CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2022
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER OF CITY COUNCIL/EMID BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Regular Meeting of August 15 , 2022 of the City Council of the City of Foster City, sitting as said Council and as ex officio the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID), was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor/President Richa Awasthi.
Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N -29-20, as amended through Order N-08-21, the meeting was held as a hybrid meeting.
ROLL CALL
The Deputy City Clerk/Deputy Recording Secretary called the roll:
PRESENT:
Councilmembers/ex officio Directors Jon Froomin, Sanjay Gehani, Sam Hindi, Patrick Sullivan, and Mayor/President Richa Awasthi.
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Stefan Chatwin , City/District Manager; Benjamin Stock , City Attorney/District Legal Counsel ; Jennifer Phan, Deputy City Manager; Edmund Suen, Finance Director , Marlene Subhashini, Community Development Director ; Maria Saguisag- Sid, Human Resources Director; Tracy Avelar, Police Chief; Martin Ticas, Police Captain; Kent Thrasher, Fire Chief; Louis Sun, Public Works Director; Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director; Rob Lasky, IT Manager; Marty Cooper, Chief Building Inspector ; Frank Fanara, Parks Manager; Julie Paping, Principal Management Analyst; Francine Magno, Senior Engi neer; Shuli Chen, Video Technician and Yelena Cappello, Deputy City Clerk/ Deputy Recording Secretary.
PUBLIC
The following people addressed the City Council in person:
1. Don Carlson, 288 BoothBay, regarding Mariners Point;
2. Marty Moga, 800 Sea Spray Lane #204, regarding geese mitigation;
3. Lisa Acevedo, 660 Celestial Lane, regarding geese mitigation;
4. Michael Schultz, 320 Chesapeake Ave, regarding geese mitigation;
5. Leonard Bria, 850 Magellan Lane, Vice President of Carpenters Union Local 217, regarding the former El Torito Restaurant Site Located at 388 Vintage Park Drive.
The following people addressed the City Council via Zoom:
1. Oscar Allen, regarding geese mitigation;
2. David Susman, regarding geese mitigation;
3. Anthony Nuanes, District Rep for 16 Union, the Former El Torito Restaurant Site Located at 388 Vintage Park Drive; and
4. Jim Lawrence, 829 Grenada Lane, regarding racial profiling.
The following people addressed the City Council via email:
1. Uma Murthy, regarding the appointment of Shilpi Goel to the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee;
2. Hema Jagtiani, regarding the appointment of Shilpi Goel to the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee;
3. Wren Jen, regarding geese mitigation;
4. Jan Locker, regarding geese mitigation;
5. Elizabeth Johnston regarding geese mitigation;
6. Christina Simmons, regarding geese mitigation; and
7. Mary Peral, regarding geese mitigation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Deputy City Clerk announced there is a correction to the account number for the resolutions for item 5.2.9, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Appropriating an Additional $39,422 in Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 to the City Clerk/Communications Department General Fund Account No. 001-0210-411-4110” and “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Appropriating an Additional $39,422 in Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 to the City Clerk/Communications Department General Fund Account No. 001- 0210-411-4110”.
The correct account number reflects sub- accounts under account string 001- 0210-411- XXXX and sub-accounts under account string 001-0230-411-XXXX.
Motion by Councilmember/Director Sullivan, seconded by Councilmember/Director Hindi, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, approving the following items on the City/District Consent Calendar:
City/EMID Consent Calendar
1. Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 1, 2022;
2. EMID Resolution No. 3672, “Authorizing an Agreement Dated August 15, 2022, with Freyer & Laureta, Inc., for Emergency Generator Design Services for CIP 455- 705 Emergency Generator Replacements Project (FY 2021- 2022) in an Amount Not to Exceed $240,128.00;”
3. City Resolution No. 2022-96, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving an Agreement for Professional Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $72,885 With Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. for Climate Action Plan Outreach;”
4. City Resolution No. 2022-97, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Rescinding Resolution No. 2020-65 and Naming City Manager Stefan Chatwin as Its Designee to Review Applications for the Independent Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee (Levee Bond Oversight Committee) and to Recommend Applicants for Appointment by the City Council;”
5. City Resolution No. 2022-98, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving an Amended Policy Statement for the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee Changing the Membership From One Youth Member to Two Youth Members and Updating the Initial Terms;”
6. City Resolution No. 2022-99, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Accepting the Work by First Serve Productions, Inc. For the Sport Court Resurfacing Project (CIP 301-701) and Directing the City Clerk to File the Notice of Completion;”
7. City Resolution No. 2022- 100, “ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Approving and Authorizing Staff to Issue the Request for Proposals for Consultant Services for Developing and Adopting a Local Energy Reach Code Including Performing an Electrical Capacity Study of the City of Foster City, Cost Effectiveness Study, Energy Savings Study and Community Engagement;”
8. City Resolution No. 2022-101, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Amending the Economic Development/Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting Schedule to Bimonthly, the Third Thursday at 5:00 P.M., pursuant to the City Council Subcommittees Policy;”
9. City Resolution No. 2022- 102, “ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Appropriating an Additional $29,000 in Fiscal Year 2021 -2022 to City Attorney General Fund, Account No. 001-0310-412-4251, for Legal Services;”
10. EMID Resolution No. 3673, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Appropriating an Additional $29,000 in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 to City Attorney General Fund, Account No. 001- 0310-412-4251, for Legal Services;”
11. City Resolution No. 2022- 103, “ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Appropriating an Additional $39,422 in Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 to the City Clerk/Communications Department General Fund Account No. 001- 0210- 411-4110;”
12. EMID Resolution No. 3674, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Appropriating an Additional $39,422 in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 to the City Clerk/Communications Department General Fund Account No. 001-0210-411-4110;”
13. City Resolution No. 2022- 104, “ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Extending the Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Caused by the Threat of the Novel Covid-19 Virus, and Proclaiming the Continuing Need for the City Council, Planning Commission and Committees to Meet by Teleconference and Allowing for Increased Meeting Accessibility via in Person and Teleconference Meeting Participation;” and
14. EMID Resolution No. 3675, “ A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Proclaiming the Continuing Need for the Estero Municipal Improvement District Board of Directors, Planning Commission, and Committees to Meet by Teleconference and Allowing for Increased Meeting Accessibility via in Person and Teleconference Meeting Participation.”
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE FOSTER CITY ZONING MAP TO MODIFY THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP) AND DENIAL OF SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN/USE PERMIT; AND CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) INCLUDING ADOPTION OF
FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MONITORING A ND
REPORTING PROGRAM (SCAMMRP) FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW, APPROXIMATELY 124,395 SQUARE- FOOT, FOUR-STORY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT OFFICE BUILDING AT THE FORMER EL TORITO RESTAURANT SITE LOCATED AT 388 VINTAGE PARK DRIVE – EA2021-0001, RZ2021-0003 AND UP2021-0023 . MINUTE ORDER NO. 1868.
Mayor Awasthi opened a public hearing to hear and consider public comments regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Recommendation to the City Council to amend the Foster City Zoning Map to M odify the Previously Approved General Development Plan (GDP) and Denial of Specific Development Plan/Use Permit; and Consideration of Planning Commission’s Recommendation to City Council to Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Including Adoption of Findings Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Standard Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCAMMRP) for the Proposed Development of a New, Approximately 124,395 Square- foot, Four-story Research and Development Office Building at the Former El Torito Restaurant Site Located at 388 Vintage Park Drive – EA2021-0001, RZ2021-0003 AND UP2021-0023.
Community Development Director Subhashini presented the staff report.
Benjamin Yu, representative from SteelWave, and Peter Banzhaf, representative from Helios, provided a presentation.
