evening. what i would like to say really boils down to this. the appellants are here trying to take a second bite at the apple. what do i mean by that? every single issue that was raised here this evening was raised at the planning commission, heard at length at the planning commission, and decided upon by the planning commission. the issues raised tonight are nothing new. that are in fact reiteration of the very same issues that the planning commission listened to, analyzed, and did not find merit. what they are trying to do through this is effectively rehear the exact same issues presented, and reanalyze and take away the discretion given to the planning commission. the planning commission is vested with the original authority to decide these

matters. the board of appeals is to review and make sure the planning commission did not abuse this discretion. i am standing before you, let you know that the discretionary review which i believe mr. sanchez will respect and speak to you about, speaks to each and every concern, including the police report brought up by the appellants. effectively, the appellants do not understand the municipal code. each of the clients as well as the other child care-related entities cited by them do not qualify under the applicable statute. section 1789.50 is qualified, and let me read it directly into the record. the public to private, profit, or nonprofit use, including --

excluding hospitals or medical centers, which meets the provisions of section 3045. that refers to items that qualify on the master plan. it does not cover any of the institutions referred to by the appellant. again, the concerns raised by the appellant regarding child safety, regarding holistic resale, regarding any of the other allegations being made, or specifically addressed in considered by the commissioners. -- were specifically addressed and considered by the commissioners. as you can see in the packet submitted to you during the appeal, this is simply a building permit appeal. as part of the discretionary review process, a bunch are placed in front of the mcd before they can operate. each of these hurdles was addressed by the bay area health

network. each of those hurdles was successfully navigated, bringing it all the way to the matter here before you. at this time, there is no track record of mr. schoepp operating a medical cannabis dispensary in san francisco. his permit is still pending. there has been a time for him to show to the community that he would be a valuable member, and demonstrate what type and what means of an actual dispensary he would run. the other issue, in terms of concerns regarding language and the translation services provided during the planning commission hearings -- as much as i appreciate the appellants, what they are bringing up, i think that is frankly in the situation better addressed with the sunshine ordinance task force, and not whether the

language translation was provided at the commission hearing. in terms of captain schmidt's letter, it was discussed at length during the planning commission hearing. i have copies of the april 28, 2010 planning commission hearing that i am happy to provide to the entire board. this addresses -- these are the minutes of the meeting. there are also truncated excerpt from the actual meeting, reflecting the comments of the commissioners as well as the police captain. frankly, the primary issue there is that the police captain was raising concerns regarding illegal operations in the sunset district, which has been a concern. that is not the issue before you. we are talking about a medical cannabis dispensary, not a grow operation in the sunset.

i would like to reserve a few minutes for mr. schoepp to address you. before, i would like to address questions by the actual board. commissioner garcia: i have a question. what citation could you give me that states that our duty is only to review the actions of the planning commission for error of use of authority? >> i do not have a direct quotation on that. i did quite a bit of research in terms of your prior decisions. essentially, i see that the -- as the point is made in my argument -- that this is analogous to an appellate court. i am not saying it is the exact same situation, but looking at the dynamic before you, i think the best way you can characterize the situation is an appellate review of the underlying decision. in that situation, and abuse of discretion standard would apply

to the process. i will agree with mr. garcia that in terms of the direct on- point citation, no. but through parallel authority as well as other items that suggest what should be the standard -- it is a little bit of a difficult situation, but i think that may be the appropriate standard. commissioner garcia: that is the standard. that is the standard when we review something by the zoning administrator. the authority of this board goes way beyond the same considerations of the planning commission. they are not necessarily the same considerations this board would have. we can apply different standards in rendering decisions. >> i understand. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> any other questions from the board? before a turn it over, the other thing that i will make a point to clarify is that this evening we did not want a repeat of the

planning commission hearing. the planning commission hearing lasted well into 3:00 in the morning. we would like to do this evening -- we want to truncate our presentation and only bring the members directly related to the area compassion health networks to the board. we did not request or supporters to come here and address the board for the convenience of the board as well as the fact that we feel that the community support was adequately reflected during the actual initial hearing. thank you. president peterson: thank you. >> greg? >> good evening. i am a little nervous, here. my name is greg schoepp.

