as opposed to the c.u. i would love at some other time if we could maybe look at the definition of other entertainment uses, because i think that is also something that is controversy all. if a bar wants to put in a pool table, is that and other entertainment use? obviously, the supervisors don't have time, but i would love a further examination of those issues because a lot of them are not very big establishments and they could not even put in major-sized items. i am not comfortable with the rezoning of the c-2 because i do not know the implications of that, and i appreciate what you explained here. the one thing i am not clear on, the suggestion of how that would change the r.c. district. it is the goal to change those around the city? >> yes, it is to clarify and go back to the way the controls were up to 2008. this was something the department did also 1996. we realized it was a little out of date and we wanted to modernize that. after we did that, we realized that was an error. what that does is it mak

don't know if that is a city or state administrative code, because most of the other overturns for c.u.'s or 309's require eight votes. i am not sure if that is under consideration or if that is in the state code. >> it is specified in the administrative code, and that is the way it currently lies now. it takes a super majority for them to overrule you on a conditional matter. it is a simple majority. >> if i could clarify, the state law specifies that appeals go to the legislative body. but the city could, if it chose, to clarify the number of votes. right now it only requires a simple majority. >> well, it seems rather odd to me that while most of the other votes require a super majority, this particular type of vote only requires a simple majority. that is something i would like to see explored and what the rationale for that is, especially since we deal with a lot of environmental issues at great length and have extensive hearings on them. of course the hearings are important, and they are heard at great length by this commission before we make a decision. >> thank you. is there an

i assume that we certainly could come back with it at a future time with the c.u. to establish this smoking area within, which i guess would add another hearing. i think i am in support of the conditions that the neighborhood wants in terms of mitigating the complaints and that is part of this motion. and i'll be supportive of what's in there, but i think we could be more efficient by including the smoking lounge, too. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i fully support the statements commissioners miguel and olague made and having done the homework for us and what i would suggest to mr. paul is if trigger is starting to come forward with another application to very carefully review that also with the exits and including smoke exhaustion because it's not just adding a room when you do that. and you have to really provide quite sophisticated ventilation equipment in order for that room to function as a smoking room. and that becomes the question as to whether or not you can even vent that out on the sidewalk. so i think that is application whic

projects, because there is a desire of the planning commission and of the board, if there is going to be a c.u. that the entirety of the action be heard on appeal. in order to have all of the items heard, there is an action on the findings, and action on three of nine, i believe what she is suggesting is to change the ability to appeal immediately and substitute that there be requirements for hearings on the substance of entitlements that would need to have been before a project could be appealed. supervisor maxwell: do we have an answer to that? >> because they take a long time to prepare, what we have been doing is trying to have informational briefings before the certification action happens. and i believe what she is suggesting is that regardless of what would be introduced, it would be a better process to have that happen after they are certified and that there be more substantive projects, mets, or whatever. and rather than having this constraint being a trigger for an appeal, it tends to cause actions to happen in short order after an eir is certified because it can be appealed immediat

projects, because there is a desire of the planning commission and of the board, if there is going to be a c.u. that the entirety of the action be heard on appeal. in order to have all of the items heard, there is an action on the findings, and action on three of nine, i believe what she is suggesting is to change the ability to appeal immediately and substitute that there be requirements for hearings on the substance

. >> actually, along van ness is the one place where the formula retail controls requiring c.u. are currently in place. also parcels from van ness are include and do require a cu and the remainder of the rc parcels do not. commissioner antonini: so we already have the controls on van ness avenue. >> that is correct. commissioner antonini: and we're extending it to tarsz off the street -- to the areas off the street, which are the tenderloin and some others and wherever else the other parts of the rc-3 and 4 areas are that you put in. okay. it sounds like that probably is just redefining something that's largely in place anyway. because i think a lot of those areas are more similar to the downtown area and you add to at least along van ness and if it's already in place, it isn't going to make any difference. you already have to go through that process on van ness, so that's really not going to change anything. okay. thank you. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: pardon my ignorance, but we're going to take the rc-3 and 4 and then use wise we're going to re

it tacks on the potential of a year or whatever the c.u. process may entail. the time, the money, and in many instances, landlords are very unwilling to give an open-ended time period where free rent would be available. so what you have is, by the intent of this legislation, notification, but the practical reality will be the turning down of entertainment uses because of the cost and time that's going to be involved in this additional step. so i would urge this commission to think seriously about that intent and perhaps make a suggestion back to the supervisor that the intent of notification can be done much more elegantly in another way and not involve your department in a time-consuming process that actually will discourage the addition of entertainment to already existing uses. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners, good afternoon, chris shulman, small business commission. firstly, the small business commission legislation and policy recommended approval of this ordinance as originally drafted. so my comments will not speak to t