Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rehearing for Taraval medical cannabis permit after contested public testimony
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request for a proposed medical cannabis dispensary at 2139 Taraval, ruling 3–1 that the information before the board did not meet the standard for rehearing despite neighborhood testimony and claims that a police letter had been removed from final findings.
On March 16 the San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3–1 to deny a rehearing request for an earlier decision to revoke a permit for a proposed medical cannabis dispensary at 2139 Taraval Street. Attorney Derek St. Pierre, representing Bay Area Compassionate Health Centers, argued the record had changed notably since the Board's November hearing — in particular, he said references to an SFPD captain's letter had been removed from the Board's findings and that the community needed the chance to address the changed evidentiary record. “We respectfully request a rehearing to allow the Board of Appeals to reevaluate the evidence without the shadow of the fear cast by the letter,” St. Pierre said.
Opposing counsel and Planning Department staff said the rehearing standard requires new and material evidence; Planning staff told the board they found no new evidence in the rehearing petition sufficient to justify reopening the matter. Ross Moody, agent for the project opponents, noted the letter remained in the administrative record even if a paragraph was removed from the adopted findings: “The letter from the captain remains in the record and can be used by the board to justify its decision,” he said.
Public comment was extensive; patient advocates, disabled veterans and local residents told the board they seek safe, local access to medicine and warned that denying rehearing would limit patients’ options. Supervisor staff present said draft legislation intended to address a typographic error in the Planning Department report might be introduced soon; several commissioners said they would be more comfortable delaying only if a concrete, drafted legislative change were already filed. In the end the board voted 3–1 (Commissioner Huang opposed) to deny the rehearing request.
What happens next
The board's action leaves the earlier permit decision in place. Petitioners and neighborhood advocates said they would continue to pursue legislative fixes and other administrative options; the Planning Department and other city agencies were asked to respond to questions about how evidence and letters were reflected in adopted findings.
Quote attribution
Direct quotes in this article come from transcript testimony before the Board of Appeals on March 16.
