservative city, Pasadena's licensing focuses on exercise of local control – with the aim of protecting its residents from secondary effects through land use regulation. 
 
The application period is from   January 1st to January 31st at   11:59 p.m.  There will be a notice of the 30-day period on   December 14th. Currently there is a draft of the review criteria available. The final criteria will be released on   December 14th.  
 
The whole application, as well as payments, may be submitted electronically. Pasadena's selection committee will not give special weight to applications submitted on   January 1st  versus   January 31st, and will not look at anything until the application window closes. The application fee will be approximately $10,000 per category. 
 
The application requires qualifications of the operator, cover letter, business plan, background, experience dealing with government agencies, neighborhood compatibility and enhancement, and security plan. The limit is 50 pages of text and images. You do not have to have a confirmed site in order to apply. 
 
When the application portal closes, there will be an initial screening of applications - did the applicant answer all questions? is the application in full compliance? - to ensure the application is complete and responsive. 
 
Once applications are scored, top applicants will be notified and will have the  opportunity to go forward and secure land use permits and public  health permits – this is period when you need to lock down your sites,  look at buffer zones, and so on.  These sites must also be located at least 1,000 feet from  any other cannabis retailer.
 
All the scoring will be based on written submissions, but the city reserves the right to start an interview process of the final applicants. 
 
Pasadena will allow up to 6 retail permits in the city, one per council district, so long as they meet the required separation from schools, parks, and residential properties. 
 
Another point about delivery: people with licenses in other cities are allowed to deliver in Pasadena. Pasadena will not have separate delivery licenses, but the retail licenses will allow both storefront and delivery. 
 
Pasadena will allow up to 4 cultivation sites in the city, indoor only. These cultivation sites must be in commercial general and industrial general zones. 
Pasadena will also allow 4 testing laboratories in the city where other medical labs are allowed. 
 
For more information from the workshop, see the handouts at the City of Pasadena website. These include details of the proposed scoring system. 
 

Where are Cannabis Lounges Allowed?

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on November 1, 2018

As recreational cannabis becomes legal in California, the marijuana industry is expanding into a number of different spaces that previously were impossible to operate in legally. One of the most exciting of these new opportunities is the cannabis lounge. Made famous by Amsterdam’s marijuana cafés, lounges are cannabis retail businesses that also allow for the on-site consumption of cannabis – an exciting possibility for customers, business owners, and investors alike. However, while a great deal of interest in these businesses exists across the state, only a few jurisdictions in California plan to allow cannabis lounges, and only some of those locations currently are open to licensed cannabis lounge operations.

When it comes to cannabis lounges currently in operation, the Bay Area is ahead of the pack by a wide margin, with a number of cannabis lounges fully licensed and open for business – seven in San Francisco and one in Oakland, according to a recent Leafly article. No other jurisdiction, in California or elsewhere, has more individual lounges in operation. However, several other cities in California are in the process of opening up for fully licensed cannabis lounge business.

After the Bay Area, the Los Angeles area is furthest ahead in the process of cannabis lounge licensing. Earlier this year, West Hollywood opened applications for cannabis lounges, planning to grant a total of 16 licenses – 8 for edible-only lounges, and 8 for lounges allowing edibles, smoking, and vaping. These applications are still under review, but the city plans to announce its decisions by the end of November, meaning operational businesses may be only a few months away. The city of Los Angeles has also shown interest in social consumption lounges. Between LA City and West Hollywood, this indicates that LA county may not be far behind the Bay Area when it comes to cannabis lounges.

While San Francisco and Los Angeles are the largest California cities to move toward legalizing cannabis lounges, several other areas in the state are beginning to explore the possibility as well. Earlier this month, the city of Eureka voted to allow on-site consumption. After voting to approve cannabis lounges last year, the city of Palm Springs issued its first permit for on-site cannabis consumption this summer, and, though the business in question has yet to open, several other communities in Coachella Valley are considering following suit.

While cannabis lounges remain a controversial issue in many communities, with local residents concerned about the potential nuisances that may come with legal on-site consumption, many cities across California are also beginning to see their potential economic and social appeal. Given the large amount of consumer interest demonstrated in the cities that have already moved toward licensing on-site consumption, the number of jurisdictions embracing legal cannabis lounges can be expected to increase in the future.

