intersection improvement can be done but that may not be the reason why intersection need improvement. >> my concern is really around the having the specific time limit on making the environmental document determination. >> i get there is no real, if you are working with the developer leverage for them and the affordable housing developer. if it doesn't happen in 60 days. i don't know what's written in the legislation as to what happens. >> well, we would like to follow the law. >> commissioner antonini. >> for that reason i raise that issue because i have concerns and i think the environmental process an we want to do it as quickly as possible to make the determination between kad ek,

nag deck and eir, but as you start to point out the position could have too much review and not enough review. we had a couple projects which was 100 percent affordable and within a block of each other and the same wind effect on both projects and no discussion about the affordable project and hours of discussion about the wind effects on the market rate. obviously, i'm not saying, i think we have to -- the impact is the same no matter what's there for those around there, those who are affected by traffic, sidewalks and other things that a project has. i think codifying this is not a place to put it. if you want to fast track affordable housing project do it in other ways. but to try to cut short on the necessary environmental reviews is saying let's do a quickie mr. because it's such a

beneficial thing. couple things i wanted to ask for miss rogers. i notice in the memo, i don't want to go into too much detail today but as we move forward and try to make a motion to forward, we said that adding to eir's and kim's proposal and not appealable to wiener's legislation. we want to exhaust all administrative remedies on a deir or appeal board. there is some significant differences in these and i tend to in these instances side with wiener and chiu. i would like to see the

kim legislation forwarded to the board of supervisors with the recommendations of staff and that would be what i would support of and make a motion to that effect. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask the city attorney's advice. since we were at the beginning of the meeting and the debrief on what happened last monday and none of us have seen how this particular new memorandum affects, of course miss rogers summarizes an what is been forwarded for us for approval and disapproval of other portions. how can we possibly prove something than when that what was given to us somewhat modifying of what described in the memo no. 1 isn't really quite holding because it

modified. wouldn't it be better to pursue to the board to sort out what the next level of clarity is. i think it happened last monday which will supercede on the prepared memo. i'm asking the city attorney at this moment and she can ask you what the issues are because i haven't read it. >> kate stacy from the city attorneys office. i think that's whether the commissioners feel they want to continue it to consider the changes, get more explanation from staff, act today. it really depend on how the commissioners feel about absorbing that information. >> this has happened to us at

project level and approvals where changes were submitted and while we all have intentions to help and support, if i don't know what's been happening in between i'm personally feeling unable to move forward and simply recommend it to the board to consider. if you can help sort that out that simple nature. >> of course. thank you very much for the recognition. i just want to clarify there were no changes to the support. the supervisor kim's proposal we mand unchanged but what the supervisor and staff indicated today that they will be open for this. if you were to continue this item next week would you still be able to comment on this which the board is scheduled for may 6. >> would you mind staying there. this is a very simple

thing. but i personally did not support mr. wiener's legislation. those people who are sitting there and did support it are now having to work through those changes with supervisor chiu suggested to that legislation, how can they not first acknowledge that in order to fully rectify their complete position. >> is this a rhetorical question? >> that is a rhetorical question, yes. >> before you today supervisor kim's legislation, not supervisor wiener. >> supervisor kim stands as elaboration of supervisor wiener's piece. mr. wiener's piece has also been modified. wouldn't we have to fully

understand his changes are before they can taken an honest stand on supervisor kim's position. that's the way i think but it may not be everybody else's requirements. >> i would defer to the commission on that. >> commissioner wu? >> thanks. i do feel i want to forward to supervisor kim's legislation. the real compromise is on land use and we want to help them make some determinations on issue areas. what commissioner antonini has suggested is staff's recommendation. let me try something out with staff. i would like to forward it with staff's recommendation with exceptions and i think there is a couple areas where i want to see further examination or i don't know if the commission

wants to make hard line exceptions. for me i want to see further examination of the notification. what's feasible or under what time period it would be feasible to do more of what supervisor kim is requesting out of the notification. for me i also want to -- i would like to recommend to the land use committee to examine this question to recommend approval while the appeal is pending and also the amendment of the priority project. >> commissioner hillis? >> i would agree to recommend staff's moves recommendation and i agree to exploring. i would want to kick it down the curb and ask that we explore additional notification or additional kind of search able

in a data bass that allows folks to search project base and also supporting priority for affordable housing projects. the issue of, on the issue of kind of projects stopping while a ceqa determination is made. like the shipyard, somehow miraculously. it's designed to happen so staff and the project sponsor will make -- that's the most complex project we can possibly have where there is numerous approvals and somehow

miraculously the approval is made before it got up to the board? you can kind of call how it works the system. i don't think it really matters. it's got 30 days. i think either way. it doesn't necessarily matter. but i think i agree with commissioner wu with a way to explore to have our data base explorable. that maybe not the way it works. we maybe go to supervisor chiu's office. >> to answer the rhetorical question, i feel fine voting today because what we saw supervisor wiener brought forward and i liked it and i vote for it and he needs modifications even after our

hearing. had there been more modifications compliant with supervisor chiu. that's generally speaking most of the proposals that were put forth by supervisor kim i had problems with many of them and staff answered my concerns in my recommendations. unless we prove the staff modified version i would be uncomfortable to move forward without my recommendation. that's how i feel about it and i don't think i got a second to my motion. >> commissioner wu? >> i will move to recommend approval with staff modifications, with the request for further analysis on notifications whether or not project approvals can happen before or while the appeal is

pending and also prioritizing affordable housing nod. >> that captures my thoughts. >> i think we disagree on that one aspect to moving it forward just noting that i don't think that -- yeah, second. >> i just have a question on the motion. study further these things, it doesn't mean we are necessarily supporting what supervisor kim has brought forward. it just means look at these three areas and see whether or not we agree with staff or whether we agree with the supervisor on those. is that what you are saying in the motion? >> i think not exactly. i think i'm -- i know it's such a complicated motion. i want staff to analyze whether or not it is feasible especially on

the notifications, what is reasonable, what is feasible and if not now, then under what kind of timeframe or with what kind of resources. i think it's more neutral than saying i don't support the elements of supervisor kim. >> i appreciate all the hard work by supervisor kim although the initial by supervisor wiener was where possible capture the idea of some sort of time restraint on appeals on nag deg and kad ex-that's why i'm going to vote against it. generally i have concerns. >> commissioner hillis. >> i just want to clarify. we are sending it with basically with staff's recommendation in saying we want a review of what

can be done in the realm of notification and how things maybe able to be searched or you can have a description on the project. >> okay. agreed. >> the second aspect of where i think for affordable housing to endorse the proposal for affordable housing project and then to serve are we asking to look at project approvals on that? >> i think that's okay. >> you are not saying it to change, you are saying just to look at this issue of project approvals being allowed to not moving it forward. >> sure i think further analysis of what that means for further projects if that's helpful. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm very concerned that the

specific language that the department uses in rebutting supervisor kim is dangerous to support because it is a can't do type attitude often justified by expense and time. that in itself is not an argument for or against something and i said that before if the argument is really substantially looking at restrictions and process, restrictions in the law, areas of contradictory language in the way the code and the law is written, i would take that as an argument and listen to it. however, it is indeed not well-founded and not for me when for example the department supports time limits on appeals

but simultaneously increase notification requirements. it comes and goes. >> we are supporting notification. i have to express some frustration about that. we are greatly increasing notification. >> perhaps we all read language differently. i'm just speaking to you as one person who has carefully read the language and if this is what i'm approving or supporting that is where my personal problems are and it might not be intended. it's very possible. the devil is in the detail when we speak and in this language as we are supporting it, i feel that i'm going against the thrust of what supervisor kim is trying to do. and i personally believe as i said for open ners that the train has already left the station and to that direction we are in the board and land use the more substantive

discussions are being held because those people have worked day and night for 8 weeks, a lot more than i personally do. it's my reaction in front of me and i personally because of the subtlety in which it's said i cannot support the department push back on this. that is my problem. >> commissioner antonini. >> my concerns were about the appeals process and while i'm afraid that supervisor kim has put things about her notification in her measures which i fully support but some of the other aspects of it could lead to more appeals. i have seen a lot of appeals that i believe is sometimes using the ceqa process because it's easier to get a ceqa appeal

through a board of supervisors to make a determines on the commission project planning itself. that's my concern. although i think there is room for negotiations on some of these issues but i think a lot of them are in there and i brought these up in my comment and that's why i'm not supportive. i support the staff's position. >> commissioner hillis. >> just on that staff memo. i think it's important to note where it could take issue on this. if you look to the kind of the motion for the resolution that's before us, it doesn't really call out. i think the staff has articulated reasons why it supports positions beyond where this is going to cost more. i mean i'm still fine with moving the regulation -- resolution with staff's modification. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to say that the

better the preparation, the earlier the better the product. i do not believe there are people in the community who are hounding appeals but i think they will be happier if there were more put into this. >> there is a motion and a second commissioner. if i can try to reiterate the motion correctly and make sure i got it right. the motion that has been seconded is on the floor for your consideration is to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the ordinance or the amendments to the ordinance with staff's modifications including recommendations for additional review or analysis surrounding feasibility of notification, project approval

during pending appeals, searchability of ceqa determination and prioritizing affordable housing projects for additional recommendations? okay. on that motion, commissioner, antonini, no, commissioner hillis, aye, moore, no, wu, aye, fong, aye. commissioner that motion fails 3-2. is there an alternate motion or do i dare say proposal for continuance? let me let commissioners think about this. i think it speaks to the awkward situation of this particular process where we approved language from another supervisor and now have been presented this to

potentially prove as well but ultimately not as the final deciding body. we are going to probably end up and recommend some sort of hybrid or a marriage of the two. in fact eric used the word harmonize. we want these to fuse together. i don't know if there is an alternative motion? >> i don't want to delay the process, but if for clarity in our own ranks and for elevateing the discussion to where i believe it to to be and perhaps the staff feels my belief for a push back is for not lack of support, it's for clarity, i'm prepared to continue it which will also allow us to get a clearer understand on the modification for supervisor wiener and hopefully then send it off as

harmonizing and encourageing the board to harmonize it too. we will not pass a legislation no matter what. we would make recommendation. i would like to make an informed recommendation on those issues. i do not want to delay the process. >> commissioner hillis? >> i'm still in support of moving it forward. i think we've heard a lot on these hearings. i think supervisor, the amendments that were being made respond to what supervisor kim has put forward and take portions of her laegsz legislations and in that process and getting a compromise and moving this out. so i don't think what's being proposed is significantly different than what the staff is recommending. we are asking to look at the notification

procedures and what can be done more in notification. something that i think is fairly that everybody seems to want in notification to search the website and look to see what search project by project not only type of geography and kind of explore this issue more of what basically what's happening now the as the projects are being frozen during the appeals process and endorsing affordable housing action. i think it would be good to obviously people are going to theory -- hear the debate and what's talk about and i think it's important to move this forward and move this piece of legislation and adopt something. >> i agree.w with that sentiment. we can move forward without recommendation and with

some recommendation that the supervisors begin or continue to merge the two pieces of legislation. >> okay. commissioner antonini? >> does this need four votes? smgs -- sometimes it needs 4 votes. >> it needs four votes majority of the entire body to adopt a motion or resolution to move it forward. in this particular instance, it's not changing the planning code. so it doesn't have to come before you and it's not something that you have to make a recommendation for. by under conditional uses, if a motion fails, then the project actually is

disapproved. it's not, this recommendation wouldn't move forward for disapproval just because they motioned for recommendation of approval failed the failure of the motion, unless there was a motion to continue and for further action, there simply would be no rms from the planning commission on this matter. >> okay. i generally, i'm supportive of staff recommendations. i just have concerns. i mentioned codifying the affordable housing and the decision on the environmental review that is needed. as long as these are measures to study those three items then i probably could be supportive of a motion. looking at those three, i would be okay with

supporting the staff's motion. i don't know if that would say that or not. >> i think it would be somewhat counterproductive to continue this but we can't forward without recommendation and i would actually acknowledge the commissioner wu that why suggestion we have to admit to ourselves that we are only 5 today and there are two commissioners missing who tell me if -- who strongly support this and we need to move it forward. i motion to forward without recommendation. >> commissioner antonini? >> could i ask rogers, would staff prefer with recommendation or without the recommendation? >> director? >> i have no preference.

forwarding is the most important thing. >> commissioner hillis? >> i just want to explore the possibility of having a motion because the discussion was important or some recommendation from us. i don't know if it would be, i guess there is a motion and second on the table to continue. >> not to continue, to forward without recommendation. >> i can't make a substitute motion at this point. >> i suppose you can make the motion, we have done it before, but we would take the first motion before. >> i would put the same motion as supervisor wu but to explore the priority to city projects such as affordable housing. >> second if there is a chance to have that motion.

>> okay. let's take up the matter of the first motion. >> mr. moore? >> i just said the fact that we recommend to forward without recommendation does not mean that the board of supervisors will not read what staff recommended. let's just be real. so that's all i have to say. >> all right. commissioners there are two motions that both have been second the first is to forward without recommendation. on that motion, commissioner antonini, no, hillis, no, moore? aye, commissioner wu, aye, fong aye, that motion fails 3-2 although you don't formally need to adopt that motion. the second

motion presented by commissioner hillis and seconded by antonini is to consider the same motion suggested by commissioner wu just clarifying that the recommendation included exploration of prioritizing projects. on that motion, antonini, aye, hillis, aye, moore aye; wu, aye, fong. so this motion passes unanimously 5-0. all right. >> commissioners that will place you under item 13 for

case no. 204 -- request for conditional use authorization? >> good afternoon commissioners, mary woods of department staff. the cu request before you is for development lot size greater than than 10,000 and use size greater than the 10,000. one is the renovation of the existing theatre which consist