commissioner antonini: what you really want before us, let's say three weeks. i'm going to make the motion to continue for three weeks. if you want a month, you could make it a month, you can tell me. we would delete -- the others would be deleted out and the parking changes would not be part of the package that would be coming in in three weeks. s7that would be coming becauseu need more time to work those out. >> our plan was -- we have already started working on amendments to the legislation along the lines of the staff recommendation and what we have committed to year. given the fact we have discussed so much, the plan as not to be a separate piece of legislation, it was suggesting that you act on legislation before you and make their recommendations on what we have committed to. while i can make some small

refinements, i don't know we would provide anything significantly more than that. i am happy to flesh out the memo and come again in three weeks because we don't plan on scheduling and that the board, but i want to make sure i understand what you would be seeking and -- maybe the city attorney can speak to this -- i think it would be our intention to have a hearing on pieces of the legislation we would suffer, for example, the peace we have committed to severing -- if any changes were made to that, depending on what you did, it would have to be back before the commission. if we were able to get agreement

or take out the ratio, my understanding is it would not be required to come back to the commission but i would be more than happy to provide an update as the process moves forward, given how much time you have put into this. does that make sense? commissioner antonini: -- what is that? >> march 1 >> i would like to make one point before i make the motion before your consideration. the expiration date for your action is tomorrow. if there is no action today, it is disapproved by the commission and that doesn't mean you could not have a later action and of the board has not already taken action on the ordinance, your

later action would be to convey to the board and be part of the record. commissioner antonini: i would favor the later action, though i doubt they will take action by march 1. i will move to continue to march 1. >> your motion needs to be to continue item 15. all of you can participate in that vote and commissioner fong cannot participate in that vote. >> on the motions to continue -- people still want to talk on this? commissioner sugaya: could i understand what we are going to do on march 1? why are we having another

hearing? >> it would be helpful if you could identify the elements you are wanting to concentrate on. >> if we are going to continue this, i would ask that we get to the staff of what those points are so they can incorporate them into their amendments. commissioner sugaya: i don't like the old process. obviously, nothing is going to happen here, no matter what we do. it seems like we are getting the runaround, so to speak.

the role of the planning commission has been reduced to merely having meetings and passing things on. if nothing is going to change by march 1, i would just as soon get out of here. i'm going to make a substitute motion that planning commission over three hearings has considered the proposed amendments and we pass it with no recommendation and included will be that all of those pieces of legislation will be severed or changed comeback for further hearing at that time. >> the motion for a continuance takes precedent over that motion. president miguel: i'm very much of the same thought as commissioner sugaya. i have not been receiving any

thing from the general public, nor have iç heard it here since our last hearing that does not affect the items that have been severed and with those coming back to us as being controversial items, i have no problem with our role as advisers. it is not our legislation. we are advising the board of supervisors, in effect. i would be voting not to continue it and go for commissioner sugaya's motion. commissioner moore: i would also support commissioner sugagya's

motion. in this case, the abbreviated bullet points i have in front of me are not of substance and don't have enough transparency of what you really need. the devil is in it details -- what you really mean. together, with comparing it, this is the way it was, this is the way we will be. it is that type of clarity we need. and it is that type of clarity that needs to be delivered to the public. commissioner antonini: the discussion was to ask what are specific recommendations were and i thought i said what is it -- what needed to be put in of

legislation. some of these might deal with areas that might be severed, but there were a number of comments that dealt with part of the present legislation that i felt needed to be modified. given the fact that two were given to us as a package, it is clear what is coming in and what is coming out, but it is a little bit confusing. this thing is so large and having it in a more digestible version will be easier for me to understand as well as the other commissioners. and the public -- just because they have not filled the room to discuss something, they may not be aware of what is going on, but when they find out the changes that take place, there would be more people that might be involved in this procedure. planning issues like this, though technically administrative code -- they are under the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors.

once that happens, the board of supervisors moves forward on them and we become advisory, unfortunately, and the last year's because there were a lot more issues being considered in land use than the planning commission and was the case 10 or 20 years ago. i think we need to have these this -- these issues discussed were here. my motion before continuance continuesç below the first motn is on the floor. >> the motion on the floor is for item number 15,i] the compliance specified use district and the motion is to continue this type -- this item until march 1, 2012 and -- are you expecting to have another full public hearing on the first of march? ç>> i would think so.

