>> i thought this was a wonderful piece of work. i particularly enjoyed the history and context at the beginning. it gave a level of understanding that wouldn't have read the same way without it. my question has to be with the status of geary boulevard. i am looking at the border. it goes down the middle of geary. does that i am apply work at hand about the freeway situation? >> i don't know the current status of everything going on. there is transportation suggests what could happen with geary boulevard. i think it is a bit of conversation within the community. we limited it to the mcd that stops. many community members feel they want to include what is on the other side of geary because they want to be able to -- should geary change and there is a question with rapid bus there may be changes in the public

right-of-way they frame geary. geary ask a boundary in the back. i think there is interest in having it more a boulevard where they would face across and be more connected. that is a conversation point with the community. >> i made add to that. i think our bone zoning boundaries -- our zoning boundaries are in the center of the street. early on when we looked at the geary project they did evaluate filling in the pit of geary, unfortunately, the costs were astronomical. it will keep the there and we are forced to deal with that for some time. what do you do in light of the fact it is not going away? that is something over time we have to look at. i agree with you.

>> i just want to say that this makes me very, very happy. i feel like your department is doing outstanding work. thank you, director. shortly after seeing and understanding the process that you went be through to get the guidelines down as well. i think this shows such a deep understanding of the community, but also a good relationship with the community that you guys have fostered. thank you very much. >> okay. that places us on item 11. case 2016-013312.

you commissioner koppel you were absent and diamond you were not seated. to participate you need to acknowledge you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> yes, i did. >> yes, i did. >> good afternoon, commissioners. warm welcome to commissioner diamond. department staff. so this was the october 17th continued to today. a quick overview of the project. 61 story tower 750 feet, 800 feet with the rooftop. three uses residential hotel and office. which would be 155 dwelling, 189 hotel rooms and 275,000 square feet of office space. this is not adoption. this is a general plan to allow for height and bulk on two parcels and to rezone the

western edge of the site. this cannot go forward until this is adopted. there is 30-days from today's date. if you adopt this today the first available date would be january 9 in the next year, 2020. the gpa details if you wish. i will note about the shadow which was heavy topic last time. one of the parks in chinatown per the 1989 memo had no shadow. zero. in 2012 as part of the transit district plan, the planning commission and the rec and park commission together as joint commissions voted to adopt increase acl for seven parks one was willy park. the acl increased from 0 to

0.3%. this would add 0.1% one budget to the park wh within that rang. the specific shadow was very limited and limited in both time 8:15 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. also late november to early january. low angle winter sun. i am happy to elaborate if the commission desires. i will close. i believe project sponsor is not given time to speak. if you choose to hear from them, they may have an update about community outreach. thank you. >> this is the second hearing on this matter. generally public comment is limited to one minute. >> if that is the case let's take public comment on this item. >> no speaker cards.

if you have public comment, come on up. >> thank you, commissioners. cj higley. land use council. as mr. foster mentioned. the action is to initiate consideration of the general plan amendments to ensure consistency between the downtown and zoning including zoning changes that we will propose when we hopefully return in january. i won't repeat what nick said, we are also happy to discuss the shadow in more detail if you would like. i did want to mention that the sponsor has been working closely with a number of community be organizations in chinatown since we were here in october and before that as well. i am happy to report the conversations are very productive. we have made great strides there, and i think that when we return in january we will have the full support of those

organizations. at this time we request you initiate the amendment to proceed to a hearing on the mer merits. we are here to answer any questions. >> next speaker. >> i am "ted" webker. we support the hotel project parcel f project. as the union representing the hospitality employees it is the utmost concern that. jobs lift up the community by providing leading wages and working conditions for the hardworking people working in the city hotels. hotel developers have supported the creation of good jobs by agreeing to remain neutral and present no encumbrances to form a union. these agreements ensure the jobs will be good jobs and the developer has worked with the union on such an agreement and as such it is setting the

standard for other developers to follow. we are pleased to support this project. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. commissioner koppel. >> i have been looking forward to hearing this project. it is a missing tooth on the transbay terminal. this is where we want the taller buildings near the transit, people walking to work. this is what the subway is being built for. i am in support of the project. glad to see the community groups were met with and had agreements. >> commissioner moore. >> i am in support of the project. it is a good addition to the tower. i would like to hear more about the shadow issue.

