Do Our Elected Officials Represent Us or Themselves? (Part I)
Dear Friends & Neighbors,
This may be the most important blog so far in our journey to convey to our elected officials the importance of hearing us out instead of stifling or silencing our voice. After all, our officials were elected by us for us: to represent our voices inside the government and not their own personal agendas. This is clearly not happening in our case, as evidenced by the rebuttal from the San Francisco Planning Dept that was written in response to the appeal document we submitted to the Board of Supervisors on March 6th, 2023. These two documents represent both sides of the Gold Mirror debate, and will be weighed by the Board of Supervisors before they vote to either support or reject our appeal at the public hearing scheduled for April 18th at 3pm at city hall.
As in previous blogs, in this two-part blog, we are going to carefully analyze the rebuttal from Planning, and point out the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in their arguments and justifications for approving the conditional use cannabis permit for the Gold Mirror restaurant at 800 Taraval St. This blog is a bit longer than normal, but please bear with us. It will be worth it.
Planning Dept comments in blue. FOPSWP in red.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project would establish a Cannabis Retail use (d.b.a. “Green Mirror”) measuring approximately 977 square feet in a vacant mezzanine commercial tenant space which will be converted to a new fully enclosed second floor within a two-story commercial building located at 800 Taraval Street, (“Project Site”) APN 2347/009A. The Project does not include a request for on-site smoking or vaporizing. The Project proposes minor interior tenant improvements and installation of new accessible building entrance upgrades. New business signage will be applied for under a separate permit.
Planning states that the Green Mirror is a “vacant mezzanine commercial tenant space,” but said “space” is neither “vacant” nor being used by any “tenant.” Instead, the space is exclusively used by the owners of the Gold Mirror restaurant at 800 Taraval St. as a dining area for its patrons. In other words, it’s owner-occupied, restaurant space, which does not fit the language set forth here in the project description. Hence, the misrepresentation.
Further, although the Project does not include a request for on-site smoking or vaporizing, as stated here, the Gold Mirror owners did sneak on-site consumption past their neighbors by deliberately leaving it out of the Good Neighbor Policy, recognizing that this would cause further outrage from the public.
What we learned after the fact is that dispensary owners are able to offer on-site consumption, even if they do not notify the public, per Planning Code Section 202.2 (a) (5) (C). How is any normal resident going to know this code? The planning codes are a quagmire of complex rules and regulations and almost impossible to follow. It's as if someone inside Planning is coaching the Gold Mirror owners, Roberto & Domenico DiGrande, how to deceive their own neighbors. Another misrepresentation.
SITE DESCRIPTION & PRESENT USE
The Project is in the Inner Taraval Street NCD on a corner lot with frontage along Taraval Street to the south and 18th Avenue to the east. The Project Site is situated on a lateral and upsloping lot measuring 2,696 square feet in size with a two-story, commercial building containing a restaurant use on the ground floor and mezzanine level. The mezzanine, which previously served as private party space for the restaurant, has been vacant for almost three years and the existing restaurant owner does not see any viability in the space serving the restaurant as is in the foreseeable future.
Since the restaurant’s inception, the mezzanine level has always served as a private and public dining space for the restaurant. It is not vacant. In fact, one could argue the restaurant is busier and more viable than it has ever been in recent memory, particularly with the addition of two outside parklets that accommodate even more patrons. The entire neighborhood knows the mezzanine is not vacant. Just ask any neighbor or patron.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD
The Project Site is located on a neighborhood commercial corridor. The neighborhood is primarily residential uses, with limited, ground-floor commercial uses located within buildings located on corner lots and fronting Taraval Street. The immediate context includes two-to-four story buildings with a large grocery store across the street. Lincoln High School and Herbert Hoover Middle School are both five to six blocks from the Project Site, or approximately 2,112 feet away.
There is a legitimately vacant, ground floor commercial space in a two-story building at 755 Taraval St. that was previously occupied by a liquor store. The liquor store closed its doors in Dec of 2021. The vacant space is on the opposite corner from the Project Site, and like the Project Site, also fronts Taraval St. Why did the Project Sponsors not consider this available location for the Project? Is it because the Sponsors are business partners and close, personal friends with the Gold Mirror owners? Yet another misrepresentation.
