Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan Update Land Use and Development Standards

July, 25, 2024

Ms. Amy Chen
Community Development Director
City of East Palo Alto
Via email to: rbd@cityofepa.org, achen@cityofepa.org
Cc: troy@raimiassociates.com

Re: Comment on Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan Update (RBD_SPU)
Comments on Section 6. Land Use and Development Standards only

Dear Ms. Chen,

The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter’s Sustainable Land Use Committee provides the following comments in addition to earlier comments, jointly submitted with other environmental organizations, on the entire Draft Specific Plan Update (DSPU).

We appreciate the careful thought that has gone into the development of the Land Use and Development Standards. We have reviewed the Draft Specific Plan Update and find that there are a few items that we believe may still need to be considered further. We have made suggestions of how these may be addressed and hope that you will consider these. We have confined comments in this letter to only Section 6. Land Use and Development Standards.¹

A. First Page: Pg111 On the first page, please make one of the bulleted titles consistent with the section title used later.

• Ecological Standards Ecology and Sustainability

B. 6.1.2 General Land Use Standards

Sierra Club is very supportive of the Biotech industry and all the benefits that the industry has brought and continues to bring to society and our Bay Area communities. We believe that the addition of R&D and biotech labs is an important addition to the DSPU. There are a few issues to consider that would make biotech labs more readily acceptable.

We note that the Land Use Policies LU 4.1 through LU 4.8 all caution against introducing potential hazards within 1⁄4 mile of sensitive receptors. Though many Life Sciences labs are very like a commercial office, the core of a Life Sciences building is the laboratory. Therefore, we generally recommend BSL1 and BSL 2 labs be a Conditional Use if it is within 1⁄4 mile of residential property, schools, community centers, creeks or the Bayfront in order to have an orderly process to address issues of safety as well as noise, deliveries, animal lab facilities, smells from exhausts, lights at night, transport of potentially hazardous agents, and other concerns residents may reasonably have.

While BSL4 ( the highest biosafety risk group) labs are not allowed in the DSPU, we also recommend that, for reasons briefly outlined below, BSL 3 labs not be permitted in the RBD-SPU area. BSL 3 “high containment” labs depend on specialized equipment and systems to contain and safely exhaust highly infectious, often lethal agents that are easily transmitted through the air. Not all mechanical systems perform optimally and they are subject to failure.² Human error too can play a role in creating failures. In addition, the WO and REC zones are known to be in a high seismic liquefaction zone, with the added structural problem of relatively high ground water now or in the future (with sea level rise), causing soil shear strength problems. In disaster events such as earthquakes, along with liquefaction, causing systems to fail or structures to fail, BSL-3 labs can inadvertently be the cause of potentially deadly circumstances for the population. San Carlos and Redwood City (in their Mixed Use Downtown Area Specific Plan) have banned BSL-3 labs for public safety.

East Palo Alto’s Safety Element fails to address these new biohazards. San Mateo County Environmental Health staff, similarly report that they have no authority or responsibility in biohazard accidents, except for tracking the Coronavirus. The state hazardous materials databases, which emergency responders depend upon, do not have a category for these new biological hazards.

The intent is not to discourage business applicants, but to secure public safety, and to ensure the City and County Emergency Response personnel are aware of and are trained to respond to the presence of approved bio-hazardous materials in buildings in an emergency or disaster situation.

Recommendation: Make BSL1 and BSL Conditional Use, and ban BSL 3 & BSL 4 in the DSPU.

C. 6.1.3 Development Intensity
Table 6.2: Residential Density Standards
Please clarify whether the numbers in the table are “dwelling units per acre”.

D. “6.1.3 4 Aggregated FAR.
“At city discretion, floor area ratio can be aggregated over two or more different land use zones using a weighted average, provided the site’s total Maximum FAR and the maximum allowable building height in each zone is not exceeded.”

Please clarify what exactly is meant by the qualifier “using a weighted average”; possibly this can be clarified by giving an illustrative example.

E. 6.1.4 Setbacks
1.c. “Table 6-4. Setback and Build-To Development Standards
Inner Levee Edge setback is 50’ “

Levee setbacks are measured from the BCDC jurisdictional line, as established by individual project applicants in consultation with BCDC.³
Is 50’ setback from Inner levee edge sufficient space to widen and raise the levee in the future? And does it allow sufficient space for construction equipment on the landward side to widen and raise the levee, since construction equipment cannot effectively work on the other side in the wetlands?

