Posts

RE: WINTER LLP Update – Newly signed Cannabis Laws; and Bureau of Cannabis Control Publishes New Distributor Fact Sheets

/0 Comments/in /by

Dear WINTER LLP Clients and Friends,

Please see the following summaries on new laws going into effect in 2020.  This was a very favorable legislative sessions for the cannabis and hemp industries.

Additionally, further below these new laws you can find two new fact sheets published by the BCC related to Distribution.

As always, please let us know if you have any questions, or need any assistance with anything and everything!

 

SB-34 allows cannabis licensees to donate cannabis and cannabis products to medicinal cannabis patients who have difficulty accessing such products.  The purpose of this is to enable ill, low-income individuals to have better access to medical cannabis.  Prior law prohibited licensees from donating any amount of cannabis as a business promotion or other commercial activity.  SB-34 was passed on October 12, 2019 and allows licensees to give medicinal cannabis products away to compassionate care patients.  SB-34 provides for such donations to be excluded from taxes but specifies that if a donation-intended cannabis product is not donated, then the taxes will have to be paid on it subsequently.  It will become operative when necessary changes are made to the state’s track-and-trace system or on March 1, 2020, whichever comes first.

 

SB-153 aims to bring California’s hemp regulations in line with the 2018 Farm Bill.  Prior law established the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act and the Industrial Hemp Advisory Board, but this framework existed before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill and thus is somewhat non-compliant.  SB-153 was passed on October 12, 2019 and revises the Farming Act to better conform to the Farm Bill through the following: enhancing county agricultural commission reporting requirements, standardizing THC-level testing procedures, establishing violation consequences, placing temporary bans on individuals who have been convicted of a controlled substance-related felony and permanent bans on those who lied on their applications from participating in the industrial hemp program, and California to develop and submit a state plan for industrial hemp regulations to the federal government by May 1, 2020.  SB-153 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

SB-185 closes a loophole within the current cannabis appellation marketing laws.  Prior law aimed to prevent companies from stating or eluding that their product is derived from one place when, in fact, it’s not by requiring that only produced which are 100% produced within the county can bear its name.  An example of this would be a cannabis product named “Humboldt’s Finest” when it is not from Humboldt County.  Prior law also requires the California Department of Food and Agriculture to establish appellation standards by January 1, 2021.  SB-185 was passed on October 12, 2019 and builds on these foundations through various changes aimed to ensure that only products that are grown or produced within a defined boundary can be labeled with a name that includes the territory or any wording that is likely to mislead a customer for this purpose.  SB-185 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

SB-595 requires a cannabis licensing authority to develop and implement a fee deferral or waiver plan by July 1, 2020, to create a path for low-income individuals to apply for and receive cannabis licenses.  Prior law authorized licensing authorities to collect fees for cannabis license applications.   SB-595 passed on October 12, 2019 and requires them to create a fee waiver program for local equity applicants by January 1, 2021, and to allocate at least 60% of the dollar amount of waiver or deferral fees to equity those applicants. SB-595 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

AB-1529 changes the requirements of labels on cannabis cartridges and vaporizers so that the labeling requirements would be easier to meet for the industry.  Prior law required that a cannabis cartridge or integrated cannabis vaporizer have a black symbol on it that is, at minimum, one-half inch by one-half inch in size that denotes it as a cannabis item.  This marking requirement has proved difficult to accomplish for technical reasons.  AB-1529 passed on October 12, 2019 and changes this requirement by allowing the symbol to be either in black or white, a minimum of a one-quarter inch by one-quarter inch in size, and affixed by way of either engravement, adhesive, or printing.  AB-1529 is classified as an urgency matter and thus goes into effect immediately.

 

AB-420 authorizes the California Cannabis Research Program (CCRP) to cultivate its own cannabis for the research project that is conducted on the grounds of UC San Diego, and expand what studies may examine, including mold, bacteria, and mycotoxins.  Prior law required the CCRP to acquire cannabis from other sources, and to limit the breadth of its studies.  AB-420 passed on October 12, 2019 and allows the program to cultivate its own cannabis, subject to federal regulations, to decrease research and supply chain issues that have previously presented themselves.  AB-420 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

AB-404 authorizes a cannabis testing laboratory to amend a certificate of analysis to correct minor errors and retest samples, as specified.  Prior law requires a testing laboratory to issue a certificate of analysis for selected lots of each batch tested.  AB-404 passed on October 12, 2019 and allows the lab to amend the certificate of analysis once it is issued to correct minor errors and to retest a sample whose test results fall outside of the normal parameters if the lab notifies the bureau that the previous test was compromised and the bureau approves the re-testing.  AB-404 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

AB-37 makes licensees who are engaged in commercial cannabis activities to be eligible to take business deductions for those activities.  Prior law disallowed those who engage in commercial cannabis activity from deducting any ordinary and necessary business expenses related commercial cannabis activity on their tax returns due to the federally illegal status of cannabis.  AB-37 passed on October 12, 2019 and equalizes the treatment of such taxpayers by allowing them to do so if applicable.  AB-37 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

AB-858 adds to the CDFA’s type 1C cultivation a limit of 2,500 square feet for outdoor grow space.  Prior law did not place a canopy size limit on this type of license, also known as a “specialty cottage.”  AB 858 corrects this oversight by limiting the growing space to 2,500 square feet. AB-858 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

AB-1291 requires an applicant for a cannabis license who has 20 or fewer employees to provide a statement that the applicant will enter into a labor peace agreement within 60 days of employing 20 or more employees, and requires applicants who currently have 20 or more employees to provide a statement that they will or already have entered into such an agreement.  Prior law required applicants with greater than 20 employees to submit similar statements but placed no timeline restrictions on the submittal, and did not require anything of the like from applicants with fewer than 20 employees.  AB-1291 passed on October 12, 2019 and includes a time-line specification and a statement requirement for applicants with less than 20 employees for the purpose of preventing and limiting the possibility of arbitrary employment law enforcement.  AB-1291 will go into effect on January 1, 2020.

 

To All Interested Parties,

The Bureau of Cannabis Control (Bureau) recently published two new fact sheets as a resource for those seeking information about the cannabis distributor and distributor transport only license types. These documents include lists of required procedures and guidelines for various distribution activities such as transportation, storage, transfer of cannabis goods, packaging, labeling, and more.

Both distributor fact sheets have been uploaded to the California Cannabis Portal and are located on the “General Resources” page under the “Resources” section. The fact sheets may also be accessed by clicking the links listed below.

