September 10, 2024

City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Email: RBD@cityofepa.org

RE: Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan Update SEIR

The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter’s Bay Alive Campaign, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, Green Foothills, and Sequoia Audubon Society are pleased to submit these comments regarding the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Draft Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan Update (DSPU). Our organizations work to enhance sea level rise resilience and to protect wetlands, open space, wildlife habitat, and other ecological and natural resources in the Bay Area. We collectively represent thousands of members in and around East Palo Alto who care deeply about open space, nature, and community resilience. We recognize the critical role that the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan Update will play in shaping the future of East Palo Alto and its natural resources along the San Francisco Bay. We have participated in community meetings, engaged with local residents, community groups and City staff/consultants, and commented to the Planning Commission and City Council throughout the planning process.

In this letter, we will first address a few overarching points that apply to the overall DSEIR, followed by noting a few errors/omissions in the document that should be corrected in the final report. Then we will address our concerns regarding individual CEQA-related environmental factors.

COMMENTS RELATED TO OVERALL DSEIR

Shallow Groundwater Mitigation
We are pleased that the DSEIR acknowledges the threat of future project impacts related to shallow groundwater rise. By identifying the DSPU Standard 9.7.6, (which requires assessment of a project’s vulnerability to shallow groundwater rise), as a required mitigation measure (GEO-2) in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, the DSEIR lays important groundwork for ensuring public safety in anticipation of known future threats associated with climate change. As we stated in comments regarding the DSPU, limiting the applicability of Standard 9.7.6 to shoreline parcels is inadequate.¹ At this time, we do not know if the DSPU has or hasn’t been amended per our comment.

We believe that a similar standard applied across the entire Specific Plan (SP) Area could mitigate groundwater rise impacts discussed in Sections 3.8 (Geology and Soils), 3.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and 3.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality). For example, the Hydrology section of Sunnyvale’s Final EIR for its Moffett Park Specific Plan identifies a suite of potential hallow groundwater impacts to be addressed through a Site Management Plan²

• Please consider comments below for Sections mentioned here and provide mitigation that addresses the full breadth of potential impact issues, geologic, toxic contamination and hydrologic, across the entire SP footprint.

Wetland Delineation, Setbacks and the BCDC Band
We are pleased to see that Biological Resources analysis and mitigation includes MM BIO-10.1, Jurisdictional Waters Avoidance and Mitigation Measures. In our comments responding to the DSPU, we strongly recommended that wetland delineation (the basis for Jurisdictional Waters Decisions) replace the use of the BCDC band wherever it was proposed to be the basis for setback measurements.³ The purpose of shoreline setbacks is to protect wetlands, and because the BCDC band varies substantially by location and its definition does not consider wetland habitat location, the wetland delineation is a more appropriate tool.

MM BIO-10.1 is very thorough in its requirements protecting sensitive wetland habitats. It requires all properties on the shoreline and those that include or sit adjacent to wetlands to have wetland delineations performed during or prior to project design. However, this measure does not address heights, stepbacks, and setbacks defined in the DSPU and analyzed under Land Use in this DSEIR.

• Because all shoreline properties will be required to obtain wetland delineations under MM BIO-10.1, we recommend that the inner edge of delineated wetland be used as the basis for all shoreline setbacks, stepbacks or height decisions, documented through a new Land Use impact analysis and mitigation.

DOCUMENT CORRECTIONS

• 2.1 Project Location
  The project location has multiple errors.
  1. “Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve” is not the correct name for the lands described. The marshes lining the shoreline from Bay Road to Runnymede Street are the Faber-Laumeister Unit of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge).
  2. Lands referred to as “16 acres of restored wetland/marsh areas at the northern and eastern areas of the Specific Plan area” are inaccurately described. These are legacy tidal marshlands and have not been restored.
      
• 2.3.2 Maximum Building Height
  The description states: “The maximum building heights range from approximately 30’ to 122’ above the ground surface. The DSPU’s height standards would allow the tallest buildings (seven to eight stories, between 104 and 122 feet above the ground surface) to occur at the eastern end of the Specific Plan area.⁴ While this lists the allowable height of buildings up to the roof, it misrepresents by omitting mention that roof-based equipment may add up to 30 feet in height depending on the use proposed for the building.
  • Please add a statement that rooftop equipment may increase height above the rooftop by up to 30 feet.
     
• Figure 2.3-4
  The legend of this map does not explain the meaning of the letters A to F seen on the map.
   
• Section 3.10
  In the last line of the discussion of Flood Hazard Existing Conditions, the text on page 235 refers the reader to a Non-CEQA discussion in “Section 3.10.3”. There is no such section. We believe the intended reference is 3.11.3.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION CATEGORIES

SECTION 3.2 - AESTHETICS
We appreciate that the DSEIR includes an evaluation of aesthetic impacts, despite these being omitted from the scope of analysis in the Notice of Preparation for this project. The inclusion of Policy LU-3.7 and Policy POS-1.10 in the DSPU, which establish building height limits and stepback requirements to preserve view corridors, is a welcome response to community concerns. These policies, along with the 2013 Specific Plan Policy 13.8, which encourages projects to enhance views of natural resources and mandates viewshed analysis for potential developments, show a commendable effort to address the community's high interest in reducing building heights and preserving view corridors.

However, we are concerned about the substantial exceptions to the height limits for the Waterfront Office (WO) and Ravenswood Employment Center (REC) zones. While the height limits for these zones are set at 120 feet and 60 feet, respectively, both zones allow exceptions that could significantly impact the area’s aesthetics.

In the WO zone, exceptions permit rooftop equipment to extend an additional 30 feet above the height limit, resulting in a potential maximum height of 150 feet, rather than the stipulated 120 feet. Similarly, in the REC zone, a building with a height of 60 feet could have rooftop equipment that raises the total height to 90 feet—a 50% increase. These exceptions are particularly concerning because they apply to zones adjoining major view corridors identified in the DSPU. However, the impact analysis fails to address these exceptions and refers only to the plan area’s maximum height of 120 feet.

