Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SB 1064 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory committee endorses DCC move to implement SB 1064 (combined activities license) with follow‑up
Summary
The Cannabis Advisory Committee voted to recommend DCC proceed with implementation of SB 1064, which would create a combined activities license allowing two or more cannabis activities at the same premises; members and public commenters urged clarity on premises definition, ownership, METRC accounts and fee structure.
The Cannabis Advisory Committee on Aug. 28 voted to recommend that the Department of Cannabis Control implement Senate Bill 1064, a law that authorizes a new combined activities license allowing two or more commercial cannabis activities at a single premises (laboratory testing excepted).
Deputy Director Jacqueline Campion described the department’s conceptual approach: DCC is considering a specific list of qualifying activities and whether activities must be contiguous or share a single APN, how canopy size should be defined, and what premises‑specific requirements or fee changes may be appropriate. “We are considering creating a specific list of activities that would qualify for a combined activities license and thinking about which activities would be compatible or not compatible,” Campion said.
Committee members asked detailed operational questions about differences from the existing microbusiness license, ownership requirements, contiguous parcel definitions, METRC integration and labor peace agreement applicability. Campion said ownership would need to be consistent across activities, a single METRC account could be associated with a combined license, and DCC would consider whether premises could be defined to include contiguous APNs.
Public commenters — including small farmers, industry groups and labs — generally supported the combined license for simplifying operations, reducing compliance cost, enabling single METRC accounts, and allowing shared drying/processing/storage space. Commenters also urged DCC to provide a simple transition path for existing multiple‑license holders, consider prorated fees, and include safeguards against diversion and illicit market persistence. Origins Council (Ross Gordon) emphasized potential equity and small‑farmer benefits and urged DCC to explore cultivation fee structures tied to square footage.
The committee’s motion — put forward by Chair Vasterling and seconded by Vice chair Payan — asked the CAC to recommend that DCC move forward with implementation. The committee voted and the recommendation passed. DCC reiterated that any detailed regulatory package would go through formal public comment and that CAC input is valuable to shape final rules.
What happens next: DCC will continue drafting implementation concepts for SB 1064, including premises definition, allowed combinations, METRC impacts and fee proposals, and will return to the CAC and public rulemaking processes as it develops formal rule language.
Votes and formal action: Motion: CAC recommends DCC proceed with implementation of SB 1064 (combined activities license); Mover: Chair Vasterling; Second: Vice chair Payan. Outcome: passed (majority aye).
