Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Bayview cannabis permit and CEQA exemption; denies neighbor’s appeal
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal of the 2000 Oakdale Avenue cannabis microbusiness permit, finding Planning, DBI and the Board of Supervisors correctly applied land‑use and CEQA procedures; odor mitigation will be addressed during licensing with the Office of Cannabis.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 2 denied an appeal by a neighboring property owner seeking to condition a microbusiness cannabis permit at 2000 Oakdale Avenue on detailed odor‑control measures. The board voted 4–0 to uphold the permit and the Planning Department’s review, noting that odor mitigation is an enforceable, post‑land‑use licensing requirement handled by the Office of Cannabis.
Attorney Michael Loza, representing Libra Investment Corp., told the board that the permit was approved before adequate odor controls were reviewed and asked the board to incorporate the applicant’s own ventilation and carbon‑filter specifications into the land‑use permit as conditions. "We would like to ask the board of appeals to add those requirements... as a condition of the permit," he said.
Applicant Bayview Ventures’ CEO Tiara Mitchell and counsel said the project had broad local outreach, equity commitments and support and that the appellant’s demands were excessive. "The appellant's concerns regarding odor are outright outrageous," Mitchell said during her presentation.
Planning Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam, DBI Senior Inspector Matt Green and the Office of Cannabis representatives explained the city’s multi‑step licensing: land‑use approval can proceed if zoning and code requirements are met, and odor mitigation plans are submitted and reviewed as part of later licensing. The Planning Commission voted 7–0 to not take discretionary review; the Board of Supervisors unanimously upheld the project’s CEQA exemption the day before the board hearing. Planning staff recommended denying the appeal because odor mitigation is regulated under Article 16 of the police code and will be enforced during licensing.
After public testimony both supporting and opposing the project, Vice President Lazarus moved to deny the appeal and uphold Planning and DBI approvals; the motion carried 4–0.
The board’s action leaves the Office of Cannabis to review and enforce odor mitigation during the microbusiness licensing process.
