This is a very broad potential use, isnt it . Thats correct. Its one of the reasons we do look at the new uses and kind of new companies. The lab definition is broad and more than just biological labs, kind of like what you would think of with chemists and beakers and things like that. Especially with the Way Companies and Tech Companies are evolving today, we really do dig into what the types of products that theyre using and then proving that they fall within the lab definition and not within the office definition. We drill down pretty fine grain in layouts, business operations, making sure that what we this doing is is consistent with what the land use definitions that we have are consistent with the codes. They go through the letter of determination. We will have the company off employ and help prove why they are, for example, a lab use or pdr use or other types. Any concern would be different than commissioner moores and this is a Residential District. If you put a bio Chemistry Lab in there and you get into the issues of toxics and other things, which may not be a compatible use. Sure. Keep in mind within the definition, the commission does have the ability to restrict portions of the definition and if the concern is bu biological laboratories to the adjacent, you can basically state that a biological laboratory should not be permitted or chemistry or bioChemistry Laboratory should not be permitted. But it still leaves interpretation for other things, like engineering labs, Quality Assurance and things like that. Commissioner richards . You are telling us a letter of determination makes me feel for comfortable and any type of lab will have a computational device on the desk i and i cant imagine one that wouldnt. I would like to approve it with conditions that tenants have to have a letter of determine augusts anationand the new tenad however you said it and i would like to move to do it. The commission of approval that says any future tenants must prove themselves as Laboratory Use. Commissioner moore, weigh in first. Go ahead. I am hesitant to see biomed as a potential bio lab. Were strongly supporting additional expansion within the mission bay corridor and you think this is an isolated occasion i would have great concerns about that. Mr. Loper, did you want to something. Just briefly, some tenants have letters of determine augustationand if thats a condi would suggest its written more broad and they need to get a new one. If the tenant had that, they would have met that condition. Commissioner moore, did you want to Say Something else or second the motion . I would like to add that we consider excluding Biomed Laboratories in location. You who put biomed chemistry then. Just to be specific in how it reads, we have a category for chemistry, biochemistry and a analytical chemistry and if you were to exclude those two, thats what i would recommend, is to defer back to what we have in the planning code. Lets do that. You know, im not sure why woe do that. I mean, you know, were not this is not manufacturing. This is not chemical manufacturing. This is Laboratory Use and we have all kinds of controls now to make it clean and safe. Im not really sure why we would do that. If i may add to that. Mission bay has a lot of labs, as well as housing. The concerns that were really in place in the 80s, when the mission bay plan was adopted to separate that, none of that has come into play. You mean, there hasnt been those kind of issues that have arisen. Commissioner moore. Arent the buildings in mission bay all billed as biomed specialty buildings . Theyre for a different purpose than a laboratory and for that reason that i believe that extra degree of caution in a High Density Residential area such as lincoln hill on spear street requires additional caution. What im afraid of is being too specific and ruling out uses that could be perfectly fine and so, i just want to understand, like, what were doing in not painting with a broad brush. A lot of stuff that is perfectly fine. So i am sorry, steph . I just want to add a note that this cu is technically to allow for a new nonretail selfuse for more than 25,000 square feet and technically, now there are two uses of Retail Service use thats over 25,000, which is ise and office. What is ise . International service exchange. So if the applicant would change the use into a Laboratory Use, now ofnowadays, they would not e an additional use authorization. A portion of it, they can only, basically, change a portion of it to a third nonretail nonservice use over 25,000 square feet that requires a cu. I think you confused us more. [ laughter ] i think at the end, what planner leing was saying, we have a large use and theyre establishing a new large use on the site. When you have established uses, we dont require you to come back and reestablish one of those uses, basically, is what its saying. So, like, in the future, as they switch out the ic, they may not come back. This is why you want a prohibition . Yes. Mr. Loper . I would push back and the architect is here to explain whats going on in the interior of the building. A lot of work has to go into make these buildings ready for lab tests and to an older house and setting up some petri dishes. This is next door to a data farm and im not sure this is a really dense Residential District in the immediate context and so the architect is here and can walk you through all of the work being done to prep this for a nonoffice noncommercial user. Commissioner richards. So just like when somebody gives us a dr on a project next to them and they say, it will undermine my foundation. We say, thats a dbi issue. I hear what mr. Loper saying, if they want a laboratory, theres certain safeguards in there and obviously any urban area laboratory something could go wrong and chemicals could come out and harm people but we have these labs all over the