. >> the r-word is how mr. morton calls the redskins. >> now to a fox 5 paramedic has been off the streets now for a week sitting in office doing basically nothing. jon botwin has not been questioned or told what jarj -- charges he might be facing. this is nothing short of retaliation. paul wagoner has that. >> when jon botwin sat down write the city council and tell the members about his efforts to save a little girl he did not include any identifying motion but d.c. fire said the privacy officer had concerns hipaa rules had been violated and botwin was ordered off his engine and told to report head equal -- headquarters. art spitzer has read the letter to the council and sees no violation at all. >> all he said was that a 5-month-old baby had died. i can't see how that could possibly violet patient privacy. >> in his letter to the fire chief art spitzer wonders why the investigation has gone on this long. >> this is a classic case in the d.c. fire department. i've been litigating since 1980 and i've seen this

with concerns about the scope of work that is proposed currently and additionally, and a letter from mr. morton was received yesterday after the publication of the report further out lying the concerns regarding the proposed work and a copy is available for the public and also been forwarded to the commission. >> and specifically the letter raises the concern that as proposed, when you try the extent of any alterations do not meet the standards and are to contend and cannot be exempt from seca. >> it should be noted that the project was evaluated in 2005 after the removal of the materials except for the montgomery street and had received a certificate of approval. the project was received an exemption at that time. the current proposal is a

with concerns about the scope of work that is proposed currently and additionally, and a letter from mr. morton was received yesterday after the publication of the report further out lying the concerns regarding the proposed work and a copy is available for the public and also been forwarded to the commission. >> and specifically the letter raises the concern that as proposed, when you try the extent of any alterations do not meet the standards and are to

with concerns about the scope of work that is proposed currently and additionally, and a letter from mr. morton was received yesterday after the publication of the report further out lying the concerns regarding the proposed work and a copy is available for the public and also been forwarded to the

with concerns about the scope of work that is proposed currently and additionally, and a letter from mr. morton was received yesterday after the publication of the report further out lying the concerns regarding the proposed work and a copy is available for the public and also been forwarded to the commission. >> and specifically the letter raises the concern that as proposed, when you try the extent of any alterations do not meet the standards and are to contend and cannot be exempt from seca. >> it should be noted that the project was evaluated in 2005 after the removal of the materials except for the montgomery street and had received a certificate of approval. the project was received an exemption at that time. the current proposal is a slight modification. includes the stucco and as well as adding a much smaller roof deck area and penthouses on the roof. the current proposal is an attempt by the new owners of the building to finish construction that was started by the previous owner, and it will not remove additional historic fabric from the building. this will replace the historic

>> i was not talking about the crate of bricks that i believe, mr. morton was talking about. i was talking about the 228 slabs, all of the bricks. and the iron work. nancy had a company called glow metro and that was a company that was going to restore the building, and she was required to number each brick because this building you are in a better position to know that it was the first home of physical therapy ... of the free masons and so she had to test each one and number them so that they would be put back in the same spot and i am not sure all of the bricks were reusable. but enough of them to create. and they were stored in south san francisco and ultimately the cost of removing, testing, documenting, these bricks is what made her unable to complete the project. her brother bought those bricks at auction and her brother has been storing them ever since, east west bank when they initiated four closure procedures against the company, glow metro, she was unable to say where she was or elderly and could not make it today. and she is under medication and there was many, man

concerns about the scope of work that is proposed currently and additionally, and a letter from mr. morton was received yesterday after the publication of the report further out lying the concerns regarding the proposed work and a copy is available for the public and also been forwarded to the commission. >> and specifically the letter raises the concern that as proposed, when you try the extent of any alterations do not meet the standards and are to contend and cannot be exempt from seca. >> it should be noted that the project was evaluated in 2005 after the removal of the materials except for the montgomery street and had received a certificate of approval. the project was received an exemption at that time. the current proposal is a slight modification. includes the stucco and as well as adding a much smaller roof deck area and penthouses on the roof. the current proposal is an attempt by the new owners of the building to finish construction that was started by the previous owner, and it will not remove additional historic fabric from the building. this will replace the historic