Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, March 27, 2023

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
March 27, 2023 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Masks are no longer required, but are still highly recommended in accordance with California Dept of Health Guidelines. To maintain public health and safety, please do not attend in person if you are experiencing symptoms associated with COVID19.

Provide Public Comment. To address the City Council on any item on the posted agenda, fill out a Request to Speak Form located in the back of the Council Chambers and submit it to the City Clerk; or, you may raise your hand when the Mayor calls for public comments.

Remote Participation :

Observe via:
Zoom. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88256140939; or call 16699009128 and enter the Meeting ID #: 882 5614 0939
Meeting Webportal . www.cityofsancarlos.org/agenda Local TV. Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Uverse Channel 99 Provide Public Comment. If you plan to make a public comment on any item on the posted agenda, please observe the meeting via Zoom (see above access information), and during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address, use the “raise hand” feature. If joining Zoom by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”.

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Adam Rak
COUNCIL: Ronald Collins, John Dugan, Sara McDowell, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a City Coin to Community Volunteer Debbie Denton.

7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Communications and Announcements are brief items from members of the City Council regarding upcoming events in the community and correspondence that they have received. They are informational in nature and no action will be taken on these items at this meeting.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters NOT on the posted agenda may do so.

Each speaker is limited to two minutes. If there are more than five individuals wishing to speak during public comment, the Mayor may choose to allow the first five speakers to speak during this time, and the balance of the Public Comment speakers will be called upon at the end of the Council Meeting.

If the item you are speaking on is not listed on the agenda, please be advised that the City Council may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed as allowed under the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54954.2). The City Council's general policy is to refer items to staff for attention, or have a matter placed on a future City Council agenda for a more comprehensive action or report and formal public discussion and input at that time.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.
b. Approve the February 13, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. c. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement for OnCall Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Engineering Services for a One Year Term, with an Annual Not to Exceed Amount of $1,000,000, to Salas O’Brien and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement.
d. Adopt a Resolution Proclaiming the Termination of the Declaration of Local Emergency Dated January 5, 2023 Arising out of the December 2022 and January 2023 Atmospheric River Storms.
e. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Attorney to Draft a Revocable License Agreement with Bianchini’s Supermarket Inc. for the Installation of a Shopping Cart Security System Within the Right of Way of a Public Parking Lot that is Owned by the City of San Carlos (APN: 050163500), and Authorize the City Manager to Sign and Approve the Agreement.
f. Deny Claim of Thelma Ruiz.
g. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Amend the Agreement with Pacific Office Automation for Printing Services and Authorize the City Manager to Amend the Agreement to Add, Replace, and Modify Printers, Devices and Maintenance Services as Needed.
h. Deny Claim of Scott Rhodes.
i. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Streamlining Pilot Agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments for a Two Year License for Symbium Plancheck Software at No Cost to the City of San Carlos.

10. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Amending the City of San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL).

11. NEW BUSINESS
a. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Appropriating $50,000 from the General Capital Fund (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance for the Preparation of a Greenhouse Gas In Lieu Fee Study.

12. AGENDA SETTING
Items discussed in this Agenda Setting Section will be considered by the Council for placing on a future agenda. No action will be taken on these items at this meeting.

13. ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection upon request.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI, and as outlined in the City’s Reasonable Accommodations Policy, if you need special assistance or translation services to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 8024222 or via email at [email protected]. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

1 CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
March 27, 2023 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Remote Participation :

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Adam Rak
COUNCIL: Ronald Collins, John Dugan, Sara McDowell, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a City Coin to Community Volunteer Debbie Denton.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters NOT on the posted agenda may do so.

10. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Amending the City of San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL).

12. AGENDA SETTING
Items discussed in this Agenda Setting Section will be considered by the Council for placing on a future agenda. No action will be taken on these items at this meeting.

13. ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection upon request.

2 CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
March 27, 2023 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Remote Participation :

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Adam Rak
COUNCIL: Ronald Collins, John Dugan, Sara McDowell, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a City Coin to Community Volunteer Debbie Denton.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters NOT on the posted agenda may do so.

10. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Amending the City of San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL).

12. AGENDA SETTING
Items discussed in this Agenda Setting Section will be considered by the Council for placing on a future agenda. No action will be taken on these items at this meeting.

13. ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection upon request.

3 CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
March 27, 2023 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Remote Participation :

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Adam Rak
COUNCIL: Ronald Collins, John Dugan, Sara McDowell, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a City Coin to Community Volunteer Debbie Denton.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters NOT on the posted agenda may do so.

10. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Amending the City of San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL).

12. AGENDA SETTING
Items discussed in this Agenda Setting Section will be considered by the Council for placing on a future agenda. No action will be taken on these items at this meeting.

13. ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection upon request.

4 San Carlos City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority Regular Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
February 13, 2023 7:00 PM
M
INUTES

ROLL CALL
City Council Present:

City Council Absent:

Staff Present:

Adam Rak, Mayor
Ronald Collins, Vice Mayor
Sara McDowell, Councilmember
Pranita Venkatesh, Councilmember
John Dugan, Councilmember
Kristina Bell, Police Chief
Nil Blackburn, Assistant City Manager
Hanieh Houshmandi, Sr. Traffic Engineer
Adam Lokar, Senior Sustainability Analyst
Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Amy Newby, Parks and Recreation Director
Gregory Rubens, City Attorney
Al Savay, Community Development Director
Wendy Schettino, Recreation Supervisor

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Rak called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Rak led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mayor Rak reported that Councilmember Dugan is out sick and will not be participating in tonight’s meeting.

3. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
None.

4. PRESENTATIONS

9.b
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 5

a. Present a Proclamation Recognizing February as Black History Month.

Mayor Rak recognized February as Black History Month and presented a proclamation to community member Deborah Kemp.

Ms. Kemp thanked the Council for the recognition. She spoke on her work in the community and provided suggestions on ways to honor Black History Month.

5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Councilmember Collins reported that he attended a Mosquito and Vector Control conference and spoke on the services the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District provides to the community.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

Debbie Baldocchi, resident, spoke on the proposed biosafety l evels ban that the Planning and Transportation Commission had considered at its last meeting and posed a series of questions stemming from that meeting.

Scot Marsters, resident, expressed concerns regarding the late night noise and activities at Blue Oak Brewing Company and requested the City work with the business to address the issues.

Mayor Rak direct ed staff to look into the issues reported by Mr. Marsters and Ms.

Baldocchi.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

MOTION: Adopt City Council Consent Calendar Items ‘a’ – ‘i’; and Item ‘j’ Ordinance 1596 Amending San Carlos Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Ordinance, Sections 18.04 - Residential Districts, 18.05 – Mixed-Use Districts, 18.20 – Parking and Loading, and 18.41 – Terms and Definitions.

MOVER: Sara McDowell
SECONDER: Ronald Collins
AYES: McDowell, Venkatesh, Collins, Rak
NAYS: None
ABSENT: John Dugan
RESULT: Motion Passed 4 – 0 – 1

a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.

b. Approve the January 9, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes.

c. Adopt a Resolution Establishing the Time, Place and Duration of the Farmers' Market.

Resolution 2023-011

9.b
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 6

d. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign an Agreement for Products and/or Services with Urban Villages Farmers’ Market Association to Operate the San Carlos Farmers’ Market Event. Resolution 2023-012

e. Adopt a Resolution Making Findings and Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Commissions Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

Resolution 2023-013

f. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Three-Year Agreement for Products and/or Services with Avalon Transportation for Bus Transportation Services for Youth Center and Adult Community Center Programs in an Amount Not to Exceed $189,311, with an Option to Renew for Two Additional Years. Resolution 2023-014

g. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second Addendum to the Professional Services Agreement with True North Research, Inc. for Survey Services for an Additional Three Years. Resolution 2023-015

h. Deny Claim of Jake Diana.

i. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Submission of a Grant Application for the Downtown Specific Plan in the Amount of $300,000 in Response to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) Priority Development Area (PDA) Grant Call for Projects.

Resolution 2023-016

j. Adopt Ordinance 1596 Amending San Carlos Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Ordinance, Sections 18.04 - Residential Districts, 18.05 – Mixed-Use Districts, 18.20 – Parking and Loading, and 18.41 – Terms and Definitions.

8. NEW BUSINESS

a. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving the Greater East San Carlos (GESC) Slow Street Project.

Public Works Director Steven Machida provided background on the Greater East San Carlos Slow Street Project and, along with Senior Traffic Engineer Ha nieh Houshmandi, responded to Council questions.

Councilmember McDowell suggested staff notify residents who will have the curb in front of their home painted red and requested that in a year, in addition to conducting new traffic counts, staff gather community feedback and report it to Council.

Public Comment
- Jeff Maley, resident, spoke in favor of the project but requested steps be taken to mitigate the loss of parking spaces.

9.b
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 7

- Jennifer Rosse, resident, request ed the elimination of r ed curbs from the pilot program.

- Sonia Elkes, resident, request ed confirmation that the “Local Traffic O nly” sign encourages multimodal transportation through the area.

- Scot Marsters, resident, expressed concern regarding the red zones.

- Anna Axiaq, resident, requested removal of a pylon and red curbs.

- Dimitri Vandellos, resident, requested the red curbs be reduced or eliminated and provided a suggestion for re-evaluating the program.

- Resident commented that she had questions.

Mayor Rak directed the resident to address her questions with staff offline.

Mr. Machida responded to Council’s additional questions.

MOTION: Adopt Resolution 2023-017 Appropriating $35,000 from the General Capital Fund 0025 for the Greater East San Carlos N eighborhood Slow Street Project ; Approving the Plans and Specifications; and Authorizing a Call for Bids.

MOVER: Ronald Collins
SECONDER: Pranita Venkatesh
AYES: Collins, McDowell, Venkatesh, Rak
NAYS: None
ABSENT: John Dugan
RESULT: Motion Passed 4 – 0 – 1

9. REPORTS TO COUNCIL

a. Receive the 2022 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan Annual Report.

Senior Sustainability Analyst Adam Lokar highlighted the City’s efforts from 2022 to implement the Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan and address climate change.

Mr. Lokar responded to Council questions.

Council provided the following direction to staff:
- provide an update from the Four Corners Working Group on the Alameda de las Pulgas Improvement Project
- prioritize adding more electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at public facilities - explore Redwood City’s program of having EV charging stations located at schools for faculty and available to the community on weekends - consider distributing information on requirements and opportunities to homeowners who are remodeling their homes

9.b
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 8

Public Comment
- Sonia Elkes, resident, spoke on her work in the community to address climate change and requested the city partner with her to encourage and attract middle school students to attend the next bike fair.

Mayor Rak directed staff to follow-up with Ms. Elkes on her request.

- Brett Ehrlich, resident, provided suggestions on how to improve on monitoring progress and reporting activities.

- Suzanne Emerson, resident, provided suggestions on additional actions to address climate change.

Receive an Updated Report on Traffic Collisions.

Police Chief Kristina Bell presented traffic collision data from 2022 and compared it to previous years. Chief Bell responded to Council questions.

Council provided the following feedback:
- enforce double-parking violations and consider how to mitigate the issue - provide a map of the City marked with traffic collision hot spots from 2022

10. AGENDA SETTING

None.

11. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Rak adjourned 8:43 PM.

_____________________________
Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

9.b
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 9

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 27, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Engineering Services for a One-Year Term, with an Annual Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,000,000, to Salas O’Brien and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a professional services agreement for on-call mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering services for one-year, with an annual not-to-exceed amount of $1,000,000, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No funding needs to be encumbered to enter into an on-call engineering agreement. Funds will be encumbered as needed from Council-approved Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) projects during the term of the agreement.

BACKGROUND:

This item is being brought to City Council as the action exceeds the purchasing authority of the City Manager.

Staff has identified the need to secure a professional services agreement for on-call mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering services with a consulting firm to address the delivery needs of the CIP.

The CIP includes projects for storm and sanitary sewers, City facilities, buildings, and parks improvements, and investigation, assessment, and recommendation of existing City facilities or buildings that will require the services of a professional engineering firm.

A request for qualifications was issued on March 16, 2022 and on April 15, 2022, five statements of qualifications were received.

Staff reviewed the statements based on set criteria as well as demonstration of thorough knowledge and expertise, and selected the firm of Salas O’Brien.

9.c
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 10

ANALYSIS:

Staff recommends approval of the abovementioned firm and awarding a professional services agreement with the stated annual not-to-exceed amount for a one-year term.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Engineering Services for one-year with an annual not-to-exceed amount of $1,000,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

9.c
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 11

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL MECHANICAL,

ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR A ONE-YEAR TERM, WITH AN ANNUAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $1,000,000, TO SALAS O’BRIEN; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT.

WHEREAS, staff has identified the need to secure a professional services agreement for on-call mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering services (“on-call services”) with a consulting firm to address the delivery needs of the Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”); and

WHEREAS, the CIP includes projects for storm and sanitary sewers, City facilities, buildings, and parks improvements; and
WHEREAS, there are assessments and recommendations of existing City facilities or buildings that will require the service of a professional engineering firm; and WHEREAS, a request-for-qualifications was issued on March 16, 2022 and on April 15, 2022 for on-call services and five statements of qualifications were received; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the statements based on set criteria as well as the submitting firms’ demonstration of thorough knowledge and expertise, and staff selected the firm Salas O’Brien; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the abovementioned firm and awarding professional services agreement with the stated annual not-to-exceed amount for a one-year term.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby approves a professional services agreement for on-call mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering services for a one-year term with an annual not-to-exceed amount of $1,000,000 to Salas O’Brien; and authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement. * * * * *
I, Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 27th day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:______________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:______________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:______________________________________________ ________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

9.c
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 12

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 27, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Proclaiming the Termination of the Declaration of Local Emergency Dated January 5, 2023 Arising out of the December 2022 and January 2023 Atmospheric River Storms.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution terminating the Proclamation of Local Emergency. The circumstances leading to the Proclamation have diminished to the point that the response to the emergency no longer requires emergency powers under State law. City staff is diligently prepared in the event emergency circumstances arise again this season.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact associated with terminating the local emergency. However, the City incurred financial costs associated with the emergency in an estimated amount of $5.5 million.

These costs are related to debris clearance, damage to buildings and equipment, damage to roads, and damages to public utility systems.

In addition to the City’s local emergency, San Mateo County was included in the national and state disaster declarations. As such, the City is eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA) Program and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services’ California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA) Program. Staff submitted a Request for Funding for FEMA’s PA Program on March 9, and an application for CalOES’ CDAA Program on March 15. In the coming weeks, staff will work with officials from CalOES to review potential eligible damages from the storm and flooding disaster.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Section 2.28.060 of the San Carlos Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services (the City Manager) to proclaim the existence of a local emergency when the City of San Carlos is affected or likely to be affected by a public disaster and the City Council is not in session.

On December 31, 2022, the City Manager, acting as Director of Emergency Services, determined that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons or property existed in the City, caused by the extreme atmospheric river rain event. The storm caused extensive flooding at Holly Street, along El Camino Real, Brittan Avenue, and other areas throughout the city. Concerned that the forecast called for additional storms of unknown strength and potential for additional flooding that could cause further property damage and displacement of businesses and residents, the Council on January 5, 2023 extended the Local Emergency, as provided by law, for sixty days via Resolution 2023-001.

9.d
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 13

Since January 6, local conditions have stabilized. The threatened storms occurring after the City Council decision were not as severe as the first wave and no significant additional flooding or other damage occurred in the city.

CONCLUSION:

There is no longer a need to continue the Local Emergency for the period of December 2022 and January 2023.

Government Code Section 8630 provides that the governing body of the local agency shall proclaim the termination of the local emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution proclaiming the end of the local emergency related to the December 2022 and January 2023 Atmospheric River Storms.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution proclaiming the termination of the Declaration of Local Emergency dated January 5, 2023 arising out of the December 2022 and January 2023 atmospheric river storms; or

2. Do not terminate the local emergency; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Gregory Rubens, City Attorney
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

9.d
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 14

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

PROCLAIMING THE TERMINATION OF THE DELARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY DATED JANUARY 5, 2023 ARISING OUT OF THE DECEMBER 2022 AND JANUARY 2023 ATMOSPHERIC RIVER STORMS.
____________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Section 2.28.060 of the Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services (the City Manager) to proclaim the existence of a local emergency when the City of San Carlos is affected or likely to be affected by a public disaster and the City Council is not in session; and
WHEREAS, on December 31, 2022 the City Manager proclaimed a local emergency based on conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the city resulting from the December 31, 2022 atmospheric river storm and flooding that occurred in San Carlos; and
WHEREAS, the December 31, 2022 storm caused extensive flooding at Holly Street, along El Camino Real, Brittan Avenue, and other areas throughout the city; and WHEREAS, concerned that the forecast called for additional storms of unknown strength and potential for additional flooding that could cause further property damage and displacement of businesses and residents, the City Council by Resolution 2023-001 on January 5, 2023, ratified the City Manager’s proclamation of a local emergency and further proclaimed the existence of the emergency; and
WHEREAS, since January 5, 2023, local conditions have stabilized. The threatened storms occurring after the City Council proclamation were not as severe as the first wave and the feared significant additional flooding or other potential damage did not materialize in the city; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 8630 provides that the City Council must terminate a proclamation of local emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Carlos proclaims that based upon the above facts and circumstances that the local emergency no longer exists in the city and hereby terminates the proclamation of emergency issued on January 5, 2023, arising out of the December 2022 and January 2023 atmospheric river storms. * * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 27th day of March 2023, by the following vote:

9.d
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 15

________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

9.d
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 16

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 27, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Attorney to Draft a Revocable License Agreement with Bianchini’s Supermarket Inc. for the Installation of a Shopping Cart Security System Within the Right of Way of a Public Parking Lot that is Owned by the City of San Carlos (APN: 050-163-500), and Authorize the City Manager to Sign and Approve the Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to draft a revocable license agreement with Bianchini’s Supermarket Inc. for the installation of a shopping cart security system within the right of way of a public parking lot that is owned by the City of San Carlos (APN: 050-163-500), and authorize the City Manager to sign and approve the agreement.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation. Bianchini’s Supermarket Inc. will provide improvements to the site at no cost to the City.

BACKGROUND:

Bianchini's Supermarket Inc. (“Bianchini’s”) operates at 810 Laurel Street, adjacent to a parking lot owned by the City that is open to the public and used by customers of the supermarket. The supermarket provides shopping carts to its customers with the expectation that they are returned to designated areas. However, there has been an increase in the number of shopping carts leaving the premises.

To address this issue, Bianchini's wishes to install a shopping cart security system around the perimeter of the parking areas, including the City-owned parking lot. The proposed improvements would include sensors, underground locking cables, and parking lot signage installed throughout the parking lot perimeter. These improvements would allow the shopping carts to be activated and locked when passing the boundary. A small transmitter, mounted inside the store, sends a locking signal through an embedded cable that runs around the perimeter of the parking lot. In order to embed the cable, a precision saw cut measuring 1 ½ inches deep by ¼ inch wide will be made and then sealed with a weatherproof sealant that closely matches the original appearance of the parking lot.

ANALYSIS:

To formalize the use of the parking lot for this purpose, staff recommends the use of a revocable license agreement. The agreement would provide City-owned property for use by Bianchini's at

9.e
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 17

no cost and would outline the responsibilities for construction and maintenance, as well as include insurance and indemnification clauses. The technical plans will also include pavement restoration and underground service alerts (USA) for any utility conflicts.

The shopping cart security system will cover the entire parking area, including the City-owned parking lot. This is necessary because customers of Bianchini's use both parking lots for shopping. This shopping cart security system will help prevent shopping carts from being removed from the premises and left around the city.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Attorney to Draft a Revocable License Agreement with Bianchini’s Supermarket Inc. for the Installation of a Shopping Cart Security System Within the Right of Way of a Public Parking Lot that is Owned by the City of San Carlos (APN: 050-163-500), and Authorize the City Manager to Sign and Approve the Agreement; or

2. Do not adopt a Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Al Savay, Community Development Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

9.e
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 18

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH BIANCHINI’S SUPERMARKET INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A SHOPPING

CART SECURITY SYSTEM WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF A PUBLIC PARKING LOT THAT IS OWNED BY THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS (APN: 050-163-500), AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AND APPROVE THE AGREEMENT.

WHEREAS, Bianchini's Supermarket Inc. (“Bianchini’s”) operates at 810 Laurel Street, adjacent to a public parking lot owned by the City of San Carlos (APN: 050-163-500); and WHEREAS, Bianchini's provides shopping carts to its customers, but there has been an increase in the number of shopping carts leaving the premises; and WHEREAS, Bianchini's wishes to install a shopping cart security system around the perimeter of the parking areas, including the City-owned parking lot, which would include underground locking cables, and parking lot signage installed throughout the parking lot perimeter; and
WHEREAS, Bianchini's will provide improvements to the site at no cost to the City; and WHEREAS, a proposed revocable license agreement will provide City-owned property for use by Bianchini's at no cost and would outline the responsibilities for construction and maintenance, as well as include insurance and indemnification clauses.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby directs the City Attorney to draft a revocable license agreement with Bianchini's Supermarket Inc. for the installation of a shopping cart security system within the right of way of a public parking lot that is owned by the City of San Carlos (APN: 050-163-500), and authorizes the City Manager to sign and approve the Revocable License Agreement.
* * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 27th day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:_____________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:_____________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:_____________________________________________ ________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

9.e
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 19

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 27, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Deny Claim of Thelma Ruiz.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the claim of Thelma Ruiz as recommended by the Sedgwick representative.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None for this action.

BACKGROUND:

This item is coming before the Council to act on the claim submitted by Thelma Ruiz. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the claim based on Sedgwick’s guidance.

The Tort Claims Act. California Government Code Sections 900, seq., mandates that all claims for money or damages against a public entity must be presented in writing to the public entity prior to filing suit. Generally, claims concerning personal injury, wrongful death, damage to personal property, or damage to crops must be presented to the public within six (6) months of the accrual of the claim. All other claims, principally claims on contracts and damage to real property, are subject to a one-year statute of limitations for presentation of the tort claim. Once a tort claim is received by the public entity, the entity has forty-five (45) days to act on the claim. A claim can be settled or rejected. If no action is taken within 45 days, the claim is deemed rejected by operation of law on the last day.

Claims Processing in San Carlos. When the City receives a claim, the claim is immediately forwarded to claims examiners at Sedgwick for investigation. After Sedgwick investigates the claim, Sedgwick provides a recommendation to the City on the handling of the claim.

About Sedgwick. Sedgwick is a leading global provider of technology-enabled risk, benefits and integrated business solutions. In July 2019, Sedgwick acquired York Risk Services Group (“York”). York was originally hired through the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (“PLAN JPA”), and Sedgwick will continue claims administration services to provide claims administration services to the City. The City Council approved the City’s participation in the PLAN JPA (previously known as the Association of Bay Area Government Pooled Liability Assurance Network or “ABAG PLAN”) on November 27, 2017 and designated the Administrative Services Director and Senior Management Analyst as primary and alternate PLAN JPA Board members.

9.f
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 20

ANALYSIS:

Thelma Ruiz filed a claim against the City for a trip and fall incident. The claimant alleged that on July 1, 2022, she was walking from Burton Park towards her parked car and tripped over the walkway pavement that has a three to four inch deep indentation/crack. The claimant fell and allegedly sustained severe injury/laceration on her left eye and laceration/abrasion on both knees.

The claimant is seeking compensation for pain and suffering, broken glasses, injury, vacation cancellation, etc.

According to the pictures of the loss location, the displacement appears to be an open and obvious condition. The claimant has a duty to exercise due care while walking. In addition, the City did not have other reported falls and/or complaints about the condition of the sidewalk. There is no actual and/or constructive notice of the alleged defect. Therefore, immunities apply as there was no known prior notice to the City of a ”dangerous condition”. For these reasons, Sedgwick recommends formal rejection of Thelma Ruiz’ claim.

The Council’s rejection of this claim does not prevent City staff nor the staff of Sedgwick from continuing to work with the claimant to resolve the dispute.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Deny the claim of Thelma Ruiz; or

2. Do not deny claim of Thelma Ruiz; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Ruiz Claim

9.f
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 21

9.f
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 22

1 1
5 7

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 27, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Amend the Agreement with Pacific Office Automation for Printing Services and Authorize the City Manager to Amend the Agreement to Add, Replace, and Modify Printers, Devices and Maintenance Services as Needed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the agreement with Pacific Office Automation (POA) for printing services and authorize the City Manager to amend the agreement to add, replace, and modify printers, devices and maintenance services as needed.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation, nor is additional appropriation necessary. The cost to replace the printers is included in the IT Division’s Technology Replacement Fund. The cost to acquire the multifunction printer (MFP) for the Community Development Department is $7,747.44 and will be funded by the 2nd Floor Library Remodel Project #C2202. The cost to replace the Adult Community Center’s (ACC) wide format printer is $2,974.14 and will be funded by the Technology Replacement Fund. The MFP copy usage charges will be paid out of the Community Development Department’s existing budget and maintenance charges will be paid from the existing Information Technology budget.

BACKGROUND:

In October 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 2018-101 for an agreement with Pacific Office Automation to purchase nine MFPs as part of the City’s Technology Replacement Program.

As of February 28 , 2023, the total cost to purchase and operate the nine MFPs is $88,461.52.

This includes the rate of $0.041 per color printed page and $.00515 per black & white printed page. Cost per page rates may increase annually.

The existing maintenance agreement with Pacific Office Automation for maintenance, toner, support, PaperCut reporting software, and cost per page printing will expire on November 28, 2023.

ANALYSIS:

Printing demands have increased in 2018 due to increases in staff at City Hall and City staff at the Library. Upon the completion of the 2nd Floor Library Remodel Project designed to house Community Development staff, one of the MFPs was relocated to the library thereby creating a need to purchase an additional MFP to support the Community Development Department.

9.g
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 23

1 1
5 7
The existing MFPs have at least two years (if not longer) of useful life, so it is recommended that the Council extend the maintenance contract until it is time to replace all of the equipment.

The Adult Community Center’s existing plotter was purchased over eight years ago and has reached the end of its useful life.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the agreement with Pacific Office Automation (POA) for printing services and authorize the City Manager to amend the agreement to add, replace, and modify printers, devices and maintenance services as needed.
or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. CDD Printer Quote Agreement

3. ACC Plotter Quote Agreement

9.g
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 24

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC

OFFICE AUTOMATION FOR PRINTING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER

TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT TO ADD, REPLACE, AND MODIFY PRINTERS, DEVICES AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES AS NEEDED.

WHEREAS, in October 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 2018-101 for an agreement with Pacific Office Automation to purchase nine multifunction printers (MFPs) as part of the City’s Technology Replacement Program; and
WHEREAS, the existing maintenance agreement with Pacific Office Automation for maintenance, toner, support, PaperCut reporting software and cost per page printing expires on November 28, 2023; and
WHEREAS, upon the completion of the 2nd Floor Library Remodel Project, one of the MFPs was relocated to the library, creating a need to purchase an additional MFP to support the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Adult Community Center’s existing wide format plotter has reached the end of its useful life; and
WHEREAS, the existing MFPs have at least two years (if not longer) of useful life, so staff recommends that the Council extend the maintenance agreement until it is time to replace the equipment.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to amend the agreement with Pacific Office Automation for printing services and authorize the City Manager to amend the agreement to add, replace, and modify printers, devices and maintenance services as needed.
* * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 27th day of March 2023, by the following vote:

9.g
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 25

SHIP TO:

Image Management
Contract
No.

CUSTOMER NAME CUSTOMER NAME

BILLING ADDRESS SHIPPING ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP
( ) ( )

TELEPHONE TELEPHONE

ATTENTION KEY OPERATOR
ORDER DATE PO# ORDERED BY SOLD BY
QTY
.

ITEM
#
TYPE
E

DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL

Minimum Monthly Payment (plus applicable taxes) $ ____________ Term____________ Months Device Management
Service/Supply Agreement Models Monthly Minimum
Number of Images
Excess Per
Image Charge Excess Billing Cycle Automated
Meter Reading
□
□
□
□
Monthly
Quarterly
Semi-Annual
Annual
Auto Toner
Replenishment
Advanced Scanning
Security
MFP Network
Support
Power Filter
CONDITIONS OF SALE, CONTINGENCIES OR COMMENTS Delivery Subtotal
Sales Tax
Total
By signing this Contract, Customer acknowledges and agrees: (a) this Contract is NON-CANCELABLE; (b) all terms and conditions on the reverse side are an integral part of this Contract; (c) to fully understand all terms and conditions stated herein; and (d) this Contract is the entire Agreement between Customer and Pacific Office Automation relating to the equipment and services described herein, and can be changed only by written agreement signed by both parties.

Customer Authorization Approved by Pacific Office Automation

SIGNATURE BY

TITLE DATE TITLE DATE
POA IMC 4.1 06/19
SOLD TO:

City of San Carlos
City of San Carlos
600 Elm St
600 Elm St
San Carlos
Ca
San Carlos
Ca
Accounts Payable
William Hoch
03/15/23
Kyle Omara
1 New
1 New
1 New
$7,083.41
Konica Minolta C650i
Saddle finisher
Cabinet
Included
B/W
C650i
Cost Per Copy
Pooled
Included
Color
C650i
Cost Per Copy
Pooled
Included
Included
*Service will be billed with existing fleet
$7,083.41
$664.03
$7,747.44
94070
802-4140
94070
802-4140

9.g
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 26

[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.]

GUARANTEES
the following express limited guarantees under Service Agreement.

SERVICE/SUPPLY AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
As consideration for Customer’s payment as set forth on the front of the Contract, Pacific Office Automation (“POA”) agrees to provide the listed supplies, parts and labor service for the covered equipment pursuant to the terms and conditions contained herein.  Replacement of all parts found defective or worn as a result of normal equipment use.  Labor to repair and properly maintain the equipment.
 All preventative maintenance done at intervals specified by the manufacturer.  Loaner equipment in the event the equipment requires shop work to repair.  Replacement of photoconductors and heater rollers found defective or worn as a result of normal use.  Replacement of black and color toner, black developer, brushes, and filters.  Factory recommended retrofits and improvements in the equipment.

If toner is included in the Service/Supply Agreement, the toner will be supplied within the cost per copy charge based upon the standard manufacturer’s yield. Excess toner will be billed at standard manufacturer’s retail price. Not included in the Service/Supply Agreement are paper, staples, and network support. Service calls by POA covered under the Service/Supply Agreement will only be made during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Service billed at any other time will be billed at standard overtime rates. For products or services acquired hereunder, the terms of payment are net ten (10) days.

Customer agrees to pay POA the base and overage charges agreed to on the front of the Contract and agrees that excess images over the allotted base amount during the billing cycle will be billed to Customer at the agreed to rate for overages. If not noted, overages will be charged at POA’s book rates. If the Service/Supply Agreement combines two or more pieces of equipment of different operating costs, POA reserves the right to adjust image allocation and pricing to fairly reflect actual usage should the actual usage rate of the equipment vary by more than 10% from the expected usage rates. Customer agrees that POA may increase the Minimum Monthly Payment each year during any term of the Service/Supply Agreement by an amount not to exceed 10% of such charge. Service may include reasonable use of Customer’s image allotments and materials. Customer’s failure to abide by all payment obligations may result in termination of service.

This Service/Supply Agreement shall continue for the term stated on the front of the Contract. The Service/Supply Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one (1) year terms, unless either party provides written notice to the other party of their intent to terminate prior to thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original term or any subsequent renewal term.

GUARANTEES
POA extends to Customer the following express limited guarantees under the Service/Supply Agreement.

1. STANDARD LIMITED WARRANTY: POA warrants 3. RESPONSE TIME WARRANTY: POA guarantees four New equipment to be free of defect in materials and hour average response time for emergency services for workmanship for a period of 90 days from installation. This equipment that is within fifty miles of POA branch offices. warranty does not extend to replacement of supply items or If POA does not perform guaranteed response time for a consumables, including, but not limited to photo conductors, period of one year, upon written request, Customer will heater rollers, fuser, cleaning kits, toner, developer, or receive a 5% credit towards Customer’s next service or paper. For purposes of this paragraph, New equipment shall supply purchase from POA. be defined as equipment with usage up to 5,000 copies.

Used equipment will receive a 30-day warranty. 4. UPGRADE, TRADE-IN LIMITED GUARANTEE:

For all New equipment purchased hereunder continuously

2. LIFETIME POWER PROTECTION GUARANTEE: covered under a POA Service/Supply Agreement, POA will If a POA Power Filter is included in the Service/Supply guarantee a trade-in value on New equipment sold by POAAgreement, repairs of damage to covered equipment caused up to 90% during the first 36 months after acquisition and aby power surges and/or lightning will be covered. minimum guaranteed trade-in value of 10% thereafter.

GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS
(1) Unless provided, the terms of sale are ten (10) days net. POA agrees to provide reasonable assistance to Customer in its efforts to finance the purchase or lease of the equipment and/or Service/Supply Agreement; however, Customer understands and acknowledges such financing cannot be guaranteed by POA. Customer shall be ultimately responsible for payment of the purchase price of equipment sold or leased. If not provided, the purchase price is the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price of the equipment and/or solutions plus the cost of any lease buyouts, delivery charges, installation charges, and the total Service/Supply Agreement. (2) If customer defaults in the payment of the purchase price or any other obligation as provided herein, Customer agrees to pay to POA a service charge of 1.5% per month and all of POA’s related attorney’s fees and collection costs, even if no suit or action is filed. This Contract shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of Oregon. Customer hereby submits and consents to jurisdiction and venue in Multnomah County, Oregon.
(3) The sales price herein includes the initial installation of the manufacturer’s software onto Customer’s computers. Prior to such installation, Customer shall perform and complete a system backup. POA shall not be liable for loss or damage of any kind to data or equipment as a result of the installation of the manufacturer’s software. Customer shall be solely responsible for the cost of any cables or additional hardware required to connect equipment to a network. POA shall not be responsible for any updates or problems arising after the initial installation due to a change in the Customer’s computers and/or Network. (4) POA MFP Network Service solely provides coverage for services related to the connectivity between the covered equipment and the Customer’s Network. MFP Network Service does not provide coverage for services for the Customer’s Network itself. (5) DISCLAIMER: EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED HEREIN, POA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR

While POA may provide options for data removal and protection, Customer is solely responsible for selecting an appropriate data removal standard that meets Customer’s business needs. POA is not recommending any particular option, and POA is not liable for damages arising from Customer’s failure to fully remove and protect its data. Please note that regardless of which standard Customer chooses, Customer must return leased equipment in full working order at the end of any lease term.

9.g
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 27

SHIP TO:

Image Management
Contract
No.

CUSTOMER NAME CUSTOMER NAME

BILLING ADDRESS SHIPPING ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP
( ) ( )

TELEPHONE TELEPHONE

ATTENTION KEY OPERATOR
ORDER DATE PO# ORDERED BY SOLD BY
QTY
.

ITEM
#
TYPE
E

DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL

Customer Authorization Approved by Pacific Office Automation

SIGNATURE BY

TITLE DATE TITLE DATE
POA IMC V5 4.20
SOLD TO:

City of San Carlos
San Carlos Adult Community Center
600 Elm St
601 Chestnut St
San Carlos
CA
San Carlos
Ca
Accounts Payable
William Hoch
03/20/23
Kyle Omara
1 New
$2,719.21
Canon TM-305
Included
Included
$2,719.21
$254.93
$2,974.14
94070
802-4140
94070
802-4384

9.g
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 28

GUARANTEES

If toner is included in the Service/Supply Agreement, the toner will be supplied within the cost per copy charge based upon published and commercially reasonable expectations of supply and consumables consumption. At its discretion, POA, may perform an audit of supply/ consumables consumption and equipment usage data to determine consumption levels. In the event actual consumption levels exceed standard toner coverages (10% Mono, 35% Color), POA reserves the right to invoice for excess consumption. Coverage under the One Rate program assumes the device will be operated within manufacturer specifications using standard toner coverages. Not included in the Service/ Supply Agreement are paper, staples, and network support. Service calls by POA covered under the Service/Supply Agreement will only be made during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Service billed at any other time will be billed at standard overtime rates
Customer agrees to pay POA the base and overage charges agreed to on the front of the Contract and agrees that excess images over the allotted base amount will be billed to Customer at the agreed to rate for overages. If not noted, overages will be charged at POA’s book rates. If the Service/Supply Agreement combines two or more pieces of equipment of different operating costs, POA reserves the right to adjust image allocation and pricing to fairly reflect actual usage should the actual usage rate of the equipment vary by more than 10% from the expected usage rates. Customer agrees that POA may increase the Minimum Monthly Payment and image charges each year during any term of the Service/Supply Agreement by an amount not to exceed 10% of such charge. Service may include reasonable use of Customer’s image allotments and materials. Customer’s failure to abide by all payment obligations may result in termination of service.

POA extends to Customer the following express limited guarantees under the Service/Supply Agreement.

Used equipment will receive a 30-day warranty. 4. UPGRADE, TRADE-IN LIMITED GUARANTEE:

For all New equipment purchased hereunder continuously

GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS
(1) Unless provided, the terms of sale are ten (10) days net. In the event of partial or staged delivery of any equipment, product, or services, POA reserves the right to charge customer interim rental and usage charges until such time as complete delivery, acceptance and commencement of the initial lease term. The interim rental fee shall be charged on a percentage basis of delivered equipment; interim usage charges will be billed on the same terms set forth herein. (2) POA agrees to provide reasonable assistance to Customer in its efforts to finance the purchase or lease of the equipment and/or Service/Supply Agreement; however, Customer understands and acknowledges such financing cannot be guaranteed by POA. Customer shall be ultimately responsible for payment of the purchase price of equipment sold or leased. If not provided, the purchase price is the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price of the equipment and/or solutions plus the cost of any lease buyouts, delivery charges, installation charges, and the total Service/Supply Agreement.
(3) If customer defaults in the payment of the purchase price or any other obligation as provided herein, Customer agrees to pay to POA a service charge of 1.5% per month and all of
POA’s related attorney’s fees and collection costs, even if no suit or action is filed. This Contract shall
be governed by the internal laws of the State of Oregon. Customer hereby submits and consents to jurisdiction and venue in Multnomah County, Oregon.
(4) The sales price herein includes the initial installation of the manufacturer’s software onto Customer’s computers. POA shall not be liable for loss or damage
of any kind to data or equipment as a result of the installation of the manufacturer’s software. Customer shall be solely responsible for the cost of any cables or additional hardware required to connect equipment to a network. POA shall not be responsible for any updates or problems arising after the initial installation due to a change in the Customer’s computers and/or Network. (5) POA MFP Network Service solely provides coverage for services related to the connectivity between the covered equipment and the Customer’s Network. MFP Network Service does not provide coverage for services for the Customer’s Network itself. (6) DISCLAIMER: EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED HEREIN, POA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR

IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. EQUIPMENT IS SUBJECT TO A MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL POA BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES. (7) POA may provide options for data removal and protection, Customer is solely responsible for selecting an appropriate data removal standard that meets Customer’s business
needs. POA is not liable for damages arising from Customer’s failure to fully remove and protect its data. Customer must return leased equipment in full working order at the end of any lease term.