BACKGROUND
On February 25, 2022, the Project Sponsor filed the Application with the Department.
The Project Sponsor may have filed the application on said date with the Planning Dept, but, as explained above, there was no mention of on-site consumption in the notices delivered to neighbors per the Good Neighbor Policy, which is stipulated by the Planning Dept.
On February 2, 2023, the Commission considered the Application and voted unanimously to approve the Project.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the Project, despite the fact the overwhelming majority of attendees at the hearing voted to oppose it. The Commission, which consists of seven individuals, none of whom reside or own businesses in the area of the Project Site, only considered the Application and supporting statements made by the Project Sponsor, and dismissed the pubic comments made by the opposition, comprised of residents and business owners, who, unlike the Planning Commissioners, are invested in the area of the Project Site where they work and live. In other words, the opposition spoke but its voice was not represented in the same supportive and understanding manner as the Project Sponsors. The misrepresentation continues.
CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS
Planning Code Section 303 establishes criteria for the Commission to consider when reviewing all
applications for conditional use approval. To approve the Project, the Commission must find that these criteria have been met:
1. That the proposed use or feature, at the size and intensity contemplated and at the proposed location, will provide a development that is necessary or desirable for, and compatible with, the neighborhood or the community; and
2. That such use or feature as proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property, improvements, or potential development in the vicinity, with respect to aspects including but not limited to the following:
a. The nature of the proposed site, including its size and shape, and the proposed size, shape, and arrangement of structures;
b. The accessibility and traffic patterns for persons and vehicles, the type and volume of such traffic, and the adequacy of proposed off-street parking and loading;
c. The safeguards afforded to prevent noxious or offensive emissions such as noise, glare, dust, and odor;
d. Treatment given, as appropriate, to such aspects as landscaping, screening, open spaces, parking and loading areas, service areas, lighting, and signs; and
3. That such use or feature as proposed will comply with the applicable provisions of this Code and will not adversely affect the General Plan.
4. That such use or feature as proposed will provide development that is in conformity with the stated
purpose of the applicable use district.
How can we, the residents and business owners of the neighborhood, expect the Planning Commission to objectively review these criteria, and, at the end of the day, do what is right -- do what is healthy, safe, desirable, and compatible with the neighborhood -- when the process to do so is undeniably biased, one-sided, and has ulterior motives to satisfy the financial gains of the city and political gains of its officials? We can't believe Planning actually wrote this. Who are they fooling? We will not go into detail regarding our city's dysfunction and corruption. You can find plenty of information on the Internet, such as this article by the Economist.
In addition, Planning Code Section 303(w) outlines additional findings for the Commission when reviewing proposals for new Cannabis Retail establishments. The Commission shall consider “the geographic distribution of Cannabis Retail uses throughout the City, the concentration of Cannabis Retail and Medical Cannabis Dispensary uses within the general proximity of the proposed Cannabis Retail use, the balance of other goods and services available within the general proximity of the proposed Cannabis Retail use, any increase in youth access and exposure to cannabis at nearby facilities that primarily serve youth, and any proposed measures to counterbalance any such increase.”
The practical and fair way for the Commission to achieve a balance between the concentration and distribution of retail stores through the city and the exposure of youth to these facilities is to actually listen to both sides at the public hearing. Both sides or parties consist of the support and the opposition, the Project Sponsor and the public voices who are invested in the community where the Project is located. Every neighborhood in our city is different and unique and there is no one-size-fits all, cookie-cutter approach to satisfy them all, yet this is exactly what the Commission is attempting to do. In other words, what constitutes "balance" for one community may be "imbalance" for another, and yet by denying our community's ability to speak out on behalf of its youth, the Commission has failed to meet the goals and objectives it has set forth above.
APPELLANT ISSUES AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSES (APELLANT=FOPSWP)
ISSUE 1: Misrepresentation and Lack of Notice of On-Site Consumption.
