Planning commission continues controversial San Bruno medical cannabis proposal after hours of testimony

The San Francisco Planning Commission voted 4-1 on Jan. 5 to continue consideration of a proposed medical cannabis dispensary at 3015 San Bruno Avenue to Sept. 21, 2017, after more than four hours of public testimony and extended questions about neighborhood impacts and how upcoming state rules might change municipal oversight.

Planning staff presented the mandatory discretionary review for SBA Wellness, saying the proposal would operate as a medical cannabis dispensary only (no on‑site smoking or cultivation) and outlining a security and neighborhood‑engagement plan. Jeff Spears, Planning Department staff, told the commission the department had received “208 letters of support and 70 letters in opposition” and said staff found the application otherwise consistent with current land‑use criteria.

The applicants emphasized patient access and outreach. “The reason I want to open the MCD is to serve the patient and to educate the Asian community of the benefit of medical marijuana,” said Javon Foy, an applicant and medical cannabis patient, who described outreach to Chinese‑speaking neighbors and said the clinic would employ security and sanitation measures.

But dozens of neighborhood residents, business owners, parents and community groups urged the commission to reject the permit or delay it, citing proximity to multiple schools and busy transit stops, pedestrian and bicycle safety, parking and possible increases in loitering or crime. Speakers displayed petitions and said the block is routed by several school bus stops, an elementary school, a middle school and a high school within a walkable distance. “We already have 3,000 signatures opposing this,” said one neighborhood organizer representing Portola district residents.

Commissioners questioned whether the parcel fell within the zoning code’s 1,000‑foot buffer for primary and secondary schools; staff explained that the code’s listed triggers apply to parcels that contain primary/secondary schools and that some child‑care and preschool uses may not fall under the same automatic buffer. Commissioners also noted an added layer of uncertainty from Proposition 64, the November 2016 ballot measure legalizing adult recreational cannabis statewide and requiring additional state licensing and local policy decisions. Several commissioners said they were uncomfortable approving a retail outlet now without clearer local regulations that will be developed later this year.

Commissioner Richard moved to continue the item to Sept. 21 so the commission and city staff can consider the forthcoming state licensing framework and local policy options; Commissioner Melgar seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Coppell voting no. The commission’s continuance requires re‑notice because the continued date falls beyond the six‑month window for the item.

Next steps: staff and the applicants may return with supplemental materials and the commission will revisit the matter on Sept. 21, 2017, after additional city guidance on how medical and recreational cannabis uses will be regulated locally. In the meantime, written comments are part of the record and the department will continue coordinating with public health and other agencies on appropriate local standards.