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 ou