During a hearing yesterday at the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation committee, attendees worked to move closer to solidifying regulations for recreational cannabis before the statewide January 1 legalization deadline after further restrictions were proposed last week.
District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who chaired the five-hour meeting, acknowledged that "there are a lot of moving pieces," but said he would "rather get this done right rather than get it done fast."
The conversation was also a departure from last Thursday's meeting where some members came to the committee with legislative requests specific to their districts.
"We have to look at this as comprehensive city wide legislation," said Peskin. "Other districts have different needs. But let that not drive the conversation."
Board President London Breed—who was present at the hearing in lieu of Farrell, who was absent—echoed Peskin's sentiments.
"We have to create good policy as a whole," said Breed, who represents District 5. "The rest of the state is moving forward, and some of what is being discussed here at the Board is taking a step backwards."
District 6 Supervisor Jane Kim said her district currently has 17 medical cannabis dispensaries (MCDs) with another six in the pipeline, but would prefer to pass citywide policies.
Kim also said proposed restrictions on new dispensaries aren't about the product sold, but about the diversity of businesses represented in each neighborhood, noting that there are already 72 liquor stores in the Tenderloin.
"I would rather have a cannabis dispensary in the Tenderloin because they have to do outreach and have security and bring jobs," Kim added.
Tang said she supports citywide regulations, as "there are different zoning in different districts. It's why we have neighborhood commercial corridors tailored to each district's needs," she said.
District 8 Supervisor Jeff Sheehy expressed concern over the fate of existing MCDs when recreational adult use becomes legal in January. Last week, he introduced an amendment that would temporarily allow existing MCDs to become retail outlets while they apply for new permits.
Without adult-use permits, Sheehy said local MCDs would be forced to grow, manufacture and test products outside San Francisco.
"These existing businesses will be harmed and potentially put out of business because we haven't moved forward with regulation," said Sheehy. "We are hurting our local industry and literally shutting down local businesses by not having something in place by January 1st."
"We've been working off Pacific Justice Institute talking points," Sheehy added, referring to the anti-LGBT group that helped organize neighborhood opposition against a new MCD in the Outer Sunset last month.
"And no one objects to a liquor store or alcohol and cigarettes being sold around the corner from my kid's school," said Sheehy. "But somehow, cannabis has become demonized."
Both Yee and Tang were willing to compromise on reducing the 1,000-foot school buffer rule to the state minimum requirement of 600 feet if daycare centers would be included in the language. For Tang, that would mean daycare definitions put forth by the California Health and Safety Code.
"I don’t see the need to include it in this discussion period," said Breed. "I want to be open-minded and I want to be fair, but I just don’t see it."
Most public commenters favored a 600-foot buffer.
Ultimately, the committee made duplicate legislative files: a "clean" document, and one with amendments introduced by Yee, Tang, and Farrell.
"Let's take the file that is currently in front of us and strip it from a few things and in the coming weeks see where we end up," Peskin said. "See if we can do something that is a citywide policy and brings cannabis into the dawn of the 21st century on a retail basis in the city and county of San Francisco."
Both files as amended will be heard again at next week's Land Use and Transportation meeting before going to the full Board for review.
