would destroy our rights to sign postage. after i sent out this letter, like he said, respond in 10 days. i talked to him and he says, ok. he sent me an e-mail and said, and here is a copy of the application. and then he sent me -- i am trying to find it. an e-mail saying that he will not indicate that it is voluntary. i apologize. that is exhibitb b, an email. i will not use "voluntary" in the approval.

finally, we are all in agreement. i followed up with a letter in november, and i followed up another in december saying, by the way, there is a building. please, take a look. >> of the matter before you now, we characterize it as more straightforward than the appellant would.

it proposes to install a general advertising signed -- a new general advertising sign. that is what this permit is for. the reason this is straightforward, the planning code states in what we consider to be an absolutely unambiguous terms, what to do in a situation like this. i would like to put up the language on the overhead. this is somewhat visible. the planning code section, what it says is that a sign that has been voluntarily removed by its owner, the owner of this time, cannot be replaced.

we can discuss images later on. it will this allow construction, this is what it would have the city do. it will not be involuntarily removed, and should be allowed to be replaced. the appellant instigated this removal. it is an important point. the first communication of any sort that we are aware of,

relating to the a move will -- removal of the sign. the superior court has determined, it was owned by cbs. they had contacted a way for the rights to remove that sign. the third uncontested fact is that cbs, the owner of the side voluntarily. the fourth and final is that the planning to load -- code does prohibit new science or the replacement of science voluntarily removed by their owners. the planning code does not leave much room for interpretation.

and also for the fact that they are outlined, we would ask for your support and to uphold the denial of the sperm that. -- denial of the permit. >> iwas the sign itself out fof compliance? >> i believe it was noncompliant for four reasons. i believe eight years after the sign was first installed, and clarence was -- a clearance was

required. it will increase the distance to 10 feet. third, in the late e.'s, -- 80's, general advertising signs were banned. it was made fourthly and finally. >> is there a way for it to become compliant?

something having to do with sidewalk clearance? could it be re-erected in a way that can conform to comply with current codes? >> from a planning code perspective, we would abide the public safety nature of the building code for the right away like this. i don't know the answer to that. >> does it have to be head of a certain height? >> we will see if he wants to lay in on that issue.

>> you are saying that it would be the vertical clearance over public sidewalks will be 10-ft. this 12 foot clearance. >> we would be speculating as to whether or not it is possible.

>> to be a regular sized assigned, part of it would have to block the window. which would not -- >> compliant. thank you. -- which would not be code compliant. thank you. >> that i could contribute to that of the more, if the sign were to be raised in height, it would be considered intensification of the degree of modern -- non-comformity. >> why? >> the sign will be more visible and comment. one of the typical violations that we see are signs that have

been raised without the proper permit. it is done to get more visual prominence to the sign. >> it would be intensification of the part of the new codes that apply, and specifically in the business district? >> it is unique, but there are many parts of the city that perhaps that general advertising signs. there were height limits. 30 feet, 40 feet, or what have you. that would comprise an intensification. is that an indirect answer? >> had it been higher, it would still be cut compliant and might

not be considered an intensification. >> that is a fair statement. >> is their public comment? we will move to rebuttal. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> i just realized where there is -- i am trying to think. a mindset. what we are concerned about right now is a property rights. it is a property right that is existed with the property owner for 70 years. the right to post signs, advertisements. the u.s. constitution under the fifth and fourteenth amendments protect those property rights. they said the government wants to take away those property rights, they have to compensate. that is the elephant in the room

here that no one is talking about when cbs's in here trying to take signs away from property owners. that is a form of extortion. the owner has said, we will take the $700, we will get $18,000 a year for it. that side will be here today. nobody would say anything. it started early trying to say that we own the sign. in spite of the fact that the law says, sorry, the permit runs with the property, a shy and owner of the structure. if you get a permit, your functioning as an agent for the owner.

he can remove that sign, but it does not destroy that property. cbs and clear channel have been attempting to destroy property rights from property owners that will not lease them. they are afraid of competitors. these firms, proposition 12 -- 90% of the billboards. they are getting better because of the exact thing is occurring with the owners as i am terminating nearly as, we own the site and are taking it down. we will make you spend thousands of dollars to do it.

we will take you to federal court. we don't care if we win or not. i have got a list of property owners. all we ask is to go back the way we were in 2009 when we said -- [chime] >> could i have one more moment? president goh: your time is up. unless there is a question. commissioner garcia: i don't wanted to open up to some other statement. the question i have, what somebody take me very, very briefly through whatever negotiations went on with cbs in terms of negotiating a new

contract when this one expires? >> if you take it off, you are out. we removed the sign. commissioner garcia: when the lease expires in you're getting 770 a year, your lease expires, there must be some conversation. >> we have been asking for a month to see the permanent, the draft. they send us a check.

they are turning that check, ok? when we did not authorize its, and we did not go back. we authorized to that -- >> that is not answering the question. >> and they sued us. commissioner garcia: when did the opportunity to get $18,000 a year a rise? >> the lease was signed the subsequent to that. commissioner garcia: landed the information arrives that you might be able to get that kind of lease agreement? >> a that was before the expiration of lease when we had an idea of what the market rate was. it was about $1,500 a month. commissioner garcia: was that

communicated to cbs? >> they are in perfect. -- imperfect. commissioner fung: that is what we normally say. >> you're right. they have been abused by property owners and assigned companies. -- and sign companies. it is a document that applies evenly. again, they are imperfect.

what this case is about is one particular sign on one particular building. one thing i would like to bring out about this particular side is that the property owner has stated that when they brought the building -- bought the building, there was a lease. ac ontra -- a contract between the previous owner and cbs. this is something he presumably had knowledge of. it is not a new situation for the property owner. based on that, it is a little tough, i think, for the planning

department to view this as the appellant does. the courts have ruled very clearly that this structure is owned by cbs. was owned by cbs. it was removed by cbs. there was no indication that it was anything other than voluntary. the planning code section states no ambiguity that a sign voluntarily removed cannot be restored. no new general advertising signs are allowed in the city. based on this, we submit to you that the denial of this permit be upheld. i am available for any questions. >> can you talk about the

rationale behind 604 and 6 11? >> there was some discussion about the rationale. there was a dialogue about the intent behind it. i can only offer my own, the department's own thoughts in implementing it. there is a general intent, that they be eliminated over time. 604 adds teeth to that principal. it adds a clear outline and i would have to defer to the legislative intent. president goh: thank you. any thing further?

the matter is -- >> i will toss my question to an appellant does well in. -- to an appellant as well. >> you spoke about -- whamr. gladstone is here, he is the person to handle both of the appeals. i do want to say that at the hearing back in 2003, i don't know what his title is. he indicated that proposition g did not apply to signs legal before the passage of the proposition. >> the rationale is? >> the rationale is that it

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.