will bring teatro zinzanni back to the waterfront and we hope will be a great addition to the waterfront and our city at large. so i'm going to turn it over to mark hornberger to talk about some of the real issues you care about. thanks. >> okay. thank you. for the record, mark hornberger, and i'm the

architect. do the overhead instead of a computer show. as jay mentioned, we met two years ago -- a little more than two years ago with you to review the project. you at that meeting made several comments which were on the notes from that meeting, and to be brief today, i'd like to just go over those six or seven points that you had made in the meeting, and we'll use the more traditional overhead here.

so location of the project, you're familiar with this at the intersection of broadway and embarcadero with height limit on the site that we're conforming to. staff had mentioned that the overall scale and proportion of the project remained consistent with the historic district. here, you see a depiction of the project along embarcadero relative to the scale of its neighbor buildings and so those aspects of the project carefully thought out have remained the same.

the scale and proportion, again, related to adjacent buildings continues to be square shouldered and within the height limit. there were some comments that were made just about the relative materiality and transparency of the tent pavilion, which i'll talk about shortly, but the proportions of all of the elements of the project have removed the -- remained the same as what we saw two years ago. predominant materials are brick, glass, and metal accents. the brick, a kind of rough texture on the exterior

facades, clear glazing, so there's transparency. we're meeting all the ground level transparency requirements of the code, and then, we've worked further on the tent pavilion to ensure its transparency at that key davis-vallejo intersection, including the backstage area which we'll talk about in a little more detail. you had asked us to continue to look at the tent pavilion and its backstage area, which you can see here at the intersection of davis and vallejo street. >> clerk: sfgovtv, can you go

to the computer, please. >> okay. all right. so we've continued to refine the areas of backstage, and keeping it as glassy as possible. privacy will be achieved here through some walls that enclose parts of the changing area and toilet room behind the stage but primarily with curtains that will be moved during performance to allow the presenters to change in privacy but at other times, open so there's transparency through that space.

and then, here's a representation of a view towards the park. this is currently a parking lot, so we're really improving this 14,000 square foot area, making it a quite beautiful amenity in public park, one of the string of pearls along the embarcadero, but you can see the interior on the right-hand side, its glass enclosure, and the ability to see through that pavilion and its backstage area. some concerns expressed

archways that we had originally proposed at the ground level of the hotel building, we have removed the arches, the openings are now rectilinear. you asked us to keep the low planters along embarcadero that serve as kind of a bulkhead, but down and low so that patrons both of theater and the hotel sitting at dining tables can see out and there's an appropriate transparency between the embarcadero and the interior spaces. in your packet is a representation of the key

materials which include predominance of red brick. we'll have a blend of three colors of red brick so there's more depth and character to the ve veneer brick. the corners will a dark anthrocyte color. we've taken the color of the mechanical penthouses of the building, and we're proposing to sheath those in a very smooth midgray metal panel which will help them be resessive and reduce the visual bulk of those elements, which

don't extend 16 feet in height. 10 feet for mechanical, 16 feet for elevators, which as you know, the code allows. >> would another minute be okay or do you need more than that? >> almost done. >> okay. >> almost done. so the elements, again, you asked us to look at the back of the rear stage and pavilion area. you can see the stager on the upper right here. it's green wall, and the maintenance of the glass where the stairs previously had shown, we no longer have a basement under the project, so this will appear from the park as glass and green wall with the clear glass beyond it.

cornice continues to be dark metal c shape at the top of the building. you asked us to remove the arcade at broadway at the front entrance of the building. we've done that in favor of a single deeper opening, taking our long marquis, subdivided it into three individual spaces, three individual canopies in those openings. see on the lower elevation here how these three key openings really center around a primary entrance in the middle bay and the other three bays are more vertical. so we were asked to bring

samples of glass for the pavilion. i have those with us. we're looking at two options. one which is a fritted insulated glass. there's another option, a clear ornilated ornilux. both of those types of glass, we're using in other major projects here in the city. they have been code approved for bird safe use, and so our

