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. i was not able to confirm this was in there or not, but it is something that now that we are aware of it will include in the code cleanup legislation. vice president goh: you don't know if this appears in the close to clean up -- you are not aware of this appears in the code cleanup? >> the current code, this reference is a section that does not exist, but the code cleanup legislation would correct it. i am not sure if it is in the current legislation or any subsequent legislation. vice president goh: ok. >> this is a hearing where the board can consider all of these items, but if this is code complying, we have approved other mcd's under these provisions and this is raised as an issue. that it has been brought to our

attention, we will address it. vice president goh: okay, thank you. vice president goh: -- commissioner hwang: mr. sanchez, in your reply, this submission, dated november 4, it references planning code section 790.116. you excerpt it here. anyway, right before the conclusion, you reference this multiple times, about the definition of personal service. do you have whole colt -- the whole code section? >> yeah, sure.

this will take a second. to have the overhead, please? the definition, personal service, retail use efinition, l service, retail use which provides services to the individual, including salons, cosmetic services, tattoo parlors, and health spas, or art, dance, exercise, martial arts, and music classes. that is where we felt both of those centers were both best classified under that section. tha commissioner hwang: okay, thk

you. president peterson: as commissioner garcia mentioned, he had to leave the meeting. when it comes time to vote on this item, it commissioner garcia's vote would make a difference in the outcome of the item, the item will be continued to allow his participation in the vote. we are ready to move into public comment. if i could see a show of hands of people interested in speaking on this item? ok, great. we will ask people to line up on the far wall. and president peterson?

president peterson: in light of the number of speakers and the need for a translator, we will have one minute for public comment. >> if you need translation services, if someone is not standing next to you to help you have that, let us know and we will make sure somebody does that. also, i need to make sure everybody understands that public, it is available for people who are not affiliated with any of the parties. so if you are on the board of directors, for example, of peter the appellant organizations or an owner of -- of the appellant organizations or the owner of one of those appellant organizations or the owner or agent of a permit holder, you

are not allowed to speak under public comment. your time to speak would be of the party wants to share their time with you. at first speaker? also, it will help us preparing the minutes if you could provide us with a speaker card. if you don't have one filled out already, we ask you to wait until after you are done speaking to fill it out and give it to the clark. -- the clerk. president peterson: i know we had a tradition of allowing supervisors to testify. >> i don't know if there has been a request or not. supervisor chu, if you would like to speak? if you don't mind, sir, we will let the supervisor speak first. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for

hearing this appeal. i think the appellants brought a lot of points to the fore, but wanted to fundamentally talk about a few things. i think the questions are very relevant with regard to the planning department report. it was fundamentally flawed, as we were referred to. they cited a code that did not exist. they made the comment that it was simply a typo, but the type of existed on page 3, 5, 8, 10, of a 10-page report. the department recognized a section that did not exist and used it as a basis to determine that it was something that was not important. at one of the things i also wanted to bring out was half of the public process was. the translation was not adequate, did not provide meaningful opportunity for the community to express their opinions. if anything, and to leave you with how important is to recognize this.

we have received over 4000 emails, telephone calls, petitions that were signed. individuals were not able to understand the comments made by commissioners or respond to comments that were disparaging, including that they were ignorant and not aware of what the project was. i simply ask that you consider the merits before you, the merits being the planning code section that truly was not referenced to. one of the commissioners talked- about new administrative bulletins to clarify. if you follow the spirit of the law, not only are we talking about the businesses within the district, within 1,000 feet, lincoln high school, edgewood, which is a residential use the facility located just outside of that 1000-foot area. commissioner hwang: not to interrupt, but what code section are you contending applies? >> if you look at the planning

department's report, it is a commission report that was provided for which they actually made the basis. at the consistently referred to on all of those pages that the planning code section 798.50f would explain why the committee and recreational facilities that were cited did not meet the definition of a recreational center. but if you look at that code, it does not exist in the document. there is not administered a bulletin to clarify how that would be applied. not only that, if you just think about what some of these businesses provide, day camps, summer camps, winter camps, recreational and community use. president peterson: thank you. >> think it. -- thank you. we have a list of the petition. president peterson: next

speaker? >> good evening. i have been living in san francisco 25 years. i graduated from ucsf and pharmaceuticals. i have a back problem, too. i had back surgery last year. i'm very passionate about pain management. i have a lot of patients traveling from chico, and manchester to my pharmacy to get medicine. i live in the sunset district. taraval street is not inappropriate place for this business, for this establishment. if you drive on taraval street in the afternoon, you understand there are too many youth,

walking down the street, hanging out. even driving in that neighborhood in the afternoon. i just think culturally and socially this business is not compatible with the neighborhood. thank you very much. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please? >> i am the ceo of traditional family corporation, and i am speaking for many patients in the district. i have been living in the area from 1988, and the 7-11 it is diagonally across from the mcd site. those places are parking lots where a lot of teenagers gathered. they hang around and fix their cars, and therend and fix their cars, and there are mothers

bringing their kids to the laundromat. there is a parking lot. we all understand that parking lots are the places where drug dealings. the mcd, whoever purchases the marijuana and gives the resale of the parking lot, that is going to be the best place for them. so i urge you not to approve this because you will be affecting future generations. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please? >> hello, my name is mitchell. i played ball all the time at sunset. there are fights everywhere. i live in sunset. it is the park by vincente,

there are all kinds of parks. ithey're fighting for it, gangs, everybody. i cannot go there anymore because there are fights. there are a whole bunch of drug dealers and everything. i just mind my own thing. i just mind my own business, but there are a lot of things going on. thank you, commissioners. president peterson: thank you. ext. speaker, please? >> my name is daniel smith. i'm here to read a letter on behalf of the edgewood center, located just 50 feet outside of the perimeter. we are for educational purposes. on behalf of the center for children and families located on vincente street, i urge you to consider revoking the permit for mei