there was a question of the last hearing whether ms. ramos voluntarily asked for removal of the signs and we submit that is not a relevant issue. on section 604, "when a sign is voluntarily destroyed or removed by its owner," so it is talking about the sign owner, the sign should not be reinstalled. there are limited exceptions that would not be relevant here. believe it or not, we agree with the planning department here that a signed thus removed cannot be replaced. i am here to answer any questions. otherwise, we rest the case. >> i apologize. i did not get your name. >> marcinier. >> thank you. >> counselor, can you refresh our memories as to the sequence of actions that related to your company's awareness that the owner of the property had changed what type of notice was provided and how that played into the date line that led to removal of the sign? >> yes, sir. to back up to the very beginning of the story, ms. ramos purchased the property in 2008. the deal that cbs had with her predecessor is that it would provide her with moneys of $1