GUARANTEES

9.g
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 29

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 27, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Deny Claim of Scott Rhodes.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the claim of Scott Rhodes as recommended by the Sedgwick representative.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None for this action.

BACKGROUND:

This item is coming before the Council to act on the claim submitted by Scott Rhodes. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the claim based on Sedgwick’s guidance.

9.h
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 30

ANALYSIS:

On behalf of Scott Rhodes, Daniel Geoulla of B&D Law Group, APLC filed a claim against the City for a vehicle incident on February 22, 2022. Claimant alleges that on the date of loss, a Samtrans driver hit Scott Rhodes in Burlingame near Old Bayshore Highway. Scott Rhodes sustained bodily injury.

This does not appear to be a case of liability against the City for two reasons. First, the claim was received on February 22, 2022. The claimant’s claim for damages should have been received by August 22, 2022. The claim was returned as untimely on October 17, 2022. An application for late claim was received by the City on November 7, 2022; however, the claimant did not have proper grounds for granting relief for a late claim.

In addition, based on the information provided, the claim location and party involved appear to be outside of San Carlos’ jurisdiction. The loss location, described as “City of Burlingame near Old Bayshore Highway,” is not within the City of San Carlos’ jurisdiction. The Samtrans driver who allegedly hit Scott Rhodes is also not a City of San Carlos employee. Samtrans belongs to the San Mateo County Transit District. For these reasons, Sedgwick recommends formal rejection of Scott Rhodes’ claim.

The Council’s rejection of this claim does not prohibit staff or the staff of Sedgwick from continuing to work with the claimant to resolve the dispute.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Deny claim of Scott Rhodes; or

2. Do not deny claim of Scott Rhodes; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S): Click or tap here to enter text.

1. Rhodes Claim

9.h
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 31

9.h
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 32

9.h
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 33

9 8
4 CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 27, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Streamlining Pilot Agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments for a Two-Year License for Symbium Plancheck Software at No Cost to the City of San Carlos.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Streamlining Pilot Agreement with Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, for a Residential Streamlining Pilot Agreement for Symbium Plancheck software.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

If the City Council authorizes the City Manager to sign the agreement, a two-year license for Symbium Plancheck software will be provided at no cost to the City of San Carlos. Should the City decide to continue the software license after the two-year pilot period, the cost is estimated to be $50,000 per year. This cost could be higher depending on integration costs with other software platforms.

BACKGROUND:

The Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG/MTC) is the regional planning and transportation agency for the nine-county Bay Area, including San Mateo County. Through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), ABAG/MTC received Regional Early Area Planning (REAP) funds, a portion of which have been allocated for ABAG/MTC’s Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program, which exists to assist member jurisdictions in furthering their housing policy.

To this end, ABAG/MTC announced the opportunity for cities to participate in a Residential Permit Streamlining Pilot Program. Utilizing the REAP funds, ABAG/MTC is contracting with Symbium Corp to provide selected ABAG/MTC jurisdictions with free licenses for a software called Symbium Plancheck, that streamlines review of single-family residential applications.

City staff expressed interest in this opportunity and interviewed with ABAG/MTC and Symbium Corp on January 18, 2023. On March 10, 2023 staff received notice that the City of San Carlos was selected as one of the participants for the pilot program and is eligible to receive implementation of the Symbium Plancheck program, digitization and integration of the Zoning Code, GIS, and application checklists, testing, and staff training. There is also the option for a public facing portal if the City so chooses. In addition to these services, ABAG/MTC is providing a two-year license for this program with a value of $50,000 per year, or $100,000 total, for the

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 34

9 8
4 duration of the pilot program.

ANALYSIS:

Local governments in California are tasked with accommodating substantial numbers of housing units to address the statewide housing supply shortage, requiring significant analysis and detailed tracking by planning departments. There have also been state laws aiming to increase and streamline residential development entitlements, which has resulted in a greater volume of residential development applications and additional restrictions on the length of time that staff and the various hearing bodies have to review applications.

In an effort to assist jurisdictions with the practical difficulties of limited planning staff reviewing a growing number of applications within State-mandated timeframes, ABAG/MTC has partnered with Symbium Corp to create a Residential Permit Streamlining Pilot Program and provide a two- year, no-cost, Symbium Plancheck software license.

Symbium Plancheck utilizes GIS parcel data and the local zoning ordinance to automate application completeness and planning reviews, cutting down on staff time and creating a more standardized and clear application process for the public. The software will streamline basic elements of residential site plan review, draft comment letters with code citations, and help applicants submit more complete and compliant applications. These interactive tools would not replace personalized planning and zoning assistance in person, via email, or telephone. Rather, these services will enhance customer service by adding a visual element to help City staff communicate more effectively with customers and provide clear feedback and instructions.

If the City chooses the public-facing component of this project, applicants would be able to use Symbium Plancheck to perform an initial assessment of their residential construction project against San Carlos zoning regulations and will be more likely to submit a complete set of applications to the Planning Division, which would minimizing redundancies and potential delays to the entitlement process. Entering a project scope into the tool will allow the applicant to view a checklist of the specific zoning regulations that impact the project. Plancheck verifies whether regulations are complied with and provides metrics, notes, and direct links to the zoning code.

Utilization of Symbium Plancheck to streamline residential development applications will also support San Carlos Housing Element Goal HOU-3: “Assist in the Development of New Housing that is Affordable at All Income Levels.”
Improving review turnaround and standardizing the review process for single-family residential projects will facilitate faster turnaround. Additionally, standardization will result in an overall higher quality of service for applicants seeking to develop additional housing.

Planning staff would be required to work with Symbium during initial configuration of the software for an estimated 12 hours over a 3-month period, as well as provide GIS data, zoning links, and other information to Symbium. One planning staff member will be assigned to carry out all required functions and serve as the contact for San Carlos to fulfill this agreement.

At the end of the two-year agreement, Symbium Corp will provide ABAG/MTC with a detailed report of results of the pilot in San Carlos as well as the other jurisdictions that were selected for the pilot program.

Prior to entering into an agreement with ABAG/MTC, the City Manager must sign the “Final

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 35

9 8
4 Agreement” (Attachment 2) by April 9, 2023.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Streamlining Pilot Agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission for a two-year license for Symbium Plancheck at no cost to the City; or

2. Do not adopt the proposed Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Al Savay, Community & Economic Development Director

Approved for submission by:

_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. Final Agreement

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 36

9 8
6 RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE REGIONAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING (REAP) STREAMLINING PILOT AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA

GOVERNMENTS FOR A TWO-YEAR LICENSE FOR SYMBIUM PLANCHECK SOFTWARE AT NO COST TO THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS.

WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) on February 27, 2020 of Regional Early Area Planning (REAP) grants to various Councils of Governments (COGs), including the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) which governs the Bay Area; and WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG/MTC), allocated a portion of these funds for Regional Housing Technical Assistance to assist its jurisdictions in furthering housing policy; and WHEREAS, ABAG/MTC has allocated a portion of these REAP funds for residential permit streamlining, which includes configuration of and software licenses for Symbium Plancheck for 10 jurisdictions within the Bay Area, three of which have been awarded in the first round of the pilot program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted their Strategic Goals on March 13, 2023, including a housing goal with an objective to increase housing production; and WHEREAS, ABAG/MTC began a second round of the pilot program and on December 14, 2022, staff applied to ABAG/MTC to receive a free software license and technical assistance, interviewed with ABAG/MTC and Symbium staff on January 18, 2023, and on March 10, 2023 was informed that San Carlos had been selected to participate in the pilot program for two years at no cost to the City; and
WHEREAS, the Symbium team will work with San Carlos staff to review and analyze zoning codes and land use regulations applicable to residential building projects, configure all relevant residential regulations into the Symbium Plancheck platform, assist with testing, provide training, and provide a two-year software license.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that San Carlos City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to sign the final Letter of Agreement with ABAG/MTC for a two year license for Symbium Plancheck.
* * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 27th day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:___________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:___________________________________________

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 37

9 8
6 ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:___________________________________________ ________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 38

________ __, 2023

Name of signer
Title of signer
Name of grantee organization
Street address
City, State Zip Code

RE: TERMS OF PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING (REAP) RESIDENTIAL PERMIT STREAMLINING PILOT PROGRAM

Dear [Insert name]:

This letter, effective as of _____ __, 2023 (“Effective Date”) is the agreement between [Insert name of City or County] (“Recipient”) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) (“the Agreement”) regarding Recipient’s participation in the Residential Permit Streamlining Pilot Program including Plancheck Program Software (“the Streamlining Pilot”).

WHEREAS, ABAG has established a Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program that includes the Streamlining Pilot; and
WHEREAS, ABAG has selected Recipient to participate in the Streamlining Pilot through a competitive recruitment based on Recipient’s statements in applying for participation;
WHEREAS, ABAG has contracted with Symbium Corp (“Symbium”) to provide its Plancheck Program Software for use by participants in the Streamlining Pilot at no cost to participants for two years. See Attachment A - Association of Bay Area Governments Agreement with Symbium Corp; and
WHEREAS all of the obligations and responsibilities required of RECIPIENT under its Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant Suballocation Agreement, and its funding source, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) Grant Agreement No. 19-REAP-13915 (“REAP Grant Agreement”), with ABAG also apply to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) entered into a Contract for Services under which MTC provides administrative and program services to ABAG. Effective July 1, 2017, the staffs of ABAG and MTC were consolidated. MTC staff now serve both the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. As such, all interactions between ABAG and Consultant contained within this Agreement, shall be conducted by MTC staff on behalf of ABAG;

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 39

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP),
Streamlining Pilot Agreement,
Name of grantee organization

Page 2 ends

1. It is agreed that Recipient shall:
a) Designate one or more planning staff members who have sufficient knowledge of Recipient’s codes and regulations applicable to residential building to meet with Symbium to clarify code interpretations on the following schedule. . These meetings shall include a kick-off meeting and weekly follow up meetings as needed for an anticipated total of 12 hours over approximately 3 months. The frequency and length of the meetings will vary based on the complexity of Recipient’s codes and regulations. b) Provide Symbium access to Recipient’s GIS database including parcels and zoning, including but not limited to, the URLs of the applicable GIS layers, within 30 days of signing this Agreement. GIS data must be provided in the form of REST APIs, ESRI layers, or URLs to download CSVs, GeoJSONs, or Shapefiles. GIS data must contain sufficient metadata to indicate when the data is updated and how it is made available to ensure that any updates to data will be available in the Plancheck Program Software.
c) Provide Symbium with the URL’s for additional GIS data from third-parties that may impact the Recipient’s zoning requirements. GIS data must be provided in the form of REST APIs, ESRI layers, or URLs to download CSVs, GeoJSONs, or Shapefiles. GIS data must contain sufficient metadata to indicate when the data is updated and how it is made available to ensure that any updates to data will be available in the Plancheck Program Software.
d) Provide Symbium with links to Recipient’s online zoning codes, including Special Districts and Planned Unit Developments (“PUD”) (via Municode, AmLegal or similar source) within one week of signing this Agreement and shall provide any updates within two weeks of adoption during the term of this Agreement. e) Provide Symbium with all existing permit application forms, checklists, instructions and other documents within one week of signing this Agreement. f) Test the configuration of the Plancheck Program Software and provide feedback to Symbium, including identification of any missing or incorrectly interpreted information within 30 days from the date that Symbium delivers the configuration.

Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Attachment A - Association of Bay Area Governments Agreement with Symbium Corp, ABAG will fund a one-year license for Plancheck Program Software (“License”) at no cost to Recipient. The one-year term of the License shall begin on the date that Symbium delivers the configuration. g) Approve the configuration of Plancheck Software and update Recipient’s website to direct the public and applicants to Symbium’s configuration of Plancheck for Recipient within one month from the date that Symbium delivers the configuration for testing.

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 40

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP),
Streamlining Pilot Agreement,
Name of grantee organization

Page 3 ends

h) Facilitate training of staff with responsibility for answering questions residential development codes and regulations and/or for processing residential permit applications on Plancheck with Symbium within one month of commencement of the License as set forth in Section 1.f.
i) Provide Symbium with a detailed Application Programming Interface (API) specification if Recipient requests the Plancheck Program Software to be integrated with Recipient’s permit tracking system. Such an integration would be read-only, i.e., will only involve the Plancheck Program Software downloading permit records from the Recipient's tracking system through REST APIs. If a REST API is not available to download permit records from the Recipient's permit tracking system, the requested integration would not be supported in the Plancheck Program Software. A detailed specification includes, at a minimum, API documentation including relevant API URLs, sample API calls to access the types of records/structured data to be incorporated into Plancheck, and other specifications as requested by Symbium. j) Agrees that the following is excluded from the Streamlining Pilot:
• The encoding of uncodified plans, guidelines, requirements, regulations, and/or ordinances;
• The encoding of any plans, guidelines, requirements, regulations, and/or ordinances that are not published in an online municipal code platform;
• The encoding of any plans, guidelines, requirements, regulations, and/or ordinances that are published in PDF format;
• The incorporation of mixed-use, commercial, and/or other nonresidential project scopes;
• The inclusion of Subdivision Map Act or other subdivision regulations or requirements;
• The addition of new software features;
• The update or change of the existing Plancheck Program Software user interface or user experience (UI/UX);
• The update of the Plancheck Program Software to incorporate changes to the Recipient’s zoning code and/or State law with a frequency that exceeds once per calendar quarter;
• The cleaning of GIS data (e.g., resolving inconsistencies between datasets); and
• The management and tracking of permit submittals.
k) Contact Heather Peters [email protected] or a designated representative (herein “ABAG Project Manager”) with any questions, concerns, comments or

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 41

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP),
Streamlining Pilot Agreement,
Name of grantee organization

Page 4 ends

suggestions regarding the Streamlining Pilot or Symbium’s performance and shall participate in one meeting with ABAG to review the Pilot before the end of the one-year Streamlining Pilot term.
l) Other tasks as needed to effectuate Attachment A - Association of Bay Area Governments Agreement with Symbium Corp

2. Recipient acknowledges that a goal of ABAG’s Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program is to facilitate statewide, regional and subregional collaboration on housing planning.

To further this goal, at all times through the term of this Agreement, Recipient shall designate at least one person who is currently responsible for providing housing planning services to it to receive communications from ABAG, HCD and subregional Planning Collaboratives and their representatives regarding available technical assistance at the state, regional and subregional levels. Recipient designates the following person(s) to receive these communications and shall notify ABAG via email at [email protected] of a replacement designee in the event of a change in personnel within 10 days:
[insert name]
[insert title]
[insert email]
[insert phone]

3. Recipient acknowledges that Symbium will, at the end of the License timeframe, provide ABAG with detailed information on the use of Plancheck for analysis of the Pilot including a written report that may include:
• A summary of the efficiency of deployment of the software; • Volume of usage by planners and the public (if a connection to the public portal is requested);
• Estimated cost savings of automation;
• Key lessons learned;
• Suggestions for improvement if the Pilot were to be expanded; • Any other information that CONSULTANT believes would help ABAG evaluate the success of the Pilot;
• High level summary observations.

4. The term of the Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and conclude at the expiration of Recipient’s License unless ABAG terminates this Agreement earlier as provided below.

5. If Recipient fails to perform as specified in the Agreement, ABAG may terminate the Agreement and the License may be revoked for cause by advance 10-day written notice, providing Recipient with the opportunity to cure the default or present an acceptable plan for cure within the 10-day period. At the end of the 10-day period, if the default has not been cured

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 42

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP),
Streamlining Pilot Agreement,
Name of grantee organization

Page 5 ends

or an acceptable plan of cure presented, ABAG may issue a notice of termination for default, effective immediately, and Recipient will receive no compensation.

6. Except for invoices and any communications required to be submitted by Recipient via web- based system, all notices or other communications to either party by the other shall be deemed given when made in writing and delivered, mailed, or emailed to such party at their respective addresses as follows:

To ABAG: Attention: Heather Peters
Association of Bay Area Governments
375 Beale Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105
Email: [email protected]

To RECIPIENT: Attention: [insert name]
[insert title]
[insert name of City or County]
[insert address]
[insert email]

7. In performing work under the Agreement, Recipient will be acting as an independent contractor and not as an agent or employee of ABAG. Recipient will have no authority to contract in the name of ABAG, and Recipient will be responsible for its own acts and those of its agents and employees.

8. Recipient shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless MTC, ABAG, its board members, representatives, agents, and employees (“ABAG Indemnified Parties”) from and against all claims, injury, suits, demands, liability, losses, damages and expenses, whether direct or indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith), incurred by reason of any act or failure to act of Recipient, its officers, employees or agents, or subconsultants or any of them in connection with this Agreement or License.

9. Recipient agrees to obtain and maintain at its own expense for the duration of the Agreement the types of insurance listed in Attachment B, Insurance Provisions. Failure to retain proper insurance levels will result in termination of this Agreement and revocation of the License.

10. Any claim or controversy concerning the interpretation, application, or implementation of this Agreement between ABAG and Recipient that cannot be resolved through the informal, good faith efforts of the parties may, by specific agreement of the parties, be submitted to alternative dispute resolution (that is, mediation or arbitration) with the parameters for such dispute resolution being agreed to by the parties at the time. If a dispute is not resolved through discussion or the parties do not agree to alternative dispute resolution, either party may pursue

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 43

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP),
Streamlining Pilot Agreement,
Name of grantee organization

Page 6 ends

available legal remedies in a California, State, or Federal court of competent jurisdiction. The prevailing party in any dispute shall be entitled to payment of its attorneys’ fees and costs. This section shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement.

11. All questions pertaining to the validity and interpretation of the Agreement shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to agreements made and to be performed within the State.

12. This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior written or oral communications. Any changes to this agreement may only be amended by mutual agreement of ABAG and Recipient at any time during the term of the Agreement. All such changes shall be incorporated in written amendments, which shall specify the changes in work performed and any adjustments in compensation and schedule. All amendments shall be executed by the authorized Executive or a designated representative of ABAG and Recipient and specifically identified as amendments to the Agreement. The ABAG Project Manager is not a designated representative, for purposes of executing an amendment.

13. If any term or condition of this Agreement is found to be illegal or unenforceable, such term or condition shall be deemed stricken and the remaining terms and conditions shall remain valid and in full force and effect.

14. This Agreement is not for the benefit of any person or entity other than the parties.

If you agree, please sign this letter in the space provided below.

Very truly yours,

Therese W. McMillan
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Executive Director
Acting pursuant to the Contract for Services dated
May 30, 2017

Accepted and Agreed to this:

Date:
[insert name]
[insert title]
[insert name of City or County]

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 44

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP),
Streamlining Pilot Agreement,
Name of grantee organization

Page 7 ends

ATTACHMENT A

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS AGREEMENT WITH

SYMBIUM CORP

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 45

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP),
Streamlining Pilot Agreement,
Name of grantee organization

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT B

INSURANCE PROVISION

1. INSURANCE
A. Minimum Coverages. The insurance requirements specified in this section shall cover Recipient’s own liability and the liability arising out of work or services performed under this Agreement by any subconsultants, subcontractors, suppliers, temporary workers, independent contractors, leased employees, or any other persons, firms or corporations that Recipient authorizes to work under this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Agents.”) Recipient shall, at its own expense, obtain and maintain in effect at all times during the life of this Agreement the following types of insurance against claims, damages and losses due to injuries to persons or damage to property or other losses that may arise in connection with the performance of work under this Agreement.

Recipient is also required to assess the risks associated with work to be performed by Agents under subcontract and to include in every subcontract the requirement that the Agent maintain adequate insurance coverage with appropriate limits and endorsements to cover such risks. To the extent that an Agent does not procure and maintain such insurance coverage, Recipient shall be responsible for said coverage and assume any and all costs and expenses that may be incurred in securing said coverage or in fulfilling Recipient’s indemnity obligation as to itself or any of its Agents in the absence of coverage.

In the event Recipient or its Agents procure excess or umbrella coverage to maintain certain requirements outlined below, these policies shall also satisfy all specified endorsements and stipulations, including provisions that Recipient’s insurance be primary without right of contribution from ABAG.

Prior to beginning work under this contract, Recipient shall provide ABAG with satisfactory evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements of this section.

The insurance listed hereunder shall be considered minimum requirements and any and all insurance proceeds in excess of the requirements shall be made available to ABAG. If the Recipient maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimum limits shown hereunder, ABAG shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Recipient.

1. Workers' Compensation Insurance with Statutory limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per employee and $1,000,000 per accident, and any and all other coverage of Recipient’s employees as may be required by applicable law. Such policy shall contain a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of ABAG. Such Workers’ Compensation & Employer’s Liability may be waived, if and only for as long as Recipient is a sole proprietor or a corporation with stock 100% owned by officers with no employees.

2. Commercial General Liability Insurance for Bodily Injury and Property Damage liability, covering the premises and operations, and products and completed operations of Recipient and Recipient’s officers, agents, and employees and with limits of liability which shall not be less than $1,000,000 per occurrence with a general aggregate liability of not less than $2,000,000, a

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 46

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP),
Streamlining Pilot Agreement,
Name of grantee organization

Page 9 ends

products/completed operations aggregate liability limit of not less than $2,000,000 and Personal & Advertising Injury liability with a limit of not less than $1,000,000. Such policy shall contain a Waiver of Subrogation or “Waiver of Transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others to Us” provision included in the policy language or by endorsement in favor of ABAG.

Products and completed operations insurance shall be maintained for three (3) years following termination of this Agreement.

ABAG and those entities listed in Part 3 of this Attachment E (if any), and their commissioners, directors, officers, representatives, and employees are to be named as additional insureds for ongoing and completed operations. Such insurance shall be primary and non-contributory, and contain a Separation of Insureds Clause as respects any claims, losses or liability arising directly or indirectly from Recipient’s operations.

3. Business Automobile Insurance for all automobiles owned (if any), used or maintained by Recipient and Recipient’s officers, and employees, including but not limited to owned (if any), leased (if any), non-owned and hired automobiles, with limits of liability which shall not be less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident.

4. Excess or Umbrella Insurance in the amount of $2,000,000 providing excess limits over Employer’s Liability, Automobile Liability, and Commercial General Liability Insurance. Such umbrella coverage shall be following form to underlying coverage including all endorsements and additional insured requirements.

5. Errors and Omissions Professional Liability Insurance for errors and omissions and the resulting damages, including, but not limited to, economic loss to ABAG and having minimum limits of $1,000,000 per claim. Such policy shall contain cyber risk coverages including network and internet security liability coverage, privacy liability coverage and media coverage. Such cyber risk coverages shall include liability arising from the loss, theft or failure to protect, or unauthorized acquisition of ABAG’s personally identifiable information or confidential information. [If cyber risk coverages are included, the limit should match the limit for Errors and Omissions Professional Liability.] The policy shall provide coverage for all work performed by Recipient and any work performed or conducted by any subcontractor/consultant working for or performing services on behalf of Recipient.

No contract or agreement between Recipient and any subcontractor/consultant shall relieve Recipient of the responsibility for providing this Errors & Omissions or Professional Liability coverage for all work performed by Recipient and any subcontractor/consultant working on behalf of Recipient on the project.

B. Acceptable Insurers. All policies will be issued by insurers, generally with a Best’s Rating of A- or better with a Financial Size Category of VII or better, or an A rating from a comparable rating service.

C. Self-Insurance. Recipient’s obligation hereunder may be satisfied in whole or in part by adequately funded self-insurance, upon evidence of financial capacity satisfactory to ABAG.

D. Deductibles and Retentions. Recipient shall be responsible for payment of any deductible or

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 47

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP),
Streamlining Pilot Agreement,
Name of grantee organization

Page 10 ends

retention on Recipient’s policies without right of contribution from ABAG. Deductible and retention provisions shall not contain any restrictions as to how or by whom the deductible or retention is paid.

Any deductible or retention provision limiting payment to the Named Insured is unacceptable.

In the event that ABAG seeks coverage as an additional insured under any Recipient insurance policy that contains a deductible or self-insured retention, Recipient shall satisfy such deductible or self- insured retention to the extent of loss covered by such policy, for any lawsuit arising from or connected with any alleged act of Recipient, subconsultant, subcontractor, or any of their employees, officers or directors, even if Recipient or subconsultant is not a named defendant in the lawsuit.

E. Claims Made Coverage. If any insurance specified above is written on a “Claims-Made” (rather than an “occurrence”) basis, then in addition to the coverage requirements above, Recipient shall:
(1) Ensure that the Retroactive Date is shown on the policy, and such date must be before the date of this Agreement or the beginning of any work under this Agreement; (2) Maintain and provide evidence of similar insurance for at least three (3) years following project completion, including the requirement of adding all additional insureds; and (3) If insurance is cancelled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the Agreement Effective Date, Recipient shall purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of three (3) years after completion of the work.

F. Failure to Maintain Insurance. All insurance specified above shall remain in force until all work or services to be performed are satisfactorily completed, all of Recipient’s personnel, subconsultants, subcontractors, and equipment have been removed from ABAG’s property, and the work or services have been formally accepted. Recipient must notify ABAG if any of the above required coverages are non-renewed or cancelled. The failure to procure or maintain required insurance and/or an adequately funded self-insurance program will constitute a material breach of this Agreement.

G. Certificates of Insurance. Prior to commencement of any work hereunder, Recipient shall deliver to Ebix, ABAG’s authorized insurance consultant, insurance documentation (including Certificates of Liability Insurance, Evidences of Property Insurance, endorsements, etc.) verifying the aforementioned coverages. Such evidence of insurance shall make reference to all provisions and endorsements referred to above and shall be signed by the authorized representative of the Insurance Company shown on the insurance documentation. The Project name shall be clearly stated on the face of each Certificate of Liability Insurance and/or Evidence of Property Insurance.

CONSULTANT shall submit certificates of insurance to:

Association of Bay Area Governments
Insurance Compliance
P.O. Box 100085-M8

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 48

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP),
Streamlining Pilot Agreement,
Name of grantee organization

Page 11 ends

Duluth, GA 30096
or
Email: [email protected]
or
Fax: 1-888-617-2309

ABAG reserves the right to require copies of all required policy declarations pages or insurance policies, including endorsements, required by these specifications, at any time.

2. FINANCIAL SECURITY (BONDS) – NOT USED

3. ADDITIONAL INSUREDS
The following entities are to be named as Additional Insureds under applicable sections of this Attachment E and as ABAG Indemnified Parties, pursuant to Article 14 of the Agreement.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

9.i
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 49

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 27, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Amending the City of San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL).

RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends (Resolution # PTC2023-05) that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to prohibit activities requiring Biosafety Level (BSL) 4 containment and to allow for activities requiring BSL- 3 containment with a conditional use permit, as specified in the Ordinance as amended by the Commission.

City staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to prohibit activities with Biosafety Levels (BSL) 3 and 4.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no direct fiscal implications to the City’s general fund associated with the City Council adopting an Ordinance to regulate activities with an assigned Biosafety Level.

The Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommended Ordinance, which would allow BSL-3 activities with a conditional sse permit (CUP) and prohibit BSL-4 activities, requires the applicant to submit an annual report as a part of monitoring compliance with the CUP. The City would issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) to solicit proposals from potential on-call consultants to conduct a peer review of the submitted annual report. The on-call consultant would also inspect the facility to ensure that the facility is accurately represented in the annual report and complies with the required regulations. The applicant would pay fees for processing the CUP and submit a deposit to pay for the City’s on-call consultant / peer reviewer; therefore, there are no fiscal implications to the City’s general fund for the review, processing, annual inspections, and reporting associated with the CUPs.

SUMMARY:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) use BSLs to identify the special building design, safety equipment, and specific practices needed in a laboratory setting to protect workers, the environment, and the public. The four biosafety levels are BSL-1, BSL-2, BSL-3, and BSL-4, with BSL-4 requiring the highest (maximum) level of containment.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 50

Currently, the City of San Carlos has no regulations specific to laboratories with biosafety levels.

However, since 2015, the City of San Carlos has experienced an unprecedented amount of private sector investment and development, including business and employment growth in the life sciences and biotechnology sectors, especially in east San Carlos. Many life sciences and biotechnology companies require laboratories with biosafety levels for their research and work.

Adopting regulations for laboratories with biosafety levels will provide protections and transparency for employees, nearby residents, and the overall San Carlos community.

Land use and zoning regulations are one way to regulate laboratories with biosafety levels.

Biosafety is also addressed through:
•Numerous requirements from county, state, and federal agencies which regulate laboratories with biosafety levels
•Requirements around specific building design and safety equipment •Requirements for security protocols and operational requirements •California Building and Fire Codes regulations for flood proofing and elevation, and for seismic activities
Examples of county, state, and federal agencies which regulate laboratories with biosafety levels are listed in Table 2 below.

As of the writing of this staff report, no other cities within San Mateo County or the broader Bay Area have an outright ban on BSL-3 laboratories. Within San Mateo County, the cities of Brisbane, Burlingame, and Millbrae have adopted land use policies and/or regulations that regulate biosafety levels as summarized here and detailed in Table 3 below. •City of Brisbane requires a conditional use permit from the City Council where research and development uses include BSL-4 activities.
•City of Burlingame prohibits BSL-3 and BSL-4 activities within the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Safety Compatibility Zones.1 •City of Millbrae, within the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Safety Compatibility Zones, requires a conditional use permit for BSL-1 and BSL-2, and prohibits BSL-3 and BSL-4 activities.

Before the Council are two ordinances for consideration:
•Ordinance 1 allows BSL-3 activities with an approved conditional use permit and prohibits BSL-4 activities, as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission. •Ordinance 2 prohibits BSL-3 and BSL-4 activities.

Both ordinances allow for BSL-1 and BSL-2 activities with no additional regulations.

If Ordinance 1 is adopted, a conditional use permit would be required for both publicly and privately funded BSL-3 activities. Through the requirements of the CUP, both privately- and publicly-funded laboratories would be required to submit the same information to the City of San 1 As noted below in this staff report, the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport prohibits BSL-3 and BSL-4 activities within Zone 3.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 51

Carlos as a part of the initial application, inspection, and subsequent annual reports. Through a RFQ process, the City would hire an on-call consultant with expertise in this area to review the initial CUP application, conduct inspections, and review the annual reports.

Adoption of either ordinance would result in the City of San Carlos being more restrictive in the regulation of biosafety levels (outside of airport safety zones) than any other city in San Mateo County and the broader Bay Area.

BACKGROUND:

On a policy level, in response to life science development interest, the City created the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan in 2021 to plan for changes in southeast San Carlos (the area defined by Holly Street, Brittan Avenue, Old County Road, and Highway 101). The City has also launched the Northeast Area Specific Plan process to plan for changes for the area north of Holly Street, to the San Carlos city limits at Belmont Creek, and between Highway 101 and Old County Road. The Northeast Area Specific Plan is anticipated for adoption in the fall of 2024.

During the October 25, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Council considered and adopted a Resolution to approve the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan. During public comments, a representative from the Greater East San Carlos (GESC) Neighborhood Association requested that the City Council consider regulating the biosafety levels (BSL) allowed within the city. Similar requests have been made by community members since that time.

During the recent Focused General Plan Update process, the City added the following new action to the Environmental Safety and Public Services Element:

Action ESPS-5.6: Prepare regulations that address biosafety levels (BSL) for new life science, biotechnology, or other scientific developments to ensure a healthy and safe San Carlos community.

This item is in response to the new guidance in the General Plan and community requests.

Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation
At the February 6, 2023, Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, City staff and consultants presented an item titled: Consider a Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amendment to the City of San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL). The staff report and attachments are available on the City’s website at the following link – see Item 6a:
https://cityofsancarlos.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1407.(See Attachment 3 – Minutes from the February 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting.) During the meeting, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted the public hearing, voted to continue the item, and requested staff return to the Commission on March 6, 2023 with additional information about BSL-3 activities and information about precautions for security, exposure, and seismic and flooding events. (See Attachment 5 – Responses to Questions from the Planning and Transportation Commission and Public). The Commission also requested that staff prepare a Zoning Ordinance Amendment option that allows BSL-3 activities with a conditional use perrmit and prohibits BSL-4 activities.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 52

At the March 6, 2023, Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, City staff and consultants presented an item titled: Consideration of a Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL). The staff report and attachments are available on the City’s website at the following link – see Item 8b:
https://cityofsancarlos.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1581.(See Attachment 4 – Minutes from the March 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting.) On March 6, 2023, the Planning and Transportation Commission approved Resolution # PTC2023-05, recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to prohibit activities requiring Biosafety Level (BSL) 4 containment and to allow for activities requiring BSL-3 containment with a conditional use permit as specified in the Ordinance as amended by the Commission. (See Attachment 6 – Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation). The Planning and Transportation Commission’s amendment was to add a requirement for an inspection of the BSL-3 laboratory which would occur after the initial CUP approval (before occupancy of the laboratory), on an annual basis as a part of the annual report review, and upon decommissioning or closing of the laboratory. This change is reflected in Ordinance 1. (See Attachment 1 – Ordinance Allowing BSL-3 Activities with a Conditional Use Permit and Prohibiting BSL-4 Activities).

ANALYSIS:

Life Science and Biomedical Industry
The life science and biomedical industry focuses on the research and production of medical and healthcare products. This industry is comprised of many sub-industries. At a high-level, these sub-industries include: biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical equipment, digital healthcare, and genomics, as illustrated in Figure 1. Each sub-industry has different characteristics, which can include regulations, space requirements, transportation needs, funding, and number of employees and associated formal educational levels, and others.

Figure 1. Sub-Industries Within the Life Science or Biomedical Industry Sub-Industries Within the Life Science / Biomedical Industry Biotechnology Pharmaceuticals Medical
Devices
Medical
Equipment
Digital
Healthcare
Genomics
Many of the life science companies that are interested in locating in San Carlos are biotechnology companies. The characteristics that differentiate biotechnology companies from other biomedical companies are listed below:
•Smaller companies with fewer employees (than, for example, a pharmaceutical company). •“Slower” or “more patient” funding and often funded by governmental grants.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 53

•Focused on research and development, and therefore “early” in life cycle of a medical product or device.
•Often need laboratories to conduct their research.
•Need stable office space to conduct their research; biotechnology companies are not as nimble or easy to move as, for example, a digital healthcare company. •Need reliable utility services because the research and experiments are ongoing and often run 24/7.

Based on the types of research that is being conducted, biotechnology laboratories have assigned biosafety levels, which is discussed below.

Biosafety Levels (BSL)
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) use Biosafety Levels (BSL) to classify microbiological and biomedical laboratories. The purpose of the BSL classification is to protect workers, the environment, and the public and regulate how hazardous materials are disposed and transported.

The four biosafety levels are BSL-1, BSL-2, BSL-3, and BSL-4, with BSL-4 requiring the highest (maximum) level of containment. The levels are defined in Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories 2 (the BMBL) and are summarized in Table 1. Each level has specific requirements regarding building design, safety equipment, and specific practices required in each laboratory setting.

BSL-1 and BSL-2 labs are the most common types of labs in the Bay Area. BSL-3 labs are much less common in the Bay Area, and none are located in San Carlos.3 BSL-4 laboratories are highly specialized facilities having the most stringent safety and security requirements; there are currently no operational BSL-4 labs in California.4
Table 1. Biosafety Level Descriptions5
Biosafety
Level Agents Practices Safety Equipment Facilities
BSL-1 These agents are
not generally
associated with
disease in healthy
people.
•Good micro-
biological practice
•Hand washing
•No eating,
drinking, or gum
•Pipetting devices:

Mouth pipetting is
prohibited
•No specific
facility
requirements
2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. 6th Edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Revised June 2020.
https://www.cdc.gov/labs/pdf/CDC-BiosafetyMicrobiologicalBiomedicalLaboratories-2020-P.pdf 3 According to USA Today as of 2014, seven (7) BSL-3 laboratories are located in the Bay Area. https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/biolabs/
4 https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/biosafety-labs-needed 5 Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/biosafety-labs-needed

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 54

Biosafety
Level Agents Practices Safety Equipment Facilities
chewing in the
laboratory
BSL-2 These agents are
associated with
human disease.

BSL-1 practices,
plus:
•Limited lab access
•Most work may be
performed on a
bench top
•Biohazard warning
signs
•"Sharps"
precautions
•Biosafety manual
defining any
needed waste
decontamination
or medical
surveillance
policies
BSL-1 requirements,
plus:
•Class I or II
Biological Safety
Cabinets (BSCs)
or other physical
containment
devices
•Lab coats,
gloves, face
protection, as
needed
•Open bench-top
•Sink for hand
washing is
required
•Autoclave
available
BSL-3* These agents:
•Are associated
with human
disease and
cause illness by
spreading
through the air
(aerosol)
•Cause diseases
that may have
serious or lethal
consequences
BSL-2 practices,
plus:
•Controlled access
•Decontamination
of all waste
•Decontamination
of lab clothing
before laundering
•Class I or II
Biological
Safety Cabinets
(BSCs) or other
physical
containment
devices
•Protective lab
clothing, gloves,
respiratory
protection as
needed
BSL-2
requirements, plus:
•Physical
separation from
access corridors
•Self-closing,
double-door
access
•Exhaust air is
not recirculated
•Negative airflow
into laboratory
•Design includes
back
up/redundant
systems
BSL-4 These agents:
•Are associated
with human
disease and
cause illness by
spreading
through the air
(aerosol) or have
an unknown
BSL-3 practices,
plus:
•Clothing change
before entering
•Shower on exit
•All material
decontaminated on
exit from facility
•Class ll
procedures
conducted in
Class III BSCs
or Class I or II
BSCs in
combination
with full-body,
air-supplied,
positive-
BSL-3
requirements, plus:
•Separate
building or
isolated zone
•Dedicated
supply and
exhaust,
vacuum, and

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 55

Biosafety
Level Agents Practices Safety Equipment Facilities
cause of
transmission
•Cause diseases
that are usually
life threatening
pressure
personnel suit
decontamination
systems
•Design includes
back-
up/redundant
systems
•Other
requirements
outlined in
Biosafety in
Microbiological
and Biomedical
Laboratories1
*Typically, BSL-3 labs are assembled for a specific research endeavor and are then decommissioned once the research is completed. It can be extremely difficult to retrofit existing physical spaces to build BSL-3 laboratories. Requirements such as negative airflow and other facility requirements make it difficult to retrofit a building if the mechanical systems were not initially designed to accommodate this use.

