working under the presumption that you are under the parking you'll be able to have and the rules are going to be changed, that's not going to work. transfer of development rights is always a good idea. finally, as far as rezoning, i think you should take the lead from what everyone on those because they know better about what they're going to need in their areas. those are my main comments. i'm sure i could find more fiat time but those are the main things. >>commissioner moore: i would le to talk about process.

i feel this particular body [unintelligible] because there were many extended debates on why are we doing it this way. why are there 12 pounds in an 8 pound bag or whatever the expression is here. that would require the legislation to be taken into different chapters. this meeting started with the commission announcing it was considering this item. that was on public record because people who hear this and don't show up for a meeting today -- when we hear it for final approval or final recommendation, -- perhaps there is complete agreement.

[unintelligible] that means there was a feeling this commission was in agreement that what we had in agreement did not come early enough to be informed. they are one-liners of things to which i would like to hear more. i would like to hear the background of the discussion and agree with the decision making. this is what this body is for. this body is for the public debate, before a goes to the regulatory staff. land use is only a small part. it is not a hearing with the body of people in it to give them the ability to approve for

questionñr and speaking for myself, i am asking for a continuance. it doesn't have to be long, i have the updates of details different from what my colleague is asking and that i am prepared to move. i commend you for all of the work you have done and i think breaking it into different pieces is excellent. i feel that procedurally, we might have something the public is not very happy with. commissioner borden: i feel like this has come a long way since it was first introduced. we have identified areas that need continued outreach and in general, what i have -- most have spoken to issues that will

be taken up at the board of supervisors and the future. i don't have the issues my fellow commissioners have and i don't see why we can't move forward with this today. they have separated out the most controversial issues to deal with. i don't have a problem having another hearing in this form. i'm -- not to say it wouldn't accomplish anything, i'm just not sure it's what we're hoping to glean from this one and particular, given we have come to a place where they were previously and we have dealt with a lot of them. that just my opinion. maybe someone could explain to me the exceptions in this

legislation and you could perhaps talk about it -- maybe i missed something. >> thank you. i did look through this again to make sure i had the exceptions and i talked about the issues are earlier today. i believe this is a comprehensive list than there are situations where the exception is being permitted it. on the legislative digest, which i thought was the quickest way to scan it, on parking, there are exceptions where it could create a geologic hazards. it doesn't make any sense and have to grant an exception.

i a believe for each exception there is a criteria outlined in that code. >> there are exceptions that would be more -- >> permitting exceptions -- on historic buildings -- this did come up earlier -- there is a provision of the legislation that would permit exceptions from dwelling exposures converting to residential use and it is specifically delineated and does not include additions -- >> de are of a kind with other exceptions so i'm happy to --

commissioner fong: they are not new exceptions? >> i would be happy to do a word search in the next few weeks to find all the times it is mentioned. but there is one removing the exception -- it is a very technical one. çthose are the ones that jump t as new and of legislation and they all make a lot of sense. >> i am the acting son administrator here. >> [unintelligible] what is it different and is the standards -- there are different

standards for conditional uses which are for the most part the desirability where the exceptions tend to have more specific enumerated findings required based on the type of exception. also of particular note is the exception process is appealable to the board of appeals for the conditional used process -- commissioner fong commissioner e things we struggle with is a very few things are a necessity. desire ability is a dubious distinction, depending on perspective, point of view, and the stakeholder you are in the process. i think that's a direction we

should look at where it makes sense. there is a lot of work that has happened at this point and i think our staff is recommending the best that the word. i know a lot more work will happen and it is really hard as much as the planning commission is the ideal place to opine on this issue, the hard work is not happening. everyone has three minutes to speak and there's not a back- and-forth conversation. the true work at this point still needs to happen not in a more formal form but a more informal meeting with groups around the city that have a stake in this legislation more so than having in other people

-- have another meeting here. we have to think about what we want to focus on for topics of conversation because i think that would be most constructive in bringing the legislation forward. if we don't have that, i don't know why we want to have another hearing in this body. commissioner fong: your comments lead right into my thoughts about that. what feels different -- realize this is not a neighborhood plan, but it doesn't feel like they're is a community consensus or knowledge about what is going on. i know there has been an outreach and there's a list of agencies and organizations that have written letters of support. but i'm not convinced the residents and merchants of the area really understand this let alone know about it. typically with something like this, we have fans or supporters

but i'm not sure that many people know about it. i am glad to see there is movement in both directions. something like elimination of the plastic awnings has been dropped. i am a little bit curious about the definition of scenic streets and what that really means. some of that points to your idea of seeing a one liner of what acetic street's mean and what is the definition. i'm sure we could spend a whole hour speaking about that. the surface parking lot -- i don't think anybody acknowledges their highest and best use, but we're going to need them. are they grassy fields until some other idea comes along? i'm not sure. this process is different than

others. maybe that's why i feel a little nervous about it to speak to this legislation. i'm probably going to ask to recused myself on the second item if we were to take action today. it speaks to the embarcadero and taylor street. to my knowledge, there is no embarcadero and taylor streets. it becomes jefferson street when it reaches taylor. i'm not quite sure. and not challenging that, but just buy what i am not reading here, that would have -- i would have to be recused.

>> [inaudible] >> i think little embarcadero -- i believe it is a former -- formally the embarcadero to where it becomes king street. it was not the intention to bring jefferson street in. that big triangle of parking -- that would be the embarcadero. commissioner antonini: i think we could check with the city attorney. we went through this thing and if one single ownership -- even with a large area, i guess it is

enough @u( into that issue. i would suggest the following. if you think it's appropriate, we have a continuance for three weeks or one month for that range. whenever you feel is enough time to get what i have in mind done. what we get is the parts he won approval from on that hearing a week have time so we can review what we are actually going to be voting on in two or three weeks. the deleted parts would come back at what ever time they will be taken up as separate legislation. am i right on this idea? >> i was just thinking about the comments -- lead to publish our report so that we can advance, staff won't have time to add any commentary to that.

commissioner antonini: at least we would have a clear indication of what's going to be before us. the deleted parts would not come back, but the parts that you want approval for in three weeks are what we would see in one month. >> i believe the letter was provided last night and it essentially lays out what we would be asking for approval on and as stated, the agreement -- we have the agreement with the vast majority of the staff's recommendations and have made agreements with other items we have heard. i would provide that to you in advance and i don't think we have any plans to schedule with on monday and move it forward. there is no overall objection, and i have heard a number of

different and helpful things from the commissioners today. we simply believe it makes sense to create a small further incentive to build on the surface lot and moving it from two years to five years provides more time for an economic cycle and time to make the effort to develop one of those lots and this is just an example -- if a property owner comes forward and a lot that is operating and a show they have something in planning or they have worked on it, it's hard to picture the planning commission not granting that. it is one issue -- 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 legi