that. >> that does not help this property owner. >> if the sun were to be relocated, the property owner would receive income from the blue relocated son. commissioner peterson: can you read the language of 604 again that you read previously? >> i will get the actual code section. commissioner peterson: perfect. thank you. >> i am reading from planning codes section 604h, second paragraph.

a son voluntarily removed or risk -- a sign of a voluntarily removed or destroyed by its owner may only be restored within the poe provisions of this code. i call your attention to section 611, which says no new general advertising signs are allowed in the city. commissioner peterson: is there a definition of a sign? is it the structural entity, or the ad copy? >> i will read you the planning code definition of a sign. any structure, part thereof, device, or inscription -- this is section 602.19 of the planning code. any structure located on, attached to, painted, presented, or represented on any land or right of way, or on the outside of any building structure -- and so on.

i can put it on the overhead or continue reading, should you wish. including a andn awn -- including an awning, or affixed to the glass of a window, with displays that include any numeral, letter, word, banner, it insignia, symbol, trademark, or other representation in the nature of an announcement of the advertisement, or a designation by or from any person or organization who sells a commodity, service, business -- it goes on. the last third of this reads that a sign is composed of those elements, including the area of

the sign. in addition, the support and from work of the display, except in the case of general advertising signs. two or more faces shall be considered a single sign if that are contiguous on a plane or placed back to back and are at no point more than two feet from one another. on awnings or marquise \ / eeues is a mouthful. [laughter] commissioner peterson: reference 602.1. >> that defines the area of the sign. let me check that. it does.

602.1 is the definition of the area of a sign. it is similarly worded. i would describe it to you if you choose. commissioner peterson: paraphrase. >> the area of a sign is everything that could possibly, by any reasonable perspective, the scene to be part of the sun, including writing, shapes, and structures. vice president garcia: mr. steiner, we have a finite number of signs. someone has volunteered to move a sign. made that sign be moved -- may that sign be moved? >> prior to the removal, if a relocation is entered into and

conditional use is approved, that sign can be relocated to another property and subsequently removed from the originating property. however, if the sign was removed first and then the subject of a request for relocation -- vice president garcia: a sign that 10 blocks away could be moved to this property? >> if the criteria and planning code are met, yes. there are certain properties that cannot have new signs, based on the laws. vice president garcia: i am asking specifically about this property. they could one day have another sign? >> there has not been a thorough analysis. preliminary analysis suggests a general advertising sign could be relocated to this property. president goh: i think from your reading of 602.19, this question

is moot, what i am going to ask anyway. in exhibit a, there is a photograph of the sign, if you can pull it up. this is a little bit hard to see from this black and white photo, but it does appear it is not just something painted, or a thin and final attached to the wall. on the front, you can see it does appear to protrude beyond the face of the building. >> the final typically used in these installations -- the vinyl typically used in these installations does not have a perceivable depth to it, typically. president goh: ok. and when to ask this question

of mr. -- i am going to ask this question of mr. kornfield. if you look at that photo, does that appear to be something -- a thin piece of vinyl stuck to the wall? >> i am afraid i cannot tell. president goh: too little information? thank you. >> mr. kornfield, why you up, if you have rebuttal? >> one question that came up -- the $1,500 value was originally there submitted value, which reconfirmed. president goh: thank you. >> if it would be helpful, we have additional focus of the sign that might be more clear. president goh: yes. are they in your brief? >> they are in the case file.

i apologize for that. we will put them on the overhead. president goh: can we have the overhead? >> i will turn to another photo. i hope those go to responding to your question. president goh: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. vice president garcia: i will go after the lowest hanging fruit first, the argument and

conclusion from the planning department. i do not know why -- i apologize. i do not know why they chose to say that. another argument made that is not going to get us where we need to go [unintelligible] it does not suggest the owner is not interested. he is here tonight, so we know he is. maybe the planning department 604 and 611 they want a son moved -- a sign moved, we are going to require that somebody go to another court of law to straighten out this issue because someone has lost income

through inadvertence on the part of a sign company. i hope the irony that i am defending cbs is not lost on anyone, given the history we have had on this board. i think this was obviously a mistake. it is an easily corrected mistake. there is no harm to the community except the fact that a sign was down for a while and now will go back. [unintelligible] the intent on the part of the owner is sure. the harm done to the [unintelligible] i am deeply interested in returning [unintelligible] and restoring property rights to