Current City of San Carlos Policies
Currently, the City of San Carlos does not have any adopted regulations specific to biosafety levels. The adopted San Carlos 2030 General Plan 6 does include the following policies which address biosafety levels and hazardous materials:
•Action ESPS-5.6 (Environmental Safety and Public Services Element): Prepare regulations that address biosafety levels (BSL) for new life science, biotechnology, or other scientific developments to ensure a healthy and safe San Carlos community. •Policy CSS-4.1 (Community Safety and Services Element): Prohibit uses involving the manufacturing of hazardous materials throughout the city. Hazardous materials are defined in Chapter 6.95, Section 25501 0-1 of the [California] Health and Safety Code.

This policy applies only to the direct manufacture of hazardous substances. It does not apply to the storage or use of such materials in conjunction with permitted industrial uses.

San Carlos Airport Safety Zone Policies
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) has adopted the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport 7 (ALUCP) which establishes Airport Safety Zones, numbered 1-6 based on location. The San Carlos Airport Safety Zones are primarily located east of Highway 101 between Cormorant Drive on the north, and Bing Street on the south. Airport Safety Zone 3 and Zone 6 are the two zones that are located west of Highway 101. (See Attachment 7 – San Carlos Airport Safety Zones Map.) 6 http://www.cityofsancarlos.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=1105 7 https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SQL_FinalALUCP_Oct15_read.pdf

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 56

The ALUCP includes policies that govern the location of biosafety labs in the Airport Safety Zones.

Policy 9.b limits where a biosafety lab can be located and states:
“Biosafety Level 1 does not involve hazardous materials and is not subject to the same restrictions as Biosafety Levels 2, 3, and 4. Biosafety Level 2 facilities are not permitted in Safety Zones 1, 2, and 5. Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities are not permitted in Safety Zones 1 through 5.”
Thus, in the Airport Safety Zone 3, facilities with Biosafety Levels 3 and 4 are not permitted; facilities with Biosafety Levels 1 and 2 are permitted. The ALUCP does not regulate Biosafety Levels in Zone 6.

Airport Safety Zone 3:
•Extends into a portion of the Palo Alto Medical Facility located at 301 Industrial Road.

Zoned: Planned Development (PD-21).
•Partially covers the southwest corner of Highway 101 and Brittan Avenue. Zoned: General Community/Industrial (GCI); “Research and Development” is a permitted use in GCI.

Currently developed with large format retail uses.

County, State, and Federal Regulatory Agencies
Many county, state, and federal agencies provide oversight over laboratories with biosafety levels.

The specific agencies, and permits required, vary depending on the type of laboratory; however, Table 2 provides a sample of the agencies that regulate laboratories with biosafety levels. These agencies have requirements around practices within the labs, safety equipment, building design, waste disposal, transportation of waste, and other regulations.

Even in the absence of local regulations, laboratories with biosafety levels are highly regulated with stringent oversight.

Table 2. Regulatory Agencies
Entity Regulatory Agency
Within San Mateo
County
•San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Department which serves as the local “CUPA” (Certified Unified Program Agency) that oversees the Unified Hazardous Waste and
Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program8
•City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County – San Carlos Airport Safety Zones
•Local Fire Districts
•Local Sanitary Districts
State of California •Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) •Department of Industrial Relations
•Environmental Protection Agency
Federal •Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
•National Institutes of Health
•Department of Health and Human Services
•Occupational Safety and Health Services
•USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
•Department of Commerce
8 https://www.smchealth.org/hazardous-materials-cupa

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 57

Entity Regulatory Agency
•Department of Transportation
Biosafety Level Regulations in San Mateo County Jurisdictions As of the writing of this staff report, no other cities within San Mateo County or the broader Bay Area prohibit BSL-3 laboratories. However, the cities of Brisbane, Burlingame, and Millbrae have adopted land use policies and/or regulations that regulate biosafety levels (see Table 3). 9 (See Attachment 8 – Code Language for Biosafety Regulations in San Mateo County Jurisdictions and Bay Area Jurisdictions.)
The cities of Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Mateo, and South San Francisco defer regulation to outside agencies, such as San Mateo County, local fire districts, local sanitary districts, and OSHA (see Table 4).

Table 3. San Mateo County Jurisdictions with Adopted Policies Jurisdiction Overview of Adopted Policies
Brisbane
•Conditional use permit required from the City Council where Research and Development uses include BSL-4.
•Adopted performance standards require any Research and Development use incorporating biological agents to meet all the design standards, as defined by the respective Biosafety Levels, as required by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Office of Health and Safety document Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories.

Burlingame
Citywide
•Specific regulations applicable to various zoning districts and special designated areas, including Research and Development uses in commercial/industrial zones and mixed-use zones.

Within the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Safety Compatibility Zones10 •Within SFO Safety Compatibility Zone 3, BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities are not allowed.
•Within SFO Safety Compatibility Zone 3, a Conditional Use Permit is required for Research and Development offices and laboratories if the use includes hazardous materials.
•Within SFO Safety Compatibility Zone 2, no Research and Development laboratories are allowed if the use includes hazardous materials. 9 In preparation of this staff report, staff also reviewed the policies for the cities of Belmont, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, and San Bruno. Currently, these cities do not have any confirmed policies that regulate biosafety levels. 10 The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport establishes Safety Compatibility Zones around the SFO Airport. The ALCUP determines which uses are incompatible and should be avoided in each zone. https://ccag.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 58

Jurisdiction Overview of Adopted Policies
Millbrae
•Per adopted policies in the Millbrae Station Area Plan, facilities with BSL-1 and BSL-2 are allowed in SFO Safety Compatibility Zone 2, subject to a Conditional Use Permit.

Table 4. San Mateo County Jurisdictions with Reference to Review Jurisdiction Overview
Menlo Park
•Regulates the use of hazardous materials – Applications for uses with hazardous materials are routed to the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Department, and West Bay Sanitary District for review and confirmation that the use would comply with relevant standards for each agency.

Redwood City •Defers to hazardous materials regulations from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Department and the State of California.

San Mateo •Defers to hazardous materials regulations from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Department and the State of California.

South San
Francisco
•Defers to hazardous materials regulations from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Department and the State of California.

Analysis of Biosafety Level Regulations in Bay Area Jurisdictions The cities of Fremont, Oakland, Palo Alto, and San Francisco have addressed biosafety levels in their zoning regulations, primarily through use definitions for laboratories, life science, research and development, and similar terms (see Table 5). (See Attachment 8 – Code Language for Biosafety Regulations in San Mateo County Jurisdictions and Bay Area Jurisdictions.) The following are the key takeaways:
•In these cities, there is a great degree of variation regarding where BSL laboratories may be located (i.e., in which zoning districts) and the associated permitting process. •In general, BSL-1 and BSL-2 do not require additional performance standards or regulations.
•The regulation of BSL-3 facilities depends on the nature of the zoning district. •Example: In the City of San Francisco’s mixed-use zones, there are no additional restrictions for BSL-3 than for BSL-1 or BSL-2.
•Example: The City of Fremont has incorporated definitions for BSL-1 through BSL-4 into its zoning regulations, and the use tables specifically reference the allowed biosafety levels in specific districts to avoid any ambiguity.

Table 5. Biosafety Level Regulations in Bay Area Jurisdictions11 BSL
Level Cities
Fremont Oakland Palo Alto San Francisco
11 Image sources: “Check” by Nasik Lababan from Noun Project. “No” by P.J. Onori from Noun Project.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 59

BSL
Level Cities
BSL-1 Allowed in certain
districts.

Sometimes requires a
Zoning Administrator
Permit.

Allowed in
certain zoning districts.

Allowed in areas zoned
for Research and
Development uses.

Allowed in areas zoned
for Laboratory uses
and Life Science uses.

BSL-2 Allowed in certain
districts.

Sometimes requires a
Zoning Administrator
Permit.

Allowed in
certain zoning districts.

Allowed in areas zoned
for Research and
Development uses.

Allowed in areas zoned
for Laboratory uses
and Life Science uses.

BSL-3 Allowed in certain
districts.

Requires a Zoning
Administrator Permit.

Allowed in
certain zoning districts.

Allowed in areas zoned
for Research and
Development uses.

Allowed in areas zoned
for Laboratory uses
and Life Science uses.

BSL-4 Not allowed. Allowed in areas zoned
for Heavy/High Impact
Industrial subject to a
Conditional Use
Permit.

Not allowed. Not allowed.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 60

Marketplace Feedback
City staff has received feedback from life science and biotechnology developers that allowing the construction of BSL-3 laboratories provides increased flexibility for research and project leaseability. They have shared that prohibiting BSL-3 laboratories may put San Carlos in a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace, especially since no other cities in San Mateo County or the overall Bay Area prohibit BSL-3 activities.

Conditional Use Permits
Conditional Use Permits (CUP) apply to uses that are generally consistent with the purposes of the underlying zoning district where they are proposed, but require special consideration to ensure that they can be designed, located, and operated in a manner that will not interfere with the use or enjoyment of surrounding properties. Conditional Use Permits are site-specific, and the CUP application review process allows for the evaluation of a proposed use at a specific site.

The Planning and Transportation Commission has the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for conditional use permits. The proposed use must meet all the required findings for the Planning and Transportation Commission to approve the CUP. The required findings include a list of findings that apply to all CUPs (per Section 18.30.060. Required findings12). In some instances, use specific findings also apply, such as those included in Ordinance 1. Commission approval of CUPs are discretionary (i.e., approval is not “by-right”), and applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Prior to issuance of the permit, the CUP process allows for public input and consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission. CUPs are revocable, if the applicant fails to comply with the conditions set forth in the permit (per Section 18.27.140: Revocation of permits of the San Carlos Municipal Code13).

Ordinances for Consideration
Two Ordinances are presented for the Council’s consideration. These are titled “Ordinance 1” and “Ordinance 2.”
Ordinance 1 allows BSL-3 activities with an approved conditional use permit and prohibits BSL- 4 activities. Ordinance 1 was developed at the request of the Planning and Transportation Commission.

Ordinance 2 prohibits BSL-3 and BSL-4 activities.

These Ordinances are based on research regarding best practices around regulating laboratories, how other jurisdictions regulate laboratories with biosafety levels, and an understanding of how external agencies regulate and monitor laboratories with biosafety levels.

Both Ordinances contain the following:
•The addition of a zoning definition for “Biological Agent” and “Biosafety Level.” 12 San Carlos Municipal Code, Section 18.30.060: Required findings. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/SanCarlos18/SanCarlos1830.html#18.30.060 13 San Carlos Municipal Code, Section 18.27.140: Revocation of permits. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/SanCarlos18/SanCarlos1827.html#18.27.140

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 61

•Modifies the commercial and industrial land use regulation tables to expressly permit BSL- 1 and BSL-2 activities and to expressly prohibit BSL-4 activities.

Ordinance 1 (Allows BSL-3 with a Conditional Use Permit):
•Adds new standards specific to BSL-3 activities, which requires a conditional use permit. •Requires that research and development uses with BSL-3 activities be accessory to the primary use.
•Adds specific conditional use permit requirements, including the submittal of:
oA Biosafety Plan, prepared in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Group 16, Article 109, Section 5199(f)(4); and
oA Medical Waste Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the requirements of the San Mateo County Medical Waste Program. •Adds specific conditional use permit findings, which include:
o1) The applicant has made adequate provisions to address emergency procedures for uncontrolled releases within the laboratory facility and untreated releases outside the laboratory facility; and
o2) The applicant has provided a peer review of the proposed facility, safety equipment and practices by a qualified third-party demonstrating compliance with the guidelines set forth in Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (6th Edition or most recent) authored by the CDC and NIH. •Adds specific conditional use permit operational and performance standards, which include:
o1) The activities involving the use of biological agents requiring BSL-3 containment measures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet above the base flood elevation as identified on the current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps; o2) The activities involving the use of biological agents requiring BSL-3 containment measures shall be limited to the on-site tenants of the subject development and shall not, under any circumstance, be used by entities located outside of the subject development;
o3) An inspection shall be conducted and a compliance report shall be submitted at the expense of the owner, operator, or tenant prior to initiating operations, and on each anniversary of the effective date of permit approval, and on the closure or discontinuance of the BSL-3 facility. Such reports shall be made by a qualified third party demonstrating continued compliance with the guidelines set forth in Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (6th Edition or most recent) authored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH); and,
o4) Failure by the applicant to submit the reports required in 18.23.310.C.3 in a timely manner may result in revocation of the conditional use permit per San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.27.140: Revocation of Permits.

Ordinance 2 (Prohibits BSL-3):
•Modifies the commercial and industrial land use regulation tables to prohibit BSL-3.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 62

Table 6 provides a comparison of Ordinance 1 and 2.

Table 6. Comparison of Ordinance 1 and 2
BSL
Level
Ordinance 1:

Allows BSL-3 with CUP
Ordinance 2:

Prohibits BSL-3
BSL-1
Allowed; no permit required. Allowed; no permit required.

BSL-2
Allowed; no permit required. Allowed; no permit required.

BSL-3
Allowed upon approval
of a Conditional Use Permit
Not allowed.

BSL-4
Not allowed. Not allowed.

As stated in the Summary, adoption of either ordinance would result in the City of San Carlos being more restrictive in the regulation of biosafety levels (outside of airport safety zones) than any other city in San Mateo County and the broader Bay Area.

Monitoring Compliance with a Conditional Use Permit (under Ordinance 1) If the City requires a conditional use permit for BSL-3 activities, monitoring compliance with the CUP will be an important aspect of this program. This Ordinance would include a requirement that an annual report be submitted to the City demonstrating continued compliance with the guidelines set forth in the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories authored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health:

1. The applicant would be required to submit an Annual Report to the City for review and evaluation.

The Annual Report would document all regulatory processes with which the facility must comply and demonstrate compliance. The Annual Report must be prepared at the expense of the owner, operators, or tenant by an independent, third-party expert.

2. A proposed on-call consultant (retained by the City) would peer review the Annual Report and conduct an inspection of the facility.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 63

The City would issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit proposals from potential on-call consultants to conduct a peer review of the submitted Annual Report. The applicant would submit a deposit to pay for the City’s on-call consultant / peer reviewer.

The on-call consultant would also conduct an inspection of the facility to ensure that the facility is accurately represented in the Annual Report and complies with the required regulations.

3. If the Annual Report and laboratory inspection is found to be in compliance, no action would be needed. The next step would be the submission of another Annual Report and an inspection in one year’s time.

4. If the Annual Report and laboratory inspection is not found to be in compliance, the applicant could risk revocation of the CUP based on lack of performance, per San Carlos Municipal Code, Section 18.27.140: Revocation of permits.14

5. To monitor submission of the Annual Report, the City’s permitting system would provide a reminder prompt to staff that the Annual Report is due.

6. A report and inspection would also be required to be submitted when the BSL-3 activity has ended, or the laboratory housing the BSL-3 activity is decommissioned.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS:

Notice of this hearing and the two Ordinances presented for consideration was published in the Examiner newspaper on March 16, 2023. (See Attachment 10 – Public Notice – Proof of Publication.)
As of writing of the staff report, there were several comments received from the public. (See Attachment 9 – Correspondence from the Public.) These include the public comments received between January 25, 2023 to March 14, 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code are within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in the Focused General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and no new environmental effects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary.

Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:
14 San Carlos Municipal Code, Section 18.27.140: Revocation of permits. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/SanCarlos18/SanCarlos1827.html#18.27.140

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 64

1. Introduce an Ordinance to amend the San Carlos Municipal Code Sections 18.06.020 (Commercial Districts Land Use Regulations), 18.07.020 (Industrial Districts Land Use Regulations), and 18.41.020 (Definitions), and add Section 18.23.310 (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities) to allow for BSL-3 activities with a Conditional Use Permit as specified in the Ordinance and to prohibit Biosafety Level (BSL) 4 activities; or

2. Introduce an Ordinance to amend the San Carlos Municipal Code Sections 18.06.020 (Commercial Districts Land Use Regulations), 18.07.020 (Industrial Districts Land Use Regulations), and 18.41.020 (Definitions) to prohibit Biosafety Level (BSL) 3 and 4 activities; or

3. Do not enact an Ordinance to amend Title 18 to regulate Biosafety Level (BSL) activities; or

4. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Al Savay, Community & Economic Development Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Ordinance Allowing BSL-3 Activities with a Conditional Use Permit and Prohibiting BSL-4 Activities

2. Ordinance Prohibiting BSL-3 and BSL-4 Activities

3. Minutes from the February 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting

4. Minutes from the March 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting

5. Responses to Questions from the Planning and Transportation Commission and Public

6. Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation

7. San Carlos Airport Safety Zones Map

8. Code Language for Biosafety Regulations in San Mateo dictions and Bay Area Jurisdictions

9. Correspondence from the Public, as of March 22, 2023

10. Public Notice – Proof of Publication

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 65

ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS AMENDING SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 18, ZONING, SECTIONS 18.06.020 (COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE REGULATIONS), 18.07.020 (INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE REGULATIONS), AND 18.41.020 (DEFINITIONS), AND ADDING SECTION 18.23.310 (STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC USES
AND ACTIVITIES).

SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of San Carlos does hereby ordain as follows:

WHEREAS, the San Carlos 2030 General Plan’s Environmental Safety and Public Services Element sets forth Action ESPS-5.6 that directs the City of San Carlos to: “Prepare regulations that address biosafety levels (BSL) for new life science, biotechnology, or other scientific developments to ensure a healthy and safe San Carlos community”; and WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos is addressing Biosafety Levels (BSL) by adopting an Ordinance to amend San Carlos Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning, Sections 18.06.020 (Commercial Districts Land Use Regulations), 18.07.020 (Industrial Districts Land Use Regulations), and 18.41.020 (Definitions), and to add Section 18.23.310 (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities); and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance amends the San Carlos Municipal Code to amend the Land Use Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts to permit BSL 1 and 2 activities, permit BSL 3 activities with a Conditional Use Permit, and prohibit BSL 4 activities associated with Research and Development uses; add a definition for Biological Agent and Biosafety Level (BSL); and add new standards for activities requiring BSL 3 containment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65853 and 65850 and San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.136, when a change in the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code) is found necessary, the Planning and Transportation Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider such change and render its decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.136.030 and California Government Code Section 65090 and 650901, a Public Hearing Notice was published on January 25, 2023 for the item titled, “Consider a Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amendment to the City of San Carlos' Zoning Code Section 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL)” in the newspaper; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with proposed amendments to the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on February 6, 2023 in consideration of a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an Ordinance. During the meeting, the Planning and Transportation Commission voted to continue the item to the March 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting; and

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 66

WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.136.030 and California Government Code Section 65090 and 650901, a Public Hearing Notice was published on February 22, 2023 for the item titled, “Continuation of Consideration of a Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amendment to the City of San Carlos' Zoning Code Section 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL)” in the newspaper; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with proposed amendments to the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on March 6, 2023 in consideration of a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.136.030 and the California Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091, a Public Hearing Notice for the City Council consideration of the Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation on the item titled, “Considering Introducing an Ordinance Amending the City of San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL)” was published on March 16, 2023 in the newspaper; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text were released for public review on March 23, 2023 and incorporate the recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Commission as recommended in Resolution of the Planning and Transportation Commission No. PC2023-0005 and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on amendments to the San Carlos Zoning Ordinance to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with proposed amendments to the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on March 27, 2023 in consideration of adoption of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make findings for the proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 Zoning Ordinance relative to implementation of the 2030 General Plan.

SECTION 2: The City Council makes the following findings:

1. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Basis for finding: The Environmental Safety and Public Services Element of the San Carlos General Plan includes Goal ESPS-5, which states, “Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials,” and Action ESPS-5.6, which states “Prepare regulations that address biosafety levels (BSL) for new life science, biotechnology, or other scientific developments to ensure a healthy and safe San Carlos community.” The primary goal of this amendment to Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code is to implement Action ESPS-5.6 by including a definition for Biosafety Levels (BSL), and by permitting BSL 3 activities with a Conditional Use Permit, and prohibiting BSL-4 activities.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 67

2. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the purpose of the zoning title to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.

Basis for finding: The amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the San Carlos General Plan and includes adequate measures to ensure consistency with the General Plan. The amendment continues to allow life science and research and development uses while continuing to protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare.

SECTION 3: Modification of Code. Sections 18.06.020 (Commercial Districts Land Use Regulations), 18.07.020 (Industrial Districts Land Use Regulations), and 18.41.020 (Definitions) of Title 18 – Zoning is hereby modified with the language in Exhibit A, and incorporated into Title 18 of the Municipal Code by this reference.

SECTION 4: Addition to Code. Section 18.23.310 (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities) of Title 18 – Zoning is hereby added with the language in Exhibit A, and incorporated into Title 18 of the Municipal Code by this reference.

SECTION 5: Pending Applications. As to applications for facilities with BSL 3 and BSL 4 activities, which have been accepted, processing and review of such applications may continue, but shall be subject to the regulations and requirements listed in Exhibit A, on the date the ordinance becomes effective.

SECTION 6: California Environmental Quality Act Determination. The City Council hereby finds that amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code are within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in the Focused General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and no new environmental effects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168.

SECTION 7: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and such section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 8: That the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable and, if for any reason any sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 68

SECTION 9: This Ordinance shall be published and posted according to law and shall take effect and be in force from and after 30 days after its passage and adoption. * * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced on 27th day of March, 2023 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Carlos held on the ____ day of ____, 2023 by the following vote:
______________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibit A: Changes to Sections 18.06.020 (Commercial Districts Land Use Regulations),

18.07.020 (Industrial Districts Land Use Regulations), and 18.41.020 (Definitions), and Addition of Section 18.23.310 (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities) AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 69

EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18, ZONING, SECTIONS 18.06.020 (COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE REGULATIONS), 18.07.020 (INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE REGULATIONS), AND 18.41.020 (DEFINITIONS), AND ADD SECTION 18.23.310 (STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND ACTIVITIES).

18.06.020 Land use regulations.

Table 18.06.020 prescribes the land use regulations for commercial districts. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows:
“P” designates permitted uses.
“M” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a minor use permit by the Zoning Administrator.
“C” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission.
“(#)” numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the table. “-” designates uses that are not permitted.

Use classifications are defined in Chapter 18.40, Use Classifications. In cases where a specific land use or activity is not defined, the Director shall assign the land use or activity to a classification that is substantially similar in character. Use classifications and subclassifications not listed in the table or not found to be substantially similar to the uses below are prohibited. The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other sections of this title.

TABLE 18.06.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Use Classification NR GCI LC Additional Regulations
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Colleges and Trade Schools, Public or Private - C(3) -
Government Offices - C(3) -
Instructional Services P M(3) -
Public Safety Facilities - M(3) -
Commercial Uses
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services See subclassifications below Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing - P C
Automobile/Vehicle Washing - C -
See Section 18.23.050, Automobile/vehicle
sales and services

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 70

Use Classification NR GCI LC Additional Regulations
Service Station (1) P -
Banks and Financial Institutions - P C
Business Services P P P(4)
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation See subclassifications below Cinema/Theaters - P C
Large-Scale - C C
Small-Scale - P P(4)
Eating and Drinking Establishments See subclassifications below Full Service M P P(4)
Convenience P P C
See Section 18.23.140, Outdoor dining
Food Preparation P P P(4)
Lodging See subclassifications below
Hotels and Motels C C M
Maintenance and Repair Services - P P(4)
Nurseries and Garden Centers - P M(6) See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Offices See subclassifications below
Business and Professional P P P(4)
Medical and Dental - P M
Walk-In Clientele P P P(4)
Personal Services See subclassifications below
General Personal Services P P P(4) See Section 18.23.170, Personal services Retail Sales See subclassifications below
Building Materials and Services - P M
Cannabis Dispensary - - -
Convenience Markets P P M
Food and Beverage Sales P P M
General Retail P P P(4)
Large-Format Retail - C C See Section 18.23.130, Large-format retail Price Point Retail - P M
Second-Hand Store - P M
Retail Establishments Selling Ammunition or
Firearms
C C C See Section 18.23.290, Retail
establishments selling ammunition or
firearms
Industrial Uses

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 71

Use Classification NR GCI LC Additional Regulations
Construction and Material Yards - C C See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage Custom Manufacturing - P M
Industry, General - M M(6) See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Industry, Limited - P M
Recycling Facility See subclassifications below
Reverse Vending Machine - C(3) -
Recycling Collection Facility - C(3) -
See Section 18.23.190, Recycling facilities
Research and Development - P M(6) See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL1 and BSL2 containment P P P
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL3 containment - C(7) C(7)
See Section 18.23.310, Research and
Development activities requiring Biosafety
Level 3 containment
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL4 containment - - -
Salvage and Wrecking - C(2) - See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage Warehousing and Storage See subclassifications below
Indoor Warehousing and Storage - C(5) P(4)(5)
Outdoor Storage - C - See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage Wholesaling and Distribution - P M(6) See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Cannabis Microbusiness - P - See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Communication Facilities See subclassifications below
Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 18.24, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Facilities within Buildings P P M
Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses - P(3) -
Light Fleet-Based Services - P(3) C
Utilities, Major - C(3) -
Utilities, Minor P P(3) -
Other Applicable Types
Accessory Uses and Structures See Sections 18.23.030, Accessory uses, and 18.15.020, Accessory buildings and structures
Nonconforming Use Chapter 18.19, Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Temporary Use Chapter 18.31, Temporary Use Permits
Specific Limitations:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 72

1. Permitted if existing. New service stations are not allowed.

2. Shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building.

3. Not allowed between Industrial Road and Highway 101 and Skyway Road fronting Highway 101.

4. Permitted by right in existing buildings only; additions or enlargements, tear downs and rebuilds may be considered subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission.

5. Storage in small individual spaces exclusively and directly accessible to a specific tenant is permitted by right on the condition that such uses occupy no more than five percent of the total square footage of any single building.

6. Uses that require a commercial cannabis business permit are not permitted.

7. Permitted as an accessory use only.
***

18.07.020 Land use regulations.

Table 18.07.020 prescribes the land use regulations for industrial districts. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows:
“P” designates permitted uses.
“M” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a minor use permit by the Zoning Administrator.
“C” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission.
“(#)” numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the table. “-” designates uses that are not permitted.

TABLE 18.07.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Use Classification IA IL IH IP Additional Regulations
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Colleges and Trade Schools, Public or Private C C C(8) - Government Offices - C C C
Hospitals and Clinics See subclassification below
Hospitals - - - C
Public Safety Facilities - M M -
Commercial Uses

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 73

Use Classification IA IL IH IP Additional Regulations
Adult-Oriented Business C(1) C(1) C(1) - See Section 18.23.040, Adult- oriented businesses
Animal Care, Sales and Services See subclassifications below Kennels - M - -
Veterinary Services - M - -
Artist’s Studio P P - -
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services See subclassifications below Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing - C(3) C(5) C(5)
Automobile/Vehicle Repair, Major P P P C
Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Minor P P P -
Automobile/Vehicle Washing - P - -
Large Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Service
and Rental
- P P -
Service Station - P(6) - -
See Section 18.23.050,
Automobile/vehicle sales and
services
Towing and Impound - M M -
Vehicle Storage - M M -
See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor
storage
Business Services P P P P
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation See subclassifications below Large-Scale - C C -
Small-Scale - C C -
Eating and Drinking Establishments See subclassifications below Full Service - - - M(2)
Convenience M(2) M(2) M(2) M(2)
See Section 18.23.140, Outdoor
dining
Food Preparation P P - -
Funeral Parlors and Interment Services P - - -
Maintenance and Repair Services P P P -
Nurseries and Garden Centers - M M - See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Offices See subclassifications below
Business and Professional - C C M
Medical and Dental - C - M
Parking, Public or Private - P P - See Chapter 18.20, Parking and Loading
Personal Services See subclassification below
Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor M - - -
Retail Sales See subclassifications below

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 74

Use Classification IA IL IH IP Additional Regulations
Building Materials and Services M M M -
Cannabis Dispensary - - - -
Convenience Markets M(2) M(2) M(2) M(2)
Food and Beverage Sales M(2) M(2) M(2) M(2)
General Retail M(4) M(4) M(4) M(4)
Retail Establishments Selling Ammunition or
Firearms
C C C C See Section 18.23.290, Retail
establishments selling ammunition
or firearms
Industrial Uses
Construction and Material Yards P P P - See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage
Custom Manufacturing P P P -
Industry, General P P P - See Section 18.23.270,
Commercial cannabis businesses
Industry, Limited P P P P
Recycling Facility See subclassifications below
Reverse Vending Machine P P - -
Recycling Collection Facility - C C -
Recycling Processing Facility - C C -
See Section 18.23.190, Recycling
facilities
Research and Development P P P P See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL1 and BSL2 containment P P P P
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL3 containment C(9) C(9) C(9) C(9)
See Section 18.23.310, Research
and Development activities
requiring Biosafety Level 3
containment.

Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL4 containment - - - -
Salvage and Wrecking M(3) M M - See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage
Warehousing and Storage See subclassifications below
Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage - C(7) C(7) - Indoor Warehousing and Storage P P P -
Outdoor Storage P(9) P P - See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage
Wholesaling and Distribution P P P - See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Cannabis Microbusiness P P P - See Section 18.23.270,
Commercial cannabis businesses
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 75

Use Classification IA IL IH IP Additional Regulations
Communication Facilities See subclassifications below
Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 18.24, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Facilities within Buildings M M M M
Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses - C P(10) -
Light Fleet-Based Services P P P -
Utilities, Major C C C C
Utilities, Minor P P P P
Waste Transfer Facility - P P -
Other Applicable Types
Accessory Uses and Structures See Sections 18.23.030, Accessory uses, and 18.15.020, Accessory buildings and structures
Nonconforming Use Chapter 18.19, Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Temporary Use Chapter 18.31, Temporary Use Permits
Specific Limitations:

1. Permitted only in the area shown on Figure 18.23.040-B: Adult-Oriented Business Area.

2. Permitted only as an ancillary use. The combined floor area of all eating and drinking uses on a site shall not exceed two thousand five hundred square feet unless a conditional use permit is approved.

3. Shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building.

4. Permitted only as an ancillary use, not to occupy more than one thousand square feet, unless a conditional use permit is approved.

5. Limited to properties between Industrial Road and Highway 101 and adjacent to Shoreway Road.

6. Limited to alternative fueling stations such as for electric or hybrid vehicles, hydrogen-powered vehicles, and similar vehicles using alternative fuels.

7. Prohibited within five hundred feet of a residential district.

8. Except between Industrial and Highway 101 and Shoreway and Highway 101.

9. Permitted as an accessory use only.

10. Conditional use permit required if adjacent to an R district. ***
Chapter 18.23

STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND ACTIVITIES
Sections:

18.23.310 Research and Development activities requiring Biosafety Level 3 containment. ***

18.23.310 Research and Development activities requiring Biosafety Level 3 containment.

Research and Development activities requiring Biosafety Level 3 containment shall be established and operated in compliance with the following standards:

A. Applicability. This section applies to Research and Development activities involving the use of biological agents requiring Biosafety Level (BSL) 3 containment measures.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 76

B. Permit Requirements. Any activities involving the use of biological agents requiring Biosafety Level 3 containment measures shall require a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission prior to commencement.

1. Any conditional use permit application must contain the following:
a. A Biosafety Plan (BSP) prepared in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Group 16, Article 109, Section 5199(f)(4), including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Identification of a biological safety officer(s) with the necessary knowledge, authority, and responsibility for implementing the BSP;
ii. A list of all job classifications in which all or some employees have occupational exposure, and a list of all tasks and procedures in which employees have occupational exposure;
iii. A list of aerosol transmissible pathogens – laboratory (ATPs-L) known or reasonably expected to be present in laboratory materials and the applicable biosafety measures; iv. A requirement that all incoming materials containing ATPs-L are to be treated as containing the virulent or wild-type pathogen, until procedures have been conducted at the laboratory to verify that a pathogen has been deactivated or attenuated; v. Identification and description of engineering controls, including containment equipment and procedures, to be used to minimize exposure to infectious or potentially infectious laboratory aerosols;
vi. A description of safe handling procedures and prohibited practices that may increase employee exposure to infectious agents;
vii. A description of effective decontamination and disinfection procedures for laboratory surfaces and equipment;
viii. Identification and description of the appropriate personal protective equipment to be used to minimize exposure to infectious or potentially infectious laboratory aerosols; ix. Identification of any operations or conditions in which respiratory protection will be required. The use of respiratory protection shall be in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 8, Section 5144, subsection (g);
x. A description of emergency procedures for uncontrolled releases within the laboratory facility and untreated releases outside the laboratory facility. These procedures shall include effective means of reporting such incidents to the local health officer; and xi. Inclusion of a medical services program consistent with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 5199(h), including the provision of all vaccinations as recommended by applicable public health guidelines for the specific laboratory operations, and the methods for providing investigation and medical follow up for exposure incidents (laboratory). b. A Medical Waste Management Plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of the San Mateo County Medical Waste Program, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Type of facility;
ii. Medical waste activities;
iii. Biosafety level(s);
iv. Types of regulated medical waste and amounts per month; v. Types of treatment;
vi. Regulated off-site transporter information;
vii. Back up off-site transporter information;
viii. Use of mail back program
ix. Treatment of waste pharmaceuticals;
x. Management of medical waste spills;
xi. Training requirements; and
xii. Emergency Action Plan (for large quantity generators only)

2. Necessary Findings. Prior to approving an application for a conditional use permit for any Research and Development activities involving the use of biological agents requiring Biosafety Level (BSL) 3

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 77

containment measures, the Planning Commission must make all of the findings for a use permit application found in Section 18.30.060 and the following additional findings:
a. The applicant has made adequate provisions to address emergency procedures for uncontrolled releases within the laboratory facility and untreated releases outside the laboratory facility; and
b. The applicant has provided a peer review of the proposed facility, safety equipment and practices by a qualified third-party demonstrating compliance with the guidelines set forth in Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (6th Edition or most recent) authored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).

C. Operational and Performance Standards.

1. The activities involving the use of biological agents requiring Biosafety Level (BSL) 3 containment measures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet above the base flood elevation as identified on the current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

2. The activities involving the use of biological agents requiring Biosafety Level (BSL) 3 containment measures shall be limited to the on-site tenants of the subject development and shall not, under any circumstance, be used by entities located outside of the subject development.

3. An inspection shall be conducted and a compliance report shall be submitted at the expense of the owner, operator, or tenant prior to initiating operations, and on each anniversary of the effective date of permit approval, and on the closure or discontinuance of the Biosafety Level (BSL) 3 facility. Such reports shall be made by a qualified third party demonstrating continued compliance with the guidelines set forth in Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (6th Edition or most recent) authored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).

4. Failure by the applicant to submit the reports required in 18.23.310.C.3 in a timely manner may result in revocation of the Conditional Use Permit per San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.27.140:

Revocation of Permits.
***

18.41.020 Definitions.
***
“Bedroom” means any room having the potential of being a bedroom and meeting the standards of the California Building Code as a sleeping room.
“Biological Agent” means any microorganism (including, but not limited to, bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsia or protozoa), or infectious substance, or any naturally occurring, bioengineered or synthesized component of any such microorganism or infectious substance up to and including Risk Group 3 or Biosafety Level 3 classifications as defined by the National Institute of Health (NIH) or the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 78

“Biosafety Level (BSL)” means the four ascending levels of containment precautions, referred to as Biosafety Levels 1 through 4, required to isolate dangerous biological agents in an enclosed laboratory facility as set forth in the most current edition of Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH), based on the primary risk criteria of infectivity, severity of disease, transmissibility, and the nature of the work being conducted. Each level of containment describes the microbiological practices, safety equipment, and facility safeguards for the corresponding level of risk associated with handling an agent.
“Block” means property bounded on all sides by a public right-of-way.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 79

ORDINANCE NO. _____

SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of San Carlos does hereby ordain as follows:

WHEREAS, the San Carlos 2030 General Plan’s Environmental Safety and Public Services Element sets forth Action ESPS-5.6 that directs the City of San Carlos to: “Prepare regulations that address biosafety levels (BSL) for new life science, biotechnology, or other scientific developments to ensure a healthy and safe San Carlos community”; and WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos is addressing Biosafety Levels (BSL) by adopting an Ordinance to amend San Carlos Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning, Sections 18.06.020 (Commercial Districts Land Use Regulations), 18.07.020 (Industrial Districts Land Use Regulations), and 18.41.020 (Definitions); and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance amends the San Carlos Municipal Code to amend the Land Use Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts to permit BSL 1 and 2 activities and prohibit BSL 3 and 4 activities associated with Research and Development uses; add a definition for Biological Agent and Biosafety Level (BSL); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65853 and 65850 and San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.136, when a change in the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code) is found necessary, the Planning and Transportation Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider such change and render its decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.136.030 and California Government Code Section 65090 and 650901, a Public Hearing Notice was published on January 25, 2023 for the item titled, “Consider a Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amendment to the City of San Carlos' Zoning Code Section 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL)” in the newspaper; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with proposed amendments to the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on February 6, 2023 in consideration of a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an Ordinance. During the meeting, the Planning and Transportation Commission voted to continue the item to the March 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting; and

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 80

WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.136.030 and California Government Code Section 65090 and 650901, a Public Hearing Notice was published on February 22, 2023 for the item titled, “Continuation of Consideration of a Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amendment to the City of San Carlos' Zoning Code Section 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL)” in the newspaper; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with proposed amendments to the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on March 6, 2023 in consideration of a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.136.030 and the California Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091, a Public Hearing Notice for the City Council consideration of the Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation on the item titled, “Considering Introducing an Ordinance Amending the City of San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL)” was published on March 16, 2023 in the newspaper; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text were released for public review on March 23, 2023 and incorporate the recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Commission as recommended in Resolution of the Planning and Transportation Commission No. PC2023-0005 and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on amendments to the San Carlos Zoning Ordinance to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with a proposed amendments to the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on March 27, 2023 in consideration of adoption of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make findings for the proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 Zoning Ordinance relative to implementation of the 2030 General Plan.

