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] commissioner 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 definitely news to me. i have never heard of my mother's attorney. it is beyond my mind why this person would present it as a representative of my mother. definitely, the removal of the sun would not be financially beneficial to her. she is getting $125 a year. why would she want to remove the sign in the first place? in terms of the planning department, i can go on and on. cbs could have taken more responsibility to find the owner of record of the building. that was 2008. but i am not going to go into that. i have no idea what happened in

the process, and who benefited from signing the termination letter. definitely she has not signed. she has no knowledge. her english is very limited. i have never heard of this person and have no idea who he is. in terms of the planning department, there is a letter which has been sent. the notice of requirement in lieu addressed only one responsible party, cbs outdoor. even though my mother became owner on august 8, 2008, she never received the letter. the letter has never been forwarded to her. i believe there was maybe a oversight on the planning department side. if she had received the letter, perhaps we would not be meeting here today. >> mr. leones?

>> i do not have anything further to add, unless there are questions. >> mr. sider? >> briefly, what ms. farrell is referring to -- at least a notice of requirements that the planning department issued upon our determination that this sign was eligible to receive an in lieu identification number -- this is distinct from a notice of violation. it simply says the application in 2003 has been granted and you may be -- and you may proceed with the legalization process. it is not our habit or our policy -- it is not in the planning code to include other parties then the applicant on any notice of requirement, be it for a building permit, a

conditional use, or a matter such as this. >> thank you. the commissioners, the matter is submitted. vice president garcia: for me, the key language is [unintelligible] could or would prevent someone from replacing a sign that has been removed. as in the previous case, i felt like it was inadvertent. it certainly was not voluntary on the part of the owner. ultimately, it was not voluntary on the part of cbs. there are some unpleasantries having to do with this case and allegations that are unfortunate. i would have felt more comfortable had ms. farrell simply said her mother has a

language problem and made a terrible mistake. she did not say that. that does not change me from feeling that it would be reasonable, even though it is not consistent with 604, or even the proposition, to allow ms. ramos to continue to receive the income. i think one time ms. farrell said 100 pandit of dollars a year. i think she meant $125 a month. whenever the income is, it seems as though as the situation financially has been described, ms. ramos use it as a figure of some significance.

president goh: with regard to the $125 a year, it is in the record. they went to small claims court and sued, expecting $125 a month. the apparently learned it was in fact $125 a year. that is the suit that is in exhibit f, dated september 17, 2010. >> other comments, commissioners?

commissioner peterson: i will echo vice-president -- vice president garcia's comments, as in the prior case. vice president garcia: i thought you were still speaking. commissioner peterson: i am just looking for something. vice president garcia: i would overturn the department and grant the appeal, with findings [unintelligible] >> commissioners, shall we call the roll on that? commissioner fung: i -- sorry i

did not speak up earlier. i should have spoken up. but i think my reason for where i am going to vote should be brought forth. i am not going to go into a lot of the allegations. however, what is clear to me is that there was notice. the question of whether that notice provided the ability to understand exactly the nature of the planning code and the nature of what one may have or one may lose is questionable to the appellant's mother. that, however, i do not think, in this particular case, excuses' in my mind -- excuses

in my mind what the code clearly states. vice president garcia: i wish i had added that when the findings are read, if this passes, that cbs and the city -- it could be indicated that they are [unintelligible] if the [unintelligible] president goh: for the record, i agree with commissioner fung and will not be voting to overturn the department. commissioner hwang: likewise. >> i will call the roll. >> commissioner garcia, i believe your boat is to grant the appeal, deny the permit, with adoption of findings at a later time.

>> to overturn the department. >> to overturn the department. >> on that motion -- commissioner fung: no. president goh: no. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: no. >> thank you. the vote is 2-3. absent another motion, this permit would be upheld. commissioner peterson: the department would be upheld and the permit would be upheld. the permit was issued. this was a request to rebuild. i apologize for the confusion earlier. >> if there is no further

motion, there is no further business. president goh: was the motion stated correctly? i am sure you stated it correctly and i wrote it incorrectly. >> the protest of the issuance of a permit. >> i think the motion was to grant the appeal and overturn the department, and it failed. president goh: ok. thank you. >> are we adjourned? there is no further business. president goh: we are adjourned.