Recommended Mitigation Measures

1. General: Rooftop equipment exceptions should be limited to approximately one story in height. If the equipment exceeds this height, it should be counted as a floor within the basic height limit—120 feet in the WO zone, and 60 feet in the REC zone.
2. Setbacks for facades facing wetlands: The DSPU requires a 10-foot setback for rooftop equipment. However for facades facing the Bay or marsh areas, this equipment and its screening will be visible from the Bay Trail and make the buildings appear taller than their allowable height. Additionally, the equipment enclosures could cause unwanted shading of the wetlands, which is to be avoided. Therefore, at facades facing wetlands, rooftop equipment and screening should be set back from the roof’s edge using a 45-degree view line from the wetlands delineation line to the edge of the roof.

SECTION 3.3 - AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 
The DSEIR predicts that implementation of the DSPU would result in a considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (Impact AIR-2) and greenhouse gas emissions (Impact GRG-1) that would be significant and unavoidable. Nevertheless, it is crucial that every possible effort be made to mitigate them. The health and well-being of East Palo Alto residents—who already experience disproportionate levels of pollution and related health issues—should be prioritized. Even if full mitigation is not achievable, reducing these impacts as much as possible is imperative.

Address Significant and Unavoidable Air Quality Impacts in East Palo Alto
The DSEIR presents alarming findings regarding the anticipated increase in air pollution, including ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions. These pollutants are already disproportionately high in industrial areas and along transportation corridors, such as those in East Palo Alto, which lies along the heavily congested Highway 101 corridor and hosts numerous small industrial businesses.^5,6

The DSEIR acknowledges that East Palo Alto residents currently face significantly higher rates of asthma-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations compared to the San Mateo County average. Specifically, asthma hospitalization rates for children in East Palo Alto are nearly triple those of the County (15.0 versus 6.6 per 1,000 children), with rates for all ages being 40% higher than the County and above the statewide average.⁷

The DSEIR further indicates that the implementation of the 2013 Specific Plan and Options 1 and 2 of the 2024 Specific Plan Update would result in substantial increases in traffic on Bay Road, with projected increases of 25%, 41%, and 46%, respectively, even after assuming a 30% trip reduction due to the City’s Traffic Demand Management (TDM) requirements. The resulting rise in criteria pollutants, including ROG, NOx, and PM10, is noted, yet the DSEIR asserts that the associated health effects would be "not measurable" due to limitations in current modeling tools.⁸

We challenge this conclusion. It is both feasible and essential to monitor pollutant concentrations at the most congested locations prior to implementing any alternative of the DSPU to establish a reliable baseline. Ongoing monitoring post-implementation can then quantify any changes in pollutant emissions attributable to the project. If local pollutant concentrations increase, it is imperative that additional mitigation measures be implemented to protect the health of nearby residents. The potential for increased local pollutant concentrations leading to adverse health outcomes is unacceptable and must be proactively addressed.

Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The DSEIR also predicts significant and unavoidable increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to the implementation of the 2013 Specific Plan and both scenarios of the 2024 Specific Plan Update. These increases directly conflict with East Palo Alto’s Climate Action Plan 2030, which aims to reduce GHG emissions to 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Yet, the only mitigation measure identified in the DSEIR is to implement TDM standards. Even if GHG emissions cannot be reduced to less than significant levels, every effort should be made to reduce them as much as feasible.

In addition, we urge the City to pursue the following city-wide strategies to reduce the significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts identified in the DSEIR.

1. Electric Transportation Initiatives: Require all transportation shuttles serving the plan area to be electric and advocate for zero-emission SamTrans buses in the area.
2. Incentives for Electric Vehicle Adoption: The City of East Palo Alto should offer significant incentives for residents to purchase electric vehicles, using Development Impact Fees to fund this program and mitigate air quality impacts.
3. City-Wide Electrification: Promote the electrification of existing residential, commercial, and industrial buildings throughout East Palo Alto, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and helping to offset project-related GHG emissions.
4. Solar Energy Expansion: Encourage the installation of rooftop solar systems with battery backup on existing buildings city-wide, further contributing to the reduction of GHG emissions.

Development Impact Fees should be utilized to fund these initiatives, ensuring that new development aligns with both air quality and climate goals. These measures are crucial to protect the health and well-being of East Palo Alto residents and ensure that future development is sustainable and equitable.

SECTION 3.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
We were pleased to find discussion, analysis and mitigation that often was very detailed and covered issues that we had identified in our earlier scoping comments. Clearly there is a strong intention to protect sensitive species and habitat. While we provide additional comments here, we do so with an eye on strengthening this analysis along with habitat and species protections.

3.4.1.1 Regulatory Framework, Sensitive Habitat Regulations
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is omitted. As the RBD adjoins the Bay, it is possible that NMFS may need to be involved if shoreline development impacts fish habitats.

3.4.1.2 Existing Conditions

• The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) “band” is inaccurately described as “BCDC’s shoreline jurisdiction extends 100 feet inland from those areas of Bay jurisdiction.” Actually, the BCDC band extends 100 feet inland from the mean high tide line. A portion or even all of the band may lie offshore as happens in/adjoining the RBD.

• This section accurately describes the RBD footprint. However, given its extensive adjacency and potential impacts to shoreline marshlands, it should mention the lands held by the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

• Movement Corridors: The discussion of corridors does not mention the movement corridor that exists all along the marsh edges bordering and within the RBD footprint. This corridor, roughly the upland edges of the marsh, serves as high tide refugia and as a movement corridor for both migrating marsh and upland species such as the grey fox. This corridor is integral to the health and connectivity of wildlife.

Table 3.4-1 Special Status Species re: Ridgway’s rail
“Occurrence in Ravenswood/4 Corners”: This table identifies lands within the RBD Area and adjoining the northeast part of the project that are known habitat for California Ridgway’s rails (RIRA).

