granting a rehearing request. we want to ensure that all parties have a proper process. >> is there a motion? >> i will move to grant the rehearing. >> and to satisfy cbs, it has been stated more than once that granting jurisdiction, granting rehearing in no way reflects upon cbs or goes to whether or not this board thinks that something was done that was improper. >> commissioners, do you want to identify the hearing date or any other parameters for rehearing? this is someone out new territory for the board. you can have a hearing with the same amount of testimony, same amount of pages, or you can change that.

>> yes, since we rarely grant these. >> other suggestions by the city attorney. >> there is no possibility that your mother can come? your mother could come. thank you. we have an indication that mrs. ramos can attend. that would be helpful in the discussion. i have a limited testimony. >> do you want the opportunity for them to introduce additional exhibits or will this be on the existing record? >> i would grant additional opportunity to submit new information. this is a rehearing.

under the board's current rules, each party would have a 12 page brief with the appellants brief first and the permit holders brief second. this would be one week prior to the hearing. that is what would happen if it came in the door today. we can with a limited exhibits. >> the parties in this case are mrs. ramos. is cbs a party in this? >> yes. >> there's april 25th or may 11th. >> he has to file. >> there would be time needed for a brief but i don't believe there is any filing obligation. it is the board's decision to grant. >> is april 20th too soon?

where are we landing? are we going further up in may? >> if you said a full 20 if hawthorne -- if you said april 20th, it would be march 29th. >> the request is indicating that that would be acceptable. >> ok. cbs outdoor. the proposal is april 20th. are you willing to include this in your motion? >> this is not my motion. >> i am willing to include that. >> the proposal is a rehearing that would take place on april 20th if and the briefing requirements would be set out in

the rules. >> that is perfect. >> when each party, you will not be sending written notice. >> ok. >> your brief would be to the 29th of march. --, your brief would be to two weeks later. we have that motion. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> of the rehearing request is granted. >> we have received a letter from --, the attorney for cbs outdoor and a letter for a the agent for a community housing requesting a rehearing of the appeal number 10-132, decided february ninth, 2011. at that time, the board voted to uphold the permit. the project is removal of a 14 foot by 23 foot advertising will sign the -- wall signed.

we will start with the request your -- requester. >> let's wait until the commissioner returns. >> certainly. >> i represent cbs outdoor. we bring this request on the grounds that there is new or different evidence in this matter. the previous hearing and said

that the information was inadvertently obtained. it said that the committee and the property owner was unaware of the permit application. subsequent to the hearing, mr. espinoza has made it clear that he now contends that he did not authorize cbs's application for the permit and his authorization was necessary to validate the permit application. whether or not they were unauthorized agent or acting on behalf of the property owner was never discussed during the previous hearing and was not an issue during the previous hearing. in fact, there was a representation during the hearing that cbs actually checked the blocks on the permit application claiming that it was an authorized agent, which was

incorrect. now we are on the application -- no where on the application did they indicate that they were an authorized agent. if the board takes that into consideration, that would be consistent with what i have had the board discussed in other matters in terms of authorization and whether or not the property owner knew or authorize a the renewal of the sign. -- was not prepared to speak and address the board. he is here today. he also refiled the rehearing request. i think most of the relevant information will come directly from him. if the board has any questions, we will be happy to answer them. >> how much time is left?

>> 49 seconds. >> he is filing his own request. >> i am here to request a rehearing on the new facts. as an owner of the property, -- following material facts.

i never received the property owners package from the city of san francisco which i attached to the request for them to verify that the honor is aware or holding a permit to demolish a property. i was never aware of any permits that were pulled with the building department to remove the sign. i've also attached some sheets here. this requirement is to provide an enhanced level of consumer

awareness and protection to property owners, excepting the risks with the construction permits. i was never aware, i never give any information to anyone to demolish the sign. as a result, this is an injustice to me to have the sign removed because i am financially dependent upon that for the building operations. without it, i suffer. i think that has been manifest as an injustice to me. thank you. >> how long have you owned the

building? >> about three years. >> at the time of your ownership, at what point did you have any contact with cbs outdoors? >> i was contacted by this city, someone in the city called me. when it was under appeal, that was when i first found out >> did you receive a payment at any point in your ownership?

>> when was the first payment that you recall? >> not really sure, i will have to look at my statement. >> in the first six months of your ownership? >> i am not really sure but i have not seen a payment made. >> did you have expectation of continued payments? >> well, yes. i expected someone to pay me. >> why? >> when they bought the building, i assumed that we would see this. >> you have a contract with them? >> supposedly i have a contract.

>> at that was represented to me in the purchases. >> when the sign was removed, were you aware of that? >> after the fact, yes. i found out about assigned removal is when someone from the city or your department here called me to see what my thoughts were for the rule. i contacted many of my colleagues who had questions about it. that is when the city sent me some paperwork regarding the appeal.