Cannabis Distributor (Type 11) Fact Sheet:

https://cannabis.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/08/BCC_Distributor_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Cannabis Distributor Transport Only (Type 13) Fact Sheet:

https://cannabis.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/08/BCC_Distributor_Transport_Only_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Those looking to get in touch with the Bureau of Cannabis Control may contact us directly through email at bcc@dca.ca.gov.

WINTER LLP: COMMITTEE BLOG: NCIA’S INFUSED PRODUCTS COMMITTEE STIRS THE TESTING BATCH (INTERVIEW)

/0 Comments/in /by

JULY 23, 2018

COMMITTEE BLOG: NCIA’S INFUSED PRODUCTS COMMITTEE STIRS THE TESTING BATCH (INTERVIEW)

A year ago, NCIA’s Infused Products Committee (IPC) made the decision to tackle the issue of cannabis testing. It is an issue we feel is at the heart of cannabis legalization and is negatively impacting cannabis businesses across the nation. Although it has been a struggle to get comparable lab results across different labs, IPC believes there is a future where cannabis testing will reach consistency.

We began our process by asking several questions and with the assistance of the NCIA, we crafted a survey that was sent to experts in the field. During our preliminary research, we discovered that most cannabis testing labs view their protocols and procedures as proprietary information.

To gain better insight about the testing sector, we asked Alena Rodriguez, a member of NCIA’s Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to participate in an interview. Alena represents Rm3 Labs, a cannabis testing laboratory in Colorado.

IPC: Are you concerned about the inconsistent and varying test results and the impact it has on consumer safety?

Alena: Yes, I’m concerned. I do not take my job lightly; I know that contaminated cannabis can be harmful and sometimes life threatening. That is why I am involved with state regulators and groups like NCIA’s SAC and Testing Policy Working Group. We aim to educate regulators and stakeholders on the importance of practices such as independent audits, proficiency testing and ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for cannabis testing labs.

IPC: Do you think we are close to having consistent cannabis test results from different laboratories?

Alena: We are well on our way. In Colorado, licensed labs must undergo Proficiency Testing (PT) twice per year. PT is done through an inter-laboratory comparison where participating labs receive the same sample and analyze it using their methodology. Even though our procedures are not standardized to one method, most of the labs arrive at the same result. Unfortunately, not all states require PT yet, but I feel more and more states will adopt these programs.

Along with PT, consistent testing across labs requires the use of high-quality reference materials that are used to validate analytical methods and calibrate instruments. Cannabis testing labs in the United States have limited access to reference standards. Like cannabis, most industries started with limited resources, but over time the science will progress as federal barriers are lifted to make more research and better standards possible. It took decades to develop standardized, consistent methods in other industries, such as in pharmaceuticals and food testing. I don’t see the cannabis industry being any different.

IPC: Should there by penalties if a testing lab consistently provides drastically different results from prior tests of the same product?

Alena: It depends on the situation. If the lab is knowingly breaking the rules or trying to cheat the system, then absolutely. But, most of the time inconsistent results have causes other than fraud or negligence. This industry produces new products every day and some manufacturers and laboratories don’t “get it right” on the first try. There is a lot of research and development that is involved. Three of the biggest hurdles for consistent testing of cannabis products are 1) the variety of sample types 2) the lack of certified reference materials for uncommon cannabinoids and terpenoids and difficulties in obtaining concentrated standards and 3) inhomogeneity in some infused products or concentrates. Product uniformity is critical and should be confirmed by analytical testing for consumer safety. Variable results across multiple labs may suggest a product lacks uniformity.

IPC: Do you believe testing procedures and protocols are proprietary?

Alena: Yes, third-party cannabis laboratory protocols are just as proprietary as the protocols developed by cultivators, concentrate extractors and infused product makers. Testing labs having proprietary methods is not novel to this industry. If a lab in any other industry (e.g. food, medical, agriculture, environment) develops an alternative method to the standard method, they can use it if they can validate against the reference method.

IPC: Should labs be required to prove their analytical methods are accurate by submitting their practices confidentially to a regulatory body?

Alena: Absolutely! Colorado labs are currently required to send all new Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and method validations to the CDPHE prior to implementation. I hope more states adopt this practice, if they aren’t doing so already. As of January 1, 2019, all cannabis testing labs in Colorado will be required to be ISO/IEC 17025 accredited. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation is the international gold standard for assessing the competence and quality management systems of testing labs across all industries to ensure consistent, accurate test results. More than a dozen cannabis labs have achieved this accreditation across the country.

IPC: Are you aware that the ASTM Committee D37 reportedly drafted testing procedures? If published, will cannabis testing labs follow published procedures that are not their own?

Alena: Yes, I’m excited! This is a great step for our industry. I imagine the committee will develop similar protocols to those being used by third-party labs. But as I mentioned before, labs will have the choice to use the published standard methods or their own alternative method, granted it is validated against the reference method. I expect some labs will attempt to validate their methods against the standard methods and some will adopt ASTM’s methods.

IPC: Are you aware of testing labs that allow for “tipping” on their order forms? Does this concern you, and why?

Alena: It concerns me that there are bad actors in the testing sector of the cannabis industry but I’m afraid there are bad actors in every segment of every industry. At Rm3 Labs, we do not participate in or condone unethical behavior such as paying for the results you want. We would never risk falsifying test results because we are aware immunocompromised individuals and children are possibly taking the products we are testing. I would not risk my entire scientific career to give you 5% higher THC potency results or lie about your contaminant testing results. I advise all cannabis testing labs to always act ethically because you are in the business of public safety and your lab is subject to investigation by regulatory agencies at any time.

IPC conducted the above enlightened interview with SAC. While we were inspired by some of the answers, much like our survey attempt this past year, many of our questions remain unanswered. For example, we don’t agree that cannabis cultivators or manufacturers are to blame for receiving inaccurate “clean/approved” test results from labs due to products being inhomogeneous.

That said, it is clear by a couple of the responses that some states, like Colorado, are making substantial progress in oversite and legal requirements for testing laboratories, while other states, like California, are still leaving significant and dangerous gaps.

In our opinion, the industry’s need for consistent and accurate testing results remains at the forefront of the issues facing commercial cannabis today. The ability to send the same sample, from the same batch, under the same conditions, and have it tested by multiple labs, achieving the same results, is paramount to our industry’s future and success. State laws should require it. The industry should demand it. And the consumers most certainly deserve it.

