April 24, 2026
Helen Lee, Planning Division Manager [ hlee@cityofEPA.org ]
City of East Palo Alto
cc:
City Council
Planning Commission
Subject: Technical Recommendations to Strengthen the Safety Element for Effective, Citywide Implementation
Dear Ms Lee,
The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, Green Foothills and Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge respectfully submit the following comments on East Palo Alto’s draft Safety Element Update. Our organizations collectively represent thousands of members in and around East Palo Alto and have a deep interest in the San Francisco Bay, its ecosystems, and the surrounding shoreline communities where development and planning decisions have long-term consequences for public health, climate resilience, and environmental justice.
The draft Safety Element provides a strong and thoughtful assessment of the risks facing East Palo Alto, particularly related to flooding, sea level rise, groundwater rise, and contamination. We appreciate the City’s leadership in identifying these complex and interconnected challenges.
However, while the draft effectively identifies risks, it does not yet consistently translate those risks into a clear, enforceable policy framework. To ensure the Safety Element functions as an effective tool for protecting the East Palo Alto community, we recommend strengthening the plan by establishing explicit requirements, clear triggers for action, and a cohesive, citywide approach. The comments below are intended to support that next step.
1. Establish Comprehensive Flood and Sea Level Rise Development Standards
The Safety Element identifies significant and increasing flood risk, including limitations in existing stormwater infrastructure and the growing impact of emergent groundwater. However, the current draft policies place primary emphasis on floodplain management and building elevation. This approach does not fully address the movement of water across sites, infrastructure systems, and neighborhoods under future conditions, including compound flooding dynamics, particularly in a low-lying area with known drainage constraints and reliance on pumping systems.
We appreciate that IM 3.4a would require new development to provide replacement flood storage capacity to ensure no net loss. In addition, Policy 3.10 calls for integrating traditional drainage infrastructure with green infrastructure elements, and IM 3.11a promotes the use of permeable surfaces. However, these latter provisions remain high-level and discretionary and do not yet establish specific, enforceable, and predictable design requirements.
We recommend consolidating and strengthening these provisions into a comprehensive framework of development standards and site-level design requirements to ensure coordinated and reliable management of flood and stormwater conditions at the building, site, and system level. This framework should coordinate screening criteria, site-level analysis, and integrated development standards so that potential risks are identified early, evaluated consistently, and addressed through effective design responses.
See Section 6.1 for proposed policy language and insertion points.
2. Establish Quantifiable Triggers for Groundwater and Flood Risk
The draft Safety Element appropriately identifies emergent groundwater as a widespread and growing hazard and includes important requirements in Policy 5.4 for geotechnical investigation and mitigation within mapped emergent groundwater risk areas. This provides a strong foundation for addressing groundwater-related risks.
However, the current framework relies primarily on mapped conditions tied to specific sea level rise scenarios, and Policy 5.2 continues to frame investigation as discretionary in areas “at risk.” Together, these provisions leave considerable uncertainty about what is required as groundwater conditions evolve. As a result, the policies do not yet provide a clearly defined pathway for
determining when site-specific investigation is required, and
translating investigation results into consistent mitigation and monitoring responses.
We recommend strengthening and clarifying these provisions by establishing a more explicit framework that incorporates screening criteria, site-specific analysis, and measurable thresholds to ensure timely and predictable application of investigation, mitigation, and monitoring requirements over time.
See Section 6.2 for proposed policy language and insertion points.
3. Strengthen Contamination and Public Health Protections
The draft Safety Element recognizes that rising groundwater may mobilize contamination and expand exposure pathways across the city. This is a significant public health concern, particularly given the extent of legacy contamination in areas vulnerable to groundwater rise.
However, current policies do not consistently translate this risk into clear, enforceable requirements for development review, particularly with respect to when investigation is required and how risks must be addressed.
We recommend establishing a framework for contamination risk management that incorporates triggers for investigation, defined mitigation requirements, and standardized monitoring approaches to ensure effective protection of public health, particularly in areas where groundwater rise may influence contaminant movement.
See Section 6.3 for proposed policy language and insertion points.
4. Address Emerging Risks from Life Sciences and Research Uses
The draft Safety Element addresses hazardous materials broadly but does not yet account for the increasing presence of life sciences and laboratory uses in the region, which introduce distinct safety considerations, including biological hazards, specialized waste streams, and emergency response requirements.
Other jurisdictions have begun to adopt enforceable standards to manage these risks. For example, San Carlos prohibits projects with biosafety level designations BSL-3 and BSL-4.1 Redwood City adopted detailed standards for research and development, laboratory uses.2 Without clear standards, East Palo Alto may face gaps in public health protection and land use compatibility, particularly near sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, childcare facilities, and wildlife habitat.
