the landlord claims in his responsive brief that mr. rees intends to vacate, however mr. rees indicated something different to mr. bell last fight. what we have now is a potential [inaudible], there's nothing on file with the rent board indicating any intent to do an lmi, on the other hand, we have a situation where the landlord is trying to blur what's going on but purporting to do a demolition when he's in fact only -- his plans currently only allow him to demolish a kitchen and to get other space up to code, so this is not a demolition, the landlord never required a separate demolition permit as must happen under building code 106a .1 the landlord never gave notice of intent to apply for a demolition permit after he had already obtained the permit and then he provided the notice and then he claim today the rent board that he was going to do a demolition eviction that's the only record the rent board has on file relative to any eviction there's no lmi on record with them. the application doesn't support demolition of the unit, again there's no nov issued the place can be

the only notice that was an informal notice bell got and mr. rees did not get, mr. rees has never received any type of eviction notice or any eviction threat, but the notice that mr. bell received was quite clear that it was landlord's family that was going to be moving in. mr. chu has a home, mr. chu's family, his mother and the disabled family relative have a home, mr. bell's informed that the whole family does not want to live together here. if the landlord is going to try to do a demolition by evading the restrictions under him under california code, under local law, that should not be encouraged. none of this thing about the landlord move-in came up until now and i question why when the first permit was applied for in september, then immediately cancelled after mr. bell appealed there's no indication or any real intent to do the lmi, there's no rent control records to do an lmi, so i think at minimum, the discretionary review is called for. >> okay, we can hear from mr. cohen. >> mr. chu put in the two rooms downstairs for the house *it. they were not intended t

mr. mas ree can discuss this. >> the environmental process hasn't changed substantially. the fees are increased to account for the cost of inspections and time spent on permitting and inspection and public hearing process. i hope i answered the question. >> yes thank you very much. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor avalos. >> just want to thank colleagues for their support and i think the questions that supervisor wiener had are very appropriate. really when it comes down to the change is very, very minor. it's we were seeing that the vast majority of facilities coming into at level two and three and the level twos were increased in size and after the process and we were at the larger size. >> >> so in effect we're making a minor change really when can comes to the carriers -- not all of them but some actually sued us so it's important for us to come to have the strongest language coming forward that it help us to have some control of esthetics in our neighborhoods and just looking at district 11 there are a number of public facilities that are set up on the poles and t