Supervisors narrowly amend Castro Theatre landmark language to specify 'fixed theatrical seating' after hours of public testimony

The Land Use and Transportation Committee on April 17 approved a substantive amendment to a proposed landmark designation for the Castro Theatre’s interior that narrows the ordinance’s language to specifically protect the theater’s historic seating configuration.

Supervisor Dean Preston moved to strike the phrase "presence of seating" from the landmark ordinance and replace it with "fixed theatrical seating configured in a movie palace style," a change he said was requested by community organizations and preserved language from the landmark designation fact sheet. "So specifically, moving, to strike presence of seating and replace it with fixed theatrical seating configured in a movie palace style on page 8, line 2 of the ordinance," Preston said when introducing the amendment.

The move followed more than four hours of public testimony in which speakers were sharply divided. Preservation supporters — including members of the Castro Theatre Conservancy, the Art Deco Society and film programmers — urged the committee to clarify the ordinance to protect the theater’s raked floor and fixed seat configuration as character‑defining features. "To omit a protection of the theatrical seating configuration at the Castro is to open the Castro up to exploitation," said Cathy O’Regan, a film restorationist, in public comment. Several witnesses cited an online petition, town‑hall turnout and historical arguments to press for the change.

Opponents of the amendment, including many local merchants, workers and residents, argued that requiring permanent fixed seating would render the building economically unviable under current market conditions and deter private investment. Speakers supporting Another Planet Entertainment’s (APE) renovation plan emphasized large numbers of boarded storefronts in the Castro, urged that flexibility is needed to generate revenue for costly repairs (witnesses cited estimates that restoration and repair of decorative ceilings and HVAC systems will require significant capital), and said APE has offered a multi‑million‑dollar investment and a programming commitment to reopen the theater. Multiple callers and in‑person speakers cited figures heard in testimony: the theater’s historical capacity of about 1,400 seats, an APE plan that would remove roughly 200 seats (described in testimony as about a 15% reduction), a cited APE investment figure of approximately $15 million and a proposed calendar of about 175 programming days per year (with advocates saying a portion of those days would be dedicated to film). APE representatives and counsel also submitted letters and neighborhood petitions in support.

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who introduced the original landmark nomination and had attempted negotiations between APE and local stakeholders, told the committee his office circulated a draft referencing fixed seating but that those negotiations had not produced a deal. "APE has not made this easy. But they have moved a lot since their initial presentation of their plans," Mandelman said, acknowledging concessions while urging that the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation be respected.

The committee recorded the amendment vote as: Peskin — aye; Preston — aye; Melgar — no. The amendment therefore passed 2–1. Because the city attorney determined the change to be substantive, the committee continued the item to April 24 to allow additional review and to enable further negotiation and documentation before final committee action. Chair Mirna Melgar closed the meeting after the continuance was approved.

What happens next: the amended ordinance and the record of public testimony will be processed by the city attorney and returned to the committee on April 24; any additional amendments or enforceable agreements between the lessee, owner and community stakeholders may be added before the item is forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors.