Board of Appeals pauses enforcement of Relief medical cannabis dispensary pending city-attorney opinion

San Francisco — The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted unanimously to continue an enforcement matter against Relief, a medical cannabis dispensary at 20 First Street, to May 7, 2008 so the office of the city attorney can advise the board on how recent ordinance amendments and a non-enforcement resolution by the Board of Supervisors affect the pending notice of violation.

Scott Sanchez, planning department staff, told the board the dispensary is located in an RH3 residential district where medical cannabis dispensaries (MCDs) are not a permitted use and that the facility is therefore in violation. "We are past that March 1 deadline, and they are in violation," Sanchez said, noting the department intended to pursue enforcement unless a legal or legislative basis prevented it.

Appellants’ counsel James Anthony argued that a recent non-enforcement resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors and amendments to the planning code created ambiguity and that Relief had filed permit applications and a lease before the effective deadline. Anthony told the board the resolution "says very clearly that it's the intent of the city and county of San Francisco not to take enforcement action against those medical cannabis dispensaries that have properly applied for the necessary permits." He presented certified copies of the resolution and filings for the board’s review.

Neighbors who testified said the dispensary’s presence in a residential block adjacent to schools, a daycare and a park had caused noise, traffic and safety concerns and urged enforcement. Several said Relief had been in operation since May 2005 and that relocating to a new approved Mission Street address should end problems at the current site.

Commissioners said the matter raised complex legal questions about whether recently proposed legislation or the supervisors’ resolution extended the deadline for this site and whether the use could ever be legalized in the current residential location. Citing that uncertainty, the board moved to continue the hearing to allow the city attorney to provide a confidential opinion and to return with any clarification about applicable code language. The motion passed 4–0.

The continuance stops immediate appeals-board action on the notice of violation and sets a May 7 return date when the board expects to consider the city attorney’s guidance. If the city attorney’s opinion or further legislative action narrows the board’s options, the board may take up enforcement steps then.