last time the community was here speaking about the effect of shadow. today that issue is not at least being raised by the community itself. i would like to hear more about it. it will be at some other point. i am interested in hearing about the high ratio of cars added to this projected. the transit center has not arrived yet, it may at the future. 183 cars in the highly congested sets is of concern to me. >> commissioner diamond. >> i wasn't at the last hearing. i did review the tapes. i, too, think the addition of the building is a good idea. i was quite concerned about the comments raised by the communities in chinatown. even though park and reccommission approved unanimously the addition of shadow which is very important.

i believe 2012 resolution required the architect to do whatever they could to minimize if impact of the shadow i would like to know what was done to anybodyize it and what it would take to eliminate the shadow and what impact that has on the design. >> commissioner moore, did you want to add in? >> i would like to add that i would like clarification if the time when the shadow increase was approved the building heights were the same or have things become taller. i think they are taller. i think that is the rub. >> did you have answers to these questions? >> so regarding commissionner moore's question. is it if the building is taller since the 2012tcdp? >> yes.

>> i don't believe that is the case. what was studied was a building that comply with the 750-foot zoning district as well as the additional 50 feet allowed for mechanical screening. this building is more slender. the upper tower has smaller floor plates than the straight vertical that was studied under tcdp. >> the transit center plan zoned it for 700 feet. the reason this is in front of you today is the building is shifted slightly to the east. it is the same height. that is why the amount of shadow is not increasing. the location of the shadow is

increasing on the park, if that makes sense. >> i did want to address commissioner diamond's question as well. you know, the reality is the site is incredibly constrained. the location of the building on the site is really the only place that the building can below indicated on the site. the reason why it has shifted as the director mentioned is because of the location of the subgrade train box, which allows for access for caltrain and the high-speed rail into the new transit center. from is only so much structural load you can put over that. the building is cantilevered over that portion of the site and the remaining volume of the building is toward the southeast of the site.

as i mentioned, what was initially under the tcdp would be a tower of the same height but 100% commercial with larger floor plates. one way that the shadow has been minimized or reduced is by proposed a more slender building. residential floor plates are approximately 15,000 square feet, and they do present legs of a -- less of a shad do impact but it doesn't eliminate the shadow on chinatown. the visual screening at the crown architectural screening is completely transparent. it casts a shadow, it is diffused. it is clear glass.

again, it doesn't eliminate the shadow. in fact, i guess the bigger point is that in order to eliminate the shadow, the building would have to be reduced by 23 floors. essentially the entire top of the building where it reduces down would have to be removed to eliminate the shadow. the tcdp envisioned the building at this height. it was the basis for the sale of the land which is going to fund the transit center and basis of the project we with proposing. >> commissioner koppel. >> just again seeing this is one of the first steps. we are not approving the project. this is the general plan amendment i make a motion to initiate and schedule the hearing. is january ninth a good date?

>> on or after. we have it penciled in there. >> okay. second. >> thank you. on that motion then to adopt the resolution initiating general plan amendment and scheduling a hearing on or after january ninth. >> can i add a comment? >> you want to provide a comment? >> yes. >> go ahead. >> i do think it is a good idea to move forward with the general plan amendment with the initiation. i hope by the time you come back in january that you and the groups that were here expressing concern about the shadow will have reached a resolution and be able to report on the results of

that resolution. >> commissioner fung. (roll call). >> so moved. that passes unanimously 6-0. >> i want to say something that i should have said. my brain is moving slowly today. i wanted to wish commissioner johnson a very happy birthday. thank you for being here, being a trooper for a long day today. thank you. >> happy birthday. item 12. 2018-016625dnc for 50 post street. downtown project authorization. >> good afternoon. the project before you is downtown project authorization for the crocker retail galleria

50 post street. it is a three story building with vaulted glass ceiling. in addition it is fronted with a small third frontage on the west side. the galleria and project also including the three story retail building located between the main portion and the ad jaysant -- adjacent hotel. it was approved in 1979 and constructed in 1983 as part of a larger project which included a tower and 25 montgomery and 111 sutter. that is all into the new galleria. the project today only involves the building itself and no modifications to the office

tower. the original project called for open space in two main areas first on the roof of 1 montgomery and second above the three story retail building between th the daller ria. it includes increased tables and seating and movable seating. the proposed project consists of interior and ex steeria alterations and no building expansion except for elevator extension on the sutter street side of the building which allows for existing elevator to be brought up to the rooftop open space. the square footage would decrease slightly due to creation of new grand stair and public seating between second and third floors. it would replace 14,000 square feet of retail use at the third floor with office use which is a

