5 LELAND AVE

2021-000603 · 5 LELAND AVENUE

54comments

23in person

31emails

1hearings

dashed lines mark hearings · supportopposenot recorded · dot size = comments that day · click a dot to jump to the comment

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 1 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Campaign emails (27)

opposing a cannabis retail storefront at 5 leland — 27 emails (0 / 27)

Jenny Huang · email · 2021-05-06 · oppose · campaign email · source packet

Opposing a Cannabis Retail Storefront at 5 Leland Avenue and 2400 Bayshore Blvd
Dear Commission Affairs, <U+201C>Conditional Uses require a Planning Commission hearing in order to determine if the proposed use is necessary or desirable to the neighborhood, whether it may potentially have a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood, and whether the use complies with the San Francisco General Plan.<U+201D> There is an existing cannabis dispensary on the same block as this proposa… show more

Victor Pham · email · 2021-05-06 · oppose · campaign email · source packet

Opposing a Cannabis Retail Storefront at 5 Leland Avenue and 2400 Bayshore Blvd
Dear Jonas Ionin, <U+201C>Conditional Uses require a Planning Commission hearing in order to determine if the proposed use is necessary or desirable to the neighborhood, whether it may potentially have a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood, and whether the use complies with the San Francisco General Plan.<U+201D> There is an existing cannabis dispensary on the same block as this proposal. A se… show more

Jerry Zheng · email · 2021-05-06 · oppose · campaign email · source packet

Shirley T · email · 2021-05-06 · oppose · campaign email · source packet

Lisa Tsang · email · 2021-05-06 · oppose · campaign email · source packet

Oppose MCD on 5 Leland
Dear Commissioner Secretary , <U+201C>Conditional Uses require a Planning Commission hearing in order to determine if the proposed use is necessary or desirable to the neighborhood, whether it may potentially have a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood, and whether the use complies with the San Francisco General Plan.<U+201D> There is an existing cannabis dispensary on the same blockas this pro… show more

Lisa Tsang · email · 2021-05-06 · oppose · campaign email · source packet

Oppose MCD on 5 Leland
Dear Planning Depatment Staff: <U+201C>Conditional Uses require a Planning Commission hearing in order to determine if the proposed use is necessary or desirable to the neighborhood, whether it may potentially have a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood, and whether the use complies with the San Francisco General Plan.<U+201D> There is an existing cannabis dispensary on the same blockas this… show more

… and 21 more

Comments by hearing (27)

expand all · collapse all · comments with recorded text are listed first

2018-11-15 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Russel Morine · email · 2018-11-15 · oppose · source packet

Agenda 11b. CANNABIS GRANDFATHERING UPDATE
Commissioners, Planner Christensen I am writing to express my concerning regarding the proposal to amend Section 190(b)(3) of the Planning Code. Any attempt to allow any new MCD<U+2019>s or Retail Cannabis operators to circumvent the 600<U+2019> radius location limitation show be denied. Allowing ANY new cannabis locations within the now codified 600<U+2019> radius goes against the intent of prevent… show more

2021-05-06 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Casper Leung · email · 2021-05-06 · oppose · source packet

OPPOSING A CANNABIS RETAIL STOREFRONT AT 5 LELAND AND 2400 BAYSHORE
BLVD. THANK YOU!

2021-05-13 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Marlene Tran · email · 2021-05-13 · oppose · source packet