>> the public hearing is not closed. [roll-call] the motion fails on a 2-4 vote withç commissioners antonini ad moore voting aye. is there a substitute motion? commissioner sugaya: i made one. i said we would pass this out without a recommendation and severed pieces of the legislation are substantive changes to pieces of legislation that subsequently occur at land use and the board of supervisors comeback to the planning commission for a hearing. >> is there a second? there is no second to that motion. motion dies.

is there another? >> i was going to make a motion to pass it out in its present form not to approve because although i think there are many good things in it, it is not ready yet in my estimation. that would be my motion. >> is there a second? >> one way to do is to pass it out and not to approve with the understanding being that it needs to be modified in keeping with zero lot of the comments we had today. it doesn't mean it might not happen but i don't want to be seen as a proving something that i don't think is ready to go. >> second.

commissioner borden: i was going to make a different motion that we are told the staff recommendation and a request the severed pieces come back to us and we ask the supervisors to continue to work with stakeholders to work out those issues that have not come together and finally recommend members of this commission work with the staff to fine tune recommendations around the areas they feel the staff recommendations aren't strong. the motion is to deny the recommendation that is before you. [roll call vote] >> the only problem is, we do

not provide any input on the legislation. that is the problem with denying the legislation. >> ok, commissioner fong. commissioner fong: this speaks to how confusing this whole thing is. does staff had any thought to -- have any thought to -- >> point of order. aren't we in the middle of a vote? >> you are voting for disapproval? >> that made everything complicated. >> aye or no?

your vote is no. thank you. that is a tie vote. it failed. 3-3. >> i know this is a complicated piece of legislation. i appreciate all the time that everyone has put into it. given the makeup of the commission with the six members, i did not mean to ignore the wishes of the commission. i apologize if i gave that impression. i would respectfully request for the commissioners to consider the three-week continuance so we can work with individual commissioners who clearly have issues with specific pieces of the legislation. again, i have been with the city for eight years.

i know you did invested in something and you work on something for a long time. it does not mean that we cannot work on it longer. i would be more than happy to continue to work with the commissioners over the next three weeks. president chiu has been very accommodating. we will make clear that the commission can consider it up until that time, just to make that very clear. i think there is a lot, even if you do not agree with every piece of legislation, there is a lot that has the values that we all share. i hope we can move forward. thank you very much. commissioner antonini: we can try that again. commissioner borden: i will withdraw my motion. i will support a motion to continue with direct instruction that the next hearing, comments

from commissioners to work on specific areas so we could have a targeted section around those areas where people have the most issues. we could even talk more about the exception at stuff. i wanted to be a focused hearing. that would be my motion. >> you did not move to continue. it would be helpful if we could get any changes a week and had to review its. certainly, -- a week ahead to review its. i will call the supervisor's office to. it gives us a few days to make phone calls. this is what i like or dislike. commissioner moore: i want to reiterate what i said earlier. none of us wants to prolong this. this is only a process.

this is what we owe to the public. this is what i owe to myself. i did not have the proper time to understand whatç you were asking for. i will be happy to do that. there are many things at first glance that i agree with. i want to remind everybody, we opened this meeting today saying that we would not decide, that we would just have people comment. i think we are doing the right thing. you have our support. it is just three weeks of clarity and then we are done. commissioner sugaya: when we took the vote to continue the last time, it was with the idea that there would be a lot more outreach than happened over the holidays. the supervisor's office has indicated they contacted people, but i am getting the feeling that a lot of other

organizations, like the coalition, may not have had as much input as they felt they needed to have. i do not think that is going to happen in the next two weeks. they're asking for things to come to was a week ahead of time. >> i want to make sure the commissioners understand that what we would be voting on in three weeks is the department', at our recommendation to the board of supervisors. if you are in contact with the board of supervisors, make sure your contact includes aaron star and amrie -- marie. >> good suggestion. >> as much as we are working with the supervisor's office, we

are working through our staff. and we should always keep that order in mind. commissioner borden: as long as it is with staff and not each other. >> there are two additional recommendations that staff is making. that would include those also. >> yes. >> the motion for continuance, staff and the board will continue to work together on this. it is a more focused continuance on the item that the commission has concerns over. commissioner antonini. >> aye. commissioner fong. >> aye. commissioner moore. >> no. >> that motion passed 5-1.

commissioner fong. my understanding is that unique accusal for item 16. -- you need recusal for item 16. [roll-call vote] commissioner antonini: same motion, item 16. >> thank you, commissioners. the ocean -- the motion before you is for continuance of item 16. that is to be a focus continuance on that motion. [roll-call vote] that motion passed 4-1. thank you, commissioners. commissioner antonini: there is

only one more item left. let's take a 10-minute break. we have been sitting here a while.