The following people addressed the City Council in person:
1. Charlie Bronitsky, 756 Niantic Dr;
2. Alberta Sur, 655 Catamaran St;
3. Debra Yano, 822 Juno Lane;
4. Nathan Tsai, 1231 Chess Drive;
5. Edward Evans, 1153 Chess Drive, Suite 100, representing Carpenters Union Local 217;
6. Moises Villeda, representing Carpenters Union Local 217;
7. John Medina, representing Sprinkler Fitters Union Local 483;
8. Joshua Markowitz, 713 Catamaran St., #2;
9. Ray Lyons, representing SteelWave;
10. Bart Pantoja, representing San Mateo County Building Trades Council;
11. Danielle Steinmetz, representing Berkley & Company Contractors; and
12. Chad Russick, representing Silicon Valley Mechanical.
The following people addressed the City Council via teleconference:
1. Steven Goodale, representing Sierra Club, presented a video regarding biosafety levels;
2. Sonja Tappan;
3. Ron Haupt;
4. Ashley B, representing Carpenters’ Union;
5. Angela Stucker, regarding sustainability and biodiversity;
6. Kristin Mercer;
7. Betsy Gilman Duane;
8. John Talamentez, representing Carpenters Union Local 217; and
9. Gita Dev.
The following people addressed the City Council via email:
1. George Fanourgiakis;
2. Eileen Greathouse, representing Vintage Park Community Association Board of Directors;
3. Steven Goodale, representing Sierra Club, regarding presenting a video on biosafety levels;
4. Alberta Sur, 655 Catamaran St;
5. Debra Yano;
6. Susan Yamauchi;
7. Richard Chang;
8. Betsey Duane, representing Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc.;
9. Marah Curry, representing Foster City Chamber of Commerce;
10. Sheri Pan;
11. Janice Hennessey, representing Kidder Matthews;
12. William Pitney.
Peter Banzhaf, representative from Helios, addressed the City Council.
Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Awasthi closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Hindi, seconded by Councilmember Sullivan, and carried, 4- 1-0, Vice Mayor Froomin voted “no”, adopting Minute Order No. 1868, directing staff to bring back a resolution to approve the appeal and directing the appellant to work together with unions to resolve prevailing wage issue.
RECESS. The meeting recessed at 8:37 p.m. and reconvened at 8:44 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
APPOINTMENT OF ONE CITIZEN TO A PARTIAL TERM FROM JANUARY 1, 2020 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2022 ON THE TRAFFIC REVIEW COMMITTEE: FIKRET CANER GOCMEN AND GARY POLLARD. MINUTE ORDER NO. 1869.
Deputy City Clerk Cappello presented the staff report.
Fikret Caner Gocmen was interviewed by the City Council for appointment to the Traffic Review Committee.
By Consensus of the City Council, Minute Order No. 1869 was adopted, appointing Fikret Caner Gocmen to a partial term from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022.
Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Awasthi took “An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Amending Title 8, Health and Safety, of the Foster City Municipal Code to Add a New Chapter 8.11, Regulation of the Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products and Electronic Cigarettes” out of agenda order at the request of Councilmember Gehani.
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
AMENDING TITLE 8, HEALTH AND SAFETY, OF THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 8.11, REGULATION OF THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES. TAKEN OUT OF AGENDA ORDER.
Councilmember Hindi recused himself due to a conflict of interest because his business sells tobacco products.
City Attorney Stock presented the staff report.
The following people addressed the City Council in person:
1. Alison Proctor, 15 Montego Lane; and
2. Charles Stone.
Stacy Jimenez addressed the City Council via email.
Motion by Councilmember Sullivan, seconded by Mayor Awasthi , 2-2-0, Vice Mayor Froomin and Councilmember Gehani voted “no,” motion failed to table the item.
Motion by Vice Mayor Froomin, seconded by Councilmember Gehani, and carried, 2-2- 0, Mayor Awasthi and Councilmember Sullivan voted “no”, motion failed to introduce Ordinance by title, by motion waive further reading to second reading.
RECESS. The meeting recessed at 10:11 p.m. and reconvened at 10:16 p.m.
APPOINTMENT OF VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2022 ANNUAL CONFERENCE. MINUTE ORDER NO. 1870.
Deputy City Clerk Cappello presented the staff report.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Hindi, seconded by Vice Mayor Froomin, and carried unanimously, 5-0- 0, Minute Order No. 1870 was adopted, appointing Mayor Richa Awasthi as voting delegate and Councilmembers Sanjay Gehani and Patrick Sullivan as alternates for the League of California Cities 2022 Annual Conference.
REPORTS
REPORT ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 455 -652) - CLEAN WATER PROGRAM - UPDATE FOR APRIL THROUGH JUNE 2022. MINUTE ORDER NO. 1871.
Public Works Director Sun presented the staff report.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Vice Mayor Froomin, seconded by Councilmember Sullivan, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, Minute Order No. 1871 was adopted, receiving and accepting the report.
LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 327 -657) - MONTHLY GENERAL UPDATE.
MINUTE ORDER NO. 1872.
Public Works Director Sun and Senior Engineer Magno presented the staff report.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Vice Mayor Froomi n, seconded by Councilmember Sullivan, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, Minute Order No. 1872 was adopted, receiving and accepting the report.
FOSTER CITY LAGOON MANAGEMENT PLAN. MINUTE ORDER NO. 1873.
Public Works Director Sun presented the staff report.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Sullivan, seconded by Councilmember Hindi, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, Minute Order No. 1873 was adopted, receiv ing and accepting the report.
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. TWENTY -SIX (CCO #26) TO SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION CO., IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,809,766.91 TO ADD CONTROLLED
DENSITY FILL AND CONSTRUCT AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT REVISIONS
FOR THE LEVEE PROTECTION PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 327-657). CITY RESOLUTION NO. 2022-105.
Public Works Director Sun presented the staff report.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Councilmember Hindi, seconded by Vice Mayor Froomin, and carried unanimously, 5-0-0, adopting City Resolution No. 2022- 105, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Contract Change Order No. Tw enty-six (CCO #26) to Shimmick Construction Co., in the Amount of $2,809,766.91 to Add Controlled Density Fill and Construct Americans With Disabilities Act Revisions for the Levee Protection Planning and Improvements Project (CIP 327- 657)”, with the notation that the City reserves the right to determine the responsible party for the Controlled Density Fill costs and request compensation for the applicable amount of approximately $692,000.
COMMUNICATIONS
CITY/DISTRICT WARRANT OF DEMANDS. NO ACTION TAKEN.
City/District Warrants of Demands were processed and issued on July 28, 2022 and ACH were processed on July 28, 2022 and August 5, 2022 and ACH were processed on August 5, 2022.
COUNCIL/BOARD STATEMENTS AND REQUESTS, COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS,
AND CITY/DISTRICT MANAGER REPORTS
City/District Manager Chatwin invited the public to join Summer Days, starting Friday August 19 for the classic car show, rubber ducky races, and many other fun activities. He stated that City Hall will be closed on September 5 in observance of Labor Day, and the City Council meeting scheduled for September 6 is cancelled.
Councilmember/Director Sullivan stated that he attended the City/County Association of Governments Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee meeting on July 28, and they discussed various improvements projects and funding availability. He attended the San Mateo Union High School District Board Meeting on August 11 , which in cluded introductions from principals. He stated that the I nfrastructure/Facilities subcommittee meeting scheduled on August 9 was cancelled. He also mentioned a meeting regarding regional efforts pertaining to geese mitigation.
Councilmember/Director Hindi thanked Councilmember Sullivan for his efforts on the City/County Association of Governments Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee and Mayor Awasthi for her work on regional geese mitigation efforts. He attended the San Francisco Airport Roundtable on August 3 and they discussed the return to pre- pandemic noise levels and collaborative efforts with the Federal Aviation Administration to reduce nighttime noise.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no objection from the City Council/EMID Board, Mayor/President Awasthi adjourned the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
From: Uma Murthy
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Supporting Shilpi Goel"s nomination for Foster City Sustainability Committee Date: Monday, August 1, 2022 4:49:40 PM
Hello,
I would like to support Shilpi Goel's nomination into the Foster City Sustainability Committee. Shilpi is an active member of the Foster City community, leading several improvement initiatives such as Foster City clean-up group, Hearts for Humanity (helping displaced people), South Asian seniors program, and more. She works selflessly for the City Community and is always there to help anyone who needs it. I would feel comfortable and reassured that someone as involved as Shilpi is part of Foster City's leadership team.
