Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Cannabis Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds zoning administrator: 350 Divisadero must follow new MCD permitting process
Summary
The Board of Appeals rejected an appeal by an operator seeking to revive an earlier medical cannabis operation at 350 Divisadero, ruling 3–1 that the zoning administrator did not err in requiring a new permitting process because prior approvals were not perfected and related permit activity indicated a change of use.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Thursday upheld a zoning administrator letter of determination that 350 Divisadero Street must begin the medical cannabis dispensary (MCD) permitting process from scratch, not rely on an earlier operation’s nonconforming status. The board voted 3–1 to affirm the March 5 decision.
Appellant Joseph Hunt argued the location had long hosted the San Francisco Patients Cooperative (1999–2008) and that past approvals and community use supported continuing the prior operation. Hunt’s counsel said the applicant relied on early guidance and invested in renovations on the understanding the use could be reinstated.
Opponents — neighborhood groups and merchants represented by counsel — said new evidence showed the current applicant pursued building permits and a façade grant consistent with a change to a gym, not renewed MCD use. They cited the San Francisco Health Code and Planning Code provisions limiting grandfathering for MCDs and requiring new public review for new MCDs (Health Code section 3309 and Planning Code section 7.90.141 were cited at the hearing).
Acting Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez told the board his office initially issued a determination but, after receiving additional permit records and evidence of work and funding applications, revised its view and concluded the applicant had not perfected entitlement to a legal nonconforming MCD. Planning counsel and neighborhood representatives argued that the applicant’s actions (including building permit applications and a facade grant application) showed a clear intent to change the use and supported the decision to require a new MCD application and public review.
In a contentious hearing that ran several hours, the board heard testimony from a wide range of speakers including former operators of the site, neighborhood association leaders and merchants. The board concluded the zoning administrator had not abused his discretion in the updated determination and that the record supported requiring the applicant to start the MCD permitting process anew.
The ruling leaves the March 5 Letter of Determination in force; it means the current applicant must pursue the full local public permitting process for a new MCD, including planning reviews required by the San Francisco health and planning codes.