permitted use here in the downtown office district. on the proposed design the department supports the modifications proposed as they improve accessibility to the rooftop open space and result in greater transparency to the galleria and improve the sidewalk adjacent to the galleria. the project received very little public comment much of which was received in may. at that time the exists tenants expressed concerns how this might impact the dennis lease -- the tenant's lease. they will resolve the issues. staff received a letter of support from the galleria

merchants. a letter was sept yes sent yest. the department finds the project is on balance consistent with the policies of the downtown and supports the approval with conditions to have the project sponsor continue to work with staff on final signs and finding to further guide public access to the rooftop. that concludes staff's presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. >> is there a presentation from the project sponsor? >> we do. hello. i am sig anderson. we have been involved for a number of years. i was not here in 1983 when the project was completed. i understand it opened to great

fanfare with solid base of retail tenants. over the last 10 years, as most people can see going to the galleria today, there is a shift. there is a shift in where retail learns are located. more activity around union scare has changed that. they have struggled to retain retailers, we started to explore several years ago a number of options for how we could retenant the project and how we could modify some of the function that today is obsolete. things like access off the street with the fairly dangerous steps going to the lower level and we looked at ramping to allow to solve ada access and enhance the customer experience to the project.

our architect will provide detail what that looks like. we have been working over the last year with existing tenants. the letter speaks for itself. be. [please stand by] access across site. and really creates a destination

for the community who visits, lives and works in the area. to achieve this, we've doubled the size of the public entrances on post and sutter. we've designed large doors that open to the sidewalk when the gallery is open. and we've sloped up the ground floor to meet the sidewalk to eliminate the series of stairs and elevators that constrict and confuse the entrance today. in addition, we would like to extend a new elevator to the renovated space on the roof to also increase the access and public use of this space. we've also reconfigured the existing dish on the post and sutter street elevation to bring it up to building code. so now the fair stairs exit on to the sidewalk, which is a much safer exit path in case of an

emergency. at the exterior entrance, we have chosen to highlight the building's greatest asset which is a glass barrel vault that connects the elevations. we've made it the primary feature of the facade itself. and we've complimented that on either side with the scallops you see in the rendering. it's a ground and polished dfrc that resembles the look of stone with this texture you see. we've also added seats and planters down at the base so the street is more active. and it's also to engage the entrance more effectively. on the roof, we are proposing improvements to the space. we are, in addition to extending the elevator -- i'm sorry, we have opened up the stairs that

connects to the roof as well that lead the public up to the roof and made it more accessible and transparent. we are also working with the planning to design the signage as andrew mentioned, to make it a prominent and feature the space for the public and for the site itself. you can see that we are also planning on renovating the roof, pavers, more landscaping, about three times the amount of seating. some of that is fixed and some is flexible, to give the diversity of uses and programs up on the roof for the public as well. with that, i thank you for the time. >> thank you very much. do we have any public comment on this item? okay. from supervisor peskin's office

is here. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i wore gold today just for commissioner johnson's birthday. he's not here so i thought i would wish her happy birthday. i am here in my capacity as supervisor peskin's chief of staff. the project in question is located within district 3's c30 downtown office zoning district. our office became aware of the proposed conversion back in april of this year after several long-time merchants operating in the galleria expressed concerns their leases were not going to be renewed in order to make way for new office space. so we became concerned, we got involved. over the course of the last several months, those tenants organized themselves. the supervisor ended up convening meetings with the project sponsor as well as the tenants group. and i really want to acknowledge that folks did spend a lot of time and energy discussing those

concerns. given the potential for any conditional use authorization to be appealed to the board of supervisors, the district supervisor holds neither a support nor oppose position. i did want to be on the record the tenants group confirmed that the project sponsor addressed the collective and individual concerns of the 20 plus small business tenants in the building, including the farmer's market. i did want to make one note for the record. the supervisor did take issue with representations made by project's council in the letter to planning commission president melgar on october 10 of this year, calling out the supervisor's c3r controls as a significant factor in the project's alleged delay. this is a little surprising, given that she was engaged in providing input to that particular legislation, and we

all know the current project in question was not and is not actually inside of the c3r, and it is not subject to the conversion fee, it is not subject to those controls and should not, for the record, be attributed in any way to the delay of this project. so i thought that was notable. but thank you so much for your considerations in this matter. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is richard lee from wakefield, commercial real estate organization internationally. i'm a neighbor. i work in the district. i frequent the galleria frequently. in fact wakefield was the managing company for many years of this project but not currently. but i am in short in support of this modification, this change in use, if you will. i will frequent it. i certainly do, in fact, today i was there for lunch, and of course there was a comment about the retailers having slinking in

size, looking for foot traffic, well it's true. it's really changed. and in short, i believe this is a valid change for the time. and thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> sue he recollects -- the prog took a lot of time with this space because it was the first open roof space they had. i have two concerns, basically i want the planning staff to go over and have one condition, lighting out exterior lighting all the time, because that's one of the things that deadens the

street for pedestrians, and it should be a major priority of plan review at the planning department and conditioned by the planning commission. they need to be maintained by the owner of the building, not the tenants, and there needs to be attached to part of the building. and that obligation has to go permanently to the owner of the building. secondly, the major thing that also came out in the press, 20, 30 years ago, i don't know how -- probably 10 or 15 years ago, non-signage that alerts the public there's a popo. that's a public open space. so the second condition i would ask you to put on as the planning staff has to approve

really viable signage to attract pedestrians on both sides of the building to get up to the open space. it's private open space an extension for rich people in the area that know about it, so i think those are modest requirements. but i'm going to be a crank about them. so lighting for pedestrians, particularly people there have more mobility problems and really encourage use of an open space by real proper signage. you don't want to be the next story about, oh, all these popos and they are not available to the public. and those articles i can write for the chronicle, they do them

periodically, about every two years, and they are right. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm the portfolio manager. we are in full support of this project. we feel it's going to create a lot of vie bransy and re-- vibrantsy and revitalize the neighborhood. we are looking forward to getting this started. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for having me. i'm the general manager of the galleria park hotel adjacent to the project. i also frequent the crocker galleria often for meals and i know most of the tenants and retailers that are there. and my hotel literally supports

this. they have been great partners when they were discussing the project, they were great neighbors and shared all the great improvements. and i am a resident of san francisco. i feel this will bring more of the local residents a place to come. i personally love the popos because we used to do yoga classes for our customers there. so i'm looking forward to the enhancement. i think people do go up there, but i think with the enhancement there will be more people that go there. i'm a huge proponent because i believe san francisco needs more public parks. and actually we have this amazing architectural tour guide, he takes a lot of the tourists and local customers from my hotels and starts at my hotel and tours the space. so whatever we can do, i think it will be a great addition to sutter street. we don't get a lot of business and foot traffic on weekends, so i think whatever i can do to help support our ownership group is also in support of this. so thank you. >> thank you.

any other public comment on this item? okay. with that, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> while this particular project is not within a historic district itself, it is surrounded by historic districts. and its inception in 1982 is it went through a major struggle, replacing the old wells fargo building at the corner of post and required a design that puts a tower that was called at that time in context of the entire historic assembly of the we will see fargo bank at the corner of montgomery and post. it is part of a design strategy which reconsiders the entire block function as one. as far as historic preservation,

i'm surprised this project is not being reviewed by our h.b.c. due to the fact i think its function and urban design strategy needs to retain itself approveable. i do not believe the current architectural configuration of the building does justice to this larger call. i believe that the opaquing of sutter street with materials which do not at all look at the larger idea of how this space was created, makes any sense at all. i do not believe the retail strategy that this office is proposing is a very good retail strategy at all. it is opaquing visibility that you need in order to see retailers as you are entering the galleria. we are still trying to have a retail corridor. while i do not object to the additional office in the upper floors, i believe the retail

strategy at the ground floor is a completely missed opportunity which sets retail up to fail. the rules of retail and feasibility of how you approach it, when you have to see what is basically completely being lost. i know it is a challenge to have a light-filled room which was originally dedicated entirely to retail to fill with office. i do believe there is a possibility to use the existing galleria to insert office. there is a possibility to change certain circulation patterns but in the way it's done, i believe that this particular design sets retail up to fail ultimately this building is disappearing into the office use in its entirety. i believe that staff is actually very thin in its reporting on a major building alteration. it's a complete reinterpretation of the urban design intent of what this project originally

