contract would become expendable? >> it would permit up to the 28 by 99. yes, dan is here as well. there would be a review required at the city level. supervisor wiener: what would that be? >> supervisors, good afternoon. this is a somewhat unusual question. but in general terms, this accommodates a certain size and, going forward, should caltrans

amend its permit, the review would be a verification of our records that the city did authorize conventions with them but the assignment was being restored to. >> i do not have any reason to believe that caltrans to be our control -- control or that there would be a monster building across from the freeway where they were asked to approve caltrans, if for whatever reason that would change, they may authorize a larger size? >> the permit, in a regulatory capacity, the apparatus would allow for that larger size. supervisor wiener: i know that that is highly speculative and likely to happen, i was just asking. supervisor cohen: thank you.

are there any members of the public that would like to speak to this item? thank you. >> ♪ plan use, you need something to do now, there is a service you can render and i know you got the money, you got a legal eagle tender to fix the wall i know you can do it takes it all the way around, but just remember i know you can do read right now, i know that you can fix it up and there is a service that i know you can do, which is to fix the wall, fixing up fix it all around, and just

remember you have got the legal tender, fixing it all around ♪ supervisor cohen: next speaker? >> hello. thank you. my name is john doberman. i am here on behalf of the outdoor seattle-based company. we have been in the san francisco market for about one year, with 30 locations in the city, 100% compliance. of what we have here is essentially a lease renewal of a sign that is 100% compliant. i wanted to quickly comment on two things. the land use committee meeting from a couple of weeks ago, supervisor wiener had some questions and i just wanted to

point out that in addition to the minimum, as they signed company we had to also pay for access to make the installation, so it was an additional cost. there may be a revenue share where everyone participates in the unassigned revenue. the people in the neighborhood directly surrounding the signing, we have actually seen a lot of support for it. we have had a handful of people show of i which i had an opportunity to meet him in future.

i just wanted to read a couple of lines for the support letters at the time. gentleman in ruby the lights generated should bring renewal immediately. and someone called highland technology, which owned the building at 18 otis street, right next to this time, bought it in 2005. they owned a business and this is in the file, so i apologize if it is. the rest of what has been saying

as anything. >> i did not realize the united fires was a direct beneficiary. >> they are not. sorry. we worked with united players in the past we also work with have it that as the same as on the other side. but i think that the comment that is more general is not -- now. next speaker? >> thank you. i want to thank this committee for continuing to work on the items so that we could continue

some community input. and just to characterize or augment some things and made before. and through a couple of city folk in san francisco beautiful on 18 of this street, that is also a billboard operators and is an essential part of that testimony. i have met with market in octavia, we he noted that. the they could not in a timely way and had promised to contract -- have attacked the board i

will leave their property values would be for of operation the amortization through billboards. it would not be appropriate for me to put them into the public record, but we can reasonably expect in-public response from 140 van ness. i've been like to see a table today, but if it is not turned down by the board of supervisors tomorrow, but it is reasonable to ask people about vested interests. the answer always comes back as a note. also, the contract year is very slippery. as it now stands, this contract will be administered by kit --

administered by caltrans. it may be permissible to go beyond 20 by 60, but this contract, i have been after the billboard industry for years and stranger things have happened. alerting the system to digital -- digital billboards. this is just a flavor of the type of pressure is behind there. if it will be 20 x 60, it should read that way. the city stands to make a lot more money if illumination is somehow permitted through our local procedures. there will not be a lot of worry over the relocation permit process, when all of a sudden you thought you did not sign anything, but we have. i did not want to go beyond my allotted time to indicate that

this is contrary to broader policy perspectives, including the change in zoning, which the mct3 designation restrict billboards -- sorry, 300 square feet on a relocation permit. this sign is four times that size. say no to this contract. supervisor olague: next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am the city planner and also a board member of san francisco beautiful. i am here on behalf of san francisco beautiful board members.

