to keep better records for themselves. i understand it is not always easy to do that. but when you are tied to something that is your own well- being, it is less acceptable. the issue here is not necessarily the fault of any agency or the department, it is the individual's who somehow never keep track in an orderly way of their driving records. part of me thinks that it is their own fault, why is it that this board bails them out? part of me recognizes that it is

not an easy profession. and is there some level of -- that we would allow for that and provide them with some level of equity. i am not quite sure what i want to do with this yet, but it is becoming quite clear that we are hearing a significant number of these cases and it is always the same thing. missing waybills for one year. and at some point, we are going to wind up with a more defined position in terms of how we view who is responsible. >> i think mta is moving to a position where less is required,

some sort of electronic analysis. it seems that for a number of years, we would have reached that point a long before now. someone has driven for 17 years, and you want to go to equity. for the most part, the shortfall is relatively minor. no offense intended, but it brought forth a certainly probative -- i don't feel that they totally [unintelligible] the argument was weakened having to do with whether or not a spirit taxi was driven -- spare taxi was driven. if a color schene ime is required to keep records of a spare cab and other issues, we

don't hear about action taken against key color scheme -- the color scheme. where is the form that corroborates that? if we felt like it was an even playing field, what was sought was trying to help the driver prove, we have heard many times that a driver is out there until 2:00 or 4:00 in the morning. they have to recreate their waybills. that leaves a lot of room for error. by my comments, someone could assume where i am leadining.

>> i am also taken by the letters from the customers or passengers, a number of whom have used this tax and service for the last five years, many of whom were physically disabled. i don't know if this is corroborating evidence or not, but it seems to have used the services for five consecutive years or greater. as to the increasing numbers or the relative frequency with which we see these types of clients, i feel there are probably a lot of people getting medallions whose issues are not brought before us, whose waybills are proper. the most critical fact is the

fact that the appellant was admonishing in 2005 for not having proper waybills. that is critical to me because there was basically notice of the importance of these documents. >> i tend to agree with that. i am leaning towards believing sfmta, the credibility of the waybills. the 10 hours to the minute where you have to wait in line and check in. it seems like it's not likely that time after time you get thhat.

i'm leaning towards supporting the department. >> did you wan ttt to make a motion? >> is there a motion? >> i move to overrule and grant the medallion. >> can you call the roll, please? > to grant the appeal and grant the medallion with

findings to be adopted at a later time. president goh: no. commissioner garcia: [no audio] commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: no. >> the vote is 3-2. the city charter requires 4 votes. absent another motion, the denial will be upheld. president goh: seeing no other motion, can we call the next item? or would someone make a motion? >> the motion to grant -- there is no reason to make it? then call the next item.

>> moving on to item number seven. >> appeal 10-132. with planning department approval. it is the protests of the issuance on november 24, 2010, to the community housing, permit to alter a building. president goh: we can start with the appellant. >> president goh, commissioners, i represent cbs

outdoors. i don't know if it is the first time to come before the board, but it is unusual. let me explain the facts and circumstances. hon september 28, there was an issue requestiongng that complete information be acquired. the sign is permitted. the only issue is that the planning department wanted to correct placard information posted. the operations department inadvertently proceeded to obtain a permit rather than to oppose the correct information -- post the dcorrect informatio.

the operations department obtained a permit on november 24 to remove the sign. it was a non-structural sign. it was just it will sign -- a wall sign. they requested an inspection, in the city inspected the wall. the structural thing was done, they just removed the sign. i contacted both planning and building department to explain the mixup. neither of them had a solution. we did the very next day.

the property owner assumed that they were taking care of the black issue. since the mistake was inadvertent and it was premature in violation, cbs repeals the validity of that inspection. it provides that work under a demolition permit shall not begin until 50 days after the date on which the permit is -- it should read "issued." the approval of an inspection is not an approval of the violation or of other ordnances of the jurisdiction. inspections presuming to give

authority to cancel the provisions of this code shall not be valid. even though the requested inspection was performed by the city, it does not give the authority to violate or cancel the requirements that were performed until 15 days after the permit. section 108, such inspection shall be invalid. again, since the inspection occurred within the 15-day period, bay community housing request to invalidate that inspection. the mixup was caused, understandably.

it has not been implemented and finalized. representatives are here as well today. if you have any questions for either the property owner, let me know. >> was the owner a signature for demolition? >> no, quite the opposit. e. president goh: you have time if you would like to use it. okay. >> good evening, president goh. board members. i would remark that bearing

that in mind, this case is unique. cbs is appealing it's woown permit. getting to the issues raised in its appeal, we are dealing with of the property located on the north side of folsom street. it includes a residential building built in 1908. as was mentioned earlier, this relates to a 14 foot by 23 foot advertising sign on the east side of the building and. -- building. no new general advertising sign it has been allowed incentives go. last as a member, received a notice of violation and failed

to display require placard information. cbs chose to remove the sign and they did so properly. the work set forth under the permit was executed and inspected by dbi, signed off, and the planning department closed the case. the appellant wants to revoke the permit and a valid installation -- allow an installation in its place. there is a whole host of reasons, commissioners, why we would stress that this is not supported by the planning code. what i would say is that even if we were to somehow presuppose that the appellant some house of

