Department and valley lopez, deputy City Attorney representing the department of Public Health. The meeting guidelines are as follows. Turn off or silence phone and other Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. Carry on conversations in the hallway. The rules of presentation are as follows. Appellants, permit holders and department responders are each given 7 minutes to present the case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with the parties must include the comments within the seven or three minute periods. Members of the public who are not affiliated have three minutes and no rebuttal. Please speak into the microphone. For continued cases, they get 3 minutes each with no rebuttal. To i assist in the board accurate presentation, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. Four votes are required to grant an appeal. Please note that the board reserves the right not to call an item after 10 00 p. M. The board rules or hearing schedules, speak to board stuff during the break, after the meeting or call or visit the office. We are at 1650 mission street. And forecast live and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4 00 p. M. On channel 26. The video is available on our website and can be downloaded from sfgov tv. Org. Now we will swear in and affirm any of those who wish to testify. Any member of the public can speak pursuant to the rights of the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify and have the board give evidentiary weight, stand if you are able and raise your right hand and say i do. Whoever is here to give testimony, please rise. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Thank you. Please be seated. Commissioners, we have two housekeeping item. The party for number 4 have requested the matter be continued to december 4 for settlement discussions. Given that the item is on the published agenda, we need a vote to continue that matter. Move to continue item four to december. Okay. December 4. We have a motion from commissioner lazarus to move, to continue this item to december 4. Is there any Public Comment on that motion . O okay. Seeing none, commissioner honda . Aye. Commissioner tan sner aye. Commissioner swig. That carries 40. The other housekeeping item is item nine, 19065. The parties have requested the board move the appeal to the boards indefinite calendar, the call of the chair, to allow more time to continue settlement efforts. Again, we do need a vote. So moved. We have a motion from Vice President lazarus to move that to call of the chair. Is there any Public Comment on that item . On that motion, commissioner darryl honda . And is this big file to carry and now he is cancelling it . Oh my goodness. Aye. Maybe. Aye. Okay. Commissioner tanner . Aye. A president swig . An aye. That motion carries 40. And that item is moved to call of the chair. I think we should give it to the counselor to bring the files in the next time when he comes in. Okay. Thank you. Now we are on item one which is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction but that is not on tonights calendar. Is there anyone here for general Public Comment . Okay. If you can move forward, sir. Good evening. Outside counsel for Verizon Wireless. I wanted to come personally to give you a hard copy of the letter that we committed earlier today to the board regarding testimony you heard last week about work being done prematurely on Verizon Wireless project, which is an appeal that will be heard before you in november. We took that concern very seriously and investigated the pole that night. And we determined that work had not been done by Verizon Wireless or by motives and work had been done by pg e under a separate permit granted and specified the period of time for pg e is october 14 between 8 00 and 2 30. The pg e permit calls for pole maintenance and they did pole maintenance and in addition put a 6 foot bayonet on top of the pole which is their right to do under the California Public Utility Commission regulations. They can replace the pole or put those sorts of things up under their authority. Clearly, the timing wasnt helpful for us, but again, this was in pg es purview. Tonight i will find out whether i have power tonight from pg e. They run their calendar and establish their schedules. The work done on the 14th was over two months after the permit was originally issued and they must have a schedule to do that. There is no work done by Verizon Wireless and modus and we will allow you to review the equipment and radios should it be approved, but presently, there is a 6foot wooden piece on top of the pole that pg e placed on october 14. We submitted copies of the permit himself and are in the letter here. As this is not on agenda, we will accept that note as part of your brief in november please. Okay. Thank you. President swig and thank you for clearing that up. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening and welcome. I am the director of operations for multiple companies and we manage 72 glous street which includes brazilian steakhouse. I wanted to give the board a little bit of an update. We received a notice of violation related to smoke and odor emissions from the restaurant. That appeal they appealed the violation and that was granted because we had opened a permit already to install a new system on the roof. That permit has not yet been opened, but i just want to give you an update on what is going on with that. We ordered a new system as soon as we had our meeting. We didnt wait for the permit to be opened. We ordered the new system and are placing it on the roof. It was manufactured at a 12week time and has been shipped. Or its being shipped from texas. We expect it to arrive on november 8. And we are fully prepared to install the system on the roof of the restaurant before thanksgiving, so that is our