POT CLUB LOSES BID TO SET UP SHOP NEAR FISHERMAN'S WHARF

Neighbors Pack Planning Commission Meeting To Oppose Cannabis Dispensary

A pot club seeking to set up shop near Fisherman's Wharf was denied a
permit by the San Francisco Planning Commission in a 4-2 vote Thursday night.

The Green Cross was the first medical marijuana outlet in San
Francisco to undergo the city's new permit process, which was
approved by the Board of Supervisors last year in an effort to more
tightly regulate medical pot sales. Currently, 20 to 30 marijuana
clubs operate in the city, planning officials say. All will need to
submit applications by next June to continue operations.

The cannabis club faced strong opposition from neighbors and
community groups at Thursday's commission meeting.

Opponents filled a City Hall hearing room to capacity and said they
were concerned that a medical marijuana business situated at 2701
Leavenworth St. -- where the Wharf's bustling tourist trade meets
residential Russian Hill -- would impair the quality of life in their
neighborhood.

"The nature of pot clubs right now brings an element that's not
appropriate for this neighborhood," Ryan Chamberlin, a nearby
resident, said before the meeting. "There's myriad quality-of-life
crimes associated with these clubs. ... This is a family neighborhood
- -- it's not right for such an adult-oriented and, to a great degree,
counter-culture environment."

Commissioners seemed swayed by the public outcry.

"The people who were against granting the permit were from the
neighborhood where it would have been located, and those in favor of
it were mainly coming from the outside and asking that it be imposed
on that area," said Planning Commissioner Michael J. Antonini, who
voted against the permit.

Antonini said another reason he rejected the pot club's permit
application was that he doesn't believe a marijuana dispensary is the
best type of business for a heavy tourist area.

While many at Thursday's meeting spoke out against the Green Cross,
others cautioned the commission not to be swayed by the majority view.

"This is a test case for the medical cannabis dispensaries, and you
are going to hear vociferous opposition from neighborhood groups,"
said Michael Aldridge [sic - for Aldrich], who said he lives near the
proposed location and would buy marijuana there for unspecified
ailments. "Remember, in each place there are people like me who need
the dispensary, and Green Cross meets your requirements."

Federal law prohibits the possession and use of medical marijuana.
But California is one of 11 states with voter-approved laws that
allow dispensing pot to treat specific medical problems.

San Franciscans overwhelmingly favored Proposition 215 in 1996. That
statewide legislation legalized the use and sale of marijuana to
those suffering illness, infirmity and chronic pain.

Nonetheless, some pot club operators have struggled to weave their
cannabis commerce into the fabric of neighborhoods and commercial
districts. Neighbors have complained that customers purchase pot not
for health problems, but to resell it on the street, and that the
outlets are a magnet for general drug use and increases in overall
crime, traffic and noise.

Green Cross owner Kevin Reed had to close his first cannabis club in
the Mission District last year after neighbors complained to the city
that crime and noise had escalated after the club opened for business.

The city's new permitting laws, finalized in November, require owners
to undergo employment and criminal background checks and to devise
security plans and rules to control customer behavior. The permit
process also includes land use provisions, which are reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The laws prohibit pot clubs within 1,000 feet of
a school or recreation center and force owners to comply with zoning
restrictions, said Dan Sider, legislative liaison for the city
Planning Department.

Sider said that given the combination of zoning restrictions, very
few places in San Francisco meet the criteria for pot clubs.
Chamberlin said he believed that regardless of how the commission
voted, there would be an appeal.