>> i don't know why they says yet to be passed. every community needs a place like this that they can go and have urged to use to take care of themselves, which is where they are ad. -- have herbs to use to take care of themselves. i like to use marijuana as opposed to taking pills for what i need. this is extremely discriminating towards a certain group of people, those that like to take care of themselves and a safe and healthy way. >> next speaker, please. are there any other speakers?

>> i am part of the -- you should review all of the claims and complaints that has been produced by the health department and law enforcement department and really consider what you are doing here. they're people that are being affected that our medical patients, people that have needs, real needs. well the board is taking its time to clear this issue up, the real people that are suffering are not the patients -- are the patients. this is heartbreaking.

thank you. >> do you want to fill out a speaker card? >> this is about safe access. that's it. >> next speaker, please. >> if anyone can think back if you were discriminated against, something that you needed or wanted, that is a good starting point to understand how the

entire community, this is discrimination clear and simple. this is a civil rights issue. we have been trying to communicate and talk and work things out. i really wish that there would be one way that this could stop because this would go further. this is a civil-rights issue. >> next speaker. >> the new findings are that pre crime, there is no pre crime with medical cannabis dispensaries. read the reports from the planning and police commission. the you truly read the planning commission's decision?

did you read every page? mr. garcia, that goes for you as well. the crime is that there are 15 union jobs that are not happening today. there was sustainable jobs, single payer earners, and pensions. >> thank you very much. are there any other speakers? please step forward. >> hello, my name is thomas. i am an advocate for the sunset district you should reconsider

these important questions. i know they existed. why is the port doing selective enforcement against medical cannabis dispensaries? why must a patient go out of their neighborhood to get their medicine? the sunset has had medical cannabis dispensaries before. i have used them. why not now? why selective enforcement? why mess with our civil rights, the right to have medicine? >> thank you. >> i am a patient advocate and

also here on behalf of the sunset district. it is clear that we are asking more or less to give a place in the community where medical cannabis is needed instead of helping people to get their medicine. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i am a medical marijuana advocate. i am here to support the sunset district and the movement as a whole. i wasn't going to speak. i find it interesting that there are five members of the

commission and only four have met with eye contact and everything. this is very confusing to me. i know that sometimes that we tend to talk too much for this. give it a break and give it a chance. i wanted to point that out. think you. >> thank you. aha next speaker. -- next speaker. >> i am a patient and an advocate for medical marijuana. i'm speaking on behalf of those who are not able to speak. the city is in a budget crisis.

we are prepared to take the city to superior court for the rights of the patients. thank-you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> what i have heard is that basically we are validating the stereotypes and propaganda against medical patients. i believe that this is unfair. thank you. >> do you want to fill out a speaker card? is to any other public comment? >> i am speaking on behalf of the sunset district.

i live in the community where there are three cannabis clubs within one block of my home. i don't understand why this is a and problem for the sunset district. in those three blocks, i got police guards, i have security guards standing in front of the cannabis club. with that security, i don't see a problem. thank you. "do you care to state your name for the record? >> my name is timothy hopkins. >> i don't think you get to do

that. >> thank you very much. >> are there any other speakers? seeing none, the matter is submitted. >> i want to thank everyone who got up to speak. i would like to admonish those who had personal attacks against the vice president. i think that that would be improper. there is legislation that will be introduced next week. the request will have to wait a year to refile.

i'm inclined to grant a rehearing request. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have not seen the legislation. we read a transportation conference last weekend. if they had something they wanted to introduce, they could

be introducing it to fix some of the problems. i know that was one mistake in the report from the planning department. if that is fixed, that would have to go through the process. >> commissioners, the question before us is farrell -- fairly narrowly defined and that is related until there is new information. the requester provided a brief but no new information. i see no basis for granting a rehearing. >> and thank you, everyone for

the testimony. we also heard a lot about home delivery and there is discussion and the proximity of nearing day care centers and other facilities. the issues have not changed. the rest of us are uncomfortable with citing the police letter in our findings but there was others contained. i was more comfortable on other matters than that particular letter. with that, i think until there is draft legislation or otherwise, i am comfortable sticking with the conclusion that we made earlier. >> i would agree and i move that we denied the request for

rehearing. >> on that hearing to deny the rehearing request -- >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> the motion carries. the rehearing request is denied. >> if i can ask that people can exit the room at your convenience so that we can move on to the next item. >> this is item number 4d. rehearing request at 3175 24th street.