goal. We want to do it before thanksgiving because there is a moratorium on cranes between thanksgiving and new years. So if we cant get the permit before then, it will be the first week of january. The issue with the permit needs to clear through two the two different departments, the Fire Department and department of Public Health. And go to d. P. H. And Fire Department has some comments. We are working to address the comments and i acknowledge there is some delay in getting a response to the Fire Department. However, there was some unusual circumstances prior to that that the Fire Department required as bill plans for the kitchen. We didnt own the property when the restaurant opened up and had to make those from scratch. And secondly, a field permit was required and we have to submit drawings for that as well. Thirdly t subcontractor going the life safety portion of the job had a Major Medical issue. And we have another representative from that company taking over, but they kind of had to start from scratch. Were working on that. The system has been ordered and we hope to get it installed as soon as possible and we apologize for the delay. Were working on it as hard as we can. Thank you. I have a letter to submit as well. Thank you for clearing that up because that came up under Public Comment last week. That was expeditious to do so. And also understanding when you were before the body last year, there was no specifications really regarding the equipment that was going to be put on the roof from d. P. H. And i understand that there was some jockeying to get that done. I appreciate you coming before and informing us. We really want to get this done. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other general Public Comment . Okay. Seeing none, we will move on to item 2, commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners . Nope. Okay. We will now move on to item three before you for discussion, possible adoption an the minutes of the october 16, 2019 board meeting. Commissioners, any comments . Nope. Is there a motion . We have a motion from Vice President lazarus to adopt the october 16, 2019 minutes. Is there any Public Comment on that item . Okay. Seeing none, on that motion, commissioner honda . Aye. Commissioner tanner . Aye. A president swig . That motion careys 40. The minutes are adopted. We are now moving on to item number five. This is appeal 19 o 31. Paul oltranti and the estate of flora oltranti, 1794 filbert street appealing the denial on march 27 to paul oltranti of the site permit, add new floor to existing twostory building, move one residential unit on first floor to new third floor, add new garage t a first floor. Remodel two units on second floor and commercial space at first floor. Add space at rear at first and second floors and light rails, and siding, win dose, roof, and elevator. The permit was disapprove by the Planning Commission upon determination that exceptional and extraordinary circumstances exist regarding the proposed project in that it would not contribute to the retention of the existing Housing Stock and that the proposed top floor unit would be out of scale and would not be considered aforeign policiable. See discretionary review action memo 639. This was permit 2016 09 27 89 15. And note on september 11, the board voted 401 to continue the matter to october 23, 20109 so the Planning Department can work with the project sponsor on revised plans that are code compliant to include an accessory dwelling unit on the ground floor. If the board grants this, this constitutes the approval action for the project and purposes of ceqa and as a preliminary matter, commissioner tanner, have you had the opportunity to review the materials and the video for the hearing which took place on september 11 . Yes, i have. Thank you. So we will now hear from the appellant first. Good evening and welcome. Good evening, commissioners. As ms. Rosenberg said this, matter was heard on september 11, and we presented at that time a project that was revised from the one denied by the Planning Commission to address the issued raised by them. You seem inclined with the direction of the designs and wanted to send it back for us to review with planning and ensure code compliance. We have done that and made a few additional revisions which were reviewed by the Planning Department staff. And some of those including reducing bay windows to code compliant and eliminated one of the windows in the rear yard area, and therefore would have require advair yans. We relocated the entry to the proposed a. D. U. To directly access from the street instead of going through the residential lobby. And there was some design window modifications and other Design Materials and materials that were presented and reviewed and blessed by the Planning Department staff. The staff also initiated the review of the proposed accessory dwelling unit and the Zoning Administrator issued an action memo stating we needed waivers for density and for open space. And administratively approving those. They went back did the ceqa determination to determine it was considered exempt and presented revised demolition calculations that were reviewed and blessed and included in the site plans we submitted with our short letter. One thing about the plans is as i was preparing for the hearing, there was some small changes that mr. Sanchez had asked for, and for whatever reason, those changes were made but the set of plans that are included in our letter did not include those small changes. They were really just changing the unit designations and i gave mr. Sanchez a copy and i have a copy of the accurate set here. None of the design changes are different from what was presented to you, but i want to make sure we have the accurate set of plans as requested by planning in the record so i can submit this or present it to