dangerous. i am not against medical marijuana use, but i am against the location. thank you. president peterson: thank you. is there any other public speaker on this item? seeing none, we can move into rebuttal. we will start with mr. moody. you have three minutes. >> thank you very much. i would like to put a few things on the overhead. i will note that there is no exception to the ordinance about 1,000 feet based on access problems. if there is an access problem, you throw it out the window. that is not true. what we have here are the travel times to the four closest and cds -- mcds. by muni, the longest is 28.

these are not that far away. there are 23 medical cannabis dispensaries in this town. oakland has four. as we have noted, there is free delivery available everywhere. sticking with the overhead, there are questions about how near schools are to the site. lincoln high school is 0.75 miles away. they do not have graced infant on this, but let us credit it. you have dianne feinstein at 0.57. you have abraham lincoln and 0.7. you have since cecilia's at one. 07. -- at 1.07. this is an education dense corridor. i am deeply offended by the way that planning is continually changing the rationale for why this is ok.

and want you to look at the report, where they say caanan tutoring, haley dance, and synergy may be youth serving businesses but are not licensed by the state and therefore do not count. he does not come up and say this to you today. when we come up and produce a licensed day care that is within 1,000 feet, he switches to another justification. what is key is looking at the actual ordinance itself, because he is reading it wrong. take a look at where 7 90.501 -- 790.5f.

we have three qualifying entities here. we have a school or a community facility that primarily serve persons under 18 years of age, grace infant center. or a community facility, a recreation building, as defined in 7.90. when he goes back and says look at b, that applies to the third category, not the second one. i submit to you anyone at the infant center is under 18 years of age. president peterson: thank you. mr. david? commissioners, did you have questions? ok.

>> just to make sure that the board is aware, this seems to be the original. i do not know of the board has received a copy. fair enough. i do not want to delay this matter. i do want to say a couple of bullet points, though. first of all, we have heard arguments regarding convenience. we now have evidence before you that the marijuana can be delivered to the household. what can be more convenient than picking up your phone and having it delivered? mr. schoepp mentioned it took him two hours to get downtown. perhaps he was walking or using his wheelchair to do that. i personally observed him getting out of his truck, parking in a handicapped zone, in order to come to this hearing. i doubt highly it takes two

hours to drive from that location downtown. the argument that convenience is an important issue is completely obliterated by the williams case that i cited, which states explicitly that convenience is not an argument that comes the law. it can never be considered in regard to this matter. even if it was, what could be more convenient than picking up the telephone? in regard to mr. sanchez's comments that he analyzed the code at issue, i would have you look at the brief. there is not one iota of analysis in his brief. it is merely stating conclusions. conclusions are not analysis. i do not want to go to our brief, but we have meticulously applied the law to the fact of this matter. that is analysis, not stating conclusions. another thing. in regard to the comment about being best classified, having

these organizations be best classified -- that is not absolute. you can qualify under several different -- you do not have to qualify under one roof brick. you can qualify under 2. -- you do not have to qualify under one rubric. leslie, can we be preemptive? can we use our logic and reasoning to think ahead into the future and stop this from happening? my answer is yes. i sincerely request that you revoke the permit. thank you for your time. president peterson: thank you. mr. saint-pierre? you will have six minutes. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the board. i definitely appreciate your time. i am not going to take this

entire six minutes. a lot of things have been brought to bear on the issue of whether or not this is going to raise safety concerns for children, or potentially endanger the community. first and foremost, one of the primary attributes of mr. schoepp and the bay area compassionate health network is that they want to be active members of the community. as part of setting up this process, they did have regular weekly outreach meetings to the community, and made a significant effort to visit almost all of the merchants on the tereval corridor to at least discuss the issue with them -- the taraval corridor to at least discuss the issue with them. i think the potential for danger are not going to play out. one of the specific conditions granted by the planning

commission is that the permit for this facility would be up for a rehearing within six months after granting in order to address any specific concerns. that is where i think any of these concerns that were raised by the community should be addressed, in terms of violations alleged and in terms of addressing those complaints. i value the input of the community and i hear what they are saying. mr. schoepp values the input of the community and here's what they are saying. one of the reasons he has opted to move forward with the process in this situation is because it is an underserved part of the san francisco community. as you saw, the majority of the dispensaries in the city are located downtown. there are none in that district. he has been a member of this community operating a family business for a number of years. his father opened a hardware store in outer richmond.

