. >> 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 proposition g did not apply to signs legal before the passage of the proposition. >> the rationale is? >> the rationale is that it was part of the amendment in 2006. let me read through what was said. the owner is allowed to use their properties. that does not mean this is not a new sign, this is an existing sign. they are applying to put up a replacement sign that is legal and permitted. >> thank you. >> i am not here on behalf of anyone and i was not intending to speak. >> comments, commissioners. >> i could not agree more with most of the comments made by the appellate and i could not disagree more with the comments made by planning. i think we just opened up the idea and this had to do with the signs that are not new and the city attorney went to miriam webster and decided that a reasonable definition is one that is adding to the number of signs and this would be reasonable to cons

. >> 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 proposition g did not apply to signs legal before the passage of the proposition. >> the rationale is? >> the rationale is that