Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds CEQA appeal for proposed Sorrento Valley medical‑marijuana cooperative, sends project back to staff
Summary
The council voted to uphold an appeal of a CEQA exemption for a proposed medical‑marijuana cooperative at 10715 Sorrento Valley Road, finding the site’s location in a floodway fringe requires further environmental review; staff will re‑analyze and return to council.
The City Council on Sept. 12 upheld an appeal of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for a conditional use permit to operate a medical‑marijuana consumer cooperative at 10715 Sorrento Valley Road and remanded the matter to Development Services for further environmental analysis.
Development Services staff said the initial exemption relied on California Environmental Quality Act section 15303(c) (small commercial structures in developed urban areas) but later discovered the site lies within a floodway fringe and that a previously adopted negative declaration for the original development may require reconsideration. Staff recommended remand so the department can determine whether the prior document can be relied upon or whether additional environmental review is required.
Appellants and the Torrey Pines Community Planning Board described concerns about flood‑plain sensitivity, cumulative traffic and ecological impacts to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. Dennis Ritz, chair of the Torrey Pines Community Planning Board, urged careful cumulative analysis and pointed to past flooding and lagoon closures; Deanna Rich, vice‑chair, asked for a traffic study that considers multiple proposed marijuana outlets in the corridor.
The applicant, who filed paperwork in December 2016, said consultants advised the location had a high chance of approval and that prior site approvals included environmental review; the applicant supported staff’s recommendation for further study. City staff said they would prioritize the additional analysis and aim to return a determination within two weeks, then redocket the item for a hearing when appropriate.
Councilmember Bree moved to uphold the appeal and remand the matter to staff; Councilmember Sherman seconded. The motion passed 8–1, with Councilmember Kate voting no. The council’s action requires staff to report back with any necessary environmental documentation and a new hearing date for the conditional use permit if warranted.
