What SB 1064 and AB 179 Predict About DCC’s Combined Activities and Ownership Rulemaking

Open California cannabis regulation binder showing the state-mandated CA universal compliance symbol beside the California Bear Flag, illustrating SB 1064 and AB 179 rulemaking by the Department of Cannabis Control.

DCC’s “Combined Activities License & Ownership Updates” rulemaking is calendared for Summer 2026. Per DCC: SB 1064 (2024) “creates a new license type … and modifies ownership requirements”; AB 179 (2024) “removes the fingerprint requirement for certain owners.” It touches 4 CCR § 15002 and § 15003 among 15 affected regulations; no text has posted on DCC’s rulemaking page. AB 179 changes owner disclosure for every California cannabis licensee; SB 1064 reshapes combined applications.

The two statutes

SB 1064 (Ch. 991, 2024) added Bus. & Prof. Code § 26001(m) authorizing two or more cannabis activities at one premises (testing excepted); amended § 26051.5(a)(1)(G) to add (iii): “an owner shall not be required to resubmit owner-related information previously provided”; and extended § 26070(a)(3)(B) so DCC “shall establish a process by which an applicant for a … combined activities license can demonstrate compliance.”

AB 179 (Ch. 997, 2024 trailer; Section 5.5 governs) narrowed § 26051.5(a)(1) for every licensee: Live Scan is required only for owners “as defined in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive” of § 26001‘s owner definition — the 20%+ aggregate holder, CEO or equivalent, and nonprofit board members. Paragraph-(4) owners are exempt.

Neither amends § 26001(aq)‘s four-part definition or § 15003‘s parallel regulatory owner categories.

The purpose constraint

SB 1064’s SEC. 1(f): “to … promote efficiency … and reduce barriers to entry into the legal, regulated market.” DCC’s § 26012 rulemaking runs through California’s APA. Under Gov. Code § 11342.2, a regulation must be “reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute”; under § 11342.1, “within the scope of authority conferred.” DCC’s SB 1064 implementation is bound by that purpose; its AB 179 implementation cannot exceed § 26051.5(a)(1)‘s narrowed scope.

What DCC’s proposed § 15002 and § 15003 will likely include

For SB 1064’s combined-activities piece:

  1. A single § 15002 owner-submission package for the combined premises — one filing per owner, not one per activity.
  2. A prior-submission certification path. An owner already on file certifies the on-file information is current in lieu of resubmission — signed certification, defined content list, look-back window.
  3. A paired update rule. The certifying owner notifies DCC of changes within a defined window — likely 14 calendar days, matching DCC’s existing ownership-change cadence.

For AB 179’s fingerprint narrowing:

  • A conforming amendment at § 15002(c)(16)(K) — DCC’s current Live Scan hook — narrowing the requirement to owners defined in paragraphs (1) to (3) of § 26001(aq).

What DCC will not likely propose: expansion of the § 26001(aq) definition, a lower 20% threshold, additions to § 15004 financial-interest categories, or Live Scan reach-back onto paragraph-(4) owners. Each exceeds scope.

Four drafting moves

For every California cannabis licensee (AB 179):

  • Flag paragraph-(4) owners on your schedules. Managers and operational leads remain owners under (aq)(4) but no longer submit Live Scan. Stop Live Scan for them; keep it for (1)–(3) owners.
  • Add unchanged-ownership reps and 14-day covenants. In operating agreements and shareholder agreements, each owner represents DCC-filed information is current and covenants to update within 14 calendar days. This tracks DCC’s ownership-change cadence.

For operators seeking a combined activities license (SB 1064):

  • Consolidate your § 15002 records across licenses. The resubmission carve-out only saves refiling when previously-filed information is complete and consistent. Audit and reconcile now.
  • Structure the combined application as one owner package. When you assemble the combined activities license application, build one § 15002 filing for the combined-premises entity — not stapled per-activity filings.

Read both statutes to read DCC’s next rulemaking package in advance.

Posted By

Author Profile
Photo of Attorney-at-Law Shay Aaron Gilmore
Cannabis and Hemp Business Attorney at The Law Office of Shay Aaron Gilmore | (415) 846-6397 | shay@shaygilmorelaw.com | Web

Shay Aaron Gilmore is a California cannabis and hemp business attorney based in San Francisco, serving operators, investors, and cannabis startups across California. He advises clients on DCC regulatory compliance, cannabis licensing, corporate formation, intellectual property, commercial contracts, and administrative law proceedings. Recognized by the Daily Journal as a Top 20 Cannabis Lawyer in California and by Super Lawyers® as a Top 100 Northern California attorney, he is a leading voice in California cannabis and hemp law.