Special Status Species: General Comment, Mitigation Requirements

1. By definition, Special Status Species, plant or animal, are listed-species that fall under one or more categories of jurisdiction by Resource Agencies (USFWS, CDFW, NMFS) or CNPS/CDFW rare plant protocols.
2. Over the duration of the SPU, perhaps decades, the protective requirements and protocols of Resource Agencies may change for any Special Status species discussed in the DSEIR. An example: the CDFW has initiated the State process to move the Western Burrowing Owl to a category requiring increased regulatory overview, a decision due possibly in 2025. Through such agency actions, mitigation actions as written in this DSEIR are likely to become outdated. In fact, we do not know if these agencies would agree fully with the mitigations proposed. For that reason, draft species and habitat mitigation plans must be reviewed in consultation with the appropriate resource agency before they are finalized, essentially certified as appropriate, prior to submission to the City.
3. MM BIO-1.3 mandates that “A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) shall be developed by a qualified biologist or restoration ecologist and implemented for the mitigation lands on a project-by-project basis.” Please add the following to the list of information that must be included in a HMMP: a lighting plan/analysis for parcels adjacent to habitat areas to ensure that no light trespass encroaches into habitat areas.
4. We note that the BIO mitigation measures are, overall, quite detailed. It is unfortunate then that most of these mitigation measures for Special Status Species and their habitats, including: MM BIO-1.1, 1.2. 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 9.1, and 10.2, omit consultation with the appropriate Resource Agencies before or during project design. Each of those mitigations needs to be corrected to require such consultation. That omission can be corrected in the text of each mitigation measure or by creating a new mitigation measure that applies to all actions with special status species.
5. The DSEIR correctly cites the use of “qualified” biologist but does not further define the qualifications. In the SEIR or perhaps in an associated glossary, the term should be clarified with substantial, species-specific qualifications, including related experience, advanced studies and/or career specialization involving the species and habitats of concern.
6. MM BIO-10.1 will require that wetland delineations must be performed to identify areas of jurisdictional wetlands. As those sensitive tidal habitats lie within and directly adjoining the SPU Area, we are concerned that the DSEIR does not require consultation with Resource Agencies or with landowners (MROSD, USFWS / Refuge) prior to any physical entry into these lands, to determine if permits are needed prior to entry, and to avoid actions that can potentially cause a “take” of a special status species. We ask that such a mitigation requirement be added to the SEIR.

MM BIO-2.2: Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Salt Marsh Wandering Shrew Compensatory Mitigation
The mitigation recommended: “...will be provided via the purchase of credits from a conservation bank or mitigation bank that has restored suitable salt marsh habitat for these species; project-specific mitigation via the preservation and management of suitable habitat for this species; or some combination of the two approaches.”

This mitigation does not consider actions that could sustain and enhance the long-term environmental health of the marshes that line the RBD shoreline. The more robust the marsh, the better it can serve the special status species it supports and the longer it can serve as protective natural infrastructure for sea level rise. Certain actions appear to be available such as:

1. Hydrology serving the inner marsh (between the Bay Trail and the fixed shoreline) might be improved by enhanced tidal flow in the unnamed slough in its northerly reach between the Bay and the inner marsh. In its northwesterly area, the inner marsh is of lower quality than elsewhere. It appears that berms placed in the area between the railroad right-of-way and the boundary of the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (OSP) obstruct and reduce flow from the Bay.
2. Hydrology could also be improved by breaching or removing the existing Bay Trail berm that is a boundary for the Ravenswood OSP. As the trail may need to be maintained until an alternate route is available, breaching combined with a bridge structure could be used.
3. Increased sediment deposition is needed to sustain the marshes longer as the sea level rises. Similar to the hydrology water supply issue described above, existing non-natural berms along the Bay-facing edges of both the Ravenswood OSP and the adjoining northerly wetlands obstruct tidal delivery of sediment that could otherwise help build up the marsh beds. Such changes benefit both the special status species and shoreline integrity.

Special Status Species: Omitted Recovery Plan References
Please add the following US Fish & Wildlife Service documents to the references for the species named:

1. California Ridgway’s rail and the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse: Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California¹⁰
2. Western Snowy Plover: Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan¹¹

MM BIO-2.3 Prohibit Rodenticides
The measure states: “The use of rodenticides shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any salt marsh habitat.” With a shoreline that attracts avian predators that can cover substantial distances in search of prey, there is a high likelihood some of these birds will consume a poisoned rodent and die as a result.

MM BIO-2.4 Pesticide Use
We are concerned that this mitigation may be inadequate to protect surface, groundwater and Bay water quality, fish, and other wetland species that may be harmed by inappropriate choice and use of pesticides. Choice of pesticide products needs to follow NPDES¹² requirements. Per the State Water Board: “Except for discharges on tribal lands that are regulated by a federal permit, this General Permit covers the point source discharge to waters of the United States of residues resulting from pesticide applications using products containing 2,4-D, acrolein, copper, diquat, endothall, flumioxazin, fluridone, glyphosate, hydrogen peroxide, imazamox, imazapyr, penoxsulam, peroxyacetic acid, sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate, and triclopyr-based algaecides and aquatic herbicides, and adjuvants containing ingredients represented by the surrogate nonylphenol.”

On a shoreline with groundwater levels no deeper than six feet and in some places emergent, there is substantial concern for groundwater contamination in addition to runoff into the Bay and surrounding marshes. Even at 100 feet from the shoreline, strong winter rains can carry pesticides to the Bay, especially if repeated applications increase presence of pesticide residue.

Impact BIO-8 and Impact BIO-1
Dark Skies and Light Impacts
We appreciate the quality of the mitigation measures included under Impact BIO-8 and the inclusion of light mitigation in Special Status discussion in Section 3.4. We add a few comments here that we feel will make the mitigations more effective.

Bird Safe Design
We are pleased to see updates to the Bird Safe Design standards of the 2013 Specific Plan. Overall, we agree with the updates suggested. We do recommend one change to the Proposed Specific Plan Update Bird Standard 6.8.4 (p. 143):

6. Bird-safe glazing treatments may include any of the following:
   • Fritting
   • Netting
   • Permanent stencils
   • Frosted glass
   • Exterior screens
   • Physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing
   • Ultraviolet (UV) patterns visible to birds

MM BIO-9.1 Implement Invasive Weed Best Management Practices (BMPs)
The mitigation measure provides good standards for control of invasive weeds both during and after construction. For post-construction we recommend prohibiting use of landscaping blowers within at least 100 feet of the marsh edge. Non-native and invasive seeds become airborne and can spread even further by breezes more prevalent along the shore. On a continuous basis, prohibiting use of blowers will reduce spread of seeds, dust and debris into the marshes. Please add a bullet to enact this prohibition.

Policies protecting Biological Resources
On p.143 of the DSEIR, impact analysis discussion responds to this question:

The discussion does not mention local policies pertinent to adjoining and potentially impacted wetlands:

1. US Fish and Wildlife Service: Comprehensive Conservation Plan of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge¹³
2. MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District: As the District manages the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve in part under permits issued by various agencies, the District should be consulted regarding its policies that are protective of the Preserve.