place and i feel comfortable leaving it as is, with a Laboratory Use. , with no restrictions. Theres an element of safety but an element of nuisance in laboratory buildings, but theyre required to filter and they throw it out at a high velocity and therefore, the noise factor is much greater with laboratory exhaust systems than regular use. Commissioner moore . Its the detail of osha and simply regulating the detailed execution of the building, the Land Use Decision itself is a broader issue and that particular issue. Looks like were in a deadlock here. Any suggestions . Mr. Loper, would you opine on the commissions discussion to limit the chemistry or biological labs from the deaf ligs or prohibit them. Sure, and were not prepared to volunteer a condition that would limit the number of lab uses. As weve heard, this has worked in different parts of the city. The architect said they would like to get up here and explain what theyre doing, which i think could go a long way to addressing some concerns. Lets do that. The ise consisted of switching gear didnt the building next door owned by Digital Realty is actually cloud in San Francisco. Those kinds of buildings require a lot of cooling and pa part of what weve done is remove the crack units have Hazardous Materials and making the building if that regard safer. The building has infrastructure far above average than any Office Building would have. For example, 9,000amps of electrical power. A typical Office Building this size would have a third of that and it has two really large shafts and its not ready to go for Laboratory Use, but it would be easily adaptable for those uses. They are controls to would prohibit those uses coming from the building. Commissionecommission johnso . So i would just agree with commissioner richards and president melgar, that i am concerned about putting that extra condition, really limiting the use that could be useful in this space, recognising there are all sorts of regulations that are outside of our purview and better understanding of what is going into the building, to adapt it. So i would personally support the motion as it was made. Were missing a member of the commission. If hes in the back, if he could come back, that would be great. I second your motion. Who will second dennis motion . I seconded it. That includes the condition of approval for future tenants to file for a letter of determination, correct. Yes. So we have commissioner richards making a motion, commissioner johnson seconding that motion. So a motion seconded. Commissioners, to approve this conditional use with conditions, including adding a condition that any future tenant must provide proof of Laboratory Use through a letter of determination, on that motion, commissioner fung . No. Commissioner johnson . Aye. Commissioner moore . Aye. Commissioner president melguy. It fails 32 with commissioners fung and moore voting against. An additional motion . Commissioner richards . I move to continue this item to november 5th, whatever december 5th. Or november 7th. Lets do december 5th, because we know for sure well have full commissioners. Very good, on that motion to continue this oh, who seconded that . Second. Thank you. On that motion, then, to continue this matter to december funning . Aye. Commissioner johnson . Aye. Commissioner moore . No. It passes 41 with commissioner moore voting against. That will place us on due discretionary item 14, 106955 drp at 220 san jose avenue, a discretionary eview. Review. Perhaps we could take a little fiveminute break. Im sorry to the public. Were down a couple of commissioners and so, its difficult for us to go to the bathroom and do all of the thanks we need to do. So well take a tenminute break and then well come back and hear the two drs. Is that ok . Ok. Thank you. Welcome back to San FranciscoPlanning Commissioner regular hearing for october 17, we left off on im 14, 155 spaws drp at 222 san jose avenue, a discretionary review. One of our commissioners needs to make a disclosure before we begin listening to this item. Go ahead. Theres a paid member, mr. Buscovitz, not as a managing partner but as a structural engineer. That needed to be disclosed, thank you. Good afternoon. Im the staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated review request to constructs a twostory rear horizonal addition to an existing twostory over basement one family residence at 220 san jose residence. The dr requesters of 228, the adjacent neighbors to the south are concerned with three things, primarily. One, the proposed addition is not compatible with the residential Design Guidelines to articulate the building and minimize light and privacy to adjacent properties and two, the design of the height and depth of the building is not compatible with the building scale at the midblock open space. The dr provided a letter before the last hearing in which they allege the property had been converted from a two or more unit building into a Single Family dwelling didnt that was the reason for the continuance from august 22nd. The department has received two letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. The departments Residential Design Advisory Team reviewed this and confirmed that this addition presents an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance with respect to the building scale at the rear access to the open space and adjacent to the north, which was acknowledged in the original review and accompanied by a request to provide a fivefoot side setback at the north neighbors Property Line at the second floor of the audition. Addition. The project submitted revised drawings for that fivefoot side setback and extended a twostory fourfoot deep popout that of coursextends into the rear yardd staff does not support this addition in light of the dr request. The addition being the fourfoot popout. With respect to the dr