Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 2, 2010 8:00am-8:30am PST

8:00 am
report that. i am not going to want dangerous things happening around children either. i see a lot of children in the area. i think it would be safe. i do not see any reason why this legitimate establish one should not be able to move forward. we should stop wasting time and taxpayer money on this issue. president peterson: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is theresa, with the apa association center. today i want to urge you to revoke the license. and i really feel that you should listen to people. today, california recognized that legalizing marijuana would not make our citizens healthier. there was a deal struck in the city and state. i would urge you to please listen to the people, because to
8:01 am
legalize would lead to more addiction, and especially driving accidents and emergency room submissions. i urge you to really revoke the license for this. thank you so much. president peterson: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is terry fong. i am the owner of the 711 500 feet from the proposed site of the mcd. there is something we call trust. the sponsors claimed that i support their cause, which i do not. how can we trust them in running a good operation and a safe operation for our neighborhood? remember in the 1990's, i tried to get a beer and wine license for a convenience store, a food mart. i had one complaint. that cost me six months in getting my license. now we have over 200 people staying until 3:00 in the morning that do not want this
8:02 am
mcd there, and we have 4000 petitions. our voices are being heard. there is a unanimous fight against the decision to allow the mcd to operate. i do not understand it. are we falling on deaf ears? i am -- secondhand dealings. they buy from mthe mcd and go to the 7-eleven to try to sell to the kids that hang around the parking lot. [applause] president peterson: no applause, please. next speaker, please step forward. >> hello, i live in the sense that area. i do not speak english.
8:03 am
[speaking chinese] >> we live on 31st street. i have three children. >> [speaking chinese] >> my house is very close to the proposed mcd. the police said it will be ok, but i am not sure about that. >> [speaking chinese]
8:04 am
>> and nobody can guarantee our three children can grow up in a good way and do well in the sunset district. >> [speaking chinese] >> it will waste lots of money for police and government to manage this district. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is dan ryan. i am a 40-year resident. i am currently the council
8:05 am
president of grace church. we have sponsored the grace infant care center since 1983. to answer your question, there are 15 families involved. we are restricted by state law because of the size of the facility as to how many children we can have in an infant care center. so we are restricted to 15. we are within the 1,000 feet. i am kind of disturbed that because we are called a day care center we were not considered part of the thousand ft thing, according to the planning commission. however, because we have infants and very young children there, i would question why that does not pertain to us. so i am just here to tell you that we do exist. we are very active in the stability. and we are concerned that we be
8:06 am
recognized as existing at that location. thank you. president peterson: i missed it when it was established. >> the center has been there since 1983, a state license to center, required to be licensed by the state. president peterson: thank you. >> good evening. my name is an wong. i live in the sunset district. >> she just moved to sunset. >> [speaking chinese] >> she likes the location of sunset, especially the schools. >> [speaking chinese]
8:07 am
>> they have been working very hard to save money to move to sunset. they wanted to live in a better environment. >> [speaking chinese] >> she says the mcd will affect her a lot. >> [speaking chinese] >> a lot of -- they do not like the smell. they smell, those kind of plants. >> [speaking chinese] >> she has been planning to live in sunset for 25 years. she has been diabetic for 27 years. >> [speaking chinese]
8:08 am
>> she would be scared to walk out after night time if it opens. >> [speaking chinese] >> she said it will affect and help people as well. for their next generation and their own health, she does not want the mcd. president peterson: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is edward alb. i live in the sunset district almost 29 years. all the things that have been
8:09 am
mentioned, like the children, the shops, and the church nearby -- but one thing i wanted to tell you that taraval street, it is very dangerous. especially for wheelchair places. when you go down, it is very 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
8:10 am
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
8:11 am
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
8:12 am
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
8:13 am
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.
8:14 am
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
8:15 am
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
8:16 am
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
8:17 am
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
8:18 am
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
8:19 am
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
8:20 am
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
8:21 am
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.
8:22 am
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.
8:23 am
>> 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
8:24 am
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?
8:25 am
>> 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
8:26 am
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 --
8:27 am
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
8:28 am
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
8:29 am
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


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on