Thank you for your consideration.
Uma Murthy
Foster City resident
From: Hema Jagtiani
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Recomendation for Shilpi Goel
Date: Monday, August 1, 2022 7:58:37 PM
Hello
Would love to recommend Shilpi Goel for sustainability position at the city office. Shilpi has been a testimony and inspiration for many for efforts to help seniors, reduce plastic and clean the city up teen number of times.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Best
Hema
Sent from my iPhone
From: Wren Jen
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Public
Date: Thursday, August 11, 2022 7:23:24 PM
A post on community forum Nextdoor advised me that the City Council is doing something to remove the invasive non-migratory urban geese fouling our public areas with their droppings.
Many people mistake them for the common Canadian geese. Thank you for doing something about our New York Times infamous polluted waters. Our beaches are the filthiest in California, taking both #1 and #2 spots. San Mateo county beaches have been an embarrassment for too long.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/dirtiest-beaches-california.html https://columbusaudubon.org/invasive-species-why-not-pigeons-and-geese/ https://www.courierpress.com/story/life/2021/08/27/why-some-canada-geese-dont-migrate- how-homeowners-can-discourage/5618329001/
The Nextdoor post:
FOSTER CITY RESIDENTS, STAND UP FOR WILDLIFE. Foster City Council meeting.
MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 6:30 PM, Foster City Hall, 610 Foster City Blvd. Despite having no documented justification, Foster City is moving to slaughter 100 healthy adult geese and goslings by cruel, agonizing "spinal dislocation". This waste of tax money will accomplish nothing. More birds will come from across the area to re-populate the open spaces. The killing will cost $ 85,000 - $ 100,000 each year. Year after year. There are workable long- term solutions to the issue. This is not the way.
From: george Fanourgiakis
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Agenda Comments for Planning Commission Meeting 08/15 Date: Friday, August 12, 2022 12:14:15 PM
Dear Planning Commission,
My brothers and I, owners of Penelope's Coffee & Tea, Sandwich Monkey, Nick the Greek Daly City and Nick the Greek Bridgepoint. We have reviewed the upcoming agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting on August 15th for the proposed 388 Vintage park site. We feel that as experienced retail owners and operators, the current proposal for the site would be a better fit than adding additional retail as the location will create issues with parking and visibility for any retailer. I know as a resident of Foster City, this would also help lower traffic and the current proposal fits well with the community and the bio/life science environment.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you,
George Fanourgiakis | Co-Founder | Sandwich Monkey
3 Plaza View Lane, Suite V | Foster City | CA | 94404
Store: (650) 274-0264 | Cell: (650) 490-0762
www.thesandwichmonkey.com
From: Thai-Chau Le
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Fwd: Letter of no objections for 388 Vintage Park Drive Date: Friday, August 12, 2022 1:25:01 PM
Attachments: Vintage Park Drive Letter of No Objections 8.2022.pdf Submitting this on behalf of commenter for the 388 Vintage item on Council Agenda for 8/15/22.
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
From: Eileen Greathouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 12:02:44 PM
To: Marlene Subhashini <[email protected]>; Thai-Chau Le <[email protected]> Cc: Eileen Greathouse <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter of no objections for 388 Vintage Park Drive
Good morning, Marlene & Thai,
Eileen Greathouse from the Manor Association, I am the community manager for Vintage Park Community Association.
I would like to present a letter for the council’s consideration on behalf of the Vintage Park Community Association Board of Directors regarding the proposed life science building at 388 Vintage Park Drive. This building is part of the Vintage Park Community Association.
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Eileen
Best Regards,
Eileen Greathouse
Senior Community Manager
1820 Gateway Drive Suite 100,
San Mateo, CA 94404
1-650-753 -2568(direct)
www.manorinc.com
The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments.
Were you happy with the service you received today? We welcome your input at [email protected].
Vintage Park Community Association
c/o Manor Inc. · 1820 Gateway Drive, Suite. 100 · San Mateo, CA, 94404 · Tel: 650/637-1616
August 11, 2022
To: City Council of the City of Foster City
RE: Proposed Life Science Project at 388 Vintage Park Drive
Steelwave and Helios Real Estate Partne rs (or such aff iliated en tity, the “Property Owner ”) have approached the Vintage Park Com munity Association ( “VPCA”) Board regarding the continued proposed life sci ence project at 388 Vintage Park Drive that contemplates the demolition of the structure and site to build a new class -A life science facility (the “Project”).
The VPCA Board under stands f rom the Property Owner that their Project has not been approved by the Ci ty of Foster City ’s Planning Commission , and the Property Owner has requested confirmation from the VPCA Board that the VPCA has no objections to the Project.
In response, th e VPCA Board, on behalf of the VPCA, find the Project to be consistent with the objectives of the VPCA Design Guidelines, specifically, to: “Attract employers to Foster City by providing a high-quality office/research/industrial park.”
The VPCA Board has no objections to the redevelopment of 388 Vint age Pa rk Drive by the Property Owner, and the VPCA Board remains open to working with all VPCA Property Owners to explore options to improve the VPCA owned property, co nsistent with the VPCA ’s CC&R’s, the City of Foster City’s General Plan and all regulatory requirements.
Sincerely,
THE MANOR ASSOCIATION
Eileen M. Greathouse
Eileen M. Greathouse
VPCA Community Manager
On behalf of the Vintage Park Community Association Board of Directors
From: Steven Goodale
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Fwd: Monday Council meeting request
Date: Friday, August 12, 2022 3:24:39 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
Sierra Club Biosafety Level Laboratories Guidelines 3-30-22.pdf Please find attached the supplemental information discussed in this email thread with Yelena Cappello.
Thank you!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Yelena Cappello <[email protected]
>
Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:15 PM
Subject: RE: Monday Council meeting request
To: Steven Goodale <[email protected]
>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Jennifer Phan <[email protected]>, Becki Hanan <[email protected]>, Nina Goodale <[email protected]> Hi Steven,
Thanks for speaking with me, to confirm, you can join the meeting via Zoom, via the information below, and “raise your hand” to speak. You may wish to have two speakers available and ask the City Council for additional time. We will plan to have your video available to play.
For any information you would like posted with the meeting online, available at the meeting, and distributed to the City Council please email [email protected] (please
include attachments if you want to include information in addition to the email). Public Comments are posted with the meeting in the “minutes/public comment/supplemental info” tab here City Council Regular Meeting (civicclerk.com)
Thanks, Yelena
To Attend the Meeting in Person:
Location: 620 Foster City Blvd, Foster City, California, 94404
To Provide Public Comment in Person:
Members of the public wishing to speak will be asked to fill out a Request to Speak Form. Forms will be accepted until the staff presentation on an agenda item ends, or until the public comment period on non-agenda items is closed. For special meetings, public comment is limited to item(s) on the agenda only.
To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:
• To access the meeting by computer / smartphone, go to: https://fostercity- org.zoom.us/j/86499169530
• To dial-in via phone:
1-669-900-6833 or
1-408-638-0968
And enter Webinar ID
: 864 9916 9530
To Participate in the Meeting by Providing Public Comment via Teleconference/Video Conference:
During the Meeting: Live verbal public comments may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the “raise hand” feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”) during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The Zoom Host will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial- in attendees. Please clearly state your full name for the record at the start of your public comment.
Before the Meeting: Written public comments for the record may be submitted in advance by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting by email to: [email protected]
and will be made part of the written record but
will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Public” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda
Include the submitter’s full name (Recommended but not required) Written public comments received by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be provided in their entirety to the City Council prior to the meeting and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.
From: Steven Goodale <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 2:34 PM
To: Yelena Cappello <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Jennifer Phan <[email protected]>; Becki Hanan <[email protected]>; Nina Goodale <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Monday Council meeting request
Hello Yelena,
Thank you for your response and the information regarding the process for public comments.
The video we'd like to present to council is in regard to Biosaftey Levels and is available on YouTube at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Yj1iajrng (FYI, it might be a
good idea to play it with subtitles turned on)
The supporting documentation is a printable PDF file available at this link: https://www.sierraclub.org//sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce/loma-prieta- chapter/conserveletters/Sierra%20Club%20Biosafety%20Level%20Laboratories%20 Guidelines%203-30-22.pdf
To ensure a good and efficient transfer of information and that the video be played during the meeting, here are my remaining questions regarding this process:
Can the video be played with existing equipment at the site so that everyone can view it? You mention that we can bring a laptop but if there is existing equipment that would be preferred.
Are groups of people granted more time to present? Say if we had a group and each member requested 3 minutes to present, could each member present, say half, of the video?
If groups are granted more time and since we only need 5 minutes, can two people be considered a group? :)
If there is no standard process to gain more than 3 minutes, other than having it granted during the meeting by council, when would that determination be made? If 3 minutes is the max that will be given could individuals take the floor and each request that half of the video be played?
Will the city print and distribute the supporting documentation or does that need to be provided in person?
I've left a voicemail in the "general mailbox for the communications city clerk's department" as well. If it's easier to talk through the process please call me at 510-684-1544.
Thank you!
On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 5:04 PM Yelena Cappello <[email protected] > wrote:
Hello Gita,
Thank you for reaching out. Please see the process for public comment below, speakers are limited to 3 minutes unless further time is granted by a majority vote of the council. You may ask the City Council to additional time at the meeting. If you’d like to show a portion of the video or if further time is granted, you may wish bring a laptop, or provide a link.
Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions Thanks,
Yelena
2.08.240 Addressing the council.
A. Manner of Addressing Council. Each person desiring to address the council shall step up to the public rostrum after being recognized to speak by the presiding officer, shall state his or her name and address for the record, state the subject he or she wishes to discuss, state who he or she is representing if he or she represents an organization or other persons and, unless further time is granted by majority vote of the council, shall limit his or her remarks to three minutes. The city council may vary the time limit for any speaker, if it deems this necessary.
B. Spokespersons for Groups of Persons. In order to expedite matters and to avoid repetitious presentations, whenever any group of persons wishes to address the council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to request that spokespersons be chosen by the group to address the council and, in case additional matters are to be presented by any other member of the group, to limit the number of persons addressing the council.
C. After Motion. After the chair has called for the vote or a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall address the council from the audience on the matter under consideration without first securing permission to do so by a majority vote of the city council. (Ord. 600 § 1, 2016: Ord. 3 § 1 (part), 1971: prior code § 2-103.170)
From: Becki Hanan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 2:21 PM
To: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Jennifer Phan <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Monday Council meeting request
Hello Gita,
I’ve never had this request before and I’m not entirely sure. I am copying the City Clerk’s office who can assist you with your inquiry below.
Thank you,
Becki Hanan
Management Analyst
Planning/Code Enforcement and Building Division
(650) 286-3229 | www.fostercity.org | CDD
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404
From: Gita Dev <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Becki Hanan <[email protected]>
Cc: Gladwyn d'Souza <[email protected]>; Steven Goodale
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Monday Council meeting request
Dev Architects
415-722-3355
www.devarchitects.com
On 8/10/2022 10:50 AM, Gita Dev wrote:
To Becki Hanan, Management Analyst, Community Development Department Ref the El Torito Site proposed Biotech building Appeal on Monday Aug 15:
Would it be possible to show a short slide show on important BioSafety issues during public comment on the appeal.
The presentation is exactly 5 minutes- Will we need 2 speakers to "donate" time to combine their time?
Should we send it to you - we have made it into a video so it's definitely under 5 minutes
Thank you very much for your assistance in this.
Regards
-- Gita Dev, Co-Chair
Sustainable Land Use Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta
415.722.3355
--
Steven Goodale,
--Goody!
--
Steven Goodale,
--Goody!
Sierra Club Loma Prieta, Sustainable Land Use Committee BioSafety Guidelines Rev. March 30, 2022 Page 1 of 4
SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
March 30, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
Subject: Planning Review and Entitlements of Biotech Developments
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Commission:
The Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. In that role, we are interested in the overall planning of our cities for the physical and environmental health of our communities.
More bio-tech development is being proposed in cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and most of these new developments are in highly urbanized locations. In an urbanized setting, the biological materials being studied could become a regional health hazard if allowed to escape. Furthermore, siting of such facilities in shoreline areas, identified as flood zones, can create vulnerabilities for the Bay ecology as sea levels rise and 100 year flood events occur with increased frequency.
Therefore, cities must be transparent and rigorous in approving these facilities from an environmental and public health perspective. To aid in that endeavor, we've attached the Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter's Guidelines for Biosafety Levels in Biotech Laboratories.
Please consider all the planning review suggestions listed in the Guidelines before approving any new Bio-Tech developments in your city. Most EIR studies include air and water pollution and chemical hazards, but seldom include bio-hazards; yet bio-hazards can be far more dangerous than most other environmental concerns.
Please establish clear and effective new planning code requirements for Biotechnology developments, including monitoring, emergency and evacuation procedures, before approving any further projects.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully Yours,
Gita Dev, FAIA, Co-Chair Jennifer Chang Hetterly
Sustainable Land Use Committee Bay Alive Campaign Lead Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc: James Eggers, Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Gladwyn d’Souza, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Sierra Club Loma Prieta, Sustainable Land Use Committee BioSafety Guidelines Rev. March 30, 2022 Page 2 of 4
Guidelines for
Biosafety Levels
in Biotech
Laboratories
This is a brief overview of biosafety levels for research laboratories, drawing from Lab Manager (www.labmanager.com)Updated Dec 27, 2021 ; November 15, 2021 and from the Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health In light of numerous proposed biotech developments in highly urbanized locations, this document provides a starting point for identifying issues in facilities using biological materials. Proper facility location and design for research or clinical labs, permitting, and operations are essential to ensuring that people working in the facility and the environment outside the facility are protected.
As a matter of public health, cities must be rigorous in reviewing and approving these facilities.
A specialized laboratory that deals with infectious agents is the biosafety lab. Biosafety labs may be devoted to research or to production activities and involve working with infectious materials or laboratory animals. It is essential to pay attention to the proper design of facilities, to proper protocols in using the facilities and procedures in the event of emergencies and disasters. Biological safety levels (BSL) are ranked from one to four, based on the agents or organisms used in the labs. Each higher level builds on the previous level, adding constraints and barriers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are the main sources for biological safety information for infectious agents. The publication Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories https://www.cdc.gov/labs/BMBL.html is a principal reference.
The four biosafety levels were developed to protect against a world of select agents, including bacteria, fungi, parasites, prions, rickettsial agents and viruses (the largest group). When the work involves vertebrate animals, additional precautions and safety requirements are necessary. Studying the most infectious agents also means extensive security measures must be in place because of their virulence and because of their potential to escape the lab and infect the surrounding population, or for use in bioterrorism.
Sierra Club Loma Prieta, Sustainable Land Use Committee BioSafety Guidelines Rev. March 30, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Issues for City Planning Departments, County and City Departments of Public Health, City Planning Commissioners, and City Council Members to address when reviewing planning applications for developments including BIOTECH laboratories.
Incidents involving biological, chemical, physical, and radiological hazards can have a significant impact on the safety and health of workers in laboratory settings. In addition, consideration needs to be given to risks to the community and the environment in the event of accidents, disasters and building failure. This is particularly important if proposed developments are in proximity to vulnerable populations and delicate Bay ecosystems, and where risk of disruption from sea level and groundwater rise is high.