requesters property, since subject property is north of the dr requester and extends less than the depth of the requesters building set back by a twoinch sued yard side yard,t see any extraordinary circumstances with the dr requester. The department requested a fivefoot setback to ameliorate the neighbors to the north. The dr applicant identifies the property as a two unit building was never completed. I conducted a site survey and based on that, the survey history is a singlefamily residence two permits from the early 1960s note three units. It goes from three to two but the permit was not final finali. The zoning is in rh3 and all records indicate that this is a singlefamily residence anyone 2015, spaws dbi issued a cbc and this permit noted the Single Family dwelling. Theres no evidence of a conversion that i could see and theres no basement, but a 30inch high crawl space and staff also investigated records with the Housing Services which conducts or performance periodic inspections and found none. Again, the final completion is a singlefamily dwelling and staff recommends that the commission take the dr and approve the fivefoot side setback but eliminating the fourfoot popout to code compliant project and this concludes my presentation and im here to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Winslow. We will now hear from the dr requester. Good afternoon. My name is vanessa ginston. We live at 228 san jose avenue for 11 years. The second floor addition will have severe impact on light, ai airflow and privacy. The project sponsors three large windows facing our you units. They areremoving a bedroom and full suite if the ground floor. If their plan is to move in elderly parents, doesnt it make sense to move them into the first floor . President hey have a large atticg most of the property but refused to consider this. The backyard is 70 feet so they could build out the first floor. This is removing an independent dwelling from the ground floor which is separately occupied under prior owners. We have met with the project sponsors numerous times but no meaningful compromise has been offered. In our last meeting, we ask that the architect attend so that both of our architects to Work Together but they refused to bring their architect. The project sponsors countered with yet another minor tweak that doesnt address the problem and if we didnt accept, there would be no further discussion and refused mediation with david wiwinslow. This affects many neighbors and we appreciate your consideration, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im an architect in San Francisco. If i can have the overhead, please. The proposed rear addition blocks direct sunlight, afternoon sunlight into the dining and culture spaces of 228 and this is the zone here. This is the addition and here is the windows of concern. The sunlight reductions caused by the height of the wall and the close proximity to the 228 north windows. By set back the additions wall five feet and dropping the height by using a gable roof form, sunlight is restored to the fivefoot space. The current proposal using a setback on the north side but maintains the high wall and so, were suggesting which we proposed to them, is to flip the design thats currently there and using a gable roof form and providing increased sun candlelighlight tothe northern. The angle bay form is not subject enough due to the geometry and it doesnt help. Regarding the privacy issues, we have large windows being proposed that face on to 228s windows. Were just asking that those be reduced to that the reduced privacy issues looking into bathrooms and things like that. So thank you. Good afternoon. Im commissioner pat buskavitch. There are no prerecords. Its a singlefamily house. The 3r report, every time they update, they delete the previous report. Theres no record. It says its a onefamily dwelling today based on the records in 2015. If you look at every historical record, and they just line up, three units in a sandborn map, reverse phone directory, two units, a couple years later, two units, another reverse directy, two units. They are issued by Health Department because Housing Inspection Services currently under the Building Permit were under the Health Department until, i think, 1967. They didnt issue the unit to housekeeping and thats a threeunit building and why . Because here is the Health Departments record, a report of permit of occupancy, three units. This is the citys record. So anything after that is worthless but if you want to talk about the cfc for the current your time is up. Happy to explain this issue. Youll have a chance at rebuttal. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment . Support of the dr requester . Come on up, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. If you could speak to the microphone. I dont knomy purpose is to e commission, the board, the department planning, everybody deny the request of this subject property. Im right next door to it and this 220 is a large its actually a five bedroom, four bathroom, dining room, large standup attic and i know this because i grew up with full access to the house, two owners ago h ha is who is a family fri. Im asking for denial. The standup attic would make a beautiful master bed and bath. Theyre already putting elderly parents on the second floor with an escalator to accommodate them and they could accommodate that to the third floor as well. So while 500 feet expansion does not seem large, it is large. It puts us into a cave. Its going to affect a fourunit building and affect the house behind me. Directly behind them are the romeros and their house will be affected by the big cap into their property, as well. So most of the people who are affected are right here. I understand the board wants to hear alternative suggestions and my alternative suggestion is to build on the third floor. Its