Recommending no BSL-3 Labs in San Carlos

March 17, 2023

Mayor Rak and members of the City Council
City of San Carlos
Via email: arak@cityofsancarlos.org
cityclerk@cityofsancarlos.org

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 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 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
Ray Mueller, Board of Supervisors District 3, San Mateo County
Len Materman, OneShoreline, San Mateo County
Matt Fabry, Manager, San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program
Xavier Fernandez, Regional Water Quality Control Board
Steve Goldbeck, Chief Deputy Director, Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Ashley Tomerlin, Bay Conservation and Development Commission

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.”

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 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.”

16 “Planning for Life Sciences Development for Bay Area Cities”, a Webinar for Municipal Leaders, March 2, 2023