stands for. and i'm actually asking that we ask historic preservation to take a look at this. i talked with commissioner highland and with several other historic preservation commissioners to do so. they were actually quite surprised that they have not been asked. and i also would like to remind the planning department that ground floor treatment on sutter street in particular, is supposed to be open with storefront windows facing sutter street. instead of having a storefront on sutter street, we are closing it off so we have basically two huge garage openings fronting of what now is a very inviting transitional space to both of them mid-block. i believe this project needs some additional work. i am in support of office. i'm all in support of looking at access and improving open space. this project is not an open space project in its original

intent. i think this project is an attempt to ultimately alter this entire building to become an office building. and it's i strongly urge us to step back, have historic preservation weigh in, set parameters of how the block is completed, how it fulfills its original call for what it was meant to be and step back before we approve the project. >> commissioner koppel >> i'm seeing it differently. i do value the importance of this building and this site. north of market we have our big streets curry and montgomery and battery and streets like pine and bush and post and sutter are those gateway streets that connect downtown to the rest of the city. and this property joins post and sutter. so i think it's very important. i don't think it gets to the meeting of historic commission review at this time.

i'm not trying to disregard any of your comments. i think we could still move this ahead and fall back and still look at the architectural details you might be concerned with. >> commissioner diamond. >> so i had a number of design questions for staff. first, could you please address the two points she raised. they seem important. i want to know how those issues get worked into the approval. >> sure. she raised issues on exterior lighting for pedestrians and, to be frank, i am not sure on that element, about what the project is proposing. perhaps the architect could speak on that. for the second issue on signage, we do have a standard condition on signage but in your packets the condition has been slightly modified. so part of the requirement will be the city standard popos signage on the exterior of the

sutter and post street sides alerting passing pedestrians that this property does contain an open space for public use. but additionally, and this is something that staff will continue to work with the project sponsor on, we are expecting there's going to be a robust signage and way finding program interior to the building as well. so not only are you shown there is an open space but you are going to know how to access the elevator and stairs and to be able to get to that rooftop. >> i know it seems minor and i'm happy the elevator is going to the roof, but is it just going to be a big concrete wall that you'll see from the street? and also when you are up there, is it going to look like a big concrete wall? or is there design refinements that can make it more gracious? >> so we acknowledge that there would be some visibility from

the street for this, but we believe the accessibility it would provide outweighs any potential visual impacts. around the edge, between the elevator extension and the edge of the building, so as you are looking from the sidewalk or the exterior, the plans are calling for an area of planters, potentially we can discuss specific planting types to help screen and green that from the popos side, if you are on the roof, i think certainly the project, we could discuss additional conditions to put on related to the design to make that more integrateed into the overall -- >> i would be in favor of that. and then the last question is i too was surprised by the strategy, if i understood, of closing off the glass walls on the street. commissioner moore raised it. i was wondering what the logic behind that is.

>> i'm happy to talk about that. i think staff actually -- we looked into this issue quite a bit. and the -- i think one of the hard aspects of the galleria site is that it is long and narrow and acts as a mid-block passage through post and sutter. and that the retail tenants of the galleria all face inward into that galleria mid-block. on the existing building, the windows that you are seeing along sutter and post are not actually windows into any retail space. they are merely display windows behind which are actually exiting corridors for the galleria. because the galleria is largely keeping much of the existing -- where they are today and the exiting strategy, there was no way to actually bring windows or visibility into any of the retail spaces. again, also, the galleria, the

ground floor sits approximately 6 feet below, 5 feet below sidewalk grade and the second floor above. so the combination of that and the exiting, the required means of egress on sutter and post, it's very difficult to actually provide any directoriesability into retail space -- direct visibility into retail space. >> could you have the architect address the lighting question? >> sure. >> exterior lighting is something we care about as well. it's not shown in the rendering but i can kind of illustrate. our plan is to light down on either side of the entry. you can see detail of what that looks like during the day. but essentially each one of those pockets we have a light that washes either side with light in the evening. and then we also have some down lights at the entryway as well, just for safety and visibility at night so it's not a bright, intense light, but it is a soft

wash down the facade, down the planters and at the sidewalk level. >> if you recall, about three years ago maybe, we completely redesigned the identification signs for the popos program. and we now have very specific requirements as to the size, the design of those, the identification of the hours of operation and where they should be placed. this project predated all that. so they will be required to incorporate that signage into the new scheme. >> commissioner koppel. >> i would like to make a motion to approve with conditions. working with staff on any of the design considerations. >> commissioner moore. >> we continue this project and have historic preservation give us some advisory in order to