SECTION 3.6 - ENERGY
The DSEIR appropriately emphasizes the importance of green building certification by requiring that new residential, commercial, or mixed-use buildings over 20,000 square feet achieve LEED Silver certification (or equivalent), in addition to meeting the minimum CALGreen code requirements. This aligns with the City's broader sustainability goals and reflects a commitment to reducing environmental impacts through responsible building practices.

Furthermore, in September 2023, the City adopted the 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Adaptation Strategies. The 2030 CAP outlines the City's ambitious target of reducing per capita carbon emissions by 55 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, with the ultimate goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. These targets are essential for addressing the climate crisis and ensuring a sustainable future for our community.

However, we are concerned that the DSEIR may not adequately address the significant energy impacts associated with the inclusion of Life Sciences/Biotech labs in the Research & Development (R&D) land use category. This inclusion represents a departure from the 2013 Specific Plan, yet the associated increase in energy consumption has not been properly recognized or mitigated in the DSEIR.

Life Sciences and Biotech labs typically consume five to ten times more energy than traditional office spaces due to their need to operate complex equipment, powerful HVAC systems, and specialized exhaust and containment systems. These labs require far greater ventilation and are often home to high-energy equipment that operates 24 hours a day. Additionally, the unique air-handling arrangements and increased cooling loads required by lab equipment further contribute to their substantial energy demands. Given these factors, the introduction of Life Sciences labs into the R&D category represents a significant change that warrants thorough analysis and appropriate mitigation in the DSEIR.

SECTION 3.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation of Groundwater Rise Impacts
We appreciate that the DSEIR incorporates DSPU Standard 9.7.6 as a mitigation measure for addressing liquefaction concerns as reflected in GEO MM-2. The requirement for groundwater studies under this standard is crucial for ensuring that potential risks associated with liquefaction are properly mitigated. However, upon reviewing the entirety of Section 3.7, it is evident that Standard 9.7.6 is similarly relevant to other mitigation measures, including GEO MM-1, GEO MM-3, GEO MM-4, and GEO MM-5, as well as to Impact Question e) on page 184 and the discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 3.7.2.2 (p. 187).

That said, it is a major concern that Standard 9.7.6 is limited to shoreline properties given that a much broader portion of the DSPU area may be exposed to higher risks associated with the various geological impacts discussed in Section 3.7 when groundwater rise is taken into account. Moreover, there is potential for these impacts to affect, or to be exacerbated by, conditions on adjoining lands with similar groundwater characteristics.

Shallow groundwater rise is a pervasive issue that affects nearly all geology impacts discussed in Section 3.7. This includes repeated references to liquefaction throughout the Section. Groundwater rise is relevant to discussion regarding the exacerbation of expansive soils, vertical movement, settlement, and lateral spreading—all of which could produce more severe outcomes as groundwater levels rise. Standard 9.7.6 explicitly identifies threats from shallow groundwater, such as buoyancy, seepage, infiltration, liquefaction, corrosion, and contaminant mobilization, as significant threats to both developed and undeveloped environments. Below-ground disruptions associated with utilities, basements, below-ground garages, and septic tanks raise a concerning risk that shallow groundwater may be redirected to adjoining properties, including the Baylands, potentially redistributing buried contaminants to nearby locations.

When these factors are considered together, the cumulative impacts that may affect the SPU Area could become significant. It is important to note that the 2013 SP did not include any policy regarding shallow groundwater rise. That is understandable given that relevant science and reports detailing the impacts of sea level rise on shallow groundwater have only emerged in recent years. Given direct DSEIR relevance, we provide links to some of these recent studies.^14,15,16

Our comments on the DSPU document strongly recommended that a policy like Standard 9.7.6 be applied across the entire SPU Area. “The Specific Plan area is entirely located within a State designated liquefaction hazard zone.” That MM GEO-2 finding alone seems sufficient to support SPU Area-wide application of Standard 9.7.6 requirements.

Recommendation: We recommend that mitigations GEO MM-1, -3, -4 and -5 all include Standard 9.7.6. While the DSEIR has already done so in GEO MM-2, structural integrity issues could be even greater due to shallow groundwater, particularly in relation to lateral spreading, vertical movement, differential settlement, and expansive soils. If the final SPU expands Standard 9-7-6 we ask that the change be incorporated in Section 7 mitigations.

SECTION 3.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The DSEIR does not provide sufficient basis to conclude that proffered mitigations will result in Less than Significant Impact and Less than Significant Cumulative Impact for IMPACT HAZ-1,

or as answer to items b and c of the CEQA checklist:

2. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
3. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The additional information needed to answer these questions relates to existing soil and groundwater contamination and hydrology within the RBD, and includes the following:

• Identification of health-protective cleanup standards for the RBD
• Detailed assessment of existing soil and groundwater contamination
• Impacts of groundwater rise on contaminant mobilization
• Descriptions of mitigation measures that may be required
• Potential impacts to the environment

The DSEIR cites policies LU-5.1 through LU-5.6 from the draft SPU that are intended to provide protection from chemical exposures, whether from legacy contamination or from future industrial chemical usage within the RBD. Evaluation of chemical impacts is also related to Standard 9.7.6: “Shallow Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment and Mitigation,” which requires a geotechnical assessment of potential contaminant mobilization.

None of the above policies provide protection to residents outside of the RBD, other than students at schools within one-quarter mile of a project. Policy LU-5.1 requires each project to evaluate whether “remedial measures are needed to protect the health and safety of site occupants and construction workers.” Policy LU-5.2 likewise sets requirements for protection of onsite workers and future site residents from chemical hazards released during construction. Offsite residents (including sensitive populations) are not protected. There are no policies in the DSEIR requiring evaluation of soil or groundwater contamination impacts on the environment. Thus, the DSEIR analysis of IMPACT HAZ-1 is incomplete and the mitigations are inadequate to conclude that there will be less than significant “hazard to the public and the environment.”.

Additionally, neither the DSPU nor the DSEIR address the major, and possibly cost-prohibitive, challenges posed by building in a heavily contaminated area that will be impacted by rising groundwater. The level of concern among some regulators is such that a spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated that, at the ROMIC site on Bay Road, “development is unlikely.”¹⁷ When the DSEIR states that mitigations will be performed, identification of specific mitigations are deferred to the individual projects. There is no assurance that mitigation measures that would achieve sufficient cleanup within a reasonable timeframe, or under conditions of emergent groundwater are feasible. Under CEQA, an EIR is inadequate if it fails to suggest mitigation measures, or if its suggested mitigation measures are so undefined that it is impossible to evaluate their effectiveness.¹⁸

Recommendation: The following changes to the DSEIR and Appendices are requested, to more accurately evaluate chemical hazards.

