Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-10-16 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Monday, October 16, 2017 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 5:00-6:30 PM 1.Presentation and Discussion Regarding Santa Clara County's Review of Stanford's General Use Permit (GUP) Proposal Special Orders of the Day 6:30-6:40 PM 2.Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to James F. Cook Upon Completion of his Term as a Utilities Advisory Commissioner Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:40-6:50 PM Oral Communications 6:50-7:05 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. REVISED 2 October 16, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Minutes Approval 7:05-7:10 PM 3.Approval of Action Minutes for the September 18 and October 2, 2017 Council Meetings Consent Calendar 7:10-7:15 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4.Annual Review of Williamson Act Contract Renewals Within the City of Palo Alto 5.Approval of a Blanket Purchase Order With Granite Rock Company for$380,760 Each Year and Granite Construction Company for $90,000 Each Year, Both for a Three-year Term, From October 17, 2017 Through June 30, 2020 for Asphalt Concrete Products 6.Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Palo Alto Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Approval of Three Additional Emergency Management Plans 7.Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-year General Services Agreement With Valley Oil Company in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $3,256,164 for the Purchase of Unleaded and Diesel Fuels to Supply the City's Fleet 8.Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment Number One to Contract Number C17165053 With Salas O'Brien Adding Construction Administration to the Scope of Services and Increasing Compensation by $35,000 for the Zero Waste Office Renovation, for a Not-to-Exceed Total Contract Amount of $252,800 for the Municipal Services Center Improvements and Zero Waste Office Renovation Project (CIP PF-16006) 9.Approval of Amendment Number Three to Contract Number C14152025 With SP Plus for Valet Parking Services to Extend the Contract Term to March 2, 2018 (Continued From October 2, 2017) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:15-8:00 PM 13.Colleagues’ Memo From Council Members DuBois, Holman, and Kou Regarding Strengthening Renter Protection for Palo Alto Residents Q & A 3 October 16, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 8:00-8:45 PM 10.Adoption of an Ordinance to Increase the Posted Speed Limit on Deer Creek Road and a Segment of East Bayshore Road to Enable Radar Enforcement and to Reduce the Posted Speed Limit in School Zones Consistent With State Law; and Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Target Speeds for Certain Arterials and Residential Arterials. Environmental Assessment: Exempt Under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines Section 15301 8:45-9:30 PM 11.Fire Department Deployment Changes and the Conclusion of Meet and Confer Negotiations With IAFF (International Association of Firefighters) Related to Impacts From the Stanford Fire Contract Revenue Reduction; Approve a Budget Amendment in the General Fund; and Approve an Amendment to the Table of Organization by Eliminating 7.0 Firefighter and 4.0 Apparatus Operator Positions 9:30-10:30 PM 12.Direct Staff to Return to the Policy and Services Committee With Amendments to the Municipal Code for the Regulation of Seismic Vulnerable Buildings and Receive a Summary Presentation of the Vulnerable Buildings Seismic Risk Assessment Study Previously Transmitted to the City Council on April 17, 2017 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. Q & A Q & A 4 October 16, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Rail Committee Meeting October 11, 2017 The following agenda/reports will be produced on October 12, 2017 Finance Committee Meeting October 17, 2017 Sp. Policy and Services Committee Meeting October 18, 2017 Sp. City School Committee Meeting October 19, 2017 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council October 9, 2017 October 16, 2017 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8514) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: County Presentation About the Stanford GUP Title: Presentation and Discussion Regarding the Santa Clara County's Review of Stanford's General Use Permit (GUP) Proposal From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is a study session and no action is recommended. Executive Summary As of the writing of this report, Santa Clara County is scheduled to issue its Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding Stanford University’s proposal for a General Use Permit (GUP) on October 6, 2017. If they meet this schedule, County planning staff will hold a community meeting at the Lucy Stern Community Center in Palo Alto on October 12, 2017. The meeting will allow County staff to summarize the material in the Draft EIR and describe how to provide input. County planners have offered to provide the same information at tonight’s meeting of the City Council. (Supervisor Simitian will also be holding a meeting in the City Council Chambers on October 19th.) Tonight’s study session will be an opportunity for the Council to hear the County staff presentation and provide questions or comments. Separately, City staff will be reviewing the Draft EIR and will bring a draft comment letter to the City Council for consideration in late- November. Background & Discussion Stanford University is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County and is proposing significant new development. The attached Notice of Preparation provides a summary of the project, Attachment A. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The County is the “lead agency” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is circulating a Draft EIR analyzing the University’s proposal. Given the current schedule, comments on the Draft EIR are due to the County on or before December 5, 2017. The City of Palo Alto will be a “responsible agency” under CEQA if City approval(s) are required for any aspects of the University’s project, including off-site mitigation. The City provided comments on the scope of the EIR during an earlier phase of the review, and a copy of the City’s comments are included as Attachment B. As seen in the City’s comment letter, there are a wide variety of community concerns that will need to be addressed by the County and the University if and when the University’s proposal is considered for approval by the County Board of Supervisors. None is perhaps more significant than the suggestion by the University that they can continue successful implementation of a longstanding “No Net Peak Hour Commute Trips” pledge, which applies to single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips in the peak hour. City staff believes this goal will be increasingly difficult to achieve and that the County should impose clear and effective mitigation measures to achieve additional shifts from SOV to other modes, to address impacts to transit, and to require the University to pay its fair share towards Caltrain grade separations and other necessary capital improvements. This study session provides the Council with an opportunity to hear how the County has conducted its analysis, ask questions about their findings and approach to mitigation, and provide informal comments or suggestions. Separately, City staff is working with a team of technical consultants to develop a formal comment letter for the City Council’s review and transmittal in late-November. Timeline As of the writing of this report, the County’s Draft EIR is scheduled to be disseminated for public review on October 6, 2017 and the County will be requesting comments within 60 days (i.e. by December 5, 2017). Following receipt of comments, the County will prepare a Final EIR. The County and Stanford University have set a goal for consideration of the proposed GUP by the County Board of Supervisors in early 2018. Environmental Review This is a study session and no decision will be made requiring CEQA review. Ultimately, if the County approves Stanford’s GUP proposal, it will be after completion of the EIR process and subject to required CEQA findings. Under Section 15381 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21069 of the CEQA Statute, the City of Palo Alto is a “responsible agency”, which is a public agency, other than the lead agency (Santa Clara County), responsible for carrying out or City of Palo Alto Page 3 approving components of the project. Items requiring City approval include any physical improvements within the City limits -- including mitigtation measures -- as well as any agreements or contracts between the City and the University and/or the County related to implementation of the Stanford GUP. Attachments: Attachment A Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Project Description, Notice of Preparation (PDF) Attachment B Palo Alto Comments on Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation (PDF) County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development County Government Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street, 7th Floor San Jose, California 951l0 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY "2OI.S GENERAL USE PERMITOO Project Applicant: Stanford University File Number: 1165-I6P-16GP-162-l6BlPt Application For: Major Modification to Stanford University's General Use Permit, Community Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment As the Lead Agency, the County of Santa Clarawill prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project and would like your views regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. On November 21,2016, Stanford University submitted an application to the County to update its General Use Permit (hereafter collectively referred to as the *2018 General Use Permit"), amend the Stanford Community Plan, and amend zoningdesignations for some parcels to conform to existing conditions on the ground. A brief description of the proposed project, its site boundary, and a summary of the potential environmental effects are attached. The EIR may be used by your agency when considering approvals for the project. The County will make the ultimate determination regarding what level and type of development is approved under the project and what conditions of approval and mitigation measures and/or project alternatives may be imposed. A Public Scoping/Community Meeting to solicit comments for the Notice of Preparation will be held at the Palo Alto Arts Center auditorium located at l3l3 Newell Road, Palo Alto, on Wednesday, February 8th,2017, from 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The deadline for your response is February l7th. However, an earlier response, if possible, would be appreciated. Please send your response to: County of Santa ClaraPlanning Office Attention: David Rader County Government Center 70 West Hedding, 7th Floor, East Wing, San Jose CA 95110 E-mail : david.rader@Fln. sccgov.org Prepared by: David Rader, Senior Planner Sígnature Approved by: Manira Sandhir, Principal Planner, AICP Sígnøture Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith t^;/ rr, ,/à-/sn ¡þ/rd/7 bøe tlz lz.t. bøtb Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 2 County of Santa Clara Introduction The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to inform decision-makers and the general public of the environmental effects of a proposed project that an agency may implement or approve. The EIR process is intended to provide information sufficient to (a) evaluate a proposed project and it’s potential for significant impacts on the environment, (b) to examine methods of reducing adverse impacts; and (c) to consider alternatives to the project. The EIR for the proposed project will be prepared and processed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the EIR for the Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit and related approvals will include the following: • A summary of the project; • A project description; • A description of the existing environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures; • A cumulative impact discussion; • Alternatives to the proposed project; and • CEQA required environmental consequences, including (a) any significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented; (b) any significant irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources; (c) the growth inducing impacts of the proposed project; and (d) effects found not to be significant. Project Location Stanford University (Stanford) is located on the San Francisco Peninsula, approximately 35 miles southeast of San Francisco, and 20 miles northwest of San Jose (see Figure 1). Stanford owns approximately 8,180 contiguous acres across six governmental jurisdictions, including unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, and the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Portola Valley and Woodside (see Figure 2). The proposed 2018 General Use Permit would apply only to the 4,017 acres of Stanford lands that are located within unincorporated Santa Clara County, and thus, subject to the land use jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the County of Santa Clara (see Figure 3). As shown in Figure 3, the project area is generally located southeast of Sand Hill Road, southwest of El Camino Real, northwest of Stanford Avenue and Page Mill Road, north of Arastradero Road, and east of Alpine Road. Stanford’s core campus area, including academic and academic support facilities and housing, is concentrated north of Junipero Serra Boulevard and located within Stanford’s Academic Growth Boundary. The largely undeveloped Stanford lands within the foothills south of Junipero Serra Boulevard are located outside of Stanford’s Academic Growth Boundary. Project Description Background The County of Santa Clara regulates land uses on the Stanford lands within its jurisdiction through several mechanisms, including the General Use Permit adopted in 2000 (hereafter referred to as the 2000 General Use Permit), the Stanford Community Plan (adopted in 2000 as part of the Santa Clara County General Plan), the County Zoning Code, and the 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement between the County of Santa Clara, City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 3 County of Santa Clara Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 4 County of Santa Clara The Stanford Community Plan serves as the General Plan for the campus and maps the goals, strategies, and policies for Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. It is guided by six core principles: • compact urban development; • academic growth boundary for minimum of 25 years; • conservation of natural resources; • housing concurrent with academic development; • flexibility and accountability; and • goal of no net new commute trips. The General Use Permit is the implementation document that permits additional academic facilities and housing units, and establishes conditions of approval, consistent with the goals, strategies, and policies of the Community Plan. Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 5 County of Santa Clara The 2000 General Use Permit as amended allowed the construction of 2,035,000 net new square feet1 of new academic and academic support uses, 3,018 net new housing units/beds for students, faculty and staff, 2,300 net new parking spaces, and associated infrastructure. In May 2016, the County authorized an additional 1,450 housing units to be constructed under the 2000 General Use Permit (for a total of 4,468 housing units/beds authorized under the 2000 General Use Permit). Stanford estimates that approximately 1.4 million net square feet of the academic and academic support uses, and all of the housing, allowed in the 2000 General Use Permit has been built or approved; and that all remaining authorized development under the 2000 General Use Permit will be exhausted between 2018 and 2020. Proposed 2018 General Use Permit On November 21, 2016, Stanford submitted an application to the County to update its General Use Permit (hereafter referred to as the 2018 General Use Permit). The 2018 General Use Permit application, as well as relevant plans, reports and other documents, are located on the County’s website at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Programs/Stanford/Pages/Stanford.aspx The proposed 2018 General Use Permit would authorize an increment of campus growth and land use development, anticipated to take place over a period that would extend from approximately 2018 through 2035. The requested amount of growth corresponds to the 2035 Moderate Growth Scenario included in Stanford’s Sustainable Development Study, approved by the County in 2009. Table 1 presents a summary of existing authorized development and parking at Stanford, and additional development and parking proposed under the 2018 General Use Permit. TABLE 1: Summary of Existing Authorized Development and Parking at Stanford University, and Additional Development and Parking Proposed Under the 2018 General Use Permit Development Academic and Academic Support Space (Net Square Feet) Housing (Units/Beds) Parking Authorized Prior to 2000 General Use Permit 8,220,000 9,832 19,351 Authorized Under 2000 General Use Permit 2,035,000 4,468a 2,300 Additional Proposed under 2018 General Use Permit 2,275,000 3,150 0b Total 12,530,000 17,450 21,651 a Revised as of May 2016. b See, however, proposed 2000-space parking reserve discussed under Proposed Parking, below. Source: Stanford LRBE LUEP, 2016 Proposed Development Similar to the 2000 General Use Permit, the proposed 2018 General Use Permit would apply to all land uses within unincorporated Santa Clara County that would require a conditional use permit, Architecture and Site Approval (ASA), or Planning Commission approval under the County Zoning Code. The 2018 General Use Permit would not apply to uses on Stanford lands that are permitted by right under the County Zoning Code. Under the 2018 General Use Permit, Stanford proposes new academic and academic support space, and housing subject to the following development limits: • 2,275,000 net new square feet of net new academic and academic support facilities; and • 3,150 net new housing units/beds, of which up to 550 units would be available for faculty, staff, postdoctoral scholars, and medical residents. 1 Refers to gross square footage pursuant to Government Code Section 65995-65998. Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 6 County of Santa Clara The proposed academic and academic support space and housing units would be constructed on vacant land, infill sites and redevelopment sites within the Academic Growth Boundary (see Figure 3). No site- specific projects and locations have been identified for development under the 2018 General Use Permit. Each individual building or project that would be developed under the 2018 General Use Permit would require submittal of an application to the County at the time proposed, and may be subject to additional review prior to consideration of approval by the County. Stanford proposes that any remaining unbuilt academic and academic support space square footage that was authorized by the 2000 General Use Permit would be carried over to the 2018 General Use Permit in the event that Stanford does not receive approval for construction of all the remaining square footage by the time the 2018 General Use Permit takes effect. In the 2000 General Use Permit Stanford identified development districts to estimate the distribution of development within the campus. Figure 4 presents the proposed distribution of academic and academic support space and housing that is proposed to occur under the 2018 General Use Permit, by development district. Stanford proposes modifications to the district boundaries to better comport to existing zoning boundaries and conditions on the ground. In addition, Stanford proposes minor amendments to Community Plan and zoning designations on some parcels to conform to existing conditions on the ground. Housing Linkage As with the 2000 General Use Permit, under the proposed 2018 General Use Permit the development of academic and academic support space would be linked to the development of housing units. Table 2 presents the proposed housing linkage under the 2018 General Use Permit, and proposed interim milestones for development.2 Interim milestones would be required to be met for each increment of 500,000 square feet of academic and academic support space to ensure proposed housing keeps pace with academic and academic support facility growth. Similar to the 2000 General Use Permit Condition F.7, under the 2018 General Use Permit, Stanford seeks a condition that would allow it to build additional housing beyond the proposed development limit of 3,150 housing units/beds, subject to additional environmental review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2 As shown in Table 2, under the proposed project, Stanford would use the same housing linkage ratio as was identified in Condition F.8 in the 2000 General Use Permit. Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 7 County of Santa Clara TABLE 2: 2018 General Use Permit Housing Linkage Academic and Academic Support Space (Net New Square Feet) Housing Units/Beds at 1/826 (Net New Square Feet) Cumulative # of Housing Units/Beds 0 – 0.5 M 605 605 0.5 – 1.0 M 605 1,210 1.0 – 1.5 M 605 1,815 1.5 – 2.0 M 605 2,240 2.0 - 2.275 M 333 2,753 Note: This table represents the minimum housing required per the housing linkage ratio. However, the 2018 General Use Permit proposes a greater number of housing units/beds (3,150) than that required by the housing linkage ratio. Source: Stanford LRBE LUEP, 2016 Stanford has proposed that certain specific types of development not be counted towards the proposed development limits. This exempted development would include 40,000 net new square feet of child care and community center space. Stanford also proposes to continue to be allowed to utilize up to 50,000 net new square feet of construction surge space that was authorized in the 2000 General Use Permit. Surge space is used to temporarily house uses that may be displaced during a construction project. As proposed, the 2018 General Use Permit would also accommodate construction of campus infrastructure improvements to support development proposed under the 2018 General Use Permit, including, but not limited to, utilities and circulation improvements. Proposed Parking Under the 2018 General Use Permit the authorized amount of parking would be unchanged from the limits established by the 2000 General Use Permit. Stanford proposes to exempt certain types of parking at the campus from inclusion in its authorized parking limit, including parking associated with trip- reduction programs, electric vehicles, police and fire department use, and high-density faculty and staff housing. In addition, Stanford University proposes that the 2018 General Use Permit include an option to allow Stanford to construct a 2,000-space parking supply reserve, subject to Planning Commission review and approval, if any one of the following conditions apply: 1) Stanford is achieving its No Net New Commute Trip goal; 2) such parking would not result in a substantial increase in peak-hour commute trips; or 3) unforeseen circumstances occur due to changes in background conditions would require provision of additional parking. County Approvals Stanford seeks the following approvals from the County: • Certification of the 2018 General Use Permit EIR; • Adoption of a new 2018 General Use Permit; • Approval of amendments to the County Zoning Map (zoning designation changes are proposed for specific parcels within the campus); and • Approval of amendments to the Stanford Community Plan. Potential Environmental Effects of the Project The County will prepare a program level EIR for the proposed 2018 General Use Permit pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. It should be noted that project-specific CEQA review may be required for individual buildings or other projects that would be developed pursuant to the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. Prior to consideration of approval, the County would examine each individual development at Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 8 County of Santa Clara the time they are proposed to determine whether the environmental effects of the specific project were disclosed in the 2018 General Use Permit EIR. The EIR will identify the significant environmental effects anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. Specific environmental topics addressed will include: • Aesthetics – The EIR will describe the existing visual and aesthetic conditions of the project site and the study area, and will evaluate the effect of the proposed changes envisioned by the proposed project on scenic views, visual character and quality, and light and glare. Mitigation measures will be identified to reduce any potential significant aesthetic impacts will be identified and analyzed, as appropriate. • Air Quality. The air quality analysis presented in the EIR will discuss current air quality conditions and air-pollutant sensitive land uses or activities in the vicinity of the project area; describe the regulatory context for air pollution in the Bay Area; and assess the potential for the project to conflict with the Clean Air Plan, violate any air quality standards, result in cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutants, cause emissions of substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors. Stanford University has submitted an Air Quality Technical Report for the proposed project, which will be peer-reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the Air Quality section. As needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant air quality impacts will be identified and analyzed. • Biological Resources – The EIR will present information on applicable biological resources in the project area, including special-status wildlife and plant species, natural communities, and wetlands; describe the regulatory framework for biological resources; and evaluate potential for implementation of the proposed project to impact biological resources and/or conflict with Stanford’s Habitat Conservation Plan. As needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant biological resource impacts will be identified and analyzed. • Cultural Resources –The EIR will present relevant cultural resources information, including data from Stanford’s Archaeological Resources Map and other sources; and will assess the potential for the proposed project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources, archaeological and unique paleontological resources, tribal cultural resources, or potential disturbance of human remains. In addition, Stanford University has submitted an Historic Resources Survey for the proposed project, which will be peer-reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the Cultural Resources section. As needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant impacts to historic and archaeological resources will be identified and analyzed. • Energy Conservation –Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, the EIR will evaluate the potential energy impacts of operation, construction, and transportation associated with the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. Stanford has submitted an Energy Technical Analysis for the proposed project, which will be peer-reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the Energy Conservation section. If needed, mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy will be identified and analyzed. • Geology and Soils – The EIR will present relevant information on existing soils and geologic conditions at Stanford. The EIR will address the potential for implementation of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit to result in soil erosion or exacerbate conditions related to unstable soils or slopes. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to geology and soils will be analyzed and described. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The EIR will report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with implementation of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, and will assess any conflict with applicable policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. As needed, relevant Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 9 County of Santa Clara policies and features that may serve to minimize GHG emissions will be identified. Stanford University has submitted a GHG Emissions Technical Report for the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, which will be peer-reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the GHG Emissions section of the EIR. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to GHG emissions will be identified and analyzed. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials – The EIR will discuss existing conditions as it relates to the potential past releases of hazardous materials within the General Use Permit area, describe existing hazardous materials and waste use, storage, and disposal operations at the campus, and discuss the regulatory requirements governing these operations. The EIR will assess whether implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to emit hazardous emissions, exacerbate hazard conditions through ground disturbance, or interfere with emergency evacuation plans. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials will be identified and analyzed. • Hydrology and Water Quality – The EIR will generally describe the hydrology and water quality conditions in and around the General Use Permit area, and describe the applicable regulatory agencies and regulations governing water resources at the campus. The EIR will address the potential for implementation of the proposed project to substantially degrade water quality or violate water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, substantially increase surface runoff or erosion, or exacerbate flooding hazards from new development. Stanford has prepared a draft Water Supply Assessment for the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, which will be peer-reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the EIR. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality will be identified and analyzed. • Land Use – The EIR will describe existing land uses and development trends within the project area; discuss potential inconsistencies of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit with relevant County and other applicable planning documents; analyze potential programmatic land use changes that could occur, and evaluate the compatibility with neighboring land uses. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to land use will be identified and analyzed. • Noise and Vibration. The EIR will describe the existing ambient noise environment in and around the General Use Permit area; identify applicable noise guidelines and regulations; assess the noise compatibility of the proposed project with existing land uses, and assess construction and operational noise and vibration impacts on existing and proposed future land uses. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to noise and vibration will be identified and analyzed. • Population and Housing – The EIR will describe the magnitude of potential changes in population and housing associated with the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. The EIR will describe whether the housing demand associated with increased campus population under the proposed project would be met by the existing or future housing supply. The EIR will evaluate if implementation of the proposed project would displace housing and population, from both the Stanford campus and, indirectly, from nearby areas. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to population and housing will be identified and analyzed. • Public Services – The EIR will describe local police and fire services, as well as primary and secondary schools in districts serving the General Use Permit area and surrounding communities; and assess whether implementation of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit would require the construction of new or expanded public facilities that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts. If needed, Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 10 County of Santa Clara mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to public services will be described. • Recreation –The EIR will describe the environmental setting for parks and recreation; discuss the potential for the anticipated population increases and proposed 2018 General Use Permit development to result in a corresponding increases in the use of non-Stanford recreational facilities such that substantial impacts could occur; and assess whether the construction of any proposed recreational facilities would have a significant effect on the environment. Stanford University has submitted a Parks and Recreation Facilities Analysis for the proposed project, which will be peer reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the EIR Recreation section. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to recreation will be identified and analyzed. • Transportation & Circulation –The EIR will describe existing multi-modal transportation and circulation conditions at study intersections, on freeways, and transit facilities, as well as transit service and bicycle/pedestrian facilities; describe Stanford’s current and proposed transportation demand management programs; present forecasted future conditions using the VTA/CCAG travel demand model; estimate trip generation, trip distribution and vehicle miles traveled associated with the 2018 General Use Permit; and analyze near-term and cumulative transportation conditions with and without the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. Stanford University is submitting a Traffic Impact Study for the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, which will be peer reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the EIR Transportation & Circulation section of the EIR. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to transportation and circulation will be identified and analyzed. • Utilities and Services Systems –The EIR will describe existing utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater and solid waste services that serve Stanford, calculate increased demand for water and generation of wastewater and solid waste under the proposed 2018 General Use Permit; and assess whether implementation the proposed project would require new or expanded public utilities, the construction or operation of which would have a substantial adverse impact on the environment. The EIR will also consider whether the proposed project would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste. The evaluation of water demand will be based on a draft Water Supply Assessment prepared by Stanford for the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, and peer reviewed and ultimately approved by the County. The EIR will evaluate if there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to utilities and service systems will be identified and analyzed. • Cumulative Impacts. The EIR will evaluate, issue by issue, the potential for the proposed project, when combined with other development identified in the cumulative setting, to either result in new, or contribute to existing, cumulatively considerable adverse effects on the environment. • Alternatives. CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project (or project location) that feasibly attain most of the objectives, but could avoid or reduce at least one environmental impact (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). • Growth Inducement. This section will qualitatively evaluate the project’s potential to induce growth and any subsequent environmental impacts that would occur (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d]). City of Palo Alto (ID # 8351) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution for James F. Cook Title: Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to James F. Cook Upon Completion of His Term as Utilities Advisory Commissioner From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Attachments: Resolution Honoring James Felix Cook Resolution EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO JAMES FELIX COOK, UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONER WHEREAS, James Felix Cook served as a Commissioner on the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) from July 2009 through May 2016, serving as Vice Chair for three years and Chair of the Commission for three years; and WHEREAS, James Felix Cook provided guidance and insights as the Utilities Department engaged in the development of the 10-year Energy Efficiency goals, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, the Utilities Strategic Plan, the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan, the Gas Utility Long-term Plan, the 2010 and 2015 Urban Water Management Plans, the Local Solar Plan, the Carbon Neutral Plan, the Utilities Strategic Plan, the Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines, and Utilities rates for its electric, fiber optics, natural gas, water and wastewater collection utilities; and WHEREAS, James Felix Cook provided a dedicated service to the residents and businesses of Palo Alto through his enthusiasm, out-of-the-box thinking, and entrepreneurial approach; and WHEREAS, James Felix Cook advocated for low utility rates and high quality service for the community, while recognizing staff for commendable work on operations, customer service, safety and communications; and WHEREAS, James Felix Cook’s passion for sustainability and concern about greenhouse gas emissions manifested in his advocacy of carbon neutral electric supplies including the City’s long-term contracts for landfill-gas-to-energy and solar projects, the development of the PaloAltoGreen Gas program, and the Palo Alto CLEAN program to encourage more local solar installations; and WHEREAS, James Felix Cook supported testing and employing new technology and championed the Utilities Program for Emerging Technologies to provide a test bed for these technologies, bringing to bear his extensive knowledge of both the utilities industry and green technologies; and WHEREAS, James Felix Cook expressed early support for the development of the Utilities smart grid road map, served on an ad-hoc subcommittee of the UAC to review smart grid recommendations, and supported the development of smart grid pilot programs including CustomerConnect, the residential advanced meter pilot program and the commercial Demand Response program; and WHEREAS, James Felix Cook actively engaged the community on many levels including working with Council Members to help shape recommendations for Utilities, respectfully considered concerns raised by the public, and was always willing to listen to different points of view. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto, desires to recognize the meritorious service of James Felix Cook by commending the outstanding public service of James Felix Cook and records its appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community for the service and contribution rendered during his terms on the Utilities Advisory Commission. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: October 23, 2017 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________ _________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________ _________________ City Manager City Attorney CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 16, 2017 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the September 18 and October 2, 2017 Council Meetings Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 09-18-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Attachment B: 10-02-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 6 Special Meeting September 18, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:04 P.M. Present: DuBois arrived at 5:40 P.M., Filseth arrived at 5:10 P.M.; Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Ed Shikada, Molly Stump, Rumi Portillo, Lalo Perez) Employee Organization: Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a). MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 DuBois, Filseth absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:05 P.M. Council Member Kou left the meeting at 6:25 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:31 P.M. Mayor Scharff announced no reportable action. Special Orders of the Day 2. Proclamation of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring Daryl Savage for her Service to the Human Relations Commission. Mayor Scharff read the proclamation into the record. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/18/17 3. Proclamation of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring Greer Stone for his Service to the Human Relations Commission. Council Member Holman read the proclamation into the record. 4. Proclamation Honoring Cybersecurity Awareness Month. Council Member Wolbach read the proclamation into the record. 5. Proclamation Declaring the Month of September as Emergency Preparedness Month. Council Member Filseth read the proclamation into the record. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Consent Calendar Council Member Wolbach registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 7. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 6-9. 6. 4157 El Camino Way, Unit C-3 & C-4 [17PLN-00051]: Request for a Hearing on the Director's Tentative Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Allow Medical Office Use (Dentist). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15301. Zoning District: Neighborhood Commercial (CN). 7. Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Permitting Program for Tobacco Retailers to be Administered by Santa Clara County. 8. Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Contract for Legal Services With the Law Firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai by an Additional $15,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $210,000 for Litigation Services. 9. Ordinance 5417 Entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending Interim Ordinance No. 5357 That Added Sections 18.85.200 Through 18.85.208 to Chapter 18.85 of Title 18 Imposing an Office Annual Limit of 50,000 Square Feet in Designated Areas of the City (FIRST READING: September 5, 2017 PASSED: 9-0). DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/18/17 MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 6, 8-9: 8-0 Kou absent MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7: 7-1 Wolbach no, Kou absent Action Items 10. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN- 00464]: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and Approval of a Site and Design Review for the Demolition of the Vacant 5,860 Square-foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-use Project. The Project Includes a 4,027 Square-foot Commercial Building and 17 Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement. The Applicant Also Requests Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Basement to Encroach Into the Required Rear Yard Setback Below Grade. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated Between March 6, 2017 and April 7, 2017. Both the Planning & Transportation Commission (March 8, 2017) and Architectural Review Board (May 18, 2017) Have Recommended Approval of the Project. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30 (Continued From August 28, 2017). Public Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:05 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: A. Adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in the Record of Land Use Action; and B. Adopt the Record of Land Use Action approving Site and Design and Design Enhancement Exception applications, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning & Transportation Commission (March 8, 2017) and Architectural Review Board (May 18, 2017) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part B, “Change number of units on Condition Number 6 to 2.55, add a reference on Condition Number 22 to the walking bicycle route on Curtner, strike Condition Number 25 in its entirety, and add a red-curb on either side of the ramp along Curtner Avenue to ensure adequate sight-distance.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/18/17 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part B, “Correct Condition Number 1 to indicate May 4, 2017, change language in Condition Number 6 to ‘actual sale price of fair market value of each market rate unit in accordance…’, change language in Condition Number 44 to state ‘…project shall use bird-safe…’, and add a condition to allow historical photography taken of interior and exterior of the adobe building.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part B, “Add a condition to ensure ground floor is for retail and retail-like uses.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: A. Adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in the Record of Land Use Action; and B. Adopt the Record of Land Use Action approving Site and Design and Design Enhancement Exception applications, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning & Transportation Commission (March 8, 2017) and Architectural Review Board (May 18, 2017) with the following changes: i. Correct Condition Number 1 to indicate May 4, 2017; and ii. Change number of units on Condition Number 6 to 2.55; and iii. Change language in Condition Number 6 to “actual sale price of fair market value of each market rate unit in accordance…”; and iv. Add a reference on Condition Number 22 to the walking bicycle route on Curtner; and v. Strike Condition Number 25 in its entirety; and vi. Change language in Condition Number 44 to state “...project shall use bird-safe…”; and vii. Add a red-curb on either side of the ramp along Curtner Avenue to ensure adequate sight-distance; and viii. Add a condition to allow historical photography taken of interior and exterior of the adobe building; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/18/17 ix. Add a condition to ensure ground floor is for retail and retail-like uses MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Filseth not present, Kou absent Vice Mayor Kniss left the meeting at 9:00 P.M. 11. Presentation by the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association and Approval of an Amendment to the Funding Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association to Provide $480,000 in FY2018. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Authorize the City Manager to execute an amended and restated Funding Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF), and the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA), to: i. Extend the term of the Agreement from December 31, 2018 to July 1, 2020; and ii. Provide $480,000 in funding in the approved FY2018 City budget for use by the Palo Alto TMA in reducing single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commute trips to and from Downtown Palo Alto; and B. Authorize the City Manager to execute future amendments to the Agreement for the purpose of providing any additional funding approved by Council and included in the City’s FY2019 and FY2020 budgets for the express purpose of supporting the TMA, and to remove the SVCF as a party to the Agreement when the TMA receives formal IRS approval as a Section 501(c)(3) organization. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to remove from the Motion, Part B “to the Agreement for the purpose of providing any additional funding approved by Council and included in the City’s FY2019 and FY2020 budgets for the express purpose of supporting the TMA.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman yes, Kniss, Kou absent INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion a new Part C, “To present the TMA Business Plan to Council prior to the FY 2019 Budget.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/18/17 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Authorize the City Manager to execute an amended and restated Funding Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF), and the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA), to: i. Extend the term of the Agreement from December 31, 2018 to July 1, 2020; and ii. Provide $480,000 in funding in the approved FY2018 City budget for use by the Palo Alto TMA in reducing single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commute trips to and from Downtown Palo Alto; and B. Authorize the City Manager to execute future amendments to the Agreement for the purpose of providing any additional funding approved by Council and included in the City’s FY2019 and FY2020 budgets for the express purpose of supporting the TMA, and to remove the SVCF as a party to the Agreement when the TMA receives formal IRS approval as a Section 501(c)(3) organization; and C. To present the TMA Business Plan to Council prior to the FY 2019 Budget. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Kniss, Kou absent Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs 12. Review of the Letter From the City of Palo Alto to the Caltrain Board, VTA Board, and County Supervisors Regarding Support for SB 797 and Necessary Board Governance Changes Allowing for Fair City Representation. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to authorize the Mayor to update and send a letter from the City of Palo Alto to the Caltrain Board, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board, and the Santa Clara County Supervisors supporting SB 797 (Hill) and requesting governance changes on the Caltrain and VTA boards leading to fair and effective City representation. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Kniss, Kou absent Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 3 Regular Meeting October 2, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:08 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Scharff Human Relations Commission Present: Alhassani, Chen, Lee, O’Nan, Stinger Absent: Brahmbhatt, Gordon Gray Study Session 1. Joint Session of the Human Relations Commission and the City Council. Council took a break from 7:01 P.M. to 7:14 P.M. 2. 2321 Wellesley Street [17PLN-00030]: Request for a Prescreening for a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Subject Property From R-1 to RMD (NP) to Construct a Two-family Residence. Environmental Assessment: Prescreening is not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-family Residential). NO ACTION TAKEN 3. 470 Olive Avenue [17PLN-00215]: Request for a Prescreening to Re-zone a Portion of the Subject Property From R-1 (Single Family Residential) to CS (Service Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Prescreening is not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. NO ACTION TAKEN DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 3 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 10/2/17 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Staff requests to pull Agenda Item Number 7- Approval of Amendment Number Three to Contract Number C14152025 With SP… to be heard October 16, 2017 on the Consent Calendar. Minutes Approval 4. Approval of Action Minutes for the September 5 and September 11, 2017 Council Meetings. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to approve the Action Minutes for the September 5 and September 11, 2017 Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Consent Calendar Council Member Wolbach registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 8- SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Permitting Program for Tobacco… MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-6, 8. 5. Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 24, 2017 for the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, and the Planning & Transportation Commission. 6. Approve a Budget Amendment in the Capital Improvement Fund to Recognize and Appropriate SB 1 Funding in the Amount of $385,376 to the Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070, Street Maintenance. 7. Approval of Amendment Number Three to Contract Number C14152025 With SP Plus for Valet Parking Services to Extend the Contract Term to March 2, 2018. 8. Ordinance 5418 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Permitting Program for Tobacco Retailers to be Administered by Santa Clara County (FIRST READING: September 18, 2017 PASSED: 7-1 Wolbach no, Kou Absent).” MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 5-6 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 PASSED: 7-1 Wolbach no, Scharff absent DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 3 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 10/2/17 Action Items 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance as Recommended by the Finance Committee to Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule to Reflect Development Services Cost of Services Study and a Reserve Fund Policy. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:39 P.M. without public comment. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to adopt an Ordinance to adopt a reserve policy for the Development Services Department and amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule to adjust the Development Services Municipal Fees, based on the completion of Phase Two of a Cost of Services Study. MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Tanaka no, Scharff absent Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Filseth announced his attendance, along with the attendance of Assistant City Manager/Utilities General Manager Ed Shikada, and several Utilities Advisory Commissioners at the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA’s) Annual Meeting last week. He shared the NCPA is the agency which provides access to the state electrical grid for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The topic of Community Choice Aggregators (CCA’s) and their impact on the energy market was discussed at length during the Annual Meeting. Projections included that CCA’s, along with municipal utilities may one day be the primary providers of electricity while Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison would cease serving energy customers but retain their power generation and transmission roles. Greater regional coordination among utility providers and/or regional regulation of such providers was also discussed. He announced that several NCPA members, including the City of Palo Alto are participating in litigation against the Bureau of Reclamation. This litigation alleges overcharging for hydrodynamic electricity by the Bureau. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 8359) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Annual Williamson Act Contract Renewal Title: Annual Review of Williamson Act Contract Renewals Within the City of Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review the Williamson Act Property Report for Calendar Year 2017 (Attachment A), including the renewal of 23 Williamson Act contracts, direct the staff to file the current list of properties with Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Agency, and find the actions exempt from review under Section 15317 of the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) Guidelines. Executive Summary The proposed action would perpetuate 23 existing Williamson Act contracts between the City and landowners, which are aimed at preserving agricultural and compatible open-space uses. Currently 350.05 acres of land are under Williamson Act contracts in Palo Alto. The attached report includes the list of 23 properties currently under Williamson Act contracts and six properties currently under contract for which non-renewal notices have been filed previously. The City did not receive any new request for nonrenewal during this reporting cycle. The Williamson Act contracts for four properties owned by Mid-Peninsula Open Space District will terminate on December 31, 2017. Background The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, is a state program to discourage agricultural lands from being converted to urban uses, to preserve open space and to promote an efficient urban growth pattern. The program provides property tax relief to owners of agricultural land who agree to limit the use of their property to agricultural or other approved compatible uses. City of Palo Alto Page 2 On July 24, 1974, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance No. 2663 to establish rules for both establishing and administering Williamson Act contracts for Palo Alto properties. Among other things, the rules regarding administration of established contracts limit the allowable uses of the property to what is described in the contract, and provide that the contract remains in place when a property is sold, ensuring that the new owners are subject to the same use restrictions. Contracts are for a rolling 10-year term with a renewal date of January 1 each year, at which time one year is added to the contract term so that the term remains 10 years unless either party provides notice of nonrenewal. At least 80 days prior to that renewal date every year, the Council reviews the contracts and, at that time, may initiate a notice of nonrenewal for any contract or approve a notice of nonrenewal submitted by a landowner. If the Council takes such action, then that contract does not renew on January 1 and terminates nine years later. Under certain conditions, the Council may also approve a landowner’s request to cancel a contract. Contracts, for which the Council has not approved a notice of nonrenewal or a cancellation, automatically renew for another 10- year term each January 1. Discussion Under the California Land Conservation Act Program (Williamson Act), private landowners can voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses under minimum 10-year rolling term contracts administered by City of Palo Alto. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use or generated income, rather than potential market value. Attachment A, the Williamson Act Property Report for Calendar Year 2017, provides information on the 2017 assessed land value, acreages and the land class (prime and non-prime land) of all the parcels that are under contract, as well as parcels for which nonrenewal requests have been filed. Attachment B is a map showing the location of these individual parcels. The following section is a summary of the parcels that are currently under Williamson Act contracts. Properties under Contract Renewal: Currently, there are 23 properties renewing their contract with the City of Palo Alto. Approximately 350 acres of land are under Williamson Act contracts in Palo Alto, as compared to 303,335 acres in Santa Clara County. The 2016 California Land Conservation Act Status Report (Link: 2016 California Land Conservation Act Status Report ) published in December 2016 provides detail of the land enrollment under the California Land Conservation Act throughout the state of California. The 23 contracts in the City of Palo Alto will renew for another 10-year term starting from January 1, 2018. Of the 23 contracts, the private Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Page 3 Hills Golf and Country Club, is not eligible for tax benefits. Although a golf course is a permitted use, only golf courses that are open to the public and charge minimal green fees are eligible for tax benefits. Approximately 42 percent of the land (147 acres) under Williamson Act contracts is defined as prime land with a Class I or Class II Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) rating, which is considered to have the features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. Stanford University Board of Trustee owns approximately 27 percent of the land under Williamson Act contracts and 34 percent is under other private ownership. Properties under Contract Nonrenewal: Six parcels have been approved for nonrenewal by the City Council between 2008 and 2016 and are listed in Attachment A. As stated above, no new Williamson Act contract nonrenewals have been requested this year. Four of these properties, owned by Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, will reach the end of the ten-year term limit of non-renewal process and the contracts will terminate on December 31, 2017. Government Code Section 51246(a) Article 3 requires the City to deliver the notice of expiration to the Director of the Department of Conservation within 30 days of contract term expiration. The contract term limits of the remaining two properties in the non-renewal list will expire in 2024 and 2026 respectively. The California Department of Conservation’s Williamson Act Program requires participating cities and counties to complete and submit applications for an Open Space Subvention Act payment per Government Code section 16144, which states: "On or before October 31 each year, the governing body of each county, city, or city and county shall report to the Secretary of the Resources Agency the number of acres of land under its regulatory jurisdiction which qualify for state payments pursuant to the various categories enumerated in Section 16142, together with supporting documentation as the secretary by regulation may require.” While the State no longer provides meaningful subvention payments to local agencies, this reporting requirement remains in the law. Staff requests the City Council to approve the attached list of 23 parcels currently under Williamson Act so that this information can be filed in the City Clerk’s Office and forwarded to the State Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection by October 31, 2017. Resource Impacts Properties under Williamson Act contracts are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use or generated income, rather than potential market value. In Palo Alto’s case we receive no secured property taxes for these properties. Based on data from City of Palo Alto Page 4 the County Assessor’s Office, privately or non-government owned parcels assessed value (AV) would have been approximately $17.2 million if they weren’t under the Williamson Act which means the countywide secured property taxes (one percent of the AV) would be $172,000. Palo Alto’s share of this is approximately 9.4% or slightly more than $16K. In accepting the annual report each year, the City Council is effectively agreeing with past Councils that the preservation of the agricultural and open space lands in contract is important enough to warrant this foregone revenue. Historically, the City of Palo Alto received approximately $1,000 a year in subvention payments from the State to partially offset the foregone revenue. However, during the recession, the State has suspended funding for these payments. More recently, Assembly Bill 1265, passed on July 15, 2011, allowed participating cities and counties to recapture 10% of the benefits; however, implementation of this provision is generally only cost effective for cities and counties that have significant acreage under contract. Policy Implications The recommended action implements Ordinance 2663 regarding the administration of the Williamson Act for Palo Alto properties. The Williamson Act in general complies with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically supports Goal L-1 regarding local land use and growth management, as well as Policy L-1 which limits the extent of urban development. Environmental Review The recommended action of renewal of 23 contracts under the Williamson Act is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15317 (Open Space Contracts or Easements) of the CEQA Guidelines. This action of approving the attached report does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment Attachments: Attachment A: Williamson Act Property Report for Calendar Year 2017 (PDF) Attachment B: Williamson Act Parcels Map_2017 (PDF) Page 1 of 4 # of Parcels APN Street Name Full Address OwnerName Williamson Act Land Ownership Zoning Acerage after Deducting Homesite Exclusion Homesite Exclusion Land Class Contract Start Date Contract Status Assessed Land Value 20171 Assessed Land Value 20161 Assessed Land Value 20151 1 120-31-0012 El Camino Real 103 El Camino Real Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees Stanford University Land PF 0.72 No acerage deducted Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $11,040 $10,514 $10,514 2 120-31-0092 El Camino Real 103 El Camino Real Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees Stanford University Land PF 10.00 No acerage deducted Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $153,600 $146,285 $146,285 3 142-16-052 Coyote Hill Road No Street Number Leland Stanfors Jr. University Board of Trustee Stanford University Land AC (D)36.02 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $14,808 $14,102 $14,102 4 142-16-057 Coyote Hill Road No Street Number Leland Stanfors Jr. University Board of Trustee Stanford University Land AC( D)15.33 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $8,165 $7,776 $7,776 5 142-16-064 Deer Creek Road No Street Number Leland Stanfors Jr. University Board of Trustee Stanford University Land AC( D)4.04 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $2,520 $2,399 $2,399 6 142-16-065 Deer Creek Road No Street Number Leland Stanfors Jr. University Board of Trustee Stanford University Land AC( D)16.70 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $8,850 $8,428 $8,428 7 142-16-069 Coyote Hill Road No Street Number Leland Stanfors Jr. University Board of Trustee Stanford University Land AC( D)12.48 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $6,740 $6,419 $6,419 8 182-33-0143 Arastradero Rd 1525 Arastradero Rd City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Land PF 11.42 No acerage deducted Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $0 $0 $0 9 182-35-008 Alexis Dr Alexis Dr Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. City of Palo Alto Land OS 5.52 No acerage deducted Prime 5/1/1973 Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $52,791 $51,756 $50,979 List of Parcels under Williamson Act Contract that will Renew on January 1, 2018 ATTACHMENT A Page 2 of 4 # of Parcels APN Street Name Full Address OwnerName Williamson Act Land Ownership Zoning Acerage after Deducting Homesite Exclusion Homesite Exclusion Land Class Contract Start Date Contract Status Assessed Land Value 20171 Assessed Land Value 20161 Assessed Land Value 20151 10 182-35-035 Alexis Dr 3000 Alexis Dr Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. City of Palo Alto Land OS 119.92 No acerage deducted Prime 5/1/1973 Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $1,454,941 $1,426,413 $1,404,987 11 351-05-024 Page Mill Rd 3845 Page Mill Rd Judith A. Block Trustee Private Ownership OS 7.72 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime 2/16/1976 Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $53,254 $52,196 $51,419 12 351-05-042 Page Mill Rd 3837 Page Mill Rd David P. and Cynthia Lautzenheiser Trustee Private Ownership OS 9.00 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $404,770 $396,818 $390,866 13 351-05-043 Page Mill Rd No Street Number Richard D. Guhse Trustee Private Ownership OS 19.01 No acerage deducted Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $1,200 $1,142 $1,142 14 351-05-044 Page Mill Rd 3905 Page Mill Rd Michael R. Lowry Private Ownership OS 5.43 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $185,464 $181,828 $179,097 15 351-05-045 Page Mill Rd 3895 Page Mill Rd Marc and Lesley Wilkinson Private Ownership OS 9.00 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $1,061,039 $1,040,235 $1,024,590 16 351-05-046 Page Mill Rd 3885 Page Mill Rd William W. and Sharon T. Luciw Trustee Private Ownership OS 7.45 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $1,059,900 $1,039,105 $1,023,504 17 351-05-047 Page Mill Rd 3875 Page Mill Rd Richard D. Kniss Trustee & Et Al Private Ownership OS 10.00 No acerage deducted Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $600 $571 $571 18 351-05-048 Page Mill Rd 3865 Page Mill Rd Grace Carland Trustee Private Ownership OS 9.00 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $36,609 $35,876 $35,345 Page 3 of 4 # of Parcels APN Street Name Full Address OwnerName Williamson Act Land Ownership Zoning Acerage after Deducting Homesite Exclusion Homesite Exclusion Land Class Contract Start Date Contract Status Assessed Land Value 20171 Assessed Land Value 20161 Assessed Land Value 20151 19 351-05-049 Page Mill Rd 3855 Page Mill Rd Patrick K. Suppes Private Ownership OS 10.00 No acerage deducted Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $528,259 $517,901 $510,122 20 351-12-062 Skyline Blvd 5061 Skyline Blvd Rogers Noah Private Ownership OS 10.39 No acerage deducted Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $662 $630 $630 21 351-12-063 Skyline Blvd 5065 Skyline Blvd Robert Schulte Trustee Et al Private Ownership OS 11.35 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $488,077 $478,507 $471,320 22 351-12-066 Skyline Blvd 2287 Skyline Blvd Robert Schulte Trustee Et al Private Ownership OS -0.76 No acerage deducted Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $25 $24 $24 23 351-25-015 Page Mill Rd 4201 Page Mill Rd Bruce A Leak Private Ownership OS 10.31 One acre deducted for homesite Non Prime Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. $1,623,362 $1,591,464 $1,567,594 Note 2 Note 3 Source : City of Palo Alto, Williamson Act Parcel Database 2017. 1Office of the Assessors, County of Santa Clara. Website : https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/online-services/property-search/real-property The City of Palo Alto leases this land for public use; however, it is privately owned. Value not assessed because land is owned by public agency. # of Parcels APN Street Name Full Address OwnerName Williamson Act Land Ownership Acerage after Deducting Homesite Exclusion Zoning Williamson Act Land Type Williamson Act Contract Start Date Williamson Act Contract Non- Renewal File Date Williamson Act Contract End Date Site Description 1 351-04-031 Skyline Blvd No Address Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 20.00 OS Non Prime 2/27/1979 12/13/2007 Contract Terminates 12/31/17 Open Space within Foothill Open Space Preserve 2 351-25-014 Skyline Blvd No Address Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 10.72 OS Non Prime 2/26/1975 12/13/2007 Contract Terminates 12/31/17 Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve 3 351-12-043 Skyline Blvd No Address Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 8.72 OS Non Prime 2/28/1973 12/13/2007 Contract Terminates 12/31/17 Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve 4 351-06-017 Skyline Blvd 1185 Skyline Blvd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 19.73 OS Non Prime 2/28/1973 12/13/2007 Contract Terminates 12/31/17 Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve 5 351-12-006 Skyline Blvd 1405 Skyline Blvd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 138.59 OS Non Prime 2/26/1973 3/25/2014 Contract Terminates 12/31/24 Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve 6 351-05-050 Page Mill Road 3849 Page Mill Rd Jeffrey A. and Mary L. Thomas Private Ownership 10 OS Non Prime 2/7/1977 3/17/2016 Contract Terminates 12/31/26 Open Space List of Parcels undergoing Non-Renewal Process since 2008 ATTACHMENT A Contd. Source: City of Palo Alto, Williamson Act Parcel Database 2017. Arastradero Lake Felt Lake Boronda Lake 351-04-031 351-25-014 351-12-043 351-06-017 351-12-006 351-05-050 HeritagePark FoothillsPark Los TrancosOpen SpacePreserve Monte Bello OpenSpace Preserve Upper StevensCreek CanyonCounty Park Skyline Ridge OpenSpace Preserve Long Ridge OpenSpace Preserve Russian RidgeOpen SpacePreserve Coal CreekOpen SpacePreserve JasperRidgeBiologicalPreserve Rancho San AntonioOpen Space Preserve BaylandsNaturePreserve Shoreline FoothillOpen SpacePreserve ArastraderoPreserve CameronPark WeisshaarPark MayflieldPark PeersPark ElPaloAltoPark LyttonPlaza CogswellPlaza ScottPark KelloggPark BolPark RinconadaPark BowdenPark JohnsonPark BoulwarePark TermanPark RoblesPark MonroePark MitchellPark D Jesus RamosPark HooverPark GreerPark ByxbeePark BowlingGreen HenrySealePark SarahWallisPark WerryPark JuanaBrionesPark EstherClarkPark WilliamsPark Stanford/Palo AltoCommunityPlaying Fields San Antonio Rd 280 B o ule v ard Alameda de las Pulgas S a nd Hi l l Ro a d 2 8 0 Junipe r o Serra Boulevard P a ge Mi l l Road A r a s tr a d e ro R oa d El Cam i n o R e a l San Antonio Avenue Cha r l e s t o n R o a d G 5 M o n t e B e l l o R o a d Moody Road A l t a m on t Road Oregon Expressway Middlefi e l d R o ad U 1 0 1 Alma Street A l p i n e R o a d Foothill Expre s s w a y H i g h w a y 2 8 0 Los Trancos Road Hillvi e w East Bayshore West Bayshore Fabian C El Cam El M o nte R oad Sand Hill Road Road MillPage Skyline Em ba rcader o Road StanfordUniversity Mountain View Los AltosLos Altos Hills Santa Clara County San Mateo County Portola Valley El CaminoPark This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Williamson Act Parcels Under Contract for 2017 Parcels with Non Renewal Notices Appproved 0' 7000' Williamson Act Parcels2017 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto cmoitra, 2017-09-13 11:08:00Williamson Act Properties 2017 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 8519) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Blanket PO for Asphalt Concrete Products Title: Approval of a Blanket Purchase Order With Granite Rock Company for $380,760 Each Year and Granite Construction Company for $90,000 Each Year, both for a Three-Year Term, From October 17, 2017 Through June 30, 2020 for Asphalt Concrete Products From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1)Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a blanket purchase order with Granite Rock Company as a primary supplier of asphalt concrete products in an amount not to exceed $380,760 each year for a period of three years;and 2)Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a blanket purchase order with Granite Construction as a secondary supplier of asphalt concrete products in an amount not to exceed $90,000 each year for a period of three years. Background Between Public Works and Utilities Departments, three work groups use asphalt concrete. Public Works uses asphalt concrete to repair damaged sections of roadway, sidewalk, and bicycle paths, while Utilities uses asphalt concrete to repair streets following underground services work. The projects related to roadway repair contribute significantly to the City’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score. Suppliers chiefly utilize batch plant or drum plant equipment to produce asphalt City of Palo Alto Page 2 concrete. A batch plant has the ability to mix asphalt on demand, as specified, and in small quantities. A drum plant does not have the same flexibility; consequently whatever mix is being produced that day is all that is available. The City requires primary suppliers of asphalt concrete to produce their product in a batch plant, as this allows staff to order on short notice, control quality and manage schedule modifications to efficiently complete jobs. In addition, suppliers must be located within 10 miles of the Municipal Services Center (MSC) as staff utilize City vehicles to pick up and deliver asphalt concrete to job sites and have to consider known traffic patterns and unexpected events that may impact the quality of asphalt being delivered if waylaid. Discussion Staff recommends approval of purchase orders for a primary supplier as well as a secondary supplier of asphalt concrete to ensure a job is not jeopardized in the unlikely event the primary supplier is down for scheduled maintenance or unforeseen equipment failure. Bid Process On August 30, 2017, a notice inviting formal quotations (RFQ)for Asphalt Concrete Materials was posted at City Hall and sent to 10 builder’s exchanges through the City’s eProcurement system.The bidding period was 14 calendar days.Bids were received from two qualified contractors on September 13,2017 as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment A). Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number Asphalt Concrete Materials RFQ #169813 Proposed Length of Project Three years Total Days to Respond to Bid 14 Pre-Bid Meeting No Number of Bids Received:2 Base Bid Price Range $770,000.00 to $1,142,280.00 The criteria used to determine the primary supplier were the distance from the MSC, the supplier’s ability to produce asphalt concrete in a batch plant, and their ability to supply all necessary asphalt concrete products. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Since Granite Rock is the only supplier able to meet all of the requirements to be the primary supplier of asphalt, staff is recommending that Council approve and authorize a blanket purchase order for asphalt concrete with Granite Rock as a primary supplier. The City has previously had a blanket purchase order with Granite Rock, and staff has consistently received product that met both state and the City’s standards for consistent temperature and aggregate size. Staff is recommending that Council approve and authorize a blanket purchase order for asphalt concrete with Granite Construction as a secondary supplier. Resource Impact Funding for the purchase of material under this purchase order is available in the Fiscal Year 2018 operating budgets of Public Works and Utility Departments. Funding for contract years two and three are contingent upon Council approval of subsequent year’s operating budgets for each department. Policy Implications Authorization of the blanket order does not represent any change to the existing policy. Environmental Review The blanket order being supplied is in conformance with all applicable emissions laws and regulations. This purchase is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the CEQA guidelines (Sections 15061 and 15301(c)). Attachments: ·Attachment A -RFQ #169813 Bid Tables RFQ #169813 Results Company Bidding Meets Criteria to be Primary Supplier of Asphalt Meets Criteria to be Secondary Supplier of Asphalt Cost – Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Granite Rock Yes Yes $380,760.00 $380,760.00 $380,760.00 Granite Construction No Yes $253,000.00 $259,000.00 $265,000.00 A detailed bid breakdown is available here: Bid Results by Line Item - Graniterock Bid Item QTY Description Item Price Year 1 Total Year 1 Total Year 2 Total Year 2 01 1,000 Tons Asphalt Concrete, 3/4” medium $93.40 $93,400.00 $93,400.00 $93,400.00 02 2,000 Tons Asphalt Concrete, 1/2” fine $95.90 $191,800.00 $191,800.00 $191,800.00 03 100 Tons Asphalt Concrete 3/8” fine $96.90 $9,690.00 $9,690.00 $9,690.00 04 700 Tons Asphalt Concrete 1/4” fine $97.90 $68,530.00 $68,530.00 $68,530.00 05 100 Tons Asphalt Concrete, Sheet Asphalt $98.90 $9,890.00 $9,890.00 $9,890.00 06 1,000 Tack Coat $7.45 $7,450.00 $7,450.00 $7,450.00 Gallo ns SS-1H Yearly Total $380,760.00 $380,760.00 $380,760.00 Three-Year Total $1,142,280 Bid Results by Line Item – Granite Construction Bid Item Quantity Description Item Price Year 1 Total Year 1 Total Year 2 Total Year 2 01 1,000 Tons Asphalt Concrete, 3/4” medium $83.00 $83,000.00 $85,000.00 $87,000.00 02 2,000 Tons Asphalt Concrete, 1/2” fine $85.00 $170,000.00 $174,000.00 $178,000.00 03 100 Tons Asphalt Concrete 3/8” fine No Bid $0 $0 $0 04 700 Tons Asphalt Concrete 1/4” fine No Bid $0 $0 $0 05 100 Tons Asphalt Concrete, Sheet Asphalt No Bid $0 $0 $0 06 1,000 Gallons Tack Coat SS-1H No Bid $0 $0 $0 Yearly Total $253,000.00 $259,000.00 $265,000.00 Three-Year Total $770,000.00 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8030) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Council Adoption of Emergency Management Plans Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Palo Alto Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Approval of Three Additional Emergency Management Plans From: City Manager Lead Department: Office of Emergency Services Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council: 1) Adopt a resolution approving the Palo Alto Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex to the 2017 County of Santa Clara Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2) Approve the updated Threats and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) required by the THIRA plan review process. 3) Approve the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP) which incorporates the newly developed Community Wildfire Prevention Plan (CWPP). 4) Consider the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) which was adopted by Council on October 26, 2009 for the 2016 Foothills Fire Management Plan Update. Background Emergency Operations Planning. In January 2016, Council adopted the Emergency Operations Plan with Resolution 9573. The City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is a foundational document for emergency management for City staff, key partners, and the community. The City’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) is responsible for the review, revision, management, and distribution of the EOP. These three planning activities are associated plans that support the Emergency Management Phase of Mitigation.1 1. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.2 1 The standard four phases of Emergency Management are Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. 2 When OES initiated planning, planners adopted the term Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (LHMAP) to add emphasis to adaptive planning concerning climate change. Santa Clara County continued to use the more familiar Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) designation for the county-wide planning effort. Since then, Palo Alto conformed to LHMP as the standardized term for this planning effort. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires all cities, counties and special districts to adopt a LHMP to be eligible for participation in and receive disaster mitigation funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The LHMP identifies strategies that reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from the effects of natural disasters. It contains courses of action that the City currently follows, or may consider for future implementation, that reduces vulnerability and expose to future events. The LHMP, which assesses natural hazards only, must be updated and adopted by resolution every five years to be eligible for local disaster mitigation funds. In 2004, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) led a regional effort to address hazard mitigation planning for jurisdictions within its area of responsibility. This regional template was used by numerous counties and cities within the ABAG planning area to achieve initial compliance under the DMA. The ABAG process equipped local governments with tools to complete individual planning processes that met their needs, while pooling resources and eliminating redundant planning efforts. In 2010, ABAG conducted its second regional planning effort and during this update, many local governments in Santa Clara County used the ABAG tools to achieve DMA compliance, including Palo Alto. 2. Foothills Fire Management Plan / Community Wildfire Prevention Plan. In 2015, City staff members began a review of the Foothills Fire Management Plan. The 2009 Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP) Update addressed a broad range of integrated activities and produced planning documents to address and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the Palo Alto Foothills Area3. The area of interest includes the areas west of Foothills Expressway to the city limits of Palo Alto. The 2009 Update was approved by Council on October 26, 2009.4 The FFMP addressed fire hazard assessment and regional evacuation routes, wildland fire management recommendations and mitigations. The FFMP also reviewed non-project related topics such as municipal ordinances related to wildland fire and recommended staffing levels for Station 8 in Foothills Park and some related budgetary topics that are now part of other processes, such as departmental budgets. The prior FFMP proposed an implementation plan and identified potential funding, and included CEQA documentation for the proposed projects. Last, it recommended updates to the Pearson-Arastradero Trails Master Plan and Foothills Trail Maintenance Plan. This 2016 FFMP update focuses on topics directly related to fire hazard mitigation, emphasizing project-related improvements. This program is also documented in the City of Palo Alto LHMP and demonstrates how the City mitigates wildfire risk through the implementation of projects in the Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan (FCWPP). 3 The 2009 Foothills Fire Management Plan can be found online at http://www.wildfirelessons.net/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=289fefa7- 3a3a-4961-8ab2-aeb09daa6530. 4 The City Manager Report 326-09 can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/17449 and the minutes from that meeting can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/17986. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The FCWPP is a component to a countywide effort similar to the LHMP.5 The County of Santa Clara undertook a planning process to generate a countywide community wildfire protection plan in 2015-2016 in accordance with the federal Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. The purpose of the Santa Clara County CWPP is to assist in protecting human life and reducing property loss due to wildfire throughout the planning area. The plan is the result of a communitywide wildland fire protection planning process and the compilation of documents, reports, and data developed by a wide array of contributors. Palo Alto staff members used this planning format to link the Foothills Fire Management Plan with the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. In future updates, the City will combine both documents into the FCWPP. 3. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. In 2013, the City of Palo Alto OES contracted with Dewberry Consultants, LLC to develop the THIRA in conjunction with the City staff and wider community stakeholders including Stanford University, Stanford Health Care, and community and business representatives. This project began in September 2013 and culminated with the report to Council in August 2014 and publication of the THIRA Executive Summary.6 [The THIRA base document is not releasable to the public as it contains sensitive information for official use only.] This assessment provided the outcomes of this process and is compliant with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201. 1. Identify the Threats and Hazards of Concern. Based on past experience, forecasting, expert judgment, and available resources, identify a list of the threats and hazards of concern to the community. 2. Give Threats and Hazards Context. Using the list of threats and hazards, develop context that shows how those threats and hazards may affect the community. 3. Examine the Core Capabilities Using the Threats and Hazards. Using the threat and hazard context, identify impacts to the community through the lens of the core capabilities described in the Goal. 4. Set Capability Targets. Looking across the estimated impacts to the community, in the context of each core capability and coupled with a jurisdiction’s desired outcomes, set capability targets. 5. Apply the Results. Plan for the ability to deliver the targeted level of capability with either community assets or through mutual aid, identify mitigation opportunities, and drive preparedness activities. The All hazards risk matrix included the Threats and Hazards of Most Concern: Natural Hazards Earthquake 5 The Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan can be found at http://www.sccfd.org/santa-clara- county-community-wildfire-protection-plan. 6 www.cityofpaloalto.org/thira City of Palo Alto Page 4 Flood/Severe Winter Storm Technological Hazards Airplane Accident Hazardous Waste/ Materials Spill Urban Fire Human-caused Hazards Major Crime Cyber Attack Discussion 1. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. In 2016, the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and Santa Clara County jurisdictions teamed together to prepare an updated countywide hazard mitigation plan that would best suit the needs and capabilities of the County and its planning partners. With these factors in mind, Santa Clara County committed to preparation of its 2017 plan by securing technical assistance to facilitate a planning process that would comply with all program requirements. The ensuing planning process developed a new plan for the County and its planning partners de novo, using lessons learned from the prior planning efforts. The Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan identified three high rated natural risks and four medium rated natural risks affecting the entire county. 7 Hazard Risk Ranking: Santa Clara County Hazard Ranking Hazard Event Category 1 Earthquake High 2 Flood High 3 Severe Weather High 4 Dam and Levee Failure Medium 5 Landslide Medium 6 Wildfire Medium 7 Drought Medium In turn, each individual jurisdiction was required to prepare an “Annex” to the County LHMP, with mitigation strategies specific to the hazard impacts of that jurisdiction. The City of Palo Alto began our LHMP planning process in 2015 by participating in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) mitigation planning workshops. OES staff followed up this preparation in January 2016 with the development of a project management plan that described how we would implement the local mitigation planning process. This effort 7 County of Santa Clara LHMP, Not yet posted online, but will be available in the near future at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/oes/PlansPublications/Pages/LHMP.aspx City of Palo Alto Page 5 was started in advance of the Santa Clara County effort to receive Mitigation Planning Grant funding. Palo Alto created two planning structures as recommended by ABAG and included an inter-departmental city staff planning team as well as an external stakeholder group comprised of various local organizations representative of our ‘whole community.’ Over the year, the planning process followed the recommended FEMA planning steps and joined the Santa Clara County planning process in August 2016. Palo Alto also created an online website in February 2016 that described our planning process and served as a data repository for our project teams and for the general public. In May 2016 we highlighted this process on the City’s Homepage. Meeting documentation including internal planning team minutes, stakeholder team minutes and community engagement summaries can be found at the end of this annex. The body of documented work is available online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/lhmap. The State OES and FEMA have reviewed and recommend the Palo Alto Annex for adoption by the City and for inclusion with the Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Palo Alto Annex identified two high rated natural risks and three medium rated natural risks.8 Hazard Risk Ranking: Palo Alto Ran k Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category 1 Earthquake 48 High 2 Flood 42 High 3 Severe Weather 33 Medium 4 Wildfire 15 Medium 4 Dam and Levee Failure 15 Medium Mitigation Strategies are included in the Palo Alto Annex that when implemented will reduce the impact by each of these hazards. 2. Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP) 2016 Update and 2016 Community Wildfire Prevention Plan (CWPP), Palo Alto Annex. This 2016 FFMP update focuses on topics directly related to fire hazard mitigation, emphasizing project- related improvements. This program is also documented in the City of Palo Alto LHMP and demonstrates how the City mitigates wildfire risk through the implementation of projects in the FCWPP. The City of Palo Alto contracted with Wildland Resource Management Group, who also completed the 2009 FFMP effort, to assist in this update. Staff members from 8 Palo Alto Annex: Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. p. 1-15. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Community Services, Fire, Public Works Departments and the Office of Emergency Services formed the planning team to work with Wildland Resource Management Group. Additionally, members of the Midpeninsula Fire Safe Council also provided input to this update. The LHMP process enabled staff to more accurately assess the wildfire risk than in previous planning cycles which resulted in a Medium risk rating when considering number of properties affected and property values in each of the assessed fire hazard zones – high, medium, and low. The complimentary Community Wildfire Planning process, using an alternate assessment model, rated our Foothills area as High, based on fuel loads and potential of fire spread. A post treatment fire behavior assessment is also included in this update to identify areas of future treatments based on the wildfire threat. The most important benefit of previous treatments has been an increased ease of evacuation and emergency access through the expansion of managed roadside vegetation. The roadsides along Arastradero Road, Los Trancos Road and Page Mill Road are all safer for access and egress through increased line of sight, reduced fuel volumes and reduction of ladder fuels. This update also incorporates the participation in the county-wide Community Wildfire Protection Program (CWPP), which includes a Palo Alto/Stanford annex. 3. Threats and Hazards Identification and Risk Assessment. The THIRA plan has a review cycle of every two years. Following the drafting of the LHMP natural hazards, OES facilitated the 2017 THIRA update. This update revises the identification of threats and hazards for natural and intentional hazards. Technological hazards were unchanged in this update. For the 2017 THIRA Update, OES lead an assessment workshop with select City staff members and public safety agency stakeholders to conduct a qualitative rating of intentional hazards. Specific hazards were rated as Very High, High, Medium, or Low based on their likelihood of occurrence. These ratings were then compared to reported Part 1 and 2 crimes over the past 24 months in Palo Alto to provide a quantitative comparison and yield a final rating of human caused threats. The updated listing of threats and hazards of most concern is provided in the table below. Threats and Hazards of Most Concern Natural Technological Intentional (Human-Caused) Earthquake Airplane Accident Major Crime Flood Hazardous Waste/ Materials Spill Cyber Attack Severe Storm Urban Fire Workplace Violence Civil Disorder City of Palo Alto Page 7 Environmental Impacts Foothills Fire Management Plan 2016 Update. The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Council adopted a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) on October 26, 2009 for the previously approved Foothills Fire Management Plan. The proposed 2016 plan update, including the work areas, environmental conditions at the site, and the treatment methods are consistent with what was assessed in the previously adopted MND. A link to the previously adopted MND is provided in Appendix F. Attachments: Attachment A - CPA Operational Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Attachment B - Foothills Fire Management Plan Attachment C - County Wildfire Protection Plan Attachment D - THIRA 2017 Update Attachment E - Resolution Attachment F - Mitigated Negative Declaration Link 1-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO ANNEX 3/20/2017 SANTA CLARA OPERATIONAL AREA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Contents iii CONTENTS 1. City of Palo Alto ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Jurisdiction Profile ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Development Trends .................................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5 Integration with Other Planning Initiatives .............................................................................................. 1-13 1.6 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ................................................................................ 1-14 1.7 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ........................................................................................................ 1-15 1.8 Hazard Risk Ranking ............................................................................................................................... 1-15 1.9 Status of Previous Plan Actions ............................................................................................................... 1-15 1.10 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan and Evaluation of Recommended Actions ........................................... 1-15 1.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability ......................................................................... 1-20 1.12 Palo Alto Planning Process .................................................................................................................... 1-20 1.13 Additional Resources ............................................................................................................................. 1-22 1-1 1. CITY OF PALO ALTO 1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Nathan Rainey, Emergency Services Coordinator 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: 650-617-3197 e-mail Address: Nathaniel.rainey@cityofpaloalto.org Ken Dueker, Director of Emergency Services 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: 650-329-2419 e-mail Address: Kenneth.dueker@cityofpaloalto.org 1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: Date of Incorporation—April 23, 1894 Current Population—68,207 as of January 1, 2016 Population Growth and Demographics—Palo Alto’s population has increased only slightly during the last 30 years compared to Santa Clara County as a whole. The number of residents increased by 4.7 percent from 55,966 in 1970 to 58,598 in 2000, and 9.9 percent between 2000 and 2010 (U.S. Census 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010). As of the 2010 Census, population in the City has increased to 64,403. While the average number of people per household declined from 2.7 in 1970 to 2.3 in 2000, the number of housing units increased (See Table 1-1). Table 1-1. Historical Population Growth in Palo Alto, 1990-2010 Year Population Numerical Change Percent Change 1990 55,225 741 1.3 2000 58,598 675 1.2 2010 64,403 5,805 9.9 Source: US Census 1990, 2000, 2010. Although 64.2 percent of Palo Alto’s population is White, the City is becoming more ethnically diverse. Asians, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islanders comprise 27.3 percent, while 0.2 percent are American Indian/Alaska Native, 6.2 percent are Hispanic, 1.9 percent are Black and 6.4 percent identify themselves as some other race or two or more races. The median age of Palo Alto’s population has increased dramatically over the last few decades. In 1970, the median age was 29.5 for men and 33.7 for women. By 1990, these figures had increased to 36.7 and 40.0 respectively. In the year 2000, the median age for the entire population of Palo Alto was 40.2 years, which is considerably higher than the County median age of 34 years, and in 2010 it raised further to 41.9 Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-2 years. The increase in median age has been accompanied by an increase in Palo Alto’s senior population; the number of persons over 65 increased from 10 to 15.6 percent of the population between 1970 and 2000, and 17.1 percent in 2010. The number of older adults is expected to continue to increase in the future. At the other end of the age spectrum, the number of children under five has increased significantly over the last two decades and has resulted in an increase in the number of children entering childcare and school. However, the number of women of childbearing age has decreased markedly after increasing during the 1980s and 1990s and the middle-aged population has increased significantly indicating that Palo Alto will continue to grow older during the next decade. Location and Description—Part of the metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area and the Silicon Valley, Palo Alto is located within Santa Clara County and borders San Mateo County. The City’s boundaries extend from San Francisco Bay on the east to the Skyline Ridge of the coastal mountains on the west, with Menlo Park to the north, and Mountain View to the south. The City encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, of which one-third is open space. The city shares its borders with East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Portola Valley, and portions of unincorporated San Mateo County and Santa Clara County (including the unincorporated areas of Cupertino and Saratoga in the foothills). It is named after a redwood tree called El Palo Alto. The city includes portions of Stanford University and its affiliates, is headquarters to a number of Silicon Valley high-technology companies, including Hewlett-Packard, VMware, Tesla Motors, SAP and Palintir and has served as an incubator to several other high-technology companies, such as Google, Facebook, Logitech, Intuit, and PayPal. A blend of business and residential neighborhoods, anchored by a vibrant downtown, defines Palo Alto’s unique character. A charming mixture of old and new, Palo Alto’s tree-lined streets and historic buildings reflect its California heritage. At the same time, Palo Alto is recognized worldwide as a leader in cutting- edge development, as a quintessential part of Silicon Valley. Based on data from the City’s business registry in January 2016, there are 168 Firms in Palo Alto with over 50 employers collectively employing 56,410 employees. While this doesn’t account for all businesses it shows that the business community is at least the size of the residential population of Palo Alto. So while the City’s public services are sized for the residential community, they are serving a population at least double that size. The City Auditor’s Sales Tax Digest Summary Report from January 2016 lists the top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order and represents the year ended 2nd Quarter 2015. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 48.5 percent of Palo Alto’s total sales and use tax revenue are as follows: Anderson Honda Apple Stores Audi Palo Alto Bloomingdale’s Critchfield Mechanical CVS/Pharmacy Eat Club Fry’s Electronics Hewlett-Packard Integrated Archive Systems Loral Space Systems Macy’s Department Store Magnussen’s Toyota Neiman Marcus Department Store Nordstrom Department Store Pottery Barn Kids Shell Service Stations Stanford University Hospital Tesla Lease Trust Tesla Motors Tiffany & Company Urban Outfitters Valero Service Stations Varian Medical Systems Wilkes Bashford 1. City of Palo Alto 1-3 Brief History—Palo Alto was incorporated in 1894 and received its name from the tall landmark Redwood tree, El Palo Alto, which still grows on the east bank of San Francisquito Creek across from Menlo Park. One trunk of the twin-trunked tree can still be found by the railroad trestle near Alma Street in El Palo Alto Park. Leland Stanford Junior University opened to 465 students in 1891, as a memorial by Leland and Jane Stanford to their son who died in 1884 while traveling in Europe. Stanford University played a significant role in the development of the Palo Alto landscape; it has since grown into a world renowned teaching and research university with more than 16,000 undergraduate and graduate students. In 1925 the town of Mayfield, the original settlement that developed in the area in 1853, was annexed to the larger Palo Alto. In the decades that followed, Palo Alto continued to expand southward reaching the border it currently shares with Mountain View. The population more than doubled from 25,000 to 55,000 residents by 1960, and since then has increased to roughly 68,000 today. During these boom years Palo Alto was transformed from agricultural fields to urban forest and became the birthplace of the Silicon Valley. Climate—Typical of the San Francisco Bay Area, Palo Alto has a Mediterranean Climate with cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Typically, in the warmer months, as the sun goes down, the fog bank flows over the foothills to the west and covers the night sky, thus creating a blanket that helps trap the summer warmth absorbed during the day (USClimateData.com, 2017). Average high and low temperature and precipitation by month are shown in Table 1-2. Table 1-2. Average High and Low temperature and Precipitation by Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average high in °F: 58 62 66 70 74 78 79 79 80 74 65 58 Average low in °F: 38 41 43 45 49 52 57 55 53 48 42 38 Av. precipitation in inch: 3.07 3.19 2.48 0.98 0.47 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.16 0.75 1.97 2.95 The record high temperature was 107 °F (42 °C) on June 15, 1961, and the record low temperature was 15 °F (−9 °C) on November 17, 2003. Temperatures reach 90 °F (32 °C) or higher on an average of 9.9 days. Temperatures drop to 32 °F (0 °C) or lower on an average of 16.1 days. Due to the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, there is a "rain shadow" in Palo Alto, resulting in an average annual rainfall of only 15.32 inches (389 mm). Measurable rainfall occurs on an average of 57 days annually. The wettest year on record was 1983 with 32.51 inches (826 mm) and the driest year was 1976 with 7.34 inches (186 mm). The most rainfall in one month was 12.43 inches (316 mm) in February 1998 and the most rainfall in one day was 3.75 inches (95 mm) on February 3, 1998. Measurable snowfall is very rare in Palo Alto, but 1.5 inches (38 mm) fell on January 21, 1962. Governing Body Format—Palo Alto is a Charter City and has a council-manager form of government in which the nine-member, popularly-elected City Council appoints the City Manager, who in turn oversees a dynamic Executive Leadership Team in the operation of thirteen departments employing 1,000 staff. This vibrant organization enjoys a strong, collaborative, and open environment. The Fiscal Year 2016 citywide expenditure budget amounts to $563.6 million, with a General Fund budget of $185.7 million, a Capital Budget of $124.7 million, and Enterprise Funds of $342.5 million. The City Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan, the Office of Emergency Services, on behalf of the City Manager, will oversee its implementation. Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-4 1.3 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Palo Alto comprises 16,627 acres, or about 26 square miles. Approximately 40 percent of this area is in parks and preserves and another 15 percent consists of agriculture and other open space uses. The remaining area is nearly completely developed, with single family uses predominating. Less than one percent of the City’s land area consists of vacant, developable land (City of Palo Alto, 2007). The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2007, Land Use & Community Design Element and 2007 Zoning Regulations guide the development of public and private property of which local land use and growth management is a central topic. Figure 1-1 shows the annual net change in non-residential square footage, based on project applications processed by the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Net square footage numbers shown represent the total square footage added by all developments approved in the planning area for the given period, minus the total square footage demolished. Negative numbers in the table indicate that more non-residential square footage was demolished (or approved for demolition) than was approved or constructed. As shown, the period between 2010 and 2014 has seen by far the greatest net increase in non-residential square footage (City of Palo Alto, 2014). Table 1-3 summarizes development trends in the performance period since development of the previous hazard mitigation plan and expected future development trends. Table 1-3. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends Criterion Response Has your jurisdiction annexed any land since the development of the previous hazard mitigation plan? No If yes, give the estimated area annexed and estimated number of parcels or structures. N/A Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any areas during the performance period of this plan? No If yes, please describe land areas and dominant uses. N/A If yes, who currently has permitting authority over these areas? N/A Are any areas targeted for development or major redevelopment in the next five years? Yes If yes, please briefly describe, including whether any of the areas are in known hazard risk areas Commercial and some residential redevelopment occurs continually within Palo Alto through the normal course of property management. However, one project in the Fry’s Building / California Avenue area may be redeveloped in the next five years in which the City will play a leading role. All of Palo Alto is in a seismic risk area, so any development will have seismic risks. How many building permits were issued in your jurisdiction since the development of the previous hazard mitigation plan? 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Single Family 87 99 113 90 246 Multi-Family 1 12 4 2 5 Other (commercial, mixed use, etc.) 17 25 16 13 17 Please provide the number of permits for each hazard area or provide a qualitative description of where development has occurred. Special Flood Hazard Areas: 129 Landslide: 2 High Liquefaction Areas: 40 Wildfire Risk Areas: 4 Please describe the level of buildout in the jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s buildable lands inventory. If no such inventory exists, provide a qualitative description. Palo Alto is 99% built out. 1. City of Palo Alto 1-5 Figure 1-1. Citywide Growth in Non-Residential Square Footage 1989-2014 Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-6 1.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 1.4.1 Resources for the 2017 Planning Initiative The following technical reports, plans, and regulatory mechanisms were reviewed to provide information for inclusion into the 2017 Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan for both Volume 1 and Volume 2 (Palo Alto Annex). All of the below items were additionally reviewed as part of the full capability assessment for Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan—The Comprehensive Plan was reviewed for information regarding goals and policies consistent with hazard mitigation for carry over as goals and objectives. Additionally, development trends from the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan informed the development section of this annex. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code—The Municipal Code was reviewed for the full capability assessment and for identifying opportunities for action plan integration. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance—The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance was reviewed for compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. Capital Improvements Plan—The Capital Improvements Plan was reviewed to identify cross-planning initiatives for inclusion as mitigation projects. State of California Local Hazards Mitigation Plan—The state plan was helpful for reviewing goals and also in assessing hazards. County of Santa Clara and City of Palo Alto Local Hazards Mitigation Plan (2012)—The previous LHMP provided a baseline of information for the writing of this document. Palo Alto Threats and Hazards Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)—The THIRA helped to inform the hazard analysis portion of this plan, as well as a source for mitigation actions. Palo Alto Energy Assurance Plan—The Energy Assurance Plan provided information for the jurisdiction profile as well as a source for mitigation actions. Sustainability / Climate Adaptation Plan—This plan provided information for our hazards analysis as well as identification of mitigation actions. Foothills Wildfire Management Plan / Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Prevention Plan— These plans informed our hazards analysis as well as identifying wildfire mitigation actions. Technical Reports and Information—Outside resources and references used to complete the City of Palo Alto Annex are identified in Section 1.13 of this annex. 1.4.2 Full Capability Assessment An assessment of legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 1-4. An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1-5. An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1-6. Information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 1-7. An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 1-8. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1-9. Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 1-10, and the community’s adaptive capacity for the impacts of climate change is presented in Table 1-11. 1. City of Palo Alto 1-7 Table 1-4. Legal and Regulatory Capability Local Authority Other Jurisdiction Authority State Mandated Integration Opportunity? Codes, Ordinances, & Requirements Building Code Yes Yes Yes No Comment: Palo Alto has adopted the 2016 California Building Code Zoning Code Yes Yes Yes No Comment: Municipal Code, Title 18, effective 13 June 2016 Subdivisions Yes No No No Comment: Municipal Code, Title 21, effective 13 June 2016 Stormwater Management No No No No Comment: None located. Post-Disaster Recovery No No No No Comment: None located. Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes No Comment: Cal. Civ. Code §1102 et seq. Growth Management Yes Yes Yes No Comment: Growth management falls under Palo Alto’s 2007 Zoning Regulations and is more discreetly addressed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan; Cal. Gov. Code §65300 et seq. Site Plan Review Yes Yes Yes No Comment: Site Plan review falls under Palo Alto’s 2007 Zoning Regulations and is well practiced in the permitting process. Environmental Protection Yes Yes Yes No Comment: Ordinance 5107, 13 December 2010, to provide green building standards and environmental protections; California Environmental Quality Act (Guideline: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387) Flood Damage Prevention Yes Yes No No Comment: Municipal Code, Chapter 16.52 effective 13 June 2016 Emergency Management Yes Yes Yes No Comment: Municipal Code, Chapter 2.12 effective 13 June 2016 Climate Change Yes No Yes No Comment: Ordinance No. 5345, 31 August 2015, to comply with California Energy Code 2013 edition; California SB-379: Land Use: General Plan: Safety Element Other: Seismic Hazards Identification Program Yes Yes No No Comment: In 1986, the City Council adopted the Seismic Hazards and Identification Program codified at Section 16.42 of the Municipal Code. This ordinance established a mandatory evaluation and reporting program and created incentives for property owners to voluntarily upgrade their structurally deficient buildings. Planning Documents General Plan (As Comprehensive Plan) Yes No Yes No Palo Alto is undergoing an update to the comprehensive plan, which will be completed in 2017. This updated plan will be compliant with Assembly Bill 2140. Comment: The 2007 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and 2007 Zoning Regulations guide land use and growth management decisions in the City. The Land Use & Design, Housing, and Natural Environment Elements contain goals, policies, and programs related to natural hazards; however, the City is in the process of updating the current Comprehensive Plan which will derive a new Safety Element from the Natural Environment Element. Capital Improvement Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Comment: The 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program Plan for the City of Palo Alto guides the City in the planning and scheduling of infrastructure improvement projects over the five year period. Annually, the City publishes a Capital Improvement Program budget to guide annual funding of scheduled projects. Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-8 Local Authority Other Jurisdiction Authority State Mandated Integration Opportunity? Floodplain or Watershed Plan No Yes No Yes Comment: Santa Clara Valley Water District Stormwater Plan Yes No No No Comment: The City has a Storm Drain Master Plan, see Other plans below. Urban Water Management Plan Yes No Yes No Comment: . The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) outlines actions that the City could take to achieve varying degree of water use reduction. The UWMP will be updated by June 30, 2016. Urban Water Management Plans are designed to assess the reliability of the City’s water sources, support to our long-term resource planning, and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every five years, an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is prepared and submitted as required to the California Department of Water Resources, per the Urban Water Management Planning Act. Habitat Conservation Plan No Yes No Yes Comment: 2013 - Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Economic Development Plan No No No No Comment: The primary considerations for this are included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Shoreline Management Plan Yes No No No Comment: Baylands Master Plan 2008. The 2008 plan is an information update with the goal of producing an up-to-date record of Council approved policies and actions in the Baylands. It includes the history, environmental setting and adopted planning goals and policies for the Baylands area. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes Yes No Yes Comment: Palo Alto has integrated our local CWPP into the Santa Clara County CWPP. Forest Management Plan Yes No No No Comment: 2013 - The purpose of the plan is to establish long-term management goals and strategies to foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto. It was developed using an inter-departmental team of staff in conjunction with Canopy and community partners. Climate Action Plan Yes No No Yes Comment: 2014 - The City of Palo Alto launched a new Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) initiative in August 2014 to chart a path to a more sustainable future, find ways to improve our quality of life, grow prosperity and create a thriving and resilient community— all while dramatically reducing our carbon footprint. Palo Alto is already a world leader in climate protection strategies. The S/CAP will build on that leadership — and our successes exceeding the goals of our 2007 climate plan — to create an ambitious plan that also considers broader issues of sustainability, such as land use and biological resources. Palo Alto staff is already integrating our efforts with other Bay Area communities and agencies involved in these efforts. Emergency Operations Plan Yes No No Yes Comment: 2016 - The Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) identifies the City’s emergency planning, organization, and response policies and procedures. The EOP also addresses the integration and coordination with other governmental levels and volunteer agencies when required. It is meant to be considered as a preparedness document, intended to be read and understood before an emergency occurs. The major purposes of the plan are to distinguish who is in charge, to ensure essential jobs are accomplished, to provide for the continuity of government, to help citizens and City staff understand the City’s emergency organization, to provide guidance for disaster education and training, and to provide for the proper transfer of command during an emergency. Palo Alto integrated this effort with the other jurisdictions in the Northern geography of Santa Clara County including Los Altos, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. Threat & Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment (THIRA) Yes Yes No (Partial) No Comment: City of Palo Alto THIRA, 2014: To evaluate the City of Palo Alto’s capabilities for addressing all hazard incidents, the City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services (OES) conducted a collaborative planning process in order to develop the City of Palo Alto 2014 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). It is compliant with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201, Second Edition, released in August 2013, which outlines a process to help communities identify capability targets and resource requirements necessary to address anticipated and unanticipated risks. The result of the THIRA process is an organized evaluation of vulnerability and implementation measures based on the necessary capabilities to deal with the hazards/threats of most concern. This report should inform ongoing City and University planning efforts. Bay Area UASI, 2016: The Bay Area UASI is required to develop a THIRA as part of grant funding requirements. 1. City of Palo Alto 1-9 Local Authority Other Jurisdiction Authority State Mandated Integration Opportunity? Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No No No Yes Comment: Palo Alto does not currently have a Post Disaster Recovery Plan Continuity of Operations Plan Yes No No No Comment: In 2015-2016 Palo Alto initiated planning activities to develop a Continuity of Governance / Continuity of Operations Plan. We will complete this planning effort in 2017. Public Health Plan No Yes Yes No Comment: The Santa Clara County Department of Public Health has responsibility for public health planning across the County. Other: Yes Yes No Yes WUI/Foothills Fire Management Plan: This plan was recently updated in 2016. As part of the City’s mitigation of wildland and urban fires, we have implemented the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan in cooperation with the Santa Clara County Midpeninsula Fire Safe Council. This plan pertains to the Palo Alto Foothills area west of the Foothills Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard, which represents a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area. Storm Drain Master Plan: To mitigate ongoing flood risks, in 1990, the City created an independent enterprise fund to fund needed improvements to the storm drain system with revenue generated through user fees and developed a Storm Drain Master Plan in 1993 to identify and prioritize a set of projects to increase system capacity and reduce the incidence of street flooding. Property owners approved a ballot measure in 2005 to increase the City’s monthly storm drain fee and thereby provided funding to implement a set of seven high- priority capital improvement projects to upgrade the storm drain system. Table 1-5. Fiscal Capability Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Yes Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes Other Yes Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-10 Table 1-6. Administrative and Technical Capability Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes Planning & Community Environment/Planner Community Services Department/Open Space Ranger Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes Public Works/Engineer Development Services/Building Inspector Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Public Works/Engineer Development Services/Building Inspector Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Administrative Services/Program Manager Planning & Community Environment/Program Manager Surveyors Yes Public Works/Surveyor Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Planning & Community Environment, Technical Analyst Police Department Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes USGS, NWS Emergency manager Yes Office of Emergency Services/Coordinator Grant writers No Table 1-7. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance Criteria Response What local department is responsible for floodplain management? Public Works Who is your floodplain administrator? (department/position) Public Works Engineer Are any certified floodplain managers on staff in your jurisdiction? Yes What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? 2004 Does your floodplain management program meet or exceed minimum requirements? Meets When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance Contact? 2015 Does your jurisdiction have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? No If so, please state what they are. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your jurisdiction? Yes If no, please state why. Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? Yes If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? Additional staffing Does your jurisdiction participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? Yes If yes, is your jurisdiction interested in improving CRS Classification? Yes (currently class 7) Is your jurisdiction interested in joining the CRS program? How many flood insurance policies are in force in your jurisdiction? 3,665a What is the insurance in force? $957,293,500 a What is the premium in force? $4,126,988 a How many total loss claims have been filed in your jurisdiction? 473 a How many claims were closed without payment/are still open? 104 / 0 a What were the total payments for losses? $ 8,984,657.71 a a. According to FEMA statistics as of October 31, 2017 1. City of Palo Alto 1-11 Table 1-8. Education and Outreach Criteria Response Do you have a Public Information Officer or Communications Office? Yes. The City Communications Office, Public Safety public information officers, and Utilities Communication Manager provide public information officer functions. Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes. www.cityofpaloalto.org/lhmap & www.cityofpaloalto.org/thira If yes, please briefly describe. Palo Alto maintains and follows an Open data initiative that makes large amounts of governmental information available to the public. We have a local hazards mitigation page on the city website. Do you utilize social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes If yes, please briefly describe. We have implemented the use of social media using Nextdoor to communicate these types of information to the public at large. Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation? Yes - Citizen Corps is a best practice and model advocated by the federal government to integrate volunteers, non-government entities, the private sector, and other groups with local programs related to homeland security and emergency management (HS/EM). The City first formed a Citizen Corps Council (CCC) in 2004. The City later revised the structure of the in 2009. Do you have any other programs already in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information? Yes If yes, please briefly describe. The City of Palo Alto Website also provides several sources for hazard related information including a threats and hazards page, but also in our comprehensive plan. Our emergency services volunteer program also serves as a communications network in their outreach to neighborhood members as well as their participation in community events. Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes If yes, please briefly describe. The City participates in the County of Santa Clara mass notification system, AlertSCC, to get emergency warnings sent directly to cell phone, mobile device, email, or landline. Table 1-9. Community Classifications Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System Yes 7 1990 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 1 2015 Public Protection (Palo Alto Fire Department) Yes 2 2012 Storm Ready Yes N/A 2015 Firewise No N/A N/A Table 1-10. Development and Permit Capabilities Criterion Response Does your jurisdiction issue development permits? Yes If no, who does? If yes, which department? Development Services Department Does your jurisdiction have the ability to track permits by hazard area? Yes Does your jurisdiction have a buildable lands inventory? No Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-12 Table 1-11. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change Adaptive Capacity Assessment Jurisdiction Rating Technical Capacity Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High Comment: The City has a Sustainability Officer who manages a stakeholder team of both internal staff members and external agency representatives to understand the climate change issues in our area. The City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan demonstrates our understanding of climate change impacts; Palo Alto in engaged in Bay Area conservation planning groups that are also involved in climate change impacts. Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts High Comment: Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities High Comment: Staff members are assigned to assess and propose strategies for climate change impacts. These strategies are then included in our Comprehensive Plan, Hazard Mitigation Planning, and Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High Comment: In 2009 Palo Alto published the City’s Climate Protection Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Protection Plan provides a comprehensive inventory of emissions, reduction targets, and steps to reach those targets (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/9986). In 2014 the City updated this plan with new emissions data, goals, and actions. Additionally, the City has developed several programs to further reduce emissions including a long term road map coordinated through the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan as well as the City’s carbon neutral electric plan. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resources/pcm/carbon_neutral_portfolio.asp Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts High Comment: As a result of the technical resources assigned to this planning element, Palo Alto incorporates decisions into Comprehensive Planning, Local Hazard Mitigation Planning, and Sustainability and Climate Action Planning. Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks High Comment: Palo Alto staff members are involved in Local, Regional, and National groups studying climate/change and adaption issues. Implementation Capacity Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes High Comment: The Palo Alto City Council has established an aggressive GHG reduction goal and is in process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and adopting a Sustainability and Climate Action Plan that will mandate considering climate change impacts during public decision-making processes Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High Comment: The City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (scheduled for approval 11/28) identifies strategies for reducing GHG emissions 80 percent by 2030 (against a 1990 baseline) and for adapting to expected climate change impacts. These include strong energy efficiency requirements in building codes; exploring electrification (switching customers from natural gas to carbon neutral electricity); embedding sustainability and climate considerations into the city’s purchasing, operations and capital investment processes; encouraging shift of private and public vehicles to EVs, supported by expanded EV infrastructure; continued pursuit of the City’s zero waste goals. Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts High Comment: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Champions for climate action in local government departments High Comment: Chief Sustainability Officer sitting on City’s Executive Leadership Team; multi-department Sustainability Board composed of department directors; 5 to 10 percent of City employees membership of voluntary “green team” Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High Comment: Strong community and Council support Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Low Comment: Currently, the city provides funding for staff members to engage in change adaptation planning including a Chief Sustainability Officer, and additional departmental staff members on an ad hoc basis. The City has a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) fund that will provide funding for designated projects. The City Council can allocate funding for change adaptation projects as well. Local authority over sectors likely to be negatively impacted Low Comment: The City has not studied intently the sectors likely to be negatively impacted by climate change. 1. City of Palo Alto 1-13 Adaptive Capacity Assessment Jurisdiction Rating Public Capacity Local residents knowledge of and understanding of climate risk High Comment: Palo Alto includes a highly educated community, many of whom we believe understand climate risks. Palo Alto OES hosted a keynote speaker at a 2016 community town-hall event who spoke on the theory of sea level rise and the worldwide and local impacts of this threat. Local residents support of adaptation efforts High Comment: There is strong local support from what we can tell now for adaptation efforts. The City sponsored a public facing sustainability workshop in 2016 with the participation of hundreds of community members; many community members are speaking up about their concerns of climate change, and several organizations have organized action groups (i.e. Palo Alto Green, Save Palo Alto Groundwater) Local residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium Comment: TBD. Overall, Palo Alto is one of the national jurisdictions leading the country in consciousness and thought; but the Palo Alto environment may challenge residential adaptation given our moderate climate (so temperature impacts will probably not be severe except for our elderly population), and the lifestyle of many high income residents. However, Palo Alto has launched an active “cool block” pilot program engaging neighbors in joint mitigation/adaptation efforts. Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium Comment: Generally strong economy; very energy efficient compared to US; substantial local food production capacity; but generally unrecognized risk to long term water supplies (impacting potable water, hydropower and agriculture). Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium Comment: Depends on the extent of the impacts. We can expect successional pressure on ecosystems from temperature and precipitation changes, other impacts from wildfires and flooding. 1.5 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES The following describe the jurisdiction’s process for integrating the hazard mitigation plan into local planning. 1.5.1 Existing Integration The following plans and programs currently integrate the goals, risk assessment and/or recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan: Comprehensive Plan—The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is nested within the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and many of the policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan now have mitigation linkages for the hazards addressed in this plan. Municipal Code—The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code establishes risk mitigation standards for building codes that impact our seismic and flood risks. Sustainability / Climate Action Plan—The City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan will be the primary document that addresses our programs and mitigation actions for climate adaptation. Seismic Hazards Identification Program—This program will evolve in the near future to provide additional policies to reduce risks to seismic prone buildings. Community Rating System—Palo Alto will continue efforts to reduce our CRS rating to reduce flood risks to those property owners in FEMA designated flood zones. Energy Assurance Plan—Palo Alto will continue to develop programs and actions that improves our energy assurance for certain critical infrastructure. Foothills Fire Management Plan—This plan addresses a broad range of integrated activities and planning documents to identify and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the Palo Alto Foothills Area. Fire mitigation project areas include the boundaries of Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and each year the City allocates resources to treat segments of the project area and to provide public education and awareness. Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-14 Water Conservation Best Management Practices (BMP)—Since 2002, the City has partnered with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to promote and cost-share water efficiency programs for Palo Alto customers. Through this cost-sharing agreement, the City pays roughly half of the cost of the programs, with SCVWD administering many of these programs including onsite water audits, and rebates for landscape conversion as well as water efficient fixtures and appliances. The City also administers other water conservation programs in-house or through separate contracts with outside vendors, such as the Home Water Report program. The City continues to evaluate opportunities for program partnership opportunities with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency and other regional alliances. 1.5.2 Opportunities for Future Integration The following plans and programs do not currently integrate the goals, risk assessment and/or recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan, but provide an opportunity for future integration. They will be reviewed, developed and updated to include information on hazard risk reduction as feasible and appropriate. Capital Improvement Program (CIP)—Many of the CIP projects being implemented have a direct or indirect application to local hazards. Specific projects will become part of our mitigation action plan. Foothills Fire Management Plan /Community Wildfire Prevention Plan—These action plans will have a direct correlation to the mitigation action plan in the reduction of fire hazards to our wildland urban interface area. Post Disaster Recovery Plan—The City does not have a Post-Disaster Recovery Plan and intends to develop one as a mitigation planning action during the next five years. Sustainability/Climate Action Plan—The plan will provide strategies for dealing with anticipated impacts of climate change in our community. Some of these strategies will manifest mitigation actions that may be incorporated into future local hazard mitigation planning. Floodplain Management Plan—The City intends to develop a Floodplain Management Plan. Firewise—The City intends to meet the Firewise requirements as a public education mitigation action during the next five years. Comprehensive Conservation Plan—The City will develop two habitat related plans during the next five years. The Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan will be completed in FY 2017 to address our shoreline/baylands region; and in FY 2019 we will develop the Foothills, Arastradero, and Esther Clarke Comprehensive Conservation Plan to cover our additional highlands open spaces. 1.6 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 1-12 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Table 1-12. Natural Hazard Events Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessmenta Flood DR-1203 1998 $23 milliona Earthquake DR-845 1989 Unknowna Flood None 1982 Unknowna Flood None 1967 Unknowna Flood None 1958 Unknowna Flood None 1955 Unknowna Flood None 1911 Unknowna Flood None 1862 Unknown a. Damage assessment information from San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (2006), except 1862 flood information from PaloAltoHistory.org (2017). 1. City of Palo Alto 1-15 1.7 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES Repetitive loss records are as follows: Number of FEMA-identified Repetitive-Loss Properties: 1 Number of FEMA-identified Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties: 0 Number of Repetitive-Loss Properties or Severe-Repetitive-Loss Properties that have been mitigated: 0 Other noted vulnerabilities include: Preponderance of city staff employees reside outside of Palo Alto Seismically as risk essential services and public facilities High density of seismically at risk soft story, concrete tilt up, concrete shear wall buildings Roughly 20 percent of Palo Alto is exposed to special flood hazard areas Single grid tied high voltage transmission connection to PG&E Palo Alto Critical Infrastructure is at risk to the natural hazards identified in this report; the City’s Threat and Hazards Identification and Risk Analysis provides impacts to Critical Infrastructure. 1.8 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 1-13 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Table 1-13. Hazard Risk Ranking Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category 1 Earthquake 48 High 2 Flood 42 High 3 Severe Weather 33 Medium 4 Wildfire 15a Medium 4 Dam and Levee Failure 15a Medium 5 Drought 9 Low 6 Landslide 0 None a. Results were modified based on institutional knowledge not fully captured in the quantitative risk assessment. 1.9 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN ACTIONS The status of previous actions from the 2011 ABAG LHMP for Santa Clara County can be found in Appendix D of this volume. 1.10 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Table 1-14 lists the actions that make up the City of Palo Alto hazard mitigation action plan. Table 1-15 identifies the priority for each action. Table 1-16 summarizes the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-16 Table 1-14. Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline PA-1—San Francisquito Creek Lower Reach Flood Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project New Flood / Severe Weather 5, 6, 8 San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority $34 million: Low General Fund; HMGP; FMA 0-1 Years (Short-term) PA-2— San Francisquito Creek Upper Reach Flood Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project New Severe Storm / Flood 2, 5, 6, 8 San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Medium General Fund; HMGP; FMA 1-2 Years (Short-term) PA-3—Newell Creek Bridge replacement project to accommodate a 100 year flood event New Flood / Severe Weather 2, 5, 6, 8 Palo Alto Public Works Low CALTRANS / SCVWD 2-5 Years (Short-term) PA-4—Pope Chaucer Street Bridge replacement project to address 100 year flood event Existing Flood / Severe Weather 2, 5, 6, 8 Santa Clara Valley Water District Low SCVWD 2-5 Years (Short-term) PA-5—Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvements New Flood / Severe Weather 6, 8 Palo Alto Public Works $6 million: Low CIP: SD-13003 0-1 Years (Short-term) PA-6—Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation Existing Flood / Severe Weather 6, 8 Palo Alto PW $ 1.5 million: Low CIP: SD-06101 Annually (Ongoing) PA-7—Recycled Water Pipeline Expansion Project to expand the recycled water purple pipeline within South Palo Alto towards Stanford Research Park Existing Drought 5, 6 Palo Alto Public Works $30 million: Low CIP: WS-07001 1-3 Years (Short-term) PA-8—Continue to maintain good standing and compliance in the NFIP and improve Community Rating System Class to provide higher CRS premium discounts Existing Flood / Severe Weather 1, 2, 3, 4 Palo Alto Public Works Low General Fund 2-3 Years (Short-term) PA-9—Execute the SAFER Bay Project to protect critical infrastructure and property and restore historic marshlands New Severe Storm / Flood / Sea Level Rise 2, 5, 6, 8 San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority High Combination CIP: OS-09002 Unknown (Long-term) PA-10—Construct new Public Safety Building to mitigate current risks to public safety essential services New Earthquake 6, 9 Palo Alto Public Works $57 million: Medium CIP: PE-15001 5 -7 Years (Long-term) PA-11—Rebuild Fire Stations 3 and 4 to mitigate current risks to essential services New Earthquake / Flood / Sea Level Rise 6, 8 Palo Alto Public Works $15 million: Low CIP: PE-15003 2-4 Years (Short-term) PA-12—Continue 7 year cycle for high priority of tree trimming Existing Earthquake/ Flood / Severe Weather 6,8 Palo Alto Public Works Low General Fund Annually (Ongoing) PA-13—Replace the Baylands Tide Gate Existing Flood / Severe Weather 6, 8 Santa Clara Valley Water District Medium SCVWD Unknown (Long-term) PA-14—Consider the use of alternative energy sources for critical infrastructure (essential facilities, key resources) Existing Earthquake / Severe Weather 3, 5 Palo Alto Office of Sustainability High Staff Time; General Fund Unknown (Long-term) 1. City of Palo Alto 1-17 Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline PA-15—Implement Wastewater Long-Range Facilities Plan Existing Flood / Severe Weather / Earthquake / Sea Level Rise 6, 8 Palo Alto Public Works $3-20 million: Low CIP: WQ-10001 Annually (Ongoing) PA-16—Conduct a feasibility analysis concerning the continued use of water reservoirs in the Foothills region Existing Earthquake / Wildfire / Drought 5, 6 Palo Alto Utilities Medium General Fund 3-5 Years (Short-term) PA-17—Consider construction of a new water reservoir in the low lying areas of Palo Alto New Earthquake / Drought 5, 6 Palo Alto Utilities Medium General Fund; Possibly HMGP 3-5 Years (Short-term) PA-18—Rebuild and Reconfigure Electric System in Stanford Hospital/Mall Area to increase reliability during emergencies Existing Earthquake / Severe Weather 5, 8 Palo Alto Utilities Low CIP: EL-17004 3-5 Years (Short-term) PA-19—Install Fiber Optic Service to Black Mountain Radio Repeater Site to improve public safety communications along Skyline Drive New Earthquake / Severe Weather / Wildfire 9 Palo Alto Utilities Medium CIP: TBD 2-3 Years (Short-term) PA-20—Convert overhead utility lines to underground transmission. Installation of new underground electric, communication, and cable television systems in Electric Underground Districts 46 and 47 Existing Earthquake / Severe Weather 6, 8 Palo Alto Utilities $2.0 million: Low CIP: EL-12001 / EL- 11010 1-4 Years (Short-term) PA-21—Construct a second electrical transmission interconnection to PG&E using a new corridor New Earthquake / Severe Weather 1, 5 Palo Alto Utilities High CIP; Possible HMGP, PDM Unknown (Long-term) PA-22—Construct a second water interconnection from Palo Alto Utilities to Stanford Hospital New Earthquake / Severe Weather 2, 6 Palo Alto Utilities High CIP; Possible HMGP, PDM 3-5 Years (Short-term) PA-23—Connect Palo Alto to adjacent Public Safety agencies' Public Safety Answering Points by Fiber Existing Earthquake / Severe Weather 9 Palo Alto Police Department High CIP; Possible HMGP, PDM Unknown (Long-term) PA-24—Implement a Public Safety Wireless Data Network New Earthquake / Severe Weather / 9 Palo Alto Police Department High CIP; Possible EMPG Unknown (Long-term) PA-25—Conduct a Hydrology Study on Buck-Eye Creek for flood protection and erosion control at Foothills Park Existing Flood / Severe Weather 6, 8 Palo Alto Community Services Department $105 K: Low CIP: PG-15000 2-4 Years (Short-term) PA-26—Develop a Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan Existing Flood / Severe Weather / Sea Level Rise 1, 3 Palo Alto Community Services Department $330 K: Low CIP: PG-17000 1-2 Years (Short-term) PA-27—Address hazardous fuels and reduce structural ignitability in the Foothills region in accordance with the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Foothills Fire Management Plan Existing Wildfire 2, 3, 6, 8 Palo Alto Fire Department $150 K: Low General Funds Annually (Ongoing) PA-28—Encourage creation by Foothills Residents of a Firewise Ready Community Existing Wildfire 2, 3, 4, 8 Palo Alto OES Low Staff Time; General Funds 1-2 Years (Short-term) Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-18 Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline PA-29—Consider a policy for Seismic Retrofitting of earthquake prone structures Existing Earthquake 2, 3, 5, 8 Palo Alto Development Services Low Staff Time; General Funds 1-2 Years (Short-term) PA-30—Develop a Policy for Sea-Level Rise considerations (what actions should the City take) Existing Sea Level Rise 2, 3, 5 , 8 Sustainability Low Staff Time; General Funds 1-2 Years (Short-term) PA-31—Develop a post-disaster Community Long-term Recovery Plan New All Hazards 1, 2, 4 Palo Alto OES Medium Staff Time; General Funds 3-5 Years (Short-term) PA-32—Conduct public education that raises awareness of Palo Alto threats and hazards and improves community resilience Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 4 Palo Alto OES Low Staff Time; General Funds Annually (Ongoing) PA-33—Maintain Storm Ready Community designation Existing Severe Storm 2, 4, 9 Palo Alto OES Low Staff Time; General Funds Annually (Ongoing) PA-34—Improve Palo Alto Fire Department ISO rating Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 3, 4, Palo Alto Fire Department Low Staff Time; General Funds 1-2 Years (Short-term) PA-35—Maintain Building Effectiveness Grading Schedule classification of 1 Existing All Hazards 3, 8 Palo Alto Development Services Low Staff Time; General Funds Annually (Ongoing) PA-36—Where appropriate, support retro-fitting, purchase or relocation of structures located in high hazard areas and prioritize those structures that have experienced repetitive losses Existing All Hazards 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Palo Alto Development Services High HMGP, PDM, FMA Short-term PA-37—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions within the community New and Existing All Hazards 2, 4, Development Services Department Low Staff Time, General Funds Ongoing PA-38—Actively participate in the plan maintenance protocols outlined in Volume 1 of the hazard mitigation plan. New and Existing All Hazards 1, 5 Palo Alto OES Low Staff Time; General Funds Short-term 1. City of Palo Alto 1-19 Table 1-15. Mitigation Strategy Priority Schedule Action # # of Objectives Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant-Eligible? Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Implementation Prioritya Grant Pursuit Prioritya PA-1 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High High PA-2 4 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High High PA-3 4 High Low Yes Yes Yes High High PA-4 4 High Low Yes Yes Yes High High PA-5 2 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High High PA-6 2 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High High PA-7 2 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-8 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-9 4 Medium High No Yes No Low Low PA-10 2 High Medium Yes No Yes High Low PA-11 2 High Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-12 2 High Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-13 2 Medium Medium Yes No Yes Medium Low PA-14 2 Low High No Yes No Low Low PA-15 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-16 2 Medium Medium Yes No No Medium Low PA-17 2 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium Medium PA-18 2 High Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-19 1 Medium Medium Yes No No Low Low PA-20 2 High Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-21 2 Medium High No No No Medium Low PA-22 2 Medium High No No No Medium Low PA-23 1 Medium High No Yes No Low Low PA-24 1 Medium High No No No Medium Low PA-25 2 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-26 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-27 4 High Low Yes Yes Yes High High PA-28 4 High Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-29 4 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High High PA-30 4 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High High PA-31 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High Medium PA-32 3 High Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-33 3 High Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-34 4 High Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-35 2 High Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-36 5 High High Yes Yes No Medium High PA-37 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes High Low PA-38 2 Low Low Yes No Yes High Low a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of priorities. Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-20 Table 1-16. Analysis of Mitigation Actions Action Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea Hazard Type 1. Prevention 2. Property Protection 3. Public Education and Awareness 4. Natural Resource Protection 5. Emergency Services 6. Structural Projects 7. Climate Resilient Earthquake PA-14, PA-15, PA-35, PA-37, PA-38 PA-16, PA-29, PA-36 PA-31, PA-32 PA-14, PA-18, PA-19, PA-22, PA-23, PA-24, PA-34, PA35 PA-10, PA-11, PA-17, PA-20, PA-21 Flood PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, PA-4, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9, PA-13, PA-15, PA-25, PA-26, PA-30, PA-35, PA-37, PA-38 PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, PA-4, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9, PA-13, PA-30, PA-36 PA-8, PA-31, PA-32 PA-9, PA-25, PA-26 PA-8, PA-34, PA-35 PA-11, PA-17, PA-21 PA-1, PA-2, PA-9 Severe Weather PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, PA-4, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9,PA-15, PA-26, PA-35, PA-37, PA-38 PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, PA-4, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9, PA-36 PA-8, PA-31, PA-32, PA-33 PA-26 PA-8, PA-18, PA-19, PA-22, PA-23, PA-24, PA-33, PA-34, PA35 PA-20, PA-21 Wildfire PA-27, PA-35, PA-37, PA-38 PA-16, PA-27, PA-28, PA-36 PA-28, PA-31, PA-32 PA-27 PA-27, PA-34, PA-35 Dam and Levee Failure PA-37, PA-38 PA-36 PA-31, PA-32 PA-34 PA-9 Drought PA-37, PA-38 PA-16, PA-36 PA-31, PA-32 PA-7 PA-17 a. See the introduction to this volume for explanation of mitigation types. 1.11 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY The City of Palo Alto has identified that more information is needed to understand the potential for impacts from the Searsville Dam. Palo Alto’s susceptibility to risks associated with inundation caused by the failure of local Dams is a function of how much water is actually stored in the three dams within the watersheds that flow through Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report provides an analysis of the risks provided by Felt Lake Dam, Lagunitas Reservoir Dam, and Searsville Dam (City of Palo Alto, 2016). We have strong evidence that Felt Lake and Lagunitas Reservoir Dams have negligible impact due to the low volumes of water they store. Searsville Dam is now heavily silted and stores only approximately 30 percent of its total capability. We will work with Stanford University to develop a better understanding of risks and impacts from this Dam. 1.12 PALO ALTO PLANNING PROCESS The City of Palo Alto began our LHMP planning process in 2015 by participating in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) mitigation planning workshops. We followed up this preparation in January 2016 with the development of a project management plan that described how we would implement the local mitigation planning process. This effort was started in advance of the Santa Clara County effort to receive Mitigation Planning Grant funding. Palo Alto created two planning structures as recommended by ABAG and included an inter-departmental city staff planning team as well as an external stakeholder group comprised of various local organizations 1. City of Palo Alto 1-21 representative of our ‘whole community.’ Over the year, the planning process followed the recommended steps in the FEMA Process Map and joined the Santa Clara County planning process in August 2016. Palo Alto also created an online website (cityofpaloalto.org/lhmap) in February 2016 that described our planning process and served as a data repository for our project teams and for the general public. In May 2016 we highlighted this process on the City’s Homepage. Meeting documentation including internal planning team minutes, stakeholder team minutes and community engagement summaries can be found at the end of this annex and are available online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/lhmap. Figure 1-2. Meeting Roadmap for ABAG Planning Process Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan; City of Palo Alto Annex 1-22 Figure 1-3. City of Palo Alto Homepage with Information on Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.13 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES The following sources were used for information throughout this annex: City of Palo Alto. 2007. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2007, p. L-4. Accessed online at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170 City of Palo Alto. 2014. Comprehensive Plan Update: Land Use; Draft Existing Conditions Report – City of Palo Alto, August 29, 2014, p. 8-31. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/8_LandUse.pdf City of Palo Alto. 2016. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report, 2016. Hydrology and Water Quality, p. 4.8-38 & 39. Accessed online at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/02/4-8_HydrologyWaterQuality.pdf PaloAltoHistory.org. 2017. The Christmas Flood: “All Through the House… was Mud”. Web page accessed online at http://www.paloaltohistory.org/the-christmas-flood.php. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Proposition 1E Grant Proposal. http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/docs/Archives/Prop1E/Submitted_Applications/P1E_Round1_SWFM/San %20Francisquito%20Creek%20Joint%20Powers%20Authority/Att7_SWF_DReduc_1of3.pdf. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. 2006. San Francisquito Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project Report. Accessed online at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/jpa- meetings/63.pdf. USClimateData.Com. 2017. Palo Alto Climate Data web page. Accessed online at http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/palo-alto/california/united-states/usca0830 Santa Clara Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan/City of Palo Alto Annex Stakeholder Team Minutes and Community Engagement Summaries 1 The Final PDF version of this document includes 173 pages of Planning Team and Stakeholder Team Minutes and Engagment Summaries. TETRA TECH FOOTHILLS FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1/23/2017 1/23/2017 Final Draft Page 2 of 36 Acknowledgements This document was prepared by Wildland Resource Management under contract to the City of Palo Alto. Contributions Daren Anderson…………………………... Community Services Department Curt Dunn……………………………………..Community Services Department Walter Passmore…………………………..Public Works Department Dinaa Alcocer………………………………..Public Works Department James Henrickson-----------------------Fire Department Nathan Rainey………………………………Office of Emergency Services Mark Nadim …………………………………Midpenninsula Fire Safe Council Image 1: Palo Alto FIre Department Brush Rig Patrolling Trapper's Trail Final Draft Page 3 of 36 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Process ......................................................................................... 4 Accomplishments .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Post-Treatment Fire Behavior ....................................................................................................................... 6 New Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 7 Program Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................. 8 APPENDIX A. Treated Areas .......................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX B. New Treatments Areas and Activities ..................................................................................... 0 APPENDIX C - Treatment Areas to be Abandoned or Revised ....................................................................... 3 APPENDIX D – Program Costs ........................................................................................................................ 0 Image 2:Treated area in Foothills Park Final Draft Page 4 of 36 Executive Summary The 2009 Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP) addressed a broad range of integrated activities and produced planning documents to address and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the Palo Alto Foothills Area. The area of interest includes the areas west of Foothills Expressway to the city limits of Palo Alto. The FFMP addressed fire hazard assessment and regional evacuation routes, wildland fire management recommendations and mitigations. The FFMP also reviewed non- project related topics such as Municipal ordinances related to wildland fire and recommended staffing levels for Station 8 in Foothills Park. It proposed an implementation plan and identified potential funding, and included CEQA documentation for the proposed projects. Last, it recommended updates to the Pearson-Arastradero Trails Master Plan and Foothills Trail Maintenance Plan. This 2016 FFMP update focuses on topics directly related to fire hazard mitigation, emphasizing project- related improvements. This program is also documented in the City of Palo Alto Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (LHMAP) and demonstrates how the City mitigates wildfire risk through the implementation of projects in the FCWPP. This update provides a description of significant accomplishments achieved since 2009 in the areas of treatment of evacuation routes, prescribed fire and associated containment lines, and residential boundary treatments (mowing, disking). Program costs are also provided showing how allocated funds were used. City funding since 2009 has totaled $452,332. A post treatment fire behavior assessment is also included in this update to describe the threat but also to identify areas of future treatments. The most important benefit has been an increased ease of evacuation and emergency access through the expansion of managed roadside vegetation. The roadsides along Arastradero Rd, Los Trancos Rd and Page Mill Rd are all safer for access and egress through increased line of sight, reduced fuel volumes and reduction of ladder fuels. The probability of ignitions has been reduced through a reduction of fuels near barbeques and structures, and along roadsides. The potential for containment of a wildfire (both within the parks, and between City property and neighbors) has been enhanced through the creation, maintenance, and enhancement of reduced fuel zones. These treatment areas are strategically placed along property perimeters and ridgelines. The update also incorporates the participation in the county-wide Community Wildfire Protection Program (CWPP), which includes a Palo Alto/Stanford annex.1 The county CWPP project began after the initiation of this planning update, but future updates will be transitioned to the Palo Alto/Stanford Community Wildfire Protection Plan on a five year update cycle. Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Process The 2009 Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP) addressed a broad range of integrated activities and produced planning documents to address and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the Palo Alto Foothills Area. The area of interest includes the areas west of Foothills Expressway to the city limits of 1 The Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Program (CWPP) is a collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment. The plan includes an analysis of conditions such as fire apparatus access, community evacuation, fuels, topography, and weather. The plan also includes proposed projects developed through the workshops. http://www.sccfd.org/santa-clara-county-community-wildfire-protection-plan Final Draft Page 5 of 36 Palo Alto. The 2009 Plan addressed fire hazard assessment and regional evacuation routes, wildland fire management recommendations and mitigations. The FFMP also reviewed non-project related topics such as Municipal ordinances related to wildland fire and recommended staffing levels for Station 8 in Foothills Park. It proposed an implementation plan and identified potential funding, and included CEQA documentation for the proposed projects. Last, it recommended updates to the Pearson-Arastradero Trails Master Plan and Foothills Trail Maintenance Plan. This 2016 update focuses on topics directly related to fire hazard mitigation, emphasizing project- related improvements. This program is also documented in the City of Palo Alto Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (LHMAP) and demonstrates how the City mitigates wildfire risk through the implementation of projects in the FCWPP. The City of Palo Alto contracted with Wildland Resource Management Group, who also completed the 2009 FFMP effort, to assist in this update. Staff members from Community Services, Fire, Public Works Departments and the Office of Emergency Services formed the planning team to work with Wildland Resource Management Group. Additionally, members of the Midpennisula Fire Safe Council also provided input to this update. Accomplishments Since the Foothills Fire Management Plan was adopted in Jan 2009 significant progress has been made. Perhaps two of the most significant accomplishments have been advances in organization and relationships. The City will be taking an additional step to adopt the FFMP as a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. With a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), the City is in a better position to receive grants from Federal or State funding sources. Because the FFMP satisfied the requirements of a CWPP, the City was able to simply obtain an approval signature from the local CAL FIRE representative and send it to the California Fire Alliance where it became official. Another significant advance was the development of an ongoing relationship with the Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council (SCFSC). The City developed a 5-year Stewardship Agreement with the SCFSC to help implement the FFMP/CWPP. An annual work plan is mutually agreed-upon, based on availability of funding and capacity of the SCFSC. The SCFSC typically supervises and pays for CAL FIRE hand crews to reduce fuels along roads and in say Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and provides community outreach and education programs in the City regarding wildland fire. A novel organizational strategy was adopted which recognizes that the FFMP involves and requires support from many City Departments. While the program originated in the Fire Department, the Public Works Department, Office of Emergency Services and Community Services Department are all key to the success and beneficiaries of the projects. As such, representatives of each of these four departments meet regularly (generally quarterly, but sometimes more often) to strategize effective actions. The Chair of this inter-departmental group rotates between the departments. Funding is pooled from all four departments based on the anticipated costs of performing fire hazard reduction work under their responsibility. For example, roadside treatments on public right-of-ways are funded by Public Works whereas evacuation treatments along roads inside parks are funded by the Community Services Department. Through efforts and funding of the City and with support of the SCFSC, many on-the-ground projects Final Draft Page 6 of 36 have been completed, resulting in reduced risk of damage from wildfire and safer evacuation routes and emergency access. While the relationship with the SCFSC has been a major benefit to the program, the City Parks and Recreation staff support has also been essential and effective. Coordination of equipment use and storage, as well as assistance in observing conditions on the ground has greatly bolstered the effectiveness of the SCFSC efforts. Spatial information, encompassing the planning and monitoring of work location, costs, and schedule has been aided by the collection of project boundaries and associated data through the use of a geographic information system (GIS). Both Google Earth and ESRI-based software compatible with the City of Palo Alto GIS were used. Planning, analysis and project organization is currently done with digital spatial files. Outreach and education regarding fire hazards in the Foothills has been accomplished in concert with the SCFSC. For example, when the City Office of Emergency Services hosted an educational event the local SCFSC manager provided a presentation regarding vegetation management and fire safety. More recently, the SCFSC has coordinated resident-contractor efforts to reduce vegetative fuels along Los Trancos Road on both public right of way and private yards, with debris disposal provided by Woodside Fire Protection District. Treatment of vegetation during the previous 5 years in the Foothills has been ambitious. In addition to the annual mowing and disking, and periodic treatments of trappers Trail, many areas that had not been treated in several years, were tackled. In some locations treatment areas were widened or otherwise expanded. Details of the program accomplishments appear in Appendix A, but a synopsis follows: • Treatment of evacuation routes within City boundaries on public roads o Pearson-Arastradero Rd. o Page Mill Rd. o Los Trancos Rd. • Treatment of evacuation routes within City parks o Wild Horse Valley leading to Towle Campground o Foothill Park from Maintenance Yard to Gate o Foothill Park to Hewlett Property • Prescribed Fire and Associated Containment Lines • Residential boundary treatments (mowing, disking) o West and East of Pearson-Arastradero o South of residents on Foothill Park (NE of gate) Post-Treatment Fire Behavior As a result of the implementation of the FFMP/CWPP the fire behavior has changed, with several concrete benefits. The most important benefit has been an increased ease of evacuation and emergency access through the expansion of managed roadside vegetation. The roadsides along Arastradero Rd, Los Trancos Rd and Page Mill Rd are all safer for access and egress through increased line of sight, reduced fuel volumes and reduction of ladder fuels. The probability of ignitions has been reduced through a reduction of fuels near barbeques and structures, and along roadsides. The potential for containment of a wildfire (both within the parks, and between City property and neighbors) has been enhanced through the creation, maintenance, and enhancement of reduced fuel zones. These treatment areas are strategically placed along property perimeters and ridgelines. A spatial depiction of the change in fire hazard is presented by maps in Appendix E. The fire behavior Final Draft Page 7 of 36 modeling used FlamMap, based on LandFire data and modified through a series of decision-rules applied to treatment areas. For example, places that were covered with shrubs and chaparral under oak woodlands that were treated near roads were changed to a fuel type that typifies an oak woodland with an open understory. Details regarding the fire behavior modeling process and results appears in Appendix E. New Recommendations As with most vegetation management projects, the initial treatments require the most substantial effort; maintenance tends to require less of an effort. Initial treatments have been done in most locations, and are in “maintenance mode”. While Appendix A describes the areas successfully treated (many which require annual treatments), it also lists areas not treated, and Appendix B recommends new areas to be treated. Since vegetative growth is cyclical and highly dependent on environmental factors, the planning team will conduct annual assessments to determine the areas to be treated and the level of effort that provides the highest benefit for the current costs of treatment. Because of the success in treating areas identified in the FFMP, new and additional areas have been identified for treatment, based oncurrent hazardous conditions as demonstrated in a fire behavior analysis, and potential benefit to the City and region as observed by staff. Details of new, additional recommended projects appear in Appendix B. The most significant additional new treatment area is the east side of Page Mill Road within the City boundaries and owned by Mid– Penninsula Open Space District (MROSD). Other new treatment areas are within City Parks. The most significant project aimed at residents will be an endeavor to designate the Foothills of Palo Alto as a FireWise Community. A few locations have been removed from the list of projects recommended for treatment, or the areas have been reduced in size, due to changing landownership, staffing duties and fuel conditions. These generally occur within Pearson-Arastradero Park, and do not result in a significant decrease in hazard. These treatment areas are detailed in Appendix C. Program Costs The initial 5-year cost of the program was estimated at $700,000. City funding since 2009 has totaled $452,332. Costs for hand crews was greatly reduced through the use of California Department of Corrections) CDC road crews under supervision of CAL FIRE and the SCFSC, whereas costs for contracted hand crews was much greater than estimated. Overall, the costs of implementation are approximately 20% higher than estimated. Future costs of the program are estimated to be relatively stable or slightly higher because of the reduced costs associated with maintenance as compared with initial treatment, balanced with higher contract mowing costs. Some areas (such as defensible space treatments) will require annual treatments, and some areas, such as Trappers Trail, require periodic treatment on a longer interval. Estimated projected costs appear in Appendix D. The continued relationship with the SCFSC has provided funding for projects through their partners. For example, funds from PG&E for treatment of areas within 1000 feet of powerlines on Page Mill Road will augment SCFSC funds dedicated for that area. Similarly, grants and funds from partners are expected to be aimed at additional eucalyptus management on Stanford lands within the City. Costs are explained in Appendix D. • As previously mentioned, the Santa Clara County Fire Department has prepared a county-wide Final Draft Page 8 of 36 Community Wildfire Protection Plan, and local planners have incorporated the FFMP into this plan. This strategy has several benefits; one primary benefit is to become eligible for a broader suite of funding sources through grants associated with regional efforts. The City also can: • Retain its site-specific project recommendations within the CWPP • Retain autonomy in implementation of desired projects • Be consistent with the City’s and Region’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plans • Leverage community outreach through regional meetings and solicitation of input • Build on the County-wide assessment fire hazard in residential areas that are specific to Palo Alto APPENDICES Appendix A. Treated Areas Map 1. Projects Completed Appendix B. New Treatment Areas and Activities Map 2. Recommended Projects Appendix C. Treatment Areas to be Abandoned or Revised Map 3. Projects to be Abandoned Appendix D. Program Costs Table 1. Entity Responsible for Treatment Appendix F. Technical Report: FlamMap Fire Behavior Results for Palo Alto Image 3: Mowing to reduce brush along evacuation routes Final Draft Page 9 of 36 APPENDIX A. Treated Areas There area treated within the previous 5 years under the FFMP is expansive. This list indicates the locations where treatment has occurred, organized by the objective served from treatments. The locations of these treated areas is shown on Map 1, following this list. Designation Project Description Source of Work Dates Completed Life Safety Foothills Park F.F1 Firefighter Safety Zone 1 Trappers Ridge & Los Trancos Trail Mowing Contract annually F.F2 Firefighter Safety Zone 2 Trappers Ridge & Madrone Fire Road Mowing Contract annually F.F3 Firefighter Safety Zone 3 Trappers Ridge high point Mowing Contract annually F.F4 Firefighter Safety Zone 4 Trapper Ridge south end Mowing Contract annually F.E1 Evacuation Route - Page Mill Road Within PA City from Arastradero to southern Pony Tracks SCCFSC - CDCR 2015+16 F.E2 Evacuation Route - Park Road Entrance to Maintenance Yard to Las Trampas Valley SCCFSC - CDCR 2015+16 F.E3 Evacuation Route - Park Northwest Interpretive Center to the 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road Not completed F.E4 Evacuation Route - Park Northeast Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive Not completed F.E5 Secondary Evacuation Route - Wildhorse Valley Wildhorse Valley from Towle Campground to Las Trampas Valley SCCFSC - CDCR 2015 Pearson-Arastradero A.E1 Evacuation Route – Arastradero Road Arastradero Road 2015+16 Off-site PA.1 Evacuation Route Page Mill Road From Foothill Park South to Skyline Rd SCCFSC – CDCR 2015+16 PA.2 Evacuation Route Arastradero Road From Page Mill to Arastradero Pk, and from Arastradero Pk to Los Trancos SCCFSC - CDCR 2015+16 PA.3 Evacuation on Los Trancos Road between Santa Clara County boundary and Oak Forest Court Also noted as FE6 SCCFSC – CDCR + Contractor 2015+16 PA.4 Evacuation Route Skyline Blvd. Skyline Blvd. SCCFSC - Contractor 2015 Structure and Infrastructure Protection Foothills Park F.D1 Defensible Space Entry Gate and Restroom SCCFSC - CDCR annually F.D2 Defensible Space Station 8 Fire Dept annually F.D3 Defensible Space Restrooms at Orchard Glen SCCFSC - CDCR annually F.D4 Defensible Space Interpretive Center SCCFSC - CDCR annually F.D5 Defensible Space Maintenance Shop Complex SCCFSC - CDCR annually F.D6 Defensible Space Boronda Pump Station at Campground SCCFSC - CDCR annually Final Draft Page 10 of 36 Designation Project Description Source of Work Dates Completed F.D7 Defensible Space Park Tank SCCFSC - CDCR annually F.D8 Defensible Space Boranda Water Tank Not completed F.D9 Defensible Space Dahl Water Tank SCCFSC - CDCR annually Pearson-Arastradero A.D1 Defensible Space Gateway Building and Restrooms Acterrra, Parks Staff annually A.D2 Defensible Space Pump Station Parks Staff annually A.D3 Defensible Space Corte Madera Water Tank SCCFSC - CDCR annually A.D4 Defensible Space Western Water Tank SCCFSC - CDCR annually Ignition Prevention Foothills Park F.I1 Ignition Prevention Lakeside Picnic Area SCCFSC - CDCR annually F.I2 Ignition Prevention Shady Cove Picnic Area SCCFSC - CDCR annually F.I3 Ignition Prevention Encinal and Pine Gulch Picnic Areas SCCFSC - CDCR annually F.I4 Ignition Prevention Orchard Glen Picnic Area SCCFSC - CDCR annually F.I5 Ignition Prevention Oak Grove Group Picnic Area SCCFSC - CDCR annually F.I6 Ignition Prevention Towle Camp SCCFSC - CDCR annually Containment Foothills Park F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail Mowing Contract 2015 F.C2 Containment Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge Mowing Contract 2015 F.C3 Containment Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge Mowing Contract 2015 F.C4 Containment Bobcat Point Not completed 2015 F.C5 Containment North of Entry Gate Not Completed 2015 F.C6 Containment Valley View Fire Road Not Completed 2015 Pearson-Arastradero A.C1 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Liddicoat Park Staff annually A.C2 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Stanford and Portola Pastures Not completed A.C3 Containment Redtail Loop Area Not completed A.C4 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Paso del Robles Park Staff annually A.C5 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen - north Not completed A.C6 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen - south Not completed A.C7 Containment Property boundary west of Meadow Lark Trail Not completed A.C8 Containment Property boundary adjacent to former private research facility Not completed Final Draft Page 11 of 36 Designation Project Description Source of Work Dates Completed A.C9 Containment Property boundary adjacent to John Marthens Lane Park Staff annually A.C10 Containment Arastradero Creek (to Juan Bautista trail) Not completed A.C11 Containment Meadow Lark to Juan Bautista Trail Park Staff annually A.C12 Containment Meadow Lark south Not completed A.C13 Containment Bowl Loop Trail Not completed A.C14 Containment Arastradero to Rx fire area Park Staff Annually A.C15 Containment Acorn Trail Not completed A.Rx1 Containment Juan Bautista Prescribed fire north Fire Department 2013 A.Rx1 Containment Acorn Trail Prescribed fire south Not completed Unmapped Treatment Areas This update also captures areas not delineated in the 2009 FFMP but are regularly treated. These consist of strips of land disked and mowed to create firebreaks. The locations of these treatment areas previously unmapped are included in the map on the following page: Final Draft Page 0 of 36 P.1o A.lto C.I,lor,... Appendix A Projects Completed s."".c~ .. COlX1t;' , '- ," J ! , , - .- , '. Final Draft Page 0 of 36 APPENDIX B. New Treatments Areas and Activities New Treatment Areas There are six new treatment areas: New Treatment Area #1 Area south of the Maintenance Yard in Foothills Park PA1 Expanded The other side of Page Mill Road managed by MROSD PA1 Expanded Work in the roadside right of ways (as contrasted with the fuelbreak off the right of way) New Treatment Area #2 Areas under and near powerlines on City land following Wild Horse Fire Road (some has already been treated, some offset from treatment area) New Treatment Area #3 Areas under and near powerlines on City land following Wild Horse Fire Road (some has already been treated, some offset from treatment area) Eucalyptus Grove #1, #2, #3 Eucalyptus removal on upper Page Mill Rd. New Treatment Area #5 and #6 Connection between Madrone Fire Trail, and Valley View Fire Rd and Wild Horse Fire Road Stanford Land Eucalyptus Removal Treat and otherwise address eucalyptus north and west of Atrastradero Park because these fuels could be ember producer under north wind to Palo Alto property. Options include thinning and removing the trees over several years. The treatment area covers the stable, Ranch and Stanford properties, within City limits. The locations of these new treatment areas are shown on Map 2. New Activities Summary - In addition to new areas of treatment areas, a suite of new activities is recommended. Some of the activities either are to be applied throughout the FCWPP area, some in the residential areas within the FCWPP, and one is specific to along Los Trancos Road. These activities include: 1. Preparation of an application to become a FireWise Community, 2. An assessment of fuels (residential and wildland fuels) 3. Incorporation of the FCWPP into the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and 4. Increased collaboration on Los Trancos roadside treatments. Firewise Community Application - The following are requirements to qualify as a Firewise Community: 1. Create an agreed-upon, area-specific action plan for the community, to be approved by the California Firewise representative. 2. Hold a Home Ignition Zone Workshop to present the results of the assessment to the homeowners and motivate them to become involved in project planning and participation in a Firewise Board (or similar decision-making body). 3. Create an Action Plan that comprises the recommended steps homeowners can take to increase the fire safety in their neighborhood, based on the assessment and willingness of the homeowners. These will include at least three agreed-upon, doable action items that will improve the site’s wildfire readiness Final Draft Page 1 of 36 4. Form a Firewise Board, which could be a subset of the MidPeninsula FireSafe Council, or another existing organization serving the emergency preparedness needs of the neighborhood. 5. Hold a Firewise Day event - an informative and social event of the neighborhood that provides an opportunity to distribute material and build community spirit and pride. This could be held in conjunction with a HOA annual meeting. The event could include a firewise landscaping walking tour of the neighborhood, and a nursery demonstration or exhibit. Alternatively, the event could include the cost of a crew to assist Juniper removal and chipping during the day. 6. Invest a minimum of $2/capita in local wildfire mitigation projects. (Volunteer hours, equipment use, time contributed by agency fire staff, and grant funding can be included) 7. Submit an application, working with a HOA representative. 8. Develop a Community Success Story, detailing the process, participants and activities will be documented via photographs and short text so that the material can be posted on the City’s website or other outlets (such as FireWise USA website). Fuels Assessment – Part of the Firewise Application would include an assessment of vegetative and structural fuels in the area encompassed by the application. In addition, wildland fuels analysis would be characterized. Including the FCWPP into the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Comprehensive Plan – It is recommended that this update and the contents of the county-wide CWPP serve as the wildfire component of Palo Alto Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and General Plan - Safety and other element amendments. Los Trancos Roadside Treatments – This project is involves increased collaboration with Woodside Fire Protection District, neighbors along Los Trancos Rd, and Santa Clara FireSafe Council to treat a wider width of vegetation along Los Trancos Road (F.E6). The SCFSC will coordinate contractors to perform the work along the road and perform outreach to encourage landowners to treat their land outside the City right-of-way. The WFPD will provide dumpsters for the debris. Final Draft • P.1o A.lto C.I,lor,... Appendix B Recommended Projects s.,,".C~ .. COlX1t;' / j -----~ 1 '-, ., ~ \ j ;~--.\,--, . . ~ , ---_ ..... . .... \. ". " TrealmenlS ~ RecommeOOed Profects " u, •• Final Draft Page 3 of 36 APPENDIX C - Treatment Areas to be Abandoned or Revised After 5 years of program implementation, a small number of treatment areas are recommended to be abandoned or revised. This recommendation is due to the recognition of redundancies in the program, changes in neighboring landownership, or refinements in boundaries to ease implementation. The treatments areas that should be abandoned or revised appear on Map 3. All treatments to be abandoned or revised are located in Pearson-Arastradero Park A.C6 revision (Part 1) - This area is mowed annually, and should be continued. This constitutes the revised location, treatment and periodicity (in combination of the kmz AC6 revision Part 2). A.C6 revision (Part 2) - This is a utility easement to be periodically maintained. It also serves as a strategic containment location. Treatment need not be done annually, but instead, in a 3-5 year interval. The method of treatment would be either mechanical equipment or hand labor. This, along with AC6 revision Part 1 (the area that is mowed annually) would replace AC6. A.C8 revision-Mowing line#1 – A.C8 would not be treated with an area-wide treatment, but instead be treated with a few strips of mowing with mechanical equipment. A new kmz documents the first strip of mowing. The combination of all strips of mowing would substitute for A.C8. Reduction of AC5 (refined notes) - This smaller area could be the new boundary for A.C5. Fuels are in a low hazard condition in the area that is proposed to be abandoned. The remaining treatment area could be treated with hand labor, with contract crews. A.C 11 and A.C13 - These areas need not be mowed or disked annually because adjacent trails and paths are maintained as firebreaks. Final Draft Page 4 of 36 A d" C P" b Ab d d P.1o A,I,o (.I,lor,... ppen IX rOJectsto e an one S,,""'{~"(OlX1t)' f:" .. , ! \ • /~ ",~' " Treatments Ell I ~om~~C Mnge~IA.CS &A.(61 -_ .... " ""' .... ~-... -... --...... -... -.... i I ... , ... -- f \ , Final Draft Page 0 of 36 APPENDIX D – Program Costs Treatments are accomplished by efforts from both City staff and contractors. The City contracts directly with one mechanical equipment service provider, and with the SCFSC. The list of areas treated by the mechanical equipment service provider and the SCFSC appears in Table 1. City Contributions - Staff from the City Community Services Department annually disk and mow firebreaks, provide continuing outreach and education, and facilitate and coordinate equipment usage by contractors (including the SCFSC). The cost of these treatments and activities are born by the CS Department, and are not tracked as a cost to the FFMP/CWPP. The treatment areas the City staff normally mow or disk are: A.C2, A.C3, A.C4, A.C7, A.C8, and A.C15. Mechanical Equipment Service Contract – Every three years the City requests proposals and bids from contractors to treat F.C1-5, and F.F1-4, on Trappers Trail. In addition, this contractor maintains fire roads through annual grading of the roadbed surface. The current contract runs from 2015-2017 and amounts to over $70,000. Significant cost increases were experienced in the cost of the contract and can be expected to increase in 2017 by 20-30%. Santa Clara County Firesafe Council (SCFSC) Contract – The City has provided the SCFSC with $50,000 for the FY 2013-2014, 2014-15 to perform work on City lands in order to promote implementation of the FFMP/CWPP. In FY 2015-16 $60,000 was added in order to fund additional scopes of work, under the agreed-upon work plan. The SCFSC holds contracts with Project Coordinators who supervise CDCR crews (themselves under contract to the SCFSC) and private contractors, and who perform education and outreach regarding fire safety in the wildland urban interface. Costs of the CDCR Crews are $300/day for a crew of 12-15 men and a van and CAL FIRE crew supervisor. The daily cost for the FSC Project Coordinator is approximately $240/day. Costs are not expected to increase significantly in the next 5 years, however crew availability is uncertain. The CDCR crews have treated evacuation routes both inside and outside the parks, created defensible space and ignition prevention spaces around barbecues within the parks, and treated many containment areas. The list of areas treated with the CDCR crews appears in Table 1. The highest treatment costs are experienced when private contractors perform the work. Private contractors provide bids to perform services on areas where the use of the CDCR crews is not the best match. These include locations where traffic control is required, where there is possible contact with the public or where other safety concerns are present. Additionally, some locations require the type of services the CDCR crews cannot provide (i.e. mowing or grading). The costs for simply mowing grass along Arastradero Rd. (A.E1) was $8,800 in 2016, for example, whereas the cost for treating the same area was $7,540 in 2015, with $2,140 in private contractor cost (for traffic control) and approximately $5,400 for 10 days of work to but brush and trim trees. Costs of private contractors is expected to increase each year, based on increased labor and operating costs. Final Draft Page 1 of 36 The SCFSC has and potentially will continue to augment funds from the City with grants or funds from partners. For example, $43,000 from PG&E is allocated in FY 2016-17 for work within 1000-ft of powerlines along upper Page Mill Road. Similarly, partnerships with MROSD are expected to result in the removal and/or treatment of eucalyptus groves in upper Page Mill Road on MROSD lands within the City. The South Skyline Firesafe Council treated portions of Skyline Road within the City. Similar partnerships can be expected to benefit the City in the next five years. Table 1. Entity Responsible for Treatment TREATMENT AREAS INSIDE PARKS Poly # Project Title Location Work to be performed by Whom? F.F1 Firefighter Safety Zone 1 Trappers Ridge & Los Trancos Trail Mowing contractor F.F2 Firefighter Safety Zone 2 Trappers Ridge & Madron Fire Road Mowing contractor F.F3 Firefighter Safety Zone 3 Trappers Ridge high point Mowing contractor F.F4 Firefighter Safety Zone 4 Trapper Ridge south end Mowing contractor Foothill F.E2 Evacuation Route - Park Road Entrance to Maintenance Yard Las Trampas Valley SCFSC F.E3 Evacuation Route - Park North west Interpretive Center to Hewlett property SCFSC F.E4 Evacuation Route - Park North east Boranda Lake to Alexis Drive SCFSC F.E5 Secondary Evac Route Towle Campground to Las Trampas Valley SCFSC F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail Mowing contractor F.C2 Containment Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge Mowing contractor F.C3 Containment Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge Mowing contractor F.C4 Containment Bobcat point Mowing contractor F.C5 Containment North of entry Gate Mowing contractor Valley View Fire Trail Mowing contractor PA.3 Los Trancos Road Los Trancos Rd SCFSC F.D.1 Defensible Space Entry Gate SCFSC Final Draft Page 2 of 36 Poly # Project Title Location Work to be performed by Whom? F.D.2 Defensible Space Station 8 SCFSC F.D.3 Defensible Space Restrooms at Glen SCFSC F.D.4 Defensible Space Interpretive Center SCFSC F.D.5 Defensible Space Maintenance Complex SCFSC F.D.6 Defensible Space Pumping Station at Campground SCFSC F.D.7 Defensible Space Pony Tracks Water Tank SCFSC F.D.8 Defensible Space Page Mill Road Water Tank SCFSC F.D.9 Defensible Space Page Mill Road Water Tank SCFSC F.I.1 Ignition Prevention Woodrat picnic area SCFSC F.I.2 Ignition Prevention Roadside picnic area SCFSC F.I.3 Ignition Prevention Orchard Glen north SCFSC F.I.4 Ignition Prevention Orchard Glen south SCFSC F.I.5 Ignition Prevention Group Campsite SCFSC F.I.6 Ignition Prevention Campground SCFSC Pearson Arastradero A.C1 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Lidicott SCFSC A.C4 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Paso del Robles SCFSC A.C5 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen - north SCFSC A.C6 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen - south SCFSC A.C9 Containment Property boundary adjacent to John Marthens SCFSC A.C10 Containment Arasterdero Creek (to Juan Bautista trail) Part of prescribed fire preparation Final Draft Page 3 of 36 Poly # Project Title Location Work to be performed by Whom? A.C11 Containment Meadow Lark to Juan Bautista Trail Part of prescribed fire preparation A.C14 Containment Arastradero to Rx fire area Part of prescribed fire preparation A.C15 Containment Acorn Trail Part of prescribed fire preparation A.D1 Defensible Space Interpretive Center SCFSC A.D3 Defensible Space Pumping Station SCFSC A.D4 Defensible Space Water Tank SCFSC Grading fire roads Mowing contractor Costs of New Treatment Areas – The new treatment areas are not expected to be a significant new cost because these costs should be borne by outside funding sources. The removal of eucalyptus groves on Upper Page Mill Road will be funded by either PG&E or MROSD. There will be minor amounts of administrative costs from the City. Similarly, the treatment of the eucalyptus on Stanford lands would be borne by Stanford or leases of the land, or potentially through grant funding. The recommended new treatment areas within Foothills Park is anticipated to be completed through the SCFSC, with CDCR crews. Based an estimated daily cost of $540/day, and an estimated need for 15 days of work to accomplish the scope, the work is expected to cost $8,100. Time-stream of costs – The time stream of costs can be expected to rise incrementally, based on an increase in private contractor costs, and balanced by the increased area that need only be maintained (as compared with initial treatment or deferred maintenance). Funds can be augmented through collaboration with partners, a continued relationship with SCFSC, and grant funding. Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report Appendix E Technical Report: FlamMap Fire Behavior Results for Palo Alto Digital Mapping Solutions November 14, 2016 Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Data Preparation 1 Section 2: Fire Behavior Parameters 2 Section 3: Pre Conditions Results 3 Section 4: Post Conditions Results 4 Section 5: Notes/Observations 5 Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Final Draft Update Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report 1 SECTION 1 – DATA PREPARATION I~I OMS Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report 2 Eight data layers were downloaded using LANDFIRE’s ArcMap using the LANDFIRE Data Access Tool. The following list details the version and attribute definitions for each layer: 1. Fuel Models – FBFM13 (LANDFIRE version 130). Thirteen typical surface fuel arrangements or "collections of fuel properties" (Anderson 1982) were described to serve as input for Rothermel's mathematical surface fire behavior and spread model (Rothermel 1972). 2. Canopy Cover – Described by percent cover of tree canopy in a stand. 3. Canopy Height – Described as the average height of the top of the canopy for a stand. Reported in meters * 10. 4. Canopy Base Height – Described by the lowest point in a stand where there is sufficient available fuel (0.25 in dia.) to propagate fire vertically through the canopy. Reported in meters * 10. 5. Canopy Base Density – Defined as the mass of available canopy fuel per unit canopy volume that would burn in a crown fire. Reported in kg/m3*100. 6. Elevation – Described in meters. 7. Slope – Described in degrees (0 – 90). 8. Aspect – Described I degrees (0-259). From these layers, a pre-fuel modification fire behavior landscape file was created and named Palo Alto_PRE.lcp. The extents of the LCP are as follows: • North: 37.407735 degrees latitude • South: 37.295132 degrees latitude • West: -122.2478 degrees longitude • East: -122.1164 degrees longitude Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report 3 SECTION 1.1 – DATA MODIFICATIONS Within the treatment areas, fuel models were changed in the following way: • Grassy fuels (FM1 & FM3) were converted to a custom fuel model FM23 that represented mowed grass. Specific parameters for FM23 are included below. • Shrub fuels (FM4, FM5, FM6) were also converted to FM23. • Hardwood fuels (FM9 & FM10) were converted to FM8. Within the treatment areas, the canopy base height changed in the following way: • If canopy base height was lower than 8 feet (2.4384 meters or 24 meters*10), then canopy base height was changed to 24 meters*10. • If canopy base height was higher than 8 feet (2.4384 meters or 24 meters*10), then no changes were made. The changes were completed in ArcMap using standard GIS processing methods. The custom fuel model (FM23) was defined as follows: Fuel Model Number 23 Fuel Model Code FM23 1hr Fuel Loading (tons/acre) 0.300 10hr Fuel Loading (tons/acre) 0.000 100hr Fuel Loading (tons/acre) 0.000 Live Herbaceous Fuel Loading (tons/acre) 0.000 Live Woody Fuel Loading (tons/acre) 0.000 Fuel Model Type Static Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report 4 1hr Surface to Volume Ratio 3500 Live Herbaceous Surface to Volume Ratio 500 Live Woody Surface to Volume Ratio 500 Depth (feet) 0.500 Moisture of Extinction (percent) 11 Dead Heat Content (BTU/lb) 8000 Live Heat Content (BTU/lb) 8000 Fuel Model Name Mowed Treatments This fuel model definition is provided in a text file name ‘FM23.fmd’. Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report 5 SECTION 2 – FIRE BEHAVIOR PARAMETERS I~I OMS ~"n;!l<yCoodill<>n> _1 .... __ I __ t_lr ___ 1 ~-~ .... __ ... r>ooj. 1i _____ .J.7-1<>IIl_-.JIEI ,ruooc-_r .... j ..J!I -r__ _ __ .3Pl~ ,,-__ """'--_fiii""""::I r __ _ "-~-I r __ .... -I ---1 -I --1 --_ f'3 ","""aA~"'P'""'3 ......... __ P""3 _-""'-N fiO'3 ~:::.':::...--.... -... ............... lOKl .... r::====== '":::;.:: :-:jl r .... __ ....... r_ i ..JiI .... -~-~ ,--~~ "'~I" .. "''''' ,--~-.... - ........ -_I_'_t_I' ____ 1 --_ .. -.-:a -,--"' ..... -._-r_,,,,,,_ r __ _ 17,,-,,"_ r"-'_ ...... _ .... _-, , , , , ,--r ... __ r ...... ~ r __ _ r ....... _ r __ _ _-" 1 __ ... 1 -,,-----r ____ _ -,---" Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report 6 Using FlamMap to predict fire behavior across the entire landscape, we chose to model fire under extreme dry weather conditions. For all fuel models, we set our fuel moistures (in percent) to the following: 1hr fuels 3 10hr fuels 4 100hr fuels 5 Live herbaceous 70 Live woody 70 Filename: 3-4-5-70-70.fms. Wind was set to ‘Wind Blowing Uphill’ at a speed of 20mph. Foliar Moisture Content was set to 70% and no conditioning weather or wind files were used. Outputs included Rate of Spread, Flame Length, and Crown Fire Activity using the Scott/Reinhardt (2001) option under the Crown Fire Calculation Method. We used the default for the ‘Options’ parameter (Relative Spread Direction From Maximum). Both the pre- and post-fuel modification runs used the parameters above. The only exception is that for the post-fuel modification fire model run, we used the Custom Fuels file FM23.fmd (as described in the previous section). Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report SECTION 3: PRE CONDITIONS RESULTS 7 Flame Length Results – Pre Fuel Modifications Rate of Spread – Pre-Fuel Modifications Crown Fire Potential – Pre-Fuel Modifications Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report 8 Only three outputs were generated, however, more can easily be added. However, we focused on Flame Length, Rate of Spread and Crown Fire Potential as these are easily understandable. FLAME LENGTH Under these conditions, the landscape surrounding the fuel modification sites burn at what would be described as “extreme” fire behavior. Flame lengths reach far into the canopy. Mean flame lengths across the entire landscape are 40 feet, with a maximum of 213 feet. There is very little in the landscape that does not burn. RATE OF SPREAD Rate of spread shows a similar trend with mean spread rates of 89 chains/hr (or 5,874 ft/hr) with a maximum of 634 chains/hr (or approximately 8 miles/hr). CROWN FIRE POTENTIAL Given such conditions, torching and crowning is inevitable, as shown in the results. Active torching and crowning is expected where ever trees are. Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report SECTION 4: POST CONDITIONS RESULTS 9 Flame Length Results – Post Fuel Modifications Rate of Spread – Post- Fuel Modifications Crown Fire Potential – Post Fuel Modifications Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report 10 Again, three outputs were generated. Some details provided below. FLAME LENGTH Under these fuel moisture conditions, even after applying the fuel modification measures, the landscape surrounding the fuel modification sites still burned at what would be described as “extreme” fire behavior. Flame lengths reach far into the canopy. Mean flame lengths across the entire landscape are 40 feet, with a maximum of 213 feet. There is very little in the landscape that does not burn. In the immediate area of the larger fuel modification sites, flames lengths were reduced from 9 feet to 2 feet. RATE OF SPREAD The mean for rate of spread was reduced from 89 chains/hour to 88 chains/hour with a maximum of 634 chains/hr (or approximately 8 miles/hr). In the immediate area of the larger fuel modification sites, rate of spread was reduced from 301 chains/hr to 47 chains/hr. CROWN FIRE POTENTIAL Crown fire potential remained the same since most of the fuel treatments that targeted canopy base height were done in very narrow fuel treatments. Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report 11 SECTION 5: NOTES/OBSERVATIONS IC§I OMS Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Draft Wildland Res Mgt Palo Alto FlamMap Results Technical Report 12 Over all, the fuel modifications had local impact on modeled fire behavior. However, fire behavior remains unchanged on a larger scale. This indicates that targeted treatments affect strategic areas, providing localized safe areas for evacuation, firefighter safety during wildfires, and fire containment in an area of high fire hazard. For most of the fuel modification projects, the treatments were confined to very narrow corridors, and were possibly under-represented in the results. This was due to: 1. The underlying data, which has a resolution of 30 meters or 98 feet. Some fuel modifications locations were lost when translated from a vector based file to a raster. 2. Even when the fuel modification ported over to the raster, it affected too few pixels to have a noticeable impact on fire behavior. Larger fuel breaks would be captured in the model more easily and have great impact on fire behavior. Additionally, higher resolution data would more accurately portray the benefits of fuel management. Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 1 June 2016 ANNEX 7. PALO ALTO (INCLUDING STANFORD UNIVERSITY) Palo Alto is located in the northwest corner of Santa Clara County and shares it border with East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, Portola Valley and Menlo Park (Figure 7.1). As of the 2010 Census, the city total resident population was 64,403 with a population density of 2,497.5 people per square mile. Stanford is a census-designated place in the County and the home to Stanford University. The population as of the 2010 Census was 13,809, but with a daily population of 35,000. ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION Fire management for the City of Palo Alto is provided by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The City of Palo Alto developed a Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP) in 1982 that provides the planning framework for fire control activities for the City and the Palo Alto Foothills Area which comprises the predominant wildland urban interface (WUI) area for the community. The FFMP goal is “to reduce government costs and citizen losses from wildland fire by increasing initial attack success and/or protecting assets at risk through focused pre-fire management activities.” The 2009 update addresses changes to the fire hazard assessment, review regional evacuation routes, review municipal ordinances, staffing of Station 8 (Foothills Fire Station), provide wildland fire management recommendations and mitigations, incorporate updates to open space plans, implement CEQA documentation, and create an implementation plan. In 2012 the city entered into a multi-year agreement with the Santa Clara FireSafe Council to facilitate the implementation of the FFMP and to provide additional community education and outreach to the residents of the WUI area within the city. Another update is being prepared; the areas recommended for treatment are incorporated into this Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and will appear on the City website. PLANNING TEAM PARTICIPATION Carol Rice of Wildland Resource Management Inc. authored the 2009 update to the Palo Alto FFMP. Ms. Rice is part of the planning team for the Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (SCCCWPP) and due to her continued engagement in fire planning for Palo Alto, she serves as a Core Team member representing the Palo Alto community. SUMMARY Palo Alto contains WUI areas and is on the Federal and/or California Fire Alliance list of Communities at Risk from wildfires in Santa Clara County. Wildfires occur in the vicinity of Palo Alto and present a danger to people and properties within the city. Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 2 June 2016 Mitigations can reduce the risk of injury and damage. Some mitigations are solely the responsibility of property owners, other mitigations require neighborhood-level action, and some require city government action. In the Fire Management program update for the Foothills, a review of the fire hazards, mitigation activities, and environmental considerations for the area led to recommendations for wildland fuels and fire management. SWCA Environmental Consultants 3 June 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) Figure 7.1. Palo Alto Planning Area .. Palo Alto Planning Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan Santa Clara County, California o Place D Lake or • Fire Station Walerbody [7"7'A Protected • School lLLJArea Fire ~ Airport [8] Hospital D Protection District [IJ Cell Tower CALFIRE --Highway FHSZ Moderate --Street High --+--Railroad D county • Very High Adopted Planning City FHSZ Areas B:,-wu, !QQlHi9h Santa Clara Cou"nty/ N A Miles 0.5 1 - ---- Kilometers o 0.5 1 ~--1 :70,000 SWCA Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 4 June 2016 The Foothills Fire Management Plan addresses a broad range of integrated activities and planning documents to address and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the area west of Foothills Expressway to the city limits of Palo Alto. Fire mitigation project areas include Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. The full plan can be downloaded at the following path: http://www.sccfiresafe.org/images/attachments/community-wildfire-protection- plans/Palo_Alto_FFMP_Final.pdf The SCCCWPP establishes strategic goals for these more detailed community level fire-planning efforts. The Palo Alto FFMP is incorporated into this county (multi-jurisdictional) planning process through reference, but remains the most detailed level plan for Palo Alto. WUI AREA DESCRIPTION The Palo Alto Fire Code defines the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area as: “…all areas west of Highway 280 and all other areas recommended as ‘Very High fire Hazard Severity Zone’ by the director of CAL FIRE.” (Section 15.04.520). The WUI consists of a mix of urban, semi-urban and open space lands on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Within the city limits of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Foothills area west of the Foothills Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard represents a WUI area. The Palo Alto Foothills Area includes two city-managed areas: Foothills Park and the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. FIRE HISTORY The fire history is relatively free of major events in recent decades. The last major fire in the vicinity of the upper foothills was in 1912. Significant fires in the lower foothills (primarily light fuels) occurred in 1985, 1992, 2000 and 2007. HAZARDOUS FUEL CONDITIONS Fuels found throughout the planning area are extremely varied. Figure 7.2 through Figure 7.5 illustrate the fuel types and potential fire behavior as determined during the 2009 Palo Alto FFMP update. Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 5 June 2016 Figure 7.2. Palo Alto Fuels, as developed during the 2009 FFMP Update 12 NClll$lTlc .... 2008 _. >~ -$"".0. Fu.la D 'G.m • 20-'Sav3ma • ~ CtoIIpln1 • 5 N01JI Wlll:l1.,,<Ib -. ,-" ....... _ .. • , M.e~ ~Itrnt .,0 _000 D lBUfD.., D·~ D o_ D 999a"<!f' GIS o.n· ''''" '" ~.Io"'''o SIftl •• 'IMIO,UIOUf<. '''''om!. 0.,_." 01 '''''''IV .na ",a ~rot_on O.CL..I.IMI!I'l:T .... II ••• C""",nI.lntl,," Oop_..,IOI'",.IIV .. " ... ~_lOn m.~. no ...... .,mlonl o. w ..... I ........ ng "" ....... , .Id ... "' m"l'l. TM ..... W ... "", .. .... l1> .... a .,. II.,. Of .,. 0., ....... 110lil ...... .. .. '.I ...... " ...... t .................. w ..... ,..1 ", ... ,cI.II"1rj .,.u_o,any_p.ttyOR ... ouN 01 ..... ".ing"", "'" .... Of cI>IO or "'fI'I. Palo Alto Surface Fuels Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 6 June 2016 Figure 7.3. Crown Fire and Torching Potential, as developed during the 2009 FFMP Update 12 November 2008 " .. llvo Crown Fir. (torching) _ A,liu Crown fire D ...... on .... r .. tr.doro 1' ......... D FoothHI. Pari< TnlJI, ROld, AnllYII, by: Wlldllnd R .. ourci M.nlglmlnt In, ullng FLAMMAP wilt. dll. P<'9vldld by: GIS 0", So...-.:o: City of 1',10 Allo Ground veriflc.tlon: Plio Alto City SUI! en. Dot.: LANDFIRE ancl Crown Fire and Torching Potential Deyils Canyon Rancho San AnIOIJio O~nSpac~ CaUfornla Oep_l1m,nt of Fo .. ,try _nd Firt Prol,cdon "'';'!~~ __ ~==~~_~",,==:,Mikls O~ 0.2 0.4 0,8 1.2 1,6 PAlOALTO.CA Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 7 June 2016 Figure 7.4. Predicted Flame Length, as developed during the 2009 FFMP Update. 12 November 2008 Predicted Flame Length ~"!"\I .0.NOFIreSP .... d .0.4 0 4•8 0 '·12 .12-20 • 2:1 .nd high., D PU,"on.,ArIIltr..:l .. O P ..... rv. o Foothills F'.rt< _ Trllill --Ro..:l, An.IYIII by: Wildllnd RllourCI M.n'glmlnt Inc ullng FLAMMAP wilt> d.tl P<9vldld by: GIS O.t. 50"'"0: City of P.lo Allo Ground veriflc.tlon: Plio Allo City SUII B ... DIU: LANOFIRE .nd Predicted Flame Length Deyils Canyon Rancho San AnIOIJio O~nSpac~ CIUfomh Otp."mt nt of Fort'try .nd Fir, Proltcdon "'';'!~~ __ ~==~~_~",,==:,Miles O~ 0.2 0.4 0,8 1.2 1,6 PAlOALTO.CA Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 8 June 2016 Figure 7.5. Predicted Rate of Spread, as developed during the 2009 FFMP Update 12 November 2008 MO leel 2640 (1/2 mile) _ 26<11·5280 ll molol _ Ita4mi1es o Pearson-Anostndera P~serve o FOOlhMI.PII1I Tnll. Raads AnalYIII: Wildland Rnauret Managlmlnt. Inc ullng FLAM MAP wlltl dl" prov'dld by: GIS Olt' SOurel: City ar P"o Alto Ground vtlineatlan: Plla Alta City St.ff Bne O.t.: LAtUIRE Ind Califomi. Department of Foru by and Fire Protection Predicted Rate of Spread Devils Canyon Rancho Sail Amoll/o OpellSpace _~-=~ __ !",==~ __ -::=="Milts 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 P1<lOAlTO.CA Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 9 June 2016 NEIGHBORHOOD AND STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS The Palo Alto community is made up of a mixture of homes with both old and new construction. Many homes are compliant with Building Code Chapter 7A, having been built since the WUI ordinance went into effect. Siding is a mixture of stucco and wood. Most homes have Class A roofs however there are enough with wood-shake roofs to endanger an entire neighborhood. Most roads are surfaced and have adequate width and turnaround for emergency apparatus. Roads are not very steep in most locations, but short stretches may be 10% grade. Home lot size is large enough to separate homes enough to limit ignition from radiant heat (if the vegetation is managed between and surrounding the homes). Adjacent wildlands to the west and north are grass and are managed every year by the City of Palo Alto. Water supply for the WUI areas is adequate and provided via hydrants connected to the city water supply. There is an organized HOA for much of the Foothills area that is active in fire prevention and can deliver a strong fire safety message and take action. EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPACITY Approximately 200 residences and large business complexes (some of them exceeding a million square feet in area) are located in Palo Alto’s Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area. The City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (June 2007) notes that 11 health care facilities, 10 schools and 25 government-owned buildings are located in the wildland urban interface threat areas, along with 19 miles of roadway that are subject to high, very high or extreme wild fire threat. The fire department has 122 personnel organized in three areas: Emergency Response (Operations), Environmental and Safety Management (Fire Prevention Bureau), Training and Personnel Management (Support). The Fire Department staffs six full-time stations located strategically throughout the city. To provide coverage in the sparsely developed hillside areas, an additional fire station in the foothills is operated during summer months when fire danger is high. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS The city has a strong online presence where City fire prevention messages inform their residents, with a particular webpage that address threats and hazards. This is found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/plans_and_information/thira.asp. In addition, there is an annual outreach by the city fire department in conjunction with inspection of parcels. Additionally, representatives from the Santa Clara FireSafe Council and the City Office of Emergency Services annually host a disaster preparedness workshop for the WUI area that includes wildland fire. The City works collaboratively with its partners and neighbors. The City contracts with the Santa Clara Fire Safe Council to assist with community outreach and education, as well as hazardous Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 10 June 2016 fuel reduction projects in the WUI. Representatives from the Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council augments public education material and often makes direct contact with homeowners. For example, a recent roadside treatment project on the Sam Mateo border was a partnership between the city, the SCFSC, and the Woodside Fire Protection District (WFPD), with the SCFSC facilitating contact of residents to encourage removal of vegetation beyond the road right of way. Several dumpsters (provided by WFPD) were filled and evacuation ease improved. The City has committed to the goal of having neighborhoods in the foothills become a designated Firewise community. They are sponsoring a fuels assessment of the community and support the application. POLICIES, REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, CODES The FFMP includes details of codes and ordinances, as well as the code documents to which they refer. FIRE CODE Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code adopted the California Fire Code, 2013 Edition, with local amendments. In addition, Title 8 regulates water efficiency, which affects defensible space and weed abatement; this is found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape.asp. BUILDING CODE Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code adopted the California Building Code, 2013 Edition. In general these sections support the adopted Title 15 Fire Code. HAZARD ASSESSMENT Community hazard assessments include ratings of community conditions compared to best practices for WUI fire mitigation. Community hazard ratings include consideration of applicable state codes, local ordinances, and recognized best practices guidelines. The National Fire Protection Association Standard 1144 (NFPA 1144) defines WUI hazards and risks at the community and parcel level. This plan utilizes components of NFPA 1144, California laws and local ordinances to evaluate neighborhood WUI hazard and risk. California Public Resources Code (PRC) 4290 and 4291 sections address WUI community design and defensible space standards. The NFPA 1144 community risk assessment completed as part of this SCCCWPP for the Palo Alto Community assigned the WUI community a risk rating of High with a score of 103 (<40= low, >40 = moderate, >70 = High, >112 = Extreme). Factors that contributed to the risk are illustrated below. Averages are taken across the community for each of these parameters. In addition to the on-the-ground hazard assessment, the CWPP also includes a Composite Fire Risk/Hazard Assessment which uses fire behavior modelling to determine potential fire behavior Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 11 June 2016 and is based on fuel characteristics, topography, weather and fire history. The Composite Risk/Hazard Assessment for the planning area is shown in Figure 7.6. For more information on the methodology for this assessment please refer to Section 4.6.1 in Chapter 4 of the SCCCWPP. Parameter Condition Rating Access One road in and out - Good road width and minimal grade + Surfaced road + Good fire access and turnarounds + Street signs are present, some are non-reflective +/- Vegetation Adjacent Fuels: Heavy - Defensible Space: Less than 30 feet around structure - Topography within 300 feet of structure 10% to 20% +/- Topographic features Moderate concern +/- History of high fire occurrence Low + Severe fire weather potential Low + Separation of adjacent structures Good separation + Roofing Assembly* Class C - Building Construction Non-combustible siding/combustible deck +/- Building set back <30 feet to slope - Available Fire Protection Water: hydrants present with good pressure + Response: Station <5 miles from structure + Internal sprinklers: none - Utilities One above and one below ground +/- *Roofing assembly: Class A: effective against severe fire test exposures; Class B: effective against moderate fire test exposures; Class C: effective against light fire test exposures; Unrated (wood shake roofs). NOTE: Stanford University had similar WUI features to Palo Alto, however its rating score was much reduced due to increased defensible space around structures and lighter adjacent fuels in interface areas. SWCA Environmental Consultants 12 June 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) Figure 7.6. Composite Fire Risk/Hazard Assessment for Palo Alto Palo Alto Planning Area Risk Assessment Community Wildfire Protection Plan Santa Clara County, California o Place D county • Fire Station D Lake or • School VValerbody Airport Risk Assessment Low Moderate High _Extreme Miles o 0_25 0_5 &-- Kilometers o 0.5 1 P"'WIw.-- SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants 13 June 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) PARCEL LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT A model for determining parcel level risk and effect of mitigations is available through this CWPP project. The model uses information available through public record for basic analysis but can be further refined with a site visit with the property owner for a thorough analysis of risk score. The property owner can then use this analysis to determine most effective steps they can take to reduce their risk. IDENTIFY CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY VALUES AT RISK The SCCCWPP identifies critical infrastructure as: fire departments, emergency shelters, hospitals, schools, communications sites, electrical distribution, and other critical service facilities The SCCCWPP identifies the following community values at risk for Palo Alto WUI areas: • City of Palo Alto Station 8, in Foothills Park • Open space areas: Mid-Peninsula Open Space District and Stanford University • Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve • Private residences • Private recreation facilities like equestrian centers and Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club • The site of private research facility (the Palo Alto University) • Unique wildland habitat capable of supporting a mix of wildlife, a diverse plant and wildlife population containing several protected and monitored species, and a mix of ecosystems ranging from riparian areas to serpentine soils. • The FFMP lists (in figure 11, page 32) sensitive species known or potentially occurring in the WUI area MITIGATION PROJECTS AND PRIORITIZATIONS The following project matrices have been developed by the community and Core Team to direct specific project implementation for communities in the Palo Alto WUI (Table 7.1-Table 7.3). The matrices below are tiered to the strategic goals presented in the body of the SCCCWPP through project IDs in the first column of each matrix. The matrices are broken down into projects for addressing hazardous fuels, structural ignitability and public education and outreach. NOTE: Please review the KMLs for the planning area for spatially delineated conceptual projects to be incorporated into the annex following review. Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 14 June 2016 Table 7.1. Recommendations for Public Outreach and Education for Palo Alto ID Project Presented by Target Date Priority (1,2,3) Resources Needed Serves to Strategic Goal: EO13-Implement Firewise Communities programs. Work with communities to participate in Firewise Communities and prepare for fire events. Hold Firewise booths at local events for example during the October Fire Awareness Week each year. PA- EO13.1 Support designation of the Foothills neighborhood as Firewise Establish and support a new Firewise Communities. Neighborhood fuels assessment, application to Firewise. Palo Alto Fire Department, Alexsis Drive HOA, SCFSC. 2016 Staff hours to facilitate and support, addition to SCFSC work plan. Give residents ownership of the fire problem, provide resources and information necessary to inform and prepare the community for fire. Table 7.2. Recommendations for Reducing Structural Ignitability for Palo Alto ID Project Presented by Programs Available Description Contact Priority (1,2,3) /Date Strategic Goal: SI4- Adopt common defensible space standards throughout the county. PA –SI4.1 Continue defensible space maintenance around all City structures and water tanks in City-owned parcels Community Services Department and Fire Department none Use hand labor to maintain defensible space and serve as a model for residents in the WUI of Palo Alto. Community Services Department and Fire Department H/annually PA SI4.2 Continue to contract with Santa Clara FireSafe Council to assist with community outreach and education Foothills Community Wildfire Management Program Team City fire prevention material, Firewise, Ready-Set-Go, SCFSC Living with Fire Offer hands-on workshops to highlight individual home vulnerabilities and how- to techniques to reduce ignitability of common structural elements. Regional Fire Marshals. H/annually PA SI4.3 Continue annual inspections of defensible space by fire department. Local Fire Marshal City fire department material, County Weed abatement “app” Fire Marshal, Fire department personnel H/annually Strategic Goal: SI7- Promote Firewise Community recognition program countywide; consider SCL amendments to Fire wise; partner with CERT and Neighborhood Watch. NOTE: Linked to EO 13 PA-SI7.1 Support designation of the Foothills neighborhood as Firewise Fire department, NFPA Firewise Assist in neighborhood fuels assessment, application to Firewise. Fire Marshal H/2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 15 June 2016 Table 7.3. Fuel Reduction Treatment Recommendations for Palo Alto ID Project Description Location and Responsible Party Method Serves to: Timeline for Action Priority (1,2,3) Monitoring Resources/funding sources available Strategic Goal: FR7: Develop roadside fuel treatment program, including suite of methods available and sustainability mechanism. PA- FR7.1 Roadside and Driveway Fuel Modification for Safe Access and Egress Within road right of way and within City-owned parks, on Page Mill Rd., Los Trancos Rd., Arastradero Rd, Skyline Blvd., and within Pearson-Arasterdero and Foothills Park. Hand labor, mechanized mowers, grazing livestock. Allow safe passage for evacuation and emergency access. Mow grass annually, 3-5 year tree trimming and brush removal. H Annual inspection General Fund, allocated to appropriate departments, Non-tiered projects Maintain firefighter safety zones in Foothills Park City-owned Foothills Park. Mechanized mowers, grazing livestock. Provide safe haven for firefighters during extreme wildfire conditions. Mow grass annually. H Annual inspection General Fund, allocated to appropriate departments, Create a non- combustible and a defensible space zone around barbeque structures All barbeque structures in all City parks in the WUI. Hand labor. Prevent ignitions. Annually. H Annual inspection General Fund, allocated to appropriate departments. Establish and maintain areas of low-fuel volume in strategic locations On ridgelines and borders of City-owned parks, and/or as described in the FFMP. Hand labor, mechanized mowers, grazing livestock, prescribed fire. Assist in containment of a wildfire to prevent spread into private property. Mow grass annually, 3- 5 year tree trimming and brush removal. H Annual inspection General Fund, allocated to appropriate departments. Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 16 June 2016 The following projects (Table 7.4) were identified by the Core Team during the development of the 2009 FFMP Update. Table 7.4. Mitigation Projects to be implemented as part of FFMP Update Project Goal Actions Maintain safe access, egress and refuge Roadside and driveway fuel modification to reduce fire intensity to allow for firefighting vehicles access and ensure safe passage for staff and visitors to pre-determined safety zones. Improve access to potential wildfire locations to increase effectiveness of firefighting resources (road realignments, access upgrades) Identify areas for potential use for firefighter safety and refuge during a fire (safety zones) Minimizing damage to developed areas Reduce potential for ember production, Manage fuels along borders with structures, anywhere around structures (within 100 feet) Retrofit structures to make them more ignition-resistant Enhance firefighting effectiveness Reduce fuels around other facilities at risk (e.g. communications equipment, high use recreation areas) Reduce damage to structures and developed areas from wildfire near structures Manage fuels per Defensible Space Guidelines to reduce flame length to 2 feet within 30 feet of structures Reduce potential for ignitions Roadside fuel treatments Reduce fuels around barbeque sites and selected electrical transmission lines Ensure mechanical equipment has features to minimize ignitions Conduct fuel management in a manner that prevents ignitions Facilitate containment and control of a fire Strategically compartmentalize fuels in order to facilitate containment and control Modify fuels to reduce fire intensity and allow firefighters better access to the fire, slow spread of fire and make firefighting actions more effective, Modify fuels to allow for backfires Reduce the chance of damage to life and property by keeping fire from crossing boundaries – Participate in cooperative projects with adjacent landowners Fuel management to compartmentalize the landscape Fuel management along the borders of the Park/Preserve Modification of the volume or structure of the fuels to reduce chance of ember production Modification of the volume or structure of the fuels to enhance firefighting effectiveness Minimize damage to natural resources Conduct pre-treatment surveys for sensitive species Follow best management practices during fuel management Fuel management around fire-sensitive areas to reduce fire intensity Use of modified fire suppression in sensitive areas Fuel modification for ecosystem health Reduce invasive species Perform selected prescribed burns to promote fire-adapted native species The following is a description of the goals for each of the types of projects that manage vegetation as part of this plan: ROADSIDE AND DRIVEWAY FUEL MODIFICATION FOR SAFE ACCESS AND EGRESS Specific Goal of Action The most important goal for this set of projects is to reduce fire intensity near roads to allow firefighting vehicles to pass and ensure safe passage for staff and visitors to pre-determined safety zones, or safe locations out of the parks. In addition, the projects outside of the City parks/preserves are aimed at facilitating access and egress between different portions of Palo Alto’s wildland urban interface (Figure 7.7). Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 17 June 2016 Figure 7.7. Evacuation Routes External to Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. PA3 Vegetation maintenance on Highway 35 is the responsibility of CalTrans Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 18 June 2016 FUEL MODIFICATION FOR FIREFIGHTER SAFETY Specific Goal of Action This project goal is specific to the safety of firefighters during emergency response when safe refuge comprised of low fuels is vital. STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS – DEFENSIBLE SPACE Specific Goal of Action • Reduce damage to structures, developed areas and critical infrastructure from wildfire by reducing flame length to two feet within 30 feet of structures by managing fuels per Defensible Space Guidelines in Section 1.6.8. In some cases, treatment will need to extend to 100 feet in order to reduce flames to two feet within thirty feet of a structure. • Minimize negative effects of fuel manipulation on wildlands • Reduce damage to wildlands from wildfire IGNITION PREVENTION FUEL MANAGEMENT PROJECTS Specific Goal of Action Ignitions from barbeques may occur in Foothills Park. Ignition prevention relies upon fuel management, coupled with education, signage, and enforcement of park rules regarding fire safety. Under extreme fire weather conditions, the parks may be closed to the public. The fuel management will consist of the following: • Follow standards for defensible space for a 30-foot radius from the barbeque site. • Remove vegetation to create a non-combustible zone for a 10-foot radius from the barbeque site. FUEL MODIFICATION FOR CONTAINMENT EASE Specific Goal of Action The specific goal of modifying fuels is to compartmentalize fuels in order to facilitate the containment and control of a fire. The treatment areas are positioned in strategic locations, usually on a ridgetop, with access, avoiding areas that would preclude the use of mechanical equipment such as steep slopes or riparian areas. Fuels are modified to reduce fire intensity and thus allow firefighters better access to the fire, making firefighting actions more effective. Fuel modification also creates more opportunities to backfire, which occurs during wildfires where fire suppression crews create large firebreaks in advance of the fire front. Fuel modification can also slow the spread of a fire, further enhancing fire control efforts. Where trees abut grasslands in the new fuel breaks, it is especially important to limb trees and remove shrubby understory from trees along the edge of the forest canopy in order to break vertical continuity between grass and tree canopy. This action will remove the “ladder fuels” that promote crown fires and hinder fire containment. Table 7.5 describes proposed/conceptual fuel modification projects for the Palo Alto WUI. Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 19 June 2016 Table 7.5. Fuel modification projects Designation Project Description Acreage or Distance Treatment Method Foothills F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail 72.51 acres mowing, grazing F.C2 Containment Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge 2,975 feet mow annually 10 feet on either size of road, use a brush hog (or grazing animals) to mow areas to the break in slope both under wooded canopy and in grasslands with cover of coyote brush greater than 30% F.C3 Containment Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge 2,461 feet mowing, grazing F.C4 Containment Bobcat point 5.28 acres graze with goats F.C5 Containment North of entry Gate 3.47 acres graze with goats F.C6 Containment Valley View Fire Trail 1,459 feet mowing Pearson-Arastradero A.C1 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Liddicoat 5.39 acres grazing, mowing A.C2 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Stanford and Portola Pastures 5,371 feet grazing, mowing A.C3 Containment Within Redtail Loop Trail, to entire eastern boundary of Preserve 48.72 acres grazing A.C4 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Paso del Robles 7.71 acres grazing A.C5 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen - north 11.22 acres grazing A.C6 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen - south 4.05 acres grazing A.C7 Containment Property boundary west of Meadow Lark Trail 9.71 acres grazing, mowing A.C8 Containment Property boundary adjacent to 1791 Arastradero Rd. 8.08 acres grazing (mowing is not possible) A.C9 Containment Property boundary adjacent to John Marthens 1,726 feet mowing A.C10 Containment Arastradero Creek to Arastradero Road 10,222 feet mowing, hand labor near riparian zone A.C11 Containment Meadow Lark to Juan Bautista Trail 8,893 feet mowing A.C12 Containment Meadow Lark 1,569 feet mowing A.C13 Containment Bowl Loop 1,388 feet mowing A.C14 Containment Arastradero to extended split RX1 and RX2 1,830 feet mowing A.C15 Containment Acorn Trail 1,218 feet mowing FUEL MODIFICATION FOR ECOSYSTEM HEALTH Specific Goal of Action The City should conduct fuel modification to reduce the invasion of coyote bush into grasslands and thus reduce expected heat output. The objectives are to maintain grasslands and restore the native pattern of vegetation on the landscape. Other fuel management projects also enhance ecosystem health (Table 7.6). Reducing the amount and height of understory shrubs creates a vegetative structure that is more open at the forest floor, with less biomass and is vertically discontinuous; this mimics the pre-fire-suppression era. This would be done either with goat herds or with hand labor forces. Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 7 – Palo Alto (including Stanford University) SWCA Environmental Consultants 20 June 2016 Location and Description of Projects Table 7.6. Project locations for Ecosystem Health Designation Project Description Acreage Treatment Method Foothills F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail 72.51 acres mowing, grazing 2-3 rotation Pearson-Arastradero A.Rx1 Containment Juan Bautista Prescribe fire north 18.25 acres Rx fire, grazing A.Rx2 Containment Acorn Trail Prescribed fire south 24,45 acres Rx fire, grazing A.C3 Containment Within Redtail Loop Trail, to entire eastern boundary of Preserve 48.72 acres grazing, mowing COOPERATIVE FUEL MANAGEMENT PROJECTS FOR OFFSITE FIRE CONTAINMENT AND EVACUATION EASE Specific Goal of Action The goal of this project is to prevent a wildfire from spreading into the parks. The City should work with adjacent landowners to institute and maintain the vegetation in a condition that would facilitate containment and ease evacuation operations. Location and Description of Projects Most importantly, the enhancement of roadside treatments along Page Mill Road requires cooperation with several other landowners and agencies. Cooperative projects include the formalization of agreements for passage through properties during time of emergency evacuation with public and private land owners and managers. Develop partnerships to address regional evacuation routes from residential and public areas and fuel management on City-owned open space adjacent to private structures, as detailed in the following section. In some cases, such as on the western edge of Foothill Park east of Carmel and Ramona Road in Los Trancos Woods, access through private parcels would enable fuel management on City lands that would benefit both parties involved. Sudden Oak Death has been observed in many locations within the Foothills area. At this time the areas are small and consist of one or two trees. The urgency for treatment of these affected areas is related to its location. Dead trees near structures, City property boundaries and along roads should be treated first. For example, dead trees along evacuation routes would get higher priority than those in the middle of remote woodland. However, if entire stands die, or Sudden Oak Death changes the fuel characteristics of the stand, the priority and potential treatments would change. The location and extent of stands affected by Sudden Oak Death should be monitored. Treatment should be consistent with the City policy regarding Sudden Oak Death. Treatments generally entail removal of dead material smaller than six inches in diameter. The trunks of the trees may remain if needed for wildlife habitat, however it is often difficult to retain just the larger material. The proximity of California bay to the foliage of oaks has been linked with the spread of Sudden Oak Death. Removal or trimming of bay trees to separate the foliage is another strategy to prevent further spread. UNRESTRICTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE THREAT AND HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT 2017 UPDATE 4/21/2017 City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 2| Page Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 3 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 4 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 3 Goal Setting ..............................................................................................................................7 4 Hazard Identification and Prioritization ................................................................................ 12 4.1 Identified Hazards and Threats ...................................................................................... 12 4.2 Natural Hazard Prioritization ........................................................................................ 20 4.3 Technological Hazard Prioritization .............................................................................. 22 4.4 Human Caused Threat Prioritization ............................................................................. 23 4.5 Threats and Hazards of Most Concern .......................................................................... 24 5 Hazard Profiles ...................................................................................................................... 25 5.1 Non-Natural Hazard Profile Structure .......................................................................... 25 5.2 Earthquake Hazard Summary ....................................................................................... 26 5.3 Flood Hazard Summary (Inclusive of Severe Storms) ................................................... 26 5.4 Airplane Accident Profile ............................................................................................... 27 5.5 Hazardous Waste/Materials Spill Profile ...................................................................... 28 5.6 Urban Fire Profile .......................................................................................................... 32 5.7 Major Crimes .................................................................................................................. 33 5.8 Cyber Attack Profile ....................................................................................................... 35 5.9 Workplace Violence Profile ............................................................................................ 40 5.10 Civil Disorder .................................................................................................................. 41 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 43 6.1 Recommendations for Action ........................................................................................ 45 6.2 THIRA Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 49 7 Appendices ........................................................................................................................... A-1 7.1 Appendix A: Planning Process ...................................................................................... A-1 City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 3| Page List of Tables Table 4-1 National Planning Scenarios .......................................................................................... 13 Table 4-2 Comprehensive List of Hazards and Definitions ........................................................... 13 Table 5-1 Common Types of Cyber Attacks .................................................................................. 36 Table 5-2 Common Sources of Cybersecurity Threats ................................................................. 37 List of Figures Figure 3-3-1 National Preparedness Core Capabilities....................................................................7 Figure 5-5-1 Statistics of Part I and Part II Crimes in Palo Alto April 2014-2017 ........................ 34 Figure 5-2 Statistics of Part I and Part II Crimes in Palo Alto from the PaloAlso FIscal Year 2013 Annual Report ............................................................................................................................... 35 City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 4| Page 1 Executive Summary The 2017 Update of the THIRA includes an updated threat and hazard assessment in Chapter 4 following the City’s adoption of an updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). 1 This community based planning process prompted the update to Intentional Hazards which included an assessment by a group of Bay Area public safety professionals and an analysis of recorded Part 1 and Part 2 crimes. Technological hazards were not changed. The body of the 2014 THIRA remains, and highlighted sections demonstrate where modifications were made. To evaluate the City of Palo Alto’s capabilities for addressing all hazard events, the City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services (OES) conducted a collaborative planning process in order to develop the City of Palo Alto 2014 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). This assessment provides the outcomes of this process and is compliant with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201. This THIRA report will be used to inform ongoing planning efforts throughout the city. Palo Alto OES established a Planning Team of key stakeholders to ensure development of a well- rounded, inclusive assessment of all relevant threats/hazards and the City’s capabilities to address the five mission areas of prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. The Planning Team met in person for two full day workshops and additionally provided input via virtual reviews conducted through email correspondence. Prior to the Planning Team workshops, the executive committee met to draft Desired Outcomes. This preliminary coordination by the leadership set the tone for the THIRA planning process and established guidelines for the Planning Team as they worked through each of the CPG 201 steps. The two full day workshops were designed to follow CPG 201. Each workshop was facilitated to emphasize comprehensive discussion and integrate expertise by Planning Team members for relevant topics. The first workshop focused on confirming the threats and hazards of concern (CPG 201 Step 1) and developing context (CPG 201 Step 2) to help evaluate potential impacts. The second workshop was a facilitated discussion to validate the potential impacts for each of the developed scenarios. The Planning Team developed Capability Targets based on the greatest estimated impact for each of the 31 Core Capabilities (CPG 201 Step 3). Once the Capability Targets were approved, the Planning Team examined each of the core capabilities against the Capability Target and identified gaps and recent advances in Planning, Organization, equipment, Training, and Exercise (POETE). For each of the identified gaps, subject matter experts identified initial recommendations on how to address these gaps (CPG 201 Step 4). As the City of Palo Alto moves forward with the results of the THIRA, it is recommended that the identified gaps be further discussed and analyzed in order to identify the root cause of the gap. Once the root cause is determined by the stakeholders, the identified recommendations should be revised, corrective actions determined and resource estimations be made in order to implement and prioritize the recommendations. 1 The LHMP provides an empirical analysis of Natural Hazards and their likely impact to our community. See www.cityofpaloalto.org/lhmap for the current version. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 5| Page 2 Introduction The City of Palo Alto is at risk to a variety of natural and non-natural hazards. Stanford University, located within the City’s jurisdictional boundary, is also at risk to these same hazards. Preventing, protecting from, mitigating, responding to, and recovering from hazards and threats requires extensive coordination among City agencies and local partners, including Stanford. The City’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) leads that coordination with the goal of “developing, maintaining, and sustaining a citywide, comprehensive, all hazard, risk-based emergency management program that engages the whole community”2. The Stanford University Department of Public Safety and the Stanford University Environmental Health & Safety (EH&S) Department partner with the City to enhance their emergency preparedness, mitigation, and response capabilities. Under separate contracts, the City provides all 911 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) dispatch services to Stanford, and is also the prime Fire and EMS provider to the University. Together, the City’s OES and representatives from Stanford University supported the formulation of this plan. To better understand and effectively prioritize risk reduction measures, OES conducted a collaborative planning process with an Executive Committee and a broader Stakeholder Group to evaluate current capabilities with regard to prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery. This Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) Report is the result of the collaborative planning process. It is compliant with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201, Second Edition, released in August 2013, which outlines a process to help communities identify capability targets and resource requirements necessary to address anticipated and unanticipated risks. The result of the THIRA process is an organized evaluation of vulnerability and implementation measures based on the necessary capabilities to deal with the hazards/threats of most concern. This report should inform ongoing City and University planning efforts including, but not limited to, the following: • Emergency Operations Plan • Hazard Mitigation Plan • Emergency Planning & Homeland Security Strategic Plan • Operating Budget • Capital Budget • Office of Emergency Services Annual Report • Comprehensive Plan DHS requires annual THIRAs from States and Tier 1 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) organizations. The City of Palo Alto THIRA, as a local government assessment, may be shared as appropriate with the San Francisco Bay Area UASI and California Governor’s Office of 2 Office of Emergency Services (OES): Executive Summary (Rev. 8/24/12) City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 6| Page Emergency Services (Cal OES) to ensure consistency in vulnerability analyses. Both the California State THIRA and San Francisco Bay Area UASI THIRA were consulted in the preparation of this City of Palo Alto THIRA. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 7| Page 3 Goal Setting Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness sets forth a national goal for “a secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk”3. To achieve this, the National Preparedness Goal identifies 31 necessary core capabilities. The City of Palo Alto Executive Team reviewed the National Preparedness Goal and through discussion established a more refined set of desired outcomes for the City based on the 31 core capabilities. Figure 3-3-1 National Preparedness Core Capabilities The following statements represent an ideal condition of the whole community’s capability to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards of most concern. 1. Planning Conduct a consolidated, coordinated, integrated planning process to ensure participation by the whole community using an all hazards approach and defined planning cycles. 3 National Preparedness Goal City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 8| Page 2. Public Information and Warning Provide information in a timely and appropriate manner to the affected population including those with functional needs. Information should be consistent with the threat or hazard and enable people to take appropriate actions or protective measures. 3. Operational Coordination Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational Incident Command System (ICS) compliant structure and process that appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders to include private/public partners (e.g. hospitals, residents, ESV, schools, businesses, etc.) and supports the execution of core capabilities. Prevention 4. Forensics and Attribution Conduct investigation, evidence collection, and analysis for criminal prosecution as well as assist in preventing initial or follow-on terrorist acts. 5. Intelligence and Information Sharing Interface with allied public safety agencies, regional planning entities, and other relevant stakeholders to collect, analyze, and disseminate timely, accurate, and actionable information. 6. Interdiction and Disruption Coordinate with other agencies to facilitate interdiction of cargo and persons that could present a threat to the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. 7. Screening Search and Detection Screen and search cargo, packages, and persons if/when legally permissible and justified. For example, observe safety protocols with those entering Stanford Stadium for certain, security-risk events. Protection 8. Access Control and Identity Verification Establish verification of identity to authorize, grant, or deny physical and cyber access to critical infrastructure, key asset locations, and networks. 9. Cybersecurity Protect against malicious activity directed toward critical infrastructure, key resources, and networks. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 9| Page 10. Physical Protective Measures Protect people, structures, materials, products, and systems of key operational activities and critical infrastructure sectors against identified or perceived threats. 11. Risk Management for Protection Programs and Activities Complete and/or encourage risk assessments, using standardized methodologies/models, for critical infrastructure/key resources (CIKR) and assets. 12. Supply Chain Integrity and Security Accounting for reliance on digital technology and modern management practices, work with and encourage private sector to build resiliency in the supply chain and develop tangible and intellectual methods to protect it. Mitigation 13. Community Resilience Engage the whole community in improving resilience through development and implementation of local risk management plans, techniques, strategies, training, and exercises. 14. Long–term Vulnerability Reduction Implement ongoing strategies to achieve measurable decreases in the long-term vulnerability of critical infrastructure, systems, and community features at risk to identified threats and hazards. 15. Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment Maintain a risk assessment that includes identification and analysis of information about security gaps, localized vulnerabilities and risk consequences in City systems and facilities. 16. Threats and Hazards Identification Continually review/identify/maintain the assessment of identified threats and hazards. Response 17. Critical Transportation Establish physical access through appropriate transportation corridors and deliver required resources in an effort to save lives and to meet the needs of disaster survivors. 18. Environmental Response/Health and Safety Conduct health and safety hazard and critical systems assessments, and disseminate guidance and resources, including the deployment of hazardous materials teams, to support environmental health and safety actions for response personnel and the affected population and City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 10| Page area. Conduct water sampling from established locations to determine potential access breach and/or contamination. 19. Fatality Management Services Conduct operations to recover fatalities in coordination with Operational Area/regional/state, federal and NGO partners. 20. Mass Care Services Move and deliver resources and capabilities to meet the needs of disaster survivors, including individuals with access and functional needs and others who may be considered at-risk. Coordinate operations with government and NGO assistance partners. 21. Mass Search and Rescue Operations Conduct search and rescue operations to locate and rescue persons in distress. 22. On-Scene Security and Protection Establish a safe and secure environment for the affected area. 23. Operational Communications Establish and maintain the capability and capacity for timely and sufficient integrated communications in support of security, situational awareness, and operations. This includes redundant capabilities and resilient systems and facilities. 24. Public and Private Services and Resources Mobilize and coordinate governmental, nongovernmental, and private sector resources within and outside the affected areas to save lives, sustain lives, meet basic human needs, stabilize the incident, and transition to recovery. 25. Public Health and Medical Services With operational area support as needed, complete triage and initial stabilization of casualties and begin coordination of transport to definitive care for those likely to survive their injuries. 26. Situational Assessment Deliver information sufficient to inform City decisions, through collaboration with key partners, regarding immediate life-saving and -sustaining activities and engage governmental, private, and civic-sector resources within and outside of the affected area to meet basic human needs and stabilize the incident and maintain public services. 27. Infrastructure Systems Decrease and stabilize immediate infrastructure threats to the affected population, following all City EOP procedures. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 11| Page Recovery 28. Economic Recovery Develop a plan with whole community partners, with a specified timeline for redeveloping community infrastructures to contribute to resiliency, accessibility, and sustainability. 29. Health and Social Services Restore basic health and social services functions with support from Operational Area/state/federal and NGO partners. 30. Housing Assess preliminary housing impacts and needs, identify currently available options for temporary housing, and plan for permanent housing in coordination with Operational Area/state/federal and NGO partners. 31. Natural and Cultural Resources Mitigate impacts, stabilize natural and cultural resources, and conduct a preliminary assessment of the impacts to identify and implement protections during the various stages of incident management—from stabilization through recovery. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 12| Page 4 Hazard Identification and Prioritization 4.1 Identified Hazards and Threats Several City and regional emergency management and planning documents were reviewed to identify a comprehensive list of hazards for consideration. These documents address both natural and human caused hazards that have the potential to impact Palo Alto and the Bay Area. Many of these documents estimate the impacts that result from the identified hazards. City policies that aid in emergency prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery are highlighted in these documents. The reviewed documents which were integral in providing key information are listed below: City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan, June 2007 Palo Alto City Council Priority Update on Emergency Preparedness, September 2010 City of Palo Alto Terrorism Response Plan, 2001 City of Palo Alto Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011 City of Palo Alto Energy Assurance Plan, July 2013 After Action Report Power Outage and Plane Crash, May 2010 After Action Report Winter Storm of December 23, 2012, February 2013 City of Palo Alto Emergency Planning Strategic Plan, November 2009 State of California THIRA Draft, December 2012 Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative THIRA, December 2012 San Francisco THIRA, 2012 National Planning Scenarios (See table 4-1 below) San Francisco Bay Area Regional Emergency Coordination Plan, March 2008 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, July 20074; Land Use Designation Map, March 2011; Housing Element, November 2013; Updated version to be released in 2014/2015 In addition to the documents listed above, the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission Final Report on Palo Alto’s Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead (December 4 The City is in the process of updating the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan which will contain updated goals, policies, and programs relating to safety and natural hazards. The update is expected to be completed by the end of 2015 and will have an expected horizon year of 2030. The updated Comprehensive Plan will be consistent with this Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 13| Page 2011) specifically helped to identify the City’s critical facilities and infrastructure used in estimating impacts and assessing vulnerability. Table 4-1 National Planning Scenarios Scenario 1: Nuclear Detonation Scenario 2: Biological Attack – Aerosol Anthrax Scenario 3: Biological Disease Outbreak – Pandemic Influenza Scenario 4: Biological Attack - Plague Scenario 5: Chemical Attack – Blister Agent Scenario 6: Chemical Attack – Toxic Industrial Chemicals Scenario 7: Chemical Attack – Nerve Agent Scenario 8: Chemical Attack – Chlorine Tank Explosion Scenario 9: Natural Disaster – Major Earthquake Scenario 10: Natural Disaster – Major Hurricane Scenario 11: Radiological Attack – Radiological Dispersal Devices Scenario 12: Explosives Attack – Bombing Using Improvised Explosive Devices Scenario 13: Biological Attack – Food Contamination Scenario 14: Biological Attack – Foreign Animal Disease (Foot and Mouth Disease) Scenario 15: Cyber Attack Table 3-2 Comprehensive List of Hazards and Definitions presents the comprehensive list of hazards as approved by the Executive Committee and considered by the Stakeholder Group. Table 4-2 Comprehensive List of Hazards and Definitions Natural Hazard Definition Earthquake An earthquake is a phenomenon resulting from the sudden release of stored energy in the crust of the Earth in the form of seismic waves. They can devastate regions and destroy nearly any type of asset. They can cause injuries and death due to falling debris and broken glass. A major earthquake could trigger significant landslides, spark fires, and release toxic chemicals. If an earthquake occurred during the rainy winter season, landslides would be worsened and flooding could occur, exacerbated by damaged creek culverts and storm drains. Extreme Heat A heat wave is defined as prolonged periods of excessive heat, often combined with excessive humidity. Extreme heat is defined as temperatures that hover ten degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. The main concern in periods of extreme heat is the potential public health impact, such as heat exhaustion or heat stroke. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 14| Page Flood/Winter Storm A flood is any high flow, overflow, or inundation by water which causes or threatens damage. Flooding is often caused by winter storms in the City of Palo Alto. Flooding can contaminate potable water, wastewater, and irrigation systems, which may negatively affect the quality of the water supply and result in an increase of water and food borne diseases. Severe winter storms can cause flooding. High Wind Wind is associated with multiple natural hazards. In some hazards, wind is the primary cause of damage, while in others, wind plays a contributory or auxiliary role. Damaging wind is primarily associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, downbursts, severe thunderstorms, and winter storms. Wind plays a contributory role in wildfire generation and propagation and can exacerbate severe droughts as well as cause trees to fall on power lines. Landslides In a landslide, masses of rock, earth, or debris move down a slope. Landslides may be small or large, slow or rapid. They are activated by storms, earthquakes, fires, alternate freezing and thawing, and steepening of slopes by erosion or human modification. Public Health Pandemic The most readily apparent public health emergency is an outbreak of influenza pandemic although other public health emergencies are just as likely. An influenza pandemic is a worldwide outbreak of disease that occurs when a new influenza virus appears in human population, causes serious illness and then spreads easily from person to person worldwide. Pandemics are different from seasonal outbreaks of the flu. Since 2005, a high virulent strain of bird flu (H5N1), which developed in Asia, has steadily spread in birds to the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. The fatality rate of this particular strain is more than 50 percent. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that, in the US alone, a "minor" influenza pandemic could infect up to 200 million people and cause between 100,000-200,000 deaths. The potential financial impact on the US of this type of pandemic is estimated at $166 billion. Pandemics could continue for up to 24 months and cause major disruptions in supply chains for essential goods and services. Other outbreaks could include H1N1, Whooping Cough, Salmonella, E. coli, and Measles. Tornado A tornado appears as a rotating, funnel-shaped cloud that extends from a thunderstorm to the ground with whirling winds that can reach 300 miles per hour. Damage paths can be in excess of one City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 15| Page mile wide and fifty miles long. Waterspouts are tornadoes that form over water. Tsunami A tsunami is a sea wave of local or distant origin that results from large-scale seafloor displacements associated with large earthquakes, major submarine slides, or exploding volcanic islands. Wildland Fire A wildfire is an uncontrollable fire beginning in a wilderness area, typified by its large size, and ability to spread quickly or change direction suddenly. High temperatures and drought followed by an active period of vegetation growth provide the most dangerous conditions. Wildfires can affect any type of asset and may threaten major population centers when they break on the rural-urban fringe. Technological Hazard Definition Airplane Accident Aviation accidents may be caused by problems originating from mechanical difficulties, pilot error, or acts of terrorism. Airplane accidents can result from major aircraft experiencing trouble while in flight or from mid-air collisions between aircraft flying over or near Palo Alto since the City lies in the flight path of two international airports: San Jose and San Francisco. There is also the potential for this type of accident to occur over water. Dam Failure Flooding inundation areas in the event of dam failure extend across a wide region of northeastern Palo Alto. Reservoir failures that would affect Palo Alto include Felt Lake, Searsville Lake, and Foothills Park (Boronda Lake). Financial Disruption A situation where the markets cease to function in a regular manner, typically characterized by rapid and large market declines. Market disruptions can result from both physical threats to the stock exchange or unusual trading (as in a crash). In either case, City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 16| Page the disruption typically causes panic and results in disorderly market conditions. Food/Water Contamination A water system can become contaminated as a result of flooding or by saltwater intrusion. Food contamination refers to the presence in food of harmful chemicals and microorganisms which can cause consumer illness. Hazardous Materials Spill The release of a hazardous material to the environment could cause a multitude of problems. Although these incidents can happen almost anywhere, certain areas of the city are at higher risk, such as near roadways that are frequently used for transporting hazardous materials and locations with industrial facilities that use, store, or dispose of such materials. Areas crossed by railways, waterways, airways, and pipelines also have increased potential for mishaps. Hazards can occur during production, storage, transportation, use, or disposal. Communities can be at risk if a chemical is used unsafely or released in harmful amounts into the environment. Hazardous materials can cause death, serious injury, long-lasting health effects, and damage to buildings, the environment, homes, and other property. Oil Spill An oil spill is the release of a liquid petroleum hydrocarbon into the environment due to human activity or technological error. The term is usually applied to marine oil spills, but spills can also occur on land. Spills may be due to releases of oil from tankers, offshore platforms, and drilling rigs and wells. An oil spill represents an immediate fire hazard and can contaminate drinking water supplies. Contamination can also have an economic impact on tourism and marine resource extraction industries. Clean up and recovery is time and cost consuming. Power Blackout/Energy Shortage/Utilities Failure Energy disruptions are considered to be a form of Lifeline System Failure. This can be the consequence of any of the other hazards identified or as a primary hazard, absent of an outside trigger. A failure could involve the City's potable water system, power system, natural gas system, wastewater system, communication system, or transportation system. Train Accident Most train accidents are caused by human error, often relating to communications, speed limits, and braking. Train accidents also can occur because of equipment failure. Rail accidents include City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 17| Page derailment, collisions, railroad grade crossing, obstruction, explosion, or fire/violent rupture. Urban Fire In addition to the areas within the City limits considered to be in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), the more densely built “flatlands” are also at risk. The City has over 25,000 housing units and a significant business base. The proximity of structures to each other within the City creates additional exposure to widespread urban fire. Localized, single-structure fires sometimes occur in Palo Alto. Major uncontrolled events are a possibility, but rarely occur. Human Caused Hazard Definition Agro-Terrorism Agro-terrorism is the use of a biological or chemical agent against crops, livestock, or poultry. The agent could be any of a wide range of pathogens or toxins. Agro-terrorism may be used to endanger public heath, to reduce the food supply, or as a strategic economic weapon. Aircraft as a weapon Aircraft as a weapon (AAW) is a suicide attack using an airplane to target an asset. The primary explosive is the airplane's fuel supply. Aircraft include but are not limited to large commercial passenger craft, cargo craft, small single or double engine private craft, gliders, helicopters, and lighter-than-aircraft. Biological Attack (contagious and non-contagious) A contagious biological attack is an attack on a population using a communicable, infectious disease. Effects occur after an incubation period which varies with the biological strain in use. They can quickly infect large populations. Bioterrorism can cause mass panic and societal disruption. Chemical Agent/Toxic Inhalation Release Chemical weapons kill by attacking the nervous system and lungs, or by interfering with a body's ability to absorb oxygen. Some are designed to incapacitate by producing severe burns and blisters. These include such agents as mustard, tabun, sarin (GB), and nerve gas. Chemical agents could be introduced through an HVAC system or air inlets in buildings such as apartments, commercial offices, or public facilities. Civil Disorder Civil disorder refers to unrest caused by a group of people and may include terrorist activities. Public demonstrations have the potential to lead to looting and rioting. There are many potential City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 18| Page causes for civil disorder including: animal rights, labor disputes, civil rights, campus related issues, abortion rights, neighboring jurisdictions, political issues, events (sports, music, etc.), and spontaneous miscellaneous events. Potential consequences from acts of civil disorder include: disruptions of police and city services, closure of roads, rioting, property damage, and injuries to protesters, police officers, and uninvolved parties. Conventional Attack Light armed attack (small arms (ballistics) which include guns and rockets, or stand-off weapons such as rocket propelled grenades or mortars) with one or more people acting for a terrorist group, anti- government/anti-political group, etc. Major Crime A major criminal incident (shooting, homicide, kidnapping) including multiple suspects or multiple victims with an ongoing threat to the community. Cyber Attack A cyber terrorist can infiltrate many institutions including banking, medical, education, government, military, and communication and infrastructure systems. The majority of effective malicious cyber- activity has become web-based. Recent trends indicate that hackers are targeting users to steal personal information and moving away from targeting computers by causing system failure. Hostage/Assassin A hostage situation includes a person or group of people seized or held as security for the fulfillment of a condition. An assassin is a person who murders an important person in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons. IED Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are constructed using conventional explosives and flammable materials. There are a variety of detonation methods. Conventional explosives include, but are not limited to: ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, TATP, TNT, RDX, PETN, C4, Semtex, or Dynamite. Flammable materials include, but are not limited to: gasoline, kerosene, alcohol, iodine crystals, magnesium, glycerin, or aluminum powder. An IED is likely to cause localized consequence primarily in the form of casualties and economic impact. Nuclear Attack/Acts of War The detonation of a nuclear weapon meets the US DODs definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction, which includes any weapon or device that is intended or has the capability to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, a disease organism, or radiation or radioactivity. A nuclear bomb City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 19| Page attack could occur without warning and cause mass devastation within seconds. Radiation can exist in the atmosphere and in the ground for years after an event. A nuclear attack would cause more damage in a metropolitan area. Radiological Dispersion Device (RDD) RDDs (commonly known as “dirty bombs”) consist of radioactive materials wrapped in conventional explosives, which upon detonation release deadly radioactive particles into the environment. Sabotage/Theft Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, destruction, obstruction, or destruction. The result of sabotage could be the destruction or damage of a vital facility. Some criminals have engaged in sabotage for reasons of extortion. Political sabotage is sometimes used to harass or damage the reputation of a political opponent. Terrorism Terrorist activities include bombings, kidnappings, shootings, and hijackings. 80% of terrorist activity is perpetrated through the use of explosives, and the other 20% is a combination of arson, vandalism, and assassination. The actual use of terrorist chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons has occurred less than a handful of times in the last 50 years. The common kinds of terrorist situations (explosions, fires, vandalism, and shootings) are the same kind of critical incidents first responders handle on a daily basis. Terrorist activity can be conducted by an active shooter, an individual actively engaging in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area using a firearm. Targets of an armed attack vary; however, in recent history, schools, office buildings, federal/state owned buildings, religious institutions, military installations, and large public areas have all been subject to armed attacks. An active shooter may be a disgruntled student or group of students, an employee, or an anti-government/anti- political/extremist citizen or group. Vehicle Born IED Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs) are constructed using conventional explosives and flammable materials. VBIEDs involve the use of cars, trucks, and other vehicles as the package/container to deliver explosive payloads to a target. Larger vehicles enable larger amounts of explosives, resulting in a greater impact. Functioning of devices can vary within the same methods as the package types and can have the same common characteristics as other IEDs. Some examples in the U.S. include the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (a precursor to 9/11) and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 20| Page Workplace Violence Workplace violence is violence or the threat of violence against workers. It includes any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the worksite. It can occur at or outside the workplace and can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide. It can affect and involve employees, clients, customers, and visitors. Workplace violence includes locations such as churches, malls, etc. and may be the result of a person acting alone. The Stakeholder Group, through a facilitated exercise reviewed the comprehensive list of hazards/threats and prioritized them to identify those of most concern. The prioritization methodology is presented in the following sections. 4.2 Natural Hazard Prioritization5 The Palo Alto LHMP rated natural hazards through a qualitative analysis of probability and impact to people and property based on the scale of the hazard. The probability of occurrence of a hazard is indicated by a probability factor based on likelihood of annual occurrence: • High—Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3). • Medium—Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =2). • Low—Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =1). • No exposure—There is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0). Hazard impacts were assessed in three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property and impacts on the local economy. Numerical impact factors were assigned as follows: • People—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. It should be noted that planners can use an element of subjectivity when assigning values for impacts on people. Impact factors were assigned as follows: o High—50 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3). o Medium—25 percent to 49 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2). o Low—25 percent or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1). o No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0). • Property—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard event: 5 Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017, Volume 1, pp.5-2 – 5-3. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 21| Page o High—30 percent or more of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3). o Medium—15 percent to 29 percent of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2). o Low—14 percent or less of the total assessed property value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1). o No impact—None of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0). • Economy—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to the total replacement value of the property exposed to the hazard. For some hazards, such as wildfire, landslide and severe weather, vulnerability was considered to be the same as exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools specific to those hazards. Loss estimates separate from the exposure estimates were generated for the earthquake and flood hazards using Hazus. o High—Estimated loss from the hazard is 20 percent or more of the total exposed property value (Impact Factor = 3). o Medium—Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent to 19 percent of the total exposed property value (Impact Factor = 2). o Low—Estimated loss from the hazard is 9 percent or less of the total exposed property value (Impact Factor = 1). o No impact—No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0). The impacts of each hazard category were assigned a weighting factor to reflect the significance of the impact. These weighting factors are consistent with those typically used for measuring the benefits of hazard mitigation actions: impact on people was given a weighting factor of 3; impact on property was given a weighting factor of 2; and impact on the economy was given a weighting factor of 1. The final total risk ranking of Natural Hazards is summarized in Table 3.3. Table 3-3. Natural Hazards Risk Ranking6 Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Category 1 Earthquake 48 High 2 Flood 42 High 3 Severe Weather 33 Medium 4 Wildfire 15a Medium 4 Dam and Levee Failure 15a Medium 5 Drought 9 Low 6 Landslide 0 None 6 Palo Alto Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 2017, p. 1-15. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 22| Page 4.3 Technological Hazard Prioritization No Changes were made in the 2017 update to Technological Hazards. Each technological hazard was reviewed for its potential to occur. The Stakeholder Group shared knowledge, concerns, and other pertinent information to come to a consensus on rating each technological hazard as low, medium, high, or very high. Table 4-4 Technological Hazards Rating Criteria Technological Hazards Ranking Criteria Rating An event is imminent. Experts have confirmed potential for occurrence. Very High An event is expected/probable. Experts have confirmed potential for occurrence. High An event is possible. Potential for occurrence is assumed but not verified. Medium An event is unlikely. Potential for occurrence is extremely limited. Low Table 4-5 Technological Hazard Rating Results Technological Hazard Rating Airplane Accident High Dam Failure* Low Financial Disruption Low Food/Water Contamination Medium Hazardous Materials Spill High Oil Spill Medium Power Blackout/Energy Shortage/Utilities Failure Medium Train Accident Medium Urban Fire High * Rating results shown have been considered as independent hazards and do not include secondary or cascading events. Dam failure includes technological failure risk (engineering) and does not include secondary risk from an earthquake. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 23| Page 4.4 Human Caused Threat Prioritization For the 2017 Update, planners convened a select group of Bay Area public safety professionals who routinely participate in a monthly intelligence sharing forum to provide qualitative input on human caused hazards. This information was then compared to Law Enforcement Part 1 and Part 2 crime reports for a more precise quantitative assessment of risk. Each human caused threat was reviewed for its potential to occur. The Stakeholder Group shared knowledge, concerns, and other pertinent information to come to a consensus on rating each human caused threat as low, medium, high, or very high. Table 4-6 Human Caused Threat Rating Criteria Human Caused Threat Ranking Criteria Rating The likelihood of a threat, weapon, and tactic being used against a site or building is imminent. Internal decision makers and/or external law enforcement and intelligence agencies determine the threat is credible. Very High The likelihood of a threat, weapon, and tactic being used against a site or building is expected. Internal decision makers and/or external law enforcement and intelligence agencies determine the threat is credible. High The likelihood of a threat, weapon, and tactic being used against a site or building is possible. Internal decision makers and/or external law enforcement and intelligence agencies determine the threat is known, but is not verified. Medium The likelihood of a threat, weapon, and tactic being used in the region or against the site or building is negligible. Internal decision makers and/or external law enforcement and intelligence agencies determine the threat is non-existent or extremely unlikely. Low Table 4-7 Human Caused Threat Rating Results Human Caused Threat Rating Agro-Terrorism Low Aircraft as a weapon Low Biological Attack Low Chemical Agent/Toxic Inhalation Release Low Civil Disorder High City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 24| Page Human Caused Threat Rating Conventional Attack Medium Major Crime Very High Cyber Attack Very High Hostage/Assassin Low IED Medium Nuclear Attack/Acts of War Low Radiological Dispersion Device Low Sabotage/Theft Medium Terrorism Medium Vehicle Born IED Medium Workplace Violence Very High 4.5 Threats and Hazards of Most Concern The prioritization process resulted in a pared down listing of natural, technological, and human caused hazards/threats of most concern to the City of Palo Alto and its local partners. These are presented in Table 3-8 Summary of All Hazards Prioritization. To complete the THIRA process, we researched each of these hazards/threats to develop a more complete understanding of their characteristics. Section 5 presents detailed hazard and threat profiles. Table 4-8 Summary of All Hazards Prioritization Threats and Hazards of Most Concern Natural Technological Intentional (Human-caused) Earthquake Airplane Accident Major Crime Flood Hazardous Waste/ Materials Spill Cyber Attack Severe Storm Urban Fire Workplace Violence Civil Disorder City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 25| Page 5 Hazard Profiles In this chapter of the 2017 Update, changes are highlighted to reflect new or modified information. This section contains profiles detailing the characteristics of the hazards of most concern. 5.1 Non-Natural Hazard Profile Structure Technological and human caused threats and hazards require a different approach to evaluating likelihood and potential impacts as compared to natural hazards. With natural hazards, as done in the local hazard mitigation planning process, an evaluation is based on past occurrences, weather patterns, geography, and other relevant earth science. Technological and human caused threats and hazards are not dependent upon earth science and do not occur with regular patterns. For that reason, a modified approach is appropriate for evaluating the potential of technological and human caused threats and hazards. Each technological or human caused hazard profile contains the following components: Application Mode: describing the human act(s) or unintended event(s) necessary to cause the hazard to occur. Duration: the anticipated length of time the hazard is present on the target. For example, the duration of an earthquake may be just seconds, but a chemical warfare agent such as mustard gas, if un-remediated, can persist for days or weeks under the right conditions. Dynamic/Static Characteristic: describing the hazard’s tendency, or that of its effects, to either expand, contract, or remain confined in time, magnitude, and space. For example, the physical destruction caused by an earthquake is generally confined to the place in which it occurs, and it does not usually get worse unless there are aftershocks or other cascading failures; in contrast, a cloud of chlorine gas leaking from a storage tank can change location by drifting with the wind and can diminish in danger by dissipating over time. Mitigating Conditions: characteristics of the target and its physical environment that can reduce the effects of a hazard. For example, earthen berms can provide protection from bombs; exposure to sunlight can render some biological agents ineffective; and effective perimeter lighting and surveillance can minimize the likelihood of someone approaching a target unseen. Exacerbating Conditions: characteristics that can enhance or magnify the effects of a hazard. For example, depressions or low areas in terrain can trap heavy vapors, and proliferation of street furniture (trash receptacles, newspaper vending machines, mail boxes, etc) can provide concealment opportunities for explosive devises. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 26| Page 5.2 Earthquake Hazard Summary Past land use decisions in Palo Alto have not always taken hazards into consideration. Moreover, older buildings and infrastructure reflect the construction and engineering standards of their era, which in most cases fall short of current standards for seismic safety. As a result, a portion of the City, including 130 soft story structures, would be at some risk in the event of a major earthquake. The greatest hazards are associated with fault rupture and ground shaking, although liquefaction hazards are significant in the area east of Highway 101 due to the porous nature and high water content of the soil. Landslides, a hazard that is common in the foothills of Palo Alto, may result from heavy rain, erosion, removal of vegetation, or human activities. Settlement and subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal has historically been a problem in the southern and eastern areas of the City of Palo Alto, but has been largely halted by groundwater recharge efforts and reduced pumping. Seismically-induced flooding is a hazard due to the possibility of dam failure at Felt Lake and Searsville Lake and the potential for levee failure near the San Francisco Bay. To help mitigate the damages that may result from a potential earthquake, Palo Alto strictly enforces uniform building code seismic safety restrictions and provides incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the University Avenue/Downtown area. The City also allows development rights achieved through seismic upgrading of specified sites to be transferred to designated eligible receiver sites per Program N - 71 in the Comprehensive Plan and per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.18.080. Palo Alto has completed seismic improvements to facilities and critical infrastructure as part of its mitigation planning, including City Hall, library buildings, the Art Center, and water reservoirs among others. The City will also benefit from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement Program that is 80 percent complete and will provide seismic upgrades to the water distribution system serving Palo Alto (http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=114). Some parts of Palo Alto are at greater risk during a natural disaster than others. These areas could be zoned or otherwise regulated to reduce their development potential and require detailed geologic and engineering studies prior to development. The City already requires geologic and soils investigations for development southwest of Interstate 280. Similar requirements should be explored in other areas of the City prone to severe geologic hazards. 5.3 Flood Hazard Summary (Inclusive of Severe Storms) Flood hazards, including tidal flooding from overtopping of coastal levees during extreme high tide events in the Bay and fluvial flooding from creeks overflowing their banks, are likely to continue to occur in Palo Alto. Severe storms, which generate large amounts of rain and heavy winds, can result in flooding. As noted in the 2017 LHMP, the City minimizes exposure to flood hazards through its participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA makes NFIP flood insurance available to Palo Alto residents and businesses as a result of the City’s adoption of required floodplain management regulations into its Municipal Code (Chapter 16.52) that promote public health, safety and general welfare and minimize damages due to flood conditions. City staff reviews proposed development in flood prone areas and enforces the floodplain management regulations for specified building City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 27| Page activity in Special Flood Hazard Areas, as depicted on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). In 1990, the City created an independent enterprise fund to fund needed improvements to the storm drain system with revenue generated through user fees and developed a Storm Drain Master Plan in 1993 to identify and prioritize a set of projects to increase system capacity and reduce the incidence of street flooding. Property owners approved a ballot measure in 2005 to increase the City’s monthly storm drain fee and thereby provided funding to implement a set of seven high-priority capital improvement projects to upgrade the storm drain system. All of the storm drain capital improvement projects specified in the ballot measure will be completed by the end of FY 2017. Also, the City updated the Storm Drain Master Plan in FY 2015 to identify and prioritize a new set of storm drain capital improvement projects to address remaining capacity deficiencies in the City’s storm drain system. The City has long been a partner with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) who constructed channel upgrades (100-year flood protection) in the 1980’s and 1990’s to reduce flood risks from Adobe, Matadero, and Barron Creeks. San Francisquito Creek remains a substantial flood risk to the community, along with tidal flooding during extreme high tide events. Following the historic 1998 flood, five local agencies from two counties (the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, the County of San Mateo Flood Control District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District) formed the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) to plan, design, and implement flood, environmental, and recreational projects. Specifically, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority is developing a comprehensive regional plan for the San Francisquito Creek watershed that will improve the level of flood protection to Palo Alto and surrounding communities. The SFCJPA’s initial capital project, currently under construction in conjunction with the City of Palo Alto, is designed to increase creek flow capacity to protect people and property from fluvial flooding along a critical urban section of the creek between Highway 101 and San Francisco Bay. Several other flood control projects are also planned upstream of this creek to further reduce riverine flood risks. These projects are also listed in the 2017 LHMP as mitigation actions. Palo Alto, along with the entire Bay Area, is also subject to increasing flood risk as a result of rising sea levels, requiring city planners to collaborate with regional organizations and projects, such as the SCVWD, SFCJPA, the US Army Corps of Engineers’ South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, and the State Coastal Conservancy Salt Pond Restoration Project, who have each initiated studies on impacts of sea level rise in the vicinity of Palo Alto. Palo Alto is also partnering with the SFCJPA in the Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along San Francisco Bay (SAFER Bay) to evaluate infrastructure alternatives to protect Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and Palo Alto against extreme tides with sea level rise, and enhance shoreline habitat and trails. The initial feasibility study is underway on this project. 5.4 Airplane Accident Profile Aircraft accidents in Palo Alto can result from an aircraft experiencing trouble or from mid-air collisions between aircraft flying over or near Palo Alto as they approach the three Bay Area Airports (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose), as well as Moffett Field. In February 2010, a City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 28| Page small aircraft left the Palo Alto Airport and collided with power lines, causing a City-wide power outage. The Palo Alto electrical utility feedpoint to PG&E (and the grid) is a single point, near the airport. The City is exploring a secondary connection. Application mode: Aviation accidents may be caused by problems originating from mechanical difficulties, pilot error, or acts of terrorism. Extreme weather conditions may also increase the potential of an accident. Airplane accidents can result from major aircraft experiencing trouble while in flight or from mid-air collisions between aircraft flying over or near Palo Alto. There is also the potential for this type of accident to occur over water.7 Duration: An airplane accident can occur in an instant and without notice, or could be reported but not remediated, lasting a few hours. Clean up after an accident could take days to weeks. Longer term actions include repairing any buildings and infrastructure that may have been damaged due to the accident and investigating the cause of the incident. Dynamic/static characteristics: The number of fatalities/injuries and the area damaged by the aircraft accident can vary depending on the type and magnitude of the accident. While damage may be concentrated to the location of the incident, secondary impacts from the accident, such as explosion and fire, as well as debris and hazardous materials, could spread from the initial area of impact. Mitigating conditions: The City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) outlines a response plan to airplane accidents. The EOP also notes that consequences of an airplane accident from a small aircraft associated with Palo Alto airport would be low. Issues in responding to the February 2010 incident were identified in an After Action Report. These issues have been addressed to provide better response to a potential future incident. Exacerbating conditions: The City of Palo Alto lies between two international airports, San Jose and San Francisco. Within the boundaries of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County operates the Palo Alto Municipal Airport, a general aviation airport. There is potential for an accident to occur in the air or on the ground near these locations as well as over water in Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. The City currently does not have a water rescue team to respond to this type of accident and would need to rely on outside response resources. An accident occurring in a residential neighborhood and/or highly dense area of the City exacerbates consequences because of the possible increase in fatalities and damage to structures in these areas as opposed to in more rural or open spaces. 5.5 Hazardous Waste/Materials Spill Profile Hazardous waste/materials are widely used or created at facilities such as hospitals, wastewater treatment plants, universities and industrial/manufacturing warehouses. Several household products such as cleaning supplies and paint are also considered hazardous materials and can be found in households and stores. Hazardous materials include: • Explosives; 7 City of Palo Alto EOP (2007) City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 29| Page • Flammable, non-flammable, and poison gas; • Flammable liquids; • Flammable, spontaneously combustible, and dangerous when wet solids; • Oxidizers and organic peroxides; • Poisons and infectious substances; • Radioactive materials; and • Corrosive materials.8 The release of a hazardous material to the environment could cause a multitude of problems. Although these incidents can happen almost anywhere, certain areas of the City are at higher risk, such as near roadways that are frequently used for transporting hazardous materials and locations with industrial facilities that use, store, or dispose of such materials. Areas crossed by railways, waterways, airways, and pipelines also have increased potential for mishaps. Incidences can occur during production, storage, transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Communities can be at risk if a chemical is used unsafely or released in harmful amounts into the environment. Hazardous materials can cause death, serious injury, long- lasting health effects, and damage to buildings, the environment, homes, and other property.9 Application mode: Hazardous waste/materials spills may be accidental or intentional, and may occur at fixed facilities or on vehicles. Accidental Hazardous Waste/Materials Spill Hazardous materials accidents can range from a chemical spill on a highway to groundwater contamination by naturally occurring methane gas to a household hazardous materials accident.10 Potential hazards can occur during any stage of use from production and storage to transportation, use or disposal. Production and storage occurs in chemical plants, gas stations, hospitals, and many other sites. There are many reasons an unintentional hazardous waste/materials spill may occur. Some of these include: • Malfunction of equipment • Natural disaster 8 National Archives and Records Administration, “Code of Federal Regulations Title 49: Transportation” (July 1 2012), http://ecfr/gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text- idx?c=ecfr;sid=54f867044f1c9e1af52443eb305e1360;rgn=div5;view=text;node=49%3A2.1.1.3.7 ;idno=49;cc=ecfr 9 City of Palo Alto EOP; Santa Clara County 2011 LHMP 10 University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System, http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/disaster/haz/hazmat.html City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 30| Page • Accidents caused by humans11 Intentional Fixed Facility Hazardous Waste/Materials Spill Hazardous material spills at fixed facilities may be internal or external to the facility. External releases may involve industrial storage, fires, or malicious acts. External releases may create airborne plumes of chemical, biological, or radiological elements that can affect a wide area and last for hours or days. Internal releases occur inside buildings and can be caused by a chemical spill or release of a biological or radiological agent. Internal releases can affect all occupants of a building, particularly if the material is distributed throughout the building through the heating/ventilation system.12 Intentional hazardous material releases at fixed facilities might include: • Deliberate release of a hazardous substance by an employee of a facility that stores or uses hazardous materials or produces hazardous waste; • Deliberate release of a hazardous substance into the water supply • Detonation of a “dirty bomb” – an explosive device containing radiological or biological substances that are released into the air upon explosion; • Redirection of toxic waste into water supply or ventilation system; and • Delivery or placement of a hazardous material inside a building. Intentional Mobile Hazardous Waste/Materials Spill Intentional mobile releases may include: • Release of a chemical, biological, or radiological agent from a moving vehicle or train; • Use of a vehicle as a dirty bomb, i.e. crashing a vehicle filled with hazardous materials into a structure or building or exploding the vehicle; • Targeting commercial/industrial chemical containers transported in bulk by both road and rail; • Release of hazardous materials from airplanes over densely populated areas; and • Release of hazardous materials into water from a boat. Duration: Accidental hazardous waste/materials spills can be reported immediately following the spill, thus reducing the amount of time the spill is left uncontained. Most hazardous 11 Innovateus, “What is a Chemical Spill?”, http://www.innovateus.net/earth-matters/what- chemical-spill 12 US Air Force, “Protective Actions for a Hazardous Material Release”, (22 October 2001), Http://emc.ornl.gov/CSEPPweb/data/Reports/Misc.%20Reports/HAZMAT.pdf City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 31| Page waste/materials spills occur with little or no warning, and can be difficult to detect until symptoms present themselves to those affected.13 External releases may create airborne plumes of chemical, biological, or radiological elements that can affect a wide area and last for hours or days. Internal releases will most likely require evacuation of a facility for hours to days. Both external and internal releases require extensive clean-up efforts, lasting from days to months depending on the type and magnitude of the spill. Dynamic/static characteristics: Both mobile and external hazardous materials releases can spread and affect a wide area, through the release of plumes of chemical, biological or radiological elements, or leaks, or spills. Conversely, internal releases are more likely to be confined to the structure the material is stored in. Chemicals may be corrosive or otherwise damaging over time. A hazardous materials release could also result in fire or explosion. Contamination may be carried out of the incident area by people, vehicles, wind, and water.14 Hazardous material releases are dynamic and may vary depending on the following factors: • Type and amount of agent released; • Environmental conditions – The micro-meteorological effects of the buildings and terrain can influence the travel of agents15; • Location of release (urban vs. rural, water vs. air); and • Remediation time, dependent on a locality’s or facility’s hazardous material release preparedness programs. Mitigating conditions: Facilities that store hazardous materials are reported to local and federal governments. Security measures at these facilities can be heightened. Many facilities have their own hazardous materials guides and response plans, including transportation companies who transport hazardous materials. The City’s EOP includes an annex identifying the actions and agencies involved in responding to a hazardous materials incident. The City of Palo Alto Fire Department administers the County’s hazardous materials emergency planning and community right-to-know program. They also maintain Hazardous Materials Business Plans for every business in the City that handles a hazardous material in quantities above the State’s reporting threshold. The City inspects and issues annual permits to approximately 500 businesses with annual hazardous materials permits that necessitate monitoring and inspection. 13 US Air Force, “Protective Actions for a Hazardous Material Release”, (22 October 2001), Http://emc.ornl.gov/CSEPPweb/data/Reports/Misc.%20Reports/HAZMAT.pdf 14 FEMA, “Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks,” FEMA 428, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/prevent/rms/428/fema428_ch1.pdf 15 FEMA, “Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks,” FEMA 428, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/prevent/rms/428/fema428_ch1.pdf City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 32| Page In addition, the City of Palo Alto provides safe hazardous waste disposal for residents and small businesses at a specified Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Station. Their HHW Program educates the public about the safe use, storage, disposal, and alternatives to hazardous products. Exacerbating conditions: Palo Alto has the potential for a variety of incidents involving hazardous materials. There are two major areas of high-tech businesses and numerous small businesses that use hazardous materials. The two major areas of high-tech businesses include the Stanford Research Park (about one mile square in area) just south of Stanford University, and the industrial area (about ¼ mile square in area) adjacent to US 101 in south Palo Alto. The Fire Department keeps information on the materials used in these areas. Accidental releases from any user could occur; this presents a danger due to the close proximity of some users to neighborhoods, schools, and other sensitive populations. Staff is currently working on enhancements to existing notification plans and systems. Stanford University, surrounded on three sides by Palo Alto, also uses a variety of hazardous materials in its many labs. The Palo Alto Fire Department provides fire suppression and paramedic services under contract to the University. However, Santa Clara County administers the hazardous materials management plan for the University. Information on these labs is kept on location outside each lab. Within the City there are two freeways and a railroad that may be used to transport hazardous materials. Areas and people within one mile of a highway, railroad, or industrial area are considered potentially at risk from a hazardous materials release. This includes everyone in Palo Alto except for a few homes in the remote foothills. Palo Alto’s two major freeways are US 101 to the east and Interstate 280 to the west. US 101 carries the most commercial traffic. The railroad runs between these freeways through the heart of the City. The Palo Alto Airport, the potential for the aerial spraying of pesticides, and the high volume of air traffic in the area also place Palo Alto at a potential risk from a hazardous materials incident involving aircraft. Although Palo Alto does not use wells for its primary drinking water, pollution of the aquifer is also a concern. 5.6 Urban Fire Profile The entire City of Palo Alto is at risk to major fires impacting a section of the City or a large complex. The City has over 25,000 housing units and a significant business base. The proximity of structures to each other within the City creates additional exposure to widespread urban fire. Localized, single-structure fires sometimes occur in Palo Alto. As of November 2013, the City had experienced three urban fires during the previous three months. Major uncontrolled fires are a possibility, but rarely occur.16 Application mode: Urban fires can be accidentally caused through human error including cooking accidents, smoking, or unsafe use of woodstoves or space heaters. Malfunctioning electrical equipment is also a major cause of fire in urban areas.17 Fires originating in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) also pose a threat as they can spread toward more developed areas and cause significant damage to structures, residents, and natural resources. Arson, or the 16 City of Palo Alto EOP (2007) 17 National Fire Protection Association, (29 January 2013), Urban Fire Safety, http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-consumers/populations/urban-fire-safety City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 33| Page deliberate burning of property, is also a possibility within City limits. Arson attacks may be imposed upon structures, motor vehicles, wildland areas, or other “nonstructural” properties. Duration: The duration of an urban fire is dependent on weather conditions, the magnitude of the fire, and fire suppression resources. Structural fires could burn for several hours before being fully contained. Dynamic/static characteristics: Weather conditions (wind and warm, dry temperatures) and the presence of fire fuel can cause fires to spread away from their source. Mitigating conditions: In the event of a major urban fire, auto-aid and mutual-aid agreements (with Cal FIRE) will be utilized, as outline in the Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan. The City strives to minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, a sufficient water supply, proactive fire code enforcement, public education programs, and adequate emergency management preparation. To ensure a sufficient water supply, an emergency water supply and storage project, initiated in 2007, was primarily completed by the City in late 2013/early 2014. This project provides Palo Alto with a self-sustaining emergency water supply through rehabilitating five City wells, constructing three new wells, constructing a new 2.5 million gallon reservoir and associated pump station and well, and upgrading an existing pump station (Mayfield Reservoir Pump Station). As part of the City’s emergency management preparation for wildland and urban fires, they designed and implemented the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan. This plan pertains to the Palo Alto Foothills area west of the Foothills Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard, which represents a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area. The plan addresses a broad range of integrated activities and planning documents to identify and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the Palo Alto Foothills Area. Fire mitigation project areas include the boundaries of Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. In urban areas, arsonists may target abandoned buildings. Limiting the number of abandoned buildings or providing security near these buildings may deter arsonists. Both structure and wildland arson data can be analyzed to depict trends in copy cat arsonists as well as in weather and fuel conditions. Documenting these trends in a reporting system may assist in mitigating future cases. Exacerbating conditions: Increasing development in the wildland-urban interface can exacerbate the spread of a wildfire into developed areas, making these areas vulnerable. While planning and mitigation to reduce the risk of fire in Palo Alto’s WUI area is controlled through the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan, there is still potential a fire in this area could impact the City’s public safety, cultural and economic activities, and environmental and natural resource management. 5.7 Major Crimes Major criminal incidents include shooting, homicide, and kidnapping crimes that include multiple suspects or multiple victims and are considered an ongoing threat to the community. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 34| Page These types of crime have an ability to impact the community in such a way that can undermine the quality of life within the Palo Alto community. Application mode: In the period between April 2014 and April 2016 Palo Alto recorded 3469 Part One offenses and 5737 Part Two offenses. The overall Part One and Part Two crime percentages during this period are very similar to the preceding 2013 reporting period. Figure 5-5-1 Statistics of Part I and Part II Crimes in Palo Alto April 2014-2017 For reporting purposes, criminal offenses are divided into two major groups: Part I offenses and Part II offenses per the DOJ and FBI. Part I crimes comprise two categories: violent and property crimes. Aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery are classified as violent, while arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft are classified as property crimes. Part I crimes are collectively known as Index crimes, this name is used because the crimes are considered quite serious, tend to be reported more reliably than others, and are reported directly to the police. In Part II, the following categories are tracked: simple assault, curfew offenses and loitering, embezzlement, forgery and counterfeiting, disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, drug offenses, fraud, gambling, liquor offenses, offenses against the family, prostitution, public drunkenness, runaways, sex offenses, stolen property, vandalism, vagrancy, and weapons offenses. This categorization is informative as it links to Palo Alto Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report. “Crime in Palo Alto has seen an overall decrease in the past five years. Violent crimes have continued to decrease, while property crimes have increased. The most notable is PART ONE CRIMES Burglary 41.22% Petty Theft 37.35% Grand Theft 13.21% Stolen Vehicle 4.01% Robbery 1.70% Assault 0.87% Battery 0.72% Sexual Assault 0.49% Arson 0.37% Murder 0.03% City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 35| Page the increase in Residential and Auto Burglaries. Fiscal Year 2013 saw a sharp increase in residential burglaries. The Police Department responded with a directed enforcement campaign, and an increased presence in high risk areas. A total of 79 suspects were arrested for burglary, attempted burglary and other associated charges.” Figure 5-2 Statistics of Part I and Part II Crimes in Palo Alto from the PaloAlso FIscal Year 2013 Annual Report Duration: A major crime may occur in a short amount of time, from seconds to hours, and it usually occurs without immediate notice. Dynamic/static characteristics: Major crimes can occur anywhere in the community. Mitigating conditions: The Palo Alto Police Department and Stanford Department of Public Safety participate in mutual aid and regional organizations to share information, capabilities, and other resources to prevent major crimes from occurring. Additionally, increased 2013 staffing and effective training of Palo Alto Police Department personnel will likely have deterrent effects. Exacerbating conditions: Palo Alto businesses and residences are perceived as a soft target resulting in increased property crimes by criminals who live outside Palo Alto. The increase of such events increases the probability of a robbery going wrong resulting in a shooting or homicide event. 5.8 Cyber Attack Profile A cyber terrorist can infiltrate many institutions including banking, medical, education, government, military, and communication and infrastructure systems. The majority of effective malicious cyber-activity has become web-based. Recent trends indicate that hackers are City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 36| Page targeting users to steal personal information and moving away from targeting computers by causing system failure.18 Application mode: Common types of cyber attacks are summarized in Table 4-1 Common Types of Cyber Attacks19 Table 5-1 Common Types of Cyber Attacks Type of Attack Description Denial of service A method of attack from a single source that denies system access to legitimate users by overwhelming the target computer with messages and blocking legitimate traffic. It can prevent a system from being able to exchange data with other systems or use the internet. Botnet A collection of compromised machines (bots) under (unified) control of an attacker (botmaster). Distributed denial of service A variant of the denial-of-service attack that uses a coordinated attack from a distributed system of computers rather than from a single source. It often makes use of worms to spread to multiple computers that can then attack the target. Exploit tools Publicly available and sophisticated tools that intruders of various skill levels can use to determine vulnerabilities and gain entry into targeted systems. Logic bombs A form of sabotage in which a programmer inserts code that causes the program to perform a destructive action when some triggering event occurs, such as terminating the programmer’s employment. Phishing The creation and use of e-mails and Web sites—designed to look like those of well-known legitimate businesses, financial institutions, and government agencies—in order to deceive Internet users into disclosing their personal data, such as bank and financial account information and passwords. The phishers then take that information and 18 Symantec, “Internet Security Threat Report” Volume 17 (2011), www.symantec.com/threatreport 19 United States Government Accountability Office, “Critical Infrastructure Protection: Department of Homeland Security Faces Challenges in Fulfilling Cybersecurity Responsibilities”, Report #GAO-05-434 (May 2005), www.gao.gov/new.items/d05434.pdf City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 37| Page Type of Attack Description use it for criminal purposes, such as identity theft and fraud. Sniffer Synonymous with packet sniffer. A program that intercepts routed data and examines each packet in search of specified information, such as passwords transmitted in clear text. Trojan horse A computer program that conceals harmful code. A Trojan horse usually masquerades as a useful program that a user would wish to execute. Virus A program that infects computer files, usually executable programs, by inserting a copy of itself into the file. These copies are usually executed when the infected file is loaded into memory, allowing the virus to infect other files. Unlike the computer worm, a virus requires human involvement (usually unwitting) to propagate. War dialing Simple programs that dial consecutive telephone numbers looking for modems. War driving A method of gaining entry into wireless computer networks using a laptop, antennas, and a wireless network adaptor that involves patrolling locations to gain unauthorized access. Worm An independent computer program that reproduces by copying itself from one system to another across a network. Unlike computer viruses, worms do not require human involvement to propagate. One of the difficulties of malicious cyber activity is that its origin could be virtually anyone, virtually anywhere. Table 4-2 Common Sources of Cybersecurity Threats summarizes common sources of cybersecurity threats.20 Table 5-2 Common Sources of Cybersecurity Threats Threat Description Bot-network operators Bot-network operators are hackers; however, instead of breaking into systems for the challenge or bragging rights, 20 United States Government Accountability Office, “Critical Infrastructure Protection: Department of Homeland Security Faces Challenges in Fulfilling Cybersecurity Responsibilities”, Report #GAO-05-434 (May 2005), www.gao.gov/new.items/d05434.pdf City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 38| Page Threat Description they take over multiple systems in order to coordinate attacks and to distribute phishing schemes, spam, and malware attacks. The services of these networks are sometimes made available on underground markets (e.g., purchasing a denial-of-service attack, servers to relay spam or phishing attacks, etc.). Criminal groups Criminal groups seek to attack systems for monetary gain. Specifically, organized crime groups are using spam, phishing, and spyware/malware to commit identity theft and online fraud. International corporate spies and organized crime organizations also pose a threat to the United States through their ability to conduct industrial espionage and large-scale monetary theft and to hire or develop hacker talent. Foreign intelligence services Foreign intelligence services use cyber tools as part of their information-gathering and espionage activities. In addition, several nations are aggressively working to develop information warfare doctrine, programs, and capabilities. Such capabilities enable a single entity to have a significant and serious impact by disrupting the supply, communications, and economic infrastructures that support military power—impacts that could affect the daily lives of U.S. citizens across the country. Hackers Hackers break into networks for the thrill of the challenge or for bragging rights in the hacker community. While remote cracking once required a fair amount of skill or computer knowledge, hackers can now download attack scripts and protocols from the Internet and launch them against victim sites. Thus, while attack tools have become more sophisticated, they have also become easier to use. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, the large majority of hackers do not have the requisite expertise to threaten difficult targets such as critical U.S. networks. Nevertheless, the worldwide population of hackers poses a relatively high threat of an isolated or brief disruption causing serious damage. Insiders The disgruntled organization insider is a principal source of computer crime. Insiders may not need a great deal of knowledge about computer intrusions because their knowledge of a target system often allows them to gain City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 39| Page Threat Description unrestricted access to cause damage to the system or to steal system data. The insider threat also includes outsourcing vendors as well as employees who accidentally introduce malware into systems. Phishers Individuals, or small groups, that execute phishing schemes in an attempt to steal identities or information for monetary gain. Phishers may also use spam and spyware/malware to accomplish their objectives. Spammers Individuals or organizations that distribute unsolicited e- mail with hidden or false information in order to sell products, conduct phishing schemes, distribute spyware/malware, or attack organizations (i.e., denial of service). Spyware/malware authors Individuals or organizations with malicious intent carry out attacks against users by producing and distributing spyware and malware. Several destructive computer viruses and worms have harmed files and hard drives, including the Melissa Macro Virus, the Explore.Zip worm, the CIH (Chernobyl) Virus, Nimda, Code Red, Slammer, and Blaster. Cyber-Terrorists Cyber-Terrorists seek to destroy, incapacitate, or exploit critical infrastructures in order to threaten national security, cause mass casualties, weaken economies or target businesses, and damage public morale and confidence. Cyber-Terrorists may use phishing schemes or spyware/malware in order to generate funds or gather sensitive information. Given its location in Silicon Valley, Palo Alto is home to many large companies that could be subject to a cyber attack. Duration: The duration of a cyber attack is dependent on the complexity of the attack, how widespread it is, how quickly the attack is detected, and the resources available to aid in restoring the system. Dynamic/static characteristics: A cyber attack could be geared toward one organization, one type of infrastructure and/or a specific geographical area. The affected area could range from small to large scale. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 40| Page Cyber attacks generated toward large corporations can negatively affect the economy. The Congressional Research Service study (2008) found the economic impact of cyber attacks on businesses has grown to over $226 billion annually.21 Attacks geared toward critical infrastructure and hospitals can result in the loss of life and the loss of basic needs, such as power and water, to the general public. Cyber attacks can also lead to the loss of operational capacity. Mitigating conditions: Palo Alto has three levels of security to prevent cyber attacks: 1. A Symantech anti-virus protection for desktops and laptops; 2. Malware Protection Systems for Web and email systems; and 3. A Barracuda Firewall for the IT Network. In addition, the City is in the process of deploying a vulnerability management system to better protect the IT network. Access control to buildings, such as ID cards and badges, can help regulate the people who have access to an agency’s or corporations’ cyber network. Palo Alto information technology network locations include access control measures to prevent unauthorized access to these controlled areas. The City has an Energy Assurance Plan that focuses on minimizing energy interruptions during emergencies. This plan could be updated to include a contingency plan for keeping energy lifelines online given a cyber attack. Currently, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is responsible for ensuring energy industry compliance with Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards. These rules require organizations that deliver bulk electricity to the North American power grid to identify and protect critical cyber assets. In addition, bulk power suppliers must define methods, processes, and procedures for securing critical cyber assets. “Cyber assets” are loosely defined as all “programmable electronic devices and communication networks including hardware, software, and data.22 Exacerbating conditions: Humans are the weakest link in a chain of cyber security. It remains difficult to continuously monitor and manage human/operator vulnerability. However, to address this weakness the City has deployed an online security training program which all employees are required to complete annually. 5.9 Workplace Violence Profile Workplace violence is violence or the threat of violence against workers. It includes any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the worksite. It can occur at or outside the workplace and can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide. It can affect and involve employees, clients, 21 Defense Tech. http://defensetech.org/2008/10/20/the-cyber-attack-danger/ 22 NextLabs. http://www.nextlabs.com/html/?q=nerc-and-ferc-cyber-security-standards City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 41| Page customers, and visitors. Workplace violence includes locations such as churches, malls, etc. and may be the result of a person acting alone.23 Application mode: Workplace violence can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide. These incidents can be caused by fellow employees, by employers, or by external clients. Duration: Acts of workplace violence could be a onetime incident or could occur repetitively over time, lasting weeks to years. Dynamic/static characteristics: Workplace violence can occur at or outside the workplace. Mitigating conditions: Many companies have established workplace violence prevention programs and offer trainings on workplace violence including how to identify it and mitigate it. Providing a secure workplace that has video surveillance, extra lighting, and alarm systems may minimize access to outsiders. Exacerbating conditions: Some workers are at increased risk to workplace violence. Among them are workers who exchange money with the public; deliver passengers, goods, or services; or work alone or in small groups, during late night or early morning hours, in high-crime areas, or in community settings and homes where they have extensive contact with the public. As with sabotage, social media such as Twitter and Facebook may be a means of exacerbating workplace bullying and violence. 5.10 Civil Disorder Civil disorder refers to unrest caused by a group of people and may include terrorist activities. Public demonstrations have the potential to lead to looting and rioting. There are many potential causes for civil disorder including: animal rights, labor disputes, civil rights, campus related issues, abortion rights, neighboring jurisdictions, political issues, events (sports, music, etc.), and spontaneous miscellaneous events. Potential consequences from acts of civil disorder include: disruptions of police and city services, closure of roads, rioting, property damage, and injuries to protesters, police officers, and uninvolved parties. Application mode: Over the past two years, Palo Alto has seen a number of civil disturbances spawned by events from across the Country including the 2014 Ferguson, Missouri riots, internationally motivated riots against Hewlett Packard, and the 2016 National Elections and Inauguration. These incidents were primarily peaceful however some had disruptive impacts on the community. Duration: Civil disturbances typically last for several hours, but the duration can be extended to days. Dynamic/static characteristics: Civil disturbances can occur anywhere in and around Palo Alto and are usually outside established facilities. 23 US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Act, www.OSHA.gov City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 42| Page Mitigating conditions: No long-term mitigation actions can attempt to reduce the occurrence or impacts from future civil disturbances. However, proactive situational awareness to identify planned events can lead to proactive and beneficial dialogue with event planners to minimize the impacts on the community. Exacerbating conditions: Manmade facilities, such as homes, businesses, and other essential infrastructure, such as dams, utilities sites, and other public common areas are vulnerable to civil disturbance because civil violence, by its very nature, is most often directed at objects that reflect civil values - property, industry, and services. As such, the manmade environment would receive a high impact and vulnerability rating. Palo Alto houses many high-profile international corporations, which could be potentially targeted. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 43| Page 6 Conclusion The City of Palo Alto and its local partners should be commended for the tremendous capabilities currently available to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from hazards and threats. One invaluable strength of the City’s emergency management program is the ongoing coordination with local partners. Emergency planning, training, and exercises are conducted in partnership with Stanford University, Stanford Hospital, neighboring jurisdictions, community members, and other pertinent organizations such as the American Red Cross. Communications technology within the City is fairly robust. Mass notification systems are in place. Responders and emergency managers will use the highest level of communication technology available during/immediately following an incident. Communications and notification systems are both for public safety agencies and the general public. There are a wide range of communications options. Stanford University employs an Outdoor Warning System (PA and sirens) for emergency alerts/notifications, but such a system does not exist in Palo Alto. Stanford University and the City of Palo Alto have interoperable dispatch systems. A Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) is available to enable communication coordination should the primary EOC be compromised. Social media will be an asset for receiving information from the public regarding attacks and impacts. KZSU, the Stanford radio station, is an available resource that can be taken over from Palo Alto City Hall to provide supplemental information, beyond and more-local than what might be available on other broadcast stations via the Emergency Alert System (EAS). Certain businesses have two-way radio communications within their neighborhood and to the City EOC. WebEOC enables efficient dissemination of incident management information across local government agencies throughout the Operational Area. Finally, the growth of social media tools is a resource to Palo Alto and Stanford. Opportunities for residents and members of the public to contribute to the City’s resiliency are bountiful. The Emergency Services Volunteer program provides supplemental resources to the professional first responders and facilitates means for neighbors to help neighbors (including businesses and other entities). This organization includes several City-sponsored emergency preparedness volunteer programs: • Neighborhood and Block Preparedness Coordinator program • Palo Alto CERT Program • Palo Alto Auxiliary Communications Services: ARES/RACES • Palo Alto Medical Reserve Corps In addition to these formal opportunities for community members to receive training and assist through specific roles, "see something, say something" campaigns are helpful in maintaining vigilance throughout the City. Public education occurs via the Office of Emergency Services presence on the web (www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicsafety), providing emergency preparedness presentations to the “whole community”, and through the use of semi-annual utility bill inserts. The City of Palo Alto conducts an annual community exercise to educate the public on disaster preparedness and how to make a plan of action. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 44| Page Several policies and organizational processes are in place for the City government to achieve long term resiliency. Examples include the zoning ordinance and building code enforcing safe development. Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) sites are tagged in the new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system for Palo Alto, Stanford University Campus, Los Altos & Mountain View. Current planning efforts include an update to the Comprehensive Plan, a recent Hazard Mitigation Plan, and this THIRA report. The established THIRA Executive Committee may prove to be helpful in ongoing planning efforts beyond regular updates of this report. Logistical resources available to the City include a small airport owned and operated by the City, Moffett Federal Airfield, Stanford University Medical Center, schools, community centers, etc. The Silicon Valley region is considered resource-rich with regard to the anticipated availability of food in residences as well as skilled and willing volunteers to assist with recovery. Established Mutual Aid may be called upon for additional resources. Points of Distribution sites are established and exercised throughout Santa Clara County. Much of the City’s resiliency and preparedness relies on actions taken by non-City agencies. For example, schools are trained to handle active shooter situations. The Chamber of Commerce is a strong resource for coordinating with small businesses. Stanford University Medical Center conducts an annual hazard vulnerability analysis and maintains a mass fatality plan. The Stanford Research Park follows protocols to alert/notify constituents of hazardous material releases. Private sector Emergency Response Teams are established at many businesses in Palo Alto. Caring residents and non-profit organizations serve as stewards of open space preserves. The Palo Alto Historical Association has a listing of historical buildings. Despite all of the commendable strengths in emergency management and community resiliency, the THIRA Stakeholder Group identified numerous challenges toward further improvement. For example, staff at key institutions such as Stanford University Medical Center and other businesses may not be available following a catastrophic event due to transportation system failure or the need to care for their families. That same problem, of course, may affect City staff. Resources to respond to a significant event (including first responder professionals, and city staff such as building inspectors) are severely limited. The current contracts and blanket purchase orders are non-exclusive and may result in overlapping needs by multiple jurisdictions/agencies. Following a significant event, personnel resources will be needed for protecting medical supplies, routing traffic safely, etc. Personal preparedness throughout the whole community can be improved. The City’s OES faces a challenge of engaging new members of the community in emergency preparedness and volunteer programs, in some part due to cultural differences and language barriers. The Stakeholder Group identified that the business community should be more engaged in emergency/resiliency planning. The local economy is susceptible to impacts from events such as cybersecurity attacks or failure/breach of the fiber ring. There is strong concern regarding infrastructure failure throughout the City including power, telecommunications, water/wastewater distribution, and electric distribution. The Public Safety City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 45| Page Building, housing the Emergency Operations Center and the 911 Center for Palo Alto and Stanford, is of key concern, due to its long-known susceptibility to potential earthquake damage. The neighboring counties and Stanford University use different alert systems and protocols for disseminating information which creates a challenge for ensuring consistency in messaging for the public following an event that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Other concerns regarding communications following an event include: • Not all stakeholders have an easy way to report activities. • Because of social media, the velocity of information, including false information/rumors, is likely to outstrip local governments’ ability to stay on top of it. • Communication systems that public safety relies upon may not be functional. There is no current risk management system in place. Limited resources such as video cameras and license plate readers are available for monitoring for security and protection of CIKR. The City has access control systems for various city facilities but would benefit from improvements to these current systems. The City’s Office of Emergency Services has limited staffing resources to manage and maintain the desired robust emergency management program. All identified hazards are not fully evaluated in the City’s EOP or LHMP (e.g. Cyber Attack, Hostage/Assassin, Sabotage/Crime/Theft, and Workplace Violence). It requires significant staff time to adequately pre-plan for prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery including coordination with numerous local, state, and federal agencies as well as whole community partners. 6.1 Recommendations for Action Throughout the THIRA process, the Stakeholder Group and Executive Committee identified many actions to improve capabilities for prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. These recommendations are captured in Table 8-1. The list below has been modified to summarize clear actionable items the City may prioritize and incorporate into ongoing planning and budgeting processes. Planning • Update the City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan and incorporate the identified hazards as evaluated in this THIRA. • Develop a detailed inventory of Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) among Palo Alto and Stanford University that will foster improved planning for critical infrastructure protection. Implement a plan to document risks to specified CIKR and develop a strategy to mitigate these risks. This plan could include a template for CIKR managers to conduct and document risk assessments for submission to the City of Palo Alto. • Explore sustainable solutions for energy assurance, including alternate energy for critical facilities. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 46| Page • Promote Utilities Infrastructure improvements that mitigate/improve resiliency (power, water, wastewater, gas). • Continue to collaborate with regional planning efforts to mitigate impacts of sea level rise / climate change. • Implement an Infrastructure Management System – identified by IBRC. • Conduct an updated assessment on the vulnerabilities of public safety communication technologies and capabilities. o Develop alternate communications capabilities to reduce reliance on commercial carriers. o Incorporate a city-wide public safety communications infrastructure assessment and survey (including Stanford University and Stanford Hospital) to provide a baseline capability to connect key facilities and nodes. • Develop a Continuity of Operations/Continuity of Government Plan. • Develop an emergency information technology plan, including business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR). • Develop a supporting plan in conjunction with the Operational Area plan for mortuary affairs, mass casualty, mass sheltering, points of distribution and points of dispensing (mass prophylaxis) and other such regional activities. • Encourage owners of CIKR to develop all hazard response plans and coordinate, where applicable, support requirements with appropriate service providers. • Develop a City of Palo Alto recovery plan including: o pre-identified locations for FEMA trailers and field hospital/medical treatment areas. o plans for restoring basic health and social services functions following a catastrophic event pre-identified alternative housing solutions for use following a catastrophic event. o an evaluation of options for expediting building permits following a catastrophic event. o resources available from the City of Palo Alto airport. • Convene THIRA executive committee annually to review and update the THIRA. Organization City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 47| Page • Maintain an OES staff that is trained to develop, manage, and coordinate the implementation of the Palo Alto family of emergency plans (EOP, COOP, HMP, THIRA, etc.). • Use the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) report to help guide decisions related to prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery related to threats that could affect the City. • Implement a Joint Information System with North County stakeholders that will improve public messaging during times of crises. Maintain trained staff to serve as local alerting authorities consistent with the Integrated Public Alert and Warning system (IPAWS). • Maintain Palo Alto Emergency Services Volunteer , Stanford University volunteer programs, Corporate Emergency Response Teams, and similar programs throughout the community. • Maintain participation in regional efforts to address remaining flood concerns, e.g., SFC JPA, SCVWD, South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, Salt Pond Restoration Project. • Implement a Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) structure for storms/floods, public works mutual aid, etc. Evaluate and improve coordination protocols within the Operational Area, and with appropriate state and federal agencies. • Bolster participation in the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC), the Terrorism Liaison Officer (TLO) program, the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), and other means to share information among agencies, businesses, and partner organizations. • Establish an emergency resource directory and put in place advanced contracts for key commodities or services identified during the planning, training, exercise process . Equipment/Facilities • Construct new Palo Alto Public Safety Building. • Develop an Emergency Operations Staging Area (EOSA) to serve as a North County staging area resource and to shelter the Palo Alto Mobile Emergency Operations Center and other critical supplies. • Improve video monitoring throughout the City of Palo Alto through collaboration and coordination with privately owned video systems and city owned video systems. • Increase access controls / physical security at critical city owned and operated facilities. • Maintain at a high level of readiness emergency response vehicles and specialized equipment required to respond to the threats and hazards listed in this report. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 48| Page • Acquire alternative energy and energy efficient equipment that will reduce fuel requirements and ease overall logistical burdens. • Upgrade creek stormwater monitoring systems to provide improved situational awareness during storm events. • Evaluate and implement a thermal sensors/camera network to cover the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). • Coordinate with appropriate organizations to install battery backup systems on traffic signals that increase public safety following a power outage scenario. • Improve connectivity to partner EOCs and 911 PSAPs such as fiber, microwave, etc. • Explore Video Teleconferencing (VTC) capabilities to link government and nongovernment partners. • Upgrade command and control software systems that improve communications, collaboration, and situational awareness. • Acquire base camp supplies and materials to sustain small response operations (30-50 responders) for events that occur in or around Palo Alto. • Continue to participate in UASI CBRNE and HAZMAT equipment evaluation and selection. • Continue to evaluate feasibility of Regional Command Center at Moffett Field. Training and Exercise • Collaborate and regularly exercise with agencies/organizations referenced in the City’s Emergency Operations Plan: Federal, State, agencies with a regional presence; Mutual Aid Jurisdictions, Schools and Universities, Private Sector businesses, Not for Profit organizations (Faith Based, Community Service); Hospitals & Health Care Facilities. o Conduct training with other government agencies such as the FBI, State Dept., Secret Service, etc. to ensure collaborative processes and work through specific scenario variables. o Conduct collaborative planning, training and exercises with Caltrain and other rail carriers operating in the area. o Train and exercise road block/traffic diversion procedures such as in the vicinity of Stanford Hospital and Stanford University. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 49| Page • Conduct training and exercises with private sector entities such as Stanford Industrial Park, Stanford Shopping Center, etc. • Regularly conduct ICS and EOC staff training per the Palo Alto EOC Staff Development Program prioritizing high threat hazards • Conduct employee information technology security and awareness training and exercise a cyber security response effort with the information technology department as the operations lead. • Routinely conduct mass care and shelter training in coordination with American Red Cross and City of Palo Alto partners. Community Readiness • Cultivate a culture of preparedness and community connection through efforts such as outreach to public and private schools, Citizen Corps Council, City Staff and Volunteer Disaster Service Worker training, and other “whole community” stakeholders. o Continue to engage the business sector to improve their mitigation and preparedness efforts; educate small businesses on the importance of resiliency planning. o Establish a goal for each family and business within the community to have an adequate supply of water, food, etc. o Pre-identify/establish public messaging campaigns that remind the community of appropriate actions to a variety of potential hazard events (e.g. shelter in place, evacuate, earthquake, flooding, etc.) o Continue and improve promotion of family and business readiness to mitigate service needs such as sheltering and mass care. • Evaluate the potential for establishing a coordinating group for private airplane pilots (a model exists in southern Santa Clara County) that could improve small-scale disaster logistics operations. 6.2 THIRA Maintenance The Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services (OES) will be responsible for reviewing this THIRA report quarterly to make note of progress and/or items to update. Annually, the THIRA Executive Committee will convene to discuss the progress and/or circumstances requiring changes to the stated priorities. The annual Executive Committee meeting will culminate in a summary memo prepared by OES and submitted to the City Council for consent as a matter of public record. Every two years the THIRA report will be updated and re-issued as a new version. On an ongoing basis the THIRA report shall inform updates to the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 50| Page The THIRA report is For Official Use Only and is not available in its entirety to the public. Questions regarding this report may be directed to OES at 650-617-3197. City of Palo Alto THIRA 2017 A-1 | Page 7 Appendices 7.1 Appendix A: Planning Process This THIRA report was developed through a comprehensive planning process which engaged key City of Palo Alto and Stanford University leadership as well as a broader stakeholder group representing the whole community. Following are summaries of the participants, meetings, and workshops. Future updates to the THIRA may warrant expansion of the stakeholder roster and modification of the planning process. Resolution No. ____________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting all of Volume 1 and the City of Palo Alto portion of Volume 2 of the Santa Clara County Operational Hazard Mitigation Plan WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various earthquake‐related hazards such as ground shaking, liquefaction, landsliding, fault surface rupture; and WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various weather‐related hazards including wildfires, floods, and landslides; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto recognizes that disasters do not recognize city, county, or special district boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto seeks to maintain and enhance both a disaster resistant City of Palo Alto and region by reducing the potential loss of life, property damage, and∙ environmental degradation from natural disasters, while accelerating economic recovery from those disasters; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is committed to increasing the disaster resistance of the infrastructure, health, housing, economy, government services, education, environment, and land use systems in the City of Palo Alto, as well as in the Bay Area as a whole; and WHEREAS, the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all cities, counties, and special districts to have adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to receive disaster mitigation funding from FEMA; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Adoption. Adopts in its entirety, Volume I and the introduction, chapter 12 the City of Palo Alto jurisdictional annex, and the appendices of Volume II of the Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). SECTION 2. That the City of Palo Alto commits to continuing to take those actions and initiating further actions, as deemed appropriate by its City Council, officers, and employees, identified in the City of Palo Alto Annex of that multi‐jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by proposing to adopt the mitigation strategies listed therein. SECTION 3. Consider the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) which was adopted by Council on October 26, 2009 date for the 2016 Foothills Fire Management Plan Update. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: __________, 2017 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk __________________________ Mayor APPROVED: __________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Attorney Attachment F: Attachment F: City Manager’s Report 254:09 (May 18, 2009), including the 2009 Foothills Fire Management Plan draft and Mitigated Negative Declaration was previously provided in hard copy to the Council. The Plan draft and Mitigated Negative Declaration is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=15866 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8399) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: General Services for Fuel Contract Title: Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a 5-year General Services Agreement With Valley Oil Company in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $3,256,164 for the Purchase of Unleaded and Diesel Fuels to Supply the City's Fleet From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a General Services Agreement in an amount not to exceed $3,256,164 with Valley Oil Company (Attachment A) for the purchase of unleaded and diesel fuels to supply the City’s fleet for a term of five years effective October 16, 2017; including a total of $500,124 for AB 398 price increases for the 5-year contract term, $29,380 annually for SB 1 price increases, $17,252 annually for Golf Course operations, and $53,899 annually for fluctuating fuel costs; subject to the annual appropriation of funds. Background On March 24, 2014, Council approved a three-year contract for the provision of automotive fuel from March 24, 2014 to March 24, 2017. Amendment One to the contract extended the term end date from March 24, 2017 to September 24, 2017, extended for six months per PAMC 2.30.280(b)(2). Assembly Bill 398 was approved in July 2017 to amend the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 to take action on climate change and help fund the high-speed rail project. The bill will raise gas prices 63 cents a gallon by 2021, and per Legislative Council, Chapter 135, the bill is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Senate Bill 1 was approved in April 2017 to fund transportation projects, including road and bridge repairs. SB 1 will increase unleaded fuel 12 cents per gallon, diesel fuel 20 cents per gallon, and diesel sales tax by 4% effective November 1, 2017. The City used 230K, 216K and 198K gallons of fuel (unleaded and diesel) in Fiscal Years 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. Other than the temporary closure of operations at the Palo Alto Golf Course due to construction in Fiscal Year 2017, reductions in fuel consumption have been attributed to the annual increase in Capital Improvement Program replacements of the City’s aging fleet with newer, more fuel-efficient vehicles/equipment. The actual cost of fuel fluctuates daily and is based on the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) rate from the San Jose terminal. Discussion Approval of the proposed agreement will establish a new contract for fuel supply. Staff recommends a contract amount of $3,256,164 over 5 years based on the 198,461 gallons of fuel purchased in Fiscal Year 2017, with additional funding for anticipated increases in fuel costs resulting from increased fuel taxes under AB 398 and SB 1, and the re-opening of the golf course, and a contingency for fluctuations in market price and/or volume needed. The annual base fuel cost of $450,677 was derived using the OPIS rack rate of $2.0698 for unleaded, and $2.0375 for diesel as of September 1, 2017 (the day in which bids were received), plus taxes and delivery fees, multiplied by the total purchased gallons for each fuel type. The additional $500,124 for AB 398 is a total incremental increase that reaches its full price increase by the third year of this contract, adding $41,677 to the first year, $83,354 to the second year and capping at an increased cost of $125,031 per year for years three, four, and five. AB 398 adds 21 cents per gallon each year for three years, up to the third year when it caps at a 63 cent per gallon increase and remains for future years. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The annual amount of $29,380 is for SB 1 and $17,252 is for golf course operations, which is scheduled to re-open in November 2017 adding roughly 8,000 gallons per year to the purchase total, while a contingency of 10% of the first year’s total price is $269,495 for the 5-year contract. The first-year contract amount of $592,885 was determined by multiplying the number of gallons purchased in Fiscal Year 2017 by the current cost of fuel, adding delivery charges and appropriate taxes, then adding AB 398, SB1, 8,000 gallons at the golf course, and a contingency for fluctuations. The contingency amount is based on the first year amount only, and does not increase each year, as the contingency should not be applied to each year’s fuel cost or fuel tax increases due to the assembly/senate bills. The table below shows the calculation for each contract year. Base Cost Golf AB 398 SB1 Contingency Total 1st Year $450,677 $17,252 $41,677 $29,380 $53,899 $592,885 2nd Year $450,677 $17,252 $83,354 $29,380 $53,899 $634,562 3rd Year $450,677 $17,252 $125,031 $29,380 $53,899 $676,239 4th Year $450,677 $17,252 $125,031 $29,380 $53,899 $676,239 5th Year $450,677 $17,252 $125,031 $29,380 $53,899 $676,239 5 Year Contract Total $3,256,164 Staff will continue to explore opportunities to reduce fuel consumption. Bidding and Selection Process A Request for Quotation (RFQ) to Supply Unleaded and Diesel Fuel to 6 City Locations was issued on August 17, 2017. Bids were received from six qualified vendors on September 1, 2017. Since all bidders used the same fuel cost, the only variable in these bids was the delivery charges, bidders were instructed to provide delivery costs to each of the City of Palo Alto Page 4 six locations identified in the RFQ. Delivery costs are summarized in Attachment B. The cost of fuel plus delivery, without taxes, resulted in proposals ranging from $412,342 to $436,315. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid submitted by Valley Oil Company be accepted and that Valley Oil Company be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff has checked references supplied by the vendor for current contracts in place with three other agencies and found no complaints. Resource Impact Funding for this contract is included in the FY 2018 Vehicle Replacement Fund operating budget with subsequent years subject to Council’s approval of each fiscal year’s budget. Policy Implications Authorization of this agreement does not represent a change to any existing policy. Environmental Review Approval of the fuel supply contract is not a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purchase of supplies is a continuing administrative activity which is excluded from the definition of a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2). Attachments: Attachment A - Contract Attachment B - Bid Summary Attachment A 1 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C18169635 GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 9th day of OCTOBER, 2017, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and VALLEY OIL COMPANY, a California Corporation, located at 785 Yuba Dr. Mountain View, Ca 94041, Telephone Number: 650.967.2253 (“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (the “Services”) described in the Scope of Services, attached at Exhibit A. 2. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: “A” - Scope of Services “A-1” – On-Call Task Order (Optional) “B” - Schedule of Performance “C” – Schedule of Fees “D” - Insurance Requirements “E” - Performance and/or Payment Bond “F” - Liquidated Damages (Optional) CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL INDICATED EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED. 3. TERM. The term of this Agreement is from October 9, 2017to October 8, 2022 inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the General Terms and Conditions. 4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Performance, attached at Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 5. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ ); Attachment A 2 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 OR The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of three million two hundred fifty-six thousand one hundred sixty-four dollars ($3,256,164). CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY. CITY has set aside the sum of two hundred sixty-nine thousand four hundred ninety-five ($269,495) for Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR, at the CITY’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONTRACTOR’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional Services. Payment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. 6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS. CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the commencement of each Additional Term. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Attachment A 3 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 Term, which shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately preceding the commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement. 7. INVOICING. Send all invoices to CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager is: Danitra Bahlman, Dept.: Public Works, Equipment Management Division, Telephone: 650-496-5920. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in sections 1 through 7 above, these general terms and conditions and the attached exhibits. B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled “SERVICES,” and that every individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations. C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement. D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written Attachment A 4 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR’s business. F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders. G. PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONTRACTOR shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONTRACTOR shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. H. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or private property that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR’s request. When the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them. I. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry and the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all materials, goods and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be fit for the particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or correct any material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate, or defective material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The warranties set forth in this section shall be in effect for a period Attachment A 5 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 of one year from completion of the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement. J. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement. K. CITY’S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared under this Agreement will become the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written approval of the City Manager. L. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement. M. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. N. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described at Exhibit D. Insurance must be provided by companies with a Best’s Key Rating of A-:VII or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to CITY’s Risk Manager. The Risk Manager must approve deductibles and self-insured retentions. In addition, all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Manager as to form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or materially reduced in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation or modification to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to the Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall throughout the term of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorsements to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY Attachment A 6 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this section. The procuring of such required policies of insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR’s liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this Agreement. O. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the provisions of section M relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all demands, claims, injuries, losses, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss and including without limitation all damages, penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses and defense costs, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Section apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active) act or omission of CITY, except that CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. The acceptance of the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement. P. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Q. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services. R. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ten (10) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Attachment A 7 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination if for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to CONTRACTOR’s failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement. Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY. S. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of CITY. T. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no CITY Officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with CONTRACTOR has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises. U. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California. V. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written. W. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in Attachment A 8 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Contract. X. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Division, which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONTRACTOR shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: All printed materials provided by CONTRACTOR to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double- sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. Goods purchased by Contractor on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including, but not limited to, Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONTRCATOR, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONTRACTOR shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. Y. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. Z. PREVAILING WAGES This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the contract is not a public works contract, if contract does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or Attachment A 9 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 the contract does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000. OR Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. AA. DIR REGISTRATION. In regard to any public work construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Agreement with CONTRACTOR without proof that CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. City requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. CITY provides notice to CONTRACTOR of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” CITY gives notice to CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors that CONTRCATOR is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or Attachment A 10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 regulation and CONTRACTOR is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. CITY requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, respectively. At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of CITY’s request. [For state- and federally-funded projects] CITY requests CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and CITY shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to CONTRACTOR. Inform the project manager of the location of CONTRACTOR’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. BB. CONTRACT TERMS. All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement. In the case of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONTRACTOR’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONTRACTOR’s proposal, the exhibits shall control. Attachment A 11 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO Ed Shikada for James Keene APPROVED AS TO FORM: VALLEY OIL COMPANY Officer 1 Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) Attachment A 12 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Valley Oil Company will furnish and deliver diesel fuel and unleaded fuel to six (6) fuel sites located throughout the City of Palo Alto. These sites, along with tank sizes and estimated annual usage are shown on Table 1 of this Exhibit A. 1. PRODUCT AVAILABILITY Valley Oil Company’s inventory must be of sufficient size and variety to offer delivery of all products, 7 days a week, with 24-hour notice by the City. Since the continuous operation of the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet is important and sometimes of an emergency nature, it is necessary that Valley Oil Company be in a position to render prompt support. Emergency fueling may be requested for the six listed locations and others throughout the City, and will require same day delivery. 2. ORDERING AND DELIVERY a. General. The City of Palo Alto requires ordering and delivery of fuel for six (6) fuel site locations, as indicated in Table 1 of this Exhibit A and in Exhibit C. Tank sizes and estimated delivery frequencies for all sites are shown in Table 1 below. b. Site 1. Bulk (500 gallons or more) deliveries are required for site 1. These deliveries are commonly referred to as “tank and trailer loads.” Three underground tanks (2 for diesel and 1 for gasoline) are installed at this site. c. Location of Tanks. Fuel sites 2 and 3 listed above, have aboveground tanks. The remaining sites (1, 4, 5, 6) have underground tanks. d. Non-bulk deliveries for sites other than site 1. Non-bulk (less than 500 gallons) deliveries will be required for sites 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. e. As-needed orders – 24 hours’ notice. City will generally order fuel for sites 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 on an as-needed basis, with 24-hours advance notice. Valley Oil Company shall accept City’s fuel orders and deliver the requested amount of fuel to the identified fuel site within 24 hours of the City’s placement of the order. f. Site 4 – delivery frequency. Valley Oil Company shall make fuel deliveries to site 4 every Monday (regardless of tank levels), unless the weekly delivery is cancelled by City. For any City holidays falling on a Monday, the deliveries will take place the following day (Tuesday). Site 4 will commonly require additional “as needed” deliveries, with 24-hours advance notice. Valley Oil Company shall fulfill City’s as- needed orders within 24 hours of City’s placement of the order. g. Timing of deliveries. Deliveries are to be made to all sites between 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM, Monday through Friday, except in case of emergency. Attachment A 13 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 3. SPILL CLEANUP Valley Oil Company must supply an action plan for spill clean-up. Valley Oil Company shall submit this plan with the City’s Equipment Management Division within one (1) week of contract award for City’s review and approval. All drivers for Valley Oil Company must carry equipment to cleanup any spills of five (5) gallons or less. Valley Oil Company shall report all spills to a City Equipment Management Division representative immediately, following the cleanup. Drivers must be familiar with each fuel site, and the monitoring equipment (generally Veeder-Root TLS-300 units) that is installed there. 4. SPECIFICATIONS Unleaded Gasoline All sites: 87 octane, MTBE based Diesel Fuel All sites: Red dyed #2, California Air Resources Board (CARB) rated for combined on/off-highway use. Diesel Fuel All sites: *Renewable, Red dyed #2, California Air Resources Board (CARB) rated for combined on/off-highway use. *The City currently does not use renewable diesel fuel and may or may not decide to use renewable diesel fuel in the future. However, should City decide to use renewable diesel fuel, Valley Oil Company shall supply it upon request. 5. DELIVERY RECEIPTS, INVOICING & PAYMENT a. Delivery Receipts. Valley Oil Company shall send delivery receipts for all sites via EMAIL to danitra.bahlman@cityofpaloalto.org and david.andel@cityofpaloalto.org of the City’s Equipment Management Division offices, on the date of delivery. The fuel site location must be noted on the delivery receipt. b. Invoicing. Invoices shall be submitted in accordance with Section 7 of this Agreement. Invoices shall include all applicable federal, state and local taxes, import duties, commissions, or other charges. The fuel site location must be noted on the invoice. c. OPIS Reports. Valley Oil Company must also send the OPIS report every morning via email to danitra.bahlman@cityofpaloalto.org and david.andel@cityofpaloalto.org. Attachment A 14 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 d. PAYMENT TERMS: City of Palo Alto’s Payment terms for this contract will be: N30 Sales tax rate for the City of Palo Alto is 9.00%. TABLE 1 Fuel Site Unleaded Gasoline Diesel Fuel Nr Name/Address Tank Size 12-Month Usage1 Deliveries per year1 Tank Size 12-Month Usage1 Deliveries per year1 1 Municipal Services Center 3201 East Bayshore Road 15,000 92,500 18 15,000 and 5,000 43,000 36 2 Golf Course 1875 Embarcadero Road 1,000 600 1 1,000 150 1 3 Foothills Park3 3300 Page Mill Road 250 2,300 14 500 750 2 4 Fire Station #1 (University Park) 301 Alma Street 1,000 30,000 66 1,000 8,700 32 5 Fire Station #2 (Mayfield) 2675 Hanover Street 1,000 7,400 21 1,000 9,600 23 6 Fire Station #4 (Mitchell Park) 3600 Middlefield Road 1,000 440 2 1,000 3,100 8 Total for all Locations 19,250 133,240 122 24,500 65,300 102 Note: Above fuel usage numbers are taken from previous 12-month period (July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017) and are provided for illustrative purposes. Annual fuel requirements during the term of this Agreement may vary. Attachment A 15 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services according to the following schedule: Site 4: Valley Oil Company shall make fuel deliveries to site 4 every Monday (regardless of tank levels), unless the weekly delivery is cancelled by City. For any City holidays falling on a Monday, the deliveries will take place the following day (Tuesday). Site 4 will commonly require additional “as needed” deliveries, with 24-hours advance notice. Valley Oil Company shall fulfill City’s as-needed orders within 24 hours of City’s placement of the order. Sites 1, 2, 3, 5, 6: Valley Oil Company shall accept City’s fuel orders and deliver the requested amount of fuel to the identified fuel site within 24 hours of the City’s placement of the order. Attachment A 16 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF FEES Compensation based upon fee schedule CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according to the following rate schedule. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to CONTRACTOR, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agreement. Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to CITY. PRICING Pricing for unleaded and diesel will be at the cost per gallon using the OPIS Lowest Daily Terminal Price at the San Jose, California fueling terminal, and will include delivery at the per gallon rates specified per site and per fuel type in the table below. Pricing for renewable diesel will be at the cost per gallon using the OPIS Lowest Daily Terminal Price at the San Francisco, California fueling terminal, and will include delivery at the per gallon rates specified per site and per fuel type in the table below. Fuel price will directly correspond to the OPIS rate referenced above. Delivery rates will remain fixed for the term of the Agreement. RATE SCHEDULE – DELIVERY SCHEDULE PER FUEL SITE Fuel Site Unleaded Fuel Price Per Gallon Diesel Fuel Price Per Gallon Renewable Diesel Fuel Price Per Gallon Delivery price of gasoline and diesel fuel per site is as follows: Over Daily Terminal Price as per specifications Nr Name/Address 1 Municipal Services Center 3201 East Bayshore Road $.005 $.005 $.039 2 Golf Course 1875 Embarcadero Road $.045 $.045 $.089 Attachment A 17 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 Fuel Site Unleaded Fuel Price Per Gallon Diesel Fuel Price Per Gallon Renewable Diesel Fuel Price Per Gallon 3 Foothills Park 3300 Page Mill Road $.045 $.045 $.089 4 Fire Station #1 (University Park) 301 Alma Street $.045 $.045 $.089 5 Fire Station #2 (Mayfield) 2675 Hanover Street $.045 $.045 $.089 6 Fire Station #4 (Mitchell Park) 3600 Middlefield Road $.045 $.045 $.089 Notice required for delivery (hours): 24 Hours Attachment A 18 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 NO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” Attachment A 19 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. Vendors are required to file their evidence of insurance and any other related notices with the City of Palo Alto at the following URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569 OR http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/asd/planet_bids_how_to.asp Attachment B Bid Summary BIDDERS: VALLEY OIL GOLDEN GATE WESTERN STATES Fuel Site Unleaded Diesel Unleaded Diesel Unleaded Diesel Fuel Price Per Gallon Municipal Services Center 3201 East Bayshore Road 0.005 0.005 0.0212 0.0276 0.01875 0.029 Golf Course 1875 Embarcadero Road 0.045 0.045 0.14 0.14 0.14375 0.13375 Foothills Park 3300 Page Mill Road 0.045 0.045 0.20 0.20 0.14375 0.13375 Fire Station #1 (University Park) 301 Alma Street 0.045 0.045 0.12 0.14 0.14375 0.13375 Fire Station #2 (Mayfield) 2675 Hanover Street 0.045 0.045 0.16 0.16 0.14375 0.13375 Fire Station #4 (Mitchell Park) 3600 Middlefield Road 0.045 0.045 0.16 0.16 0.14375 0.13375 Attachment B Bid Summary BIDDERS: MANSFIELD SOUTHERN COUNTIES MERRIMAC Fuel Site Unleaded Diesel Unleaded Diesel Unleaded Diesel Fuel Price Per Gallon Municipal Services Center 3201 East Bayshore Road 0.0308 0.0338 0.0406 0.0365 -.062 0.00 Golf Course 1875 Embarcadero Road 0.3818 0.3421 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.35 Foothills Park 3300 Page Mill Road 0.3818 0.3421 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.35 Fire Station #1 (University Park) 301 Alma Street 0.3818 0.3421 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.35 Fire Station #2 (Mayfield) 2675 Hanover Street 0.3818 0.3421 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.35 Fire Station #4 (Mitchell Park) 3600 Middlefield Road 0.3818 0.3421 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.35 *No bid from Mansfield, Southern Counties, or Merrimac for Renewable Diesel. Attachment B Bid Summary BIDDERS: VALLEY OIL GOLDEN GATE WESTERN STATES Fuel Site Renewable Diesel Renewable Diesel Renewable Diesel Fuel Price Per Gallon Municipal Services Center 3201 East Bayshore Road 0.039 0.0076 0.005 Golf Course 1875 Embarcadero Road 0.089 0.10 0.125 Foothills Park 3300 Page Mill Road 0.089 0.17 0.125 Fire Station #1 (University Park) 301 Alma Street 0.089 0.12 0.125 Fire Station #2 (Mayfield) 2675 Hanover Street 0.089 0.12 0.125 Fire Station #4 (Mitchell Park) 3600 Middlefield Road 0.089 0.12 0.125 Attachment B BIDDERS: VALLEY OIL GOLDEN GATE Fuel Site Unl. Diesel Unl. Diesel Estimate Annual Fuel Cost MSC $191,918 $87,827.50 $193,417.50 $88,799.30 Golf Course $1,268.88 $312.38 $1325.88 $326.63 Foothills Park $4,864.04 $1,561.88 $5220.54 $1678.13 Fire Station #1 $63,444 $18,117.75 $62,694 $18,944.25 Fire Station #2 $15,649.52 $19,992 $16,500.52 $21,096 Fire Station #4 $930.51 $6,455.75 $981.11 $6386.65 Total: $278,074.95 $134,267.26 $280,139.55 $137,230.96 BIDDERS: WESTERN STATES MANSFIELD Fuel Site Unl. Diesel Unl. Diesel Estimate Annual Fuel Cost MSC $193,190.88 $88,859.50 $194,305.50 $89,065.90 Golf Course $1,328.12 $325.69 $1,470.96 $356.95 Foothills Park $5,091.17 $1,628.44 $5,638.68 $1,784.71 Fire Station #1 $66,406.50 $18,889.88 $73,548 $20,702.52 Fire Station #2 $16,380.27 $20,844 $18,141.84 $22,844.16 Fire Station #4 $973.96 $6,730.88 $1078.70 $7,376.76 Total: $283,370.90 $137,278.39 $294,183.68 $142,131 Attachment B BIDDERS: SOUTHERN COUNTIES MERRIMAC Fuel Site Unl. Diesel Unl. Diesel Estimate Annual Fuel Cost MSC $195,212 $89,182 $185,821.50 $87,612.50 Golf Course $1,325.88 $326.63 $1,451.88 $358.13 Foothills Park $5,450.54 $1,753.13 $5,565.54 $1,790.63 Fire Station #1 $66,294 $18,944.25 $72,594 $20,771.25 Fire Station #2 $16,352.52 $20,904 $17,906.52 $22,920 Fire Station #4 $972.31 $6,750.25 $1,064.71 $7,401.25 Total: $285,607.25 $137,860.26 $284,404.15 $140,853.76 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8508) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Zero Waste Office CA Services Title: Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C17165053 with Salas O'Brien Adding Construction Administration to the Scope of Services and Increasing Compensation by $35,000 for the Zero Waste Office Renovation, for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $252,800 for the Municipal Services Center Improvements and Zero Waste Office Renovation Project (CIP PF-16006) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C17165053 with Salas O’Brien (Attachment A) to add Construction Administration services to the Scope of Services and increase compensation by $35,000, including $2,460 in Additional Services, for the Zero Waste Office Renovation, for a total contract amount not to exceed $252,800 for the Municipal Services Center Mechanical, Electrical, and Lighting Improvements, and Zero Waste Office Renovation (Capital Improvement Program project PF-16006). Background The Municipal Service Center (MSC) is located at 3201 East Bayshore Road in Palo Alto and is occupied by numerous City departments and workgroups, including Utilities; Public Works Facilities, Operations, Traffic, Fleet, and Zero Waste; and Parks. The MSC site is on the bay side of East Bayshore Road and consists of three main buildings, Building A, Building B, and Building C, all of which were constructed in 1966. The buildings are low, one and two story tilt-up concrete structures with CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto Page 2 concrete roof framing. Building A is approximately 15,730 square feet, Building B 23,935 square feet, and Building C 32,720 square feet. Seismic bracing was installed on all three buildings in 1998. The City and Salas O’Brien entered into the contract for professional services on October 4, 2016. The original scope of the Salas O’Brien contract included design services for: (1) upgrades to the mechanical and electrical systems and their components servicing all three buildings that have reached the end of their useful life expectancy and/or efficiency, while addressing design proficiency, energy savings, code compliance, and aesthetics; (2) renovation of the City’s Zero Waste group’s offices; and (3) design of structural upgrades associated with the proposed mechanical system, electrical system, and office renovation. Discussion The original scope of the Salas O’Brien contract did not include Construction Administration services for the Zero Waste Office Renovation. The purpose of this Contract Amendment No. 1 is to add Construction Administration to the scope and increase compensation for those services. Construction Administration (CA) services consist of responding to Requests for Information (RFI’s) from the contractor, reviewing contractor submittals and shop drawings, assisting with the review of contract change order requests, preparing supplemental instructions as required, conducting site observations, preparing site observation reports, preparing punch lists for the contractor to address near the end of the job, and preparing record plans of the finished work. Timeline The Construction Administration services will begin immediately following approval. The construction contract for the Zero Waste Office Renovation has recently started. Resource Impact Funding for Contract C17165053 Amendment No. 1 for the Municipal Service Center Mechanical, Electrical, and Lighting Improvements, and Zero Waste Office Renovation is available in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project PF-16006. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 3 This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. Environmental Review This project was determined as categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance or minor alteration of an existing facility. Attachments: Attachment A: Amendment 1 to Contract C17165053 1 Revision July 20, 2016 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C17165053 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SALAS O’BRIEN ENGINEERS INC. dba SALAS O’BRIEN FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C17165053 (“Contract” or “Agreement”) is entered into October 16, 2017 (Amendment Effective Date), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and SALAS O’BRIEN ENGINEERS INC., dba SALAS O’BRIEN, a California corporation, located at 305 South 11th Street, San Jose, CA 94112 ("CONSULTANT"). City and Consultant are referred to herein collectively as the “Parties”. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract, dated effective October 4, 2016 was entered into between the Parties for the provision of architectural and design services for: upgrades to the mechanical and electrical systems and their components servicing three buildings at the Municipal Service Center; renovation of the Zero Waste group’s offices; and structural upgrades associated with the proposed mechanical system, electrical system and office renovation. B. Section 27.4 of the Contract authorizes the Parties to modify the contract by written amendment. C. The Parties now desire to amend the Contract to add Construction Administrative (CA) services for the Zero Waste office renovation project at the Municipal Service Center to the scope of services and to increase the compensation by Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), from Two Hundred Seventeen Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($217,800) to Two Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($252,800). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 1 “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “A-1” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and this Amendment No. 1. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.” SECTION 2. Section 3 “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of DocuSign Envelope ID: C8388C5A-012E-41A2-942A-A8508AF453A1 2 Revision July 20, 2016 this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B” and Exhibit “B-1”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.” SECTION 3. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION”, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and Exhibit “A-1” (Amendment No. 1), including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Forty Dollars ($230,540). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services, and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($252,800). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “A-1”. SECTION 4. The following exhibits to the Contract are hereby added and amended to read as set forth in the attachments to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A-1” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT No. 1”- Added b. Exhibit “B-1” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT No. 1”- Added c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT No. 1”- Amended DocuSign Envelope ID: C8388C5A-012E-41A2-942A-A8508AF453A1 3 Revision July 20, 2016 SECTION 5. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager (Contract over $85k) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee (Contract over $25k) SALAS O’BRIEN ENGINEERS INC. dba SALAS O’BRIEN Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By: Name: Title: Attachments: EXHIBIT "A-1": SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO. 1-ADDED EXHIBIT "B-1": SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 1-ADDED EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 1-AMENDED DocuSign Envelope ID: C8388C5A-012E-41A2-942A-A8508AF453A1 Mike Prusty Secretary Jeffry Gosal 4 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “A-1” SCOPE OF SERVICES AMENDMENT NO. 1 Background: Under the Contract, CONSULTANT is providing services for the Municipal Service Center (MSC) mechanical, electrical, and lighting improvements, and Zero Waste office renovations project. After award of the separate construction contract for the Zero Waste office renovation, City requested that CONSULTANT provide additional services consisting of Construction Administration (CA) services. This Amendment provides for such additional services. Task 2 of Exhibit “A” of the Contract is modified to include the following additional work: Construction Administrative Services for Municipal Service Center (Tenant Improvement – Zero Waste) Trades included in this additional work: 1. Architectural 2. Structural Engineering 3. Electrical Engineering 4. Plumbing Engineering 5. Mechanical Engineering Scope of Work Includes: 1. Construction Administrative support: a. Respond to Requests for Information (RFI’s). b. Review submittals and shop drawings. c. Assist in the review of contract change order request. d. Prepare supplemental instructions as required. e. Attend three (3) site observations per discipline. f. Prepare site observation reports upon completion of each site visit. g. Attend two (2) site visits for punch walk and back-check. h. Prepare punch lists for contractor to address. 