mediate the question which i currently believe misses proper integration of the redesign and reconstruction of the galleria into the urban context of downtown. i ask for continuance. >> second. >> i heard no second to the motion to approve with conditions. however, regardless, the motion to continue would take precedence. >> commissioner diamond, did you have something to say? >> yes. i would second commissioner koppel's motion. >> very good. we'll take up the matter of continuance first. do you have a continuance date in mind? it would have to be in the new year. >> the calendar -- >> the first date is january 16. on that motion to continue this matter to january 16, commissioner diamond.

[roll call vote] that motion fails 3-3. there is an alternate motion to approve the conditions to include that the project sponsor continue working with staff on design. on that motion,. [roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes 4. two with moore and richards voting against. that places us on item 13. case number 2018-014774cua, 360 spear street, conditional use

authorization. >> good afternoon. i'm sorry. i think there's been a request about the air-conditioning. i don't know if there's an update or if -- you know. >> well, commissioners, as you know, the air-conditioning has been very inconsistent after it broke in the summer. i did put in a request. commissioner richards, for them to turn the air on. and as you can see, nothing has happened. but be sure that i have alerted building management. they are fully aware of the incompetence of the functioning of the utility. but it is what it is. my disability claim will be coming forward. [laughter] >> sorry about that. thanks for the update, mr.

ionin. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization for planning code sections 303 and 827.21 to establish a new non-residential use greater than 25,000 square feet within the rincon hill residential zoning district. the project was heard on octobe. >> oh. thank you for reminding me. i apologize for interrupting but yes, on october 17, after hearing and closing public comment, a motion to approve with conditions as amended to include future tenants provide proof of laboratory use through a letter of determination failed 3-2 and you continued the matter today by a vote of 4-1. commissioner moore you voted against. cop he he will you are absent and diamond you had not been seated so in order to participate in this hearing you need to acknowledge you've

reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> yes, i have >> yes, i have. >> thank you. i apologize. >> the project was heard on october 17, 2019 with no specific type of laboratory use was identified in this application. some commissioners have expressed concerns that use may have potential health and safety impact on the surrounding residents. a motion to approve with conditions to require tenants to provide proof of laboratory use through a lack of determination failed with the vote of 3-2 and the prompting was continued to today. changes to the project scope since last meeting. i will provide a brief recap of the proposed project. the project that is currently developed with a five-story approximately 170,000 square foot building that was constructed in 2000. the proposal includes a change of use of a portion of the internet service exchange use and accessory vehicle parking

area to laboratory use which will result in approximately 51,000 square feet of laboratory use and 58,000 of ise use. the total number of accessory parking spaces will reduce from 11 to 7. there will be no change to the existing 49,000 square feet of office use. to date, the department has not received any lab letters in support or opposition to this project. the department finds it is consistent with the area plan and objectives and policies of general plans and also finds that project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and not to be detrimental to persons or properties. they have included a presentation including health and safety recommendations by other local sate state and federal agencies. concludes staff's presentation. i'm open for questions. >> thank you.

>> this is their second hearing. you are limited to three and public comment to one. >> good afternoon. can i get the overhead? sf gov. thank you. good afternoon or evening, commissioners. i just briefly want to run through a few topics that came up last time. first is the project site. it truly is a mixed use context. the building is adjacent, is itself an i.s.e. building. there are two residential developments and there's two parking lots and a live/work building. as was just discussed, this project will be subject to a comprehensive number of safety laws and regulations related to laboratories. jurisdictions with oversight include the san francisco department of public health, cal osha and cdc and rules and regulations will cover topics such as registration, reporting,

implementation of hazardous materials plans, inspection and monitoring, enforcement and emergency powers and penalties. so there's a lot of text here, but the long and short is there's a comprehensive scheme that protects the employees, neighbors and the public at large. also another topic that came up last time was what is a lab and what does it look like? i have a few slides that run through letters of determination that have been issued by the planning department and then classified certain businesses as labs. so this is a diagnostic testing company that was called an analytical chemistry biological lab. this is an alternative food company that uses plant-based materials. it was an analytical lab. this is a genetic testing facility. it was an analytical and biological lab. this is a product design company. and it was classified as an