New Cannabis Legislation in Riverside County

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on October 30, 2018

Last Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors in Riverside County approved an ordinance allowing the following commercial activities starting on 26th December: Testing, Manufacturing, Distribution and Wholesale Nurseries. There is now a 60-day deliberative period regarding the cannabis businesses in Riverside based on the newly approved ordinance. The Board also voted to allow a limited number of dispensaries and cultivators to operate in 2019. Up to nineteen dispensaries and fifty grows will be permitted in unincorporated Riverside County as decided by a 3-2 vote following a public hearing that last nearly four hours. The Board also approved an “Implementation Plan for Retail and Cultivation” uses that is scheduled for process in early January 2019. The proposal process will include pre-registration by interested applicants, and the issuance of a Request for Proposals by the Planning Department. However, there are certain conditions that will be enforced regarding additional taxation and fees associated with each of these activities as determined by the Planning Commission.

Cannabis Business Law

Posted by Margolin & Lawrence on October 19, 2018

California cannabis entrepreneurs have to go through the often lengthy and cumbersome process of applying for local and state commercial cannabis licenses.  But that is only the beginning of the journey to becoming a successful, fully-compliant business in this emerging industry.

Entrepreneurs interested in operating a cannabis business in California must decide how their business will operate and what business structure will work best for their specific business goals. They must consider the commercial, legal, and tax implications that come with deciding which business structure they want to operate under.  

Once entrepreneurs have decided which business structure will best work for their specific business goals, the next step is to begin the entity formation process. This process consists of deciding what the Company name will be and drafting the entity formation documents that will determine how your cannabis business will operate.

As a full-service cannabis law firm, we represent many clients who have gone through this process already. Two of the most common business structures we have seen entrepreneurs decide to start their cannabis business as have been Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and Corporations. Although there are some similarities between both business structures, there are some major differences that entrepreneurs need to understand prior to beginning the entity formation process.  

At Margolin & Lawrence, our cannabis attorneys can help you with all the formation and governing documents for your LLC, such as the articles of organization, operating agreements, and statements of information. If you decide on structuring your cannabis business as a corporation, our cannabis attorneys can help you with your corporate formation documents such as bylaws and articles of incorporation.

Additionally, we understand how important it is for new businesses to raise capital to continue to grow their business. Given that cannabis is still illegal under federal law, entrepreneurs looking to raise capital for their cannabis business need to seek private investment capital. In order to do so, there are a series of important documents private investors want to examine before they decide to invest in your cannabis business.

For instance, companies looking to raise capital need private placement memoranda (PPMs) and subscription agreements. A PPM is a legal document that is given to prospective investors when selling stock or any other security interest in a business. The PPM provides prospective investors with an in-depth look at your business, including management, analysis of operations, risks factors, financial information, among other things. The goal of the PPM is for prospective investors to be fully informed about all aspects of your cannabis business.

A subscription agreement is an agreement between a corporation and the investor (the subscriber) in which the corporation promises to sell a certain number of shares at a specific price to the subscriber and, in return, the subscriber promises to buy the shares at the agreed upon price.

At Margolin & Lawrence, our cannabis attorneys can help you and your business with any capital-raising compliance and legal representation. Additionally, our cannabis attorneys can help you decide which business structure best meets your cannabis business goals. And we can help your cannabis business remain compliant with all the governing laws every step of the way, including ongoing compliance with state and local commercial cannabis regulations and employment laws, avoiding and minimizing the expenses of civil litigation, addressing the implications of federal illegality of cannabis, and helping to informally resolve any internal or external disputes that jeopardize the business operation.

Central Coast Update

Posted by Jenna Rompel on October 16, 2018

Commercial cannabis is heating up on the central coast. Here’s a look at what’s green:

The City of Goleta began accepting cannabis planning applications on August 17th. Applicants will need to obtain either a Land Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning & Environmental Review (PER) Department. A Cannabis Business License will only be issued upon approval by the PER Department. Applicants are required to submit an Odor Abatement Plan and Certification approved by a Professional Engineer or Certified Industrial Hygienist. In addition, cultivators will need to show proof of consultation with Southern California Edison (SCE) showing participating in SCE’s Savings by Design Program as well as participation in the Resource Innovation Institute’s Calculate Powerscore Tool. More information on Conditional Use Permits and Land Use Permits for cannabis operators in the City of Goleta can be found here.

Cannabis Business Licenses will be valid for one year from January 1 to December 31, regardless of when the license was issued. Something to consider as we approach the latter end of the year, as all businesses will need to renew their license prior to January 1 and pay the applicable renewal fee. The amount of retail licenses the city will issue has been limited to 15. The city will review applications on a first-come, first-serve basis and will implement a waitlist for potential retailers. More information on Cannabis Business Licenses for the City of Goleta can be found here.

