a vote in favor of it, please. the small businesses and desperately needed. commissioner miguel: is there any additional public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya: yes, a procedural question -- not questioned. this is the first, i believe, a conditional use and a certificate of appropriateness for a landmark which falls under the proposed article to in section dealing with multiple jurisdictions. could you kind of explain a little bit about that? it is my understanding -- i do not remember it all, even though we exchanged e-mails and a member of the city attorney's office was kind enough to weigh in, that in this case, i believe, evenç though the plans that we have received are dated after the plants that were approved by the historic preservation commission, the

staff is understanding that there are not substantial enough issues or changes and modifications between the two plans at this point. so, in essence, the cfa, xdwith changes that the hbc and staffçó have made in a minor way, stands at this point. right? >> to enter the second question, there's no substantive difference between the plans reviewed and the plans before you. the change in dating sentence is due to administrative reasons. they were submitted as part of the conditional use before certain provisions were asked in the certificate. so this incorporates those provisions and include some additional notations, such as outlining street trees and parking, things that do not affect the structure of the

building. and i defer to the city attorney for the other question. >> i am from the city attorney's office. when charter section 4.135 was adopted, it set forth the historic preservation commission'sç authority and the process forç certificates of appropriateness. it did not change the planning commission's authority over conditional use permit, discretionary views, and other permits. although it is corrected the planning commission could not modify the certificate of appropriateness directly, because the metro theater is an individual landmark, the planning commission could potentially grant a cu that is inconsistent with the certificate ofç appropriateness previously granted. if that happens, there are three different options. one is that the commission could

hold off on its conditional use authorization until the historic preservationq opportunity to review the çrevised plans and to issue a certificate of appropriateness for those revisedç plans. a second option is that the commission go ahead and approve the conditional use permit. the applicant again would have to return to the historic preservation commission to seek a certificate of appropriateness for thatt( result -- revised design. a third option is factbook the project -- is that the project sponsor just appeal the certificate and the conditional useq supervisors, and the board would reconcile the conflict. sarah it isw3 reallyçç only oe determinations are inconsistent, then there are a couple of ways

to resolve them. çbut it is possible that inconsistent determinations would be made at this point, and then they could be resolved as the approvals were granted. commissioner sugaya: ok, thank you. i just wanted to have that in the record because this is the first time we have had multiple jurisdiction case. i will go ahead and make a motion. >> second. commissioner borden: this is really full circle for me. i actually worked with the now deceased and deborah fein, and we represented united artists when they renovated this theater, and we renovated for thet( reopening. we played "gone with the wind." it was pretty amazing. we did not realize it was not a genuine innovation, just kind of cosmetic. but they have done a beautiful job, even though they did not bring to fruition of a great architectural details and heritage there. it has been a long journey

watching that space, but so much promise and hope in 1988 to be reopened and then to have to become a dead space on that block, which has been a problem. there was another store there before. it hasi] been kind of that dead zone on a street that otherwise has vibrant commercial activity. there are quiteñr a few restaurants that are very active on the north side of history. so it is exciting to see the project come to fruition. i am excited about equinox gym and eam familiar with what they have done in new york city. i think there are needs for more types of physical fitness facilities within the neighborhood, particularly ones that have more of a full spa experience. some of the other facilities are more you drop in and drop out. i want to thank katherine who is here, because she has been

working on thisç under differet supervisors. i remember her early on getting people together in a room downstairs,ç trying to make sue everybody was on the same page and getting this project to be the best it possibly could be. iç am here to express my enthusiastic support. i am excited that we can do it really needs adaptive reuse that preserves a historical resource and actually brings it back to a new life it has never known before. commissioner antonini: i have a couple of questions. in reviewing the plans, i think this is a veryñr good adaptive reuse. my understanding is it is some but reversible. obviously we would hope it would remain in its approved use for many years, but if there ever were the interests or to return it to a theater, either single screen or multi-screen, at that site, it probably could be done. i know there are some seismic

changes being made, and the configuration would probably have to be a little different. >> right, they are inserting the special flores. right now, it is a one large volume without floors. as part of that effort, they're pulling the floors back effectively from the side walls to preserveç some of the histoc columns that were mentioned before. obviously, if the use of a single screen theater were to be desirable in the future, it would be required to demolish the speciil!force to bring it back to a movie theater. i am not an expert in the construction component. there is most likely a way to do it. they are constructing within the building volume, and they're respecting the existing exterior of the building and the historically designated features. there would most likely be a way to do it. commissioner antonini: i think about what was done with the

