You are on page 1of 9

e ,~~~ ,~,

y<<' ...

""''" ~/S= v/~9/3 ~~e~


~x~, ~

' !t


i..l J~`~I ~ttp/~~'~1~~~1~~t~r'~i ~l it~ii_I r~ ! IC~t~lJii

_ _


A~~. ~~A

__ _ _







___ ___






_ (41S ''1~^~- ~jq~IC3

CGCd~.~C7F'.~RflR~( r~LC.~;;:Ii
.,ame as Rbcve~






~~~~1''I C" ~~-~~t~



~~ ,





'_~. f~'hlcjiE. , :!:~.





} f1[ `~

~ ~easE check al! Thar a piy

Chan~,~ i~f lise. j~~

~ (pan,: e ofi ] Ic~ui ~~'

<iddit~ions to Building:

llr ~r ` ~_~

Present or Previous U ;:~:


New Construction ~

Frc,nt ~_.~;


Tleigh' _ _

Alterations ~ Demoliiic~n ~

Side Yard ~ .

S~~ _.~`41.~'.E~ .~~ _~Gg~CO _ -~CCE~.~Cd_~'*~EE S/

__ ~l~?lCf}l. ~l~NA-~S ~1~~_~t~A(~-~

E3uildin;; Pcritiit Applicatio~~ ~vc~.

t. ~ ': 4'

Ld ~5.~ ~ 1 q_ ~~~..t}


Date Filed: _ 0 ~ ~~ ~'~~


4''t. ,r~iii~iC1S F~~iCr 1C; ~7 ~il,`.i;:i~:: 1C)Cli"iry E5'f'VIFu~,r~% {-iE'UIiES~

Prior Aclion

~'~ .

f~.,i1 z~~



Have you discussed this project with the permit applicant?

f, j

Did you discuss the project with the Planning Department permit review planner?


Did you participate in outside mediation on this case?



t~,`~r iV'. c~~at' !i

`i~~i i

~~7~~.'~ t ~e:.i Cf Y~S ~i C~~li t.71 f~.~l~~~~tl~~~~

If you ha~~e disc~lsse<i the }?i-oiect with the applicant, planning staff. or done through mediation, ~let~s~s~imm~r~ze the result, including any changes there were made to the proposed project.

Jv_ D


~+'~U~. __ ~N"~_ i~-a_ _

OU'C"C~M ~ d~ ,A ~'~ K~ ~'b

a 2~
, ,.. . .._:r_F

IS~C~'~IC~C~~c~9"~l R~;VI~V1l


!n the space below and on separate paper, if necessary, please present facts sufficient to ~ns~ver each quc.~<tic~~l.

1. ~Nhat are the reasons for requesting Discretionary Rc:view? The project meets the minimum staniiards of titc
['lannin~ Code. What arc die exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that justify Discretior~aiy Rrvian~~ cat
the project? How does d1c project cont7ict with the City's General Plan or the Planning Code's ~I'rioritt~ Policies, ~~r
Residential D~.:si7n Quid.lines? P)eas~ be specific and site specific sections of the Residential De ij~,n ~ dines.

. ..

_. [1k. Res~denkial Design (,uia~.iza~es assume some impacts to be reasonable and expected as p~r1 ut ,~n~~~ ~.,_t~can.
Please explain ho~~~ this pr~ojei:t ~ti-ould cause tinrc:asonable impacts. ]f you believt~ your,t:T-?_~ ,I~c~ ~,rt ~,~~rE~~ ;~r
others or the ne:ighborhovd ti~could be adversely affected, please sFate who would be effected, any' hi>~~v:

~~~E _~ZE~t~ Tc1


fl'C~C,t~l'~ __.Ul1~.uM,e~~

~. What altcrilatives or changes to tl~e nr~pc>>ed }~rc~jeet, beyond the changes (if .any) already made .~.~~~icr ~ ~~s~:~<,iiii t:~
thc~ c~xceF~ti~n~~l and ~:xtra~~rdrtiar5~ cir~um~t~ul~es au~~ reduce the adverse effects noteu al_~i~vc in Qii~.stinr? ~ 1'


~~'~ ~1





~~p li~;~~t'~ ~~ ~~i~~~~~

Under p~nalt} of perjury the follo~vin~; declarations are made:
a: 'The undersigned is the owner or ~Zuthorized agent of the owner of this property.
b: 'Tl~e information presented is true and eorcect to the best of my knowledge.
r. The othe r information or applicati~ ~na;~ be required.

