Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Continues Green Acres Medical Cannabis Appeal to June 30 for Additional Briefing and Owner Testimony
Summary
After hours of testimony and legal argument about deadlines, primacy of current planning law, and equitable doctrines, the Board of Appeals continued the Green Acres medical cannabis dispensary appeal to June 30 and set a briefing schedule for parties to address whether the application can be deemed complete as of Aug. 15, 2007.
The Board of Appeals continued a complex appeal over Green Acres, a medical cannabis dispensary at 6256 Third Street, to June 30, 2010, instructing both sides to submit limited briefing and reserving a short amount of time for additional testimony at the continued hearing.
Planning Department staff (Scott Sanchez) explained the denial: Green Acres could not be approved as a new medical cannabis dispensary because it sits within 1,000 feet of KIPP Bayview Academy (the former Saint Paul of the Shipwreck school), and it did not submit a complete MCD application by the legislative cutoff of Aug. 15, 2007. Sanchez walked through a chronology of submissions, notices of violation, a cease‑and‑desist order, and a late but ultimately complete building permit application in October 2008.
Appellant counsel Randall Knox argued the planning department accepted piecemeal submissions and that the applicant had a reasonable expectation the process could be completed; he asked the Board to exercise equitable doctrines (estoppel/laches) to deem Green Acres’ application complete as of Aug. 15, 2007 and allow the application to proceed through neighborhood notification, CEQA review and planning commission processes. Knox said the facility served patients, some with mobility limitations, who would face safety and access burdens if denied a nearby dispensary.
The Board debated whether equity could overcome the plain language of current planning code, noting the code no longer contains grandfathering for existing MCDs and that DPH final permits had a separate January 21, 2009 deadline. Commissioners also noted the absence of extensive neighborhood opposition in this file and the long closure of the facility since December 2008. After discussion the Board voted unanimously to continue the matter to June 30 to allow (1) a six‑page brief from appellant with a declaration from owner Claudia Smith, two weeks prior to hearing, and (2) a six‑page response from the Planning Department, one week prior to hearing. Limited additional testimony (five minutes per party) will be allowed at the continued hearing.
What happens next: parties will prepare the limited briefs and the owner is expected to attend the June 30 hearing. The Board asked that the briefs address the specific issues raised about whether the application should be deemed complete as of Aug. 15, 2007 and whether equitable relief is legally supportable in these facts.
