Committee forwards 45‑day interim moratorium on medical cannabis dispensaries, adds exemptions for scheduled hearings

The Land Use & Transportation Committee on Sept. 11 forwarded an urgency ordinance proposing a 45‑day interim zoning moratorium on approval of medical cannabis dispensaries (MCDs), amended to exempt applicants that already have scheduled Planning Commission hearings and certain conditional‑use (CU) cases.

Sponsor Supervisor Jane Cohen (as identified in the transcript) said the pause is intended to give city departments time to craft regulations for how medical and adult‑use cannabis will be permitted and regulated after California’s Proposition 64. Cohen told the committee the existing MCD regulatory framework is over a decade old and that the city lacks sufficient tools to regulate operators in the new market.

"We need to take a pause and to evaluate the best ways to regulate cannabis in San Francisco," she said, and proposed an amendment to grandfather MCD applications with scheduled planning hearings. Cohen said there were 11 pending MCD applications; four had schedul ed hearings, three were conditional‑use applications and the rest were discretionary review cases.

The proposal drew substantial public comment. Patient advocates and members of Americans for Safe Access warned that a moratorium would reduce patient access and harm small, equity‑oriented applicants who lack the capital to absorb delays. "This moratorium will only add more confusion and mistrust," said Joanne Hillary, a medical cannabis patient and pipeline applicant.

Industry groups including the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the Cannabis Retailers Alliance argued a moratorium would slow economic opportunity, harm tourism and advantage well‑capitalized outside operators. Several industry speakers welcomed Cohen’s carve‑out for applications with hearings but urged that the city avoid a blanket pause.

Supervisors debated edits to the ordinance’s findings, including striking language that tied MCD approvals to crime and public‑safety nuisance claims and adding direction for the Office of Cannabis and the Human Rights Commission to analyze equity impacts. Supervisor Peskin proposed a more narrowly worded finding about lack of uniform regulations; Supervisor Tang proposed and won an amendment (roll‑call: Tang yes, Peskin yes, Chair Farrell no) to limit the moratorium’s reach for CUs whose final determination had not been made as of the effective date.

After adopting multiple amendments, the committee agreed to send the ordinance as an amended committee report to the full Board without a committee recommendation. The sponsor noted the moratorium, if enacted and signed by the mayor, would be time‑limited; the mayor’s signature would trigger the 45‑day window.