.~ ~ 2~1 b

s; ~;,1, rU :

Pciilt name, and indicate r

Owner i Au[hcrized Ager:' 'circle onej

prized agent:


~ ~1~ ~

~m ~ifi~' ~'


', .

-,~. ~_ M1i I.:.MYi: 'mil

.~i~cr fiit~n~ry ~~;vi~ ~~~alicatic~~

~..~ ~~it~~l ~h~~~~~~t
Applications submitte~j to the Planning Department must be accompanied by this checklist and all requi~~~d.
m aterials. The checklist is to be completed and signed by the applicant or authorized agent.

R E~U~RED MATERIALS (please check correct column]



Application, with all blanks completed

Address labels (original), if applicable
Address cabals (copy ofi tt~e above). if applicable
Photocopy of this completed application
Photographs that illustrate your concerns
Convenant or Deed Restrictions
Check pay~~bl~ t~ Planning Dept.


__ _




_ _


Letter of authorization nor a~er~t

_ __
Other: SecEion Plan, C?eta;l drawings (i.e. windows, door entries, trim),
Specifications (for clearing, repair, etc.} and/or Product cut sheets for new
elements (i.e. windov~,, doors}



L. Fequired Maiera!,
uptionai Material.
( ~ Two sets of oric~~n>~I lahal; ar.r. one ~~epy of addresses o. aGjacent propeKy own=rs and cwners of property across street.

Fcr Department Use On,y

Ar~plicatic~~z receive, ley i'?~~~ning Department:

"~ g__l ea'
~Y~ /~,I~ ~l'

Date; ~ /Z~~/ (J


h.,, ,k ~
~' 3~~a


~ Y"

In response to question 1 on page 9:

What are the reasonsfor requesting this Discretionary Review?
The previous tenants located at 473 Haight Street operated as a smoke shop that
specialized in smoking accessories and paraphernalia in which the Medical Cannabis
Dispensary(MCD)was an accessory. Because the MCD was only an accessory to the
smoke shop there was no signage related to the selling of cannabis on the premises
and very few patrons. Even with the low amount of patrons we still experienced
many problems directly related to the operation of the MCD on the premises
including a constant smell of cannabis, cannabis usage on the premises, patrons
reselling cannabis outside of the MCD, break-ins at multiple locations in the
building, and increased crime in the neighborhood. There have been multiple MCD's
in this block that have acted as a magnet for crime in the pastas demonstrated by
both the Goodfellow's Smoke Shop as well as the Alternative Herbal Health Clinic.
We believe that because SPARC will operate as solely an MCD it will significantly
increase the amount of traffic directly related to cannabis usage and therefore will
contribute directly to increased problems related to drug usage on the 400 block of
Haight Street and in the Lower Haight District of San Francisco which was already
prone to drug related problems. We believe that the operation of an MCD in the
Lower Haight will be counter-productive to cleaning up an area that has been
known for drug related crime and violence. We also believe that since the MCD is no
longer just an accessory to the smoke shop it should be considered a complete
change of use and would no longer comply with the permit that is being
grandfathered in.
This criminal element poses a direct threat to the adjacent businesses and the
employees within.
We believe that the original smoke shop was in violation of the law stating that any
Medical Cannabis Dispensary must not operate within 1000 feet of any school or
rehab facility. Within 1000 square feet there are 3 schools, 2 rehabilitation centers,
2 community centers, 1 day care center, as well as residences with small children
directly adjacent to the premises.
- John Muir Elementary
-Ida B Wells High School
-A1tSchool Alamo Square
-Walden House Drug Rehabilitation Center
-Bay Area Drug Rehab Treatment Center
-Hayes Valley North Community Center
-Boys and Girls Club Satellite Community Center
-TALK Line Family Support Center

