a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you ryan patterson i want to highlight a couple of things briefing briefly the rendering are misleading the deck is at my clients bedroom window and the small commissions or koingsz but moving from that i want to touch on the second unit issue those are the architectural plans that were listed the property listing showing completely separate units this is the kitchen, and full bathroom here that the environmental application by the architect but the fine print says one kitchen per unit and the notice of special restrictions on the property the adding a kitchen is counted as a living unit that was used a separate independent unit since then hallowed out in the third - one of the problems we have the plan as proposed is not necessary an alternative plan to the basketball. >> the original design was a third story house this was where the second unit was until recently the proposed project to build a second story at all gym was a basketball court here and a gym and then the bedroom or the accessory dwelling to. >> mr. botching virtual our that time it up. >> pro

. >> thank you commissioner president honda bryan e ryan patterson for the permit holder the objection was not so much. >> would you like to distribute our material before thanks. >> 12 copies. >> just give a copy to the department. >> these are building code issues that require an amount of research and listening to argument so my objection on that point as it stands. i think that a lot of it is simply irrelevant they're not at issue in those only one issue in the building department the planning code issues the use of 6th floor live and work unit that the status is not purely residential designation an odd easy use no longer authorized in san francisco and while that may be subject to a subject of the notice of violation penalty decisions that decision didn't call to my memory not call for revocation of the permit that is a financial penalty if there are a violation there so that's again, i think kind of a non-issue >> do you have non-residential you want to add thank you for the opportunity to respond. >> yep thank you. >> okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have a que

. >> thank you commissioner president honda bryan e ryan patterson for the permit holder the objection was not so much. >> would you like to distribute our material before thanks. >> 12 copies. >> just give a copy to the department. >> these are building code issues that require an amount of research and listening to argument so my objection on that point as it stands. i think that a lot of it is simply irrelevant they're not at issue in those only one issue in the building department the planning code issues the use of 6th floor live and work unit that the status is not purely residential designation an odd easy use no longer authorized in san francisco and while that may be subject to a subject of the notice of violation penalty decisions that decision didn't call to my memory not call for revocation of the permit that is a financial penalty if there are a violation there so that's again, i think kind of a non-issue >> do you have non-residential you want to add thank you for the opportunity to respond. >> yep thank you. >> okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have a que

ryan suggested that an infrastructure package should consist of 98% private funding. specifically the speaker said there should be a 40 to 1 ratio in a federal infrastructure package. mr. patterson your testimony discusses the importance of direct funding. do you believe that an infrastructure package that relies on 98% private funding can adequately address the needs of oklahoma and other states? >> i don't understand how you get to that perspective. it's something that i would have to learn more about. >> the perspective is basically you have some sort of tax credits with federal funding that amounts to 2% and the other 98% comes in from private p3s or something. you don't think that works? >> i don't think it works in oklahoma. >> but you do think it works elsewhere? >> i can't speak for the other states but i would imagine not. thank you. mr. thomas, do you agree that public/private partnerships, state infrastructure banks and local bonding initiatives are helpful but cannot replace real direct dollars. >> they give us tools in the tool box but it needs to be a complete tool box otherwise you can't get the project done. >> and it's incomplete without the federal funding. >>