Board continues Waterfall Wellness MCD appeal after long public testimony; requests DPH director‑hearing audio

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 23 heard extensive public testimony and attorney arguments in an appeal over a provisional medical cannabis dispensary permit for 1545 Ocean Avenue (Waterfall Wellness). Appellant Greg Shep and his attorney, Dorjee Roberts, urged revocation or further review, citing a 2011 fire attributed to unpermitted electrical work and an illegal grow at that address, past DBI action and a 30‑day suspension, alleged theft of PG&E power and other conduct they said raised serious public‑safety and operator‑fitness concerns.

Roberts framed the question as whether the city should “entrust Daniel Mendez and his stepdaughter Tiara Mitchell with an MCD permit,” citing records of prior enforcement actions and outstanding tax liabilities associated with earlier operators. Multiple community members, patient advocates and union representatives gave public comment; several said they no longer feel safe patronizing the site and asked the board to revoke the permit or require closer oversight.

Permit‑holder counsel Paul Perdue and other supporters said the Department of Public Health followed Article 33 procedures and that the director granted a change of ownership after reviewing the submitted paperwork. DPH staff explained that Article 33 is focused on public‑health considerations — whether a dispensary proposes on‑site cultivation, adequate security, and other health‑related protections — and that the director’s hearing addressed those criteria.

Commissioners raised a threshold procedural question about who formally was the applicant during the director’s hearing (Tiara Mitchell was listed on the application and underwent live‑scan background checks) and whether Mr. Mendez’s role in corporate filings and operations should alter the permitting assessment. Several commissioners said they were not satisfied with the completeness of the record available at the hearing and asked the Department of Public Health to provide a copy of the director’s‑hearing audio so the board could review what was said on the record.

The board voted unanimously to continue the matter to Oct. 29, 2014, and directed DPH to provide a DVD/CD of the director’s hearing; the board allowed simultaneous three‑page briefs, due the Thursday before the continued hearing, with no exhibits. That continuance will let commissioners review the director’s record and the parties’ short supplemental submissions before making a final decision.

Votes and formal action: Board continued the appeal to Oct. 29, 2014, 4–0; DPH instructed to provide the director's hearing audio and all parties permitted a three‑page, simultaneous brief without exhibits due the Thursday before the hearing.