Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Medical Cannabis topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies rehearing request for Bayshore cannabis dispensary permit

San Francisco Board of Appeals · August 16, 2017
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals denied a request to rehear a permit decision for a proposed medical cannabis dispensary at 2442 Bayshore Blvd., concluding the rehearing threshold was not met and that any pending moratorium would not retroactively change the District 10 permit outcome.

The Board of Appeals voted on Aug. 16, 2017, to deny a request for rehearing of a prior decision related to a change-of-use and renovation permit for a medical cannabis dispensary at 2442 Bayshore Blvd.

Requester Russ Marino argued the newly proposed citywide moratorium on medical-cannabis dispensaries (MCDs) and recent developments could have affected the original appeal outcome and that the board should reconsider. Marino said the moratorium was a material new fact and urged the board to rehear the matter so the board could consider moratorium implications and related land-use issues.

Permit counsel responded that the property is in District 10 and that the District 11 moratorium or proposed citywide moratorium would not apply to this site or, if adopted, likely would exempt projects already approved by the Planning Commission. Planning Department staff (Corey Teague) confirmed referrals and said exemptions for projects already approved were part of the proposed moratorium language.

Public commenters including neighborhood representatives raised concerns about potential impacts such as traffic and childcare proximity and sought clarity on how forthcoming rules would affect the site. After discussion the board found the legal standard for rehearing (manifest injustice or previously unavailable material facts) had not been met and voted to deny the rehearing request (motion carried). The Department of Planning and the permit holder had previously advised the board that the proposed moratorium was not in effect and would not change the permit under current approvals.

Next steps: the Board denied rehearing on the record; any applicant or party seeking further relief may have other administrative or judicial remedies under local law.