i will note that -- and in the case of cesar chavezfinger we recommended approval to the planning commission, recognizing it was an illegal unit, it wasn't subject to the regular directive, in that case, the planning commission did not align themselves with staff's recommendation and voted to deny the permit and i don't want to talk too much about this case, it's not on the calendar but will be back before you and i want to avoid the same scenario apologies for the lateness of this information but if during the rebuttal, the appellant can indicate whether they would have any indication

i will note that -- and in the case of cesar chavezfinger we recommended approval to the planning commission, recognizing it was an illegal unit, it wasn't subject to the regular directive, in that case, the planning commission did not align themselves with staff's recommendation and voted to deny the permit and i don't want to talk too much about this case, it's not on the calendar but will be back before you and i want to avoid the same scenario apologies for the lateness of this information but if during the rebuttal, the appellant can indicate whether they would have any indication of taking the discretionary review, i think that would help us inform the board. >> there's no long gap in time like the last one? >> that is correct. >> and a lot of process in between. >> yes, and just for the board's kind of informationfinger we do have another case that's similar with a bbn that was not properly noticed and it's our intention to avoid that additional process of the planning commission hearings when their outcome cannot be fully guaranteed, we're looking at other alternatives. >> by the way