Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves SBA Wellness dispensary at 3015 San Bruno despite heavy neighborhood opposition
Summary
After organized opposition from childcare providers, merchants and parents citing bus stops and high school proximity, the commission took discretionary review and voted 4–1 to approve SBA Wellness at 3015 San Bruno with conditions including security and display limits.
The Planning Commission approved a mandatory discretionary review for SBA Wellness, a proposed medical cannabis dispensary at 3015 San Bruno Avenue, by a 4–1 vote on Oct. 26.
Planning staff recommended approval after reviewing code compliance and noting that the proposed floor plan keeps product display well behind the primary facade and places waiting and reception inside the building. Staff also noted that childcare centers and youth programs in the area do not necessarily disqualify the site under current planning code definitions, though they pose compatibility concerns that require mitigation.
Project representatives said the 1,644‑square‑foot site would be upgraded, restore historic storefront elements, improve lighting and public safety, and operate with a security plan and limited hours of operation. Richard Vong and partners emphasized prior outreach and that the interior layout restricted product visibility from the sidewalk.
Organized opposition — including the owner of the nearby Child’s Time daycare, the San Francisco Community Empowerment Center and other merchant groups — focused on pedestrian safety, proximity to multiple bus stops (routes including the 8, 9 and 29), and the concentration of services for children, seniors and youth in the immediate block. Daycare owner Laura Navalabrado said she worried about secondhand smoke and customers congregating at windows and curbside near children’s play areas.
The commission debated security, parking mitigation, and whether clustering or proximity to sensitive uses should be grounds for denial under current code. Several commissioners noted the planned interior layout, proposed security staff and conditions prohibiting on‑site use or visible product displays as important mitigations.
Outcome: Motion to take discretionary review and approve the project with conditions passed 4–1 (Commissioner Johnson opposed). The commission attached conditions including standard security requirements, limiting visible display, off‑street management and other staff‑recommended conditions.
Next steps: Conditions will be enforced through permit compliance and follow‑up by planning staff and other departments as the project proceeds to building permit review.
