Council committee upholds denial of cannabis retail license at 4369 S. Van Ness

The Los Angeles City Council—s Government Operations Committee on Sept. 16, 2025, affirmed the Cannabis Regulation Commission—s denial of LNE Retail LLC—s application for a Type 10 storefront retail cannabis license for 4369 South Van Ness Avenue in Council District 8, voting to uphold the commission—s finding that material omissions had occurred. The decision matters because the commission—s action reverses a Department of Cannabis Regulation recommendation to grant the license and rests in part on organized community opposition and the commission—s finding that the applicant omitted material information when questioned. Department staff told the committee that the Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) recommended issuance of the retail license at both commission hearings on Dec. 5, 2024, and Feb. 20, 2025. Jason Killeen, assistant executive director for DCR, said the department held a mandated community meeting and that residents raised concerns including odor, cleanliness, crime, property upkeep and graffiti. Killeen said the commission was not bound by the department—s recommendation and ultimately denied the application on grounds that included an omission by the applicant and concerns raised by community members. The applicant's counsel, Serena Wu of Radical Law, argued the denial was unsupported by substantial evidence and that the apparent relationship between a neighboring delivery business and the retail applicant was a misunderstanding. "The appellant did not make any misrepresentation or actively conceal any facts about the business relationship," Wu said, adding that the delivery business had been nonoperational since July 2024 and that the retail location had no cannabis on-site while awaiting its annual license. Wu also said some photographic evidence presented at the commission hearing was misattributed or from different locations. DCR staff and the applicant disputed whether DCR had investigated or cited any violations. Killeen confirmed DCR had no record of violations or citations for either licensee and that DCR did not find evidence showing the odor or other nuisances came from the appellant. He said, however, the commission independently weighed community testimony and photographic exhibits at its hearings. Committee members said letters and statements from neighborhood institutions, the Los Angeles Police Department and the neighborhood council weighed heavily. One committee member noted the presence of institutional letters opposing the operator and argued the commission was within its discretion to deny the license. The committee voted to affirm the commission—s denial; a supplemental motion directed staff to ensure the journal and the formal letter of determination reflect the committee—s detailed findings. The committee recorded the denial and directed staff to prepare documentation required by the Los Angeles Municipal Code. The committee—s action will be transmitted to full council for consideration under normal procedures. Less central details: The applicant told the committee it had gathered at least 46 signed neighborhood supporters and that it had invested years and funds preparing for a retail operation. DCR and the applicant both said no DCR citations were issued to the appellant prior to the commission hearings.