1040 Bryant Street

Fearing a proliferation of indoor grow houses following the passage of California’s Adult Use Marijuana Act (a.k.a. Proposition 64) last week, Mayor Ed Lee has just introduced proposed legislation which would require conditional use authorization for new “indoor agriculture uses” in buildings zoned for Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR), a zoning which currently allows for grow houses to effectively pop-up in San Francisco. It may not be long until people start checking out sites like has more details, especially with all the rules that everyone has to follow in this industry.

“As emerging sectors get introduced to our city, we must be thoughtful and strategic on how one can co-exist with another while safeguarding the economic diversity and vibrancy of our city and the jobs of our residents,” said Mayor Lee.

And according to the director of San Francisco’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), “the proposed controls will allow the City time to study and balance the needs of our local manufacturing sector while ensuring all local industrial jobs in San Francisco continue to maintain and grow,” so to speak.

If the Mayor’s proposed legislation is adopted by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, it would be in place for up to 18-months or until permanent measures are adopted, giving the OEWD and Planning Department time to work with the San Francisco Cannabis State Legalization Task Force and the local business community, “to understand the needs and concerns of small businesses and local manufacturers located within these zoned districts.”

There are at least 18 grow houses within the city limits of San Francisco which have already been registered with the Department of Public Health and nine (9) which have been licensed by the City.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by moto mayhem

    I really don’t like Trump, but I actually hope he enforces federal drug laws. MJ use in SF is already a major public health issue.

    • Posted by NovyEnvy

      What makes you think it is a major public health issue? How would you rank it relative to alcohol, heroin & meth?

      The trend is not your friend in this battle by the way. Given the success of marijuana initiatives in several states last Tuesday I think you will see it legalized on the federal level before you see serious enforcement efforts.

      • Posted by cfb

        It’s not a public health issue, let alone a “major” one. You can be against marijuana without making up nonsense.

        • Posted by cfb

          whoops that was a reply to moto mayhem, not you NovyEnvy.

        • Posted by anon

          CFB, seriously? Spend some time up north in a town like Cloverdale where seemingly everyone is stoned. It’s like being in an episode of ‘The Walking Dead.’ Pretty pathetic situation.

          • Posted by Rillion

            I just got back from Oregon. It was a total nightmare. People seemed to be going about their day minding their own business. It all seemed pretty typical. I went into an small office in a strip mall handed a woman behind a desk my drivers license and a few minutes later went into a office in the back where two nice salespeople answered any questions I had then accepted my money as I purchased a joint which I took back to where I was staying and smoked later that night.

            This whole legalized weed thing needs to be stopped cause it was all so horrible, just like an episode of one of those old zombie shows, like Leave It To Beaver.

          • Posted by Anon123

            Legal – yes, bad for your health – yes, same as cigarettes and alcohol.

    • Posted by zig

      Is this satire? This is not even on the list of public health issues in SF

    • Posted by Stop Driving

      You’re crazy. Pot has never killed anyone. Alcohol kills 80,000 people in America every year.

      • Posted by Anon123

        Cigarettes kill more than alcohol – why do you think that pot is harmless?

  2. Posted by lemon obrien

    Trump is pro marijuana and I voted for Trump; one of only 25,000 in San Francisco.

    [Editor’s Note: Closer to 31,000 out of 320,000 ballots counted (so far).]

    • Posted by Amewsed

      Actually, 33.3% of CA voted for Trump. No idea the percentage of SF. It appears difficult to reconcile the use of pot with a conservative platform so if Trump is really pro pot, then he will probably let each state decide on its legality and scope of use.

      I voted against legalization but lost on the issue. I guess now I have to find a way to profit from it. Higher property prices perhaps from the pot (gold, tech, etc.) rush?

  3. Posted by unlivable city

    This PDR thing has been a slow-moving disaster from day one. No pollution controls, no environmental controls period. Check out the fumes on 15th just below Potrero. Abutting residential — dense residential. A stand-off between development power brokers and land owners over land values is a disaster for the mostly working class people who live and work in these neighborhoods. And the whack-a-mole approach with these spot-zoning band-aids are not the answer. Coherent, people-focused, health and environment-oriented planning is. Sorry for mixing metaphors, but that’s basically the only way you can describe the Kafka-esque haze that is our PDR nightmare.

