Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies rehearing for 473 Haight dispensary; DPH acknowledges supervisory errors
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to deny a rehearing request for a medical cannabis dispensary permit at 473 Haight Street, after appellant lawyers argued the city misapplied rules on ‘intensification’ and Department of Public Health managers acknowledged supervisory mistakes that led to two improper operating episodes.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request on Nov. 16 for a medical cannabis dispensary permit at 473 Haight Street, voting 5-0 to uphold the Department of Public Health’s earlier decision to grant the permit.
Appellant counsel Steve Williams told the board the prior hearing had been given incomplete or incorrect information about what constitutes an “intensification” of a nonconforming use and said a tenfold planned increase in production and traffic should have triggered a separate land-use hearing. “Those assertions are absolutely incorrect as a matter of law,” Williams said, arguing that several California jurisdictions require a new hearing when a nonconforming use is significantly altered.
The permit holder’s counsel, Tom Tunney, urged denial of rehearing, saying the matter had already been discussed extensively in two public hearings and that the appellant had not produced new facts. “We ask that you deny the request for rehearing,” Tunney said, adding the sponsor and planning commission had previously reviewed the project.
Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson, representing the Department of Public Health, told the board Rule 9(b) allows rehearing only when new or materially different facts arise that could have affected the prior outcome. Pearson said the appellant had not shown any such new facts and recommended denial.
During questioning, June Weintraub, manager of the city’s Medical Cannabis Dispensary program, acknowledged mistakes by departmental staff that led to two episodes in which the dispensary operated when it should not have. “We made a mistake, and I take full responsibility for it,” Weintraub said, calling the incidents supervisory errors and noting she was out of town during the initial hearing period.
After deliberation, Commissioner Swig moved to deny the rehearing request on the ground that no new, important evidence had been presented; the motion carried unanimously. The board’s decision leaves DPH’s permit issuance in place and closes the rehearing effort unless the parties pursue other remedies outside the board’s rehearing process.
The board did not modify the underlying permit or schedule further hearings on the matter at the Nov. 16 meeting.
