Board overturns Planning Commission denial for 5 Leland cannabis store after week of testimony

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 10–1 on July 27 to overturn the Planning Commission’s May 27 denial of a conditional use authorization for a proposed cannabis retail store at 5 Leland Avenue and 2400 Bayshore Boulevard, allowing the project to proceed with conditions. Supervisor Rafael Mandelman made the motion to overturn the Planning Commission’s disapproval and approve the conditional use authorization; Supervisor Preston seconded. The motion passed following a full public hearing that included an appellant presentation, planning staff analysis and dozens of callers for and against the project.

Appellants and project supporters described the proposal as a social-equity effort led by long-time neighborhood residents and community groups that would provide jobs and community investment. “This project will create 10 to 15 jobs and will be also hosting the first hands on paid internship training program for San Francisco’s cannabis equity community,” appellant Joseph Reeves said during the appellants’ presentation. Appellants said the ownership group includes local, long-time community leaders and equity applicants and that there is a path to majority local ownership.

Planning Department staff told the board the project was code‑compliant when first submitted and clarified why the Planning Commission had found the proposal problematic in May. Senior planner Michael Christiansen said the project qualified for a limited grandfathering exemption from the 600‑foot buffer rule because it was submitted before July 20, 2017, but the commission nevertheless concluded the required Section 303(w) finding — that the use would not produce an undue concentration of cannabis retail uses and that the balance of other goods and services in the area would remain adequate — had not been met. “The project was code compliant when it was first submitted,” Christiansen said.

Opponents, including many neighborhood residents, argued the site was too close to an existing storefront at 2442 Bayshore Boulevard and said the neighborhood does not need another dispensary. “It’s absurd that they would have another location two doors from an existing dispensary,” said a neighborhood resident who identified herself during public comment.

The board’s vote followed heated public comment. More than 30 callers spoke during the support period and dozens more during opposition; many neighborhood residents, local nonprofit leaders and several equity‑applicant supporters called in to urge approval while a large block of nearby residents and community groups urged denial. The Planning Department reported it had received hundreds of written comments both for and against the project prior to the hearing.

The board’s action includes conditions related to the project’s security plan and requires continued compliance with equity and workforce commitments as presented to the board. Supervisor Walton said the board expects the sponsor to “be the best neighbors that the visitation community has ever seen,” and also emphasized that the board would not permit saturation of cannabis uses near the library or in other sensitive nodes.

The vote was 10 in favor and 1 opposed; Supervisor Mar (Marr) voted no. The board recorded the motion as: “Table item 57 and approve items 58 and 59,” which implemented the board’s decision to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial and approve the conditional use authorization.