As such, the IPC will continue its mission to drive this conversation forward with both testing labs and operators alike. Only together, can we really solve this crucial issue facing our amazing industry.

WINTER LLP Update: Final Cannabis Regulations Approved

/0 Comments/in /by

Dear All,

On January 16, 2019, California’s three state cannabis licensing authorities announced that the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) officially approved state regulations for cannabis businesses across the supply chain. Please note, these new cannabis regulations take effect immediately, meaning the previous emergency regulations are no longer in effect.

First, we would like to address the sections that we previously commented on during the 15-day comment period back in October.

Section 5032(b), Commercial Cannabis Activity.

(b) Licensees shall not conduct commercial cannabis activities on behalf of, at the request of, or pursuant to a contract with any person that is not licensed under the Act.

Such prohibited commercial cannabis activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Procuring or purchasing cannabis goods from a licensed cultivator or licensed manufacturer.

(2) Manufacturing cannabis goods according to the specifications of a non-licensee.

(3) Packaging and labeling cannabis goods under a non-licensee’s brand or according to the specifications of a non-licensee.

(4) Distributing cannabis goods for a non-licensee.

The Bureau has removed the specific examples of “prohibited commercial cannabis activity,” such as “packaging and labeling cannabis goods under a non-licensee’s brand or according to the specifications of a non-licensee. However, this does not mean that the State is authorizing white labeling/branding for unlicensed brand owners; in fact the opposite holds true. Practically, this means that (1) the operating company (licensed/permitted entity) needs to hold the IP (trademarks, copyrights, brands) instead of the management company; and (2) companies that do not hold a permit/license cannot get their products made by permitted manufacturers (white-labeling) unless they are included as an owner of the license.

The Bureau provided a few examples of an authorized brand owner/licensee relationship:

  • “if a licensee includes as one of their owners a brand owner, the licensee can produce the branded products because in this case the licensee is not engaged in commercial cannabis activity on behalf of an unlicensed person. Because the owner of the brand is an owner of the licensee, there is no unlicensed person involved.”
  • “Generally, where a brand-owner may be dictating the standards and specifications of a product (i.e. providing direction or control), they would likely be considered an owner that would need to be disclosed under section 5003. Where ownership is properly disclosed, such persons would not be considered non-licensees, and would be able to conduct business under their license.”

We understand there is a lot of confusion/debate surrounding this issue. We are reviewing angles and alternatives to work through these vague/troubling rules. Additionally, we are seeking further clarification from the State regarding how IP licensors/licensees may be classified (as owners, financial interest holders, etc.). Please stay tuned.

Section 5003(b)(6)(D), Designation of Owner.

(b)Owner means any of the following:

(6) An individual who will be participating in the direction, control, or management of the person applying for a license. Such an individual includes any of the following:

(1) A person with an aggregate ownership interest of 20 percent or more in the person applying for a license or a licensee, unless the interest is solely a security, lien, or encumbrance.

(2) The chief executive officer of a nonprofit or other entity.

(3) A member of the board of directors of a nonprofit.

(4) The trustee(s) and all persons who have control of the trust and/or the commercial cannabis business that is held in trust.

(5) An individual entitled to a share of at least 20 percent of the profits of the commercial cannabis business.

(6) An individual who will be participating in the direction, control, or management of the person applying for a license. Such an individual includes any of the following:

(A) A general partner of a commercial cannabis business that is organized as a partnership.

(B) A non-member manager or managing member of a commercial cannabis business that is organized as a limited liability company.

(C) An officer or director of a commercial cannabis business that is organized as a corporation.

(D)Any individual who assumes responsibility for the license. Such an individual includes but is not limited to, the following:

(i) An individual who is managing or directing the commercial cannabis business in exchange for a portion of the profits.

(ii) An individual who assumes responsibility for the debts of the commercial cannabis business.

(iii) An individual who is determining how a portion of the cannabis business is run, including non-plant-touching portions of the commercial cannabis business such as branding or marketing.

(iv) An individual who is determining what cannabis goods the commercial cannabis business will cultivate, manufacture, distribute, purchase, or sale.

The Bureau has removed section D, “any individual who assumes responsibility for the license” completely. The Bureau addressed comments as follows: “A salesperson earning a fractional share in profits would not be considered an owner under this section but would be a financial interest holder. Commenter’s comment demonstrates that rather than providing clarification, subsection (b)(6)(D) created more confusion. Therefore, the Bureau has determined that it is necessary to withdraw the subsection.”

Therefore, consultants, Marketing Managers, etc. will not have to be disclosed as “owners” unless they fulfill one of the other definitions of an owner (20% or more profits, 20% or more ownership interest, board of directors, etc.)

Second, please find a brief summation of some important regulatory changes for each license type. Please note that this is not a comprehensive summary and we advise you to contact us with any questions regarding your specific operation.

BCC Regulations (Retail, Delivery, Microbusiness, Distribution, Testing)

  1. Annual License Application Forms. All BCC applicants will be required to use the applicable forms supplied by the Bureau to submit Transportation Procedures, Inventory Procedures, Non-Laboratory Quality Control Procedures, Security Procedures, and Delivery Procedures.
  2. Cal-OSHA training. Businesses with more than 1 employee must complete a Cal-OSHA 30-hour general industry outreach course within one year of receiving a license.
  3. Business/Owner Modifications. If one or more of the owners of a license change, the new owners shall submit their required information within 14 calendar days of the effective date of the ownership change, but may not need to submit a new license application if at least one existing owner is not transferring his ownership interest.

Distributors

  1. Pre-rolls. Distributors may package and label pre-rolls that consist exclusively of any combination of flower, shake, leaf, or kief for retail sale.
  2. Exit Packaging. Until January 1, 2020, the child-resistant packaging requirement may be met through the use of a child-resistant exit package at retail.
  3. Distributor to distributor transfer. After a batch passes testing, the goods packaged as they will be sold at retail, may be transported to one or more licensed retailers, distributors, or microbusinesses (previously was only retailers). However, cannabis goods that have not been transported to retail within 12 months of the date on the Certificate of Analysis must be destroyed or re-tested.
  4. Ownership of Vehicles. All vehicles used to transport cannabis goods must be owned or leased by the licensee.

Delivery

  1. Delivery to prohibited cities. A delivery employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the State of California.
  2. Value of Goods. A delivery vehicle may not carry cannabis goods in excess of $5,000 at any time.

Testing

  1. Sampling. Once a representative sample has been obtained for compliance testing, the testing laboratory that obtained the sample must complete the regulatory compliance testing.
  2. Final Form. All testing of the samples shall be performed on the final form in which the cannabis or cannabis products will be consumed or used.