whomever as necessary. Just make sure mr. Sanchez has it. A he does. With that, i request you approve the project as revised for the reasons we stated before. We believe it addresses the concerns of the Planning Commission and adds rental housing to the citys Housing Stock. And is well supported by the neighborhood. And we just respectfully request you approve as presented. The architect is here if you have questions about the design details and the owners as well. Thank you. Commissioner honda thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you. Good evening, president swig, members of the board, Scott Sanchez. I will focus on the comments that the board gave at last hearing and to give you the alternative. I wont try to sway you in the wisdom of the Planning Commission, but i appreciate the diligent work and quick responsiveness of the appellant and they did address all the concerns and comments we had with regard to the additional a. D. U. The project has been revised to be code complaint. They have addressed the demolition calculations which have been raised at the Public Comment in the previous hearing. We have issued the memo as necessary for authorizing the a. D. U. And updated the categorical exemption and the Environmental Review document to reflect the revised scope of work for the project. Given that it was denied by the Planning Commission which action if the board does overturn the denial, this would be the first approval action for the purposes of the Environmental Review. And i do appreciate this has been a resolution in this matter that allows it to move forward, but i do hope that we dont have a host of these moving forward where a project that is denied at the Planning Commission and then substantially revised before this body to add a. D. U. And other things. We should have a complete scope of work and the complete project at the Planning Commission. And it is much more challenging to address the a. D. U. S and add them at this late stage in the process. We were able to do it here. But it is not something i think that is the most efficient and effective or appropriate process. Everything has been done in this case to allow the a. D. U. , but we hope for future other cases, and nothing to do with this appellant, and other cases as they move forward, they dont attempt to try to get something through the Planning Commission, have it denied, and have a better luck or Better Commission at the board here by making late changes to the project. I dont think that was the intent of the appellant here, but as you remember, there was another case and i think three denials that night that you heard it and another case had a similar offer to add an a. D. Or maybe not. Better to get that done earlier on in the process. We are good to go for this case. Commissioner honda the kitchen that wasnt installed . That is a different one. President swig in blunt term, you dont want the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission should be responsible for doing their job that they have to be given the tools and with all respect to do their job, and that would be a full set of plans. These are great addition. A. D. U. S are additions to projects, but we ask that be done at the time of the Planning Commission hearing and some discussion with this case and this is maybe a bit unique. But for cases in the future, we dont want to set a precedence. President swig not pertaining to this case, but we should stay with this case, do you have a suggestion of a protocol with regard to your very good suggestion . Should we simply deny cases that substantially change their plans . Or we do that internally in the Planning Department where you will suggest strongly they go back to the Planning Commission with the set of plans they should have gone with in the first place . A by the time it gets to that point where if its been denied and by the Planning Commission and appealed, then it is before this board, this board has jurisdiction. So it is up to this board how to proceed. We are asking from the Department Level that the board take into consideration the fact that it is more problematic to add at a. D. U. S this late. There was another project that night where i think an a. D. U. Was discussed and the board properly upheld the denial on that matter. And they can be applied and go through the process for the new project if they want to propose now. But in that case i think the board made the right decision, and in this case, it is also a good decision with the end result. We dont want it to be a pattern. President swig thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Happy birthday to your son milo. Can you confirm that the plans that he gave to us are the plans that you approveed . Yes. They are and i would note they are both dated 1011, so the plans that were in the boards packet and also the plans that are submitted today at the hearing are updated 10 11. We could use simply the board stamp and the acceptance date of today. And the change in there was to i think properly designate the units, so its clear which unit is the a. D. U. Unit which is unit d. That is the new unit on the ground floor. Thank you. Okay. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. A commissioners . All right. If you want me to start, i very much appreciate. This was a tough case. Clearly the plans that we saw and the plans we ended up with are a lot different, but the proactive nature and constructive nature in the way the project sponsor addressed the issue in a very forthright fashion and i think we commented the last time that deeply appreciated that. It seems that the Planning Department like this is project. It certainly contributes to Housing Stock. I would say yes moving it forward. Vice president lazarus i agree. Commissioner honda i concur. Is that your motion, mr. President . You would be granting the appeal and revising the permit exactly. Okay. So we have a motion from president swig to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition it be revised to include the plans dated 10 11, 2019, and submitted at the hearing on october 23, 2019. And on what basis are you making this motion . That the project is code compliant. On the basis that the project is code compliant. On that motion, Vice President lazarus . Aye. A commissioner darryl honda . Aye. Commissioner tanner . Aye. That motion carries 40. Thank you. So we will move on to item six. This is appeal 19083. Jesse street collective doing business as the bloom room versus dept of Public Health. 