mr. sanchez pointed out -- commissioner garcia: you can raise that up and be more comfortable. >> as mr. sanchez pointed out, the whole thing has been vetted by the planning department and we have been through this process. i feel like if there is any way to strip out the studio and just attach it to another piece of paper and close the window on the appeals for it if possible, then we will be good to go. commissioner fung: you are saying you would like to build the front portion? >> that is what i am saying. it is a very tight budget. we do not have a lot of money to do this thing and we have a lot going on. all this green stuff is going to be expensive. the idea is to build the two structure simultaneously. without going into details, it will work out that way for us financially. not to mention the fact that there is a line item on the permit that says "studio," and it was given to us. and we paid for it. we paid for it. commissioner fung: i understand, but i think you are now going to have much of a choice. >> ok. i understand. commissioner fung: mr. kornfield and mr. sanchez, once a d

mr. sanchez back up. vice president goh: i have a question for mr. soto, and then i would like to borrow the architect -- the picture you showed with the green and yellow and blue, if you do not mind. mr. soto, i would like to put on the overhead the picture we had on the overhead before and ask you some questions about that. we heard that the dotted line on the right-hand side, the footprint of line, the rear dotted line is not the exterior rear envelope, but rather it would and the new construction -- construction would end at the blue. that is your understanding as well? >> yes. vice president goh: i thought from the briefing the expectation was it would go further than that, but that is your understanding also? >> yes. vice president goh: you said earlier it extends 20 feet beyond the required rearguard open space. you are talking about the blue area behind that first dotted line. is that right? it is within the blue on this drawing? >> the original court was 6 by 14 and now it is 20 by 25. vice president goh: ok. thank you. >> can i make one com

mr. sanchez, there are no complaints on file with planning regarding bay area compassionate health network or mr. schoepp. thank you for your time. i look forward to you approving this permit. commissioner hwang: i have a point of clarification. i understand it is not a rehearing, but the project sponsor could request to extend the hours after six months, provided there are no complaints. i do not think there is an automatic rehearing. >> let me turn to that text, but i believe that is one of the conditions of use before the actual operation of that facility. commissioner hwang: we can ask the zoning administrator. go ahead. >> to verify, there is not a rehearing. that is correct. there is only a review after six months to determine whether they could have powers beyond what they are conditioned for. commissioner hwang: ok. >> i am sorry. that was my misunderstanding. any other questions? president peterson: i have a couple of questions. is your client a partner now of corn hardware? >> he is the managing operator. president peterson: how is it doing financially? >> it is still operating.

mr. sanchez, we again apologize. that night was confusing, but we should have a parade in your honor as well. any other commissioner comments? any public comment on the commission of commons? seeing at non-, we will move on to item 3, the adoption of the minutes. before you for your consideration are the minutes of the board meeting of november 3, 2010. i move to adopt the november 3, 2010 minutes. any public comment on the minutes? seeing non-, call the roll, please. >> on that motion from the president to adopt those minutes, commissioner fund. commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> item 48 is your consideration of findings to do with -- item 4a is an adoption of finding to an appeal you heard recently. it is appeal no. 10-092, up banks versus dbi. you voted to overrule in grant the approval on the condition that the utilities be capped and maintained. these findings were drafted with your motion in mind. the parties have agreed to the findings as writ

mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez, planning department. i do not think that there is much that i can add to the presentation other than to say that i can clarify a bit about the department's history and position on it. the department did find that the staff had complied with the residential design guidelines. the planner had made that decision. the discretionary review was filed. at that time, it was taken to the residential design team, and that is where we came up with the conclusion that changes need to be made to the project, so it is clear evidence that it was a close call from the department's point of view at least in making that decision, and then it was brought before the planning commission. a unanimous vote of the planning commission is, i think, a pretty clear indicator that they think a project complies with the residential design guidelines, and with that, i would respectfully request that the board of told the planning commission's decision to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. i am available

mr. sanchez, the d.r. hearing had a number of points. do you feel that those points have been addressed in this particular iteration of the design? there was the garage parking. the other was the drop in the stairway enclosure, to reduce it to the minimum required by code. >> yes, the department's staff worked extensively with the project sponsor at the combined hearings that were held in october, before the planning commission, and it took a while to get all of those changes made. they were made to the satisfaction of department's staff. commissioner fung: in conformance with all the comments made? >> that is correct. president peterson: it seems there is still some concern there would be a snowball effect in all projects would be of the same height, but because of the downward sloping, i concede that is the case. >> one is the worry about the snowball effect of rear yard variances. as we have seen before, variances are unique by definition. just because there is one granted for this property does not mean variances will be granted for

mr. sanchez. if we were to grant jurisdiction in this, what would we have in front of us that we do not have in front of us in the matter that we are hearing later? >> there are several possibilities. if the board grants jurisdiction, opening the appeal went up, i imagine it would be six weeks out or so that the appeal would be scheduled. if at that time the board finds it is not a legal non complex structure, we would require them to go through the various process. however, if the board makes that determination tonight, we would conceivably have them go through the variance the next available calendar, at the end of january. i think it is a matter of time, a question of the rear yard. i think the same question will be before you, regardless of if it is just the permit or if you have both. we suspended both permits. sc6ybut we have allowed work to continue that was within the existing legal footprint, as per our records. vice president goh: and what projects are sent back -- are set back to go to