Temporary Cannabis Event

  1. Other venues allowed. Temporary cannabis event may be held at county fair event, district agricultural association event, or at another venue expressly approved by a local jurisdiction for the purpose of holding a temporary cannabis event.

MCSB Regulations (Manufacturing)

  1. Cal-OSHA training. Businesses with more than 1 employee must complete a Cal-OSHA 30-hour general industry outreach course within one year of receiving a license.
  2. Cannot use CBD from hemp. Manufacturers may only use cannabinoid concentrates and extracts that are manufactured or processed from cannabis obtained from a licensed cannabis cultivator (and not from hemp cultivators).
  3. Retail Food/ABC Premises. A manufacturer shall not manufacture, prepare, package, or label cannabis products in a location that is operating as a retail food establishment, or that is licensed by the Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control.
  4. Requirements of Operating Procedures and Policies have changed (new written protocols required).
  5. Final Form. Cannabinoid content may be included on the product label or added to the product at the distribution premises after issuance of the regulatory compliance testing Certificate of Analysis.
  6. Child-Resistant Packaging. Until January 1, 2020, the child-resistant packaging requirement may be met through the use of a child-resistant exit package at retail.
  7. Edible cannabis product label may not contain a picture of the edible product.
  8. New Labeling and Packaging Requirements. We strongly encourage you to contact us with any questions regarding the new comprehensive packaging and labeling checklist and/or to have us review your packaging and labeling for compliance with the new regulations.

CalCannabis Regulations (Cultivation)

  1. Cal-OSHA training. Businesses with more than 1 employee must complete a Cal-OSHA 30-hour general industry outreach course within one year of receiving a license.
  2. Separate processing areas for each license type. Processing areas, packaging areas, and storage of cannabis subject to administrative hold areas may not be shared among multiple licenses held by one licensee (need to identify separate areas for each license)
  3. Common areas. Pesticide and chemical storage areas, composting areas, and secured waste areas may be shared between licenses held by one licensee.
  4. Light deprivation. Outdoor licensees may not use light deprivation.
  5. Processing. Cultivators may process cannabis, which includes all activities associated with the drying, curing, grading, trimming, rolling, storing, packaging, and labeling of flower, shake, leaf, pre-rolls, and kief that is obtained from accumulation in containers or sifted from loose flower with a mesh screen.
  6. New Labeling and Packaging Requirements. We strongly encourage you to contact us with any questions regarding the new comprehensive packaging and labeling checklist and/or to have us review your packaging and labeling for compliance with the new regulations.

As always, we hope that you find the above useful in navigating this rapidly-evolving landscape. This is by no means a comprehensive summary of all of the changes that were implemented; it is simply a quick overview of relevant rules that may be applicable to our Clients.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions or need clarification regarding any of the new regulations.

WINTER LLP UPDATE: California Cannabis Ballot Measure Results Are Now Available!

/0 Comments/in /by

The following local jurisdiction ballot measures authorizing cannabis taxes were approved by the voters on the November 6, 2018 election:

City/County

Passed Cannabis Tax Measure

Comments

City of Atascadero

(San Luis Obispo County)

 Measure E-18 passed with 73% of the vote. Only testing and delivery has been previously allowed. The new tax measure taxes cannabis businesses, but no ordinances have been drafted. The passage of the ballot measure authorizing taxes for cultivation, retail, testing, distribution and all other cannabis businesses may indicate forthcoming commercial cannabis ordinances and a newly permitted area.

City of Atwater

(County of Merced)

 Ballot measure A passed with 64.75% of the vote. Cannabis regulated since May 2018 under a Cannabis Business Pilot Program. Requires a CUP. This is a newer market for cannabis businesses.

City of Banning

(County of Riverside)

 Measure N passed with 60.64% of the vote: imposes maximum tax rates on cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, and testing.

Measure O passed with 61.22% of the vote: imposes a 10% tax on gross receipts on cannabis dispensaries.

 All commercial cannabis activities are currently banned and declared a nuisance. However, cannabis ordinances have been adopted by the city council but have not been codified and will take effect January 1, 2019. All commercial cannabis activities require a CUP. No certificate of occupancy will be issued prior to receiving a state license. Ordinance No. 1523 allows, regulates, and zones for cannabis cultivation (indoor cultivation Type 3A only (10,001-22,000 s.f.) in a fully enclosed and secure structure, only in industrial zones), manufacturing (nonvolatile only), and testing. Ordinance No. 1524 establishes application procedures and requirements for Cannabis Regulatory Permits. The ordinances will only take effect if the voters approve Measure N on November 6, 2018.

City of Capitola

(Santa Cruz County)

 Measure I – Cannabis Business Tax (Passed with 75.45% of the vote). Cannabis currently banned except for testing. New tax measures passed the ballot, but no ordinances have been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Ceres

(County of Stanislaus)

 Measure W — The measure PASSED with 66.03% of the vote. Currently, commercial cannabis activities limited to a case-by-case basis. Ordinances are not drafted. Established a Cannabis Business Pilot Program since May, 2018. Current ordinances are silent as to commercial cannabis activities; however, the passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Chula Vista

(County of San Diego)

 Measure Q – PASSED WITH 63.46% OF THE VOTE Cannabis currently banned. The city anticipates that it will be accepting applications for cannabis business licenses sometime on or after January 1, 2019.

A Commercial Cannabis Regulations Application Forum will be held December 13, 2018, from 4 to 6 p.m., to provide information on cannabis regulations and the implementation of recreational sales, manufacturing, cultivation and delivery services in Chula Vista. The forum will be held at Chula Vista City Hall, Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Ave., Chula Vista, 91910.

Cannabis Business License Types

Storefront and Non-Storefront Retailers: Up to three (3) Retailer licenses per Council District. Of the three (3) Retailer licenses per District, no more than two (2) may be Storefront Retailer Licenses. Storefront Retailers are open to the public; they are prohibited from providing delivery services. Non-Storefront Retailers are closed to the public; they are prohibited from making on-site sales and can only conduct deliveries.

Cultivation: Up to ten (10) Indoor Cultivation licenses city-wide. Indoor cultivation sites are limited to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.

Distribution, Manufacturing, and Testing Laboratories: There are no limits on the number of licenses.

