and, you know, we do intend -- i did want to say to do that pathwork, though it is not related to the permit that is under appeal today, we do want to assure that that path is going to be maintained as part of the project, whether or not it appears in permit drawings, those pathways are for reference only, and that we do not take that extra step to update the plans if they do change for unpermitted work. and then her final claim about ada compliance, she doesn't provide any clear code issues to explain why she believes it's not to be compliant. as stated at the first hearing, we rely on our dpw, ada access coordinator who reviews the entire project for compliance and signs the documents. we have it on record that he signed it and we believe that that is supported. that concludes my three minutes. thank you. >> vice president fung: the primary point that the hearing requester is bringing up is that he had not received documents in a timely manner. your brief indicates differently. you want to explain that timeline? >> well, in her request for rehearing, she references her original clai