Printer-friendly version
By Henri Migala
August 12, 2022 (La Mesa) -- The La Mesa City Council voted Tuesday to approve a Conditional Use Permit and allow Urbn Leaf to build a cannabis (marijuana) dispensary at 7901 Hillside Drive. The Council unanimously voted 5-0 to repeal its earlier approval of an appeal that had blocked the project, after applicant Urbn Leaf filed a legal challenge.
BACKGROUND
The Urbn Leaf dispensary project was initially approved, with conditions (an elevator tower and 36-inch box trees) by the Design Review Board on August 9, 2021, and approved by the Planning Commission Hearing on October 6, 2021.
An appeal was filed on October 20, 2021 by Dana Stevens, Executive Director of CASA (Community Action Service Advocacy, formerly Communities Against Substance Abuse). Stevens asserted, in her appeal, that the proposed project violates Chapter 24.23, which has a purpose of limiting impacts on neighborhoods. Stevens contended that the dispensary is unsuitable for Hillside Drive, violates path of travel rules, and sets precedent for commercial development adjacent to residential areas. The developer aims to demolish and replace a single-family home, on a lot adjacent to other residences and across the street from the La Mesa Springs shopping center.
At the February 8 hearing, La Mesa City Council voted 3-2 to uphold the appeal filed by Stevens and block approval of the proposed dispensary.
City staff were instructed to revisit the proposed project and to bring back their findings to the Council after Urbn Leaf filed a petition with the Superior Court seeking judgment and a writ of mandate requiring the City to issue the requested CUP.
Kerry Kusiak, Director of Community Development, presented the findings to the City Council at the hearing on Tuesday, August 9, 2022.
City staff, since the project is technically in compliance with city law, recommended that the Council uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, deny the appeal, and ratify the Design Review Board’s approval. Kusiak told Council that the site has been unoccupied and in need of redevelopment, and that the license, if issued, can be suspended or revoked for non-compliance.
Councilperson Lothian asked Kusiak if everything in the proposal follows the law and is within the law, does the Council had any power or authority to block it? Kusiak responded that according to the advice he received from the city’s attorney, there was not, which is why their recommendation was to approve the proposal.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE
Dana Stevens, Executive Director of CASA, who filed the initial appeal, was allowed to make her public comments.
Stevens pointed out that the applicant, Urbn Leaf, had done nothing to address the complaints originally filed. “All the concern we brought forward to you in February are still the same,” said Stevens. “We are significantly concerned about THIS use, at THIS location.”
Stevens expressed concern that the proposed project is in a residential neighborhood. “Even more concerning in this paragraph is the reference to the Mezuda Traffic Consulting Letter,” stated Stevens. “The Mezuda letter was not made available during the initial Planning Commission meeting nor as part of the staff report to the council in February.”
Stevens pointed out that the traffic study was conducted in 2017, before the opening of the 230-unt Jefferson housing project and before the opening of Cookies “
which is not, by the way, a medical marijuana retailer. Just give them a call and ask. They’ll proudly tell you they are ‘adult use recreational,’” she added.
Stevens reported that the traffic study cites nonexistent and that the study concluded there would be nearly 200 additional car trips daily to an area where the report sites
“I would propose that this 2017 traffic report is invalid and a more current traffic report needs to be conducted,” stated Stevens.
“Second, the staff report claims that the project is consistent with the general plan as it would introduce “uncommon retail goods.” But with 18 adult use recreational and medical marijuana retailers, and fewer than 13 actual pharmacies in the city of La Mesa, marijuana is hardly an uncommon good in La Mesa, which is now known as the “marijuana Mecca,” Stevens said.
She thanked Councilmembers for their “courage” in previously upholding her appeal, adding, “Urbn Leaf is a bully. They have made $5 million suing. She noted that La Mesa currently has “one marijuana retail outlet for every 3,000 residents, and that includes residents of all ages. That includes residents not even old enough to consume. That’s more than the ABC allows for liquor stores. So, there is plenty of access. It’s really just this use, at this location. “We have never come to you about any of the other applicants,” said Stevens, “but this is egregious in this neighborhood. It’s inappropriate.”
She ended her presentation by suggesting the Council put a measure on the ballot to revise Measure U, the initiative that legalized marijuana sales in the city “now that the city, and the residents, even people who voted for it, and supported it in concept, didn’t envision what we have right now. Give the voters another chance. Give them a reasonable definition of ‘passive travel,’ give a limitation, and see how the residents feel. Bring Measure U back to the people. You’re the only ones who can.”
COUNCIL CONCERNS
After the public comments, there was a concern raised by the Council about the dated traffic study. Kusiak reported that although the traffic study was done in 2017, not enough has changed in that immediate area to warrant another study. If staff had thought that enough had changed, they would have asked for a new study.
Councilmember Jack Shu asked what the city anticipates for new marijuana applications coming in the coming months and years. City staff reported that they “anticipate only renewals and those who have already started their applications. No more than that.”
Councilmembers seemed to understand and appreciate the concerns raised by Stevens and through public comment. Councilmember Lothian stated that she didn’t know the traffic study is five years old, and asked “if Urbn leaf passed everything but the traffic study, would it open the city to liability if we blocked the proposal for that?”
Not passing a single element of a proposal is enough to deny the proposal. City staff responded that if there is some element of a proposal that is deficient, the City would work to mitigate the negative impacts.
Lothian then asked if the proposal goes through, but the city finds that the traffic becomes a problem, can the city pull the permit? “It would go to the planning commission, who would look at what it would take to modify the conditions, or they could revoke the permit if the problems are egregious enough,” responded Kusiak.
Glen Sabine, La Mesa City Attorney, stated that he didn’t see a valid legal basis to deny the proposal, and the city would lose a lawsuit if it did.
Vice Mayor Colin Parent stated that “the law seems clear and the voters supported Measure U. We live in a democracy and we live by the rule of law. That’s why I’m going to vote the way I’m going to vote.”
The City Council unanimously passed the conditional use permit for Urbn Leaf.
For more information, see the following documents:
Report to the Mayor and members of the City Council from the City Manager:
https://pub-lamesa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=5935
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of La Mesa approving project No. 2017-31 (CUP 17-88):
https://pub-lamesa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=5936
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of project No. 2017-31 (CUP 17-88) by CASA (Community Action Service Advocacy):
https://pub-lamesa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=5938
Photos of the proposed site:
https://pub-lamesa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=5939
Map of path of travel and separation from other structures:
https://pub-lamesa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=5940
Copy of public comments to the proposal:
https://pub-lamesa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=5941
Project’s architectural plans:
https://pub-lamesa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=5942
Recent comments