    • Posted by Amewsed

      The last time I checked, most working class immigrant (and non-immigrant) families are against the legalization of pot. I guess there may be families who smoke pot together.

      How will SF reconcile its desire to protect and retain families from moving elsewhere and allow each adult resident the right to grow six plants at home? What tools do I have as a landlord in a quiet, family-oriented, residential neighborhood to disallow my tenants (cumulatively they could grow and harvest 24 plants in their homes)? So, either the nearby families leave or my tenants leave. Which is it?

      • Posted by AnonAnon

        Care to publish your studies of “working class immigrant (and non-immigrant) families” anti-pot stance? The people of California have spoken at the poll booth through the democratic process. With the cheap cost of pot and the high cost of rent psf in SF I highly doubt there will be rush to take up valuable living space in order to have a personal home grow.

        • Posted by Amewsed

          Most Chinese families are against the legalization of pot – that is roughly 30% of the SF pop. A few black families I’ve met are also against it. I am sure that there are a number of people in the legal and medical field who are pro pot, but that does not mean most. Those who are not against it are users, and/or in some way are in the business of growing or distributing pot. At least I am honest in my stance.

          • Posted by Jake

            Even if “Most Chinese families are against the legalization of pot”, then that would be roughly 15+% of the SF population; as “most” implies majority not consensus. Meanwhile ~74% of SF voters approved Prop 64. Seems your stance is based on your opinion and anecdotal experience, and not on verifiable facts, reasonable supposition, or math.

          • Posted by Stop Driving

            The majority of voters have spoken. Your anecdotal information is useless against hard facts. Why do you want to attempt to control your tenants’ lives? If you want to control what happens on your property, don’t rent it out. Don’t you have anything better to do?

  4. Posted by dB

    Not to mention a block from SF General… Does a hospital benefit from industrial fumes adjacent?

    • Posted by cfb

      Someone smoking weed a block away from SF general is equivalent to industrial fumes? Sure, and I’m batman.

      • Posted by Anon123

        I believe that he was referring to growing and processing the pot, not smoking it. Do they use chemicals when they grow and process it? Or is it organic produce/process?

  5. Posted by Sohan

    Industrial fumes? Major public health issue? Where do all these people get their info from? Facebook?

    • Posted by AnonAnon

      Reefer Madness must be on Netflix this month.

  6. Posted by benwa

    Grow houses in excess of 1000 plants are in violation of the federal laws. I don’t think DEA has executed any search warrants lately. The raids I’ve seen have been executed by the locals. I’m okay with legalization–as long as the laws do not conflict.

    • Posted by Anon123

      If truly legalized, somebody will put up a cyclone fence with barbed wire and plant 1000 acres in the central valley – much lower costs, and the grow houses will go out of business.

      • Posted by Amewsed

        If you think about it, the pot crop in the Central Valley would generate a much higher return on investment than lettuce, strawberries, walnuts, avocados, grapes, etc.

        • Posted by Anon123

          For sure, and if the feds allowed it, it would be planted. But if you plant a field of it now US Marshals are sure to show up, if the local sheriff doesn’t 🙂

  7. Posted by Drew

    Taking a plant that grows naturally outdoors in daylight and placing it in a warehouse, bringing in artificial light sources seems like a pretty poor use of very expensive square footage. There are smarter and more economical places to grow, people.

    • Posted by Stop Driving

      Growing indoors leads to better quality and higher yields. If that weren’t the case, people wouldn’t be doing it, would they?

      • Posted by Anon123

        Theft is a big deterrent from growing outdoors. You will need much higher yields to pay the cost of SF rent over an open field in the Central Valley. As for quality, I will just take your word for it 🙂

        Years back, poppies were grown in the area where I lived, for the seeds used on breads etc. but the farmers gave up due to theft from people trying to extract opium…

  8. Posted by Stop Driving

    It’s not just about growing cannabis. Vertical farms – the result of prolific solar energy and ‘food computers’ – are a viable option for growing anything indoors.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles