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 of the following. one is a conversion of 3 seats and new retail

places with approximately 60 kwartsquare foot on the first floor. on the adjacent surface parking lot a new four story mixed use story will be built and also consist of 122 spaces. the ground floor will be retail. behind the retail will be dwelling uts. the whole building will consist of 37 units. 13 -- 1 bedroom and 63 bedrooms. four of those units will be below market rate housing units. since your last thursday passionate, we have received two letters expressing concerns about the project and one letter in support of the

project. department's recommendation is that you review and prove the staff's mitigated final nag deck and adopt the mitigation measures that are listed in exhibit c and staff also recommend that the commission prove the project with conditions as outlined in exhibit a. this concludes my summary of the project. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer. thank you. >> i thought you were all going

to take a break after all of that. sorry about the delay. >> i'm the architect for this project and just as a caveat at the beginning some of you know i have been recently appointed to the historic commission and

i was granted a waiver so i can present this afternoon. i got involved in 2006 and got involved in 2010. the alexandria theatre is the landmark on the corner this project includes the adaptive reuse of the historic theatre and then a new mixed use building on the parking lot site on 18th avenue. so most of you know where this is in the

middle of this slide you can see the building with the parking lot on gearey blvd 18th avenue, a picture on the right from 1922. the building was designed in 1922 and completed in 1923. the over all design is it's like the luxor in egypt. they used to the on the tonight of the building which is illuminated that you can see. the architects for the building were the weed brothers in san francisco as well as around the state. they designed the cliff house, the temple of music in

golden gate park and the coronado in san diego. they also designed almost 20 movies theatres in the bay areas and hardy theatre, the balboa theatre and the colosseum has been renovated and the theatre in oakland. so as part of this project the dallas-fort -- adaptive reuse of the project is preserving and you features of the building. the traz oh floor and box office area and along gearey boulevard and in the 1940s and the marquis

signed we would restored and keep in tact on the building. it's on the left. it was interesting how the architects really look at some of the old historic ornament with their art deco version of the 1940s. the interior of the building as i said it was originally an 1800 seat one screen theatre in 1942 of that time. it was down the middle and two small exteriors were added to the middle. pretty much everything in intact from the 1942 model

from the grand stairs with the handrail and the chandelier is original to the building in 1923 and some of the plaques as i have noted and the water front is a fantastic tile still there that is quite nice. so the existing building, this is hard to see, but the existing building has -- do i only have 3 minutes? the existing building has the shots on the gearey side. it's a blank facade. there is a lobby that center is through there and currently the theatre box is in the north end of the building. you go up the stairs, there is a lobby that curves around the corner and that's the entrance to the two theatres on the

second floor. our plans include keeping the interior of the building. we would demolish the 1976 addition and they basically build right up to the murals on the wall do very little damage to the 1942 version of the building when they did that in '76. our goal is to add space to the floor and by building a small 200 seat in the middle and build a platform in the space pulled away from the walls so the mural can be seen as well as the circular dome in the middle of the space that's also cut in

half. we are doing this to have a platform for restaurant use. it would be still dramatic and would be floating in the murals that are there. on the exterior along 18th avenue, the existing building on the top shows some extensive landscaping along 18th avenue which i will have more detail on later as well as new store fronts in the middle where there is now exit doors from the theatre but bring lights inside to glass and make it more visible and how to make it move through building and how to move through commercial spaces in the building. >> a little hard to see but the section drawings shows the existing conditions above and the design below. we are planning to build a flat floor over the gently sloping floor

and these meet the design guidelines so that they are removable in the future if that were to be reused as a theatre. on the existing parking lot there is a 57 car parking lot there and we are proposing to build a mixed use building, the ground floor is a commercial retail space and above a mix of 37, 1, 2, 3 bedroom units . we picked this particular style, mediterranean style with the way the building was built in the 1920s and the housing in that neighborhood and a lot of it was built at that time and picked up the spanish and mediterranean style. the current sight plan on the left

of the building. it's a large lot, almost an acre. this is the proposed sight plan that includes the building on the right. it that is court beyond a reasonable -- yard on the center that has a large courtyard garden in the back. the style, a lot of these pictures, i just came back from spain to pick up on the vocabulary and there is a lot of concern in the public in san francisco that we don't do things that are disney fooid and our goals are that we pick up on the details of the building. that we would use good quality materials and there would be windows and the columns for the ground floor and tiles around the entrances

and cast moldings and trims around the outside of the building. part two level of parking level on the ground and apartment spaces in the back and this community yard, the courtyard at the second level and all these units will have front and back light from the street as well as from the rear yard and then the courtyard. the upper levels then are very similar and then the section you can see the courtyard underneath. so the other piece is the street scape. kind of forbidding there now. there are no trees there. we have a street scape plan