Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves 70 Second Street medical cannabis dispensary but bars on-site smoking and vaporizing
Summary
After public opposition citing proximity to students and clustering, the commission approved discretionary review for a medical cannabis dispensary at 70 Second Street with conditions requiring storefront transparency, staff-recommended minor-permit controls and a ban on on-site smoking, vaporizing or other consumption; vote passed 5–2.
The Planning Commission on March 1 approved a discretionary review for a proposed medical cannabis dispensary at 70 Second Street with conditions that prohibit on-site smoking, vaporizing and other forms of consumption and require adherence to Planning Department recommendations on storefront transparency and minor alterations.
Staff presentation and concerns: Planning staff explained the site meets spacing rules that prohibit facilities within 1,000 feet of a primary or secondary school and noted the department had received letters both supporting and opposing the project. Staff recommended approval with conditions, including limiting the percentage of window obscuration and ensuring the space remains consistent with retail transparency standards.
Applicant presentation: Sponsor Ondine Herschel described the proposed operation as a "heart-based sanctuary" aimed at medical patients, saying the facility would be professionally staffed, well-lit, include a security plan approved by the police department, and offer vaporizing to serve patients who cannot travel home during work hours. Herschel emphasized community outreach and pledged to maintain clean sidewalks and a liaison with neighbors.
Public opposition and concerns: Nearby property managers, retailers and a high school representative described potential problems with clustering, pedestrian congestion, and youth exposure. Speakers asked the commission to consider the high volume of students and employees in the area and questioned whether repeated approvals in the downtown/financial district had created an overconcentration.
Commission debate and decision: Commissioners debated whether allowing on-site vaporizing constituted an exceptional public benefit; several commissioners said they supported approval only if on-site consumption were prohibited. Commissioner Moore moved the alternative motion to approve the discretionary review with the condition that smoking, vaporizing and consumption would not be allowed on-site; Commissioner McGill seconded. The motion passed 5–2 (Commissioners Antonini and Phan voted no). Staff emphasized that the prohibition covers smoking, vaporizing and foodstuff-based consumption.
Conditions and implementation: Approval includes the Planning Department’s recommended conditions: adherence to transparency limits (windows not obscured more than the code-permitted percent), requirement for a minor permit for alterations, coordination with SFPD on security and video-surveillance plans, and the explicit ban on on-site consumption methods.
Next steps: The sponsor may implement the project only after obtaining any required minor-permit approvals and complying with the planning conditions; the commission directed staff to ensure the conditions are part of the approval package.
