Agenda packet, first session — East Palo Alto City Council, June 2, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

Future implementation actions could include amendments to the East Palo Alto Municipal Code and other City regulations and plans to facilitate improved preparation, response, and recovery from disasters. Although the proposed project contains policies that direct the City to explore amending land use or zoning regulations that would improve public safety and community resilience, the proposed project itself does not include these amendments. Until the details and scope of any such amendments are known, it is speculative and premature to evaluate environmental impacts. Subsequent amendments to the City’s land use or zoning regulations would be subject to a separate CEQA review at the time the amendments are prepared, if required. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from CEQA review.

2 California Government Code Sections 65302(g) and 65302.15 mandate that a Safety Element contain background information and policies to address multiple natural hazards, a climate change vulnerability assessment, policies and implementation actions to address climate change adaptation and resilience, and an assessment of residential areas with evacuation constraints.

California Government Code Sections 8685.9, 65302.6 requires the incorporation of the local hazard mitigation plan. 265

Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

_______________________________________________
Print Form
Notice of Exemption Appendix E
To: Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation From: (Public Agency): ____________________________ P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 _______________________________________________ Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk
(Address)
___________________________
___________________________
County of: __________________
Project Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Location - Specific:

Project Location - City: ______________________ Project Location - County:

Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
_____________________
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _____________________________________________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ________________________________________________ Exempt Status: (check one):

Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Reasons why project is exempt:

Lead Agency
Contact Person: ____________________________ Area Code/Telephone/Extension: _______________ If filed by applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: ____________________________ Date:

Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:

Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. _______________
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: ____________________________________ ______________________________________________
______________ Title: _______________________
Revised 2011
266
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-1

10. Safety and Noise
Overview
Protecting people and property from a variety of hazards (both natural and human-made) is one of the key
missions of any city. The residents of East Palo Alto face risks from natural and human-caused hazards like
flooding, extreme heat, severe weather, drought,
wildfire, seismic events like earthquakes, sea level rise, and contaminated soil and groundwater. Climate change
is expected to intensify many of these hazards, requiring proactive planning and adaptation.

East Palo Alto will take action to be more prepared for the dangers posed by natural hazards and more resilient when such unpredictable events occur. This element sets forth broad goals, policies, and actions to reduce harm to people and property from natural and human-made
hazards and promote resilience when such events occur.

For each action, this element identifies a relative
timeframe for implementation. Actions that correspond
to current City Council priorities, including ensuring
public safety, improving livability, and preparing the City for disasters and emergencies, are labeled as short-term items to be implemented in the near future.

This Element addresses these topics:
• Emergency Preparedness and Response
• Flooding
• Sea Level Rise
• Seismic and Geologic Hazards
• Fire Hazards
• Air Quality and Public Health
• Severe Weather
• Drought
• Extreme Heat
• Hazardous Materials
• Transportation Hazards
• Noise
In addition, area roadways and nearby airports expose
East Palo Alto residents to high and potentially unhealthy noise levels. The Safety and Noise Element identifies
major factors of concern as well as the City’s goals and policies intended to reduce risks to people and property.

For greater detail on the topics included in the Safety and Noise Element, refer to the Background Report
(Appendix A).

Climate Change Vulnerability
Climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing East Palo Alto. Rising global temperatures are
causing more frequent and intense heat waves, storms,
droughts, wildfires, and other hazards. These events
frequently occur concurrently, resulting in cascading
impacts that are progressively more difficult to manage, such as droughts amplifying wildfire risk or extreme heat exacerbating water scarcity. For East Palo Alto, climate change is expected to cause substantial shifts in hazard patterns, including more intense storms with heavier
precipitation, increased frequency and severity of
extreme heat events, rising sea levels that will expand flood-prone areas throughout the city, and emergent
groundwater that will cause flooding from below and
increase exposure risk from contamination buried in the ground.

East Palo Alto’s Vulnerability Assessment identifies
several key climate-related hazards that pose significant risks to the community. The Vulnerability Assessment
process follows the methodology outlined in the
California Adaptation Planning Guide, examining
exposure, sensitivity, potential impacts, and adaptive
capacity for various populations and community assets.

This approach ensures that East Palo Alto’s safety
planning is grounded in the best available data and
projections, including information from Cal-Adapt, the
California Adaptation Planning Guide, and the San Mateo County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. East Palo Alto’s Vulnerability Assessment reveals that the
267
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-2
hazards posing the greatest risk to the community
include flooding, severe weather, and extreme heat.

However, these climate impacts will not affect all
residents equally. Low-resourced households,
communities of color, immigrant communities, older
adults, and persons with disabilities are among the
populations most vulnerable to climate change hazards.

These groups often face barriers such as limited financial resources for home improvements, language barriers
that hinder access to emergency information, and
housing in areas with inadequate infrastructure or
limited tree canopy coverage. East Palo Alto’s residents have long been on the front lines of climate change and environmental justice issues, as the city is a densely
populated, ethnically diverse community with a median
income lower than San Mateo County’s average.

Recognizing these disparities, this Safety Element
prioritizes equitable adaptation strategies that protect the most vulnerable community members while building
overall community resilience. The full results of the
Vulnerability Assessment are available in Appendix B.

Statutory Requirements
California law requires that a general plan include
elements (or chapters) specifically addressing both safety and noise. This element was prepared to meet these
requirements (Government Code Sections 65302(f) and
65302(g)).

The safety section of the element must contain goals and policies to address seismic risks, including ground
shaking, landslides, tsunami and seiche; flooding; fire; climate change; evacuation routes; and water supply
requirements. These requirements include:
• Climate adaptation and resilience strategies based
on a Vulnerability Assessment, as required by Senate
Bill 379 (2015).
• Identification of residential developments with
fewer than two emergency access routes and
analysis of evacuation capacity, as required by
Senate Bill 99 (2019) and Assembly Bill 747 (2019).
• Evaluation of flood risks and policies to minimize
flood risks to new development, as required by
Assembly Bill 162 (2007).

As required by Senate Bill 1000 (2016), this General Plan includes an Environmental Justice Element to address
the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged
communities by reducing pollution exposure, increasing
community assets, and improving overall health.

California law defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin or income, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies”. Many environmental justice issues—such as
pollution exposure, access to safe homes, and access to effective public services—are closely connected to safety concerns addressed in this element. The goals and
policies in this Safety and Noise Element work in
coordination with the Environmental Justice Element to
ensure that safety planning addresses the
disproportionate risks faced by East Palo Alto’s most
vulnerable communities.

The San Mateo County Multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP) assesses the risks of hazards
and vulnerabilities from natural and human-caused
hazards. The MJLHMP identifies short-term (five-year)
mitigation actions to reduce these risks. It includes a dedicated annex for East Palo Alto, which specifies the community’s characteristics and history, development
trends, hazard mitigation capabilities, integration with other hazard mitigation planning efforts, and
vulnerabilities of specific facilities and infrastructure. San Mateo County led the development of the MJLHMP in
partnership with all incorporated communities, including East Palo Alto, and a number of special districts, in
accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s
Cascading and Compounding Effects
Cascading Effects: When an extreme event
causes a series of secondary events that are
larger than the initial impact.

Compounding Effects: When multiple hazards
or drivers occur simultaneously, amplifying their
collective impact.

Source: IPCC. 2019. Extremes, Abrupt Changes and
Managing Risk.
268
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-3
(FEMA) hazard mitigation assistance guidance. This
Safety and Noise Element incorporates by reference the
current San Mateo County Multi-jurisdictional Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan and East Palo Alto Annex, as
permitted by Government Code Section 65302.6. It is
available online at https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/2021-
multijurisdictional-lhmp.

This Safety and Noise Element also integrates with the
City’s 2030 Climate Action Plan and Adaptation
Strategies, which outlines strategies at both the
municipal and community-wide level to mitigate and
adapt to climate change. The Climate Action Plan
addresses energy efficiency, renewable energy use,
material reuse and recycling, public transportation,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, urban green spaces, and compact development patterns as important strategies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The plan also
includes adaptation measures for flooding, sea level rise, and other climate-related hazards that threaten the
community.

The noise section of the element must identify and
appraise noise problems in the community from a variety of sources, establish a land use pattern that minimizes exposure of residents to excessive noise, and include
possible solutions to address existing and foreseeable
noise problems.

Issues and Opportunities
Safety
Emergency Services and Preparedness
The City of East Palo Alto employs a multipronged
approach for mitigating, responding to, and recovering
from emergencies, integrating local police and fire
services with county-wide emergency management
systems and regional coordination efforts. This
comprehensive emergency preparedness framework
addresses the diverse natural and human-caused hazards
that can affect the community, from earthquakes and
flooding to hazardous materials incidents and severe
weather events.

Police Services
The East Palo Alto Police Department is led by the Chief of Police who manages a staff of (2) Captains, (4)
Sergeants, (3) CSO's, (8) Civilians, (2) Recruits and (25) Officers / Detectives. There was a total of 1,590 Group A Offenses per the National Incident-Based Reporting
System (NIBRS) in East Palo Alto in 2024 and a total of 1,634 Group A Offenses per NIBRS in 2023, resulting in a –3% change between these years. In 2023, 170 of the
crimes were classified by NIBRS as violent crimes and in 2024 171 of the crimes were classified as violent.

The East Palo Alto Police Department plays a crucial role in emergency response coordination, working closely
with the Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD), the San Mateo County Department of Emergency
Management, and emergency responders in neighboring
communities. During emergency evacuations, Police
Department officers lead evacuation efforts to ensure
they are conducted as quickly and safely as possible.

Fire and Emergency Medical Services
The City of East Palo Alto receives fire and emergency
services through MPFPD, which has seven stations and
serves the Cities of Atherton and Menlo Park and other
portions of unincorporated San Mateo County. MPFPD
provides a comprehensive array of life safety services to East Palo Alto, including fire prevention, inspection, and investigation, as well as firefighting, hazardous materials response, search-and-rescue, and paramedic services.

MPFPD operates with 150 personnel, responding to
approximately 11,000 calls for service annually. Staff at Station 2, which is in East Palo Alto, respond to
approximately 2,000 incidents annually, comprising
about one quarter of all of MPFPD’s annual emergency
responses, with more than half of annual calls being
medical emergencies. MPFPD reconstructed Station 2
starting in 2012 as an essential service building, designed to withstand and continue operating throughout any
type of major emergency.

For immediate response, at least 33 personnel are on
duty across MPFPD’s service territory at all times,
including two Battalion Chiefs responsible for
commanding incidents and relieving company officers
during multicompany emergency operations. Each
269
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-4
station provides at least one heavy fire engine and is
continuously staffed by at least three crew members.

MPFPD maintains seven engine fire companies, two
Truck/Ladder Companies, one EMS Rescue, one Type 1
Heavy Rescue Unit, and several water rescue crafts,
including airboat, rigid bottom inflatable boat, and jet skis. MPFPD also sponsors Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Urban Search and Rescue
Team Task Force 3.

Emergency Alert and Communication Systems
East Palo Alto uses multiple emergency alert systems to ensure comprehensive communication with residents
during emergencies. SMC Alert serves as the primary
alert system, used by numerous San Mateo County
agencies to issue flood, fire, severe weather, or tsunami warnings; notify the community about emergency
shelter locations; provide information about evacuation routes; and activate special teams such as Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers. The
system was upgraded in December 2022 with Rave
Mobile Safety as the new alerting platform. Community
members can receive alerts via email, cell phone, and
voice message to landline phones, with alerts available in multiple languages, including English, Spanish, and
Filipino.

Additional alert systems include Wireless Emergency
Alerts (WEAs), which broadcast short emergency
messages from authorized public alerting authorities to mobile devices in targeted areas, and the Genasys app
(formerly Zonehaven), which provides evacuation zone
mapping and real-time evacuation orders.

Evacuation Planning and Emergency Operations
The City supports community preparedness through
various volunteer programs, including CERT volunteers
trained by the MPFPD. San Mateo County’s Coastside
Emergency Corps provides additional volunteer support
for public safety and health efforts during emergencies, with specialized training in CERT, Ham radio, medical
response, large animal evacuation, Incident Command
System and Emergency Operations Center activities, and
Red Cross shelter operations.

Currently, there is no standardized county-wide
evacuation plan and East Palo Alto does not have a
publicly available evacuation plan. However, the City is participating in the county-wide All-Hazards Evacuation Plan, which began in 2024 and is expected to finish in
2026. This comprehensive study, led by the San Mateo
County Department of Emergency Management, will
analyze potential evacuation scenarios across San Mateo County, identify potential evacuation routes, and
recommend improvements to meet State requirements
under California Government Code Section 65302.15 also
referred to as Assembly Bill 747.

In the interim, City staff have identified primary
evacuation routes, including Highway 101, State Route
84 (Bayfront Expressway and Dumbarton Bridge), Pulgas
Avenue, Bay Road/Newbridge Street, University Avenue,
and Bayshore Road. Parts of East Palo Alto lack access to multiple evacuation routes and have only a single point of ingress and egress in their neighborhood or
community. Some emergencies, such as floods or fallen
trees from high winds, may cut off these single points of access. If this happens, community members may be
unable to evacuate, and emergency responders may not
be able to reach all people needing help. The project
team identified the residential parcels in East Palo Alto that can only be accessed through a single point, as
required by California Government Code Section
65302(g)(5) (also referred to as Senate Bill 99). Figure 10- 1 shows these evacuation-constrained residential
parcels, which are concentrated in several areas of the city. The largest concentration is on dead-end streets off University Avenue near the intersection with Bay Road.

These parcels have a single point of ingress and egress due to their location on cul-de-sacs, dead-end streets, or streets with limited connections to the broader road
network. Through the policies in this element and the
ongoing All-Hazards Evacuation Plan, East Palo Alto will take steps to better ensure safe, timely, and thorough
evacuations if needed.
270
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-5
Figure 10-1: Residential Parcels with a Single Point of Ingress and Egress 271
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-6
Regional and County Coordination
East Palo Alto participates in extensive regional
emergency management coordination through San
Mateo County’s emergency management structure.

The County Department of Emergency Management
(DEM) coordinates countywide preparedness,
response, and protection services. DEM develops
and maintains plans and procedures for all
jurisdictions, conducts exercises to evaluate
operational capabilities, and activates the County
Emergency Operations Center to support local
jurisdictions during significant incidents.

The San Mateo County Operational Area Emergency
Services Council, composed of all local governments
in the county, provides coordinated plans for the
protection of people and property during
emergencies. East Palo Alto also benefits from
mutual-aid agreements through the California
Disaster and Civic Defense Master Mutual Aid
Agreement.

Goals and Policies
Goal SN-1. Provide efficient and
effective emergency response in the
immediate aftermath of a natural or
human caused disaster.

Intent: To ensure a safe and timely response by City
residents and services during emergency events.

Policies:

1.1 Community preparedness. Reduce harm from
natural hazards by promoting a culture of
preparedness in the community through
regular, localized emergency preparedness
training programs that include practice drills
and scenario-based exercises. Provide public
education relating to seismic and flooding
hazards.

1.2 Hazard mitigation planning. Continue to
participate in Local Hazard Mitigation Planning
through the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), San Mateo Office of
Emergency Services, FEMA, and surrounding
jurisdictions. Incorporate the San Mateo
Multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan and the East Palo Alto Annex, as
approved by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, into this Safety and
Noise Element by reference, as permitted by
California Government Code Section 65302.6.

1.3 Risk evaluation. Encourage business and
property owners to evaluate and minimize
their risks to fire, flooding, and other hazards.

1.4 Emergency access routes. Collaborate with
surrounding jurisdictions, emergency
responders, and Caltrans to ensure the
ongoing maintenance and readiness of
potential evacuation routes serving East Palo
Alto.

1.5 Reconstruction. Following a major disaster,
ensure expedient, sound, and equitable
reconstruction of the affected community
through measures such as development of a
Pre-Disaster and Recovery Action Plan that
focus on community resilience, sustainability,
and an evaluation for redevelopment
potential following a major disaster.

1.6 Partnerships for disasters. Promote
partnerships between the City and
government and nongovernmental agencies,
including public/private partnerships, to
ensure support is ready to step in after a
disaster.

1.7 Coordinated emergency response. Coordinate
emergency response with the Menlo Park Fire
Protection District, major transportation
agencies, and adjacent jurisdictions.
272
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-7

1.8 Promote Community Preparedness. Support
and promote community preparedness
groups, Community Emergency Response
Teams (CERT) with Menlo Park Fire Protection
District, and other preparedness training for
residents and businesses.

1.9 Preparation Assistance. In partnership with
community-based organizations, provide
financial and labor assistance to help
community members prepare for disaster
conditions, emphasizing the needs of lowresourced community members, older adults, and persons with access and functional
needs.

1.10 Safety Ambassadors. Explore creating a paid
Safety Ambassador program to support efforts
by local experts to improve community
resilience.

1.11 Location of Critical Facilities. Locate critical
facilities outside of identified hazard areas
(see Figures 10-2 through 10-10) and in areas
easily accessible by transit whenever possible,
accounting for how climate change may
increase the frequency and intensity of
hazards. If critical facilities must be in hazard
areas, continue to ensure these facilities and
their access routes are protected from the
hazard risks characteristic to each
location. This includes constructing these
facilities to standards necessary to maintain
operations during and after disaster events.

1.12 Community Resilience Centers. Coordinate
with surrounding jurisdictions, school districts,
recreation and park districts, and communitybased organizations to establish and maintain a network of equitably located emergency
shelters, community resilience centers, and
alternate care sites that provide emergency
resources and services throughout the
community.

1.13 Flexible-Use Public Facilities. Ensure the
designs for new and significantly renovated
community-oriented City facilities allow for
flexible uses and support multiple community
purposes, including being used as community
resilience centers.

1.14 Resilient City Facilities. Renovate existing Cityowned facilities and design new City facilities to incorporate renewable energy generation
systems, battery energy storage systems, and
energy-efficient design and features, as
feasible.

1.15 Coordinated Evacuation Efforts. Coordinate
with transit agencies, school districts,
community service organizations, and faithbased organizations to assist with evacuation efforts, ensuring evacuation services are
available to vulnerable populations, including
those with limited English proficiency, limited
mobility, or limited access to transportation,
communication, and other lifeline resources
and services.

1.16 Emergency Operations Plan. Maintain an
Emergency Operations Plan that meets
current and anticipated community needs in
the event of a major disaster or hazardous
event and conforms with the California
Standardized Emergency Management System
(SEMS).

1.17 Emergency Alert Systems. Ensure emergency
alert systems provide community members
with alerts about upcoming or current
emergency events in languages and formats
accessible to the entire community. Use
diverse outreach methods and partner with
trusted community organizations to continue
to increase enrollment rates and reach all
segments of the community.
273
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-8

1.18 Mutual Aid Coordination. Continue to
coordinate with the emergency service and
medical service providers to ensure
preparedness and provide emergency
response.

1.19 Recovery Educational Materials. Ensure that
communication, education, and information
materials on short-term recovery activities are
available to all residents with a focus on
accessibility for vulnerable populations.

1.20 Visitor and Tourist Emergency Management.

Develop protocols for managing non-resident
populations during emergency events,
including evacuation procedures, resource
allocation planning, and coordination with
local businesses to ensure sufficient
emergency response capacity.

1.21 Equitable Emergency Response. Work with
emergency service providers to ensure
response times and service levels in East Palo
Alto are comparable to surrounding
communities, with regular monitoring and
reporting of response time data.

Seismic and Soil-Related Hazards
Earthquakes
As in most of the San Francisco Bay Area, seismic
events are considered a fact of life in East Palo Alto; more of a “when” than an “if”. Earthquakes cannot
be reliably predicted or avoided, but communities
like East Palo Alto can be prepared to face these risks and establish policies to ensure the resilience of the
community.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS)
considers most of the San Francisco Bay Area,
including all of San Mateo County, to be at very high
risk of experiencing a major earthquake in the next
50 years. As shown in Figure 10-2, East Palo Alto’s
proximity to several active faults— including the San
Jose Fault (shown in Figure 10-2) Hayward Fault (10
miles east), San Andreas Fault (7 miles west), and
the San Gregorio Fault (20 miles west)—represents a
significant factor in planning for a safer future.

Geologists use the terms “magnitude” and
“intensity” to describe and measure the degree of
ground shaking in an earthquake. Magnitude
measures the amount of energy released by an
earthquake. Intensity is a more subjective measure
of effects that people can perceive or see.

Magnitude and intensity form the basis of the
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI). The MMI is
a scale of 1 to 12 (I to XII) with higher numbers
representing higher intensity. For reference, the
1906 San Francisco earthquake (whose epicenter
was located in Marin County) is estimated to have
resulted in an MMI of VII to VIII in East Palo Alto. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (whose epicenter was
in the Santa Cruz Mountains) registered an MMI of
VIII in East Palo Alto.

The USGS predicts that the San Andreas Fault has a
21 percent chance, the Hayward Fault has a 31
percent chance, and the San Gregorio Fault has a 6
percent chance of producing a magnitude 6.7 or
greater earthquake in the next 30 years. There is no
data for the San Jose quaternary fault. None of these
faults run directly through East Palo Alto, reducing
the potential for direct surface fault rupture. Surface rupture occurs when fault movement during an
earthquake literally breaks or ruptures the ground.

However, a major earthquake on one of these faults
would still cause severe ground shaking throughout
East Palo Alto, potentially triggering secondary
hazards such as liquefaction, landslides, and
infrastructure damage.

Past Seismic Events
The last significant earthquake in the Bay Area was
the magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989,
which caused significant damage throughout the
region. Other notable earthquakes include the 1906
San Francisco earthquake (magnitude 7.8) and the
2014 South Napa earthquake (magnitude 6.0). The
region has experienced multiple moderate
earthquakes (magnitude 5.0-5.9) in recent decades.
274
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-9
Figure 10-2: Local Faults
275
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-10
Liquefaction
East Palo Alto’s location makes it particularly susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when soils take on liquidlike qualities during a seismic event. Rising
groundwater levels driven by sea level rise and increased precipitation can further elevate liquefaction risk by
raising the water table closer to the surface and
increasing soil saturation. A key consequence of
liquefaction is ground failure. Ground failure occurs
when the soil loses its load-bearing capacity, causing
buildings and foundations to sink or settle unevenly,
underground infrastructure to destabilize, and roadways and utilities to buckle or break. This can have serious implications for older structures that were built before state and local building codes were updated (in the early 1970s) to be more resilient against seismic and soilsrelated hazards. As shown in Figure 10-3, all of East Palo Alto is at risk of liquefaction.

Tsunami and Seiche
Coastal and shoreline portions of California must
consider the potential for tsunamis and seiches.

Tsunamis, like the surges generated by the March 11,
2011, Tōhoku earthquake in northeastern Japan, resulted in substantial damage to harbors in Crescent City and
Santa Cruz. As shown in Figure 10-4, East Palo Alto’s
position within San Francisco Bay limits the potential for tsunami damage, but tsunami waves may impact areas
of the city directly adjacent to the bay.

Seiches are another bay-related seismic hazard. Seiches are earthquake-generated waves within an enclosed
body of water like a lake or a reservoir. East Palo Alto lacks major enclosed bodies of water, but shoreline areas of the community are at risk of inundation from a seiche.

Soils-Related Hazards
While seismic hazards pose the most acute risk to safety in East Palo Alto, a number of other soils-related hazards can also result in harm to people and damage to
property.

Subsidence means a failure or collapse of the existing
ground surface. This is usually caused when subsurface
materials, such as groundwater, are extracted or
dissolved, which can create a subsurface void leading to a surface failure. Groundwater extraction in East Palo
Alto has been minimal, allowing groundwater recharge
to limit the potential for subsidence to occur in the
community.

Differential settlement is a type of subsidence.

Differential settlement describes a condition in which
adjacent areas of soil sink or settle at different rates.

When buildings or structures straddle lands with
differing settlement rates, the portion of the building or structure below the sinking soil can be damaged. Over
time, differential settlement can result in substantial damage to buildings and structures. Areas of East Palo
Alto built on former tidal flats – including neighborhoods along the bay shoreline, bordering San Francisquito
creek, Cooley Landing, and Ravenswood – could be
susceptible to differential settlement where low-strength native soils are immediately adjacent to loose or
unconsolidated fill.

Due to its relatively flat topography, the city faces little risk of landslides or debris flows. As shown in Figure 10- 5, there are no identified landslide hazard areas in the city.

Future Conditions
Earthquake frequency and magnitude are not expected
to change due to climate change, but climate-related
hazards may compound the impacts of earthquakes. For
example, liquefaction risks may increase in areas where groundwater levels rise due to sea level rise, as discussed in the Emergent Groundwater section. Additionally,
seismic events could trigger secondary hazards such as
levee failures during periods of high-water levels,
potentially causing more severe flooding than would
occur from either hazard alone.

Climate change may exacerbate soil-related hazards in
East Palo Alto. Rising groundwater levels from sea level rise can increase the potential for subsidence and
differential settlement, particularly in areas with organic soils. More significantly, the combination of rising
groundwater and increased soil saturation during
extreme storms can substantially increase liquefaction
susceptibility during seismic events, especially in areas along the baylands and near San Francisquito Creek.

Rising sea levels will increase the base water level,
potentially allowing tsunami and seiche waves to reach
farther inland than currently expected. Additionally,
compound events where storms coincide with seismic
activity could create more severe flooding scenarios, and increase dam failure risks when aging infrastructure faces 276
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-11
stress from both extreme precipitation and ground
shaking.
277
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-12
Figure 10-3: Liquefaction and Ground Shaking
278
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-13
Figure 10-4: Tsunami Hazard Zones
279
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-14
Figure 10-5: Landslide Susceptibility
280
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-15
Goal SN-2. Reduce the risk to people
and property from earthquakes and
other geologic hazards.

Intent: To lessen the impacts of earthquakes and geologic threats on City residents.

Policies:

2.1 Construction requirements. Apply the proper
development engineering and building
construction requirements and best practices,
including review by a state-licensed geologist, to
avoid or minimize risks from seismic and geologic
hazards.

2.2 Robust seismic guidance. Enforce the most recent
State guidance for seismic and geologic hazards
when evaluating development proposals.

2.3 Seismic upgrades. Examine necessity of seismic
upgrades to existing public facilities, existing
multifamily housing constructed prior to 1971, and
existing soft-story multifamily housing.

2.4 Site-Specific Geotechnical Investigations. Require
individual site-specific geotechnical investigations
for new construction and substantial improvement
projects within liquefaction hazard zones and
tsunami-prone areas, as shown on Figures 10-3
and 10-4, to determine the depth of bedrock, soil
stability, location of rift zones, and other localized
geotechnical problems as part of the
environmental and/or development review
process for all structures.

Flooding
Flooding occurs when water surpasses the capacity of
local water bodies to contain it, creeks to carry it, or soil to absorb it. There are five types of flooding that affect East Palo Alto:
• Riverine flooding occurs when San Francisquito
Creek overruns its banks.
• Stormwater flooding occurs when rainfall
accumulates in areas with insufficient drainage
throughout the community, especially in the
Gardens neighborhood. Flooding is worsened when
the city's shallow groundwater table is elevated from
sustained rainfall or seasonal conditions, reducing
soils' ability to absorb runoff, and when high tides or storm surge raise bay water levels and reduce the
drainage system's ability to discharge to the Bay and
San Francisquito Creek.
• Flash floods are sudden events caused by intense
localized storms.
• Shoreline floods occur when the bay inundates
normally dry lands due to storm surges or extreme
high tides.
• Dam failure flooding can occur as a result of seismic or other causes, resulting in swift inundation of
downstream areas.

East Palo Alto has a history of flooding problems due to its low-lying location along the bay, particularly in areas along San Francisquito Creek. The city has experienced
Understanding Flood Terminology
Floodplain: Areas that become inundated by high
volumes of water, usually adjacent to rivers, creeks,
lakes, or along the ocean. These areas are officially
mapped by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) using Digital Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (DFIRMs).
100-Year Floodplain: The area that has a 1 percent (1
in 100) chance of being flooded in any given year,
also known as a “base flood”. This does not mean
flooding occurs only once every 100 years—rather,
there is a percent probability of this level of flooding happening each year.
500-Year Floodplain: The area that has a 0.2 percent
(1 in 500) chance of being flooded in any given year.

These areas face lower probability but more severe
potential flooding than 100-year floodplains.
281
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-16
eight major flood events since 1940, with many residents experiencing multiple flood events over their tenure in the city. High tides, heavy rains causing high water levels in San Francisquito Creek, and an inadequate storm drain system are the major sources of flooding in East Palo
Alto. High tides combined with strong easterly winds can generate storm surge or wave runup, potentially causing widespread coastal flooding. Heavy precipitation can also overwhelm San Francisquito Creek’s capacity, leading to significant riverine flooding if floodwaters cannot drain effectively into the bay.

Special Flood Hazard Areas
FEMA prepares a detailed technical study, known as the
Flood Insurance Study, and maintains maps of floodways
and floodplains for the entire United States. FEMA maps these areas on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). A
typical FIRM will show Special Flood Hazard Areas within reach of a 100-year flood, estimate the height of
floodwaters, and delineate areas subject to high velocity wave action and a 500-year flood. Cities and other
jurisdictions use FIRMs to establish zoning districts,
buffers, or other regulatory requirements intended to
protect people and property from flood damage and
minimize the cost of physical flood control mechanisms.

In East Palo Alto, the City uses FEMA flood maps to
enforce its Floodplain Management Ordinance, which
requires flood-resistant building standards in the 100- year floodplain, including mandatory elevation of
structures to 18 inches above the base flood elevation.

As illustrated in Figure 10-6, data from the relevant
FIRMs indicates that areas along the bay and near the
San Francisquito Creek face the highest flood risks during storm events and/or high tide events. The current FIRMs were adopted in 2021 and reflect historical flood
patterns. Climate change and sea level rise are expected to expand flood zones significantly beyond areas
currently mapped by FEMA, as rising Bay water levels
and more intense precipitation events increase flood
risks. To address these future hazards, the City is working with OneShoreline to use the best available sea level rise projections and identify areas vulnerable to future
flooding beyond what FEMA maps currently show.

Approximately half of the parcels in East Palo Alto are in a mapped floodplain. Based on this analysis and past
flooding incidents, the following areas within the city are particularly vulnerable to flooding:
• The Weeks and Garden Neighborhoods, east of
Pulgas Avenue.
• The Woodland Neighborhood, between San
Francisquito Creek and the Bayshore Freeway.
• The University Village Neighborhood, north of Notre
Dame Avenue.
• The portion of the Ravenswood Employment District
closest to the Baylands.
• The Kavanaugh Neighborhood.
• The Palo Alto Park Neighborhood, west of Menalto
Avenue.

East Palo Alto has participated in FEMA's Community
Rating System (CRS) since 2010. CRS is a voluntary
program that recognizes and encourages community
floodplain management activities that exceed the
minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
requirements. The CRS provides flood insurance
premium discounts to residents based on the
community’s flood mitigation and education efforts.

The CRS uses a rating scale from 1 to 10, with Class 1
representing the highest level of flood protection
activities and Class 10 indicating that the community
only meets the minimum NFIP requirements. Each CRS
class improvement results in a 5 percent discount on
flood insurance premiums for residents, with potential
savings ranging from 5 percent (Class 9) to 45 percent
(Class 1). East Palo Alto has a current CRS class rating of 7, which equates to a 10 percent flood insurance
premium discount. The City is committed to improving its CRS rating through enhanced floodplain management
activities, which will provide greater flood insurance
savings for residents while improving overall community flood resilience.
282
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-17
Figure 10-6: Flood Hazard Zone
283
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-18
Dam Failure
The failure of a dam can result in swift flooding and
inundation of downstream areas, potentially causing harm to people and property in the path of released waters. San Mateo County has mapped areas susceptible to the failure of dams located in or near the county. The County has
identified the Searsville Dam, which impounds a creek
tributary to San Francisquito Creek, as posing a potential dam failure hazard to portions of the Stanford campus, the City of Palo Alto, and the lower reaches of San Francisquito Creek, which forms the boundary of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto as it enters San Francisco Bay. As shown in Figure 10-7, the city is also within the inundation area of the Felt Lake Dam. Both dams are owned by Stanford University and
have received satisfactory ratings from the California
Division of Safety of Dams.

Existing Action
The City has undertaken many actions and activities to
avoid or reduce flood risks. These activities include mailing a relevant brochure to all properties in the community on an annual basis, explaining the risks and hazards related to flooding, and establishing benchmarks so developers have accurate elevation figures. The City has enacted stringent building codes, such as the mandatory elevation of
structures to 18 inches above the height of flood waters, which mitigate risk due to inundation. Additionally, East Palo Alto reviews the effectiveness of these activities annually and provides FEMA a progress report each year
that identifies action taken to reduce the potential for loss of life and damage to property. FEMA rewards voluntary
actions that reduce potential loss of life and damage to property in a flood by reducing flood insurance premiums.

The City has undertaken activities to alleviate potential flooding hazards, which has resulted in savings on
insurance premiums. As of 2021, 941 flood insurance
policies are in force in East Palo Alto and there were 32 total payouts for approximately $157,000 in losses. These policy holders pay approximately $1.04 million annually in premiums.

The City's Storm Drain Master Plan, adopted in 2015,
identified significant deficiencies in the drainage system.

Many of the streets in East Palo Alto still lack storm drains, and where they exist, they lack the capacity to handle
stormwater during heavy rain events. Over half of the city (56 percent) is in areas with elevated flood risk, and more than half of the drainage area relies on pumping from the O'Connor Pump Station, which requires near-term
improvements to maintain its existing capacity. The Master Plan identified approximately $37.5 million in needed
capital improvements, including pipe improvements,
system expansion, pump station retrofit, and other critical infrastructure upgrades. During 10- and 20- year storm
events in East Palo Alto, storm drains can overflow and flood the streets. Low-lying areas face extra risk of floods related to levee breaks, ruptures, or overtopping,
particularly when combined with overtopping from San
Francisquito Creek.

San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
A proactive step the City has taken to reduce flooding risk involves joining with the cities Menlo Park and Palo Alto, along with the San Mateo County Flood Control District
and the Santa Clara Valley Water District in a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), formed in 1999 to develop and maintain projects along the creek that reduce flood threats and
benefit the environment. In 2019, the JPA completed a
project on the “Reach 1” section of San Francisquito Creek, which improved the lower reaches of the creek, from
Highway 101 to the bay. The Reach 1 project widened the creek to better convey 100-year storm flows (also taking into account high tides and up to 3 feet of sea level rise), excavated sediment from the mouth of the bay, and
constructed new floodwalls and engineered levees. The
project protects more than 1,700 properties from a 100- year creek flood during a King tide event and resulted in more than 22 acres of new or improved marsh habitat. The City is currently working with the JPA on the Reach 2
project, which will address the next segment of the creek upstream from Highway 101.

Many bayfront areas near East Palo Alto feature earthen levees intended to protect against tidal influx.

Notwithstanding that FEMA has accredited many of the
levees along the bayfront, SFHAs are still present
throughout substantial portions of the community as
noted above.
284
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-19
Figure 10-7: Dam Inundation
285
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-20
Past Events
Significant flood events have caused substantial
damage to East Palo Alto, including:
• 1972: Tidal flood waters completely submerged
streets in the University Village neighborhood.
• February 1998: Parts of East Palo Alto
experienced significant flooding along San
Francisquito Creek, impacting more than 1,100
homes and businesses and causing over $28
million in damages. Hundreds were forced to
evacuate and major thoroughfares were closed.
• December 2012: A storm caused water to flow
over a 600-foot section of levee between
Verbena Drive and Daphne Way, forcing
evacuations for 36 residents. One home was
declared uninhabitable.
• December 2022: Heavy rains caused flooding
near San Francisquito Creek, with residents
losing belongings and incurring hundreds of
thousands of dollars in property damage.

Future Conditions
Climate change will likely cause these flood zones to
expand as sea levels rise and the tide regularly
moves farther inland (see the Sea Level Rise section
that follows and Figure 10-8). Additionally, as rising
groundwater emerges at the surface, many areas
will experience flooding from below, even in areas
that appear protected from coastal flooding (see the
Emergent Groundwater section and Figures 10-9
and 10-10). As the risk of intense storms increases,
many of these areas—which include residential
neighborhoods with schools and community-serving
facilities—could be damaged or destroyed by major
flooding. Industrial and commercial areas also face
flood risks that could cause the movement of
pollution and hazardous materials through soil and
groundwater.

Climate change is expected to increase both the
frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation
events in East Palo Alto. Warmer temperatures allow
the atmosphere to hold more moisture, leading to
more intense storms. Additionally, aging stormwater
infrastructure will face increasing stress from these
extreme events, resulting in system overflows,
infrastructure failures, loss of drainage capacity, and pump station breakdowns. The combination of more
intense rainfall, inadequate drainage capacity, and
rising bay water levels will exacerbate flood risks
throughout the community, particularly in the
vulnerable neighborhoods identified above.

Goal SN-3. Provide necessary flood
control and storm drainage facilities
to minimize the risk of flooding.

Intent: To lessen the impacts of flood events on City
residents by avoiding placing residents in harm’s
way.

Policies:

3.1 Flood Insurance Program. Continue to
participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program and FEMA’s voluntary programs, such
as the Community Rating System.

3.2 Innovative Insurance Solutions. Partner with
San Mateo County, OneShoreline, communitybased organizations, and other stakeholders to study and explore new and innovative flood
insurance approaches that increase financial
resilience for vulnerable residents, prioritizing
low-income households and renters in flood
hazard zones.

3.3 Community Rating System Improvement.

Identify and implement programs and projects
that maximize the City’s Community Rating
System (CRS) to reduce flood insurance
premiums for residents, including enhanced
floodplain management activities, public
information programs, and flood mitigation
projects. Ensure sharing of information with
the public around these processes, their
timelines, and how they will benefit residents.
286
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-21
Figure 10-8: Sea Level Rise
287
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-22
Figure 10-9: Emergent Groundwater in East Palo Alto by 2050 288
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-23
Figure 10-10: Emergent Groundwater in East Palo Alto by 2100 289
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-24

3.4 Development in floodways. Continue to minimize or
restrict development in the floodway and floodway
fringe.

IM 3.4a: Require new development that impacts
floodplain areas to provide replacement flood
storage capacity, ensuring a positive gain and no net
loss of flood storage in the community.

Timeframe: Short-Term

3.5 Floodplain Management Ordinance. Continue to
enforce and consider strengthening the City’s
Floodplain Management Ordinance to protect
against changing flood hazard conditions.

IM 3.5a: Review and update the Floodplain
Management Ordinance when FEMA updates flood
maps to incorporate current FEMA guidance and
climate projections.

Timeframe: Short-Term

3.6 Public buildings. Enhance flood protection for
essential public buildings and associated parking
areas. Specifically, considering which public buildings are at the highest risk and prioritizing infrastructure updates.

3.7 San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and Regional Partners: Continue to work with the
JPA, OneShoreline, and other appropriate agencies
on projects that will reduce the risk of flooding in
East Palo Alto. Present this information, including
projects and timelines, in public forums like the
SAFER Bay projects, public workshops, tours, and
Advisory Group regularly to ensure residents are
informed and involved in the decisions made in
partnership with the JPA.

3.8 Safeguarding Underground Utilities in Flood-Prone
Areas. Coordinate with utility providers to protect or
relocate underground utility infrastructure that is in
areas prone to flooding. Identify the most vulnerable
underground utilities and prioritize infrastructure
updates by working with the relative agencies and
owners.

3.9 Home Hardening Against Flooding. Partner with
Community-Based Organizations to provide
educational resources, secure grants, and provide
financial assistance to low-resourced households
and rental properties in flood hazard zones to
harden homes against flooding.

IM 3.9a: Investigate the feasibility of establishing a
residential flood retrofit grant program prioritizing
low-income households in flood-prone areas.

Timeframe: Short-Term

3.10 Drainage and Flood Control Systems. Design and
implement integrated stormwater management
systems that combine traditional drainage
infrastructure with green infrastructure elements
(such as bioswales, rain gardens, permeable
surfaces, and larger engineered flood storage
facilities such as retention basins and holding ponds
where feasible) to improve flood control while
enhancing local ecosystems. Continue to ensure
future development is consistent with the green
infrastructure plan.

3.11 Drainage Improvements. Regularly remove debris
and increase the amount of landscaped areas and
other permeable surfaces in public and private
projects to improve drainage, especially in floodprone areas adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and the San Francisco Bay.

IM 3.11a: Establish regular maintenance schedules
for City storm drain infrastructure.

Timeframe: Short-Term
IM 3.11b: Update landscaping ordinances to
promote permeable surfaces in flood-prone areas.

Timeframe: Short-Term

3.12 Storm Drain System Upgrades. Implement the
Storm Drain Master Plan by prioritizing capital
improvements to upgrade storm drain capacity,
including pipe improvements, system expansion,
installation of new storm drains in areas currently
lacking coverage, and pump station retrofits to
290
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-25
handle increased stormwater volumes and climate
change impacts.

IM 3.12a: Partner with OneShoreline and other
regional agencies to support the development of a
countywide compound flooding study that models
the combined effects of future rainfall, sea level rise, and groundwater rise to identify areas of increased
flood risk. Use study findings to inform updates to
the Storm Drain Master Plan and shoreline flood
protection planning.

Timeframe: Long-Term

3.13 Flooding Preparation and Response. Co-create
flooding preparation and response action plans with
community members to ground technical expertise
in local knowledge. Conduct community outreach to
a significant number of residents and make sure the
finished action plans are thoroughly shared and
understood throughout the community through
focus groups and workshops.

3.14 Flood Impact Assistance. Develop programs to assist residents and businesses with flood preparation and
recovery, with particular focus on historically
impacted areas such as the O'Keefe area and areas
near San Francisquito Creek. This includes
emergency planning support, post-flood cleanup
assistance, and coordination with recovery
resources.

Sea Level Rise
As global temperatures rise, glaciers and other polar ice melt, causing sea levels to rise. High average temperatures can also cause ocean water to expand, causing further
rising of sea levels. Flooding and sea level rise create disproportionate impacts for:
• Low-resourced households lacking resources for home
repairs, weatherization, and flood- proofing.
• Older adults with reduced mobility, impaired vision,
and hearing loss who face evacuation challenges.
• Immigrant communities who may distrust government
evacuation orders due to citizenship concerns.
• Residents who are dependent on medications or
medical devices that may be lost or damaged.
• People living in older buildings with poor maintenance and structural vulnerabilities.

Affected Areas
As shown in Figure 10-8, over half of East Palo Alto is vulnerable to sea level rise impacts. The areas at greatest risk include:
• Neighborhoods north of Bay Road and east of
University Avenue
• Areas along Pulgas Avenue
• Cooley Landing and surrounding areas
• Neighborhoods near Costaño Elementary School
• The Ravenswood Slough near the Baylands
These low-lying areas face permanent inundation from
rising water levels, contamination risk from rising
groundwater, and temporary flooding during storm events that will reach farther inland as baseline water levels increase.

Past Trends
Over the past century, water levels in San Francisco Bay have risen by eight inches. While this change has been
gradual, it has already begun to increase the frequency of nuisance flooding during high tides and has reduced the capacity of storm drainage systems during rain events.

Future Projections
According to the 2024 State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance, East Palo Alto should prepare for as much as:
• 0.4 feet (5 inches) of sea level rise by 2030
• 1.3 feet (16 inches) of sea level rise by 2050
• Up to 6.5 feet (78 inches) of sea level rise by 2100
However, sea levels could rise faster than these
projections. Storm surge and King Tide events can add an additional 24 to 36 inches of temporary flooding on top of baseline sea level rise, pushing floodwaters even farther inland.
291
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-26
By 2050, many neighborhoods along Pulgas Avenue, Cooley Landing, and areas near Costaño Elementary School may
be permanently inundated. This area includes nearly all schools in East Palo Alto, police stations, four government facilities and community centers, and the critical O'Connor pump station.

Sea level rise will also cause rising groundwater levels in areas away from the shoreline, as discussed in the
Emergent Groundwater section. Due to the prevalence of
contaminated sites in East Palo Alto, rising groundwater that may harbor contaminants puts residents at an
additional risk. The combined effects of permanent
inundation, more frequent flooding, and groundwater
emergence with a risk of contamination pose significant long-term challenges for community safety and resilience.

Goal SN-4. Protect the community from
sea level rise impacts through adaptive
planning, regional coordination, and
resilient infrastructure development.

Intent: To reduce risks from permanent and temporary
inundation due to sea level rise and ensure that planning and development decisions account for projected future
conditions over the life of projects.

Policies:

4.1 Flooding related to sea level rise. Apply flood
control and mitigation requirements to properties
vulnerable to sea level rise hazards as indicated on
Figure 10-8 to provide flood protection over the
lifetime of the project.

IM 4.1a: Update the Floodplain Management
Ordinance to incorporate sea level rise projections
under medium-high risk scenarios by 2100, as shown
on Figure 10-8, or the most current projections
adopted by the State of California or Bay
Conservation and Development Commission.

Timeframe: Short-Term

4.2 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and
Adaptation Planning. In partnership with
OneShoreline, use the best-available sea level rise
projections to regularly identify the areas of the city that are vulnerable to temporary and permanent
inundation from sea level rise and related hazards by
evaluating multiple sea level rise scenarios,
establishing monitoring systems to track changing
conditions, and adjusting strategies as new scientific
information becomes available or conditions exceed
projections. Use this information to continue to
develop or adjust land use and permitting
requirements and municipal adaptation strategies.

4.3 Resilient Siting and Design for Critical Facilities. Site new critical facilities and public infrastructure in
areas that are not vulnerable to sea level rise
hazards as indicated on Figure 10-8. If new critical
facilities and public infrastructure cannot be located
outside of areas prone to sea level rise, ensure that
facilities are constructed to appropriate standards to
maintain operations under these future conditions
over the life of the project.

IM 4.3a: Adopt siting standards requiring new critical
facilities to be located outside projected sea level
rise inundation areas as shown on Figure 10-8 or
based on the most current projections adopted by
the State of California or Bay Conservation and
Development Commission.

Timeframe: Short-Term

4.4 Sea Level Rise in Capital Planning. Integrate sea
level rise considerations into the planning of Capital
Improvement Projects, including siting and design
features to mitigate risk of damage or other harm.

4.5 Regional Sea Level Rise Coordination. Collaborate
with OneShoreline to develop and regularly update
standardized datasets for modeling sea level rise
impacts at both regional and local scales that
account for San Francisco Bay geomorphic features.

IM 4.5a. Participate in coordinated adaptation
planning within the same Operational Landscape
Unit as defined by the San Francisco Bay Shoreline
Adaptation Atlas.

Timeframe: Long-Term
292
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-27

4.6 Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan
Development. In coordination with OneShoreline
and consistent with Bay Conservation and
Development Commission guidelines, prepare a
Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan that identifies
nature-based solutions, infrastructure
improvements, and policy strategies to address sea
level rise impacts within the same Operational
Landscape Unit as defined by the San Francisco Bay
Shoreline Adaptation Atlas.

4.7 Private Building Sea Level Rise Protection. Require new private development in areas vulnerable to sea
level rise to elevate habitable areas above projected
sea level rise elevations based on medium-high risk
scenarios through 2100, or implement alternative
flood-resistant design measures.

4.8 Existing Private Building Adaptation Assistance.

Support property owners in sea level rise vulnerable
areas by facilitating access to technical and financial assistance programs for retrofitting existing buildings with flood-resistant measures, prioritizing lowincome households and communities of concern.

4.9 Equitable Sea Level Rise Adaptation. Prioritize sea level rise adaptation investments and resiliency
programs in historically disadvantaged communities
and areas with high concentrations of vulnerable
populations, including renters, low-income
households, and communities of color.

4.10 Anti-Displacement Protections. Develop policies and programs to prevent displacement of residents in
medium- to high-risk sea level rise scenarios by 2100
due to sea level rise impacts, including tenant
protections, enforcement of relocation assistance
requirements, and affordable housing preservation
in safer areas.

IM 4.10a: Enforce the City’s tenant protection
ordinance preventing no-fault evictions in areas
subject to sea level rise adaptation projects.

Timeframe: Short-Term (Ongoing)
IM 4.10b: Provide rental assistance for residents
displaced by sea level rise impacts or adaptation
measures.

Timeframe: Medium-Term
Emergent Groundwater
Emergent groundwater is a consequence of sea level rise.

As ocean levels rise, denser saltwater moves inland
beneath the ground, pushing up the layer of less dense
freshwater that floats above it. When this freshwater is forced upward to the ground surface, it creates flooding from below—even in areas that appear protected from
coastal flooding.

How It Affects East Palo Alto
Emergent groundwater poses unique challenges because it:
• Floods basements and underground infrastructure
from below.
• Infiltrates storm drains, reducing their capacity during rain events.
• Destabilizes building foundations and underground
pipes.
• Corrodes infrastructure not designed for saline water exposure.
• Spreads soil and groundwater contamination.
• Increases liquefaction risk during earthquakes.

As shown in Figure 10-9 and Figure 10-10, emergent
groundwater is projected to impact the majority of East Palo Alto under a high sea level rise scenario by 2050, with even further encroachment occurring by 2100. This
includes all schools, community facilities, pump stations, and parks throughout the city. Groundwater is expected to rise at the same rate as sea levels. Though these maps
show emergent groundwater areas factoring in sea level
rise inundation, it is important to note that even if levees and shoreline barriers successfully protect against direct coastal flooding, emergent groundwater would still rise beneath the ground throughout most of the city.
293
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-28
Contamination Concerns
Of particular concern are the dozens of sites with current or past contamination shown on Figure 10-9 and Figure
10-10. Many of these contaminated sites are in residential neighborhoods. As groundwater rises, it can seep into
these toxic sites from below, spreading hazardous
materials and pollutants far beyond the original
contamination boundaries. This spread of hazardous
materials and the increased risk of exposure to them could directly impact public health, especially in environmental justice communities. This is discussed further in the
Hazardous Materials section.

Past and Current Conditions
While emergent groundwater has not yet caused
widespread surface flooding in East Palo Alto, the city’s naturally high water table means that many areas are
already experiencing early impacts. Basements in low-lying areas occasionally experience water intrusion during wet winters, and some underground utilities show signs of
corrosion from increasingly saline groundwater.

Future Projections
Groundwater emergence will worsen progressively with
sea level rise:
• Areas with groundwater currently three to six feet
below the surface are expected to begin experiencing
groundwater emergence by 2050.
• By 2100, groundwater could emerge at the surface
across most of the city during wet seasons.
• Storm drainage systems will lose capacity as
groundwater infiltrates pipes.
• The interaction between emergent groundwater and
stormwater will cause more severe inland flooding.

Unlike coastal flooding that can potentially be addressed with levees or seawalls, emergent groundwater cannot be easily blocked. It requires comprehensive solutions
including improved drainage, building retrofits, and careful management of contaminated sites to protect public
health and safety.

Goal SN-5. Safeguard residents and
infrastructure from emergent
groundwater hazards while preventing
contamination mobilization in vulnerable
communities.

Intent: To address the unique challenges posed by rising groundwater levels, including structural damage,
infrastructure failure, and the mobilization of soil and groundwater contamination, with particular attention to environmental justice communities.

Policies:

5.1 Emergent Groundwater in Capital Planning.

Consider the risk of emergent groundwater from sea
level rise in the planning of Capital Improvement
Projects.

5.2 Development Requirements in Emergent
Groundwater Areas. Encourage construction and
substantial improvements in areas at risk of
emergent groundwater to conduct geotechnical
investigations that assess vulnerability to shallow
groundwater rise and incorporate project measures
to monitor and reduce impacts from buoyancy,
seepage, infiltration, liquefaction, corrosion, and
contaminant mobilization hazards.

5.3 Regional Groundwater Rise Planning. Coordinate
with OneShoreline and adjacent jurisdictions to
establish detailed understanding of shallow
groundwater rise effects on people, ecological
assets, and the built environment. Incorporate
regionally coordinated adaptation strategies for
emergent groundwater into the City’s General Plan,
Capital Improvement Plan, and Municipal Code.

5.4 Geotechnical Assessment and Mitigation for
Emergent Groundwater Areas. Encourage new
development or redevelopment in emergent
groundwater areas, as identified on Figure 10-9 and
Figure 10-10, to assess the vulnerability to shallow
groundwater rise through a geotechnical
294
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-29
investigation and incorporate project measures to
monitor and reduce seasonal and permanent
impacts, including buoyancy, seepage, infiltration,
liquefaction, corrosion, and contaminant
mobilization hazards.

5.5 Contaminated Site Cleanup in Emergent
Groundwater Areas. Proactively coordinate with the
San Mateo County Certified Unified Program Agency
(CUPA), California Department of Toxic Substances
Control, State Water Resources Control Board, the
State Environmental Protection Agency, and local
community-based organizations to prioritize the
cleanup and remediation of contaminated sites
located in areas vulnerable to emergent
groundwater, as shown on Figure 10-9 and Figure
10-10, where rising groundwater threatens to
mobilize contaminants, with particular emphasis on
protecting environmental justice communities and
residential neighborhoods. Encourage contaminated
sites to be fully cleaned rather than subject to
ongoing exposure management.

