you type up the letter for her? does she speak english? >> a little bit of english. >> she could not have read the letter, did you interpret it? the undated letter from the planning department is the letter i'm referring to. it has nothing to do with the permit, it was protesting the fact that the sign had been removed and her rights have been relinquished. did you write that letter for her? >> yes, i explained to ito and she signed it. -- it to her and she signed it. commissioner garcia: the

signature on both of those looks entirely alike. i don't claim to be a handwriting expert, but they look alike. it would seem odd that they would go to so much trouble to have forged a signature. is your argument that your mother a sign something that she did not understand? >> as far as i know, she has never signed the letters. she has never signed any letters. commissioner garcia: and if she did, she would have signed something she did not understand? >> i don't think so. is it possible? i don't know. it is highly unlikely. >> 81 them to -- and you want

them to display the advertising property? >> beside it was removed without my mother's request. -- the signage was removed without my mother's request. the opportunity -- the letter dated august 4, we kind of lost to opportunities. and ultimately, the logistics' don't make any sense. if she is making a small amount of income, she would sign a termination letter. if she did have knowledge of that to appeal the decision, she

did not do that? gosh what happened when you went to small claims court? >> there was no record in the files. the issue was the result at this point. commissioner garcia: you got paid back? >> whenever they removed the sign. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> after the removal of the sign, a new sign was added. was it the person who rented the sign or your mother? >> my mom was approached by a

small company in the neighborhood that asked her if she could exhibit the sign. she agreed to let and it was the time for us to realize what had happened. >> who put up the sign? hong >> of the employment company. -- >> the employment company. president peterson: we can hear from cvs outdoors now? >> my name is brian, i'm the regional real estate manageer. -- manager. we take claims of fraud very seriously, and we will make all attempts to squish claims of fraud.

we operated two wall signs with the previous property owner. the appellant purchased property and since that termination letter, the reason there was a year to contact the new property owner is because we attempted to make rental payments to the previous property owner. that caused the previous property owner to modify. we gave contact information. we got it around the twenty sixth of october and we applied for the permit on november 12. we removed the sign january 22, 2010.

the new sign without a permit, the planning commission -- it was only after that was required that should bring the request before the board. the signature of the termination letter matches, as commissioner garcia noted, what we have on file as well as what you have in your packet. we have not indicated -- located any other files with signatures from the appellant. they should not be allowed to appeal is simply by making false and unsupported allegations. the sign had to be removed, and we request the denied the jurisdiction.

commissioner garcia: determination letter, -- the termination letter -- who is matt? what is the known procedure? do they have a conversation with one of their tents? they realize that they don't want the relationship to go on or the tenant doesn't, so is there a form that you send someone, or do you ask them to write it up and send it to you? >> we have very specific forms at the legal counsel that they have provided to us. we can only change the particulars to avoid things like this. if it is from a property owner because we can't agree to a new lease term, the property owner

provides us with a document. commissioner garcia: do you help them with the language? the language is somewhat legalistic in that it seems like most of the points that should be covered in order to terminate the lease are covered. do you play any role in telling them what to write? >> of the short answer is no. we need to terminate the lease as per conditions of the lease. it is up to them to draft it. commissioner hwang: we have had cases with your company before the sport where termination of

leases -- how did this occur so quickly and easily? >> i can't speak as to why it happened so quickly, because it was before my time of covering this region. my guess would be because the signs are generating a minimal revenue. it was $125 a year. that certainly would not hurt us to keep them there if we can negotiate a reasonable deal. there was a notice of requirement from plan -- or it was just easier to remove them.

president peterson: thank you. >> scott sanchez, planning department staff. the signs themselves are not actually legal signs. the company had applied for something that is called an in lieu. the sign companies could not provide evidence and we developed a legalization process. we reviewed applications for that to determine -- on august 4, 2009, which issued a letter that said congratulations. it is not legal until you do one

more thing. they never got assigned to legalize the signs. there is a permit to remove the signs. it does not trigger any type of notification. this board has been very clear that it has concerns about how they will make a play for the department and initiate a courtesy notice to the property owners where we don't have clear owner authorization. we had a very clear authorization that was on file before you. there is a permit to remove the sign, and that was more than one year ago. that is the information i have on this case. commissioner garcia: with the planning department ever consider when someone is removing a sign from the

building such as this, sending a letter that would inform them of the fact that if they were to terminate the relationship, that they are forgoing any right to have had a sign there? >> holly did not send that letter out because we did not receive the owners authorization, and sending of that notice was not necessary. commissioner garcia: it might be necessary because of -- i don't know if we want to be in deep into the facts of this case, but it seems fairly obvious that she did not understand how to have them removed decide what to relinquish her rights to ever have another sign. i can see where it might be valuable under any circumstance to make sure that they are fully

apprised of their rights. it seems that that should be who gets relied upon. >> it is something that we discussed internally a few days ago. president peterson: is there any public comment on this item? commissioners, the matter is before you. >> a reminder that it is a jurisdiction request before us, and i find myself trying to go

through the signatures. it is hard to assess the credibility of the jurisdiction request and it is complicated. i guess that would cause me to support the jurisdiction. some of these issues are mint and what we can do to change the situation. i am not feeling comfortable to deny the request given the record before us. commissioner garcia: in seems like there are three or five of them. i show my hand by the question i ask mr. sanchez. can we received someone's rights that we received unknowingly?

