mr. atkinson has reached out and plucked one for other and from that one featherhead he would like to begin the process on the whole project because the client did not have 30 days. >> would you address why we did not get plans until today? >> i did not know the plans were required by the board, i was here for other projects. i was unaware that plans were required. i did not get them to you because i was not here physically to do that. >> i suggest the continuance. >> with no objection, we will go ahead. >> i don't see any continuance but it is up to the majority. >> we feel prejudiced about these plans but we can discuss this. >> are there any parts of the plans that are confusing to you and give some different light on the case you presented? >> we had been able to go down to dni and we were able to review the plans. this is not just a question of my knowledge and the fact that we have known about this for a long time is irrelevant. my understanding is for the board's understanding of the project rather than the appellants. that is the issue which i believe is the basis for the request fo

mr. atkinson is usually on the other side. i think in this case, i have an idea that would solve the problem. even if you will grant and uphold our permit to put either and open metal rail or a glass rail that is clear, which are permit allows us to do, if you will uphold that permit, i will put translucent glass in the elevations of the debt that face the appellants property so that all the west side glass would be glazed with translucent glass. you cannot see through it, but light goes through it. if no one appeals the use of that translucent glass, we are done. if someone appeals it, we will come back to you and you can ask me to notice the translucent glass. but if we walk out of here tonight without the ability to move forward on the web -- on a permit that has been a year in the making, through no fault of our own, i think we already severe disadvantage. after we have gone through a process that was carefully researched, that was carefully reviewed by the department, that was carefully planned-checked, and checked in the

mr. atkinson made having to do with the fact -- you don't necessarily adhere to it, but if you stand in the window and & on somebody's , that is not as intrusive as if you are sitting on a backed -- if you're sitting on a deck. i don't really see that. in an urban setting, i don't think anybody has the right to expect privacy. i don't see the privacy issue. i could see why it would be very desirable to have a deck that would afford a view that i think this will afford. i don't it will affect the privacy and i don't think it is intensification of any potential noise, so i would agree with the point made by president peterson that i would like to refer in this and focus now on the translucent glass and hammer that out. commissioner fung: thing your motion should be to uphold with conditions. president peterson: then that is the motion, please. can you specify that the translucent glass would only apply to the west side, third floor deck? do we need any specificity as to what type of glass? >> scott sanchez, planning department. probably the lightest class possible, not dark blazing. president