City of Colfax

(Placer County)

 Measure C PASSED with 65.78% of the vote. Cannabis regulated since February, 2018. Indoor and outdoor cultivation are codified. Manufacturing and dispensaries are prohibited. Current regulations authorize only 4 retail commercial cannabis businesses (2 M-type and 2 A-type). The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

County of Contra Costa

 Measure R PASSED with 71.7% of the vote. Cannabis currently banned. Cannabis taxes for cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing, retail and microbusinesses codified on November 6, 2018. Permit application requirements are codified. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Daly City

(San Mateo County)

 Measure UU PASSED with 76.8% of the vote. All cannabis activities currently banned. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on all cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

County of Del Norte

 Measure B PASSED with 62.75% of the vote. All medical cannabis activities currently banned. All commercial cannabis activities currently silent. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on adult use indoor and outdoor cultivation, manufacturing and retail is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Dunsmuir

(Siskyou County)

 Ballot measure “T” passed with 71.34% of the vote. Past ordinances silent as to cannabis, except for medical co-ops. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes for cultivation, processing and other cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

County of El Dorado

 Measure P – Outdoor and Mixed Light Cultivation (Medical) PASSED

Measure Q – Outdoor and Mixed Light Cultivation (Recreational) PASSED

Measure R – Indoor Medical Cannabis Activities Measure PASSED

Measure S – Indoor Recreational Commercial Cannabis Measure PASSED

 Cannabis currently banned under a temporary moratorium for two years to December 12, 2019, except for medical distribution. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes for cultivation and other cannabis activities is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Goleta

(Santa Barbara County)

 Measure Z – PASSED WITH 81.92% OF THE VOTE Cannabis regulated since approximately June, 2018, including nursery, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and delivery. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Half Moon Bay

(San Mateo County)

 The Measure GG PASSED with 51.2% of the vote. Currently, all cannabis activity prohibited.

Measure passed allowing greenhouse nursery cultivation of immature cannabis plants on existing greenhouse sites in the City’s A-1 (Agricultural/Exclusive Floriculture) Zoning District for cannabis nurseries that receive a license from the City Council and comply with specified standards.

Measure authorizing tax on all cannabis activities passed. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Hesperia

(San Bernardino County)

 Measure T – PASSED WITH 60.83% OF THE VOTE All non-medical cannabis activities currently banned. However, cannabis tax measure passed. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes for cultivation and other cannabis businesses is indicative of cultivation ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Imperial

(Imperial County)

 The measure PASSED with 74.7% of the vote. Adult use cannabis currently banned. January 17, 2018 – With a 3-2 vote the City Council approved Ordinance No. 795, allowing for some medical cannabis businesses, and banning all other commercial cannabis businesses, including all adult use businesses. Ordinances have not been drafted regarding licensure, and zoning ordinances are unavailable. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes for cultivation, retail and other cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Jurupa Valley

(Riverside County)

 Measure L – PASSED WITH 51.94% OF THE VOTE Cannabis currently banned except for delivery. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on adult use indoor cultivation, nursery, manufacturing, testing, distribution, microbusinesses and retail is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of La Mesa

(San Diego County)

 Measure V – PASSED WITH 72.52% OF THE VOTE Adult use cannabis currently banned. Only medical cultivation and manufacturing currently allowed. Ordinances for adult use have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on cultivation and other cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

County of Lake

 Measure K PASSED with 69.4% of the vote. Cannabis cultivation regulated since March, 2018, but all other activities are silent in ordinance code. On March 20, 2018, the Board passed an ordinance regulating commercial and personal use cultivation. However, current ordinances only address cannabis cultivation taxation and no ordinances are codified. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes for activities other than cultivation is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

County of Lassen

 MEASURE M – CANNABIS TAX BALLOT MEASURE (PASSED) All cannabis currently banned and declared a public nuisance. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on cultivation and other cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Lindsay

(Tulare County)

 Measure G – PASSED WITH 66.80% OF THE VOTE All cannabis currently banned. Municipal code not available. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Malibu

(County of Los Angeles)

 This measure PASSED with 68.54% of the vote. Cannabis currently banned except for medical dispensaries. Ordinances for adult use cannabis have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on adult use cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Marina

(Monterey County)

 Measure V passed with 64.10% of the vote. Cannabis currently banned. The Mayor of Marina (Bruce Delgado) led the petition drive and citizen ballot initiative that passed. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on medical and adult use cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Morgan Hill

(Santa Clara County)

 Measure I passed with 78.58% of the vote. All cannabis activities currently banned and declared a public nuisance. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, and retail is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Moreno Valley

(Riverside County)

 Measure M – PASSED WITH 72.56% OF THE VOTE Cannabis regulated since April, 2018. Current code prohibits all adult use cannabis. City council has authorized the total number of cannabis businesses is limited to 27. The maximum number of dispensaries is 8, the maximum number of testing facilities is 2, the maximum number of cultivation facilities is 8, the maximum number of manufacturing facilities is 5, the maximum number of microbusinesses is 2, and the maximum number of distribution centers is 2.

City of Morro Bay

(San Luis Obispo County)

 Measure D-18 – PASSED WITH 73.27% OF THE VOTE. All adult use cannabis activities currently banned. Only medical distribution and retail are currently allowed. Current application process allows medical distribution and 2 retail licenses. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of a ballot measure authorizing taxes on cultivation is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Mountain View

(Santa Clara County)

 Measure Q passed with 80.70% of the vote. Cannabis currently banned except for retail and deliveries. Currently, Mountain View does not allow commercial cannabis activity except medical and adult-use deliveries into the city. City Council has stated that if the measure is successful then the City will begin allowing commercial cannabis businesses in 2019.

County of Nevada

 Measure G PASSED with 75.9% of the vote Cannabis currently banned. Cultivation declared a public nuisance. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes on nursery, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Oakdale

(County of Stanislaus)

 The Measure PASSED with 70% of the vote. Cannabis regulated since February 2018. Cultivation, manufacturing, testing, and distribution permitted with a development agreement and CUP. This is a new market for cannabis activities.

City of Oroville

(Butte County)

 RESULTS: Measure T PASSED with 60% of the vote. Cannabis regulated since August, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the City Council adopted an ordinance allowing for commercial cannabis activities. Tax measure includes nursery, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail. This is a new commercial cannabis area.

