it was mostly on the j.k. denine article. s what i came to talk about today are these two projects near me. this one is on chavez. there it was before -- overhead, please. hello. you can see there is three buildings like that. it look like fred and wilma flintstone, but they're still nice buildings. here it is under construction. ors destruction. it was an alteration. there was no d.r. there it is. today. pretty much almost done. you can see it there. i guess my point is there were no demo calcs with that in the 311 that went out. same is true, this one which to me is even worse on duncan because it's got an ad. well, first of all, it says in the 311 proposal to add a third floor existing two-storey single family residence but on the 311, it lists two addresses and the pin has the two address and now it is for sale, entitlements. i mentioned this before but had to mention it before. the entilementment is being sold and here it is there. and also there is another picture of it there. see? and here it is in the block in the con

j.k. denine's article published on january 6ment yes, the permit for demolition was filed pos posthumously after the house was demolished. if this is not an admission to illegal demolition, what is? i suppose asking when a authorization hearing will be scheduled is a rhetorical question. but it is a demolition without permit and as such should be subject to the penalties stated in the building code. that is either a five-year moratorium on building or building a house that was the exact same square footage before it was demolished. illegally. that will be 927 square feet. i made these points at the big hearing of january 17, but i was told that the matter is now in the hands of the planning department. so they passed the buck. and sure enough, the plans for a new 3500 square foot luxury home are currently under review at the planning department as though nothing happened. commissioners, we do that you knows imposing penalties of the building code penalties, actually, is not the responsibility of the planning department or the planners. but does actually think it is right to allow this deve