Board of Appeals upholds DPH permit for Spark dispensary at 473 Haight Street after 3–2 vote

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3–2 on Oct. 19, 2016, to deny an appeal of a Department of Public Health (DPH) medical‑cannabis operating permit for Spark, which seeks to operate at 473 Haight Street.

The board’s decision upheld DPH’s issuance of permit C85769 after a de novo review of the paperwork and referrals DPH received under Article 33 of the San Francisco Health Code. Commissioner Lazarus moved to deny the appeal; Vice President Frank Fung and Commissioner Rick Swig joined him in support, while President Daryl Honda and Commissioner Bobby Wilson dissented.

Neighbors and a nearby business owner, appellant Azam Khan of Love Hate Computers, told the board they were not opposed to medical cannabis generally but argued Spark’s application represented a significant intensification of use, raised concerns about clustering of dispensaries, and described problems with how DPH handled community notification. Khan said the permitting process was “defective” and that city staff had promised a follow‑up meeting that never occurred.

“We are just against this particular location,” Azam Khan said during his presentation, asserting the new operation would alter the neighborhood footprint and alleging department errors in notification and timing.

Spark representatives and supporters, including counsel Tom Tunney (Rubin, Junius & Rose) and executive director Eric Pearson, disputed those claims. Pearson outlined Spark’s outreach, saying the operator had “sent out direct communications, knocked on over 175 doors, held multiple community meetings, and has letters of support from nearby businesses.” He told the board Spark would operate under the restrictions imposed in 2006 when a medical‑cannabis use was first established at the site and that no on‑site consumption would be allowed under DPH and planning rules.

DPH deputy city attorney Anne Pearson and inspector Douglas Obana explained the department’s process for Article 33 permits: applications are referred to the fire department, planning, and the mayor’s office on disability and DPH reviews operator documents, background checks and holds a public hearing. Obana acknowledged a word‑choice mistake at the prior DPH hearing — he said he used “temporary” when he intended “provisional” — but told the board the department rescinded the incorrect wording and issued the final permit after required referrals and paperwork were complete: “I used the wrong word,” Obana said, taking responsibility for the verbal error.

Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez told the board that, under planning rules, the site’s medical‑cannabis use is a legal nonconforming use that may be continued in place and that a separate building permit and discretionary review would be required for any significant expansion (defined in the planning code as more than 25 percent of the area or 500 square feet, whichever is less).

Public comment ran long and sharply divided the room. Supporters — including patients, social‑service providers, and submitted letters from elected officials — said Spark’s compassionate‑care deliveries and security measures had improved safety and access for vulnerable patients. Opponents — including adjacent businesses and residents — complained of odors, noise, clustering of dispensaries on the corridor, and an incident they described in which a young child entered the premises while Spark was operating with doors open; Spark said its security and staff response were appropriate and that the incident was handled.

During deliberations, several commissioners said the community’s sense of having been promised another DPH hearing weighed on their view of whether to continue the appeal for process reasons, while others said the board’s de novo review exists to correct procedural errors and that the record supported DPH’s eligibility determination. The board ultimately concluded DPH had the paperwork and interagency referrals required by Article 33 and that the permit should stand.

The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit carried on a 3–2 vote. The board’s ruling applies to the DPH operator permit; any separate building permit for a proposed expansion remains subject to planning and building review and could be appealed separately.

Actions and next steps: The permit for operation under DPH remains in effect as granted; the Planning Department and Building Inspection will review any work or expansion, and those permits are separately appealable.