F. 6.1.4 Setbacks
“8. Underground Parking Encroachment. ....... Underground parking, when fully below grade, may encroach into setback”

Groundwater currently close to the surface and future rising groundwater needs to be taken into consideration when planning for underground features.This includes limiting below ground uses in areas vulnerable to these risks. It also precludes allowing underground parking in high groundwater areas, as this would move groundwater, along with possible contaminants, into adjacent sites.
Of special concern is encroachments of underground parking into setbacks which may be the only corridors through which groundwater can flow. This encroachment exception should not be permitted in any areas where there is groundwater.
Dewatering of sites during construction may also be problematic as it could cause movement of groundwater and therefore of potentially toxic contaminants, putting new areas at risk. Understanding how toxic contaminants will migrate under these scenarios requires comprehensive groundwater flow and contaminant transport modeling studies.

A comprehensive groundwater modeling study of the Plan Area is needed to prevent increased human and ecological risk from contaminated groundwater. See also comments in the “Hazardous Materials” section of the joint letter.

G. 6.3.1 Maximum Building Height
STANDARDS
“4. Rooftop Mechanical Exception Standards.
b. Maximum of 30% total roof coverage for rooftop equipment that exceeds the maximum height by more than 15’.
c. Maximum of 15% total roof coverage for equipment that exceeds the maximum height by more than 20’...................................
e. All roof-mounted mechanical, electrical, and external communication equipment, such as satellite dishes and microwave towers, shall be screened from public view or architecturally integrated into the building.
f. Roof-mounted equipment greater in height than the parapet wall shall be screened to a height equal to the height of the equipment.”

Assuming that a 10’ zone around the edge of a rooftop is kept clear and that all of the remaining rooftop may have very tall mechanical equipment, up to 30’ higher than the allowable height limit, and which has a screened enclosure per para e. That means that instead of 120’ tall buildings in WO (Waterfront Office), the buildings can be effectively 150’ tall along the waterfront.

1. Is a 25% increase in height in the 120’ height limit Waterfront Office (WO) area acceptable to the community and to the City Council which reduced the earlier proposed heights in response to public concerns about height?
2. In the REC zone, a 60’ high building would also be allowed 30’ tall equipment. That is a 50% increase in height. Is this acceptable?
3. Assuming the allowable roof coverage areas are not cumulative, at least 30% of the roof area is allowed to have structures 15’ - 30’ tall. Is this correct?
4. There is no maximum allowable % of rooftop area specified for equipment space. What is the allowable coverage of roof area before the roof is considered to be another story?
5. For the rooftop equipment enclosures to be so tall, does this require the building to be of Type1 construction?
6. If screening is required, will the tops of the many rather unsightly exhausts, as shown in the photos below, be screened? Will codes allow them to be screened?

University of Texas, Galvaston, biotech lab (BSL-4) rooftop equipment is partially screened but not fully. The tall exhaust vents for hazardous materials exhausts are exposed.

Albany Medical Center - rooftop equipment with the tall exhaust vents. Similar equipment is currently installed on the new San Carlos biotech building on Industrial Road.

We believe this height increase, from this exception, could come as a surprise to the community and the City Council who had carefully negotiated a reduction in heights for the Waterfront Office area and in the REC zoning where biotech labs are now allowed. We question if these excessive rooftop height exceptions might only be needed for BSL-3 labs with their extremely high containment regulations and could be eliminated or greatly reduced if BSL-3 labs are not allowed in the SPU area⁴.

There are sound problems related to the mechanical equipment as well. This type of large powerful mechanical equipment is noisier than standard office systems and needs to be enclosed in sound attenuating material, like concrete panels, to attenuate the noise.

The added height, if allowed along the Bayfront, will also throw additional shadows on the wetlands causing added negative environmental impacts. At a minimum, rooftop equipment screens should be set back from the edge of the roof, if it faces wetlands, so that the setback equals the height of the equipment and screening in order to somewhat reduce the shadowing of the wetlands.

H. 6.3.1. Maximum Building Height
“5. Design Flood Elevation (DFE). DFE, or the minimum elevation of the finish floor of buildings above Base Flood Elevation (BFE), is per Figure 6-3.” ⁶

With reference to Design Flood Elevations and ground floor elevations needing to be raised to be out of the flood risk, Emergency Generators (mandatory for biotech labs) need particular protection so they remain operational during storm and flood events when power failures are most common.

I. 6.3.3 Special Height Zones (Stepbacks)
The 2013 RBDSP prioritized preserving view corridors to the Bay, especially along Bay Road, reflecting the community's strong connection to the Bay. This remains a priority today. The DSPU establishes a stepback standard for the Bay Road View Corridor and offers three design options for compliance.

From a pedestrian or driver's viewpoint on Bay Road, the height of the building closest to the street has the most significant impact on the view. This base height should be kept as low as possible. The expansiveness of the view is also defined by the visible sky. We also note, the ground floor of buildings in the Bay Road view corridor will be raised above the street for the DFEs (Minimum Design Flood Elevations per Figure 6.4), making them appear even taller.

The design options are:

• Option 1: 2-story frontage
• Option 2: 4-story frontage
• Option 3: 3-story frontage

We believe that 2- and 3-story frontages would better maintain a connection to the Bay along Bay Road while preserving an open feeling of a big sky. Therefore, we recommend that the scale along the Bay Road view corridor be limited to 2 and 3 stories.

J. 6.3.3 Adjust Waterfront-Levee Transition Zone in relation to Infinity Auto Salvage
Figure 6.5 shows Waterfront Transition Zones featuring stepped back building heights. We have noted in previous communications that the Infinity Salvage Yard’s location at the end of Bay Road, makes it somewhat anomalous in its relation to the proposed waterfront stepback zones. Note that the outboard edge of waterfront stepbacks follow the shoreline, north of Bay Road, along the Infinity Salvage Yard property’s east edge. Since the DSPU indicates, in Figure 7.1: Parks, Open Space and Trails, that the Infinity Salvage Yard property is intended to be a public park/open space, the stepbacks need to bend and follow the salvage yard’s west edge property line to have their desired effects.

Figure 6.5 - excerpt showing Transition Zones along the Waterfront

This is an important detail if the park becomes a reality. The stepbacks are intended to ensure that buildings fronting the future waterfront public park will have reduced ecological impacts, such as shading of the park.

K. 6.3.3 Special Height Zones (Stepbacks)
STANDARDS
“5 Adjustments to required stepbacks. At the discretion of the Director,⁷ building massing may extend into a required levee stepback area or major/minor view corridor stepback area (except the Bay Road stepback area) if an equivalent or greater amount of floor area/building massing volume is reduced from the same or an adjacent façade. See Figure 6-6. “

Shading of the wetlands area, which will be inevitable with extra tall buildings along the Bay frontage, in spite of being mitigated by the stepbacks, is damaging to the environment. Therefore, for facades facing the Bay, unless it is unavoidable, it is important not to allow further encroachments into these setbacks and stepbacks as proposed in 6.3.3, (Guideline) 5 shown above.

L. 6.5.2 On-site Private and Common Usable Open Space & Landscaping
GUIDELINES
“10. Turf Grass Limitation. The amount of turf grass in landscaping should be minimized, and alternatives to turf should be used where practical. Consult the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for additional requirements.”

California recently passed legislation that allows cities to ban synthetic turf. Much of the DSPU is along the Bayfront and Sierra Club California has issued a policy against the use of synthetic turf which states the following.

Synthetic turf:

• is harmful, especially to aquatic organisms,
• is made up of "forever chemicals" (PFAs) that build up in the environment and eventually in human tissue.
• is NOT recyclable, despite industry claims. Old turf ends up in landfills, for as long as plastic remains, which is longer than any of us.
• can kill trees when installed around them
• contributes to Nature Deficit Disorder, a growing concern for our children.
• gets hotter than asphalt on a hot day, up to 140 degrees; hotter than surrounding buildings and streets.

M. 6.5.3 Access & Loading
GUIDELINES
“1. Loading & Delivery Areas. The impact of service, delivery, and storage areas should be mitigated by locating these areas on the sides or backs of buildings, away from public streets and pedestrian circulation wherever possible. a. An exception to this rule is that where R&D or industrial uses are adjacent to residential uses, then these functional areas should be located away from the residential uses.“

It is well understood that labs frequently have to operate all night and that labs are very dependent on multiple deliveries and other outside services. For this reason, such activities need to be restricted to daylight hours in proximity to residential neighborhoods and in mixed use areas where residential buildings are allowed as part of the overlay zoning See Figure 4.1 Plan Concept for locations of housing overlay.