IM 5.5a: Continue to comply with State requirements
for vapor intrusion screening for sensitive uses on or
adjacent to contaminated sites in emergent
groundwater areas.

Timeframe: Short-Term (Ongoing)
Fire Hazards
While East Palo Alto does not have designated wildfire
hazard severity zones, the community faces risks from
structural fires, as exemplified by the 1997 structural fire that resulted in 9 deaths. These fires can destroy buildings and infrastructure and endanger human lives due to faulty wiring, mechanical equipment failures, or combustible
construction materials. Older buildings that lack modern fire safety features, including many of the city’s soft-story multifamily buildings, face greater risk of damage from fires. Higher-density residential structures and industrial structures – both of which figure prominently in East Palo Alto – are at elevated fire risk.

In addition to the risk posed by structural fires, the State Fire Marshal has identified portions of the bay shoreline (outside city limits and populated areas) as having an
elevated risk from grass fires. Local fire agencies have had a long-standing weed abatement program intended to
minimize such risks. East Palo Alto may also be affected by fires elsewhere in the region, which may not directly
threaten the community but could affect regional
infrastructure used by community members, such as
transportation networks and water systems.

Fire Protection Services
The Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD) provides a variety of life safety related services to the entirety of East Palo Alto. These services include fire prevention,
inspection, and investigation, as well as firefighting, hazardous materials response, search-and-rescue, and
paramedic services. MPFPD serves a 33 square mile service area comprising the cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, and portions of unincorporated San Mateo
County. MPFPD operates a station (Station 2) within East Palo Alto at 2290 University Avenue. Station 2 staff
responds to approximately 2,000 incidents annually,
comprising about one-quarter of all of MPFPD’s annual
emergency responses. More than half of annual calls are medical emergencies.

Each of MPFPD’s seven stations provides at least one heavy fire engine and is continuously staffed by at least three crew members.

MPFPD reconstructed Station 2 starting in 2012 as an
essential service building, meaning that it is being
reconstructed to be able to withstand and continue to
operate throughout any type of major emergency.

Wildfire Smoke Impacts
While East Palo Alto is unlikely to experience major
wildfires within its boundaries, the city is highly vulnerable to smoke from wildfires occurring throughout the region 295
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-30
and state. Wildfire smoke contains complex mixtures of
gases and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that penetrate deep into lung tissue and impact cardiovascular health.

Limited air monitoring resources in the city have
historically made it difficult to determine the scale of impacts and provide timely and accurate warnings to
residents.

The health risks from wildfire smoke are particularly severe for vulnerable populations, including:
• Children and older adults
• Individuals with pre-existing respiratory conditions like asthma
• People with cardiovascular conditions
• Low-income residents who may lack access to air
filtration or cannot afford to stay indoors.

Past Events
While San Mateo County has experienced fires before, few of its fires have caused sufficient damage to trigger a State or federal disaster declaration. East Palo Alto has been affected by smoke from wildfires throughout the state and region.

The most significant recent impact was during the 2020
CZU Lightning Complex fires, which triggered 25
consecutive days of air quality alerts from the Bay Area Air District. During this period, East Palo Alto residents
experienced hazardous air quality conditions that limited outdoor activities, exacerbated respiratory conditions, and disproportionately impacted vulnerable populations who
could not access clean air facilities.

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to increase both the frequency and severity of wildfires throughout California, leading to more frequent and prolonged periods of poor air quality from smoke. Warmer temperatures and altered
precipitation patterns will extend the fire season yearround and create conditions for larger, more intense fires.

For East Palo Alto, this means:
• More frequent "Spare the Air" days restricting
activities.
• Increased health impacts, particularly for
environmental justice communities.
• Greater need for clean air facilities and home filtration systems.
• Economic impacts from reduced outdoor work and
recreation opportunities.

The combination of existing local air pollution sources and increasing wildfire smoke creates cumulative impacts that threaten public health and quality of life, requiring
comprehensive strategies to protect residents from poor air quality.

Goal SN-6. Reduce the risk of fire and
wildfire hazards in the community.

Intent: To lessen the impacts of fire on City residents by decreasing likelihood of fire and improving response time.

Policies:

6.1 Response times. Continue to support Menlo Park
Fire Protection District (MPFPD) in helping maintain
established emergency response times. Work with
MPFPD to identify choke points to help ensure
continuation of consistent emergency response in all
of East Palo Alto.

6.2 Fuel reduction strategies. Continue to coordinate
with the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space
District, Caltrans, the Cities of Menlo Park, and Palo
Alto, and other bayfront property owners to
implement fuel reduction/weed abatement in areas
of highest risk.

6.3 Fire-resilient critical services and facilities. Ensure that facilities are constructed to appropriate
standards to maintain operations during and after
disaster events.

6.4 Fire Safe San Mateo County. Continue to support
Menlo Park Fire Protection District’s participation in
the Fire Safe San Mateo County program.

6.5 Fire Service Capabilities. Support the Menlo Park
Fire Protection District in maintaining and enhancing
296
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-31
fire service capabilities through proactive
maintenance of fire equipment and training fire
personnel.

6.6 Fire Safe Education. Support fire prevention and
implement public education, early detection
programs, and property inspections to identify and
avoid fire hazards. Educate property owners and
residents about fire safety risks associated with
outdated electrical systems and provide information
about upgrading wiring to meet current safety
standards, ensuring public education is provided
regularly and in multiple languages and formats to
reach all residents.

IM 6.6a: Collaborate with local and regional fire safe
councils, CAL FIRE Santa Clara Unit, and other fire
protection agencies to develop a fire safe education
program to provide information about State fuel
modification, defensible space, access, water,
signage, and other fire safe regulations.

Timeframe: Medium-Term

6.7 Emergency Services Training. Support programs for
ongoing staff training focused on understanding risks
posed by older structures and infrastructure, as well
as risk-reduction activities.

6.8 Reliable Water Supply. Maintain and enhance water
supply infrastructure to ensure sufficient and reliable supplies for existing and future daily demands and
firefighting suppression requirements.

Air Quality and Public Health
Air quality is a significant concern for East Palo Alto, with asthma-related emergency visit rates for children almost twice the average of the rest of the County. Poor air quality poses significant health risks, including respiratory and cardiovascular illness, with East Palo Alto’s frontline populations experiencing some of the highest air pollution levels in San Mateo County. The health risks associated with wildfire smoke are particularly severe for frontline populations, including children, older adults, individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular conditions, and low-resourced residents, who may experience more
severe acute and chronic health effects.

Air pollutants in East Palo Alto come from multiple sources, including mobile sources such as cars and trucks,
stationary sources like factories and other industrial sites, dust from construction sites, smoke from wildfires, and other regional sources. The financial burden of poor air quality in the Bay Area is estimated at $32 billion annually, which includes costs associated with premature deaths,
healthcare expenses, reduced productivity, and other
related issues.

Human Health Hazards and Vector-Borne Disease
Human health hazards, including bacteria, viruses,
parasites, and other pathogens, pose significant concerns in East Palo Alto. These conditions can result in physical injuries, fatalities, and mental health issues, and they exacerbate pre-existing conditions like asthma and
allergies. Rats, mice, ticks, and mosquitoes are common vectors that often spread the pathogens that can cause
illness. Mosquitoes may breed in standing water in gardens and yards, storm drains and underground pipes, and even in saltwater marshes. Mosquitoes can spread diseases
through their bites, including West Nile virus. Ticks can also spread diseases through their bites. According to testing conducted by the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector
Control District, approximately 1 to 3 percent of San Mateo ticks carry the agent for Lyme disease.

Healthcare Access and Vulnerable Populations
East Palo Alto has limited healthcare providers, which can limit access to healthcare and exacerbate disparities in healthcare quality and access. According to the US Census Bureau and San Mateo County Health, almost 10 percent
of people in East Palo Alto live with a disability, compared to approximately 7 percent in the total of San Mateo
County. Nearly 17 percent East Palo Alto’s population has asthma and 11 percent have diabetes, while those
numbers are 15 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in San Mateo County. During community-wide health
emergencies, the demand for health services can rise
significantly, often surpassing the available staff and resources. Many residents already face systemic barriers to healthcare, such as limited medical facilities in the city and challenges related to affordability and transportation to these facilities. When hazards like extreme heat or
infectious disease outbreaks push these resources beyond capacity, marginalized communities are disproportionately 297
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-32
affected. Persons with chronic illnesses or disabilities experience increased sensitivity to the health effects of heat and poor air quality. They may also face barriers such as limited mobility, dependence on assistive equipment or caregivers, inaccessible communication methods, and a
lack of transportation or medically appropriate shelters— making it more difficult to receive emergency alerts,
evacuate safely, or access support resources.

Past Health Events and Regional Response
San Mateo County, like the rest of the United States, was included in the March 2020 FEMA major disaster
declaration for the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. As of winter 2023, the county has reported a total of 184,001 COVID-19 cases and 912 deaths since monitoring began in January 2020. As recently as 2019, a major mosquito
problem was reported by approximately 50 East Palo Alto residents and may have affected significantly more
residents. While West Nile virus is the main mosquitoborne disease of concern in the area, San Mateo County has rarely had West Nile virus cases in the past two
decades, and those that have occurred were acquired
outside of the county. San Mateo County Health received confirmation in April 2016 that the first San Mateo County resident tested positive for Zika virus, with 13 cases
reported in the county in 2016.

The Bay Area Air District has played a key role in
monitoring and improving air quality throughout the
region, resulting in notable progress even as population, traffic, and industrial activities have grown. The Air District operates several programs to reduce air pollution,
including the Spare the Air Program, which issues alerts on days when air quality is expected to be poor due to high levels of ozone or particulate matter. On Spare the Air days, residents are encouraged to limit activities that contribute to air pollution, such as driving, using gas-powered
equipment, or wood burning. Employers with 50 or more
full-time employees in the Bay Area are required to
provide Commuter Benefits Programs to encourage the
use of alternative modes of transportation.

Regional Health Management and Response
San Mateo County Health provides health services,
including vaccination clinics, disease testing, and
emergency response support, to residents throughout the county. The San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector
Control District operates as the county’s community-based mosquito control program, using surveillance, prevention, and control methods to help control the risk of disease.

Contact tracing is used as a public health practice to
identify and notify people who have been exposed to
someone with an infectious disease, particularly important during pandemic events. The Health Alert Network serves as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) primary method of sharing urgent public health
information with public health practitioners, clinicians, and laboratories throughout the region.

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to significantly affect the
frequency and severity of future poor air quality events and human health hazards in East Palo Alto. Warmer
temperatures will continue to increase ozone formation
and extend allergen seasons, while more frequent and
intense wildfires across Northern California will create repeated episodes of hazardous air quality from smoke
exposure. Rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns will promote the proliferation of disease-carrying vectors, expanding their geographic range and increasing the transmission of vector-borne diseases. Proactive public health measures, enhanced regional coordination, and
expanded access to clean air facilities and healthcare
services will become increasingly critical to protect East Palo Alto residents from these evolving health threats.

Goal SN-7. Ensure clean air and protect
public health through regional
collaboration, equitable planning, and
sustainable development.

Intent: To protect public health and improve air quality through strategies that reduce exposure to air pollution and promote cleaner environments for all residents.

Policies:

7.1 Regional Collaboration for Air Quality
Management. Continue to collaborate with Bay Area
Air District and surrounding jurisdictions to address
regional air quality impacts, implement coordinated
response strategies, and support regional programs
298
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-33
that improve indoor and outdoor air quality,
including clean air filtration initiatives for vulnerable populations.

7.2 Compliance with Air District Standards for New
Development. Exceed compliance with Bay Area Air
District requirements for new development,
including health risk assessments, air filtration
systems, setback requirements, construction and
operation standards, and indoor air quality measures
that protect residents from exposure to poor air
quality.

7.3 Building Standards to Safeguard Against Poor Air
Quality. Exceed development and building standards
and site design features that protect residents from
exposure to poor air quality, including wildfire
smoke, and traffic-related pollution, with enhanced
protection measures for residential areas near
freeways and other high-pollution corridors.

IM 7.3a: Require new buildings housing sensitive
receptors adjacent to Highway 101 and other major
roadways, consistent with Bay Area Air District
standards, to incorporate mechanical ventilation
systems with a filter with a Minimum Efficiency
Reporting Value rating of 13 (MERV 13) or higher,
capable of capturing at least 90 percent of medium
and large-size particles.

Timeframe: Short-Term
IM 7.3b: Require ventilation systems and indoor air
quality testing for new multifamily residential
developments consistent with applicable building
and health standards.

Timeframe: Short-Term

7.4 Air Quality Planning for Capital Improvement
Projects. Integrate air quality considerations into the planning of Capital Improvement Projects, with
emphasis on reducing exposure for environmental
justice communities and other vulnerable
populations.

7.5 Funding for Clean Air Facilities. Support and apply for funding for clean air facilities that provide refuge during poor air quality and extreme heat events. This
includes maintaining the existing permanent clean
air facilities, incorporating air filtration systems in new and renovated resilience centers, supporting
comparable private facilities, and prioritizing
locations accessible to transit-dependent and
vulnerable populations.

IM 7.5a: Apply for State and federal grants to
support clean air facility operations and
maintenance, including Air District Community
Health Protection Program funding.

Timeframe: Short-Term (Ongoing)
IM 7.5b: Establish partnerships with schools,
libraries, and community centers to create
additional clean air refuge locations accessible to
vulnerable populations.

Timeframe: Short-Term (Ongoing)

7.6 Expanding Access to Clean Air Filtration for
Vulnerable Communities. Expand participation in
the Air District’s Clean Air Filtration Program by
supporting and providing residential filter
installation and maintenance.

IM 7.6a: Partner with community-based
organizations for program implementation,
prioritizing environmental justice communities and
vulnerable populations.

Timeframe: Short-Term (Ongoing)

7.7 Prioritizing Air Quality Protection for Vulnerable
Populations. Prioritize the protection of vulnerable
populations from adverse air quality impacts
through appropriate land use decisions and
development standards.

7.8 Promoting Low-Cost Transit on Spare the Air Days.

Coordinate with San Mateo County Transit District to
provide free or reduced-cost public transportation
during Spare the Air days to reduce vehicle
emissions.

7.9 Collaborative Planning for Vector-Borne Disease
Prevention. Engage with the San Mateo County
Mosquito and Vector Control District, as well as San
Mateo County Health to prepare for increased
299
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-34
episodes of vector-borne diseases in East Palo Alto
and the surrounding area.

7.10 Community Partnerships for Equitable Healthcare
Access. Work with local community-based
organizations to improve access to healthcare,
preventive services, and address health inequities
throughout the community.

IM 7.10a: Require ventilation systems and indoor air
quality testing for all multifamily residential housing consistent with applicable building and health
standards.

Timeframe: Short-Term

7.11 Urban Greening Priority. Prioritize tree planting and urban greening initiatives in areas with high
pollution exposure and inadequate tree canopy
coverage.

Severe Weather
Severe weather in East Palo Alto includes intense storms that bring heavy rain, high winds, and thunderstorms.

These events pose significant threats by disrupting daily life, compromising public safety, and damaging
infrastructure throughout the community. According to the East Palo Alto Vulnerability Assessment, severe weather events particularly threaten:
• Low-resourced households lacking reliable
transportation for evacuations or financial means to
leave.
• Older adults who face mobility challenges during
evacuations and power outages affecting medical
equipment.
• People with chronic illnesses who are more
susceptible to temperature fluctuations and stress.
• Residents of mobile homes due to structural
vulnerabilities of older manufactured housing.

Types of Severe Weather
The most common severe weather events affecting East
Palo Alto are heavy rain events often associated with
atmospheric rivers, windstorms, and occasional
thunderstorms. Atmospheric rivers are long, narrow bands of moisture in the atmosphere that transport water vapor from the tropics. When these systems make landfall, they can release intense precipitation causing flooding and
related hazards. While these storms provide critical water supply for California, they also create significant risks for low-lying communities like East Palo Alto.

Windstorms involving gusts exceeding 50-60 miles per hour occur throughout the year and can cause extensive
damage. High winds topple trees and power lines, damage buildings, and create hazardous conditions. During wet
winters, saturated soils make trees particularly vulnerable to uprooting, while dry conditions can lead to increased fire risk from downed power lines. Thunderstorms, while less common in the Bay Area, can produce lightning strikes, heavy rain, and damaging winds.

Past Events
East Palo Alto has experienced numerous severe weather
events that have caused significant damage and disruption.

Major events include:
• Severe winter storms in February 1998, which brought
heavy flooding that forced the evacuation of hundreds
of residents, damaged millions of dollars of property,
and closed major roads throughout the city. This event
triggered a federal disaster declaration.
• In October 2009, a severe windstorm caused
widespread damage across San Mateo County,
knocking down 47 trees and 31 sets of power lines.

Approximately 58,000 county residents lost power,
with damages reaching $13 million.
• A series of atmospheric river storms in December
2012, which caused severe flooding in East Palo Alto,
triggering a levee breach between Verbena Drive and
Daphne Way that forced evacuations and left one
home uninhabitable.
• Most recently, severe storms from December 2022
through March 2023 brought flooding along San
Francisquito Creek, damaged property and buildings,
flooded Highway 101, and caused widespread power
outages. Downed power lines forced closures of
University Avenue and Cooley Avenue.
300
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-35
Secondary Impacts
Severe weather creates cascading impacts beyond
immediate wind and water damage. Power outages from
downed lines can last for days, affecting vulnerable
populations who rely on electricity for medical equipment or lack resources to replace spoiled food. Storm debris blocks roads and hinders emergency response. Saturated
soils increase the risk of infrastructure damage and tree failures long after storms pass.

Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events, while not
weather events themselves, compound severe weather
impacts. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) may
preemptively cut power during high wind conditions to
prevent wildfire ignitions, leaving residents without
electricity during critical times.

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to intensify severe weather
patterns affecting East Palo Alto. While annual average precipitation levels may increase only slightly, the nature of storms will change dramatically. Atmospheric rivers are projected to become more intense, delivering larger
amounts of precipitation in shorter timeframes. This
pattern of fewer but more extreme storms will increase
flood risk, overwhelm drainage systems, and create longer dry periods between events that harden soils and worsen subsequent flooding. The combination of more intense
storms and aging infrastructure poses growing challenges for community safety and resilience.

Goal SN-8. Enhance community resilience
to severe weather events through
improved infrastructure, emergency
preparedness, and coordinated response
capabilities.

Intent: To protect residents and property from atmospheric rivers, windstorms, and other severe weather events that can cause flooding, power outages, and infrastructure
damage, while ensuring vulnerable populations receive
timely support during and after events.

Policies:

8.1 Severe Weather Infrastructure Resilience.

Implement proactive infrastructure hardening
measures to withstand atmospheric rivers,
windstorms, and severe precipitation events,
including upgrades to stormwater systems,
strengthening of critical utility infrastructure, and
installation of backup power systems at essential
facilities to maintain operations during extended
outages.

8.2 Severe Weather Early Warning and Response.

Enhance community alert systems specifically for
severe weather events, including atmospheric rivers
and windstorms, with multilingual and multi-format
communications that provide actionable guidance
for residents. Coordinate with Pacific Gas and
Electric Company regarding Public Safety Power
Shutoff events to ensure vulnerable populations
receive advance notice and resource support.

8.3 Post-Storm Recovery and Debris Management.

Establish rapid response protocols for post-storm
recovery that prioritize clearing of evacuation routes
and restoration of services to critical facilities.

Develop pre-positioned contracts for debris removal
and infrastructure repair to reduce recovery time,
particularly in areas serving vulnerable populations
identified in the vulnerability assessment.

8.4 Private Property Severe Weather Resilience.

Support property owners in implementing severe
weather protection measures for homes and
businesses, with priority assistance for vulnerable
populations and essential local businesses.

IM 8.4a: Develop design guidelines for residential
severe weather protection as part of emergency
preparedness, including roof tie-downs, storm
shutters, and landscaping practices to minimize wind
damage.

Timeframe: Medium-Term
IM 8.4b: Partner with local non-profits to explore
assisting property owners with tree management,
such as free or low-cost tree trimming and removal
services for hazardous trees on private property that
301
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-36
threaten public safety, where feasible.

Timeframe: Medium-Term

8.5 Utility Resilience and Backup Power Support. Work
with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company to
enhance community resilience to power outages
through improved utility coordination and expanded
access to backup power systems.

IM 8.5a: Develop and implement proactive protocols
for Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events,
including advance community notification and
outreach in multiple languages, prepositioning of
backup batteries and mobile power units at critical
facilities and resilience centers, deployment of
temporary cooling and charging stations, and
coordination with vulnerable populations to ensure
access to medical equipment and life-sustaining
resources during planned outages.

Timeframe: Short-Term
Extreme Heat
Extreme heat threatens public health, infrastructure, and the environment in East Palo Alto. Extreme heat days are when temperatures exceed 98 percent of historical highs for the area, as measured between April and October from 1961 to 1990. In East Palo Alto, an extreme heat day is one where the maximum temperature is above 92.4 degrees
Fahrenheit. Extended periods of extreme heat, known as
heat waves, threaten community health and increase
energy costs. When daily minimum temperatures remain
significantly above normal, warm nights can worsen an
extreme heat day because overnight temperatures do not
provide the community with relief from high temperatures.

A warm night in East Palo Alto is when temperatures
remain above 60.9 degrees Fahrenheit.

Extreme heat is one of the deadliest climate-related
hazards nationwide, with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention noting a rise in heat-related deaths from 297 in 2004 to over 2,300 in 2023. Extreme heat can be
particularly dangerous in places like East Palo Alto, where a typically mild climate means that community members are unaccustomed to very high temperatures and may be less
able to adapt. Even slight increases in temperature can overwhelm the ability of community members to cope
with extreme heat and warm nights, straining public health systems and infrastructure. This leads to heightened risks of dehydration, heat-related illnesses, and respiratory issues, disrupting daily life and economic activity. Extreme heat also stresses infrastructure, as heightened air
conditioning demand risks overloading the power grid and causing outages, and very high heat can degrade
transportation systems leading to delays and damage.

Extreme heat poses particularly severe risks for vulnerable populations, including:
• Older adults with chronic health conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and respiratory issues.
• Low-resourced households who may lack air
conditioning or cannot afford higher energy costs.
• People with disabilities who depend on electricity for medical devices or medication storage.
• Residents of mobile homes lacking adequate
ventilation systems.

CalHeatScore: A Local Heat-Risk Tool
CalHeatScore is California’s new statewide tool for
identifying and communicating heat-health risks at the
ZIP-code level. Developed by CalEPA and partners, the
system uses a 0–4 scale to rate daily heat risk based on forecasted temperatures, historical health data, and
community vulnerability. A score of 4 indicates severe
health risk—more than double the typical rate of heatrelated illness. This tool helps residents, local governments, and emergency planners better
understand, prepare for, and respond to extreme heat
events. Visit calheatscore.calepa.ca.gov for real-time
local scores and safety resources.
302
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-37
• Outdoor workers in landscaping, construction, and
other industries.

Figure 10-11 shows the areas of East Palo Alto that may experience higher temperatures on extreme heat days due to limited shade cover and presence of heat-absorbing
materials. Areas most at risk include the neighborhood
surrounding Cesar Chavez Ravenswood Middle School, the
Gateway 101 Shopping Mall, and the
commercial/industrial center along Bay Road towards
Cooley Landing. Warmer temperatures and the urban heat
island effect can exacerbate extreme heat impacts in
densely populated areas, especially those that have limited tree canopy.

Past Events
Historically, East Palo Alto has experienced an average of five extreme heat days per year, with extreme heat days being most frequent in September in recent years. The city has recorded several notable extreme heat events that
have impacted the community:
• July 22, 2006: High temperatures reached 103 degrees
Fahrenheit with nighttime lows only falling into the
lower 70s.
303
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-38
Figure 10-11: Heat Severity Index
304
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-39
• September 1, 2017: A strong upper-level ridge brought widespread hot temperatures, breaking numerous
daily and monthly records, with three San Mateo
County residents dying from heat-related causes.
• June 10, 2019: An early season heat wave triggered
power outages affecting 57,000 people across nine
counties, including San Mateo County, over two days.
• August 19, 2020: A prolonged heat wave lasting
almost a week brought widespread record-breaking
temperatures with multiple days of triple-digit
afternoon highs.
• September 6, 2022: A strong ridge of high pressure led to anomalously hot temperatures, shattering several
daily, monthly, and all-time temperature records, with
reports of power outages, heat-related illnesses, and
deaths.

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to significantly increase the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events in East Palo Alto. Extreme heat days are expected to increase from a historic annual average of 5 days per year to an average of 14 days per year by mid-century (2035-2064) and 25 days per year by late century (2070-2099). Warm nights are
projected to increase dramatically from a historic 5 nights per year to 39 nights per year by mid-century and 100
nights per year by late century. These projections indicate that extreme heat will become a much more frequent and
persistent threat to the East Palo Alto community, with warm nights preventing nighttime recovery from daytime
heat exposure.

Goal SN-9. Enhance community resilience
to extreme heat.

Intent: To lessen the impacts of extreme heat on City
residents and property.

Policies:

9.1 Drought-Tolerant Green Infrastructure. Promote the
use of drought-tolerant green infrastructure,
including landscaped areas, as part of cooling
strategies in public and private spaces. Prioritize
installation of green infrastructure and trees in areas most vulnerable to heat.

IM 9.1a: Implement and maintain green
infrastructure requirements for all feasible public
and private projects in accordance with the City’s
Green Infrastructure Plan, emphasizing the use of
drought-tolerant vegetation, low-impact
development practices, and design strategies that
enhance cooling, stormwater management, and
climate resilience.

Timeframe: Short-Term

9.2 Urban Tree Canopy. Expand the urban tree canopy
to reduce extreme heat impacts and support carbon
sequestration, while proactively managing and
maintaining the urban forest to increase tree
resilience and reduce the risk of downed trees
during severe weather.

9.3 Urban Tree Planting. Expand urban tree-planting
programs in areas with high pedestrian activity and
in neighborhoods with low tree canopy coverage and
high exposure to urban heat island effects. Ensure
community participation in the selection of tree
species and planting locations to address local
needs.

9.4 Installation of Shade Structures and Trees. Install shade structures and trees, both green and built
infrastructure, at parks, schools, along public streets, walkways, and trails, and at other public spaces to
reduce ground surface temperatures.

Urban Heat Island Effect
The Urban Heat Island Effect occurs when urban areas
experience significantly warmer temperatures than
surrounding rural areas. This happens because
concrete, asphalt, and buildings absorb and retain heat more than natural landscapes. Urban areas can be 2-
5°F warmer during the day and up to 22°F warmer at
night compared to nearby rural areas. Areas with
limited tree cover and green space experience the
most intense heat island effects.
305
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-40
IM 9.4a: Coordinate with SamTrans to install shade
structures at all City bus stops within areas scoring
"Moderate" to "Severe" on Heat Severity Index by
2028.

Timeframe: Medium-Term

9.5 Sustainable, Energy-Efficient, and Environmentally
Regenerative Features. Encourage new
developments and existing property owners to
incorporate sustainable, energy-efficient, and
environmentally regenerative features into their
facilities, landscapes, and structures to reduce
energy demands and improve on-site resilience.

Include support for emergency power supplies,
including solar panels and battery energy storage
systems. Support financing efforts to increase
community access to these features.

IM 9.5a: Explore expediting the permitting process
for heat mitigation improvements including solar
energy installations, cool roofs, and energy-efficient
cooling systems.

Timeframe: Medium-Term

9.6 Sustainable Features for Rental Properties. Create
incentive programs and requirements for rental
property owners to incorporate sustainable, energyefficient cooling features to protect tenants during extreme heat events. Support financing efforts to
increase property owner and tenant access to these
features.

9.7 Extreme Heat Public Outreach. Develop and
implement public outreach campaigns to educate
residents about the risks of extreme heat, effective
heat-mitigation strategies, and available resources
during heat events, as well as providing updates on
City initiatives in progress. Ensure campaigns are
multilingual, multimodal, and iterative to reach all
community members.

9.8 Shading and Heat-Mitigating Materials. Coordinate
with SamTrans to increase shading and use of heatmitigating materials at transit stops.

9.9 Rental Housing Climate Controls. Encourage
landlords to meet minimum cooling needs for rental
housing to protect tenant health during extreme
heat events, including providing functional cooling
systems.

9.10 Home Weatherization and Retrofit Programs.

Conduct focused outreach to raise awareness about
home weatherization and retrofit programs,
including available financial incentives, in lowincome neighborhoods and households with limited English proficiency.

9.11 Extreme Heat Emergency Response. Develop
comprehensive emergency response protocols for
extreme heat events to protect public health and
ensure coordinated community support consistent
with AB 2684 requirements.

IM 9.11a: Create mobile cooling unit program to
serve residents unable to access fixed cooling
centers, prioritizing households with medical
vulnerabilities.

Timeframe: Medium-Term
IM 9.11b: Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions
on development and implementation of a regional
extreme heat response plan. The plan will include
the creation of equitably distributed and accessible
community cooling centers, weatherization of public
buildings to enhance heat resilience, temperature
thresholds for activating cooling centers, and
targeted cooling strategies to protect outdoor
workers and individuals experiencing homelessness.

Timeframe: Short-Term
Drought
Drought is a significant decrease in water supply relative to what is needed to meet typical demand, leading to a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sector.

While drought is a normal occurrence for Mediterranean
climates such as that of San Mateo County, long and severe droughts have the potential to impact ecosystems and
economic activity across the entire community. Most
droughts are defined based on declines in average
precipitation levels, declines in agricultural production, declines in streamflow and groundwater levels, or
306
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-41
socioeconomic impacts from water shortages. The severity of any given drought depends on the degree of moisture
deficiency, the duration, and the size and location of the affected area.

Drought Hazards
While drought does not typically directly result in loss of life or damage to structures, drought can have widespread impacts on the environment and the economy. Potential
drought impacts include loss of crops, costs incurred by having to drill new wells, increased costs for water
straining household finances and reducing commercial
profits, reduced habitat and food supply for plants and animals, and increased risk of wildfire. A prolonged lack of precipitation dries out vegetation and makes plants more vulnerable to pests, both of which can increase
susceptibility to wildfires. Drought conditions especially burden:
• Low-resourced households who face water
affordability concerns and cannot afford waterefficient appliances. • Food-insecure residents who may see increased food
prices due to agricultural impacts.
• Community gardens and local food programs that
support vulnerable populations.
• Residents who are dependent on community-based
food distribution programs.
• Households already struggling with utility costs who
face additional conservation pricing.

Drought response is determined case by case, and
response priorities are typically based on imminence of potential water shortages.

In East Palo Alto, a history of regulatory decisions and limited infrastructure have constrained the City's water supply and exacerbated drought conditions. Despite the
city's low per-capita water consumption, the city's water demand exceeded its available supply several times since 2001 due to limited water allocations from the SFPUC
Regional Water System that did not keep pace with
population growth. Due to the inability of its water
allocations to support new development, the City issued a two-year moratorium on new construction in 2016 and did not allow new developments to progress unless developers could show that they had access to the necessary water.

The City ultimately pursued two strategies for expanding its water supply: seeking more water from the SFPUC
system and developing groundwater supplies, including
water transfers with neighboring jurisdictions and
expanding operations at the Gloria Well. These efforts have helped to fortify the City’s water supply; however, East Palo Alto still faces water supply and quality challenges that are being addressed through current countywide drought
resiliency planning efforts.

Past Events
San Mateo County has a history of severe droughts, with data from the early 1900s showing multi-year droughts
from 1912 to 1913, 1918 to 1920, 1922 to 1924, and 1928 to 1934. More recent prolonged droughts that have
impacted the planning area include:
• 1976 to 1977: California had a severe drought due to
lack of rainfall, with 1977 being the driest period on
record in California at that time. Over $2.6 billion in crop damage was recorded in 31 counties, and FEMA
declared a drought emergency for all California
counties.
• 1987 to 1992: California received precipitation well
below average levels for four consecutive years. By
February 1991, all 58 counties in California were
experiencing drought, with the State Water Project
sharply decreasing deliveries to water suppliers.

East Palo Alto’s Water Supply
The City of East Palo Alto purchases most of its potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC) Regional Water System.

Approximately 85 percent of the water supply to the
SFPUC system originates in the Hetch Hetchy
watershed in Yosemite National Park and flows down
the Tuolumne River. The remaining 15 percent of the
water supply originates locally in the Alameda and
Peninsula watersheds. The City also sources a small
amount of groundwater from the San Mateo Plain
groundwater subbasin, which is part of the Santa Clara
Valley Groundwater Basin.
307
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-42
• 2007 to 2009: The state proclaimed a statewide
drought emergency in June 2008 after spring 2008 was
the driest spring on record. State courts imposed what
was, at the time, the largest court-ordered water
restriction in state history.
• 2012 to 2017: This drought set several records for the state, with 2012 to 2014 ranking as the driest three
consecutive years for statewide precipitation. Calendar year 2014 set new records for statewide average
temperatures and for low water allocations from the
State Water Project.
• 2020 to 2023: The U.S. Department of Agriculture
declared a drought disaster that included San Mateo
County in April 2020. Between April and December
2021, San Mateo County was at the D3—Extreme
Drought level, putting the county at risk for wildfire on a year-round basis.

Future Conditions
Climate change is likely to result in more frequent and severe droughts across the state. Overall, precipitation levels are expected to increase slightly in East Palo Alto, from a historical annual average of 16.3 to 17.9 inches by mid-century (2035 to 2064) and 19.9 inches by latecentury (2070 to 2099). However, more years with extreme levels of precipitation, both high and low, are likely as a result of climate change. Reduced winter precipitation
levels and warmer temperatures have greatly decreased
the size of the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which in turn
makes less fresh water available for communities
throughout California. More intense droughts are expected to compact and harden soils, so when rain does return,
more water will run off as stormwater rather than infiltrate into soils, potentially causing downstream flooding while reducing groundwater recharge.

Goal SN-10. Ensure water security and
community resilience during drought
conditions through conservation,
efficiency measures, and sustainable
water management practices.

Intent: To maintain sufficient and reliable water supplies for residential, commercial, and emergency needs during
drought periods while promoting conservation practices
that reduce long-term vulnerability to water shortages.

Policies:

10.1 Drought-Tolerant Landscaping Standards. Ensure
drought-tolerant landscaping for new development
complies with state Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance standards while ensuring landscaping
choices do not create wildfire or flooding risks.

10.2 Public Right-of-Way Rainwater Harvesting. Install
rainwater catchment and bioretention systems in
public rights-of-way to support groundwater
recharge and drought resilience.

10.3 Municipal Landscape Drought Adaptation. Retrofit
City-owned landscapes, parks, and facilities with
drought-resistant and native plant species.

IM-10.3a Smart Irrigation and Alternative Water Use.

Install smart irrigation controllers in retrofitted areas and utilize recycled water, graywater, or captured
rainwater where irrigation remains necessary.

Timeframe: Medium-Term

10.4 Community Water Stewardship Education. Provide
comprehensive multilingual education programs that
teach residents advanced water conservation
practices and drought preparedness strategies.

10.5 Alternative Water Systems Development. Promote
development and use of greywater, recycled water,
and other alternative water systems to reduce
dependence on potable water supplies.
308
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-43
IM 10.5a: Update building code to streamline
permitting for residential graywater and rainwater
harvesting systems.

Timeframe: Medium-Term
Transportation Hazards
Airport Operations
Safety risks associated with airport operations comprise a distinct hazards category. Lands surrounding or near an airport have an increased risk of experiencing accidents involving aircraft.

The Palo Alto Airport is a general aviation facility located just south of East Palo Alto. The airport is owned and
operated by the City of Palo Alto. Santa Clara County
managed the airport until 2017, when the City of Palo Alto assumed operations following the end of a 50-year lease.

Airport and land use compatibility issues are overseen by the Santa Clara County Airport-Land Use Commission.

As shown in Figure 10-12, the northern edge of the
airport’s runway is immediately adjacent to San
Francisquito Creek, which in this location serves as both City and County boundary. The County has prepared a
comprehensive land use plan (CLUP), last amended in
2020, for the Palo Alto Airport, which identifies zones around the airport where land use and building height
restrictions are needed to guard against potential conflicts with airport operations.

California law (Government Code 65302.3) requires that a local general plan be consistent with the applicable airport land/use plan compatibility criteria in the relevant adopted airport land use plan.

The Palo Alto Airport land use plan identifies building height restrictions (pursuant to Federal Aviation
Regulations part 77) to ensure no obstructions to air
navigation are created. A portion of the height restriction zone extends into the Baylands area of East Palo Alto which is commonly known as the Faber-Laumeister Tract and is
part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National
Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The Baylands are the only portion of East Palo Alto within the Palo Alto Airport Influence Area (AIA). This General Plan maintains the refuge in open space use. The open space designation is focused on maintaining and preserving open space and other public recreational uses. The General Plan proposes no new residential or
commercial development in the Baylands area. Given the
open space designation, there would be no navigation
obstruction.

The Palo Alto Airport is one of the busiest general aviation airports in the Bay Area. Over the past decade, the airport has averaged approximately 155,000 operations (takeoffs and landings) annually. Recent projections indicate
operations may climb toward 200,000 annually within 15
years. As of 2024, approximately 353 aircraft lease space at the airport.

The City of Palo Alto launched the Long-Range Facilities and Sustainability Plan (LRFSP) in 2023 to guide airport improvements over the next 20 years, with a focus on
safety, sustainability, and resiliency. The LRFSP evaluated five alternatives for airport facilities, developed in
accordance with FAA criteria (including alternatives that would modify the airport's existing 2,443-foot runway) but identified no preferred alternative. Following substantial community opposition regarding potential environmental
and noise impacts on the Baylands and adjacent
communities, the Palo Alto City Council directed staff in September 2024 to reconsider planning alternatives
without expanding the airport's footprint. The LRFSP is on pause as of January 2026 while the City makes near-term progress on leaded fuel transition and noise reduction
efforts.

The airport serves important community functions,
including as the main refueling location for life flight helicopters serving Stanford Medical Center and as a
destination for Angel Flight aircraft bringing patients to Palo Alto for medical care.

The frequency and severity of future airport hazards in East Palo Alto will depend on the scale of future activities. Given projections for increased operations, along with ongoing regional aviation growth, monitoring and coordination with airport operators and regional planning agencies will
remain important for managing potential impacts on East Palo Alto.
309
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-44
Figure 10-12: Airport Safety Zones and Hazardous Sites
310
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-45
Surface Transportation/Pedestrian
Surface transportation, such as cars and trucks, also poses risks to the safety and well-being of people. East Palo Alto has historically experienced high rates of vehicle collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly among major arterials such as University Avenue and at key
intersections.

Between 2018 and 2022, East Palo Alto reported 458 fatal and injury crashes on surface streets (at-grade roadways), including 48 fatal/severe injury crashes. Pedestrians were involved in 27 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes and 12 percent of all crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 21
percent of fatal/severe injury crashes and 16 percent of all crashes. The City’s 2024 Local Roadway Safety Plan
identifies University Avenue as a high-priority corridor, with multiple intersections along University Avenue
ranking among the top locations for safety improvements due to documented collision patterns.

The City has made significant improvements in recent
years. The 2025 University Avenue Safety Enhancements
Project has a goal of reducing collisions at four highpriority intersections along University Avenue, identified through a community-wide safety analysis. The project
includes improved pedestrian crossings, upgraded signal equipment for visibility, and protected left-turn phases to separate conflicting vehicle movements. In 2025, the City also opened a pedestrian overcrossing at University
Avenue and Highway 101, addressing a documented
hazard area where 26 bicycle collisions occurred within one block between January 2024 and June 2025.

While these improvements are expected to reduce
collisions, pedestrian and bicycle safety remains a priority concern. This is particularly true given that East Palo Alto is a major commuter corridor due to its proximity to Highway 84 (Dumbarton Bridge) and the concentration of
residential neighborhoods near major arterials.

Goal SN-11. Protect the community from
public safety hazards related to aircraft
and surface transportation.

Intent: To help City residents avoid human-made hazards and maintain lives of maximum security and freedom from harm.

Policies:

11.1 Transportation safety. Minimize transportation
accidents by considering pedestrian safety in all land
use planning decisions and working closely with CHP,
Caltrans, SamTrans, and other relevant agencies to
identify safety problems and implement corrective
measures.

IM 11.1a: Implement safety improvements identified
in the 2024 Local Roadway Safety Plan and
coordinate with regional partners, including the
City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG) and the San Mateo County
Transportation Authority, to pursue Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) funding and other
safety grant opportunities.

Timeframe: Short-Term/Ongoing

11.2 Airport land use plan. Coordinate with the Santa
Clara County Airport Land Use Commission and Palo
Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
and consider the CLUP in making any land use
decisions in the airport influence area.

11.3 Traffic Safety Infrastructure Maintenance. Maintain and enhance traffic control infrastructure, including
traffic signals, crosswalks, speed control measures,
and pedestrian safety features to ensure both daily
safety and emergency response capability.

Implement proactive maintenance programs to
prevent traffic signal outages and address
infrastructure failures that compromise pedestrian
and vehicle safety.
311
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-46
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are materials that pose a significant risk to public safety or human or environmental health, including toxic chemicals, flammable or corrosive
materials, petroleum products, and unstable or
dangerously reactive materials. They can be released
through human error, malfunctioning or broken
equipment, or as an indirect consequence of other
emergencies such as earthquakes, floods, or severe
weather. Hazardous materials can also be released
accidentally during transportation as a consequence of
vehicle accidents. A release or spill could result in fire, explosion, toxic cloud, or direct contamination of water, people, and property, with effects potentially involving a local site or many square miles.

As cities age and patterns of development change, former industrial properties, gasoline stations, and other parcels with land uses associated with hazardous materials (which can include agricultural uses) are often abandoned. These properties, where soils and groundwater are known or
suspected to be contaminated, are often referred to as
“brownfields”. The threat of contamination and potential liability for cleanup costs drives developers away from brownfields and encourages growth on previously
undeveloped parcels at the outskirts of urban areas. This results in the inefficient use of land, blight in older portions of cities and, most importantly, the potential for adverse health impacts on nearby residents.

Several different types of hazardous material
contamination have been documented in East Palo Alto in numerous previous studies (including but not limited to the Ravenswood Business District/4Corners (RBD) Specific Plan EIR, the Facebook EIR, and the 2016 General Plan EIR), as shown in Figure 10-9 and Figure 10-10.

The greatest concentration of affected sites is in the
Ravenswood TOD Specific Plan Area, centered around Bay
Road and the Cooley Landing area. This area was
historically home to numerous industrial uses dating back to the 19th century. The handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials were not as tightly regulated as they are today; consequently, many historic industrial sites are marked with substantial contamination of soils and
groundwater.

PCBs, metals, petrochemicals, and other harmful materials can be found at such sites. Many of these sites are
currently undergoing clean-up activities, and others have restrictions that prohibit sensitive uses like homes or schools being placed on top.

General aviation aircraft have historically used leaded aviation gasoline (100LL - 100 octane low lead), which
contains tetraethyl lead as an octane booster. Palo Alto Airport is transitioning to unleaded aviation fuel to
eliminate lead emissions. In December 2024, the airport introduced Swift 100R, a high-octane unleaded aviation
fuel that can be used as a drop-in replacement for 100LL in most piston-engine aircraft. The transition to unleaded fuel will eliminate a source of lead emissions that can impact air quality and public health, particularly for communities near the airport flight path.

Besides industrial sites, other documented sources of
hazardous materials in the city include areas of
uncontrolled fill, former gas stations (particularly if underground storage tanks leaked), and areas formerly in agricultural use. Though agricultural uses may sound
relatively benign when compared to industrial uses or gas stations, former agricultural properties will often have pesticide residue in the top two feet or more of soil. In addition, buildings constructed and/or painted before the late 1970s may contain asbestos and/or lead-based paint; demolition or removal of such buildings must conform to federal and state policies to ensure the safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials.

As a result of a cluster of agricultural, heavy
manufacturing, chemical manufacturing and auto wrecking uses, the City of East Palo Alto was nominated a
Brownfields Showcase Community in 1997. The Gateway
101 and University Circle area brownfields were
redeveloped, and now contribute significant revenue to
the City’s general fund. The adoption of the Ravenswood TOD Specific Plan is the first major step to remediate the City’s remaining brownfields, which are clustered in the Ravenswood Employment District.

Current hazardous materials management is overseen by
multiple agencies working in coordination, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency, State Regional Water
Quality Board, and the Department of Toxic Substances
Control. San Mateo County Environmental Health Services 312
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-47
serves as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the county, managing hazardous materials and waste
regulation including Hazardous Materials Management,
California Accidental Release Prevention, Hazardous Waste Management, Underground Storage Tanks, Aboveground
Storage Tanks, and Emergency Response programs. The
Menlo Park Fire Protection District issues operational
permits for the storage and use of hazardous materials and works with the CUPA to coordinate proper handling and
enforcement.

Past Events
Hazardous materials incidents have occurred periodically in East Palo Alto and the surrounding region. Eighteen
hazardous materials incidents have been reported in East Palo Alto since 2006, with fifteen of these incidents related to petroleum exposure and three classified as chemical
incidents. While these local incidents were relatively minor, the 2010 San Bruno natural gas pipeline rupture
demonstrates the potential for more severe regional
impacts, where eight people lost their lives, 51 required hospitalization, 38 homes were destroyed, and property
damage exceeded $220 million.

Future Conditions
The frequency and severity of future hazardous materials releases in East Palo Alto will depend on the scale of future activities but increases in the frequency and severity of other natural hazards, such as floods, can affect the
frequency and severity of future hazardous materials
releases. Climate change impacts such as sea level rise and emergent groundwater pose particular concerns for
contaminated sites in East Palo Alto, as rising groundwater levels could mobilize existing soil and groundwater
contamination, potentially spreading pollutants to
previously uncontaminated areas and complicating
ongoing remediation efforts.

Goal SN-12. Protect community health
and safety from hazardous materials
exposure through responsible
management, remediation of
contaminated sites, and prevention of
new contamination.

Intent: To help City residents avoid human-made hazards and maintain lives of maximum security and freedom from harm
Policies:

12.1 Contamination. Avoid or minimize risk to the
community from exposure to contaminated soils or
groundwater.

IM 12.1a: Coordinate with San Mateo County
Environmental Health Services (CUPA) to maintain an
updated database of all known and suspected
contaminated sites. Ensure sharing of this database
with community members and hold public,
multilingual workshops to understand the
information therein.

Timeframe: Short-Term (Ongoing)

12.2 Management of hazardous materials. Continue to
cooperate with federal, state, and county agencies to
effectively regulate the management of hazardous
materials and hazardous waste.

12.3 Risk Management Plans. Continue to cooperate with
the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for East
Palo Alto (the County of San Mateo Health System)
and the Menlo Park Fire Protection District to
administer Risk Management Plans for businesses
within the city.

12.4 Safe Siting and Design for Hazardous Material
Facilities. Protect public health through appropriate
siting and design requirements for facilities that use, manufacture, or store hazardous materials.
313
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-48
IM 12.4a: Coordinate with Caltrans and CHP to
establish designated hazardous materials
transportation routes avoiding residential areas and
schools.

Timeframe: Short-Term

12.5 Prohibit Hazardous Facilities in Groundwater Areas.

Prohibit new facilities that use, manufacture, store,
or transport hazardous materials in emergent
groundwater areas, as shown on Figure 10-9 and
Figure 10-10.

12.6 Gas pipeline emergency prevention and planning.

Coordinate with the Menlo Park Fire Protection
District, and other local, regional, and state agencies to ensure that emergency evacuation plans are in
place and any major pipelines in the community are
appropriately inspected and marked to prevent
accidental rupture.

12.7 Mitigate Hazardous Material Risks from
Groundwater. Require existing facilities in emergent
groundwater areas that handle hazardous materials
to implement comprehensive monitoring,
containment, and emergency response measures to
prevent contamination from groundwater intrusion.

Establish requirements for relocating or
decommissioning highest-risk facilities based on
vulnerability assessments.

IM 12.7a: Require contamination investigation and
cleanup plan approval prior to the commencement
of grading or earthwork on sites in emergent
groundwater areas where hazardous materials are
known or suspected to be present.

Timeframe: Short-Term
IM 12.7b: Develop a long-term monitoring plan for
sites in emergent groundwater areas where full
remediation has not been achieved, incorporating
best available science to detect and respond to
contaminant remobilization over time, in
coordination with the San Mateo County CUPA,
DTSC, and State Water Resources Control Board.

Timeframe: Long-Term
IM 12.7c: Staff will continue to comply with all state
requirements pertaining to sewer discharge and will
update its sewer system management plan in
accordance with the requirements of the State
Water Board to ensure proper system operation.

Timeframe: Long-Term
Noise
Noise is typically defined as unwanted sound and is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying.

Excessive noise may result in hearing loss, interference with normal activities such as sleep, speech
communication, work, and recreation, or annoyance,
which may impact quality of life.

The City’s noise ordinance is designed to protect people from non-transportation noises sources such as music,
construction activity, machinery and pumps, and air
conditioners. The Noise Ordinance does not apply to
railroad operation, maintenance and construction activities occurring within the Union Pacific right-of-way or the
permitted hours for such activities. The ordinance also does not apply to noise generated by aircraft activity at Palo Alto Municipal Airport.

Noise from transportation activity is the primary
component of the noise environment in East Palo Alto.

Transportation corridors that traverse East Palo Alto, such as Highway 101; major arterial roadways, such as Willow Road, University Avenue, and Bay Road; and collector
roadways, such as Clarke Avenue and Pulgas Avenue, are
the predominant sources of environmental noise. Figure
10-13 shows existing noise exposure generated by traffic in East Palo Alto, based on 2015 conditions. Figure 10-14
shows estimated 2040 noise exposure generated by traffic in East Palo Alto, accounting for conditions resulting from new development proposed by this General Plan.

The most effective methods for mitigating transportation noise impacts on new noise-sensitive land uses involve
appropriate planning, such as the site design review
process and CEQA (when applicable). During these stages of the development process, potential impacts from
transportation noise will be identified and mitigation
measures will be required as needed to meet City noise
standards. Site planning, topography and the design and construction of noise barriers (walls, berms, or
314
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-49
combination of walls/berms) are the most common
methods of alleviating traffic and train noise impacts.

Setbacks and buffers can also be used to achieve small
noise reductions. Careful consideration should be given to proposed projects that qualify for statutory or infill
exemptions in order to avoid potential noise impacts due to transportation noise. The noise contour maps contained in the noise element should be reviewed by planning staff to ensure that the noise environment at a particular
project site is appropriate for the proposed land use.

Aircraft activity from the Palo Alto Municipal Airport forms the primary source of noise in the eastern portion of the city, where roadway traffic noise sources are limited. This area is located below the flight path for the Palo Alto Municipal Airport. In addition to local airplane activity, overflight from jet aircraft is another source of noise associated with aircraft, particularly from aircraft arriving at San Francisco International Airport. Aircraft noise
primarily affects people who live, work, or play in the vicinity of the airport. Bayfront areas are also home to certain animals that can be sensitive to noise. Figure 10-15 shows the aircraft noise contours generated by the Palo Alto Municipal Airport based on the 2008 Comprehensive
Land Use Plan for Palo Alto Airport prepared by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission.

In March 2024, the City of Palo Alto installed a software monitoring system at the Palo Alto Airport that uses
geofencing technology to track aircraft movements over
East Palo Alto and notify pilots who do not follow voluntary noise abatement procedures. These procedures request
that pilots departing from the runway climb over the bay and reach the area of the Dumbarton Bridge before
turning left to fly south or to the Peninsula. Nearly all flights in 2024 complied with noise abatement rules, with only 35 violations documented out of 150,123 flight
operations, or a compliance rate of 99.98 percent.

Palo Alto Airport’s Long-Range Facilities and Sustainability Plan intends to address improvements related to noise
generated by this airport, although, as of January 2026, this effort is on pause. Based on City Council feedback at the September 16, 2024, study session and to meet
constraints not to expand the airport’s footprint, City staff are reconsidering planning alternatives while making nearterm progress on leaded fuel and noise issues.

The Union Pacific Railroad tracks (Dumbarton Rail Corridor) are located along the northern boundary of the city. These tracks are currently not in use for passenger service. The Dumbarton Rail project, which would provide commuter
rail service across the bay between the Peninsula and the East Bay, has been under study since the early 2000s. The 2017 Dumbarton Transportation Study recommended a
phased approach that includes rail shuttle service between Redwood City and Newark as a medium-term option
(2025-2030), with potential long-term extension to Union City and integration with the Caltrain mainline. SamTrans is conducting the Reimagine Dumbarton Busway Feasibility
Study (2025-2027) to evaluate converting the unused
Dumbarton freight railroad corridor to provide bus service and improvements for people biking and walking. The
study area extends from University Avenue in East Palo
Alto west to Redwood City Transit Center, serving the
communities of Southeast San Mateo County, including
East Palo Alto, Belle Haven, Redwood City, Atherton, and North Fair Oaks. Should commuter rail service or other
significant intensification of rail use be initiated, noise impacts on adjacent residential areas would need to be
addressed through appropriate noise barriers and
mitigation measures.

Commercial and industrial operations are the primary
stationary noise sources that make a significant local
contribution to community noise levels. Such uses can
generate noise due to the regular operation of equipment, including fans, blowers, chillers, compressors, boilers, pumps, and air conditioning systems that may run
continuously. Other intermittent sources of noise include horns, buzzers, and loading activities. In general, these stationary noise sources are often located in areas that are isolated from noise sensitive land uses. However, the
possibility of sensitive development encroaching on some of these stationary noise sources remains, which could
result in some land use conflicts.

Noise sources that affect sensitive receptors within the community also include commercial land uses or those
normally associated with and/or secondary to residential development. These include entertainment venues,
nightclubs, outdoor dining areas, gas stations, car washes, fire stations, drive-thru restaurants, air conditioning units, swimming pool pumps, residential gatherings or parties, school playgrounds, athletic and music events, and public 315
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-50
parks. These non-transportation noise sources are local and typically only affect their adjacent neighbors.

Another source of noise in East Palo Alto relates to
intermittent construction activities. Construction noise can be significant for short periods of time at any particular location as a result of public improvement projects, private development projects, remodeling, etc. The highest
construction noise levels are normally generated during grading and excavation, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction. Each project is required to follow the hours of construction activity stated in its Municipal Code.
316
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-51
Figure 10-13: Existing (2015) Traffic Noise
317
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-52
Figure 10-14: 2040 Future Plus Project Traffic Noise Contours 318
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-53
Figure 10-15: Palo Alto Airport Noise Contours
319
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-54
Ground-borne Vibration
Ground-borne vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating
motions or waves with an average motion of zero. In
urban environments, sources of ground-borne vibration
include construction activities such as pile driving and the movement of heavy equipment, light and heavy rail
transit, and heavy trucks and buses. Low-level
vibrations at a structure frequently cause irritating
secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of
windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound
can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural
damage.

There are currently no active rail lines within the City of East Palo Alto; however, Union Pacific reserves the right to run freight operations on these tracks and there are plans to extend commuter rail service between the
Peninsula and the East Bay as previously noted.

Ground-borne vibration would occur in areas adjacent
to the rail lines when railroad trains pass through East Palo Alto. Ground vibration levels along the railroad
corridor would be proportional to the speed and weight
of the trains, as well as the condition of the tracks, train engine, and car wheels. Vibration levels resulting from railroad trains vary by site but are generally perceptible within 100 feet of the tracks.

Construction activities such as demolition, site
preparation, excavation, and foundation work can
generate groundborne vibration at land uses adjoining
construction sites. Impact pile driving has the potential of generating the highest ground vibration levels and is of primary concern to structural damage. Other project
construction activities, such as caisson drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills, and other high-power or
vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked
vehicles, compactors, etc.) can generate substantial
vibration levels in the immediate vicinity.

Options for Noise Reduction
Because ground transportation noise is the dominant
source of noise in East Palo Alto, it is unlikely that
proposed actions would cause a substantial increase in
noise in the community. There is currently ongoing
research on the effects of different types of pavement
surfaces on the noise generated by vehicular traffic. The interaction of tires and pavement is the main source of traffic noise. The City of East Palo Alto has no
jurisdiction over the noise generated by automobiles,
the types of tires drivers select, etc., but the City can select the type of pavement that it uses to repave its
streets. The consideration of quiet pavement surfaces
in the City’s repaving plans provides an opportunity to make a noticeable reduction in traffic noise along City streets in East Palo Alto. As part of the Ravenswood/4
Corners (RBD) Specific Plan Update (2024), mitigation
measures are included to address noise, such as “quiet” construction equipment models and noise-control
blanket barriers for impact piling driving. In addition, future development projects will be required to pay
their fair-share contribution toward installing quieter pavement types along designated roadway segments
within the Plan Area.

Placing residents in proximity to non-residential land
uses can result in isolated noise problems. For instance, music played at outdoor dining areas or bars can annoy
adjacent residences and be a source of ongoing
complaints. Other urban noise sources, such as the
collection of large garbage dumpsters early in the
morning, the noise of heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning equipment, and outdoor maintenance
activities, are all more frequent in an urban setting. The purpose of a quantitative noise ordinance is to address these types of issues. Reviewing and updating
applicable City ordinances is something the City could
consider in the future if the change in land use patterns results in conflicts that cannot be resolved through
existing regulations.

The most common noise issue that is likely to be faced
by the City can be addressed as it has been historically by evaluating land use proposals in noisy areas and
incorporating noise control treatments to these
projects.
320
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-55
Goal SN-13. Minimize the effects of
noise through proper land use
planning.

Intent: To ensure that new noise-sensitive land uses in the City are located in a compatible noise environment
or appropriately mitigated in order to provide a
compatible exterior and interior noise environment.

Policies:

13.1 Noise standards. Use the Exterior and Interior
Noise Standards (Table 10-1 and Table 10-2) for
evaluating noise sources when making planning
and development decisions. Require that
applicants demonstrate that the noise standards
will be met prior to project approval and include
Conditions of Approvals to ensure the standards
will be met.

13.2 Updates to noise standards. Periodically, during
comprehensive General Plan updates or more
often as needed, review the City’s noise
standards. Update the standards and conduct
new noise studies as necessary to ensure noise
levels remain safe and compatible with the
community.

13.3 Compatibility standards. Utilize noise/land use
compatibility standards and the Noise Ordinance
as guides for future development decisions.

13.4 Noise control. Provide noise control measures,
such as berms, walls, and sound attenuating
construction in areas of new construction or
rehabilitation.

13.5 Vibration impacts. The City shall require new
development to minimize vibration impacts to
adjacent uses during demolition and
construction. For sensitive historic structures, a
vibration limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV will be used to
minimize the potential for cosmetic damage to
the building. A vibration limit of 0.30 in/sec PPV
will be used to minimize the potential for
cosmetic damage at buildings of normal
conventional construction.

13.6 Airport-adjacent land uses. Maintain the
nonresidential designation for land near the
airport to prevent new noise-sensitive residential
uses from being constructed in areas with
excessive aircraft noise and to ensure land use
compatibility with Palo Alto Airport operations
and safety zones, as defined in the Santa Clara
County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palo
Alto Airport.

Goal SN-14. Minimize transportationand non-transportation-related noise impacts, especially on noise-sensitive
land uses.

Intent: To maintain and improve the noise environment
at noise-sensitive land uses throughout the city.

Policies:

14.1 Noise ordinance. Continually enforce and
periodically review the City’s Noise Ordinance for
adequacy (including requiring construction
activity to comply with established work schedule
limits). Amend as needed to address community
needs and development patterns.

14.2 CEQA acoustical analysis. Require an acoustical
analysis to evaluate mitigation measures for
noise generating projects that are likely to cause
the following criteria to be exceeded or to cause
a significant adverse community response:
• Cause the Ldn/CNEL at noise-sensitive
uses to increase by 3 dBA or more and
exceed the “normally acceptable” level.
• Cause the Ldn/CNEL at noise- sensitive
uses to increase 5 dBA or more and
remain
“normally acceptable”.
321
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-56

14.3 Highway noise barriers. Ensure that noise
barriers are considered in the design of roadway,
freeway, and rail improvements to mitigate
significant noise impacts. Support efforts by
Caltrans and other transportation providers to
provide acoustical protection for noise sensitive
development (especially along Highway 101).

Preserve existing vegetation that serve as noise
buffers along transportation corridors. Where
such buffering is absent, encourage new
vegetative buffers that are consistent with the
City’s urban forestry and drought resilience goals.

14.4 Vehicle noise standards. Coordinate with the
California Highway Patrol and other law
enforcement agencies to enforce noise standards
for cars, trucks, and motorcycles.

14.5 Traffic and truck noise. Regulate traffic flow to
enforce speed limits to reduce traffic noise.

Periodically evaluate and enforce established
truck and bus routes to avoid noise impacts on
sensitive receptors.

14.6 Coordination with Airport Land Use
Commission. Work with the Santa Clara County
Airport Land Use Commission and the Palo Alto
Airport to ensure land use decisions in East Palo
Alto are consistent with the Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, including noise
compatibility standards and safety zones.

14.7 Site design review. Utilize site design review to
identify potential noise impacts on new
development, especially from nearby
transportation sources. Encourage the use of
noise barriers (walls, berms, or landscaping),
setbacks and/or other buffers.

14.8 Quiet asphalt. Consider a “quieter” pavement
that also meets other criteria established by the
City for use in resurfacing roadways. Encourage
its use in future capital projects. Projects within
the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan area are
required to pay their fair-share contribution
towards quieter pavement installation.

14.9 Noise barriers along future rail. Should
commuter transit service along the Dumbarton
Corridor or other significant intensification of rail
use be initiated, the City shall work with
SamTrans, Union Pacific, and other responsible
agencies to require construction of noise barriers
adjacent to existing unprotected residential areas
near the rail line.

14.10 Airport noise. Work with Palo Alto Airport, San
Francisco International Airport, San Carlos
Airport, and the Federal Aviation Administration
to minimize aircraft noise impacts on East Palo
Alto through flight path routing, time-of-day
operation considerations, community
notifications, and voluntary noise abatement
procedures.

14.11 Construction noise. The City shall require that
contractors use available noise suppression
devices and techniques and limit construction
hours near residential uses. Reasonable noise
reduction measures shall be incorporated into
the construction plan and implemented during all
phases of construction activity to minimize the
exposure of neighboring properties. The City
considers significant construction noise impacts
to occur if a project located within 500 feet of
residential uses or 200 feet of commercial or
office uses would:
• Involve substantial noise generating
activities (such as building demolition,
grading, excavation, pile driving, use of
impact equipment, or building framing)
continuing for more than 12 months.

For such large or complex projects, a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting or
notification of construction schedules, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond
322
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-57
to neighborhood complaints will be required to be in
place prior to the start of construction and
implemented during construction to reduce noise
impacts on neighboring residents and other uses. A
typical construction noise logistics plan would include, but not be limited to, the following measures to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical:
• Limit construction activity to the hours specified in the Municipal Code;
• Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists;
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven
equipment with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment;
• Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment,
such as air compressors and portable power
generators, as far away as possible from adjacent
land uses;
• Locate staging areas and construction material
areas as far away as possible from adjacent land
uses;
• Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines;
• If impact pile driving is proposed, multiple pile
drivers shall be considered to expedite
construction. Although noise levels generated by
multiple pile drivers would be higher than the
noise generated by a single pile driver, the total
duration of pile driving activities would be reduced;
• If impact pile driving is proposed, temporary noise
control blanket barriers shall shroud pile drivers or
be erected in a manner to shield the adjacent land
uses. Such noise control blanket barriers can be
rented and quickly erected;
• If impact pile driving is proposed, foundation pile
holes shall be pre-drilled to minimize the number
of impacts required to seat the pile. Pre-drilling
foundation pile holes is a standard construction
noise control technique. Pre-drilling reduces the
number of blows required to seat the pile. Notify
all adjacent land uses of the construction schedule
in writing;
• Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would
be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator will determine the cause
of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad
muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable
measures warranted to correct the problem be
implemented; and
• Conspicuously post a telephone number for the
disturbance coordinator at the construction site
and include it in the notice sent to neighbors
regarding the construction.

Goal SN-15. Coordinate land use
planning to prevent new odor
complaints.

Intent: To avoid conflicts related to bad odors, especially between incompatible uses.

15.1 Identify potential for odor complaints. Use
BAAQMD Odor Screening Distances or Cityspecific screening distances to identify odor potential. Evaluate odors from sources within
these screening distances based on odor
potential, wind conditions, setback distance, and
receptor type.

15.2 Odor sources. Prohibit new sources of odors that
have the potential to result in frequent odor
complaints unless it can be shown that potential
odor complaints can be mitigated.

15.3 Sensitive receptors near odor sources. Prohibit
sensitive receptors from locating near odor
sources where frequent odor complaints would
occur, unless it can be shown that potential odor
complaints can be mitigated.
323
CHAPTER 10: SAFETY AND NOISE
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 10-58
Table 10-1. Exterior Noise Standards –
Receiving Land Use: Single or Multiple Family
Residence, School, Hospital, Church, or Public
Library Properties
Category
Cumulative
Number of
Minutes in
Any One
Hour Time
Period
Daytime
(7 am to
10 pm)
Nightime
(10 pm to
7 am)
1 30 55 dBA 50 dBA
2 15 50 dBA 55 dBA
3 5 65 dBA 60 dBA
4 1 70 dBA 60 dBA
5 0 75 dBA 70 dBA
Notes:

1. In the event the measured background noise
exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any
category above, the applicable standard shall be
adjusted in five dBA increments so as to
encompass the background noise level.

2. Each of the noise level standards specified above
shall be reduced by five dBA for simple tone
noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or
music, or for recurring or intermittent impulsive
noises.

3. If the intruding noise source is continuous and
cannot be reasonably stopped for a period of time
whereby the background noise level can be
measured, the noise level measured while the
source is in operation shall be compared directly
to the noise level standards in Table 10-1.

Table 10-2. Interior Noise Standards – Dwelling
Unit
Category
Cumulative
Number of
Minutes in
Any One
Hour Time
Period
Daytime
(7 am to
10 pm)
Nightime
(10 pm to
7 am)
1 5 45 dBA 40 dBA
2 1 50 dBA 45 dBA
3 0 55 dBA 50 dBA
Notes:

4. In the event the measured background noise
exceeds the applicable noise level standard in
any category above, the applicable standard
shall be adjusted in five dBA increments so as
to encompass the background noise level.

5. Each of the noise level standards specified
above shall be reduced by five dBA for simple
tone noises, noises consisting primarily of
speech or music, or for recurring or
intermittent impulsive noises.

6. If the intruding noise source is continuous and
cannot be reasonably stopped for a period of
time whereby the background noise level can
be measured, the noise level measured while
the source is in operation shall be compared
directly to the noise level standards in Table
10-2.
324
CHAPTER 9: INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-1

9. Infrastructure, Services, and
Facilities
Overview
This chapter encompasses the physical
infrastructure, City-owned facilities, and civic
services of the City of East Palo Alto. It includes
goals, policies, and service standards for City-owned
properties, public services (police and emergency
response), and schools.

Statutory Requirements
While an Element addressing infrastructure, services, and public facilities is not required, this Element provides vital policy basis to guide shorter-term documents, such as the capital improvements program and the annual
capital budget. The Element offers generalized long-term policies grounded in realistic analyses of existing capacity, future demand, and financing options.

Specifically, this chapter addresses the goals and policies relating to stormwater drainage, water supply and
demand, utilities & telecommunications, recycling/solid waste, and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

This chapter also addresses other topics related to
infrastructure, public facilities, and public services. The Circulation Element includes additional content related to transportation and street infrastructure. ’s
infrastructure, community buildings, and essential
services. The City prepared a Climate Change
Vulnerability Assessment (2025) which identified
flooding, extreme heat, sea level rise, and severe
weather as priority hazards that threaten critical facilities and service delivery. The assessment reveals that utility and communication services face heightened
vulnerability due to limited redundancy, while Cityowned facilities and emergency services are at risk from infrastructure damage that could disrupt emergency
response capabilities during climate events. These
climate vulnerabilities necessitate proactive planning to ensure infrastructure resilience and continuity of
essential services, particularly for disadvantaged
communities that face disproportionate impacts from
climate hazards. Additional information about hazards in East Palo Alto is included in the Safety and Noise
Element. The full results of the Vulnerability Assessment are available as Appendix B to the Safety and Noise
Element.

Issues and Opportunities
Stormwater System
The storm drainage system in the city is composed of
networks of pipes, channels, storage ponds, and pump
stations which outlet to San Francisquito Creek, and the San Francisco Bay. Figure 9-1 shows the existing system layout. Stormwater in East Palo Alto drains into two
major drainage systems: the Runnymede Storm Drain
System and the O’Connor Storm Drain System. Due to its
proximity to the San Francisco Bay, portions of the
drainage system are influenced by tide. The majority of East Palo Alto is low lying and over half of the drainage area is reliant on pumping from the O’Connor pump
station.

As several storms have demonstrated, much of the city is vulnerable to flood damage during even regular storm
events. Since 1940 there have been eight major flood
events, and over half of the city (56 percent) is in areas designated for an elevated risk for flooding. The Safety Element provides comprehensive hazard mapping and
detailed analysis of flooding risks, including hazards from sea level rise and increases in groundwater levels that will increasingly affect the City's stormwater
infrastructure.
325
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-2
The City has a Storm Drain Master Plan, adopted in 2015, that guides the development of a comprehensive
approach to storm drain facilities. As of 2015, many of the streets in East Palo Alto lack storm drains. Where
storm drains exist, they lack the capacity to handle
stormwater during heavy rain events. During 10- and 20- year storm events in East Palo Alto, storm drains can
overflow, flooding the streets, and in the case of the
1998 floods, parts of the city were effectively stranded.

A heavy rain event in 2012 led to significant flooding in multiple parts of the city. In 2022, a low-pressure system brough heavy rainfall over a two-day period, causing
roadway flooding and closures and property damage for
residents living near San Francisquito Creek.

Low-lying areas face extra risk of floods related to levee breaks, ruptures, or overtopping. Additionally, the other infrastructure, such as pump stations, are in need of
replacement. This, combined with the overtopping spills from San Francisquito Creek, present significant flooding issues in the city.

A recent study of the drainage system indicated several drainage system issues. The cost of the needed capital
improvements is approximately $37.5 million and
consists of pipe improvements, system cleaning, drainage system expansion and realignments, monitoring and data
collection, a pump station retrofit, and two projects that will require coordination with the City of Menlo Park: the O'Connor Pump Station Underground Diesel Storage Tank
Piping Upgrades and the O'Connor Pump Station
Improvements (including adding a flow control structure, replacing pump vertical shafts, and upgrading electrical systems). Evaluations in June 2017 and January 2024 of
the O'Connor Pump Station indicated that several nearterm improvements are necessary to maintain the pump station’s existing capacity, and several other
improvements are necessary to rehabilitate the pump
station for anticipated future conditions, especially with the projected impacts of climate change on flood hazards and drainage needs.

In addition to managing stormwater quantity and
reducing flood risks, the City has made significant
investments in controlling trash and pollutants in
stormwater runoff, as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board's Municipal Regional Permit
(MRP). These efforts include source controls to prevent trash generation, institutional controls to intercept trash before it enters the storm sewer system, and the
installation of Full Trash Capture systems. The City has installed one such system, known as the SD-9 project, at Newbridge Street and Saratoga Avenue. This project
treats a 772-acre drainage area and is projected to
reduce trash by 16 percent, supporting the regional goal of achieving 100 percent city-wide trash capture for
watersheds draining into San Francisco Bay.

Figure 9-1: Existing Storm Drain System
Potable Water Quality and Supply
The City’s potable water system is operated by Veolia
Water North America under contract with the City. The
majority of the City’s water supply is supplied by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Bay
Division Pipelines 1 and 2, as well as two small
independent systems: the Palo Alto Park Mutual Water
Company and the O’Connor Tract Co-Op Water Company.

There are no water storage reservoirs or potable
groundwater sources in the city at this time (with the
exception of small private water storage at the Home
Depot and IKEA for fire flow needs, and a static water
supply tank at Palo Alto Park Mutual where the Menlo
Park Fire Protection District can obtain treated water for emergency response). To provide additional future water supply and supplement the SFPUC supply, the City is
working to upgrade the Gloria Way Well and develop a
326
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-3
second groundwater well at Pad D, a City-owned parcel
near the Gateway 101 Shopping Center.

According to the existing infrastructure analysis
performed by Schaaf & Wheeler for this General Plan
Update, East Palo Alto has a significant water supply
challenge. The City has a fixed supply guarantee from the SFPUC of 1,264 million gallons (MG) per year. Water
demand in East Palo Alto was 552 MG per year on
average between 2016 and 2020, projected to rise to
1,078 MGF by 2045.

Sewer System
The sanitary sewer system within East Palo Alto is
composed of systems managed by the West Bay Sanitary
District (WBSD), which is an independent agency, and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD), which is a
subsidiary district of the City of East Palo Alto. Figure 9-2 shows the boundaries of the two sanitary district service areas within the city limits. The EPASD provides sanitary sewer services for the majority of East Palo Alto and
completed a Sewer Master Plan in July 2025. The EPASD
system consists of approximately 33 miles of gravity
sewer pipelines, with pipe sizes ranging from 6 inches to 30 inches in diameter. A major infrastructure component is the siphon under San Francisquito Creek, which was
realigned in 2017 with two parallel 22-inch pipes. Sewage within the EPASD service area is conveyed by gravity to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The West Bay Sanitary District, which serves parts of East Palo Alto and several nearby communities, has approximately
220 miles of gravity sewer pipelines. It sends sewage to the Silicon Valley Clean Water treatment plant in
Redwood City.

Figure 9-2: Sewer/Sanitation Districts
Solid Waste and Recycling
East Palo Alto’s solid waste program is operated by South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) also
known as RethinkWaste. RethinkWaste member agencies
are serviced by the Shoreway Environmental Center (SEC) which receives, handles, and transfers solid waste and
recyclables collected from SBWMA’s hauler to offsite
shipment into the Ox Mountain Landfill, which primarily accepts solid waste from San Mateo County communities
and San Francisco. The Ox Mountain Landfill has a
maximum permitted capacity of 60.5 million cubic yards.

As of December 2021, the landfill had approximately 17.2 million cubic yards of remaining capacity and is projected to cease operations in 2034 based on current disposal
rates. The landfill accepts up to 3,598 tons per day and is the only active Class III municipal solid waste landfill in San Mateo County.11
In 2023, East Palo Alto generated 19,362 tons of solid
waste and recyclable materials annually (approximately
53 tons per day). Of this total, 11,947 tons were disposed at a landfill as solid waste and 7,414 tons were diverted through recycling and organics programs, achieving an
overall diversion rate of 38 percent. This represents East Palo Alto's contribution to the SBWMA's regional waste
management system.
327
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-4
The City's residential diversion rate of 46 percent includes both curbside recycling and organics collection.

Commercial operations achieved a 47 percent diversion
rate through recycling and organics programs. However,
multi-family dwelling diversion rates remain significantly lower at 16 percent, primarily due to limited organics
collection in these properties).

The current solid waste generated from East Palo Alto
does not exceed allotted capacity for the SBWMA, SEC, or Ox Mountain Landfill. The City and RethinkWaste at large are currently undertaking efforts to increase the landfill diversion rate through improved commercial and
residential solid and organics recycling.

The City has made progress in waste diversion through
expanded organics recycling programs, implementation
of residential food waste collection, and commercial
waste auditing programs. These efforts align with
California's Senate Bill (SB) 1383 requirements for organic waste diversion. The City continues to work with
Recology, the contracted waste hauler, to improve
collection services and expand community education
about proper sorting of waste, recycling, and
compostable materials.

Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation
Climate change is a threat to the health and safety of East Palo Alto residents, as well as those in other parts of the region, the state, and the globe. Concerned about the
impact of climate change, California has adopted a wide variety of legislation policies aimed at reducing the
state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include
the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), SB 32 (2016), and AB 1279 (2022), which established statewide GHG reduction goals for 2020, 2030, and 2045; SB 375, which requires and encourages sustainable land
use and transportation patterns at the regional and local level; and various actions by Governors Schwarzenegger, Brown, and Newsom, and the State Attorney General’s
office.

Climate adaptation strategies are comprehensively
addressed throughout this General Plan, as required by
State law. The Safety and Noise Element includes detailed policies and implementation actions for sea level rise, flooding, extreme heat, severe weather, drought, and
other climate hazards that directly threaten community
safety and infrastructure. The Safety and Noise Element incorporates the East Palo Alto Vulnerability Assessment (2025) findings and provides specific adaptation
measures tailored to the City's unique vulnerabilities.

This integration ensures that adaptation planning is
embedded in safety and resilience planning rather than
treated as a separate infrastructure concern.

The City participates in regional climate initiatives. East Palo Alto is a member of OneShoreline, also known as
the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise
Resiliency District, which coordinates flooding and sea level rise adaptation planning across San Mateo County.

The City coordinates the County’s Sustainability
Department climate programs. The City also participates in OneWatershed, a comprehensive framework
addressing shared climate risks to water infrastructure across San Mateo County, and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s flood protection efforts that
integrate both adaptation and carbon sequestration
through wetland restoration and green infrastructure.

Climate mitigation—the reduction of GHG emissions that
cause climate change—is addressed in this General Plan
through policies related to energy efficiency, sustainable transportation, waste reduction, green infrastructure,
development patterns, and water conservation.

The City adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2011 and
prepared an update in 2023 outlining strategies at both the municipal and community-wide level to mitigate and
adapt to climate change. In addition to energy-related
topics like energy efficiency and use of renewable energy, the Climate Action Plan also points to material re-use and recycling, public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, urban green spaces, and compact development patterns as important strategies in reducing GHG
emissions. The 2023 update sets a goal for East Palo Alto to reduce its per-person GHG emissions to 55 percent
below 2005 levels by 2030, with an aspirational goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. The City is actively implementing the Climate Action Plan through projects
focused on sustainable homes and buildings (including
building electrification and energy-efficiency
improvements), transportation improvements
(expanding access to bikes, transitioning the City fleet to 328
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-5
electric vehicles), waste reduction (composting outreach and sustainable purchasing), and community resilience
(tree planting, green infrastructure, and flood
preparation). The City provides annual implementation
updates and coordinates closely with community
organizations, the Climate Change Community Team, and
regional partners to advance climate action.

Schools
The public schools in East Palo Alto are shown in Table 9-

1. From kindergarten through eighth grade, East Palo Alto students attend school in the Ravenswood City School
District (RCSD), which includes schools within and
outside the City of East Palo Alto. Most students attend RCSD schools in East Palo Alto, but many also attend one of the two RCSD elementary schools in Menlo Park
(Willow Oaks and Belle Haven). The Primary School, a K-8 private school, is planning to shut down at the end of the 2025-26 school year. Future plans for this space are
undetermined. Elementary and middle schools are
distributed throughout the city, with a cluster of several adjacent schools concentrated along Pulgas Avenue
forming an emerging education hub in the Weeks
neighborhood.

Sequoia Union High School District (SUHSD) serves most
of the city’s public high-school students. As of fall 2015, all students in the Sequoia Unified School District from East Palo Alto attend Menlo-Atherton High School
(Atherton), unless they chose to go to a different school in the district. School assignment is no longer addressbased (previously, EPA students were divided amongst several high schools). The former high school in East Palo Alto burned down in the early 1970s.

Table 9-1: Public Schools Within East Palo Alto
School Address City Grades
Preschool
Ravenswood Child Development Center 951 O’Connor Street East Palo Alto Pre-K Elementary Schools
Edison Brentwood Academy 2086 Clarke Street East Palo Alto K-5 East Palo Alto Charter School (Charter) 1286 Runnymede Street East Palo Alto K-5 Combined Elementary & Middle Schools
Costaño Elementary School & 49ers Academy 2695 Fordham Street East Palo Alto K-8 Middle Schools
Cesar Chávez Academy 2450 Ralmar Avenue East Palo Alto 5-8 Ronald McNair Academy 2033 Pulgas Avenue East Palo Alto 6-8 High Schools
KIPP Esperanza (Charter) 1039 Garden Street East Palo Alto 6-12 Eastside College Preparatory School (Charter) 1041 Myrtle Street East Palo Alto 9-12 Alternatively, high school-age students may apply to one of two public charter schools in the city – KIPP Esperanza High School or East Palo Alto Academy – or the private
high school, Eastside College Preparatory School, located at 1041 Myrtle Street (not shown in the table).

All the local school districts are bound by the 1986
Voluntary Transfer Plan (VTP), wherein the school
districts agreed to reduce racial isolation. The Tinsley Voluntary Transfer Plan allows minority students in the RCSD to transfer to one of seven local school districts:

Belmont-Redwood Shores, Las Lomitas, Menlo Park, Palo
329
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-6
Alto, Portola Valley, San Carlos, and Woodside.

Conversely, non-minority students in those seven local
school districts may transfer into Ravenswood.

The 2025 East Palo Alto Vulnerability Assessment
identified several RCSD schools as being located in areas vulnerable to climate hazards, including flooding,
extreme heat, and potential liquefaction during seismic events. The concentration of schools along Pulgas
Avenue presents both opportunities for creating an
integrated education campus with shared facilities and
challenges related to climate resilience and emergency
preparedness. Coordination between the City and school
districts is essential to ensure school facilities serve dual purposes as community centers and emergency shelters
when appropriately equipped and maintained.

City-Owned Facilities
The City of East Palo Alto owns and operates a number of facilities throughout the city, including City Hall and City offices, the David Lewis Re-entry Program, the Senior
Center, the Police Station, and the Corporation Yard (see Table 9-2).

The City does not own its own City Hall or space for many of its offices. City Hall is currently located at 2415
University Avenue in space leased from San Mateo
County. The City Hall building includes City Council
Chambers and many of the City offices, as well as the
East Palo Alto branch of the San Mateo County Library
System. The library includes a homework center for afterschool tutoring, story times, and computer classes. The current 8,000-square-foot library equates to 275 square feet per 1,000 residents.

The City owns the David Lewis Community Re-entry
Program building at 2277 University Avenue, as well as
the building at 1960 Tate, which currently houses the
Community Development Department. The City leases
the Public Works Maintenance Division’s Corporation
Yard at 160 Tara Road. The Senior Center on University
Avenue and Bell Street is owned by the City but managed by the East Palo Alto Senior Center, Inc., a nonprofit

1 2003 East Palo Alto Recreation and Community Services Strategic Plan oversees crime analysis and records, among other duties. Some large property owners – such as Equity Residential on the Westside – provide their own private security services, but most of the public rely on City police services. Even with the presence of private providers, EPAPD continues to police the Westside and respond to calls for service at all Equity properties. organization with an executive director and a board of
directors.1 The City provides an on-site nutrition
supervisor for the Congregate Lunch Program, and
security and transportation services to the Senior Center.

Flooding along San Francisquito Creek.
330
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-7
Table 9-2: City Facilities
Facility Name Operator/Facility Type
Facilities Operated and Owned:

Jack Farrell Park City Park
MLK Park City Park
O’Connor Pump Station Drainage Distribution Pump House
Facilities Operated, but not Owned (Lease):
141 Demeter Street Police Department
219 Demeter Street Police Department
150 Tara Road Corporation Yard
Facilities Occupied, Not Operated or Owned (Lease):
2415 University Avenue City Administration/Housing
Facilities Owned, Not Operated:
550 Bell Street Land and Pool, Pool House Operated by YMCA 550 Bell Street Senior Center Operated by Senior Inc.
2277 University Avenue Operated by SMC, Reentry
Former RDA Facilities in Dissolution Trust - To be Transferred to City (Owned /Operated) Cooley Landing City Park
Pad “D” Well Groundwater Well
Rail Spur Trail
1960 Tate Street CEDE/PW
1798 Bay Road Former Clinic
331
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-8
Goals and Policies
Goal ISF-1. Manage stormwater safely,
efficiently, and sustainably.

Intent: To reduce dangers from flooding, protect
community safety and property, and provide wellmaintained infrastructure to the community while reducing the negative environmental impacts of storm
run-off on creeks and the Bay.

Policies:

1.1 NPDES compliance. Ensure compliance with all
NPDES requirements for litter control, dumping,
pollutants of control, business operations, and
new/re-development.

1.2 On-site stormwater management. Encourage
development projects to manage stormwater on
site to reduce burdens on the City’s stormwater
system. Whenever possible, stormwater should be
infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or treated
on-site in other ways that improve stormwater
quality and reduce flows into the storm drain
system.

1.3 Stormwater infrastructure for new development.

Require development projects to pay for their share
of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that development.

1.4 Stormwater re-use and recycling. Encourage
innovative ways of capturing and reusing
stormwater for non-drinking purposes to reduce
the use of potable water, including the creation of a
recycled water system and installation of purple
pipe in private and public projects.

1.5 Collaborative stormwater management.

Encourage collaborative, integrated stormwater
management between multiple property owners
and sites.

1.6 Green infrastructure in public rights-of-way.

Require installation of green infrastructure
elements, including bioretention areas, pervious
surfaces, and diverse native trees when public
rights-of-way undergo major modifications.

Prioritize improved stormwater management
through integration of higher-capacity trunk lines,
capture devices, and bioretention facilities.

1.7 Regional and local collaboration. Collaborate with
Palo Alto, Menlo Park, the San Francisquito Creek
Joint Powers Authority and other jurisdictions and
agencies in the watershed to reduce and remove
contaminants from stormwater runoff.

1.8 Stormwater best practices. Require the use of
stormwater best management practices for
retention and water quality control. Implement
flood-control measures that incorporate green
infrastructure to manage stormwater runoff while
protecting water quality and habitat.

1.9 Stormwater and flooding. Integrate stormwater
management efforts with flood control efforts,
seeking synergies and innovative strategies for
stormwater treatment to reduce flood risks and
volumes.

1.10 Stormwater System Resilience to Sea Level Rise.

Explore upgrading and adapting stormwater
infrastructure to account for projected sea level rise
and associated groundwater changes.

Improvements may include increasing system
capacity, protecting pipes and facilities from
saltwater intrusion and corrosion, enhancing pump
and outfall performance, and ensuring regular
maintenance and monitoring to prevent system
failure under future climate conditions.

1.11 Storm Drain Master Plan. Continue to implement
the adopted East Palo Alto Storm Drain Master
Plan. Seek funding sources to complete the
identified capital improvements.
332
CHAPTER 9: INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-9

1.12 Assessment district. Consider avenues for
sustainable funding of landscaping and
maintenance to fund the maintenance of the storm
water conveyance and treatment systems.

1.13 Ravenswood stormwater management. All new
projects in the Ravenswood TOD Specific Plan Area
must follow the stormwater policies established in
Goal LU-9: Hydrological Context in the plan.

Guidance in the Specific Plan supersedes policies
from this General Plan.

1.14 Community-Informed Flood Mitigation. Engage
community members, particularly in historically
flood-impacted areas, in identifying drainage
system issues and developing targeted solutions
that incorporate local knowledge with technical
expertise.

Goal ISF-2. Ensure a sustainable, clean,
long-term water supply.

Intent: To address the City’s lack of water supply, and institute long-term strategies to sustainably manage
limited water resources.

Policies:

2.1 Water planning. Continue to maintain a Water
System Master Plan, Urban Water Management
Plan, and water supply blueprint.

2.2 Water supply infrastructure. Continue to improve
infrastructure to ensure the provision of a clean,
reliable citywide water supply sufficient to serve
existing and planned development.

2.3 New water sources. Actively seek to secure
additional water supply from SFPUC, groundwater
sources, neighboring cities, or other available
sources. Securing additional water supply and
adding water storage facilities should be a City
priority to ensure RHNA goals are being met.

2.4 Priority improvement areas. Prioritize water
improvements in areas identified in the Land Use
Element as areas of growth/change and economic
activity generators, particularly the Westside,
University Avenue and Bay Road, the Gateway 101
area, and the Ravenswood TOD Specific Plan area.

2.5 Water infrastructure for new development.

Require development projects to pay for their share
of new water infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that development, including but
not limited to water supply, storage, and
conservation: and recycled water.

2.6 Water supply for new development. Require new
or intensified development to demonstrate that
adequate water is available before project
approval. Before new or intensified development
projects are approved, the development proponent
must provide the City with enforceable, verifiable
proof that adequate water supply exists to supply
the new or intensified development. The
enforceable proof can take three forms:
• Depending on the location of the
development, a will-serve letter or similar
instrument from the City of East Palo Alto,
the Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company,
or the O’Connor Tract Cooperative Water
Company.
• A verifiable recordable water demand offset
project or program that ensures that there is
no net increase in new water demand.
• Verifiable and enforceable proof that the
developer has secured new water supplies
necessary to serve the project.

2.7 Municipal water conservation and efficiency. Seek
to reduce municipal water use through the
following strategies:
• Implement aggressive indoor and outdoor
water efficiency measures in all new city
developments, substantial rehabs, and
333
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-10
remodels. For private development projects,
require efficient irrigation systems to be
inspected prior to occupancy for adherence
to the Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (MWELO).
• Prioritize water efficiency upgrades to
existing buildings, such as water efficient
fixtures.
• Reduce potable water used for parks, by
planting drought-tolerant species and
implementing other water saving practices.

2.8 Citywide water conservation and efficiency.

Encourage and promote community water
conservation and efficiency efforts, including indoor
and outdoor efforts that exceed CalGreen
requirements.

2.9 Conservation partnerships. Continue to work with
BAWSCA to create and promote water conservation
rebates (such as for installing low flow toilets in
existing residences, high efficiency front load
washing machines and distributing low flow shower
heads). Encourage residents to take advantage of
the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA) Lawn Be Gone Program (or other similar
rebates).

2.10 Sustainable Water Supplies. Work with San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission to prepare for
a reduced long-term water supply resulting from
more frequent and severe drought events to
implement extensive water conservation measures
and ensure sustainable water supplies, including
fire-suppression needs.

2.11 Public education about water. Educate the public,
in partnership with BAWSCA, community partners,
and other CBOs regarding water conservation,
water efficiency, graywater use, stormwater reuse,
water-efficient planting and outdoor efficiency, and
other efforts to conserve water. Include information
about water sources and any relevant updates to
programs from the Water System Master Plan and
Urban Water Management Plan. Provide all
outreach materials in multiple languages.

2.12 Groundwater Management. Prohibit new private
groundwater wells and work with regional partners
to implement groundwater recharge strategies that
protect and enhance local aquifers.

2.13 Maximizing infiltration. Consider requiring all new development to apply stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) where feasible, such
as providing roof catchment systems, irrigated
landscaping, and permeable pavements (where
feasible), or other means to enhance onsite
infiltration of stormwater runoff or landscape
irrigation water.

2.14 Rainwater Catchment Systems. Construct
rainwater catchment systems to recharge
groundwater in government rights-of-way, where
feasible.

2.15 Water Conservation Retrofits and Community
Partnerships. Increase drought resilience through
the following strategies:
• Retrofit City-owned landscapes to increase
the amount of drought-resistant and/or
native plant landscaping.
• Partner with community-based
organizations and residents to install rain
garden and water cistern systems for lowincome homeowners in East Palo Alto. • Pursue grant funding and other resources to
expand water conservation programs
citywide.
334
CHAPTER 9: INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-11
Goal ISF-3. Provide a well-maintained
sewer system for the community.

Intent: To protect human health, protect ecological
resources and water quality, and provide well-maintained services for new and existing development.

Policies:

3.1 Sewer system maintenance. Ensure sewers
maintained by the City through the East Palo Alto
Sanitary District are operational, in good working
order, and can remain operational under future sea
level rise and emergent groundwater conditions.

Work with the West Palo Alto Sanitary District to
ensure similar standards for sewers maintained by
that agency.

3.2 Sewer infrastructure for new development.

Require development projects to pay for their share
of new sewer infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that development, as per the
current East Palo Alto fee schedule.

Goal ISF-4. Use best practices to reduce
and manage solid waste.

Intent: To provide high-quality waste management
services to the community while reducing the negative
health and environmental impacts of waste.

Policies:

4.1 Provide waste and recycling service. Provide solid
waste, recycling, and green waste services to the
community in compliance with State waste
diversion requirements, including Senate Bill 1383
organic waste mandates. If new funding sources are
identified, consider building recycling centers in the
city or partnering with Recology (or another service
provider) to provide additional recycling services.

4.2 Waste reduction. Seek to reduce East Palo Alto’s
rate of waste disposal per capita, and to increase
the diversion rate of recycling and green waste.

4.3 Zero waste government operations. Work towards
zero waste government operations, modeling best
practices in solid waste management and recycling
for the rest of the community.

4.4 Construction waste. Encourage all construction
projects to divert 80 percent of their construction
waste away from landfills, exceeding the CalGreen
requirement of a 65 percent minimum diversion
rate.

4.5 Hazardous waste disposal. Work with regional
agencies to educate residents about available dropoff and/or pickup points for e-waste and hazardous materials and chemicals such as paints, lubricants,
motor oil, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, pesticides,
and other contaminants, to avoid their disposal into
the sewer and stormwater systems, waste streams,
or open space areas.

4.6 On-street recycling. Where feasible, provide
streetside recycling containers alongside public
trash receptacles.

4.7 Recycled building material. Encourage the use of
recycled building and infrastructure materials in
City operations and construction.

4.8 Paper waste reduction. Reduce paper waste and
encourage the use of recycled paper in City
operations.

4.9 Packaging. Work with local food vendors and
farmer’s markets to promote the use of compost
friendly packaging.

4.10 Emergency Sanitation and Waste Management.

Coordinate with Recology and regional partners to
ensure continued waste collection, management of
contaminated materials, and provision of sanitary
facilities during extended emergency events, with
priority for high-density and underserved
communities.
335
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-12
Goal ISF-5. Fund construction and
maintenance of basic infrastructure and
public facilities.

Intent: Pursue public and private funding for construction of infrastructure and public facilities, with a goal of addressing existing deficiencies and mitigating the
additional impacts of new development.

Policies:

5.1 Impact fees. Collect nexus-based impact fees that
mitigate the cost of providing infrastructure and
public facilities to serve new development.

5.2 Community benefits. For large-scale projects,
negotiate with developers to maximize the
potential for acquiring community benefits like new
facilities and infrastructure.

5.3 Grants and funding. Pursue grants and funding
sources that can be directed towards existing
deficiencies in infrastructure and facilities, including regular maintenance.

5.4 Special districts. As feasible, work with other
infrastructure providers (fire, water, sanitary) in
East Palo Alto to provide more effective municipal
services through improved coordination or
consolidation.

5.5 Priority Community Infrastructure Assessment.

Conduct comprehensive vulnerability assessments
of critical infrastructure to identify flood risks,
structural deficiencies, and capacity limitations,
with prioritized investment in drainage
improvements, traffic safety infrastructure, and
emergency access routes, incorporating current
and projected flooding conditions from sea level
rise and emergent groundwater.

Goal ISF-6. Ensure safe and wellmaintained telecommunications services.

Intent: To provide citywide access to telecommunications services for residents, students, and businesses, enabling successful business operations and community
connections within East Palo Alto and with the rest of the world.

Policies:

6.1 Telecommunications services. Work with utilities
and agencies to ensure high-quality citywide access
to telecommunications and energy services,
including backup power and communication
systems for critical facilities during emergency
events.

6.2 Collaboration with Silicon Valley. Seek to establish relationships and solicit funding or capital
investments from Silicon Valley technology
companies to expand affordable community access
to high-performing telecommunications and
technology, including Wi-Fi.

6.3 Wi-Fi hotspots. Encourage the commercial
marketplace to provide Wi-Fi hotspots throughout
the city.

6.4 Fiber optics infrastructure. Require new
developments to install where feasible and ensure
compatibility with the most-up-to-date and
established broadband and telecommunications
technology.
336
CHAPTER 9: INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-13
Goal ISF-7. Ensure high-quality
educational opportunities for East Palo
Alto students.

Intent: To invest in the education, personal betterment, and long-term success of East Palo Alto’s children, young people, and adults, and attract and retain residents by providing an excellent school system. To build and
coordinate systems of support so that the most vulnerable residents succeed from cradle to career, and have a clear path to the middle class.

Policies:

7.1 Educational quality. Collaborate with the
Ravenswood City School District, charter schools
and private schools to maximize educational
quality, maximize the use of existing school sites for
educational purposes and improve the overall
quality of the schools and to ensure that East Palo
Alto residents are properly prepared for
employment and have the skills and education
levels needed to be competitive in current and
future job markets.

7.2 New programs. Encourage educational programs
from existing educational providers in East Palo Alto
that improve the educational outcomes for East
Palo Alto residents.

7.3 Education hub. Support and enhance the emerging
education hub in Weeks near Myrtle Street and
Pulgas Avenue. Site new schools or charter
academies near existing schools as opposed to
randomly throughout the city and encourage
nearby schools to share facilities.

7.4 Student-community connections. Encourage area
businesses, professionals, universities, artists, City
employees, or other community role models to
provide mentorship, job training, and/or financial
resources to local schools and students.

7.5 Early childhood education facilities. Encourage
childcare facilities in the city, including in public
buildings and major employment campuses, to
serve the needs of working families.

7.6 Cultural resources and facilities. Preserve and
encourage facilities, institutions, buildings, and
organizations that enhance cultural awareness and
education in East Palo Alto.

7.7 Education monitoring. Monitor the educational
attainment of East Palo Alto residents over time,
compared to residents of other jurisdictions in the
School District, and advocate for programs and
educational materials that are culturally sensitive
and allow East Palo Alto residents to improve their
educational attainment.

7.8 Adult education. Support the creation of adult
education programs in East Palo Alto, including
English language classes, vocational training, and
on-going educational activities.

7.9 After school programs. Support after school
programs that provide expanded educational
opportunities and create a safe and affordable
place for youth after school.

7.10 Libraries. Coordinate with San Mateo County to
provide library services for the community, aiming
to provide approximately 750 square feet of
equipped and staffed library space per 1,000
residents.

7.11 School Climate Resilience. Collaborate with
Ravenswood City School District and charter school
operators to ensure school facilities are resilient to
climate hazards, including extreme heat, flooding,
and severe weather, and are equipped to serve as
community resilience centers during emergencies
when appropriately prepared.
337
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-14
Goal ISF-8. Provide high-quality public
and civic facilities for the community.

Intent: To provide the physical buildings, venues, and other facilities necessary to conduct civic activities and City business, while fostering community cohesion, vibrancy, and character.

Policies:

8.1 New City Hall and civic district. Develop a civic
district to house City Hall and other City offices and
facilities, providing a beautiful, publicly- accessible setting for civic life in East Palo Alto.

8.2 Community center on Westside. Strive to locate a
new community center on the Westside to serve
the population in this area.

8.3 Community meeting facilities. Take steps to
expand the number and diversity of community
meeting facilities, encouraging new development to
construct such spaces as part of development
projects.

8.4 Community center and facilities standards. Strive
to provide 2,000 square feet of publicly accessible
community center space or community meeting
space per 1,000 residents, either in a City facility or in coordination with other partners.

8.5 Civic and institutional uses. Locate civic and
institutional uses in central, walkable, and transitserved locations.

8.6 Role of civic buildings. Require civic buildings to be distinctive, beautiful, and architecturally beneficial
to the fabric of the city.

8.7 Family-friendly gathering spaces and businesses.

Encourage safe and family-friendly public gathering
spaces and private businesses such as community
centers, movie theaters, entertainment center, and
other uses focused on youth and families to locate
in the city.

8.8 Equitable distribution of facilities and services.

Strive to equitably distribute public facilities,
improvements, and services throughout East Palo
Alto, with priority given to remedying existing
deficiencies in underserved areas of the city.

Goal ISF-9. Maintain and pursue
services, programming, and humane
social policies to serve the community
and improve quality of life.

Intent: To foster community cohesion, vibrancy, and social connection. To provide comprehensive, integrated social services to vulnerable children and families. To recognize that families seeking assistance often face multiple,
complex needs and that they typically require the services of more than one program.

Policies:

9.1 Coordination to provide services. Work closely
with local agencies and services providers to
provide and coordinate social services.

9.2 Customer service. Strive for a high level of
customer service and accessibility to the
community on the part of the City government.

9.3 Support community festivals and programming.

Maintain and support existing community festivals
while seeking new opportunities to hold
community events, encourage social gathering, and
program public space.

9.4 Equitable distribution of services. Ensure that Citysponsored social service programs are provided for all racial and ethnic groups in the city.

9.5 Alleviating homelessness. Work with local service
providers and agencies to alleviate homelessness
and ensure services are available for those
experiencing temporary or long-term
homelessness.
338
CHAPTER 9: INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-15

9.6 Low-income residents and families. Work with
low-income families and residents to access various
forms of assistance, access to jobs, social services,
childcare services, and other assistance for those in
need.

9.7 Regular analysis of staffing levels. Regularly study staffing needs to ensure East Palo Alto is providing
competitive levels of service and meeting resident
and business expectations.

9.8 Funding. Seek funding for social service programs
from county, State, and federal sources.

Goal ISF-10. Provide excellent
emergency services to the community.

Intent: To increase safety, health, peace of mind, and
quality of life through excellent police, fire, and EMS services, as well as emergency preparedness for natural disasters.

Policies:

10.1 Crime-prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED). Work with the police and planning
departments to deter crime by encouraging CPTED
strategies in new and existing development,
including the following strategies:
• Active public space.
• Building design to promote “eyes on the
street”.
• Clear delineation between private and public
space.
• Natural access control between public and
private space.
• Maintenance of public places.
• Removal or repair of vandalism or broken
property.

10.2 Emergency preparedness. Work with MPFPD,
EPAPD, City staff, and East Palo Alto residents to
ensure that sufficient emergency plans and
resources are established and known by all
stakeholders. Ensure that all City employees
partake in yearly emergency drills and/or trainings.

10.3 Fire and emergency services. Continue to
coordinate with the Menlo Park Fire Protection
District (MPFPD) to ensure excellent fire and
emergency services.

10.4 Excellent police service. Strive to continuously
improve the performance and efficiency of the East
Palo Alto Police Department.

10.5 Police-community relations. Continue to foster
positive, peaceful, mutually supportive
relationships between East Palo Alto residents and
the police. Promote additional visibility of police
throughout residential neighborhoods.

10.6 Data-driven policing. Monitor crime data and
ensure sufficient crime prevention resources are
deployed at effective times in areas with criminal
activity.

10.7 Code enforcement. Work to ensure that buildings,
homes, yards, businesses, and public spaces are
free from hazards. Maintain cooperation and
communication between the Code Enforcement
Division (within EPAPD), the Planning Division, and
the Building Department on issues relating to
neighborhood quality of life.

10.8 Community reentry. Encourage and support efforts
that foster an inclusive community and help
reintegrate formerly incarcerated persons into
positions of employment and positive roles in the
community (including working with local
employers).

10.9 Policy refinement. Engage residents and businesses in processes to evaluate, refine, and establish laws
that enhance public safety and quality of life.
339
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN 2035 | 9-16

10.10 Emergency Infrastructure Resilience. Coordinate
with utility and service providers to ensure that
critical infrastructure, including potable water
access, sanitation systems, and communication
networks remain functional during and after
emergency events, with contingency plans for
infrastructure failures.
340
City of East Palo Alto
Peninsula Resilience Planning
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025
Prepared for:

City of East Palo Alto
2415 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.853.3100
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
341
342
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 3

INTRODUCTION
This Existing Conditions Background Report discusses the natural and human-caused hazards that can affect the City of East Palo Alto. Each issue identified in this report includes a general overview of each hazard, how/where the hazard affects the city and its residents, information on past hazard events, current programs, and regulatory frameworks in place to reduce the impacts associated with these hazards, as well as future conditions (including potential climate change impacts associated with these hazards). The intent of this report is to provide background information that informs how and why the goals, policies, and implementation actions within the updated General Plan Safety Element were developed.

The key issues considered relevant to the City of East Palo Alto include the following:

Issue 1 – Emergency Preparedness and Response
Issue 2 – Flooding
Issue 3 – Sea Level Rise
Issue 4 – Seismic Hazards
Issue 5 – Geologic Hazards
Issue 6 – Fire Hazards
Issue 7 – Severe Weather
Issue 8 – Drought
Issue 9 – Extreme Heat
Issue 10 – Human Health Hazards
Issue 11 – Hazardous Materials
Issue 12 – Airport Hazards
ISSUE 1: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
General Overview
The City of East Palo Alto employs a multipronged approach for mitigating, responding to, and recovering from emergencies. This section reviews the city’s major evacuation routes, emergency alert systems, and other emergency response programming. State law (Senate Bill 99, or SB 99) requires that the East Palo Alto Safety Element identify residential areas with only one way in and out, as these may be areas where evacuations are constrained. State law (Assembly Bill 747, or AB 747) also requires that the Safety Element identify potential evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability.

Emergency Alert Systems
SMC Alert/Rave Mobile Safety
SMC Alert is the primary alert system in East Palo Alto. SMC Alert is used by numerous San Mateo County agencies and messages are tailored to each agency. SMC Alert can be used to issue flood, fire, severe weather, or tsunami warnings; notify the community about the locations of emergency shelters; provide information about available evacuation routes; and activate special teams within the community, such as CERT volunteers. Some cities also use the system for smaller alerts, such as traffic accidents, fires, street closures, flooding, and related incidents. Community members opt in to receive SMC Alert messages and can receive alerts via email, cell phone, and voice message to landline phones. Alerts are available in a wide variety of languages, including English, Spanish, and Filipino (standardized Tagalog), among many 343
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 4
others. Individuals can sign up for SMC Alert via the County’s website:
https://www.smart911.com/smart911/ref/reg.action?pa=smcgov.