Establish program-wide, default cleanup standards for the Plan Area. Policy LU-5.1 uses the results of a Phase I ESA to determine the need for additional sampling, but does not identify the contaminant levels that will trigger additional investigation or remediation. Multiple regulatory agencies (RWQCB, USEPA, and DTSC) have oversight over properties within the Plan Area with known or suspected contamination. Cleanup requirements across these properties are not uniform and do not provide equal levels of health protection for a given land use. The DSEIR should list default health-protective, maximum allowable contaminant soil concentrations for residential and industrial uses, and for construction workers. For properties with contaminants above those levels, developers should be required to perform a multi-pathway human health risk assessment to determine site-specific cleanup levels. The DSEIR should define the circumstances that would mandate an ecological risk assessment and require the developer to work with the RWQCB to define site-specific conditions triggering remedial action.

Without area-wide standards protective of human health and the environment, individual property owners may develop separate plans that are not protective of human health. For example, in March 2024, RWQCB approved a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for seven properties north of Bay Road within the Ravenswood Industrial Area (RIA) owned by Sycamore Real Estate LLC.19 The RMP is described as an attachment to the Land Use Covenant (LUC) for those properties, intended to ensure that future development is protective of onsite and offsite human exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in reused soil or fill placed above a durable cap. However, the allowable concentrations in surface soil are Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) that are intended as indicators of a need for further evaluation, not final cleanup levels. RWQCB guidance (page 1-5) states:

Upon approving the RMP, which applies only to the properties listed and only to VOCs in soil, RWQCB issued Order R2-2024-0003 rescinding the previous cleanup orders for all 29 properties in the Ravenswood Industrial Area (RIA), including those that, as the DSEIR (p. 215) states, “have not yet been investigated or remediated.”²² The Order notes that pollutants at these properties other than VOCs include “petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and metals”. Other than the light fraction of petroleum (e.g., benzene), none of these contaminants would be addressed by the VOC mitigation measures described in the RMP and would continue to pose risk to human health.

Revise and Expand the Screening Level Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). Policy LU-5.1 requires property-specific Phase I ESAs for all development projects, an appropriate first step. However, the scope of the DSEIR ESA (Appendix D), which is used to support the “No Significant Impact” conclusion, was limited to a review of “selected, readily available public information” [page D-8]. Primary sources of contaminant monitoring data, such as the 1995 USEPA Brownfields Program Phase II report and groundwater analyses in the DTSC GAMA database, were not compiled or evaluated. There is no attempt to compare existing concentrations to screening levels. The SEIR should summarize current RWQCB and DTSC cleanup requirements for residential and industrial/commercial use and note any that have changed since the 1980s, as earlier cleanup levels may not be considered health-protective today. The SEIR ESA should identify data gaps for all properties, such as the lack of any data on emerging contaminants (e.g., PFAS), failure to analyze for all likely contaminants of concern, and measurements conducted by older analytical methods with detection limits above applicable cleanup levels.

As noted above, the RWQCB Orders in Appendix A of the ESA were rescinded and superseded by Order No. R2-2024-0003. The ESA and SEIR should summarize the current remediation status and any required cleanup levels for all 29 properties within the RIA, as it is unclear what requirements apply to the 22 parcels not called out in the Sycamore Real Estate Investments RMP.

Evaluate impacts of groundwater rise on contaminant mobilization and on current and future remediation efforts. Standard 9.7.6 (pp. xxxvi, 180) requires projects to evaluate vulnerability to contaminant mobilization due to groundwater rise, but only for “shoreline-adjacent” projects. This limitation is inappropriate. The SPUR study²³ concludes that most of the RBD south of Bay Road will experience flooding by emergent groundwater with two feet of seawater rise, projected to occur by the end of the century. With three feet of rise, nearly 60 percent of East Palo Alto is projected to be inundated.

The DSEIR fails to consider this impact, stating only that shoreline-adjacent properties shall “submit a list of project measures that will monitor and mitigate seasonal and permanent emergent groundwater impacts.” This statement is very vague and provides no indication of what mitigations might be possible. Raising new developments above the current ground elevation will not stop contaminated groundwater from migrating inland as the water table rises, where it could pose a risk to offsite residents. The SEIR should require all projects with soil contamination above default soil or groundwater cleanup levels to conduct a mobilization study.

Groundwater rise may damage, or render ineffective, existing or planned remediation infrastructure such as monitoring wells, extraction wells, slurry walls, and in-situ treatment. A durable cap, specified in RBD closure orders and Land Use Covenants (LUC), is not an appropriate long-term remedy for preventing contaminant migration, since groundwater rise may disrupt the cap. Neither the DSPU nor the DSEIR requires developments to evaluate and mitigate public health and environmental impacts associated with destruction of remediation systems.

Evaluate the adequacy of the soil cleanup levels and remediation plans for arsenic and other contaminants at the Rhone-Poulenc (Starlink Logistics) property and adjacent properties. The Final Cleanup Order for this site allows arsenic in surface soils up to 20 mg/kg for residential use (the South of Weeks operable unit (OU)), to 70 mg/kg for nonresidential use with deed restrictions and a durable cap (the Upland OU and Upland OU Annex), and to 500 mg/kg for “accessible” soils treated by chemical fixation.²⁴ These values are far higher than the current DTSC screening level of 0.11 mg/kg for residential use and 0.36 mg/kg for industrial use.²⁵ They are also far higher than the RWQCB ESLs for residential and industrial exposure to arsenic in shallow soils, 0.062 and 0.31 mg/kg respectively, and the 2.0 mg/kg ESL for construction workers (any land use, any depth).²⁶

Both DTSC and RWQCB recognize that even natural levels of arsenic can pose an excessive cancer risk; thus, they recommend a site-specific risk assessment. Such assessments often conclude that it is impractical to remediate below background levels. The Final Cleanup Order states that the 20 mg/kg residential limit is based on a soil background concentration. However, the RWQCB-accepted background concentration of arsenic in Bay Area urban soils is 11 mg/kg,²⁷ which is also the limit specified in a Harvest Properties RMP for imported fill at the Rhone-Poulenc site.²⁸ Also concerning is that the Order states that arsenic cleanup limits are adjusted to achieve an excess cancer risk of 1 in 10,000. Target risks in health risk assessments typically range from 1 in 10,000 (less protective) to 1 in one million (more protective). No explanation was provided as to why the least protective end of the risk range was selected for this site. The SEIR should provide more detail on how all the limits were developed and evaluate options to modify the Final Order for this site, based on newer arsenic toxicity information.