i and the sponsor of bay area compassionate health centers. wheat started looking for a location 18 months ago. i found 2139 taraval street in the sunset district. as i began my due diligence, i found out about the agreement. i contacted the san francisco planning department. i started playing rent on the location. i met with supervisor chu and captain schmidt before applying for my permit to let them know why i chose the sunset district and what my purpose was, which was not to open up a pot club. this was to allow safe access to medicine for people in the sunset district. there are many disabled and sick people that cannot travel to get their medicine. the taraval location is on the streetcar line. it has been mentioned how easy

it is to get on and go. i did it myself. very difficult. it was over two hours roundtrip to get downtown and back. if you are sick, that is a long time to be away from the toilet. a little about me. i have been paralyzed 20 years, in a wheelchair. i use medical cannabis myself for spasms, back pains. i am not taking oxycontin. that is how you end up becoming an addict on pain pills. this works for people. our family has been in san francisco for 50 years. we have a long track record in san francisco. we are locksmiths and security experts with a hardware store. we are very well known locksmiths in san francisco. my knowledge of security will make our dispensary one of the best secured dispensaries in san

francisco. in the block between 31st and 32nd, it will be the safest block on the street. our security -- and my brother is our security expert on this project. he designed it with 12 cameras toto, 3 facing toward taraval street. if something does happen, hour video cameras will catch it. it is recorded on a d.v.d. that can be turned over to the police to catch the bad guys. we are also, in our security, employing a security guard at the front door for two reasons. to make sure no kids can get in and to make sure the people who come in have a valid canada's prescription. if anyone needs assistance, we have a security guard that can help. there is talk about captain schmidt's letter, and we went

to the two police commission hearings regarding that. nothing was ever brought to that letter from the san francisco police department. i do have a quote here from san francisco police department on march 17, public information officer boaz. he stated there has been a spike in fact, violent crimes, or dwi arrests. it is just the opposite. people are taking ownership now that they are stakeholders in the community. dispensary owners have done their part by keeping the sidewalks clean, discouraging bordering, and generally acted as friendly neighbors. in closing, i ask you to grant the building permit so i can start to help the sick and disabled people in the sunset

district get their medicine in a safe and easy to get to dispensary. thank you for your time. president peterson: thank you. >> a final comment i want to address to the board is the fact that, as i see it, the appellants are arguing that the process broke down in front of the planning commission. in fact, the process went as it should have. the process was each of the commissioners had an opportunity to analyze the information presented to them. each of the commissioners had an opportunity to hear from the public. each of the commissioners had an opportunity to hear from the planning department, as well as the department of public health, regarding the actual issuance of the permit. as a result, they did issue the permit. i respectfully request you deny the appeal on this matter and allow mr. schoepp to go forward

and become a valuable part of this community. thank you very much. commissioner hwang: i have a question. was your client aware of the grace infant center? >> as part of the actual initial investigation -- maybe investigation is not the right word, but looking into the area, he was aware of each of the actual locations on the taraval corridor. in terms of the grace into center, i believe it is located on taraval but on one of the other side streets. commissioner hwang: within 1,000 feet from the subject property? >> it is, but that is to act would be one of the -- it is not a qualifying institution, as outlined in the municipal regulations. commissioner hwang: why not?

president peterson: i have the code in front of me, and it appears to meet the requirements. 790.40, subsection be. >> that requires you to look at another planning code section. that is qualified specifically by 304.5. if you turn to 304.5, it refers to institutions that qualify under the master plan for san francisco.

there will not be any smoking on the location in products being sold. the will not be anything along those lines. there will be medical cannabis and medical cannabis related edibles, a dispensary with a consumption on site. president peterson: i do not know what edibles are. sugar? commissioner hwang: i actually had another question. i think your client mentioned will pull hearings before the police commission. can you tell me that

letter was then subsequently brought up during a planning commission hearing. captain schmidt was asked to specifically appear so the commissioners could ask the captain about the letter, about the statistics and where the information came from, and the captain appeared. there was a lead the dialogue. -- there was a long dialogue. they have been involving illicit grow operations. the other issues addressed in the letter was simply what the captain described as her observations and other police officers potential concerns regarding an mcd. commissioner hwang: what about the police commission? these were not discussed at the

police commission hearing? >> the police commissioners expressed an enormous amount of doubt. the captain issued a letter in opposition to the mcd. the real focus of the actual dialogue during the police commission was the veracity of the actual letter and what kind of statistical support exists to suggest whether or not crimes have been an increased in the vicinity of mcd's. commissioner hwang: that dialogue could not take place before the police commission? >> that was the police commission. commissioner hwang: he said police. i was a little confused. that is okay, i think i understand. >> the issues in the letter were only address during the police

commission. that letter was introduced and the planning commissioners were aware of it. commissioner hwang: ok. president peterson: thank you. >> thank you. president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department's staff. this evening i am lucky to be joined by the planner, who is involved and the legislation that led up to the requirements that we have, developed in 2005. if there are issues about the intent, it maybe he can address those. there were questions that came up during the testimony. i will jump around a little bit. bear with me. i want to begin with a procedural background of the application. the property is located at 2139 taraval street, between 31st and