Rave Mobile Safety was adopted by the County in December 2022 as the new alerting platform for SMC Alert. Approximately 60 percent of East Palo Alto households have signed up for SMC Alert. However, approximately 30 percent of households are not signed up and 10 percent do not know whether they are signed up.1
Wireless Emergency Alerts
Another alert system includes Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) which are short emergency messages from authorized public alerting authorities that can be broadcast from cell towers to any WEA-enabled mobile device in a locally targeted area. Wireless providers primarily use cell broadcast technology for WEA message delivery. WEA is a partnership among FEMA, the Federal Communications Commission and wireless providers to enhance public safety.

Genasys / Zonehaven
Public safety agencies throughout San Mateo County use the Genasys app (formerly known as Zonehaven) to communicate areas that are being evacuated due to fire or other emergencies. Genasys provides first responders, public safety workers, and residents with tools to navigate the evacuation process, including information about when it is safe to return. Residents are encouraged to download the Genasys Protect app to find their evacuation zone and have access to the mapping program and evacuation orders in real time. Many jurisdictions within San Mateo County host evacuation plans and maps on the Genasys platform.

The Genasys platform divides East Palo Alto into three zones to provide information tailored to impacted areas. Users of the app can choose the zone or zones for which they would like to receive alerts. However, recent reporting from San Mateo County reported that over 90 percent of East Palo Alto households do not know their zone number in Zonehaven.2
Major Evacuation Routes
If an evacuation is necessary in East Palo Alto, it will be conducted by members of the East Palo Alto Police Department. They will work closely with the Menlo Park Fire Department, the San Mateo County Department of Emergency Management, and emergency responders in neighboring communities to make sure that evacuations are conducted as quickly and safely as possible.

There is currently no standardized county-wide evacuation plan and the City of East Palo Alto does not have a publicly available evacuation plan. The City is participating in the county-wide All-Hazards Evacuation Plan, which will analyze potential evacuation scenarios across San Mateo County, identify potential evacuation routes, and recommend improvements. This work began in 2024, and is expected to finish in 2025. The Safety Element will reference this study to meet the requirements of SB 99 and AB 747.

In the interim, City staff have identified Highway 101, State Route 84 (Bayfront Expressway and the Dumbarton Bridge), Pulgas Avenue, Bay Road/Newbridge Street, University Avenue, and Bayshore Road as the primary evacuation routes. Figure 1 shows the location and direction of these routes. In an actual emergency, the evacuation routes will vary depending on the specifics of the event. See Figure 1 for a map of the city’s evacuation routes.
344
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 5
Figure 1: Evacuation Routes
345
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 6
Evacuation Constraints
Under SB 99, jurisdictions updating the Housing Element of their General Plan are required to identify residential parcels with access to fewer than two evacuation routes as part of their Safety Element.

Occupants and residents of these parcels may be unable to evacuate quickly in the event of an emergency, and are therefore more vulnerable to sudden or fast-spreading emergency conditions such as flash floods and wildfire.

Existing Programs and Regulations
Preparedness and Response Programs
San Mateo County and East Palo Alto use a variety of programs, plans, and initiatives to manage and guide emergency response. Resources and programs include both County-operated and volunteer programs, City programs and resources, as well as participation in regional mutual-aid agreements. f The County of San Mateo is required under State law to prepare and maintain a Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) Multihazard Functional Plan. The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) provides guidelines outlining the requirements of the San Mateo County SEMS.

County Initiatives
Department of Emergency Management
The County of San Mateo Department of Emergency Management (DEM) provides essential services that prepare and assist San Mateo County agencies in the event of a disaster or other emergency. DEM coordinates countywide preparedness, response, and protection services and activities for large-scale incidents and disasters. DEM is responsible for alerting and notifying appropriate agencies within the county’s 20 cities when disaster strikes, coordinating all responding agencies and ensuring resources are available and mobilized during disasters. DEM is responsible for developing and maintaining plans and procedures for all jurisdictions within San Mateo County. In addition to creating plans, DEM develops exercises to evaluate operational and response capabilities.

During significant incidents or emergencies, DEM is responsible for activating the County of San Mateo Emergency Operations Center to support local jurisdictions as needed. DEM coordinates and contracts to CalOES and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during an emergency for federal and State support.

The DEM is funded in part through a Joint Powers Authority governed by the Emergency Services Council (see below).

San Mateo County Operational Area Emergency Services Council The San Mateo County Operational Area Emergency Services Council is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) composed of all local governments within the geographic area of the county, special districts, unincorporated areas, and participating nongovernmental entities. The Council is responsible for providing coordinated plans for the protection of people and property in the event of an emergency. The Council works in coordination with local government entities to review, approve, and recommend for adoption of emergency and mutual aid plans and agreements, rules, ordinances, resolutions, and regulations by the Board of Supervisors and other legislative agencies.
346
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 7
Emergency Operations Plan and Center
The County’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) establishes policies and procedures and assigns responsibilities to ensure the effective management of emergency operations within San Mateo County.

The County Department of Emergency Management (DEM) implements the EOP and activates the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).

The EOC provides a central location of authority and information and allows for face-to-face coordination among personnel who make emergency decisions. The following functions are performed in the San Mateo County Operational Area EOC:
• Coordinating emergency operations.
• Releasing warning information.
• Developing emergency policies and procedures.
• Collecting and sharing information with County, City/Town, special districts, State agencies, military, and federal agencies and political representatives. • Maintaining maps, information display boards, and other data pertaining to emergency operations.
• Analyzing and evaluating of all data pertaining to emergency operations. • Directing and coordinating support of emergency response resources. • Maintaining contact and coordination with Disaster Operations Centers, East Palo Alto’s EOC, and the Coastal Region.
• Providing emergency information and instructions to the public, making official releases to the news media and the scheduling of press conferences, as necessary.

San Mateo County’s EOC is activated when local jurisdictions or County departments need emergency support. According to SEMS Regulations, the San Mateo County EOC must activate and use the SEMS when the following conditions exist:
• A local government within San Mateo County has activated its EOC and requests activation of the San Mateo County EOC to support its emergency operations. • Two or more cities within San Mateo County have declared a local emergency. • The County and one or more cities have declared a local emergency.

San Mateo County Emergency Managers Association
The San Mateo County Emergency Managers Association is composed of Emergency Managers/Representatives from cities, towns, County departments, special districts, and community organizations within San Mateo County and is intended to support emergency management, training, and exercise planning.

Countywide Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team
Hazardous materials response, mitigation, and cleanup for San Mateo County is managed by the Belmont Fire Protection District’s Hazardous Materials Team through a contractual agreement between the County of San Mateo, the Emergency Services Council, and the Belmont Fire Protection District.

San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Services Bureau The Sheriff’s Office Emergency Services Bureau is made up of sworn specialized units and volunteer forces to respond to emergency law enforcement activities, search and rescue missions, evidence searches, and 347
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 8
requests for mutual aid. San Mateo County Search and Rescue is a professional volunteer force of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Emergency Services Bureau.

Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Department of Emergency Management published San Mateo County’s 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP), a large regional and cross-jurisdictional effort to plan for the reduction of risk from natural and human-made disasters.

The MJLHMP assesses hazard vulnerabilities and identifies mitigation actions that jurisdictions will pursue to reduce the level of injury, property damage, and community disruption that might otherwise result from such events. The MJLHMP addresses natural and human-caused hazards, including flooding, drought, wildfire, landslides, severe weather, terrorism, cyber threats, pandemic, and the impact of climate change on hazards, as well as other hazards.

Adoption of the MJLHMP helps the County remain eligible for various types of pre- and post-disaster community assistance, such as grants from FEMA and the State government.

The Department of Emergency Management led the 2021 MJLHMP effort, in coordination with County departments, all 20 cities, and regional special districts. The process was informed by a steering committee and robust public engagement. Information about and recommended actions to reduce hazards specific to East Palo is in Volume 2 of the MJLHMP.

Disaster Debris Management Plan
Disasters can produce substantial volumes of debris, creating hazardous conditions that endanger the public and disrupt the essential daily lifestyle and economy of the community. The County of San Mateo Disaster Debris Management Plan (DDMP) provides a comprehensive framework for management of debris following a disaster. It addresses the roles and responsibilities of government organizations as well as private firms and nongovernmental organizations that might have a role in debris operations.vi The County’s Public Works Department serves as the lead department for debris management for unincorporated areas of the county.

County of San Mateo Health System
The County of San Mateo Health System operates Emergency Medical Services (EMS), which provides emergency medical resources in response to 911 calls countywide. As of 2019, EMS responded to 90 percent of requests for advanced life support within 6 minutes and 59 seconds in metro and urban areas, and 11 minutes and 59 seconds in suburban and rural areas. EMS responded to 90 percent of ambulance transport requests within 12 minutes and 59 seconds in metro and urban areas, and 19 minutes and 59 seconds in suburban and rural areas.

The health emergency preparedness unit strengthens the community’s ability to respond to all types of public health and medical incidents. The health emergency preparedness unit continually collaborates with community stakeholders and organizations to facilitate response and recovery for public health and medical emergencies.

The San Mateo County Healthcare Coalition coordinates strategic planning activities amongst healthcare facilities of various healthcare delivery sectors, public health agencies, other government entities, and community partners to prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies and other incidents that impact public health.
348
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 9
San Mateo County Emergency Medical Services Agency uses ReddiNet as its county-wide emergency communications system. ReddiNet allows the County to track hospital status, mass casualty incidents, hospital bed count, and facility assessments and to locate family members through access to the Family Reunification Center.

Volunteer Programs
San Mateo County’s Coastside Emergency Corps is a community-based network of volunteers that assists public safety and health efforts in times of special need or disaster. Members of the Emergency Corps may also volunteer to promote community public health and emergency preparedness education. Specialized training of Emergency Corps members includes CERT, Ham radio, medical (beyond first aid/CPR,) Large Animal Evacuation Group, ICS/EOC Operations, and Red Cross Shelter Operations.

The Menlo Park Fire Protection District (see description below) also trains local volunteers, CERT, Ham radio to promote community public health and emergency preparedness.

Mutual Aid Agreements
In some cases, local emergency responders may not have the staff, vehicles, equipment, or other resources to fully respond to an emergency in their jurisdiction. In these instances, the local emergency commanders can request assistance from other communities. This external assistance is known as mutual aid. The California Disaster and Civic Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, an arrangement between State agencies and local governments establishes a framework for mutual aid.

Mutual aid regions are established under the Emergency Services Act. Six mutual aid regions numbered IVI have been established within California. The San Mateo County Operational Area is part of the Mutual Aid Region II and the Coastal Administrative Region.

City Plans and Initiatives
Menlo Park Fire Protection District
The City of East Palo Alto relies on the Menlo Park Fire Protection District for emergency response services.

Menlo Park Fire Protection District provides a full array of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services to the cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, the Town of Atherton, and unincorporated areas of southern San Mateo County. Menlo Park Fire Protection District operates seven fire stations, employs 150 personnel,3 and responds to approximately 11,000 calls for service annually. For an immediate response, no less than 33 personnel are on duty at all times, including two Battalion Chiefs, who are responsible for commanding incidents and relieving company officers of that responsibility on multicompany emergency operations and more complex incidents. M Menlo Park Fire Protection District has seven engine fire companies, two Truck/Ladder Companies, one EMS Rescue, one Type 1 Heavy Rescue Unit, and several water rescue crafts (airboat, rigid bottom inflatable boat, jet skis). Menlo Park Fire Protection District is also sponsor to FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Team Task Force 3.

While MPFPD is able to meet its response and service goals, ongoing and increasing traffic in the service area pose operational challenges, particularly along University Avenue in East Palo Alto and other nearby major routes like Willow Road and Marsh Road. In many circumstances, emergency responders must drive against the flow of traffic. The Belle Haven and east sides of East Palo Alto can be more challenging to access when traffic is congested.
349
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 10
City of East Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan
The City’s Emergency Operations Plan provides a guide for managing City services and coordinating response in the event of an emergency. Contents of the plan include general and specific event checklists, emergency management goals, and directions for activating the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC). According to the Plan, the City of East Palo Alto will notify San Mateo County and remain in contact with the County when the jurisdictional Emergency Operations Center has been activated .

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to affect the frequency and severity of future natural hazards in East Palo Alto, necessitating an adapted approach to emergency preparedness and response. The East Palo Alto vulnerability assessment contains information about how climate change will affect these hazards in future years.

ISSUE 2: FLOODING
General Overview
Flooding is the rising and overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry. Floods can happen during heavy rains, when ocean waves come on shore, or when dams or levees break. Floods can occur within minutes or over a long period, and may last days, weeks, or longer. Floods are the most common and widespread of all weather-related natural disasters. Floodwater can damage buildings and infrastructure, carry off structures or vehicles, and bury property under sediment. Standing water can cause damage to roads, foundations, and electrical circuits, as well as spread vector-borne illnesses. Other problems connected with flooding and stormwater runoff include erosion, degradation of water quality, and loss of environmental resources.

There are four types of flooding that primarily affect San Mateo County. • Riverine flooding, the most common type of flood event, occurs when a watercourse such as a stream or creek overruns its banks.
• Stormwater flooding, sometimes called “ponding”, occurs when rainfall and runoff accumulates in low-lying areas or areas with insufficient drainage, forming standing water. • Flash floods are sudden events, typically caused by intense and localized storms. There is often little or no warning of flash floods, making them particularly dangerous. • Shoreline floods occur when the ocean inundates normally dry lands by ocean waters, often a result of storm surges, tsunamis, or extreme high tide events.

Another source of flooding, dam failure, is discussed in greater detail below.

FEMA Regulatory Flood Zones
Flood hazard areas, also called floodplains, are the areas that become inundated by high volumes of water.

They are usually adjacent to rivers, creeks, or lakes, or along the ocean. Floodplains are officially mapped FEMA using Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs). The two main floodplains of concern are the 100- year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is the area that has a 1 percent (1 in 100) chance of being flooded in any given year, also known as a base flood. The 500-year floodplain is the area that has a 0.2 percent (1 in 500) chance of being flooded in any given year. 350
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 11
Flooding in East Palo Alto occurs primarily because of existing high-water tables, high tides, and creek overflows due to rain and storm run-off, in addition to inadequate storm drainage into the creek.

Easterly higher winds promote storm surge, contributing to widespread flooding particularly to neighborhoods that are situated along East Palo Alto levee embankments that border the westerly wetlands.

The combined effects of storm surge high tides, and creek flow can result in significant flooding in upstream areas of the creek. These consequences are most catastrophic to homes along the creek, outside of the floodplain, and are not protected by the levee.

Approximately half of the parcels in East Palo Alto are within a mapped floodplain and are considered flood-prone or hazard areas. As illustrated in Figure 2, areas along the bay and near San Francisquito Creek face the highest flood risks during storm events or high tide events. The following areas within the city are particularly vulnerable to flooding:
• The Weeks and Garden Neighborhoods, east of Pulgas Avenue; • The Woodland Neighborhood, between San Francisquito Creek and the Bayshore Freeway; • The University Village Neighborhood, north of Notre Dame Avenue; • The portion of the Ravenswood Employment District closest to the Baylands; • The Kavanaugh Neighborhood; and
• The Palo Alto Park Neighborhood, west of Menalto Avenue.

It is important to note that many structures within the 100-year floodplain have a higher than 1 percent probability of flooding in any given year. For instance, some areas near San Francisquito Creek have been flooded several times in the last 60 years. It is also possible that properties outside the flood zones could be subject to flooding even though FEMA’s hydrologic models do not predict such flooding.4 351
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 12
Figure 2: Mapped Flood Hazard Zones
352
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 13
Dam Failure
A dam failure is an uncontrolled release of water from a reservoir through a dam caused by damage or destruction to the dam or associated infrastructure. Distribution or aqueduct failures can create a similar sudden flood. These events can be the result of overwhelmed infrastructure and other structural deficiencies, which may be exacerbated by intense rainfall or prolonged flooding. Dam failures are catastrophic and can potentially harm human life and property downstream from the failure. In addition, ecosystems and habitats can be destroyed by fast-moving floodwaters, debris, and sedimentation from inundation. Although dam failures are very rare, these events are not unprecedented.

In a dam failure scenario, the greatest threat to life and property typically occurs in those areas immediately below the dam since flood depths and discharges generally decrease as the flood wave moves downstream. The primary danger associated with dam failure is the high-velocity flooding downstream of the dam and limited warning times for evacuation.

The County has identified the Searsville Dam, which impounds a creek tributary to San Francisquito Creek, as posing a potential dam failure hazard to portions of the Stanford campus, the City of Palo Alto, and the lower reaches of San Francisquito Creek, which forms the boundary of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto as it enters San Francisco Bay. The City is also within the inundation area of the Felt Lake Dam. See Figure 3 depicting dam inundation areas.

Both dams are owned by the Standford University Board of Trustees and inspected by the California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams and have been given satisfactory ratings. This rating means that no existing or potential deficiencies have been identified and that an acceptable performance is expected under all conditions.
353
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 14
Figure 3: Dam Inundation Areas
354
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 15
Past Events
East Palo Alto has a history of flooding problems due to its low-lying location along the bay, particularly in areas along San Francisquito Creek. The city has experienced eight major flood events since 1940. For example, tidal flood waters submerged streets in the University Village neighborhood in 1972. A heavy rain event in December 2012 led to significant flooding in multiple portions of the city.

Table 1 lists historical San Mateo County flood events identified in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Severe Storms Database (dating back to 1996), as well as previous flood events affecting the county for which federal disaster declarations were issued.

Table 1: History of Recent Flood Events
Date Event Locations
February 3, 1998 Flood East Palo Alto, Menlo Park
December 31, 2005 Flood Countywide
January 1, 2006 Flood Countywide
December 23, 2012 Flood East Palo Alto
December 2/11, 2014 Flash Flood, Flood Belmont, San Bruno, San Mateo County December 10, 2016 Flood East Palo Alto
December 31, 2022 Flood Bayshore
January 10, 2023 Flood Countywide
February 3, 1998
Parts of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park experienced significant flooding along the San Francisquito Creek.

This event impacted more than 1,100 homes and businesses and caused more than $28 million in damages. Hundreds of people were forced to evacuate and major thoroughfares were closed. Bell Street Park was flooded.

December 23, 2012
A storm caused water to flow over a 600-foot section of levee between Verbena Drive and Daphne Way, forcing evacuations for residents of seven homes with a total of 36 residents. One home was damaged and declared uninhabitable.

December 31, 2022
A low-pressure system descended from the Gulf of Alaska southward along the entire Pacific Coast and tapped into sub-tropical moisture originating from the Central Pacific to drop heavy rain throughout the state. The system brought rainfall over a two-day period totaling 10 inches in the coastal mountains. A flash flood watch was issued for the Santa Lucia Mountains and Dolan Burn Scar area, where up to 12 inches of rain fell. Roadway flooding caused a hard closure of State Route 92 between State Route 35 and State Route 1. Residents living near San Francisquito Creek in East Palo Alto lost many of their belongings, including their cars, and incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars of property damage. 355
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 16
Dam Events
The only recorded dam failure in San Mateo County was the failure of a small dam in the community of El Granada in 1926. According to the 2018 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan, there have been nine failures of federally regulated dams elsewhere in the state since 1950. Overtopping caused two of the nine dam failures in the state, and the others were caused by seepage or leaks. The most catastrophic event was the failure of the St. Francis Dam in Los Angeles County, which failed in 1928 and killed an estimated 450 people.

The state’s most recent dam emergency occurred in February 2017 when the Oroville Dam in Butte County was on the verge of overflow. The dam’s concrete spillway was damaged by erosion and a massive hole developed. The auxiliary spillway was used to prevent overtopping of the dam, although it also experienced erosion problems. Evacuation orders were issued in advance of a potential large uncontrolled release of water from Lake Oroville, although ultimately no release occurred. Following this incident, State officials ordered that flood-control spillways be reinspected on 93 dams with potential geologic, structural, or performance issues that could jeopardize their ability to safely withstand a flood event. The San Andreas Dam near Millbrae and San Bruno was one of the dams reinspected.

EXISTING PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
Flood Control Agencies and Activities
Agencies responsible for flood control in San Mateo County include the Unites States Army Corps of Engineers, San Mateo County Flood Control District (OneShoreline), Federal Insurance Administration, and the California Department of Water Resources.

Federal Insurance Administration
The U.S. Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP is administered by FEMA and enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as protection against flood losses in exchange for state and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages.

United States Army Corps of Engineers
The Unites States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates projects and programs related to dam safety, levee safety, and emergency operations. The USACE can provide the full range of technical services and planning guidance that is needed to support effective floodplain management. General technical assistance efforts under this program include determining site-specific data on obstructions to flood flows, flood formation, and timing; flood depths; floodwater velocities; the extent, duration, and frequency of flooding; information on natural and cultural floodplain resources; and flood loss potentials before and after the use of floodplain management measures. Types of studies the USACE have conducted include floodplain delineation/hazard, dam failure analyses, flood warning, floodway, flood damage reduction, stormwater management, flood-proofing, and inventories of flood-prone structures.

The USACE Flood Risk Management Program (FRMP) works to focus the policies, programs, and expertise of USACE toward reducing overall flood risk. This includes the appropriate use and resiliency of structures such as levees and floodwalls, as well as promoting alternatives when other approaches, such as land acquisition and flood proofing, to reduce flood risk.
356
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 17
California Department of Water Resources
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) participates in activities to reduce flood risk, maintain levees, forecast river levels based on weather conditions, promote wise use of floodplains, and provide emergency preparedness and response assistance.

DWR’s role in flood preparedness includes working with communities to improve community safety and lower insurance premiums for residents; holding preseason briefings for emergency responders to learn about resources and coordinate with other local agencies to prepare for flood season; conducting meetings with flood emergency response partners and county emergency operation officials throughout the state; providing training in effective flood fighting methods for mitigating flood; and providing grant funding for flood management projects, emergency preparedness, and feasibility studies. DWR can help affected communities obtain flood response resources through the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and works collaboratively with local, State, and federal agencies to collect and share weather and river runoff data via the California Data Exchange Center. In the event of a major flood, DWR activates its Flood Operations Center to coordinate response between local agencies and provide technical assistance.

San Mateo County Flood & Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) The San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District, also known as OneShoreline, is an independent government agency that works across jurisdictional boundaries to secure and leverage public and private resources for the long-term resilience of San Mateo County. OneShoreline plans and implements solutions to the climate change impacts of sea level rise, flooding, and coastal erosion.

OneShoreline’s major current priorities include working with cities and developers to incorporate consideration for future climate conditions in property and infrastructure planning and advancing new multi-jurisdictional projects. A key component of OneShoreline’s work is to partner with municipalities to remove properties from the FEMA-defined floodplain.

San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
In 1999, the City joined with the cities Menlo Park and Palo Alto, along with the San Mateo County Flood Control District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to form the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA). The San Francisquito Creek JPA assists East Palo Alto in reducing threats of flooding.

Stormwater Infrastructure
The storm drainage system in the city is composed of networks of pipes, channels, storage ponds, and pump stations that outlet to San Francisquito Creek and the San Francisco Bay. Stormwater in East Palo Alto drains into two major drainage systems: the Runnymede Storm Drain System and the O’Connor Storm Drain System. Due to its proximity to the San Francisco Bay, portions of the drainage system are influenced by tide. Over half of the drainage area is reliant on pumping from the O’Connor pump station.

The City has a Storm Drain Master Plan, adopted in 2015, that guides the development of a comprehensive approach to storm drain facilities. As of 2015, many of the streets in East Palo Alto lack storm drains. Where storm drains exist, they lack the capacity to handle stormwater during heavy rain events. During 10- and 20-year storm events in East Palo Alto, storm drains can overflow, flooding the streets, and in the case of the 1998 floods, parts of the city were effectively stranded. Low-lying areas face extra risk of floods related to levee breaks, ruptures, or overtopping. Additionally, the other infrastructure, such as pump stations, need replacement.
357
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 18
San Francisquito Creek Storm Capacity Revitalization
During 2016 and into 2018, the San Francisquito Creek received a significant capacity upgrade. The creek was widened by approximately 250 square feet between US 101 Highway and the entrance to the Bay. In addition to the widening of the creek, the levees received extensive corrugated steel 100-foot sea walls which align the creek between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Crossing points such as the Friendship Bridge became a two-part bridge spanning across to the newer levee landing.

Levees
Many bayfront areas in and near East Palo Alto feature earthen levees intended to protect against tidal influx. The incomplete system generally follows the shoreline but also upland portions of San Francisquito Creek.

City Plans and Regulations
The City requires stringent building codes, such as the mandatory elevation of structures to 18 inches above the height of flood waters, which mitigate inundation risk. East Palo Alto reviews the effectiveness of these activities annually and provides FEMA with a progress report each year that identifies action taken to reduce the potential for loss of life and damage to property.

The City adopted its Green Infrastructure Plan in 2020. The purpose of the Green Infrastructure Plan is to guide the identification, implementation, tracking, and reporting of green infrastructure projects within the city.

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to affect the frequency and severity of future flooding in East Palo Alto. Please review the East Palo Alto Vulnerability Assessment Report for details. 358
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 19
ISSUE 3: SEA LEVEL RISE
General Overview
Sea level rise is an increase in the ocean’s surface height relative to the land. The two major causes of sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. Sea level rise is a gradual process, taking place over years or decades, affecting coastal communities and those along the San Francisco Bay.

Sea level rise has the potential to inundate homes, businesses, and infrastructure near shorelines and to cause erosion of shorelines over time. Rising seas increase the risk of flooding, storm surge inundation, erosion and shoreline retreat, and wetland loss. The cities and infrastructure that line many shorelines are already vulnerable to damage from storms, which will likely increase as the sea level continues to rise and inundate areas further inland.

Rising sea levels can cause the shoreline to flood more frequently and severely during storms or king tide events because ocean levels are higher during normal conditions. The most damaging events over the next few decades are likely to be dominated by large storm events in combination with high tides and large waves. Additionally, rising sea levels can cause inland areas in the watershed to flood. Impacts will generally become more frequent and more severe in the latter half of this century.

The county is already exposed to present-day flooding when large rain events coincide with high tides on the San Francisco Bay. The county becomes more highly vulnerable to flooding when considering the effects of rising sea levels. Future flooding and coastal erosion could pose considerable risks to life, safety, critical infrastructure, the County’s natural and recreational assets, and the economy. To address the issue, the County performed a regional sea level rise vulnerability assessment (SLA VA) to evaluate the potential impacts of future flooding and inundation. The SLA VA revealed:
• The assessed value of parcels in the project area exposed to near-term (present-day) flooding exceeds $1 billion.
• The assessed value of parcels exposed to erosion and flooding in the long-term (50–100 years) totals roughly $39.1 billion.
• More than 30,000 residential parcels and 3,000 commercial parcels may also be vulnerable in the long-term.

Furthermore, flooding, erosion, and sea level rise not only directly threaten people and property in the sea level rise hazard areas, but they also affect all communities in the county, even those on high ground.

Such indirect effects are present because assets and infrastructure in the sea level rise areas provide critical services and functions to communities outside these areas.

Sea Level Rise: Scenarios
The SLA VA used three sea level rise scenarios to evaluate potential impacts to communities (see Table 2).

These three scenarios are referenced when discussing potentially affected assets and infrastructure within the community.5 According to California’s 2024 guidance on sea level rise, communities should plan for as much as approximately 3 feet (36 inches) of sea level rise by 2070, and as much as 6.6 feet (79.2 inches) by 2100. 6
359
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 20
Table 2: Sea Level Rise Scenarios*
Baseline 1% annual chance flood (present-day extreme flood, also known as a 100- year flood)
Mid-Level Scenario 1% annual chance flood + 3.3 feet of sea level rise High-End Scenario 1% annual chance flood + 6.6 feet of sea level rise *The SLA VA used sea level rise inundation data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and from Point Blue’s Our Coast, Our Future tool, which provided the best available data at the time. The best available science on sea level rise projections at the time was the National Research Council’s Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington.

The scenarios were also informed by regional sea level rise guidance documents, such as the California Coastal Commission’s August 2015 Sea Level Rise Guidance, Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits. The methodology incorporated strategies from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Adapting to Rising Tides (ART) project.

Sea level rise has secondary effects beyond inundation. As sea levels rise, the dense saltwater moves inland beneath the ground/soil, which forces up the layer of the less dense fresh groundwater that floats above it. In many coastal areas, even a few inches of sea level rise can raise the fresh groundwater table enough to flood basements of homes and buildings, escape through cracks in sewer lines, and damage underground infrastructure hindering its effectiveness. Groundwater can also seep into toxic sites (oil wells, fuel storage tanks, etc.) from below, releasing hazardous materials and spreading these pollutants far beyond the limits of the original contamination areas. Low-lying inland areas could flood from below by emergent groundwaters faster than coastal floodwaters can overtop the shoreline. This rising groundwater will create potential exposure pathways that could impact not only the environment but public health as well. Rising groundwater can further impact East Palo Alto by increasing liquefaction susceptibility during earthquakes. Figure 4 shows the potential emergency groundwater areas in the city in high seal level rise scenario.

According to the County’s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, 714 acres of East Palo Alto are at risk of inundation under the mid-level scenario and 992 acres are at risk under the high-end scenario (see Figure 5). Nearly 60 percent of East Palo Alto’s population is vulnerable to sea level rise in the mid-level scenario. Nearly all of the city’s wetlands (a total of 237 acres) are vulnerable, but it is not clear to what extent they may withstand sea level rise. Approximately 34 percent of East Palo Alto’s local roadways will be affected in the event of a flood in the mid-level scenario. Infrastructure that would be important in the event of a flood, such as outfalls, an electric substation, a stormwater pump, storm drains, and energy transmission lines, will also be affected.

Other assets that serve the community on a daily basis may also be significantly affected. Approximately 60 percent of its schools, nearly 60 percent of its emergency shelter sites, and half of its parks are vulnerable to flooding in the event of a major storm in the mid-level scenario.7 360
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 21
Figure 4: Emergent Groundwater, High-End Sea Level Rise Scenario 361
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 22
Figure 5: Projected Sea Level Rise
362
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 23
Past Events
Sea level rise is a dynamic phenomenon that is constantly evolving, the impacts of which are often not experienced as singular events. Over the past century, the water levels in San Francisco Bay have risen by eight inches.8
Existing Programs and Regulations
Sea Level Rise Management Agencies and Activities
A number of agencies in San Mateo County and within the greater Bay Area participate in the process of planning for and managing sea level rise, including the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Adapting to Rising Tides, Sea Change San Mateo County, Bay Adapt, OneShoreline, and the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District. Major reports and initiatives developed by these agencies include the County of San Mateo South Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment & Adaptation Report, County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, and the report Sea Level Rise & Overtopping Analysis for San Mateo County’s Bayshore.

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to affect the frequency and severity of future Sea Level Rise in East Palo Alto.

Please review the East Palo Alto Vulnerability Assessment Report for details.

ISSUE 4: SEISMIC HAZARDS
General Overview
An earthquake is the vibration of the earth’s surface following a release of energy in its crust. This energy can be generated by a sudden dislocation of the crust or by a volcanic eruption. Most destructive quakes are caused by dislocations of the crust as stress builds up along sections of the crust. When the stress exceeds the strength of the rocks or the friction holding the halves of the fault together, the crust breaks and snaps to a new position. In the process of breaking, vibrations called “seismic waves” are generated.

These waves travel outward from the source of the earthquake at varying speeds.

Geologists have found that earthquakes reoccur along faults, which are zones of weakness in the earth’s crust. When a fault experiences an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the stress has been relieved.

Another earthquake can still occur. In fact, relieving stress along one part of a fault may increase it in another part. California is seismically active because of movement of the North American Plate and the Pacific Plate to the west. The major fault between these plates, the San Andreas Fault, runs through San Mateo County.

The sliding movement of the surface of the earth on either side of a fault is called fault rupture. Fault rupture begins below the ground surface at the earthquake hypocenter, typically between 3 and 10 miles below the ground surface in California. If an earthquake is large enough, the fault rupture will travel to the ground surface, potentially destroying structures built across its path.

Faults are more likely to experience earthquakes if they have more rapid rates of movement, have experienced recent earthquakes, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve the accumulating tectonic stresses. Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. “Active” faults, which represent the highest hazard, are those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). “Potentially active” faults are those that 363
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 24
displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last 1,800,000 years). The majority of the seismic hazards are on well-known active faults. However, inactive faults, where no displacements have been recorded, also have the potential to cause earthquakes.

All of East Palo Alto would likely experience severe ground shaking in a large earthquake. Much of the city’s multifamily housing is provided in buildings with soft-story construction, which are buildings that have large open spaces on the ground or lower floors, such as a garage or open retail areas. Soft-story construction is particularly vulnerable to failure in the event of an earthquake.

Earthquake Classification
Earthquakes are typically classified by the amount of energy released, measured in magnitude, or by the impact on people and structures, measured in intensity.

Magnitude
An earthquake’s magnitude is a measure of the energy released at the source of the earthquake.

Magnitude is commonly expressed by ratings on the moment magnitude scale (Mw), the most common scale used today. This scale is based on the distance a fault moved and the force required to move it. The scale is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Moment Magnitude Scale
Classification Magnitude
Great 8 or greater
Major 7.0 to 7.9
Strong 6.0 to 6.9
Moderate 5.0 to 5.9
Light 4.0 to 4.9
Minor 3.0 to 3.9
Micro Less than 3.0
Intensity
The most commonly used earthquake intensity scale is the modified Mercalli intensity scale. Ratings of the scale as well as the perceived shaking and damage potential for structures are shown in Table 4. The modified Mercalli intensity scale is generally represented visually using shake maps, which show the expected ground shaking at any given location produced by an earthquake with a specified magnitude and epicenter. The intensity of an earthquake varies depending on the distance from the earthquake, the rock and soil conditions at sites, and variations in the propagation of seismic waves from the earthquake due to complexities in the structure of the earth’s crust. A shake map shows the variation of ground shaking in a region immediately following significant earthquakes. 364
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 25
Table 4: Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison Modified Mercalli Scale Perceived Shaking Potential Structure Damage Resistant Buildings Vulnerable Buildings
I Not felt None None
II to III Weak None None
IV Light None None
V Moderate Very Light Light
VI Strong Light Moderate
VII Very Strong Moderate Moderate/Heavy
VIII Severe Moderate/Heavy Heavy
IX Violent Heavy Very Heavy
X to XII Extreme Very Heavy Very Heavy
Fault Locations
San Mateo County is in a region of high seismicity because of the presence of the San Andreas Fault that bisects the county, the Hayward Fault across the bay to the east, and the San Gregorio Fault to the west (see Figure 6). The primary seismic hazard for the county is potential ground shaking from these three large faults.

San Andreas Fault
The San Andreas Fault spans the boundary of the Pacific and North American plates, running 810 miles from the Gulf of California through the Mendocino fracture zone off the shore of northern California. The San Andreas Fault lies about seven miles to the west of East Palo Alto.

The San Andreas Fault has three segments. The southern segment extends from the Gulf of Mexico to Parkfield, in Monterey County. The central segment extends from Parkfield to Hollister, in San Benito County. The northern segment extends northwest from Hollister, through San Mateo County, including Daly City and San Bruno, to its junction with the Mendocino fracture zone and the Cascadia subduction zone in the Pacific Ocean. The San Andreas Fault has a 21 percent chance of generating a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in the next 30 years.9
A rupture along the peninsula would cause extremely violent ground shaking throughout the county. The bay margins are likely to experience liquefaction in a major earthquake.

Hayward Fault
The Hayward Fault is a 45-mile-long fault that parallels the San Andreas Fault in the East Bay. The Hayward Fault extends through some of the Bay Area’s most populated areas, including San Jose, Oakland, and Berkeley. The Hayward Fault is about 10 miles to the east of East Palo Alto.

The Hayward Fault has a 31-percent chance of producing a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in the next 30 years.10 An earthquake of this magnitude has regional implications for the entire Bay Area, as the Hayward Fault crosses numerous transportation and resource facilities, such as highways and the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. Disruption of the Hetch Hetchy system has the potential to severely impair water service to San Mateo County. The Hayward Fault is increasingly becoming a hazard priority throughout the Bay 365
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 26
region because of its increased chance for activity and its intersection with multiple highly populated areas and critical facilities.

San Gregorio Fault
The San Gregorio Fault is a northwest-trending right-lateral slip deformation near the western edge of San Mateo County, crossing briefly over uninhabited land in San Mateo County around Pillar Point at Half Moon Bay. The fault runs from southern Monterey Bay through Bolinas Bay, where its north section intersects with the San Andreas Fault offshore north of San Francisco. San Gregorio is the principal active fault west of the San Andreas for the Bay Area region. The San Gregorio Fault is about 20 miles to the west of East Palo Alto.

The San Gregorio Fault is one of the less studied fault lines, the result of its primary location offshore and its proximity to the better-known San Andreas Fault and Hayward Fault. Its probability of experiencing a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake within the next 30 years is 6 percent11—significantly less than San Andreas Fault or Hayward Fault. However, the location of the fault poses a significant threat to San Mateo County.

Earthquake-Related Hazards
In addition to shaking and surface rupture, this can also include landslides, liquefaction, and tsunamis.

Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction occurs when water-saturated sands, silts, or gravelly soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose contact with one another and float freely in the water, turning the ground into a puddinglike liquid. Building and foundations lose load-bearing strength and may sink into what was previously solid ground. Unless properly secured, hazardous materials can be released, causing significant damage to the environment and people.

The soils underlying East Palo Alto are particularly susceptible to liquefaction, which has serious implications for older structures that were before state and local building codes were updated (in the early 1970s) to be more resilient against seismic and soils-related hazards. As shown in Figure 7, the areas at greatest risk of liquefaction are the Baylands neighborhoods as well as the area along US Highway 101/San Francisquito Creek.
366
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 27
Figure 6: Regional Faults
367
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 28
Tsunami
A tsunami is a series of high-energy waves that radiate outward like pond ripples from an area where a generating event occurs, arriving at shorelines over an extended period. Tsunamis can be induced by earthquakes, landslides, and submarine volcanic explosions. Tsunamis are typically classified as local or distant, depending on the location of their source in comparison to where waves occur.

In the open ocean, a tsunami may be only a few inches or feet high, but it can travel with speeds approaching 600 miles per hour. As a tsunami enters the shallow waters near a coastline, its speed diminishes, its wavelength decreases, and its height increases greatly. At the shoreline, tsunamis may take the form of a fast-rising tide, a cresting wave, or a bore (a large, turbulent wall-like wave). The first wave is usually followed by several larger and more destructive waves.

At some locations, the advancing turbulent wave front will be the most destructive part of the tsunami wave. In other situations, the greatest damage will be caused by the outflow of water back to the sea between crests, sweeping away items on the surface and undermining roads, buildings, bulkheads, and other structures. This outflow action can carry enormous amounts of highly damaging debris, resulting in further destruction. Ships and boats may be forced against breakwaters, wharves, and other craft, or be washed ashore and left grounded after the withdrawal of the seawater.

Tsunamis are often referred to as local or distant. The type of tsunami depends on the location of the source of the tsunami and where it may strike land. The source of a local tsunami is close to the coast or shoreline and may arrive in less than one hour. The danger is greatest for local tsunamis because warning time is limited.12
Tsunamis affecting the Bay Area are most likely to be generated by very distant subduction faults such as those in Washington and Alaska, but local tsunamis can be generated from strike-slip faults (such as the small one that was triggered by the 1906 earthquake). The 2011 Honshu, Japan, earthquake caused tsunami damage in Santa Cruz, Crescent City, and Berkeley marinas.13 There is a tsunami warning system for the Pacific Ocean, involving 26 countries with numerous seismic stations, water level stations, and information distribution centers. The warning centers issue tsunami watches, warnings, and advisories. A watch is issued when a large earthquake has occurred far away from the region and the threat is still being determined. The warning system is activated when a Pacific basin earthquake of magnitude 6.5 occurs or an earthquake is widely felt along the North American coast.

CalOES has prepared a series of maps showing the potential inundation line for a tsunami runup along the San Francisco Bay shoreline from a number of extreme, yet realistic, tsunami data sources.

East Palo Alto’s position within San Francisco Bay limits the potential for tsunami damage (see Figure 11).

However, tsunami waves may impact areas of the city directly adjacent to the bay. The California Department of Conservation has identified the area around Ravenswood Slough and Cooley Landing as potential tsunami inundation areas.
368
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 29
Figure 7: Liquefaction Hazard Areas
369
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 30
Figure 8: Tsunami Hazard Areas
370
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 31
Past Events
Table 5 lists recent earthquakes with a magnitude of 5.0 or greater within 100 miles of San Mateo County.

The last significant (greater than magnitude 6.0) seismic event in the San Mateo vicinity was the 7.1 magnitude San Andreas Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989, which originated 10 miles northeast of Santa Cruz. Other significant local earthquakes include the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco and the 2014 Napa earthquake. Although the 1906 earthquake is most associated with the City of San Francisco, San Mateo County was also greatly affected.

Table 5: Recent Earthquakes Magnitude 5.0 or Larger Within 100-Mile Radius of San Mateo County Date Magnitude Epicenter Location
3/22/1957 5.3 Daly City
3/31/1986 5.70 12 miles east-northeast of Milpitas, CA
10/17/1989 7.1 10 miles northeast of Santa Cruz, CA
9/3/2000 5.17 8 miles northwest of Napa, CA
8/10/2001 5.50 9 miles west of Portola, CA
10/31/2007 5.6 10 miles northeast of San Jose, CA
8/24/2014 6.0 6 miles southwest of Napa, CA
Existing Programs and Regulations
Title 15 of the City’s Municipal Code contains the City’s Residential Code and Building Code, both of which establish standards for seismic safety in new construction and major renovations.

Future Conditions
The frequency and severity of future seismic hazards in East Palo Alto is expected to continue.

ISSUE 5: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
General Overview
Common geologic hazards are landslide, subsidence, and differential settlement.

Landslide
A landslide is a mass of rock, earth or debris moving in a downward direction. They occur when a slope loses its structural integrity and can no longer hold itself together. Landslides can move slowly or very quickly. Mudslides, a type of landslide, are rivers of rock and soil saturated with water. They develop in the soil overlying bedrock on sloping surfaces when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as during heavy rainfall.

Slides are caused by a combination of geological and climate conditions and the influence of urbanization.

They can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires, or human modification of the land. The sites of large landslides are typically areas of previous landslide movement that are periodically reactivated by significant precipitation or seismic events. In San Mateo County, landslides typically occur during and after severe storms that saturate steep, slide-prone soils. Most weather-induced landslides in the county occur 371
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 32
in the winter after the water table has risen. Landslides that result from earthquakes can occur at any time.

The probability of a landslide in the county in any given year is high.

Landslides in hillside terrain can pose a serious hazard to downslope property and structures. They can disrupt roadways and other infrastructure lifelines, destroy private property, and cause flooding, bank erosion, and rapid channel migration. Landslides can travel miles from their source, growing as they descend and pick up debris.

The degree of local landslide hazard depends on soil type and steepness of slope. Soil type is a key indicator for landslide potential and is used by geologists and geotechnical engineers to determine soil stability for construction standards. Other factors that increase landslide risk include a slope greater than 33 percent, a history of landslide activity in the last 10,000 years, and stream or wave activity, which can cause erosion and undercut a bank and cause the surrounding land to become unstable. Wildfire can also make landscapes more susceptible to landslides, flash floods, and debris flows.

East Palo Alto’s relatively flat typography means that landslide risks are generally low. As Figure 9 shows, there are no identified landslide hazard areas within the city.

Subsidence
Subsidence means a failure or collapse of the existing ground and media . This is usually caused when subsurface materials are extracted or dissolve, leading to a surface failure. Subsidence can occur when groundwater is extracted or when subsurface organic soils decompose and shrink. Groundwater extraction in East Palo Alto has been minimal, allowing groundwater recharge to limit the potential for subsidence to occur.

Differential Settlement
Differential settlement is a type of subsidence. Differential settlement describes a condition in which adjacent areas of soil sink or settle at different rates. When buildings or structures straddle lands with differing settlement rates, the portion of the building or structure below the sinking soil can be damaged.

Typically, differential settlement occurs slowly so that acute harm to humans is not generally a concern.

However, over time, differential settlement can result in substantial damage to buildings and structures.

Areas of East Palo Alto that are made up of former tidal flats could be susceptible to differential settlement where low-strength native soils are immediately adjacent to loose or unconsolidated fill. 372
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 33
Figure 9: Landslide Hazard Areas
373
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 34
Past Events
There is a limited history of recorded landslide events within East Palo Alto. However, residents may have been impacted by road closures and damage to structures and infrastructure resulting from landslides that occurred in other parts of the county. Table 6 summarizes the impacts of past major landslide events within San Mateo County.

Table 6: Past Landslide Events in San Mateo County
Date Event Type
December 17, 2005,
to January 12, 2006
A series of winter storms caused flooding, landslides, and mudslides in the region.

Damage estimates for the San Mateo County region exceeded $100 million. Three homes were nearly wiped out by mudslides.

April 2006 Severe storms resulted in debris flowing across the county. The hardest hit areas were water-soaked hillsides in Brisbane, Broadmoor, and El Granada. In total, 83 damage sites were documented throughout San Mateo County. Damage was estimated at nearly $13 million, with at least $6 million charged to county road damage. A slide caused Highway 1 at Devil’s Slide to be closed for several months.

A landslide also blocked lanes on State Route 84.

Winter 2017 A series of severe winter storms caused flooding and mudslides across San Mateo County.

March 2023 Highway 84 between Foxhill Road and Portola Road was closed due to a landslide triggered by severe weather. The slide resulted in the failure of approximately 250 feet of roadway on March 8, 2023. A temporary one-way traffic control opened on July 27, 2023, with the full reopening of SR-84 tentatively scheduled for December 2023.

On March 22, 2023, a landslide on the 600 to 800 blocks of Patrol Road in Woodside impacted approximately 30 homes. Residents were urged to evacuate, and Patrol Road was closed.

September 8, 2023 A landslide shut down eastbound Highway 84 west of Highway 35. The road was closed for several hours.

Existing Programs and Regulations
Chapter 15.48 of the City’s Municipal Code contains requirements pertaining to excavation, grading, filling, and clearing.

The City’s land subsidence monitoring program tracks land subsidence associated with groundwater pumping. In August 2014, licensed land surveyors created five new survey sites at locations distributed across the city.

Future Conditions
The frequency and severity of future geologic hazards in East Palo Alto is expected to continue. 374
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 35
ISSUE 6: FIRE HAZARDS
General Overview
Fire hazards include both wildfires and urban fires. The combination of complex terrain, Mediterranean climate, and productive natural plant communities, along with ample natural ignition sources, has created conditions for extensive wildfires. Historically, the fire season extended from early summer through late fall of each year during the hotter, dryer months, although it is increasingly a hazard that can occur yearround. Fire conditions arise from a combination of high temperatures, low-moisture content in the air and plant matter, an accumulation of vegetation, and high winds.

Wildland Fire
A wildland fire is any uncontrolled fire on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. Wildfires can occur naturally and are important to many ecosystem processes; however, most are started by people.

Wildland fires occur on mountains, hillsides, and grasslands. Fuel, weather, and topography are primary factors that affect how wildland fires spread. The climate of San Mateo County and the surrounding area keeps the grass dry and more readily combustible during fire season.

Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire
The wildland-urban interface (WUI) is an area where buildings and infrastructure mix with areas of flammable wildland vegetation, allowing fires to easily spread to buildings and structures. Hundreds of homes now border major forests and brush areas in California. Human-caused fires are the leading cause of WUI fires, and with thousands of people living near and visiting wildland areas, the probability of human-caused fires is growing. East Palo Alto has no WUI areas.

Fire Hazard Areas
While the city itself is not designated as a fire hazard severity zone, the State Fire Marshal has identified portions of the Bay shoreline (outside city limits and populated areas) as having an elevated risk from grass fires.

Wildfire Protection Responsibility Areas
Hundreds of agencies have fire protection responsibility for wildland and WUI fires in California. Local, state, tribal, and federal organizations have primary legal (and financial) responsibility for wildfire protection. In many instances, two fire organizations have dual primary responsibility for the same parcel of land—one for wildfire protection, and the other for structural or improvement fire protection. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) designates lands into responsibility areas based on who is financially responsible for fire protection services.

Local Responsibility Areas
Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs) are areas protected by local agencies, including city and county fire departments, local fire protection districts, and CAL FIRE when under contract to local governments. LRAs may include flammable vegetation and WUI areas where the financial and jurisdictional responsibility for improvement and wildfire protection is that of a local government agency. East Palo Alto is an LRA. 375
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 36
State Responsibility Areas
State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) include unincorporated areas and State lands where the State/CAL FIRE has financial responsibility for fire protection. CAL FIRE can also provide fire protection services by contract to cities and counties.

Structural Fires
Structural fires occur in built-up environments, destroying buildings and other human-made structures.

These disasters are often due to faulty wiring or mechanical equipment, or combustible construction materials. The absence of fire alarms and sprinkler systems can exacerbate the damage associated with a structural fire. Structural fires are largely from human accidents, although deliberate fires (arson) may be a cause of some events. Older buildings that lack modern fire safety features may face greater risk of damage from fires. To minimize fire damage and loss, the local Fire Code, based on the State Fire Code, sets standards for building and construction. They require the provision of adequate water supply for firefighting, fire-retardant construction, fire sprinkler requirements, and minimum street widths, among other things.

Secondary Hazards
Wildfires can generate a range of secondary effects, which in some cases may cause more widespread and prolonged damage than the fire itself. Wildfires cause the contamination of reservoirs, destroy transmission lines, and contribute to flooding. They strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff. This in turn can weaken soil and cause failures on slopes. Major landslides can occur several years after a wildfire. Most wildfires burn hot and for long durations that can bake soils, especially those high in clay content, thus increasing the imperviousness of the ground. This increases the runoff generated by storm events, thus increasing the chance of flooding.

Additionally, while East Palo Alto is unlikely to experience a major wildfire within its city limits, it is vulnerable to smoke from wildfires taking place across the region and state. Limited air monitoring resources within the city have historically made it difficult to determine the scale of the impact and to provide adequate air quality warnings.

Past Events
While San Mateo County has a prolific fire history, few of its fires have caused sufficient damage to trigger a state or federal disaster declaration. Notable fires of record are the November 1929 fire near Montara that destroyed 25 homes, a church, and cattle, and the August 2020 CZU Lightning Complex in Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties, caused by a reported 12,000 lightning strikes. While there have been few wildland fires within East Palo Alto itself, the city has been affected by smoke from wildfires throughout the state and region.

The CZU Lightning Complex fires burned in San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties starting on August 16, 2020. This fire destroyed 1,490 structures, damaged 140 others, and caused one injury and one fatality.

Fires burned in both Butano and Big Basin Redwoods State Parks, where several historic buildings were destroyed, including the visitor’s center at Big Basin. The fire burned a total of 86,509 acres.14 According to CAL FIRE, the CZU Lightning Complex fire was the 12th most destructive California wildfire as of 2023. This fire triggered air quality concerns across the Bay Area. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District issued 25 consecutive days of air quality alerts in the Bay Area, including East Palo Alto, during the CZU Lightning Complex fire.
376
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 37
Although San Mateo County has not experienced many major wildfire events, nearby Alameda County has demonstrated some worst-case scenario fires that could occur in other Bay Area counties. At the time it occurred, the October 1991 Oakland/Berkeley Hills “Tunnel Fire” was the most damaging fire (now the third-most damaging) and the second deadliest (currently the third deadliest) fire in California. This WUI fire resulted in 25 lives lost, including a fire battalion chief and an Oakland police officer, 148 people injured, and 2,900 structures destroyed. The blaze started from a grass fire in the Berkeley Hills and burned 1,600 acres. According to the Insurance Information Institute, the estimated private property loss was $1.7 billion.

Existing Programs and Regulations
CAL FIRE Wildfire Mapping
CAL FIRE has modeled and mapped wildfire hazard zones using a computer model that designates moderate, high, or very high FHSZs. FHSZ ratings are derived from a combination of fire frequency (how often an area burns) and expected fire behavior under severe weather conditions. CAL FIRE’s model derives fire frequency from 50 years of fire history data. Fire behavior is based on fuel loads (such as the level and type of vegetation), weather conditions (temperature, wind, precipitation, humidity, etc.), slope and elevation, fire ignition patterns, and expected rate of spread. It accounts for flying ember production, which is the principal driver of the wildfire hazard in densely developed areas, as well as the relative density of vegetative fuels that can serve as sites for new spot fires within the urban core and spread to adjacent structures. The model refines the zones to characterize fire exposure mechanisms that cause ignitions to structures.

CAL FIRE periodically reviews and revises the FHSZ boundaries based on updated modeling and scientific information. Individuals should consult the most recent available mapping, available from CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) at https://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

County Fire Management and Response
Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties updated their joint Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) in 2018. A CWPP is a tool for communities to identify landscape-scale hazards and take strategic action to reduce wildfire risk for healthier ecosystems and more resilient communities. The updated CWPP assesses hazards and priorities within the two counties, identifies at-risk communities, and provides fuel-reduction recommendations for high-priority areas. The CWPP can also aid communities to apply for state and federal funding for fire prevention projects and programs.

