. >> commissioners, kate stacey in the planning department. i will remind you that the housing accountablity act does require specific finding, so if the commission is not going to make specific findings, i would suggest you take a motion to disapproval and give staff some guidance on what information you need for those findings. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel. >> is the more preservationist style in here -- there's two options in our packet, correct? >> i don't think one's a real option. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i will give a strong nod to the sponsor to meet with the commission and have a discussion with the city attorney what reasonable arguments we could make for the city of san francisco and this particular neighborhood to indeed create strong arguments of why we deny this project. i think since there is a lot of uncertainty, i do believe a little bit more concise head work at the right time would probably help us to be more articulate with common grounds defining criteria. >> kate stacey f

. >> commissioners, kate stacey in the city attorney's office. i just had a couple more thoughts. one is we have cautioned the commission about getting involved in or making a condition of approval a private agreement among or between private parties. and so to make a private agreement a condition of approval for the commission is often fraught with legal difficulties. one other thought i had, and perhaps this is where commissioner johnson was going with the development agreement thought is that there are other circumstances in which the city establishes an opt-in program. maybe home sf is an example, that a developer may choose to avail themselves of a particular set of benefits that the city offers in return for which the developer may offer more than is otherwise sort of the baseline requirements, so there are other mechanisms that the city could use and other circumstances where the city could have these additional requirements as part of sort of an opt-in program where a development gets a particular set of benefits from the city, and then, would agree to offer additional com

kate stacey from the city attorney's office. if you look at conditions 1, 2, and 3 of the conditional use permit, they all have to do with timing of pulling permits and undertaking construction, so condition number 1 is really the validity question. it currently says three years. if the commission shortened that, that's the condition that should be amended. condition number 2 is -- about these kinds of timing issues, so if the commission were going to shorten this -- the validity of the cu, it should be shortened in number 1, and then, number 2 should reflect that same shorter time period, but you will be having a hearing at which the project sponsor could come back and talk to you about progress and problems. and then, condition 3 is really about this diligent pursuit project that i think is the second part of what commissioner johnson has asked for so the condition currently states that construction must commence during the time required by the department of building inspection and be continued diligently to completion. failur

. >> commissioners, kate stacey in the city attorney's office. the authorize of the city, the government is to impose conditions of approval that address impacts caused by the development, so something that happens pretty typically is a developer talks to the community and works out some agreements with the community that don't necessarily satisfy the requirements the government has to adhere to in order to impose them as conditions of approval. certainly, there are circumstances in which project sponsors offer community benefits as part of their project description so it's included in the commission packet. i'm not sure if what you're suggesting is that all of these things that are listed in public testimony now become conditions of approval. if the city is going to impose what you are calling community benefits as conditions of approval, i think we need to look at findings about what impacts the project has caused that lead to this kind of conditional requirement. >>commissioner johnson: right. >> i think we'd have to look sort of issue by issu

. >> commissioner kate stacey in the city attorney's office. i am not sure what it provides for in the conditional use. i thought it was three years, but i'm not sure what the code provides. the commission could certainly schedule an informal hearing on this project in 18 months. i -- i think we need to check with staff what the current requirements are for when permits need to be pulled or when construction has to occur. >> supervisor: i think you can add a special condition to this project for that, but at minimum, even if the period can't be 18 months, it has to be three years, entitlements don't expire after that period of time. you have to have an action by the commission, and so i would say that we set that action up for the commission in three years if we go forward with this project to have their say. >> yeah, commissioners so typically, the conditional use permit is valid for three years, and within that time, the property owner has to vest the conditional use, and the way they do that is by pulling a building permit of some sort, so t

. >> commissioners, kate stacey in the city attorney's office. i would strongly recommend against a condition about a future agreement. i think the commission could certainly want to see more development on some of these issues for the project, but if what you're suggesting is to approve the project today and condition that an mou be entered into between or among a number of parties, i think that's a very difficult type of condition for the city to enforce, and those agreements may involve matters that are really outside the scope of government authority. so if what you're interested in seeing more development of the arts work or the use of the pdr space or the incubator space, certainly, the commission could continue it and look to see more of that kind of detail. >>commissioner johnson: okay. i -- i would be supportive of moving this project tonight just because it seems like there has been enough movement towards an mou and it seems like both sides are very much wanting to move that forward. there's also an appeals process which we don't talk

. >> commissioners, kate stacey from the city attorney's office. when the city adopts codes or code amendments, most of those code amendments are considered projects under ceqa, so there is environmental review. i can't confirm what the environmental review might have been for the various components of the building code. >>commissioner johnson: okay. thank you. i think the reason i asked that question is particularly as it relates to the handling of livestock and disposal of remains, those activities broadly are covered under our existing codes, so, for example, i believe that halal method is different in the sense that you're not just dumping blood in sewers. i mean, the animals are blessed and they're processed for slaughter and processing, but where there is effluent or where there are other remains or materials, it seems that that's covered under our plumbing and green building code. >> specifically, i don't know where the disposal of effluent and blood would happen. the program is going to be required to go through additional review through th

with a replacement structure with a demolition permit be consistent with the -- >> commissioner, kate stacey from the city attorney's office. i'm going to have to look at the rent control provisions and talk to the rent control expert in the office and circle back with the answer on that question. i'm sorry. i don't know all the ins and outs of the demolition and new construction at this point. >> great. i think this will kind of serve as a guide for the other ones that we get, if we understand what surviving buildings are actually under rent control or not. >> as i said, it's not, but it will be under rent control. >> not? >> it will not, but it's kind of this half commercial -- i mean, that's why i'm not as troubled by it. i think you're kind of getting an equivalent unit. it was almost like an ancillary units that you're getting, and you're kind of using that for residential. >> okay. there's a -- there's a trade off there, but understanding that would be better. i think along the lines of commissioner melgar's comments, i think we should -- would instruct -- i would hope if we continue t