667 MISSISSIPPI ST

2020-02-06 · 19 comments · 11 / 8

Albert Lee · spoken · 2020-02-06 · oppose

DR presentation

Nguey Lay · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Rebuttal

Perry Jones · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Support

Immaculate J. Lupis · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Support

Jim Warshell · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Support

Wade Laughter · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Support

Antoine Jones · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Support

Walter Chang · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Support

Angel Davis · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Project presentation

Ron Miguel · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Support

Don Henry · spoken · 2020-02-06 · oppose

Opposition

Roberto Apodaca · spoken · 2020-02-06 · oppose

Opposition

Mary Taylor · spoken · 2020-02-06 · oppose

Opposition

Lia Nutting · spoken · 2020-02-06 · oppose

Opposition

Christina Curos · spoken · 2020-02-06 · oppose

Opposition

Billy Hwang · spoken · 2020-02-06 · oppose

Opposition

Reese Walker · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Support

Emily Wang · spoken · 2020-02-06 · oppose

DR presentation

Michael Hall · spoken · 2020-02-06 · support

Project presentation

2020-02-13 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Friends Of Mississippi · email · 2020-02-13 · oppose · source packet

Project at 667 Mississippi Street (please look at their permit documents!)
Hello Commissioners and Senior planning members, and Supervisor Walton, Commissioners, thank you for your feedback and recommendations at last week's DR on the Cannabis Lounge/Dispensary proposal on Mississippi Street. We hope to have some resolution via mediation prior to the continuance scheduled March 19th but may also see you all there if items are not in complete alignment. We've included Theresa I… Hello Commissioners and Senior planning members, and Supervisor Walton, Commissioners, thank you for your feedback and recommendations at last week's DR on the Cannabis Lounge/Dispensary proposal on Mississippi Street. We hope to have some resolution via mediation prior to the continuance scheduled March 19th but may also see you all there if items are not in complete alignment. We've included Theresa Imperial and Dennis Richards as we believe they will be part of the March 19th continuance. Milicenta asked the project sponsor to provide building elevation renderings to better explain the facade. Stay Gold (415 Native LLC) provided renderings of a much improved facade, a week before the 311 was issued which did not align to the permit documents and elevations (showing no change). This was something which raised a red flag for the neighbors early on and was asked from the community on numerous occasions. We have no real idea of what to expect on many fronts the building, the operator, the hours, how they will perform, etc. Rather than provide renderings is it worth asking them to revise their drawings? We asked the senior planner about this at the initial 311 and it was stated that they maybe wanting to do this work at a later date but the project sponsor provided no clear response to what the actual elevation would be and the permit documents show no commitment to any improvements. But this is minor in comparison to some other items which have unearthed. For better or worse, this email address has received tips and insights on the 667 Mississippi site, such as the superior court litigation for fraud and breach of contract of the project sponsor of this site, and now more about this current permit and process. As the commissioners have heard, there has been a consistent misleading narrative being sold to the neighbors, and now a different one sold to the commissioners (they claim to be renters in the DR response packet, however their literature from Andrea Bakers leads the neighbors to believe they own the property). We urge the commissioners and senior level planning staff take a closer look at the permit que and the permit drawings, for both planning and building - and historically. Similarly 313 Ivy, the recently approved Hayes Valley location, which was approved earlier, has some questionable documentation or lack of documentation. Looking at the 311 drawings, neighbors were amazed at the lack of information on their documents. Now looking at it more closely folks are again scratching their heads. In light of their current litigation there maybe a good possibility that there is direct intention in omission of information for expediting the permit process more quickly for the remaining departments - or just overall avoidance of steps as some neighbors have hinted as a possibility. They have consultants or friends such as Amy Lee (the previous head of the DBI) so one would think understanding the requirements for a permit would be clear. The lack of information in the drawings could work extremely conveniently in the advantage of the project sponsor. We have asked the senior planner about this as well on previous occasions, and Michael Christiansen mentioned these were items that this would be addressed in building department review - but if the drawings don't show the right information there really is nothing to review (consider the fact that land use changes are not included in the set nor are any occupancy type changes - this means any improvements for life safety are significantly reduced when going from manufacturing to retail mercantile). In light of the property owners investigation for fraud, we felt the need to bring up this as well. Once this moves out of planning and into building department purview- the history of the land use and occupancy use change will no longer be shown as clearly and the current drawings in the building department appear like existing conditions which somehow miraculously had retail and consumption already in place. It's worth noting that the same architect provided support for their 313 Ivy sheet, clearly we do not want to dig into that too much, but it was also lacking project data information and existing and new that again may assist the project sponsor in getting final occupancy in a new use building. People short cut the system as much as possible, but this would be ignoring life safety improvements that a double height masonry building with single pane double height glazing on the frontage may be required to improve when more people are expected to be inside than it's previous manufacturing use required. Maybe it's nothing but please take a look at this, it seems like a dangerous way to let things be permitted from both a life safety standpoint as well as one of equity to other businesses. When speaking of equity, one would expect that all people and businesses should be playing by the same standards and rules. This would provide some pretty extensive advantages. As mentioned in the DR there are other amenities and businesses that many neighbors need, that can not even get zoning permissions in this neighborhood but we have 5 cannabis retailers in a 4 block radius most of them with lounges, but zero groceries, pharmacies, schools K-12, or community/child amenity spaces in this new cannabis and bar zone which will be hitting the eastern potrero hill and dogpatch all at once. Again we asked the senior planner about this and our concerns were dismissed. Since time is limited at the DR, this is obviously not a forum to discuss items such as permit process and documentation control, we wanted to get guidance from the commissioners and higher level planning members and supervisors as to what and how this addressed as planning via the senior planner has ignored this item of what appears to be a somewhat illegal process. If you all think this is serious, please take it to the right people to be addressed. The gate keeping for the information of these documents is clearly sliding through. Maybe this is systemic, and needs an overall scrubbing which is not the battle this neighborhood is trying to fight. We would like to focus on the land use concerns at hand and why we think this retailer in this location with the given context is extraordinary. We will see you March 19th. Friends of Mississippishow more