We recommend establishing specific requirements governing biosafety levels, land use compatibility, and required safety planning to ensure the safe siting and operation of laboratory and research uses.
See Section 6.4 for proposed policy language and insertion points.
5. Establish a Unified, Citywide Framework for Implementation
Many strong development and safety standards already exist within City plans, including the 2024 Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Update, but they are not consistently applied across the city. This fragmented approach can result in uneven implementation and reduced effectiveness in achieving the Safety Element goals. The 2024 Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan includes detailed, risk-responsive standards; this update presents an opportunity to extend those approaches into a consistent, citywide framework.
We recommend integrating these standards into a coordinated citywide approach within the Safety Element, with consistent triggers and enforcement mechanisms to ensure reliable applicability across all development and planning contexts.
See Section 6.5 for proposed policy language and insertion points.
6. Detailed Policy Recommendations and Suggested Insertion Points
The following language is intended to align with the City’s existing Safety Element structure and can be adapted as needed.
6.1 Flood and Sea Level Rise Development Standards
Goal SN-3 (Flooding) and Goal SN-4 (Sea Level Rise)
Add New Policy
Policy 3.X Integrated Flood-Resilient Development Standards. Require new development and substantial improvements to incorporate integrated flood and sea level rise resilience measures that address building elevation, site design, and stormwater management based on projected future conditions.
Add New Implementation Measure
IM 3.X Flood-Resilient Development Standards. Develop and adopt citywide development standards for flood and sea level rise resilience. These standards shall, at a minimum
Require minimum finished-floor elevations tied to the City’s Design Flood Elevation (DFE)
Require on-site stormwater detention and retention sized for projected future conditions
Require use of permeable surfaces where feasible
Require incorporation of green infrastructure features (e.g., bioswales, rain gardens)
Require evaluation of compound flooding risks, including interaction with groundwater rise
Require site-level hydrologic analysis for projects subject to elevated flood or groundwater risk, as identified through screening criteria or applicable hazard maps, and use this analysis to inform application of DFE, stormwater sizing, and site design requirements.
These requirements shall be applied collectively to ensure integrated site performance under future flood conditions.
Conforming Edits
Policy 4.7: Revise to reference DFE and integrated development standards
Policy 3.10: Revise to align stormwater requirements with these standards
6.2 Groundwater and Flood Risk Triggers
Goal SN-5 (Emergent Groundwater)
Revise Policy 5.2
Replace “encourage” with “require” for geotechnical and hydrological investigations.
Revise Policy 5.4
Add: “...and in areas where latest available data indicates potential for shallow groundwater conditions...” following the reference to Figures 10-9 and 10-10.
Add New Policy
Policy 5.X Groundwater Risk Assessment and Response. Establish a consistent framework for groundwater risk management that includes screening criteria to determine when geotechnical and hydrologic investigation is required and defined thresholds to guide mitigation and monitoring based on investigation findings.
Add New Implementation Measure
IM 5.X Groundwater and Flood Risk Screening and Response. Develop and apply screening criteria and thresholds for groundwater and related flood risk. This shall include the following:
Screening criteria based on mapped groundwater areas, topography, proximity to shoreline or creeks, drainage constraints, and available data
Requirement for geotechnical and hydrologic analysis when screening criteria are met
Defined thresholds to guide structural design, monitoring, and contamination risk management
Evaluation under current and projected future conditions
Use of analysis results to inform flood-resilient development standards, including DFE application and site design requirements, and
Integration into development review and permitting processes
6.3 Contamination and Public Health Protection
Hazardous Materials Section
Add New Policy
Policy X Contamination Risk Assessment and Response. Require a coordinated approach to contamination risk management that incorporates screening criteria, site-specific investigation, and appropriate mitigation and monitoring requirements, including consideration of changing groundwater conditions.
Add New Implementation Measure
IM X Contamination Risk Management Standards and Program. Develop and implement citywide standards and procedures to identify, assess, and manage contamination risks associated with development, particularly in areas affected by groundwater rise and legacy contamination. This program shall incorporate the following.
Establish screening criteria to identify sites requiring contamination assessment, including sites with known or suspected contamination, proximity to hazardous uses, and areas vulnerable to groundwater rise.
Require site-specific investigation and risk assessment for sites meeting screening criteria, including evaluation of exposure pathways such as vapor intrusion, consistent with applicable regulatory agency requirements.
Require remediation or risk management plans to be approved prior to grading or earthwork, with sequencing of cleanup prior to development.