• Determine the Biological Safety Levels (BSL) for the proposed project - Level 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Decide which of these Levels are acceptable or not acceptable to the city from a public safety perspective. While Level 1 labs are generally considered safe, Level 2 labs are not advisable where there is the potential for structural failure. San Francisco Airport and all area airports do not permit Levels 2, 3 and 4 labs within some Land Use Safety Compatibility Zones . In addition, structural failure for biosafety lab buildings on soils subject to liquefaction in seismic events, such as bay fill, should be carefully considered as it could pose a community and environmental safety risk.
• Consider risks from flooding and infrastructure safety , including surface flooding and subsurface impacts from sea level and groundwater rise, for biosafety labs except Level 1. • Consider prohibiting Level 3 and Level 4 labs, entirely, in urban and shoreline areas. • Require the applicant to submit in writing the BSL for the proposed project with a provision that changing to a higher level BSL will not be allowed without prior review and approval by the city and may not be allowed at all if so determined by the city. • In the case of a speculative development where the final tenants or b uyers may not be known during the city entitlements process, include the allowed BSL in the entitlements and in the EIR. After entitlement, require the developer to submit, in writing, the BSL for each company that is being considered for rental or purchas e of space in the development, as they occur, before the lease or purchase is finalized, to ensure compliance. • Any change to the BSL leve l will need review at City Council level and may not be allowed.
In addition, re-evaluation under CEQA may be required.
• Require the applicant to identify the range of diseases to be studied and the agents to be used in the proposed facility.
• Require the applicant to define emergency protocols and safety design features for the building(s) and surrounding area, including Bay wetlands. • Require the applicant to define safety redundancy measures for HVAC and air exhaust systems, waste disposal and storm water management systems, water quality safety, etc. in the building(s) design and long-term use
• Require the applicant to identify any animals to be used in the research and how they will be housed, secured, and protected.
• Require rigorous environmental assessments for any potential air or water pollution, or waste disposal materials generated by the facility, especially airborne particles or bio - hazardous materials.
• Include a biological safety analysis and health impact report on potential short and long - term safety impacts on the city, the bay, and the regional environment. This should be a key component of the Environmental Impact Review process. • Require a monitoring and verification program to ensure that the facility is complying with the city requirements and the proponent's commitments to the city and all related regulatory agencies (e.g. fire dept, Cal -OSHA, CDC, USDA, etc.) including inspections and violations reports.
Sierra Club Loma Prieta, Sustainable Land Use Committee BioSafety Guidelines Rev. March 30, 2022 Page 4 of 4
Reference:
CDC and NIH—Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories—6th Edition https://www.selectagents.gov/
Level 1
Biosafety level one, the
lowest level, applies to
work with agents that do
not consistently cause
disease in healthy adults
Non-pathogenic microbe
Biosafety level one, the lowest level, applies to work with agents that usually pose a minimal potential threat to laboratory workers and the environment and do not consistently cause disease in healthy adults. Research with these agents is generally performed on standard open laboratory benches without the use of special containment equipment. BSL 1 labs are not usually isolated from the general building. Lab personnel are trained and supervised on specific procedures by trained scientists.
Standard microbiology practices, e.g. mechanical pipetting and safe sharps handling, are usually enough to protect laboratory workers and other employees in the building. Routine decontamination of work surfaces occurs, and potentially infectious materials are decontaminated prior to disposal, generally by autoclaving. Standard microbiological practices also include hand washing and a prohibition on eating or drinking in the lab. Lab workers wear normal personal protective equipment. Biohazard sig ns are posted and access to the lab is limited whenever infectious agents are present.
Level 2
Biosafety level two covers
work with agents
associated with human
disease, i.e., pathogenic or
infectious organisms
posing a moderate hazard.
Influenza, salmonella,
Biosafety level two covers work with agents associated with human disease, i.e., pathogenic or infectious organisms posing a moderate hazard. Examples are the equine encephalitis viruses and HIV. Care is used to prevent percutaneous injury (needlest icks and cuts), ingestion and mucous membrane exposures in addition to the standard microbiological practices of BSL 1.
Caution is used when handling and disposing of contaminated sharps. The laboratory’s written biosafety manual details any needed immunizations (e.g., hepatitis B vaccine or TB skin testing).
Access to the lab is more controlled than for BSL 1 facilities. Immunocompromised persons with increased risk for infection may be denied admittance at the discretion of the laboratory director.
BSL 2 labs must also provide the next level of barriers, i.e., specialty safety equipment and facilities. Work with infectious agents involves a Class II biosafety cabinet, an autoclave, and an eyewash station. Self-closing lockable doors and biohazard warning signs are required at access points
Level 3
These are indigenous or
exotic agents that may
cause serious or lethal
disease via aerosol
transmission.
HIV, HSN1 flu, SARS -CoV2
plague
Yellow fever, St. Louis encephalitis and West Nile virus are examples of agents requiring biosafety level 3 practices and controls. Work with these agents must be registered with all appropriate government agencies. These are indigenous or exotic agents that may cause serious or lethal disease via aerosol transmission. Beyond the BSL 2 practices and equipment, work in BSL 3 labs involves tighter access control and decontamination of all wastes in the facility.
More protective primary barriers are used in BSL 3 laboratories, including solid-front wraparound gowns, scrub suits or coveralls made of materials such as Tyvek® and respirators as necessary.
Facility design incorporates self -closing double-door access separated from general building corridors. The ventilation must provide ducted, directional airflow by drawing air in to the lab from clean areas and with no recirculation
Level 4
Agents requiring BSL 4
facilities and practices are
extremely dangerous and
pose a high risk of life -
threatening disease.
Ebola, smallpox
Agents requiring BSL 4 facilities and practices are extremely dangerous and pose a high risk of life-threatening dise ase. Examples are the Ebola virus, the Lassa virus, and any agent with unknown risks of pathogenicity and transmission. BSL 4 facilities provide the maximum protection and containment, requiring complete clothing change before entry, a shower on exit, and decontamination of all materials prior to leaving the facility.
The BSL 4 laboratory contains a Class III biological safety cabinet or equivalent in combination with a positive-pressure, air-supplied full-body suit. Usually, BSL 4 laboratories are in sepa rate buildings or a totally isolated zone with dedicated supply and exhaust ventilation. Exhaust streams generally are filtered through high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters.
From: Alberta Sur
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Support for 388 Vintage Park Project
Date: Sunday, August 14, 2022 12:49:27 PM
Dear Foster City Councilmembers,
My name is Alberta Sur, I've lived in Foster City for years and am fortunate to work nearby. I wanted to let the City Council know that my husband and I support the project at 388 Vintage Park.
I believe it is the best use of the site that has sat vacant for too long. The project is appropriate for that neighborhood and should be put back into a productive building for Foster City.
As a resident of Foster City, I understand the concern losing a restaurant location, but times have changed. The pandemic as well as changing shopping and dining habits make their survival difficult.
The site at 388 Vintage Park has sat vacant for years. The location is remote from Foster City’s residential neighborhood and not highly visible and difficult to access. These are all elements that contributed to the closure of the former restaurant on this property. The location would be better suited for a commercial use and Life Science, which is being proposed, is ideal. It will attract quality tenants with the lowest amount of impact to residents of Foster City.
In addition, a Life Science campus will contribute to the long-term economic foundation of our City.
We can’t let opportunities like this proposed project pass us by. We must consider our future.
Please approve this project.
Thank you.
Alberta Sur
655 Catamaran St.
Foster City, CA
From: Debbie Yano
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: Debbie Yano; [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Proposed Life Science Project at 388 Vintage Park Blvd Date: Sunday, August 14, 2022 4:33:27 PM
Honorable Foster City Councilmembers,
As a resident of Foster City for over 30 years, I am writing to support the proposed Life Science project at 388 Vintage Park Blvd.
