making available. >> 28 feet in height, three stories, and 100 feet wide? >> if you think about the top of the building being the top of the board, down 28 feet. obviously, it is a five story building. so, that is the real-estate the city has to offer. however, the actual size of the board will be 20 feet by 60 feet. that is a reduction in the size to 1200 square feet. supervisor wiener: in terms of the price reduction in the annual guaranteed, can you just list what the fact is that caused that reduction? supervisor mar: the sides -- >>

certainly. the size issue was not discovered until negotiations. we have assumed that the face of the sign could be as large as what i imagined. i did not see that as a factor. during negotiations we discovered it would be a smaller signed and, to their credit, the company we were dealing with held firm with their offer. they did not change because the sign got smaller. from land use standpoint, good news. fiscal standpoint, bad news. more importantly, the change in our regulatory commission for regular budget for advertising was that both were banned without exception. there were a number of attempts to see if there was a way to still, in a side door way, but

on that advertising in some way, liquor or tobacco advertising. this permit is very clear that that is not permitted. it took a number of possible advertisers off the table. >> when you initially went out to bid on this, had you said -- expected significantly higher numbers bella from -- significantly higher numbers? >> we were actually able to look at the gross revenues from cbs outdoor. since 2009, those have dropped precipitously. those just fell dramatically to the point where, frankly, they were losing money every month. supervisor wiener: because of the economy in 2009? >> because of the economy. captioned by the national captioning institute

--www.ncicap.org-- supervisor wiener: 5 years from now, is there a realistic possibility that we could get a higher amount of money if the economy is better? potentially renting out this space as a bottom and then stuck with that long-term at a low rate because of our current poor economy? >> because of the revenue share aspect of the agreement, if things ramp up to where they worked in the early 2000's, when this was a performing vacation, it was not consistent with what we had before. there is a potential upside that will recover far more revenue from the board.

supervisor wiener: in not having order -- categorically opposed to billboards, on buses or whenever -- what ever, but i was very troubled when i saw this. i spoke to one person who said it was one headcount, which was right, but for such a prominent space in an area that we hoped would continue to improve, it strikes me as not a lot of money. i said that at the full board in that will say that again, it is something that has troubled me. >> as i said, much of it is a reflection on the economy and regulations in its location, and it was a result of a competitive bid process. beef with it offers of over one of the national firms throughout the country.

and we had good response, as in five solid responses. supervisor wiener: and the competitive marketplace may not be good in general? >> true. one other thing i want to know, there has been a question about whether or not this is legally appropriate. back in 2010, up unrealized this was coming, we asked the attorney's office to take a look at the possible impact of leasing the property again, given the terms and conditions of the proposition's approved by the public which restrict outdoor advertising and city properties. to be very clear about that, of what was approved was that there would be no increase in the number of general advertising signs on loudoun street furniture, kiosks, benches, newspaper racks, under negotiation in approved by city contracts.

and that there would be no new general advertising signs visible to the public if they were in existence after march 5, 2002. so, the issue here is not the issue of contracts. the billboard was visible on march 5, 2002, which had been permitted significantly before that period of time. i believe that the memo provided by the committee by the planning director does go into some of that history and does indicate that with respect to guidance on how the city should deal with legal or illegal -- conforming signs, proposition's work -- illegal or non-conforming signs, it was consistent. just to recap, legally we believe we are following the

correct content of the proposition. the size has been significantly reduced by 60% from the thought -- from the size of the former billboard. i've provided you pictures today to give you a context on the other signs in the area. i also wanted to know if this was a row vocable permit. the city has the right to, under an emergency that is defined, or if there is a material operational problem with having this sign or access to this sign, the city has the ability to terminate the permit without recourse. secondly, if there is a change in visibility of the sign, which could be a traffic change, street scenes, new construction on the lot adjacent currently operated by enterprise rent-a-

car -- should those events happened, the permit he has the option to terminate. -- permittee has the option to terminate. i wanted to be clear that this is able vocable matter for the city -- i wanted to be clear that this is a revocable matter for the city. supervisor mar: we do have a concern that the market octavia planning process, acting regroups and advocacy groups, have enough time to weigh in on this. i know that last tuesday there was a strong peeling that there was not at halftime. considering the concerns of a number of the neighborhood advocates, and i know that there are a number of speakers here -- what kind of input have we had so far from any of the market

octavia groups, or others? >> i would concur that the input has been very recent, within the last few days. as this was moving to the last -- this was moving to the full board, it tends to be an item moving under the radar and it often does not get out to the public until it is through the hearing process. i am not surprised that that is late information. all that we are trying to do is synch up the regulatory aspects of the approval with this proprietary approval so that the two converged. we could see a little bit of delay here in this process and not affect that, but it would have to be fairly quick so that those are in sync and we do not have a disconnect between approval processes. supervisor mar: ok. thank you. i have three cards on me for

public comment. three minutes maximum per person. the buzzer will bring with 30 seconds to go. cro[reads names] >> hello, but thank you. in the pratt -- past president of san francisco beautiful. thank you for this opportunity to comment on the prospect of a billboard being reinstalled at this location. this is the intersection of -- now, since 2008 there has been a new zoning. so, the proposed billboard, even whether it is a caltrans standard or the former size, we are talking about billboards that are four times or 10 times