the continue to be an important part of that community on balboa st.. they are attempting to do the very same thing on taraval street at this location. in terms of the issues regarding schools, regarding everything else, the zoning laws are the zoning laws. they are very clear, very specific. in terms of the actual institutions that are located in the immediate vicinity, while i value the input of what the community is saying, they frankly are not qualified institutions. and in this situation, i do not see that their concerns will actually bear fruit. what do i mean by that? part of what is going to happen with mr. schoepp -- there will be security including cameras as

well as a person to maintain the door. part of the actual process will be a walk around the block to check for loitering, to check for litter, and to try to maintain the community presence. it has been part of the process that he has actually attended police commission hearings, spoken directly with the police captain in that district, as well as spoken to the police commissioners to try to address some of the concerns and hear the actual arguments. while i acknowledge there may be some opposition from the community, i think that it is more appropriately addressed during the rehearing after six months of operation, so that the track record can be evaluated. as indicated by the planning commission reply, as you heard

mr. sanchez, there are no complaints on file with planning regarding bay area compassionate health network or mr. schoepp. thank you for your time. i look forward to you approving this permit. commissioner hwang: i have a point of clarification. i understand it is not a rehearing, but the project sponsor could request to extend the hours after six months, provided there are no complaints. i do not think there is an automatic rehearing. >> let me turn to that text, but i believe that is one of the conditions of use before the actual operation of that facility. commissioner hwang: we can ask the zoning administrator. go ahead. >> to verify, there is not a

rehearing. that is correct. there is only a review after six months to determine whether they could have powers beyond what they are conditioned for. commissioner hwang: ok. >> i am sorry. that was my misunderstanding. any other questions? president peterson: i have a couple of questions. is your client a partner now of corn hardware? >> he is the managing operator. president peterson: how is it doing financially? >> it is still operating. the doors are open. every time i visit there, there is business inside. president peterson: does your client have concerns about this free delivery? i have to confess that hearing about the pre delivery i, as an investor, would be worried about the impact on your client's business. >> there are two issues in terms of free delivery. one is the actual issue of if you are in medical cannabis patient, how comfortable are you

calling and contacting someone saying, "please come to my house so that i can invite you into my house and have an exchange of cash for marijuana"? some individuals will be happy with that. a lot will be concerned about inviting a stranger into their home to conduct that transaction. president peterson: we do that with pizza, so i guess -- >> the pizza delivery man does not walk inside. >> please quiet down, thank you. >> the pizza delivery man does not walk into your door. the second issue in terms of delivery is a large number of delivery services have a marked vehicle that says some version of delivery on the side of it. while i am not a police officer, that would create concerns if you were driving around the vehicle of a delivery related service, seeing them parked in front of someone's house. there are a certain number of conclusions that can be drawn from what is going on there.

much like your pizza analogy, you would jump to the conclusion that that person likes pizza end eats pizza. if you have a delivery truck parked in front of your house, it makes a suggestion regarding medical marijuana. friendly, there are a lot of patients who have privacy issues concerning that. in terms of delivery, i sit on the medical care of this task force in the city. the task force is under the process of trying to develop how they are born to regulate delivery service. one of the primary concerns is that there are a lot of businesses outside the city and county of san francisco providing delivery in the city that is unregulated and the city is not receiving the benefit of any of those taxes. in terms of delivery, it is a very strange situation. it is a bit of a gray area as to how it will operate. it is one of those things that is still being taken under review and submission. there will be new laws and

guidelines suggested to regulate the delivery services. article 33 currently does not really provide regulation for delivery, and kind of skirts around that issue. >> [inaudible] president peterson: only if it is entering a question. i think your council did a great job. thank you. >> anything else? president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. just to reiterate again, there are two issues that have been raised by the appellants -- whether or not the project is code complying. using their arguments would change how we review mcds in san francisco. if we were to consider child care facilities, which are a

separate definition in the planning code -- and we do have many definitions in the planning code. it would be common to refer to one definition for one use and another for a different use. the important thing we look at is how we would process the application. the chapter facility we will process as a child care facility in planning code. we will not process it as something else. we will not process it as a social service. i think that is an important part to make. this is a code compliant project. we did review it against the requirements of the planning code for the 1,000 foot requirement. we did not find that there were any facilities with of the defis that are prohibited in the code. in reference to the error in the code, it is an error in the planning code, referring to a code section that does not exist. it was repeated several times in the case report in error, but it

was just repeated what the planning code said. we are working to correct that. the first issue -- it is code complying, properly viewed in that way. the second issue, the broader issue here, and probably what this board will want to consider, is the impact on the neighborhood. that is within the discretionary authority of this board. it was not within the discretionary authority of the planning commission. the planning commission had a -- the had to find exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to justify it not accepting this. the commission found there were not exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. it was noted it was going to be a neighborhood-serving use. the nearest is 7.3 miles away. they put a couple of troubled times on there. there is no clear indication how

easy it is to find parking around those facilities, or how good that data is. there are probably facilities within a half hour drive, with time allowed for parking. the delivery that is available -- there is at least one delivery-only mcd in san francisco. there are others that sir san francisco that are located of the city. -- that serve as san francisco that are located out of the city. it is my understanding this storefront has been vacant for several years. it also provide a secure storefront, eyes on the street. one cannot argue you would have decreased security by having an occupied building with security cameras. one could argue it is an improved security situation to what would be there currently with a vacant storefront. three trading again, the commission did not find

exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to deny the permit. they did condition the hours of operation monday through friday from 9:00 to 8:00. they said after six months they could request that the zoning administrator allow them to operate until 10:00 p.m. monday through friday. that is to be clear there. i am available for any questions. thank you. vice president goh: good to talk about -- could you talk about the muni stop being ada or not? >> i do not know. i would assume the testimony of the member of the public who said it is not a ramped stop. there are requirements that the facility itself be accessible. president peterson: mr. sanchez, if i can go back to 790, section b, tommy how a community

facility that primarily serves persons under 18 years of age is not a day care? >> excuse me? president peterson: you know the language. a secondary school or community facility that primarily serves persons under 18 years of age. >> 790.141 section b? president peterson: it is the latter part, the following the language concerning schools. or secondary school, public or private, or community -- >> we have a separate and specific definition for child care. there is no reference in the code anywhere to community facility. president peterson: what is the

definition of a community facility that primarily serves persons under 18 years of age? >> would look under the assembly and social service. the community facility and recreation building -- it meets the definition of social service. it is included in that. but by the definition as a social service, not a child care facility, under 790.50a. i can put it on the overhead again. can i have the overhead, please? this is not quit working as well. -- not quite working as well. it provides social or fraternal gathering recreational services

to the community -- a clubhouse, lodge, meeting hall, or community facility. it also includes an enclosed recreation area not publicly owned. separate line item b, child care, which provide service by licensed personnel. honestly, if these uses were to come in for applications, we would not process them as community services. we would apply the planning code and say you are a child care facility. that is how we would process it. president peterson: do you cap community facilities or have it defined? in language, this reading is broad. i am just telling you that i have to define it. the second thing is that if you have this typo of subsection f,

it does mean it could have been any of the other sections, right? >> we have to call upon the intent of the code. child care center is not included as a prohibited use within 1,000 feet of the mcd in any of the other planning code sections. go to article 2. go to article 8. it does not say you cannot be within 1,000 feet of each health care center. this is a code section that has been reviewed as in error. there is an error in having code section f. it has been applied. there are precedents. we have approved facilities under this as well. president peterson: all right. thank you. vice president goh: i have a question related to that. did the planning commission notice there was a reference to f?

>> i do not believe the issue was raised. vice president goh: thank you. >> commissioners, if there are no further questions, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: i can start. usually, i am one of the commissioners who asks questions, but i did not in this particular instance for two reasons. one is i was curious enough to go back and look at the tape on the planning commission hearing. lucky for me, i was able to use the fast-forward button. i did not have to do the same thing that most participants would have gone through.

again, reading the briefs and listening to the presentations there, i think the issues have stayed the same. they are quite wide. and in terms of where i would approach this, i think there is a certain focus that is impacting my own decision making on this particular case. and that is -- the focus is twofold. one is the specific code itself and how we interpret that, and whether i concur with the planning department staff and commission interpretation of that. secondly, whether i feel that the intent of that particular

code also was conformed to in the decisions that we saw. in my opinion, i do not find that the decision matched both the language of the code section and, more importantly, its intent. i believe that the uses that are in this specific area satisfied the prohibition within 1,000 feet. commissioner hwang: i would like to acknowledge the speakers and presenters, the lawyers, and the zoning administrator for excellent presentations today. i think the arguments raised

were compelling on both sides. i want to make clear before i give you my thinking that i do not have any issues with mcds. i think they are a needed type of business for san francisco at large. i have similar concerns with respect to the code. i think there is enough room within my reading of the code sections that are relevant to argue, as the appellants have, that the types of entities that exist within the 1,000 feet impact would make an mcd in this location not appropriate. secondly, the outpouring of the community is also very compelling here. this is clearly a concern for the public in this particular community, and i think that way

is strongly in my thinking -- weighs strongly in my thinking that the appeal should be granted. vice president goh: i do support mcds and think there is a need for them in the city. however, our charge year for the board of appeals is to consider the impact of any development on the surrounding community and the adjacent properties. we have seen here today a really profound showing of what this particular district, this particular neighborhood, thinks about this business. i was impressed -- i will not say suede -- by the seven eleven owner who came forward and said that the mcd owners claimed he supported their business when he says he does not. the lack of a feeling of trust from the community toward them

-- toward the project sponsor i think was represented by that. i do think the public process was flawed at the planning commission with the lack of having a translator. and i agree with what has been said so far about the other organizations within the 1,000 feet. i also think that edgewood being outside of that by 50 feet -- that is two houses, basically, outside the perimeter. that is an important consideration given that ed would is a treatment center. so i would -- given that edgewood is a treatment center. so i would support revocation. president peterson: