are accepted. >> you have seven minutes. >> we would like to do right now is -- kevin is with me, the owner. this is not the first time this matter was before the court. i was not here. he has gone through a lot and i want him to discuss with you and tell a little bit about how cbs and clear channel, how these deep pocket firms, how the extort property owners in attempting to get lower prices and also to cut out any competition in the market. this is kevin strain. goshaw>> we bought this buildina 1906 building in april, hard

may, november of 2001. we inherited the leaks, we have nothing to do with it. it was after it was ratified by the previous ownership. it was a perpetual eyesore. consequently, we are getting $710 a year. it was costing more than that to keep the graffiti off of the billboards.

cvs never responded to and could not care less. we terminated the leases on or around april of 2009. prior to that, we entered into a lease with a company called a national promotional advertising. basically, their market was the 20 or thirtysomething. we entered into a eradicated piece of the building owners. the lease was going to be 1500's. that bill border was set on that building in november of 1951,

never been changed over. it was in the name of west coast advertising, the company that was a predecessor to the outdoor systems. currently, we were promptly sued by the outdoor systems, a duopoly in san francisco. today, we have incurred $110,000 of legal fees trying to get the sign and our name, and we're just small landlords. we are not some big operation in san francisco. we have had to defend ourselves and we have felt that what we are attempting is to allow us to have that sign back, it was our property.

in 1951, back to the property owners. thank you. >> what i have on the overhead is a picture of the billboard at issue. you concede that it is a fairly small billboard. you are going to be wondering, why have they been forcing everybody, small property owners -- you're talking about little billboards that don't generate a lot and the big scheme of things >> this was taken in the midst of the appeal here last year. i have is pointing to where the billboard is.

what occurred was, when they terminated the least, we got a letter saying that we want you to authorize involuntary removal. that was the letter. they said voluntary, but i said that we can do this. you have lost your right. they turned around and immediately sued. when this was happening, and they found out that it was infested with termites. maybe you have heard about the case before. they came in here with a d construct permanent. they said, we want to cure the problem. it came before the board. they denied a permit, and denied our reconstruction. we reached a settlement after

all of these fees generated and just went crazy. we said, let's get out of this, let's settle this. we're going to talk about what you have done, lawsuits against other property owners, and we will settle. the deal was nothing about voluntary removal. we did not object to summary judgment. what occurred was hot, going quickly, how 43 seconds. after the order came out and they went in with their permit, it said a voluntary. i said, our agreement was no language on voluntary, just removal. don't create the issue. they took it back, redid it, and i get a letter from a think mr.

purpose and he says, these people want to voluntarily remove the billboard and respond to it? anyway, i documented in my pleadings. >> i have a question for you. can he say what happened next? >> i asked him after to respond to the letter, and ascetic, let me see what the permit is. i had gone on the earlier and i saw that it was voluntary removal. they had agreed not to do that. they sent me the permit that they had revised, and they had struck out be voluntary.

i wrote him a letter, a long letter explaining the lawsuit and explaining that this was not a voluntary removal. that we had been sued because we had not agreed to have it removed. we were not agreeing because it 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