471jessie street. Appealing the denial on july 29, 2019, to collective dba bloom room of the Cannabis Consumption permit, cannabis smoking denial of the Cannabis Consumption permit due to the Planning Departments disapproval of onsite smoking cannabis at the subject property pursuant to San Francisco code 8a, section 8a, 4f5 and cannot issue a Cannabis Consumption if the referring Department Recommends that the application be denied. We will now hear from the appellant. Mr. Bernstein. Hi. Good evening. Im Daniel Bernstein on behalf of 471jessie street bloom room, jessie street collective. This is a cannabis dispensary that since the inception has open, unfettered, clear vaping in a small area. No other consumption except for a table that allows for some of the clientele to utilize cannabis in a way that is not combustible, but that is using a traditional method of inhaling. It is especially important for clientele who dont have safe locations within their home to actually utilize the medicine. The activities of bloom room has always in our mind been code compliant, and when i say that, i say that with the confidence that multiple times the department of Public Health had conducted inspections at the premises since its inception. The department of Public Health inspectors include pedestrian employee larry kessle, doug obona and San Francisco former employee ryan klsaowi stshgs d who inspected the premises and each time noted the open, acceptable use of vaporizing at the premises. If you could open up the projector please. Overhead please. I am going to go through the chronology of this. And what i want to emphasize is that bloom room has maintained what we consider to be an outstanding relationship with the city. We very much appreciate the opportunity to conduct the type of services we do conduct. And we are a bit puzzled by the incongruity between two different departments. So if you look here on the Inspection Program with the city, you will see at the top righthand corner it notes vaporizing. Says onsite vaporizing will take place in the designated area. Facility clean and vermin free and signed by the inspector. That is the may 2018 inspection that occurred approximately 15 months ago. 17 months ago. And why i say that is we have never tried to hide vaporizing at the facility because we always believed that we had the right to do so pursuant to the directives of the department of Public Health. Attached in this projection is the inspection done by doug obanna on october of 2016. You will see in the top righthand corner it says vaporizing where i circled no other violations observed. Why i emphasize no other violations observed is he is recognizing that there is vaporizing occurring at the property and also simultaneously saying that there are no violations. This is 2016. In 2015 we had an inspection and again, it notes vaporizing and also i circled that they have noted that we have a disinfectant for the vaporizing mouthpiece and this is signed by Larry Kessler. In april of 2015, we had another inspection and notes vaporizing and disinfecting the mouthpiece and is signed. We have always been led to believe that our small, local vaporizing table has been permitted and authorized, and to the extent we would like to ask the department of building of board of permit appeals to allow this to continue. We are simply having one table where some members who dont have an alternative place to vaporize to continue to do what we have been doing for approximately six years. To the extent there is incongruity between the Planning Department and department of Public Health, we have been engaging in the same conduct openly and properly with inspections repeatedly occurring by a City Department and only when we sought the consumption permit were we unfortunately notified that, in fact, we arent permitted to do so. We think that struggle should be rectified in a favorable manner on behalf of bloom room. And San Francisco planning code section 202. 2 states cannabis may be consumed or smoked onsite pursuant to authorization by the department of Public Health. We got that authorization from the department of Public Health we never did did anything surreptitiously and only five years later where we are trying to legit mate the process are we confronted with the situation where we were denied a consumption permit. We are seeking to continue to allow for a single table with a vap vapor opportunity. No smoking, no dabbing. Simply this. I thank you very much and if you have questions, i am available. Thank you, counselor. We will now hear from ms. Lopez, attorneys for the respondent, department of Public Health. Before i leave, i would like to have the documents submitted into the administrative record. Thank you. Counselor, before you start, is there a reason why there was no brief submited . I do intend to address that. Do you want to hear from me . Just an error. I requested a late filing brief and a denial of the request. I asked the opposing counsel and informed them that i would be submitting the same documents that i submitted at the directors hearing. These are the same documents. I have nothing more to tell you except for what we