Address potential interactions between groundwater rise and contaminant behavior, using best available data and coordination with relevant regulatory agencies.
Establish monitoring, reporting, and long-term management requirements, as appropriate.
Build on the draft Safety Element’s contaminated-site database and multilingual outreach commitments by providing a publicly accessible tracking tool that supports transparency and accountability. This tool should
map contaminated sites and areas vulnerable to groundwater rise,
identify priority sites for investigation and cleanup based on exposure risk, proximity to sensitive uses, and environmental justice considerations,
track remediation or risk management status and timelines, as available, and
identify responsible departments and points of contact.
These standards should align with and build upon the contamination management approaches adopted in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan, including policies under Goals LU-4 and LU-5.
6.4 Life Sciences and Laboratory Safety
Hazardous Materials Section (new subsection)
Add New Goal
Goal SN-X Biosafety. Ensure safe siting and operation of laboratory and research uses.
Add Policy
Policy SN-X Laboratory Safety Standards and Review Procedures. Develop and implement standards and review procedures for laboratory and research uses to ensure safe siting, design, and operation.
Add Implementation Measures
IM SN-X.1 Limit laboratory uses to BSL-1 and BSL-2; prohibit BSL-3 and BSL-4.
Alternate IM SN.1 (if the City allows BSL-3 and BSL-4 uses): Establish a full Environmental Impact Report as the default level of review for any project involving businesses that use hazardous chemicals or perform biological research classified as BSL-3 or BSL-4.3
IM-SN-X.2 Establish laboratory and research use standards. This program shall
establish standards for land use compatibility, including proximity to or co-location with sensitive receptors,
require project-specific safety planning, including biosafety, emergency response, and hazardous materials management plans, as appropriate.
require coordination with relevant regulatory agencies, including Fire, CUPA, and applicable state and federal authorities, and
establish operational and design requirements to ensure safe handling, storage, and containment of hazardous materials.
6.5 Citywide Standards Integration
Add New Policy
Policy SN-X Citywide Standards Integration. Establish a coordinated, citywide approach to applying development and safety standards across plans, policies, and implementation tools.
Add New Implementation Measure
IM SN-X Standards Integration Program. Develop and implement a program to align and apply development and safety standards consistently across City plans and regulatory processes. This program shall include the following:
Conduct a review and comparison of existing City plans, including the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan, to identify and align applicable standards and approaches.
Incorporate relevant and effective standards into the Safety Element and related implementation tools.
Ensure alignment with zoning, building code, and development review processes.
Establish consistent triggers, requirements, and review procedures across hazard types, including flooding, groundwater rise, and contamination.
Provide guidance to staff and applicants to support consistent application during project review.
Conclusion
The draft Safety Element provides a strong analytical foundation. With the additions outlined above, it can more effectively serve as a clear, enforceable, and citywide framework that protects public health, reduces risk, and advances equitable outcomes.
We appreciate your consideration and look forward to continued engagement.
Sincerely,
Jenniffer Hetterly
Campaign Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Bay Alive Campaign
Alexandra Mendoza
Environmental Associate
Green Foothills
Eileen McLaughlin
Board Member
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
1 Curry, R. (2023, June 28) San Carlos votes to ban high-risk bio labs that study HIV, COVID-19, smallpox and other viruses, ABC 7 News
https://abc7news.com/post/san-carlos-bio-labs-health-risk-banning-high/13437843/?userab=abcn_du_cat_topic_feature_holdout-474*variant_b_redesign-1939%2Cotv_web_content_rec-539*variant_c_trending-2268%2Cotv_search_page_design_unification-546*variant_b_search_redesign-2300%2Cabcn_popular_reads_exp-542*variant_b_7days_filter-2288
2 Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan, DTTP-Wide Amendments, Approved June 26, 2023, Sec. 2.2.4.
https://webapps.redwoodcity.org/files/cd/Gatekeeper/Combined-Text-Maps-and-Charts-Updated-for-TD.pdf
3 Under the terms of the settlement agreement between Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, as stated in the Draft EIR for 1005 O’Brien and 1320 Willow Road “...East Palo Alto will prepare an Initial Study for future development projects in that city to determine the appropriate level of environmental review and will conduct that review, which can be simplified by incorporating by reference analysis and discussions from its general plan, referred to as Vista 2035.” If BSL-3 or BSL-4 projects are allowed, Alternate IM SN-X.1 establishes an EIR as the default level of environmental review. This Safety Element approach is consistent with the settlement agreement and would provide essential analysis and transparency about risks to the community from the introduction of these more hazardous materials.