the board voted 2-3 to grant the appeal, overturn the apartment, with the adoption of findings at a later time. four votes being required to overturn or modify action under the city charter, the department action to issue the subject was up held. this is a voluntary removal of a freestanding advertising sign. >> good evening, commissioners. i will not go through the history. we are dealing with the two main

issues. the first one is pertaining to the planning department. there are some loopholes as was stated in an other letter. this pertains to because the violation. the notice of violation was issued to both parties. together, these other responsible parties. the planning department sent a letter which is a notice of requirements that advertise in the request. this was sent to one of the responsible parties but it should have been sent to the owner of record at that time. the potential is that this could have reached --

generally, initially, it was logical to assume that they have the signatures. my mother never signed the termination letter. i also have a letter from -- attached to the previous letters where it said that he was a friend to my mother for many years. he has confirmed that my mother can barely speaking english. most of the letters were signed and addressed to other members. this was based on my mother's conversation. my seeing -- my mother never wrote any letters. in regards to the family issues, my mother does have 8 children.

clearly, we are not in the best -- of keeping in touch with each other. manmaybe they can get the signae in place. my mother has never signed the letter. >> can you refresh our memory as to when your mother purchased this building. >> that was 2008. >> that was 2008.

>> this is the third hearing we have had in this matter again in their quest for jurisdiction. no new evidence has been given today which would give rise to a rehearing. they participated in preparing the letter and forged the signature. no new evidence has been submitted with regards to that issue. his involvement was product at the last hearing. if you look at this letter, this is the very end that he did advise mrs. ross. one, to write a letter and to continue with the lease and what

she chose to do was to write a termination letter. all of that is consistent with ms. ramos signed the letter and sent it. i would urge the board to find at least that there is no evidence that cbs outdoor active wrongfully. thank you. >> is there any department to comment? >> we do not believe that there is any new information, some no

meaningful information in this case. we have identified a key issues which are indicated, one is the issue relating to receiving the notice of requirements and this relates to the owners authorization. those of issues that you discussed, reviewed, and considered. we would respectfully submit our submission which is that the threshold of this board has not been met. thank you. >> do your records show when the notice of violation went out and who it was addressed to?

>> this is a notice of violation. i will have to look into the file. >> is are any public comment on this item? >> at the fourth of august, 2009, was the date which we issued a notice of requirements related to the application for this property. >> are right, we saw that on your documentation. do you have who it was sent to? >> this was sent to cbs.

they were the applicant for the number. a sad company or property owner can request the number. in this case, in 2003, cbs made an application. our practice is to deal with the applicant in such a case. >> thank you. the matter is submitted. >> i found it to be an interesting argument that the notice only went out to cbs and not to the property owner.

>> we did not know that last time? >> i don't recall that. , but then again my memory is not great. >> what implication would you give that? >> we have seen the contracts that were in place from some of the other cases that have come before this board specify ownership. what was of issue to this particular board was the relationship between the property rights of the building

and landowner with respect to access. they have the rights to remove, alter, or have this within the perimeter of the code. in this instance, the question in my mind is how the

termination costs signed and how did the notice occur? we understood the sequence from what was presented by the billboard company last time. what is a little bit in doubt in my mind is that it is the relationship to the requesters mother and how she got notice. >> commissioners.

>> i felt strongly and i continued to feel that there was some missing elements in this case having to do with when we should deny someone the right to -- and one of the alamance was that they voluntarily gave up that right. one would ask that if they do give that up and that is another issue, that they fully understand what they're doing. first i think across the board, the majority of us felt as though there was a language issue and that mrs. ramos did

not understand what she was doing. we will grant jurisdiction to flush out some of those issues. and this is an application of the fact that it seems doubtful that this letter was written by mrs. ramos. she might have signed it, she might not have signed it. i think that this is within the margins of being in new and i am leaning towards granting jurisdiction. -- i'm sorry, rehearing. >> i think i am wrestling with the issue addressed by vice president garcia. in the last hearing, i had great sympathy for the property owner

the. there was a notice issue, this had nothing to do with the conduct by cbs. also the notice to the proper person to was going to be damaged. did she voluntarily give up this right? this letter buttresses my concern and technically this is a new piece of evidence. this is the same argument we heard before. there was not enough votes, 2-3. a technically, this is a new piece of evidence. i am not sure where i land on the rehearing request which requires new evidence. >> i question the materiality for the purposes of rehearing. i