home>>>

What YOU can do to help Green Cross!

Kevin D. Reed, President of The Green Cross

San Francisco, CA Sept 8, 2005 --

Dear Green Cross Supporters:

As you know, The Green Cross has been engaged in a lengthy process with the Planning Department of the City and County of San Francisco.

The Green Cross received notice of suspension on June 14, 2005. The Notice states that the suspension of the building permit was requested for “reasons including (violation of operational standards imposed under a Noticed of Special Restrictions [NSR], (2) expansion of the medical cannabis dispensary to nearby storefront(s) without required permits, and (3) the conduct of a use which, by its manner of operation, is a nuisance.” Planning code Section 703.2(b)(2)(B) states “no use shall be permitted which by its manner of operation creates conditions that are hazardous, noxious or offensive through emission of odor, fumes, smoke cinders, dust…or excessive noise.” On June 22, I filed an appeal to the suspension.

A hearing to consider revoking our permit took place on July 15th, lasting almost 4 hours. The turn-out for the hearing was so large that the Zoning Administrator had to locate an over-flow room where people could view the proceedings via TV monitors. An Appeals Hearing scheduled for August 15th at 5:00 p.m. was postponed / continued until September 21, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. Again, supporters turned out in record numbers, only to be told to come back again on September 21, 2005 at 5:00 p.m.

Yesterday afternoon (Friday, (9/02) I received the Preliminary Zoning Administrator Recommendation memo. The first four pages describe the Zoning Administrator’s findings. The last four pages, Exhibit A, provide 34---no, that is not a typo, I mean they provide 34 very specific and cumbersome conditions the Zoning Administrator is seeking to impose before reinstatement of the building permit is granted.

The letter from Lawrence B. Badiner asks for written responses to both the “tentative conclusions and recommendations” by 5:00 pm on September 12th, 2005. Now, more than ever, we need to ask for your help. Even more critical than attending any public hearing, Mr. Badiner needs to receive as many letters and emails as possible between now and September 12, 2005. He needs to hear what you think of his findings and his recommendations. The letter from the Zoning Administrator may be downloaded by Visiting @ www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp.

Once you read the entire document, you may have specific issues you want to challenge, either from the findings or from the long list of conditions. Below are the issues I take issue with and why. Feel free to use some of this information to help you write your letter. Also, please take a minute to send us a copy of you letter as well. Some of the numbers the Zoning Administrator uses throughout his report seem off. We want to make sure we are heard.

Findings We Consider Erroneous

1. Unauthorized office: What a Catch-22 set of circumstances! In the initial complaint, the allegation was made that the space at 3420- 22nd Street was an “expansion of the medical cannabis dispensary to nearby storefront”. That was one of the reasons cited for the suspensions. We explained the space was our administrative office space. Now, we are told that the most recent “authorized” use of the space was retail, and therefore we cannot use it as administrative office space, even if we try to seek a permit. So, apparently, if we use the space to sell our clothing items, that is A-OK. My reaction: The office is critical to maintaining the security of my staff, MCD and operation. We have just purchased an additional $15,000 worth of surveillance equipment that extend the monitoring distances to 1 ½ block in all directions with a high-speed infra-red dome camera having zoom and DVR capability. It is from my office that we can provide better and safer surveillance for the Green Cross and the neighborhood residents.

2. Service to geographically broad clientele: The letter uses a number of “findings” (volume of patronage, neighborhood character, service to geographically broad clientele, and circulation impacts) to attempt to make the case that we have too many patients and that too many of our patients come from far away to purchase their medicine. My reaction: This also seems to be a case of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”. The letter cites all of the ways in which we have tried to mitigate complaints from neighbors as evidence that we have too many patients and that, since they are not from the immediate neighborhood, they don’t understand the traffic flow patterns. In an analysis of the petition submitted by The Green Cross, someone from the neighborhood association opposing The Green Cross found that 79% of those signing the petition (a sample total of 1566 out of the 2,800 total) reside in San Francisco. That means only 21% of those signing the petition reside outside of San Francisco. At the end of the Public Hearing on July 15th, Mr. Badiner explained that the zoning of a neighborhood commercial district isn’t intended to imply that all of the consumers come from the immediate neighborhood. He gave the example of a clothing boutique in a neighborhood that might attract shoppers living all over the city. I firmly believe the question should be whether the measures The Green Cross has instituted solved the problems related to traffic and parking. We think they have.

3. Findings related to noise, litter and odor: We have made several changes to address these issues. My reaction: The complaints the Zoning Administrator has heard since August must be coming from neighbors who want to see us closed, period. These people are unwilling to acknowledge that the problems no longer exist; their perceptions remain frozen in early May 2005. We have also extended invitations to the Zoning Administrator, his staff, Supervisor Dufty and his staff to come and visit our facility. I resent being “tried and sentenced” without any of those who sit in judgment ever having stepped foot inside The Green Cross or my office. By the way, FYI, the staff of The Green Cross picks up the litter in the surrounding vicinity as a “good neighbor” gesture. We’ve tried to ingratiate ourselves with the residents. It is certainly not because we feel our patients generate lots of litter for the neighborhood.

Issues Related to Conditions

None of the bills being considered by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors provides for restrictions as oppressive as the conditions enumerated in the Preliminary Zoning Administrator Recommendation letter. Not even the most conservative bill. Further, if The Green Cross were subject to all 34 of the conditions, (providing 7 parking places within walking distance, no longer selling clothing, hiring 3 additional security staff, hiring a community liaison, closing my office, reducing the hours of operation to comply with recommendations, we would certainly have to double the cost of our medicine! We have always tried to operate The Green Cross is ways that kept the cost of our medicine accessible to all patients. The conditions proposed would force The Green Cross to cater exclusively to wealthy individuals, people that can afford to pay 2 or 3 times the current cost. We don’t want to see that happen.

1. The requirement for a traffic management plan is onerous, unfair and unrealistic. MCDS should not be expected to solve the traffic and parking problems of the City.

2. We are open from 10:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. 7 days a week. The hours recommended for operation by the Zoning Administrator are 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Noon – 5:00 p.m. Saturday. Closed on Sunday. As patients of the club, you will be the most directly affected. Even the most conservative bill before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors provides for more hours of service than what the Zoning Administrator proposes for The Green Cross. Of course we object to being singled out for such punitive measures.

3. Having spent more than $25,000 in surveillance equipment that is a safer security system with a more extensive monitoring capacity, I resist being told to hire additional security guards and a community liaison. Why should The Green Cross be forced to designate a “community liaison” now when every single substantive complaint made by a neighbor has been addressed?

4. Restrictions around the opportunity for staff to be able to medicate at all while at work seem punitive and groundless.

Those are the major objections. We will be writing our own response soon.

Again, please write a letter. This one really matters!