project sponsor right now is going through more detailed energy calculations and we'll determine in due course which of those two glasses will be the most appropriate to use on the pavilion. but they're both highly transparent, they're both in essence clear and meet bird safe requirements. so happy to take any other questions as you have them. appreciate the time, commissioners. >> thank you. do you have any questions or comments before we go to public comment? okay. so we'll move onto public comment. we have quite a few speakers, so if we could, i'm going to limit each speaker to two minutes. is that okay? so first up, randy frye, and then stan hayes. >> good afternoon, commissioners and planning

staff. i live at 640 davis street, unit 18, which looks directly at this proposed hotel. >> can you speak into the microphone? thank you. >> certainly. so i live directly across from the proposed hotel, so this directly affects me. >> let me interrupt. there's been a request to do three minutes to public comment. is that okay? so we'll do three minutes. >> okay. so i'll be as quick as i can. so when we bought our apartment, we were told that teatro zinzanni was going to relocate to the parking lot. i'm totally in favor of the theater being there, i'm not in favor of the hotel. the reason, that parking lot is absolutely critical to our neighborhood. when i first heard about the hotel, i thought oh, as long as it's 40 feet, that doesn't sound too bad. then, i found out they have no

parking for the employees, for the guests, and people going to the theater. so where are they going to park? then you put on that guests for the hotel, employees for the ho hotel and people go to the show. now how to solve it? build a parking garage underneath. expensive, yes, but i think under the circumstances, a theater, a park, and a parking lot would probably be ideal. so in terms of if this does get pushed through and does get built, the 40-x built and height district rules state that if you have a penthouse for an elevator it can be no longer than the footprint of the elevator. so they've got the elevators going to the roof, they've got a bathroom on the roof, a terrace on the roof. i think those penthouse mechanical buildings should be kept to the size of the shaft, which they are not now. so, i mean, it's obvious to see

the port authority makes money or this, the developer makes money off this, and the city makes money off this through hotel tax and property tax. i think you've got to give the neighborhood a chance to, you know, weigh in on this because it's going to change our quality of life for sure because there's going to be absolutely zero parking on these streets monday through friday. okay. thank you. any questions? okay. >> well, thank you very much. good to see you again, commissioners. stan hayes from the telegraph hill dwellers. i want to say how great it was to work with mr. wallace and his design team. the input that we've had, the opportunities that we've had to talk to his team and other the within the community, with the planning department. so while we have some

additional concerns that are not before the h.p.c. today, they're not in your purview, we're pleased to support many of these modifications that have been made as a result of this development. we remain concerned, though, about the location and design of the theater structure. we're concerned that its blockage of the vallejo street view corridor and the right-of-way is in conflict with general plan policies, policies that specifically protect by name the view corridor along vallejo, the bulkheads, that strongly discourages release of public streets. conflicts aren't discussed in the draft approval motion section on general plan compliance and it seems like they should be. otherwise, the motion just

seems incomplete as it's written and not ready for adoption. we would suggest that you add something to this discussion. because of these conflicts with the general plan, we think the theat theater construction should be relocated or reduced in size or if you decide that the location and size are appropriate and approve it as proposed, that any street vacation that occurs be temporary, reverting back to the city if and when teatro zinzanni ends or exits its use of the space. we're also concerned that the glass enclosure itself seems too large. it's more than three times of the volume of the spiegel tent, which contains the actual theater performance area. i know there have been some other challenges to that, but we've reconfirmed the accuracy of this calculation today, and because it's not like any other

structure in the northeast waterfront historic district, it's not sufficient with article ten's requirement to maintain the scale and basic character of the district. finally, we strongly agree with condition six in your proposed motion. we believe that a large -- that you need to base your review of the proposed exterior materials of this project on a large and representative enough sampling of actual materials to provide an accurate sense of their in-place appearance. this is especially the case of the glass enclosure and the other glak stage structures in the theater. this is a gateway to north beach and chinatown. i know that all of us want to get this right. thank you. >> president hyland: great. thank you. timothy deft, is that correct? >> good afternoon, president

hyland, fellow members of the commission. thank you for allowing me to speak. i'm a member of carpenter's union 22. this is a strong union employer at both the project construction phase. this will allow workers on the project access to apprenticeship training as well as the necessary income and benefits to provide for their families. this project meets all the requirements of the planning code. we strongly urge the commission to asupposupport the project a approve the certificate of appropriateness. >> president hyland: thank you. bob herhur. >> good afternoon. my name is bob herhur.

i'm here representing the barbary coast association. we have people that live across the street and are members of our association that live across the street and walk past this every day. we support the project. the project sponsor and their other project representatives have worked with us. they've been very receptive to our comments and concerns. i'd like to point out there's been an issue raised about i guess what's the gazebo and its location. first of all, it's an attractive and innovative approach. it's going to give this location something distinctive, i think that will be a positive addition to this neighborhood. i will also say that the concept of the loss of a view

corridor that's been raised here a few minutes ago has never been raised as a concern in any of our association discussions, so i just believe that the project has it's been proposed and as it's been analyzed by the staff is certainly a very good project and it deserves your support. i would urge that this body go ahead and make the finding that it does comply with the appropriate standards. thank you. >> president hyland: thank you. i apologize ahead of time. this is debra divara. >> i'm a local costume designer and have worked in the theater arena in the bay area for 30 years. i'm here supporting teatro zinzanni -- theater has the power to change the way people

look at things. it has been controlled, sensored, stolen, hidden, and banned. it also has the power to invoke joy, and association. it has embraced multiculturalism, pan sexualism and every other kind of oddity and it's been part of circus in its history. i hope we can bring it back. it supports local artists. we hire local designers. we shop here, design here, fabricate here. i really have a strong and utter belief in it. i've worked everywhere in the bay area and it's one of my favorite places to work. the audience becomes the community. from the first laugh to the oohs and aahs and the sighs

from a beautiful aria. thank you very much. >> president hyland: thank you. cynthia gomez? >> good afternoon, commissioners. we're here today to ask that you grant the certificate of appropriateness for the project. we want specifically to speak about the ways in which we think that the project will benefit the community and the neighborhood in the city. hospitality work, as you know, can be extremely difficult and one of the strongest protections that hospitality workers can have is the ability to organize into a union. the project sponsor here has proactively come to us to work proactively to sign agreements that will protect hopity workers right to form a union

and that will ensure them a right to have good jobs, living wage jobs. as our friends in labor have mentioned these similar protections will extend to those who build the hotel and those who staff the hotel, so we feel that's a strong benefit to the community, and we urge you to support this approval today. thank you. >> president hyland: thank you. john stewart? >> good afternoon. i'm representing myself as a resident of the area, telegraph hill. my wife and i have lived there since the beginning of time. also representing the john stewart company, which is a partner with bridge housing on a development that you're familiar with called 88 broadway. just shy of $100 million

affordable also with moderate income first responders cafe, restaurant, all sorts of things. i have to say it's the mother of all hybrids. we are right next to the kenwood project. we support it in every respect. we have worked closely with the kenwood investment group. i like the style, i like the character. i think it adds style and character to our neighborhood. i think the seniors will think so. the eastern end of our neighbor are all seniors. they're on davis street. they face east. they'll be looking at this complex. we've looked at it carefully. we think it looks terrific. i particularly like the design of the theater. so i would second what bob herhur said, and i would

encourage you to support it and approve it. thank you. >> president hyland: thank you. bill hannon. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bill hannon. i'm vice president of the golden gate way tenant association. our members live at the gate way, a three residential block complex two blocks in the teatro zinzanni site, and i'm here to support the project. we have in touch, in close touch with the project sponsor through jay wallace and other representatives. they've done a great job of community outreach for several years now. i cannot remember a time that i did not know jay wallace. we very much appreciate their outreach, we enjoy the design. we think this project is the cat's pajamas, and we hope that

you will approve it. thank you. >> president hyland: great. thank you. ron campbell and then annie jameson. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for allowing my recommendation that you allow the certificate of proposeness for this particular project. i took the liberty before i spoke here to check the computer in my pocket about historic preservation. what came up is that preservation means keeping something of value alive, intact, and free of decay, and i was stuck on the alive part of that. i feel uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of this. my name is ron campbell, and

i've been an actor, and i got my first job at eight years old. i've now been involved in the industry for 50 years. i've been involved in cirque du soleil. i also come here today as a time traveler. i know what you're thinking. who is this guy who says he's a time traveler? i felt like i was a time traveler most completely one evening when i was performing for teatro zinzanni, and the fog rolled in, and all i could see was an outline of that tent, and i realized i was going back in time to go to work. i also thought inside that tent, where i consider one of my favorite places on earth,

maybe more favorite than in the loving arms of my wife, but when i was able to look at the audience, it's a mirrored spiegel tent. i was watching a video of myself and saw those mirrors, my whole performance was captured in one of those mirrors, and made me think that a performer in 1948 or 1932 may have seen his reflection, and also he was working for the resistance but also performing at the teatro zinzanni. i want you to be part of this resistance. these spiegel tents hid themselves during world war ii,

and they are now being able to resurface here in the embarcadero in san francisco. i leave you with a 1970's song which is touch me in the morning and just walk away. we don't have tomorrow, but we have yesterday. well here, we have yesterday, and here, with your help, we can have tomorrow. thank you. >> president hyland: thank you. annie jameson? >> thank you. i'm annie jameson, chief operating officer with teatro zinzanni. i've been involved with the project for 20 years, and we really need to come back here. we have been -- i'm sorry. it's just hearing ron talk about the tent was -- it really something for us -- or for me. so any way, thank you.

it's been eight years since we started this project, and it is time for us to return to san francisco. we have moved the tent around the site in every area we can. we have talked to neighbors around the site. we have visited with jay, thank you, and many people around the city -- many, many people and talked about this project. it is time for it to return to san francisco. it is culturally important, it's important for all of san francisco, any human being to be a part of performance. it's a beautiful thing, what you're going to okay, i hope, is going that's going to be in san francisco for the next 60 years. we want to thank the port and all of the people that have

helped us. this is a passion project for all of us that are involved. it's got hundreds of people from all over the world involved in it. i just hope you will approve it and thank you so much, and we really hope to move this forward. thank you. bye-bye. >> president hyland: thank you. any other member of the public please step up. zblt good afternoon, commissioners. my name is richard tetani, and i'm working with the project for the port. i'm hoping that you find the proposed plan of the project compatible with the district. teatro zinzanni is a former

tenant in good standing. it was relocated from pier 29 and was displaced to make place for the america's cup. therefore, teatro zinzanni and the port mutually identified a small portion of the site as a potential location site for teatro. they then sought broad public input on their design for that small portion of the site with a series of temporary structures focused on the historic spiegel tent and for a short-term lease. the feedback that teatro received from the community was that temporary structures are not compatible to the historic district. to respond to this feedback, teatro to build a project fitting the district, they realized they'd need the help to undertake such a larger

project that requires more money, more resources, including land area, more development expertise and more lease turn to recoup their investment to make it all work. teatro proposed a development that covers the entire seawall lot 324 and two other adjacent parcels. it includes a theater space for teatro zinzanni and a privately funded park. we have taken their proposal to leave the site to the park commission to the land use and transportation commission of the board of supervisors, to the board of supervisors itself to allow us to negotiate a long-term lease with them. each of these bodies have given their unanimous consent. the design before you is part of the process to get to that lease. recently, the proposed design was presented to the planning

department of -- the planning department to aroc and h.p.c., and the design has since been updated mostly to respond to the positive feedback. the project as has been stated -- the purpose of the project as has been stated is to put it back to better use. to wrap up, this venue will redesign and retain teatro zinzanni. the site from an open design perspective has a number of challenges and constraints. limited height, limited available development density and irregularly shaped land pass through and it is surrounded by architectural icon to which whatever is built must pay respects.