Wildfire Fuel Management Program
This five-year Wildfire Fuel Management Program is a plan developed by the San Mateo County Parks Department designed to identify and prioritize wildfire fuel reduction projects. The program identifies the projects deemed to have the highest priority to be completed during the selected timeframe. This process involves direct collaboration between department field staff and natural resource management staff to identify the necessity and scope of various projects within park properties and completion of a systematic ranking process of projects to determine which are of the highest priority for the treatment plan timeframe. The plan outlines how the projects will be implemented and then stipulates how these fuel breaks will be maintained in the future. Although no current fuel management activities are proposed in or around East Palo Alto, this program may assist with these activities. 377
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 38
City Fire Management and Response
The Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD), described in the Emergency Preparedness and Response section (Issue 1), provides fire response services in the city. MPFPD has had a long-standing weed abatement program intended to minimize risks from grassland fire.

Municipal Code Chapter 8.16, Fire Code and Prevention, and Chapter 15.58, Fire Code, both address and are intended to minimize fire risk in East Palo Alto.

Future Conditions
Although climate change is expected to affect the frequency and severity of future fire hazardsthroughout San Mateo County, East Palo Alto is not generally at risk of wildfires.

ISSUE 7: SEVERE WEATHER
General Overview
Severe weather is generally any destructive weather event, but usually occurs in San Mateo County as localized storms that bring heavy rain, hail, thunderstorms, and strong winds. Severe weather is usually caused by intense storm systems, although types of strong winds can occur without a storm. The most common severe weather events that have historically impacted San Mateo County are heavy rains (usually a result of atmospheric rivers), thunderstorms, and windstorms. Utilities may temporarily turn off power to specific areas to reduce the risk of fires caused by electric infrastructure, an action called a public safety power shutoff (PSPS) event.

Atmospheric Rivers
Atmospheric rivers are long, narrow regions in the atmosphere that transport water vapor from the tropics. When the atmospheric rivers make landfall, they release this water vapor in the form of precipitation, often causing heavy rains that can lead to flooding and mudslide events. These events can cause significant injuries, disrupt travel, and damage property. However, they also play a critical role in replenishing California’s water supply.

Fog
Fog forms when air close to the ground can no longer hold all the moisture it contains, causing the excess moisture to condense as a low cloud. This occurs either when air is cooled to its dew point or the amount of moisture in the air increases. Heavy fog is particularly hazardous because it can restrict surface visibility.

Severe fog incidents can close roads, cause vehicle accidents and airport delays, and impair the effectiveness of emergency response. Cool marine air and fog are common in the Bay Area in the summer.

Thunderstorms
A thunderstorm is a rain event that includes thunder and lightning. According to NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory, a thunderstorm is classified as “severe” when it contains hail with a diameter of one inch or greater, wind gusts exceeding 57.5 miles per hour (mph), or tornado. Lightning can cause forest and brush fires and deaths and injuries to livestock and other animals. According to the National Lightning Safety Institute, lightning causes more than 26,000 fires in the United States each year. “Lightning sieges” are extreme lightning events in which lightning strikes multiple points at once. In August 2020, an estimated 12,000 lightning strikes caused a set of fires known as the CZU Lightning Complex in San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties.15
378
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 39
Tornadoes
A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending between a cloud and the surface of the earth, with winds that can reach destructive speeds of more than 300 mph. A tornado’s vortex is typically a few hundred meters in diameter, and damage paths can be up to 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. Tornadoes can occur throughout the year at any time of day but are most frequent in the spring during the late afternoon. However, tornadoes are rare in San Mateo County; only five have been recorded since 1950.

Windstorms
Windstorms are generally short-term events involving winds or gusts of over 50 to 60 mph that are strong enough to cause property damage. Wind speeds can reach up to 100 mph and can produce a damage path extending for hundreds of miles.

Windstorms can cause significant property damage, threaten public safety, and have adverse economic impacts from business closures and power loss. Falling trees and branches can damage buildings, power lines, and other property and infrastructure. During wet winters, saturated soil causes trees to become less stable and more vulnerable to uprooting from high winds. Utility lines brought down by summer thunderstorms have also been known to cause fires, which start in dry roadside vegetation. Downed trees and power lines, and damaged property also can be major hindrances to emergency response and disaster recovery. Emergency response operations can be complicated when roads are blocked or when power supplies are interrupted. Industry and commerce can suffer losses from interruptions in electric service and from extended road closures.

Secondary Hazards
Major riverine or urban flooding can result from heavy rain. Rain falling on saturated soils on slopes or on areas recently burned by wildfire may lead to landslides. Lightning during thunderstorms presents a risk of starting a wildfire. Storms can also exacerbate existing areas of vulnerability, such as increasing the frequency of erosion along coastal cliffs.

Poor air quality is a secondary impact of severe weather. Cold weather may trap air pollutants near the ground surface.

Public Safety Power Shutoff
Electricity utilities throughout California, including the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), have begun to occasionally “de-energize”, or turn off the electricity for power lines that run through areas where there is an elevated fire risk. This is intended to reduce the risk of power lines sparking or being damaged and starting a wildfire. A PSPS event may occur at any time of the year, usually during high wind events and dry conditions. PSPS events may be limited to specific communities, or they may affect broad swaths of the state. Given the long, connected nature of power supply systems, a shutoff event targeted to a small at-risk area can affect a larger area outside the risk zone. The duration of a shutoff is related to the severe weather that triggers it. However, a shutoff typically ends within 24 hours after the severe weather has passed.

Past Events
Table 7 lists a selection of past severe weather events in San Mateo County as recorded by the NOAA since 1950.

Table 7: Past Severe Weather Events
379
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 40
Date Type Description
October 24, 1962 Severe Storms Federal disaster declaration issued (DR-138) February 2 through
April 30, 1998
Severe Winter
Storms and
Flooding
Federal disaster declaration issued (DR-1203). Heavy
flooding occurred in East Palo Alto. Floods forced the
evacuation of hundreds of people, damaged millions of
dollars of property, and closed major roads.

February 15, 2009 High Wind An eastern Pacific storm produced strong wind and heavy rain as it moved through the San Francisco Bay
Area. Over 61,000 Bay Area customers lost power.

April 14, 2009 High Wind High winds along the San Francisco Bay Area shoreline caused numerous power outages and downed trees. A
big rig blew over in the westbound lane of the San
Mateo Bridge, closing the entire bridge for more than
an hour.

October 13, 2009 High Wind Heavy rain combined with very strong wind through Northern and Central California to cause numerous
trees, tree limbs, and power and telephone poles to
fall. PG&E reported over 277,000 customers had lost
power in the San Francisco and Monterey Bay areas
with $13 million dollars in damage. Record-breaking
heavy rain led to flooding and debris flows. In San
Mateo County, at least 47 trees and 31 sets of power
lines were knocked over. Wind also caused power
outages across San Mateo County. Approximately
58,000 community members lost power during the
storm.

January 18, 2010 High Wind High wind knocked over power poles along San Mateo County’s coast, causing 12,000 customers to lose
power. At least 12,000 customers lost power in San
Mateo County.

January 20, 2010 Thunderstorm and
Wind
The third in a series of significant storms brought strong winds and heavy rain to the San Francisco and
Monterey Bay areas. Around 159,000 customers lost
power across the San Francisco Bay area, with nearly
22,000 customers without power in the Monterey Bay
area. Numerous power lines and trees were knocked
down when strong wind combined with saturated soil.

February 15, 2011 High Wind Strong and gusty wind developed ahead of a long wave trough. A mesonet automated weather reporting
system measured a wind gust of 60 mph at midnight.

Other automated observation systems around the area
above 1,000 feet in elevation reported gusts up to 83
mph. Overall, more than 6,500 customers lost power in
the San Francisco Bay Area.

December 21
through December
26, 2012
Heavy Rain,
Flooding
A series of storm systems, part of a large Atmospheric
River type of pattern, impacted the area during late
December 2012. From December 21 through 26, heavy
380
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 41
Date Type Description
rain, gusty winds, flooding, and mudslides occurred
across the Bay Area in these consecutive events.

Downed trees, powerlines, and flooded roadways
impacted community members. In East Palo Alto,
heavy rain triggered a levee breach between Verbena
Drive and Daphne Way, forcing evacuations for
residents of seven homes. One home was damaged and
declared uninhabitable.

December 13, 2021 Heavy Rain An atmospheric river impacted the Bay Area on December 31st, resulting in significant rainfall across the San Francisco Bay Area. During the morning, a
surface low developed west of San Francisco and the
river stalled over the Bay Area. This resulted in
significant rainfall totals for many Bay Area
communities.

December 2022
through January
2023
Severe Storms,
Heavy Rain,
Flooding
Heavy rain triggered flooding of San Francisquito Creek.

Flooding damaged property and buildings, flooded
Highway 101, downed trees, and caused power
outages.

March 2023 Severe Storms,
Heavy Rain
Severe weather and downed power lines led to power
outages in East Palo Alto. Parts of eastbound University Avenue and Cooley Avenue were closed.

Source: National Centers for Environmental Information, 2021a.

Existing Programs and Regulations
Chapter 13.16 of the Municipal Code establishes underground utility districts.

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to affect the frequency and severity of future severe weather in East Palo Alto.

Please review the East Palo Alto Vulnerability Assessment Report for details.

ISSUE 8: DROUGHT
General Overview
Drought is a significant decrease in water supply relative to what is needed to meet typical demand, leading to a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sector. While drought is a normal occurrence for Mediterranean climates such as that of San Mateo County, long and severe droughts have the potential to impact ecosystems and economic activity across the entire community. Most droughts are defined based on declines in average precipitation levels, declines in agricultural production, declines in streamflow and groundwater levels, or socioeconomic impacts from water shortages.

The severity of any given drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size and location of the affected area. The longer the duration of the drought and the larger the area impacted, the more severe the potential impacts. While drought does not typically directly result in loss of life or 381
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 42
damage to structures, drought can have widespread impacts on the environment and the economy.

Potential drought impacts include loss of crops, costs incurred by having to drill new wells, increased costs for water straining household finances and reducing commercial profits, reduced habitat and food supply for plants and animals, and increased risk of wildfire. A prolonged lack of precipitation dries out vegetation and makes plants more vulnerable to pests, both of which can increase susceptibility to wildfires.

Drought response is determined case by case, and response priorities are typically based on imminence of potential water shortages. The U.S. Drought Monitor recognizes a five-point scale for drought events:

D0 (abnormally dry), D1 (moderate drought), D2 (severe drought), D3 (extreme drought), and D4 (exceptional drought). During severe drought conditions, water shortages are common and water restrictions may be imposed to meet essential community needs.

Droughts can affect groundwater storage as reserves are drawn down in anticipation of or in response to drought impacts, or as reduced precipitation causes groundwater supplies to be replenished at a slower rate. Drought affects groundwater sources more slowly than it affects surface water supplies, but groundwater supplies generally take longer to recover. This can lead to a reduction in groundwater levels and problems such as reduced pumping capacity or wells going dry. It can take groundwater supplies years to recover from heightened use during droughts. This reduced replenishment of groundwater affects streams. Much of the flow in streams comes from groundwater, especially during the summer when there is less precipitation. Reduced groundwater levels mean that even less water will enter streams during periods of low precipitation.

The City of East Palo Alto purchases most its potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Regional Water System (RWS). Approximately 85 percent of the water supply to the SFPUC RWS originates in the Hetch Hetchy watershed in Yosemite National Park and flows down the Tuolumne River. The remaining 15 percent of the water supply originates locally in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds. The city also sources a small amount of groundwater from the San Mateo Plain groundwater subbasin.

The San Mateo Plain is part of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, a geologic trough between the Santa Cruz Mountains and East Bay Hills. The plain is a small subbasin and levels of groundwater pumping are typically low.

Past Events
San Mateo County has a history of severe droughts. DWR hydrologic data from the early 1900s shows multi-year droughts from 1912 to 1913, 1918 to 1920, 1922 to 1924, and 1928 to 1934. The 1929 to 1934 drought established the criteria for designing storage capacity and yield for large Northern California reservoirs. The following sections describe the most recent prolonged droughts that have impacted the planning area.
1976 to 1977 Drought
California had a severe drought due to lack of rainfall during the winters of 1976 and 1977. 1977 was the driest period on record in California at that time, with the previous winter recorded as the fourth driest in California’s hydrological history at that time. The cumulative impact led to widespread water shortages and severe water conservation measures statewide. Over $2.6 billion in crop damage was recorded in 31 382
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 43
counties. FEMA declared a drought emergency (Declaration 3023-EM) on January 20, 1977, for all California counties.
1987 to 1992 Drought
California received precipitation well below average levels for four consecutive years. While the Central Coast was most affected, the Sierra Nevada range in Northern California and the Central Valley counties were also affected. During this drought, only 56 percent of average runoff for the Sacramento Valley was received. In 1991, the State Water Project sharply decreased deliveries to water suppliers. By February 1991, all 58 counties in California were experiencing drought. Urban areas as well as agricultural areas were impacted.
2007 to 2009 Drought
The state proclaimed a statewide drought emergency on June 4, 2008, after spring 2008 was the driest spring on record. On February 27, 2009, the state proclaimed a state of emergency for the entire state as severe drought continued. State courts imposed what was, at the time, the largest court-ordered water restriction in state history.
2012 to 2017 Drought
This drought set several records for the state. The period from 2012 to 2014 ranked as the driest three consecutive years for statewide precipitation. Calendar year 2014 set new records for statewide average temperatures and for low water allocations from the State Water Project. Calendar year 2013 set minimum annual precipitation records for many communities. Detailed executive orders and regulations addressed water conservation and management. The statewide drought emergency was lifted in April 2017. 2020 to 2023 Drought
The U.S. Department of Agriculture declared a drought disaster that included San Mateo County on April 21, 2020. April 2021 was the third driest April in the past 127 years. Between April and December 2021, San Mateo County was at the D3—Extreme Drought level, putting the county at risk for wildfire on a yearround basis. Excessive rainfall and flooding in late December 2022 and early January 2023 alleviated some of the drought conditions. Governor Newsom officially eased drought restrictions in March 2023. As of October 2023, San Mateo County was not considered to be in a state of drought.

In East Palo Alto, a history of regulatory decisions and limited infrastructure that have constrained the City’s water supply have exacerbated drought conditions. Despite the city’s low per-capita water consumption, the city’s water demand exceeded its available supply several times since 2001 due to limited water allocations from the SFRWS that did not keep pace with population growth.

Due to the inability of its water allocations to support new development, the City issued a two-year mortarium on new construction in 2016 and did not allow new developments to progress unless developers could show that they had access to the necessary water. The City ultimately pursued two strategies for expanding its water supply: seeking more water from the SFRWS and developing groundwater supplies. As a result of these efforts, Mountain View and East Palo Alto approved a one million gallon-a-day transfer in 2017, and Palo Alto and East Palo Alto approved a 0.5 million gallon-a-day transfer in 2018. The City obtained groundwater by expanding operations at the Gloria Well. Completion of these projects was sufficient to resolve the majority of the City’s water shortage issues. 383
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 44
While the City’s period of acute crisis is over, the effects of East Palo Alto’s decades of institutional neglect remain. The quality of water pipes and other infrastructure cause residents to be concerned about the quality of their tap water; residents have reported encountering brown or yellow tap water, tap water with poor taste or unpleasant odor, and have reported experiencing eye and skin irritation as a result of exposure to poor quality water. Many East Palo Alto residents purchase bottled water for activities such as cooking and drinking.

Existing Programs and Regulations
Bay Area Water Supply Conservation Agency
East Palo Alto is a member of the Bay Area Water Supply Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), which is the main water provider for much of San Mateo County. It allows many of San Mateo County’s cities, water districts, and private utilities to coordinate to ensure the continual water supply necessary to maintain health, safety, and economic wellbeing of the community. BAWSCA agencies manage two-thirds of water consumption from the Hetch Hetchy Water System. BAWSCA applies a long-term water supply strategy for its customers throughout the Bay Area. This strategy recognizes that drought year shortfalls can be significant, resulting in system-wide cutbacks of up to 20 percent. BAWSCA focuses on identifying options for filling all or portions of the drought year supply shortfall.

In 2009, BAWSCA developed a Water Conservation Implementation Plan, which aims to help BAWSCA member agencies evaluate potential water savings the cost-effectiveness of various water conservation measures and to develop a regional plan for water conservation measures to serve as a guideline for member agencies. BAWSCA’s core water conservation programs include the Water Efficient Landscape Education Program, Water-Wise Gardening in the Bay Area landscape education tool, native garden tours and symposiums, regional Water Conservation Database, Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper Training program, regional water demand and conservation savings projections, and development of the “Making Conservation a Way of Life” Strategic Plan.

In August 2017, BAWSCA released a drought report outlining State and local demand management actions to reduce water use, water supply actions, and regulatory and policy support.

BAWSCA has developed Drought Implementation Plans for both the SFPUC and BAWSCA. However, these plans do not specify trigger levels.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
East Palo Alto obtains its water from the SFPUC. The SFPUC issued its most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2021. The UWMP provides an overview of water deliveries and uses, water supply sources, and water conservation programs. It also includes discussions on supply and demand projections out to 2045, available water supplies to meet existing and future demands under a range of water supply conditions, and measures to reduce long-term water demand, including the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The SFPUC engages in a number of other water conservation activities, including groundwater monitoring and development of water recycling projects, which help support system-wide water conservation.

Groundwater Management
In 2015, the City initiated a Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) process for its service area in the southern San Mateo Plain. Due to its current low level of groundwater use, the San Mateo Plain subbasin 384
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 45
has been designated as low priority by DWR. As a result, the City’s GWMP is not required to comply with the State’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Nonetheless, the City’s GWMP is compliant with the Groundwater Management Planning Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 3030, SB 1938, and AB 359).

The GWMP documents the relationships between waterflow and geology within the plain, including conditions along San Francisquito Creek. The GWMP describes historical and existing groundwater conditions, including groundwater levels and flow, recharge groundwater pumping and wells, groundwater quality and contamination sites, and the potential for saltwater intrusion and subsidence.

The GWMP recognizes the potential for adverse effects of pumping, identifies management goals and objectives, and describes management actions, including continuing stakeholder involvement, collaboration for groundwater recharge and protection, and coordinated planning. The City released its first Groundwater Monitoring Report in 2017.

City of East Palo Alto
Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan The City of East Palo Alto published its most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2021. The UWMP includes descriptions of historical and projected water demands and water supplies, and reliability over a more than 20-year planning horizon. This document also describes the actions the City is taking to promote water conservation, both by the City itself and affiliated agencies. This includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to address potential water supply shortages, such as drought or other impacts to supply availability. The UWMP is updated every five years in accordance with State requirements under the Urban Water Management Planning Act and amendments (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the California Water Code [CWC] Sections 10610 – 10656).

The WSCP is used in the case of a water shortage event, such as a drought or supply interruption, and defines specific policies and actions that will be implemented at various shortage level scenarios. These actions may include implementing customer water budgets and surcharges or restricting landscape irrigation to specific days and/or times. The WSCP includes six levels of water conservation measures to address shortage conditions ranging from 10 percent to greater than 50 percent shortage, consistent with State requirements.

Municipal Code
Chapter 17.04, Water Conservation, and Chapter 17.06, Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance, of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code, establish water conservation regulations.

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to affect the frequency and severity of future drought in East Palo Alto. Please review the East Palo Alto Vulnerability Assessment Report for details.

ISSUE 9: EXTREME HEAT
General Overview
State guidance and the Cal-Adapt database define extreme heat as temperatures that are hotter than 98 percent of the historical high temperatures for the area, as measured between April and October of 1961 to 1990. Days that reach this level are called extreme heat days. In East Palo Alto, extreme heat is a daytime temperature above 92.4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and a warm night is nighttime low of above 60.9°F. An 385
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 46
event with five extreme heat days in a row is called a heat wave. Extreme heat affects community members’ safety and increases community costs and energy generation as it continues. These events can also exacerbate wildfires and impact water supplies. High demand for power for air conditioning during extreme heat can stress and overwhelm the electrical grid, leading to brownouts or power loss. Extreme heat events may degrade the quality of roadways and railways, resulting in closures and travel delays.

Health impacts are the primary concern with these hazards, though economic and service impacts are also an issue. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes extreme heat as a substantial public health concern. Historically, NOAA data indicates that extreme heat kills about 175 Americans annually, although this number has increased in recent years. From 2004 to 2018, studies by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services indicate that there is an average of 702 deaths annually that are directly or indirectly linked to extreme heat. According to the California Climate Adaptation Strategy, heat waves have claimed more lives in California than all other declared disaster events combined.

Extreme heat events are dangerous because people exposed to extreme heat can suffer a number of heatrelated illnesses, including heat cramps, heat exhaustion, and (most severely) heat stroke. Areas with lower extreme heat thresholds are not necessarily at lower risk, as persons and community assets used to cooler temperatures may be less prepared for extreme heat events.

Extreme temperatures can harm plants and animals that are not well adapted to these events, including natural ecosystems. Extreme heat can increase the temperature of water in lakes, streams, creeks, and other water bodies, especially during drought conditions when water levels are lower. In some cases, water temperatures may exceed comfortable levels for several plants and animals, causing ecological harm.

Outdoor workers in construction or landscaping are also much more exposed to the elements than most people, so they are more susceptible to extreme heat conditions and the potential illnesses associated with extreme temperatures.

Indirectly, extreme heat puts more stress on power lines, causing them to run less efficiently. The heat also causes more demand for electricity (usually to run air conditioning units), and in combination with the stress on the power lines, may lead to brownouts and blackouts.

Secondary Hazards
During heat waves, the air becomes stagnant, and traps emitted pollutants, often resulting in increases in surface ozone. Heat waves and drought also dry out vegetation and provide more fuel for wildfires whose smoke is a serious medical hazard.

Past Events
In 2022, a combination of heat advisories and an excessive heat warning was issued for parts of Monterey Bay and its near coastal valleys, the San Francisco Bay Shoreline, and Marin Coastal Mountains from September 4th through 8th, along with a heat advisory for the Central Coast, San Francisco, and coastal North Bay on September 6th. Several daily record high temperature records were shattered, along with a handful of monthly and all-time records. Reports of power outages, heat-related illnesses, and deaths were received. Counties opened and operated one or more cooling centers to provide relief from the heat.

Table 8 lists some past extreme heat events in San Mateo County as recorded by NOAA in recent years.

Table 8: Selected Recent Extreme Heat Events
386
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 47
Date Description
July 22, 2006 High temperatures reached as high as 103°F with low temperatures at night only falling into the lower 70s.

May 17, 2009 High pressure aloft centered over Reno, Nevada, along with weak offshore flow at the surface caused temperatures to rise to near 100°F in the inland valleys of northcentral California. Temperatures rose into the upper 80s to mid-90s across the peninsula of the San Francisco Bay Area. High temperatures resulted in heatexhausted individuals, blown electric transformers, and power outages.

September 1,
2017
A strong upper-level ridge brought widespread hot temperatures to the Bay Area.

Numerous daily and monthly records were broken as well as a few record max temperatures. Three San Mateo County community members died over the weekend because of the heat.

June 10, 2019 The combination of high pressure and strong offshore flow resulted in an early season heat wave across the Bay Area from June 9th to the 11th. Multiple daily records were broken across the region and multiple power outages were reported due to the heat. The heat wave across the region triggered power outages knocking out service to 57,000 people across nine counties over a two-day period.

August 19, 2020 A prolonged and oppressive heat wave swept the Central Coast and Bay Area for almost a week from August 14th to August 19th with widespread record-breaking temperatures observed across the region. Multiple days of triple-digit temperatures afternoon highs were recorded inland with some coastal locations even reaching the mid-90s.

July 21, 2022 A strong ridge of high pressure developed over the area, allowing temperatures to soar into the 90s to low 100s for all areas, except parts of the immediate coastline.

A heat advisory was issued for all but coastal zones from late morning through the evening of June 21st.

September 6,
2022
A strong ridge of high pressure encompassed the Western United States from September 1st through 8th, leading to anomalously hot temperatures along the California coast. A combination of heat advisories and an excessive heat warning was issued for parts of Monterey Bay and its near coastal valleys, the San Francisco Bay Shoreline, and Marin Coastal Mountains from September 4th through 8th, along with a heat advisory for the Central Coast, San Francisco, and coastal North Bay on September 6th. The heat wave shattered several daily record high temperature records, along with a handful of monthly and all-time records. There were also reports of power outages, heat-related illnesses, and deaths due to the high temperatures.

Locally, the city has historically experienced an average of five extreme heat days per year. Within recent years, extreme heat days have been most frequent in September.

Existing Programs and Regulations
Title 15 of the Municipal Code, including the Green Building Code (Chapter 15.11) and the Energy Code (Chapter 15.25), establish standards for constructing new buildings and significantly renovating existing ones. These standards include requirements for increased energy efficiency and insulation, which can help to keep indoor air temperatures cooler during extreme heat. These buildings may also have more efficient 387
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 48
air conditioning systems, keeping power demands lower and helping to reduce the chance of blackouts by reducing stress on the electrical grid.

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to affect the frequency and severity of future extreme heat in East Palo Alto.

Please review the East Palo Alto Vulnerability Assessment Report for details.

ISSUE 10: HUMAN HEALTH HAZARDS
General Overview
Human health hazards are bacteria, viruses, parasites, and other organisms that can cause diseases and illness in people. Some of these diseases may cause only mild inconvenience, but others are potentially life threatening. These diseases can be and often are carried by animals such as mice and rats, ticks, and mosquitos. Warmer temperatures and high levels of precipitation can lead to increased populations of disease-carrying animals, creating a greater risk of disease and increased rates of infection. Diseases regularly spread by animals include West Nile virus, Zika virus, and Lyme disease.

The city’s proximity to the Bay places it within flight distance of mosquitoes breeding in nearby saltwater marshes; although these species are not significant vectors of disease, they can be a nuisance to residents.

In addition to mosquitoes breeding in saltwater marshes, mosquitoes breeding in water sources in gardens and yards, storm drains, and underground pipes can cause issues and potentially spread diseases. These include mosquito species able to transmit West Nile virus and other diseases.

Human health hazards and diseases can be local, regional, or even global events. The severity of disease outbreaks varies. Transmission rates depend on local weather and environment, and fatality rates depend on local conditions such as care system quality and capacity, and the general health and immunity of the local population.

Past Events
San Mateo County, like the rest of the United States, was included in the March 2020 FEMA major disaster declaration for the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. As of winter 2023, approximately 62 cases of COVID19 were reported in the county each day and the county has reported a total of 184,001 COVID-19 cases and 912 deaths since monitoring began in January 2020. 16 As recently as 2019, a major mosquito problem was reported by approximately 50 East Palo Alto residents and may have affected significantly more residents. While West Nile virus is the main mosquito-borne disease of concern in the area, San Mateo County has rarely had West Nile virus cases in the past two decades, and those that have occurred were acquired outside of the county.17 San Mateo County Health received confirmation on April 1, 2016, from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) that the first San Mateo County resident has tested positive for Zika virus. The individual was infected with Zika virus while traveling abroad fully recovered.18 Thirteen cases of Zika were reported in the county between 2015 and 2016.
19 One detection of West Nile virus occurred in San Mateo County in 2022.20 According to testing conducted by the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District, approximately 1 to 3 percent of San Mateo ticks carry the agent for Lyme disease. 21 22 388
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 49
San Mateo County also dealt with effects from the 1918 to 1920 flu pandemic. Camp Fremont, a military base in Menlo Park, reported the first death in September 1918. By December of that year, 131 community members had died of the flu.

Existing Programs and Regulations
San Mateo County Health provides health services, including vaccination clinics, disease testing, and emergency response support, to residents of San Mateo County. The San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District is San Mateo County’s community-based mosquito control program. This program uses several methods to help control the risk of disease in San Mateo County, including surveillance, prevention, and control of mosquito populations. The Health Alert Center for San Mateo County allows community members to view all alerts and emergencies put out by the County Health Department.

Contact tracing is a public health practice that health departments use to identify and notify people who have been exposed to someone with an infectious disease. Public health departments have used contact tracing for decades to fight the spread of infectious diseases like measles, tuberculosis, syphilis, and HIV.

There is not much warning time for health or pandemic events. The most commonly relied upon warning signal is the appearance of early cases of a disease within a population. The Health Alert Network is the CDC’s primary method of sharing cleared information about urgent public health incidents with public information officers; federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local public health practitioners; clinicians; and public health laboratories. The Health Alert Network collaborates with federal, state, territorial, tribal, and city/county partners to develop protocols and stakeholder relationships to ensure a robust interoperable platform for the rapid distribution of public health information.

Future Conditions
Climate change is expected to affect the frequency and severity of future human health hazards in East Palo Alto. Please review the East Palo Alto Vulnerability Assessment Report for details. 389
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 50
ISSUE 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
General Overview
Hazardous materials are materials that pose a significant risk to public safety or human or environmental health. These include toxic chemicals, flammable or corrosive materials, petroleum products, and unstable or dangerously reactive materials. They can be released through human error, malfunctioning or broken equipment, or as an indirect consequence of other emergencies. Facilities that hold hazardous materials include hazardous waste storage and treatment facilities, laboratories, hospitals, water and wastewater treatment plants, waste management facilities, fueling stations, and automotive shops. The release of hazardous materials can occur as a result of natural hazard events,such as earthquakes and other geologic hazards, floods, or severe weather. Hazardous materials can also be released accidentally during transportation, as a consequence of vehicle accidents.

A release or spill of hazardous materials could result in fire, explosion, toxic cloud, or direct contamination of water, people, and property. The effects may involve a local site or many square miles. The large-scale release of hazardous materials in combination with events such as flooding or severe weather can spread contaminants across a wide area and amplify the potential long-term impacts on human and ecological health. Health problems may be immediate, such as corrosive effects on skin and lungs, or gradual, such as the development of cancer from a carcinogen. Damage to property could range from immediate destruction by explosion to permanent contamination by a persistent hazardous material.

Numerous studies and plans have identified several different types of hazardous material contamination have been documented in East Palo Alto.

The greatest concentration of affected sites is in the Ravenswood Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan Area, centered around Bay Road and the Cooley Landing area. This area was historically home to numerous industrial uses dating back to the nineteenth century. Many historic industrial sites have moderate to substantial contamination of soils and groundwater, as the handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials were not as tightly regulated as they are today.

Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs, a carcinogen), metals, petrochemicals, and other harmful materials can be found at such sites. Many of these sites are currently undergoing cleanup activities, and others have restrictions that prohibit sensitive uses like homes or schools from being placed on top.

Besides industrial sites, other documented sources of hazardous materials in the city include areas of uncontrolled fill (meaning that materials used to fill in marsh or shorelands are not sourced from specific locations and may potentially contain hazardous wastes), former gas stations (particularly if underground storage tanks leaked), and areas formerly in agricultural use. Though agricultural uses may sound relatively benign when compared to industrial uses or gas stations, former agricultural properties will often have pesticide residue in the top two feet or more of soil. In addition, buildings constructed and/or painted before the late 1970s may contain asbestos and/or lead-based paint; demolition or removal of such buildings must conform to federal and state policies to ensure the safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials. Natural gas pipelines run throughout East Palo Alto, including a large natural gas transmission line that runs along Donohue Street and O’Connor Street. Damage to these pipelines or other system failures could result in a release of natural gas, which is flammable and explosive. 390
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 51
As a result of a cluster of agricultural, heavy manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, and auto wrecking uses, the City of East Palo Alto was a member of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Brownfields National Partnership, which selected the city as a Brownfields Showcase Community in 1997.

This designation made the City eligible to receive federal funding to revitalize brownfield areas, where the potential presence of pollutants or hazardous materials may limit reuse. The Gateway 101 and University Circle area brownfields were redeveloped, and now contribute significant revenue to the City’s general fund. The adoption of the Ravenswood TOD Specific Plan is the first major step to remediate the city’s remaining brownfields, which are clustered in the Ravenswood Employment District.

Past Events
On September 9, 2010, a 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline in San Bruno ruptured and released vast quantities of natural gas. The escaping gas ignited and initiated structure fires in the community surrounding the pipeline. Eight people lost their lives, 51 people required in-patient hospitalization, and 38 homes were destroyed. PG&E estimated the property damage from the rupture to be over $220 million.

Smaller hazardous materials incidents have historically occurred periodically in East Palo Alto. Eighteen hazardous materials incidents have been reported in East Palo Alto since 2006. Fifteen of these incidents were related to petroleum exposure, and three were classified as chemical incidents.

Existing Programs and Regulations
In 1993, the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program was established to protect public health and safety, restore and enhance environmental quality, and sustain economic vitality. A Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) manages hazardous materials and waste at a local level. The CUPA consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the regulatory activities of several hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs, including Hazardous Materials Management, California Accidental Release Prevention, Hazardous Waste Management, Underground Storage Tanks, Aboveground Storage Tanks, and Emergency Response. In 1996, San Mateo County Environmental Health Services was designated by the State Secretary for Environmental Protection as the CUPA for San Mateo County.

The Menlo Park Fire Protection District, through enforcement of the CA Fire Code, issues Operational permits for the storage and use of hazardous materials. The Menlo Park Fire Protection District works with the local CUPA and other agenciesto coordinate proper handling and enforcement of hazardous materials.

The Menlo Park Fire Protection District is trained and able to respond to hazardous materials incidents and will call upon San Mateo County Hazardous Material Team through Automatic Aid.

Hazardous materials response, mitigation, and cleanup for San Mateo County is managed by the Belmont Fire Protection District’s Hazardous Materials Team through a contractual agreement between the County of San Mateo, the Emergency Services Council, and the Belmont Fire Protection District.

The San Mateo County Hazardous Materials Team is a partnership between Belmont Fire Protection District, San Mateo County Environmental Health, and the San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services through the San Mateo County Emergency Services Council. It has been providing service to all areas of San Mateo County since 1984. The Response Team is staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days per year with seven cross-trained firefighters from Belmont, as well as an Environmental Health and an OES Officer. 391
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 52
A complete list of active and inactive hazardous waste-regulated facilities is currently available on the County’s Open Data site. This website is maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency and includes activities related to hazardous materials and waste, state and federal cleanups, impacted ground and surface waters, and toxic materials.

Future Conditions
The frequency and severity of future hazardous materials releases in East Palo Alto will depend on the scale of future activities. Increases in the frequency and severity of other natural hazards, such as floods or landslides, can affect the frequency and severity of future hazardous materials releases.

ISSUE 12: AIRPORT HAZARDS
General Overview
Safety risks associated with airport operations comprise a distinct hazards category. Lands surrounding or near an airport have an increased risk of experiencing accidents involving aircraft. Additionally, lead emissions from aircraft engines have been found to lower local air quality. 23 East Palo Alto is near three
airports: the Palo Alto Airport, the San Carlos Airport, and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The Palo Alto Airport is a general aviation facility just south of East Palo Alto. The northern edge of the airport’s runway is immediately adjacent to San Francisquito Creek, which in this location serves as both the city and county boundary. East Palo is approximately six miles south of the San Carlos Airport. The city falls in the airport’s Overflight Notification Area. East Palo Alto is approximately 16 miles southeast of SFO. Aircraft noise sources include aircraft arrivals at SFO and transitioning onto approach for Runways 28L and 28R.

Past Events
There have been occasional aircraft safety incidents at neighboring airports, including Palo Alto Airport and SFO. In 2010, a small plane crashed onto Beech Street, cutting off power in Palo Alto for 12 hours.24 Existing Programs and Regulations
Palo Alto Airport
The City of Palo Alto owns and operates the Palo Alto Airport. Airport and land use compatibility issues are overseen by the Santa Clara County Airport-Land Use Commission. The County has prepared a comprehensive land use plan (CLUP) for the Palo Alto Airport, which identifies zones around the airport where land use and building height restrictions are needed to guard against potential conflicts with airport operations. California law (Government Code Section 65302.3) requires that a local General Plan be consistent with the applicable airport land use plan compatibility criteria.

The Palo Alto Airport CLUP identifies building height restrictions (pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations part 77) to ensure no obstructions to air navigation are created. A portion of the height restriction zone extends into the Baylands area of East Palo Alto, which is commonly known as the Faber-Laumeister Tract and is part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The Baylands are the only portion of East Palo Alto within the Palo Alto Airport Influence Area (AIA).

San Carlos Airport
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the environs of San Carlos Airport is the key implementation document of the Airport Land Use Commission (the C/CAG Board) policies related to proposed land development in the vicinity of the Airport. The ALUCP provides the standards, criteria, and 392
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 53
policies on which the compatibility of proposed local land use policy actions are determined. The ALUCP also establishes the planning boundaries around San Carlos Airport that define noise, safety, height/airspace protection, and overflight areas for policy implementation, and areas within which notification of the proximity of the Airport is required as part of real estate transactions San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
SFO is responsible for the noise impacts within the immediate vicinity of the airport. The primary mechanism for controlling airport hazards from SFO is the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUC). This document regulates aircraft noise, as well as building height, safety policies, and compatibility criteria for areas within the plan’s jurisdictional boundary. Applicable City land use and development plans and ordinances are reviewed by the City/County Association of Governments Board of Directors, acting as the San Mateo County’s Airport Land Use Commission, to ensure consistency. East Palo Alto is within AIA A of SFO, meaning that property sellers are required to inform new buyers or tenants about the presence of the airport.25 An SFO Roundtable was formed to address community noise impacts from aircraft operations at SFO by monitoring a performance-based noise mitigation program, interpreting community concerns, and attempting to achieve noise mitigation through the collaborative efforts of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), SFO management, and local government. The Roundtable includes representatives from local cities, County Board of Supervisors, and U.S. Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s Office. East Palo Alto is not a member of the Roundtable.

Future Conditions
The frequency and severity of future airport hazards in East Palo Alto will depend on the scale of future activities.

CONCLUSION
This background report provides details on the issues that are discussed at a higher level in the City of East Palo Alto’s Safety Element, serving as a foundation for associated goals, policies, and implementation actions. It is a technical appendix to the main Safety Element document. It is not necessary to be familiar with this background report in order to understand or use the Safety Element, but some readers may find this supplemental information helpful. This background report also contains information that is required by the California Government Code as part of the Safety Element, but which does not need to be included in the main Safety Element document.
393
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 54

ENDNOTES
1 San Mateo County Health; San Mateo County Mosquito & Vector Control District. 2023. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response. 2 San Mateo County Health; San Mateo County Mosquito & Vector Control District. 2023. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response. 3 Menlo Park Fire Protection District. ND. Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover. https://www.menlofire.gov/media/News/2020/January%202020/Menlo%20Park%20FPD%20SOC_Final. pdf.
4 City of East Palo Alto. 2017. Vista 2035: East Palo Alto General Plan. https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_amp_economic_developmen t/page/2731/epa_cover_201807271722428278.pdf.
5 County of San Mateo. 2018. San Mateo County SLV Vulnerability Assessment. 6 California Ocean Protection Council. 2024. State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science & Policy Update. https://opc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/California-Sea-Level-Rise-Guidance2024-508.pdf. 7 County of San Mateo. 2018. County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. https://www.smcsustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-03- 12_SLR_VA_Report_2.2018_WEB_FINAL.pdf.
8 San Mateo County. 2021. 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.smcgov.org/media/53471/download?inline=.
9 San Mateo County. 2021. 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.smcgov.org/media/53471/download?inline=.
10 San Mateo County. 2021. 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.smcgov.org/media/53471/download?inline=.
11 San Mateo County. 2021. 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.smcgov.org/media/53471/download?inline=.
12 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2023. ”About Tsunamis.” https://www.weather.gov/safety/tsunami-about.
13 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2023. “Tsunami & Additional Hazards.” https://abag.ca.gov/ourwork/resilience/data-research/tsunami-additional-hazards. 14 San Mateo County. 2021. 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.smcgov.org/media/53471/download?inline=.
15 San Mateo County. 2021. 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.smcgov.org/media/53471/download?inline=.
16 San Mateo County Health. 2023. San Mateo County COVID-19 Data Dashboard. https://www.smchealth.org/data-dashboard/county-data-dashboard. 17 San Mateo County Health; San Mateo County Mosquito & Vector Control District. 2023. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response. 18 San Mateo County Health. “Traveled Abroad Recently? Things to Know About Zika Virus.” https://www.smchealth.org/zika.
19 California Department of Public Health. “CDPH Monthly Update on Number of Zika Virus Infections in California December 1, 2023.”
394
City of East Palo Alto – Peninsula Resilience Project
Draft Safety Element Background Report
March 2025 Page 55
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/TravelAssociatedCasesof ZikaVirusinCA.pdf.
20 California Department of Public Health. 2023. “Reported Incidence of West Nile Virus – 2022.” https://westnile.ca.gov/download?download_id=4882.
21 San Mateo County. 2021. 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.smcgov.org/media/53471/download?inline=.
22 Grassroots Ecology. 2023. “How to be Tick Smart Outdoors.” https://www.grassrootsecology.org/fromthe-field/2023/2/28/how-to-be-tick-smart-outdoors. 23 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. “Finding That Lead Emissions From Aircraft Engines That Operate on Leaded Fuel Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare.” https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-10- 20/pdf/2023-23247.pdf. 24 Tabin, S. “10 years ago, a small plane crashed and knocked out Palo Alto’s power – what’s been done to prevent a repeat?” Palo Alto Daily. Feb 17 2020. https://padailypost.com/2020/02/17/10-years-ago-asmall-plane-crashed-and-knocked-out-palo-altos-power-whats-been-done-to-prevent-a-repeat/. 25 City/County Association of Governments in San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. https://ccag.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. 395

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT

EAST PALO ALTO

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Public Draft
March 2025
Prepared for:

City of East Palo Alto
Planning Department
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.853.3189
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, CA 94704
510.848.3815
396

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
i
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Community Profile........................................................................................................................................... 2 Climate Hazards ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Ecosystem Pests........................................................................................................................................... 4 Air Quality and Smoke................................................................................................................................. 5 Drought.......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Extreme Heat and Warm Nights ............................................................................................................... 7 Flooding ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Human Health Hazards............................................................................................................................. 14 Sea Level Rise and Groundwater Emergence ....................................................................................... 14 Severe Weather.......................................................................................................................................... 18 Key Findings.................................................................................................................................................... 18 Low-Resourced Households .................................................................................................................... 19 Older Adults ................................................................................................................................................ 20 People of Color and Immigrant Communities ...................................................................................... 22 Food Access................................................................................................................................................. 23 Homes .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Transportation and Transit Infrastructure and Services......................................................................24 Tidal Marsh Habitat................................................................................................................................... 25 Other Priority Vulnerabilities ................................................................................................................... 26 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix A: Methods ................................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix B: Populations and Assets......................................................................................................... 37 Populations.................................................................................................................................................. 37 Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................. 38 Buildings....................................................................................................................................................... 39 Economic Drivers ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Ecosystems and Natural Resources........................................................................................................ 40 Key Services ................................................................................................................................................ 40 Endnotes.......................................................................................................................................................... 42 397

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
ii
TABLE
Table 1. Demographic Profile for East Palo Alto Compared to San Mateo County ........................ 3

FIGURES
Figure 1. Observed and Projected Extreme Heat Days in East Palo Alto......................................... 7 Figure 2. Observed and Projected Warm Nights in East Palo Alto .................................................... 8 Figure 3. Heat Severity Index in East Palo Alto....................................................................................10 Figure 4. Flood Hazard Zones in East Palo Alto...................................................................................13 Figure 5. Sea Level Rise in East Palo Alto.............................................................................................. 16 Figure 6. Emergent Groundwater in 2100 in East Palo Alto..............................................................17 398

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
1 Introduction
There are nine jurisdictions in San Mateo County
working collaboratively on the Peninsula Resilience
Planning (PREP) project: San Mateo County; the Town
of Atherton; and the cities of Belmont, Brisbane,
Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
and San Bruno. The PREP project is a coordinated effort to identify the hazards facing communities across San
Mateo County, evaluate how these hazards may change
with the changing climate, recognize the communities
and features that are most vulnerable, and develop
strategies for improving community safety and
resilience.

As a participant in PREP, East Palo Alto is conducting a comprehensive update of its Safety Element. As part of
the technical background work for the update to the
San Mateo County Safety Element, the PREP team
prepared an updated Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessment to analyze how climate-related hazards
may harm the community. California law requires that,
as part of the need to assess and protect against
hazards, that safety elements analyze climate vulnerability, which is the degree to which people, nature, the built environment, and other systems are susceptible to harm from climate change and associated hazards. This includes physical and mental injuries, property damage or destruction, environmental harm, economic damage, and other factors.

The Vulnerability Assessment helps community members, City staff, and decision makers understand how climate change hazards may alter community conditions and what parts of the community (people and places) should be prioritized for adaptation and resilience. Its analysis also informs updates to the Safety Element, which, in combination with the San Mateo County Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP), the 2030 Climate Action Plan and Adaptation Strategies, and the Acterra Community-Based Vulnerability Planning Pilot Project, will help safeguard East Palo Alto against both current and future hazard conditions. The findings from the Vulnerability Assessment will be used to inform the goals, policies, and implementation programs that will be included in East Palo Alto’s updated Safety Element. This assessment does not include hazards that are present in the community but are not affected by climate change, such as earthquakes.

What is a General Plan?
A general plan is each local
government’s blueprint for meeting
the community’s long-term vision
for the future, with goals, policies,
and actions for achieving the
vision. All cities and counties in
California are required to have
General Plans with, at minimum,
eight chapters, or elements: Land
Use, Circulation, Housing,
Conservation, Open Space, Noise,
Safety, and Environmental Justice
(if applicable). The City’s General
Plan is available online:
https://www.cityofepa.org/plannin
g/page/vista-2035-general-plan.

Source: Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research. 2017. State of California
General Plan Guidelines.
399

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
2 Community Profile
East Palo Alto is in the southern end of San Mateo County’s shoreline along the San Francisco Bay, The city encompasses approximately 2.2 square miles and is surrounded by San Francisquito Creek, Ravenswood Point, and the cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Its residential neighborhoods are a mix of single-family homes, townhomes, and apartments. East Palo Alto also contains regional shopping centers, local businesses, and industrial and manufacturing centers near Cooley Landing, schools, and public facilities. Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and Don Edwards Wildlife Preserve are the main open space areas, with neighborhood parks scattered throughout the community. Main vehicle access is provided by Highway 101 and University Avenue, with major roadways, including Willow Road, Bay Road, Bayshore Road, Pulgas Avenue, and Clarke Avenue. The city is serviced by eight SamTrans bus routes: school-oriented route 81; south county serving routes, 280, 281, 296, and OWL; routes EPX and 397 connecting to Caltrain stations; and the Dumbarton Express Shuttle. East Palo Alto is also within SamTrans’ Ride Plus service area, providing on-demand, affordable transit services to residents.

East Palo Alto has changed drastically from
historic conditions, starting out as a
manufacturing area with Lester Cooley’s brick
factory and then moving towards an agricultural
community with Japanese and Italian flower
growers before World War II.1 However,
because the city was an unincorporated
community until 1983 and is surrounded by
tech companies, East Palo Alto is primarily a
bedroom community with limited regional and
visitor-serving retail development. Residents in
the city primarily work in local retail, service
jobs supporting the neighboring communities,
or at tech companies in the surrounding Silicon
Valley. East Palo Alto has struggled
economically compared to its neighbors,
although the city is actively working to balance
economic growth with the needs of its
residents to prevent displacement due to
gentrification.

East Palo Alto’s residents have long been on the
front lines of climate change and environmental justice issues, as the city is a densely populated, ethnically diverse community with a median income significantly lower than San Mateo County’s average. Although the climate hazards facing the city are not unique to East Palo Alto, the systemic inequities faced by community members have made these issues worse, magnifying the impact of climate hazards.

East Palo Alto Climate Change Community
Team (CCCT)
The East Palo Alto CCCT formed in 2019
as part of San Mateo County’s climate
resilience and capacity building program.

Composed of East Palo Alto residents, City
officials, youth, and leaders from faith and
business communities, the CCCT start with
the people who are impacted by climate
change, ensure community engagement
and buy-in for projects, and address both
environmental and economic needs of the
community. With the help of Climate
Resilient Communities, the CCCT
conducted a climate change survey and
Community-Led Vulnerability Assessment
in 2020. Recent projects include the Rain
Gardens and Water Cisterns in East Palo
Alto, Measure AA Marshland Restoration,
and creation of the East Palo Alto
Community Resilience Hub.
400

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
3 East Palo Alto is home to a linguistically diverse population speaking Spanish, Tagalog, Tongan, Samoan, and other Asian or Pacific Islander languages. However, approximately 25 percent of residents are linguistically isolated, meaning that they predominately speak a language other than English and that they do not speak English well. This is notably 9 percent higher than the county.

The city has a substantial immigrant population, as approximately 41 percent of its residents are foreign-born, compared to 35 percent in the county.

Economic disparities are also evident in the community, with approximately 12 percent of residents living in poverty, double the county’s rate of 6 percent of residents. This is primarily due to historic redlining and disinvestment in the community, limited local job opportunities in the city, and the underfunding of schools compared to neighboring districts.2 East Palo Alto faces a housing affordability crisis,
3 with the median household income in East Palo Alto of $103,248 being significantly lower than the county's median of $175,000. This economic strain is reflected in housing statistics: 45 percent of households are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30 percent of their income on housing, and 18 percent live in overcrowded conditions. Table 1 shows the demographics in East Palo Alto compared to all of San Mateo County.

Table 1. Demographic Profile for East Palo Alto Compared to San Mateo County Demographic
East Palo Alto San Mateo County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Population 29,520 754,250
Children (under 18 years old) 6,774 22.90% 150,187 19.90% Linguistically isolated persons 7,047 25.30% 116,306 16.30% Foreign-born persons 11,971 40.55% 265,189 35.16%
Older adults (65 years and older) 2,819 9.50% 127,520 16.90% Older adults living alone 368 4.60% 26,168 9.90%
Persons with disabilities 2,897 9.80% 65,466 8.70%
Persons working outdoors 2,769 9.38% 41,748 5.44%
Persons in poverty 3,595 12.20% 48,137 6.40%
Unhoused persons 169 - 1,092 -
Number of households 7,998 264,323
Median household income 103,248 - 175,000 -
Cost-burdened households 3,520 45.09% 94,625 36.55%
Households without access to internet 974 12.20% 14,371 5.40% Households without a vehicle 450 5.60% 14,752 5.58%
Overcrowded households 1,417 17.72% 19,366 7.33%
Rental households 4,185 52.33% 106,955 40.46%
Source: American Community Survey, 2022, ACS 5-Year Estimates. 401

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
4 Climate Hazards
Climate change is the long-term shift in average weather patterns, including significant alterations in temperature, rainfall, and sea levels over an extended period—
typically decades or longer. Rising global temperatures are causing more frequent and intense heatwaves,
storms, droughts, wildfires, and other hazards. These
events frequently occur concurrently, resulting in
cascading impacts that are progressively more difficult to manage, such as droughts amplifying wildfire risk or extreme heat exacerbating water scarcity. This section
lays out the major climate change hazards affecting East Palo Alto and how these hazards are expected to change
in the coming years and decades. These hazards are
ecosystem pests, air quality and smoke, drought,
extreme heat and warm nights, flooding, human health
hazards, sea level rise and groundwater emergence, and severe weather.

Ecosystem Pests
Ecosystem pests are plant and animal species that can harm East Palo Alto’s open spaces, riparian areas, and urban forest. Climate change is expected to worsen these problems by increasing the abundance and range of both native and non-native pests. Invasive plant species threaten local ecosystems by outcompeting native flora, disrupting habitats, and reducing biodiversity.

Warmer temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns can weaken plants and trees, making them more susceptible to infestation and infection. It also creates favorable conditions for invasive species to establish themselves, as extreme weather events disrupt native communities.

In aquatic environments, rising temperatures and drought conditions decrease dissolved oxygen levels, causing harmful algal blooms and allowing invasive species to thrive, complicating management efforts. While East Palo Alto consists of an urban and built-up environment, the ecosystem pests could still result in lasting damage to the urban tree canopy that helps reduce the urban heat island effect and the marshlands and tidal flats that help protect the city from sea level rise and flooding.

Cascading and Compounding
Effects
Cascading Effects: When an
extreme event causes a series of
secondary events that are larger
than the initial impact.

Compounding Effects: When
multiple hazards or drivers occur
simultaneously, amplifying their
collective impact.

