was part of the amendment in 2006. let me read through what was said. the owner is allowed to use their properties. that does not mean this is not a new sign, this is an existing sign. they are applying to put up a replacement sign that is legal and permitted. >> thank you. >> i am not here on behalf of anyone and i was not intending to speak. >> comments, commissioners.

>> i could not agree more with most of the comments made by the appellate and i could not disagree more with the comments made by planning. i think we just opened up the idea and this had to do with the signs that are not new and the city attorney went to miriam webster and decided that a reasonable definition is one that is adding to the number of signs and this would be reasonable to consider this a replacement.

i have never agreed with the way that the voluntary is treated. the right that someone has is a right to display an outdoor sign. i think that whoever owns the sign is irrelevant. who actually owns that sign and what the proffered to write off is an this hopefully protected by the fifth amendment which is the right to display the advertising sign. to start with built by planning and it was voluntary because the appellate has this action, all the appellant has done -- we are able to negotiate a contract that is more valuable than what cbs is paying me and therefore want to enter into

this new resourced. they spent over $100,000 trying to defeat the idea that it was a voluntary action on the part of the appellant. they were voluntarily asking that the sign be removed but not deciding that they want to relinquish the right to display this outdoor advertising sign. this is removed by order of the accord. i feel a reasonable argument could be made when we talk about the sign can be removed. the calamity is that you're getting an income of 700 year for something that is worth

18,000. this is something beyond the control of that party. this was beyond control of the appellant that the sign be removed. i think this raises the issue that there should be an upper senate seat to replace. what you want your government to do is for them to be a shield to protect you, not a sword to come after you. right now, there is debate going on about whether or not how we should deal with some serious financial problems.

there is a whole body of thought that celeste's apply this to the economics. there is this whole other side that might be called libertarian or tea party types. they would like to give businesses the opportunity to take this out of this problem. the irony is that it is the government that is attacking the rights of the individual and taking away what i think is a right. the irony is that the killer of this whole deal and i think that some people care about this as strongly as i do. i think it is poorly written.

to stick with the rights from the property owner and transferred to an outside sign company, even if that is the case, it is hard to say that is anything but reasonable. the fact that the sign is not compliant, i don't see that we can accept that. we are to explore all of those rights. this time cannot be put back there because it would be non compliant.

>> in reviewing the savings which we will put together, i did come to the same conclusion as the planning department and i appreciate the comments and testimony and the argument that you put before me today. i don't share the view with vice president garcia in regards to property rights. i believe that this was passed by a wide margin by the public, the people of san francisco. i think that there is an irony here and in many cases where you have these major corporations squeezing the small guy. this is tough from that

perspective. on the reading of it, i don't think we have a lot of wiggle room. >> this case is difficult. this is quite compelling. it goes through the point by which the appellant is not comply. there is the issue of knowing about the application and its subsequent removal.

also the issue as required by law and the order from the court which plays into that particular statement. on the other hand -- i am in concurrence. contrary to this is the question not so much for the property rights but to the issue is as we interpret the specific language of a policy and we are not able to redefine that policy

so much as trying to interpret it to some degree. we then need to go beyond just a letter of the briefs, the letters of those actions and see if it was really voluntarily done and to what extent -- played into this issue. it really bothers me the monopolistic approach and attitude of this country -- company. at this board, we are faced with not only trying to interpret the policy but also the implementation of the enforcement.

in this thing together case, i will have to go with the department. this does not make me feel good to play into the hands of a company that has a monopoly. i have a growing concern as these cases come before us about the voluntary nature with other cases where the owners claim that these were forged. i don't feel comfortable uphold in a series of conduct that is

very concerning, so i respect the opinions of my fellow commissioners but i would be inclined to side in this case and others with the owner. >> i agree with those who say that we should support the department, is there a conclusion? >> for the record, proposition g notified at 611. this is a planning code. this comes along because of actions by this board having to do with the determination that a permit those with the land, that would cause this. this is not was done by the voters.

to say that they have set this situation, i think it is a tragedy and a city should deal with that and the fact that they have traded an incredibly unfair business situation. >> i would not make a motion. "i will move to uphold the department.

>> i will be voting against it because i will vote for a motion cannot be done because this is not in compliance but i will not vote on something based upon a finding that has to do with the approach. >> a friendly amendment to add. >> this is a non complying use

and a non compliant structure. >> i did not hear that. >> the motion is to deny the appeal and uphold the the mile with the findings of this line is not compliant. >> will also based this on the department's brief and finding in their letter. >> on the basis of that listed in the denial letter and brief. on that motion --

>> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> the boat is 3-2. the appeal is denied. the department's denial is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. >> we will take a short break.

>> we are resuming the meeting. we are calling appeal number 8. the property is at 42 days street, this appeals the denial ofth