can i have a few more minutes? i'm almost done. >> president hyland: okay. >> thank you. >> president hyland: thank you. [inaudible] >> the proposed design which actually involved too many design iterations prompted by commented from the community is compatible with the district. the long and the short of it is we recommend that you approve finding that planning staff have drafted for you. thank you. >> president hyland: great. thank you. any other public comment? >> hello. i'm aaron thornton here on behalf of the architects for 88 broadway and 735 davis. we've been shoulder to shoulder with this project in at least

half a dozen meetings so we've seen the willingness of the development and the design team to collaborate with the community. i'll be very brief and just say we're in support of the project and hope that the commission approves it. >> president hyland: thank you. any other public comment? >> good afternoon. i'll keep this brief. i'm the newcomer i think to all these speakers that have stepped up before. i've moved here from chicago two years ago. i'm the general manager for kron-4 television. i'm amazed at the lack of parking in this city. there are three t.v. stations within three blocks of this location, and there are four television stations due to lack of parking that have to share that space. i have an additional 15

reporterer cars that are small red pontiac vibes that park there throughout the day that park quickly that need access to our news desk, assignment desk and the ability to get quickly on the air. we recently expanded our news coverage to 24 hours a day.

-- which is pretty much the same, but it does say certificate of appropriateness. >> not in the -- not in the revised motion. >> oh. >> okay, the one that jonathan handed out. >> but i do have a question for staff and/or city attorney, two questions. one is how does the comments that were brought up about the general plan fit into our motion? do we need to have any kind of opinion or any mention of general plans? and then parking is not in our purview, but can someone give an update of where the project is at. >> i can offer some update and the city attorney can opine. >> this project has received a

final mitigated negative declaration. the general plan in each of these documents, they find that the project is overall on balance consistent with the general plan findings and this is a reflection of the department already having found it consistent with the general plan two times before. and then, in terms of parking, certainly there will be other venues. the city planning commission will be hearing this item i believe currently on the calendar for april 11, and then subsequent to that there are other approvals by the court. and if the city attorney wants to speak to general plan further, i'll be fine. >> president hielyland, do you have a specific question about the general plan? >> president hyland: it was just if we needed to mention it in the motion or not or if the motion as written -- >> the motion as written

concerns the general urban design element as well as general development concerns, so i think the motion draft drafted -- as drafted is appropriate. i think the commission is certainly welcome to opine on the compatibility of the plan. >> president hyland: okay. i see it in the general motion. it just specifically referred to article ten. >> oh, yeah, so the motion covers article ten, secretary of interior standards, and the general plan finding there and the 101.1 findings. >> president hyland: okay. great. thank you. commissioners? >> i support this project, and i think we should approve it. >> is that a motion? >> and i make that motion. >> very clear. >> i second your motion. >> president hyland: commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. yeah, i really like this project quite a bit. i like the changes that have

been made since the a.r.c. i can't believe it's been two years. the most obviously one is the brick color, because you had obviously had it as a yellow-gold brick, and now, i think the red brick is exactly the right thing. i think it's a hand some project which fits in extremely well with the strounding buildings. i just want to comment about the tend structure. mr. hayes commented on its inappropriate structure. there is no tent structure for any district this one kind of straddles between the northeast waterfront district and it's really on the embarcadero as

well, which isn't in the district, and the embarcadero has many, many buildings, different design and different character. obviously, the one side is a district with the -- with the pier structures, but you know, the beltline railroad building with its -- its turnaround with the trains in it front that has a circular element there that's just a couple of blocks away, seems like kind of a precedent for the form making of this building. so -- and i think that structures like this that are so unique and distinct get us to look more carefully at the ones already there. because the contrast is so evident, especially when they're pushed together in one building, that they, you know, make us sit up -- you know, standup and look.

which if it didn't have the tent structure, you can see oh, is that an old building that's just been renovated, or what's going on there? but i think this helps substantially to enliven and engage the public. and i think the park is just an amazing addition to the walk along the embarcadero to have that. so i heartily endoris this. i think this is going to be a great project. i did go to zinzanni a number of times in its hey day; so i'm in support. >> president hyland: thank you. commissioner johns? >> commissioner johns: you know, there's another building which is -- in that area which is completely round form, which