The EIR should require a geotechnical study at this site as specified in Standard 9.7.6, to evaluate the potential impact of future groundwater rise and increased aquifer salinity on the effectiveness of the remedial measures. Any future project on this property should be required to conduct a study to evaluate the potential for the following outcomes:

• Mobilization of arsenic and other inorganic elements in untreated and fixated soil. Studies have shown that saltwater intrusion in coastal aquifers can increase the solubility of inorganic arsenic.²⁹ The Final Cleanup Order omits cleanup requirements for other metals and metalloids present at elevated levels in soil (cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium) on the basis that the concentrations of these contaminants are generally correlated with that of arsenic. That correlation may not apply under different redox conditions, as can occur with saltwater intrusion. A geochemical evaluation is needed to better understand the mobility of all contaminants in untreated and fixated soils under high salinity conditions.
• Migration of contaminated groundwater to the Bay and to inland areas. The Final Cleanup Order has no requirement to remediate arsenic or other contaminants in groundwater, on the basis that there is no evidence of migration to the lower aquifer. This ignores the potential for discharge of shallow groundwater to the Bay or migration of the contaminant plume inland as sea level rises. Shallow groundwater is not used for drinking water in East Palo Alto, but due to the shallow depth of the water table, migration of contaminants inland could pose a risk to residents through contact with emergent groundwater or ingestion of home-grown produce.

Evaluate the potential for contamination at the Infinity Salvage property. Future use of this property as an open space or park, as proposed in the DSPU, could expose the City to high remediation costs. In addition to likely contamination of soil and groundwater from decades of automobile fluid leaks, the July 2024 fire at the facility may have deposited heavy metals, combustion byproducts and other contaminants on nearby properties and Bay wetlands. Evaluate contaminant impacts on estuarine ecosystems. The DSEIR does not address the potential for hazardous chemicals in soils and groundwater to impact the salt marsh/open water/tidal slough habitat adjacent to the RBD shoreline. Transport pathways by which contaminants could enter the Refuge include groundwater discharge, rainfall or flood water runoff, bank erosion, and dust deposition. The SEIR should evaluate whether development in the RBD could lead to contamination of habitat via these pathways, and identify regulations that would require mitigation if contamination occurs. Additionally, the SEIR should evaluate whether construction could disrupt the following existing remediation systems that protect the habitat in the channel and marsh bordering the RBD.

• Recent sampling and analysis of surface water in the channel adjacent to the ROMIC site suggests that an installed biobarrier is effective in preventing VOCs from entering the channel.³⁰ The SEIR should discuss whether development can occur at that site without disrupting that remediation system.
• The Final Cleanup Order for the Rhone-Poulenc (Starlink Logistics) site required placement of a barrier or slurry wall to prevent migration of contaminated groundwater to the marsh. The SEIR should discuss how development at that site can occur without disrupting that remediation system.

Impact AIR-2: Chemical Exposure Hazards to Site Workers and the Public During Construction. The DSEIR does not require projects to evaluate exposures to site workers and to nearby residents/sensitive populations from any air toxic other than diesel particulate matter. RMPs for each development should be required to evaluate risks from airborne transport and inhalation exposure for all chemicals of concern. We recommend requiring onsite and downwind VOC and particulate air sampling and analysis of the air samples for chemicals of concern at every project site where soil concentrations exceed cleanup levels.

SECTION 3.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Key issue: Inadequacy of Flood Impacts Analysis due to Shallow Groundwater Rise.
Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, reviews all the topics included in the 2013 Specific Plan EIR, while omitting the significant new environmental concern regarding impacts produced by rising levels of shallow groundwater. On that topic, while the DSPU proposed Standard 9.7.6 re shallow groundwater rise, there was no corresponding discussion in the Groundwater discussion in this Section. There should be.

This Section cites the City’s Vista 2035 General Plan which, under Safety and Noise, has:

That General Plan policy and the inclusion of a Shallow Groundwater Standard in the DSPU are a sufficient basis for analysis in Section 3.10. We see that Standard 9.7.6 does not include flooding among its list of potential impacts. But its inference is clear: shallow groundwater will rise. In a report on groundwater prepared for Sunnyvale, the San Francisco Estuary Institute included the following in its list of potential impacts:

Section 3.10 Groundwater discussion focuses on recharge of groundwater and notes that historical groundwater levels vary from zero to 10 feet below existing grade, citing California Geological Survey data from 2006. The discussion omits more recent data such as was the basis for the report, Look Out Below,³² a case study built on recent, substantial, and local scientific studies³³ that provided data specific to East Palo Alto. In it, maps displayed large areas of East Palo Alto and the SP Area with groundwater levels either at zero to six feet below grade or emergent. These areas lay along the shoreline, extend substantially inland and have underground flow adjacency with non-SPU areas. The Look Out Below map seen here includes an isolated zero to six feet site along University Avenue near 4 Corners.

While 9.7-6, as proposed, is limited to shoreline properties, recent data demonstrate that shallow groundwater impacts apply much more broadly in the SP Area. As shallow groundwater areas connect across project and Specific Plan boundaries, a development action in one location, such as a below-ground garage, can redirect subsurface water onto other parcels or the Bay, impacting conditions on those sites.

Recommendation: We ask that the Groundwater findings, analysis and mitigation be changed using more recent data. We have strongly recommended in our prior DSPU comment letter that 9.7.6 be corrected to apply to the entire SP Area as its potential impacts are broadly relevant to public and environmental safety and structural integrity inclusive of flooding.

We ask that the Section 3.10 findings, impact analysis and mitigation discussions regarding Groundwater, Storm Drainage Systems and Flood Hazards incorporate rising shallow groundwater with reference to DSPU Standard 9.7.6 and recent, scientific references on the topic.