City of Oxnard

(Ventura County)

 Results – The Measure PASSED with 78.63% of the vote. Cannabis currently banned except for medical delivery. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes for cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing, retail sales and all other cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Paso Robles

(San Luis Obispo County)

 Measure I -18 PASSED WITH 67.5% OF THE VOTE. All cannabis currently banned except for medical delivery. Tax measure passed is for cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes on cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Perris

(County of Riverside)

 Measure G – PASSED WITH 71.05% OF THE VOTE. Indoor and mixed-light cultivation regulated since November, 2017. January 30, 2018 – The City Council ADOPTED an ordinance that would allow medical and adult-use cannabis limited to manufacturing and distribution. This is a new area for cannabis.

City of Placerville

(El Dorado County)

 Results – The Measure PASSED with 67.17% of the vote. Cannabis currently banned by code, but accepting applications and city council will decide after the elections. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes for cultivation, retail and all other cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Pomona

(Los Angeles County)

 RESULTS: This measure PASSED with 70.44% of the vote. Cannabis currently banned. The City Council is currently discussing terms and provisions for incorporation into a draft ordinance regulating commercial cannabis activities and businesses. There is a consensus to allow both medicinal and adult-use. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes for cultivation and all other cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Redding

(Shasta County)

 RESULTS: Measure C PASSED with 73.94% of the vote. Cannabis regulated since March, 2018. On March 20, 2018, the City of Redding adopted an ordinance allowing for and regulating medical and adult use commercial cannabis activities. New taxes for cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail now authorized. This is a new commercial cannabis area.

City of Redwood City

(San Mateo County)

 Results – The Measure PASSED with 77.6% of the vote. Cannabis regulated since May, 2018. Only indoor medical cultivation and delivery currently allowed. Commercial cannabis activity is prohibited in all zoning districts.

The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes for cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of San Juan Bautista

(San Benito County)

 A marijuana tax was on the ballot for San Juan Bautista voters in San Benito County, California, on November 6, 2018. It was approved. Cannabis regulated since June, 2018. June 19, 2018 – The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2018-05, establishing regulations pertaining to recreational and medical cannabis dispensaries, cultivation, testing, distribution, and manufacturing facilities. This is a new cannabis area.

City of San Luis Obispo

(San Luis Obispo County)

 Measure F – PASSED WITH 79.57% OF THE VOTE. The City currently is NOT accepting Cannabis Commercial Business Operator Permit applications at this time. Ordinances have been adopted in May, 2018 but not codified.

On October 16, 2018 the City Council reviewed the Cannabis Operator Permit Draft Evaluation Criteria and provided comments to staff. As a result of these comments, as well as public feedback, the Evaluation Criteria is being revised and will be reviewed on November 27, 2018 by Council.

City of Santa Ana

(Orange County)

 The measure PASSED with 69% of the vote. Cannabis regulated since May, 2018.

May 1, 2018 – The City Council adopted Ordinance NS-2944, which allows commercial cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution. New taxes passed for cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, and retail. This is a new cannabis area.

City of Santa Clara

(Santa Clara County)

 Results – Measure M PASSED with 75.36% of the vote. All cannabis activities currently banned.

Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes on nursery, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Santa Paula

(Ventura County)

 Results – Measure N PASSED with 70.98% of the vote. All commercial cannabis activities currently banned.

Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes on cultivation and other cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Simi Valley

(Ventura County)

 Results – Measure Q PASSED with 65.5% of the vote. All cannabis activities currently banned.

Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes on cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Solvang

(Santa Barbara County)

 Measure F – PASSED WITH 80.32% OF THE VOTE. Currently, only medical cannabis activities allowed. City Council adopted an ordinance that allows medical cannabis dispensaries, delivery, cultivation (indoor and mixed-light only), manufacturing (volatile and non-volatile), testing, distribution, and transportation facilities that are owned and operated by bona fide nonprofit organizations in the C-3 zoning district. City Council may limit the number of each type of medical cannabis facility by resolution. Adult-use commercial cannabis activities remain prohibited in the City.

City of Sonora

(County of Tuolumne)

 Measure N PASSED with 68.30% of the vote. There are currently no cannabis businesses allowed to operate in the three-square-mile city limits, but the council approved an ordinance earlier this year that could provide an opening for some medical-only cannabis dispensaries, manufacturing facilities and testing laboratories. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of South San Francisco

(San Mateo County)

 Measure LL PASSED with 74.4% of the vote. In 2018, the Council ADOPTED an ordinance that allows for indoor commercial cultivation and an ordinance that bans dispensaries and microbusinesses and allows for manufacturing, testing, distribution, and delivery only businesses. Outdoor cultivation and retail remain prohibited.

This is a new cannabis area.

City of Suisun City

(Solano County)

 Measure C passed with 74.78% of the vote. Cannabis regulated since May, 2018.

The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 750 permitting indoor cultivation, mixed-light cultivation, retailers, non-storefront retailers (i.e., sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis and/or medicinal cannabis products to a qualified patient), manufacturers, testing laboratories and distribution. Outdoor cultivation and microbusinesses prohibited.

This is a new cannabis area.

City of Thousand Oaks

(Ventura County)

 The Measure PASSED with 75.88% of the vote. Cannabis currently banned except for testing. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes on cultivation and all other cannabis businesses is indicative of cultivation and other cannabis activity ordinances that may be forthcoming.

Tuolumne County

 The measure PASSED with 62.61% of the vote. All cannabis activities currently banned and cultivation declared a public nuisance. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Vista

(County of San Diego)

 MEASURE AA – PASSED WITH 51.52% OF THE VOTE Cannabis currently banned.

2018 – The City Council adopted Resolutions that place a medicinal cannabis business ordinance and a commercial cannabis tax on the November 6, 2018 ballot, which passed.

Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes on cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

City of Willits

(Mendocino County)

 RESULTS: Measure I PASSED with 74.9% of the vote. Recreational cannabis currently banned. Ordinances have not been drafted. The passage of ballot measure authorizing taxes on cultivation, retail and all other cannabis businesses is indicative of ordinances that may be forthcoming.

Winter LLP Update: Temporary Permits Q&A

/0 Comments/in /by

Greetings!

As many of you may already aware, the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) released the Temporary Applications for Retailers, Distributors, Microbusinesses, and Testing Labs, and the Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch (MCSB) released their Temporary Applications for Manufacturers today. CalCannabis has not yet released its Temporary Application for Cultivators.

Please note that there are 3 agencies (BCC, MCSB, and CalCannabis) issuing different license types, and each agency has their own website and different application requirements. Below you will find a brief outline of the required documents and submittal processes from the BCC and MCSB.

We strongly recommend that you contact our office to either (1) assist with completing required application forms; and/or (2) review the required application documents before submittal.

