Board upholds DPH denial of Bloom Room consumption permit, cites prior land-use restriction

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 23 denied an appeal by Jesse Street Collective (doing business as Bloom Room) seeking authorization for on-site cannabis consumption at 471 Jesse Street, voting 4–0 to uphold the Department of Public Health's denial.

Appellant counsel Daniel Borenstein told the board that Bloom Room had conducted limited vaporizing at a single table for years and repeatedly passed DPH inspections that noted "vaporizing" on inspection forms. "We have always been led to believe that our small local vaporizing table has been permitted and authorized," he said, and asked the board to allow the status quo to continue for patrons without safe private spaces to medicate.

Deputy City Attorney Valerie Lopez, representing DPH, said the application lacked a timely written brief and stressed that the 2012 building permit's project description and discretionary review explicitly prohibited on-site smoking, vaporizing or cultivation. Lopez argued that Article 8a of the Health Code bars DPH from issuing a consumption permit where a referring department (here, Planning) recommends denial consistent with prior conditions. "Appellant failed to mention that when he first applied for his building permit he agreed not to provide on-site cannabis at his dispensary," Lopez told the board.

Inspector Obama of DPH explained the department did not have the planning discretionary review documents until recently; when those records were reviewed DPH found three facilities, including Bloom Room, were allowing on-site consumption in ways that contradicted their land-use conditions and DPH issued cease-and-desist notices to those locations.

Planning Department staff confirmed the original application explicitly stated on-site consumption would not be permitted and that the notice of public hearing posted on the property included the restriction. Planning advised that an applicant seeking lawful on-site consumption must return to the Planning Commission and meet current engineering and ventilation standards required under Article 8a (separate room, negative pressure, odor control, filters) rather than claim grandfathered status.

After deliberation the board concluded the denial was properly issued based on the planning and health-code constraints and voted to deny the appeal, upholding DPH's decision 4–0. The board noted the applicant retains options to return to Planning with a new scope and to pursue the formal addenda/permit pathway with DPH if it seeks to meet current on-site consumption requirements.

The board's action does not impose further penalties beyond DPH's existing enforcement but preserves the department's authority to seek enforcement if on-site consumption continues after denial.