I have followed this project closely and there is no doubt in my mind that the proposed project benefits our community. It will attract quality tenants who not only will be innovating our community, but they will also be dining, shopping and investing in our community.
Realistically, the vacant site will never be a viable restaurant again. Approving this proposed project will ensure a productive use for Foster City and that our city will continue its part of the economically sustainable and innovative bio-technology industry now and into the future.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Debra Yano
From: cary yamauchi
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: 388 Vintage Park – Resident’s Note of Support
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 12:07:20 AM
Hi Councilmembers,
My name is Susan Yamauchi and I have been a resident of Foster City for 23 years.
This City has always provided a safe community for our families, and we have seen much positive growth over the years.
As you consider the proposed project at 388 Vintage Park Boulevard, I hope you’ll consider the importance of Life Science companies and the innovations, discoveries and impact they make. Foster City is already home to companies like Gilead, Illumina and MedGenome. Foster City should be very excited that investors are looking to develop more Life Science companies in our community.
Please allow this project to move forward so that Foster City can continue to play a role in the future of Life Sciences. Their important work is a benefit to our City and to the world we live in.
Thank you for your consideration.
Susan
From: jan locker
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Attn: City Council Regarding Geese
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 8:18:15 AM
Please do not kill any of the geese and find a non-lethal method to reduce their population.
Sincerely,
Jan Locker
Resident of Foster City
From: Richard Chang
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: 388 Vintage Park Drive, Foster City
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 9:14:11 AM
Attachments: City Council.pdf
Dear Sir,
I would like to present my opinion on the property at 388 Vintage Park Drive, Foster City.
Best,
Richard Chang
510-333-6198
August 8, 2022
Dear Council Members,
My name is Richard Chang and I have been an active resident of Foster City since 2001. I am writing to voice my support for the proposed life science project at 388 Vintage Park Drive. I’m very interested to see the corner of Vintage and Chess finally improved after years of blight. In early 2021 I wrote a letter to the City Council in support of conducting additional studies on the proposed 388 Vintage Park project. I’ve followed the process and I think the conclusions reached by the city’s consultants are compelling, especially their finding that the site is not appropriate for a restaurant use, which is stated very clearly in the study. We know that the previous restaurant struggled for years before it went out of business, even prior to the pandemic.
I was pleased to read that the proposed project's life science use is expected to generate less traffic than other uses, including a restaurant.
The corner of Vintage and Chess is long overdue for improvement and life science is appropriate in that location. The architecture of the proposed project is very appealing, and the project will support our local businesses. I believe this project will have a very positive impact on the neighborhood and our community. I strongly support its approval.
Sincerely,
Richard Chang
Foster City Residence
510-333-6198
Richard Chang
Verified by pdfFiller
08/08/2022
From: Elizabeth Gilman Duane
To: City Council; Foster City Public Comment
Cc: Elizabeth Gilman Duane; [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh Subject: Letter of Support for 388 Vintage Park Drive Project Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 10:04:35 AM
Attachments: Biosafety Level Letter 388 Vintage Park Drive (EH&E 25810).pdf Dear Mayor Awasthi and Councilmembers:
Please find attached my letter in support of the 388 Vintage Park Drive project.
Thank you.
Regards,
Betsy
Elizabeth (Betsy) Gilman Duane, MS, RBP, CBSP
Biosafety Consultant
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc.
180 Wells Avenue, Suite 200
Newton, MA 02459-3328
TEL 800-825-5343
781-247-4300
FAX 781-247-4305
www.eheinc.com
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. | 25810 | www.eheinc.com 1 August 15, 2022
Mayor and City Council Via email: [email protected] Foster City, California and [email protected] RE: Biosafety Level Discussion and Letter of Support for 388 Vintage Park Drive, Foster City Mayor Awasthi and Councilmembers:
My name is Elizabeth (Betsy) Gilman Duane, and I am a biosafety consultant at Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. I am a Registered and Certified Biosafety Professional through the American Biological Safety Association (ABSA) International and have 34 years of professional biosafety experience. I am an active member of ABSA currently serving on the Emerging Infectious Diseases Committee. In 2005 I served as ABSA President. My experience includes developing and managing biosafety programs for numerous life science companies, including Wyeth, Pfizer, and Amgen. Many of these companies and their facilities are located within central business districts of large cities adjacent to residential and commercial buildings.
I am writing to provide my support of the proposed life science project at the 388 Vintage Park Drive, Foster City, that may include laboratories with Biosafety Levels One (BSL-1), Two (BSL-2), or Three (BSL-3).
Laboratories working with biological materials in California are regulated at the state and federal levels to ensure safety for laboratory staff, occupants of the building, the environment, and local community. The company or institution is required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits.
Internal program audits as well as inspections from regulatory authorities take place to ensure compliance and public safety.
Biosafety levels prescribe laboratory practices and procedures, safety equipment (primary barriers), facilities (secondary barriers), and personal protective equipment required. The appropriate biosafety level is selected after performing a risk assessment of the proposed research, with the goal to provide protection to the laboratory worker, occupants of building, the environment, and local community. An example of an agent that can be safely handled at BSL-1 is Saccharomyces cerevisiae(Brewer’s yeast), which is commonly found in the baking of bread and many other food processes. BSL-2 laboratories work with biological agents associated with human disease, which is rarely serious and for which preventive or therapeutic interventions are Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. | 25810 | www.eheinc.com 2 often available. These agents may represent a moderate risk to a laboratory worker but a low insignificant risk to the community due to the required and regulated safety barriers. In addition, each biosafety level has criteria for the facility in terms of laboratory design features necessary to contain biological materials. This is in addition to any local and state building codes.
To my knowledge there are no biosafety regulations or guidance documents that specify that BSL-1, BSL-2, or BSL-3 laboratory buildings should be separated by a minimum distance from a residential building. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health (CDC-NIH) publication Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories(6thedition) or “BMBL”, a federal guidance document describing biosafety level requirements, does not state the need for any separation between laboratory and residential buildings. Importantly, the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant and Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, which is a federal guidance document that must be complied with if the research entity receives federal funding, do not specify any separation distances, nor does the State of California Aerosol Transmissible Disease (ATD) Standard.
There are countless examples of life science laboratories located near hotels, apartments, condominiums, and single-family homes. These laboratories work at BSL-1, BSL-2, and BSL-3 and over many decades have never adversely impacted the environment or the community exterior to the laboratory. There are numerous examples of life science companies and academic institutions located near residential buildings in San Francisco, Berkeley, South San Francisco, San Mateo, and already in Foster City, California.
In summary, I support the proposed project and the use of BSL-1, BSL-2, and BSL-3 laboratories at 388 Vintage Park Drive and recommend that they not be subject to any separation requirements from residential properties within Foster City or the neighboring City of San Mateo. These laboratories if designed, built, and utilized in accordance with established regulatory requirements and best practices for biosafety pose no harm to the occupants or the community. Additional life science laboratories will allow for new medicines to be developed and therapeutic advances to result that will benefit society.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide input. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact me at 978-580-4339 or at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Elizabeth (Betsy) Gilman Duane, MS, RBP, CBSP
Biosafety Consultant
From: Marah Curry
To: Foster City Public Comment; Priscilla Schaus
Cc: Stefan Chatwin; Jennifer Phan; [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh Subject: Public Comment for 08152022 City Council Meeting: Item 6.1 Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 10:32:12 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
08152022_Public comment_6.1_388 Vintage Park Dr_Final.pdf Public Comment_Item 5.2 Planning Commission Meeting 05052022.pdf Public Comment_Item 9 Study Session_redevelopment of El Torito Site_11182021.pdf Good Morning,
Please find the attached memo, “08152022_Public Comment_6.1_388 Vintage Park Dr” along with referenced prior memos, to be included in the Public Record as Public Comment for tonight’s City Council Meeting, Item 6.1
- A Public Hearing to Hear and Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Recommendation to the City Council to amend the Foster City Zoning Map to Modify the Previously Approved General Development Plan (GDP) and Denial of Specific Development Plan/Use Permit.