SECTION 2: The City Council makes the following findings:

1. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Basis for finding: The Environmental Safety and Public Services Element of the San Carlos General Plan includes Goal ESPS-5, which states, “Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials,” and Action ESPS-5.6, which states “Prepare regulations that address biosafety levels (BSL) for new life science, biotechnology, or other scientific developments to ensure a healthy and safe San Carlos community.” The primary goal of this proposed amendment to Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code is to implement Action ESPS-5.6 by including a definition for Biosafety Levels (BSL), and prohibiting facilities with biosafety levels (BSL) 3 and 4.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 81

2. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the purpose of this Ordinance to promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare.

Basis for finding: The amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the San Carlos General Plan and as such continue to allow life science and research and development uses while continuing to protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare.

SECTION 4: Pending Applications. As to applications for facilities with BSL 3 and BSL 4 activities, which have been accepted, processing and review of such applications may continue, but shall be subject to the regulations and requirements listed in Exhibit A, on the date the ordinance becomes effective.

SECTION 5: California Environmental Quality Act Determination. The City Council hereby finds that amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code are within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in the Focused General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and no new environmental effects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168.

SECTION 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and such section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7: That the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable and, if for any reason any sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.

SECTION 8: This Ordinance shall be published and posted according to law and shall take effect and be in force from and after 30 days after its passage and adoption. * * * * *

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 82

I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced on 27th day of March, 2023 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Carlos held on the ____ day of ____, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:___________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:___________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:___________________________________________ ________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibit A: Changes to Sections 18.06.020 (Commercial Districts Land Use Regulations),

18.07.020 (Industrial Districts Land Use Regulations), and 18.41.020 (Definitions)

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 83

EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18, ZONING, SECTIONS 18.06.020 (COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE REGULATIONS), 18.07.020 (INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE REGULATIONS), AND 18.41.020 (DEFINITIONS).

18.06.020 Land use regulations.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 84

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 85

Use Classification NR GCI LC Additional Regulations
Construction and Material Yards - C C See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage Custom Manufacturing - P M
Industry, General - M M(6) See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Industry, Limited - P M
Recycling Facility See subclassifications below
Reverse Vending Machine - C(3) -
Recycling Collection Facility - C(3) -
See Section 18.23.190, Recycling facilities
Research and Development - P M(6) See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL1 and BSL2 containment
P P P
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL3 containment
- - -
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL4 containment
- - -
Salvage and Wrecking - C(2) - See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage Warehousing and Storage See subclassifications below
Indoor Warehousing and Storage - C(5) P(4)(5)
Outdoor Storage - C - See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage Wholesaling and Distribution - P M(6) See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Cannabis Microbusiness - P - See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Communication Facilities See subclassifications below
Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 18.24, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Facilities within Buildings P P M
Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses - P(3) -
Light Fleet-Based Services - P(3) C
Utilities, Major - C(3) -
Utilities, Minor P P(3) -
Other Applicable Types
Accessory Uses and Structures See Sections 18.23.030, Accessory uses, and 18.15.020, Accessory buildings and structures
Nonconforming Use Chapter 18.19, Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Temporary Use Chapter 18.31, Temporary Use Permits
Specific Limitations:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 86

1. Permitted if existing. New service stations are not allowed.

2. Shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building.

3. Not allowed between Industrial Road and Highway 101 and Skyway Road fronting Highway 101.

4. Permitted by right in existing buildings only; additions or enlargements, tear downs and rebuilds may be considered subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission.

6. Uses that require a commercial cannabis business permit are not permitted. ***

18.07.020 Land use regulations.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 87

Use Classification IA IL IH IP Additional Regulations
Public Safety Facilities - M M -
Commercial Uses
Adult-Oriented Business C(1) C(1) C(1) - See Section 18.23.040, Adult- oriented businesses
Animal Care, Sales and Services See subclassifications below Kennels - M - -
Veterinary Services - M - -
Artist’s Studio P P - -
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services See subclassifications below Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing - C(3) C(5) C(5)
Automobile/Vehicle Repair, Major P P P C
Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Minor P P P -
Automobile/Vehicle Washing - P - -
Large Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Service
and Rental
- P P -
Service Station - P(6) - -
See Section 18.23.050,
Automobile/vehicle sales and
services
Towing and Impound - M M -
Vehicle Storage - M M -
See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor
storage
Business Services P P P P
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation See subclassifications below Large-Scale - C C -
Small-Scale - C C -
Eating and Drinking Establishments See subclassifications below Full Service - - - M(2)
Convenience M(2) M(2) M(2) M(2)
See Section 18.23.140, Outdoor
dining
Food Preparation P P - -
Funeral Parlors and Interment Services P - - -
Maintenance and Repair Services P P P -
Nurseries and Garden Centers - M M - See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Offices See subclassifications below
Business and Professional - C C M
Medical and Dental - C - M
Parking, Public or Private - P P - See Chapter 18.20, Parking and Loading

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 88

Use Classification IA IL IH IP Additional Regulations
Personal Services See subclassification below
Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor M - - -
Retail Sales See subclassifications below
Building Materials and Services M M M -
Cannabis Dispensary - - - -
Convenience Markets M(2) M(2) M(2) M(2)
Food and Beverage Sales M(2) M(2) M(2) M(2)
General Retail M(4) M(4) M(4) M(4)
Retail Establishments Selling Ammunition or
Firearms
C C C C See Section 18.23.290, Retail
establishments selling ammunition
or firearms
Industrial Uses
Construction and Material Yards P P P - See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage
Custom Manufacturing P P P -
Industry, General P P P - See Section 18.23.270,
Commercial cannabis businesses
Industry, Limited P P P P
Recycling Facility See subclassifications below
Reverse Vending Machine P P - -
Recycling Collection Facility - C C -
Recycling Processing Facility - C C -
See Section 18.23.190, Recycling
facilities
Research and Development P P P P See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL1 and BSL2 containment

P P P P
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL3 containment
- - - -
Research and Development Activities
requiring BSL4 containment
- - - -
Salvage and Wrecking M(3) M M - See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage
Warehousing and Storage See subclassifications below
Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage - C(7) C(7) - Indoor Warehousing and Storage P P P -
Outdoor Storage P(9) P P - See Section 18.23.160, Outdoor storage
Wholesaling and Distribution P P P - See Section 18.23.270, Commercial cannabis businesses

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 89

Use Classification IA IL IH IP Additional Regulations
Cannabis Microbusiness P P P - See Section 18.23.270,
Commercial cannabis businesses
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Communication Facilities See subclassifications below
Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 18.24, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Facilities within Buildings M M M M
Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses - C P(10) -
Light Fleet-Based Services P P P -
Utilities, Major C C C C
Utilities, Minor P P P P
Waste Transfer Facility - P P -
Other Applicable Types
Accessory Uses and Structures See Sections 18.23.030, Accessory uses, and 18.15.020, Accessory buildings and structures
Nonconforming Use Chapter 18.19, Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Temporary Use Chapter 18.31, Temporary Use Permits
Specific Limitations:

1. Permitted only in the area shown on Figure 18.23.040-B: Adult-Oriented Business Area.

3. Shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building.

4. Permitted only as an ancillary use, not to occupy more than one thousand square feet, unless a conditional use permit is approved.

5. Limited to properties between Industrial Road and Highway 101 and adjacent to Shoreway Road.

6. Limited to alternative fueling stations such as for electric or hybrid vehicles, hydrogen-powered vehicles, and similar vehicles using alternative fuels.

7. Prohibited within five hundred feet of a residential district.

8. Except between Industrial and Highway 101 and Shoreway and Highway 101.

9. Permitted as an accessory use only.

10. Conditional use permit required if adjacent to an R district. ***

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 90

of any such microorganism or infectious substance up to and including Risk Group 3 or Biosafety Level 3 classifications as defined by the National Institute of Health (NIH) or the Center for Disease Control (CDC). “Biosafety Level (BSL)” means the four ascending levels of containment precautions, referred to as Biosafety Levels 1 through 4, required to isolate dangerous biological agents in an enclosed laboratory facility as set forth in the most current edition of Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH), based on the primary risk criteria of infectivity, severity of disease, transmissibility, and the nature of the work being conducted. Each level of containment describes the microbiological practices, safety equipment, and facility safeguards for the corresponding level of risk associated with handling an agent.
“Block” means property bounded on all sides by a public right-of-way. ***

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 91

1 CITY OF SAN CARLOS

SAN CARLOS PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 6th, 2023
7:00 PM
San Carlos City Hall, Council Chambers
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org

APPROVED MINUTES

COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY
Jim Iacoponi, Chair
Kristen Clements, Vice Chair
David Roof
Ellen Garvey
Janet Castaneda
Al Savay, Community and Economic Development
Director
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community
Development Director
Greg Rubens, City Attorney
Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner, Consultant

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

4. PUBLIC COMMENT
Debbie Baldocchi suggested the City to use another publication for Public Notices such as the San Mateo Daily Journal which is more well-read.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Approval of the Minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of January 3, 2023
Attachment 3. Approved Minutes from the February 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 92

2 M/S Clements/Roof motioned and seconded to approve the minutes of January 3, 2023, Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting.

The motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Roof, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements, Iacoponi
Noes: None

b. Approval of the Minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of January 17, 2023
M/S Clements/Garvey motioned and seconded to approve the minutes of January 17, 2023, Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting with the edits noted by Commissioner Castaneda.

The motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Roof, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements, Iacoponi
Noes: None

6. PUBLIC HEARING

a. Consider a Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amendment to the City of San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL)

Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner, Consultant presented the item.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know the typical proximity to other uses when a Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) Lab is put in place. She also wanted to know if there are examples of BSL-3 facilities.

Lisa Costa Sanders shared that in San Francisco and South San Francisco there have been occasions where BSL-3 Labs have been utilized and those were more a campus environment.

Carol Johnson, Consulting Planner, shared that they were unable to locate the specific address for BSL-3 facilities because they were commissioned and then decommissioned, therefore trying to find a current list is very difficult. Carol Johnson added that in San Franc isco, BSL-3 Labs are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in mixed -used areas such as office uses, and multi-family uses. She stated that many jurisdictions allow them in a mixed -use setting and do not require separation from sensitive uses.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know whether the City would be in a disadvantage position or out of step with the market demand for facilities if it bans BSL-3.

Lisa Costa Sanders shared that there is only about 1% of BSL -3 Lab spaces. She added that based on some feedback from developers , businesses may choose to locate elsewhere in a jurisdiction that does not have BSL restrictions.

Commissioner Roof disclosed that he works for a pharmaceutical company , Genentech, but it will not impact his judgement on th is item. He wanted to know if the County and State regulations prevent BSL-3 and BSL-4 Labs.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 93

3 Lisa Costa Sanders stated that the County and State regulations do not prevent BSL-3 and BSL- 4 Labs. She noted that the Airport Compatibility Zones restricts BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs in certain areas close to the airport.

Commissioner Roof asked about the choice of language, “banning BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities” in the report as opposed to “prevents the use of Level 4 ideological agents”. He shared that there may be companies wanting to build a BSL-3 facility and use it for BSL-2 work.

Carol Johnson stated that in their r esearch of various agencies at different jurisdictions that had adopted regulations specific to biosafety levels there is a preponderance of using the word “facility.” She added there are other jurisdictions that used the phrase “agent”, and Fremont is one of them. Carol Johnson shared that the choice of language can be part of the Commission’s deliberation and a recommendation to modify the text as they so choose.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know if there are only seven BSL3 Labs in the Bay Area.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated that is a difficult to find accurate information on current facilities , but it is the best research they were able to locate.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to confirm that there are only 1% of labs classified in BSL3.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated that is correct at any given time.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know who inspects those BSL-3 Labs in the Bay Area.

Carol Johnson shared that in the City of San Francisco there is no prescribed annual inspection.

Commissioner Garvey wanted to know if any BSL -3 Labs ha ve ever been commissioned in the Peninsula, for example, Stanford.

Carla Boragno, Former Vice President of Sit e Services, Genentech shared that those labs are rare, and she is awar e of one lab in San Francisco, but she is not at liberty to share the name.

She added that Genentech in the 90s built and commissioned that type of lab for a particular research program for HIV, and when the lab was no longer needed it was decommissioned.

Carla Boragno added that there are clear and specific guidelines around the design and commissioning of those labs and when combined with design control and the containment along with administrative processes with regards to training and standard operati ng procedure, those labs are designed to be operated in a very safe way.

Chair Iacoponi referred to the Airport Compatibility Zone and the dotted purple line in the presentation. He wa nted to know if the Airport Zone, which excludes BSL -3 and BSL -4 covers most of San Carlos.

Lisa Costa Sanders clarified that it is the dark purple area that does not allow BSL -3 or BSL -4.

The purple dotted line is Compatibility Zone 6, which has no restriction.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know the thinking behind allowing B SL-1 and BSL -2 only when other cities do not see the need to regulate this.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated that the City receive feedback from the public of their concern with BSL-3 and BSL-4, and the City received some direction from the City Council with the adoption of the General Plan Policy to consider prohibiting BSL-3.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know the logic behind the cut off at BSL-3.

Lisa Costa Sanders explained that BSL -1 and B SL-2 do not have the same level of safety protocols requirements, and at BSL-3 there is a big step-up.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 94

4 Vice Chair Clements wanted to know why the City proposed to ban BSL -3 and not suggest a strict CUP with a strict monitoring program. She wanted to know the pros and cons.

Al Savay, Community and Economic Development Director explained that since it was just 1% of usage of BSL-3 facilities in the area and from an economic impact point of view, the City did not believe that it was significant. He stated that the City weighted the economic issues , community safety and concern, the City felt that they should move forward with the recommendation to the Planning and Transportation Commission, because it does not have a significant impact on the marketplace.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know why the City want ed to put in such regulations when there are other agencies already regulating. She also wanted to know who the City would work with amongst the other agencies.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated that from their research the existing regulations are independent and specific to the kind of operations and agents that the facility is dealing with. She added that if the City were to regulate, one thing that could happen is that the City would act as an umbrella , receiving all the compliance reports from the labs stating they have met all regulations, which to the public the City is another check point and would provide additional reassurance.

Lisa Costa Sanders shared that in some jurisdiction s in the East Coast have committees to review this, but th e City of San Carlos does no t have the staff expertise . She added that perhaps the County could establish that level of oversight at the regional level.

Greg Rubens, City Attorney stated that City oversight is part of t he City’s general police power and general health a nd safety regulation. He stated that he would want to look at the overlay with the County and State regulation to see whether there is some level of preemption, where it's duplicative of what is already been done.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know if the City would be preempted by something should they start to monitor CUPs.

Greg Rubens shared that the City has many standard conditions in the CUP review process that deal with interagency issues. He gave a few examples. Greg Rubens stated that the City in essence is adopting those standards as part of the CUP approval process . He added that i f someone does not follow those standards, the City c ould conduct a proceeding to revoke their permit or report t o the appropriat e agency who would have their own administrative process to create compliance with the rules.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated that the City’s role is to verify that the labs received all the appropriate approvals required by the other agencies and not to deny or review them.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know would th e effect of preemption by the state or federal emergency declaration still allow the City to help in a national emergency if the City were to limit operations at BSL-2.

Greg Rubens explained that should there be a situation where a BSL -2 Lab could do something to help the national emergency but would require them to be a BSL -3 Lab, and they were the only lab that could do that, there may be some emergency power that could apply to make that happen. He added that the City could also amend the Zoning Ordinance if required to help solve the national emergency.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to better understand the approval and on -going enforcement of a CUP for BSL-3.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 95

5 Lisa Costa Sander e xplained that findings would need to be made to grant CUP approval, and the City needs to develop what those findings are. She added that there are no annual reporting requirements for other CUPs, it would only be enforced when there is a violation.

Carol Johnson stated that the other CUP s did not have any unique findings, only the general conditional use findings for the jurisdiction such as compliance with the General Plan and no detriment to the public health safety.

Greg Rubens shared that the City could develop a special finding for local conditions for granting a CUP if that is something the Commission wanted.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know how much it cost and what it entails to set up a CUP Monitoring Program.

Al Savay stated that it would be significant. He shared that he does not know of any other cities that have a monitoring program. Al Savay added that there is an informal oversight program that is complaint based and is very effective. He explained that once there is a complain t, the City would investigate and talk to related parties to verify facts. That process usually would get the CUP back in compliance, and if not, the City has the ability to revoke the CUP.

Commissioner Garvey w anted to know how easy is it to retrofit a BSL -2 to BSL -3 or w hether it make financial sense to start out with a BSL-3.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated that is would be difficult to retrofit later, therefore one should build a lab assuming they will want a BSL-3 lab in the future.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ryan Guibara from MBC Biolabs stated that if the City bans BSL -3 that sends a clear message to the market that the City does not want biotechnology in San Carlos. He added that when a potential company is looking for space and compare the pros and cons of each city, the banning of BSL-3 will deter them from choosing San Carlos and would have a drastic impact to building a biotechnology community.

Ryan Guibara shared that retrofitting a BS L-2 to BSL -3 Lab is possible but difficult. He added that in general only a very small component of a BSL-2 Lab is a BSL-3 Lab.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know what can be done in a BSL-3 Lab.

Ryan Guibara explained that some COVID work is don e in a BSL -3 Lab and Ebola is done in a BSL-4 Lab. He added that a BSL-3 Lab has higher safety requirements, which makes it foolproof for agents that are in there.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know the cost of retrofitting to a BSL -3 Lab. Ryan Guibara stated that it would be expensive.

Commissioner Garvey wanted to know if the BSL-3 Lab is similar to a semiconductor clean room where there are airlocks, HVAC, frequent air changes and filters.

Ryan Guibar explained that there are similarities and differences.

Caller 1 David Crabbe from the Sierra Club shared that he is agains t BSL-3 because of health and safety issues, particularly air born transmitted disease. He added that by putting these labs in the middle of the peninsula does not make sense. David Crabbe stated that the labs have control of what is within their facility, but the City has control o f what is outside the facility, that is the distance between labs and other buildings.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 96

6 Caller 1 David Crabbe agreed that with a CUP there needs extensive manpower to monitor and enforce, therefore by banning BSL -3, it would el iminate the problem entirely. He shared that BSL-3 is a real safety issue especially the City is in an earthquake area coupled with sea level rising.

Caller 3 Gary Baldocchi shared that labs that perform research on life -threatening pathogens have no place in densely populated residential neighborhoods . He shared his concerns of the consequences of flooding these BSL -3 labs would have on the east and northeast side of San Carlos neighborhood. Gary Baldocchi added that the cost of monitoring, establishin g committees, and passing new ordinance would be costly and he felt that taxpayers should not bear that burden. He agreed with City Staff that BSL-3 and BSL-4 should be banned.

Caller 4 Debbie Baldocchi strongly support ed the banning of BSL-3 and BSL -4. She i s concerned that it appears most of the Planning and Transportation Commission is opposed to banning BSL-3. Debbie Baldocchi urged the commissioners to read the links she shared in her first comment letter and hear what the experts have to say on un regulated private labs. Debbie Baldocchi also stated that flooding would have negative impact to the east and northeast area.

Caller 5 Steven Goodale , a member of the Sierra Club who is part of the working group that looked into the life science and biotech firms. He shared that they met some east coast experts in land use and permitting to give a webinar called Planning for Life Science Development in the Bay Area Communities on March 2nd. Steven Goodale stated he sen t a save-the-date invite to the Commissioners and hope they would attend.

Chair Iacoponi stated that he did receive the invite and thanked Steven Goodale.

Caller 6 Christy Shirilla Policy Manager from BioCom shared that BioCom is the S tate's oldest and largest association for the life sciences, advocating on behalf of 1700 members. She stated that companies are developing life-saving treatments and cures for all human ailments improving health outcomes and quality of life , and the industry is hig hly regulated and has a high rate of compliance. Christy Shirilla proposed to allow BSL-3 with a CUP.

Caller 7 Paul Maggin etti, board member of the Greater East Side San Carlos ( GESC) Neighborhood Association shared a list of questions he posed to the Commission. He stated that if the Commission does not know the answers to the questions, then they are making an uninformed decision on BSL-3 Labs. Paul Magginetti shared that private commercial BSL-3 labs are not subject to regulation s or oversight like publicly funded BSL-3 labs. He added that it is unwise to permit building of BSL-3 labs unti l there is a concrete action plan to address the unthinkable.

Caller 8 Jeff Maley a member of the GESC Board shared that he is very conce rned with labs processing dangerous toxins anywhere near where his f amily lives. He wanted everyone to ask themselves how close is comfortable living near some of those labs.

Caller 9 Jennifer Rosse a member of the GESC Board shared that many of them liv e very close to the purple area in the presentation. She applauded the Staff for making the recommendation and she i s in support of the Ordinance in banning BSL -3 and BSL -4 Labs in San Carlos.

Jennifer Rosse echoed the other callers who are supportive o f the ban. She did a Google search and shared that most of the BSL -3 facilities are in biotech campuses that are secl uded from residential area. Jennifer Rosse added that San Carlos is unique because it has residentials backing right up to life science c ompanies. She urged the Commission to educate themselves before deciding and recommended them to approve the motion.

Caller 10 Anna Axiaq , resident of Greater East Side , urged the Commission to listen to the staff report and thanked the City Staff for their hard work.

Caller 11 Dimitri Vandellos shared that there are onl y 13 BSL -4 facilities in the entire United States. He added that u nless the City is completely prepared, understands the situation, and

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 97

7 have an infrastructure i n place, the City should not be considering BSL -3 facilities. Dimitri Vandellos stated that if a CUP is considered as a potential way to allow B SL-3, then strict guidelines need to be put in place and there needs to be an open process where the San Carlos residents are informed and understand the types of pathogens involved.

M/S Garvey/Castaneda motioned and seconded to close the public comment.

The motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Roof, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements and Iacoponi

Noes: None

Lisa Costa Sanders clarified a public comment regarding the prohibited location of BSL-3 & BSL-

4. She stated that they looked at a ll the zoning regulations where research and development are allowed, and those areas are where all the BSL-3 labs are prohibited.

Lisa C osta Sanders added that for Planned Development (PD) Zones, they co uld only allow uses that are permitted or conditi onal in the City therefore they could not pull in a prohibited use with a PD.

Commissioner Garvey wanted to know if private labs are subjec t to the same county, state and federal regulations as government labs.

Carla Boragno stated that private labs are subject to the same regulations as government labs, however, there is a distinction as it relates to companies that have National Institute of Health (NIH) funding. She explained that a company that is fund ed by NIH would have to follow NIH and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Roof shared that they must weigh the risk and perhaps San Carlos’ specific risk against the value of having BSL -3 facili ties. He added that it is important to take into consideration the image the City projects and how to overse e the industry. Commissioner Roof shared that the most important point for him is weighing the risk of something that may go wrong and the opportunity to research potentially life saving technolo gies that are important for society.

He shared that he is hesitant to have an across -the-board ban, but he is also not ready to agree with t he recommendation until there is more specific information. Commissioner Roof stated that he could land on the conditional use for BSL-3.

Commissioner Castaneda shared that after reading and hearing the public comments there are good reasons to support b anning BSL -3 and there are good reasons to look at the issues of having labs near major public transportation arter ies and flood zones. She wondered if they should investigate banning the lab itself versus the agent. Commissioner Castaneda supported the CUP for BSL-3 but emphasized that it would need to be narrowly tailored and she was also concerned about the City’s ability to monitor.

Vice Chair Clements shared that this is a difficult decision because it is a technical subject matter and having to balance the concern over health and safety versus to create a biotech hub and other business opportunities . She pon dered about a CUP for BSL -3 with an active monitoring program paid for by the applicant would be feasible if the cost involved was plausible .

She also shared that she appreciated the additional knowledge tha t the public brought to the conversation. Vice Chair Clements stated that she could see it both ways. She added that her first reaction was not to be the community to ban anything that wa s out of fear and not out of facts.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to get clarification on government code section 835 .2. Her understanding is that the code pertains to public property.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 98

8 Greg Rubens clarified that Section 835.2 refer to dangerous condition on public property.

Commissioner Garvey shared that she appreciate d everyone’s comment and she is supportive of banning BSL-4. She echoed Commissioner Roof’s point of weighing the risk of BSL -3 versus the value that it may gain from allowing life -saving technologies that may impact the health of residence of San Carlos.

Commissioner Garvey shared that she is sitting on the fence with BSL -3 and the one thing that is on top of her mind is supporting a CUP process that has strict monitoring . She liked th e suggestion of an open process that was brought up by the public. She added that the CUP process gives the City a n opportunity to review each of the developments on a case -by-case basis and put in the conditions that are strict for that development.

Commissioner Garvey shared that she could support a ban on BSL -3 with the commitment to revisit the issue in nine months.

Chair Iacoponi thanked the Staff for working on this in a short period of time. He shared that he is also on the fence with BSL -3, and he does not know enough to make a permanent ban on BSL-3. Chair I acoponi acknowledged the cost of a monitoring pr ogram and wondered if the CUP recipient should pay for the cost for the duration. He echoed Commissioner Garvey’s point on more work needed to be done to define what a CUP should look like. He stated that it is too premature to decide.

Commissioner Roof pointed out that the CDC developed BSL -3 Facility Standards that are used across the country and has no accidents or evidence of those bein g inadequate. He stated that he has not heard of any accidents that led to death or caused trouble in the news.

Vice Chair Clements suggested to potentially make a motion asking for additional information of the issue before moving forward with any recom mendation to the City Council because they would want the same info rmation. She then shared a list of questions that needs to be answered.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to hear from staff their recommendation for next step.

Al Savay stated that they would prefe r to defer action on this item and come back with additional information.

Greg Rubens stated that there is no ne ed for a motion for the Commission to give direction. He summarized that the Commission would like to see a CUP option for a BSL -3 lab and the related findings and additional information on what it takes to ensure public safety. He added that the Staff would bring both options, the original recommendation, and a CUP option for the Commission to make a final decision.

The Commission supported the direction as outlined by the City Attorney, Greg Rubens.

Vice Chair Clements added that staff should come back with information on business benefit or lack of by the additional cost involved in the CUP, the risk, CDC guidelines and a proposal o f the CUP Program.

Greg Rubens stated that when the Commission wants to come back with a topic a fter the close of the Public Hearing, typically the Commission should reopen the hearing so that all the members of the public would be able to continue to com ment on the new idea or concept in the next meeting when the Staff brings the item back.

Greg Rubens on behalf of staff recommended the Commission continue to a date certain , to March 6, 2023.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 99

9 M/S Iacoponi/Clements motioned and seconded to continue the public h earing date certain to March 6, 2023 and to reopen the public comment period.

The motion passed 5-0 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Roof, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements and Iacoponi

Noes: None

7. REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Report on recent City Council actions
Andrea Mardesich, Assi stant Community Development Director gave the following updates:

At the January 23, 2023 City Council meeting the City Council adopted the 2023 -2031 Housing Element and it has b een sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD ) for certification, and at the same meeting the Council also adopted the associated zoning ordinance amendments.

City Council denied the 703 Knoll Drive appeal thereby uph olding the Planning and Transportation Commission's decision to approve the project. b. Planning and Transportation Commission comments or reports - None c. Correspondence
Andrea Mardesich stated that P lanning Division received several let ters regarding the public hearing item this evening and copies of those were emailed to the Planning and Transportation Commission and available here in the Chamber. d. Planning Staff comments, reports and updates of current projects Andrea Mardesich gave the following updates:

Currently there are no item scheduled for the Fe bruary 21 , 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting.

The Downtown Specific Plan Workshop is scheduled for February 15 , 2023 at 7:00 pm.

It is a virtual Community Workshop, and more information c ould be found at www.sancarlosdowntownplan.com.

Lisa Costa Sanders gave the following update on 808 Alameda de Las Pulgas.

The public review and comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report has closed and the City received about 56 written comments in addition to the comments received at the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting.

The consultant team is currently working through those comments . Once they have organized and the contact information redacted, they w ould post them to the project webpage.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 100

10 The comments were very similar to what the Commission heard at the meeting.

8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 101

1 CITY OF SAN CARLOS

SAN CARLOS PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 6th, 2023
7:00 PM
San Carlos City Hall, Council Chambers
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org

APPROVED MINUTES

COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY
Jim Iacoponi, Chair
Kristen Clements, Vice Chair
David Roof
Ellen Garvey
Janet Castaneda
Al Savay, Community and Economic Development
Director
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Megan Wooley-Ousdahl, Senior Planner
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community
Development Director
Greg Rubens, City Attorney
Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner, Consultant

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm.

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Garvey excused.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT - None

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Attachment 4. Approved Minutes from the March 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 102

2 a. Approval of the Minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of February 6, 2023
M/S Clements/Roof motioned and seconded to approve the minutes of February 6, 2023, Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting.

The motion passed 4-0 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Castaneda, Roof, Clements, Iacoponi
Noes: None

7. PRESENTATION

a. New and Proposed Planning and Transportation Laws, Presentation by Amy Brown and Colin Hawley with Arc Strategies.

Amy Brown, Consultant with Arc Strategies presented the item.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know the number of bills that were introduced last year.

Amy Brown estimated around 1500 to 1700 range and stated she would get the exact number to the Commission.

Vice Chair Clements, wanted to know it there was the affordability component to AB 2295.

Amy Brown shared that she did not know the answer but stated that she does not think there was the affordability component based on the Fiscal Analysis of the Appropriation Committee.

Vice Chair referred to SB4. She wanted to know if the City or County give up the institution lands for development, what would they get in return. Amy Brown stated that they would need to see how it evolves.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know more about the status of SB35. Amy Brown stated that she believed the SB4 is the follow up to SB35.

Chair Iacoponi shared that he felt the measures that took effect in January were well included in all the work that Staff did in the Housing Element.

PUBLIC COMMENT - None

8. PUBLIC HEARING

a. Consideration of Design Review approval for a proposed Sign Program at 1501-1599 Industrial Road (APNs: 046-240-130 and 046-240-140).

Ralph Robinson, Associate Planner Consultant presented the item.

Commissioner Roo f wanted to if this represents are t he totality o f signs on the property or in addition to signs previously approved.

Ralph Robinson stated that the sign plan represents the totality of signs proposed at the site.

Chair Iaco poni wanted to know wh y this item is before th e Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC).

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 103

3 Ralph Robinson stated that per City Municipal Code, sign programs are subject to review by the PTC.

Chair Iacoponi recalled approving a signage program for one of the properties in the Alexandria area and wanted to know if this was for another property.

Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner Consultant clar ified that the property mentioned by C hair Iacoponi is for a separate building owned by Alexandria at 825/835 Industrial Road. She added that the code does require that whenever there is multi-tenant at a sign program it would require approval by the PTC.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know if there are any changes in the lighting of the signs.

Ralph Robinson stated that currently only the monument sign has lighting. He added that any new lighting changes would fall under the standard code requirements and staff review.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know the definition of the banner mentioned in the report.

Ralph Robinson clarified that the banner mentioned is a temporary banner that is mounted on the fence. He added that per the City’s codes, a permanent fixture is not allo wed on the fence.

Ralph Robinson explained that in this case, it is categorized as a b anner because of the vinyl material used, the composition of the design, the color used, and it is temporary.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to kn ow if there are other more attracti ve and durable material that could be recommended.

Lisa Costa Sanders explain ed that if the applicant wanted a more pe rmanent solution such as replacing the fen ce with some gra phics on it , the City can look at it from a site develop ment standpoint and approve it at the Staff level.

Applicant Hormoz Ziaebrahimi from LPA provided context and reason behind the use of the vinyl graphics. He added that as a first touch it was an econo mical way of approaching and generating interest for the campus at the entry point. It could be reconsidered in the future.

Vice Cha ir Cleme nts wanted to know the durability of the sign . Applicant stated he does not know and would find out the specification for the Commission.

Commissioner R oof wanted t o know if some thing mor e per manent w ould replace the vi nyl banner.

Applicant stated that he w ould discuss with Alexandria and get back to the Commission with more specification of the material and Alexandria’s definition of permanence.

Due to technical difficulty, Lisa Porras asked the Zoom attendees to log off and log back in.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Caller Dimitri Vandellos stated he did not have comment on the signa ge program but wanted to make sure the c allers for the Biosafety item had a chance to log bac k in due to earlier te chnical difficulty as there was a large online attendance.

M/S Clements/Iacoponi motioned and seconded to close the public comment.

The motion passed 4-0 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Castaneda, Roof, Clements, Iacoponi

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 104

4 Noes: None

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commission Castaneda wondered if the applicant should remove the vin yl sign or not. She added that it looks better than the existing fence and she could go either way.

Vice Chair Cl ements shar ed that she finds the vinyl sign attractive. She stated th at the Code does not promote the use of vinyl sign even on a temporary basis. Vice C hair Clements stated she would take Staff ’s r ecommendation to omit the vinyl sign from the plan or take Commissioner Castaneda’s idea of allowing the usage of the vinyl sign for one year.

Commissioner Roof thought the sign s in terms of quantity and size were con sistent with the project. He stated that he would like to define a usage period for the vinyl banner sign.

Chair Iacoponi stated that he is not a fan of vinyl signs and would not want to see another plastic get thrown away in a year. He felt that the design was good and stated he w ould support Staff’s recommendation to not have the viny banner sign.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know if the applicant could come back and apply for an am ended sign program if they decide to use a different material with the same graphics.

Lisa Cosa Sanders clarified that if the applicant were to come back with some other permanent material that just had the decor on it and no signage, it is not a sign anymore and the staff could approve it. She added that if the applicant were to come back with other permanent material with graphics that had a small sign of the campus, then the applicant would come back to the PTC for an amendment to the Sign Program.

M/S Roof/Clements motioned and seconded to adopt the Resolution approving the Sign Program for the site and six industrial buildings at 1501, 1531, 1541, 1551, 1561 and 1581 Industrial Road. (APNs: 046-240-130 and 046-240-140).

The motion passed 4-0 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Castaneda, Roof, Clements, Iacoponi

Noes: None

b. Consideration of a Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending San Ca rlos Municipal Code Titl e 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL)

Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner Consultant presented the item.

Vice Chair Clements referred to the slide, Monitoring Compliance with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). She wanted to know if the annual report is found to be non-compliant, what would be the precipitating event for that hearing to revoke.

Greg Rubens , City Attorney explained that i t is a notice hearing requirement, a due process hearing. He added that if the City found that ther e is a problem they would report to the state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction over the lab.

Commissioner Roof wanted to know h ow the City oversi ght would work with the state and federal rules.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 105

5 Lisa Costa Sanders clarified that the City is makin g sure the labs are in compliance with all t he rules and regulations by other agencies via peer-review.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know whether the CUP applies to the pathogen or lab space. He also wanted to know if the applicant could sublease the space, and how could the City track that.

Lisa Costa Sanders clarified that the CUP must specify it is for the tenant on the site and for a specific plan. She added that if there are any changes, the tenant needs to come forward to the Commission to present the amended plan and provide all the new reporting. At that point the PTC can determine if they want to grant the CUP.

Chair Iacoponi wa nted to know whether the peer-reviewed plan would require an onsite inspection.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated that annu al reporting does not req uire an o nsite inspection and that could be a condition that the Commis sion includes or amend the Ordinance to inclu de onsite inspection as a requirement.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know if the City would have an expert onsite inspection and review of all plans before presenting a case for CUP for Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3).

Lisa Costa Sanders explained that the applicant would not fit out the equipment before obtaining a CUP approval. She suggested to have a post inspection to determine if the lab was implemented as planned and f ailure to do so with in a certain time f rame would trigger revocation.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know if there are other reputable Biosafety Committees in the area that the City can leverage to do the review instead of an outside consultant.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated that based on thei r research, the only committe es are in the east coast and there are none in S an Mateo County. She stated that e xternal consultants are the only alternative.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know more about the emergency procedures of these labs and how would the City handle a fire or flood.

Lisa Costa Sanders shared that she spo ke with the Fire Marshall, and they explained that the y need to know what material is inside the building, then eva luate the approach before entering.

Lisa Costa Sanders listed a few procedures of how the fire depa rtment would handle the emergency.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know why the language was not specific to a certain type of research.

Lisa Costa Sanders explained that the language was written that w ay because the City does not want there to be a standalone BSL -3 that others c ould utilize, rather the CUP i s for the tenant onsite and they have control over it. She added that the type of research th at could b e conducted would need to be evaluated through the Use Permit Process.

Greg Rubens added that a CUP is a discretionary land use approval , therefore the Commission has discretion whether to allow it or not, and condition it if necessary to make the findings.

Commissioner Castaneda was concerned with the City’s lack of subject matter expert.

Greg Rubens responded that that is where the peer-review comes into play and stated that the City has other resources such as the County Environmental Health Department.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 106

6 Commissioner Roof wanted to know if the C ity could impose more constraints and ob jections in the CUP application.

Greg Rubens explained that the d iscretionary process creates some flexibi lity for the City. He added that the City does no t have a set of standards but could use the findings to cre ate conditions that would be appropriate for a particular development.

Vice Chair Clements shared that the value hinges on the peer-review because the City does not have the expertise on staff . She stated tha t she assumed Staff would craf t the Request For Proposal (RFP) as to what they are looking for in an on-call consultant and wondered how many expert consultants are in the area.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated th at based on their research, there are a few consulting firms that could assist the City.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know if the applicant would be able to bear the cost of the on-call consultant.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated the cost for the BSL-3 CUP would be the standard CUP fee plus the cost of the consultant.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know if the market would bear the on-call consultant fee.