the community and the property. this represents a loss of income. commissioner fung: commissioners, i have always, i think, been a supporter of property rights. however i would turn on a phrase made by my fellow commissioners. this was not an inadvertence. it happened. the sequence of timing tells us that a change of opinion occurred, whether it was a complete change or a reaction to a mistake. i do not know. the fact is, it was not inadvertence. it went by the book. everything was approved. i fail to see the error by the

city in any of this. therefore, i am not supportive of the appeal. commissioner peterson: it is a matter of words nothing -- wordsmithing. i'm tom beasley and swayed by commissioner garcia -- i obviously am swayed by the commissioner garcia's comments. this was not completely voluntarily destroyed. perhaps there was a partial destruction, but it was not completely voluntarily destroyed. i would rule in favor of the appeal. commissioner hwang: i would concur with the sentiments of commissioner fung. president goh: i agree with commissioners fung and hwang.

vice president garcia: i realize my point of view will not prevail. i hope i did not suggest i thought the city had made an error. i think the city made correct [unintelligible] cmmissioner fung: move to uphold the permit. >> on the basis that it complies with the code and the city did not air in issuing it? commissioner fung: yes. >> call the roll, please. >> the motion is from commissioner fung to uphold this permit on the basis that it

complies with the code, and on the basis that the city did not err in issuing it. on that motion -- president goh: aye. vice president garcia: no. commissioner peterson: no. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the vote is 3-2. the permit is upheld on that basis. thank you. >> shall we call the next item, our last item? president goh: yes. >> colorado item -- call item eight when you are ready, please. >> calling our last item, appealed 10-136, virginia ramos versus the department of

building inspection. the property is at 3175 24th street. it is the protests of the issuing on december 14, 2009 of a permit to alter a building, where voluntary removal of a freestanding advertisement sign. property owner consent attached. >> we will start with the appellant or her agent. >> good evening, commissioners. i am representing my mother, virginia ramos. i would address all the issues in my appellant replied baker -- reply data. i do not want to beat a dead horse, so to speak. i want to emphasize that in the requirements dated the fourth -- one was to send the responsible parties, one of them was my mother, the issues pertaining

to the sign. thank you. commissioner fung: i have a couple of questions. a sign was removed and then another sign was constructed and added. it was rented out. >> by cbs outdoor. my mother, without realizing what was happening, believed that she still had the privilege to exhibit the sun. it was installed by another company, said she had nothing to do with it. but she did give her consent. commissioner fung: another company built the sign? >> i do not know how it was attached. it was on the side of the building. she was under a belief that we still could do this. commissioner fung: what was the rental on that? >> it was $125 a month.

commissioner fung: not per year? >> not per year. commissioner fung: ok. >> thank you. mr. leones. >> commissioners, a represent -- i represent cbs outdoor, the permit holder. the permit was issued on december 14, 2009. work was completed to remove the sign on january 22, 2010. the inspection occurred on january 27, 2010, over a year ago. cbs outdoor no longer has an interest in the property, but is addressing this board for one reason. there have been serious allegations made against cbs outdoor regarding for jury. i am here to address those

issues. cbs is a publicly traded company. it takes those allegations seriously and wants to make the record clear. mrs. ramos has alleged she was unable to contact cbs about its lease, that she never received correspondence from cbs, and she was unaware of cbs's lease number for this location. she did not write the lease termination letter, and thus cbs much have forged her signature, which cbs had never seen before. thus, she never authorized the removal of the signs. i do not know mrs. ramos. i assume she is a fine lady. but her allegations, intentional or not, are completely false. the best way to describe the situation is to go through it chronologically. ms. ramos purchased the property

in august 2008. cbs outdoor was not notified of a change in ownership until june 23, 2009. here is a letter that was given to cbs by the previous property owner, dated june 23, 2009, returning the rent check, and informing for the first time cbs that the property was sold and that all further rental payments should be forwarded to mrs. ramos at this address. in september of 2009, cbs outdoor, based on the information provided, prepares this letter to ms. ramos at the address provided, references lease # 1173, and includes a change of ownership form for her to sign.

