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 can issue an authorization for 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. e