What are the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances thatjustify

Discretionary Review ofthis project?
Love Haight Computers (located at 473A Haight Street and 475 Haight Street)
shares a wall and continues underneath 473 Haight Street(the proposed location
for SPARC). There is also a rear door that is directly adjacent to Love Haight
Computers. Love Haight Computers operates a drug free environment for its
employees and believes that the presence of an MCD in the building will case
unhealthy and undesired working conditions in the building. The smell of cannabis
caused by the operation of the Goodfellow's smoke shop was a constant cause of
problems with the employees,interns, and customers. The smell of cannabis and the
presence of an MCD adjacent to Love Haight Computers cause Love Haight
Computers to appear unprofessional in a trade that demands professionalism.
Aside from the smell, the operation of an MCD at 473 Haight Street poses a direct
threat to the security of Love Haight Computers and the safety of it's employees. We
believe that not only is there an existing threat from the patrons, but from the many
employees of SPARC as well.
With the expiration of the lease of Goodfellow's smoke shop,the landlord told us
that all of the problems and complaints that we expressed related to the operation
of an MCD in the building were going to be a thing of the past and that another MCD
would not be allowed to operate in the same space again.
Love Haight Computers in partnership with the Boys and Girls Club of America and
operates a community center directly below 473 Haight Street(The proposed
location of SPARC) where they teach technology, business, and other skills to
adolescents and offers internships through the business. We believe that the
presence of an MCD in the building sends a bad message that is counterproductive
to the development of these individuals.

How does the project conflict with the City's General Plan ofthe Planning Code's
Priority Policies or Residential Design Guidelines?
We believe that the law referred to in the above paragraphs should be grounds
enough to deny the permits for any MCD to be formed or constructed at 473 Haight
Street of in the 400 block of Haight Street. This is a direct violation of the law and
should be subject to review and the Discretionary Review Process.

In response to question 2 on page 9:

Please explain how this project would cause unreasonable impacts:
Ifyou believe your property, the property ofothers or the neighborhood would
be adversely affected, please state who would be affected and how?
We believe that the operation of a large, exclusive MCD on the premises will cause
security threats to employees, property, and inventory located in the building. We
also believe that the construction of SPARC could cause unforeseen damage to the
property and/or inventory located in the adjacent businesses. We strongly believe
that our livelihood and security is at risk. Not only would adjacent businesses need
to increase security in the building, they would also be forced to hire additional
security personnel which in other cases would be unnecessary.
In response to question 3 on page 9:
What alternatives or changes to the proposed project, beyond the changes(if
any)already made would respond to the exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances and reduce the adverse effects noted above in question 1?
We believe that the operation of any MCD in the Lower Haight district of San
Francisco will be counter productive to the advancement of the neighborhood. We
are submitting the application in disapproval of the entire project and believe the
Planning Department should deny approval of any MCD in the 400 Block of Haight
Street. The Apothocarium located at Market Street and Church Street is close
enough to take care of any needs of Medical Cannabis patients in the Lower Haight
(1/3 mile from 473 Haight Street). In the area, SPARC, Meadow,and Eaze Delivery
Service, SPARC is fully capable of delivering products to their customers and should
not have any need for another retail location in the 400 block of Haight Street.

~~ ~~c~

~K~, ~~.~~;t
4~1 ~

~ p~- S~

So~ ~.~a~ e~ ~-~~ ~~

~ ~~e~~o~



~`~o~m ~~,~a~nn c.~oc.~ C l~ `~~l1~~~


~-s~ ~~,,~~~t ~~


~ a~~ ~~

~~ ~~t,~


~~ ~~(0~~

Q~ u,tNt~9Ze-~

~o~v~~ ~..s~~u~ ~,,~ ~~l~~ ~`

Related Interests