engineering and development lab. so a few different things i think are interesting is one business can have multiple different kinds of lab subcategories. these are a lot of different kinds of companies. and you can see we can go through the pictures later, each one has a different kind of layout. some of them you can see the health and safety measures they are implementing in their photos. so i want to finish quickly with a few highlights of why we think a lab is necessary and desirable use here. it's replacing a stagnant, non-p.d.r. use with a active noncommercial use in downtown. employees, neighbors and the public are protected by numerous health and safety laws. the building itself is very appropriate for lab users and the architect who is also the engineer can explain that. and not to be too sentimental but lab companies tend to be the companies san francisco should be proud to attract and retain. they tackle subjects like brain

disorders, environmentally friendly food products and genetic testing. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. do we have any public comment on this item? again, public comment will be limited to one minute. okay. with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner richards. >> move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner fung. >> question for counselor. one of the questions that was raised by commissioner moore and myself, the lack of specifics. you brought forth a range of laboratory uses, but which one is it going to be? >> that's for the property owner and the future tenants to decide. it's a bit of a chicken and egg

situation, here. because this entitlement needs to be granted before tenants and landlords can start getting serious and sign a lease and talk about leasing dates. so at the same time, we can't come to this commission and say here is a tenant or here's a range of tenants. i can tell you that this building is appropriate for the kinds of lab tenants that aren't going to be going to, let's say, livermore and building some secure facility with hyper sealed doors where everybody is wearing masks. and that is, by virtue of the fact the building doesn't, and they won't be able to get any of the health and safety permits they would need for that specific approach. so i would say that falls into their jurisdiction in terms of making sure they are complying with all the rules. thank you. >> i'm not sure their review

process is all that great. the issue is that there are different types of lab uses. and as council, as a project sponsor brought forth, this is a mixed-use area. and so if one hood fumes up, is there sufficient wind velocity to remove the fumes? is there windows for that? we have had no specifics on this. and i don't necessarily see it as a compatible use at this point in time. >> commissioner diamond. >> as i've expressed to the project sponsor and to the city, i need more comfort about the regulatory process. you are using a categorical exemption, and i feel like it's fine if you want to rely on the fact that there were regulations

out there. but i need a more explanation as to how these regulations are triggered. take an example, somebody wants to put in a biolab level 3, what do they have to go through? what are the steps that are involved so that we are comforted as commissioners that these various agencies are contacted, and there is oversight, and they look at the issue. just listing the names of the agencies doesn't feel like it goes far enough for me in understanding how this works in practice. >> thank you, commissioner. i have a handout here. i'll put it on the overhead. this shows three different -- there's actually four different levels of biosafety. there's one, two, and three. and what has been explained to me is biosafety level one is

like a high school science class. i acknowledge there was a fourth but it's not on here because it's not listed in the planning code as a use and frankly, as i'm sure you know, commissioner fung, it's a very, very infrequent kind of lab use to see. so this list, in generalities, the three different levels of biosafety companies that could go in there. depending on -- so i don't know the exact specific approach that each company would have to go through and which agencies they would have to go through in order to get their permitting in place to be a biosafety level 3, but i can assure you that as part of the building permit process, so each tenant for this project is going to have to get their building permit. and part of that is going to include a stop at the department of public health who has

jurisdiction to make sure that any lab user that is going in is complying with all the local, state and federal laws and the san francisco department of public health is the implementing agency of the california department of public health, and that includes regulations both on the operations and the disposal of these materials. and i would expect that is the san francisco department of public health doesn't approve a building permit for a lab tenant unless the lab tenant, it will not allow an occupancy to occur until the tenant has secured all the proper local, state and federal permits. >> so i have a follow-up question for staff. i want to confirm that it is your understanding that when they come in for building permits, d.b.i. will refer this to department of public health and department of public health will look at all these issues? >> yes. so if they come in for tenant improvements, they will have to submit a building permit and will subsequently route to

different agencyies. >> the standard practice with this, for example, a restaurant or food-related business, it goes from d.b.i. to public health or other agencies that have to be involved. >> right. and public health is familiar with all of these regulatory agencies so we can rely on -- >> yes. we are very confident of their work. they have extensive staff on this issue. >> it seems -- i was one of the folks who was advocating for not restricting the uses. however after further discussions, if i understand correctly, the categorical exemption for something that could potentially have pretty deep environmental consequences because of where it is, the context of where it is. such close proximity to residential and other uses.