  1. What documents do I need to submit to the BCC as a Retailer, Distributor, Microbusiness, or Testing Lab for a Temporary License?
    1. Temporary License Application
    2. Premises Diagram Form

i. Please carefully review the attached Premises Diagram form in each respective License folder. The requirements are very specific and will likely require the assistance of an architect to draft.

    1. Local Authorization Document
    2. Evidence of Legal Right to Occupy

i. Deed or Title; OR

ii. Lease AND Statement from Property Owner authorizing commercial cannabis activities

  1. How do I submit the Temporary License Application for a Retailer, Distributor, Microbusiness, or Testing Lab?

You will need to create an online account with the BCC (https://www.bcc.ca.gov/). Please see attached “BCC Online Licensing Instructions.” Please note that all required information must be submitted via the online licensing system, including uploading any additional required documents (Premises Diagram, Local Authorization, Evidence of Legal Right to Occupy).

If there is more than 1 owner/applicant, only 1 person needs to submit the application. All other owners will be listed on the application.

There is no application or licensing fee.

  1. What Documents do I need to submit to MCSB as a Manufacturer for a Temporary License?
    1. Temporary License Application
    2. Local Authorization Document
  1. Do I need to submit the Premises Diagram Form or Evidence of Legal Right to Occupy for the Temporary Manufacturing License?

It does not appear that you need to submit the Premises Diagram Form or Evidence of Legal Right to Occupy for the Temporary Manufacturing License.

  1. How do I submit the Temporary License Application for a Manufacturer?

You will need to submit the Application Form and Local Authorization Document via Email OR Mail:

Email to: MCLS@cdph.ca.gov OR

Mail to:

CDPH – Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch Attn: Licensing Unit

PO Box 997377, MS-7606

Sacramento, CA 95899-7377

There is no application or licensing fee.

Thank you, stay safe, and good luck out there! Todd Winter, WINTER LLP.

Please contact us directly with any questions, or if you need assistance.

Winter LLP Update: Transition Period Q&A

/0 Comments/in /by

Greetings everyone!

Please read the following Q&A prepared exclusively for WINTER LLP clients and friends:

  1. Starting on January 1, 2018, can Retailers sell edible cannabis products with THC levels in excess of 100mg and non-edible cannabis products (flower, tinctures, extracts) with THC levels in excess of 2000mg? Section 5029, BCC Regulations.

Yes, between Jan 1, 2018, and July 1, 2018, M-Licensee Retailers can sell

  • Edible cannabis products with THC levels in excess of 100mg (no maximum limit), so long as they are labeled 10mg THC/serving; and
  • Non-edible cannabis products (flower, tinctures, extracts) with THC levels in excess of 2000mg (no maximum limit), no serving size label required.
  1. Starting on January 1, 2018, Can Retailers sell cannabis goods that do not meet the State Labeling Requirements?

Yes, between Jan 1, 2018, and July 1, 2018, Retailers can sell goods that do not meet State Labeling Requirements as long as the following warnings are affixed prior to sale:

  • For cannabis flower: “GOVERNMENT WARNING: THIS PACKAGE CONTAINS CANNABIS, A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS. CANNABIS MAY ONLY BE POSSESSED OR CONSUMED BY PERSONS 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER UNLESS THE PERSON IS A QUALIFIED PATIENT. CANNABIS USE WHILE PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING MAY BE HARMFUL. CONSUMPTION OF CANNABIS IMPAIRS YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE AND OPERATE MACHINERY. PLEASE USE EXTREME CAUTION.”
  • For cannabis products: “GOVERNMENT WARNING: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS CANNABIS, A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS. CANNABIS PRODUCTS MAY ONLY BE POSSESSED OR CONSUMED BY PERSONS 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER UNLESS THE PERSON IS A QUALIFIED PATIENT. THE INTOXICATING EFFECTS OF CANNABIS PRODUCTS MAY BE DELAYED UP TO TWO HOURS. CANNABIS USE WHILE PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING MAY BE HARMFUL. CONSUMPTION OF CANNABIS PRODUCTS IMPAIRS YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE AND OPERATE MACHINERY. PLEASE USE EXTREME CAUTION.”
  • For Untested cannabis products: “This product has not been tested as required by the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act.”
  1. Starting on January 1, 2018, can Manufacturers sell cannabis products to Distributors/Retailers that do not meet the State Packaging and Labeling Requirements?

Yes, Manufacturers may sell cannabis products that do not meet State Packaging and Labeling Requirements provided:

  • The cannabis product was manufactured prior to January 1, 2018.
  • The cannabis product is packaged in child-resistant packaging. A secondary package shall be sufficient.
  • The cannabis product contains the applicable government warning (above).
  • The cannabis product meets the applicable THC limits (100mg for edibles, 1000-2000mg for concentrates.)
    • Please note, this is inconsistent with the BCC regulations which explicitly allow the transport and sale of medical cannabis products prior to July 1, 2018, regardless of the amount of THC. We have submitted comments to the MCSB discussing this inconsistency.
  • The cannabis products contains a sticker with the amount of THC/CBD content per serving and per package.
  1. Starting on January 1, 2018, can Manufacturers manufacture cannabis products that do not meet State Labeling and Packaging Requirements?

No, all cannabis products manufactured from January 1, 2018 onwards must meet State Labeling and Packaging Requirements.

  1. Starting on January 1, 2018, will all cannabis products need to undergo the full panel of testing prior to sale?

Not exactly. There is a “Phase-In” of Required Testing, so that the full panel of testing will not be required until December 31, 2018. Until then, required testing is as follows.

    1. For untested cannabis products manufactured prior to Jan 1, 2018, the following warning needs to be affixed:

i. “This product has not been tested as required by the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act.”

    1. All cannabis harvested on or after Jan 1, 2018, and all cannabis products manufactured on or after Jan 1, 2018 shall be tested for the following:

i. Cannabinoids

ii. Moisture content

iii. Category II Residual solvents

iv. Category I Residual pesticides

v. Microbial impurities

vi. Homogeneity

    1. All cannabis harvested on or after July 1, 2018 and products manufactured on or after July 1, 2018 shall be tested for all of the above, plus:

i. Category I Residual Solvents and Processing Chemicals

ii. Category II Residual Pesticides

iii. Foreign Material

    1. All cannabis harvested on or after December 31, 2018 and products manufactured on or after December 1, 2018 shall be tested for all of the above, plus:

i. Terpenoids

ii. Mycotoxins

iii. Heavy metals

iv. Water Activity

  1. Which licensee is responsible for arranging for Testing?

Distributors (full distribution licensees) are responsible for contacting a testing laboratory and arranging for a testing lab employee to come to the distributor’s licensed premises and select a representative sample for laboratory testing. Therefore if you are a manufacturer or cultivator and would like to arrange for lab testing, you must obtain a full Distribution license (cannot be Distributor-Transport Only in order to do so.