Source: IPCC. 2019. Extremes, Abrupt
Changes and Managing Risk.
402

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
5 Air Quality and Smoke
Air quality directly affects health, well-being, and
everyday quality of life for all residents in East
Palo Alto. According to the General Plan Health
and Equity Element, air quality is a concern for
East Palo Alto, with asthma related emergency
visit rates for children almost double in the city
compared to the county. Poor air quality poses
significant health risks, such as respiratory and
cardiovascular illness, and these concerns have
become especially urgent due to the increasing
frequency of wildfires in the region and other
climate-related factors.4 Air pollutants come from
mobile sources such as cars and trucks, stationary
sources like factories and other industrial sites,
dust from construction sites, smoke from
wildfires, and other sources. Climate change
directly impacts and exacerbates air quality
through increased temperatures, droughts, and
wildfires. Ozone forms when pollutants from
motor vehicles, industrial emissions, power plants,
and refineries react with sunlight, and warmer
temperatures speed up these reactions. Warmer
temperatures also lengthen the growing seasons
of plants and trees, increasing allergen production. Air quality significantly affects our quality of life and can lead to more health issues for persons with existing illnesses, strains healthcare, and restricts outdoor activities. Ensuring clean air is vital, especially for frontline populations in neighborhoods that already experience some of the highest air pollution levels in San Mateo County.5
Baylands Habitat Restoration Project
The Baylands Habitat Restoration project in the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve, formerly used as a salt production pond and municipal dump, is a multifaceted initiative aimed at restoring and enhancing the marsh-upland transition zone habitat along the San Francisco Bay Trail. The project includes habitat restoration, workforce development through training and internships, and encouraging community stewardship of the area. Restoring this habitat not only improves the habitat for local wildlife and draws visitors to the area, but also increases climate resilience by improving an area that can absorb stormwater during flooding and severe weather events.

Bay Area Air Quality Management
District Programs
The Bay Area Air Quality Management
District has several programs to reduce
air pollution from multiple sources.

The Spare the Air Program issues alerts
on days when air quality is expected to
be poor due to high levels of ozone or
particulate matter. On Spare the Air days,
residents are encouraged to limit
activities that contribute to air pollution,
such as driving, using gas-powered
equipment, or wood burning.

Employers with 50 or more full-time
employees in the Bay Area are required
to provide Commuter Benefits Programs
to encourage the use of alternative
modes of transportation, such as public
transit, vanpool, or biking to reduce
emissions from commuting.
403

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
6 Exposure to air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter can lead to respiratory conditions, exacerbate asthma, and increase the risks of heart attacks, strokes, and certain types of cancer.6 The financial burden of poor air quality in the Bay Area is estimated at $32 billion annually, which includes costs associated with premature deaths, healthcare expenses, reduced productivity, and other related issues.7 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has played a key role in monitoring and improving air quality throughout the region, resulting in notable progress even as population, traffic, and industrial activities have grown.8 Despite these efforts, air quality hazards remain persistent threats in the region.9 Wildfire smoke has become an increasingly significant concern for air quality in East Palo Alto and the broader region. Wildfire smoke contains a complex mixture of gases and fine particulate matter, consisting of tiny particles that can penetrate deeply into lung tissue and impact cardiovascular health.10 The health risks associated with wildfire smoke are particularly severe for frontline populations, including children, older adults, individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular conditions, and low-resourced residents, who may experience more severe acute and chronic health effects.11 The frequency of wildfires has been rising across California, driven by hotter and drier conditions associated with climate change, resulting in more frequent exposure to hazardous air quality conditions for many residents and visitors.

Drought
A drought is where conditions are drier than
normal for an extended period, making less water
available for people and ecosystems. While
drought is a normal occurrence in California,
prolonged drought conditions can harm
ecosystems and the regional economy. Droughts
do not typically cause direct loss of life or
structural damage, but they can lead to critical
environmental and economic harm, including
increased water costs and degradation of urban
forests and open space. Water demands, such as
population growth and landscape irrigation,
exacerbate these impacts, complicating water
allocation and potentially leading to restrictions
and quality issues.

Climate change is likely to result in more frequent
and severe droughts across the state. Overall,
precipitation levels are expected to increase slightly in East Palo Alto, from a historical annual average of 16.3 to 17.9 inches by mid-century (2035 to 2064) and 19.9 inches by late-century (2070 to 2099). However, more years with extreme levels of precipitation, both high and low, are likely as a result of climate change. Reduced winter precipitation levels and warmer temperatures have greatly decreased the size of the Sierra Nevada snowpack (the volume of accumulated Water Delivery in East Palo Alto
Most of the potable water used in East
Palo Alto comes from the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission Regional
Water System. Approximately 85 percent
of the water supply to this system
originates in the Hetch Hetchy
watershed in Yosemite National Park and
flows down the Tuolumne River. The
remaining 15 percent of the water supply
originates locally in the Alameda and
Peninsula watersheds. The city also
sources a small amount of groundwater
from the San Mateo Plain subbasin of the
Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin.
404

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
7 snow), which in turn makes less fresh water available for communities throughout California.12 More intense droughts are expected to compact and harden soils, so when rain does return, more water will run off as stormwater rather than infiltrate into soils, potentially causing downstream flooding. Higher temperatures will further increase evaporation, worsening drought conditions.

Extreme Heat and Warm Nights
Extreme heat is an increasingly serious issue for East Palo Alto, threatening public health, infrastructure, and the environment. Extreme heat days are defined as temperatures exceeding 98 percent of historical highs, and these events are becoming more frequent and intense due to climate change. Extended periods of extreme heat, known as heat waves, threaten community safety and drive up energy costs. An extreme heat day in East Palo Alto is one where the maximum temperature soars above 92.4 degrees Fahrenheit. As shown in Figure 1,* climate change is expected to increase extreme heat days in the city from a historic annual average of 5 days per year, to an average of 14 days per year by mid-century (2035 to 2064) and an average of 25 days per year by late-century (2070 to 2099).13
Figure 1. Observed and Projected Extreme Heat Days in East Palo Alto † ∗ The Cal-Adapt database at time of writing uses Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to project future conditions. The projections listed in this report use RCP 8.5, which assumes global emissions continue to increase at least until the end of century, which is consistent with the International Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report.
† Figures 1 and 2 use observed data from the Cal-Adapt database, which provides data from 1950 to 2005, the nearest National Weather Service weather stations, which provides data from 2006 to 2023, and projected data from the Cal-adapt database, which provides data from 2024 to 2099. Due to the different database sources, the observed and projected data may not match.

OneWatershed: Building Regional Climate Resilience
OneWatershed is a comprehensive framework that addresses the shared risks of climate change to water infrastructure and resources across San Mateo County, including stormwater, wastewater, and drinking water systems. This innovative approach emphasizes building adaptive capacity for climate impacts, with a particular focus on the county's most vulnerable communities. OneWatershed builds on years of climate resilience planning, harnessing resources and partnerships under a unified program to advance shared goals around overlapping climate risks. By taking a watershed-based perspective, OneWatershed enables coordinated planning and implementation of climate adaptation strategies that benefit both infrastructure systems and the communities they serve. The framework represents phase one of a multi-year strategy to build systematic and transformational change in how San Mateo County approaches integrated watershed management and climate resilience.
405

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
8 When the daily minimum temperatures remain significantly above normal, warm nights can worsen an extreme heat day because overnight temperatures don’t get low enough to provide the community with any relief from high temperatures. A warm night is when temperatures remain above 60.9 degrees Fahrenheit in East Palo Alto. As shown in Figure 2, warm nights are projected to increase from a historic 5 nights per year to 39 nights per year by mid-century and 100 nights per year by late-century.14
Figure 2. Observed and Projected Warm Nights in East Palo Alto Extreme heat is one of the deadliest climate-related hazards nationwide, with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention noting a rise in heat-related deaths—from 297 in 2004 to over 2,300 in 2023.15, 16 These numbers are likely a significant undercount, as they do not include deaths caused by other factors that are exacerbated by extreme heat. The rising frequency and 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
19501954195819621966197019741978198219861990199419982002200620102014201820222026203020342038204220462050205420582062206620702074207820822086209020942098 Number of Extreme Heat Days
Year
Projected Observed
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
195019551960196519701975198019851990199520002005201020152020202520302035204020452050205520602065207020752080208520902095 Number of Warm Nights
Year
Projected Observed
406

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
9 intensity of extreme heat events pose significant public health concerns, especially in areas such as East Palo Alto that have historically experienced milder temperatures due to proximity to the San Francisco Bay and are home to many residents without access to climate-controlled environments. Warmer temperatures and the urban heat island effect can exacerbate extreme heat impacts in densely populated areas, especially those that have limited tree canopy. Figure 3 shows the areas of East Palo Alto that may experience higher temperatures on extreme heat days due to limited shade cover and presence of heat-absorbing materials. Areas most at risk include the neighborhood surrounding Cesar Chavez Ravenswood Middle School, the Gateway 101 Shopping Mall, and the commercial/industrial center along Bay Road towards Cooley Landing.

Even slight increases in temperature can overwhelm the ability of community members to cope with extreme heat and warm nights, straining public health systems and infrastructure. This leads to heightened risks of dehydration, heat-related illnesses, and respiratory issues, disrupting daily life and economic activity.17 Extreme heat also stresses infrastructure, as heightened air conditioning demand risks overloading the power grid and causing outages, and very high heat can degrade transportation systems leading to delays and damage. Additionally, rising temperatures harm local ecosystems by increasing water temperatures in local lakes and streams, harming fish and plant species.
407

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
10 Figure 3. Heat Severity Index in East Palo Alto
408

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
11 Flooding
Flooding occurs when water surpasses the
capacity of local water bodies to contain it, creeks
to carry it, or soil to absorb it. This is a significant concern for East Palo Alto due to the proximity to
the San Francisco Bay and San Francisquito
Creek. Floods are among the costliest natural
disasters in terms of human hardship and
economic loss nationwide, significantly
threatening the health and life of community
members and causing substantial damage to
structures, landscapes, and utilities serving the
city. The impacts of increased flooding go beyond
immediate property damage. Flooding can lead to
long-term public health problems if mold and
mildew grow in buildings, displace communities if
homes are destroyed or become uninhabitable,
and increase economic burdens, such as rising home insurance costs.

Floods are a chronic issue in East Palo Alto and climate change is expected to make flood events worse due to fewer yet more intense rainfall events, in the form of atmospheric rivers. For example, what is currently a 200-year storm, or one that has a 1 in 200 chance of occurring each year, by 2100 could increase in frequency by 40 to 50 years (to a 1 in 150/160 chance each year).
18 This means that the 100-year and 500-year floodplains may expand, and the current floodplains may become 40- to 50-year floodplains. Climate change is also likely to increase the frequency and severity of droughts that cause soil
to dry out and become hard. When precipitation
does return, more water runs off the surface than
is absorbed into the ground, which can increase
flooding downstream.

As shown in Figure 4 and on the online PREP
Map Viewer, flood prone areas in East Palo Alto
include low-lying areas along the San Francisco
Bay shoreline, areas along San Francisquito Creek
south of Highway 101, and areas north of Bay
Road along Newbridge Street. Approximately half
of the parcels in East Palo Alto are in a mapped
floodplain. Flooding also occurs outside of these
mapped floodplains, especially in low-lying areas
with inadequate drainage.

Atmospheric Rivers
An atmospheric river is a long, narrow
band of moisture in the atmosphere
moving from the tropics that can cause
heavy rain or snow when it moves over
land. These storms are responsible for
over half of California’s water supply, but
also the majority of the flooding and
mudslide events across the state.

Sources: Emily Mendez. 2024. A Climate
Expert Explains Why Atmospheric Rivers Are
Causing Historic Rainfall in California. LamontDoherty Earth Observatory: Columbia Climate School.

Floodplains and Flood Recurrence
According to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), a
floodplain is any area of land that could
be flooded by water from any source, but
are often next to creeks, lakes, oceans,
and ponds. The 100-year floodplain is
the area that has a 1 percent (1 in 100)
chance of being flooded in any given
year. This would also be the area that
would flood during a 100-year storm.

The 500-year floodplain is the area that
has a 0.2 percent (1 in 500) chance of
being flooded in any given year due to a
500-year storm.
409

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
12 Climate change will likely cause these flood zones to expand as sea levels rise and the tide regularly moves farther inland. Many of these areas are residential neighborhoods with schools and community-serving facilities that could be damaged or destroyed by major flooding. There is also the risk of flooding in industrial and commercial areas, which could cause the movement of pollution and hazardous materials through the soil and groundwater.

Mural at Brentwood Academy. Source: San Mateo County
410

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
13 Figure 4. Flood Hazard Zones in East Palo Alto
411

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
14 Human Health Hazards
Human health hazards, including bacteria, viruses, parasites, and other pathogens, pose significant concerns in East Palo Alto. These conditions can result in physical injuries, fatalities, mental health issues, and exacerbate pre-existing conditions like asthma and allergies. Rats, mice, ticks, and mosquitos are common vectors, meaning that they often spread the pathogens that can cause illness. Rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns due to climate change promote the proliferation of disease-carrying vectors. Warmer, wetter conditions allow for increased populations of mosquitoes and ticks, extending their geographic range and spreading diseases like West Nile virus, dengue fever, and Lyme disease.19 As temperatures rise and extreme weather events, such as heavy rainfall, become more frequent, these vectors can spread more broadly, transmitting diseases that threaten public health. 20 Heatwaves, another increasing hazard due to climate change, can directly impact human health by causing heat-related illnesses and deaths, while also worsening respiratory conditions due to increased air pollution. The combination of these factors indicates that human health hazards will become more pervasive and severe as climate change progresses, making proactive public health measures even more critical. The implications of these health hazards extend beyond individual well-being, placing strain on healthcare systems, increasing economic burdens, and affecting mental health.

Sea Level Rise and Groundwater Emergence
As global temperatures rise, glaciers and other polar ice melt, causing sea levels to rise. High average temperatures can also cause ocean water to expand, causing further rising of sea levels.

According to the 2024 California Ocean Protection Council’s State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance, sea levels in East Palo Alto are projected to increase by as much as 0.4 feet (5 inches) by 2030, 1.3 feet (16 inches) by 2050, and 6.5 feet (78 inches) by 2100. However, sea levels could also rise faster than these projections with storm surge and King Tide events adding an additional 24 to 36 inches of temporary flooding that would move farther inland.21 As shown in Figure 5 and on the online PREP Map Viewer, sea level rise will cause temporary and/or permanent inundation risks for over half of the East Palo Alto, especially in neighborhoods north of Bay Road and east of University Avenue. Figure 5 illustrates the spatial data available through the Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Adapting to Rising Tides Initiative, that is closest to the projections listed above, which ultimately shows a conservative estimate of sea level rise. By 2050, many of the neighborhoods along Pulgas Avenue, Cooley Landing, and areas near Costano Elementary School would likely be permanently inundated by sea level rise, with 100-year storms temporarily flooding areas farther inland. This flooded area includes nearly all schools in East Palo Alto, police stations, four government facilities and community centers, and the pump station at the end of O’Connor Street.
412

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
15 Emergent groundwater is a consequence of sea
level rise. It occurs when freshwater is pushed
upward by denser saline water that travels farther
inland, causing temporary or permanent
inundation.22 Higher groundwater levels, even if it
does not emerge to the surface, can infiltrate
storm drains, destabilize pipes, spread soil or
groundwater contamination, undermine building
foundations, corrode infrastructure not designed
for saline groundwater, and increase liquefaction
hazards.23 Groundwater is expected to rise at the
same rate as sea level rise, causing groundwater
to emerge at the surface in low-lying areas.24
As shown in Figure 6 and on the online PREP
Map Viewer, by 2100 emergent groundwater will
impact the majority of the city, including all schools, community-serving facilities, pump stations, and parks. The dozens of sites with current or past contamination indicated on the map are of most concern, as many are in residential neighborhoods and could release toxic materials into the water and soil that may have direct health effects on residents.

Though the exact level of future sea level rise is uncertain, it is expected to increase the frequency, duration, and magnitude of flood events and push groundwater to emergent levels farther inland. Sea level rise and emergent groundwater will interact directly with stormwater from inland sources, causing more severe flooding near creeks and at the outlets of drainage systems.

Marshlands on the San Francisco Bay in East Palo Alto
Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when watersaturated soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose contact
with one another and float freely in the
water, turning the ground into a
puddinglike liquid. Building and
foundations lose strength and may sink
into what was previously solid ground.

Unless properly secured, hazardous
materials can be released, causing
significant damage to the environment
and people.
413

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
16 Figure 5. Sea Level Rise in East Palo Alto
414

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
17 Figure 6. Emergent Groundwater in 2100 in East Palo Alto 415

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
18 Severe Weather
Severe weather poses a significant threat to East Palo Alto, disrupting daily life, compromising safety, and affecting infrastructure and ecosystems. Severe weather is usually caused by intense storm systems, although types of strong winds can occur without a storm. The types of dangers posed by severe weather vary widely and may include injuries or deaths, damage to buildings and structures, and roads blocked by debris. Severe weather often produces high winds and lightning that can damage structures and cause power outages. Objects such as vehicles, unprotected structures like bus stops or carports, fences, telephone poles, or trees can also be struck directly by lightning, which may cause an explosion or fire. High wind events can also exacerbate the risk of wildfires in the region, which can harm local air quality in the city. The most common severe weather events that have historically impacted East Palo Alto are heavy rains (usually a result of atmospheric rivers), thunderstorms, and windstorms.

While average annual rainfall may increase only slightly in East Palo Alto, climate change is expected to cause an increase in the number of years with intense levels of precipitation. Heavy rainfall can increase the frequency and severity of other hazards, including flooding.

Key Findings
The following section presents the key findings of
the Vulnerability Assessment for East Palo Alto,
highlighting the people and community features
that were identified as priority vulnerabilities.

Priority vulnerabilities are the people, buildings,
infrastructure, economic drivers, ecosystems and
natural resources, and key services who should be
considered as the City’s priorities in adaptation
and resilience planning. Identifying a population
or a community asset as a priority vulnerability
reflects the severity of climate change impacts
and level of harm, but also considers other factors
such as the size of the population, current and
historic injustices and discrimination, the role that
the asset plays in maintaining community-wide
well-being, and the potential of the population or
asset to be impacted by compounding or
cascading effects of interacting hazards.

Overall, the hazards that pose the greatest risk to
East Palo Alto include flooding, severe weather, and extreme heat and warm nights. Flooding is of particular concern because it can cut off access to roadways, move contamination in water and soils, and, in combination with sea level rise, expand the flood-prone areas throughout the city.

Priority Vulnerabilities
In addition to the severity of impacts
from climate change and related hazards,
other factors that affect whether a
population or asset is considered a
priority vulnerability include:
• Size of the population or the
importance of the asset.
• Equity considerations and history of
marginalization.
• Role in supporting community wellbeing.
• Community values and concerns.
• Ability to resist and recover from
hazards.
• Potential for cascading and
compounding impacts.
416

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
19 Climate change is expected to affect everyone and all locations in East Palo Alto to some degree and create additional challenges to overcoming the environmental justice issues already facing the community. However, some populations and other community assets are likely to be disproportionately affected, and it is these groups and assets that the Vulnerability Assessment identifies. This section does not describe all impacts from climate change and associated hazards.

Rather, it identifies the populations and assets that the project team found priority vulnerabilities for the greatest number of hazards, based on the results of the Vulnerability Assessment. Other populations and assets not listed here may still face significant harm from climate change.

Low-Resourced Households
Most Vulnerable To:

Air quality and smoke Drought Extreme heat Human health hazards Flooding Sea level rise Severe weather
Low-resourced households are among the populations most at risk of climate change hazards throughout East Palo Alto. This includes cost-burdened households (those that pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs), low-income households, overcrowded households (households that have more than one person per room of the home), households on fixed incomes, persons without access to lifelines such as personal vehicles and internet, and households in poverty. Low-resourced households typically lack sufficient resources to invest in home repairs and weatherization improvements, air conditioning and efficient appliances, health care, and other means to prepare for and recover from hazardous events. Evacuations pose significant concerns for these households, as they may lack access to reliable transportation or the financial means to leave during emergencies, making it difficult to comply with evacuation orders during severe weather events.
417

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
20 Limited financial resources may prevent these
households from affording adequate housing,
which means they are more likely to be renters
and live in older buildings with poor maintenance,
structural damage, or inadequate sanitation.

These conditions create an ideal environment for
pests, which can carry harmful pathogens.

Overcrowded households may have limited ability
to cope with illnesses caused by vectors, extreme
temperatures, or exposure to mold and mildew,
as persons living in these households are in close
proximity to others, causing illnesses to spread
more easily. These households may be financially
strained by medical costs and inability to work
due to illness. During drought, low-resourced
households may be especially vulnerable to increases in water price due to existing water affordability concerns and additional water conservation pricing and may be unable to afford water-efficient appliances to reduce water use.25
Older Adults
Most Vulnerable To:

Air quality and smoke Drought Extreme heat Human health hazards Flooding Sea level rise Severe weather
Older adults face a distinct set of vulnerabilities during emergencies, and it is essential to understand these challenges to protect this population effectively. Many older adults experience reduced mobility, impaired vision, and hearing loss that make it difficult to prepare their homes for severe weather or extreme heat events or evacuate quickly during flooding. For instance, attempting to evacuate during a severe storm while dealing with mobility impairments or vision Community Resilient Communities
Community Resilient Communities (CRC)
helped form the East Palo Alto Climate
Change Community Team in 2019 as part
of a San Mateo County climate resilience
program. Since then, CRC has led the
climate change survey, Community-Led
Vulnerability Assessment, and is currently
assisting with the East Palo Alto
Community Resilience Hub, Breath of Air
Campaign, and Rain Gardens & Water
Cisterns in East Palo Alto, among other
programs.
418

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
21 issues significantly increases their risk of harm.

Chronic health conditions further exacerbate
these vulnerabilities. Conditions such as heart
disease, diabetes, and respiratory issues can be
significantly worsened during crises, particularly
when exposed to wildfire smoke or extreme heat.

Additionally, many older adults depend on regular
medication, and the unavailability of these
medications during disasters can escalate an
already dangerous situation into a life-threatening
emergency.

Economic and social factors also compound these
risks. Older adults on average have lower incomes
than middle-aged adults, and older adults in East
Palo Alto are more likely to receive far less income than those in surrounding communities like Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Atherton. This limits their ability to invest in necessary disaster preparedness measures, such as purchasing emergency supplies or making their homes more resilient to natural hazards; this ultimately can increase their vulnerability to hazard events. Some older adults are also unable to drive, leaving them dependent on external assistance if they need to evacuate. The digital divide is another key factor, given that some older adults may be less familiar with digital technology, making it difficult for them to receive timely alerts and critical information through smartphone alerts, social media, or text messaging.

These compounding vulnerabilities mean that older adults are particularly susceptible to hazards involving poor air quality, extreme heat, severe weather, and flooding. The relationship of physical limitations, chronic health issues, economic constraints, and limited access to information can converge to place their lives at considerable risk.

Senior Programs in East Palo Alto
The City supports several senior-focused
community programs throughout the
community, including events such as
Senior Prom and the Senior Lifestyles
Expo, as well as services such as the
Senior Lunch Program & Transportation
and the Senior Advisory Committee. The
goal of these programs and services is to
reduce food insecurity and provide
opportunities for Aging Adults to limit
social isolation.
419

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
22 People of Color and Immigrant Communities
Most Vulnerable To:

Air quality and smoke Drought Extreme heat Human health hazards Flooding Sea level rise Severe weather
People of color and immigrant communities are susceptible to severe outcomes from climate change hazards, owing to marginalization and discrimination, and in some cases distrust of government services and lack of a social support network. East Palo Alto is home to a diverse population with over 41 percent born outside of the United States and 25 percent not fluent in English, and therefore these communities in particular are high priority for the city.26 Members of these communities have also historically been left out of planning and advocacy in the region, and therefore are at the forefront of environmental and climate justice issues in East Palo Alto.

Immigrant communities and people of color often encounter significant barriers when accessing vital resources during natural disasters. While they may seek out cooling centers and health services, concerns about citizenship status, racial discrimination, and language barriers can make them feel unsafe or unwelcome.27 Many individuals in these communities work in outdoor occupations, exposing them to poor air quality, extreme heat, and vector-borne illnesses, and they may be unaware of health alerts due to linguistic isolation.

People of color and immigrants are more likely to live in neighborhoods with limited shade and tree cover, further exacerbating their vulnerability to extreme heat and high levels of stormwater runoff. Additionally, these communities face systemic issues such as racial discrimination, economic hardships, and often language barriers, which can hinder their access to high-quality housing and increase exposure to climate change hazards. 28, 29
Organizations like Nuestra Casa, El Comite de Vecinos del Lado Oeste, and Anamatangi Polynesian Voices play a crucial role in assisting Spanish and Polynesian-speaking immigrants by helping them understand their rights, connecting them to safety net resources, and advocating to reduce language barriers. However, it can be challenging for some Pacific Island community members and non-English speakers to receive alerts in their native languages.30, 31 Overall, the 420

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
23 interaction of these factors significantly limits immigrant communities' and people of color abilities to prepare for and respond to hazard or health emergency events, leaving them disproportionately affected by climate change.

Food Access
Most Vulnerable To:

Drought Extreme heat Flooding Sea level rise
Regular access to healthy and affordable food is integral to supporting community well-being and many residents in East Palo Alto currently struggle to access healthy foods. Many residents may also rely on food distribution programs and emergency food assistance. Food access and insecurity is likely to worsen due to climate change. Regional drought may raise food prices and threaten the viability of community-driven initiatives like gardens. Infrastructure damage from flooding, including roadways, energy systems, and buildings, can severely disrupt grocery store and market supply chains, further limiting food access. Additionally, power outages from extreme heat or severe storms lasting more than 24 hours can lead to spoiled food, compounding the financial challenges faced by residents who have limited means.

Key food providers like the East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Market, Church of Christ, Ecumenical Hunger Program, Garden Market, and Collective Roots Community Garden are located in flood zones, making their facilities and distribution methods vulnerable to flooding and sea level rise, preventing access to food or damaging supplies. Although proactive hardening of grocery stores, markets, and the infrastructure supporting these facilities is possible, the city and the owners of these facilities may lack sufficient resources for preparation and swift recovery after a major hazard event.

Homes
Most vulnerable to:

Extreme heat Flooding Sea level rise Severe weather
421

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
24 Homes, including single-family houses, duplexes, and apartments, are an essential part of every community. East Palo Alto, like other areas of the Bay Area and California, faces a chronic housing crisis fueled by high costs and a limited supply of housing. Over 60 percent of households in the city live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to displacement. 32 Local residents could be
harmed by gentrification that drives up home prices, reducing affordable housing and increasing displacement of existing residents that are the foundation for the city’s diverse and active community. Climate change threatens to worsen this already-severe problem in East Palo Alto.

Houses and apartment buildings throughout the city can be damaged or destroyed by flooding events, inundation from sea level rise, and severe storms. Even if initial damage is minor, standing or retained water can cause mold and mildew to grow, causing homes to become uninhabitable.33 Although extreme heat events and poor air quality may not affect the structural integrity of homes, these events can cause unhealthy indoor air temperatures and quality, resulting in dangerous living conditions for occupants. If homes do become uninhabitable, residents can be displaced and may not be able to find alternative housing options. This is an important concern for East Palo Alto, which is surrounded by higher-income communities.

Transportation and Transit Infrastructure and Services
Most Vulnerable To:

Extreme heat Flooding Sea level rise Severe weather
The roads and highways, bridges, transit networks and facilities, and transportation services play a pivotal role in supporting community health, safety, and well-being in East Palo Alto. These systems span the city and connect East Palo Alto to the surrounding region, and are especially vulnerable to extreme heat, flooding, sea level rise, and severe weather. East Palo Alto also already has transportation constraints due to the few underpasses and overpasses available over Highway 101 to connect city residents to the surrounding region. During normal conditions, damage to transportation infrastructure and services prevents people from going about their daily lives, interrupts many key services, and disrupts freight and shipping, including vital supply chains that support both businesses and households. Damage to transit networks also significantly impacts mobility for those who rely on public transportation, and with few transit routes in East Palo Alto, this can lead to reduced access to jobs, healthcare, and other essential services. Such disruptions can result in physical, emotional, and economic harm to community members. During emergency events, the potential for harm is even greater, as damaged transportation networks can block evacuations, prevent or delay emergency response services, and significantly hinder deliveries of vital supplies.
422

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
25 Roadways can be damaged or blocked by flooding, debris from severe storms, and storm surge from sea level rise. Highway 101, University Avenue, Willow Road, Bay Road, and other local roads can be damaged or blocked by these hazards, isolating residents from goods and services.

Sea level rise and flooding may damage pavement, potentially increasing road maintenance costs and creating unsafe driving, walking, and biking conditions. Extreme heat has the potential to impact road infrastructure and cause damage, including pavement and sidewalk concrete expansion that can result in cracks, increasing maintenance costs.

These hazards also directly impact transit services, such as buses, by disrupting access to transit routes and facilities, leading to reduced service reliability and longer travel times. Public transit disruptions along flooded or debris-filled streets and corridors could also hinder evacuation efforts for transit-dependent populations. While roadway improvements could alleviate these risks, they are likely to require substantial funding in a city that is already financially constrained, demand additional resources, and take a significant amount of time to complete. Flooding and emergent groundwater can also impact neighborhood access roads that are narrow and have poor drainage, causing long-term delays and requiring costly clean-up. If these transportation and transit services are disrupted due to hazards, it will have cascading effects throughout the entire community, impacting daily life, access to resources, and the overall resilience of all communities.

Tidal Marsh Habitat
Most Vulnerable To:

Ecosystem Pests Extreme heat Flooding Sea level rise
Tidal marsh habitat in East Palo Alto surrounds Cooley Landing Park in the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and the Don Edwards Wildlife Preserve. Tidal marshes provide an essential buffer between the San Francisco Bay and the developed areas of the city, absorbing storm surge and high tides to prevent flooding along the shoreline and damage to critical buildings and infrastructure. These areas also provide open space and park access for the community along the Bay Trail. Several existing factors play a role in the sensitivity of these ecosystems to changing conditions, such as fragmentation, existing pollution levels, invasive species, and built structures that may impede the natural adaptive migration of the ecosystems as sea levels rise and temperatures increase. Extreme heat can raise water temperatures, leading to harmful algal blooms and lower dissolved oxygen levels for aquatic life.

Tidal marsh habitat can be affected by an influx of water from sea level rise and flooding. Sea level rise can permanently inundate saltwater marsh, causing the conversion of the ecosystem 423

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
26 into mudflats.34 Inland flooding from severe storms can cause sediment and contaminants to flow into these ecosystems, harming the plant life and causing algal blooms.

Other Priority Vulnerabilities
Although the following populations and assets are not identified as priority vulnerabilities, they are still significant and important to East Palo Alto and represent critical concerns to community members. It is essential that this report recognize these other priority vulnerabilities for the purpose of community planning and risk assessment efforts. Addressing these vulnerabilities proactively can help to mitigate their impacts and support the City’s overall resilience.

Persons with Chronic Illnesses and/or Disabilities
Most Vulnerable To:

Air quality and smoke Drought Extreme heat Human health hazards Flooding Sea level rise Severe weather
Almost 10 percent of people in East Palo Alto live with a disability and nearly 10 percent of the population have asthma or diabetes.35, 36 Persons with chronic illnesses or disabilities may face barriers to receiving emergency alerts, evacuating, obtaining support resources, as well as installing appliances and making retrofits or structural improvements to their homes to improve resilience. They likely have weaker immune systems due to pre-existing conditions or medications that make it more difficult to fight off new illnesses. Allergens and vector-borne illnesses can exacerbate existing illnesses, creating difficulties in existing or new medical treatment. These individuals also experience increased sensitivity to the health effects of heat and poor air quality due to chronic illnesses or medications.

These individuals may be more likely to be injured or become ill due to flooding and may be reliant on medications or medical devices that may be lost, damaged, or rendered inoperable due to a flood. Those who rely on electricity to operate medical devices or store medication may be especially vulnerable in the event of a public safety power shutoff or other loss of power, which may become more likely during periods of extreme heat, severe weather, and flooding. Those 424

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
27 with disabilities face difficulties in preparing their homes and evacuating or traveling to higher ground before and during flooding and severe weather events.

Residents of Mobile Homes
Most Vulnerable To:

Air quality and smoke Drought Extreme heat Flooding
Sea level rise Severe weather
Residents of mobile homes in East Palo Alto, specifically Palo Verde Mobile Home Park, face significant vulnerabilities to climate change due to existing financial constraints or fixed incomes and less resilient homes. Many mobile homes lack dedicated ventilation systems, leading to higher indoor air temperatures and prolonged exposure to pollutants that can exacerbate health issues, such as asthma. Financial constraints faced by many of these residents hinder their ability to invest in necessary air quality improvements, water conservation measures, energy efficiency upgrades, making them more susceptible to heat and air quality-related illnesses, as well as harm from water use restrictions during droughts.

The Palo Verde Mobile Home Park is in a 500-year flood zone and will likely face flooding during a 100-year storm event due to sea level rise by 2050. The structural integrity of older mobile homes is often compromised, as they do not meet the same construction standards as traditional homes and may not be able to accommodate weatherization improvements. While programs like PG&E’s Comprehensive Manufactured Home Program aim to enhance energy efficiency and resilience, the financial vulnerability of these residents often prevents them from accessing the resources needed to protect their homes and health effectively. 425

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
28 Unhoused Persons
Most Vulnerable To:

Air quality and smoke Drought Extreme heat Human health hazards
Flooding Severe weather
Unhoused individuals and families face significant health risks due to prolonged outdoor exposure to health hazards, including poor air quality from wildfire smoke, extreme temperatures during heat waves, vector-borne illnesses, inconsistent access to drinking water, and heightened vulnerability to extreme weather events like floods.37 These individuals often lack access to necessities like water, sunscreen, and protective clothing, which increases their susceptibility to dehydration, heat stroke, respiratory infections, and other health issues. Climate change exacerbates these challenges due to a potential loss of belongings for unhoused persons and disruption of essential services such as homeless shelters, increasing the likelihood of mental health issues due to trauma from hazard events.38
The City of East Palo Alto has collaborated with San Mateo County and organizations like LifeMoves and Project WeHOPE to provide case management, shelter, and housing for unhoused residents. Additionally, the City has extended programs like RV Safe Parking and is streamlining permit processes to facilitate temporary shelter and overnight vehicle parking.39 Despite these efforts, flooding, health hazards, and extreme weather continue to hinder the transition out of homelessness, further entrenching individuals in long-term homelessness. 426

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
29 Healthcare and Life Science
Most Vulnerable To:

Air quality and smoke Drought Extreme heat Human health hazards East Palo Alto has limited healthcare providers and life science companies, which can limit easy access to healthcare and exacerbate disparities in healthcare quality and access. However, many residents work in these economic sectors at sites in surrounding communities. As an economic driver, healthcare is most vulnerable to poor air quality, drought, extreme heat and heat waves, and vector-borne illnesses. The healthcare industry may see an influx of patients when these hazards occur, straining the healthcare system and causing extreme stress to those working in the industry.

The life sciences industry may face difficulties if facilities are flooded or disease outbreaks prevent workers living in East Palo Alto from going into offices and disrupt supply chains, but this industry is generally more resilient than the healthcare industry since the research and development in the life sciences industry is largely separated from medical care facilities and patients. The life science industry can also help combat human health hazards through new vaccines, medications, and technologies for managing climate-related health complications.

During community-wide health emergencies, the demand for health services can rise significantly, often surpassing the available staff and resources. For instance, extreme heat may lead to an increase in patients with heat-related illnesses like heatstroke or dehydration, while severe weather can cause injuries that further strain emergency services. Infectious disease outbreaks may also overwhelm medical providers, making it difficult to provide adequate care to all residents.

Equity concerns are especially prominent in East Palo Alto, where healthcare access disparities and heightened vulnerabilities are common during emergencies. Many residents already face systemic barriers to healthcare, such as limited medical facilities in the city and challenges related to affordability and transportation to these facilities. When hazards like extreme heat or infectious disease outbreaks push these resources beyond capacity, marginalized communities are disproportionately affected. This puts a strain on those working in these fields, causing mental and physical burnout of workers.
427

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
30 The COVID-19 pandemic exposed these vulnerabilities, as healthcare systems were overwhelmed nationwide. Communities with fewer resources, such as East Palo Alto, faced even greater challenges accessing timely care.

Utility and Communication Services
Most Vulnerable To:

Extreme heat Flooding Sea level rise Severe weather
East Palo Alto’s electricity and communication services have existing constraints, such as lack of redundancy in electricity and internet infrastructure, making them highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Extreme heat can reduce the performance and lifespan of exposed electrical equipment and increase demand for air conditioning, overloading the grid. This heightened demand leads to rolling power outages and damages to transmission lines, especially as new air conditioning units are installed in buildings previously without cooling systems. The combination of increased demand and reduced transmission efficiency makes brownouts and power loss more likely.

Flooding presents additional risks, threatening both above- and below-ground power and communication lines. Critical infrastructure, like Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) substations, gas pipelines, and overhead electric lines, are particularly vulnerable to flooding and sea level rise, and damage to these facilities could disrupt regional energy services. Severe weather, including high winds and heavy rainfall events, can cause power lines to be de-energized (public safety power shutoff or PSPS events) to prevent damage, leading to widespread outages that harm local services and economic activities. As this infrastructure is exposed to these climate hazards, critical services, public safety, and overall community well-being are put at greater risk. Strengthening and retrofitting local infrastructure, while possible in some cases, is costly and difficult to implement widely, especially since the City does not own, operate, or manage utility and communication infrastructure and services. 428

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
31 Riparian Habitats
Most Vulnerable To:

Drought Extreme heat Flooding Sea level rise
Severe weather
Riparian habitat in East Palo Alto includes areas along the San Francisquito Creek. These habitats provide numerous benefits, including flood control by absorbing excess rainwater and reducing the risk of flooding in nearby areas. This creek and the surrounding riparian areas offer critical habitat for diverse wildlife, supporting a variety of plant and animal species, some of which are rare or endangered. They provide essential breeding, feeding, and shelter areas for birds, fish, and other wildlife. Additionally, these habitats offer recreational opportunities, such as birdwatching, hiking, and educational activities, especially as the San Francisquito Creek flows out towards the Bay Trail, contributing to the well-being of the community.

Several existing factors play a role in the sensitivity of these ecosystems to changing conditions, such as fragmentation, existing pollution levels, trash and debris from upstream areas outside of East Palo Alto’s jurisdiction, and built structures that may impede the natural adaptive movement of the ecosystems as sea levels rise, drought intensifies, and temperatures increase. Droughts and extreme heat can raise water temperatures, leading to harmful algal blooms and lower dissolved oxygen levels for aquatic life. Severe storms and flooding can be detrimental to streambanks and riparian areas, eroding natural streambanks and causing higher peak flows in channelized areas. 429

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
32 Next Steps
The Vulnerability Assessment is a key technical study needed to update the Safety Element. The Vulnerability Assessment helps community members, agency staff, and decision makers understand how climate change hazards may alter community conditions and what parts of the community (people and places) should be prioritized for adaptation and resilience. The findings from the climate change Vulnerability Assessment process will be used to inform the goals, policies, and actions that will be included in the Safety Element. 430

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
33 Glossary
Adaptation: Making changes in response to current or future conditions (such as the increased frequency and intensity of climate-related hazards), usually to reduce harm and to take advantage of new opportunities. 40 41
Adaptive Capacity: The combination of the strengths, attributes, and resources available to an individual, community, society, or organization that can be used to prepare for and undertake actions to reduce adverse impacts, moderate harm, or exploit beneficial opportunities. 42 Cascading or Compounding Effects: Extreme events that link together hazards over days, weeks, or months, resulting in multiplied effects that cause secondary and sometimes tertiary damage, exceeding the damage of the initial hazard event.

Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean, and/or the variability, of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.

Community Asset: A valued feature of a community that may be harmed by climate change.

Community assets may include buildings, infrastructure, community services, ecosystems, and economic drivers.

Exposure: The presence of people; infrastructure; natural systems; and economic, cultural, and social resources in areas that are subject to harm. 43
Goal: An ideal future end state related to public health, safety, or general welfare.

Hazard: An event or physical condition that has the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, damage to the environment, interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss. 44
Impact: The effects (especially the negative effects) of a hazard or other conditions associated with climate change.

Policy: A specific statement that guides decision-making, indicating a commitment of the local legislative body to a particular course of action.

Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out a general plan policy.

Resilience: The capacity of any entity—an individual, a community, an organization, or a natural system—to prepare for disruptions, to recover from shocks and stresses, and to adapt and change from a disruptive experience. Community resilience is the ability of communities to withstand, recover, and to learn from past disasters to strengthen future response and recovery efforts.

Risk: The potential for damage or loss created by the interaction of hazards with assets such as buildings, infrastructure, or natural and cultural resources. 431

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
34 Vulnerability: The degree to which natural, built, and human systems are susceptible to harm from exposure to stresses associated with environmental and social change and from the absence of capacity to adapt. 45
Vulnerability Assessment: An analysis of how a changing climate may harm a community and which elements—people, buildings and structures, resources, and other assets—are most vulnerable to its effects based on an assessment of exposure, sensitivity, potential impact(s), and the community’s adaptive capacity.
432

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
35 Appendix A: Methods
The Vulnerability Assessment considers the threats from all relevant natural hazards, which are events or physical conditions that have the potential to cause harm or loss and will emphasize changes to hazard frequency and severity due to climate change. The Safety Element update addresses natural and human-caused hazards, such as seismic hazards and hazardous materials.

However, these hazards are not included in the Vulnerability Assessment, as climate change does not substantially change their frequency or severity. The Vulnerability Assessment also assesses populations and assets facing potential harm from the hazards. This includes the risk of physical damage to buildings and infrastructure, social vulnerability of persons likely to be disproportionately harmed by hazards, potential disruption to the city’s economic engines, and loss of important services.

The Vulnerability Assessment is based on accurate and up-to-date information, including the CalAdapt database, the California Adaptation Planning Guide (2020), and the San Mateo County Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2021). As outlined in the California Adaptation Planning Guide, the Vulnerability Assessment follows a four-step process:

1. Identify Exposure. In a Vulnerability Assessment, exposure is the presence of people, infrastructure, natural systems, and resources (economic, cultural, and social) in areas subject to harm. A hazard, also called a climate change hazard, is an event or physical condition that has the potential to cause types of harm or loss. This step includes confirming applicable hazards in the city, describing historical hazards, describing how hazards are expected to change, and mapping the hazard-prone areas.

2. Analyze Sensitivity and Potential Impacts. Sensitivity is the level to which changing climate conditions affect a population or community, species, natural system, government, asset, or resource. Potential impacts are the effects of a climate change hazard, or the combination of exposure to the hazard and sensitivity of a population or asset to it. For example, suppose an increase in extreme heat events is the hazard. In that case, the greater risk of heat-related illness in susceptible persons is the exposure, and the sensitivity is the degree of the impact from the exposure. Each population and asset in East Palo Alto is likely to experience different impacts. The project team assessed the sensitivities and potential impacts to each population or asset from each applicable climate change hazard.

3. Evaluate Adaptive Capacity. Adaptive capacity is the ability of people and assets to adjust to potential damage from climate change hazards, to take advantage of existing opportunities such as funding, tools, and resources, or to respond to the impacts of climate change. The project team assessed the adaptive capacity of each population or asset for each applicable identified hazard. The City is already implementing several measures to increase adaptive capacity, including the Municipal Code requirements, Capital Improvement Program, and Climate Action Plan strategies. 433

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
36 4. Conduct Vulnerability Scoring. Vulnerability is defined as the combination of impact and adaptive capacity as affected by the level of exposure to changing climate conditions.

Following the process in the California Adaptation Planning Guide, the project team scored impact and adaptive capacity for each population and asset affected by each hazard on a scale of low, medium, and high, to identify priority vulnerabilities for populations and assets in East Palo Alto.
434

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
37 Appendix B: Populations and Assets
The City included the following populations and other assets in the Vulnerability Assessment.

Each list includes a description and source of data needed to support the Vulnerability Assessment.

Populations
The City collected population data from the U.S. Census, the California Healthy Places Index, and the San Mateo County Homeless Point-in-Time Count. These 17 populations are:

1. Children and youth under 18 years of age: Approximately 24 percent of East Palo Alto’s population is under 18.46

2. Cost-burdened/low-income/overcrowded households: Cost-burdened households are those paying 30 percent or more of their income towards housing expenses. The State identifies $149,100 as the low-income threshold for a household of four people in San Mateo County in 2023.47 Overcrowded households include housing units that have more than 1.0 person per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Approximately 19 percent of homes in East Palo Alto are overcrowded.48

3. Households in poverty: The federal poverty line for a household of four is $31,200 a year for a family of four. However, in San Mateo County, the acutely low poverty line (15 percent of area median income) is $26,250 for a household of four.49, 50Approximately 12 percent of East Palo Alto residents earn incomes at or below poverty. 51 4. Immigrant communities/linguistically isolated persons: Communities consisting of foreign-born populations, including immigrants, refugees, and undocumented persons.

Linguistically isolated persons include households without a member who is fluent in English. Approximately 43 percent of East Palo Alto’s population was born outside of the United States, approximately 70 percent of whom are from Latin America and 10 percent of which are from Asia and the Pacific Islands, as of 2021. Approximately 26 percent of the population is not fluent in English.52 Spanish and languages from the Pacific Islands (Tongan, Samoan, or other Asian or Pacific Islander language) are the primary languages in East Palo Alto among households that are not fluent in English. .53

5. Under-resourced people of color: Persons identifying as a member of a racial and/or ethnic group and facing limited access to resources, such as financial, social, healthcare, or educational assistance.54,55

6. Outdoor workers: Workers in landscaping, construction, outdoor recreation, etc.

7. Persons experiencing homelessness: The San Mateo County 2022 One Day Homeless Count reported 169 total persons experiencing homelessness (all unsheltered) in East Palo Alto.56

8. Persons living on single-access roads (roads with only a single entry or exit point): Single access and road-constricted neighborhoods are along the eastern edge of the city.

9. Persons with chronic illnesses and/or disabilities: Approximately 9 percent of East Palo Alto’s population has some form of disability.57
435

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
38 10. Persons without a high school degree: Approximately 36 percent of East Palo Alto’s adult population has not obtained a high school degree or equivalent.58

11. Persons without access to lifelines: Persons without reliable access to a car, transit, or communication systems. Approximately 5 percent of East Palo Alto households do not have access to a personal vehicle.59 Approximately 14 percent of East Palo Alto households do not have an internet subscription.60

12. Renters: Approximately 52 percent of East Palo Alto housing units are renter-occupied.

Approximately 40 percent of renter households are four- or more person households, approximately 43 percent of these households contain children, and approximately 28 percent are single-parent households. 61

13. Residents of mobile homes: Palo Mobile Estates and those not in mobile home parks.

14. Seniors (65+): Seniors constitute 8 percent of East Palo Alto’s population.62

15. Seniors living alone: Approximately 4 percent of East Palo Alto households are made up of seniors living alone.63

16. Unemployed persons: East Palo Alto’s civilian labor force unemployment rate is approximately 5 percent.64

17. University students: Approximately 7 percent of East Palo Alto’s population is enrolled in college or graduate school.65
Infrastructure
The City gathered details on infrastructure from State and local geographic information system (GIS) data, the City website, the General Plan, and the 2021 San Mateo County Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. These seven asset groups are:

1. Energy and communication infrastructure:
• Transmission lines, including overhead power lines: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
• Natural gas pipelines: PG&E.
• Other PG&E infrastructure, including distributed infrastructure and communication infrastructure.
• Solar installations.
• Cell towers, radio sites, fiber-optic lines (i.e., Stanford/military), phone, and internet lines.

2. Flood control and stormwater infrastructure.

3. Vehicle fuel stations:
• Electric vehicle charging stations: Five public charging stations66 • Gas stations

4. Hazardous materials sites: 61 cleanup sites (23 where remediation activities have not finished) identified via the State Water Control Board’s GeoTracker database;67 10 sites (one with active cleanup activities) identified via the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor database.68

5. Transportation infrastructure:
436

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
39 • Freeways: US Highway 101 Bayshore Freeway.
• Major roads: University Avenue, Pulgas Avenue, Bay Road, Willow Road, West and East Bayshore.
• Bridges: East Bayshore Road/Highway 101 over San Francisquito Creek, West Bayshore Road over San Francisquito Creek, Newell Road over San Francisquito Creek, University Avenue bridge over Highway 101, Willow Road over Highway 101, Clarke Avenue pedestrian overcrossing, US101, University Avenue pedestrian overpass connecting West and East Bayshore across Highway 101 (planned). • Transit facilities: Stops, bus shelters, and other facilities provided by the city and SamTrans.
• Airports: San Francisco International Airport, Palo Alto Airport in Palo Alto, and San Carlos Airport in San Carlos.

6. Parks and related recreational facilities:
• City Parks: Bell Street Park, Jack Farrell Park, Joel Davis Park, Martin Luther King Junior Park, Pocket Park at East Bayshore, Pocket Park at Newbridge. • Regional Parks: Don Edwards San Francisco Wildlife Preserve/Baylands Nature Preserve, Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
• Special Facilities: City Room at YMCA, Community Room at City Hall, Cooley Landing Education Center.
• Trails: Bay Trail, Cooley Landing Trail.

7. Water and wastewater infrastructure: Lift stations; stormwater pump stations; Cityowned pumps (Gloria Way Well and Pad D), storm drains; sewer mains and lateral pipes; water mains, pipes and storage tanks, and reservoirs (including Hetch Hetchy, Calaveras, San Antonio, Crystal Springs, Pilarcitos, and San Andreas reservoirs).

Buildings
The City collected buildings data from Google Maps, the City website, and local agency websites and GIS records. These nine assets are:

1. Affordable housing: Includes subsidized housing and mobile homes, including Palo Mobile Estates, individual mobile homes, and housing developments owned by Eden Housing, BRIDGE Housing, and MidPen Housing.

2. Commercial and retail buildings: Ravenswood Shopping Center.

3. Government and community facilities: City Hall, East Palo Alto Library, East Palo Alto Community Development Department, City of East Palo Alto Corporation Yard, East Palo Alto Sanitary District office, East Palo Alto Housing & Community Services office, Menlo Park Fire District Fire Station, East Palo Alto Police Stations, East Palo Alto Senior Center, City vehicle storage facilities.

4. Grocery stores and food markets: Garden Market, Pal Market, Cardenas Market, Oakwood Market, Charlie’s Market, One Stop Market, Cooley Avenue Market, Mega Mart (planned), and Country Time Market.
437

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
40 5. Medical and care facilities: East Palo Alto Care Center, Ravenswood Family Health Center, doctor’s offices.

6. Homes and residential structures: Multifamily and single-family residences.

7. Public safety buildings: Menlo Park Fire Department, Police Department.

8. Schools:
• Ravenswood City School District: Cesar Chavez Ravenswood Middle School, Costaño School of Arts, Los Robles-Ronald McNair Academy, Ravenswood City School District.
• Private and charter schools: East Palo Alto Academy, East Palo Alto Charter School, Eastside College Preparatory School, KIPP Esperanza High School, Oxford Day Academy, The Primary School, La Scuola International School.

9. Shelters. Includes the Project WeHOPE Shelter.

Economic Drivers
The City determined important economic assets based on the 2022 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and land uses in the city. These five assets are:

1. Health services.

2. Education services.

3. Major employers: Amazon Web Services, Ravenswood City School District, Ravenswood Family Health Center, Ikea, Four Seasons Hotel – Silicon Valley, Home Depot, City of East Palo Alto, Eastside College Preparatory School, NTT i3, Nordstrom Rack, Ropes and Gray Law Firm.

4. Commercial and retail centers and warehouses.

5. Regional economic activities.

Ecosystems and Natural Resources
The City determined the ecosystems and natural resources based on information from the existing General Plan. These six are:

1. Low Tidal Marsh. Located along the Bay shoreline, primarily in the Baylands Nature Reserve.

2. High tidal marsh. Located along the Bay shoreline.

3. Groundwater. San Mateo Plain subbasin, part of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin.

4. Riparian habitats. Occur along San Francisquito Creek.

5. Tidal flats. Located within the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.

6. Urban trees.

Key Services
These assets are based on typical services provided in cities throughout California, which are supported by the infrastructure and buildings listed previously. Key community services include the operation and functions needed to provide and maintain services. The Vulnerability 438

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
41 Assessment assesses the infrastructure and people needed to support them separately. These eight services are:

1. Education services: Ravenswood City School District, private schools, and childcare.

2. Emergency services: Menlo Park Fire Department, City of East Palo Police Department.

3. Energy delivery and communication services: Peninsula Clean Energy, PG&E, radio, television, cellular and landline phone, and internet.

4. Food access: Grocery stores, markets, small local farms, and community gardens.

5. Government administration and community services.

6. Public transit access: SamTrans, AC Transit, Senior Transportation Services.

7. Solid waste removal: Recology.

8. Water and wastewater: City of East Palo Alto/Veolia Water North America Operating Services LLC, Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company, O’Connor Tract Co-op Water Company, West Bay Sanitary District.
439

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
42 Endnotes
1 County of San Mateo. 2019. ”History of East Palo Alto.” https://www.smcgov.org/district-4/history-eastpalo-alto. 2 County of San Mateo. 2019. ”History of East Palo Alto.” https://www.smcgov.org/district-4/history-eastpalo-alto. 3 County of San Mateo. 2019. ”History of East Palo Alto.” https://www.smcgov.org/district-4/history-eastpalo-alto. 4 Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. ”Research on Health Effects from Air Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/air-research/research-health-effects-air-pollution. 5 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2023. CalEnviroScreen 4.0. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 6 Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. ”Research on Health Effects from Air Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/air-research/research-health-effects-air-pollution. 7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, April 19. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Appendix C.

Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2024, October 24 (accessed). History of the Air District. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-the-air-district/history-of-air-district. 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2023. 2023 Annual Report. https://www.baaqmd.gov/publications/annual-reports. 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2024, October 10 (accessed). Why Wildfire Smoke is a Health Concern. https://www.epa.gov/wildfire-smoke-course/why-wildfire-smoke-health-concern. 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. “Health Effects Attributed to Wildfire Smoke.” https://www.epa.gov/wildfire-smoke-course/health-effects-attributed-wildfire-smoke. 12 Halofsky, J.E., Peterson, D.L., Buluç, L.Y., & Ko, J.M. 2021. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation for infrastructure and recreation in the Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-272. Albany, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 13 Cal-Adapt. 2024. "Extreme Heat Days & Warm Nights." https://cal-adapt.org/tools/extreme-heat. 14 Cal-Adapt. 2024. "Extreme Heat Days & Warm Nights." https://cal-adapt.org/tools/extreme-heat. 15 Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022. ”QuickStats: Deaths Involving Exposure to Excessive Heat, by Sex — National Vital Statistics System, United States, 1999–2020.” https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7134a5.htm#:~:text=During%201999%E2%80%932020 %2C%20the%20annual,than%20among%20females%20each%20year. 16 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2024. ”Extreme Heat.” https://www.hhs.gov/climatechange-health-equity-environmental-justice/climate-change-health-equity/climate-healthoutlook/extremeheat/index.html#:~:text=Heat%2Drelated%20deaths%20have%20been,2022%2C%20and%202%2C302% 20in%202023.
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. N.d. ”Climate impacts on Human Health.” https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-human-health#ref1. 18 Ackerly, David, Andrew Jones, Mark Stacey, Bruce Riordan. University of California, Berkeley. 2018. San Francisco Bay Area Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number:

CCCA4-SUM-2018-005.
19 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2024. "Vector-borne diseases.” https://oehha.ca.gov/climate-change/epic-2022/impacts-human-health/vector-bornediseases#:~:text=Warming%20temperatures%20and%20changes%20in,the%20blood%20of%20infected% 20birds.
20 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2024. "Vector-borne diseases.” https://oehha.ca.gov/climate-change/epic-2022/impacts-human-health/vector-borne440

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
43 diseases#:~:text=Warming%20temperatures%20and%20changes%20in,the%20blood%20of%20infected% 20birds.
21 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2024. Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan. https://www.bayadapt.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/09/BCDC_Draft_Regional_Shoreline_Adaptation_Plan_Appendix-A_Spreads.pdf. 22 Ocean Protection Council. 2024. State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance. https://opc.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2024/05/California-Sea-Level-Rise-Guidance-2024-508.pdf. 23 Ocean Protection Council. 2024. State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance. https://opc.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2024/05/California-Sea-Level-Rise-Guidance-2024-508.pdf. 24 Ocean Protection Council. 2024. State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance. https://opc.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2024/05/California-Sea-Level-Rise-Guidance-2024-508.pdf. 25 City of East Palo Alto. 2022. 2030 Climate Action Plan and Adaptation Strategies. 26 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Social Characteristics in the United States, DP02. https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP02&g=160XX00US0620956. 27 Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN). 2019. "Mapping Resilience: A Blueprint for Thriving in the Face of Climate Disasters." https://apen4ej.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/APEN-Mapping_ResilienceReport.pdf. 28 Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN). 2019. "Mapping Resilience: A Blueprint for Thriving in the Face of Climate Disasters." https://apen4ej.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/APEN-Mapping_ResilienceReport.pdf. 29 Méndez, M., Flores-Haro, G., Zucker, L. 2020. "The (in)visible victims of disaster: Understanding the vulnerability of undocumented Latino/a and indigenous immigrants." Geoforum. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718520301925. 30 Acterra. 2020. Acterra Community-based Vulnerability Planning Pilot Project Report. 31 San Mateo Office of Sustainability. 2021. Report: Hard-to-Reach Community input. https://www.smcsustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/2021-07-19_Summary-of-Community-Outreachfor-MJLHMP_Final.pdf. 32 East Palo Alto. 2024. 2023-2031 East Palo Alto Housing Element. 33 Saena, FV. 2016. Community Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in East Palo Alto. 34 San Mateo County. 2018. San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. 35 American Community Survey. 2022. ACS 5-Year Estimates. 36 Public Health Alliance of Southern California. 2022. “California Healthy Places Index.” https://map.healthyplacesindex.org/?redirect=false. 37 Avelar Portillo, LJ., Kayser, GL., Ko, C., Vasquez, A., Gonzalez, J., Avelar, DJ., Alvarenga, N., Franklin, M., Chiang, Y. 2023. "Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WaSH) insecurity in unhoused communities of Los Angeles, California." Internal Journal for Equity in Health. https://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12939-023-01920-8.pdf. 38 Bezgrebelna, M., McKenzie, K., Wells, S., Ravindran, A., Kral, M., Christensen, J., Stergiopoulos, V., Gaetz, S., Kidd, SA. 2021. "Climate Change, Weather, Housing Precarity, and Homelessness: A Systematic Review of Reviews." Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5812. 39 City of East Palo Alto. 2022. Update and Recommendations Regarding the City's Unhoused Residents. 40 Louise Bedsworth, Dan Cayan, Guido Franco, Leah Fisher, Sonya Ziaja, “Statewide Summary Report,” in California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, publication number: SUMCCCA4-2018-013, 2018. 41 California Natural Resource Agency, Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update: California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy, 2018, http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/ safeguarding/update2018/safeguardingcalifornia-plan-2018-update.pdf 42 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Annex II: Glossary,” ed. K. J. Mach, S. Planton, and C. von Stechow, in Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, ed. Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri, and L. A. Meyer (Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2014), p. 117–130, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ 43 Louise Bedsworth, Dan Cayan, Guido Franco, Leah Fisher, Sonya Ziaja, “Statewide Summary Report,” in California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, publication number: SUMCCCA4-2018-013, 2018. 441

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING PROJECT
EAST PALO ALTO | VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
44 44 California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018, https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/hazard-mitigation/hazard-mitigation-planning/statehazard-mitigation-plan 45 Neil Adger, “Vulnerability,” Global Environmental Change 16 (2006): 268– 281, https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/~nabo/ meetings/glthec/materials/simpson/ GEC_sdarticle2.pdf 46 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Age and Sex, S0101. https://data.census.gov/table?q=S0101&g=160XX00US0620956. 47 San Mateo County. 2023. 2023 San Mateo County Income Limits. https://www.smcgov.org/media/144471/download?inline=. 48 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Occupancy Characteristics, S2501. https://data.census.gov/table?q=S2501&g=160XX00US0620956. 49 San Mateo County. 2023. ”2023 San Mateo County Income Limits.” https://www.smcgov.org/media/144471/download?inline=.
50 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 2023. “HHS Poverty Guidelines for 2023.” https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines. 51 United States Census Bureau. East Palo Alto City, California. Available:
https://data.census.gov/profile/East_Palo_Alto_city,_California?g=160XX00US0620956. 52 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Social Characteristics in the United States, DP02. https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP02&g=160XX00US0620956. 53 American Community Survey. 2015. 2015: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over, B16001. https://data.census.gov/table?q=B16001&t=Language%20Spoken%20at%20Home&g=160XX00US06209

56. 54 Public Health Alliance of Southern California. 2018. Healthy Places Index. https://map.healthyplacesindex.org/. 55 Roos, Michelle. (E4 Strategic Solutions). 2018. Climate Justice Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2018-012. 56 County of San Mateo Human Services Agency. 2022. 2022 San Mateo Count One Day Homeless Count and Survey. https://www.smcgov.org/media/130611/download?inline=. 57 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Disability Characteristics, S1810. https://data.census.gov/table?q=S1810&g=160XX00US0631708. 58 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Educational Attainment, S1501. https://data.census.gov/table?q=S1501&g=160XX00US0620956. 59 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units, S2504. https://data.census.gov/table?q=S2504&g=160XX00US0620956. 60 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Types of Computers and Internet Subscriptions, S2801. https://data.census.gov/table?q=S2801&g=160XX00US0620956. 61 American Community Survey. 2022. 2022: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Occupany Characteristics S2501. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2022.S2501?q=renter%20occupied&g=160XX00US0620956 62 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Age and Sex, S0101. https://data.census.gov/table?q=S0101&g=160XX00US0620956. 63 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Social Characteristics in the United States, DP02. https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP02&g=160XX00US0620956. 64 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Economic Characteristics, DP03. https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP03&g=160XX00US0620956. 65 American Community Survey. 2021. 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Social Characteristics in the United States, DP02. https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP02&g=160XX00US0620956. 66 U.S. Department of Energy. 2023. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC&location=East Palo Alto. 67 California State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=east+palo+alto. 68 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2023. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=east+palo+alto. 442

Peninsula Resilience Planning
Community Input Report
March 2026
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
443

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT

CONTENTS
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction and Background................................................................................................................... 3 Community Engagement Approach and Methodology.............................................................................. 3 Summary of Outreach Efforts................................................................................................................... 5 Project Website ................................................................................................................................ 5 Digital Engagement .......................................................................................................................... 6 Virtual Community Workshops......................................................................................................... 7 Coastside Community Workshop ..................................................................................................... 7 San Bruno Climate Action Plan and Safety Element Workshop ........................................................ 8 Burlingame Community Workshop and Joint Study Session ............................................................ 9 Service Provider Discussions ............................................................................................................ 9 Communities of Concern Meetings................................................................................................ 10 Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions .................................................................. 11 Summary of Community Input Received................................................................................................. 12 Hazards of Greatest Concern.......................................................................................................... 12 Vulnerable Populations and Assets Identified ................................................................................ 13 Geographic-Specific Concerns........................................................................................................ 14 Equity and Environmental Justice Concerns ................................................................................... 14 Adaptation and Resilience Strategies ............................................................................................. 15 Integration of Community Input............................................................................................................. 15 Next Steps and Ongoing Engagement..................................................................................................... 16 Appendices
Appendix A: Community Engagement Plan
Appendix B: Virtual Community Workshop 1 and 2 Summary Report Appendix C: Virtual Community Workshop 3 Summary Report Appendix D: Coastside Community Workshop Summary
Appendix E: San Bruno Community Workshop Summary
Appendix F: Burlingame Community Workshop and Joint Study Session Summary Appendix G: Service Provider Discussions Summary
Appendix H: Communities of Concern Meetings Phase 1 Summary Appendix I: Communities of Concern Meetings Phase 2 Summary Appendix J: East Palo Alto Community Workshop Summary
March 2026
444

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Peninsula Resilience Planning (PREP) project
represents a groundbreaking collaborative effort between nine San Mateo County jurisdictions to identify
vulnerabilities to climate change and other natural hazards, develop strategies to adapt to future hazards, conduct
collaborative and community-based engagement and
outreach, and update Safety Elements of their General
Plans with a comprehensive focus on climate resilience and community equity. Conducted between 2023 and 2025,
the project employed an extensive community
engagement process guided by principles of inclusion,
equity, transparency, broad participation, and
accountability. These principles helped to ensure that
Safety Element updates reflected local knowledge, lived experiences, and community priorities, particularly from historically underserved populations. The consultant
project team led the engagement efforts in partnership
with the participating agencies and local community-based organizations. The community engagement conducted as
part of PREP used multiple complementary methods,
including virtual community workshops, focused outreach to hard-to-reach communities led by CRC service provider discussions, Planning Commission and City Council study sessions, and comprehensive digital engagement tools.

Several key themes emerged consistently across the
diverse engagement activities. Community members
identified flooding as a top priority. Many participants expressed concerns about both recent storm-related
flooding events and future sea level rise impacts, along with cascading effects including power outages and
transportation disruptions. Wildfire risks were another major concern, including challenges with rising insurance costs, evacuation route constraints, and smoke impacts on air quality. Infrastructure vulnerabilities and emergency communication gaps were emphasized as critical issues. Community members also highlighted the particular vulnerability of non-English speaking communities, older adults, low-income households, and individuals with access and functional needs.

The project team integrated this extensive community feedback throughout the project, validating technical vulnerability assessments with on-the-ground knowledge and informing policy development.

The engagement process accessed long-term partnerships with community-based organizations and created a foundation for continued collaboration during the future Safety Element implementation. This Project Participants
Participating Agencies:
• Town of Atherton
• City of Belmont
• City of Brisbane
• City of Burlingame
• City of East Palo Alto
• City of Half Moon Bay
• City of Pacifica
• City of San Bruno
• County of San Mateo
Consultant Team:
• PlaceWorks (Lead Consultant)
• Climate Resilient Communities
(CRC)
• Atlas Planning Solutions
• Nexus Planning & Research
Supporting Partners:
• OneShoreline
• San Mateo County Public Health
• San Mateo County Environmental
Health
• San Mateo County Office of
Sustainability
• San Mateo County Office of
Emergency Management
• North Fair Oaks Community
Alliance
• Ayudando Latinos A Soñar
• Arriba South Coast (previously
known as Sustainable South Coast)
• El Concilio of San Mateo County
• Pal Center
2 PLACEWORKS
445

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
approach demonstrates that when provided with accessible, culturally appropriate opportunities, community members are eager partners in resilience planning who willingly contribute essential local expertise to creating safer, more equitable communities prepared to address current and future climate challenges.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Peninsula Resilience Planning (PREP) project is a collaborative multi-jurisdictional effort to improve community resilience through updated Safety Elements of participating jurisdictions’ General Plans. Nine jurisdictions are participating in PREP. The project includes all steps of a comprehensive Safety Element update, such as preparation of community-wide vulnerability assessments, updated hazard mapping, an assessment of evacuation-constrained residential parcels, agency collaboration, community engagement and outreach, and preparation of Safety Element goals, policies, and implementation actions. Six of the participating jurisdictions, the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and unincorporated San Mateo County, collaborated on community engagement as part of this project.

The three other participating communities: the Town of Atherton, City of Brisbane, and City of Pacifica, did not participate in joint engagement efforts. Atherton staff led separate engagement efforts. Brisbane and Pacifica did not take part in the full Safety Element update as their focus was to gather data and information for a future full Safety Element update. The collaborative approach is meant to share analysis and resources for greater efficiency for the jurisdictions participating in this effort.

Community engagement was essential to the PREP project to ensure that Safety Element updates reflect local knowledge, lived experiences, and community priorities. The project team designed the engagement process with an equity-focused approach to connect with residents and businesses, create transparency throughout the planning process, and offer meaningful involvement opportunities. The team prioritized engaging hard-to-reach and underrepresented communities who have historically been excluded from similar planning processes, ensuring their voices were centered in developing policies to address climate hazards and build community resilience.

This Community Input Report synthesizes all community engagement efforts conducted during the PREP project and documents how the project team incorporated community input into the updated Safety Element. The report fulfills the project commitment to transparency and accountability by detailing outreach efforts, summarizing feedback received, and describing how community input influenced project deliverables. This report serves as both a record of the comprehensive engagement process and a demonstration of how local knowledge and community priorities shaped the final Safety Element policies and implementation measures.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Five core principles guided the PREP project team through the community engagement process, established in the Community Engagement Plan, which outlined the project’s overarching vision and approach to meaningful community participation and stakeholder involvement. The Community Engagement Plan is attached as Appendix A.

March 2026
446

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
 Inclusion focused on creating safe spaces for all groups to feel heard through carefully considered meeting times, locations, and language accessibility.
 Equity emphasized meeting residents where they are by addressing barriers to participation, providing translation services, and offering family-oriented events with food and financial compensation.
 Transparency and Responsiveness ensured clear communication about project timelines, decision-making processes, and how community input would be incorporated into Safety Element updates.
 Accountability promoted regular reporting back to the community on feedback integration and continuous evaluation of the engagement process.
 Broad Participation prioritized engaging diverse demographic and economic segments of the population while centering voices from historically underserved communities.

Community engagement targeted four primary groups:

1. Community stakeholders such as residents, business owners, property managers, neighborhood associations, and other groups who could provide lived experiences and local knowledge.

2. Hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations, particularly non-English speaking communities, historically underserved and underrepresented groups, and residents in neighborhoods with higher hazard risks.

3. Service providers encompassed public and private organizations involved in emergency preparedness, including transit operators, healthcare providers, environmental advocates, business groups, utility companies, faith-based organizations, and special interest groups.

4. Local decision makers included Planning Commissioners, City Council members, and Board of Supervisors who would review and approve the final Safety Elements.

The engagement strategy employed multiple complementary methods to maximize participation and accessibility.
 Virtual and in-person community workshops offered county-wide opportunities using presentations, polls, and small group discussions in English and Spanish. All supporting materials were available in English and Spanish.
 In-person open house events provided greater flexibility for participation, allowing community members to provide input at any time during the event to better accommodate people with more limited schedules.
 In-person small, community group meetings led by Climate-Resilient Communities (CRC) focused on hard-to-reach communities using culturally appropriate formats with food, translation, and compensation.
 Service provider discussions gathered insights from key organizations through structured virtual meetings.
 Planning Commission and City Council study sessions engaged decision makers through presentations and interactive feedback on draft policies.  Digital engagement tools included an interactive mapped survey platform, project website, and online map viewer to remove barriers of time and accessibility while allowing location-specific input.
4 PLACEWORKS
447

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT

SUMMARY OF OUTREACH EFFORTS
The PREP community engagement process spanned from 2024 through 2025. The project team organized the engagement activities into two primary phases aligned with the project’s technical work. Phase 1 (March-June 2024) focused on vulnerability assessment development, gathering community input on hazard experiences, identifying vulnerable populations and assets, and understanding preparation and recovery challenges. Phase 2 (November 2024-May 2025) focused on presenting vulnerability assessment results and draft policy concepts to gather community feedback on proposed resilience strategies and implementation approaches. There has also been additional public engagement as part of the public review and adoption process, from November 2025 to summer 2026, during which draft Safety Elements were made available for formal public review and comment, followed by Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors adoption hearings. While not a formal outreach phase, the public comment and adoption process provides opportunities for additional public engagement with the PREP project.

Throughout both phases, members of the project team employed comprehensive engagement activities designed to reach diverse audiences through multiple channels, including:
 Digital Engagement – Project website, interactive mapped survey platform, and online map viewer (ongoing throughout the project).
 Virtual Community Workshops – Three county-wide virtual workshops (March and April 2024; May 2025).
 Service Provider Discussions – Virtual meetings with 24 representatives from organizations serving San Mateo County residents (June 2024).
 Communities of Concern Meetings (CRC-Led) – In-person meetings in North Fair Oaks, Pescadero, and Half Moon Bay area, and East Palo Alto focus groups (May-June 2024; April-July 2025).  Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions – Study sessions with local decision makers in San Bruno and Burlingame (November 2024; April 2025).

The following sections describe each engagement activity in chronological order, detailing the format, participation, and key themes that emerged from community input.

PROJECT WEBSITE
The PREP project team maintained a comprehensive website (prepsmc.com) that served as the central hub for project information and community engagement. Key website components included project descriptions and timelines, document libraries with all public materials, links to participating jurisdiction pages, frequently asked questions, upcoming event and outreach announcements, and contact information for the project team. The website also hosted recordings of virtual workshops in both English and Spanish, allowing community members who could not attend live sessions to access the same information and presentations.

March 2026
448

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT

DIGITAL ENGAGEMENT
Digital engagement platforms provided accessibility and convenience for community members to participate in the PREP project on their own schedule and from any location. These online tools were designed to remove barriers of time and transportation while enabling location-specific input and broader community reach beyond traditional in-person meetings.

Mapped Survey Tool: An interactive, map-based online survey platform allowed community members to provide location-specific input about hazard experiences, vulnerabilities, and resilience needs throughout the PREP region. This feature was available to access through the project website (described above) through jurisdiction-specific links and promoted through virtual promotional materials and at the community engagement workshops (described below). The tool included an automated translation feature, allowing users to toggle between English and Spanish. This tool enabled users to place geographically specific comments, attach images to illustrate conditions or concerns, and interact with other community members’ contributions through likes and responses. The project team moderated this tool to ensure appropriate content and constructive dialogue. The mapped survey tool proved particularly valuable for gathering detailed, location-based insights that complemented broader community input from workshops and meetings.

Online Map Viewer: A comprehensive GIS data viewer hosted on the PREP website provided community members, stakeholders, and decision makers with access to the same mapping layers and datasets used in the technical vulnerability assessment. Built using ArcGIS Online technology, this user-friendly platform allowed users to explore current and projected climate hazards, vulnerable populations and assets, and environmental conditions across participating jurisdictions. The project team used the same datasets presented in the online map viewer to prepare maps used in the project documents, including the updated Safety Elements. The map viewer supplemented San Mateo County’s existing hazard mitigation plan mapping tools and provided transparency into the data informing policy development.

Story Map: An interactive story map platform combining dynamic mapping with narrative content, images, and multimedia to present vulnerability assessment results and draft policy concepts in an accessible, engaging format. This “living document” provides a comprehensive way for community members to explore the relationship between hazards, vulnerabilities, and proposed solutions. Each participating jurisdiction will have a tailored story map presenting their community's specific vulnerability assessment results and potential policy solutions, allowing residents to explore how climate hazards uniquely affect their area. The story map complements traditional printed materials and enables deeper exploration of data and findings. Development of the story map is ongoing, and this tool will be made available to the public as part of the draft Safety Element review process.

Multilingual Content and Accessibility: All digital platforms prioritized multilingual accessibility, with website translation capabilities and key materials available in English and Spanish at minimum. The project team designed digital engagement tools to be accessible across devices and internet connection speeds, recognizing varying levels of technological ability and access within the community. Online materials included translated fact sheets, recorded presentations with interpretation, and visual content designed to communicate complex information clearly across language barriers. 6 PLACEWORKS
449

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT

VIRTUAL COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The project team conducted three virtual community workshops (see full summaries in Appendix B for the first two workshops and Appendix C for the third) to provide county-wide opportunities for public input on the PREP project. The first round included two workshops held on March 13 and April 3, 2024, focusing on hazard experiences and vulnerability assessment preparation. A total of 138 individuals registered for these two workshops, with 70 attending. The third workshop was held on May 21, 2025, during the policy development phase, with 80 registrants and 28 attendees. The PlaceWorks consultant team facilitated all workshops, with participating agency staff serving as small-group discussion facilitators and notetakers to support breakout room activities.

Format and Accessibility: All workshops were held via Zoom from 6:00-7:30 p.m. and followed a consistent format of 30-minute presentations on the PREP project, introductory polls, question and answer periods. After the presentation and question and answer periods, the attendees split into small groups using breakout rooms and participated in more detailed discussions, facilitated by members of the project team. To ensure accessibility, the project team provided simultaneous Spanish interpretation and dedicated Spanish-speaking discussion groups. All workshop materials, including presentations and promotional content, were available in both English and Spanish, with recordings posted on the project website for later viewing.

Participant Demographics: The introductory polls revealed that 52 percent of participants lived in communities participating in PREP, while 18 percent lived elsewhere in San Mateo County and 27 percent lived outside the county. When asked about hazards of greatest concern, participants prioritized flooding, sea level rise, and wildfires. Most participants were already familiar with their community’s General Plan, indicating a relatively engaged audience.

Promotion and Outreach: Participating jurisdictions promoted the workshops through their communication channels, including community event calendars, e-news distribution lists, and social media platforms like NextDoor and Facebook. Some jurisdiction staff printed project flyers and posted them in prominent locations in the community. The project team also shared event details with community-based organizations and advertised through the project’s mailing list. Promotional materials were made available in English and Spanish to ensure broad accessibility. All materials included a link to the event registration page.

COASTSIDE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
The City of Half Moon Bay and San Mateo County jointly hosted an in-person community workshop at the Half Moon Bay Library on April 28, 2025, as part of the second phase of outreach for the Coastside Safety Element Updates. This open house format workshop from 6:00-7:30 p.m. allowed community members to engage with vulnerability assessment results and provide feedback on draft policy concepts through five interactive stations covering Safety Element basics, wildfire risks, flooding and tsunamis, other safety issues, and emergency response and communication. Approximately six community members attended the workshop. See Appendix D for the full workshop summary.

March 2026
450

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
Format and Accessibility: The workshop included a welcome and open house period, followed by a project presentation, question-and-answer session, and a return to open house format for detailed station interactions. Each station featured information posters with interactive activities, including dot-voting on policy support and sticky-note feedback opportunities. To extend opportunities for community input, City and County staff placed English-language posters at Supervisor Mueller’s office at Pillar Point Harbor and Spanish-language posters at ALAS offices in downtown Half Moon Bay for several weeks following the workshop, allowing community members who could not attend the live event to provide feedback.

Key Feedback Themes: Participants expressed strong overall support for proposed safety policy concepts while highlighting critical concerns about evacuation constraints given the Coastside’s limited transportation routes, wildfire risks near residential areas (particularly for Canada Cove mobile home park residents near eucalyptus trees), and the need for better emergency communication systems. Community members emphasized the importance of coordinating with local Community Energy Response Teams (CERT), which involve hundreds of trained volunteers across 37 neighborhoods in the Coastside area, and requested more educational outreach programs, especially for youth. Additional concerns included power outages as significant safety issues, flooding problems in specific neighborhoods like Quarry Park in El Granada, and the need for improved creek maintenance and eucalyptus tree removal along Pilarcitos Creek.

SAN BRUNO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND SAFETY ELEMENT WORKSHOP The City of San Bruno hosted a joint community workshop for the Safety Element update and the community’s first Climate Action Plan (CAP) at San Bruno City Hall from 6:00-8:00 p.m. on April 24, 2025.

This collaborative approach recognized the interconnection between climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, allowing approximately 26 community members to provide input on both greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies and climate hazard preparedness through a comprehensive open house format with six interactive stations. See Appendix E for the full workshop summary.

Format and Outreach: The workshop began with a 15-minute presentation covering the CAP and Safety Element update process, findings from the community-wide GHG emissions inventory and vulnerability assessment, and project next steps, followed by a question-and-answer session. The open house part featured six stations addressing project purposes, San Bruno’s GHG emissions and targets, climate hazards and vulnerable populations, resilience strategies, and partner agency resources. Staff representatives from San Bruno Community Development, Fire, and Public Works Departments, OneShoreline, and CRC provided additional expertise and answered questions about local and regional climate resilience and sustainability programs. The City promoted the workshop through direct outreach to nearly 50 community groups, flyer distribution in Downtown San Bruno, school district and Skyline College promotion, and multilingual website and social media campaigns.

Community Priorities: Attendees highlighted several key themes, including concerns about the affordability of climate adaptation requirements for homeowners, strong interest in emergency preparedness resources and CERT training expansion, and support for distributed energy resources and solar installations to address frequent power outages. Attendees supported the CAP and Safety Element, placing an emphasis on environmental protection with specific requests for tree replacement ratios and eucalyptus removal and a desire for improved sustainable transportation options, including electric buses 8 PLACEWORKS
451

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
and green infrastructure integration. Participants also expressed desire for the City to actively promote resilience programs for electric vehicles and home energy efficiency.

BURLINGAME COMMUNITY WORKSHOP AND JOINT STUDY SESSION
The City of Burlingame hosted an in-person community workshop and joint Planning Commission and City Council study session at the Burlingame Community Center on April 16, 2025, as part of the second phase of outreach for both the Safety Element update and Environmental Justice Element update. This combined format event from 5:00-7:30 pm brought together all five City Council members, four Planning Commissioners, and approximately 10 members of the public to review vulnerability assessment results and provide feedback on draft policy concepts. See Appendix F for a more detailed summary of this event.

Format and Accessibility: The workshop was conducted in an open-house format with six interactive stations covering Safety Element basics, climate change vulnerability assessment results, Environmental Justice Element fundamentals, including Equity-Focus Areas, wildfire risks, flooding and sea level rise challenges, and other safety issues. Following the initial open-house period, the project team delivered presentations on both element updates, followed by a discussion and question-and-answer session with elected officials and community members before returning to open-house format for additional station interactions. Each station featured information posters with dot-voting activities on policy support and opportunities for written feedback through sticky notes and large writing pads.

Key Feedback Themes: Participants demonstrated strong overall support for proposed safety policies, with only five opposition votes out of 37 total votes across all policy concepts. Council members and Planning Commissioners emphasized critical community concerns, including wildfire risks in Mills Canyon, sea level rise impacts on Bay infrastructure and the wastewater treatment plant, the urban heat island effect and lack of tree canopy in certain neighborhoods, and hazardous eucalyptus trees during drought periods.

Discussion highlighted tensions between competing priorities such as vegetation management for fire prevention versus intensifying urban heat island effects and increasing density while maintaining adequate evacuation routes and defensible space. Participants specifically requested information on policy funding approaches, recommended frequency for hazard analysis updates, and called for more equitable outreach particularly to Burlingame’s Chinese community with more granular demographic data in Equity-Focus Areas. Strong support emerged for nature-based shoreline infrastructure, building Bay defenses to protect structures, groundwater vulnerability assessments for new development, and establishing resilience centers and cooling facilities for extreme heat events.

SERVICE PROVIDER DISCUSSIONS
The project team conducted a series of virtual discussions with representatives from organizations providing important services to San Mateo County community members. These discussions aimed to understand each organization’s role in building community resilience, their experiences with natural hazards, and how participating communities could support their work to improve local adaptation and resilience. See Appendix G for additional details on these discussions.

Participation and Scope: The consultant team identified 74 individuals representing 54 different organizations and successfully sent invitations to 64 people. Ultimately, 24 individuals confirmed their March 2026
452

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
interest and participated in the discussions held between June 3-18, 2024. Organizations were grouped into eight categories: (1) chambers of commerce and business groups; (2) community service organizations; (3) energy providers; (4) environmental groups; (5) faith-based organizations; (6) public health organizations; (7) transit providers; and (8) water/wastewater providers.

Format and Structure: The project team hosted a virtual discussion with representatives from each of the eight groups of organizations. These virtual discussions lasted 30 to 60 minutes each and were facilitated by senior consultant team members, supported by dedicated notetakers. Participants received seven discussion questions in advance covering their organization’s programs, hazard experiences, vulnerable populations, partnership opportunities, and barriers to resilience. The format allowed for detailed exploration of each organization’s unique perspective while maintaining consistency across all sessions.

Key Themes: Participants highlighted infrastructure vulnerabilities affecting large-scale facilities like pump stations and power lines, with extreme heat emerging as a commonly cited concern for which communities are underprepared. Almost all representatives identified funding as the primary barrier to accomplishing resilience goals, while many emphasized the importance of nature-based solutions and green infrastructure for addressing climate hazards. Representatives strongly advocated for community education and preparedness as essential components of resilience building. Multiple service providers stressed the importance of interjurisdictional cooperation, noting that unified regional approaches are more effective than individual jurisdictions acting alone.

COMMUNITIES OF CONCERN MEETINGS
CRC led focused outreach to hard-to-reach communities across San Mateo County in both phases of engagement activities. These meetings focused on centering the voices of traditionally underrepresented populations often marginalized or excluded from planning processes in unincorporated areas and select incorporated communities. CRC and the project team designed the format of these in-person meetings to gather diverse perspectives on safety concerns and resilience strategies throughout different stages of the PREP project. Following the approach outlined in the Community Engagement Plan, the project team and participating agency staff identified target communities based on several factors. These criteria included neighborhoods with residents whose primary language is not English, areas with higher exposure to climate hazards, and communities historically underrepresented in planning processes. Priority areas were East Palo Alto and the unincorporated communities of North Fair Oaks, Pescadero, and coastal areas near Half Moon Bay.

CRC collaborated with established local organizations throughout all phases in each priority area, including Sustainable South Coast/Arriba South Coast in Pescadero, North Fair Oaks Community Alliance and the Pal Center in North Fair Oaks, and Ayudando Latinos a Soñar (also known as ALAS) in the Half Moon Bay area.

These partnerships were essential for building and maintaining community trust, conducting culturally appropriate outreach, and ensuring effective facilitation.

Each meeting followed a 1.5- to 2-hour format. The meetings began with food provided to all attendees, followed by a 15-minute presentation on PREP and Safety Elements, a question-and-answer period, and roundtable discussions about specific safety hazards and community solutions. Facilitators used interactive materials, including community maps and large poster boards organized by safety hazards 10 PLACEWORKS
453

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
(flooding, wildfire, sea level rise, etc.) to capture geographic input and specific concerns. To remove barriers to participation and honor community members’ time, all meetings provided food from local restaurants and $40 gift cards (VISA or Trader Joe’s) to participants 16 years and older. Meetings were held in accessible community venues, and those with predominantly Spanish-speaking participants were conducted entirely in Spanish to create comfortable spaces for meaningful participation. Meeting organizers also provided childcare services at all events.

Phase 1 (May-June 2024): CRC conducted three workshops during the vulnerability assessment development stage of the PREP project. A total of 63 residents participated: 18 in Pescadero (12 Spanish speakers, 6 English speakers) on May 19, 2024; 26 in North Fair Oaks (11 bilingual English/Spanish speakers, 15 monolingual Spanish speakers) on June 18, 2024; and 19 in the Half Moon Bay area (19 monolingual Spanish speakers) on June 27, 2024. These meetings used a 15-minute presentation format followed by roundtable discussions with community maps and poster boards organized by safety hazards.

See Appendix H for a summary of the Phase 1 workshops.

Phase 2 (April-May 2025): CRC conducted three additional workshops during the policy development stage to gather feedback on draft policy concepts and ground-truth vulnerability assessment findings. This phase involved workshops in North Fair Oaks on April 15, 2025 (22 Spanish-speaking participants at PAL Center); Pescadero on May 4, 2025 (18 participants with concurrent Spanish and English sessions at Pescadero Middle School); and Half Moon Bay area on May 1, 2025 (22 Spanish-speaking participants at Half Moon Bay Library). See Appendix I for a summary of the Phase 1 workshops.

East Palo Alto Safety Element Focus Groups (June-July 2025): Building on the success of earlier workshops, CRC conducted three additional focus groups specifically for East Palo Alto residents to gather community input on Safety Element priorities. These sessions were held on June 26th (in Spanish), July 15th (in English), and July 17th (in English with Samoan and Tongan interpretation). In total, these meetings brought together approximately 50 total East Palo Alto residents at the YMCA facility. Each focus group was limited to approximately 15 residents to ensure in-depth conversation and active participation, facilitated by CRC staff members. See Appendix J for a summary of these focus group meetings.

PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS
Study sessions with local decision makers provided opportunities to keep Planning Commissioners and City Council members informed of project progress while gathering input during key project phases. The Community Engagement Plan outlined three rounds of study sessions: first during project launch for vulnerability assessment overview (agency staff-led without PlaceWorks attendance); second during policy development for presenting vulnerability assessment results and policy concepts (agency staff-led without PlaceWorks attendance); and third during draft Safety Element review (with PlaceWorks attendance for feedback incorporation). These were recommended touchpoints for study sessions; however, agency staff had discretion to schedule study sessions at any point during the project, depending on need and availability.

These study sessions provided opportunities for project staff and consultants to discuss climate resilience issues and policies with Planning Commissioners and City Council members. Planning Commissioners and City Council members expressed support for draft policies while providing specific input on wildfire safety, March 2026
454

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
flooding, environmental justice, and implementation considerations. To date, three communities have conducted study sessions during which time consultant team members were present to facilitate presentations and gather feedback: Burlingame, Half Moon Bay, and San Bruno.

Burlingame. The City of Burlingame’s joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop occurred during the second phase on April 16, 2025. This in-person meeting at the Burlingame Community Center included all five City Council members, four Planning Commissioners, and approximately 10 members of the public. This event is discussed in greater detail above, in the section titled “Burlingame Community Workshop and Joint Study Session.”
Half Moon Bay. A joint special meeting Study Session of the City of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission and City Council took place on November 18, 2025, featuring a report on updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps and a presentation on the progress of the City’s Safety Element Update. This hybrid-style meeting took place in person at the Ted Adcock Community Center and provided the option for remote participation via Zoom. The meeting provided the opportunity for Councilmembers to receive the presentation and report, hold a discussion, and provide any direction or recommendations in response. It also allowed community members the opportunity to review and provide public comment.

San Bruno. A joint Study Session of the City of San Bruno Joint Planning Commission and City Council took place on November 19, 2024, featuring integrated presentations on both the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Safety Element update. The PlaceWorks team presented on the collaborative approach between the two planning efforts, emphasizing how the shared vulnerability assessment served as a common foundation for both projects, and that comparable adaptation strategies would be incorporated into both the Safety Element and CAP. The presentation covered the Safety Element’s role as a mandatory part of the General Plan, recent State law requirements, and the integration benefits with San Bruno’s CAP development. Planning Commissioners, City Council members, and members of the public had the opportunity to ask questions related to the projects and the planning process.

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY INPUT RECEIVED

HAZARDS OF GREATEST CONCERN
Through virtual workshops, community meetings, service provider discussions, and digital engagement platforms, participants consistently identified five primary climate hazards as their greatest concerns across the PREP region, including:
 Flooding and sea level rise emerged as the top priority, with participating community members expressing concerns about both current storm-related flooding events (such as the severe winters of 2022 and 2023) and future sea level rise impacts on low-lying areas. Participants highlighted cascading effects of flooding, including power outages, transportation disruptions, and impacts to aging stormwater infrastructure.
 Wildfire risks ranked as the second major concern, particularly among residents in higher-risk areas with dense vegetation or steep slopes, who emphasized challenges including rising insurance costs, older buildings lacking fire-safe features, wildfire smoke impacts, and evacuation route constraints.
12 PLACEWORKS
455

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
 Extreme weather events, including heat waves, severe storms, and drought conditions were frequently mentioned, with participants noting the lack of air conditioning in many older homes, the vulnerability of outdoor workers to extreme heat, and inadequate access to shaded public spaces and parks for cooling during heat events. Community members emphasized the need for shade structures at parks, bus stops, and public trails, particularly for children, elderly residents, and those without home air conditioning.
 Infrastructure vulnerabilities encompassed concerns about aging utility systems (such as overhead power lines, water and stormwater systems, and underground substations), power shutoffs (both planned and unplanned), and the reliability of transportation networks during emergencies.
 Emergency communication gaps emerged as a critical concern, particularly among non-English speaking communities who emphasized the need for multilingual emergency notifications and the challenges of maintaining communication during power outages when cell and radio signals may be compromised.

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND ASSETS IDENTIFIED
Community input revealed consistent identification of specific populations and assets requiring prioritized attention in resilience planning, including:
 Non-English-speaking communities or linguistically isolated households were universally recognized as particularly vulnerable, facing barriers to accessing emergency information, understanding risks, and navigating recovery resources. Participants emphasized that these communities, including the large Spanish-speaking populations in North Fair Oaks, Pescadero, and Half Moon Bay areas, require culturally competent outreach and dedicated multilingual resources.

Community members from these populations also stressed the importance of regular, ongoing engagement and communication from local governments, requesting relationships that build trust and ensure they remain informed about planning processes and available resources.  Older adults were consistently identified as vulnerable across all hazards due to potential mobility limitations, reliance on electricity for medical devices, limited access to lifelines (such as communication and transportation systems), and challenges with evacuation or accessing cooling centers during emergencies.
 Low-income households face multiple vulnerabilities, including habitation in older, potentially unmaintained buildings, inability to afford home hardening improvements or emergency supplies, and location in areas with higher environmental risks. Workshop participants specifically noted that low-income renters and mobile home park residents are uniquely vulnerable as they cannot control structural improvements to their housing.
 Individuals with access and functional needs, including people with disabilities, those experiencing homelessness, and people with chronic health conditions requiring electricity for medical equipment, require specialized emergency planning and resources.

Critical community assets identified included:
 Essential infrastructure such as hospitals and assisted living facilities, fire and police stations, schools (which can serve as emergency shelters), water treatment facilities, and transportation networks.

March 2026
456

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
 Small businesses and economic assets, which are vulnerable to prolonged or repeated closures during hazard events, affecting both individual livelihoods and community recovery.  Natural assets, including wetlands, tree canopy, and open spaces are valuable for both hazard mitigation and community resilience, noting their role in flood management, air quality improvement, and cooling.

GEOGRAPHIC-SPECIFIC CONCERNS
Community engagement revealed distinct location-based vulnerabilities and challenges across the PREP region that require targeted attention in resilience planning. Coastside flooding and evacuation constraints emerged as a major concern for coastal communities including Half Moon Bay, Pescadero, and unincorporated areas along Highway 92. Residents emphasized the particular vulnerability of areas like Moonridge Apartments and central Pescadero to recurring flooding, with limited evacuation routes during emergencies due to the geography of coastal areas with few alternative transportation corridors.

Participants highlighted challenges when Highway 1 or Highway 92 become impassable, effectively isolating coastal communities from emergency services and evacuation routes.

North Fair Oaks infrastructure needs were consistently identified as critical, with residents pinpointing specific flooding hotspots, including Bay Road, 5th Avenue, Broadway, Page Street, and Spring Street.

Community members expressed frustration with inadequate drainage systems, aging infrastructure, and the need for proactive maintenance of storm drains and sewer systems. Pescadero emergency communication challenges were emphasized due to frequent power outages, poor cell and radio reception, and the community’s relative isolation from emergency services. Residents noted the particular difficulty of maintaining communication during emergencies when roads are closed and power is out for extended periods. Additionally, participants identified urban heat island effects and tree canopy gaps as concerns in more developed areas, with participants noting the need for increased shade structures, tree plantings, and green infrastructure to reduce surface temperatures and provide cooling, particularly in environmental justice communities and areas with limited green space.

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS
Communities of concern consistently raised issues of fairness and inclusion in disaster preparedness and recovery processes throughout all engagement activities. Fair distribution of resources during disasters emerged as a central concern, with residents from North Fair Oaks, Pescadero, and Half Moon Bay areas expressing frustration about historic inequities in emergency response and recovery support. Participants emphasized that low-income communities and communities of color often face longer recovery times and receive less assistance and attention from government agencies, while also bearing disproportionate impacts from climate hazards due to their location in more vulnerable areas and housing conditions.

Need for multilingual emergency communications was universally identified as a critical equity issue, with Spanish-speaking communities specifically noting that emergency information often arrives late, in a format that is not widely used by the community, or not at all in their primary language. Residents emphasized that language barriers create life-threatening situations during evacuations and emergency response and asked that all emergency planning include multilingual communications as a fundamental requirement, not an afterthought. Infrastructure improvements in underserved areas were consistently 14 PLACEWORKS
457

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
prioritized, with communities noting that areas like North Fair Oaks face chronic flooding and drainage problems that receive insufficient attention and resources compared to wealthier neighborhoods.

Participants expressed that climate resilience investments should prioritize communities that have historically been overlooked and face the greatest risks. Additionally, community involvement in decisionmaking processes emerged as essential for ensuring equity, with residents demanding meaningful participation in planning, implementation, and evaluation of resilience strategies rather than being treated as passive recipients of services. Communities emphasized that their lived experience and local knowledge are essential resources that must be centered in resilience planning to achieve truly equitable outcomes.

ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCE STRATEGIES
Community input revealed strong support for comprehensive resilience strategies that combine technical solutions with community-based approaches. Nature-based infrastructure solutions emerged as a top priority, with participants consistently advocating for green infrastructure, including rain gardens, restored wetlands, increased tree canopy, and permeable surfaces to manage flooding and reduce heat impacts.

Residents specifically supported developing buffer zones along the Bay and Pacific shorelines, integrating drainage and flood-control systems with ecosystem enhancement, and using vegetation management to reduce wildfire risks while preserving natural habitats.

Improved emergency communication systems were universally identified as essential, with communities requesting multi-channel notification systems that work during power outages, multilingual emergency information, and better coordination between agencies and utility providers. Participants emphasized the need for backup communication systems, including satellite phones in remote areas and enhanced alert systems that reach non-English speaking populations. Community resilience programs received strong support, particularly expansion of CERT training, localized emergency preparedness education, and neighborhood-level organizing for disaster response. Residents requested more accessible training schedules, childcare and transportation support for training participation, and certification programs that build community capacity for self-sufficiency during emergencies. Finally, participants prioritized equitable resource distribution and enhanced public transportation and evacuation routes, emphasizing the need for pre-positioned emergency supplies in vulnerable communities, improved evacuation planning that considers transit-dependent populations, and infrastructure investments that prioritize historically underserved areas.

INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITY INPUT
Community input from across all engagement activities was systematically integrated into the PREP project deliverables through a multi-stage process that confirmed technical analyses, shaped policy development, and informed implementation approaches.

The project team used community feedback to refine the vulnerability assessment by confirming hazard priorities identified through technical analysis with on-the-ground community experiences. Residents validated and revised the scope of several risk areas, particularly highlighting specific flooding locations in North Fair Oaks (Bay Road, 5th Avenue, Broadway) and coastal evacuation constraints that were not fully March 2026
458

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
captured in initial technical modeling. Community input also led to the identification of additional vulnerable assets and populations, such as outdoor workers vulnerable to extreme heat and air quality impacts, and specific infrastructure like schools and community centers that serve critical emergency shelter functions.

The development of Safety Element goals and policies was directly shaped by community feedback received through workshops, meetings, and digital engagement platforms. Wildfire preparedness and response policies incorporated community concerns about rising insurance costs, the need for vegetation management coordination, and evacuation route limitations in areas with steep terrain or limited access.

Flood management and sea level rise adaptation reflected strong community support for nature-based solutions, with policies emphasizing green infrastructure, riparian corridor restoration, and buffer zones along shorelines. Emergency preparedness and communication improvements were significantly influenced by multilingual community input, resulting in policies requiring multi-channel notification systems, multilingual emergency information, and backup communication infrastructure for areas with poor connectivity.

Equity-focused resilience policies emerged directly from communities of concern input, with specific provisions for prioritizing infrastructure investments in historically underserved areas, ensuring equitable resource distribution during disasters, and requiring meaningful community participation in resilience planning processes. The dot-voting activities at community workshops demonstrated strong overall support for draft policy concepts, with participants showing unanimous support for wildfire-related policies and overwhelming support for nature-based flood management approaches and emergency preparedness improvements.

Community input also shaped implementation considerations by identifying partnership opportunities with local organizations, helping to inform resource allocation recommendations. Service provider discussions revealed funding as the primary implementation barrier while highlighting the importance of coordination between agencies, utilities, and community-based organizations. The engagement process established ongoing relationships with organizations like North Fair Oaks Community Alliance, Sustainable South Coast, and ALAS that will continue beyond the project timeline to support implementation efforts.

While the project team incorporated most community suggestions into the Safety Elements, some considerations could not be incorporated due to scope limitations, resource constraints, or the need for additional study. Items outside Safety Element scope, such as specific infrastructure projects requiring separate environmental review or topics that would be better addressed in other General Plan elements like the Environmental Justice or Land Use Element, were noted for future consideration through other planning processes. Suggestions requiring significant additional resources or conflicting recommendations from different community groups were flagged for further evaluation during implementation phases, ensuring transparency about what could and could not be addressed through the Safety Element updates.

NEXT STEPS AND ONGOING ENGAGEMENT
The completion of the PREP community engagement process marks the beginning of a new phase focused on Safety Element implementation and sustained community partnership. Draft Safety Elements 16 PLACEWORKS
459

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
incorporating community input were made available for public review in late 2025/early 2026, followed by formal adoption hearings by Planning Commissions and City Councils / Board of Supervisors by June 2026.

Long-term partnerships developed through the PREP process will continue beyond the project timeline, particularly relationships with community-based organizations such as CRC, North Fair Oaks Community Alliance, Sustainable South Coast, and ALAS. These partnerships provide ongoing channels for community input during policy implementation and will support the locally led preparedness and planning approaches that communities consistently advocated for throughout the engagement process.

Moving forward, successful implementation of the Safety Elements will depend on maintaining the equityfocused engagement principles established during PREP, ensuring continued meaningful participation from historically underserved communities, and adapting engagement strategies to keep pace with changing community needs and environmental conditions. The project has demonstrated that community members are eager partners in resilience planning when provided with accessible, culturally appropriate opportunities to contribute their local knowledge and lived experiences to creating safer, more resilient communities.

March 2026
460

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Community Engagement Plan
Appendix B: Virtual Community Workshop 1 and 2 Summary Report Appendix C: Virtual Community Workshop 3 Summary Report Appendix D: Coastside Community Workshop Summary
Appendix E: San Bruno Community Workshop Summary
Appendix F: Burlingame Community Workshop and Joint Study Session Summary Appendix G: Service Provider Discussions Summary
Appendix H: Communities of Concern Meetings Phase 1 Summary Appendix I: Communities of Concern Meetings Phase 2 Summary Appendix J: East Palo Alto Community Workshop Summary
March 2026
461

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN

PLACEWORKS
462
Peninsula Resilience Planning
Community Engagement Plan
February 2024
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
463

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

DRAFT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN

CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Community Engagement Purpose and Desired Outcomes ............................................................................ 3 Commitments to the Community .................................................................................................................. 6 Equity Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Project Participants ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Messaging and Getting the Word Out ......................................................................................................... 15 Outreach Channels ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Community and Stakeholder Engagement Activities ................................................................................... 19 Project Schedule and Outreach Timeline .................................................................................................... 26

INTRODUCTION
This Community Engagement Plan (Engagement Plan) Resilience: The capacity of any summarizes the methods and approaches to engage entity-an individual, community, community stakeholders throughout the Multi-Jurisdictional organization, or natural system-to Safety Element Update process, also referred to as "Peninsula prepare for disruptions, recover from Resilience Planning: Climate Safety, Coast to Shoreline." This shocks and stresses, and adapt and project includes preparation of a climate change vulnerability grow from a disruptive experience. assessment and mapping for nine jurisdictions, full Safety Community resilience is the ability of Element updates for seven jurisdictions, and a collaborative communities to withstand, recover, approach to the process to ensure consistency throughout and learn from past disasters to the county and ease of implementation. The process strengthen future response and described in this Engagement Plan will be implemented recovery efforts. continuously throughout preparation of the Safety Element and other project components.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Safety Element of each jurisdiction's General Plan serves as a comprehensive framework and foundation for community safety and resilience, particularly for protection against natural disasters and other emergencies. Safety elements contain goals, policies, and programs that address safety issues in the community, providing opportunities to build community resilience throughout all phases of the emergency management cycle. Safety Elements should be responsive to all applicable State laws and pertinent public safety issues, including climate change, the intersection between risks and equity, and evacuation access. For the nine jurisdictions participating in the Peninsula Resilience Planning project, there is a significant amount of overlap in the types of hazard conditions that must be addressed, PLACEWORKS 464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

DRAFT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
community workshops, assisting to facilitate and to serve as technical experts as needed, as identified in this strategy. PlaceWorks staff will attend online outreach events, while CRC will attend most in-person community engagement events. For activities attended by the PlaceWorks team, PlaceWorks will be responsible for compiling and analyzing the results of the engagement activities and sharing these results with other members of the project team, the Collaborative Steering Committee, and Participating Agency staff.

CRC will lead outreach and engagement with CBOs/community groups and hard-to-reach stakeholders and support the PlaceWorks team with other outreach and engagement activities as described later in this Engagement Plan. CRC is a trusted CBO in San Mateo County and the region, and brings on the ground experience, local knowledge and expertise, and an approach that gives residents a voice in proactive resilience planning and adaptation. CRC works to center the voices and experiences of these communities.

Key members of the project team are:
• Cathy Capriola I Project Manager, CPC I [email protected] I 916-257-3287 • Tammy L. Seale I Principal, PlaceWorks I [email protected] I 805-235-7876 • Eli Krispi I Senior Associate 11, PlaceWorks I [email protected] I 510-848-3815 • Jacqueline Protsman Rohr I Associate II, PlaceWorks I [email protected] • Aaron Pfannenstiel I Principal, Atlas Planning Solutions I [email protected] • Violet Saena I Executive Director, CRC I [email protected] • Cade Cannedy I Program Director, CRC I [email protected] • Kamille Lang I Director of Education and Outreach, CRC I [email protected] • Dennis Larson I Principal, Nexus Planning & Research I [email protected]

PARTICIPATING AGENCY STAFF
Participating Agency staff will also play a key role in managing engagement activities and individual Safety Element Updates. The Safety Element Update will include the project management team discussed above, a Collaborative Steering Committee, Participating Agency Technical Advisory Committees, and key stakeholders The project management team will engage with these groups during key phases of the project to provide feedback, input on project deliverables, and ensure a collaborative and equitable approach to implementation.

Participating Agency staff will be responsible for creating and managing their Technical Advisory Committees (if they choose to do so), reviewing project deliverables, using their communication channels (social media, website, etc.) to publicize outreach initiatives, and attending most in-person outreach events. Main points of contact for each Participating Agency are as follows:

PARTICIPATING AGENCY PRIMARY CONTACT(S) EMAIL
Atherton Brittany Bendix [email protected]
Belmont Damon DiDonato ddidonato(a)bel mont.gov
Brisbane Jeremiah Robbins i rob bi ns(a)ci.brisbane.ca. us Burlingame Ruben Hurin RH u [email protected]
PLACEWORKS 9 472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
report will keep all feedback anonymous to protect privacy unless a stakeholder or organization requests otherwise. However, a list of types of stakeholders and organizations that were engaged will be provided.