RESPONSE 1: Planning Code Section 202.2 (a) (5) (C), states that “cannabis may be consumed or smoked on site pursuant to authorization by the Department of Public Health as applicable.” Under current State and Local laws, permits for the on-site consumption of cannabis are allowed in San Francisco if the applicant obtains 1) a permit from the Department of Public Health, 2) a storefront Cannabis Retailer or Cannabis Microbusiness permit issued by the Office of Cannabis; and 3) an equivalent State Cannabis License. The required notice and staff report distributed to the public specified that the Project does not include a request for on-site smoking or vaporizing but did not specify that it would not include on-site edible consumption. The Commission found that the Project met all the notification requirements and approved the Project.
The Gold Mirror owners conveniently left out this important fact in the notice they wrote and distributed to neighbors on Nov. 19th, 2022 as part of the Good Neighbor Policy. Not very neighborly, is it? The reason the entire neighborhood is outraged over the dispensary is precisely because of our children's exposure to cannabis and edibles. What else are Roberto and Domenico hiding?
ISSUE 2: Misrepresentation of Restaurant as Vacant Storefront.
RESPONSE 2: The property’s mezzanine area, which previously served as private party space for the restaurant currently operating at the ground floor, has been vacant for almost three years and the existing restaurant owner does not see any viability in the space serving the restaurant as is, in the foreseeable future. The Project notice and staff report described the property as a vacant, mezzanine commercial tenant space, not a storefront. The Mayor’s Office and Office of Small Business are in active collaboration to provide any opportunities for small businesses and commercial businesses to enter spaces along neighborhood commercial corridors. The Commission found that doing so better activates our streets and helps surrounding businesses thrive.
We already addressed this misrepresentation of the mezzanine level as not being vacant. It's become abundantly clear that Planning is saying whatever it wants and spinning the facts however it sees fit. That's not ok. Therefore, we don't believe for one moment that what the city is doing is improving our streets or helping surrounding businesses to thrive. In fact, the exact opposite is happening.
ISSUE 3: Incompatibility with Neighborhood/Failure to Alter the Neighborhood for the Better.
RESPONSE 3: This Project Site is situated in a Neighborhood Commercial District that allows various commercial uses. Aside from the installation of new accessible building entrance upgrades, entry doors, and removal of the existing awning, no other changes to the building exterior or envelope are proposed. Since this use is situated in a second-floor space there will be no store front street-level windows for passersby to see into this space. There will be added signage that meets all the standards of the Planning Code and Office of Cannabis policies. As per San Francisco Health Code Article 8A, it is not allowed for cannabis consumption to be visible from any public place or any nonage-restricted area on the premises. There is also an existing liquor store at the southeast corner of Taraval and 18th Street which is compatible and legal within this neighborhood commercial district as are Cannabis Retail uses. The Commission found the Project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity.
Again, we are not buying it. Just because the city decides the rules, regulations, and codes that allow it to say whatever it wants, and in this case, that it is legal and safe to consume edibles inside the restaurant, it does not make it ethical or right, especially when young children dine at the Gold Mirror restaurant with their parents. Please have some decency and separate the two eating experiences and not combine them under one roof. Planning will argue that they are separate and distinct businesses (i.e., Gold vs Green Mirror), but we have reasonable suspicion to believe that this is just a red herring, designed to fool the public so the owners can get what they want.
ISSUE 4: Public Policy – Site Buffers Need to Include Youth-Serving Facilities.