SECTION 3.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
Development Standards

• DSPU Standard 9.7.6
  This new DSPU Standard requires shallow groundwater vulnerability assessment and mitigation of impacts such as buoyancy, seepage, infiltration, liquefaction, corrosion, and contaminant mobilization hazards for all shoreline-adjacent development projects. Standard 9.7.6 is included as GEO MM-2 in the DSEIR. As discussed above in our comments on Section 3.7 - Geology and Soils, shallow groundwater rise can contribute to several additional GEO Impacts identified in the DSEIR (beyond Impact GEO-2) and expose a much broader portion of the DSPU area to higher risks associated with the various geological impacts discussed in Section 3.7. Additionally, as noted in this letter’s Hydrology section, recent mapping suggests that groundwater rise could also exacerbate flood risks well beyond shoreline-adjacent parcels.

• Setbacks and Stepbacks
  As discussed in the Biological Resources section of this letter, MM BIO-10.1 requires all properties on the shoreline and those that include or sit adjacent to wetlands to have wetland delineations performed during or prior to project design.

• Height Limits
  As discussed in the Aesthetics section of this letter, we are concerned about substantial exceptions to DSPU’s height limit standards that would allow rooftop equipment to extend up to 30 feet beyond a building’s height limit. In some zones, this could effectively raise the total height by 50 percent. Such an effect would run counter to the DSPU’s Key Community-Generated Land Use and Design Goal #7: Enhance public views of the Bay³⁴ and the DSPU’s stated intention to “reduce the apparent size of buildings.”³⁵

• Specific Plan Update Policy LU-6.4
  We appreciate the retention of this policy from the 2013 Specific Plan. However, in the years since that plan was adopted, the scientific and policy communities have become much more aware and concerned about the threat and impacts of shallow groundwater rise and groundwater displacement due to rising sea levels. As such, it is appropriate to update Policy LU-6.4 to reflect this more recent, but substantial concern.

SECTION 3.13 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
Failure to Analyze Indirect Displacement Impacts
The DSEIR concludes that direct displacement impacts will be less than significant due to a net gain in housing units and no net loss of affordable housing. Additionally, it notes that displaced residents would be protected by tenant safeguards. However, in East Palo Alto, the greater risk may come from indirect displacement, particularly gentrification resulting from the creation of thousands of jobs that may be inaccessible to current residents.

East Palo Alto faces significant socio-economic challenges, including a very low jobs-to-employed residents ratio (0.35 compared to 1.0 County-wide),³⁶ high levels of moderate to severe household overcrowding (26% versus 8% County-wide),³⁷ and a large segment of the population with limited educational attainment. According to the Vista 2035 General Plan, 35% of adults over 25 have not completed high school, and another 45% lack Associate or Bachelor’s degrees.³⁸ In a March 23, 2021, City Council Study Session, City staff presented data showing the correlation between educational attainment and income, as well as employment sector trends in East Palo Alto.³⁹ Given this context, both residents and the City Council have consistently stressed the importance of job fit to counteract gentrification and displacement as the City grows.

Displacement concerns are already pronounced in East Palo Alto. Currently, 64.7% of households live in neighborhoods “susceptible to or experiencing displacement.”⁴⁰ An impact analysis presented by the City’s Specific Plan Update (SPU) consultant in September 2021 indicated that 25% of East Palo Alto households—approximately 2,045 households—could be vulnerable to displacement due to the DSPU growth scenarios.⁴¹ The analysis also revealed that the maximum affordable rent for households in industrial, tech office, or research and development sectors could be 2.5 to 3 times higher than what current East Palo Alto residents can afford. Thus, existing residents could struggle to compete with new employees for limited housing supply in the City. Compounding displacement impacts, the real estate market in neighboring cities is already cost-prohibitive for most East Palo Alto residents.

Although the DSEIR projects an improvement in the jobs-to-housing ratio by adding up to 11,340 new jobs under the DSPU, it does not assess whether these jobs will be accessible to local residents. If a significant portion of these jobs is unattainable by the local workforce, the potential benefits of an improved jobs-housing balance may bypass the very community it is meant to serve.

Furthermore, the DSEIR acknowledges that the DSPU “would not provide sufficient new housing to accommodate the net new jobs generated.” If there is a poor job fit, this could lead to an influx of commuters competing for existing housing, worsening gentrification and displacement.

Recommendations

1. Use Jobs per Employed Resident Ratio: Replace the jobs-per-housing unit metric with the jobs-per-employed resident ratio.
2. Utilize Local Data and Analyze Job Fit: The SEIR should include a detailed analysis of how the new jobs created under the DSPU will align with the qualifications and skill levels of existing residents. While Plan Bay Area 2050 may not offer city-specific data, the City’s presentations on March 23, 2021, and September 22, 2021, suggest that relevant data and analysis are available.
3. Analyze and Mitigate City-Specific Indirect Displacement Vulnerability: The SEIR should incorporate a job fit analysis as well as local data on displacement vulnerability, such as income, education, employment and household overcrowding—outlined in the Adopted 2023-2035 Housing Element and the September 22, 2021 Public Workshop #2 presentation—into its analysis of indirect displacement impacts.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan Update DSEIR. We look forward to continued engagement in the Specific Plan Update process.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Chang Hetterly
Bay Alive Campaign Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Eileen McLaughlin
Board Member
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge

Alice Kaufman
Policy and Advocacy Director
Green Foothills

Chris MacIntosh
Conservation Chair
Sequoia Audubon Society

¹ July 22, 2024 Joint Comment Letter responding to the Draft Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan Update from Sierra Club, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, Green Foothills and Sequoia Audubon Society, p. 12. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TzRUC1NEebClmqhwGseey1bfHNUf-Lle/view?usp=sharing

² Sunnyvale MPSP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, July 2023, p. 23,10.3.1-2, Attachment 5 at: https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6279900&GUID=3D3D73F4-F04E-4923-B1EB-857C1239B1FD

³ Ibid, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10.

⁴ DSEIR, p. 14.

⁵ Krieger, L. (2024) ‘Some Bay Area neighborhoods breathe more hazardous air. Here’s where they are.’ The Mercury News 7 September. Available at: https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/08/07/some-bay-area-neighborhoods-breathe-more-hazardous-air-heres-where-they-are/?share=meitro0sww4arnenie8o (Accessed 6 September 2024).

