Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission votes 5–2 to disapprove proposed medical cannabis dispensary at Fisherman’s Wharf
Summary
After hours of public testimony from merchants, tourists and patients, the San Francisco Planning Commission voted 5–2 to disapprove a proposed medical cannabis dispensary at 2627 Taylor Street, citing land‑use incompatibility with the tourist‑oriented Fisherman’s Wharf district.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on Dec. 17 voted 5–2 to disapprove a discretionary review application for a medical cannabis dispensary, Kryn’s, at 2627 Taylor Street in the Fisherman’s Wharf area.
Nick Foster of the Planning Department said the applicant met the formal requirements for review and that the site would allow on‑site sales to medical cardholders, operate 11 a.m. to 8 p.m., and include security measures. The department recommended discretionary review and approval, noting the use is principally neighborhood‑serving and complied with planning standards.
The hearing drew lengthy public comment that divided the room. Proponents — including patients, medical professionals and advocates — said the neighborhood is underserved and that a nearby, well‑regulated dispensary would improve access and safety for people who rely on medical cannabis. “I want to be able to get my medication in my neighborhood,” said one supporter, Ray Connolly, who described outreach and petitioning efforts on behalf of the project.
Opponents, led by business and merchant groups representing Fisherman’s Wharf, said the wharf is a primarily tourist and family‑oriented retail corridor and that a dispensary would be inconsistent with the district’s character and could exacerbate problems with vagrancy and street disturbances. Troy Campbell, executive director of the Fisherman’s Wharf Community Benefit District, urged the commission to consider the Wharf’s retail mix and identity when weighing the application.
Commissioners debated whether the wharf’s tourist‑oriented retail character and proximity to family‑oriented attractions constituted an “extraordinary circumstance” sufficient to deny a use that otherwise meets code standards. Several commissioners also questioned staffing, storefront layout, security and the effect on adjacent small businesses.
Commissioner Antonini moved to disapprove; the motion passed on roll call: Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Richards and President Fong voted aye; Commissioners Johnson and Wu voted no.
The commission’s decision means the applicant’s request was denied at the discretionary‑review stage. The applicant may pursue administrative or legislative options available under the city’s procedures, including an appeal or further discretionary requests with revised proposals.
What happens next: The commission record logs the denial; any follow‑up by the applicant or supervisor’s office would be processed through the city’s normal appeals or legislative channels.