larger than any billboard allowed if there were relocation going on. in a very real sense of the san francisco board is not taking aim at the opinion of the planning department, which says it is in a legally permissible place. still, in a very real sense, we're putting in a new billboard. there has been no billboard for over one year and many citizens have noticed the absence of that intrusion. we are asking for this committee to either vote against this contract, given larger policy concerns, or to carry it over so that we have full community participation. the chairman pointed out that in one aspect there is a broader market octavia plan to be

considered in advancing the contract before the budget and finance in committee. just as an idea for community input, there is, across the street, a large condominium complex that has a secondary entrance at 1650. i think that this typifies a welcome direction for this part of the town. moving up part of the town beyond a no-man's land feeling, we find the billboard correlates with outbreaks of graffiti and is just a symbol of the neighborhood proclamation that it is a marginal neighborhood that does not count that much. i know that through the market octavia plan and through the construction of this condominium, in the building itself is an attractive building as far as city buildings go, there is the possibility of it

being lost. many times voters have said no new billboards, most notably two years ago, no new billboards on public property and the public saying that they will forgo extra revenue. we just do not want to look at any more of the squatter. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker? >> good afternoon, supervisors. in the executive director for san francisco beautiful. i want to reiterate my concern for installing the billboard at this location and also acknowledging, supervisor, your concerns. we share them about the low price that advertisers will get by bringing in new advertising. thankfully not for alcohol or

tobacco, but we do think that there needs to be a new community input here. we think that the community should have a chance to time -- chime in, for individuals to come to the meetings and learn about the processes and we think that with your help, we could get more community input. we are also excited at the board of supervisors, when we first learned about this, that there were innovative ideas that came from the board. we would encourage a partnership there. we would be happy to be part of those discussions encourage planning to be innovative. i have a couple of things to show you here. supervisor avalos had an idea for a green wall. this is an image from a living wall in france. here is another example of

beautification that is closer to home. this is the will -- the woman's building in the mission. we think that san francisco has great ideas about how to use these spaces, and we would like you to be part of a broader community dialogue about how to best use this space, which is, not ironically, on the planning department's building. thank you for your attention. supervisor mar: thank you. mr. [unintelligible] >> good afternoon, supervisors. ibm executive director reps [unintelligible] -- i am the executive director of [unintelligible] sib the planning code, it is very clear about what happens when a sign is removed entirely, and this was a topic of

discussion on march 1, the new sign as to conform to current city laws. this is a rule that we apply it to every business. really, if you offer a sign in removed it and put it back up, yes, overall, the planning staff says that this is what we require of everyone. but this is crazy, this sign has not been gone one year. it has not been removed. for once it has been removed, it has to conform to the current requirements of the code. there are two requirements to govern -- governed billboards. the first is the prop that said you cannot add new billboards to a neighborhood, you can only relocate them in a conditional use process. it has to be to a location in in a manner that conforms to the laws of that district and permit

billboards. others do not. that was still in the code for the purpose of relocation. the other is this specific regulation for the district. the the war that was proposed was nine times larger than what would legally be permitted. i want to say, as someone who worked hard on the plan, we all envision that south finance mission intersection as a place where we wanted townsend, but we knew that it was a blighted area. it has terrible traffic problems. if you spend any time at that intersection, it is a nightmare for pedestrians. we have not actually seen any of those plans that would make that a friendlier, nicer place to live, to work, to walk. not necessarily the planning department proposing this giant thing where we want to have

revitalization, it is a real insult, frankly, to the neighbors who spent over a decade going to the process. the city actually needs to be doing more to make it capable, not bringing more blight to the neighborhood. we think it is totally appropriate for the location and, at the very least, i do not think we're ready for prime time today. there are a lot of questions that need to be answered on the funding level about the legality of it. we hope that he will continue today and ultimately have a better discussion about what is going on here. thank you. supervisor wiener: i have a question for the city attorney. i am assuming that there is a signature approving the contract, but we have this issue raised and as a city attorney, i

have an opinion as to whether this is legal, apart from the policy issues. >> i think that the planning department is in a better position to address the facts that have been explained. i would defer to that. supervisor wiener: if planning to explain, that would be great. >> chairman, supervisors, thank you for the opportunity. i think it is important to say, right off the bat, but confusion on the issue of sign regulation is understandable, to say the least. the regulation of design is extremely complex. that being sought -- that being said, this is a legal design. it is unique in that it has no

structure where frames surrounding it, and by that we have come to make funny situation where copy is changed, as is often the case, and do the naked eye there is no sign. the code accounts for this type of situation. in article 1.7, three years have been established in which a sign, or after which, the uses are deemed abandoned. if the sign is installed again during that time, or importantly a there is an intent guests not to abandon the sign in this hearing, then the sign is not considered to be abandoned. this is a roundabout way of calling it a legal sign it from a regulatory perspective. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak?

seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, i feel there needs to be more time for community input and dialogue about the question of legality, though i just heard from planning's perspective. i am wondering if we can continue this item for two weeks until march 26 so that we can hear back so that the residents in community-based groups can have more times -- more time to engage. i know that the urgency of this for your department gives more time to give some input. colleagues, do i make a motion to continue this until march 26? without objection, thank you. thank you, everyone. miss miller, are there any other items before us? >> note supervisor mar:. without any further right -- no. supervisor mar: without any further items, meeting adjourned.

thank you.