Re: Opposition to another marijuana retail in Visitacion Valley !
Re: Opposition to another marijuana retail in Visitacion Valley! As a longtime community activist, I am writing on behalf of hundreds of residents, especially our non-limited-English speaking residents and those uninformed because of their digital divide, to oppose the proposal to install another cannabis retail at the very entrance to Visitacion Valley. Our low-income community has a large youth and senior popul… Re: Opposition to another marijuana retail in Visitacion Valley! As a longtime community activist, I am writing on behalf of hundreds of residents, especially our non-limited-English speaking residents and those uninformed because of their digital divide, to oppose the proposal to install another cannabis retail at the very entrance to Visitacion Valley. Our low-income community has a large youth and senior population, 49% foreign born and 75% are families, therefore we need programs, services and retail businesses that can directly benefit us, especially on our small commercial corridor of Leland Avenue--- but not another cannabis store! We hope our Board of Supervisors, Commissioners and Staff understand we have a lot of valid reasons to oppose this large retail store which does not meet our community needs. While the project sponsor's letters are in four languages, but their community meeting on April 21st, was only on-line and only in English. This shows they have no understanding nor respect for our community who are largely non-English speaking residents with a huge digital divide. Besides this letter, the 5 Leland people have not made any effort to engage or respond to most of our residents In response to the current SF Planning requirements, this proposed use is not necessary and not desirable to our Visitacion Valley residents. There is already a MCD at 2442 Bayshore which is less than 100 feet from this proposed site. In previous response to the current MCD site, some of the current Commissioners and staff may remember that our community had mobilized hundreds to the Hearing and generated thousands of signatures to oppose it already. Our City enacted a 600<U+2019> radius restriction on cannabis dispensaries for a very good reason, to avoid clustering. The general consensus regarding clustering was that, if not addressed, the concentration of this often-contested use would lead to negative effects along commercial corridors and the surrounding neighborhoods. The 5 Leland proposal is attempting to use a very limited loophole to circumvent Visitacion Valley<U+2019>s protection against a highly contested use. A second cannabis dispensary on the same block ( less then 100<U+2019> away ) as an existing cannabis dispensary is in direct contradiction to the City<U+2019>s crystal clear legislated and codified determination on this matter. The 5 Leland Ave proposal is definitely NOT necessary. Given the community's resistance to the previous proposal, it should be clear that this second cannabis dispensary is even more undesirable. On behalf of hundreds of our residents, we do not support a second cannabis dispensary at 5 Leland Ave. Please vote NO on this project. Respectfully, Marlene Tran Spokesperson, Visitacion Valley Asian Alliance ( VVAA )show more

2021-05-27 · 24 comments · 15 / 9

Gaynor Siataga · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Project sponsor

Lisa Parker · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support

Russel Morine · spoken · 2021-05-27 · oppose

Organized opposition

Nelson Gutierrez · spoken · 2021-05-27 · oppose

Organized opposition

Marlene Tran · spoken · 2021-05-27 · oppose

Organized opposition

David Goldman · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support, don't succumb to prejudice

Michael Cohen · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support

Tina Wong · spoken · 2021-05-27 · oppose

Cannabis willing to pay higher rent

Sean Richard · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support

Betty Jean Williams · spoken · 2021-05-27 · oppose

Oppose

Sweetie Tagata · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support

David Siataga · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support

Jacob Thomas · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support

Gina Tobar · spoken · 2021-05-27 · oppose

Would be better in Sunnydale

Dorothy Curry · spoken · 2021-05-27 · oppose

Need child care centers instead

Shelly Tatum · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

A win for people of color

Cindy Dela Vega · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support

Teresa Wong · spoken · 2021-05-27 · oppose

Break-ins, neighborhood safety

Carla Laurel · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Underserved has second chances

Christine Siataga · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support

Cheryl Smith · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support

Sweety Williams · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Support

Damian Posey · spoken · 2021-05-27 · support

Supports the community

Gina Tobar · email · 2021-05-27 · oppose · source packet

Pot dispensary on Leland NOT WANTED
Good Morning Mr. Christensen, All of my neighbors are opposed to the Marijuana dispensary on Leland Avenue across from Bank of America. We like the Art Gallery because it classes up Leland Avenue. But a Marijuana dispensary is unnecessary because we already have one on Bayshore on the SAME BLOCK! ! 1. ALREADY HAVE ONE ON THE SAME BLOCK 2. NO DESIGNATED PARKING 3. RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS OPPOSE IT I pushed to … show more