question. this is regardless of whether the application had been granted or denied or frankly even filed in the first place. the permit to remove the signs would have been processed and approved regardless. this issue has come onto our radar and we wanted to share with you. it is requested that mioss -- miss ramos has a lack of knowledge regarding the signs. and that in combination with allegations of foul play have resulted in the current situation.

there are also outstanding notices of violation. we respectfully submit that the ground to uphold the appeal has not been met.

she has been dealing with the city for a number of years. it seems likely that through that she would have some level of familiarity. >> it is possible that someone has aided her all along in those dealings. clark's okay, we will move into public comment. i have one speaker card. -- >> ok, we will move into public comment. i have one speaker card.

>> thank you and good evening. >> people are not seeking the onslaught of commercial signs. san francisco is a unique and beautiful place but i doubt that there is anyone here would argue with me that we are tired of commercials. i heard people mentioning certain code and this and that and whatever but there is a certain truth regarding the constitution which has been misunderstood for so long and that is that the constitution trumps all of these codes and all of these laws and must come first. this is the basis of what this country is about. we know that man's long will never solve all these problems, and on and yet the constitution is based on creators loss and how we can use that intelligently to people of

intelligence working and monitoring nests in a truthful manner. i see all of these corporate signs everywhere. they are relentlessly inserting commercial against their will. people are bombarded with commercials that they don't want to see. they are louder than the regular shows. i submit that you all consider those before me and those behind me to look up on the enter not -- on the internet, ronintr uth.blogspot. another prime example would be going on right now out at the masonic regarding signs. that almost caused a problem. there was people up holding signs to save the wild horses.

this drew a lot of attention and it caused a lot of upset to the public and the concerned police officers because some of these people know and appreciate forces. despite most of our differences and confusions, we all love horses. the message is why is it that we are allowing the american symbol of truth, beauty, power to be rounded up on land and slaughtered and sent to france for horse meat and meanwhile the french airforce using american jets is bombing women and children in libya. the constitution is what is number one and as long as we continue to disregard this, we will continue having all of these problems and all of these sure rates with lawyers.

>> thank you, sir. >> please put this to your hard because we are better than commercialism and we are certainly better than lawyers. >> is any other public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> the paperwork has been received. she was taking the interest of the friends of my mother had. it is possible that he advised her of her options. my mother did not find -- signed the letter. she had no knowledge that these notices of violation came along.

on top of that, i had to take them to small claims court and ordered to collect on the balance. the balance has been collected through small claims court. lastly in regard to the gentlemen, i don't know the procedures and policies, what i do know is that i think that my mother is the owner of the building. it would be logical for the owner to be involved in the whole process. there are certain procedures and policies. i think as the owner of the building, she could be aware of what is going on. they should have to file some kind of paper work and my mother needs to be in default. this would be before the signs that word given.

the records to start the action. we have not even been notified as a currency. the second thing was presumably when the termination newsletter and the removal of this line has been conducted in 2009, my mother has never received a letter from the apartment building inspection stating that her signs has been done and this has been removed. clearly, she had no knowledge that this line had been removed. she had no idea that the letter had been written and the course of action took place. in terms of the signs, possibly this is possibly good for the city of san francisco but at the same time, it would be made okay to have small businesses like a local business in san francisco to be promoted about the area. just to help out.

maybe to generate some income and what not. my mother had a sign on the building with all local plumbing company. thank you. my mother is in the public again. she can talk. >> ok. >> maybe it would be helpful to hear from your mother. >> maybe just a short statement she can make as to what happened. >> good afternoon. my name is regina ramos. my daughter said maybe i can and

stand a little bit about this. i don't know much about it. she knows a little bit. >> did you sign the lease termination letter dated october 26th? >> no, i did not. >> do you have anything further? >> know. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the gentleman who spoke and left the room, none of us likes

advertising. perhaps if you like for cbs, you like it. there was a time when when -- had a lighted sign on the eiffel tower in. proposition g chemo long and i guess this could be considered an amortization schedule. the board of supervisors passed 604h. if this line is removed, it cannot be replaced.

the effect of that was to create a severe in balance between an owner of a property who had previously had the right to display an outdoor advertising sign and the company to whom he least that right. such that by legislation would have been created would have been a contractor, take-it-or- leave-it. fathey talk about whether this s voluntarily removed. they talk about whether this is

a forced measure, an act of god, a calamity. this is a way that someone said up a way to find voluntarily. if they said consciously, willfully denouncing the right to an advertising sign. i don't think that the members of the board of supervisors that voted for it would say that she

chose to revoke her right to an advertising assignment. a necessary ingredient of free will is that one fully and consciously chooses a cause with full foreknowledge of the effect. no one would suggest that she would know the effect of signing the letter or not sign that letter. i guess to me, anyone would recognize immediately that i am not a lawyer. to me, if this is a criminal case, we would say this is a

voluntary. this is not voluntary. there is no intention to have said, take my sign, i renounce my right to display. that is what we're doing here. that is what we have done repeatedly. i think that this is unreasonable and i doubt that i would get anyone to appear to agree with me. certainly not three other people so that we could overturn this. i a boat to not uphold the apartment. i vote to restore right to display out for advertising because i don't think that she chose to announce that right. i don't think that she voluntarily chose to do it.

>> commissioners, it is interesting that we discussed the semantics in relation to the actions that took place. we have had cases before where there was attorneys on both sides who filed for termination and the attorneys representing the property owner of lost in court. this is not an easy solution dealing with the contracts that the billboard companies have perfected over many years. it is not easy to deal with those particular rights on a purely legal basis.

in this instance,, the reason i voted for the rehearing was that i thought it was a little bit novel in the sense that both the sign company and the property owner were talking about a joint capability to terminate a sign and therefore the question is to what extent the property owner of participated and that is why i voted for the rehearing. what is cleared up in my mind is that there has been a sequence of events and there is a significant time gap between

some of the initial paperwork that occurred to the point where the sign was removed. i guess what is a defining point in how i will vote is the fact that the property owner then put up new signs and rented them out. to be, that entailed some knowledge and therefore some culpability if you will on the decision making as to whether this line was voluntarily removed and i am up -- i am prepared to uphold the department in this instance. >> other comments from the other commissioners?

>> i appreciate the comments and i think i am more in agreement with vice president garcia. we also had testimony that she did not sign the lease termination letter and i agree with the vice-president that there was not a knowing or intentional removal of the signs. i don't think the votes are there but i would be inclined to overturn the department. >> i'm leaning more towards the comments made by commissioner fong. is there a motion. >> i would move to uphold the department.

>> on that motion to deny the appeal and uphold the department. >> i was not present at the march 16th it hearing but i did see the video and with that i vote aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> the motion carries. >> we will take a short break.