publicly, i would stay that i doubt very seriously that they forged the signature. i would think there is a pretty strong argument that someone would relinquish her rights not realizing that she would no longer be able to receive and come from the right that she thought she had. if they should have told her that when she ended the relationship, i don't know. i guess i would take jurisdiction is that to be part of the issue if we were to have a hearing. commissioner hwang: part of the problem with this case, and i would agree with those comments in general.

but what bothers me in terms of tracking the due process, i am not even going to touch the issue of whether it was forged or not. when the sun went down, it would make anybody think about, did i do something? and i would want to check into that. the timing theire, for most people, the question would have been raised. commissioner garcia: i am not trying to be argumentative, but the issue of sophistication, we

have something new to the letter states that has a language barrier,, and is told to us that the people that are very educated stay on a regular basis, there is a total understanding of the codes. what worries me about this case is the fact that someone -- i would love to live in a world with no signs at all. but someone gave up our rights not intending to give up that right. commissioner hwang: since i had my hand slapped -- commissioner garcia: no, not --

commissioner hwang: it is, of course, one that is very possible here. >> with respect to the language issues, i would be favor -- in favor of granting jurisdiction. >> i will move to grant jurisdiction. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye.

>> the vote is 5-0. president peterson: we can move to item number 6, please. >> appeal number 10-082. subject property on the 800 block. july 22nd, 2010. the conditions based on removal permit. for further consideration. president peterson: i watched the hearing on september 8,

2010. the agenda the same college with my husband. i can say that it does not sway my opinion. >> have you reached an agreement with the department? >> thank you for the excellent direction you have bestowed. we believe it will be beautiful and will talk about some of the details. >> we have reached an agreement in this case. all the neighbors have agreed to take on a pretty big

responsibility including the box replacement trees completing expanded sidewalk landscapes and taking on future maintenance of the sidewalk once the repairs have been performed. we would be asking the board to grant their appeal with a few conditions that i would like to just get on the record to reassure some of the property owners in the department as well. essentially, the department would be issuing permits to each individual property owner and the permit would state that the trees must be replaced with the 48-inch box sizes has agreed to and also to include expanded landscape basins. that will also indicate that those property owners have agreed to future maintenance after completion of the project.

in addition, we would like to state that the city is responsible to repair the surrender -- the current sidewalk conditions. we will be working with the project sponsors to coordinate the various repairs. a couple of the property owners wanted to be clear that they are responsible for the sidewalk until the moment we have completed sidewalk repairs. at that time, they will take further responsibility. if the tree removal permits is acted upon, the conditions will be required and enforced. with those conditions, the department is now prepared to support the plan and we do think there has been a remarkable coordination of neighbors working closely to try to come up with something that will

ultimately minimize the negative environmental impact and benefit the city with a beautiful sidewalk landscaping. and no longer having that sidewalk maintenance costs. we have just reached an agreement, and she wished these conditions to be read into the record so that we are all clear about what we are agreeing to. there is one property that will have a landscape without a tree because the guidelines cannot be met. that is because it is too close to infrastructure. commissioner garcia: i thank you very much for the work you did

on the environmental impact and preparing different size trees. we really appreciate that work. >> it was actually interesting. commissioner fung: let me make a comment and a little dig. because -- i'mi in agreement with what was done. i would like to characterize it in light of some of the actions the board has taken. the entire basis for this is pretty much an urban design issue, with some financial incentives in there. we had similar cases, one at the sheraton hotel that would have

been a vastly improved urban design setting and a similar financial situation, but we wound up denying them. i just hope the wheel allow improvements to urban design and improvements to the financial situation, and the issue of renewal. commissioner garcia: i think we had a different board at that time, didn't we? [laughter] commissioner fung: [unintelligible] commissioner garcia: i want to congratulate the department and the city for the great process. >> we should take public comment first.

sorry to interrupt. commissioner garcia: i move that we have the conditions enumerated. we don't need to repeat those, do we? if you feel the need. >> be you want to reference exhibit a? it should be attached to the board's decision. the trees and their locations. >> i would say we could reference that unless it will bind us to a couple of small details. they should be slightly increased as a protection for the visually impaired pedestrians. if that binds us to all the details, then i would probably

suggest we don't do that. >> would you want for placement of the trees? a >> of the commitment to the size of the trees and the commitment to the expanded tree basin. and maintenance of sidewalks going forward. >> and the three out of the 14? >> that has not been specified. >> do you want them to be specified? >> specified by height, right? >> it has not been specified. commissioner garcia: on the palms? >> sure. yeah. thank you. >> perhaps we should reference

exhibit a. >> this was exhibit a. >> the most recent submittal. commissioner garcia: was that phase december 2nd? >> stamped december 2nd. >> regarding tree species and sizes. >> the motion from commissioner garcia would be to grant the approval with the following conditions, that the replacement

trees be 48-inch box size. the expanded sidewalk be installed. the subject owners take responsibility for these new trees and sidewalks. and it will begin after the dpw finishes sidewalk repairs. and with regard to exhibit a, tree sizes. commissioner garcia: wasn't there some amendment -- >> i think the other issue is that ther were -- there were going to be permit issues to each property owner. >> and with