Lisa Cost Sanders stated they did not do that research.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Caller 1 Christy Shirilla from Biocom California Bay Area Policy Manager stated that the labs are highly regulated and shared a list of regulatory agencies that interacts with the labs.

Caller 2 Gita Dev Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter shared that the Ordinance is a good start but is not there yet. She stated that labs that are funded by private money are not required to meet all the regulations and that is a concern for the highe st lev el of government. Gita Dev also pointed out that animal labs are not covered by the Ordinances, and it is an important consideration. She asked the City to consider the r isk and decide i f it is worth taking on at this time.

Caller 3 Paul Magginetti referred to the video he sent for inclusion in the public record. He stated that the video explains why Option 2 falls short of what is needed to protect the public. Paul Magginetti also stated that the link in the letter list out examples of lab accidents. He stated that there is no comprehensive oversight response mechanism in the Bay Area . He added that t he City is not ready yet and Option 2 trades public safety for short -term economic gain. He stated that BSL-3 Labs should not be allowed.

Caller 4 Steve Goodale resident of Redwood Shores shared his opposition of BSL -3 Labs. He shared the example of the Corona Virus and the damage that it has caused due to the leak from the Wuhan Lab. He shared that the City should not take the chance to ruin its reputation.

Caller 5 Gary Baldocchi shared that he does not t hink the CUP would adequately protect the public and shared his reasons. He asked the Commiss ion to ban BSL-3 and BSL-4 Labs in San Carlos.

Caller 6 Debbie Baldocchi urged the Commission to join other cities in the east coast to ban high containment BSL-3 and BSL -4 Labs in the community . She shared her reason s and cited two experts’ concern on biosafety.

Ben Paul (in person) fro m San Mateo County Chamber sh ared that the Chamber conducted its own researc h and hosted a presentation on bi osafety levels. He learned how regulated the

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 107

7 industry is and the massive level of care that goes in to the opera tion of these state-of-the-art laboratories. Ben Paul listed the needs of having the innovative labs in San C arlos and asked the Commission to permit the BSL-3 Labs under the CUP process.

Gary Boitano (in person) shared that he agreed with Ben Paul ’s comment. He stated that if the City bans BSL -3 Labs it would put a big halt on businesses wanting to come to San Car los, which will cause a big freeze on growth. He added that San Carlos w ould be the only city that has the outright ban on BSL-3 Lab.

Ryan Guibara (in person) shared that a ban on BSL-3 Labs will be very bad for the City, and it ought to have a CUP process in place. He shared a list of local, state, and national agencies his company, MBC BioLabs deals with. Ryan Guibara added that the CUP for BSL-3 would be the most restrictive option in the Bay Area.

Caller 7 Bryce Nickels Professors of Genetics a t Rutgers University , Lab Direc tor at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology, Co-Founder of a nonprofit called Biosafety Now. He shared that as an in sider of the industry he does not underst and why the Commission focus on money and not the safe ty of the com munity. Bryce Nickels added that the research related incidents would not just impact the local community but the entire global community. He stated that San Carlos has an opportunity to stand up for th ose special interest groups and people wh o are in only for the dollar and say no to them.

Caller 8 Gladwyn d ’Souza from Belmont asked the Commission to ban BSL -3 Labs, shared his reasons and sighted examples of different cities that have lab accidents. He added that the City should not shoulder the risk.

Caller 9 Jennifer R from Grea ter East San Carlos Area stated that she is in support of banning BSL-3 Labs. She agreed with all the previous caller s who believed there should be a ban on BSL-3 Labs. She pointed out that typical BSL-3 Labs are in cam pus-like settings and not right up next door to residents. Jennifer R shared that she asked all her neighbors and none of them wanted to be next to a BS L-3 Lab. She asked the Commission to think about public safety, cost and the liabilities involved.

Caller 10 Nina G asked the Commission to vote to prohibit high containment labs and stated that BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs have no place in the densely populated Silicon Valley neighborhood. She asked the Commission to listen to the concerned constituents and protect the community.

Caller 11 David Crabbe sha red that he echoed what everyone said again st the BSL-3 Labs. He shared that the dollars are trumping the safety issue. David Crabbe added his other concerned was that the PTC is considering a CUP without having the expertise in how to do it. He stated that the outside experts are all connected to the Biotech Industry and if would be very difficult to be unbiased.

Caller 12 Melanie Cohn from Biocom California shared that she is concerned by the comments from th e people calling as they appear to not have any understanding of the industry. She stated that there is no such th ing as unregulated BSL-3 Labs unless it is operating illegally. She challenged those callers who stated that COVID was released from a lab and reminded them the COVID vaccines were developed in BSL -2 and BSL-3 Labs. Melanie Cohn also shared that she personally benefited from the industry researching a rare disease that she has.

Dino Perazzo (in person) resident of San Carlos and runs the Life Science Practice from CBRE representing and advising many Biotech companies . He shared that from his experience the broader industry exceeds the r egulations for training, safety, and secu rity in their labs. He voiced his support for a CUP for BSL-3 Labs.

Caller 13 Dimitri Vandellos President of the Greater Eastside San Carlos Community (GESC) Neighborhood Association. He shared that the CUP for BSL-3 needed a lot more to be developed before the PTC or the C ity could accept any kind of CUP option. Dimitri Vandellos

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 108

8 stated that the CUP process that is currently outlined is nowhere near adequate and does not do the necessary notification for the c ommunity. He added that the City has a p oor track record of environmental safety and cleanup.

M/S Castaneda/Clements motioned and seconded to close the public comment.

The motion passed 4-0 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Castaneda, Roof, Clements, Iacoponi

Noes: None

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Roof wanted clarification on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule regarding following the drug approval process.

Carla Boragno, Former Vice President of Site Services, Genentech stated she could not answer the question because she is not from the FDA. She pointed out that in the Staff Report the CUP requires the applicant to following the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) which is from the National Institu te of Health (NIH) and Center for Dise ase Control (CDC) as well as all the other requirements in California regulations. Carla Boragno stated that the CUP allows the enforcement of those regulations.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know if there is a distinction between private and public funded labs in terms of regulations and standards compliance.

Carla Boragno shared that based on her understanding the guidelines are consistent whether it is a private or public funded lab, however with public funded labs, they are required to s ubmit their reports showing they are compliant with the BMBL to the NIH and CDC. She added that the CUP Optio n requires the reports to be certified by a third party consultant, and that essentially is doing the same thing as what is required by the public labs.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know if there are peer reviews o f the research project itself in the private labs.

Carla Bora gno shared that there are peer reviews in pr ivate compani es and researc h organizations as well . She clarified that she could not sp eak for all companies as there are much research going on.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know if t here are standards and best practices about communication with the public on releasing reports to the public.

Carla Boragno stated that in the BMBL there are two or three requirements on incident reporting to the local authorities as well as requirement to have an emergency response plan . The CUP process has that transparency.

Chair Iacoponi wan ted to know should the Commission wanted to move forward with the CUP Option but is hesitant on a point, could they clarify a point and amend the conditions.

Greg Rubens explained that if the PTC felt that Staff’s recommendation on the CUP o ption is insufficient, they c ould give the Staff specific recommendation or addition and that would become part of the recommendation to the Council. He added that the Staff would like to have a recommendation tonight beca use the item has bee n before the P TC once and th e PTC’s recommendations is required for a Zoning change befor e it can be considered by the City Council.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 109

9 Chair Iacoponi asked the Commissioners to share where their thoughts are on the two options.

Commissioner Castaneda shared that she has been told tha t the National Science Advisory Board for Biosafety (NSABB) is concerned with the trend of the growing BSL-3 and BSL-4 Labs, and they have issu ed propose reforms and the reforms have been sen t to the Federal Government. She also shared that the NSABB is concerned about the nature of the research over the safety of the labs themselves , and until the issues are addressed she is reluctant to go ahead with the CUP as it is. Commissioner Castaneda shared that sh e would have support it if it was limited to pubi c government sponsored controlled research because s he believed those kind of research should have adequate peer review to consider the benefits of the research itself versus its risk. She added that she did not think a consultant is sufficient for peer review.

Commissioner Roof shared that he is e xcited the City c ould nurture and welcome the Biotech Industry because of the potential medical benefits that it brings to the society. He stated that he does not see the benefit as financial profits, but the drugs that would be developed to benefit the society. Commissioner Roof added that he does not think a blanket ban of BSL -3 makes sense.

He shared that he preferred t he CUP Option because it would allow the City to decide whether something was appropriate based on what it is.

Commissioner Roof stated that it would be an easier discussion to have when there is a speci fic request instead of imagining the worst possible situation.

Vice Chair Clements shared th at she could go either way with the options. She stated that the way the Ordinance is written i t is unclear to her if the City c ould retain its rights to say no to a particular use by a particular tenant, based on the research and the product itself, and not based on the condit ions of the lab or the presence of the safety techniques. Vice Chair Cle ments wanted to know if the City has latitude to make decisions on a case by case basis and not confined by the opinion on lab space, safety and standards for the practices and not the product.

Greg Rubens, City Attorney clarified that the Zoning Ordinance is not drafted with that level of specificity to the types of uses. He added that with a CUP process it means there is no by right development for that particular use, and the City still has discretion to deny uses based upon any one of the finding s. Greg Rubens stated that one of the drawbacks of drafting a law is that Staff could not analyze every specific situation that might come forward, but they would try and give the City the discretion to say yes or no to a project based upon those facts.

Greg Rubens clarified that the Ordinance is supplemental to the standard findings that the Commission has to make for health and safety consisten t with the General Plan. He stated that the Ordinance is designed to allow the Commission to analyze all different aspects of a potential project. Greg Rubens stated that it is open-ended on purpose because it allows the PTC to look at the individual situation of any application.

Vice Chair Clements stated that with Greg Ruben’s clarification she is leaning in the direction of a CUP process that adds transparency to the public when there may not be one now.

Vice Chair Clements referred to Section 2, page 104 in the report , Operational and Performance Standards. She suggested to make a recommendation to state that once the plan gets approved, there needs to be an inspection to confirm that those improvements were made and that those conditions match the report in the plan.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know once a CUP is approved would there still be a set of inspection requirements before granting the certificate of occupancy to utilize the facility . He wanted to know who owns the last step of confirming the applicant performed what they s et out to do according to the plan.

Lisa Costa Sanders agreed that a pee r r eview inspection post CUP approval to ensure that everything has been adequately implemented could be an added requirement.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 110

10 Chair Iacoponi stated that he would ask for the peer review inspection post CUP approval.

Commissioner Roof added that in addition to the peer review inspection post CUP approval as a final si gn off , there nee ds to be an annual report inspection to ensure compliance and continuous oversight.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know what the effect of any government standards on the CUP would be.

Greg Rubens clarif ied that in a typical CUP there is the condition to comply with the standards, and in a BSL -3 CUP there would be a long list of standards to c omply. He stated that i f the Commission wanted to add a particular standard or if they wanted the recommendation to say all standards, the Staff could develop for them tonight to recommend to the Council.

Lisa Costa Sanders stated that the recommendation of re quiring an inspection to ensure everything has been implemented prior to operation of the lab should be added to Section C, last category in the Operational and Performance Standards.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to clarify one additional point, the local, state and federal standards are fully implemented.

Vice Chair Clements wanted t o clarify Commissioner Roof’s point of annual i nspection. She stated that the inspection is not just the initial inspection, but an annual inspection confirmed by the consultant to certify that the lab plan was still being followed.

Commissioner Roof wanted it to be explicitly written.

Chair Iacoponi gave a summary. He shared that a CUP Option would create an opportunity and an environment which would benefit the comm unity and a straight-out ban would eliminate that.

He appreciated the risk raised by the community, on the other hand the Staff has set a high bar to be met and gave the Commission the latitude to reject a CUP if it did not meet the standards.

Chair Iacoponi shared that while he is not an expert in any organization, he believed that there is the collective ability to ask the righ t questions amongst the Commission and to seek help from expertise wherever needed. He added that with the work that the Staff put forward there is a mechanism to determine whether pubic safety is met , and in that instance determine whether the risk versus the o pportunity is balanced. The Commission has the latitude to say yes, or no to the application. Chair Iacoponi stated fro m a land use perspective he is supportive of the CUP process with the written amendments and additions that was just framed.

Commissioner Castaneda asked the Commission if it is necessar y to add a statement that they do not want gain-of-function research and certain potential pandemic pathogen research.

Chair Iacoponi stated from his point of view he does not think it is necessary.

Commissioner Roof shared that they could not prejudge everything in advance. He stated that he does not think it would be appropriate.

Vice Chair Clements shared that it is not an exhaustive list and the conditions could change over time. She added the process is flexible enough that they could ask for the findings and a lot more information about the actual use of the lab and then decide if the y are comfortable enough to decide.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to first get confirmation on the modification discussed before they vote for the CUP. He stated to have a 10min break for the Staff to amend the language.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know who will pay for the decommissioning of the lab.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 111

11 Greg Rubens stated that the applicant would have to pay for it and the City is never obligated to pay for it.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know if there was an edit on current standards being periodically reviewed or implemented.

Greg Rubens stated that there is a reference to guideline set forth in the BMBL 6th edition as well as CDC and NIH Standards.

Commissioner Roof shared that he believed San Carlos is the first city in San Mateo County to bring biosafety labs under land use purview. He added that this is a progressive nature that San Carlos is taking in addressing BSL-3 Labs.

Staff read the revised wording for the Ordinance as follows.

“An inspection shall be conducted, and a compliance report shall be submitted at the expense of the o wner, operator, or tenant prior to initiating operations, and on each anniversary of the effective date of permit approval, and on the closure or discontinuance of the Biosafety Level (BSL) 3 facility. Such reports shall be made by a qualified third party demonstrating continued compliance with the guidelines set forth in Bi osafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (6th Edition or most recent) authored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).”

M/S Roof/Clements motioned and seconded to Adopt a Resolution rec ommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending San Carlos M unicipal Code Section 18 to require to prohibit BSL-4 activities and to allow for BSL -3 activities with a conditional use permit as specified in the Ordinance and as amended this evening.

The motion passed 3-1 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Roof, Clements and Iacoponi

Noes: Castaneda

Greg Rubens addressed the members of the public . He stated that the PT C made a recommendation to the City Council therefor e this matter w ould go to the Ci ty Council for final review of the recommendation.

9. REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Report on recent City Council actions – None
b. Planning and Transportation Commission comments or reports Commissioner Castaneda shared t hat she attended the Downtown Coffee and Comments Open House at the Library on March 4 and thought it was an excellent program. She added that it was well attended and wanted to compliment everyone for the exhibits that were put up, the ability for people to make choices and it was an excellent presentation.

Commissioner Roof shared that he also attended the Open House and echoed Commissioner Castaneda’s comment fully.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 112

12 Chair Iacoponi shared that his household went through the Objective Design Review Surve y. He added that he appreciate d the opportunity and thought it was well done, especially the simple examples.

Chair Iacoponi appreciated the Staff’s work and their help in guiding the Commission through the Biosafety item.
c. Correspondence
Lisa Porras s tated that prior to the distribution of March 6 PTC packet, the City received a total of five public comments from Paul Ma gginetti, Gail Ghose, Gary and Debbie Bald occhi, Joe and Kelly Haws, and Terezia Nemeth. She added that they were all forward to the PTC this evening. d. Planning Staff comments, reports and updates of current projects Lisa Porras gave the following updates:

The Downtown Coffee and Comments Open House on March 4, 2023 had a great turnout .

Approximately eighty people attended. The Staff is compiling the comments and would be presenting to the PTC in late Apr il. Staff would share the community’s response on the preliminary design concepts that the City put forward.

An a dditional online survey is available at sancarlosdowntownplan.com for t hose who did not have a chan ce to attend the February 15 , 2023 Downtown Community Workshop. The online survey is available from March 1 to April 1.

The Northeast Specific P lan Virtual Workshop will be on Wednesday, March 15, 2023. An email invitation was sent to the commissioners, and they are welcome to distribute to their friends and network.

In the next PTC Meeting, March 20 , 2023 Staff would bring forward the Objective De sign Standards – Single Family Home Building Types. That would be a Study Session and no formal request is asked of the Commission.

On March 20, 2023 , 888 Branston, a new Life Science development would be coming forward before the Commission.

8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 pm.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 113

Attachment 5. Responses to Questions from the Planning and Transportation Commission and Public
This attachment provides responses to questions from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the public; these questions were received during the February 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting.

Characteristics of BSL-3 Facilities
What are a BSL-3 facilities, and what protections are required? The following text which describes BSL-3 facilities is directly sourced from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website titled “Biosafety Level Requirements - Laboratory Containment for Human Pathogens: Biosafety Level 1 – Biosafety Level 4 facilities.” 1 This text provides a description of BSL-3 facilities and the required safety precautions.

Biosafety Level-3 (BSL-3)
BSL-3 laboratories are used to study infectious agents or toxins that may be transmitted through the air and cause potentially lethal infections. Researchers perform all experiments in a biosafety cabinet. 2 BSL-3 laboratories are designed to be easily decontaminated. As an additional safety measure, these laboratories must use controlled, or “directional,” air flow to ensure that air flows from non-laboratory areas (such as the hallway) into laboratory areas.

Other engineered safety features include a requirement for entry through two self- closing, interlocked doors, sealed windows, floors and walls, and filtered ventilation systems. BSL-3 labs must also be equipped to decontaminate laboratory waste using an incinerator, an autoclave, and/or another method of decontamination, depending on the biological risk assessment.

In addition to BSL-2 considerations,1 BSL-3 laboratories have the following containment requirements:

Laboratory practices
•An Occupational Health Program exists for medical surveillance of laboratory workers. Laboratory workers are under medical surveillance and may be offered immunizations for infectious agents or toxins they work with, if available.
•Access to the laboratory is restricted and controlled at all times.

Safety equipment
•Appropriate PPE must be worn, and respirators might be required. 1 “Biosafety Level Requirements.” Science Safety Security, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 25 Sept 2019, https://www.phe.gov/s3/BioriskManagement/biocontainment/Pages/BSL- Requirements.aspx.
2 “Biosafety Cabinets.” Science Safety Security, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 25 Sept 2019, https://www.phe.gov/s3/BioriskManagement/biocontainment/Pages/Biosafety-Cabinets.aspx.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 114

•All work with infectious agents or toxins must be performed within an appropriate biosafety cabinet.2
Facility construction
•A hands-free sink and eyewash are available near the exit. •Exhaust air cannot be recirculated, and the laboratory must have sustained directional airflow by drawing air into the laboratory from clean areas towards potentially contaminated areas.
•Entrance to the lab is through two self-closing and interlocked doors.

BSL-3 Facilities in California
A regularly updated resource that documents all BSL-3 facilities in California is difficult to find; however, in preparation of the February 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, staff found one source with data from 2014 which indicates that seven (7) BSL-3 facilities are located in California.3 (No BSL-4 facilities are located in California.) Examples of BSL-3 facilities within California include: a facility operated by Gladstone Institutes at Mission Bay in San Francisco4; a facility operated by Microbiologics in San Diego5; and a facility operated by Stanford University in Palo Alto.6
Precautions
Security Precautions
During the February 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, questions arose about the security of the buildings which house BSL activities. Regarding internal security, as mentioned in the previous section, buildings with laboratories have restricted access, and only trained, pre-approved personnel are allowed access to laboratories.

Regarding external security, laboratories with assigned biosafety levels that are located in urban areas, such as the Bay Area, or near major transportation corridors and access points, such as Highway 101 or the San Carlos Airport, are not considered more vulnerable to security threats, as compared to laboratories located in more remote locations. The precautions taken to safeguard laboratories in urban areas, their employees, and the surrounding environment are 3 “Biolabs in Your Backyard.” USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/biolabs/.

Accessed 18 January 2023.
4 Arcuni, Peter. “Inside New Biosafety Lab, Where Scientists Wrangle Live Coronavirus.” KQED. 27 July 2020, https://www.kqed.org/science/1967648/inside-sfs-new-biosafety-lab-scientists-study-live- coronavirus.
5 “Microbiologics expands viral capabilities for SARS-CoV-2 with new BSL-3 laboratory at its San Diego facility.” Microbiologics. https://www.microbiologics.com/company-news-microbiologics-opens-biosafety- level-3-lab-san-diego. Accessed 7 February 2023.
6 Brodhead, Andrew and Taylor Kubota. “A look inside Stanford’s expanded Biosafety Level 3 (BSL3) lab.” Stanford News. 4 December 2020. https://news.stanford.edu/2020/12/04/look-inside-stanfords- expanded-biosafety-level-3-bsl3-lab/.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 115

considered ample from a security perspective.

Safety Precautions
The Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) guidelines outline requirements for safety practices and equipment and the design of facilities. 7 These safety requirements guide all aspects of BSL-3 activities from transporting materials and agents to facilities, to their use within facilities, to their disposal. These precautions seek to greatly reduce the likelihood of a possible exposure or release from laboratories with BSL activities. Table 1 provides an overview of requirements for BSL-3 activities, per the BMBL guidelines.

Table 1. Safety Requirements for BSL-3 Activities
Practices Equipment Facilities
•Good micro-biological
practice
•Hand washing
•No eating, drinking, or
gum chewing in the
laboratory
•Most work may be
performed on a bench top
•Biohazard warning signs
•"Sharps" precautions
•Controlled access
•Decontamination of all
waste
•Decontamination of lab
clothing before laundering
•Pipetting devices: Mouth
pipetting is prohibited
•Class I or II Biological
Safety Cabinets (BSCs)
or other physical
containment devices
with HEPA filters
•Protective lab clothing,
gloves, respiratory
protection as needed
•Open bench-top
•Sink for hand washing is
required
•Autoclave available
•Physical separation from
access corridors
•Self-closing, double-door
access
•Exhaust air is not
recirculated
•Negative airflow into
laboratory
•Design includes back
up/redundant systems
Per the BMBL, facilities are required to be designed such that under failure conditions the airflow will not be reversed at the containment barrier. The facilities are tested annually or after significant modifications to ensure safety and operational parameters are met. Additionally, the biosafety cabinets (including the HEPA filters and filter housings) are to be certified at least annually to ensure correct performance.

Seismic Activity Precautions
All projects built in the City of San Carlos are subject to the most recently adopted California Building and Fire Code regulations, including regulations for seismic activity. The City of San Carlos has adopted the 2022 California Building Code and Fire Code by Ordinance in the San 7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. 6th Edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Revised June 2020.
www.cdc.gov/labs/pdf/CDC-BiosafetyMicrobiologicalBiomedicalLaboratories-2020-P.pdf

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 116

Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 - Technical Building Codes. These Codes are the most restrictive seismic regulations in the United States.

Flooding Precautions
Similarly, all projects built in the City of San Carlos are subject to provisions set forth in the City’s Flood Damage Prevention regulations per Chapter 15.56 in the San Carlos Municipal Code.

The Flood Damage Prevention regulations require that all new construction be built at or above the floodplain. All mechanical equipment must also be constructed above the floodplain, including back-up generators. If underground parking is constructed, the underground parking is required to be protected from the risk of flood.

For Ordinance Option 2 (which would allow BSL-3 activities with a Conditional Use Permit), laboratory space must be elevated 10 feet above base flood elevation. This recommendation is based on planning guidance from OneShoreline, the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District.

BSL-3 Facilities’ Safety Record
A limited number of breaches and lab-related infections have been documented; however, these are rare and limited occurrences. Additional regulations have been created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Heath in response to the breaches.

Currently, there is no central reporting agency that tracks the incidents, and there is not enough data to track what percentage of facilities have breaches or lab-related infections. Since these incidents are rare, the precautions in place are considered sufficient to protect against frequent or notable breaches.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 117

Attachment 6. Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 118

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 119

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 120

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 121

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 122

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 123

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 124

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 125

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 126

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 127

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 128

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 129

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 130

Attachment 7. San Carlos Airport Safety Zones
Source: Exhibit 4-3. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Carlos Airport. https://ccag.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/SQL_FinalALUCP_Oct15_read.pdf

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 131

Attachment 8. Code Language for Biosafety Regulations in San Mateo County Jurisdictions and Bay Area Jurisdictions
Table 8A. Code Language for Biosafety Regulations in San Mateo County Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Codified Language
Brisbane BMC 17.18-SP-CRO Sierra Point Commercial District.

BMC 17.18.035.C - Conditional Uses - Research and Development.

Any use utilizing biological agents exceeding Risk Group 3 or Biosafety Level 3 as defined by the National Institute of Health or the Center for Disease Control may be allowed in the SP-CRO district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.40 of this title, subject to the provision that the city council (instead of the planning commission) shall act as the reviewing and approving authority for all purposes under Chapter 17.40 for any such research and development- related conditional use permit(s).

BMC 17.18.045.C – Performance Standards. Research and development uses involving the use of biological agents shall comply with all design standards set forth in the most current Center for Disease Control (CDC) Office of Health and Safety document "Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories.”
Burlingame BMC 25.12.020: Table 25.12-1 Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts Use Regulations.

Office-Research and Development is Permitted in the C-1, BFC and I-I districts. However, for properties within SFO Safety Compatibility Zone 3 in the I-I zoning district, a Conditional Use Permit required if the use entails hazardous materials.

For properties within SFO Safety Compatibility Zone 3 in the I-I zoning district, Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities not allowed.

BMC 25.14.020: Table 25.14-1: Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Use Regulations.

Laboratories/Research and Development are Permitted in the RRMU and NBMU districts.

However, for properties located within SFO Safety Compatibility Zone 3: a Conditional Use Permit is required if the use entails hazardous materials. Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities not allowed.

In SFO Safety Compatibility Zone 2, the use is Not Allowed if use entails hazardous materials.

Millbrae Millbrae Station Area Specific Plan 5.2, Table 5-12. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses.

NOTES: Within SFO Safety Compatibility Zones 1 and 3, uses must comply with the ALUCP policies and criteria described in Policy SP-2, Safety Compatibility Land Use Criteria; Table IV- 2, Safety Compatibility Criteria; and Policy SP-3, Hazardous Uses. (See pages IV-27 through IV-34 of the SFP ALUCP, November 2012, or the latest adopted Plan). Within SFO Compatibility Zone 2, Hazardous Uses up to Biosafety Level 2 may be allowed, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, per City of Millbrae Resolution 21-08 and Resolution No. 21-60 within the TOD Zone and the Employment Center/Light Industrial Zone.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 132

Table 8B. Code Language for Biosafety Regulations in San Mateo County Jurisdictions and Bay Area Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Codified Language
Fremont FMC 18.25.330 defines Biosafety Level (BSL): In accordance with the most current version of the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health (CDC/NIH), “biosafety level” or “BSL” shall mean the safe handling of biological materials, particularly infectious agents which are classified on the basis of degree of risk to humans working with them and includes definition of biosafety levels for handling such agents. A specific combination of work practices, safety equipment, and facilities are designed to minimize the exposure of workers and the environment to infectious agents. There are four biosafety levels (BSLs). BSL 1 applies to laboratories in which work is done with defined and characterized strains of viable microorganisms not known to consistently cause disease in healthy adult humans. BSL 2 applies to laboratories in which work is done with the broad spectrum of indigenous moderate-risk agents that are present in the community and associated with human disease of varying severity. BSL 3 applies to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities in which work is done with indigenous or exotic agents with the potential for respiratory transmission, and which may cause serious and potentially lethal infection. BSL 4 is used for the diagnosis of exotic agents that pose a high risk of life-threatening disease, which may be transmitted by the aerosol route and for which there is no vaccine or therapy.

FMC 18.49 - Warm Springs Innovation (WSI) District: Manufacturing of biological products and Research, development and testing services are categorized by biosafety level (BSL). BSL 1 and 2 are permitted outright or subject to a Zoning Administrator Permit. BSL 3 uses are limited to one subdistrict within the WSI, and BSL 4 uses are prohibited.

FMC 18.50 – Industrial Districts: Manufacturing of biological products with BSL 1 or 2 are permitted, with a Zoning Administrator Permit for BSL 3, and prohibited for BSL 4 in the I-T and I-G Districts.

Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing2 not exceeding biosafety level 2 are permitted in the I-T and I-G Districts, and BSL 3 may be considered through a Zoning Administrator Permit.

Scientific research and development services, including physical, engineering, and life sciences and systems with BSL 1 or 2 are permitted in the I-S, I-T, and I-G Districts; subject to a Zoning Administrator Permit with BSL 3 in the I-T and I-G Districts; and prohibited with BSL 4.

Oakland The Oakland Planning Code (OPC) prohibits BSL 4 within the definition of the associated use.

OPC 17.10.580 - Heavy/High Impact Manufacturing Industrial Activities: include high impact or hazardous manufacturing processes. This classification also includes certain activities accessory to the above, as specified in Section 17.10.040. Examples of activities in this classification include, but are not limited to, the following:

B. Any biotechnology research, development or production activities involving materials defined by the National Institute of Health as Risk Group 4 or Restricted Agents (commonly known as "biosafety level 4")
OPC 17.10.581 Research and Development Industrial Activities: include scientific research for the design, development, engineering, and testing of high technology electronic, industrial, or scientific products in advance of full-scale manufacturing of final products. The only manufacturing uses in this classification consist of the creation of prototype products, plans, or designs for the primary purpose of research, development, or evaluation, rather than sale. This classification also includes certain activities accessory to the above, as specified in Section

17.10.040.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 133

Jurisdiction Codified Language
This classification excludes manufacturing uses, wholesale and storage uses, repair and retail sales, except as an accessory use as specified in Section 17.10.040; this classification also excludes the on-site production of products for sale, and biotechnology laboratories approved for National Institute of Health experiments using Risk Group 4 or Restricted Agents (commonly known as "bio-safety level 4") (Section 17.10.580 Heavy/High Impact Manufacturing Activities).

Heavy/High Impact Manufacturing Industrial Activities are permitted subject to a conditional use permit in the Industrial (M-40) and General Industrial (IG) zones.

Research and Development Industrial Activities are permitted in Regional Commercial (CR), Housing and Business Mix Commercial (HBX-1, 2, 3, 4), Industrial (M-40), Commercial Industrial Mix (CIX-1), West Oakland Plan Aera Commercial Industrial Mix (CIX-1A, CIX-1B, CIX-1C, CIX-1D), General Industrial (IG), and Industrial Office (IO) zones; and subject to obtaining a conditional use permit in the Central Business District General Commercial (CBD- C), Central Business District Mixed Commercial (CBD-X), and Industrial (M-20, M-30) zones.

Palo Alto The Palo Alto Municipal Code incorporates limitations on BSL in use definitions and prohibits BSL 4 under hazardous materials standards.

PAMC 18.04.030 – Definitions:
(95.1) “Medical research” means a use related to medical and/or dental research, testing and analysis, including but not limited to trial and clinical research. Biomedical and pharmaceutical research and development facilities are not included in this definition. Medical Research does not include the storage or use of quantities of hazardous materials above the exempt quantities listed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code nor any toxic gas regulated by Title 15. Additionally, Medical Research may include storage and use of etiological (biological) agents up to and including Risk Group 2 or Bio Safety Level 2 (Center for Disease Control). (123) “Research and development” means a use engaged in the study, testing, engineering, product design, analysis and development of devices, products, processes, or services related to current or new technologies. Research and development may include limited manufacturing, fabricating, processing, assembling or storage of prototypes, devices, compounds, products or materials, or similar related activities, where such activities are incidental to research, development, or evaluation. Examples of “research and development” uses include, but are not limited to, computer software and hardware firms, computer peripherals and related products, electronic research firms, biotechnical and biomedical firms, instrument analysis, genomics, robotics and pharmaceutical research laboratories, and related educational development.

Research and development may include the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt quantities listed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, or etiological (biological) agents up to and including Risk Group 3 or Bio Safety Level 3 classifications as defined by the National Institute of Health (NIH) or the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Higher classification levels of etiological (biological) agents are not allowed without express permission of the City Manager, Fire Chief, and Police Chief.

PAMC 18.42.200.B(viii)-Hazardous Materials: No facility proposing the use of Biosafety Level 4 etiological agents shall be permitted in the city of Palo Alto.

San
Francisco
The San Francisco Planning Code incorporates limitations on BSL in use definitions.

Article 1, Section 102-Defintions:

Laboratory. A Non-Retail Sales and Services Use intended or primarily suitable for scientific research. The space requirements of uses within this category include specialized facilities and/or built accommodations that distinguish the space from Office uses, Light Manufacturing, or Heavy Manufacturing. Examples of laboratories include the following:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 134

Jurisdiction Codified Language
(d) Biological laboratories including those classified by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) as Biosafety level 1, Biosafety level 2, or Biosafety level 3;
(e) Animal facility or vivarium, including laboratories classified by the CDC/NIH as Animal Biosafety level 1, Animal Biosafety level 2, or Animal Biosafety level 3; Life Science. A Non-Retail Sales and Service Use that involves the integration of natural and engineering sciences and advanced biological techniques using organisms, cells, and parts thereof for products and services. This includes the creation of products and services used to analyze and detect various illnesses, the design of products that cure illnesses, and/or the provision of capital goods and services, machinery, instruments, software, and reagents related to research and production. Life Science uses may utilize office, laboratory, light manufacturing, or other types of space. As a subset of Life Science uses, Life Science laboratories typically include biological laboratories and animal facilities or vivaria, as described in the Laboratory definition Subsections (d) and (e).

Sales and Services, Non-Retail. A Commercial Use category that includes Uses that involve the sale of goods or services to other businesses rather than the end user, or that does not provide for direct sales to the consumer on site. Uses in this category include, but are not limited to:

Business Services, Catering, Commercial Storage, Design Professional, General Office, Laboratory, Life Science, Non-Retail Professional Service, Trade Office, Wholesale Sales, and Wholesale Storage.

Article 8, Section 890-Definitions for Mixed Use Districts:

Section 890.52: Laboratory.

Laboratory shall mean space within any structure intended or primarily suitable for scientific research. The space requirements of uses within this category include specialized facilities and/or built accommodations that distinguish the space from office uses (as defined in Section 890.70), light manufacturing (as defined in Section 890.54(a)), or heavy manufacturing (including uses listed in Sections 226(g) through 226(w)). Examples of laboratories include the following:
(d) Biological laboratories including those classified by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) as Biosafety level 1, Biosafety level 2, or Biosafety level 3;
(e) Animal facility or vivarium, including laboratories classified by the CDC/NIH as Animal Biosafety level 1, Animal Biosafety level 2, or Animal Biosafety level 3; Laboratories, Life Science are permitted in Mixed Use Office (Sec. 842.85), and WSOMA Mixed Use Office (Sec. 845.85).

Laboratories, not including Life Sciences, are permitted in Mixed Use General (Sec. 840.86), Mixed Use Residential (Sec. 841.86), Mixed Use Office (Sec. 842.86), Urban Mixed Use (Sec. 843.86), WSOMA Mixed Use Office (Sec. 845.86), and Service/Arts/Light Industrial, except Sec. 890.52(e) (Sec. 846.86).

Non-Retail Sales Service (which includes Laboratory and Life Sciences) is permitted in Central SOMA Mixed-Use Office (Table 848).

Research and Testing Laboratory is permitted in Mission Bay Commercial-Industrial District (Section 913.56).

Experimental Laboratory is permitted as a conditional use in Mission Bay Commercial-Industrial District (Section 913.57).

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 135

Attachment 9. Correspondence from the Public, as of March 22, 2023

Correspondence #1

January 25, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Re: Biosafety Ordinance - Public notice for 2/6 Planning Commission meeting Lisa: I will review the ordinance when it is available and provide comments. However, the banning of a biosafety level 3 or 4 lab makes absolutely no sense. A BSL 3 lab is a collection of safety measures that makes a lab safer. So banning a safer lab is exactly contrary to what the community is concerned about.

Instead, I would suggest regulating activities that require a BSL 3 or BSL 4 lab, but I would not ban the lab itself.

At MBC Biolabs, we only use BSL 2 labs as we only have BSL 2 activities. However, if we elected to build a BSL 3 lab and still only do BSL 2 activities, that would be an example of a safer environment, yet would likely be banned by this ordinance. I think this is a very important distinction here that you ought to take into consideration for this ordinance and how it is drafted. I'm happy to further clarify if necessary.

Ryan Guibara

Correspondence #2

January 29, 2023
City of San Carlos
Community & Economic Development Director Al Savay
Planning Division Staff
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: BSL-3 work in San Carlos
Dear Mr. Savay and members of the Planning Division,
I want to commend the City of San Carlos for building a wonderful life -science community. The companies you have attracted are working hard to solve critical health issues and provide wonderful jobs to diverse workers – even non-college workers. Our life-science incubators, MBC BioLabs, have loved being in San Carlos.

I am writing today to encourage you, and your colleagues, to avoid legislation that would send a chilling message to prospective biotech companies that are wondering about the stability and support that life science companies will receive in San Carlos.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 136

While, MBC BioLabs will never permit BSL-3 or above work in our labs, we support the potential for BSL- 3 in other companies in the community.

BSL-3 work is occasionally critical – just look at the COVID pandemic. A number of companies that were not focusing on infectious diseases lent their expertise to this public health crisis. We wouldn’t want these companies to be thwarted should we need their skills to solve the next crisis.

Rather than banning BSL-3, I think it would make more sense to use the conditional use permitting process. This provides for a case-by-case review of these activities.

I hope the City continues to seek to encourage diverse growth and supports the emerging life science sector.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

All the best,
Doug Crawford

Doug Crawford, PhD
General Manager | MBC BioLabs
953 Indiana Street, San Francisco, CA 94107
930 Brittan Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070
733 Industrial Road, San Carlos, CA 94070
m. 415.205.4825

Correspondence #3

February 2, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Planning Manager Lisa Porras
CC: City Manager Jeff Maltbie
Community & Economic Development Director Al Savay
Mayor Adam Rak
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Fwd: Massachusetts cheat sheet of ordinances
Hi All,

I am forwarding a “cheatsheet” of ordinances prepared by members of the Sierra Club Biosafety working committee. I sent this to Mayor Rak and forgot to include all of you. I thought you’d find it helpful as staff

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 137

prepare a biosafety study session for the city council and planning. Has a date been scheduled for that presentation?
The Sierra Club biosafety group is putting on an educational webinar about BSL labs on March 2nd.