2020-06-04 · 11 comments · 3 / 8

Emily Nutting · spoken · 2020-06-04 · oppose

Residential

Renee Shaw · spoken · 2020-06-04 · oppose

Study dispensaries in California

Don Henry · spoken · 2020-06-04 · oppose

Opposed, traffic and parking

Mary Taylor · spoken · 2020-06-04 · oppose

Extraordinary and exceptional

Michael Holmes · spoken · 2020-06-04 · support

Project presentation

Emily Wang · spoken · 2020-06-04 · oppose

Opposed

Albert Lee · spoken · 2020-06-04 · oppose

DR presentation

Angel Davis · spoken · 2020-06-04 · support

Project presentation

Donald J Henry · email · 2020-06-04 · oppose · source packet

2019-014211DRP (M. CHRISTENSEN: [phone removed]),,667 MISSISSIPPI STREET <U+2013> east side
of Mississippi Street, between 20th and 22nd Streets Here's how it will work. A stranger will drive to our block, park up the hill (most of this block is up the hill) walk down to 667 Mississippi St, ingest some quantity of a mind-altering substance (the folks at the shop have pinky-promised that this won't be a problem), walk back to their car, back out blindly into the traffic lane (because that'… show more

Charlotte Randolph · spoken · 2020-06-04 · support

Support

Christinar Quiroz · email · 2020-06-04 · oppose · source packet

Planning Commission DR Review 6/4 1 p.m. Re: 667 Mississippi Street
Please accept this statement in regards to discussion for 667 Mississippi Street DR Sent from my iPad

667 MISSISSIPPI ST

Hearings

Comments by hearing (31)