The Community Input Report will include feedback from all public outreach led by PlaceWorks, CBO partners, or Participating Agency staff, including engagement with hard-to-reach and underrepresented communities. The Safety Element Update project will be conducted concurrently with several Environmental Justice Element Update processes. The exact specifics of the alignment between the Safety Element and Environmental Justice Elements will occur as each Community Engagement Plan is finalized.

The report will include graphics, images, tables, and charts as appropriate to share results and summaries of key takeaways. Because PlaceWorks will not be leading all outreach efforts, Place Works will provide a data collection and summary template to all project teammates leading outreach to ensure consistency in assessment and presentation of information.

MAPPED SURVEY TOOL
The project team will leverage a map-based survey platform to create an interactive, map-based on line survey that can be accessed by any device with an internet connection. This platform will connect residents with information, decision makers, and other residents where they will be able to interact by liking and responding to each other's comments. PlaceWorks will monitor and moderate this space to ensure it meets jurisdiction standards and policies for social media. It will help to build awareness of and trust in the process and remove barriers of time constraints and methods of input.

The targeted stakeholders for this tool will be all residents and workers in Participating Jurisdictions, with the goal of supporting community outreach and engagement to identify hazards, impacts, and adaptive capacity as part of the Vulnerability Assessment. This interactive platform will allow for placement of location-based comments, attachment of images, and incorporation of other geographic information in community members responses. The mapped survey tool will be used to help identify where residents have experienced hazards and how they were affected by the hazard. This information will be integrated into the Vulnerability Assessment policy recommendations.

PlaceWorks will provide draft survey language for CSC review and approval. Once confirmed, PlaceWorks will translate the survey content into Spanish and develop the platform.

VIRTUAL COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The community workshops will provide agency-wide and county-wide opportunities for the community members, business owners, and CBOs to provide input and engage with the Safety Element process. The targeted participants for these workshops will be community stakeholders, including general members of the public, tribal representatives, business owners and employers, and CBOs. The agenda and activities used for each workshop will reflect the desired outcomes and expected participants for the workshop.

During virtual workshops, the PlaceWorks team will use a mix of presentations, polls, small group discussions with dedicated facilitators and notetakers, transparent and live notetaking using Google Docs (or similar on line tool), and a variety of on line activities to receive input and feedback.

Virtual community workshops will occur in two rounds, each round will include two identical workshops.

The first round of workshops will occur during the preparation of the vulnerability assessment. This 20 DECEMBER 2023 483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
APPENDIX B: VIRTUAL COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 1 AND 2 SUMMARY
REPORT
March 2026
491

MEMORANDUM
This memorandum summarizes the virtual community workshops held as part of the initial phase of outreach for the Peninsula Resilience Planning (PREP) project. It includes a description of the events and a summary of the feedback received from attendees, which is meant to support the development of the vulnerability assessment and Safety Element goals, policies, and actions. The results for both workshops are combined in this summary.

Community Workshops Summary

WORKSHOP PURPOSE AND DESIRED OUTCOMES
The purpose of the community workshops is to create community-wide and county-wide opportunities for the public to provide input and engage with the PREP project, which includes a vulnerability assessment and updates to jurisdictions’ Safety Elements. This workshop series occurred following the assessment of existing conditions and in preparation for the vulnerability assessment. This series focused on discussing hazards of concern, attendees’ experiences with hazards, and identifying vulnerable populations and assets to the community. The goal of the workshop series for the PREP project team was to receive input on how community members have prepared for, responded to, and recovered from past climate hazard events. It also served as an opportunity to begin envisioning adaptation strategies and policies. The goal for community members was to gain a better understanding of the Safety Element update process and other aspects of the PREP project, what PREP will accomplish, why the participating jurisdictions have chosen to be involved, and to share their personal experience with hazards to inform adaptation goals and strategies.

AGENDA AND FORMAT
The PREP project consultant team, with the support of agency staff from the participating jurisdictions1, hosted two virtual community events via Zoom on March 13th and April 3rd, 2024, from 6:00 pm-7:30 pm. Both workshops followed the same agenda. The workshops included thirty minutes of presentation, a poll, a brief question and answer period, and thirty-five minutes of small group discussion. The presentation provided an overview of the PREP project, including descriptions of the various project components (including outreach, Safety Element updates, and vulnerability assessment), how PREP benefits the participating communities, and the proposed schedule of the project. Participants were able to ask clarifying questions before separating into small groups for a moderated discussion on their experience with natural hazards and priorities for safety-related efforts in their communities. A total of 138 individuals registered for the two workshops and 70 attended, not including the project team and facilitation staff.

While the workshop materials focused on the jurisdictions participating in the PREP project, community members from throughout the county and neighboring jurisdictions were invited to participate. The project team provided simultaneous interpretation to Spanish during the workshop and provided a 1 Participating jurisdictions are the Town of Atherton, the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Palo Alto, San Bruno, and San Mateo County. 492

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 2
dedicated discussion group for Spanish speakers. The project team provided a Spanish version of the presentation in advance on the project website. This workshop series is one of two series to be completed over the span of the project.

WORKSHOP PROMOTION
Participating jurisdictions promoted the workshops through their various City-controlled communication channels. This included posting the event on community event calendars on City websites, sharing event details via e-news distribution lists, and posting on social media sites like NextDoor and Facebook. Participating jurisdictions also shared the event details with community-based organizations to share with their audiences.

INTRODUCTORY POLL
Each workshop began with an introductory poll. The goal of the poll was to gauge which communities were represented in the workshop, what hazards are of most concern, and whether participants are familiar with their community’s General Plan.

Participants were asked the following questions in English and Spanish (all multiple choice):

1. Where do you live?

2. Where do you work or attend school?

3. What climate hazard is of most concern to you?

4. Are you familiar with your community's General Plan? Key takeaways from the participant poll:
• Fifty-two percent of respondents are from a community participating in the PREP project. The remaining respondents live in another, nearby community in San Mateo County (18 percent) or outside of San Mateo County (27 percent).
• Respondents are most concerned about flooding, sea level rise, and wildfires. • Most respondents were familiar with their community’s General Plan. 493

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 3
3%
8%
4%
8%
27%
6%
6%
18%
2%
18%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
No response
Unincorporated San Mateo County
San Bruno
Pacifica
Outside San Mateo County
Half Moon Bay
East Palo Alto
Burlingame
Belmont
Another community in San Mateo County
Question 1: Where do you live?
42%
18%
6%
2%
2%
4%
6%
8%
0%
12%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
No response
Outside San Mateo County
Unincorporated San Mateo County
San Bruno
Pacifica
Half Moon Bay
East Palo Alto
Burlingame
Belmont
Another community in San Mateo County
Question 2: Where do you work or attend school?
494

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 4
42%
10%
12%
2%
18%
8%
4%
4%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
No response
Wildfire
Sea level rise
Landslides
Flooding
Extreme heat
Earthquake
Drought
Question 3: Hazards of most concern
42%
38%
10%
10%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
No response
Yes
No
Not sure
Question 4: Familiarity with General Plan
495

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 5

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
A brief question and answer period followed the presentation. Below are the key themes that emerged.

A full list of questions received and the provided answers are included in Appendix B to this memo. • Participants asked about the relationship between the PREP project and subsequent Safety Element updates and the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• Participants were concerned about hazardous materials and potential environmental contamination in the event of flooding.
• Participants asked about environmental justice issues and how frontline communities will be prioritized in PREP.
• Participants were interested in how countywide solutions would be created and implemented. • Participants asked about the tension between the need for more housing and the increasing risk of natural hazards.

DISCUSSION GROUP PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
For the remainder of the workshop, attendees participated in facilitated small group discussions in Zoom breakout rooms. The project team randomly assigned participants to small groups of five to eight people to discuss their experiences with hazards in their communities. Participating agency staff served as small group facilitators and notetakers. Notetakers shared their computer screens during the discussion so that participants could confirm their comments were being noted correctly. The complete notes from the discussion groups are included in Appendix A. Below are the discussion questions followed by a summary of the key themes that emerged from the discussion groups.

1. Impacts of hazards: What hazards (wildfires, flooding, earthquakes, etc.) or impacts of hazards (such as Public Safety Power Shutoff events) have you experienced in your community?

2. Preparation and recovery: How have you responded to past hazards in your area? What are some barriers you have faced in responding to hazards?

3. Vulnerable populations: Who and what do you feel are most at risk from hazards, and why? Are there additional populations or community assets who should be considered?

4. Resilience visioning: What would you like to see your community do to improve safety and resilience to natural hazards?
Impacts of Hazards
Workshop participants identified several hazards of concern and their potential impacts. The key themes from the discussions are noted below.
» Flooding is a major concern for all communities. Participants are concerned about flooding from storms like those from the winters of 2022 and 2023, which had cascading effects of power shut-offs, downed trees, and landslides. Aging utility and stormwater infrastructure pose a risk to resilience of the area in the event of a storm. » Participants are concerned about the impacts of power shut-offs, whether for public safety reasons or due to a hazardous event, as they shut down communication channels and 496

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 6
therefore impact access to resources. This is especially an issue with vulnerable populations, such as seniors or people with disabilities.
» There is concern regarding the risk of floodwaters spreading hazardous materials in the soil to previously-uncontaminated areas.
» For participants that live in coastal communities, erosion is a concern due to flooding from heavy rain and sea level rise, which impacts utilities located along the coast. The feasibility of safe evacuations is also a concern for coastal communities as they have limited ingress/egress routes.
» Wildfire is a concern for all communities represented. Large eucalyptus groves in coastal areas pose a risk for fire and poor air quality following a local or regional fire affectsinland and coastal communities.
» Extended heatwaves are a concern as many older homes in the area do not have air conditioning.

Preparation and Recovery
Participants discussed the various strategies they use to prepare for or recover from a hazardous event.

They also discussed what barriers may exist to prevent adequate preparation or recovery. The key themes are outlined below.
» To prepare for flooding in the event of a major storm or extended rainfall, workshop participants often clean out their rain gutters and drains and purchase sandbags. However, these actions can be difficult for potentially vulnerable populations, such as seniors or people with disabilities, without help.
» Workshop participants are also relying on various forms of hazard insurance to protect their homes, such as flood insurance, but rates are increasing with the increase in hazard frequency. » Workshop participants note financial costs as a main barrier for individual emergency and hazard preparedness. Purchasing sandbags, insurance, tools for home hardening, and solar panel and battery power systems is usually the responsibility of the homeowner, at least partially if supplemented by a rebate or tax credit, and this is not a feasible expense for all residents.
» To prepare for wildfires, workshop participantsin high-risk wildfire areas with dense vegetation or steep slopes are clearing vegetation and implementing other home hardening techniques.

However, a perceived lack of coordinated community-wide or neighborhood-wide vegetation management reduces the effectiveness of individual efforts. » Lack of air conditioning is a barrier in the event of a heatwave. Many homes in the region were built without air conditioning, meaning that installing air conditioning comes at a financial cost to property owners.
» Participants noted a lack of public education as a barrier to preparedness suggesting that residents are not aware of the potential hazards and how to prepare for them. Residents may not be aware of the various public programs to assist with preparation, or in the event of a hazardous event, to assist with recovery and response.
497

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 7
» Participants noted that some jurisdictions, including San Carlos and Burlingame, have adopted zoning code amendments, such as establishing special districts or revising setback requirements in high-risk areas, to mitigate damage from hazards. A perceived lack of ongoing funding is a barrier to the completion or maintenance of citywide preparedness programs, including storm drain improvements and removal of hazardous trees.

Vulnerable Populations
Participants identified several groups that may be at higher risk of exposure to climate-change related hazards and their effects. Below are the key categories and populations that emerged. » Respondents felt that older adults are vulnerable to all hazards for several reasons, including declining physical health, potential lack of mobility and independence, or a reliance on electricity for medical devices like Life Alert.
» Low-income community members are also potentially vulnerable to hazards like flooding and wildfire, according to participants, as they may live in older buildings that have not been wellmaintained or have had unpermitted work done. Low-income areas are also often in an area of higher risk for natural hazards or environmental contamination. People living in these areas are already experiencing many impacts of these hazards. » Respondents felt that farmworkers and other outdoor workers are especially vulnerable to extreme heat and poor air quality due to wildfires.
» Respondents noted that people experiencing homelessness are particularly vulnerable to the effects of all hazards and may not be able to access resources in the event of a hazardous event, such as getting to a cooling center or receiving emergency notifications. » Participants identified children as a vulnerable population, especially to poor air quality following a wildfire. Schools and daycare centers are critical in supporting children and therefore a priority community asset in preparing for hazards. » Respondents felt that renters are uniquely vulnerable as they are often not in control of the structures they live in and therefore unable to make necessary improvements to prepare for hazards. Renters may also have smaller dwelling units, limiting the amount of supplies they can store in case of an emergency.
» Respondents identified non-English speaking community members as potentially vulnerable in the event of an emergency if resources are not available in their native language. They may also struggle to be aware of the risks in their community and how best to prepare if educational resources are not available in their native language.

Resilience Visioning
Participants raised an array of potential strategies that their local communities and the region can take to mitigate risk from natural hazards. Below are the key themes. » Local jurisdictions should improve evacuation planning, especially in coastal communities with limited evacuation routes.
498

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 8
» Communities need consistent funding for infrastructure upgrades, including forthe storm drain system, utility lines, and wastewater treatment plants located at or below sea level. » More granular, local-level data and hazard modeling should inform development decisions.

Future development should be sited outside of high-risk areas. » Participants support nature-based solutions to mitigate risk, including restoring wetlands, increasing permeability of surfaces, reducing hazardous vegetation like highly flammable trees or shrubs, and improving soil structure and vegetation to prevent erosion. » Neighborhood and community cohesion are necessary for adequate risk mitigation as the impacts of hazards do not follow property lines. Local governments can support programs to connect neighbors for community-wide adaptation projects to improve social resilience.

Next Steps
This memo provides the summary of the first round of virtual community workshops for PREP. The project team will use the feedback gathered from community members to inform the completion of the vulnerability assessment and the development of the goals, policies, and actions of the Safety Elements.
499

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 9
Appendix A: PREP Virtual Community Workshop Discussion Notes During each community workshop attendees participated in facilitated small group discussions in Zoom breakout rooms. The PREP project team randomly assigned participants to small groups of five to eight people to discuss their experiences with hazards in their communities. Participating agency staff served as small group facilitators and notetakers. Below are the unedited comments received from each group’s notetaker. Responses from both workshops are combined under each question.

QUESTION 1: IMPACTS OF HAZARDS
What hazards (wildfires, flooding, earthquakes, etc.) or impacts of hazards (such as Public Safety Power Shutoff events) have you experienced in your community? ● San Bruno
○ Flooding on the east side of San Bruno (undeveloped area near 101) in recent storms ○ Power shutoffs in San Bruno, especially in areas next to the valley where the PG&E gas explosion was several years ago.
● El Granada
○ Wildfires in El Granada (concern for eucalyptus grove) ○ Increased flooding in streets in El Granada and along the coast; Mid Coast Community Council trying to address flooding issues especially along northern coast. ○ Also experienced power outages, some lasting multiple days (e.g. in Moss Beach and Montara)
○ AT&T considering removing landlines, but cell service along the coast is spotty. ○ Only one highway into coast so access is limited.
○ County developing an evacuation plan.
● Storm inundation and sea level rise
● Find ways we can better adapt to and plan for foreseeable issues ● Power shutoff events and internet outages
● Wildfires and the impacts of smoke
● Mass shooting events
● Getting basic necessities can be difficult during hazardous events ● How are people from vulnerable communities being affected by these issues? ● Infrastructure (internet and power) resiliency
● How to protect property
● Monterra, El Granada, and Half Moon Bay utility providers infrastructure is being damaged by erosion
● We need to consider infrastructure issues when developing in these areas 500

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 10
● Brisbane | In January, side of the mountain gave way with several rocks coming into the city streets. As such, the rock debris blocked the storm drain and impacted the ability to drain from floods. Concerned with the potential costs in the future. Flooding levels are increasing, and ground water intrusions are impacting vegetation. Furthermore, wildfires are becoming more prevalent. 1000% increase in home insurance for wildfires. Sea level rise in nearby communities.
○ Power Outages prevented the ability to communicate with/locate with the elderly and/or vulnerable communities
○ Groundwater Intrusions within existing structures/infrastructure ● Also concerned regarding increasing insurance fees. Reiterates how climate change is impacting their community.
○ Quality of Water and impacts from existing infrastructure during earthquakes ● Burlingame | Power shutoff concerns for vulnerable communities. Extreme flooding has occurred more prevalently especially noted in January 2023. Wind damage during the January 2023 storm events were noted. Specifically mentioned was that several trees have fallen.

Concerns for wildfire in nearby residential locations and their canyon regions. ● San Carlos | Noted several locations severely impacted by flooding (Creeks and notable streets). Concern for current Pump System infrastructure. Concern for biosafety impacts during flooding season.
○ Concern from historical landfill presence and potential biohazards that may be currently existing within said fill areas.
○ Life Alert Users were impacted when unable to communicate during power outages ● Belmont has experienced flooding and landslides as a result of flooding, and the Belmont Ridge is a wildland urban interface
● Burlingame has experienced flooding and landslides, air quality is an issue during wildfires, and we need to be ready for earthquakes
● Burlingame also had trees come down during the flooding, which makes it hard to get around the City
● East Palo Alto & North Fair Oaks experience flooding, delays in communications about how to get resources,
● Sea level rise is an issue with EPA being close to the San Francisco Bay ● Heat is an issue, are we prepared enough for the next extreme heat event? ● Burlingame
○ Flooding on roads such as El Camino
○ Public Safety Power Shutoff events
○ Droughts
● Montara
501

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 11
○ Wildfires… One time the sky was dark until 11:30
○ One time there was a wildfire that had to be put out by helicopters ○ Highly flammable Eucalyptus trees in Montara
○ Highly susceptible wildfire area
○ 6-8 inch storm every year according to FEMA since 2017 ■ Used to be classified as 100 year storms
■ Variability in storms increasing
■ No stormwater management plan for the County
■ Trees falling all over which have caused power shutoffs… At least 6 this year.

Worse for people in the back of Montara because more trees fell there… Not to mention public safety power shutoffs
○ Water supply from Montara Mountain, not from Hetch Hetchy ○ Montara water supply more precarious…
○ No tsunami in a while
○ One earthquake fault goes through Seal Cove and Moss Beach ○ Sea level rise: Hwy 1 being eroded at Montara State Beach, etc. ■ These areas do not have adequate enough protection to handle the rainfall ■ Caltrans trying to rebuild that area but they are basing protective measures off of 20th century data… Not adequate enough
■ Sewer plant has flooded beyond capacity several times ○ Like Paradise on steroids
○ No feasible evacuation plan
○ Rated by PC Magazine as area with worst cell phone reception ○ Nitrates polluting
● Granada
○ More concerned about stormwater management and flooding and erosion ○ We do not have a stormwater management plan or the budget for it ○ Predicted rainfall is increasing
○ If there is no management plan (e.g. trees, marshes, vegetation) for mitigating flooding, we could be destroying what is meant to protect us ○ Wildfire study done by County several years ago identified wildfire zones… But no wildfire prevention plan… Not following best practices followed by SoCal or Colorado for instance (e.g. only covered trees surrounding homes not homes themselves) ● Brisbane
○ Biggest concern is wildfire since located in the foothills of the mountains ○ There are few ways to get into town, so those routes could be easily compromised ○ Kinder Morgan tanks that sit along tunnel 1?
○ Evacuation point along Sierra Point which requires you to go through that tunnel… Simulation of evacuation has not been done
502

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 12
○ There is a difference between mitigation and preparation for climate change ○ Lots of eucalyptus trees which is a big risk. Must plan around them ○ Concern about scale
○ Recently, the flooding has been at a manageable scale but what happens when flooding surpasses that scale?
○ Fitzgerald Marine Reserve tree health
● EPA: Flooding, power shutoff recently; Coastside: sea level rise, intense rains and high tides, effects that contribute to erosion. HWY 1 impacts recently, ongoing threat. San Carlos, wildlife urban interface– wildfire concerns. Approach is good but still an issue. Earthquakes always a concern. Sierra Club is concerned about increase of biotech along the peninsula, potential of bio accidents, hazards. Working with San Carlos, which has banned higher risk/safety levels; RWC also. Also on health issues: sewer, stormwater impacts and risks– coastside has consistent sewer overflows. Also landslides. Impact of development on steep hillsides, risk of impacts. Pacifica: development is still on the radar within parts of city that are clearly hazard zones; climate crisis will worsen hazards. Prioritization of private land rights over what will become public nuisances.
● Coastside, numerous power shutoffs, some planned, but many unplanned, serious problem ● Pacifica has some power outages, a few hours usually. Also had some power major issues with flooding, downed trees, storm damage near pier, storm surge affecting roads and infrastructure
● Burlingame, some downed trees, 20+ in one park, various groups help clean. Also some flooding due to poor drainage. Wildfires, poor air quality even from fires that are not local ● East Palo Alto, there is a contaminated site less than 400 ft from the Bay, managed by EPA but cleanup time is 10-20 years but we don’t have that long ● Pacifica, a few wildfires, near homes. A big landslide back of the valley. Landslides a big concern after lots of rain
● Groundwater rise, table being pushed, increasing flooding on streets in the Bay area, lowlying areas b/c groundwater table is already so close to surface ● Addressing SLR could impact groundwater rise because there’s no outlet to drain the water could lead to increased flooding.
● All of the above. San Mateo coast side - flooding and sea level rise, also wildfires; all big issues. Eucalyptus groves and areas susceptible to wildfire. ● Earthquakes - liquefaction zones in our communities.
● Increased storms due to climate change - stormwater runoff issues due to utilities. Runoff into ocean. Electrical outages, utility infrastructure maintained and/or upgraded. ● Climate change and severe weather impacts us every year. ● Wildfire has no seasons, year round.
503

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 13
● Coast side similar to Maui topography - significant impacts from offshore winds; power outages, downed trees, utility poles; isolated communities - one way in, one way out. ● Sea level rise, liquefaction around airport and county bay line, El Camino area. Severe earthquake could see even if Hayward Fault erupts.
● Main goal - get residents to subscribe to emergency alerts; develop a safety plan. Get involved and engaged. Community Emergency Response training. Each jurisdiction has some type of program and is free to community.
● Evacuation an issue - don’t have a good evacuation plan although there are designated routes.
● New platform Genasys Protect - evacuation plan. System helps saves lives. ● Zone Haven - what status of these programs are.
● Protecting parks and open space, and wildlife gets lost in hazard protection plans. ● Community Response Emergency trainings - are they available in multiple languages? Is there a plan for this? (Offered in Mandarin and Spanish; looking to expand to more languages) ● Heatwaves - how to respond to? Not enough resources available currently. ● Burlingame: The city experienced urban flooding issues and power outage in 2023. The ground was hard and had a lot of rain which caused trees to fall. Air pollution and smoke (2020) from wildfire made the sky turn red.
● Foster City: Flooding and sea level rise. Foster City completed a levee project recently this year from Foster City to Belmont to prevent flooding and to tackle sea level rise, which helped the issue a lot.
● San Bruno: Sea level rise.
● Half Moon Bay: wildfire, sea level rise, flooding
● Burlingame: Residents are being more careful to clean out drains and gutters ahead of time and be on the lookout for where/when the urban flooding would happen. ● Burlingame did a lot of preventive work like tree trimming, San Mateo to Millbrae - major drainage upgrades and tree planting, pg&e 2.2-mile underground utility wires, bayfront seawall increase to prepare for and prevent hazards.
● A lot of cities are being proactive on these unexpected events. Any citywide emergency plans that are available to the residents?
● San Mateo County has a hazard emergency dept that coordinates with residents on emergency preparation.
● Foster City: Foster City installed underground utility lines since the 70s. Big liabilities: Since the City is not on El Camino Blvd, it only has three routes to exit the City if any hazards happen. Foster City would be vulnerable to liquefaction from earthquakes. ● CERT is at the forefront helping the residents and residents can rely on CERT. ● Half Moon Bay: Preparation is the key. Have more knowledge as a community on hazards. 504

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 14
● San Bruno: The city is investing in stormwater systems that help with water collection and reduce events like flooding, such as creating urban forests, creating fire barriers next to homes (which can be expensive)
● Would need more grants to maintain and continue these measures along. Concern: These preventative measures can be costly and hard to maintain without more funding. ● San Gregorio Earthquake fault/earthquakes, in a tsunami zone, fallen trees / vegetation management, wildfire (forest proximity due to park), flooding, landslide. Living on coastside, it feels like there is not much you can do at a personal level (just prep). Wish for more support from govt agencies on evacuation planning. Power outages are a challenge. ● San Mateo Creek proximity. King tide + storms, flooding along the creek. City turned one of the parks (Gateway) into a detention basin so flooding stays contained within the park.

Supported peace of mind with defensible infrastructure. ● Heat waves. 2022 Labor Day. Atmospheric river storms in 2022 and flooding. ● Sea level rise. Surrounded by levy in Redwood Shores. Wildfire threat. Heat waves.

Comfortable in the summer, homes not built with air conditioning. Lots of people are unprepared for long heatwaves.

QUESTION 2: PREPARATION AND RECOVERY
How have you responded to past hazards in your area? What are some barriers you have faced in responding to hazards?
● El Granada
○ Only until 2017 that flooding started to get into people’s homes and driveways (lived there for about 50 years)
○ Had to use sandbags as a precaution - property owners have had to bear the brunt themselves
○ Supervisor working with MCC
■ No one coming forth with how to pay for mitigation measures ■ Funding is big concern
● Morgan Hill
○ Anderson Dam Project, etc.
○ Tunnel built underneath downtown area to protect against floods ○ Morgan Hill has a lot of history of flooding, but a lot of projects recently have helped mitigate against flooding
● San Bruno
○ Only recently got FEMA designations → some property owners obtained flood insurance, but some upset about this new expense
505

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 15
○ Proposed standard municipal bond for stormwater projects two years ago that did not garner enough votes to pass
○ Hillside on west side of San Bruno Avenue with erosion issue threatening stormwater infrastructure and San Bruno Avenue → project aimed to mitigate that completed but took expenses from other projects
○ Urgency to move utility lines
○ Cut some eucalyptus groves to make room for new recreation center… While beautiful, they are invasive species that are easily flammable ○ Personally have had to sandbag home back in Palo Alto ○ There are services proposed but also people reluctant to pay the taxes necessary to fund them
● Sandbagging to prepare for flooding
● Clearing drains before major storm events
● Using updated data sets (coastal erosion zones)
● Difficulty in preparing for unknown hazards
● Finding the correct resources in your community
● Cell phone coverage is an issue in certain communities ● Town Hall meetings. Policies regarding affordability seem to be in the making however will be implemented later down the line. Affordability especially concerning insurance concerns. ● Drill education/outreach. Asserting the importance of practice to responding to disasters as a community/group and how best to address those issues. Also provide radio for alerts. ● Burlingame Neighborhood Network - encourage neighborhood gatherings and interconnect neighbors for support groups and provide communication. ● San Carlos has implemented zoning requirements for further setback requirements. Noted that sandbag acquisition has been difficult for senior/elderly populations. Storm Drain plan has been implemented to be more responsive in clearing out said drains whether by public comment/concern or by their own inspections.
● Burlingame adopted Sea Level Zoning Requirements to address sea level rising concerns on coastal regions within their city.
● Community Outreach with relevant city officials to solicit input and educate the public on areas of concern.
● Potentially can inform emergency personnel to enlist/inform vulnerable communities. E.g. elderly/life alert individuals being checked on during emergency response. ● Promote community togetherness to identify and check vulnerable individuals within their reach
● Peninsula Clean Energy has programs to help those with life-saving equipment to stay online 506

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 16
● City of Belmont hasn’t responded well, wildfire risk, vegetation clearing was ineffective, instead need to clear around structures and harden homes, the city policies are outdated ● Burlingame Neighborhood Network gives out information about what you can do, and holds a yearly drill that involves neighborhoods, to get folks involved with preparation ● Removal of trees would be helpful, Burlingame has removed a significant number of trees recently
● Preparation includes air filters for the house, emergency preparation kits ● North Fair Oaks preparation & recovery: residents have confusion about how to be prepared, resources need to be translated, or residents just need a person to talk to to help them understand. Waiting to prepare and recover is a problem for flooding, for example, waiting can mean roads are flooded and blocked when residents need to get sandbags. Also concerned about tree removal leading to more extreme heat. ● Montara
○ Telecommunications: study on lack of adequate mobile coverage and internet ○ Trying to get funding to build own fiber connections
○ No proactive plans for stormwater or wildfire management ● Brisbane
○ Have alternative sources of power in the event that power goes out e.g. Jackery ● Granada
○ Has satellite phone in order to communicate if phone batteries die ● San Carlos- wildfires. Working with State wildfire authorities. Multiple canyons, undeveloped– cut out underbrush, cut back trees to mitigate wildfires vs. clear-cutting, trenching. Managed mitigation of risk. Coastside: mostly reaction. Sewer, erosion– response is to add riprap, armor against sea level rise. Those promoting more environmentally aware response face a hard sell. EPA: Dealing w/ PG&E w/ downed powerlines; only respond in emergencies, nonresponsive otherwise. ● There’s just so much; huge barrier in responding is cost. Identifying sources of funding to plan design and implement solutions is top priority.
● Balance: vis a vis Environmental Justice and Housing– there’s a real tension between goals, impacts. Touch conflict.
● But, many environmental justice groups and housing advocates agree that housing shouldn’t be built in environmentally sensitive, hazard areas– build in infill areas. But legislation isn’t taking this into account. Also– should be concerned about building in sea level rise areas. ● Some disagree that housing advocates take environmental sensitivity/hazard sufficiently into account. Scott Weiner as example– limiting authority of Coastal Commission. Coastal zone development should be limited due to climate impacts. Should prioritize managed retreat. 507

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 17
● Contacted PG&E to be more sensible about how they have routed their power lines. They agreed to set up relocation or recovery setup. Not happy with their performance for city or coastside
● On an individual level have to be ready to wait, be prepared to wait, earthquake preparedness with food, candles, flashlights, etc…Long-term repairs more concerning ● During heat waves open libraries as cooling facility, not a lot a/c around County, elderly in particular are vulnerable
● Climate Resilience Centers designed to be cooling facilities or offer some other form of assistance, before and during natural disasters
● Some communities have CERT groups that have formed, this does help communities and individuals prepare
● Midcoast community council have worked on several of these issues. Informational sessions, regularly communicate with County Supervisor to be aware of needs. ● Some members have become CERT- certified.
● Barriers: education issue, people don’t often know enough, emotions run high - difficult to get to solutions.
● Public education and outreach. Community not aware of programs available. Low percentage of subscribers to alert system.
● Heatwave impacts air quality and wildfire; changes in humidity - red flag warnings. Will increase with climate change.
● Vegetation management
● Increase outreach and education
● Keep up with severe weather and winterstorms. King Tides influencing flooding and runoff. ● Resource Conservation District of San Mateo - have been proactive with these issues. ● More prepared we can be, more enables us to support one another in the long run. ● Funding for projects an important factor.
● Have more agencies to provide programs in training and education. ● All CERTs standardized - take advantage of nonprofit status and get funding beyond government grants.
● Make sure nonprofits get funding support. Subgrants to nonprofits for resiliency work. ● Need increased personnel to spread awareness. (e.g. Thrive) ● Burlingame: Residents are being more careful to clean out drains and gutters ahead of time and be on the lookout for where/when the urban flooding would happen. ○ Burlingame did a lot of preventive work like tree trimming, San Mateo to Millbrae - major drainage upgrades and tree planting, pg&e 2.2-mile underground utility wires, bayfront seawall increase to prepare and prevent to hazards 508

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 18
○ A lot of cities are being proactive on these unexpected events. Any citywide emergency plans and are available to the residents?
■ San Mateo County has a hazard emergency dept that coordinates with residents on emergency preparation
● Foster City: Foster City installed underground utility lines since the 70s. Big liabilities: Since the City is not on El Camino Blvd, it only has three routes to exit the City if any hazards happen. Foster City would be vulnerable to liquefaction from earthquakes. ○ CERT is at the forefront helping the residents and residents can rely on CERT. ● Half Moon Bay: Preparation is the key. Have more knowledge as a community on hazards. ● San Bruno: The city is investing in stormwater systems that help with water collection and reduce events like flooding, such as creating urban forests, creating fire barriers next to homes (which can be expensive)
○ Would need more grants to maintain and continue these measures along. Concern:

These preventative measures can be costly and hard to maintain without more funding.
● Long term goal is to electrify home and recent power outages feel like a barrier to electrification. Barrier - outages. Gas stove allows continued cooking and gas water heater = hot showers. With 3+ day outages - it’s been important to have access to gas, in spite of methane, etc.
● Habitat restoration and fuel restoration near Pillar Point Bluff. At perimeter of park, addressing fallen tree branches.
● Solar panels and battery back-up for home, air conditioning installed (after 20 years of no A/C). During smoke events, can close up home and recirculate which improves indoor air quality.
● Use of sandbags with flooding and early prep. Barrier - air conditioning for extreme heat.

Cooling centers can be challenging to use (disruptive to go to one in the middle of the day).

Library was closed on labor day, which was a cooling center close by. Bay Area homes often do not have A/C.
● Wildfire: Focused on home hardening over time. If neighbors are not doing it also, it might not matter. Barrier - lack of community focus on wildfire preparedness - neighbors actions impact you. In the event of a wildfire, don’t know defined evacuation routes, where to go for shelter, medical services. A lot of work to be done before we are prepared, and citizens understand/engaged and have a plan of action for wildfire. ● Recommend looking into Genasys / Zonehaven app. Defines what areas need to be evacuated and the areas. https://www.smcgov.org/dem/genasys-zonehaven ● Community readiness/CERT is part of job at Menlo Park Fire. Important role of individuals is realizing that in large disasters, first responders aren’t going to be able to get to everyone 509

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 19
right away. Getting to know your neighbors and their needs (e.g., mobility issues of a neighbor) can help with outcomes in a disaster.

QUESTION 3: VULNERABLE POPULATIONS: Who and what do you feel are most at risk from hazards, and why? Are there additional populations or community assets who should be considered? ● San Bruno
○ West side - serious fire hazards, may even have a slice along the valley that is considered high fire risk area on US maps; lots of power outages due to concern of power lines potentially snapping during high winds → reinforces need to make power lines underground
○ East side economic segregation - more working class communities and more older buildings, many are not well maintained and unpermitted work has been done; homes closer together so fire concern… Also more prone to flooding. ○ Immigrant communities simultaneously more self sufficient in terms of performing tasks on their own homes (though may not be up to Code) ■ Dilemma: home improvements costly but also people need homes large enough to fit their families
● El Granada
○ Whole hillside above Quarry Park full of Eucalyptus
○ Mid coast above Half Moon Bay does not necessarily have a lot of the benefits that Half Moon Bay has e.g. senior center which are among some of the most vulnerable… Where to go when there is a power outage?
○ Somewhat of an emergency room near El Granada that is now closing… Where to go if you have an emergency and receive immediate care? Lack of adequate medical care
○ Trees falling down
● Homeless or unhoused individuals
● Individuals living in cars or RV’s
● First responders and essential workers who make long commutes to their workplaces ● Small businesses
● Non profits
● Senior/Elderly populations were noted within the capability to receive resources. See comment on sandbag acquisitions.
● Lowground/Susceptible to Flooding Areas
● Areas nearby Landfill areas
510

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 20
● Lower-Income Areas - tend to be located to industrial uses and tend to be in flood susceptible areas
● Children in long-term development/exposure from potential environmental impacts and pollution
● Sewage Treatment Areas - E.g. Redwood Shores (susceptible to flooding and nearby residential areas)
● Life Alert Users impacted during power outages
● Concern about biohazards and the development of bioresearch labs. Cities need to be aware of what is happening inside of these research buildings. Need to consider if these uses should be allowed near residents, schools, etc. Should these uses be allowed in hazard areas such as liquefaction zones? Emergency responders need to know the biohazard level of the building to respond safely.
● Soft story buildings (apartments that are built over garages without enough support for the upper stories), but this is a tricky issue because it would require retrofits from landlords. ● Frontline communities that are already experiencing hazard impacts. Renters specifically are at high risk, because they don’t have a lot of autonomy over preparation and recovery. For example, renters need landlords to address mold caused by flooding and water damage, install air conditioning to keep a residence cool during extreme heat, and seal windows to regulate temperatures. Also, because rents are so high, multiple families sometimes share spaces, which can add to the stress and increase the need to make those spaces safe. ● Elderly populations are at risk from hazards, we need to support people safely age in their homes.
● San Bruno has areas that flood consistently, and other areas in the County flood consistently as well. For example, the manufactured home park in the Harbor Industrial area floods all the time. The County/Cities need to know where these areas are. ● Sewer plant on Hwy 1
● Electricity
● Telecommunications
● Elderly are more difficult to notify
● Apartment dwellers: ownership of property is elsewhere which can lead to discrepancy in preparing to respond and what capabilities they have to respond. ● Homeless: hotel designated for homeless on the coast. ○ Area under the highway that got flooded where some resided. ● Farmworkers
● People who live in RVs parked on airport road which is in a tsunami zone ● Businesses that have to close down during climate events ● Children who can’t get to school during climate events. Someone needs to take care of them. 511

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 21
● Daycare centers
● Communities without financial resources to respond to disasters, damage to property/housing; those at risk from extreme heat: elderly, those without air conditioning, etc.
● In San Mateo County, farmworkers. Re half moon bay, moss beach, pescadero. Those like farmworkers who work outdoors in extreme weather conditions. ● Mental health is also a concern. Part of climate change impacts is on those more vulnerable because of other socioeconomic factors. Harder to be resilient when under stress from housing risk, job risk, etc.
● Communities of color, underrepresented populations.
● Non-human populations. At risk from development in general; wetland, marshland impacts, etc.
● Underserved communities, poorer communities. Foster City $200 million bond; other communities don’t have that possibility, have to rely on State, other resources. Across the board, we’re potentially sacrificing the environment, endangered species, etc. In Pacifica, the City has expressed willingness to sacrifice beaches for individual property owner rights, risking endangered species.
● Senior communities
● Lower income community members especially those who are working and have to rely on public transportation that may not be available during a natural disaster like flooding ● Disabled people, people with mobility impairments are often asked to wait behind if there’s an evacuation. Plans should include those people.
● People who don’t speak or speak little English. Immigrant communities who often have multiple identities. People impacted by flooding in 2023 who lost their cars & apartments had no support
● Unhoused communities, people w/o shelter during heat waves, storms, creeks flooding etc… ● Speak to people from these communities to understand what they need as part of this process
● Farm worker community can easily be affected by flooding and other hazards ● Assets - fire, police stations, hospitals, water treatment plants, critical infrastructure, schools could serve as emergency shelter, public facilities should be prioritized ● Natural features could also be considered assets. Wetlands filter out pollutants, tree canopy is an asset for communities
● Coast side - aging population, homeless/homeless veterans, handicapped, families, and farmworkers
● East Palo Alto - working community members (multiple jobs), not being able to access resources available to them; language barriers; education levels; special needs ● San Mateo - large area below sea level, at risk from sea level rise and flooding from Bay 512

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 22
● Health - people with chronic diseases - more susceptible to changes in heat and air quality; people reliant on electricity for medicine keeping cold or other equipment; pregnant persons ● Non-english speaking folks, persons with disabilities, aging adults, ● Limited to non-visible communities
● Have to be accessible within our communities - ensure continual access ● Cultural competency very important. How does a community want to be helped? ● Big income gap/disparity: lower income population
● Foster City/Burlingame: senior/retirees population
● (Burlingame) The increase of more housing units/densities and the relaxation of the development standards from the State would cause a reduction in urban forest and canopy coverage
○ Is there a reporting mechanism to let the State know about these conflicts that are potentially harming and reducing the urban canopy?
● Farmworkers. Half Moon Bay murders revealed hardships and climate disasters that affect them disproportionately. Work outdoors, effects of extreme heat events. ● Elderly. Mobility, cognitive dysfunction. Liked the comments on “knowing your neighbors” – if you know that someone elderly or in need lives next door, you can support them. Creating community is important in helping each other in these situations. ● Children. Wildfire smoke - childhood asthma exacerbation. Climate change impacts on reproductive health/child in gestation (poor air quality). Anyone experiencing direct exposure - Farmworkers, People experiencing homelessness.
● Undocumented persons throughout the community. Language barriers. May not know what to do in a hazard situation. May be afraid to be known/visible because of status. ● Areas that have overcrowded housing. May be less able to respond when disaster/climate events occur.
● Socioeconomic factors - low-income persons, communities of color, impacts of redlining. ● Renters. Need to be prepared for 72 hours. It takes a lot of space to have disaster kits (water, food, other resources), many apartments do not have space for all the materials. Single family homes have more space (like garage). Or apartment may not have water due to building water pump issue; now relying solely on disaster kit. Issue is exacerbated with overcrowded housing.
● Pillar Ridge resident - people own homes but not land under it. No garages, language barriers (like where to go if there is a tsunami warning). Maps don’t show that this is an area with hazards (looped in with Moss Beach); this does not align with experience.

QUESTION 4: RESILIENCE VISIONING: What would you like to see your community do to improve safety and resilience to natural hazards?
513

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 23
● El Granada
○ Eucalyptus groves essentially matches ready to be lit… What if they were taken down and more native plants be planted (more fire resilient)? ○ Recognize the unique issues that coastal communities face ○ No city here so taxes go to County
○ Create an evacuation plan in the event of major disasters (e.g. Maui fire) ■ Where to go
● Eucalyptus trees lining the streets in Oakland hills were a huge factor in the Oakland fire back around 1998
● San Bruno
○ Ballot measure to lower the threshold from ⅔ to 55% may be pending on fall ballot...

Might help with going back to ballot to get the funding needed ○ Must improve stormwater infrastructure
○ Major flooding incident several years ago where intersection below Caltrain station was several feet deep in water
○ Must manage key waterways
○ Lots of new single family unit development on the west side… ○ In the fires that took out Paradise California, there were a few communities that were built in clusters like townhomes with a defensible space surrounding them → much higher chance of home damaged in fire versus if home was a single family detached unit and not shared defensible space… But latter is not as affordable ○ Impose higher fire standards for new single family development and development in general
● Increased funding for infrastructure improvements
● Disaster preparedness education centers should be available in all communities ● Hazard preparedness outreach
● Sms alerts
● What is one hazard that worries you the most?
○ Earthquakes
○ Mudslides during heavy rainstorms
○ Ambulance availability
○ First responder response times
○ How will emergency responders get to their deployment area? ● Task Forces and further education and input from the public commentary and outreach ● Zoning Amendments/Propositions - Increase setbacks from creeks. Prohibit underground parking in areas prone to sea level rise/flooding prone locations. 514

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 24
● Greater promotion of “firewise communities”. Reduction of brush and knowing that neighbors impact each other regarding safety and insurance rates ● More entry and exit points for new developments
● Emphasize and educate on basic emergency response and methods during natural disasters ● Re-establish county wide Community Emergency Response Training cert-coordinator to best collaborate inter-city development/outreach/safety
● Look at the soft-story buildings, monitor trees that might fall, upgrade the sewer system to mitigate the risk of flooding, and educate residents about how to prepare and what resources are available.
● Power outages, the City of Belmont is getting more questions about generators for private property, maybe cities and the County can review their regulations. ● Sierra Club has a list of policies to employ nature-based solutions, such as restoring wetlands, avoiding hardscapes and gray infrastructure, harden homes to wildfire, no astroturf, encourage tree planting, and encourage microgrids.
● Hyperlocal resilience hub: everyone gets a prep kit with info on where to go during a hazard event. Include a workshop center at the resilience hub. Encourage building relationships, and knowing what supplies you need.
● Tension between need for more housing and natural hazards, leading to creating more density in flood zones. FEMA flood requirements are generic and nationwide, we need to refine them for local areas. How do we build smart for local conditions? Example of a development that is proposed in Burlingame is in the 100-year flood zone. ● Planning for the 500-year flood zone should be the same as the 100-year flood zone. ● Make it place-based, and more nature-based, for example we can’t rely on just FEMA national standards that might not fit a local area.
● Community connections, people knowing who to ask in their neighborhood in case there is no power and internet.
● Don’t want to have to talk to 8 different cities, want to get these policies in Countywide recommendations.
● The storm drain system is inadequate. Foster City being built on the wetlands has created a plug for stormwater for the cities above, such as Belmont and San Carlos. The creeks on the peninsula don’t have the capacity to outflow, so how do we address these problems? ● The 5-city water treatment plant is soon to be below sea level. The water treatment plants in South San Francisco and Redwood City are at sea level. The sewer system pump stations are at risk. Overflow wastewater contaminates the floodwaters, which can be a risk for people who are exposed to the floodwaters.
● Neighbors getting to know neighbors helps with resilience following disasters, more ability to communicate with each other.
● FEMA flood maps are notoriously bad, but First Street has come out with an alternative. 515

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 25
● Making the environment more resilient. We need to protect the environment so that it can protect us.
● Creating healthy soil, creating more space for plants and trees to prevent erosion and flooding.
● Eucalyptus do absorb water on flipside.
● Possibly build reef offshore to address sea level rise. ● What is resiliency?
● Along Old County Road there is a line of old Eucalyptus trees. Could block one of the only ways to get out of town in Brisbane.
● Finding balance for vegetation… Where should it be planted? ● PG&E Infrastructure like electrical wires need to be improved. ● Trees near the wires need to be maintained.
● Gas pipeline along the coast poses hazard.
● Create a plan for flood control in all the portions of each city that face that risk. Almost all cities’ low-lying areas face this risk and need flood control measures. ● Managed retreat. Not building further in areas that we know are hazard areas, likely to flood or erode, be covered by sea level rise.
● Making sure any new development that could require mitigation that creates additional impacts on other properties, must prevent that (i.e. armoring one property creates more erosion elsewhere); this should be regulated.
● New development should offset the costs of the necessary mitigations it creates. Also don’t misrepresent data–a 100-year model doesn’t mean impacts only in 100 years, but will happen gradually over time. Some is happening now. New development in these areas should be prohibited; must address managed retreat honestly, and in terms of collective impacts. ● Heat: cities should address heat impacts. 1) rebuild urban forest, especially in low income areas. 2) revise building & planning codes to include cool construction techniques. Materials, design, etc, to mitigate heat. 3) possibly introduce water elements in cities to prevent heat buildup.
● A lot more nature-based solutions, wherever feasible. In some areas (Pacifica), many large, flat, apparently developable properties are former wetlands– should be used for mitigation, protection, rebuilt as wetlands, buffers, protecting homes and businesses. ● Would like clarification of when Safety Elements must be updated– when, how is this required by law? And what are consequences of non-compliance? ● Community broadband to exist on the coast, subsidize for low-income people. ● Importance of using nature-based solutions in stormwater infrastructure, update gray infrastructure, address pollution and runoff, adds more nature to our communities. 516

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 26
● Pacifica, there’s a lot of debate about what to do with Beach Blvd. b/c it does need to be repaired, but community members clash w/ coastal commission, a very complicated solution is needed to a complicated project. Would like to see a solution. ● Sea Level rise is a big issue on the coastside and bayside, so many critical facilities on the bayside are in the current flood zone if nothing is done. Continued work regionally to address this.
● Save the Bay focused on SLR and flooding. Plan for and create policies. SLR overlay zones w/ building standards to make them flood resilient. Burlingame has an example, see other cities do that.
● Nature-based solutions to buffer SLR and storm surges. ● Make sure new development is outside flood zones or climate hazard zones in general. Away from wildfires, SLR. Prioritize transit-oriented areas. ● Clean up or identify which contaminated sites are at greatest risk of flooding from storm surge, rain events, should be prioritized to prevent wider communities from being contaminated.
● Have more funding or grants to further maintain the hazard prevention/preparation methods. More grants for smaller communities to maintain/support. ● Educating the community on the hazards. Building resilience in the community and promoting resiliency during hazards to the community by educating what causes some of the natural hazards to bring more awareness and actions.
● Community leaders through newsletters, trying to engage people in webinars, and discuss at local jurisdiction meetings. Stress importance of shared need (we’re all in this together).

Calling forth our basic humanity.
● CERT: Community Emergency Response Team. Most county communities have one. Need to continue building these. Red Cross Ready, other classes (also some available in Spanish), CPR.

Want to see these built out more robustly countywide. Increasing participation. ● Investment in public transportation. Peninsula doesn’t connect well to East Bay, South Bay.

Promotion of walkability. Covid road closures to create open space for restaurants/businesses have become permanent. More community walking around, kids out. Supports community building.
● Transportation on coastside and rural areas, which tend to be underserved by public transportation. Challenge to take care of non-car solutions. Investment in community building. “We’re in it together” approach starts at the neighborhood level. CRISP initiative via Supervisor Mueller could support efforts.
517

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 27
Appendix B: Questions Received During Workshop Q&A Period Question: What is the difference between the Safety Element versus the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)?
Answer: The Safety Element is part of the community’s General Plan, and as such is meant to inform how the community will prepare for and protect itself against natural hazards as it grows and develops over the next 20-25 years. It provides policy direction to decision makers, agency staff, and community members, and is governed by State laws. The LHMP is a more specific, technical document that describes in greater detail how the City will mitigate the risk from natural hazards.

While the General Plan regulates land use and directs the use of resources across a community and topic areas, the LHMP directs public agency action and applies mainly to infrastructure. It has a shorter horizon of 5 years and is largely governed by federal laws. There is some overlap between the topics covered and the policies addressed in the Safety Element and LHMP, and they should be consistent with and inform each other.

Question/Comment: Hazardous materials should be discussed in terms of locating potential pandemic pathogens in biosafety labs near creeks and areas prone to flooding, for example. San Carlos bans Biosafety level 3 and 4 labs.

Answer: Yes, this is something that PREP can discuss and explore in the Safety Elements and related documents. We are aware that this is an issue of concern for many community members.

Question: How can we develop consistent sea level rise mitigations among all Peninsula cities? Some cities have sea walls, etc.

Answer: We agree it is important to have a regionally-consistent approach to hazards such as sea level rise while providing enough flexibility so that communities can effectively respond to their specific threats and opportunities. Groups such as OneShoreline have already been working with the coastal and shoreline communities in San Mateo County to identify the risks posed by sea level rise, develop strategies to reducing the risk across the county, and provide opportunities for communities to coordinate on addressing this issue. PREP will build on this work to foster greater regional connections on adaptation and resilience.

Question: The concept of “safety” often comes into conflict with the state mandate to build more housing. How is that addressed?
Answer: The State mandate to build more housing is addressed in each community’s Housing Element, another component of the General Plan, and other regulations. Most Housing Elements in San Mateo County have been adopted within the past year or are in the process of being finalized. The Safety Elements and other aspects of the PREP project will include goals, policies, and implementation actions to direct new development in areas of lower risk, or to help make sure that existing or proposed development in higher-risk areas is adequately protected. PREP does not modify or influence the Housing Elements or make other land use decisions. 518

PENINSULA RESILIENCE PLANNING

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY

October 10, 2024 | Page 28
Question: I live in a frontline community. I was wondering how this will work to reimburse people who are affected by flooding/natural disasters in the near future? What are some resources that you have prepared since past flooding in frontline communities? Answer: The policies created through PREP will help communities to better prepare for and respond to natural disasters such as flooding so that they are less harmful, and to recover from such disasters in a way that strengthens the community’s resilience to future hazards. Many communities have recently prepared resources such as improved disaster awareness materials and more robust emergency notification systems. Safety Elements that integrate LHMPs also increase a community’s eligibility for state and federal funding of disaster relief through AB 2140, as well as hazard preparation and mitigation projects, which often benefit frontline communities. PREP will also assist in identifying collaborations and partnerships that could expand resources to frontline communities.

Question: With escalating insurance costs and companies dropping property owners, is this being considered in resilience planning?
Answer: The PREP team is aware that rising home insurance costs and the loss of coverage creates serious risks and financial hardships for many property owners throughout California, including in San Mateo County. Insurance is predominately regulated at the State and federal level, and the ability of San Mateo County communities to directly influence insurance rates and availability is limited. The PREP team is exploring local policy options to address this ongoing challenge.

Question: Will hazardous materials be addressed in the assessment insofar as they're at risk of climate hazards (such as inundation from sea level rise)? Answer: Yes, PREP will look at how natural disasters may affect hazardous materials, including how disasters may result in hazardous material released, or how they may spread existing hazardous material contamination across a wider area. Additionally, the plans for some communities will consider and help protect against the risks posed by hazardous materials independent of any natural disaster.

East Palo Alto City CouncilJune 2, 2026

East Palo Alto City Council
June 2, 2026