It is intended for city planners, city council members and policy makers in Silicon Valley. A Save the Date email will be sent soon.

Hope you’ll be able to attend. The speakers are nationally renowned experts, Sam Lipson, Director of Public Health in Cambridge, MA, Dennis Carlone, a Cambridge City Council member, and a couple of other local industry experts.

Thank you!
Debbie Baldocchi
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message:

From: Gary Baldocchi
Date: February 2, 2023
To: Mayor Adam Rak

Subject: Massachusetts cheat sheet of ordinances Reply-To: Gary Baldocchi Hi Mayor Rak,
This is the list of draft ordinances I mentioned:

On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 8:48 PM Steven Goodale wrote:

We've compiled a cheat sheet, of sorts, with information relating to the Massachusetts towns we've been referring to. The intent is to provide easy access for busy leaders to get the information they want or need. This would be linked on the main webinar website.

Have at it!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15X0JsXNJ0jiJnGY1uUayuvGKBDWN09enRLnnqhLkeW0/edit? usp=sharing
--
Steven Goodale,
--Goody!

Correspondence #4

February 2, 2023
City of San Carlos
Community & Economic Development Director Al Savay
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 138

600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Number of Bsl 3 labs in California?
Hi Mr. Savay and Planner Costa Sanders,
How are you? Hope all is well. We are researching BSL labs and are trying to find out how many BSL -3 labs are located in California? At two of the recent Planning Commission meetings, we heard staff say there are 15 BSL -3s in the state. We’ve been trying to confirm this number. What is the source of that information? We’d greatly appreciate your assistance in confirming thi s number or the actual number. And, are you aware of any BSL 4s in California?
We ask bc the California Fire code has a provision required labs to notify the fire department of the location of any BSL 3 or 4 labs on an annual basis. Sunnyvale referenced it in their new ordinances. It’s concerning the BSL 3 labs are not required to notify the cities, counties or San Mateo Department of Environmental Safety and Public Health.

Will you please confirm if there are any BSL 3 labs currently in San Carlos or if an y others are planned? Thank you!
Debbie Baldocchi Sent
from my iPhone

Correspondence #5

February 5, 2023
City of San Carlos
CC: City Clerk Crystal Mui
Planning Division
City Council
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL) Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members,
I would like to clear up some inaccuracies found in the packet that staff has provided for Agenda item 6a for the Planning Commission meeting on 06FEB2023. The CDCs standard, Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. 6th Edition, is an advisory document only and not intended as a regulation. BSL4 described in table 1 is incomplete. It fails to note that biological agents of this class have no known vaccine or treatment. Knowing what we do now of Covid 19, in January of 2020 it would have been classified as a BSL4 agent. Chinese authorities

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 139

assured the world at the time that it did not pass easily person to person even as bodies were stacking up in the streets. Any biological agent whose method of transmission or morbidity/lethality are unknown must be treated as a BSL4 agent until demonstrated otherwise. The potential consequence is a pandemic like the one we currently experience. This includes gain of function testing done on known BSL3 agents.

As noted on page 6, there is no policy or plan of action in the event the release of a biological agent to the community, nor is there a regional plan for such a tragedy. While uncommon, such events do happen1 and are usually caused by human error.2 Such events can also be the result of mal intent3 and, while we hope never to see the darker side of human nature, recent shootings on the Peninsula and even a beheading in the downtown area tells us it can happen. Given the magnitude of the risk, it is wise to refrain from building BSL3 labs until there is a concrete action plan in the event that the unthinkable happens. Allowing BSL4 labs in San Carlos poses such a risk that, in my opinion, it should never be allowed in an urban setting like the City of Good Living.

By not permitting BSL3 labs, the city can also avoid the question of who will pay to sterilize and decommission these labs when they reach the end of their useful life. In the past the city has turned a blind eye to the risks of allowing certain semiconductor and electronic industry practices; instead relying on the experts to tell us what was safe. The results are the brownfields of East San Carlos with developers who are generally only willing to do the absolute minimum to mitigate toxic waste hazards in order to protect their bottom line.

What is safe in the Life Science industry 20 yrs from now may look much different than it does today. Even the experts at the NIH cannot agree that current standards are sufficient, especially when it co mes to private commercial BSL3 labs, which are not subject to regulations or oversight that publicly funded BSL3 labs must comply with.4
In closing, I want to say that, contrary to the claim that biosafety labs in the industry are “highly regulated with stringent oversight even in the absence of local regulations”, the fact is there are serious gaps that exist. Industry reluctance to disclose where these higher risk labs are located while at the same time asking us to trust their judgement without objective evidence is insufficient justification when compared to the risk they present. Until local governments stop being passive partners in the growth of this industry and create a real mechanism that maintains public involvement and transparency, long-term trust will be hard to come by. Until then BSL3 labs should not be permitted in the City of San Carlos.

1. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.345.6194.247

2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27234593/

3. https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/commercial-real-estate/building-management-ownership- face-lawsuit-after-janitor-tampered-with-water-bottles-spreading-disease-117424

4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/01/20/nih-biosecurity-report/ Sincerely,
Paul Magginetti

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 140

Correspondence #6

February 6, 2023
City of San Carlos
Planning Commission
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Planning & Transportation Commissioner Janet Castaneda
Planning & Transportation Vice-Chair Kristen Clements
Planning & Transportation Chair Jim Iacoponi
Planning & Transportation Commissioner David Roof
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Public Comments Regarding Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL) Planning Commission Monday, 2/6/23 Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this critical environmental health and safety issue.

With specific reference to the remark on page 7 of the staff report:
“Even in the absence of local regulations, laboratories with biosafety levels are highly regulated with stringent oversight.”
Please note that if City Council solely relies upon this official statement, it fails to address the fact that PRIVATE, COMMERCIAL biocontainment lab developments in Silicon Valley --which are additionally often speculative, Venture Capital-funded, and with proprietary trade secret exemptions in terms of biological agents used --are currently being scrutinized for heightened review as a "problem" by the National Institute of Health's National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity (NSABB). SOURCE: NSABB Board Meeting - September 2022 Wednesday, September 21, 2022
Please also view the draft recommendations, unanimously approved last week by the Expert Panel: https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/DRAFT -NSABB-WG-Report.pdf Additionally, a subject matter expert to our Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Bay Area Biosafety (BABS) Working Group, who has also provided testimonial to Congress and directly expressed concerns to the NSABB about high containment labs,specifically advised that we focus on high- containment biolabs (BSL -3 and BSL-4).

Thank you.

Nina Goodale

Correspondence #7

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 141

February 6, 2023
City of San Carlos
Planning Commission
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Planning & Transportation Commissioner Janet Castaneda
Planning & Transportation Vice-Chair Kristen Clements
Planning & Transportation Commissioner Ellen Garvey
Planning & Transportation Chair Jim Iacoponi
Planning & Transportation Commissioner David Roof
CC: City Council
City Clerk Crystal Mui
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Public Comments Regarding Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL) Planning Commission Monday, 2/6/23 Dear Planner Lisa Costa Sanders, Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, Mayor Rak and Members of the City Council,
We have attached a letter of public comments for Monday's, 2/6/23, Planning Commission meeting regarding a proposed zoning ordinance regulating laboratories with biosafety levels.

We strongly support the proposed ordinance that w ill ban BSL 3 and 4 labs in San Carlos. We applaud the city's progressive leadership on this issue and are impressed that San Carlos will be among the first cities in Silicon Valley to pass an ordinance that balances the important interests of the bioscien ce industry with public and environmental health and safety.

Thank you for considering our request to clarify that BSL 3 and 4 labs are prohibited throughout San Carlos, included in Planned Development zoning. We also request that the city consider adding regulations for BSL 1 and 2 labs that are common in other cit ies, including reasonable setbacks from residential zoning and flood protection mitigations such as elevated platforms for backup generators, prohibition of underground parking on sites adjacent to creeks or have a history of flooding and design and constr uction standards for BSL -2 laboratory ventilation systems.

Sincerely,
Debbie and Gary Baldocchi

Attention Neighbors:

We have listed many folks as bcc recipients on this email to protect your email inboxes. This is a very important public hearing. We hope you will join us in submitting public comments. (They can be very brief comments in support of the ban on BSL 3 and 4 labs and flood mitigation protections for lab developments along the creeks. The City needs to hear from us.)

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 142

To attend tomorrow night' s Planning Commission meeting by zoom and review the agenda packet, use this link: https://cityofsancarlos.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTem plateId=1407

Thank you!

Attachment: BioSafety Lab Ordiances San Carlos Public Comments February 5, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Members of the City Council
Members of the Planning Commission
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Public Comment Regarding Proposed Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code, Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL); Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting, February 6, 2023
Dear Lisa Costa Sanders, Mayor Rak, Members of the City Council and Planning Commissioners, Thank you for your leadership in proposing and adopting an ordinance amending the Municipal code to regulate laboratories with biosafety levels in various zoning districts throughout San Carlos. We support the proposed zoning amendment that prohibits BSL 3 and 4 labs in San Carlos for the reasons outlined in the agenda packet. However, we ask that the ordinance be amended to clarify that BSL 3 and 4 labs are not permitted in Planned Development zoning or in any zoning in San Carlos. Planned Development zoning was omitted from the proposed ordinance.

We note that the Planning Commission recently approved a change in zoning from Landmark Commercial to Planned Development for a Life Sciences development at 405 Industrial Road. In addition, the developers for a proposed Life Sciences development that includes BSL 1 and 2 labs at 642 Quarry Road also asked to change the zoning from Light Industrial to Planned Development. The proposed ordinance should make it clear that the prohibition on BSL 3 and 4 labs applies to all zoning throughout San Carlos. And, the ordinance should also make it clear that it applies to vivaria or BSL 1 and 2 labs that may house animals intended for use in BSL 3 or 4 research.

We provide the following public comments for your review and consideration at the Planning Commission meeting on February 6th.

1. Privately owned and operated Biosafety labs that do not receive federal or state funds are not subject to stringent oversight.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 143

gone undisclosed to the public. The proliferation of millions of square f eet of biosafety labs in heavily populated areas is an issue of nationwide concern because of odors, noise, emissions, and transportation of hazardous materials, hazardous pathogens and biological waste through residential neighborhoods.

See: The Risks of Building Too Many Biolabs.; Newly Disclosed CDC biolab failures ‘like a screenplay for a disaster movie
In fact, the lack of oversight of Silicon Valley’s privately-owned and operated biosafety labs has drawn the recent attention and concern of the (NIH) National Institute of Health’s National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). The NSABB has held numerous meetings about biosafety and biosecurity, with specific focus on Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (PC3O) and Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC). The most recent meeting took place a week ago. NSABB Board of Directors Meeting—January 27, 2023.

One notable public comment was from a biosafety/biosecurity public health expert at Columbia University who urged the NSABB to focus on BSL 3 labs in the private sector. Privately funded labs are a prominent focus of these meetings. They discussed the need for transparency, in connection with the need for public membership on biosafety committees, as well as transparency of the process, in terms of rules and regulations. They also discussed standards for review.

In a prior NSABB meeting on September 21, 2022, Dr. Richard Ebright pointed out 6 major gaps in the biosafety/biosecurity framework, including the lack of oversight of private, non -federally funded labs. (NSABB Board Meeting - September 2022 Wednesday, September 21, 2022 ) Timestamped at approximately 33:00.

At approximately 42:00, Dr. Kenneth Bernard, a NSABB board member stated: “We have to deal with the problem of domestic research that’s not funded by the US government. That’s a big chunk right now, especially out here in the west with Silicon Valley.”

Clearly, the issue of privately-funded, high-containment labs is a matter of concern at the NIH. Prohibiting BSL 3 and 4 labs in all zoning in San Carlos is an important step in regulating BSL labs to protect public and environmental health and safety.

2. Other cities have ordinances and permitting procedures for all levels of biosafety labs.

Although the staff report indicates that few bay area cities have ordinances or regulations regarding biosafety labs, many cities on the east coast, that have decades of experience dealing with the consequences of millions of square feet of biosafety lab d evelopments, have enacted comprehensive BSL ordinances. Many of them prohibit BSL 3 and 4 labs. However, they also have ordinances regulating BSL 1 and 2 labs.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 144

and Revere, among others. In addition, Revere does not allow warm-blooded animal research and Natick prohibits all animal testing. See this helpful spreadsheet, cited with permission from the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Bay Area Biosafety working group.

3. Please consider amending the proposed ordinance to include regulations for BSL 1 and 2 labs.

We are not opposed to BSL 1 and 2 labs sited in areas that are environmentally and ecologically suitable, are located a safe distance from residences, childcare and senior facilities, and are governed by robust university, city or county guidelines, biosafety committees, ordinances, or regulations. Private BSL 1 and 2 labs are self-regulated and lack operational oversight. The City of San Carlos and San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health and Safety do not have biosafety committees , guidelines or ordinances that specify where biosafety labs should be sited and how privately -owned, speculative developments with multiple unknown BSL tenants should be operated and monitored. Most San Mateo county regulations address hazardous materials, not hazardou s biological cellular materials or pathogens.

Ventilation--Negative and Positive Air Pressure
The proposed ordinance does not contain any regulations that govern BSL 1 and 2 labs, vivaria or animal testing. These facilities are less concerning than BSL 3 and 4 labs, but they are not without risk. Of utmost concern is ensuring appropriate ventilation design and construction. See Stanford’s: Ventilation Concerns for Biosafety Level 2 Laboratories . It reads in part:

1. Air pressure in laboratories and animal care rooms should be negative in relation to the corridor or adjacent non-laboratory areas. Rooms housing immunocompromised animals should be at a positive pressure with respect to adjoining areas. Consult with SU Fire Marshall for design details. CDC-NIH Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (ABSL 2, D.5) Good Practice per Stanford EH&S Potentially harmful aerosols can escape from the containment of the laboratory room unless the room air pressure is negative to adjacent non-laboratory areas. As a general rule, air should flow from low hazard to high hazard areas.

2. Dedicated sterile tissue culture rooms should be balanced neutral or slightly positive with respect to adjoining areas. Tissue culture rooms that involve the use of biohazardous agents shall be negative as stated in C-1 above.

This will minimize the potential for possible contamination of experiments within these rooms.

3. An autoclave should be provided with a canopy hood, slotted exhaust, or other suitable means of local exhaust. In addition, autoclave rooms should have a minimum of 10 air changes per hour.

Unpleasant heat and odors will linger in the room unless provided with effective local exhaust and adequate frequency of air changes.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 145

all BSL labs within a specified distance (250 or more feet) from residences, childcare and senior facilities; require floor plans of BSL 1 and 2 labs and a description of the organisms in use; a procedure to alert the city and the public of lab accidents, employee exposure to transmissible pathogens and an emergency response plan.

We respectfully request that the city consider hiring a third-party biosafety and biosecurity consultant, to be paid for by developers or BSL tenants, to perform biosafety and biosecurity oversight responsibilities similar to those adopted by Cambridge, MA.

See Cambridge, MA biosafety regulations:

The responsibilities of the Cambridge Biosafety Committee include:

• Reviewing the appropriate design and operation of all laboratory areas within the proposed facility for research or manufacturing involving regulated biological agents at the biosafety containment level (Biosafety Level) request for that location;

• Determining whether appropriate and reasonable practices to contain and mitigate biological hazards match the potential biological hazards associated with the specific agents in the form present, particularly as they impact lab workers and the community;

• Listening to each presentation for a new or amended permit and providing feedback or submitting questions to the applicant as applicable;

• Reviewing laboratory walkthrough inspection summaries provided by Committee staff before determining that all applicable standards and practices for safe operation of a biological laboratory are met;

• Reviewing practices, expectations, and standards imposed on the regulated laboratories by the Committee in order to establish clear enforcement protocols and to offer transparency to the regulated community. Key policies and direction will be summarized in a companion document to the ordinance and the regulation;

• Providing a community perspective in assessing the impact of any application and anticipating issues of greater public concern or interest;

We also ask that the city consider developing a specifi c Laboratory Biosafety permit, such as the one below:

To receive a Laboratory Biosafety permit, every new applicant must present to the Cambridge Biosafety Committee. The presentation must include:

1. Street address of the proposed facility or facilities. Please include a specific floor or suite within the building.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 146

2. Total floor area of biological laboratory space (estimate is OK) and proposed biological containment level(s) or biological safety levels (BSL).

3. A summary of research or manufacturing activities and agents, organized by Risk Group as determined by the Institutional Biosafety Committee for the applicant.

4. A floor plan indicating all laboratory areas, biological containment levels or BSL(s), waste storage location and pathway for removal, doors, and exits.

5. Documentation of a medical surveillance agreement with a local occupational health provider or an in-house clinical provider.

6. Documentation showing that an air balance was conducted to document a steady negative airflow into any BSL-2 lab areas.

7. Summary of compliance status for all local and state health and safety regulations requiring permits (e.g., flammable storage and cryogenic gas permit, DEP VSQG or SQG chem waste permit, state radiation permit, MWRA wastewater permit).

8. A list of vendors that support the safe operation of the laboratory.

Presentations generally last 20 to 45 minutes, and should provide a broad explanation of the recombinant technologies, risk of infection, biological vectors, and host organisms being used.

For an example, see our sample presentation. For more information, please view the Cambridge Biosafety Committee’s Policies and Procedures .

4. Flood Prevention

In order to prevent or minimize the effects of flooding on BSL 1 and 2 lab facilities, we respectfully request that the biosafety ordinance include a minimum set-back requirement of 25-35 feet or more, if possible, from all creeks and the bay, a prohibition on underground parking or underground structures in FEMA flood zones and a requirement for elevated platforms for back -up generators (diesel, gas or battery operated).

Most of the Life Sciences developments containing BSL 1 and 2 labs will be located in east or northeast San Carlos. Unfortunately, those areas are prone to flooding due to their proximity to Pulgas, Belmont and Cordilleras creeks. Many sites are in FEMA designated flood zones. A series of atmospheric rivers caused widespread flooding in San Carlos on December 31, 2022.

Pulgas creek flooded, swamping portions of Industrial Road and surface roads near the intersection of 930 and 1030 Brittan where MBC Biolabs are located. On July 19, 2021, the development, now under construction at 1030 Brittan, received an exemption from the Planning Commission for the 25-foot creek setback requirement and located its underground parking structure within 9 feet of Pulgas Creek. https://padailypost.com/2021/07/19/biotech -project-approved-in-san-carlos/ See 12/31 photos:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 147

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 148

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 149

Fortunately, Ryan Guibara of Dewey Land Company, developer for MBC Biolabs, is an experienced developer and he ensured that the construction site was properly protected and maintained during the storms. We appreciate his willingness to meet with members of the community and consider our input.

We also appreciate that MBC Biolabs limits their operations to BSL 1 and 2 labs. Mr. Guibara met with us in January and described a number of flood prevention mitigations he is undertaking to prevent flooding in the underground parking structure, including flood gates at the entrance.

There was also widespread flooding in northeast San Carlos. The PG&E substation at 275 Industrial Road flooded. The orange flood barriers were still in place on 1/6/23:

On 12/31/22, water levels reached 1-2 feet in the parking structure at Natera, a biotech company at 201 Industrial Road. See partially submerged cars:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 150

In addition, Belmont Creek flooded at the site of a proposed 800,000 square foot Life Science development at 642 Quarry Road. Fortunately, the developers recently withdrew their request for BSL 3 “use,” but it will have BSL 1 and 2 facilities on the site. We were surprised to learn that underground parking is proposed on this site because it is notorious for flooding. This photo was taken in the parking lot of 642 Quarry Road on 12/31/22:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 151

See this Belmont Staff Report dated October 24, 2014. It includes multiple photos showing 2010 flooding in the parking lot and underground parking structure at Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, previously located at 150 Industrial Road. The 2010 flooding from Belmont Creek swamped Old County Road, Quarry Road and Industrial Road. Novartis paid for the Belmont Creek Watershed Study included in the Belmont staff report. Despite subsequent years of dredging and preventative maintenance, Belmont creek still floods Quarry Road, Old County Road, Harbor Blvd and Industrial Road all the way from El Camino Real to Hwy 101. Building 800,000 square feet of BSL 1 and 2 labs directly on the banks of Belmont creek, with proposed underground parking seems reckless. If the underground parking structure floods, the building may lose electrical power which is crit ical to maintaining negative and positive air pressure in BSL-2 labs on the site. In addition, the back-up generators proposed on surface parking lots around the structures and would likely be submerged in the event of significant flooding.

5. Inadequate p ublic notice of significant changes to zoning ordinances related to biosafety labs, a topic of significant public interest

We respectfully contend that there was inadequate public notice of this Planning Commission meeting where a topic of significant public interest will be discussed. Members of the public and the GESC board have previously raised concerns on a number of occa sions about the lack of BSL ordinances and requested a public hearing. We sent a number of emails to the city raising this issue as early as September 8, 2021. In December 2022, the City Council directed City staff to prepare a presentation and study session on biosafety labs. However, we only became aware of this meeting when we sent an email to Lisa Costa Sanders on 2/2/23 asking about the status of the BSL study session.

On the last page of the packet we saw that the city published a notice in the "ENQUIRER-BULLETIN" newspaper on January 25th. We have never heard of this obscure publication, but discovered that it is listed as one of the San Mateo County newspapers for legal publication. While the small posting may satisfy the legal public notification requirement, we are disappointed that the City did not mention the date of this important meeting in the monthly City Council newsletter or in a City Council meeting in order to give the public advance notice.

If we had known the date of this meeting earlier, we would have submitted public comment letters and encouraged interested neighbors to submit their comments for inclusion in the agenda packet. We note that the packet included “public comments” from Ryan Guibara, MBC Biolabs dated 1/25/23 and Doug Crawf ord, MBC Biolabs dated 1/29/23. It appears that their input was obtained as part of Marketplace Feedback noted on page 11 of the packet. See:

https://cityofsancarlos.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1407

In the future, we respectfully request that members of the public be afforded the same courtesy offered to developers, especially those of us who have written emails and specifically requested information about topics on calendar for discussion. We also request that the general public be n otified of zoning changes or matters of significant public interest in the City Council newsletter or by other methods in addition to the minimally required public notice. Will the city consider publishing future notices in the San Mateo Daily Journal instead? It is a more well-known publication with wider circulation.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 152

city council members for demonstrating progressive leadership in the regulation of Silicon Valley’s important Biotech industry. San Carlos’ BSL ordinances will set an important precedent in the bay area.

Sincerely,
Debbie and Gary Baldocchi
1852 Carmelita Drive, San Carlos, CA

Correspondence #8

February 6, 2023

Honorable Mayor Adam Rak 600
Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
RE: Item 6 San Carlos Planning and Transportation Commission Agenda for February 6th.

Dear Mayor Rak, Members of City Council, and Members of Planning and Transportation Commission
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Chamber San Mateo County we are writing to express our concern regarding the proposal to fully ban Bio Safety Level 3 (BSL-3) laboratories in the City of San Carlos.

Chamber San Mateo County is a dynamic organization that is always looking to the future with over 1,500 members from all industries such as business, government, labor, education and non- profit and serving over 100,000 employees. Our Chamber continues to stay true to our purpose, our promise, and our difference by providing local and regional leadership on critical economic issues, such as education, housing affordability, infrastructure, transportation, economic development, supporting commercial and life science expansion, and government efficiency initiatives.

In December 2022, our Chamber’s Economic Development Committee held a presentation on California’s Economic Driver – Life Science. We called together a panel of life science industry experts:
• Michelle Nemits, Bay Area Executive Director, Biocom
• Melanie Cohn, Senior Director, Regional Policy & Government Affairs, Biocom • Dr. Greg Theyel, Program Director, Biomedical Manufacturing Network.

We had over 55 attendees, including city staff members from the Cities of San Carlos, Redwood City and Belmont personally invited by me. One key area that was discussed widely within the presentation with numerous questions was “What are BSL-1, BSL-2, BSL-3, and BSL- 4?”

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 153

Chamber San Mateo County supports the Staff recommendation to allow BSL-1 and BSL-2 by right approval in the San Carlos Innovation District. We further support the Staff recommendation to not allow any BSL-4 uses in San Carlos as these are for highly specialized research work that is not conducted by the broader life science industry – and typically limited to governmental or large research entities.

Our Chamber however cannot support a ban on disallowing BSL-3 all together. This is limiting economic vitality, job growth, workforce development, community benefits for your community.

Plus limiting the possibility of life saving research.

Chamber San Mateo County hopes you will consider the recommendation that the City of San Carlos impose a very strict Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process for any potential BSL-3 requirement. A CUP review process would require that a BSL-3 application be considered in public at a Planning Commission public hearing and potentially even at a City Council public hearing so as to ensure appropriate public involvement, public review, notification and oversight.

Conditional Use Permits (CUP) are used by many municipalities across the country to strictly control and limit potentially sensitive uses of all kinds. CUPs are an exception to the underlying zoning and as such are granted only after scrutiny and review and with specific conditions of approval. Typically, such conditions of approval will require an ongoing annual or semi-annual review, reporting and certification process. CUPs are subject to be revoked at the City’s discretion if conditions of approval are not met satisfactorily. In many cases, where a municipality does not have the necessary expertise within its Staff, they require applicants to pay for the City to retain a professional, licensed Industrial Hygienist that will appropriately evaluate a Tenant’s CUP application and issue a report to the City and the public.

Our organization is committed to working together with the City of San Carlos to bring about the vision of the San Carlos Innovation District as the economic engine for San Carlos’ future.

Thank you for your consideration.

Warm Regards,

Amy N. Buckmaster President &
CEO
Chamber San Mateo County

Correspondence #9

To:

Mayor Adam Rak
600 Elm Street

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 154

San Carlos, CA 94070

RE: Item 6 on the San Carlos Planning Commission Agenda for February 6th.

Dear Mayor Rak, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,

I am writing regarding the proposal to ban BSL-3 laboratories in the City of San Carlos.

Biocom California is the state’s oldest and largest association for the life sciences. We work on behalf of over 1,700 members to drive public policy, build a network of industry leaders, create access to capital, introduce workforce development and STEM education programs, and create value driven purchasing programs. Our members include biotechnology, pharmaceutical, medical device, and bioinformatics companies, contract research organizations, academic institutions/research institutes, service providers, and investment firms.

Membership ranges companies with under 10 employees to those with 500+ employees.

Life science is the economic backbone of the peninsula. According to our 2022 Economic I mpact Report, San Mateo County is home to 807 life science establishments, employing 40,349 people at an average wage of $274,258. The life science industry in San Mateo County represents $14.1 billion in annual economic impact. This is not just a question of economic value – these companies are developing lifesaving treatments and cures for all human ailments, improving health outcomes and quality of life.

The industry is very highly regulated; each facility must acquire and maintain many permits covering everything from the materials used in laboratories to wastewater. These facilities also have a high rate of compliance because to maintain these permits, companies hire in -house or consulting teams to track safety measures and ensure conformity.

The BSL designation itself outlines the application of specific practices, safety equipment, and specially designed laboratories to create a safe environment, both within and outside the laboratory.

We support the staff recommendation to allow BSL-1 and BSL-2 by right in the San Carlos Innovation District. It is also reasonable to not allow BSL-4 uses in San Carlos as these labs are generally limited to governmental entities.

On the issue of BSL-3, the use of a BSL-3 laboratory is rare in the life science industry. While the number of these labs is few, their use is necessary in certain life-saving research processes. We are not aware of any other jurisdiction that disallows BSL-3 completely; this policy could limit economic and job growth in the life sci ence industry in San Carlos. Its very existence could give companies who don’t currently have plans for a BSL-3 lab pause when deciding whether to locate in the city.

It is our suggestion that the city considers a Conditional Use Permit process for BSL-3, where these laboratories would not be allowed in underlying zoning but could be approved on a case-by-case basis.

We appreciate your concerns, and as the number of regulated companies on the peninsula continues to increase, we hope you remain open to further discussion. We welcome the opportunity to meet with anyone who would like additional information about Biosafety Levels and the regulations in place around laboratory operations.

Melanie Cohn
Senior Director, Regional Policy & Government Affairs

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 155

Correspondence #10

February 9, 2023
City of San Carlos
Planning Division
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Re - proposed development of level 3 biotech lab attn Jim Incaponi Hi
I am writing to you because I am a concerned City of San Carlos resident for many years. I would like to speak against the proposed development of level 3 biotech labs for many reasons.

1. First and foremost the health and safety of the citizens should be come before $$$$$$$$! This does not belong anywhere and certainly not in a family community like San Carlos.

2. The traffic increase and congestion will only serve to give us that big city feel and is not in keeping with our City.

3. This will have a detrimental effect on property values as “people in the know” will not want to move to “a Little Wuhan”!

Can you please help preserve our city. Please reach out to me so we can discuss this further.

Lina Marie Fava
650 996 0206

Correspondence #11

March 1, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Members of the City Council
Members of the Planning Commission
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Public Comment Regarding Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL) Planning Commission Monday, 3/6/23

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 156

Dear Member of the Planning Commission,
We submitted the attached letter for the 2/6/23 Planning Commission meeting. We re -submit it here.

Please include it in the agenda packet for the 3/6/23 Planning Commission meeting. Lisa Costa Sanders informed us that we must submit public comments by noon tomorrow (3/2/23) in order to have them included in the agenda packet. Unfortunately, the agenda packet won't be posted until five hours later at 5:00 pm. We anticipate that the proposed ordinance will contain recommendations for a Conditional Use Permit. We will submit an additional public comment letter after we have had a chance to read it.

However, in light of the fact that only 1% of lab tenants will use BSL -3 space and the fact that EDAC Director assured you that the city does not think prohibiting BSL-3 labs will have a significant economic impact, we ask that you carefully consider the cost/benefit and risk/benefit analy sis proposed by Commissioner Roof and prohibit BSL-3 and 4 labs in San Carlos.

We submitted a detailed public comment letter in response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 642 Quarry Road. The developers subsequently withdrew their request for BSL -3 use. That is anecdotal evidence that prohibiting BSL-3 labs will not deter developers. We include that public comment letter here because it describes in detail the possible public safety and environmental impacts of siting BSL-3 labs in east San Carlos FEMA flood zones and on the edge of the bay. It contains information and cites research that is relevant to your decision.

We hope that the links and information we provided in our public comment letter, citing members of the National Institute of Health's National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSAAB) are persuasive.

They expressed concerns about unregulated, private biosafety labs in Silicon Valley and their remarks convinced us that private BSL -3 and 4 labs should not be approved by cities tha t do not have comprehensive biosafety and biosecurity ordinances and Biosafety Committees that regulate them. We implore you to listen to the NSAAB meetings in the links we sent so that you can hear what they have to say. They are the globally renowned subject matter experts on biosafety and biosecurity, some of them are from Stanford.

The allegation that the public's opposition to high-containment labs sited near neighborhoods is based on "fear, not facts" is unfounded. That is a talking point that serves to attack, not advance public discourse and engagement. The question is whether the public safety risks of having high-containment biosafety labs in San Carlos are foreseeable. Why take the risk?

Sincerely,

Debbie and Gary Baldocchi
Carmelita Drive

Attachment 1.1. Baldocchi Letter dated February 5, 2023

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 157

February 5, 2023

City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Members of the City Council
Members of the Planning Commission
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Dear Lisa Costa Sanders, Mayor Rak, Members of the City Council and Planning Commissioners, Thank you for your leadership in proposing and adopting an ordinance amending the Municipal code to regulate laboratories with biosafety levels in various zoning districts throughout San Carlos. We support the proposed zoning amendment that prohibits BSL 3 and 4 labs in San Carlos for the reasons outlined in the agenda packet. However, we ask that the ordinance be amended to clarify that BSL 3 and 4 labs are not permitted in Planned Development zoning or in any zoning in San Carlos. Planned Development zoning was omitted from the proposed ordinance.

We provide the following public comments for your review and consideration at the Planning Commission meeting on February 6th.

1. Privately owned and operated Biosafety labs that do not receive federal or state funds are not subject to stringent oversight.

Most of the biolabs in San Carlos are privately funded and some lab tenants may be speculative start- ups. Contrary to the bioscience industry’s extensive public relations efforts to convince the public that biosafety laboratory facilities are highly regulated and safe, hundreds of documented lab accidents have gone undisclosed to the public. The proliferation of millions of square feet of biosafety labs in heavily populated areas is an issue of nationwide concern because of odors, noise, emissions, and transportation of hazardous materials, hazardous pathogens and biological waste through residential neighborhoods.

See: The Risks of Building Too Many Biolabs.; Newly Disclosed CDC biolab failures ‘like a screenplay for a disaster movie

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 158

In fact, the lack of oversight of Silicon Valley’s privately-owned and operated biosafety labs has drawn the recent attention and concern of the (NIH) National Institute of Health’s National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). The NSABB has held numerous meetings about biosafety and biosecurity, with specific focus on Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (PC3O) and Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC). The most recent meeting took place a week ago. NSABB Board of Directors Meeting—January 27, 2023.

One notable public comment was from a biosafety/biosecurity public health expert at Columbia University who urged the NSABB to focus on BSL 3 labs in the private sector. Privately funded labs are a prominent focus of these meetings. They discussed the need for transparency, in connection with the need for public membership on biosafety committees, as well as transparency of the process, in ter ms of rules and regulations. They also discussed standards for review.

2. Other cities have ordinances and permitting procedures for all levels of biosafety labs.

Although the staff report indicates that few bay area cities have ordinances or regulations regarding biosafety labs, many cities on the east coast, that have decade s of experience dealing with the consequences of millions of square feet of biosafety lab developments, have enacted comprehensive BSL ordinances. Many of them prohibit BSL 3 and 4 labs. However, they also have ordinances regulating BSL 1 and 2 labs.

Cities in the greater Boston metropolitan area have shown progressive leadership in protecting their communities. The following cities near Boston prohibit BSL 3 and 4 labs: Boxborough, Brookline, Natick, and Revere, among others. In addition, Revere does not allow warm-blooded animal research and Natick prohibits all animal testing. See this helpful spreadsheet, cited with permission from the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Bay Area Biosafety working group.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 159

3. Please consider amending the proposed ordinance to include regulations for BSL 1 and 2 labs.

This will minimize the potential for possible contamination of experiments within these rooms.

3. An autoclave should be provided with a canopy hood, slotted exhaust, or other suitable means of local exhaust. In addition, autoclave rooms should have a minimum of 10 air changes per hour.

Unpleasant heat and odors will linger in the room unless provided with effective local exhaust and adequate frequency of air changes.

Because of the risk of airborne pathogens escaping to adjacent non-laboratory areas, we ask the city to consider amending the ordinance to provide specific guidelines that ensure the above ventilation guidelines are incorporated into building design and construction. We also request that the city prohibit all BSL labs within a specified distance (250 or more feet) from residences, childcare and senior facilities; require floor plans of BSL 1 and 2 labs and a description of the organisms in use; a procedure to alert the city and the public of lab accidents, employee exposure to transmissible pathogens and an emergency response plan.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 160

See Cambridge, MA biosafety regulations:

The responsibilities of the Cambridge Biosafety Committee include:

• Listening to each presentation for a new or amended permit and providing feedback or submitting questions to the applicant as applicable;

• Providing a community perspective in assessing the impact of any application and anticipating issues of greater public concern or interest;

We also ask that the city consider developing a specific Laboratory Biosafety permit, such as the one below:

To receive a Laboratory Biosafety permit, every new applicant must present to the Cambridge Biosafety Committee. The presentation must include:

9. Street address of the proposed facility or facilities. Please include a specific floor or suite within the building.

10. Total floor area of biological laboratory space (estimate is OK) and proposed biological containment level(s) or biological safety levels (BSL).

11. A summary of research or manufacturing activities and agents, organized by Risk Group as determined by the Institutional Biosafety Committee for the applicant.

12. A floor plan indicating all laboratory areas, biological containment levels or BSL(s), waste storage location and pathway for removal, doors, and exits.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 161

13. Documentation of a medical surveillance agreement with a local occupational health provider or an in-house clinical provider.

14. Documentation showing that an air balance was conducted to document a steady negative airflow into any BSL-2 lab areas.

15. Summary of compliance status for all local and state health and safety regulations requiring permits (e.g., flammable storage and cryogenic gas permit, DEP VSQG or SQG chem waste permit, state radiation permit, MWRA wastewater permit).

16. A list of vendors that support the safe operation of the laboratory.

Presentations generally last 20 to 45 minutes, and should provide a broad explanation of the recombinant technologies, risk of infection, biological vectors, and host organisms being used.

For an example, see our sample presentation. For more information, please view the Cambridge Biosafety Committee’s Policies and Procedures .

4. Flood Prevention

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 162

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 163

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 164

There was also widespread flooding in northeast San Carlos. The PG&E substation at 275 Industrial Road flooded. The orange flood barriers were still in place on 1/6/23:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 165

On 12/31/22, water levels reached 1-2 feet in the parking structure at Natera, a biotech company at 201 Industrial Road. See partially submerged cars:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 166

See this Belmont Staff Report dated October 24, 2014. It includes multiple photos showing 2010 flooding in the parking lot and underground parking structure at Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, previously located at 150 Industrial Road. The 2010 flooding from Belmont Creek swamped Old County Road, Quarry Road and Industrial Road. Novartis paid for the Belmont Creek Watershed Study included in the Belmont staff report. Despite subsequent years of dredging and preventative maintenance, Belmont creek still floods Quarry Road, Old County Road, Harbor Blvd and Industrial Road all the way from El Camino Real to Hwy 101. Building 800,000 square feet of BSL 1 and 2 labs directly on the banks of Belmont creek, with proposed underground parking seems reckless. If the underground parking structure floods, the building may lose electrical power which is critical to maintaining negative and positive air pressure in BSL-2 labs on the site. In addition, the back-up generators proposed on surface parking lots around the structures and would likely be submerged in the event of significant flooding.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 167

5. Inadequate p ublic notice of significant changes to zoning ordinances related to biosafety labs, a topic of significant public interest

If we had known the date of this meeting earlier, we would have submitted public comment letters and encouraged interested neighbors to submit their comments for inclusion in the agenda packet. We note that the packet included “public comments” from Ryan Guibara, MBC Biolabs dated 1/25/23 and Doug Cra wford, MBC Biolabs dated 1/29/23. It appears that their input was obtained as part of Marketplace Feedback noted on page 11 of the packet. See:

https://cityofsancarlos.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1407

In the future, we respectfully request that members of the public be afforded the same courtesy offered to developers, especially those of us who have written emails and specifically requested information about topics on calendar for discussion. We also request that the general public be notified of zoning changes or matters of significant public interest in the City Council newsletter or by other methods in addition to the minimally required public notice. Will the city consider publishing future notices in the San Mateo Daily Journal instead? It is a more well-known publication with wider circulation.

