![\"mtc_dispensaryweb\"](\"https:\/\/missiontimescourier.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/03\/mtc_dispensaryweb.jpg\")
<\/a>Living Green signed a stipulated agreement with the City Attorney, which had brought them into court over the illegal operation at 4417 Rainier St. in Grantville. Living Green agreed to voluntarily pay heavy fines and fees rather than be ordered to by Judge John Meyer. Living Green further agreed to completely vacate the location and wipe out any trace of their presence there, and to stop any and all advertising anywhere.<\/p>\n
And yet, that agreement apparently allows Living Green to continue to pursue legal status in San Diego. Their application is still active with the City.<\/p>\n
SDUG brought its proposal to the Navajo Community Planners, Inc. (NCPI) on Feb. 25. Promising to be everything Living Green wasn\u2019t, SDUG President Alicia Barron pointed out their history in San Francisco and Oakland, where the company has never had an instance of criminal activity. She said they\u2019ve never had a police problem.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn 15 years, we\u2019ve never been closed down by the city or the state. We have very strict security on a 24-hour basis, even though we\u2019re only open 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.,\u201d Barron said. \u201cWe strictly control who we sell to, and we keep very careful records.\u201d<\/p>\n
Barron said the same careful operation would be run here in San Diego, if their application is approved.<\/p>\n
She is angling to open in a fairly familiar area. She proposes to open at 4427 Rainier St. \u2014 50 feet from where Living Green just shut down and vacated.<\/p>\n
But Barron ran into some tough questions from the NCPI board and the audience. Board member Dan Smith pointed out what he saw as inaccuracies in the application, concerning space, access and parking.<\/p>\n
\u201cI just don\u2019t think you have anywhere near enough parking available to you, no matter what agreements you come to with adjoining businesses,\u201d Smith said.<\/p>\n
Board member Terry Cords said he is worried about crime and violence problems, and just isn\u2019t sure the facility as planned is up to handling the 75 \u2013 100 patients per day Barron said she\u2019d expect.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s been said many times, and will be said again, that the community planning groups are legally only concerned with the land use aspect \u2014 that the City Council had long since ruled on the moral questions about legal cannabis.<\/p>\n
That may be true legally, but board member Mike McSweeney may have spoken for the majority of the board.<\/p>\n
\u201cI just can\u2019t go along with this. I think it\u2019s wrong, I think it\u2019s dangerous. I just don\u2019t want it here,\u201d he said before making a motion to deny approval by the board.<\/p>\n
The motion passed 14 \u2013 2.<\/p>\n
Community planning groups can offer only advisory opinions to the Planning Commission and City Council. Those two bodies make the legal decisions, and the latter makes the final decisions.<\/p>\n
But community planning groups are set up for a reason, and that is to get the feel of the community about issues.<\/p>\n
One of the first questions the Planning Commission and the City Council will ask at hearings is, \u201cyou were denied approval by your planning group. Why?\u201d<\/p>\n
Not easy to answer.<\/p>\n