is coit tower. >> clerk: for clarity's sake to the maker of the motion, you're adopting the findings made by staff. >> yes. >> clerk: on that motion to adopt the findings made by staff and read into the record -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, that will place us on items 10 a and b for the accessory units in building construction, planning code and tax code amendments in the c.r.v. portion of the case, the accessory dwelling unit architectural review standards. you will be acting on 10-a for the amendments and taking comment and making your own comments regarding the standards themselves and then taking up action at a future

hearing date. >> good afternoon, commissioners. veronica florez, planning department staff. the item before you is proposed legislation regarding accessory dwelling units in construction as proposed by supervisor safai. as the commission secretary mentioned, the second item relates to architectural review standards which we'll be looking for your feedback for but we'll be continuing to the following hearing for your final action. the ordinance will update the a.d.u. programs to allow a.d.u.s in proposed buildings for both the waiver and no waiver programs. this means that a.d.u.s will also be allowed in new construction buildings of single or multifamily buildings, currently something

that's not allowed by the planning code. the ordinance also introduces changes specifically to the no waiver program, so these are the a.d.u.s that are located within single-family homes that are fully code compliant. the first change for a.d.u.s under the no waiver program will be that all of these a.d.u.s will be ministerial. previously, only those a.d.u.s that met the criteria for the no waiver program and did not include any expansions were ministerial. so the change here is even those a.d.u.s with expansions will be ministerial. the ordinance no longer allows the planning commission take jurisdiction, and the only way to file appeals on said projects will be directly to the board of appeals.

a.d.u.s will not require notifications in either expansions or new construction projects. this is for the fully code compliant a.d.u.s that would not otherwise require an entitlement. so this means that any proposed demolition and new construction of a single-family home will an a.d.u. will still have to go through neighborhood notification and also still need to appear in front of the planning commission. the last change is that all appeals filed in the a.d.u. projects in the no waiver program will need to be heard by the board of appeals within 10 to 30-days of the appeal filing. the planning department is recommending a handful of changes which i'll go over in the next few slides. the first recommendation involves placing a cap of 1200 gross square feet for a.d.u.s and proposed existing

single-family dwellings under the no waiver program, so this cap is only recommended for alterations to existing buildings and not for the new construction buildings. our second recommendation relates to reducing the required useable open space for a.d.u.s within the rh-1, rh-1-d zoning district to 2500 square feet. the reduced requirement is recommended specifically for the proposed a.d.u. and the primary unit will still need to satisfy the open space requirements for the underlying zoning. the third and most critical recommendation for this body is

related to proposed a.d.u.s in the no waiver program for properties in the california register of historic places and propertied designated individually or districts in articles ten and 11. currently, the planning code only references the california register when discussing preventing impacts to historic resources in the no waiver program. so staff recommends that properties designated individually or in districts within articles ten and 11 are also included when reviewing a.d.u.s in the no waiver program, and that such projects will not be subject to certificates of appropriateness or permits to alternator entitlements. the c.f.a. and p.t.a. entitlements are discretionary actions and so capturing this change in the ordinance will clarify that all a.d.u.s in the

no waiver program are minu ministerial. review of projects in the program should be directed to staff. this was included as the additional motion for you to take a separate action on, and we did have a few minor changes on the language clarifying the actual subsections in the planning code where we delegate said review, so i do have a copy for commissioners. again, this is the part that we're recommending that you -- item that we're recommending that you continue to the following hearing for action. and staff's final recommendation to the ordinance relates to more clerical amendments. so this includes removing off street parking as a potential waiver in the waiver program since the city no longer has a

minimum parking requirement. and also correcting a reference in section 207-c-6 to make sure we have the correct reference. staff also recommends revising the residential standards and uses tables in articles seven and eight. currently, these tables only reference section 207-c-4, so we'd like to update these tables to accurately reference both of our a.d.u. programs. further, we also recommend revising the descriptive text in these same tables to approve the language so that as the a.d.u. evolves, there's no confusion between what's listed here and section 207. the department recommends approval of the ordinance with modifications as discussed. and the department also recommends that we continue item 10-b to the following