Thank you for considering our comments. We greatly appreciate the staff’s research, hard work and their recommendation to prohibit all BSL 3 and 4 labs in San Carlos. We applaud San Carlos planners and city council members for demonstrating progressive leadership in the regulation of Silicon Valley’s important Biotech industry. San Carlos’ BSL ordinances will set an important precedent in the bay area.

Sincerely,

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 168

Debbie and Gary Baldocchi
1852 Carmelita Drive, San Carlos, CA

Correspondence #12

March 2, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Members of the City Council
Members of the Planning Commission
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Biosafety Now--Prohibit High-Containment Biolabs in San Carlos--Public Comment Regarding Ordinance Amending San Carl Planning Commission Monday, 3/6/23 Dear Lisa Costa Sanders, Planning Commission members and members of the City Council, Please add this le tter of public comments to the agenda packet for the Planning and transportation Committee on March 6th. Sent at 11:51 on 3/2/23.

Thank you,
Debbie and Gary Baldocchi

Attachment 2.1. Baldocchi Letter dated March 2, 2023
March 2, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission
Members of the City Council
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Dear Lisa Costa Sanders, Planning Commissioners, Mayor Rak, and members of the City Council,

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 169

The Planning and Transportation Commission declined to follow the February 6th City Council and staff recommendations to adopt a proposed ordinance that would prohibit privately operated, high - containment biosafety labs in San Carlos in order to protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.

Commissioners did not discuss the harmful effects of hazardous materials, but expressed concerns that prohibiting high-containment labs would discourage the private biotech industry from moving to San Carlos and directed staff to submit a revised ordinance that will allow BSL-1 and 2 use by right and BSL- 3 use with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Commissioners were willing to prohibit BSL-4 labs, but that is not a significant public health and safety concession because there are none in California—that the public is aware of.

The ordinance proposed on February 6th reads in part:

PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGES TO REGULATE LABORATORIES WITH BIOSAFETY LEVELS
Staff has prepared proposed changes to the San Carlos Municipal Code Sections 18.06.010, 18.06.020,

18.07.010, 18.07.020, 18.40.050, and 18.41.020 for the Planning and Transportation Commission’s consideration regarding regulating laboratories with biosafety levels. (See Attachment 1 – Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt the Proposed Changes to the San Carlos Municipal Code Title

18. Exhibit A: Proposed Changes to the San Carlos Municipal Code.) These proposed changes include:
• Adding a zoning definition for “Biosafety Level.”
• Allowing BSL-1 and BSL-2 laboratories with no permit requirement. • Modifying the purpose of zoning districts where Research and Development uses are permitted to expressly prohibit BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories.
• Modifying the Research and Development use definition to expressly prohibit BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories.
1) Findings:

1. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Basis for finding: The Environmental Safety and Public Services Element of the San Carlos General Plan includes Goal ESPS -5, which state s, “Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials,” and Action ESPS-5.6, which states “Prepare regulations that address biosafety levels (BSL) for new life science, biotechnology, or other scientific developments to ensure a healthy and safe San Carlos community.” The primary goal of this proposed amendment to Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code is to implement Action ESPS-5.6 by including a definition for Biosafety Levels (BSL), and prohibiting facilities with biosafety levels (BSL) 3 and 4.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 170

It is our perception that the commissioners minimized staff and community members concerns about the public health and environmental safety hazards of siting high -containment biolabs near residential neighborhoods, schools, childcare facilities, medical offices and other environmentally sensitive areas prone to flooding. We respectfully request that they reconsider.

We do not think that allowing private, BSL-3 labs in San Carlos with a Conditional Use Permit adequately protects the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials. City staff admitted they have no biosafety or biosecurity experience or expertise and that regulations and oversight will be complex, time- consuming and expensive. Planner Costa Sanders pointed out that cities on the east coast that allow high-containment labs have biosafety/biosecurity committees that provide oversight. She said: we don’t have that expertise. See video of the meeting: Link to 2/6/23 Planning Commission (Minute: 29.) Staff also conceded that only 1% of biosafety lab tenants will request BSL-3 use. EDAC Director Al Savay said that the city does not think the economic impacts on market dynamics will be significant and that he feels good about moving forward with the proposed ord inance based on public safety and community concerns. (Minute: 26.) The city staff specifically stated that there will be no significant economic impacts.

Why are planning commissioners disputing that?
In fact, the developers for a proposed 410,000 square foot Life Sciences complex at 642 Quarry Road recently withdrew their request for BSL -3 use after public opposition to their Mitigated Negative Declaration.

There is an unprecedented proliferation of private, high containment biosafety labs throughout Silicon Valley. Now, more than ever, local ordinances are needed to regulate the foreseeable public and environmental health and safety impacts. The lack of comprehensive federal, state, and local biosafety regulations is a glaring public health and safety issue. Prominent scientists, including Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, has pushed for federal regulations for high-containment labs for years.

In a recent issue of Science magazine, he said: Current U.S. biosafety guidelines, which only cover federally funded research and are enforced with fines and loss of grants, should be replaced with federal regulations with the force of criminal penalties, the group says. (There are stricter U.S. regulations for research on certain risky pathogens and toxins known a s select agents, but these laws mainly are intended to prevent terrorists or enemy nations from getting access to potential bioweapons, Ebright notes.) The World Health Organization could help countries harmonize biosafety rules, the group says.

We recognize that it can be difficult for a city to balance risks to public and environmental health and safety with sustainable economic growth. EDAC Director Al Savay agrees that protecting both is possible.

We are optimistic that San Carlos will continue to lead by protecting the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials. The city has demonstrated their commitment to enforcing regulations in the Environmental Safety and Public Services Element of the San Carlos General Plan by requiring developers to clean up former industrial sites that contain brown fields and enforcing the 25 feet set-back requirement from creeks.

We ask San Carlos to follow the example of many other cities and prohibit high-containment BSL-3 labs and in its own words: promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare. We appreciate your thoughtful and careful consideration.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 171

We provide the following additional information:

Background
I am a retired prosecutor. During the first 10 years of my career, I was a Registered Nurse with a Master’s Degree in Nursing. In the mid-80s, I was the Director of Nursing for Shriners Hospital for Children in San Francisco. I was also an assistant clinical professor at UCSF and served on the San Francisco Directors of Nursing Infectious Diseases committee during the HIV epidemic. The committee’s focus was instituting policies and procedures to prevent hospital, laboratory or blood bank acquired infections from spreading to patients, staff and the community.

The Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter, hosted a webinar on Life Sciences Development on March 2nd. I am not a member, but they graciously invited me to attend the planning sessions as a member of the public.

Members of the group had many meetings with city and county leaders, biosafety experts, biotech consultants, scientists and university professors, including the webinar speakers:
(a) Dennis Carlone, Cambridge, MA City Council member and Urban Design/Architec ture consultant;

(b) Sam Lipson, Senior Director of Environmental Health, Cambridge Public Health Department;

(c) Vanessa Cook, Ph.D, Associate BioSafety officer, UC San Diego. Dr. Cook also works for BioNet, Biological Safety Information Network; and

(d) Paul Magginetti, a senior biosciences quality engineer and board member of Greater East San Carlos (GESC.)

We also met with San Mateo County Supervisor Dave Pine and representatives from the San Mateo Department of Environmental Health and Safety. We confirme d that there are no county ordinances regulating biosafety levels in private labs. Zoning ordinances that govern biosafety labs are enacted by cities, unless they are located on county property.

Discussion
(1) What are biosafety levels

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 172

https://biosafety.utk.edu/biosafety -program/the -biosafety -program/biosafety -manual/2 -principles -of-biosafety/

Additional information and description of biosafety hazards can be found in this letter by the Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter.

(2) Insufficient local oversight and regulation of private high-containment biosafety labs

It is concerning to see how little public information is available about private high-containment biolabs located in Silicon Valley. We perceive this to be a coordinated effort by the billion-dollar biotech industry that attempts to shut down questions and stifle local regulations by claiming they are already "highly regulated." Unlike university and federally funded labs, they have fragmented and incomplete oversight.

Universities like Stanford have comprehensive Biosafety manuals and committees. That is not true for private labs which may include underfunded start-ups.

The number of high-containment biolabs (HDBLs) continues to increase; that trend will likely continue with COVID-19 worldwide as countries and states will choose to prioritize and build them. Since many academic and private laboratories are not under governmental oversight, it is difficult to obtain accurate counts of HCBLs (Peters, 2018). In our references, we also noted inconsistences in the HCBLs especially those listed in the BSL -3 category. The Significance of High -Containment Biological Laboratories Performing Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Biosafety Level-3 and 4 Labs.

Scientist across the nation are raising public safety concerns, including Stanford researcher Dr. David Relman who recommends stronger oversight. Another group of scientists who are advocating for national and international regulations and oversight is Protect our Future. https://biosafetynow.org/ One of its co- founders, Richard Ebright, who testified before congress at the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Spending, recently summed up the public safety risks: The government does not

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 173

even maintain a comprehensive database of where such experiments are taking place, let alone practice any rigorous oversight of them. Instead, there are different standards based on crude risk categorization, funding source and research facility. It’s a crazy patchwork quilt of “rules” giving rise to a ‘big zone’ of uncertainty about which labs are doing what under whose oversight and with what level of security and precaution.

These scientists are interested in learning how San Carlos will address the issue of high-containment biolabs in the proposed ordinance. Local media, including the Palo Alto Daily Post and the San Mateo Daily Journal are also following the story.
(3) Lack of transparency and secrecy

The public doesn't know how many private BSL-3 labs are in the bay area or where they are located. At the February 6th Planning Commission meeting, Planner Costa Sanders said she thinks there are seven BSL-3 labs in the region, but conceded that due to proprietary or security reasons an inventory of labs is not readily available online. Link to 2/6/23 Planning Commission (Video: 11 :54.) One of the city’s consultants, Carla Boragno, former vice president of site services for Genentech, was asked about the number and location of private BSL-3 lab in the bay area. She did not know how many, but said that she is aware of one in San Francisco, but is not at liberty to say which one. (Video: 12:00).

Private, high-containment biolabs located near residential areas should not be allowed to justify their secrecy and lack of transparency by claiming proprietary or security issues. The public has a right to know what pathogens are being researched in labs next door. We need local, enforceable regulations that will minimize the risk of infectious diseases spreading into the community. (4) What type of research is conducted in BSL-3 labs?

There are many types of research performed in BSL-3 labs. The most high-risk is enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research or (ePPP). The issues were recently addressed in an easy to read article in Vox.

A more in-depth description is provided by biosafetynow.org.

High-Risk Research with Potential Pandemic Pathogens
Enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research is defined as research activities reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility or pathogenicity of a potential pandemic pathogen. Historically ePPP research also has been referred to as “gain-of-function research of concern” (GoFRoC). The amount of ePPP research performed in the US is difficult to estimate. However, because ePPP research is carried out in high-level biocontainment laboratories (BSL-3 and BSL-4), the number of high-level biocontainment laboratories in the US, provides an estimate. The total number of US BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories is not known, but likely is between 1,000 and 2,000.

Multiple GAO reports over the last decade have lamented the fact that no federal, state, or other entity knows numbers, much less locations, of US BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories. Numbers of BSL-3 laboratories are known only for the subset of laboratories that are either operated by state public health departments or registered with the CDC or USDA Select Agent programs. These totaled 1,782 (possibly with some duplication) in 2009, with many facilities present in each state

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 174

What are the risks associated with ePPP research ?

ePPP research involves the creation of new health threats–health threats that did not exist previously and that might not come to exist by natural means for tens, hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of years. Most ePPP research to date has been performed in the US with US funding, or overseas with US funding.

ePPP research poses high–potentially existential–risks. ePPP research poses both material risks and information risks. ePPP research is performed because it is easy and fast (much faster and much easier than vaccine or drug development) and because it is fundable and publishable.

Not because it is needed

Because ePPP research poses high–potentially existential–risks and provides limited benefits, the risk-benefit ratio for the research almost always is unfavorable and in many cases is extremely unfavorable. ePPP research is a small part of biomedical research (less than 0.1% of all biomedical research and less than 1% of virology). However, because ePPP research of concern can cause pandemics, this small part of the biomedical research enterprise is highly consequential and requires effective oversight.

How is ePPP research currently monitored and regulated in the US ?

Before 2014, there was no national-level US oversight of gain-of-function research of concern.

In 2014-2017, there was a moratorium on federal funding for “selected gain of function research,” defined as research activities reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility or pathogenicity of influenza, SARS, or MERS viruses. The policy was referred to as the “US Government Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses,” or, for short, as the “Pause.” Under the Pause, 18 projects were paused.

However, at least 7 of the 18 projects that were paused were allowed to re-start almost immediately (based on a certification by the NIH Director that the projects were “urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security”).

More important, other projects that met the definition for coverage under the Pause–including a project on engineering of SARS- and MERS-related coronaviruses by EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology–were not paused, due to the failure of the NIH to identify and flag all covered projects

In 2018-present, there has been a requirement for HHS-Secretary-level risk-benefit assessment prior to awarding HHS funding for “research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens,” defined as research activities reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility or pathogenicity of a potential pandemic pathogen.

The policy is referred to as the “HHS Framework for Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens,” or, for short, as the “P3CO Framework“

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 175

Under the P3CO Framework, covered projects are to be identified and flagged by HHS funding agencies (i.e., the NIH and the CDC), and covered projects are to be reviewed by a committee appointed by the HHS Secretary (i.e., the HHS P3CO Committee).

The P3CO Framework applies to funding for proposed research and operates before funding and conduct of the research (not after completion of the research). Accordingly, identification of covered projects coverage under the policy is based on proposed research and evaluates “reasonably anticipated” results of the proposed research (not results after completion of the research). The “reasonably anticipated” standard employed by the policy is equivalent, in all respects, to the “reasonable person” standard employed in US administrative and civil law.

The definitions of the research activities covered by the P3CO Framework, and the definitions of research activities exempted from the P3CO Framework, are clear. They are as clear as in any US statute or rule having a “reasonable person” standard. The policy covers research activities reasonably anticipated to increase the transmissibility or the pathogenicity of a potential pandemic pathogen, including research activities in which neither the pathogen to be modified nor the enhanced pathogen to be generated is known to infect humans.

What are the shortcomings in US oversight of ePPP research?

In principle, the P3CO Framework provides for risk-benefit assessment and risk-mitigation review for gain-of-function research of concern. However, in practice, the P3CO Framework largely has existed only on paper. In the four-and-one-half years since the policy was announced, only three projects have been reviewed: two projects that had been carried over from the Pause, and one new project. Most covered projects–including the project on engineering of SARS- and MERS-related coronaviruses by EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology–were not reviewed, due to a failure by the NIH to identify covered projects, flag them, and forward them to the HHS P3CO Committee for review.

The HHS P3CO Committee has operated with complete non-transparency and complete unaccountability. The names and agency affiliations of its members have not been disclosed, its proceedings have not been disclosed, and even its decisions have not been disclosed.

Responsibility for oversight is assigned to federal agencies that perform research and/or fund research. This constitutes an inherent conflict of interest.

Oversight applies only to HHS-funded research. Oversight is not codified in regulations with force of law, and, as a result, compliance is neither mandated, monitored, nor enforced.

Oversight is undermined by the failure of federal research funding agencies to identify covered projects, flag them, and forward them to the HHS P3CO Committee for review.

Oversight is not transparent and accountable, neither at the level of the federal research funding agencies, nor at the level of the HHS P3CO Committee.

What can be done to mitigate the risks of ePPP research?

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 176

Lapses in US oversight of ePPP research may have caused the COVID-19 pandemic, and could cause future pandemics. Therefore, it is imperative that ePPP research be subject to national- or international-level oversight to ensure that, before the research is started, risk-benefit assessment is performed, risk-benefit profiles are acceptable, and mitigable risks are mitigated.

Effective oversight includes three components: Research proposals that include gain-of function research of concern must be identified. A risk-benefit assessment and a risk-mitigation review must be performed.

This entails enumerating anticipated risks, enumerating anticipated benefits, weighing risks and benefits, and reaching a decision either (i) to proceed as proposed, (ii) to proceed with additional risk mitigation, or (iii) not to proceed. Compliance with the decision from the risk-benefit assessment and risk-mitigation review must be mandated, monitored, and enforced. High-Risk Research with Po tential Pandemic Pathogens.

(5) Many other cities prohibit BSL-3 labs, vivaria and certain types of animal testing

It is surprising that there is so little local biosafety lab regulation and local ordinances in other cities in Silicon Valley. The biotech industry is new to San Carlos so it understandable that we do not yet have ordinances in place.

There are extensive biosafety lab regulations in cities on the east coast, but perhaps that is because they have many more labs and a much longer history of regulating them. Many cities near Cambridge ban BSL- 3 and 4s. The ones that allow them have extensive guidelines and ordinances.

Historically, there have been few BSL -3 labs in the bay area and they were located in South San Francisco and areas that are not near residential neighborhoods.

(6) Conditional Use Permit requirements
We are not opposed to BSL 1 and 2 labs sited in areas that are environmentally and ecologically suitable, are located a safe distance from residences, childcare and senior facilities, and are governed by robust university, city or county guidelines, biosafety committees, ordinances, or regulations. San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health and Safety does not have biosafety committees , guidelines or ordinances that specify where biosafety labs should be sited and how privately -owned, speculative developments with multiple unknown BSL tenants should be operated and monitored. Most San Mateo county regulations address hazardous materials, not hazardous biological cellular materials or pathogens.

Ventilation--Negative and Positive Air Pressure
The initial proposed ordinance banning BSL -3 labs did not contain any regulations that govern BSL 1 and 2 labs, vivaria or animal testing. These facilities are less concerning than BSL 3 and 4 labs, but they are not without risk. Of utmost concern is ensuring appropriate ventilation design

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 177

and construction. See Stanford’s: Ventilation Concerns for Biosafety Level 2 Laboratories . It reads in part:

Potentially harmful aerosols can escape from the containment of the laboratory room unless the room air pressure is negative to adjacent non-laboratory areas. As a general rule, air should flow from low hazard to high hazard areas.

This will minimize the potential for possible contamination of experiments within these rooms.

3. An autoclave should be provided with a canopy hood, slotted exhaust, or other suitable means of local exhaust. In addition, autoclave rooms should have a minimum of 10 air changes per hour.

Unpleasant heat and odors will linger in the room unless provided with effective local exhaust and adequate frequency of air changes.

Because of the risk of airborne pathogens escaping to adjacent non-laboratory areas, we ask the city to provide specific guidelines that ensure the above ventilation guidelines are incorporated into building design and construction. We also request that the city prohibit all BSL-3 labs within a specified distance (500 or more feet) from residences, childcare and senior facilities; require floor plans of BSL labs and a description of the organisms in use; a procedure to alert the city and the public of lab accidents, employee exposure to transmissible pathogens and an emergency response plan.

If the city chooses to allow high-containment BSL-3 labs, we respectfully request that the city consider hiring a third-party biosafety and biosecurity consultant, to be paid for by developers or BSL tenants, to perform biosafety and biosecurity oversight responsibilities similar to those adopted by Cambridge, MA.

See Cambridge, MA biosafety regulations:

The responsibilities of the Cambridge Biosafety Committee include:

• Determining whether appropriate and reasonable practices to contain and mitigate biological hazards match the potential biological hazards associated with the specific

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 178

agents in the form present, particularly as they impact lab workers and the community;

• Listening to each presentation for a new or amended permit and providing feedback or submitting questions to the applicant as applicable;

• Reviewing laboratory walkthrough inspection summaries pr ovided by Committee staff before determining that all applicable standards and practices for safe operation of a biological laboratory are met;

• Providing a community perspective in assessing the impact of any application and anticipating issues of greater public concern or interest;

We also ask that the city consider developing a specifi c Laboratory Biosafety permit, such as the one below:

To receive a Laboratory Biosafety permit, every new applicant must present to the Cambridge Biosafety Committee. The presentation must include:

17. Street address of the proposed facility or facilities. Please include a specific floor or suite within the building.

18. Total floor area of biological laboratory space (estimate is OK) and proposed biological containment level(s) or biological safety levels (BSL).

19. A summary of research or manufacturing activities and agents, organized by Risk Group as determined by the Institutional Biosafety Committee for the applicant.

20. A floor plan indicating all laboratory areas, biological containment levels or BSL(s), waste storage location and pathway for removal, doors, and exits.

21. Documentation of a medical surveillance agreement with a local occupational health provider or an in-house clinical provider.

22. Documentation showing that an air balance was conducted to document a steady negative airflow into any BSL-2 lab areas.

23. Summary of compliance status for all local and state health and safety regulations requiring permits (e.g., flammable storage and cryogenic gas permit, DEP VSQG or SQG chem waste permit, state radiation permit, MWRA wastewater permit).

24. A list of vendors that support the safe operation of the laboratory.

Presentations generally last 20 to 45 minutes, and should provide a broad explanation of the recombinant technologies, risk of infection, biological vectors, and host organisms being used.

For an example, see our sample presentation. For more information, please view the Cambridge Biosafety Committee’s Policies and Procedures .

At a minimum, we ask that the Conditional Use Permit address the following: Will it require the developer to have an internal Responsible Official (RO) who has the authority and responsibility to ensure tenants

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 179

compliance with regulatory agencies? Will it require tenants to have a formal biosafety committee? If the developer later requests a conditional use permit for a BSL-3 lab as part of a remodel, will members of public be notified? How will they be notified? Who is included in the notification? Will members of the community have an opportunity to provide public comment?

(7) Lab accidents and infectious disease transmission

We quote the following experts who have identified the risks:

(a) Lab leaks occur at a stunning frequency. A 2019 report actually said that there were four or more lab releases of these select agents, or highly contagious viruses or toxins, in the US in 2019," added Dr. Chan. She would like to see more public oversight of labs on a national and international level. This could come from impacts to funding or publishing of findings. She believes it will lead to safer conditions and more transparency. https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/covid -origin-wuhan-lab-leak- alina -chan -mit-harvard/

(b) Science. France issues moratorium on prion research after fatal brain disease strikes two lab workers. Barbara Casassus, July 28, 2021.

PARIS—Five public research institutions in France have imposed a 3-month moratorium on the study of prions —a class of misfolding, infectious proteins that cause fatal brain diseases—after a retired lab worker who handled prions in the past was diagnosed with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), the most common prion disease in humans. An investigation is underway to find out whether the patient, who worked at a lab run by the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE), contracted the disease on the job.
(c) Financial Times . Scientists fear future leaks as top -level labs proliferate . Kiran Stacey, Helen Warrell, Yuan Yang. June 4, 2021.
(d) Wall Street Journal. How Easily Can a Virus Escape From a Lab? By Alina Chan and Matt Ridley. November 11, 2021.
(e) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Human error in high-biocontainment labs: a likely pandemic threat . Lynn Klotz. February 25, 2019.
(f) ProPublica. Here are six accidents UNC researchers had with lab -created coronaviruses . Alison Young and Jessica Blake. August 17, 2020 In addition, we were curious where we might find examples from BSL labs that publicly report "accidents" or incidents. I checked Boston University, National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories, Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) monthly minutes. They disclose near misses and lab incidents. Some of these occurred in BSL-2 and 3 labs. There are BSL-4 labs onsite. See Research Occupational Health Program (ROHP) and Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) reports. They generate reports for all the labs on site, BSL 1-4.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 180

Most of these involved BSL-2 and BSL-3s. Most are employee exposures due to needle sticks, glove lacerations and mice bites, but a couple are related to employees whose nasal swabs were positive for environmental SARS-Co-V-2, despite not working in the BSL -labs. Those were thought to be from exposure to workers who do work in the labs and share office space and break rooms with others. Here are a few excerpts from monthly minutes in Jan/Feb 2021 and Jan/Feb 2022:
(1) https://www.bu.edu/researchsupport/files/2021/05/January -2021-IBC-Meeting-Minutes-WEB.pdf

This one involved the escape of prion infected mice:

1. EHS Report: On the morning of 12/24/20, an animal care staff member discovered a cage in with no mice present and reported the finding to the animal care supervisor who notified the corresponding lab and ASC vet services and operations staff. ASC set up more traps within the room to trap these three mice, which were reported to be prion -infected. On the morning of 12/26/20, one mouse was caught by an animal care staff and subsequently euthanized by a vet tech per vet instructions due to numerous limb injuries.

EHS investigation revealed that these wild type mice C57BL6 were sent from an external vendor and had been inoculated intra -cerebrally on 11/30/20 with mouse -adapted RML prions (a standard laboratory strain). There is a strong barrier to inter -species transmission of prions, so this strain poses little threat to humans. In addition, this strain is not known to be shed by the animals (it remains in the CNS), so the risk to other mice is also minimal. Prions are not casually transmissible (for example, by respiratory or fecal routes), and even the oral route requires the ingestion of tissues of the central nervous system. Finally, these mice are only 30 days into the incubation period, which normally lasts 150 days, so the titer of infective prions in their brains of these escaped mice is extremely low. Given all these considerations, it was believed that these three mice pose little risk to the health and safety of ASC and other personnel, to other laboratory animals, or the community. No recombinant DNA orsynthetic nucleic acids were administered to them. By 12/29/20 the other two mice were caught and humanely euthanized.

2. The three mice made an inch -wide hole and escaped out of the cage by tearing through the filtered top. The feeding bottles that had been used to administer the liquid diet were either accidentally pushed too far back giving the mice access to the filter cage top or it is also possible the mice pushed it back themselves. ASC has already made co rrections and worked with the lab so this mishap can be avoided in the future. All the cages now have food hoppers, cutting off access to the filtered top.

(2) https://www.bu.edu/researchsupport/files/2021/05/February -2021-IBC-Meeting-Minutes-WEB.pdf

Just one month later, there were 6 incidents, one involved a worker who only worked in BSL-2 labs, but works in shared space with others who work with inactivated virus. Amplicon exposures are common, but can be minimized with stringent and frequent decontamination:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 181

ROHP Report
Since the last IBC meeting on 1-26-21, ROHP has six incidents to report:
1-28-21: ROHP received notification of a needle stick injury from a syringe to finger after the researcher resuspended a pellet taken from intestinal luminal fluid extracellular vesicles (from patients having inflammatory bowel disease). She discarded the pair of nitrile gloves she was wearing, allowed the blood to drain from the wound (6 drops), washed her hands with water and soap for a minute and sanitized her hands with 70% ethanol. Please note this researcher did not report this incident to her supervisor or ROHP until the next day.

1. 1-29-21: An asymptomatic researcher tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 which was later deemed to be related to environmental SARS-CoV-2 amplicon exposure. This researcher works in BSL2, does not work with SARS-CoV-2 but works in shared space with others that do work with inactivated virus.

2-3-21: ROHP received notification of laceration to a finger with a razor used to slice mouse lung tissue. This incident was related to an IBC protocol, but the tissue did not contain any biologics.

2-8-21: An asymptomatic researcher at the NEIDL tested positive for SARS -CoV-2. This researcher denied working with SARS CoV2 but works in shared space. Her positive test was later deemed to be related to environmental amplicon exposure.

2-8-21 and 2-17-21: One asymptomatic researcher at the NEIDL tested positive for SARS-CoV- 2 twice. This researcher works in BSL3 with SARS -CoV-2 and in BSL2 with a different coronavirus strain. This was later deemed to be related to amplicon exposure and not any live virus.

ROHP continues to work with Healthway, Safety, PIs and BPHC regarding all researchers who test positive for SARS - CoV-2 to determine if it was community related infection or due to environmental amplicon exposure.

One member asked when researchers are continuously wearing masks in the lab, how it is possible for them to contract amplicon contamination in their nasal swabs. The Research Safety Director and ROHP Medical Director indicated that this is still unknown but they discussed some possibilities such as touching door knobs or lab work surfaces before changing into workplace clean masks or placing personal clothing on chairs in the lab before donning a lab coat or such.

(3) https://www.bu.edu/researchsupport/files/2022/03/January -2022-IBC-Meeting-Minutes_WEB.pdf

Research Occupational Health Program (ROHP) & Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Report:

12/16/21: MD/PhD student reported experiencing low grade temperatures and other symptoms after he accidentally injured his thumb percutaneously on 12-6-21 while cleaning forceps that he had used to remove infected lungs from mice inje cted with NL63 virus. He cleaned the wound with soap and water and applied topical antiseptic medication. Discussion with ROHP suggested that the symptoms are consistent with community-based viral infection, Researcher was advised to stay home until afebri le for 24 hours without taking antipyretics and to isolate from his roommate who is asymptomatic. Advised to follow up with ROHP should symptoms worsen or not improve or as needed. BPHC has been notified. EHS Report: Safety specialist interviewed

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 182

both PI and researcher. Root cause of the incident was attributed to not being conscientious. Steps to prevent reoccurrence included review of exposure control plan and procedures for reporting incidents. Advised on proper decontamination techniques and sharps safe ty practices. Online Sharps safety training was assigned as a reminder. (They do not say what illness caused the fever, but indirectly attribute the illness to exposure to infected mice lungs bc researcher was not being conscientious.

12/21/21: A fully va ccinated, asymptomatic PhD student tested positive for SARS -CoV-2 on 12/21/21. The student had been in the NEIDL office space prior to testing but denied entering lab spaces. She reports she has not worked in the BSL 2 lab for a couple of months and she do es not work with SARS -CoV-2, but shares office space and break room with others that do. Repeat testing performed outside BU on 12/23/21 was negative, the student remained asymptomatic and was cleared to return to work 12/29/21. This student was educated o n the importance scheduling routine SARS-CoV-2 testing prior to entering the work space. After this incident ROHP prompted Dr. Corley, NEIDL Director, to send out notification to NEIDL researchers to get routine surveillance testing prior to entering the l ab. There have been no incidents since then. EHS Report: Results of samples collected for testing will be reported on when received. BPHC has been notified.

1/3/22: An asymptomatic postdoc researcher who works in the NEIDL, tested positive for SARS- CoV-2 on 1 -3- 22. He reported no known exposures, no recent travel, fully vaccinated, and received a booster shot. Released from isolation and deemed amplicon exposure . He denied working with SARS -CoV-2 but does work in shared possible influenza and not likely r elated to the reported forceps injury incident as NL63 is a respiratory virus that does not cause any symptomatic infection in human space that does perform SARS -CoV-2 work. ROHP deemed this positive case is deemed to be an Amplicon contamination. Amplicon prevention education was provided and the researcher is cleared to return to work. BPHC has been notified.

1/6/22: A fully vaccinated, asymptomatic PhD student tested positive for SARS -CoV-2. The student worked in NEIDL BSL2 in shared space where SARS -CoV-2 rDNA work is performed.

Repeat testing performed was negative and the researcher was cleared from isolation on 1 -10-

22. Amplicon prevention education was provided by ROHP. Deemed amplicon contamination due to testing at the end day after being in the laboratory. Report will be submitted to BPHC.

1/12/22: Potential biological exposure to a BSL4 staff who entered a NEIDL BSL4 lab unsuited not realizing it was in use. The incident was reported to ROHP by the NEIDL Biosafety Officer and the NEIDL Response Team. The staff member also reported the possible exposure to EHS.

After the exposure, she took a whole-body shower and was advised to remove her contacts and use the eye wash. However, it was deemed no-to-low risk incident of infection to the researcher, as there were no pathogens in the lab and no work was being done at the time of this incident.

Employee was cleared to return to work but was escorted to ROHP for further evaluation and counseling. ROHP provided the employees with a medical surveillance wa llet card with ROHP contact information and a thermometer. She was advised to call ROHP or NEIDL Control should she have any concerns and was cleared to return to full duty work with no restrictions. Report submitted to BPHC.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 183

1/22/22: An Animal Care Technician sustained an ABSL1 transgenic mouse bite on the right finger near to middle knuckle. The PI of the study reports that the Adipo -cre transgenic mice involved in the incident, express a protein called Cre recombinase (exclusively in their fat cells). T his incident took place in ABSL1 and the mouse contained no hazardous agent. There is no hazardous concern regarding this transgenic mouse other than the potential for infection or local allergic reaction with a mouse bite. ROHP discussed the importance of washing for full time period (10-15 min) following a bite and risk of infection from own skin flora. She could apply antibiotic ointment over the site of the bite marks until they are resolved. Instructed to monitor for signs of infection. A report will be submitted to BPHC. EHS Report: More information will be provided on this mouse bite incident at the next IBC meeting.

(4) https://www.bu.edu/researchsupport/files/2022/03/February -2022-IBC-Meeting-Minutes_WEB.pdf

In February 2022 they reported a "near-miss" that was considered a NIH reportable incident:

1. Research Occupational Health Program (ROHP) & Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Report ROHP reported three (3) incidents to the committee:
• A visiting researcher cut left thumb with razor blade while cutting unfixed human kidney tissue;
• A graduate student sustained a puncture to left 2 nd digit with a needle that had been used to inject lentivirus vector on transgenic mice; • A PhD student sustained percutaneous injury to left 5th finger from unknown glass shard.

EHS reported on a near-miss incident to the committee: • Needles found in biohazard trash. EHS provided follow-up on the root cause of these incidents and corrective actions. It was noted that the needle stick injury with lentiviral vector inside is a NIH reportable incident and the report will be sent to NIH and BPHC

(8) High energy use and power outages

BSL-3 labs are particularly energy intensive because of the HVAC negative (and positive) air pressure requirements, lab animal cooling and heating requirements and 24/7 operation. In an extended power outage, temperatures in glass, high-rise buildings could "quickly fall or rise to dangerous levels."

Labs have redundant power systems, including backup generators, but the generators are not designed to last for more than 24-48 hours according to several developers we have spoken with. The back -up generators are intended to last long enough to allow them to shut down the labs. During power outages this summer, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC) and O' Connor hospital lost power for hours.

See the doctors' descriptions of moving ICU patients in the dark using light from their cell phones. https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/backup -generators-fail-northern-california-hospital- during-record-breaking-heatwave

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 184

Unfortunately, many of the generators are powered by diesel which is in increasingly short supply in California. Should the ordinance require developers to maintain at least a weeks’ supply of diesel on- site?
Some Menlo Park residents were without power for multiple days during the week of February 20, 2023.

Their City Council held an emergency meeting on February 23rd. Residents called for the city to improve its communication amid a week of high winds and storms that have left households without power for multiple days across the city. They see weather as prep for a potential major natural disaster. However, according to city officials, some small pockets of Menlo Park still remain without power. "If we struggle the first 48 hours for something relatively small like we did this time, how will we communicate when something more serious happens? How can we just learn from this so that we do better in the future." The city will reimburse residents $400 per night if they are still without power." https://www.smdailyjournal.com/content/tncms/live/
Stanford recently posted an article titled: Preparing for a Power Outage in a Research Facility. It reads in part: Normal occupancy and research operations are always prohibited in affected buildings during power outages, regardless of emergency generator status. (9) High water use and limited supply and capacity

One proposed development in San Carlos at 642 Quarry Road submitted a Mitigated Negative Declaration in December 2022 that discussed the tremendous amount of water that high-containment labs require. Water service to the project site is provided by the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD).

MPWD supplies water to consumers within San Carlos, Redwood City, and parts of the unincorporated County of San Mateo. Within the system there are ten storage tanks in which a combined total of 11,360,000 gallons of water are stored (MPWD 2022). (MND Page 167.)The proposed water demand for the project is estimated to result in an Incremental increase above existing site use by 73,400 gallons per day (or 27 million gallons per year.) (MND Page 167.) Millions of square feet of biolabs planned in San Carlos and San Mateo County will strain water supply and capacity, especially BSL-3 labs and vivaria which may have higher water demand. Biolabs are unable to use recycled water, but that is a moot point because recycled water is not yet available in San Carlos.

What strategies can be utilized to address this so that labs will not have priority over residents for limited water resources? Should labs have onsite water storage tanks, not only for water supply, but also for fire suppression? Should the ordinance require this?
(10) Fire departments and first responders will NOT enter BSL-3 labs in the event of a fire or emergency

Emergency responders, including the fire chief, confirmed that that the fire department and first responders, including paramedics, will not enter a BSL-3 lab in the event of a fire or medical emergency due to the potential exposure to unknown deadly pathogens, rDNA, infected transgenic lab animals, other biohazards or infectious biologic agents. In addition, a San Mateo Environmental Health and Safety representative told us that the County Hazmat team will not respond to a fire in a BSL-3 lab. Who will? We were told by Vanessa Cook, Associate BioSafety officer, UC San Diego, that the procedure in the event of a fire requires BSL -3 occupants to decontaminate themselves by removing their PPE, wiping

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 185

down their exposed skin with disinfectant wipes and then evacuating from the BSL-3 lab space. The fire department will "let it burn."
Although there are sprinklers and fire extinguishers in BSL -3 labs, they often contain tanks of highly flammable gases that pose an explosion risk in the event of fire. Cambridge, MA has a coordinated emergency response plan in place.

If BSL-3 labs are allowed, San Carlos should coordinate its emergency response and evacuation plan with neighboring cities, the county, Caltrans, and state and federal governmental agencies because of the labs proximity to major evacuation routes (Hwy 101), El Camino Real, and a commuter train track.

The ordinance should include a detailed description of the emergency response plan.

(11) We ask the city to reject land developers’ strategies and tactics that have allowed them to circumvent stringent environmental review and public hearings in order to site BSL-3 labs in densely populated residential areas.

A BSL-3 lab was set up in 2020 in Foster City in an existing Gilead building in 30 days --but that was during the Covid-emergency and they had federal grant money and oversight. The developers bragged about how they got away with doing it and how they plan to get away with it in the future.