have presented in this administrative record on the projector. Thank you, counselor. Thank you. Good evening, president swig, commissioners. I am valerie lopez, deputy City Attorney with the office of the City Attorney appearing on behalf of the department of Public Health. Appellants appeal lacks merit. First, before i get into the substantive grounds, i want to address the procedural issue at hand. Appellant failed to file a timely brief and the board of appeals denied the request to file a late brief. This means that appellants appeal before you this evening is only supported by the presentation this evening. Next, i want to address why the appellants repeal lacks merit. There are at least four substantive grounds i want to identify. Number one, is d. P. H. Lacks Legal Authority to issue an onsite cannabis permit in this case. Article 8a of the health code prohibits the issuance of a cannabis permit if a referring Department Recommends the denial and there is a sound basis for the denial. And in this case the applying department was the referring department which recommended the denial of the onsite cannabis permit because what happened in 2012 when the appellant was first issued the permit, one of the restrictions is that onsite Cannabis Consumption would not be permitted. As a result, the Planning Department acted consistent with the previous authorization and recommended the denial in this case. The board of appeals may not grant an appeal and with the cannabis in this case and is held to the same legal appeals. And number three, with the cannabis permit should be provideed. And d. P. H. Has observed on site cannabis smoeblging. D. P. H. Observations do not alter, modify, or change the Commission Authorization when it issued the buildings permit in 2012. He agreed not to provide onsite cannabis at the dispensary. This is evidence by the project description throughout the discretionary review analysis and action. I would highlight for the board overhead please. Throughout the Planning Departments papers, the project is described as a medical cannabis dispensary that would sell cannabis but not the cultivation and onsite vaporizing. Further, you will see that one of the criteria that was not before the Planning Commission was that the establishment of a new mcd at the subject site would not include cannabis smoking. The Planning Departments discretionary review action described the project as not providing onsite Cannabis Consumption. In one of the most important factors in the case under the Planning Departments review and was the opposition by the committee. The Planning Commission received five letters in opposition and a phone call due to the growing number of concerns that there is going to be a high density of Cannabis Retailers in the area. So when the appellant applied for the Building Permit authorization and not to provide onsite Cannabis Consumption this, notice was posted on the subject property that states they would not permit onsite smoking and cultivation and nor would it sell cannabis food stuff. Appellant says that it should be granted with the authorization and is misleading and inaccurate. Appellants argument is misleading because he doesnt side the entire code section. And the planning code section 202 requires, among other things, that Cannabis Retail establishment obtain in article 16 cannabis permit from the office of cannabis. And authorization for onsite smoking from d. P. H. When you read article 16, it requires all Cannabis Retailers operating within the city to obtain onsite cannabis so they are correct that the code does pension the d. P. H. Authorization and they do authorize onsite Cannabis Consumption through article 8a permits under the health code, not the planning code. For these reasons, d. P. H. Respectfully requests that the board uphold the denial of the appellants onsite smoking permit. I want the board to know that d. P. H. Staff are present and are available to answer any of your questions. Thank you. I have a question. And i have a couple. It is clear that the condition that they use for the permit and clearly states no onsite cannabis smoking or vape. And if the permit holder wanted to extend the hours since that is the condition of use, who would they then apply to or go to . That would be a planning issue. Would not be the office of cannabis, but a planning issue. Yes. Thank you. I am not going to argue your position. It is very confusing and misleading from the department of health point of view in my view that inspectors walk in, they walk in and they observe. They check the boxes. Clearly there is a breach of law. Clearly a breech of the conditional use. They have a nice day and wonderful job. One of mr. Duffys inspectors would walk into a building site and see a building infraction, it would be a notice of violation. Why do we have counsel for the appellant come in and present us with this documentation and basically said great job, have a nice day. And who presents the notice of violation on violation that is clearly in breach of the conditional use . President swig, i think that the department is better situated to answer your question, so if you may, i would like to call them up to answer your question. Sure. It is important. Because it is very hard for the operator. I am not saying they are right, but its difficult. And welcome. Good evening, inspector o banna with the San Francisco Health Department. To answer your question, the department was not aware this facility was not allowed to smoke on site because we do not receive the d. M. R. Or the materials until we have requested them from the Planning Department. When we submitted the referrals and initially there were, i want to say, close to 10 facilities currently onsite smoking when we developed article 8a. And we gave the applications to the locations currently smoking onsite. We