  1. Will Temporary Licensees be required to record commercial cannabis activity in the Track and Trace system?

No, temporary licensees will not be required to record commercial cannabis activity in the Track and Trace system. Temporary licensees shall track and record activity on paper receipts, invoices, or manifests.

To avoid confusion, please consider only contacting our office for answers to your questions. Otherwise, strongly consider your source (and their source, and that person’s source) before acting.

Thank you, stay safe, and good luck out there! Todd Winter, WINTER LLP.

Winter LLP Update: State Licensing Regulations – Summaries

/0 Comments/in /by

Hello Again,

We understand that most of you are working hard towards achieving compliance beginning January 1. So as a follow-up to our recent update regarding the newly released state regulations, we want to provide you with summaries of some of the more important details that we have identified in the state regulations.

As many of you may know, the California cannabis industry will now be governed by three state agencies. The California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) is responsible for regulating distribution, retail and testing, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) will oversee manufacturing (which includes packaging and labeling), and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) will govern cultivation.

BCC Regulations – Distribution, Retail, and Testing

Distribution

There are three different types of distribution licenses (all falling under License Type 11) under the BCC Regulations. All transportation of cannabis or cannabis products must be conducted by a Distributor Licensee or its employees.

  • Distributor (Standard)
    • The holder of a Distributor License does the following: arranges for testing, checks for appropriate packaging and labeling, collects taxes, transports cannabis and cannabis products, and acts as a cannabis wholesaler.
    • Cannabis and cannabis products must pass through a Standard Distributor prior to being sold to customers at a retail establishment.
    • Distributors may package and label cannabis, but not manufactured cannabis products.
  • Transport Only – Self Distributor
    • The holder of a Transport Only Self Distribution License is permitted to transport only its own cannabis and cannabis products, but cannot perform any other function of a Distributor.
    • Transportation to retail licensees is prohibited by a Transport Only License. The lone exception is for the transportation of immature plants and seeds from a nursery to a retailer.
      • Allowed: Cultivator wants to transport its raw products to manufacturer.
      • Not Allowed: Manufacturer wants to transport its products to Dispensary.
  • Transport Only – Third Party
    • A Third Party Transport Only License is identical to a Self-Distributor License, except that it allows the permit holder to transport the cannabis and cannabis products of other licensees rather than their own.
    • Transportation to a retail licensee is prohibited.
      • Allowed: Transportation company wants to deliver products among licensees.
      • Not allowed: Manufacturer wants to transport products to Dispensary.

Retail

  • Retailers cannot package or label cannabis or cannabis products on the premises. All products must be packaged and labeled prior to arriving at the retailer.
  • During the Transition Period, which lasts between January 1 and July 1, retailers may receive products that do not meet packaging and labeling standards. However, before selling to consumers, the retailer must place the products in secondary packaging subject to certain requirements.
  • Retailers may only be open to the public between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
  • All products must be placed in an opaque bag before leaving the retail premises.
  • All deliveries must be made by a direct employee of the licensee to a physical address within CA.
  • Delivery vehicles may contain a maximum of $3000 worth of cannabis or cannabis products at any time.

Testing

  • Provisional Licenses – Testing Labs that are awaiting accreditation from the joint technical committee of the International Organization for Standardization and the Electrotechnical Commission may obtain a 12 month provisional license if they meet all other requirements. The Provisional License may be extended an additional 12 months if the applicant is still awaiting accreditation.

CDPH Regulations – Manufacturing

  • Ethanol is now considered a nonvolatile solvent
  • There are four types of manufacturing licenses:
    • Type 7 – Extraction using volatile solvents (can also do everything a Type 6, Type N, and Type P licensee can do)
    • Type 6 – Extraction using only non-volatile solvents (can also do everything a Type N and Type P licensee can do)
    • Type N – Infusions (can also do everything a Type P licensee can do)
    • Type P – Packaging and labeling only
  • A new license, “Type S,” is expected to be issued starting in early 2018 which will allow businesses to share facility space.

CDFA Regulations – Cultivation

  • Type 5 Large Cultivation licenses will not become available until 2023
  • All individuals and entities are limited to only one Type 3-Medium Outdoor, Type-3A-Medium Indoor, or Type 3B-Medium Mixed-Light A-License or M-License. This means that an individual owner in an entity that holds a Medium Cultivation license cannot also own 20% or more of any other entity that also holds a Medium Cultivation license of any type.
    • There is no equivalent limit on Type 1 or 2 Cultivation Permits or aggregate limit on cultivation. Meaning that an applicant may own 10, 20, or more Type 2 Small Outdoor, Indoor, or Mixed Light grows, and all on the same Premises if you have a large enough parcel or building.
      • Practical Note: Based on the limits of Type 3 permits above, we see no net benefit in trying to obtain a Type 3 permit unless that is all you ever want to own, or unless you are part of a group where each of you will always own less than 20% of the permit. Instead, since many of our clients have multiple cultivation projects, and large enough Premises (parcels or warehouses), we recommend breaking up your cultivation projects into the unlimited variety with the smaller Type 2 permits.
  • A new Processor License type has been created which allows licensees to trim, dry, cure, grade, and package cannabis. Growing cannabis is not permitted under a Processor License.

The newly issued regulations are quite extensive, totaling around 300 pages, and address nearly every aspect of the cannabis industry. The information above is intended only to highlight some of the more important details we have identified in the regulations, and by no means is meant to serve as a complete summary of the regulations. Should you have questions about any of the information above, or about any of the rules and requirements contained in the regulations, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Next, please be on the lookout from our team for further information on Temporary Permits, including required documents, fees, and due dates.

With the addition of Kurt Ketchum, Esq. as an Associate Attorney in our Costa Mesa office, and the promotion of Wendy Lei, Esq. to Senior Associate, we are poised and ready to help each and every one of you navigate and obtain Temporary State Licenses. In addition to everything else we do for our clients…corporate transactions, contracts, regulatory, real estate, trademarks and intellectual property licensing.

You’ve all worked incredibly hard and faced adversity every step of the way the past several years to get to this moment. This is finally your time. Let’s go!