Please let me know if there are any questions or any further information is needed.
Best,
Marah Curry
Foster City Chamber of Commerce
100 Grand Lane, Suite B
Foster City, CA 94404
Tele: (650) 573-7600
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
City of Foster City
CC: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager, City of Foster City
VIA: Priscilla Schaus, CMC
[email protected]
FROM: The Foster City Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors DATE:
August 15, 2022
RE: Public Comment: Item 6.1 A Public Hearing to Hear and Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of an Applicant Request Regarding 388 Vintage Park Dr
Good evening Mayor Awasthi and Councilmembers,
The Foster City Chamber of Commerce (“The Chamber”) has been engaged with SteelWave and Helios Real Estate Partners (“The Applicant”) to consider the merits of their proposed project at 388 Vintage Park Drive (“The Project”) from the outset. The City Council met with the Applicant as part of a Gatekeeper hearing and received positive feedback at that hearing. Since that initial review, the Chamber has followed the feedback that the Project and the Applicant have received from the City Council and the Planning Commission. There is a significant amount of data between three Planning Commission Study Sessions, the EIR, and Staff Reports that support the Applicant’s request for redevelopment.
El Torito, the former occupant of this site, went bankrupt in 2018. The building has been vacant since and is now a blight in the City. This site does not have good circulation, visibility, or presence for public access. The former owner has written a letter confirming these reasons as to why their tenant was unable to maintain a viable restaurant in operation. Professional consultants and existing restaurant operators have echoed these same points.
The Chamber also believes this proposed project will benefit current adjacent and nearby Foster City restaurants and small businesses, which have been negatively impacted by the Covid- 19 pandemic and other economic factors. Personnel from this proposed project will improve economic viability of Foster City businesses, so they may continue to benefit the greater Foster City community.
It is our understanding that due to the nature of Life Science businesses (including concern over control of intellectual property), it is rare to find instances in which a Life Sciences Company locates research & development space in a building with a public access.
The Chamber urges the City Council to rely on the feedback from professional consultants, staff, existing restauranteurs and operators of Life Science buildings that this location will not be viable as either a standalone restaurant or as a mixed-use building.
Attached for your reference are Public Comments authored by the Foster City Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors that have been previously submitted relating to this Project.
Thank you for your consideration and support. Your Chamber Cares.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commissioners
City of Foster City
CC: Edmund Seun, Interim City Manager, City of Foster City
VIA: Priscilla Schaus, CMC
[email protected]
FROM: Joanne Bohigian, Chair
On behalf of the Board of Directors
DATE:
May 5, 2022
RE: Public Comment: Item 5.2 – Redevelopment of former El Torito Site / 388 Vintage Park Dr
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
The Foster City Chamber of Commerce has been engaged with Steelwave and Helios throughout their process to seek approval for the development of a new building at 388 Vintage Park Drive (please see attached memo of November 18, 2021).
We applaud the efforts of the applicant to ensure that they have investigated each of the recommendations offered by the Commissioners for use of this site. As such, we encourage the Commissioners to move forward with the recommendations as outlined in the Staff Report for Item 5.2.
Your Chamber Cares.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commissioners
City of Foster City
CC: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager, City of Foster City
VIA: Priscilla Schaus, CMC
[email protected]
FROM:
Joanne Bohigian, Chair
On behalf of the Board of Directors, Foster City Chamber of Commerce DATE:
November 18, 2021
RE: Public Comment Item 9.1 – To Continue Review of Redevelopment of Vacant El Torito Restaurant Building into Approximately 95,931 Sq Ft of Life Sciences Office Building located at 388 Vintage Park Dr
Good evening Members of the Planning Commission,
The Foster City Chamber of Commerce Board has been engaged with Steelwave and Helios Real Estate in discussions revolving around the proposed project located at 388 Vintage Park Drive for quite some time. Additionally, we’ve facilitated and/or held informational sessions where Steelwave and Helios Real Estate were able to present their project to several local businesses to raise awareness for the proposed project and to gather feedback.
It is clear that the partners at Steelwave and Helios Real Estate have spent significant time working to ameliorate and evalu ate the many comments they have received. We appreciate that the Study Session Staff Report has acknowledged Steelwave and Helios Real Estate's exploration of other options and that Foster City Staff have worked tirelessly to provide substantive comments.
It is our opinion that this proposed redevelopment of a vacated site into a Life Sciences office will generate value to the businesses here in Foster City and provide strength to the community as a whole.
On behalf of the Board of Directors, thank you for your consideration and suppo rt.
Your Chamber Cares.
From: Sheri Pan
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Support for 388 Vintage Park Project
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 11:50:30 AM
SUBJECT: Support for 388 Vintage Park Project
Hi my name is, Sheri,
I have lived in Foster City for several years.
I called into the previous City Council meeting in 2021 to express my support for the project.
At the time, I was pregnant expecting my first child and now my daughter is 1.5 years old. I love our wonderful quality of life in Foster City and want to raise my family here.
The concerns that I have heard about the project don’t really hold true to me. I live a few blocks from Edgewater Place, this is the type of retail that makes sense, with a variety of grocery, restaurants and service and in the middle of our neighborhood. This type of community serving retail makes sense. I don’t view losing a vacant small lot, next to a business park as having much impact on residents. The Vintage property, it is small and has been vacant for a long time and has become an eyesore. The proposed R&D/Biotech office will provide millions of dollars for tax revenue to the City, I support the project and hope this happens.
Thank you.
Sheri Pan
From: Janice Hennessey
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: 388 Vintage Park Letter Re: Restaurant Use
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 12:26:32 PM
Attachments: Vintage Letter.pdf
Dear Councilmembers,
Please find the attached letter for your review regarding 388 Vintage Park Drive in relation to a restaurant use.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Janice
Janice Hennessey, VP
KIDDER MATHEWS
101 Mission Street, #1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
[email protected]
Cell 415.676.8711
Dir 415.229.8950
101 Mission Street
Suite 1800 T 415.229.8888
San Francisco, CA 94105 kidder.com
50 YEARS. THE EDGE IN YOUR MARKET.
August 15, 2022
Foster City – City Council
RE: 388 Vintage Park – Leasing History and Feedback for Restaurant/Retail Use
Dear Councilmembers,
I was hired by the previous owner of the property to help with identifying tenants to re-lease the property when the El Torito went bankrupt and vacated in 2018. As you consider the project’s approval, I thought that it would be helpful to understand the feedback I received from potential tenants.
From 2019 to 2021, I completed a local and national effort to attract restaurant and other retail tenants to lease the property. Efforts included advertising in local newspapers, listings in nati onal databases including Loopnet/Costar, weekly eblasts of our marketing flyer to the brokerage community that included over external 3,000 agents (local and statewide) and 900 internal Kidder Mathews real estate professionals, and installation of a large For-Lease sign at the property.
I spent two years trying to proactively re-lease the property, which resulted in a total of 19 inquiries. After touring prospects through the property, feedback I received included:
1. Bad Visibility from Main Road
2. Difficult to Access
3. Size (10K square feet) was too big
4. Cost to renovate was too costly
5. There were several other options nearby with better visibility and access Other uses (besides a restaurant) were also contemplated, but the time to obtain approvals, high cost to renovate and size of the building made these alternatives not feasible. After two years of unsuccessfully trying to re-lease the property, ownership concluded that re-leasing was not feasible, creating a hardship for him and selling the property was a better option.
As part of the sale process, SteelWave/Helios were given several months of due diligence time from the seller to be able to submit an application and through a Gatekeeper process. During this time, I kept trying to lease the property with no success. In March 2021, SteelWave/Helios closed the transaction after getting through the City Council Gatekeeper meeting.