asked the Planning Department recommendation and two other facilities were smoking on site that were not supposed to be or vaporizing in this case. We issued a cease and desist after the error and saying the past several years you may have been consuming on site, but that was never supposed to be allowed per the planning code. That was an oversight on our department, but when i came to the facility, i did an inspection with the previous expecter to and observed smoking at x, y, and z and so it was just, oh yeah, they are allowed to do that in my mind. I didnt see it any differently and didnt see it until we had the documents from the Planning Department. Hopefully you have changed the protocol so you get documents on every facility. Procedures have been changed. Thank you very much. Can you quick answer a question that i have. I dont know if you are the right person. I want to clear up the process. What i am understanding is that the dispensary is applying for a consumption permit and is being denied based on the fact in 2012 they were denied the ability to consume onsite. It is that the 2012 basis is the reason for denying and it is 2019 now. The time is different. They are applying for this this. Why is it based and something happening years ago and not the merits of whether they can or cannot have an onsite consumption permit . I can speak on that a little bit and might be a question for the Planning Department. Part of application process is referrals for the Planning Department. When we issued the referral, it was denied based on the fact they had land use declaration saying that it was not supposed to that activity was not supposed to take place at that location. And i believe that stays with that land use. But perhaps Scott Sanchez might be a better. We will have that during the Planning Departments time. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Thank you, Scott Sanchez, Planning Department. Appreciate the thorough work of department of Public Health and the City Attorneys office and fully support the facts that were stated in their brief, and they have accurately represented the Planning Departments position, but i can provide additional information. The subject medical cannabis dispensary was approved by the Planning Commission in 2012 as a mandatory d. R. And process in place at the time for the use at that time. The applicant who committed the medical cannabis dispensary application under penalty of perjury in the application on the overhead when the response to the question overhead please. Thank you. If you question onsite smoking, will you allow them to smoke or vaporize on the premises . Clearly marked no. They never sought from the beginning to have that use on the property. So now that they are requesting to have this grandfathered use legalized, there is no use to grandfather there. It was never approved in the first place. And this was a very contentious case. While it is in the downtown zoning district, which are generally more permissive, it was an area where there were several dispensaries that were seeking to open around the same time. And there is actually the Mayors Office of economic and Work Force Development submitted a letter in opposition to the project. Many other letters in opposition to the project. The staff recommendation of the project was disapproval. So this was very heavily scrutinized and even though staff recommended disapproval, the Planning Commission approved it. And additionally we have on the notice of public hearing which this goes out to everyone and is posted on the property, the overhead again, very clearly the statement on the notice. This would not and underlined, not permit onsite smoking, vaporizing or cultivation. It is very clear what the Planning Department had approved. And although the Planning Commission did approve it and sound like in the interim they may have been doing vaporizing or consumption on site which they said they never do, they did it anyway, but it was never properly permitted. And commissioner tanner has an excellent question about, well, now what . And they have the process. There is a process whereby they can come in and submit a permit and change their project description. They have not done that. They want to be grandfathered in and i think the Public Health can explain what the differences are, but i understand that it is a different commissioner honda and a mandatory d. R. As well, right . Correct. To the Planning Commission to allow the onsite consumption. And then if they do approve it, it is my understanding that if they are not grandfathered vaporizing, there are additional standards they may need to meet including a separate room and different operating requirements that maybe had. So i can understand why they want to go ahead and get it grandfathered in, but we dont see the basis for it, especially since the application they submitted under penalty of perjury clearly stated hayed that no intention of doing that. That was one of the basis for the Planning Commission to approve a contentious project in 2012. Thank you. Can you turn your microphone on please . Commissioner tanner sorry. From your knowledge, what are the kind of practical differences between a site that allows this and a site that doesnt . In terms of the requirements now and the current requirements for doing onsite consumption versus right. And maybe i should ask somebody else, but i am not clear what the impact is. It is an understanding in order to meet the current requirements that it is more challenging. That you have to have a separate room for the consumption. It cant be within the larger area. So i think that is why they want to have it grandfather and say we were always authorized to do this. Because then they dont have to meet the current standards. That is my understanding of their wish here. Vice president lazarus and another slightly different question, this area is kind of dense with m. C. D. S. At that time that was one of the concerns that had come up is because for lack of aet beer term, it was called the green zones. Where you could go in the city and under the older rules, there were fewer places where they could be located and that resulted in some cases of clustering. Certain districts had rules to limit or prohibit that, but downtown was allowed and that was my recollection reviewing the case materials of some of the concerns that had been had is there were other nearby dispensaries and it wasnt a question of people getting served but Public Health may have better knowledge about the actual density or location of other nearby dispensaries. You are not necessarily aware of roughly how many might have onsite and how many dont . No, not off the top of my head. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Yes. Okay. Good evening. We are just here to speak out in support of the bloom room and demetri and the project. While i understand the issues presented there from the 2012 decision, they have been operating in good faith from the time that we have met them. And with the other consumption lodges throughout the city, it does kind of make to your point, miss tanner, a little confusing that we are now not allowing consumption at a lounge that has been for several years or has not been taken down for several years and the fact that they are trying to do everything in their power to be in good faith with what we are trying to do in the Cannabis Space with labor. It makes it a little bit more from that mind that cannabis dispensaries sometimes dont try to work with labor. The bloom room is and it is really important in our mind. Thank you. Just one more thing i will add. And just as you are coming to the conclusion here and the decision, just hoping that as them being a Good Employer that takes care of the employees and to make the decision. Thank you. Can you please fill out speaker cards . Any other Public Comment on this item . We will move on to rebuttal. You can step to the side and fill it out. Thank you. Thank you again. A few points. Ultimately, the tension that we think exists is as follows. We dont deny the application was submitted under these circumstances that were presented to you by the department of Public Health. Alt the directors hearing, it was Larry Kessler who was the actual inspector with the department of Public Health who we believe had the authority to make the decision to permit onsite vaporizing. He was one of the original leaders of the cannabis oversight for San Francisco, and so we would have never opened up a dispensary in conflict with what we thought was permissive use by the city by having open, notorious, clear vaporizing. It has never stopped. Its been there for the inspectors to see. Its been there for the inspectors to look at. They have identified it, aened to the extent that there is an intimation that we did anything underhanded by submitting an application on one hand and two years later opening a facility with the right to vaporize is directly as a result of the conflict that exists between two City Departments that dont speak to each other. At the time and i acknowledge that this industry and activity is going throughout a change and is becoming more professionalized. We would ask you to look at what was presented this evening with these inspections to understand that we have as early as 2015 on the day we opened, even before that, have had vaporizing in the same location. And it has been inspected four times, three different inspectors in that no point in time was there ever any indication of a violation. And mr. Obanna who we maintain an outstanding relationship is one of the inspectors that went through and acknowledged there is vaporizing on site and never indicated that there was some failure or problem. We passed the inspection. This is an inspection that is traditionally very rigorous. We have passed repeatedly. Another issue. We acknowledge as noted that we have put out a note that there will be no vaporizing on the premises. We have never received any complaint from the community regarding activities occurring at the premises. I would ask you for the benefit of our clientele who dont have locations to vaporize that you consider allowing us to continue this status quo and in this very small location in the dispensary. Thank you. I have a question, sir. In regard and i can appreciate the defense you are mounting for your case that the department observed this and there was never a problem until now. That being said, in terms of the application and the land use documentation that was permitted in 2012, were you aware of the no vaping and no consumption that was clearly stated pretty high up and very front and center in that land use permit . Was it something you were aware of . And didnt enact or not awareover and not sure what your role is throughout this process has been. The document speaks for itself. Of course the document was signed and submitted with the expe expectation there be no vaping. When the actual facility was ultimately open after a renovation project after multiple inspections, including the department of Public Health, Larry Kessler provided us the authorization to vape. And inspected the premises and repeatedly and at no point in time after four inspections did we think we were somehow in conflict with our rights. If we were, we would have stopped it immediately. One you say he provided you with the authorization, that is the inspection reports that you are referring to that you were showing . No, actually, communication between Larry Kessler and mr. Steven richess, but to substantiate that perception, there is these multiple inspections repeatedly that recognize vaporizing is onsite and the last inspection by mr. Obanna he