Neighbors Protest BioLabs’ 700 Indiana Street Project

Potrero Hill and Dogpatch residents have submitted two formal requests for the San Francisco Planning Commission to reconsider approval of MBC BioLabs’ proposed 700 Indiana Street development. The project consists of laboratory, office, conference, and community rental space for biotechnology startups. 

The Planning Commission approved the scheme in June. Neighborhood groups contend that in doing so it erred in its interpretation of the Planning Code as it relates to life science. The 700 Indiana Street parcel is zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU), allowing residential, commercial, and retail uses. UMU designation is intended as a buffer between commercial and residential spaces that often combine housing with active ground floors. It was adopted throughout the eastern neighborhoods to help transition a formerly industrial area into light manufacturing. 

Life science isn’t allowed in UMU zoning. In a letter to the City’s Board of Appeals the Dogpatch Neighborhood (DNA) and Potrero Boosters Neighborhood associations claimed that the Commission “abused its discretion in determining the project was not a life science laboratory.” 

According to the municipal Planning Code, life sciences consist of “creation of products and services” related to scientific research. It can include offices, laboratories, light manufacturing, or other types of spaces. 

“The project is saying these biotech companies become life science companies, but they are not technically life science while in the 700 Indiana Street building,” Potrero Boosters President J.R. Eppler said. “Our argument is that’s silly and what’s even more important is that MBC BioLabs is engaged in life sciences.”

Eppler’s assertion is based in part on the fact that a municipal zoning administrator classified MBC BioLabs existing space at 953 Indiana Street as “life sciences” in 2012. The company is proposing a similar project at 700 Indiana Street. 

“The Planning Department has two options: follow the Planning Code or change it,” Eppler said. “The Planning Department has decided they don’t want to do either in this circumstance. They haven’t proposed legislation with life sciences in UMU zoning so they’re trying to find loopholes to shoehorn life sciences in a UMU district.”

In June, District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton proposed legislation to amend the Planning Code to revise the definition of “laboratory” uses to include “biotechnology,” and to ban such activities in UMU districts. 

“We need storefronts and places where people gather and bring families,” he said. “In this case, labs do the complete opposite and they do not enhance the area for the community. We have many labs and biotech is booming in the area. Labs smack dab in the middle of the community is a bad precedent.”

“This is a biosafety level two facility and that does mean there’s some risk to the community,” said Alison Heath, head of the Potrero Boosters Development Committee. 

A biosafety level two facility requires protective measurements, such as PPE, because the lab may work with pathogenic or infectious organisms that can pose moderate health risks, such as HIV and equine encephalitis viruses. 

“There will be biohazards including live viruses and that should have been studied by the Planning Department, but it wasn’t,” Heath added. “That’s of great concern because residential buildings will be on either side. There will be a park across the street and there are also several schools within a quarter of a mile of the project.”

DNA and the Boosters filed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appeal, which will be heard at the Board of Supervisors on September 24th. 

“MBC BioLabs and the Planning Department didn’t do a robust enough analysis on the environmental impacts nor adequate mitigations for the impacts,” Heath said. 

The CEQA appeal letter asserts that MBC BioLabs and the Planning Department failed to fully analyze and alleviate potentially significant environmental impacts not only regarding hazardous materials, but also shadowing of the Dogpatch Arts Plaza, air quality, and noise.

“I’m sure the work these scientists are doing will save lives but there are many places they could go: Mission Bay, Candlestick Park, the Power Station, Pier 70,” Heath said. “What it really comes down to is this project shouldn’t be adjacent to Esprit Park, it shouldn’t be between two residential buildings, and it shouldn’t be near schools.”  

“It’s interesting because when you read about it at face value, this project seems like such a great thing,” DNA President Donovan Lacy said. “But then when we explain why we’re opposed to it, people say, ‘I live next door. Where do I send a letter to oppose this project?’ When you explain it fully, people recognize that the zoning restrictions and land-use restrictions make sense. The types of activities MBC BioLabs is proposing don’t make sense in this type of location.”  

“No one is denying that MBC BioLabs and the people working there won’t be doing good things,” Eppler added. “However, the Planning Code doesn’t treat people doing good things differently than people doing bad things. The law is the law. And if it doesn’t result in the outcome the Planning Department wants, they should try to change it.”

“After the Rec and Park Commission and the Planning Commission unanimously approved our project, we are continuing conversations with the neighborhood and looking forward to getting this project approved on appeal,” a MBC BioLabs spokesperson said.