mr. patterson. and again that may have ripples to this negotiations that you're having with the represents and maybe unrepresented tenants. keeping tabs on this and whatever mechanisms to have on that, we're going to have to make sure that we have those in place. >> commissioner imperial. >> yeah, i share with all the commissioners have spoken the frustration in this process. what i'm looking forward, on april 27, i think the public comment there is a public comment to have it in writing if the project sponsor can have, again the details on the, on the i don't know if it's for attorney-client privilege you can have it in writing in terms of what has been discussed. but, that is something that we would like i would like to see beforehand. and if anything, if well, i don't know how this settlement is going to look like but, i hope i have more time to really see through about this what this settlement look like and how this affect the construction phase. i do have a question for us in the planning depa

mr. patterson filed yet another appeal, on the ceqa document dated february 24th. i would like to sends this item to the full board without recommendation for our consideration next tuesday march the 7th. >> there is one person for public comment. >> okay. let's take that. take that caller. james. you have 2 minutes. >> caller you are on the line. >> yea. supervisors, i would like y'all to consider the comments made by mrs. chapman. and take in consideration the work of the department of building inspection. how do y'all do a need's assessment when you don't have the empirical data. we need to [inaudible]. that has been preserved. and not [inaudible] the state of the tourists and adverse low impact those who want to live there. as they used to before. think thez who want to make money. when in the past, they have tried to save these units so this people can live. san franciscans. i don't know why you find it so difficult not to take care of our citizens first. thank you very much. checking to see if there are other callers in the queue. that concludes comment. why

patterson for permit holders. i wanted to independent it a now thing and clarify and set the record straight. if i can use the over head, pleas. in is the detail mr. williams showed you he neglected to add the language acided by dbi that says, roof remain as is guard rail. sorry. mall text here. officer shall serve as guard rino guard rail extending above existing roof line. you see better the condition we are talking about from a different page he did not show you. that is a condition of approval. when added to the approved plans. again if we look at 83 where are 1 you see to the extent that this deck is carved out and sunk down in the roof. nothing is extending above the existing roof line no structure is added and there is one question in the case that is, per length nsr whether any structure is on or directly above the existing officer yours the answer is, no. there is the question of whether people will stand on a deck and be visibility. people are not a structure. i want to clarify these are small decks, talking about may be 2 people stands there at a time they are not party decks there is in the room for significant can furniture my client