N. 6.8 Ecology & Sustainability

Life Sciences labs are well-known to be one of the more unsustainable building uses, having a larger environmental footprint, being proposed on the Peninsula, entailing intensified water and energy use, waste disposal issues, and animal research concerns.
However, cities are requiring these buildings to meet Climate Action goals. Does the RBD-SPU, the General Plan or the City Sustainability code require R&D buildings to achieve sustainability goals like LEED silver or LEED gold or other sustainability standards? ⁹

O. Sustainability: Some of the potential environmental impacts of biotech lab buildings include:

1. Biohazardous Environmental Concerns from Flooding and Earthquake Liquefaction. The Waterfront Office and REC zones are located in a high liquefaction zone on Bay fill. In the event of a fire, flood, earthquake or any sustained power outage, failure of any one of a number of containment systems could lead to failure of containment systems or, in the case of BSL3 labs, release of toxic or deadly pathogens to either the air or water. Any release of toxins adjacent to the bay multiplies the public health risk.

2. Energy Use. Biolabs use 5 - 10 times the amount of energy as other traditional offices in order to operate complex equipment, exhaust and containment systems. Therefore, the added energy use needs to be accounted for in the climate action plan. Unfortunately, they often cannot use rooftop solar panels due to many required tall exhaust systems. Lab research also requires the use of natural gas or other types of tanked flammable gasses for research.

3. Light at night. Lab buildings often operate through the night with lights on all night. Given the buildings’ proximity to the Bayfront, a wildlife habitat area, it is important to shield wildlife from light at night, from tall buildings facing the wetlands. Lab buildings that face residential or Mixed Use buildings shall also provide shielding at night. Facades facing the Bay wetlands would also need similar protection such as automatic shades that are timed to close after daylight hours so that night foragers are not disturbed in their feeding schedules nor easily predated and residents can get rest.

4. Noise and Odors. Prominent rooftop mechanical equipment is critical to required ventilation systems and for hazardous fumes containment. However, these powerful machines generate noise 24/7 and chemical odors are sometimes generated from extensive lab exhaust systems.¹⁰
   Labs also are dependent on more frequent than normal deliveries and pick- ups servicing the lab functions, generating traffic on public roads. These need to be accounted for in evaluating impacts on noise and traffic in CAP goals

5. Water Use. Biolabs use 4 - 5 times more water than a typical office, and cannot use recycled water (except for landscaping). Labs will not be able to function without their water supply. Life Science labs were not foreseen in the 2013 RBD SP.
   
   From Chapter 9. Utilities “... The Ravenswood Business District Project (RBD Project) is projected to increase water demand to 1,027 MG at buildout with a net incremental increase of 100 MGD. As the 2035 General Plan did not account for the incremental increase from the RBD Project above the 2013 RBD Specific Plan EIR and SEIR, the increase in water use at the Site has not been accounted for in the projected growth in water use shown in the 2020 UWMP ...”
   “Shortfalls of up to 58% are projected for single dry-years and for multiple dry-years assuming the Bay Delta Plan is implemented. Under all conditions, the City may need to impose water conservation measures, per East Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 13.24 Article III and Article VI and Section 17.04, to reduce demand”

The DSPU is envisioning a greater water demand than has been included in the City’s water planning to date. In addition, biotech labs require a lot more water than commercial office buildings.
Therefore

• Will R&D labs have a water budget? How will R&D labs be kept accountable for their water usage?
• Should there be a total maximum allowable square footage for biolabs in the DSPU to calculate water requirements?
• How will the water requirements for the DSPU affect the emergency water supply available?
• Will there be a policy that lab water needs will not preempt residential water needs in drought water rationing? If labs cannot function without water supply, how will the DSPU ensure that residents will not experience water rationing, before labs do, during water shortage periods, as a result of adding R&D biolabs in the RBD-SPU?

6. Waste Disposal. Labs generate large amounts of single-use plastics that will affect the goals of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and waste reduction targets. However, the industry is under some pressure to improve their practices. What are the waste reduction requirements for R&D labs in the SPU to align with the City’s overall goals for waste reduction ?

7. Animal Research. Will research animals be allowed in R&D? Will A-BSL labs (animal biosafety labs) be allowed? Some companies provide animal labs as a lab service to other labs that need animals as research subjects for diseases and experiments, but do not have facilities to house their animal research onsite.

• Redwood City’s Amendments: Conditional Use Permit for Research and Development ( page 10) that addresses some of these issues,
• Menlo Park’s Life Sciences District ordinance and include appropriate mitigation for the RBD-SPU sustainability concerns that are addressed.
• Sierra Club Loma Prieta, Sustainable Land Use “Guidelines for BioSafety Labs” specifically to help decision makers plan for biotech labs.

We hope that these review comments are helpful and look forward to staying involved in this important transformation of an important East Palo Alto neighborhood.
We are ready to discuss them with you should that be helpful.

Respectfully submitted,

Gita Dev, Chair,
Sustainable Land Use Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Cc James Eggers, Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

¹ Please note that a few of these comments have also been included in the joint comment letter sent simultaneously and cosigned by several Environmental groups including Sierra Club Loma Prieta, however, all comments on Section 6 are collected herein.

² American Laboratory: Exhaust discharges from BSL laboratories may be highly toxic (or noxious) or both. Their danger to people covers a broad spectrum, which may be mildly annoying to seriously unhealthy. Also, government agencies are continually setting more stringent standards, with allowable exposure limits dropping lower and lower. Obviously there is no room for tolerance with regard to possible contamination from some agents that are exhausted at BSL Level 3 and 4 facilities. In many cases, even if the fumes are not toxic, public tolerance for odiferous discharges has decreased sharply in recent years.

³ We included a “Discussion of Issues of Concern: Reliance of Waterfront Policy on the BCDC Band” in the joint letter comments.

⁴ Rooftop Exhaust Fans: Environmental considerations,
Tall exhaust stacks ...Another consideration when retrofitting or designing new roof exhaust systems includes the aesthetics of stack height. The lowest possible profile not only eliminates the smoke stack look and negative connotations perceived by many people, but may also help conformance to applicable ordinances
Exhaust re-entrainment can also be affected by building location, with regard to adjacent buildings, as well as prevailing wind and weather conditions. As a result, for both renovations and new construction, wind studies have become important with regard to IAQ, since harmful exhaust gasses must not be allowed to re-enter a building or adjacent buildings.

⁵ American Laboratory: These shortcomings can be added to a relatively new concern in many locations, that is, the sight of tall exhaust stacks on a building’s roof, which usually imparts negative connotations in a community, in other words, another neighborhood polluter

⁶ Note typographical error: this should read Figure 6.4 not 6.3

⁷ Clarify to which Director this refers.

⁸ Clarify which Director this refers to.

⁹ Connections between laboratory research and climate change: what scientists and policy makers can do to reduce environmental impacts, The Scientists Forum
“... In 2015, the global pharmaceutical industry had a carbon emission intensity 55% higher than the automotive industry
... Given the immense environmental impact of scientific research, a dramatic shift in how research is conducted and supported is necessary to help combat the global climate crisis . My Green Lab has the first internationally recognized Green Lab Certification Program with widespread adoption, but there are also other options ... While voluntary programs and individual laboratory initiatives can have significant effects, even greater lasting impact could be achieved through institutional, corporate, and government-level policy changes that incentivize and even require sustainability in laboratory environments.

¹⁰ American Laboratory: Exhaust discharges from BSL laboratories may be highly toxic (or noxious) or both. Their danger to people covers a broad spectrum, which may be mildly annoying to seriously unhealthy. Also, government agencies are continually setting more stringent standards, with allowable exposure limits dropping lower and lower. Obviously there is no room for tolerance with regard to possible contamination from some agents that are exhausted at BSL 3 and 4 facilities. In many cases, even if the fumes are not toxic, public tolerance for odiferous discharges has decreased sharply in recent years.

¹¹ Please see Menlo Park’s Noise Ordinance which includes noise levels and monitoring.

¹² The Growing Demand for Sustainability in Life Sciences, August 24, 2023 Many life sciences companies are increasingly focused on sustainability in labs. According to an Agilent report, 82 percent of labs surveyed have adopted sustainability initiatives, with the top priorities focused on reducing water and energy consumption, decreasing their environmental footprint, and improving waste management techniques.