chiropractor s office. it is application no. 2009/ 12/03/2572. president peterson: we are combining these into one case. we will start with whoever is here to represent caanan tutoring. please step forward. go ahead. my name is ross moody. i am here to speak on behalf of caanan tutoring service. i am a 20-year resident. i have three kids in public school. i married a native. i was lucky enough to do that. it is working out great. i want to talk about what this appeal is not about. what this appeal is not about is the pros and cons of medical marijuana, medical cannabis. i voted for proposition 215 back in the day. it has been the lot in the state for 20 years. i personally support the right of people to use medical cannabis to assist them in staying healthy. but what this appeal is about is san francisco s policy of where to locate medical cannabis dispensaries. the board of supervisors has seen fit to protect a zone around a medical cannabis dispensary. it really relates
san francisco s policy of where to locate medical cannabis dispensaries. the board of supervisors has seen fit to protect a zone around a medical cannabis dispensary. it really relates to the secondary market for marijuana. marijuana makes medicine, and i am not here to dispute that. but so it does toxic content. you can get a script for that at the walgreen s, walk for blocks, and sell it in the tenderloin. we have to address the reality of the fact that these substances can be used for medicine and also for recreational purposes. what is out there in san francisco? the board of supervisors has enacted planning code section 790141. this says you cannot open a medical cannabis dispensary within 1,000 feet of a school, a recreation building which primarily serves miners, or a public facility which primarily serves minors. they have created a safe zone where you look for these businesses that primarily serve minors. what happened here? in this case, the process of enforcing and
it is my understanding ike s is now operating at a new location. i think commissioner garcia pip question of the use of the jurisdiction request i see nothing beyond if this board were to take jurisdiction and reduce the penalties. but i do not see how one could find it was not in violation. it was clearly in violation at the time. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner garcia: the reason i might be willing to that i personally would be willing to grant jurisdiction has to do with the fact that in addition to other considerations we have a letter from the office of economic work force and development. we just got it. basically, what it says is that this operation was very popular. and when all these problems arose, they were overwhelmed with paperwork. i want to make it clear if this board were to vote for that, the very best we could do would be to reduce the fine. i do not know what the requestor w
commissioner garcia: but if the landlord is not willing to have you continue and you need the landlord, how do you ever prevail? what happens? how do we help people like you? i am not opposed to giving jurisdiction. i am just not clear on what we achieved by doing so. i believe that if we were able to appeal, i think the issues regarding who is fined would be able to get fleshed out correctly. i do not believe that has been isolated. commissioner garcia: that would be one reason. all right. were you also, at that time were sometime in the future are you going to try to get this board to produce the fines that have already been assessed against ike s? or is that not part of the some action? here is my understanding. $250 per day has been accumulating against this operation. it is within the power of this board to reduce that to $100. are you aware of that? yes. we would be seeking any and all sorts of reductions at that time as well. commissioner garcia: thank you. presi
to keep the aisles clear. if you cannot find a seat, we have to ask you to move to the overflow room, room 421, just down the hall. if you could call ite 5m 5a, please. : eye toa an fived calling items 5a and 5b. the appellants are the cane and tutoring centers service and the chinese gospel church are the canaan tutoring centers service and the chinese gospel church. it is protesting the issuance on september 15 of a permit to alter a building to a medical cannabis dispensary in a former chiropractor s office. it is application no. 2009/ 12/03/2572. president peterson: we are combining these into one case. we will start with whoever is here to represent caanan tutoring. please step forward. go ahead. my name is ross moody. i am here to speak on behalf of caanan tutoring service. i am a 20-year resident. i have three kids in public school. i married a native. i was lucky enough to do that. it is working out great. i want to talk about what this appeal is not about.