there are extensive and i will try to fit them into a few minutes. and we are not opposed to the contracts such as this one. however, we are challenging the direct conflict occurring, including police in a rezoning, as mentioned. also the policies established by cac. i would like to invest in a wonderful mix use development next door, but you never know. we are not challenging the legality of these efforts at all. 10 years ago in march, 79% of the people of san francisco approved the sponsor of the initiative, which prohibits new billboards on private property.

but i understand this is public property. november of 2009, voters approved the disallowance of any new buildings on public property, deciding that other goals superseded additional billboards. this building houses the planning department. it is sad to see a degraded, as it produces likely miniscule revenue while disparaging the use is proposed under the octavia market plan. this building will be exudes civic pride, and does, and should, as it has a unique set the place and undoubtedly the planning department neighborhood, with development staff, we certainly hope so. we urge you to vote against the billboard contracts. thank you very much.

>> i am a private citizen. where does it end? do you have a list of every single public building that is not a landmark that could have this type of billboard on that? not only city buildings, but school district buildings. are we setting an unfortunate precedent? there was a scrap about five, six, seven years ago when there was a billboard that showed up on permitted just north of the planning department on the other side of otis street. it took forever to get it down. it was very controversial and was kind of an embarrassment, for this to be the planning department, the planning department, which regulates signs, or is supposed to regulate signs, and that is some

reason to excuse them. this is going to be a very lucrative political billboard. which supervisors will take this site. i put that out to you, because that is the real world market street has some political billboards. there is a little bit of -- ok, this is a billboard, but it is political as well, potentially. i do not think we should sell our birthright on public buildings for this kind of stuff. we have a revenue problem? when does it end? of what is the justification for saying that every school that is not a landmark can have billboards? i do not think it you can draw the line if you do not draw it here. this is the planning department, folks. thank you. supervisor cohen: any other members of the public it would

like to comment? seeing no other members, public comment is closed. colleagues? >> -- supervisor chiu: -- supervisor olague: i would like to ask a question. 20 by 60, is that written in or not? >> i would have to refer to the size of the contract. >> and leased premises is the side facing the wall. it is 99 feet by 28 feet. regulatory sizing is 20 by 60. we could choose to amend -- at a minimum i would like to -- there is a proprietary interest. >> one way to ask that. >> ideally, i would like to see more public process, where we would have input from the market octavia group, who spent so much

time gauging in planning in this part of the city recently. but based on where we are in the conversation right now, at minimum i would like to see an amendment that specifies that. but i think that this is an important conversation that highlights the fact that the devil is in the details. but it would appear that we will be caught up in this situation and at some point we can hopefully have a conversation about what the city can do to regulate some of the billboard activity that goes on on publicly owned land. i would like to thank for this being brought to attention. supervisor cohen: thank you. is there a motion to move this?

supervisor wiener may make a comment. supervisor wiener: as i said last time, i do not take a categorical view on billboards. i am supported in some situations, not so much in others. i am supportive of advertisements in public property on some places, not others. to me it is a case by case situation. i have every confidence that the department struck the best deal it could. i know that there was a process and i know that the economy is bad. i know that we only allow limited signs, said there is a variety of reasons why the pricing has been reduced from one quarter of a million dollars to $63,000. i am assuming that the department could, and i know that there are reasons in terms of cost to the billboard

company, and so forth, that absolutely makes sense and justifies the price from a market cents. the question for us is not whether this was the best deal we could strike, or whether it is a rational pricing, but if it is the best price we could get, is it good enough given the countervailing situation? that is something that i struggle with. though it is not in the big scheme of things a lot of money. i continue to have concerns, but i do believe that we should forward this to the whole board without recommendation. that is my motion. supervisor olague: ivan like to amend the contract, if you're

willing, tuesday 20 x 60. >> what can we do and what can we not do? >> the board does not have the authority to make an amendment. the parties could agree with you. supervisor olague: thank you for that. i would support no recommendation also. supervisor cohen: so moved. madam clerk, are there any other items? >> there are no further items. supervisor cohen: thank you. all right, ladies and gentlemen. this meeting is adjourned.