32nd streets. the building is a mixed use building, built in 1924. that has a small retail presence at the front, and that is where the subject mcd would be located. it has one dwelling unit at the rear. bmc -- the mc-2 zoning district is principally permitted use. people like to throw around the term as of rights. there is a discretionary review, of course. the subject application, the bill to permit application was submitted at the end of december of last year. they submitted through the review process and the planning commission heard this item on may 20 and voted 5-1-1, with a commissioner absent, to approve the project as proposed.

with that, there are probably some questions of what the powers of this board are. i would defer to the expert, the deputy city attorney and the deputy director, but it is my understanding of the discretionary powers of this board are broad. the discretionary powers of the planning commission are derived from powers given to this board. you can consider the impact of development applications on the adjacent property. i think that is important to know so that everybody in the stands with the roles and responsibilities of this board are. also, we're starting all over again. these to novo hearings will cure a lot of the minor here it -- all of the minor issues, whether the testimony went to 3:00 a.m., whether or not a child care center was or was not completed and the analysis. this hearing will correct all

those issues that have been raised. the appellate has really raised two issues about why this board should deny the application that the planning commission has approved. first, it is not code comply because it is within 1,000 feet of a child care center and they are considering that as a use that is one of the prohibited uses under the planning code. i have provided an analysis in our brief about each of the locations that they have referenced and how they are not subject to these limitations. getting into the requirements of section 790.5a, that is the section that we are looking at. it reference a code section that does not exist. if you look at article 8, which is similar to article 7, as the correct reference, and that is

890.50a. in looking at that, it does not include child care. it child care is separate item. that is not included and the list of prohibited uses. you have to be a school, you have to be a committee center devoted to it -- you have to be a community center devoted to children 18 years or under. the section 304.5 requirement is not really relevant here. that is the master plan which we addressed last meeting. yes, and the use in here would be subject to that, but that simply means you either meet it or do not meet it. the fact that they do not need it does not mean that it does not apply. i think 304.5 is irrelevant here. the key is to look at the enumerated sections, and the

subject application is code compliant. this board has heard many medical dispensary cannabis appeals. i think they're well aware of the difficulties the providers have in finding a suitable location. we have very strict requirements, and these were crafted in 2005. at the time, we developed a map. the permit holder referenced a green map, which is now blue. i will put it on the overhead. there are very few locations in the city in which you can locate a medical cannabis dispensary. commissioner garcia: could you slide that up some so to see the southwest corner? there we go, thank you. >> there are very few occasions in the city where an mcd can be

located. when the controls were crafted, the war including public schools. that is how this map was developed. -- they were including public schools. the war including recreational centers. child care specifically not included. if child care were included, this map would look much different. i cannot say if there would be any blousons or not. it would be substantially reduced. that is really the first part of that argument. then we get the second point, that is not a desirable use. i think we're looking at code complying, desirable use, is it neighborhood serving? we had discussed that the nearest mcd is on the ocean. this is not a location that is very well served by medical cannabis dispensary.

as you see on the map, there's a large market and that is where a lot of the new mcd's go. we don't see a lot of new mcd's locating in other neighborhoods because they are so difficult to find. but we have four, five around ninth and mission. there are few locations. the permit holders found a suitable location, code plant, made the correct application, and the planning commission approved it. in reference to the letter from the police captain, with respect to the appellant, the planning commission it's a lot of letters from the police department. often when the police department is concerned about something, they will send somebody out. you'll meet the capt. themselves or somebody else from their station. but the police are involved with the planning process. this was not something that was exceptional or extraordinary. it was submitted to the planning

commission. i think they had all that information and considered it and felt the project was not only code complying but also suitable for the location. the message about how to operate in such, does the board understands -- i guess the board understands the process. the planning department regulates the underlying land use and then the department of public health up -- the department of public health regulates the suppliers. the department of public health even regulates the signs, which is normally something planning would do, but they have complete control over the signs. i think there is suitable oversight here, including

through the department of public health. i think that addresses the questions i had here. i like to respectfully request that this board of pulled the planning commission's decision to allow this mcd to operate and i am available for questions. vice president goh: i wonder if you could walk me through 790.141, the reference to 790, subsectionf, and how that references a and not b. >> it is simply a typo. it there is not at section. there has never been a section f. if we look at article 8, article 7 and eight were to fall to run the same time, the late 1980's, and have a different format from

the rest of the planning code. it is a chart with references to definitions and back. they have many of the same numbers. it is a different number in each article. in the definition of a medical cannabis dispensary, it references 890.50a. it is a typo, and i am interpreting what that means is a reference to 790.50a, which would be consistent with article 8. vice president goh: are there any rulings from this board or other body that finds that to be the case? >> no, this issue has not been brought up before. we have something pending, code cleanup language before the board of supervisors. board of supervisors. i was not able to confirm this