The Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) has just confirmed that it is now processing requests for ownership changes to existing Phase 2 (non-retail) cannabis licenses in Los Angeles. This long-awaited news is a game-changer for savvy investors and license holders alike, as it opens opportunities to buy or sell shares of the 139 cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution businesses that are licensed under Phase 2 in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles City Council President Herb Wesson has called on the city's Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) to suspend all Round 1 applications in light of recent allegations that the online application process was compromised. In his letter to DCR's Executive Director, Wesson urges that the City "1) suspend all Retail Round 1 applications; 2) refund all monies paid by Retail Round 1 applicants and cancel all invoices; and 3) prepare a full audit and report by an independent third party not involved in the process -- unless there are other options like processing every application..."
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.
On September 12th, M&L partner Raza Lawrence participated in a roundtable discussion with a group of attorneys in Downtown LA regarding alternative dispute resolution in cannabis law. This is a growing field becoming more and more important for people operating or starting a cannabis business. Starting a new cannabis business can be complicated, lengthy, and expensive, often including multiple investors, loans, licenses, employees, asset purchases, and phases of construction. As people adapt to the new licensed and regulated system, they are forming new companies and making large investments, and want to have ways to make sure their investment is protected and any disputes are resolved efficiently and fairly.
Now, commercial cannabis operators in California need both local and state licenses, and to comply with detailed local and state regulations. In Los Angeles, the structure and procedure of licensing is complicated further by the social equity program requiring many dispensary licenses to be majority-owned by social equity candidates who meet certain qualifications based on their history of living in certain parts of the city, being arrested for cannabis crimes, and being low income. In addition, cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution licenses in Los Angeles remain tied to “priority” applicants who can show a history of operating in the City, further complicating the business structures.
Disputes and problems inevitably arise when starting any business, even with the most careful plans. This is especially true with California’s complicated and changing cannabis laws, and the continued conflict with federal law. Until recently, California did not regulate or license commercial cannabis businesses. Instead, there was an affirmative defense to the criminal laws to people who operated as nonprofit medical marijuana collectives, jointly owned by all members. Collectives and medical marijuana operators were frequently arrested and prosecuted even when they tried to do things the right way, and laws were vague and unpredictably enforced. People tended to keep few if any records, because they did not want to keep evidence of criminal activity. Many cannabis businesses today are continuations or offshoots of these earlier, unregulated businesses, and have some disputes and growing pains when trying to adapt to the new laws.
People in the cannabis industry have traditionally shied away from courts , preferring to resolve disputes through informal means. That is because what happens in court becomes public record, and testimony and evidence presented in court could incriminate people for violating state or federal criminal laws, or even lead to asset forfeiture. For licensed operators, testifying in court continues to incriminate them under federal law. Distributing cannabis remains illegal under federal law, a felony with potential long jail sentences and asset forfeiture. While there are legal protections against prosecutions for state-licensed medical cannabis operators, the federal law complicates the legal landscape, making court results unpredictable. It can be difficult to even enforce a cannabis-related contract in court, given the federal illegality. Under the US constitution, federal law controls over state law when there is any conflict in the laws, including in the area of cannabis. In addition, many judges and courts start out biased against cannabis, having prosecuted and convicted cannabis defendants with felony charges for years.
Today, as people try to get their companies off the ground and adapt to the new legal regime, they need efficient and effective ways to resolve their inevitable problems and challenges. Court cases are expensive and take a long time. Arbitration and mediation can be much faster and cheaper, and a way to avoid potentially biased and uninformed judges. For all these reasons, we recommend that parties include alternative dispute resolutions in their contracts, requiring the parties to submit any disputes to mediation or arbitration and bypass the traditional court system. This way, parties can select someone they trust to resolve their dispute, using a transparent process agreed to by everyone.
Our law firm has helped numerous people and businesses resolve disputes relating to commercial cannabis. If you have a dispute involving your business, or are looking for ways to avoid them, you can contact our firm for help you find a solution.
Recently, rumors and misinformation have circulated surrounding LA’s “undue concentration” rules for commercial cannabis licensing. The undue concentration rules have not been eliminated, as some have falsely claimed. LA has recently changed details about the policy, in a way that will allow more retail dispensary licenses to be issued sooner. Some have feared, however, that the latest changes may introduce an element of unfairness to the licensing process.
On Tuesday, May 28, the Los Angeles City Attorney Michael Feuer filed a draft ordinance regarding retail cannabis licensing.
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.
An Important Step Forward for Los Angeles Cannabis Licensing – DCR Prepares to Open Phase 3 Applications, Starting with Retail for Social Equity Applicants
Cannabis licensing has been on the lips of hundreds of interested Los Angeles retailers and users for months. Important steps were taken to move the process forward at yesterday’s meeting of the Los Angeles Budget and Finance Committee at City Hall. During the meeting on April 1, City reps discussed delays in the licensing due to the delayed funding for the social equity program. It was also revealed that many people in LA have been holding properties for months waiting for the license application process to open up.