çmarina theater, where the theaters are on the upper level and the walgreen's on the lower level. it is a different configuration than was originally the case with that one. but it seems to me that, although it would not be in the same design as their original single screen theater, but obviously that could be done at some future time from what i can seet( from the plans. i have one other question. community room, of course the old -- there will be a screen in their they wish to show some movies, what is the capacity of the community room? >> the community room is not actually where theç movie scren would be. i believe it is in 5.1 of your packet plan. 5.2, sorry. that shows the two different dedicated public spaces, if you will. çidentified in box two on the

right hand side, it is what we're calling the committee room, a 470-square-foot space. i do not know the exact occupancy. that space will be opened 24 çhours a day, seven days a wee. it has independent access through the alleyways on the west side of the building. that is a carved out, dedicated place. there is some additional space that the project sponsors are providing, under box fourw3 on e left-hand side. that is what is the sort of flex space that has the permanently affixed movie theater screen. that space will be open to the public of to 18 times a year for variousñr different events. that is a double volume space. commissioner antonini: so would have the high ceilings, so it would be somewhat inappropriate for screenings or whatever might

be desired. ok, very good. thank you. commissioner fong: do not let this be a way of judging my taste in the films, but i am pretty sure i saw "aliens, " kramer versus kramer," and the bad news bears" there. [laughter] but i do remember how beautiful the ceiling was and i am looking forward for the opportunity for the public to get back in there and enjoy the great architecture in that space. commissioner sugaya: front the preservation historic standpoint, since we're always getting beat up by everybody else, it seems like this is a case where it resulted in an extremely good project. i know that there were some concerns at one. over the insertion of the floors that we were just talking about, because it doesç break up the auditorium , which was okidentified as having

significance. sa#and to staff's credit, theyd identify that and called this a potential impact in the environmental report, and that was mitigated. in the long run, i think it is an example of where preservationists and developers and the committee can all work together and preserve an important building to san francisco's history. i think that is to everybody's credit. and also that everyone was able to accommodate compromise and changes to what could have been attractive positions in the beginning. i think that is really great. commissioner moore: i just wanted to express my support for the building, and since some of us have not been at around quite long enough since this building was built, which was in 1924, i

found a short, yet reasonably good article, and i passed it around. there is a lovely history to it. those people, like president miguel, who has been in san francisco for as long as they have, it is a wonderful recall of san francisco. commissioner antonini: i did see "the graduate" here, and there z a good system to preserve a single screen theaters in those days. movies would only preview for a certain amount of time in san francisco but they usually have to be to market street years before that. by the late 1960's, they would allow theç mind a large neighborhood theaters, such as the metro. after two or three weeks, they would go to the other theaters. ifç you wanted to see a first-n screening, you go to one of theseç theaters. i am glad we're going to be able to preserve this. adding this is a great project. commissionerç antonini:ç no,

commissioner sugaya, a was not around when it was built. it was eight years before me, actually. [laughter] i want to thank the work that the neighborhood organization does. it is a pleasure having worked with them in the past and being involved in some ongoing things with him as well. particularly, the department and the manner inç which they had handled this. 88 years ago, this was the linchpin of a commercial and residential neighborhood. it has undergone, obviously, both commercial and residents of parts of the neighborhood have undergone changes in 88 years, as should be. but you see this location and the theater come back, and hopefully will be a lynche

planet -- a linchpin again. it is a real pleasure. i commend everyone working on it and lo))h#orward to seeing it restored so that we and our children can understand the significance of the creation of theaters in those days. it is something that will never happen again in the same style. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> i have one small eminence in terms of ceqa language. that is on paragraph 3 on the decision page. just to reference that the commission, if you choose to act, will also be adopting the mmrp. commissioner miguel: incorporate it in the motion? >> yes, fine. >> thank you, commissioners. the motion is for approval with that amendment read into the record. commissioner antonini?