here is a copy of the change of ownership form again, with the least -- lease number referenced. we know ms. ramos receive this letter, because her attorney at the time -- his name is [unintelligible] he contacted cbs the next day, because ms. ramos contacted him when she received this letter. he left a voicemail message to shannon hears at cbs, explaining to ms. hughes that she should fax the change of ownership form to him. we know that because there is an e-mail, and e-mail from shannon to a matt harmon, employed at

cbs, which specifically talks about the voice mail from what she referred to uas "raji." it provides a facts and -- a fax number. we also know this because ms. hughes took handwritten notes of the voice mail and again references the phone number and mrs. ramos's attorney and the lease number. cbs faxes the change of ownership form to her attorney. here is a copy of the fax transmission report. we know that it went through. we see at the bottom that it went through to a phone number. that phone number matches the lawyers fax number. we checked with the state bar records and confirmed that his

fax number is the number this letter was faxed to. in october 2009, cbs received the lease termination letter. here is the lease termination letter. can i raise this? the lease termination letter is dated october 2009. it again references the least number and is signed by mrs. ramos. if you look at that signature, it matches all the other signatures we have seen, including the letter to ms. lamorena, which matches the lease termination letter. interestingly enough, this letter does provide -- it states, "all my inquiries to

resolve this matter had failed." that is not necessarily true, since her attorney did contact cbs, and that was the only contact cbs had with her or her attorney. it says, "i asked this company to remove their freestanding son from a property -- sign from my property." that is what we did. when we look at the appeal brief, if you look at the appeal brief and what ms. farrell provides, it takes the release letter and assumes she signed the letter. let us look at the prerequisites. cbs outdoor were not paying for their advertising sign. that is not true. there were just paying the wrong property because they did not know it had changed. it said all attempts to contact the company had failed. that is not correct.

it says it would be a logical outcome to seek resolution of this problem. perhaps one goods sold simply suggested to remove the sign -- perhaps one good soul simply suggested to remove the sign. that gouod soul was the lawyer. what happened here is he dictated this termination letter to mrs. ramos. it was not forged. it was drafted by her attorney. it did not happen until a year later, when she realized she could not put up her own son, that she objected to it. she did not object before that. >> thank you. mr. sider?

>> members of the board, good evening again. dan sider, planning department's staff. to get it out of the way, i draw your attention to the similarities between this matter and the one you just heard, particularly planning code section 604, the removal of general advertising signs. procedural background. this is a sign on the south side of 24th street. it contains a four-unit building built in 1908, like the previous case. this building does relate to two six by twelve structural suns mounted on the south side of the building. a bit of relative history -- this can become complex, so stop me if i lose you. in 2003, this sign was the subject of an in lieu request, a

process by which a sign for which the permit cannot be located may seek legal status by providing evidence that it was likely legally authorized. in august 2009, the department granted this in lieu request and asked that a permit be filed to proceed with the legalization process. later in 2009, rather than seeking a permit to legalize the sign to complete the process, cbs submitted a permit to remove both of these sides. the permit was accompanied by the letter of authorization you saw earlier. the work was done. in january of last year, january 2010, dbi inspected the work as being complete. based on this chronology, the sign did not complete the process to become a legal sign. it remained illegal.

fast forward to august of last year. as part of the department's ongoing general advertising sign program and field work associated with the program, we detected a new general advertising sign in the same location as the previous signs on the subject property. we issued a new notice of violation -- i am sorry. we issued a notice of violation. the sign was removed before any penalties accrued. the appellant now seeks to have the permit for the original sun removal back in 2009 revoked -- sign removal back in 2000 and revoked. the appellant does raise a variety of issues in the various breeds. i am unclear what i should be responding to. i will go through three issues for your consideration. first, she has indicated that her realtor and the sign

company were negligent or failed to disclose certain information. on this topic, we do not take the position. the planning department has no position. this is between 30 -- between third parties and outside our jurisdiction. the appellant had alleged the signature in her letter of authorization is not genuine. here, we do not take an opinion. i would know we do not have reason to doubt the authenticity of the signature. mr. leones does raise interesting points. finally, the appellant, to be blunt, does raise a compelling emotional narrative as to why the city should revoke the permit and turn a blind eye to the work that has been completed. to this, we would only say that it would be improper and inappropriate for the planning

department to judgments ra -- to judge ms. ramos, her personal history, or her character. the planning code must guide her. the side was lawfully removed. it may not be lawfully reinstalled. we respectfully request to uphold the permit for the work performed some time ago. this supports prop h and the planning code. do not to appeal on this item. -- do not take appeal on this item. >> mr. kornfield, you have anything on this, or any public comment? seeing none, we will move into the bottle. -- into rebuttal. >> this is