In order to continue with the licensing process, based on the specifics of the LA ordinance, the City of Los Angeles needs to issue a set number of retail dispensary licenses to social equity applicants (defined so that people may qualify based on low-income status, having a prior cannabis arrest, and/or living in specified zip codes within the City for at least 5 or 10 years that have had the most cannabis arrests).
For several months, interested parties have been awaiting the opening of “Phase 3” of Los Angeles’s cannabis licensing program, which is the first opportunity for members the general public to apply for cannabis licenses in the City. The previous two phases awarded licenses to certain qualified “priority” retail and non-retail businesses who had been operating in the City since before 2016.
The City is required to issue retail dispensary licenses to social equity applicants on a 2:1 ratio as compared to non-social equity applicants. To date, the City has issued 178 Phase 1 retail (non-social equity) applications, meaning that it needs to issue 356 social equity licenses in order to catch up with the required ratio. To start reaching these numbers, the City has proposed issuing 200 licenses (in two batches of 100) to social equity applicants.
This process has been delayed because, under the City’s law, social equity applicants are entitled to receive certain business licensing and compliance assistance, but so far there have been no funds allotted to provide this assistance. At yesterday’s meeting, the Budget and Finance Committee finally approved funding for the social equity program, meaning the whole licensing process can now move forward.
DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS REGULATION’S NEW INTERACTIVE MAP
The Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR), the governing agency regulating commercial cannabis activities for the City of Los Angeles, released a new interactive map this week which highlights the number of retail licenses available for applications in each of the 35 Community Plan Areas in the City. The map shows the maximum number of retail licenses approved (i.e., “license capacity”) for each Community Plan Area as well as how many of those licenses are available or otherwise occupied by retailers currently in operation.
The interactive map will be particularly useful for prospective applicants who want to pursue a dispensary license during the next and final round of licensing for the City and need to identify eligible properties for a potential retail location. Many retail licenses have already been distributed which has greatly limited the number of remaining licenses available for application in each Community Plan Area. The limited number of vacant licenses has further complicated the property search process for prospective applicants -- a process already restricted by distance and sensitive use requirements defined by the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). LAMC mandates that all retail locations be at least 700’ away from other licensed cannabis retailers and other “sensitive use” properties (e.g., public parks, public libraries). Further, it restricts the location of potential retail establishments to nine zones as defined by the City’s planning website through Zimas.
Eligible Zones for Cannabis Retail Locations as Defined by The LA Department of City Planning:
C1 Limited Commercial Zone
C1.5 Limited Commercial Zone
C2 Commercial Zone
C4 Commercial Zone
C5 Commercial Zone
CM Commercial Manufacturing Zone
M1 Limited Industrial Zone
M2 Light Industrial Zone
M3 Heavy Industrial Zone
STATE TO ISSUE PROVISIONAL LICENSES BEFORE EXPIRATION OF TEMPORARY LICENSES
Today, the Bureau of Cannabis Control, California Department of Public Health, and California Department of Food and Agriculture announced a plan to prevent lapses in licensure for retailers who have active temporary commercial cannabis licenses that will soon expire. The three licensing agencies are tracking the expiration dates of all active temporary licenses and intend to issue a provisional license to eligible retailers who currently have a temporary license prior to its expiration. To qualify for a provisional license, applicants must:
(1) Hold or have held a temporary license for the same premises and the same commercial cannabis activity for which the provisional license will be issued; and
(2) Have submitted a completed license application to the licensing authority, which must include a document or statement indicating that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance is underway.
In today’s announcement, the three licensing agencies urged that any temporary license holders who are contacted by their state licensing authority reply promptly in order to avoid a lapse in licensure.
February 28th, 2019
These two words were expressed throughout last week’s city council meeting on the current state of cannabis affairs in the city of Los Angeles. Business owners, hopeful entrepreneurs, private citizens and council members reverberated this sentiment from the city’s long delayed licensing process and yet to be fulfilled promise of a social equity program.
The Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) held its regular meeting before city council on February 28th to report on the progress the department has made to date and forecast expectations for the future of cannabis licensure in Los Angeles and the long awaited opening of phase 3. Executive Director Cat Packer sat before the council and highlighted the department’s substantial progress since its commencement in 2017, but made clear that “we still have a long way to go.”
A call was made for a more inclusive social equity program to expand the demographic of eligible applicants to other disenfranchised communities impacted by the war on drugs particularly, hispanics. However, strains on resources and available funding have left little for the social equity program to get off the ground.
To date, 55 temporary approvals have been granted to phase 2 applicants and 178 to phase 1 applicants. There are hundreds left to wade through pushing back the opening of phase 3 to sometime in spring or summer. The DCR proposed a bifurcated application process for phase 3 general processing when the time comes that would split the application process in two parts. Part One would establish a lottery or first-come first-serve process and Part Two would be a merit based system. The two part process is suggested to mitigate fairness and allow those who do not have access to resources a fair chance to participate for a license.
Cat also pointed out the large disparity between the number of retail licenses that will be available for phase 3 eligible program applicants. To comply with the city’s regulations for undue concentration, in the city that is home to some 4 million residents, granting one license per 10,000 residents allows for approximately 200 retail licenses available to some 10,000 plus people who are eligible for the social equity program.