commissioner borden? commissioner fong? commissioner moore? commissioner sugaya? thank you. the motion passes unanimously. you're now on item 15 and 16. case 2011.0532tç, uses, to my building features, floor area ratio, parking, and compliance inç specified use districts. item 16 is 2011.0553z, zoning map amendments, washington- broadway special use district, water for a special use district two and three, special districts for sign illumination, and special districts for cynics streets. >> good afternoon. i will turn the microphone over first to a member of supervisor chu's office.

>> thank you very much. good afternoon, commissioners, president miguel. i am is a legislative aide to president david chiu. good to be here again. i wanted to take a few moments to bring you up to speed on what we have done since the last hearing in december of last year. and then, also walked through briefly and answer any questions you have on the response that our office cent over last night. i do again apologize to getting back to you late. we were in discussions with various stakeholders on this issue as recently as this week. we wanted to develop a path forward that reflected everything we have heard from the commission and planning staff and from numerous stakeholders and community members over the last three or four months, even up to nine months. i]briefly, since december, we he done considerable number of

additional meetings and check- ins with a variety of stakeholders with the neighborhood network and spur to the chinatown community development center, which we have had numerous conversations with, and others. and we know that those efforts will continue no matter what you all do today. i want to reiterate our commitment to that. the letter we sent over last nighti] reflects some of what we heard again from the various stakeholders and yourselves over the last few months. i do have copies if anyone in the audience would like to have copies. i will set them here for anyone who would like one. i did want to note that i distributed this letter and the attached table to everyone i have been in contact with on

this ordinance. i think the most significant part of the letter is this idea that whatever you all do today, we are committed to separating at this legislation into at least three ordinances, and would not be surprised if there were more than three ordinances. on two parts, the part related to components of the compromise, which will talk to specifically in a moment, and on the parking facility pricing part, 155g, we're committing to put those on aç slower track and not ask the land use committee to take action on them until at least made. that is a recognition in we have more conversations to have with people who care about affordable housing and development in the c3. and that there is a lot of

discussion to be had around the discount parking part and the parking rate, because iç think they're still questions about what is done currently, how it is and forced, and the role of the mta department in implementing that policy. if i couldfá jump to the chart that i distributed, and i can put it on the screen here. again, anyone who was watching and ifç you want to e-mail me, feel free. i would be happy to distribute this further. onq these first few items, they are items that have come up in our conversations with stakeholders and what we have heard from the commission.

let me speak to the so-called big c3 compromise first. i questions about what kind of compromise this is. is this a compromise or a certain amount of people are sitting around the table and you get this, you get that? that is not really the use of the term compromise. we're trying to find a path through the tension between what builders and developers want to do in the c23 -- commissioner moore: i cannot read the writing. it is too small and too gray. >> i can take that down if it is helpful. i have a significant number of copies that i can distribute.

so this compromise is really about the tension between wanting to encourage development in our defense downtown core and çthe policies laid out in the general plan and the downtown plan related to the density of development. and those tensions that always exists in any city, but especially in san francisco. that is why the elements of this plan designed the way they are, so that in some cases they incentivize development and in some cases a further in the çparking policies. we see that as a package, and we are committed to pulling out the pieces identified in two and three, control board density and the f.a.r. exclusion. it might make sense to pull out the whole thing and keep that as a package since the it is that way. for example, on the density control, there is an idea that, potentially, we can have a

certain unit mix to make up for that. that is not in the legislation now. that is not generally the policy. but that might make sense to deal with some concerns around the unit mix. on the f.a.r., we have heard concerns about -- and i think the commission has struggled with these over the years, with the way that ownership affordable units work and whether folks can afford hoa dues, çfor example, and how the things the work -- how those things work. there are some issues that i think are worth having a discussion about as part of that legislation, and we would not move it forward until may. the accessory uses issue, there has been concerned about excess reuse is, especially in pdr, whether the square footage that can get to an accessory should grow, and in conversations with stakeholders, we agreed to pull