⁶ Strawa, A., Clark, A., Naegel, B., Thompson, J., Bello, O., Angel, B., Zaragoza, F., Becerra, C., Lima, R., Ruiz, I. (2021). Air Quality and Traffic Congestion in East Palo Alto. AGU Fall Meeting 2021, held in New Orleans, LA, 13-17 December 2021, id. A15P-06. Available at: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AGUFM.A15P..06S/abstract (Accessed 6 September 2024).

⁷ Vista 2035 East Palo Alto General Plan, page 7-2

⁸ Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan Update Draft Sequential Environmental Impact Report, page 123.

⁹ Olafson Consulting, 2023 California Ridgway’s Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project. See Figure 8, p. 23.

¹⁰ US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013: Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California: https://www.fws.gov/project/california-tidal-marsh-ecosystem-recovery

¹¹ US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007: Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/070924_2.pdf

¹² State Water Resources Control Board, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticides - Weed Control: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/npdes/pesticides/weed_control.html#:~:text=Except%20for%20discharges%20on%20tribal,represented%20by%20the%20surrogate%20nonylphenol.

¹³ US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012, Comprehensive Conservation Plan of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/43999

¹⁴ SPUR, Map, Current Groundwater Levels, Look Out Below, Case Study of East Palo Alto, p.18, May 2024. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/SPUR_Look_Out_Below.pdf

¹⁵ Pathways and the San Francisco Estuary Institute, Shallow Water Response to Sea Level Rise: Alameda, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. 2022. https://www.sfei.org/documents/shallow-groundwater-response-sea-level-rise-alameda-marin-san-francisco-and-san-mateo

¹⁶ SFEI, Sea-Level Rise Impacts on Shallow Water in Moffett Park, Report prepared for the City of Sunnyvale, November 2021. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e38a3dd6f9db304821e8e5e/t/61a7b37743ec4b770e11ee73/1638380421678/Moffett+Park+Specific+Plan+Groundwater+Addendum.pdf

¹⁷ USEPA, 2024. Former Romic, Bay Road Holdings, 2081 Bay Road, East Palo Alto, California. Presentation to Youth United for Community Action (YUCA) by Steve Armann, Manager, Corrective Action Office, EPA Region 9. January 24, 2024.

¹⁸ San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 79-80. The formulation of mitigation measures may not properly be deferred until after Project approval; rather, “[m]itigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or legally binding instruments.” CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a).

¹⁹ Ninyo and Moore, 2021. Area-Wide Risk Management Plan, Identified Properties Within the Ravenswood Industrial Area, East Palo Alto, California, C/O Sycamore Real Estate Investments LLC

²⁰ SF Bay RWQCB, 2019a. User’s Guide: Derivation and Application of Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). INTERIM FINAL 2019 (Revision 1), Prepared by: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

²¹ SF Bay RWQCB, 2019b. Frequently Asked Questions(FAQs). Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs): 2019 Update. Revision 1. Page 8.

²² SF Bay RWQCB, 2024. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION, ORDER NO. R2-2024-0003, RESCISSION OF SITE CLEANUP REQUIREMENTS (ORDER NOs. 92-037 and 92-086) for: The Former East Palo Alto Industrial Area, which is composed of 29 properties located within the boundaries of what was formerly known as the East Palo Alto Industrial Area (EPAIA) and/or the Ravenswood Industrial Area (RIA) in East Palo Alto, San Mateo County.

²³ SPUR, 2024. Look Out Below: Groundwater rise impacts on East Palo Alto — A case study for equitable Adaptation.

²⁴ SF Bay RWQCB, 2016. Starlink Logistics, Inc. (Formerly Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.), for 1990 Bay Road Site, East Palo Alto, San Mateo County - Adoption of Final Site Cleanup Requirements.

²⁵ HERO HHRA Note 3 June 2020. DTSC Recommended Screening Levels

²⁶ SF Bay RWQCB, 2019c. Environmental Screening Levels. 2019 (Rev. 2).

²⁷ Duverge, D. J., 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. Master’s thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University,December 2011.

²⁸ S.S. PAPADOPULOS & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2020. Construction Risk Management Plan, Addendum to the Comprehensive Site Management Plan, 1990 Bay Road Site East Palo Alto, California.

²⁹ LeMonte, J.J. et al., 2017. Sea level rise induced arsenic release from historically contaminated coastal soils. Envir. Sci. & Technol., V. 51, Issue 11.

³⁰ Ninyo and Moore, 2023. First Semiannual 2023 Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation Evaluation Report, Bay Road Holdings Site, 2081 Bay Road, East Palo Alto, California. October 20, 2023.

³¹ San Francisco Estuary Institute, Sea Level Rise Impacts on Shallow Groundwater in Moffett Park, A Technical to the Moffett Park Specific Plan November 2021, pp 21-22: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e38a3dd6f9db304821e8e5e/t/61a7b37743ec4b770e11ee73/1638380421678/Moffett+Park+Specific+Plan+Groundwater+Addendum.pdf

³² SPUR, Look Out Below, Groundwater Rise Impacts on East Palo Alto. A Case Study for Equitable Adaptation, May 2024, map excerpt from Exhibit 6, p. 17: https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/SPUR_Look_Out_Below.pdf

³³ Pathways Climate Institute and San Francisco Estuary Institute, Shallow Groundwater Response to Sea Level Rise,in Alameda, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, 2022: https://www.sfei.org/projects/shallow-groundwater-response-sea-level-rise

³⁴ DSPU, page 10

³⁵ Ibid, page 83

³⁶ Adopted City of East Palo Alto Housing Element 2023- 2031, page 2–40. Available at: https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/housing/page/23793/adopted_2023-2031_east

³⁷ Ibid, page 2-28.

³⁸ City of East Palo Alto Vista 2035 General Plan, page 5-2.

³⁹ Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan Update City Council Study Session, “Data Refresh” slide presentation: March 23, 2021. Available at: https://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=2350&MeetingID=1360 (Accessed September 7, 2024)

⁴⁰ Adopted City of East Palo Alto Housing Element 2023- 2031, page 2-24. Available at: https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/housing/page/23793/adopted_2023-2031_east_palo_alto_housing_element_.pdf (Accessed September 7, 2024).

⁴¹ Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan Update Public Workshop slide presentation: September 22, 2021, slide 40. Available at: https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/22863/rbd_workshop2_presentation092221_final.pdf (Accessed September 7, 2024).