Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Planning Code Medical Cannabis topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds zoning administrator's letter of determination, blocking Park Merced dispensary location

San Francisco Board of Appeals · December 5, 2012
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board denied an appeal from a proposed medical cannabis collective at 33 Camden/Cambon Drive, finding the parcel is within the 1,000-foot planning-code radius to Merced Heights Playground and that the city measures distance by straight-line parcel buffers.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 5 denied an appeal from Cambon Connoisseur Cooperative and upheld a letter of determination (LOD) from the city's zoning administrator that 33 Camden/Cambon Drive is within 1,000 feet of Merced Heights Playground and therefore ineligible for a medical cannabis dispensary under Planning Code section 790.141.

Attorney Matthew Gerardi, representing the appellants, argued the measuring method used by the city was unfair in this case because the site is a long strip mall and the cooperative occupies a leasehold within that larger parcel; he presented multiple measurements (977, 981, 991, 1,005 feet) and asserted that a leasehold-based measurement could place the proposed collective outside the 1,000-foot limit. He also emphasized practical barriers that make pedestrian access from the playground to the proposed site unlikely.

Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department explained the city measures distance by straight-line parcels (a GIS buffer around the parcel containing the proposed MCD to the parcel containing the recreation center) and that prior LODs from 2010 and 03/19/2012 similarly concluded the parcel is within 1,000 feet. The department noted the LOD recognized proximity to a recreation center primarily serving persons under 18 and that the code leaves little room for discretion in measuring parcels.

Board members considered the arguments about measurement methodology and precedent; several commissioners said adopting a leasehold-based measure would inject arbitrariness into future cases. A motion to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator's LOD carried by roll call.

Next steps: the appellants may pursue other planning avenues but, under the Board's ruling, the site remains constrained by section 790.141.