To continue would take precedence. Commissioner diamond, did you have something to say . Yes. I would second commissioner koppels motion. Very good. Well 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 33. 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 2018014774cua, 360 spear street, conditional use authorization. Good afternoon. Im sorry. I think theres been a request about the airconditioning. I dont know if theres an update or if you know. Well, commissioners, as you know, the airconditioning 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 nonresidential 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 32 and you continued the matter today by a vote of 41. 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 youve 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 32 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 fivestory 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 staffs presentation. Im 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 theres 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 theres a lot of text here, but the long and short is theres 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 plantbased 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. Its replacing a stagnant, nonp. 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 . Thats for the Property Owner and the future tenants to decide. Its 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 cant come to this commission and say here is a tenant or heres a range of tenants. I can tell you that this building is appropriate for the kinds of lab tenants that arent going to be going to, lets 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 doesnt, and they wont 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. Im 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 mixeduse 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 dont necessarily see it as a compatible use at this point in time. Commissioner diamond. As ive 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 its 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 doesnt feel like it goes far enough for me in understanding how this works in practice. Thank you, commissioner. I have a handout here. Ill put it on the overhead. This shows three different theres actually four Different Levels of biosafety. Theres 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 its not on here because its not listed in the planning code as a use and frankly, as im sure you know, commissioner fung, its 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 dont 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 doesnt 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 followup 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 foodrelated 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. And so while i understand that the department of Public Health, its not quite like a restaurant, right . The potential impact could be potentially much more serious, depending on the use that it is. And so if i understand correctly, the discomfort is more about our process in reviewing the environmental consequences of permitting this and whether we have reviewed everything and we know that its okay. My only concern we dont have the expertise to understand whether a particular hood would work in a particular situation. We have to rely on the expertise of the other agencies for that, right . So i dont know its typically not a level of detail we would get into at this level of entitlement. But thats the challenge im suggesting. Thats why fairly routine for us to have, within a categorical exemption, rely on existing codes and policies, existing code language that invites and requires other agencies to be involved and their codes would kick in. I think we are getting into that level of the entitlement phase of a project. Did you want to add something . Yeah. Considering theres a Building Permit thats going to be attached to every tenant, we are happy to agree to a condition of approval that as part of the Building Permit review process, the department of Public Health reviews each tenant and makes sure they have all the necessary local, state and federal authorizations before a certificate of occupancy is issued for that tenant. I think that would go to addressing the concerns. Commissioner koppel. Sounds like a really Good Condition to add. With that, ill make a motion to approve with that condition. We have a motion to approve that you seconded. Happy to amend it. Very good. You need a second . There is a second. Ill second it if we dont. Not sure where we are in the process. [laughter] not sure if there was more deliberation. Seconded with that condition attached to it. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, theres a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include that the department of Public Health review all Building Permit applications for local, state and federal regulations prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy. On that motion wasnt that condition for each tenant . Yes. I want to make sure thats clear. With that, aye. [roll call vote] so moved. That motion passes 42 with fung and moore voting against. That will pace place us on item 14 for case 2019004451cua, 2075 Mission Street. This is a conditional use authorization. Please note on july 25, 2019 after hearing and closing Public Comment you continued this matter to october 17 and on october without hearing you continued it to todays date. Commissioners, on july 25, commissioner richards you were absent and commissioner diamond, you had not yet been seated so you both need to acknowledge you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. I have. I have. Thank you. Good afternoon, president melgar and members of the Planning Commission. Department staff. Before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to sections 202. 2, 303 and 754 to establish a Cannabis Retail use measuring 3,590 square feet on the first and mezzanine levels of an existing three story building. It is located at 2075 Mission Street. The alcoholic beverage special use district and bulk districts. The upper floors are occupied with subject tenant space last occupied by a Cosmetology School which vacated prior to this application. The project includes improvements. The existing sign will be preferred with a new face. The applicant is a qualified equity applicant who previously operated a medical cannabis dispensary prior to being shut down during the federal crackdown in the early 2000s. He prepared a presentation. In terms of sensitive uses, there were no schools or other Cannabis Retailers found within 600 feet of the proposed location. The primary potential sensitive use identified were listed in the executive summary of the project. As such, the project was found to meet the 600foot rule. The project included an request for authorization of onsite consumption. The floor plans include a consumption lounge. Department staff requested on the cases that have come before the Planning Commission to develop criteria for when the department may recommend allowing or disallowing onsite consumption. Whether similar onsite consumption uses are allowed in similar businesses. Controls have been added within the district to limit uses in the corridor. The second question was whether there are public spaces that could be impacted by smoking that may othe