fight a response brief. i cannot give the documentation. the supreme court in california, the supreme court of the united states, talking about property rights. i could have given you all of the legislative history. i could have given you everything, and you could have come up to a good decision. that is why i say i apologize. this is a really important issue. it will become an important issue, not just on the sign in the haight. but this is a big issue, property rights. since it has such far-reaching ramifications, the commission should -- and when they make that consideration have it on the legislative history, which i provided you in part the first time and have provided you now. again, i did not have because of the rules, not being able to

address you in writing, all of the errors and misconceptions that are in the respondent's brief. that is all i can say. commissioner goh: thank you. vice president garcia: the findings that say it was a noncompliant structure? >> when the disapproval order was issued, his basis for it was section 604-h, and the factual basis is we did not have a letter uprising us about -- uprising -- telling us about it. another section of the building code or another section or in violation of a change in voting,

so in one sense, what happened here, we got blindsided here. i am looking in my brief about whether this could be pushed on us and basically extinguished my clients -- extinguish my client's rights. this is like alleging a petty theft, and you get into court, and they give you a robbery. that is what has happened. you made that ruling, a complete lack of a process for us. we had not been appraised of it. we could not answer it, because i am just looking at a 604 violation. vice president garcia: it could be that my memory is wrong, but

i strongly to support -- disapprove of 604-h. there was a letter i think to this board that i would feel certain you would have a copy of. >> no, no, we were responding to this board based on the letter that to issue the permit would be a violation of 604-h. no, what i am saying is, yes, he did, and i could not answer the brief. what i think the right of thing is i have to deal with why it was denied. he only said 604-h. period. and then i get into this hearing, and i am having to deal with testimony. it could have been the trees

were hiding it. please, give us the opportunity to respond and do it properly. just do not blindside us. i hope that answers the question. vice president garcia: ok, these are the hearings. you are perfectly aware of that. number two, just to be clear, in my mind, before you came here, the first time this meeting was held, or the last time the meeting was held, because there was a meeting dealing with issues, the last time we were here, which i think was the last time we met, you had in your possession the findings or the arguments that were made by him, is that correct? >> yes, yes, yes, correct. completely correct. thank you very much for your time. i appreciate it. director goldstein: sir?

>> president goh, vice president garcia. department staff. i will be brief. we are opposed to this request. mr. torres is basing his request on the fact that there are circumstances that if known at the time of the original hearing would have influenced the outcome of that hearing. he has not provided any new information. relevant to this case. much less fact that would have influenced or could have influenced the outcome of the original hearing. what is more, commissioners, this general advertising sign has been before you on three separate occasions as part of three separate appeals. just a few last point in regards

to the mark -- to the remarks we just heard. in his own words, mr. torres does discuss the 604-h issue was something that was discussed several weeks ago at the previous hearing. he did provide ample information at the onset of last week's hearing, in addition to is quite thorough briefing he provided in advance of that hearing. we would respectfully submit that this matter has been thoroughly investigated and briefed and considered, and we would suggest that the grounds for the rehearing simply have not been met in this matter. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. ok, anything from dbi? nothing could -- nothing?

i see no one from the public, so, commissioners, this matter is submitted. commissioner goh: comments, commissioners? vice president garcia: as is well known, i am very sympathetic to sign owners, not to use strong language, who get denied without the consideration of property rights as a result of 604-h, but as to whether or not something new has been presented that would cause this board to grant a rehearing, i find that nothing new was presented, and i personally would not be in favor of granting this. commissioner fung: i am in agreement with that. commissioner goh: is there a motion, commissioners? vice president garcia: i would move that the board tonight --

deny the request for a rehearing. director goldstein: ok, mr. pacheco? secretary pacheco: on that motion to deny the rehearing, vice president garcia, president goh, commissioner hwang. it will be denied. commissioner goh: -- director goldstein: no further business. commissioner goh: we are adjourned. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--