An immediate need was called for increased enforcement to shut down illegal and unlicensed cannabis businesses from operating in the city. The black market is not only harming licensed businesses by taking customers from paying high dispensary prices but the city. In order for the city to provide funding generated from tax revenues requires a crack down on the black market.
With all eyes on Cat Packer for answers, she in turn responded to city council asking for direction and guidance on how the department is to proceed. A motion was submitted in support of immediate funding to implement the program and expand the demographic of eligible applicants to participate in the Los Angeles cannabis market and increased enforcement to crack down on the black market.
March 5th, 2019
The Cannabis Regulations Commission met on March 5th and presented their recommendations to the City Attorney that would establish policies for processing of phase 3 applications. Phase 3 would begin with a 60 day pre-vetting process of Social Equity applicants to verify Tier 1 or Tier 2 qualification. Verified Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants will then be eligible to move forward into the first phase of the licensing process. The DCR will issue 100 licenses in this initial phase allocating 75 to qualified Tier 1 applicants. Qualified Tier 1 applicants would receive priority receiving 75% of the available licenses during this initial phase so long as all basic application requirements are met, including:
A signed lease with proof of payment or deposit, or a property deed
Meet all sensitive use requirements, including undue concentration
Payment of required license fees
Ownership organizational structure
Proposed staffing plan
Complete and detailed diagram
Proposed security plan
Labor peace agreement
Current Certificate of Occupancy
Compliance with the Equity Share Rules
The second phase will allocate an additional 100 licenses establishing no priority between Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants. The second phase will establish a “first-come, first-serve” process that will allow the first 100 qualified applicants will move forward. Basic qualifications required to be met are payment of the required license fees or deferment approval; ownership organizational structure; financial information; indemnification; and, labor peace agreement. The remaining qualifications mentioned above would be required within 90 days.
The Commission also recommended the implementation of a pilot program for Type 9 Retail Non-Storefront delivery services. A total of 40 licenses would be available allocating 20 licenses to pre-vetted Tier 1 Social Equity applicants. The pilot program will also allow verified applicants who could not obtain a Type 10 retail license due to undue concentration limits will receive priority for a Type 9 delivery license. This will allow licensees to remain in their building and operate as a non-storefront retailer in lieu of having to locate and secure another compliant location. Eligible phase 2 applicants will also have an opportunity to amend their application to include delivery so long as they are compliant with the city’s zoning and regulatory requirements.
Phase 3 Licensing Estimated Timeline
Phase 3 Application Processing
60 day Pre-Vetting Period
Basic Tier 1 or Tier 2 qualification
14 day application window
Qualified Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants will be processed for 100 retail licenses (75% reserved for Tier 1 applicants). Pre-vetted applicants will receive 15 days notice of when the first phase application window is to open.
Deficient applications will have 5 days from the start of their application to rectify insufficiencies or issues with the basic qualifications.
30 day application window
Pre-vetted Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants who meet basic qualifications (see above) on a “first-come, first-serve” basis.
Applicants will have an additional 90 days to submit the remaining application requirements
Deficient applications will have 5 days from the start of their application to rectify insufficiencies or issues with the basic qualifications.
Delivery Pilot Program:
Pre-vetted Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants will receive 15 days notice for when Type 9 delivery licenses will become available
Pre-vetted Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants subjected to undue concentration limits will have priority
Eligible phase 2 applicants will have opportunity to amend their application to include delivery
Deficient applications will have 5 days from the start of their application to rectify insufficiencies or issues with the basic qualifications.
- 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 email@example.com.
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:
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
California Department of Food and Agriculture - Regulates Cannabis Cultivation
Bureau of Cannabis Control - Regulates Cannabis Retail, Delivery, Distrbution, Testing, Microbusiness
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.
Guest post by Donna Thompson, customlabels.net
Medical marijuana has been legalized in more than half of the states in the U.S. It is used for easing the symptoms of pain, nausea and vomiting, glaucoma, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and epilepsy. Although the number of people that advocate legalization of marijuana for medical purposes is on the rise, not all states in the U.S. have said “yes” to the legalization.
That’s why there is no federal law, and there are variations in medical marijuana laws in different states.
While some states allow the use of medical marijuana extract only, in other states it is allowed to use the whole plant.
When it comes to ways of obtaining medical marijuana, in some states dispensaries are the only place where you can buy it, but in others, like Michigan, you are also allowed to cultivate the plant in your own home.
Also, lists of medical conditions that qualify for medical marijuana treatment differ from state to state. That means that if you get a medical marijuana card in one state, you can buy a medical marijuana product in some other state only if that state lists your condition as one that can be treated with medical cannabis.
The absence of federal laws affects both consumers and producers of medical marijuana.
Besides all of these differences, states that legalized marijuana usage for medical purposes have different requirements for labeling and packaging medical marijuana products. Thus, when medical marijuana producers want to put their product on the market, they must comply with state specific regulations. For example, when it comes to packaging, products need to be tamper-proof and child-proof. As for labeling, the following infographic shows what common labels for medical marijuana products look like in the states that have legalized marijuana:
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.