RESPONSE 4: Planning Code Section 202.2(a)(5)(B) states that a new Cannabis Retail use shall not be located within a 600-foot radius of a parcel containing an existing public or private school or within a 600-foot radius of a parcel for which a valid permit from the City’s Office of Cannabis for a Cannabis Retailer or a Medicinal Cannabis Retailer has been issued. The Project is not located within a 600-foot radius of a parcel containing any school as defined by the Planning Code. The Commission found that the Project meets all the required findings and unanimously voted to approve the Project. Before the legalization of adult use of cannabis, Medicinal Cannabis Retailers needed to be 1,000 feet from a School or any community facility or recreation center that primarily serves persons under 18 years of age. The previous regulations did not require a distance between dispensaries, resulting in the clustering of Medicinal Cannabis Retailers in areas lacking these youth-serving facilities. In July 2015, the Board created the Cannabis State Legalization Task Force to advise the Board, the Mayor, and other City departments on legalizing cannabis. The Task Force was active for three years, held numerous public meetings, and published recommendations that resulted in adopting the current Planning Code regulations for Cannabis uses. The current regulations expanded locations where new Cannabis Retailers could operate, allowing for a more equitable distribution of retailers across the city, and are in line with the City’s recent efforts towards advancing racial equity City-wide. The Commission found that the Project meets all the required findings and unanimously voted to approve the Project.
What about how our neighborhood feels? Does that have no bearing on the Project? Where is our say? Again, the city makes the rules and regulations and says whatever it wants to whomever it wants, no matter how preposterous it may sound. There are no repercussions for our public officials. Yet when we, the community, stands up and voices our opinions and concerns, we are not only shunned, we are flat out insulted and labeled liars and racists. Is it racist to question the 600-foot radius and why it only applies to K-12 schools? What about 3 and 4 year olds? Are they not our children too? There is a preschool directly across the street from the Project Site where candy-flavored edibles are to be served. As parents, do we not have the right to be alarmed?
SUMMARY RESPONSE
The Appellant claims that there has been a misrepresentation of the Project Description in noticing to the
public. The Project was properly noticed, as required by the Administrative Code and the Planning Code
and a staff report was prepared which discussed all the issues the Appellant raises.
Here are the misrepresentations:
1) The mezzanine is not vacant.
2) The owners did not disclose on-site consumption per the Good Neighbor Policy.
3) The Project (aka Green Mirror) address is listed on the permit application as 800 Taraval St, which is the same address as the Gold Mirror.
4) The public hearing on Feb. 2nd, 2023 was conducted entirely in favor of the Project Sponsors with little or no regard for the opposition's views and comments.
Finally, where is the staff report? We are not aware of any report.
The Appellant also expressed concerns that the Project would not be compatible to the neighborhood. The Commission found that the Project meets the Planning Code’s allowed use provisions within the Inner Taraval Neighborhood Commercial District, and that it contributes to a more balanced geographic distribution of Cannabis Retailers in the City. The Appellant’s final issue is with the Project’s proximity to youth serving facilities; however, staff’s analysis showed, and the Commission agreed that the site is not within the 600-foot buffer of any public or private school, as required by the Planning Code. The Commission found the Project to meet all necessary requirements and did not open the 600-foot buffer policy up for further discussion.
We are unclear how "balanced geographic distribution of cannabis retailers" is used in this context. Is it a good or bad thing? So, let's assume this is a good thing. In that case, we understand that the purpose of the 600-foot buffer is to allow for a more fair and equal distribution of dispensaries across our city for customers to conveniently access and purchase cannabis products. But, at the same time, the 600-foot buffer excludes pre-schools and so is unfair to 3 and 4 year olds. Why the loophole? Why is convenience more important than a toddler's safety and well-being? Are they not our children too? We kindly ask that Planning respect all children, and refrain from placing dispensaries next to pre-schools, daycare centers, and other businesses that serve minors.
(In Part II, we go into more detail how the city's vision for the cannabis industry is flawed and actually hurting out city instead of helping it.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in this document, in the attached Resolution, and in the Planning Department casefile, the Planning Department recommends that the Board uphold the Commission’s decision in approving the Conditional Use Authorization for the Project.
Way to go Planning....you are par for the course.
Please help us stop the corruption in our city by doing 3 things:
1) Write to the Board of Supervisors by sending an email to: bos@sfgov.org and say no to the Gold Mirror cannabis dispensary.
2) Sign our online petition.
3) Attend our public hearing on April 18th, 2023 and oppose the dispensary, in-person or via phone, before our Board of Supervisors.
Comments
Post a Comment