hearing, and this is the item related to adopting the architectural review standards. this concludes staff presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. >> president hyland: okay. thank you. questions, commissioner pearlman? any member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, hearing none, bring it back to the commission. commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: i just wanted to ask a question so i get an understanding. in an rh-2 or an rh 1 distri-1, if there's a new building within that district, you could add another unit and designate it as an a.d.u. within that? can you do it while it's under design because you're talking

about new buildings, so i assume you have to do that while the building is being designed. is that correct? >> veronica florez, planning department staff. this is part of the proposal, so it can be done today where we have proposals for a.d.u.s in existing family buildings. so if they are coming in with a new construction building, it will be the comprehensive complete project that we'll be reviewing. >> right, so it can't be ministerial because it's a new building. >> so in the example with the rh-2 zoning district and they're proposing two units with the a.d.u., that does not qualify for our no waiver program which focuses solely on the single-family homes that are fully code compliant. so there's a few factors whether determining -- when

determining which program we are falling under. >> okay. you started the conversation about single-family buildings and including a.d.u.s and new buildings, but i would assume every single new building is going through the same process. the fact of the a.d.u. is what you're saying is ministerially approved, but the construction will go through any process that the new building would have to, correct? i'm just not understanding what we're doing here. >> commissioner pearlman, if i may translate, this is what i think i'm hearing. so if somebody was building a new sipping wingle-family home they wanted to include an a.d.-a.d a.d.u., you're saying the construction of that home would still not a discretionary action. it doesn't make the entire

construction of the building ministerial. that's your main question. >> no, i'm trying to understand because what part of ministerial. if i'm the architect and i'm designing a building, and i'm saying i want an a.d.u. in this new building, it's part of the discretionary review -- >> because i think what we're trying to do with this ordinance is come in compliance with state law which specifically refers to single-family homes but veronica can -- >> correct. under section 207-c-6, this is specifically discussing a.d.u.s in single-family homes that are code compliant. in that case if there is a negate construction single-family home proposed with an a.d.u., that project would be ministerial. >> the whole project. >> for a single-family home. >> for a single-family home. >> state law was changed a

couple of years ago to say that any single-family home regardless zoning can be allowed -- should be -- all cities are required to allow a.d.u.s in the same of a single-family home regardless of the zoning. so what this is doing is bringing us into compliant. i believe everyone can confirm with me on this. that's why it's peculiar to single-family homes. >> so i'm proposing a single-family home with an a.d.u., it doesn't have to go through environmental review, it's essentially something that can be approved at the counter? i mean, that's an enormous change, is that correct? that's huge. >> so for an example of a proposed single-family home new construction building with an a.d.u., that project would not require neighborhood notification. it's -- it's a big change. >> that's an enormous change, okay. no, that's great.

okay. that's what i was trying to understand. okay. >> commissioner black? >> okay. so i think that starts getting a little bit what i was confused about, and i can only get away with saying that i'm the new kid on the commission for not much longer. but i still -- i'm struggling to understand what's the distinction -- assuming these changes have been made between the waiver program and the no waiver program? >> so one of the first items we would look at is either what's the existing building, so is it multifamily or single-family? so that's one way that we're determining eligibility, and then, really, the major piece that we're using to determine eligibility under which program is the code compliance. so in the case for a single-family home, they might qualify for either program, just depending if they meet all

of the rear yard or open space code requirements as an example. in the case for a.d.u.s in multifamily buildings, they are all funneled through our section 207-c-4, which for quick reference, we have labelled as a waiver program, but we have a voluntary seismic program, as well, so there's a few different layers. >> veronica, if i could. >> sure. >> whether something is a waiver program or no waiver program has to do with the compliance of code and to allow for the ability of waivers from the code, correct? >> correct. >> so it has to do -- so it doesn't require a normal variance. it's something that can be done demonstratably.

so certain sections of the code can be waived for a.d.u.s. >> okay. so i think i'm getting there. so i've always thought of ministerial actions as you have to meet these code criteria, and if you meet the 7 feet here and the 4 feet here and the bulk and whatever the requirements are, it's a min e ministerial, no notice, and i guess the historic -- notice for historic properties -- how does that go? are they going to be considered coat requirements? are they going to be measured? are they qualitative more than quantitative? >> they're intended to be objective content, b t