Administrator and representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission that he joined by joe duffy dbi chris buck urban forester and with the bureau of street use and mapping and deputy City Attorney ann pierson representing of the department of Health Please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do after youve been sworn in or mroifrmd do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you very much we will start with our first item that the general Public Comment anyone that wants to address an item on the not on tonights calendar general Public Comment commissioners questions or comments anything commissioners and item 3 the boards consideration of minutes of meeting of the november 9, 2016. Unless any additions, deletions, or changes may i have a motion po to accept those forward. Any Public Comment on the minutes okay. Seeing none a motion in commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes on that motion sdmung commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you very much that that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero next item a rehearing request the subject property hate street safer lower hate a rehearing safer lower hate decided december at the time the board voted to deny the appeal a separate a medical cannabis dispensary on a basis that was issued properly the doing business as staircase weve started with the requester and good evening i need to make a disclosure. I wish to disclose ive hired reuben, julius rose on a since roars is handling the case reuben, junius rose representation as an entity before the board will not have an effect on my decision. Mr. Williams im Steve Williams the appellants request for a rehearing should be granted at the prior hearing the board was given incomplete information when the board repeatedly ask do about the dissension indication only an increase in size will trigger the land use we attached that transcript for our review at exhibit 4 and if you look at the briefs submitted that echo if exact assertion the brief states the planning code didnt draw a distinction between on embarrassment of the nonconforming use of the dysfunctions indication and as long as the use stays the same no retriggering matrix that was what the board was told those. Certifications are absolutely incorrect as a matter of law San Francisco requires a new hearing on a nonconforming use if it is alternated or changed and claegd a there of 25 percent ive attached samples from the planning code interpretations thats exhibit 8 that triggered the intensification and exhibit 6 and 7 densification for the restaurant baker and banker other jurisdictions i cant imagine dealt with that issue a number of jurisdictions actually define intensification the santa cruz planning code any change in the recuse that results in a significant generation of traffic smoke are glare or odor thats a big one sewage generation all a intensification and saratoga says you have a significant equipment or personal property to run the business thats considered an intensification brisbane that the exact same lack and matthews says hours of operation volume of traffic generated, etc. Those are all dissension indications of the use requiring a new hearing obviously that happens in f this case a tenfold in the there of what is sold at the site a tenfold a Business Plan for a tenfold increase in traffic and individuals patronizing the establishment i urge you to grant the hearing. Thank you encourage. Thank you well hear from the permit holder now. Mr. Sunny and im sorry the people standing by the door please find a seat thank you. Good evening members of the board im tom of reuben, junius rose on behalf of the permit holder spark we we ask you deny it it didnt raise any not facts and circumstances the request raise the issue of expansion arguing this is a new issue it is not new we had a 3 hour hearing before the board that was discussed the board talked about that with the Zoning Administrator considerably ulnar this of the discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on the project in august of 2016 contrary to the appellants allegations this issue has been discuss at two public hearings and the Planning Commission like this board voted to approve the project the request tries to draw a distinction between expansion and quote intensification but no such distinction exists the issue is the same spark is an obviously organization a supervisorial mcd operator with a proven track record from no violations and widely supported in the interest of time were not going to have speakers but ask the supporters to stand we appreciate your c of that worthy project and ask you to allow the permit to be issued im available to answer any questions. Thank you counsel our well hear from the department now. Welcome. Good evening commissioner fung im a deputy City Attorney on behalf of the the department of health as you may know according to the rule the board may only grant it upon new or different material facts or facts and circumstances in known at that time, can effect the original hearing and a failure to experience Due Diligence to reduce the impact is grounds for denial in the request before you tonight the appellant has not made one new single fact in fact, all the documents with the exemption of the transcript at the last hearing long predates the october hearing by 10 years every single one of the documents 0 could have been produced prior before the last hearing with Due Diligence to grant a rehearing in this case is contrary to the rules and sets a dangerous precedent in you dont like our hearing i can come back for other try for those arraigns that dph asks to you uphold the final permit to operate a medical cannabis dispensary to the permit holder in this matter. Thank you commissioner fung the Zoning Administrator would like to address the board. Mr. Teague. I have a question for him anyway welcome mr. Teague. Good evening covering for Planning Department staff briefly want to touch on the issue raised by the appellant that the information provided by mr. Sanchez at the prior hearing was incorrect or misleading i was not at the hearing he looked at the video of the hearing the appellant quotes the standards that are outlined in other is cities and owners not the standards that are outlined in our ordinance in fact, our ordinance in section 178 plus provides absolutely no standard or metric for measuring intensification enlargement what necessitated the interpretation that exists in you can show on the overhead as you can see in the highlighted it states in the interpretation that the term significantly is not defined in the node code and subject to the interpretation it calls auto the types of garrett and the intensification that are significant and the specific types of enlargements not since here in question about the garrett being less than 5 hundred square feet or 25 percent it is around intensification the only teaches dissension indication from a 47 to 48 your switching from a restauranteur to a bar so this interpretation is basically saying if you change our land use to a different one that is intensification the appellant did provide one example although they exclaim many examples one restaurant that got a new cu because of intensification ill point out that projectile was no dissension indication of an existing use can i have the overhead, please . Was that barker and banker. It was barker and banker if we can see that says that cu to allow a selfservice specially use for on existing special i didnt use under the project description the project sponsor says in in addition to the restaurant use in the Zoning District it is in and of itself requires a conditional use authorization so in this example this is not an intensification of an existing use it is establishing a second land use on the site this requires a cu in and of itself. Theyre not there anymore and perhaps not. Im available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for clearing that up. Thank you if we can see a show of hands of how many people wish like to speak. Under Public Comment if you havent got a speaker card and give me to the gentleman that would be helpful in the preparation of the minutes and line up on the far side of the room the first person come up to speak first speaker please come. Dont be shy madam director two minutes. Okay. Welcome. Good evening so thank you, again, for allowing us to speak about that issue one more time daniel im requesting this be heard the last year we had didnt show all the facts we have more information after the ruling that was put fort by this board spark the goad standard of mcd that is never violated violated the rule and opened their doors for operation percentage against the rules of the board of appeals and know like we do you have to wait 10 days before they can do anything whether grand or not granted not the first time theyve violated they did it in july they were wander like the board staff like after this hearing so again, i ask this board the first rehearing be great we can get the community here to get the families, and the children who are effected by this ruling here 5 oclock is great if we have the hearing then the first time around but again, i would love to see this struck down because of their violation of this board ruling and then to the Health Department who upon request about their violation said they were not going to cite them for those violations so again, i question the Health Department, multiple times and their goad standard for operating an mcd without the board. Thank you next speaker, please. State your name for the record. Bryan brooks. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello excuse me my name is nationally im asking you to rehear this i submitted something a plea grant that shows in addition to the audio that was not available someone at the city level promised a second meeting and memos coming from the head of that department stailt the second meeting would be would get this is opposite of what we were told joining i did not know that would be coming into play two departments saying opposite things more importantly weve heard from the City Attorney she was worried about a precedent im worried about a precedent of an entire community over and over has not been allowed to process that is a much bigger precedent to me i hope you agree. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is suzy osborn and again, i want to reiterate that dr said he was issuing a permit multiple times not temporary or a group left the meeting having been told a per visional permit with no followup and they opened not once but twice on told theyre not lout allowed to open they did it again twice and they bring people to the meetings on a big party bus we cant afford one we say your voices are not heard a small group of merchant, we just really feel like our voices are not heard in this situation and been deceived and railroaded and were not getting a fair shake and you know again, while they were open on a permit that was not valid a child came in i showed speak picture last time in you remember the police for some reason didnt have a record of that thats odd we have a picture of it we have a camera shop someone took a photo i really want to reiterate our Community Feels this is a gentrifier well lose our shops thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is johnny so first there was a department hearing he was in line to speak at and people whos voices should have been heard the boys and girls club were waiting to speak we were told well get another chance with the Health Department and a Planning Department hearing at which we were told like the floor plans this is not the proper stage to voice your concerns of the gentrification to none licensed and last time at the hearing it was basically just like, yeah those things should have been heard and the second hearings shouldnt be scald so how do we know that is the case most of peoples voices were not heard and the proper forum. Next speaker, please. Good evening my name is deive been living on the front of hate street for 16 years with my now 15 and 17 yearold children i live across the street from the location im a cofounder of the lower hate Merchant Association last time hello commissioner fung to deny a permit which was a medical cannabis dispensary or mcd we as a neighborhood along with the police were opposed to this facility that was security stabbing patients and patients selling machinery to nonmarijuana patients outside of mcd you denied this i tell you this history to explain i and the Neighborhoods Association came to oppose spark we were very opposed at the beginning with many meetings first to the board to assess what the problems might be and looked at the neighborhood of mcd are less safe or get satisfactory we built a memorandum of understanding to take care of are concerns and started the projects it includes codes of conduct to audio to the safety of our neighborhood and add cameras and share those cameras with police and keep smoking away from the building we did this to hold the business accountable and the first to go after them i cant guarantee this business will be great but guarantee done what we think is remarkable to give the business a shot between the neighborhood and now we super no neighbors our goal to hold the business accountable and be reasonable merchant and neighbors for this reason we ask you not renew this hearing. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Caseload. Offend please thank you. Hi, im ryan a proud Business Owner in San Francisco and happen to live on a block up from the mrs. In question ive lived there 10 years we need this location right now theres no foot traffic on the street every restaurant is closing and changing every 3 months id like to share two flyers on november, 2021 and the 8th of august 2016 on the top one that is showing a little bit of a clip what the places would look like we went over the intensification of use and had spark explain the nice changes to the building to keep up that the Planning Department needs every person in opposition today no reason those people should be wasted our time to hear something already heard their abusing the appeal system weve seen spark through every single hoop possible including the lower hate association that is very intense id like to say theyve done everything in their power to demonstrate good conduct and ask you see the new appeal and yeah. Lets get them into the neighborhood. Item seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. I have a question for the project sponsor. Mr. Sunny. A been raised that the mcd has been in violation of time periods related to being closed versus allowing the appeals to run their course. Right. ; is that correct. Right i understand the allegations and they were not violations not to be lawyer about that but talking about the first incidents when the original what was called provisional or temporary permits was issued and it was made clear to spark they could operate under the permit and then the department of health that realized that was an error and asked them to stop operating they the immediately, the second one over the hearing before you i didnt know anything about that but asked do Public HealthDepartment Staff on their own if we were able to operate and staff said, yes that is documented by email and the board of appeals staff knows about that that was a mistake and ones that was discovered within it was two or three hours of operating i had them stop immediately i dont know about that i know the general rule about a preempt still suspended and had them stop immediately. Thank you i have ha i have a question for the department of health. Good evening. Im june the manager for the medical Cannabis Dispensary Program at the San Francisco department of health. Can you verify what the department did in those instance. We made a mistake i take full responsibility for 2 we can call that a supervisor issue i was out of town at the time of the last hearing not present to be providing appropriate supervision and direction our inspector did his slut best to give information when asked and he take responsibility for it. So to clarify this therefore you would not blame the project sponsor for opening. I would not. Thank you. Then my question is that in the first hearing i voted to hear the appeal and lost but that was generally based on a clerical error or other error