The article reads in part: Focusing Gilead’s real-estate strategy on scientific efficiency rather than operational economics served the company well during the pandemic. When COVID -19 hit, Joydeep Ganguly, senior vice president of corporate operations, and his team engineered and delivered a Biosafety Level 3 (BSL -3) laboratory on the main campus in only four weeks, so Gilead’s scientists could work with the virus safely. Amid unprecedented urgency to create drugs, the innovative campus and laboratory systems played an important role in attracting crucial talent to the company . See Workplace real estate in the Covid -19 era: From cost center to competitive advantage, Companies today should build workplaces that help them realize their strategies. Here’s why and how.

The article concludes by encouraging real estate developers to be bold in the face of the “unprecedented opportunity ” provided by the covid -era that will allow them to maximize their profits and make them “more competitive than ever.” It encourages develop ers to “prevent cultural or industry norms,” presumably environmental review and community opposition, from shaping their decisions. It reads in part:

Traditionally, real-estate choices have been made by a real-estate team that typically reports to a chief procurement or operations officer. The most important decisions are escalated to the CFO.

But today’s real -estate team has new responsibilities, namely: making the current footprint consistent with corporate objectives and the moments that matter. This calls for a different set of decision makers. The CEO can set the real -estate agenda, supported by the chief human - resources officer (CHRO), the CIO, the CFO, and the head of real estate. Experts from all these domains can help make real estate a source of competitive advantage.

In the wake of the pandemic, historical precedent or cultural or industry norms should not shape real-estate decisions. Today, a company’s larger goals must serve as the guide. CEOs and

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 186

executive teams know what makes companies succe ssful and are best positioned to create a physical environment to match. Merging a company’s approach to real estate with its strategy is a change in the way things have been done and a new responsibility. It’s also a once -in-a- generation opportunity to ac t boldly and emerge from the pandemic stronger and more competitive than ever.

We are confident that San Carlos City Council members agree with members of the public who think that private developers’ profits and corporate objectives should not come at the expense of public health, environmental safety and transparency. We urge the city to address this strategy in the proposed Conditional Use Permit ordinance and require developers and tenants to submit Environmental Impact reports if BSL-3 use is planned on site.

At the last Planning Commission meeting on February 6th, Ryan Guibara of MBC Biolabs conceded that only 1% of tenants would use BSL -3 lab space, but spoke for eight minutes, claiming that prohibiting them would have a "drastic impact on the market" and "have a hugely chilling effect." We are curious why he is taking such an aggressive stance in favor of BSL-3 labs because he claims his developments do not have any BSL-3s and "don't plan to."
We expect vigorous push-back from members of the private biotech industry and lobbyists. They want to continue business as usual because they have gotten away with little regulation or oversight in South San Francisco and other areas in Silicon Valley for years. Many of those labs are in areas east of Hwy 101 an d are farther away from residential areas. They were built before there were hundreds of developers planning millions of square feet of biolabs along the Peninsula --the most sensitive, at -risk ecological area in California. San Mateo County is the county m ost threatened by sea level rise and extreme weather events because of its' geologic limitations, proximity to the bay and the highly dense population crowded into a concentrated area between Hwy 101 and the hills near Hwy 280.

We are concerned that if San Carlos permits BSL-3 labs, many of those lab tenants will flock here and overwhelm our existing infrastructure, strain our already overtaxed resources and increase the public's risk of accidental exposure to lethal pathogens from lab-acquired infectious diseases, lab accidents or lab containment failure due to flooding, fires or power outages. These risks are foreseeable.

(12) Conclusion

We oppose BSL-3 labs in San Carlos and implore City Council members to remain steadfast to their earlier vocal position supporting a ban on BSL-3s in San Carlos. We urge Planning Commissioners to follow the recommendations of staff in the initial proposed ordinance and prohibit BSL-3 and 4 labs. If the city declines to do so, and chooses a Conditional Use Permit procedure, we ask that it incorporate the guidelines established by Cambridge.

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Debbie and Gary Baldocchi, Carmelita Drive

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 187

Correspondence #13

March 5, 2023
City of San Carlos
Mayor Adam Rak
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission
Members of the City Council
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Comments to the Planning Commission on Item 8b of Planning Commission Mtg on BSL3 labs

Dear Lisa Costa Sanders, Planning Commissioners, Mayor Rak, and members of the City Council,

Please find a copy of my comments, attached, to item 8b of the Planning Commission agenda for 06MAR2023. At this time, I think it is wise to stick to the proposed moratorium on Biohazard Level 3 laboratories in San Carlos until such time that all issues surrounding the operation of these labs can be addressed with clear rules that are transparent, include independent review, Community input, and subject to outreach and public hearings. Allowing Biohazard Level 3 labs with only a CUP removes any incentive to put these type of rules in place and gives the appearance that the city is willing to trade public safety for short term economic gain.

Sincerely,

Paul Magginetti

Attachment. Letter

March 5, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission
Members of the City Council
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 188

Dear Lisa Costa Sanders, Planning Commissioners, Mayor Rak, and members of the City Council, I am writing in reference to Item 8b of the Planning Commission meeting agenda regarding the Consideration of a Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels Option 1 not allowing labs working at Biohazard levels 3 and 4 seems the best course for now. Option2, allowing Biohazard level 3 labs, is not well thought through and inadequately addresses risks to public health and safety. The best designed lab in the world is still subject to failure due to natural disaster, mechanical breakdown and human error. This is the usual case with the many lab accidents that have already happened (https://biosafetynow.org/lab-accidents-in-the-news/ ). Given enough labs and time, such a lab accident becomes inevitable. Option 2 falls short in the following ways:
• There is no limit to the number of BSL3 labs. Developers claim a BSL3 lab would represent less than 1% of all BSL labs; One BSL3 lab in San Carlos should be more than adequate to meet those needs.
• There is no constraint on location. These should be located >1000 yards from residential, day care, restaurants etc.
• The entire city should be informed, with a public hearing and through community outreach, addressing all issues and mitigations of such a lab. A biohazard release could affect all of us, from Industrial Rd to Crestview Dr. A lack of transparency will undermine public trust.
• The city, not the applicant, should choose the independent 3rd party and they must be approved by the NIH. Allowing the developer to approve their own work is like me asking the city inspector to take my word for it, sight unseen. that my home modification meets requirements. The stakes here are much higher.
• There is no requirement to report to anybody the nature/risk of the work being done. This is critical to planning a response to a lab accident. They will be doing research, which by its very nature means they don’t know what will happen. New discoveries and practices in the Life Sciences will surely come about that will require us to reevaluate the risks these labs pose.
• Stakeholders must be notified in advance (this mechanism doesn't exist and subject matter expertise is lacking)
o City Government (no subject matter expertise)
o Health Department (un derstaffed and lacks BSL subject matter expertise) o Fire Department (no subject matter expertise)
o Community oversight committees (doesn't yet exist)
• There is no requirement for incident reporting and nobody to report them to • There is no effective mechanism for reporting unsafe operation. The only way we could report to the city that they were in operating unsafely, in violation of the CUP, is after people start getting sick. That was the plan in Wuhan; once the bodies started stacking up in the street, they knew they had a problem.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 189

• There is no provision for an emergency response plan once people do start getting sick.

The city won't know who to notify or what to test for if they don't know the nature of the work being carried out.
• Decommissioning is mentio ned with no guarantee funds will be available. What if a company like Theranos was operating a BSL3 lab? What happens in 10 yrs? 20yrs? 50 yrs? Would the city pick up the tab?
• There is no mention of liability in the event of a lab accident. What is t he city/taxpayer exposure to such an event? That is how we ended up with the brownfields on the East side.

What it all comes down to is that there is no plan in place for when the unthinkable happens. I find the overreliance by staff on advice from industry insiders with conflicts of interest, and the deference given to them by the commission during public comment, disturbing and ill advised. The 2nd option allows BSL3 labs to be built without constraint. This removes the incentive to create a real mechanism that truly protects public health as outlined above. It trades public safety for short term economic gain. There are plenty of BSL1 and BSL2 applications that afford equal economic benefits without putting public health and safety at risk. Until all issues are addressed in a transparent way, BSL3 labs should not be allowed.

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Paul Magginetti

Correspondence #14

March 5, 2023
City of San Carlos
Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: BioSafety Labs-level 3

Hello, Commissioners,
I am writing to share my concerns about having BSLs - Level 3 in San Carlos., operating with Conditional Use Permits . If this is permitte d San Carlos could have an influx of Level 3 labs, with each one operating under its own rules and regulations. Self -policing of labs. cannot be allowed, and the City does not have the know -how, or the finances, to effectively regulate these labs.

Thank you for not allowing BSL -3 labs. in San Carlos.

Gail Ghose

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 190

602 Cedar St.

San Carlos

Correspondence #15

March 6, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: RE: Planning and Transportation Commission packet for the March 6, 2023 meeting

Thank you Lisa.

I just was sent this link to an article about Watertown – a Massachusetts town of about the same size as San Carlos which has been experiencing an increase in life science laboratory development in recent years and projection for more such development. They have actively worked to ensure that their community is protected while providing for the needs of this emerging industry. https://coderedconsultants.com/insights/watertown-laboratory-permitting/

Best
Terezia Nemeth

Correspondence #16

March 4, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission
Members of the City Council
CC: [emails redacted]
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Urgent Call to Action: BIOSAFETY NOW--BAN HIGH CONTAINMENT BIOSAFETY LABS IN SAN CARLOS---Planning and Transportation Commission Agenda - March 6, 2023, 7:00 pm (zoom link)

Dear Neighbors,
This is a public safety call to action to everyone who lives or works in San Carlos, including our neighbors in Redwood Shores and other cities in San Mateo County. On Monday, March 6th, the San Carlos Planning and Transportation Commission will consider adopting an ordinance that will provide biosafety regulations for the millions

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 191

of square feet of privately- operated biosafety labs (BSLs) being constructed in Life Sciences developments throughout east San Carlos. We ask you to join us in urging San Carlos to ban BSL-3 and 4 labs. See packet: Agendas and Minutes On February 6th, planning commissioners refused to pass the proposed biosafety ordinance recommended by the City Council and staff to prohibit BSL-3 labs in San Carlos in order to protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials. The commissioners did not discuss the risks or harmful effects of hazardous materials. Instead, they expressed concerns that prohibiting high -containment labs would discourage private bioscience companies from moving to San Carlos. EDAC Director Al Savay assured the commissioners that the city does not think the economic impacts on market dynamics will be significant because only 1% of biosafety lab tenants use BSL-3 labs. He said that he feels good about moving forward with the proposed ordinance based on public safety and community concerns.

The developers for a proposed 410,000 square feet Life Sciences complex at 642 Quarry Road recently withdrew their request for BSL-3 lab use after public opposition. Developers know that there are very few private BSL-3

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 192

labs in the state and even fewer are sited in residential communities along the edge of the bay in environmentally sensitive areas that are prone to flooding and susceptible to sea level rise.

The commissioners directed staff to submit an alternative ordinance that will allow BSL-1 and 2 use by right and BSL -3 use with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

Commissioners were willing to prohibit BSL-4 labs, but that is not a significant public health and safety concession because there are no BSL -4 labs in California.

The proposed CUP relies on biosafety lab tenants basically policing themselves.

City staff admitted they have no biosafety or biosecurity expertise and that oversight will be complex, time-consuming and expensive.

There is an unprecedented proliferation of biosafety labs throughout Silicon Valley.

There is insufficient oversight, regulation and transparency of BSL -3 labs. It is concerning how little public information is available about them. We perceive this to be a coordinated effort by the private, billion -dollar bioscience industry and developers to shut down opposition and stifle local regulations by claiming they are "highly regulated" and that community concerns are based on "fear not facts."
Scientist across the nation are raising public safety concerns about high -containment labs, including Stanford researcher Dr. David Relman who recommends stronger oversight.

Stanford, which has a BSL -3 lab, has comprehensive Biosafety manuals and biosafety committees that evaluate the risks of allowing research that involves lethal, potential pandemic pathogens. That is not true for private labs which may include underfunded start -ups.

Another group of scientists who are advocating for national and international regulations and oversight is Protect our Future at https://biosafetynow.org/ One of its co-founders, molecular biologist Richard Ebright testified before congress at
the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Spending. He recently summed up the public safety risks of high -containment labs: The government does not even maintain a comprehensive database of where such experiments are taking place, let alone practice any rigorous oversight of them. Instead, there are different standards based on crude risk categorization, funding source and research facility. It’s a crazy patchwork quilt of “rules” giving rise to a ‘big zone’ of uncertainty about which labs are doing what under whose oversight and with what l evel of security and precaution.

Many cities on the east coast ban BSL- 3 and 4s. The ones that allow them have extensive guidelines and ordinances. San Carlos is a small city and

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 193

does not have the resources or expertise to safety oversee them.

Private, high-containment biolabs should not be located near residential areas or the bay. They should not be allowed to justify their secrecy and lack of transparency by claiming proprietary or security issues. The public has a right to know what pathogens are being researched in labs next door to us. We need local, enforceable regulations that will minimize the risk of infectious diseases spreading into the community and the environment.

We ask San Carlos to prohibit high -containment BSL -3 labs and, in its own words, promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare.

Neighbors, will you please help:
(1) Attend the meeting on Monday night and make a public comment (zoom link below).

Tell the commission which of the two ordinances you support. Do you want them to ban BSL-3s or allow them with a Conditional Use Permit. Do you think the proposed CUP ordinance adequately protects the public and environment? If not, what changes do you recommend?;
(2) Submit a public comment to the planning commission and city council by "replying all" to this email;
(3) Forward this email to others;
(4) Learn more about the risks and what we can do about them from scientists and researchers at the biosafety advocacy group: https://biosafetynow.org/ (5) Support neighboring communities' efforts to ban high-containment labs in their cities.

This is a critical public health and environmental safety issue that affects all of us. Monday will be our final chance to speak to the Planning Commission before they decide which of the two ordinances to approve.

Kind Regards,
Debbie and Gary Baldocchi
(We are San Carlos residents. We are retired. We do not belong to any organizations or groups. We speak only for ourselves.)
Planning and Transportation Commission Agenda - March 6, 2023

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 194

Date: 03/03/2023 3:08 PM

City of San Carlos

Planning and Transportation Commission Regular
Meeting

March 6, 2023, 7:00 P.M.

Council Chambers. City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA

This meeting will be conducted both in-person at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the Planning and Transportation Commission as outlined below.

In-Person Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Provide Public Comment. To address the Commission on any item on the posted agenda, fill out a Request to Speak Form located in the back of the Council Chambers and submit it to city staff; or, you may raise your hand when the Commission Chair calls for public comments.

Remote Participation Observe via:

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 195

Zoom. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88635467439 Or call 1-669-900-9128 and enter the Meeting ID: 886 3546 7349
Meeting Webportal. www.cityofsancarlos.org/agenda
Local TV. Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Uverse Channel 99

Provide Public Comment. If you plan to make a public comment on any item on the posted agenda, please observe the meeting via Zoom (see above access information), and during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address, use the “raise hand” feature. If joining Zoom by phone, press *9 to “raise hand." Planning and Transportation Commissioners may participate in this meeting remotely as authorized by A B 361.

CHAIR:

Jim Lacoponi

COMMISSIONERS
Janet Castañeda
Kristen Clements
Ellen Garvey David
Roof

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ROLL CALL

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment is limited to items not on the agenda. The Commission may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed as allowed by the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54954.2). However, the Commission's general policy is to refer items to staff for attention, or have a matter placed on a future Commission agenda for a more comprehensive action or report.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 196

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

a. Approval of the minutes of the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting of February 6, 2023.

7. PRESENTATIONS

a. New and Proposed Planning and Transportation Laws, Presentation by Amy Brown and Colin Hawley with Arc Strategies.

8. PUBLIC HEARING

Procedure for Public Hearing:

Staff will present a report on the history, physical features, etc., on the application followed with the staff's recommendations. The applicant will make a presentation. Thereafter, interested members of the community may speak on the proposal. When all interested parties have had an opportunity to be heard, the hearing will be closed, and no further discussion from the floor can be held. The Commission will then consider the evidence and make its recommendation. If you challenge a public hearing item in Court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, the public notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. Speakers should fill out a speakers form, found by the door, and hand it to the recording secretary prior to addressing the Commission. The speaker should come up to the microphone to speak since the meeting is being recorded. This will assist staff in preparing the minutes.

a. Consideration of Design Review approval for a proposed Sign Program at 1501 1599 Industrial Road (APNs: 046240130 and 046240140).

b. Consideration of a Resolution Recommending the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL)

9. REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

a. Report on recent City Council actions
b. Planning and Transportation Commission comments or reports c. Correspondence
d. Planning Staff comments, reports, and updates on current projects

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 197

10. ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and Minutes
Change your eNotification preference.

Unsubscribe from all San Carlos, CA eNotifications.

Correspondence #17
March 6, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission
Members of the City Council
CC: [emails redacted]
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Subject: Re: Urgent Call to Action: BIOSAFETY NOW--BAN HIGH CONTAINMENT BIOSAFETY LABS IN SAN CARLOS---Planning and Transportation Commission Agenda - March 6, 2023, 7:00 pm (zoom link)
Dear San Carlos City Council and Planning Commission -
We would like to strongly echo the Baldochhi’s in stating that there is insufficient oversight, regulation and transparency of BSL-3 labs. Therefore, we strongly oppose any private BSL-3 labs near residential areas or floods zones in San Carlos. We ask that you consider the serious safety risks that they pose and BAN these high containment biolabs in our City of Good Living.

Thanks you,
Joe and Kelly Haws
1893 Carmelita Dr
Correspondence #18
March 6, 2023
City of San Carlos
Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission
Members of the City Council

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 198

CC: [emails redacted]
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
Subject: Re: Urgent Call to Action: BIOSAFETY NOW--BAN HIGH CONTAINMENT BIOSAFETY LABS IN SAN CARLOS---Planning and Transportation Commission Agenda - March 6, 2023, 7:00 pm (zoom link)
Dear City Council and Planning Commission,
We also agree with the call for action against even considering BSL -3 anywhere near our city, which is very densely populated already, and will be more densely populated in the near future.

In light of the recent reports about the COVID -19 originating from a lab leak, this issue becomes ever more urgent.

Thank you.

Zinovy Fichtenholz
Sophia Kan tor

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 199

1 SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
March 17, 2023
Mayor Rak and members of the City Council
City of San Carlos
Via email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Subject: Sierra Club recommends no BSL-3 labs in San Carlos Dear Mayor Rak and San Carlos City Council members,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter’s Sustainable Land Use Committee advocates for land use issues and the Bay Alive Campaign advocates for the ecological health of San Francisco Bay. We strongly recommend that no Biosafety Level (BSL)-3 labs be built in San Carlos, and that BSL-4 labs also be excluded.

Recently, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter organized a webinar titled “Planning for Life Sciences Development for Bay Area Cities.” The event featured experts from the Boston/Cambridge area, a historic hub for life sciences in the US, and included biosafety experts. An important fact emerged: several cities in the greater Boston/Cambridge metropolitan area have reversed their biosafety policies to no longer allow BSL-3 or higher labs in their cities, and more are joining their ranks. Some do not even allow BSL-2 labs. Please see a list of cities and links to their ordinances HERE.

Why have they made this change? With decades of experience with the industry and the growing awareness of the increasingly lethal agents used in BSL-3 “high-containment” labs, cities are now “walking-back” from allowing the high-risk labs, described below, into their communities.

BSL-3 “high-containment” labs, as defined by the NIH, involve the higher-risk pathogens that are difficult to control, as they are often airborne and very contagious when released. They require complete dependence on mechanical systems that can fail1 through human error, mechanical failure or disasters, as well as safety oversight 1 Boston University, June 1, 2016: “A malfunctioning network switch at BU’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) resulted in a shutdown of parts of the lab’s ventilation monitoring system …The University has suspended BSL-3 research until the outside engineers review recommended remedial work to prevent future ventilation system malfunctions.” Correspondence #19

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 200

2 structures.2 They work well in institutions that have scientific safety oversight committees that ensure an understanding of risks, transparency, regular reporting and inspections, and biosafety procedures for worker, public and environmental safety. San Carlos does not have such structures in place.

The San Carlos Planning Commission recently voided staff’s recommendation of no BSL-3 high-containment labs in San Carlos. Instead, the Commission voted for a hastily organized conditional use permit (CUP) process developed with industry input. We note the following.

1. San Carlos, in its Safety Element,3 does not mention biohazards, biosafety, or biosecurity. The City is completely unprepared for biohazards or a biohazard release incident. San Mateo County Environmental Health staff similarly report 4 that they have no authority or responsibility for biohazard incidents, with the exception of the Coronavirus pandemic. The State hazardous materials databases, which the fire departments and emergency responders depend upon, include chemical and radiological hazards but do not include biological hazards.

2. There has been no organized outreach process to solicit public input on a proposed new ordinance for BSL-3 labs, although this is a safety issue of critical concern to residents and for public safety and security.

3. The City’s new biotech zoning heavily impacts San Carlos’ Eastside neighborhood, and would allow high-risk BSL-3 labs in proximity to an already impacted and vulnerable residential area, endangering residents with unknown infectious agents. San Carlos has a history of regulatory failure on the east side, including reducing noise, protecting from flooding and soil contamination, as well as failures in reducing toxic air, addressing traffic, improving pedestrian safety and adding more parks.

4. High-risk labs would be adjacent to sensitive natural ecosystems that affect the Bay itself. Wildlife and Bay water quality are at risk as creeks through this zone have overflowed multiple times, flooding lab facilities, polluting the waters which empty directly onto sensitive wetlands in the Bay. Flooding and seismic events are predictable hazards in this part of the Bay Area, therefore biosafety concerns of BSL-3 labs are a critical issue.

5. At this time, the federal government and the scientific community are expressing increasing concern about the growth of new risky research in privately-funded BSL-3 labs and the lack of oversight.5 Without proper regulation or oversight by the National

2 You should be afraid of the next “lab leak”, NY Times Nov 23, 2021. “....In fact, the most concerning aspect about high-containment biolabs is that, considered as a collective, they may only be as safe as the worst lab among them. A breach or a breakdown at one could imperil us all.”

3 City of San Carlos Public Safety and Services Element 4 In a meeting with the San Mateo County Office of Environmental Health and the Sierra Club Biosafety working group
5 The National Institutes of Health (NIH) have formed an advisory committee, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). The NSABB has held meetings in 2022 and 2023 about Biosafety, with specific focus on Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (PC3O) and Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC). Excerpt from transcript of NSABB Sept 2022 meeting a board member

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 201

3 Institutes of Health (NIH) or other public health agencies, allowing the proliferation of these facilities presents a significant risk to public safety.

Lastly, we would like to note that the draft Conditional Use Permit ordinance for BSL-3 labs appears to have been designed by an industry consultant, for industry interests. It fails to address important elements of a successful biosafety policy that experts with decades of experience with BSL labs in their communities have raised,6 including public accountability, transparency, and reporting of accidents. Additionally, it does not adequately address critical sustainability issues, neighborhood concerns, and environmental safety.

Therefore, we strongly urge you to reject the establishment of any BSL-3 labs in San Carlos.

We also recommend the creation and adoption of transparent Biosafety Standards for all BSL labs, as in cities in the Boston/Cambridge biotech hub area, based on scientific principles and developed with an open process involving public health and safety agencies, the community, and other stakeholders, including environmental groups. County-wide standards would be preferable to City-by-City standards as the County Environmental Health Services Agency is the agency responsible for overseeing public health and safety in San Mateo County.

Respectfully submitted,

Gita Dev, Co-Chair, Sustainable Land Use Committee
Gladwyn d’Souza, Chair, Conservative Committee
Jennifer Chang Hetterly, Campaign Lead, Bay Alive

Cc: James Eggers, Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Dave Pine, Chair, Board Of Supervisors, San Mateo County <[email protected]> Ray Mueller, Board of Supervisors District 3, San Mateo County <[email protected]> Len Materman, OneShoreline, San Mateo County <[email protected]> Matt Fabry, Manager, San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program <[email protected]> Xavier Fernandez, Regional Water Quality Control Board [email protected] Steve Goldbeck, Chief Deputy Director, Bay Conservation and Development Commission <[email protected]>
Ashley Tomerlin, Bay Conservation and Development Commission <[email protected]>

notes: “We have to deal with the problem of domestic research that’s not funded by the US government.

That’s a big chunk right now, especially out here in the west with Silicon Valley.”

6 “Planning for Life Sciences Development for Bay Area Cities”, a Webinar for Municipal Leaders, March 2, 2023

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 202

Correspondence #20
1 March 22, 2023

City of San Carlos
Members of the City Council
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject: Public Comment Regarding Proposed Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code, Title 18 to Regulate Laboratories with Biosafety Levels (BSL); City Council Meeting , March 27, 2023

Requests: STOP HIGH-CONTAINMENT LAB TAKE -OVER IN SILICON VALLEY

(1) BAN High-Containment BSL-3 labs in San Carlos
(2) REJECT the proposed Conditional Use Ordinance
(3) INVESTIGATE how many high -containment labs are proposed (4) MANDATE disclosure of the details of BSL-3 research proposed onsite (5) NOTIFY all San Carlos residents of proposed BSL-3 labs and conduct public hearings

Dear Mayor Rak and members of the City Council ,

On March 6th, the Planning and Transportation Commission refused to follow the February 6th City Council and staff recommendations to adopt a proposed ordinance that would prohibit privately operated, high -containment biosafety labs in San Carlos in order to protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials and lethal pathoge n research. Instead, they recommended a hastily prepared, industry sponsored Conditional Use Permit that fails to protect public health and environmental safety. Please honor your earlier public commitment to ban BSL -3 labs. Do not allow San Carlos to become the high -containment biosafety lab capital of Silicon Valley.

Developers and industry representatives’ deliberate misrepresentations about biosafety oversight

We perceive that real estate developers and industry representatives have deliberately misrepresented the level of federal, state and local oversight of private high - containment labs. These labs perform research on potential pandemic pathogens and are too dangerous to be located near densely populat ed residential neighborhoods in flood and earthquake prone areas near the bay.

At the February 6th Planning Commission meeting, a local developer from MBC Biolabs outrageously claimed that BSL-3 labs are “foolproof.” They are not. See: Treason of the Science Journals a compelling article by author Ashley Rindsberg.

We agree with scientists from biosafetynow.org who attended the March 6 th Planning Commission meeting. Dr. Bryce Nickels described the representations by developers

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 203

Correspondence #20
2 that private labs are “highly -regulated” as gaslighting in the extreme. https://twitter.com/BiosafetyNow/status/1633269996775251968

Deliberate misrepresentations about the number of high-containment labs proposed in San Carlos

Developers and staff claim that only 1% of lab tenants will lease BSL -3 lab space.

However, developers unanimously claimed that banning BSL -3 labs would have a catastrophic effect on attracting lab tenants. Although it is difficult to know how many private high -containment labs are already operating in the bay area, there appears to be few because private developers are rushing to fill the void.

For example, Gladstone, which is affiliated with UCSF , rents BSL-3 lab space and there is such high demand, there is a two -week waiting list for them to even respond to applications. See how easy it is for an individual to rent BSL -3 labs space. https://gladstone.org/form/bsl -3-lab-request

The number of proposed high -containment labs in San Carlos appears to be a heavily guarded secret. Here is a list of the current proposed developments on the city's website: www.cityofsancarlos.org

Alexandria --(the biggest development in the city) 1,625,390 sq ft MBC Biolabs--96.175
405 Industrial Road --304,070 (north east)
642 Quarry Road--410,000 (north east)
777 Industrial Road --122,462
789 Old County Road --466,198
841 Old County Road --325,448
888 Bransten Road --163,932 (Alexandria)

This totals 3,513,675. Some are in the permitting stage.

Alexandria is the largest and most well -funded developer. It has labs across the nation.

They will likely ask for BSL-3 use if you approve the Conditional Use Permit . If they obtain approval, many others will follow.

At the March 20th Planning Commission meeting, the Commis sion approved Alexandria’s request for a height exception to allow four, 23 -feet tall exhaust stacks on the roof of a new 50-feet tall development at 888 Bransten. Those types of exhaust stacks are required on BSL-3 and 4 facilities. We asked them to disclose whether BSL-3 labs were planned onsite.

Alexandria representatives refused. Their archite ct claimed that the exhaust from the stacks would contain “chemical fumes” that would be expelled from the exhaust stacks at “high -velocity”. We suspect, but cannot prove, that developers and Chamber of Commerce members are planning for San Carlos to be the regional Silicon Valley hub for BSL-3 research.

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 204

Correspondence #20
3 We wouldn't have been concerned about or aware of BSL levels before the covid pandemic. We naively trusted the city. After all, most of you live here too. However, we don't think the industry is giving the city all the facts and are minimizing the risks.

San Carlos is at the epicenter of this issue because of the extreme amount of Life Sciences development going on here. 3.5 million sq feet of labs are being planned now.

How many more biolabs are planned for northeast San Carlos? The point is, the public doesn't know how many BSL -3s are planned or where they will be located. Approving a CUP will open the flood gates t hat will allow and attract high -containment l ab development.

The proposed CUP is rudimentary and the planners would not even agree to designate set-back requirements from homes or schools, wouldn't agree to prohibit gain of function, ePPP or select pathogen research. Commissioner Roof w orks at Genentech and emphasized that he doesn't want to limit "life -saving" research. He said that San Mateo County doesn’t have any restrictions on biosafety levels and San Carlos will be the first. We perceive that he has a conflict of interest based on his employment.

Other factors that make San Carlos unsafe for BSL -3 labs is its proximity to San Carlos' Hiller Airport which has numerous flight schools. A recent article gave the numbers:
"101,077 annual takeoffs and landings. (275 per day.) 359 Aircr aft, over 25 businesses.

It is part of the national airport system that involves 600,000 aircraft and 2,000 airports." It prohibits certain activities within its direct flight path. SFO prohibits BSL -2 and above in its flight path. San Carlos should do the same.

With the recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and possibly, other local banks, how many lab start-ups will have to shut down or have their businesses interrupted? Will they have money for abrupt decommissioning or closure? What will happen to all the lab animals and the very expensive pathogens and biologics, rDNA or other research materials onsite?

We implore you to ban BSL-3 labs in San Carlos. Don’t be misled by the disinformation provided by developers. Please put public safety first.

Sincerely,

Debbie and Gary Baldocchi
San Carlos residents

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 205

This space for filing stamp only

OR#:

O R A N G E C O U N T Y R E P O R T E R

~ SINCE 1921 ~

600 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 205, Santa Ana, California 92701-4542 Telephone (714) 543-2027 / Fax (714) 542-6841

PROOF OF PUBLICATION

(2015.5 C.C.P.)

State of California )
County of Orange ) ss
Notice Type:

Ad Description:

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, a newspaper published in the English language in the City of Santa Ana, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under date of June 2, 1922, Case No. 13,421. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:

Executed on: 10/10/2004
At Los Angeles, California
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature

EXAMINER - ENQUIRER-BULLETIN
303 TWIN DOLPHIN DR #600, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
(650) 556-1556
SPEN 3679961

CRYSTAL MUI

CITY OF SAN CARLOS/CITY CLERK
600 ELM ST
SAN CARLOS, CA - 94070

HRG - NOTICE OF HEARING
Setting BioSafety Levels Restrictions 3.27.23
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the EXAMINER - ENQUIRER-BULLETIN, a newspaper published in the English language in the city of SAN CARLOS, county of SAN MATEO, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of SAN MATEO, State of California, under date 02/25/1946, Case No. 38966. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
03/16/2023
03/16/2023

SAN MATEO
!A000006258854!
Email

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC

HEARING NOTICE IS
HEREBY GIVEN THAT the
San Carlos City Council,
pursuant to the City of San
Carlos Municipal Code
Chapter 18.35 Amendments
to Zoning Ordinance and
Map; California Government
Code Section 65854, and the
Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act
Sections 15162 and 15168,
will hold a public hearing in
the Council Chambers, City
Hall – 600 Elm Street, San
Carlos, on Monday, March
27, 2023 at 7:00 p.m., for the
purpose of hearing and
considering all comments of
all persons interested in or
concerned with: Considering
Introducing an Ordinance
Amending the City of San
Carlos Municipal Code Title
18 to Regulate Laboratories
with Biosafety Levels (BSL).

The following code sections
are proposed for ame nd-
ment: Sections 18.06.020
(Commercial Districts Land
Use Regulations), 18.07.020
(Industrial Districts Land Use
Regulations), and 18.41.020
(Definitions). The following
code section may be added:

Section 18.23.310 (Sta n-
dards for Specific Uses and
Activiti es). The City Council
will consider: 1) The
Planning and Transportation
Commission's recommend a-
tion (Resolution # PTC2023 -
05) that the City Council
adopt an Ordinance
amending San Carlos
Municipal Code Title 18 to
prohibit activities requiring
Biosafety Le vel (BSL) 4
containment and to allow for
activities requiring BSL -3
containment with a cond i-
tional use permit as specified
in the Ordinance as
amendedby the Commission;
and will also consider 2)
introducing an Ordinance
amending San Carlos
Municipal Code T itle 18 to
prohibit activities requiring
BSL -3 and BSL -4 contai n-
ment. The proposed
amendments to the San
Carlos Municipal Code are
within the scope of the
activities and impacts
identified in the Focused
General Plan Update Final
Environmental Impact Repor t
(EIR), and no new enviro n-
mental effects have been
found and no new mitigation
is necessary.Therefore, no
additional environmental
review is required pursuant
to Public Resources Code
Section 21166 and California
Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guideline s Section
15162 and 15168. The
agenda and relevant
materials for this item will be
available for viewing online -
www.cityofsancarlos.org/age
nda; at the City Clerk's
Department in City Hall –
600 Elm Street; and at the
San Carlos Library – 610
Elm Street, beginning
Thursday, March 23, 2023.

The public will hav e the
option to observe •thethe
meeting •and address theand address the
Council in –person in City
Hall's Council Chambers or
remotely via Zoom. Details
and instructions •will bewill be
available on the agenda.

Questions regarding the
project may be directed to
Megan Wooley -Ousdahl,
Senior Planner, at mwoole y-
ou s-
[email protected].

Comments may be sent via
email to the City Clerk –
Cit y-
[email protected]
and the City Council –
CityCou n-
[email protected]; or
mailed to the City Clerk at
600 Elm Street, San Carlos,
CA 940 70, or made in
person at the public hearing.

All persons interested in the
above are hereby invited to
participate remotely in this
Public Hearing and be heard.

If you challenge this proposal
in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised
at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in
written correspondence
delivered to the City Clerk
prior to the public hearing.

Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Publication Date:
3/16/23
SPEN -3679961#

EXAMINER - ENQUIRER -

BULLETIN

10.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 206

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 27, 2023
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Appropriating $50,000 from the General Capital Fund (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance for the Preparation of a Greenhouse Gas In-Lieu Fee Study.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution appropriating $50,000 from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to prepare a greenhouse gas in-lieu fee study.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Approval of this resolution will require a budget appropriation in the amount of approximately $50,000 for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23. There are sufficient funds available in the General Capital Fund (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance to cover this request. Although this is not a typical capital project, Fund 25 is also used to fund one-time projects or requests.

BACKGROUND:

The San Carlos City Council established the goal to support sustainability and address climate change as part of the 2023 Strategic Plan. This includes mitigating the impacts of climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by pursuing strategies within the Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP). A key strategy in the CMAP is to reduce gas use by converting buildings to be all-electric.

Currently, the City’s all-electric reach code requires new construction to be all-electric with several exceptions, including an exception that allows for gas in newly constructed scientific laboratories.

During a study session at the January 23, 2023 Council Meeting, the City Council reviewed policies to electrify buildings, including options to remove exceptions during new construction and approaches to convert existing buildings to be all-electric. During the study session the Council directed staff to research and develop a program where new life science development exempt from the City’s reach code would be required to offset emissions though funding other activities in the community. Following the Council’s direction, staff are seeking funding to study a possible in-lieu fee, or other similar fee, that could be applied to new scientific laboratories exempt from the City’s reach code.

ANALYSIS:

In order to adopt an in-lieu fee, a study must first be conducted that justifies any fee that could be required of new development. A fee must be based on a reasonable connection between new development and the associated impact and supported by specific findings. Therefore, the City needs to retain professional services to conduct the technical analysis and prepare the required

11.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 207

study to support implementation and development of a fee.

Staff seek $50,000 from the General Capital Fund (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance for the preparation of a Greenhouse Gas In-Lieu Fee Study. A request for proposal will be issued to solicit professional services to conduct the study, and it is expected that the fee study will take approximately three to six months to complete.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution appropriating $50,000 from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to prepare a Greenhouse Gas In-Lieu Fee Study; or

2. Do not adopt a Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Adam Lokar, Senior Sustainability Analyst; and
Nil Blackburn, Assistant City Manager
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

11.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 208

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS APPROPRIATING $50,000 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL FUND (FUND 25)

UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A GREENHOUSE GAS IN—LIEU FEE STUDY.

WHEREAS, in February 2021 the San Carlos City Council adopted an all-electric reach code requiring new construction to be all-electric with certain exceptions; and WHEREAS, in September 2021 the San Carlos City Council adopted the Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan that includes the goal to reduce San Carlos’ emissions 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050, relative to 1990 levels; and
WHEREAS, the Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan includes strategy 4 to transition to electricity as the primary energy source citywide; and WHEREAS, the 2023 Strategic Plan includes the goal to support sustainability initiatives and address climate change; and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to research and develop a fee program where projects exempt from the City’s reach code would fund other activities in the community that offset any emissions; and
WHEREAS, in order to adopt an in-lieu fee, a study must first be conducted that justifies any fee required of new development; and
WHEREAS, the General Capital Fund Unassigned Fund Balance has sufficient funds to cover a budget appropriation in the amount of $50,000; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council appropriates $50,000 from the General Capital Fund (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance for the preparation of a Greenhouse Gas Fee In-Lieu Fee Study.
* * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 27th day of March 2023, by the following vote:

11.a
March 27, 2023

Packet Pg. 209

San Carlos City CouncilMarch 27, 2023

San Carlos City Council
March 27, 2023