The anticipated shutdown of selected San Francisco medical cannabis dispensaries by city officials has begun. I will post accounts of this dispute over the next few days and you can decide for yourself whether the city is granting the dispensaries due process and a fair opportunity to respond to neighborhood concerns. This action could serve as a model for how other cities around California negotiate with their medical cannabis dispensaries.

On June 10, the San Francisco Planning Department suspended the change of use permit granted to San Francisco’s Green Cross medical cannabis dispensary. Prompted by Lawrence Badiner, the Planning Department’s Zoning Administrator, the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection also suspended the Green Cross’ building permit. Ironically, the Green Cross, located at 3412 22nd St., is one of only two medical cannabis dispensaries in San Francisco that actually has the proper permits to operate.

The city now has over forty medical cannabis dispensaries and acquiring permits is perceived by many as protection against arbitrary closures. Some dispensaries now feel that the targeting of the Green Cross shows that the city is determined to close dispensaries no matter what efforts they make to legitimize themselves. Residents opposed to the dispensaries see suspension of these permits as a acknowledgement of their concerns.

According to Reed, the dispensary has tried to be sensitive to neighborhood complaints. But he believes that a small group of influential neighbors has pressured San Francisco City Supervisor Bevan Dufty into calling for the suspension. “I don’t believe that five rich neighbors should have the right to call a supervisor and shut down a business,” said Reed. “I am going to fight for my patient’s rights to prove that cannot happen.”

In a June 10th letter to neighbors of the dispensary, Dufty wrote that suspension of the permits stems directly from the complaints conveyed to him by local residents. He invited neighbors to attend the eventual appeals hearing and said the City’s Attorneys office will continue to investigate. “…it doesn’t matter if a business sells donuts, bowling balls or medical cannabis – it has to abide by planning code and notification requirement,” wrote Dufty. “As much as I believe that the Green Cross made efforts to improve their relationship with the neighborhood, fundamentally, they are creating huge impacts that can’t be mitigated.”

In a letter to the Department of Building Inspection, Badiner wrote that the club’s Planning Department permit was being suspended because it creates conditions that are “hazardous, noxious or offensive through emission of odor, fumes, smoke, cinders, dust, gas, vibration, glare, refuse, water carried waste or excessive noise.”

Reed says he is not aware of any code violations, paid for neighbors to be notified that the club was opening, and disputes allegations that the club has failed to address neighborhood concerns. He notes that many of the issues raised by neighbors were discussed at a May 23rd neighborhood meeting that took place at Liberties Bar and Grill down the street from the dispensary at 22 and Guerrero. Dufty attended the meeting together with Captain Goldberg from the Mission Police Station, but representatives from Green Cross were not invited.

In the minutes of the meetings, it was recorded that neighbors complained that the club’s doorbell rang constantly and the smell of marijuana was prominent on 22nd Street outside the club. Many neighbors were also concerned about crime. According to the minutes, it appeared to many neighbors that “burglaries and thefts, hostile and intimidating behavior from nuisance drivers/parkers and suspected drug dealing” began occurring immediately after Green Cross opened in July 2004. The neighbors asked that the crime statistics be pulled for May 2003 – June 2004 and July 2004 – May 2005.

Reed says he was invited to another neighborhood meeting on June 6 that took place at St. James Church at Guerrero and 23rd on June 6. During that meeting, said Reed, the police representative concluded that an increase in crime was not linked to the dispensary. Reed said he informed neighbors at the meeting that the dispensary had made immediate policy changes to ensure quality of life in the neighborhood.

In an effort to address concerns regarding crime and traffic flow, Reed said the club invested in a comprehensive surveillance system with 16 cameras, infrared technology and a security staff that monitored the neighborhood from 9:30 am to 8:30 pm every day. Reed said the club set up a full time neighborhood watch and enforced a policy of zero tolerance regarding illegal parking. A full time club employee was also posted outside to ensure pedestrian safety and eliminate the need for a doorbell, said Reed.

According to Reed, the club also invested in a ventilation and filtration upgrade that vents to the roof and exceeds requirements. In my recent visit to the dispensary, Reed also showed off the club’s new door seals and ionizers. Reed says the club also fixed the cracked sidewalk, tends to the new planters on the block, and cleans the street of cigarette butts and trash daily. As a non-profit, tax paying dispensary, Reed says the dispensary paid 35K in city taxes so far this year and allocates 1% of all tax revenues to neighborhood beautification projects.

Reed thought these improvements were well-received at the June 6th neighborhood meeting. Evidently, Supervisor Dufty concluded otherwise and pressured the city to shut down the dispensary. Reed says the club will remain open despite suspension of the permits which makes operation of the club technically illegal. He says he plans to file an appeal of the decision with the Board of Appeals today.

In Part II, we’ll hear what the neighbors have to say and see if city officials care to comment.