clearly states onsite vaporizing shall only be i understand that. Commissioner tanner i definitely understand that your point. Thank you. I want to understand this perception that mr. Kessler gave this authorization and was that verbal or in writing and how did how was that receiveed . He is here in the audience and if you would like, you can ask him. I guess what i am looking for is if it was ever written down from the Health Department to your client or whomever this person is that this was, in fact, a permitted use. I dont believe it was written down. It was a communication i think communicated verbally, but i only say that we have had a great relationship with Larry Kessler. The last question i have really is to understand the difference. I can understand why you pursue the grandfathering and that would be the route to go to allow the vaping activity to continue. Did you consider the route of, i dont know what it would be called, where you would actually apply through the process that is available now to have onsite consumption . Was that something that it is a consideration that will occur only in the event that were denied the grandfathering. We should be entitled to with the circumstance and ru yo a land use attorney . Real estate. So have you dealt with the Planning Department in the past . Not on this issue. Have you dealt with them in the past, overall general question . Typically no. Do you understand what condition of use is . Of course. So i mean, i was kind of shocked i got confused on who did not supply the brief. It was you who did not supply the brief. Correct. The condition of use and your clients have been in violation of their permit since day one and you were the attorney on record. Yes, but it is our argument that the inspections override that by a different department. Do you have a certificate that indicates approval from the department . From planning . No. Thank you. Thank you. I want to highlight for the board at one point, counselor is not counsel for the bloom room but the owner and has been involved from day one. His name is listed daniel bornstein, as a project applicant. And has been involved every step of the way. So with that, i am going to turn my time over to muhammad mali, the Program Manager of the cannabis department, to answer questions about the distinction of the requirement for smoking ventilation requirements for the board. Thank you. Good afternoon, president swig, commissioners. I work with the San Francisco environmental of health branch. And so i would like to clarify that there was that initial application process. And i cant explain why the discretionary review analysis and reports or action reports were not supplied to the department of Public Health back in 2012 or prior to 2018 because i wasnt part of that program at the time. When i came into the program come into the program under the assumption that there were a significant amount of folks an i loued to smoke. We worked with the City Attorney to have this grandfather clause try and adapt the application process to it that the board had approved for those, so the board approved article 8a. And then we had to establish some rules and regulations and put the Application Online and the folks had 30 days. There were three dispensaries that we found werent allowed per the land use and the conditions that the Planning Department put forth. Two of them immediately said we agree, were going to stop. They clearly knew they were not supposed to smoke. There was no resistance to it. There was one that asked for a hearing and then they withdrew that request. As far as the article 8a requirements, they are pretty robust to say the least. There is very specific engineeri engineering controls that need to go into play. There is a designated room separate from the rest. It has to be under negative pressure. There has to be specific odor controls, filtered for particulate matter, and there is two dispensaries that we have approved. One is currently operating with that enhanced ventilation system. There is also a separate do i need to stop . So i have a question. Thank you. Yes, sir. The permit was issued with no vaping or onsite smoking. And clearly the permit holder has been in violation since that happened. Is there a penalty or revocation that can occur from this . As far as article 33, at this point i dont believe it was their specifically any violations in the past that we can proactively go back and say, okay, because you were doing it if there are time and this time and this time. [please stand by] or kind of been up to speed on the different regulations involving cannabis in San Francisco and the change rapidly over the last few years. Is there still a distinction drawn between cannabis dispensaries and medical marijuana dispensaries or is it the same or a patch work . Its the same system, so an individual 18 or above or 21 can still go into the dispensary can go in if they have a card. In order for you to go into the facility, if youre between 18 and 21, you would have to have a physicians recommendation or a card. At that point, you can buy medical cannabis that exceeds the state limits for recreational cannabis. And this facility, does this apply in terms of whos allowed to access this facility. Theres no other restrictions . Yes. And as far as the rooms, the negative pressure, etc. , if someone is applying now onsite, they would have to go through all that to have the onsite vaping or smoking, is that what youre saying . Correct. Theres an article 33 permit holder that wasnt specifically that now is moving forward on meeting all the regulations for all 8a, and they are very close to finishing up the buildout for their designated cannabis smoking and can you share with me, sometimes the inspectors were out there several times in one year,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.