this permanent and inadvertently had the city signed off on it, and went forth from that point, the planning code does not support the appeal. here is why. it very clearly states that a general advertising sign that is voluntarily removed or which is removed as a result of being required to be removed by law might not be restored. there are no exceptions to this rule. because it is not discretionary, we have no other means to allowing the establishment -- the removal of the sign was by the book. the only issue here is some sort of corporate miscommunication. with that, we are certainly here to respond to your questions and

we would finally offer that we submit that corporate mixup is not grounds to revoke this permit. >> the issue was raised having to do with the permit was revoked prior to the time that it lapsed for an appeal? >> the issue he is alluding to is misconstruing that provision. may i elaborate on that? >> lawrence cornfield, department of building inspection. the appellant is claiming that the building code says that they may not have done the work for 15 days and the department may

have not inspected that work for 15 days. they are entirely misleading the building code -- miss reading -- misreading the building code. it is identified as removing all portions above grade. it is specifics of that building is not removed before there is the opportunity to appeal the demolition. what they actually got in their permit is something called form 8. it is an alteration and does not in any way apply to alteration permits. there is a misunderstanding or misrepresenting. cbs outdoor indicates that they

are appealing their own permit. it is not their permits. it is the permits of the property owner. they might be appealing and, but i think the building department has taken a clear position over the years that any sign or any portion of the building, they might have some separate agreement with someone that is entitled to use it or any other kind of agreement. the owner is responsible and it comes down to the maintenance and obligation. i was just going to conclude the -- >> does it raise the issue having to do with a box somewhere on the form? >> they must say that they are filing the application as the

agent. they did say so on this permit. they did not circle, some sign companies has a piece that says "owner." in this case, they properly fill that out by circling the part of the form that says "agent." >> i appreciate the distinction you are making between the honor and the applicant -- between the applicant, the appellant, and the owner. >> i am looking at the approved a permit, and exhibit e says it was filed october 18, 2010. that is lined out.

under "revised cost," the figure is there. the issue date which is a stamp is november 24, 2010. can you walk us through that process? who had to review this piece of paper and communicate with cbs outdoor? >> i will do my best. if you look at the backside of the permit application, you can see the various agencies that look like this. it is usually after a couple of days of transition, it was submitted on november -- president goh: it looks like it is 10/13 on the back. in the first box.

okay to process, signed by somebody. >> 10/13. thta is on -- that is on the first line. it went first into a building inspector. there was a notice of violation and we wanted to make sure it was appropriate to process a permit. it went from there to the planning department that is the next line. one of the planners, they are supposed to print or stamp their names. john purvis, by chance. he has made his note that says to permanently remove -- >> the painted wall.

above that, there is a stamp that appears to be a dvi? >> i was trying to do this in chronological order. it goes back to the building department for the actual review. he reviewed this on behalf of the building department and at that time, on the first page, he looked at the estimated job cost and confirmed it was appropriate. we do that in accordance with the adopted valuation schedule. following his approval, it gets sent to the central permit for processing. that is typically what happens. >> with regard to the removal, we have seen frames and what-

not. is it clear what this $1,500 was meant to do? >> of the scope of the work is described on the front. >> how was it affixed to the wall? >> it was a viynil sign - -- vinyl sign. i assueme he looked at the documents. >> is there a window of opportunity for removing a sign regardless of what permit you apply for and replacing it? >> i would ask planning that question virchow >> you know where i am going with this.

-- the violate some window -- did he violate some window? is that not an option? >> commissioner garcia, the planning code does allow advertising signs. but once a site is removed by following a permit, it may not be restored. there is a clear line between a copy change any removal and replacement of the sign. how does that answer your question. -- does that answer your question? president goh: is their public comment? -- is there public comment?

we are going to move to rebuttal. >> a structure was never removed, it does not need to be replaced. and we just want to place the copy backup on the wall. i just want to make that clear. i appreciate his distinction regarding the permit, and it being the permits of the property owner. and cbs is an agent of the property owner. an internal mix oup has caused us to appeal this permit. the property owners should not pay for the internal mix up under these circumstances. the property owner is here today and was working to try to

resolve it by placing the packard up. the fact that the permit -- highlights the mix of that we are trying to fix here. we can invalidate the inspection or we can eliminate the permit. it works. it is a simple fix. no new structure needs to be put back up. cbs will just be able to continue to operate the sign. president goh: what is it? is it a painted wall? >> it is like a gigantic post- it. it peels off. >> it cost $5,000 -- $1500 to

unpeel it? >> i don't know where that figure came from. >> you will have the chance to speak if you want. okay. >> commissioners, just a couple of points. as i said earlier, the planning code regardless of the nature of the appellant, it does not account for mixups. secondly, perhaps concerning the equity argument, it is worth noting that -- i should be clear, based on a preliminary analysis, it is worth noting that this is a property on which cbs could relocate a new sign to

legally -- if the proper task is taken. if it is felt that there is a deprivation of them come -- income, i would only know that his company has the means to consider relocating the sign. >> can you elaborate on that process, please? >> legal general advertising signs, when certain criteria are met, they can be moved to new locations. the signs can be relocated. >> on the same property? >> to other properties in the city. if cbs had a sign and wanted to relocate to this property, we cani