From: Joanne Adamkewicz
To: City Council; x-community development
Subject: public comment on City Council agenda item 10B, Amendments to Regional Commercial Zoning District Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 9:50:32 PM
Dear Belmont City Council members and city staff,
I am writing as a Belmont resident and not in my role as a member of the Planning Commission. My comment is in regards to the update to the zoning ordinance for the Regional Commercial (RC) district. Specifically, I am opposed to the inclusion of Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) as an acceptable use for the RC Zone, even with additional permits required.
I find the staff report to be incomplete, as it primarily describes the engineering controls used in the different biosafety levels, rather than describing the infectious agents that might be used. Agents that would require BSL-3 level handling are those that "may cause serious or potentially lethal disease as a result of exposure by inhalation. These agents can be transmitted through the air and may cause significant illness."
Here is a list of just a few examples of infectious agents that could be used in a BSL-3 lab:
Bacillus anthracis (Anthrax)
Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Tuberculosis)
Yersinia pestis (Plague)
Chikungunya virus
MERS-CoV (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus) Rift Valley Fever virus
I speak from experience: I have personally handled deadly viruses such as HIV and hepatitis B in a commercial biotechnology laboratory designated BSL2+. In my opinion, BSL-3 laboratories do not belong in Belmont.
The argument that we will be more likely to get new laboratory buildings developed in Belmont if we allow BSL-3, and thus increase our tax revenues, is not persuasive to me. First of all, the vast majority of biomedical research (against cancer, obesity, autoimmune diseases, etc) can be done in BSL-1 or -2 facilities. Second, any extra tax dollars are simply not worth the risk.
I support the other updates to the RC Zone, but not allowing BSL-3 usage. Please direct staff to remove BSL-3 from their future work on the zoning ordinance update.
Regards,
Joanne Adamkewicz
Yorkshire Way, Belmont
From: Leslie Wambach <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:52 PM
To: Tobias Liebermann <[email protected]>
Cc: Kathy Kleinbaum <[email protected]>; Carlos de Melo <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Consent item D on tomorrow’s city council agenda Hello Tobi,
Hope you are well.
We at Solutions for Supportive Homes and NAMI Advocacy enthusiastically support the city’s effort and leadership(!) in assuming the lead-agency role in updating Housing Trust Fund policies with the help of 21 Elements.
We are familiar with 21 Elements policy work and agree with their recommendations that EXTRA incentives are needed at the municipal level to ‘make possible’ the creation of deeply affordable housing for the Extremely Low Income (ELI), Very Low Income (VLI), and Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) for special needs (disabled) populations. This is especially so given the very high cost of land in San Mateo County.
Tax credit financing (for building construction) can only be secured within 6 months of start of construction. This leaves a near insurmountable burden of acquiring the land, planning and completing all construction documents, securing entitlements, permits and approvals for resource strapped nonprofit developers. They need more help in the pre-development phase to get these projects off the ground.
The following policy document does an excellent job of outlining effective strategies that cities can and should employ. Using a rolling NOFA RFQ program or ‘city purchase of building site followed by RFP’ strategy would offer great advantages to the city in that these approaches would enable city leaders and community members to have a greater say in the ultimate height, design, and neighborhood compatibility aspects of future 100% affordable, ELI, VLI, and PSH housing developments.
Housing Trust Fund Tools and Strategy Memo
21elements.org
Thank you for playing a leadership role in this effort! Sincerely,
Leslie