>> at the last hearing, we invited you to come speak and you declined, right? >> i did not know that i need to speak. >> have you been in communication? >> know. -- no. >> i thought it was important. i needed to be here. >> you were in the room. >> i was here for the last

hearing. >> you heard him say that? >> i don't recall. i am not familiar with these hearings. >> thank you. >> could evening. we cannot believe that there are any new pieces of information. we believe that there are new arguments related. there was an argument related to the owners authorization. it is important that we be clear that the owner did receive a notice of violation prior to

its removal. this was on september 28th. the honor was also aware of the repeal, a december 9th letter from this body to him and the commissioner, as you point out, the owner was present at the last hearing and my understanding is that he declined to speak at that hearing. we would only further market this point that the permit was validly issued. it was signed by a contractor. the work was completed. the work was lawfully removed. commissioners, thank you for your time.

>> would your opinion change if it was stated that the permit to remove the sign was granted to cbs who turns out to be an agent for the owner. this would notified -- nullify the permit. >> this is an interesting argument. if that was the case, there would need to be some remedy for the notice of violation. if it was the owners intent not to move the sign or remedy the violation. secondly, i would defer to the apartment building inspection and respect to the nature of the permit in process that would have been gone through. >> as to the issue of penalties,

all of those would have been stayed by these proceedings. >> no, there is a process outlined in the planning code whereby any responsible party can request a reconsideration of one of our notices of violation but rather than coming to this body, that coastal and the administrative law judge. we have not received any request. on the contrary, we received a permit to comply. >> thank you. >> i think the question did come

up as to whether or not the permit application had improperly filled out because we have had cases in the past where it had not so this board decided that we needed the owner's permission in order to go through his property because we have a unique situation where the sign had been removed from its own property. remembering that, the question was asked whether or not the paperwork indicated that that had been properly filled out as to whether or not cbs was an authorized agent of the owner and therefore was able to obtain a permit in his name and it was represent to us that it had been properly filled out and now we are hearing from cbs that it was not in actuality, cbs is

not the proper agent to this. >> do you know how long ago that was? >> how long ago they were here >> this was the last time this was heard, which was december. >> there has been a lot of change with regard to obtaining permits. this property is only when the owner builder is getting a permit. this is dealt with by the central permit bureau every day. i would almost like to differ and go back to getting all of the relevance and information for you. it is my understanding from

where i work is that he can get a building permit because he is a licensed contractor. if you look on the page that has a notice, maybe they put it on here. if a licensed contractor, if you look on the left, all we're asking for is that they bring in their license and this is to help the property owner to be protected by the contractor's license law. i think on this building permit, they were a licensed

contractor. i don't think the owner got any notification. but, the central permit bureau would need to look at it because there has been a lot of changes and i apologize for not being -- >> the fact and the other case is that nothing was checked, the place i ever discussed earlier, but -- the case i discussed earlier come on this was denied by the property. therefore, this board found it was not a proper permit. we should have the public comment and we should decide whether or not to grant a rehearing or to continue. >> there are many changes. it was all because of state law changes. this property owners package is only if you are an owner, you

feel about -- you fill out this form, you are taking responsibility for workers' compensation. a contractor, holding a permit does not fill in this form. that is part of this. >> if this was to come back here again because we would continue its and it have to do with whether someone not having to ask permission of the owner can pull it permit. >> that is what i would like the board to research more. a couple of days ago, i did not think that this would come up on this item? >> the matter is submitted. >> the argument in this is quite

different from the positions that have been posed by outdoor advertising companies in general. this is quite novel. in fact, i will probably not go too far. in my earlier discussion, it was not very clear. by the looks of my fellow commissioners, i will get to the point which i think that i would consider a rehearing but i would want to see the contract. because what is being posed here is different than what we have seen in previous contracts, in terms of ownership of the

billboards, in terms of the ability to remove them, to change them, and so i would consider a rehearing. i would ask we continue the pending receipts of the contract. vice commissioner garcia: we are looking at the time line to see whether it establishes the agency of cbs? commissioner fung: yes. vice commissioner garcia: i would support that. commissioner peterson: can we continue without jurisdiction? vice commissioner garcia: we can continue a request for a rehearing. >> you can just delayed a decision on it what you ask for additional confirmation all

right. it is proper. commissioner hwang: i would probably ultimately support that. i just find the arguments presented our creative and novel. they have no credibility in the facts, given that we had an opportunity to hear from the owner at the last hearing and at no point in time was it raised that the person speaking on his behalf is not someone representing him. if it were me sitting there and hearing someone stand up and say the had the right to do this and were going forward on a permit and trying to repeal their own permit, i would have something to say about that. that said, i would go with a motion to continue, just so i can actually see the contract.

commissioner fung: you are hearing some of the sentiments of this board. if your client does not want to provide that contract, you should tell us now. >> i do not know the answer to that. i am not quite clear whether or not -- i know there was not a direct contract between cbs and a communities at the time. -- and bay communities at the time. that is probably what led to the confusion in filing for the permit. i think during the transfer of ownership of the property there must to bend some internal confusion at cbs. there was probably an existing lease with their predecessor. that is a document you want to see. i will have to check with the company.

i do not have the authorization to say one way or another. but regardless of what the release of the contract says, in this particular instance, even if the contract says cbs has the right to remove the sign and the party that holds that right claims that right was inadvertently exercised or not properly exercised and a separate right was not granted by the property owner, and cbs was not acting as the agent, i do not know the put the contract says is going to matter much. another issue is we were dealing directly with the property manager, as opposed to the property owner. that is why mr. espinoza may have assumed it was being taken care of. our