The City of Lompoc is open for all cannabis operators with the exception of outdoor cultivators. Currently, there is no cap to the amount of licenses the city will issue and will allow for onsite consumption. Prospective operators will need to obtain a commercial cannabis use license issued by the City. Application materials and information on the city’s laws and regulations can be found here.

Santa Barbara County is expected to open by the end of the year for new businesses. Prospective applicants will first need to obtain either a Land Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit. Permit type is dependent on whether you are located inside or outside the Coastal Zone and distance to sensitive use receptors. Check here for information on land use and zoning in Santa Barbara County. A maximum of 8 licenses will be issued for retailers and all outdoor cultivation has been prohibited in the Coastal Zone. Once you have received the applicable land use or conditional use permit, you will then need to apply for a Cannabis Business License. Application materials for a Cannabis Business License will be made available here. Supplemental information may be required such as, environmental and energy conservation measures dependent on your zone. Be sure to check through the application requirements carefully and thoroughly or consider hiring an attorney to breakdown the process.

For more information on cannabis licensing, check out our guide to California cannabis laws or reach out to us at info@margolinlawrence.com.

San Francisco Cannabis Licensing & Equity Program

Posted by Xochilt Gama on October 4, 2018

San Francisco’s Golden Gates have opened for those interested in running their cannabis business in the City and County of San Francisco. Although the San Francisco Office of Cannabis is currently accepting applications, not everyone is welcomed to apply just yet.

Currently, the San Francisco Office of Cannabis is accepting applications only for applicants who are applying through the Equity Program or as an Equity Incubator. Those who do not meet the criteria to apply under the Equity Program or as an Equity Incubator, will need to wait to apply after the San Francisco Office of Cannabis opens applications, which they expect will open before 2019.

In order to apply as an Equity Applicant, there are numerous requirements the applicant needs to satisfy. First, the equity applicant must:

  • Apply as a person, which means that a company cannot apply under the Equity Program
  • Have net assets below established limits for each household (click here for more details)
  • Be one of the following:
  1. The business owner
  2. Own at least 40% of the business and be the CEO
  3. Own at least 51% of the business
  4. A board member of a non-profit cannabis business where most of the board also qualify as Equity Applicants
  5. An individual with a membership interest in a cannabis business formed as a cooperative.

Additionally, the equity applicant must meet 3 out of the following 6 equity conditions:

  1. Have a household income below 80% of the average median income in San Francisco for 2017. This amount is calculated based on how many people are in your household (click here for more details.)
  2. Have been arrested for or convicted of the sale, possession, use, manufacture, or cultivation of cannabis (including as a juvenile) from 1971 to 2016
  3. Have a parent, sibling or child who was arrested for or convicted of the sale, possession, use, manufacture, or cultivation of cannabis (including as a juvenile) from 1971 to 2016
  4. Lost housing in San Francisco after 1995 through eviction, foreclosure or subsidy cancellation
  5. Attended school in the San Francisco Unified School District for a total of 5 years from 1971 to 2016
  6. Have lived in San Francisco census tracts for a total of 5 years from 1971 to 2016 where at least 17% of the households had incomes at or below the federal poverty level. To determine whether you satisfy this condition, please click here to see a map showing areas of significant poverty in San Francisco. 

Those who satisfy the criteria to be an Equity Applicant will not have to pay the $5,000 permit fee for this year. However, equity applicants will have to pay for renewals.

Equity Incubators will also provide Equity Applicants with rent free space for 3 years or technical assistance to help Equity Applicants run their business. Once the Equity Applicant has satisfied the eligibility criteria, the San Francisco Office of Cannabis will help equity applicants partner with an equity incubator business. The Office of Cannabis will send a list of verified equity applicants, which will help equity applicants and incubator businesses find one another.

To find out more about the Equity Incubator program, click here.

Equity Applicants can apply for the following licenses:

  • Cultivation
  • Distribution
  • Manufacturing (volatile or non-volatile)
  • Retail (medical and adult use)
  • Delivery only retailer (medical and adult use)
  • Medicinal cannabis retailer (medical only)
  • Testing Laboratory
  • Microbusiness (can conduct up to 4 activities: cultivation (less than 10,000 sq. ft.), manufacturing (non-volatile only), distribution, and retail.

More information about the application process and requirements can be found on the San Francisco Office of Cannabis website.

Categories

This blog is not intended as legal advice and should not be taken as such. The possession, use, and/or sale of marijuana is illegal under federal law.