After spending significant effort and time attempting to lease this property, I strongly believe that the plan that SteelWave/Helios plan for redevelopment is the most feasible. I do not think a restaurant works here due to all my experience and feedback I received on the property.
kidder.com
I hope this feedback is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Janice Hennessey
Vice President Lic#01464169
From: william pitney
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Support for 388 Vintage Park Project
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 12:33:36 PM
Dear Foster City Councilmembers,
My name is William and I have lived in Foster City for since 2009. When I heard about the proposed development of 388 Vintage as a biotech lab, I gave my support for the project at the City Council meeting back in 2021. I am
writing to let the City Council know that I continue to support the project. I believe using the site as part of the larger biotech area is the best use of that site. It’s been vacant for too long. The biotech lab project is appropriate for that area of Foster City.
I do not understand how that property should continue as a site for a restaurant because it is in a business park. There are plenty of vacant restaurant sites in the area already. I personally believe no one is going to miss it. None of us miss the El Toro’s that was at the location perviously.
As a resident, I encourage the City Council to bring more amenities to the south side of 92 where people live and dine.
Please approve this project and let’s move forward to eye the eye sore.
Thank you.
William Pitney
From: avisconcord
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Foster City Geese
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 12:45:16 PM
Dear Council members,
First I just want to say how much I enjoy seeing the geese around our community. It makes it special and just not another concrete jungle. They are such beautiful birds and do no harm to anyone.
The direction that has been chosen for their demise is so disturbing and heartbreaking. There are so many more humane ways to deal with these birds. Maybe our Parks department could add a clean up crew. Please can't you reconsider this cruel and heartless decision. I know you all have good hearts and this decision will weigh heavily on them in the future. These beautiful birds that have chosen Foster City as their safe haven deserve to be protected and not inhumanely slaughtered.
Thank you for consideration.
Elizabeth Johnston.
Sent from my Galaxy
From: Christina Simmons
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Re: Geese- thank you for doing the right, difficult thing.
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 1:16:38 PM
While there may be loud voices against geese management, there are many citizens in Foster City that support the effective and necessary practice of the geese management.
Christina
From: mary peral
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Leave the geese alone!
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 2:57:36 PM
Sent from my iPhone
From: [email protected]
To: Foster City Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello; Priscilla Schaus; Laurie Rith; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh
Subject: Fwd: Vape Ordinance
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 4:25:33 PM
Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of our City Council, I am writing this in hopes that you will vote tonight in favor of introducing a vaping ordinance to our city. As unbelievable as it sounds, vaping continues to be a significant problem with our teens. My own middle child had an experience with vaping last year. In one of her classes she was seated behind someone who would vape during class.
The teacher apparently did not realize this was going on. My daughter is an asthmatic and in her eyes, she was being exposed to second hand smoke, and had issues with anxiety for weeks, and yet was too afraid to say anything to the teacher less she be labeled a tattletale. I only found about the issue after the fact. She finally found the courage to request a seat change, but still did not reveal the reason for the request. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident.
We must put the health of our children ahead of profits and I ask you to do the honorable thing tonight, Best,
Stacy Jimenez
8/11/2022
1 Quarterly Update on WWTP Projects to
Foster City Council/EMID Board of Directors
August 15,2022
1 Construction Schedule Progress Through June 2022
2 1
2 Item 8.1 City Council Regular Meeting August 15, 2022 8/11/2022
2 3
GMP-1
Improvements completed
Develop a punch list
Project close out
GMP-2 (Remaining work was transferred to GMP-3)
Working on final acceptance and retention release
Remaining contingencies in the amount of approximately $1.5M from GMP 2, will be transferred to GMP 3
4 GMP-3
—Concrete and Rebar in Areas 51(Influent and Headworks), 52(Primary Treatment), 53(BioActiflo), 55(Biological Nutrient Removal), 56 (Membrane Filtration), and 64(Odor Control) —Installing Electrical equipment in the Electrical Building of Area 56 —Continue exterior of building, including installation of windows, installation of interior utilities and walls for Area 80 (Admin. Building)
—Installation of mechanical piping in Area 56
—Starting installation of piles for the Warehouse
—Yard piping – Install FEQ line, SE line, SD line, Natural Gas line and Water main for fire protection system —Installation of utilities for admin building including fire protection water system, sanitary sewer and natural gas.
—Earthwork - excavation, grading, and backfilling
3 4
8/11/2022
3 Construction Work Completed in June 2022MEMBRANE FILTRATION5June 1, 2022 June 30, 2022View of Areas 56 - Ongoing Work Construction Work Completed in June 2022ADMINISTRATION BUILDING6June 1, 2022 June 30, 2022View of Area 80 – Ongoing Work 5 6
8/11/2022
4 Construction Work Completed in June 2022Primary Treatment, BioActiflow, Biological Nutrient Removal, and Membrane Filtration7June 1, 2022 June 30, 2022View of Areas 52, 53, 55, and 56 - Ongoing Work Construction Work Completed in June 2022Influent Headworks and Odor Control8June 1, 2022 June 30, 2022View of Areas 51 and 64 Ongoing Work 7 8
8/11/2022
5 Foster City Cost Share Analysis9
10Annual Major Component (AMC) Improvements Additional projects potentially being added to AMCsFY22/23 – FY25/26- Projects involve replacement or improvements of pieces of equipment that are reaching the end of their useful life.- Preliminary costs are higher than the AMC budget. San Mateo to verify overage will be covered by the contingency built into the current rates.9 10 8/11/2022
6 Q & A1111
8/15/2022
1 Monthly Update:
July 2022
Construction Highlights
Phase 1
2 1
2 Item 8.2 City Council Regular Meeting August 15, 2022 8/15/2022
2 Construction HighlightsPhase 1
3 Construction HighlightsPhase 2
4 3
4 8/15/2022
3 Construction HighlightsPhase 2
5 Construction HighlightsPhase 3
6 5
6 8/15/2022
4 Construction HighlightsPhase 3
7Safety Protocols•Motorists are urged to exercise additional caution when driving along Beach Park Boulevard. Enforceable 25 MPH speed-limit signs are up on Beach Park Boulevard.•The closed, fenced trail and staging areas are not safe for the public. Trespassing into fenced areas is prohibited at all times. •Do not jog or walk in the bike lane or the road. Please use the sidewalk provided.•Beach Park Boulevard Safety Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pPlW3TFSGI8 6 7
8 8/15/2022
5 Q & A9
9 8/15/2022
1 Contract Change
Order #26:
Backfill Limits and Material
Modifications and
ADA Revisions
2 CCO# 26
Backfill Changes $692,286.47
ADA /HOA Conform Changes $2,117,480.44
Total $2,809,766.91
Contingency remaining (after execution) $884,304.53
Financial Impacts
1 2
Item 10.1 City Council Regular Meeting August 15, 2022 8/15/2022
2 Backfill Limits and
Material Modifications
3 Lightweight
Cellular
Concrete
(LCC)
• LCC classes are determined by the weight of
material in pounds per cubic foot.
• Higher classes = higher material costs
• Cast Density vs In-Place, final, dry density
4 3
4 8/15/2022
3 Typical Backfill Section
5Revised Backfill Section
6 5
6 8/15/2022
4 7
Restraints on Construction AccessADA Modifications8
7 8
8/15/2022
5 Increased ADA CompliancePlan Revision Requests by: •Home Owners’ Associations adjacent to project•BCDC•Internal City Staff9Increased ADA Compliance•City CASp, Project Team and City attorney review resulted in an internal ADA accessibility analysis that includes modifications to achieve more accessible/legally-compliant disability access on the Project. •Avoid exposure to ADA related litigation.•Future costs for litigation will be more than the costs the project is facing now to make the changes.10 9 10
8/15/2022
6 11
North of Foster City Blvd
12 South of Foster City Blvd11
12 8/15/2022
7 Q & A13
13