that piece out for pdr. on the waterfront sud daughter is, for two and three, there was concern about the with the sub area plan for the any waterfront have different standards orç criteria in the sud's and that was there for a reason. on transferable development rights, an issue that commissioners have been working on for a long time, we will conduct additional analysis and a doctor stakeholders, particularly in the areas of the city must heavily impacted by development right now, particularly soma, and i am sure the president will talk to çsupervisor kim. i believe state -- planning staff has done a lot of work to have a clear explanation of what it means to open up the market for these. it is hard to know until you do

it, and policy is always evolving. but it makes sense to keep talking about that. finally, plastic awnings, we heard about that. so we have agreed to not prohibit those plastic awnings. that could be geographically limited to the folks we're most concerned about. as a general rule, we're ok with plastic awnings continuing to be allowed. i will not go through all the staff report recommendations and less it is the commissions preference. but if it is more than simply agreeing or if there's something else too bad, i will try to go quickly through those. i know i am a fast-talker despite my son was southern roots, actually. on the first issue, we do agree with that. it is an issue raised by rose and some folks at the neighborhood network. a staff recommendation that requires cu for more than one

unit and excludes group housing from this conversion possibility. ñron page two, agree with number two of the recent new recommendations. then going back to the recommendations from a december 15. on a number one, i did want to add oneç thing, we do agree wih the staff recommendation here. we have heard recently from some fisherman's wharf merchants who have concerns that relate to parking lots in the fisherman's wharf area. we believe the solution the staff recommended here will allow lots to continue in perpetuity, and they will not have to get a cu now. it will be assumed. only new lostts will require a cu. that understanding is there, and we would be open to have that trail if there is more time

needed on the discussion. an issue that came up very recently. agreed, agreed, agree on two, three, four. page three, we move into the piece is related to the waterfront design advisory committee and some of the concerns expressed by the port. we will continue to work with the port on this legislation. my understanding, and diane is here, is that the port supports that approach, as they do the approach on c2 parking on item one. sorry for not mentioning that before. page four, the port peace. number 7, that gets directly to what i was discussing earlier related to the parking rate structure for parking facilities that we will pursue separate legislation, including an amendment to the transportation

code if appropriate. i have begun discussions with the mta on that. number eight, this is one of the only ones where we are partially agreeing. we think that there is some interest and rationale for this. we did take it to the small business commissionu we will do additional outreach to leaders of that community who worked on the existing controls. i fully understand the planning codes re-evaluation is five years. çthat is one where we fully expect the commission to actç o recommend a staff modification, and we will continue to take that under advisement. going to page 5, the next partially agree, item 12. it is not clear to me, and ask what, if any,ç of the america's cup plans are decided, but given the staff mentioned this in the

report, i wanted to say that we can explore possible exceptions. there will be a lot ofç other hurdles despite -- besides this related to the waterfront plans. item 14, this gets back to one of the elements of the c3 compromise. this is one that we will make in two separate legislation. we will sever and created as separate legislation. item 16, we did hear from a number of project sponsors who are interested in a grandfather clause related to parking requirements and other parts of the legislation. i think it makes sense to follow the staff recommendation and based on conversations with the staff, we agreed to three years. i also heard from some other project sponsors who are interested in a grandfather that goes back a little bit earlier. i have not had an opportunity to discuss that with staff. i have seen a lot of discussions

with the board of supervisors with a grandfather clauses were there is ongoing discussions about just for the grandfathering begins. we're happy to continue some of those discussions. çi believe that is essentiallyt on the zoning map amendment. we do have the provision related to the waterfront sud those are our offices responses both to the planning staff recommendations, for what we have heard from the commission and the outreach to date. with regard to the timing and the legislation, we appreciate the time the commission staff.