2. Project Close-Out: a. Prepare A/MEP and structural engineering record drawings based upon red- lines drawings provided by the construction contractor and field reviews. DocuSign Envelope ID: C8388C5A-012E-41A2-942A-A8508AF453A1 5 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “B-1” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE AMENDMENT NO. 1 CONSULTANT shall perform the Services in Exhibit “A-1” so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Contract. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of issuance of Notice to Proceed. Milestone Schedule of Performance Task 2 – Zero Waste Renovation Construction Administration Duration of Construction (120 Days) Project Closeout 4 weeks following Notice of Completion issue date to the construction contractor DocuSign Envelope ID: C8388C5A-012E-41A2-942A-A8508AF453A1 6 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION AMENDMENT NO. 1 The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 Study of Mechanical, Electrical, and Lighting Systems $27,225 Task 2 Zero Waste Office Renovation $60,590 Task 3 Schematic Design – Mechanical, Electrical, and Lighting Systems Upgrades $28,050 Task 4 Design Development – Mechanical, Electrical, and Lighting Systems Upgrades $31,350 Task 5 Construction Documents (90%) and Permit Package – Mechanical, Electrical, and Lighting Systems Upgrades $44,550 Task 6 Bid Documents (100% Construction Documents) – Mechanical, Electrical, and Lighting Systems Upgrades $33,000 Task 7 Bid and Construction – Mechanical, Electrical, and Lighting Systems Upgrades $5,775 Sub-total Basic Services $230,540 Reimbursable $0 DocuSign Envelope ID: C8388C5A-012E-41A2-942A-A8508AF453A1 7 Revision July 20, 2016 Expenses Additional Services $22,260 Maximum Total Compensation $252,800 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: C8388C5A-012E-41A2-942A-A8508AF453A1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8567) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Amendment 3 to Contract for Valet Parking Services with SP+ Title: Approval of Amendment Number Three to Contract Number C14152025 With SP Plus for Valet Parking Services to Extend the Contract Term to March 2, 2018 (Continued From October 2, 2017) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve Amendment Three to Contract C14152025 with SP Plus to extend the contract term from September 2, 2017 to March 2, 2018. Background and Discussion The City is engaged in a number of parking management programs to improve parking utilization and maximize parking supply. The Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program, which regulates non-resident parking in the Downtown neighborhoods, increased demand for parking in Downtown garages. As a result, the City entered into a contract with SP Plus aimed at maximizing utilization of existing parking supply using a valet-assist program. The current valet-assist program, allows for up to 75 additional cars to be parked with no increase in capital investment. Valet parking allows the City to maximize permit sales by overselling lots to a greater degree than would otherwise be practical. The valet program is conducted by SP Plus under Contract C14152025. The existing valet program is staffed by valet attendants, stationed on the top level of the Lot R and Bryant/Lytton Garage. When the permit spaces at the garage are nearing capacity, the attendants use signage to direct permit parkers to park in the drive aisle and leave their key with the attendant. Prior to beginning the program, occupancy was at capacity during the midday peak parking hours. Valet assist allows the City to oversell permits and fully utilize stalls in high demand garages when fully occupied. With valet’s currently assisting in parking 45 to 70 cars on a typical weekday, the City can safely oversell these permits and expand parking capacity. In addition to City of Palo Alto Page 2 extending garage capacity, the program adds another level of service and security in our high- traffic locations. The original contract was for $300,000 to provide valet service at Lot R on High Street between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue for a period of three years. Amendment one of the contract (City Manager’s Report ID# 5685) increased the contract amount to $997,652 to allow the City to expand valet parking service to three additional garages: Civic Center, Cowper/Webster, and Bryant/Lytton over the same three year term. However, due to logistical and operational issues, valet service has been suspended at Cowper/Webster and has not been deemed feasible at Civic Center. Currently, only Lot R and Bryant/Lytton have valet services in operation and spending under this contract is currently about $20,000 per month. Amendment two of this contract extended the term by six months to September 2017, but did not increase the total contract amount. The second amendment is included as Attachment A. Amendment three of the contract (Attachment B) will continue the valet program by extending the end term again to March 2018. Spending on this contract has been less than anticipated, leaving sufficient capacity in the contract for another six-month extension. The contract dollar amount is not being increased because there is sufficient funding allocated to cover the term of the extension. During the extension, staff will be evaluating the service and issuing a new RFP. As noted in a recent response to City Council questions, customers do not pay valets to park cars under this program; it is a free service to permit holders, who currently pay $730 per year for a parking permit. In terms of the City’s costs, as noted above, the monthly cost of this program is about $20,000. Valets are currently parking about 45-70 cars per day on average (with Friday’s consistently being the lowest). This equates to about $14-$22 per car, however this calculation ($20,000 for 20 weekdays at 45 to 70 cars = $14-$22 per car) does not account for the additional revenue available to the City because the valet service generally allows the City to sell more garage permits (i.e. to reduce the waiting list for permits). Policy Implications The valet-assist program is consistent with current Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs: Goal T-8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities City of Palo Alto Page 3 Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Ave business districts to address long-range needs. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto. Program T-52: Evaluation options to ensure maximum use of the City parking structures in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue areas. Resource Impact The Fiscal Year 2018 Adopted Operating Budget for University Avenue Parking Permit Fund includes sufficient funding for the balance of this contract. As noted above, the contract provided $997,652 for three years of valet services at multiple garages and has been extended once before without additional costs because valet services and monthly expenditures have been less than originally anticipated. Based upon Staff analysis of expenditures to-date and expected costs to the end of the contract term, no additional funds are required for the six months of additional services coverered under this contract extension. Timeline Staff implemented the valet parking programs in late summer 2015 and this contract amendment continues this service through March 2, 2018. Environmental Review The proposed action would implement operational changes at existing garages and is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class One (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities) and because it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action to incrementally increase garage capacity via operational changes could not have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the “general rule”). Attachments: Attachment A - C14152025 SP PLUS CONTRACT AMENDMENT No 2 (PDF) Attachment B - C1415205 SP PLUS CONTRACT AMENDMENT No 3 (PDF) 1 of 1 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C14152025 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SP PLUS CORPORATION This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C14152025 (“Contract”) is entered into February 15, 2017, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and SP PLUS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of the operation of a Parking Attendant Program at the Lot R Parking Garage on High Street between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. B. The CITY intends to extend the term to September 2, 2017 from March 2, 2017. C. The parties wish to amend the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2 TERM, is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from March 3, 2014 through September 2, 2017 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: SP PLUS CORPORATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 11E88644-F210-41C2-B191-110486B2CA95 Senior Vice President Steve Aiello Albert S Yang Senior Deputy City Attorney James Keene City Manager Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 11E88644F21041C2B191110486B2CA95 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: C14152025 SP PLUS CONTRACT AMENDMENT No 2.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 1 Signatures: 3 Envelope Originator: Supplemental Document Pages: 0 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole Certificate Pages: 5 AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Payments: 0 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Record Tracking Status: Original 2/14/2017 1:32:15 PM Holder: Christopher Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Steve Aiello saiello@spplus.com Senior Vice President Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 107.23.7.1 Sent: 2/14/2017 1:56:58 PM Resent: 2/27/2017 9:20:22 AM Viewed: 2/17/2017 1:56:05 PM Signed: 2/27/2017 9:32:31 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Albert S Yang Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org Senior Deputy City Attorney City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 73.254.101.222 Sent: 2/27/2017 9:32:32 AM Viewed: 2/27/2017 10:08:59 AM Signed: 2/27/2017 10:11:02 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: James Keene James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org City Manager City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 50.174.200.162 Signed using mobile Sent: 2/27/2017 10:11:03 AM Viewed: 2/27/2017 10:28:54 AM Signed: 2/27/2017 10:29:01 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 4/14/2015 5:40:07 PM ID: 44fe333a-6a81-4cb7-b7d4-925473ac82e3 In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Jeffery Heckathorn Jeffery.Heckathorn@CityofPaloAlto.org Administrative Associate III City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 2/27/2017 10:29:02 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Sherry Nikzat Sherry.Nikzat@CityofPaloAlto.org Sr. Management Analyst City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 2/27/2017 10:29:03 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 2/27/2017 10:29:03 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 2/27/2017 10:29:03 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 2/27/2017 10:29:03 AM Completed Security Checked 2/27/2017 10:29:03 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure CONSUMER DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 8:33:53 AM Parties agreed to: James Keene How to contact City of Palo Alto: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you. 1 of 1 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. C14152025 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SP PLUS CORPORATION This Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C14152025 (“Contract”) is entered into September 2, 2017, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and SP PLUS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of the operation of a Parking Attendant Program at the Lot R Parking Garage on High Street between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. B. The CITY intends to extend the term to March 2, 2018 from September 2, 2017. C. The parties wish to amend the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2 TERM, is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from March 3, 2014 through March 2, 2018 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Section 19.2 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES, is hereby amended to read as follows: “19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving sixty (60) days prior written notice thereof to CITY. SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: SP PLUS CORPORATION DocuSign Envelope ID: DEF32D51-630F-4D13-8E95-9C2427F36BF1 Senior Vice President Steve Aiello Bill Kepp Regional Manager Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: DEF32D51630F4D138E959C2427F36BF1 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: C14152025 SP PLUS CONTRACT AMENDMENT No 3.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 1 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Supplemental Document Pages: 0 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole Certificate Pages: 2 AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Payments: 0 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Record Tracking Status: Original 8/21/2017 10:50:31 AM Holder: Christopher Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Steve Aiello saiello@spplus.com Senior Vice President Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 34.229.134.75 Sent: 8/21/2017 10:57:27 AM Resent: 8/24/2017 8:04:23 AM Resent: 8/29/2017 7:01:57 AM Resent: 8/31/2017 8:56:24 AM Viewed: 8/31/2017 8:57:31 AM Signed: 8/31/2017 8:57:45 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Bill Kepp bkepp@spplus.com Regional Manager Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 34.213.65.56 Sent: 8/31/2017 8:57:46 AM Viewed: 8/31/2017 9:14:47 AM Signed: 8/31/2017 9:15:02 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Philip Kamhi Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 8/31/2017 9:15:03 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Yolanda Cervantes Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org Administrative Assistant City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 8/31/2017 9:15:03 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 8/31/2017 9:15:03 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 8/31/2017 9:15:03 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 8/31/2017 9:15:03 AM Completed Security Checked 8/31/2017 9:15:03 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps City of Palo Alto (ID # 8267) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: New Speed Limit Ordinance and Target Speed Resolution Title: Adoption of an Ordinance to Increase the Posted Speed Limit on Deer Creek Road and a Segment of East Bayshore Road to Enable Radar Enforcement and to Reduce the Posted Speed Limit in School Zones Consistent with State Law, and Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Target Speeds for Certain Arterials and Residential Arterials. Environmental Assessment: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt an Ordinance (Attachment A) increasing the Posted Speed Limit from 35 miles per hour to 40 miles per hour on Deer Creek Road between western city limits and Arastradero Road and on East Bayshore Road between the Embarcadero Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing and Adobe Creek to enable enforcement by radar pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, reducing the Posted Speed Limit within school zones, consistent with State law, and amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 10.56; 2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment B) establishing Target Speeds for certain Arterials and Residential Arterials where the Operating Speed has been found to exceed the Posted Speed Limit in order to reduce the Operating Speed through roadway design; and 3. Find the requested actions exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a minor alteration to existing facilities (Guidelines Section 15301, Class One, Existing Facilities). Executive Summary Speed limits in California are governed by the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 627, 22348 City of Palo Alto Page 2 through 22413 and 40802. In conformance with State law, Posted Speed Limits can only be enforced using radar when they are calculated by using an official Engineering and Traffic Survey. Engineering and Traffic Surveys for many Palo Alto streets are currently expired and, hence, the Police Department is unable to enforce the speed limits using radar. The updated Engineering and Traffic Surveys, conducted in 2016 for 70 roadway segments, are intended to serve as the basis for the establishment and enforcement of Posted Speed Limits for certain street segments within the City of Palo Alto. Based on the results of the surveys, Posted Speed Limits on 14 roadway segments within the City are outside of the acceptable deviation from the Operating Speed to allow for radar enforcement. However, based on input received from the public, Planning and Transportation Commission, and Council, Staff is only recommending increasing the Posted Speed Limit on two (2) of the 14 roadway segments. Staff recommends establishing “Target Speeds” for the remaining segments, with the goal of using roadway design elements to reduce the Operating Speed in the future, potentially enabling radar enforcement if/when design changes are successful at reducing speeds. Background As per California Vehicle Code 40802, the speed limit of 25 miles per hour has been established on designated local streets in Palo Alto that are less than 40 feet in width. In 2014, Engineering and Traffic Surveys were conducted for 34 Residential Arterial and Collector street segments within the City. Those surveys validated the Posted Speed Limits for 16 roadway segments, but indicated an unacceptable deviation from the Operating Speed on 18 roadway segments, precluding enforcement by radar. In 2016, Engineering and Traffic Surveys were conducted for all Arterial and Collector street segments in Palo Alto (a total of 70 segments, excluding the 16 segments that were validated in 2014). The report included as Attachment C presents the results and recommendations of the Engineering and Traffic Surveys conducted in 2016. These surveys were authorized by the City and conducted by the consulting firm Stantec. These surveys were performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). In addition, as a part of this project, a preferred or “Target Speed” is also identified for street segments where the surveys show Posted Speed Limits to be outside of the acceptable deviation from the Operating Speed to allow for radar enforcement. The Target Speed is not based on Operating Speed but, instead, considers factors such as residential density, bicycle safety, roadside conditions, adjacent land use, and potential conflicts with pedestrians, bicyclists, and residential or business districts. The Target Speed is intended to be a design speed that anticipates the introduction of roadway design elements that may reduce the Operating Speed, potentially enabling radar enforcement in the future. Staff intends to conduct City of Palo Alto Page 3 additional Engineering and Traffic Surveys after design elements such as speed feedback signs, marked edgelines, median islands, curb extensions, and other treatments are installed, with the hope of certifying the roadway segments for radar enforcement. With the passage of California Assembly Bill (AB) 321 in 2008, local jurisdictions were permitted to modify the Posted Speed Limits within school zones. The law allows local jurisdictions— through an ordinance or resolution—to 1) extend the 25 miles per hour Posted Speed Limit in school zones from 500 feet to 1,000 feet from the school property lines, and 2) reduce the Posted Speed Limit to 15 or 20 mph within 500 feet of the school grounds, under certain conditions. As part of a safe routes to school grant, Staff commissioned a study in 2012 to determine where the reduced Posted Speed Limits may be applied in Palo Alto. This memo is included as Attachment D. Discussion The Engineering and Traffic Surveys conducted in 2016 validate the Posted Speed Limits for 56 roadway segments and indicate an unacceptable deviation from the Operating Speed on 14 roadway segments, precluding enforcement by radar. These segments include: Roadway Segment Current Posted Speed Limit (mph) Posted Speed Limit Required for Radar Enforcement (mph) 1 Alma St from University Ave to Lincoln Ave 25 30 2 Arastradero Rd from Foothill Exp to El Camino Real 25 30 3 Charleston Rd from El Camino Real to Alma St 25 30 4 Charleston Rd from Middlefield Rd to Fabian Wy 25 30 5 Coyote Hill Rd from western city limit to Hillview Av 35 40 6 Deer Creek Rd from western city limit to Arastradero Rd 35 40 7 E Bayshore Rd from Embarcadero Rd to Bay Lands Frontage 35 40 8 E Bayshore Rd from Bay Lands Frontage to San Antonio Rd 35 40 9 Embarcadero Rd from eastern terminus to US 101 25 30 10 Embarcadero Rd from US 101 to Middlefield Rd 25 30 11 Embarcadero Rd from Middlefield Rd to Alma St 25 30 12 Middlefield Rd from Oregon Exp to E Charleston 25 30 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Rd 13 Middlefield Rd from E Charleston Rd to southern city limits 25 30 14 University Av from East City Limit to Middlefield Rd 25 30 Establishing Target Speeds The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on July 25, 2017 released a safety study aimed at reducing speed and speeding-related deaths and injuries involving passenger vehicles. According to the NTSB, more than 112,000 people died in speeding-related crashes in the United States from 2005 to 2014, averaging more than 10,000 deaths annually. In their recommendations, NTSB calls for a concerted effort to develop and implement a program to increase public awareness of speeding as a national traffic safety issue; modernization of the traditional practices used to set speed limits to include explicit consideration of factors such as crash experience, pedestrian and bicyclist usage, and roadway and roadside development characteristics; increased use of automated speed enforcement and updated guidelines on implementing automated speed enforcement systems; and establishing national level programs to incentivize state and local speed management activities. A study session on the Engineering and Traffic Surveys (2016) was held on November 9, 2016 with the Planning and Transportation Commission and on November 21, 2016 with the City Council. Staff also conducted two community workshops in March 2017. Based on the feedback received at these meetings and considering recommendations from the NTSB study, staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution establishing Target Speeds for 12 roadway segments where the surveys indicate that the current speed limit cannot be enforced by radar. These segments include portions of Alma Street, Arastradero Road, Coyote Hill Road East and West Charleston Road, Embarcadero Road, Middlefield Road, and University Avenue. If adopted, Staff will to use the Target Speed to implement roadway design elements aimed at reducing the Operating Speed, potentially enabling radar enforcement in the future. Such designs are already underway as part of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project, which is scheduled to begin construction in 2018. In 2016, minor low-cost signing and striping changes were introduced along Middlefield Road between Lowell Avenue and Oregon Expressway. These roadway features, designed at 25 miles per hour, reduced the Operating Speed by two to four miles per hour, depending on the segment. Prior to the implementation of these changes, the Operating Speed exceeded the Posted Speed Limit by four to 11 miles per hour, depending on the segment. Design features recommended for the 12 roadway segments identified in the surveys include additional speed limit signs at key gateways, reduction of sign clutter to draw attention to speed limit signs, new dynamic speed feedback signs, marked travel lane edgelines, narrowed City of Palo Alto Page 5 travel lanes, raised landscaped median islands, curb-extensions, enhanced crosswalks, and traffic signal timing modifications. Staff has already begun to install new dynamic speed feedback signs along Embarcadero Road. It is anticipated that once these roadway design features are installed, updated Engineering and Traffic Surveys will be conducted to determine if the current Posted Speed Limit can be enforced by radar. Increasing Posted Speed Limit on Two Collectors Based on the results of the Engineering and Traffic Surveys, Staff is recommending increasing the Posted Speed Limit at the following two roadway segments from 35 to 40 miles per hour: East Bayshore Road from the Embarcadero Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing to Adobe Creek Deer Creek Road from the western city limits to Arastradero Road These two streets are classified as Collectors within the Palo Alto Street Network System. Collectors connect Local Streets to Arterials and Residential Arterials. They serve through traffic, as well as provide direct property access. The average daily traffic (ADT) for these two streets is only about 5,000 vehicles and both are characterized by few driveways and cross- streets. Neither roadway has continuous sidewalks or significant pedestrian activity (Deer Creek Road has a short segment with sidewalks near Arastradero Road). The section of East Bayshore Road recommended for a Posted Speed Limit increase includes on-street Class II bicycle lanes as well as a parallel Class I shared-use path. Staff is not recommending an increase in the Posted Speed Limit for the segments without an adjacent Class I shared-use path. Traffic engineering studies have shown that most motorists will travel at a speed at which they feel comfortable, given the context and conditions. They will ignore a Posted Speed Limit that is set unrealistically low or high, leading to enforcement difficulty. A Posted Speed Limit that matches the context and conditions is generally obeyed by a majority of motorists. It is also important to set realistic Posted Speed Limits in order to reduce the speed differential between motor vehicles. The accident rate is lower when the majority of motor vehicles are traveling at about the same speed and it improves overall compliance with traffic control devices. Reducing Posted Speed Limit in School Zones The study commissioned by staff in 2012 after the passage of AB 321 (Attachment D) recommends two actions: 1. Implement a 15-mile-per-hour Posted Speed Limit within 500 feet of school grounds on all two-lane residential Local Streets that currently have a Posted Speed Limit of 30 miles per hour or less, and 2. Extend current 25-mile-per-hour Posted Speed Limits from 500 feet to 1,000 feet from the school grounds. City of Palo Alto Page 6 In lieu of a reduction to 15 miles per hour within 500 feet of school grounds, Staff is, instead, recommending a reduction to 20 miles per hour. Staff believes that a Posted Speed Limit of 20 miles per hour is more likely to encourage compliance, while still achieving the same safety benefits as a 15-mile-per-hour Posted Speed Limit. The 20-mile-per-hour Posted Speed Limit will be in effect only during school days when children are present. If approved, approximately 66 new speed limit signs will be required. Currently, all two-lane residential Local Streets within school zones are already signed at 25 miles per hour, so implementation of the second recommendation would not change the Posted Speed Limit for any roadway segments. The 2012 study did not include an analysis of the 10 existing private schools within Palo Alto. However, Staff augmented the study and completed this analysis and identified 13 additional street segments that would be eligible for reduced speed limit near private schools. Staff is interested in the Council's perspective on the reduction of Posted Speed Limits near private schools. There will be added costs for installation the required new signs and some of the private schools may relocate in the future, necessitating removal or relocation of the signage. Policy Implications The following goals, policies and programs from the Comprehensive Plan are directly related to this discussion: PROGRAM T-32: Improve pedestrian crossings with bulbouts, small curb radii, street trees near corners, bollards, and landscaping to create protected areas. POLICY T-24: Maintain a hierarchy of streets that includes freeways, expressways, arterials, residential arterials, collectors, and local streets. PROGRAM T-33: Develop comprehensive roadway design standards and criteria for all types of roads. Emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety and usability in these standards. POLICY T-30: Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by designating certain streets as residential arterials. PROGRAM T-42: Use landscaping and other improvements to establish clear “gateways” at the points where University Avenue and Embarcadero Road transition from freeways to neighborhoods. POLICY T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include City of Palo Alto Page 7 traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures. POLICY T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections. PROGRAM T-47: Utilize engineering, enforcement, and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways. POLICY T-40: Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes. POLICY T-41: Vigorously and consistently enforce speed limits and other traffic laws. Resource Impact It will cost approximately $35,000 to install new speed limit signs on the two (2) roadway segments with an increase in the Posted Speed Limit and on the 33 roadway segments with reduced school zone Posted Speed Limits. An additional $7,000 will be required to install new speed limit signs on the 13 street segments near private schools. There is sufficient budget in PL-12000, Transportation and Parking Improvements, in the Fiscal Year 2018 Adopted Capital Budget. No additional funds are needed at this time. Cost estimates for implementing the roadway design elements based on Target Speeds will be determined as part of finalizing the concept plans. However, many of these changes can be implemented through planned maintenance activities, similar to what was done on Middlefield Road between Lowell Avenue and Oregon Expressway in 2016. Adoption of Target Speeds does not necessitate the immediate implementation of specific roadway design elements. It does, however, provide Staff with the direction needed to work toward reducing Operating Speeds through design decisions. If additional funding is required, it will be requested as part of the regular capital budgeting process in future fiscal years. Timeline Upon direction from City Council, Staff will work with an on-call contractor to install increased speed limit signs along the two (2) roadway segments and reduced speed limit signs in school zones. Staff will continue to use existing resources and coordinate with the Public Works Department to implement roadway design elements on roadways with adopted Target Speeds. Environmental Review The proposed installations are minor upgrades to an existing residential street right-of-way and would not result in any new impacts to the existing environment. This project is considered as a City of Palo Alto Page 8 minor alteration to the existing street system, and therefore categorically exempt (Class 1 Exemption, Section 15301) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A - Ordinance Establishing Speed Limit on Certain Streets (PDF) Attachment B - Draft Resolution Establishing Target Speeds (PDF) Attachment C- 2016 Engineering & Traffic Survey Report (DOCX) Attachment D - 2012 Reduced School Zone Speed Limits Recommendations Memo (PDF) Not Yet Approved 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Pursuant to the California Vehicle Code and Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 10.56 (Special Speed Zones) to Establish Such Speed Limits, Including Increased Speed Limits of 40 MPH on Two Roadway Segments and Reduced Speed Limits of 20 MPH Within School Zones During School Hours When Children Are Present The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. California Vehicle Code section 22357 provides that whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate. B. California Vehicle Code section 22358.3 provides that whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour in a business or residence district or in a public park on any street having a roadway not exceeding 25 feet in width, other than a state highway, is more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate. C. California Vehicle Code section 22358.4 provides that a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare prima facie speed limits of 15 miles per hour, in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds of a school building, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour. Not Yet Approved 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets D. The declared prima facie limit shall only be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street and the limits shall not be revised except upon the basis of an engineering and traffic study. E. An engineering and traffic study survey was conducted for the City by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. in 2016. F. The City Council desires to establish an increased speed of 40 mph for two roadway segments – East Bayshore from the Bay Lands frontage to San Antonio Road, and Deer Creek Road from Page Mill Road to Arastradero Road -- to allow for radar enforcement of speed limits consistent with the 2016 survey. G. In 2008, California Assembly Bill (AB) 321 went into effect which allows local jurisdictions, by adoption of an ordinance or resolution, to extend the 25 mph prima facie speed limit in school zones from 500 feet to 1,000 feet from the school grounds and to reduce the speed limit to 15 or 20 mph up to 500 feet from the school grounds, under certain conditions. H. The City Council desires to establish a reduced speed limit of 20 mph within 500 feet of public schools within the City during school hours when children are present, as allowed by law. I. The City Council has determined and declares that on the basis of the California Vehicle Code and the relevant engineering and traffic survey(s) that the speed limits set forth herein are the most reasonable, safe and appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic on the applicable portions of such streets within the City. SECTION 2: Section 10.56.010 (State twenty-five miles per hour prima facie speed limit justified) is hereby amended as follows: 10.56.010 Twenty-five (25) miles per hour prima facie speed limit justified It is determined that the state twenty-five miles per hour prima facie speed limit for business or residence districts is justified, as required by state law, with respect to the following streets or portions of streets by engineering and traffic surveys conducted by the city and completed on the dates shown below: Street or Portion Thereof Affected Engineering and Traffic Survey Completion Date Churchill Avenue from Embarcadero Road to El Camino Real March 21, 1994 Colorado Avenue from Middlefield Road to Louis Road September 26, 1995 University Avenue from Middlefield Road to easterly city limit September 26, 1995 Embarcadero Road from Alma Street Underpass to El Camino Real September 26, 1995 Welch Road from Quarry Road to Pasteur Drive September 26, 1995 Not Yet Approved 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Road Segment Name Survey Completion date Alma St from El Camino Real to University Ave June, 12, 2014 Amaranta Ave from Los Robles Ave to Maybell Ave September 13, 2016 Arboretum Rd from Sand Hill Rd to Quarry Rd September 13, 2016 Birch St from California Ave to Page Mill Exp September 13, 2016 California Ave from Park Blvd to El Camino Real September 13, 2016 California Ave from El Camino Real to Hanover St September 13, 2016 Charleston Rd from Fabian Way to South City Limit June, 12, 2014 Channing Ave from W Bayshore Rd to Newell Rd September 13, 2016 Channing Ave from Newell Rd to Guinda Ave September 13, 2016 Channing Ave from Guinda Ave to Alma St September 13, 2016 Charleston Rd from Alma St to Middlefield Rd September 13, 2016 Churchill Ave from Embarcadero Rd to Alma St September 13, 2016 Churchill Ave from Alma St to El Camino Real September 13, 2016 Colorado Ave from W Bayshore Rd to Middlefield Rd September 13, 2016 E Meadow Dr from W Bayshore Rd to Louis Rd September 13, 2016 E Meadow Dr from Louis Rd to Alma St September 13, 2016 El Camino Way from Los Robles Ave to Maybell Ave September 13, 2016 Embarcadero Rd from El Camino Real to Alma St June, 12, 2014 Guinda Ave from Lytton Ave to Channing Ave September 13, 2016 Hamilton Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St September 13, 2016 High St from Lytton Ave to Channing Ave September 13, 2016 Homer Ave from Guinda Ave to Alma St September 13, 2016 Laguna Ave from Matadero Ave to Los Robles Ave September 13, 2016 Lambert Ave from Park Blvd to El Camino Real September 13, 2016 Loma Verde Ave from W Bayshore Rd to Middlefield Rd September 13, 2016 Loma Verde Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St September 13, 2016 Los Robles Ave from Laguna Ave to El Camino Real September 13, 2016 Louis Rd from Embarcadero Rd to Oregon Exp September 13, 2016 Louis Rd from Oregon Exp to Loma Verde Rd September 13, 2016 Louis Rd from Loma Verde Rd to Charleston Rd September 13, 2016 Lytton Ave from Alma St to Middlefield Rd September 13, 2016 Matadero Ave from El Camino Real to Laguna Ave September 13, 2016 Middlefield Rd from University Ave to Embarcadero Rd June, 12, 2014 Middlefield Rd from Embarcadero Rd to Oregon Exp September 13, 2016 Newell Rd from East City Limit to Channing Ave September 13, 2016 Newell Rd from Channing Ave to Embarcadero Rd September 13, 2016 N California Ave from Embarcadero Rd to Middlefield Rd September 13, 2016 Not Yet Approved 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets N California Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St September 13, 2016 Park Blvd from California Ave to Lambert Ave September 13, 2016 Peter Coutts Rd from Stanford Ave to Page Mill Rd September 13, 2016 Porter Dr from Hillview Ave to Page Mill Rd September 13, 2016 Quarry Rd from El Camino Real to Campus Dr September 13, 2016 Stanford Ave from El Camino Real to Peter Coutts Rd September 13, 2016 Stanford Ave from Peter Coutts Rd to Junipero Serra Blvd September 13, 2016 University Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St September 13, 2016 Waverley St from Lytton Ave to Channing Ave September 13, 2016 Waverley St from Channing Ave to Embarcadero Rd September 13, 2016 W Meadow Dr from Alma St to El Camino Way September 13, 2016 SECTION 3: Section 10.56.015 (State speed limit decreased (thirty miles per hour)) is hereby amended as follows: 10.56.015 Thirty (30) miles per hour prima facie speed limit It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveys, conducted by the city, as required by state law and completed on the date shown in this section, that the maximum speed limit applicable under state law is more than is reasonable or safe upon the following streets or portions of streets, and that the following speed limits which facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and are reasonable and safe, and it is declared that the prima facie speed shall be as set forth in this section, except for school zones, on those streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice thereof: that a speed greater than the twenty-five (25) miles per hour prima facie speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that thirty (30) miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: 30 MPH DECLARED PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT Road Segment Name Survey Completion Date Street or Portion Thereof Affected Engineering and Traffic Survey Completion Date Fabian Way from East Charleston Road to West Bayshore Frontage Road September 26, 1995 Hanover Street from Page Mill Expressway to Hillview Avenue September 26, 1995 Hillview Avenue from Hanover Street to Foothill Expressway September 26, 1995 Hansen Way from El Camino Real to Page Mill Expressway September 26, 1995 Not Yet Approved 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Fabian Way from Charleston Rd to W Bayshore Rd June, 12, 2014 Hansen Way from El Camino Real to Page Mill Exp September 13, 2016 Hanover St from Page Mill Rd to Hillview Ave June, 12, 2014 Hillview Ave from Hanover St to Foothill Exp June, 12, 2014 Sand Hill Rd from El Camino Real to Arboretum September 13, 2016 W Bayshore Rd from Oregon Exp to Colorado Ave September 13, 2016 SECTION 4: Section 10.56.020 (State speed limit decreased (thirty-five miles per hour)) is hereby amended by deleting its text and title in entirety and replacing the deleted text with theas followingfollows: Section 10.56.020 Thirty-five (35) miles per hour prima facie speed limit It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveys, conducted by the city, as required by state law, and completed on the dates shown below, that the maximum speed limit applicable under state law is more than is reasonable or safe upon the following streets or portions of streets, and that the following speed limits would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and are reasonable and safe, and it is declared that the prima facie speed limit shall be as set forth in these sections, except for school zones, on those streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice thereof: that a speed greater than the twenty-five (25) miles per hour prima facie speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that thirty-five (35) miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: 35 MPH DECLARED PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT Street or Portion Thereof Affected Engineering and Traffic Survey Completion Date Arastradero Road from Foothill Expressway to city limit west of Deer Creek Road March 21, 1994 Oregon Expressway from Middlefield Road to Alma Street March 21, 1994 Oregon Expressway from Middlefield Road to U.S. 101 September 26, 1995 Sand Hill Road from Arboretum Street to Pasteur Drive September 26, 1995 Sand Hill Road from Pasteur Drive to westerly city limit September 26, 1995 Page Mill Expressway from Hanover Street to Foothill Expressway September 26, 1995 Hillview Avenue from Foothill Expressway to Arastradero Road September 26, 1995 Road Segment Name Survey Completion Date Alma St from Lincoln Ave to Oregon Expy September 13, 2016 Alma St from Oregon Exp to E Meadow Dr September 13, 2016 Alma St from E Meadow Dr to South City Limit September 13, 2016 Arastradero Rd from Purissima Rd to Deer Creek Rd September 13, 2016 Not Yet Approved 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Arastradero Rd from Deer Creek Rd to Foothill Exp September 13, 2016 Hillview Ave from Foothill Exp to Arastradero Rd September 13, 2016 Oregon Exp from Middlefield Rd to Highway 101 June, 12, 2014 Oregon Exp from Middlefield Rd to Alma St September 13, 2016 Page Mill Rd from El Camino Real to Hanover St June, 12, 2014 Page Mill Rd from Hanover St to Foothill Exp June, 12, 2014 Sand Hill Rd from Arboretum to West City limit September 13, 2016 San Antonio Rd from Alma St Overpass to Middlefield Rd June, 12, 2014 San Antonio Rd from Middlefield Rd to Charleston Rd June, 12, 2014 San Antonio Rd from Charleston Rd to East City Limit June, 12, 2014 W Bayshore Rd from Oregon Exp to Loma Verde Ave September 13, 2016 W Bayshore Rd from Loma Verde to Fabian Way June, 12, 2014 SECTION 5: Section 10.56.025 (State speed limit increased (thirty miles per hour)) is hereby amended as follows: Section 10.56.025 Forty (40) miles per hour prima facie speed limit It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveys, conducted by the city, as required by state law, and completed on the dates shown below, that a speed greater than that provided by state law would facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon the following streets or portions of streets, and it is declared that the prima facie speed limit shall be as set forth in this section except for school zones, on the streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice thereof: that a speed greater than the twenty-five (25) miles per hour prima facie speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that forty (40) miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: 30 MPH DECLARED PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT Street or Portion Thereof Affected Engineering and Traffic Survey Completion Date West Bayshore Frontage Road from Oregon Expressway to Amarillo Avenue September 26, 1995 Road Segment Name Survey Completion Date E Bayshore from Bay Lands frontage to San Antonio Rd September 13, 2016 Deer Creek Rd from Page Mill Rd to Arastradero Rd September 13, 2016 SECTION 6: Section 10.56.30 (State speed limit increased (thirty-five miles per hour)) is hereby amended as follows: Not Yet Approved 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Section 10.56.30 Forty-five (45) miles per hour prima facie speed limit It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveys, conducted by the city, as required by state law, and completed on the dates shown below, that a speed greater than that provided by state law would facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon the following streets or portions of streets, and it is declared that the prima facie speed limit shall be as set forth in this section, except for school zones, on the streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice thereof: that a speed greater than the twenty-five (25) miles per hour prima facie speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that forty-five (45) miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: 35 MPH DECLARED PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT Street or Portion Thereof Affected Engineering and Traffic Survey Completion Date East Bayshore Road from Embarcadero Road to northerly city limit March 21, 1994 Page Mill Expressway from Alma Street to Hanover Road March 21, 1994 San Antonio Road from East Bayshore Road to Alma Street March 21, 1994 Alma Street from Embarcadero Road to Oregon Expressway September 26, 1995 Alma Street from Oregon Expressway to Meadow Drive September 26, 1995 Alma Street from Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road September 26, 1995 Road Segment Name Survey Completion Date Foothill Expressway from Page Mill Rd to South City Limit September 13, 2016 SECTION 7: New Section 10.56.35 (Twenty (20) miles per hour School Zones Speed Limit) is added as follows: Section 10.56.35 Twenty (20) miles per hour School Zones Speed Limit It is determined and justified pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22358.4(b)(1) that twenty (20) miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit on the road segments shown below at a distance within 500 feet from or of the school grounds while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. School name Road Segment Name 1 Addison Elementary School Middlefield Rd Webster St Not Yet Approved 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Addison Ave Lincoln Ave 2 Palo Alto High School Churchill Ave Embarcadero Rd 3 Walter Hays Elementary School Embarcadero Rd Middlefield Rd 4 Duveneck Elementary School Channing Ave Alester Ave 5 Jordan Middle School California Ave Middlefield Rd 6 Ohlone Elementary School Amarillo Ave 7 El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Ave Loma Verde Ave Bryant St Ramona St 8 Palo Verde Elementary School Louis Rd Rorke Way 9 Fairmeadow Elementary School East Meadow Dr 10 JLS Middle School East Meadow Dr 11 Herbert Elementary School Charleston Rd 12 Barron Park Elementary School Barron Ave 13 Juana Briones Elementary School Maybell Dr Gerogia Ave Orme St 14 Terman Elementary School Terman Ave Arastradero Rd 15 Gunn High School Arastradero Rd 16 Lucille Nixon Elementary School Stanford Ave Not Yet Approved 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets 17 Escondido Elementary School Escondido Rd Stanford Ave Bowdoin St SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 9. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. SECTION 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty- first date after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Resolution No. XXX Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Establish Target Speeds for Arterials, Residential Arterials, and Collector Streets within Palo Alto R E C I T A L S A. Speed plays a critical role in the cause and severity of crashes. There is a direct correlation between higher speeds, crash risk, and the severity of injuries. B. Embracing a proactive design approach on new and existing streets with the goal of reducing speeds may be the single most consequential intervention in reducing pedestrian injury and fatality. C. Conventional roadway design uses the Operating Speed when making geometric design and traffic engineering decisions. D. A higher Design Speed often mandates larger curb radii, wider travel lane widths, on‐street parking restrictions, guardrails, and clear zones. E. A lower Design Speed reduces observed speeding behavior, providing a safer place for people to walk, park, and drive. F. Streets should be designed using a Target Speed, which is the speed motorists at which should operate, rather than the Operating Speed, which is the speed at which motorists currently drive. G. The Design Speed should be brought in line with the Target Speed by implementing measures to reduce and stabilize the Operating Speed as appropriate. H. Ultimately, the Target Speed, Design Speed, Posted Speed, and Operating Speed should be consistent on each roadway. I. The City desires to establish Target Speeds for certain Arterials and Residential Arterials where the Operating Speed has been found to exceed the Posted Speed Limit in order to reduce the Operating Speed through roadway design. The Target Speeds will have no regulatory effect, and merely sets forth the desired Operating Speed to guide City efforts to redesign and improve the relevant roadways. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows: SECTION 1. Definitions. A. “Target Speed” is the highest speed at which motorists should operate on a street in a specific context, consistent with the level of multimodal activity generated by adjacent land uses, to provide both mobility for motor vehicles and a safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. B. “Design Speed” is the speed a roadway designer uses to determine curb radii, travel lane widths, merge taper length, signal stopping distance, guardrails, and clear zones. C. The “Posted Speed” is the speed limit, which is posted and enforced by the agency with jurisdiction over a particular street segment. D. The “Operating Speed” is the speed at which 85% of motorists travel at or below on a particular street segment during free flow conditions as established in an engineering and traffic study. SECTION 2. Establishment of Target Speeds. A. In order to ensure consistency between the Design Speed, Posted Speed, and Operating Speed, a Target Speed of 25 miles per hour is established for the following streets: 1) Alma Street between University Avenue and Lincoln Avenue 2) Embarcadero Road between eastern terminus (east of Highway 101) and western city limits 3) Middlefield Road from northern city limits to southern city limits 4) University Avenue from eastern city limits to western city limits B. In order to ensure consistency between the Design Speed, Posted Speed, and Operating Speed, a Target Speed of 35 miles per hour is established for the following streets: 1) Coyote Hill Road between western city limits and Hillview Avenue SECTION 3. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 in that this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _______________________ ____________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachment C 2016 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report The 2016 Engineering and Traffic Safety Survey Report can be viewed by clicking on the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59769 1 | Parisi Associates & Alta Planning + Design MEMORANDUM TO: Jaime Rodriguez, City of Palo Alto FROM: David Parisi, Parisi Associates and Jennifer Donlon-Wyant, Alta Planning + Design DATE: August 7, 2012 SUBJECT: Reduced School Zone Speed Limits Recommendations This memorandum presents an overview of the California Assembly Bill that allows local jurisdictions to reduce speed limits in school zones and recommendations for where it may be applied in Palo Alto. The memorandum includes the following sections: 1. Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Appendices ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 3.1 Appendix A: Assembly Bill No. 321 ....................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Appendix B: California MUTCD 2012 Edition Section 7B.15 and 7B.16 ................................... 12 City of Palo Alto 2 | Parisi Associates & Alta Planning + Design 1. Background On January 1, 2008, California Assembly Bill (AB) 321 went into effect (see Appendix A for the bill language). The bill allows local jurisdictions – through an ordinance or resolution – to extend the 25 mph prima facie speed limit in school zones from 500 feet to 1,000 feet from the school grounds and to reduce the speed limit to 15 or 20 mph up to 500 feet from the school grounds, under certain conditions. One of the intentions of the new law was to enhance the safety of children walking and bicycling to school. If a vehicle is in a collision with a child, a slower moving will generally result in a less severe injury or the avoidance of a death. In 1999 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a “Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries.” According to NHTSA’s study, fatality and serious injury rates increase substantially when travel speeds rise. For example, for children ages 14 or less, 20.2 percent suffer fatal or serious injuries when struck by a vehicle traveling 1-20 mph, while 32.8 percent are killed or seriously injured when hit by a vehicle traveling 21-25 mph. California’s new reduced or extended school zone speed limits can be applicable on streets that meet the following conditions: 1) Within a residential district that has a posted speed limit no greater than 30 mph, and 2) No more than a total of two through lanes of traffic. Similar to the reduced 25 mph school zone speed limit on streets with higher posted streets, the reduced 15 or 20 mph school zone speed limit would only be in effect when children are present (going to or leaving school, either during school hours or during the noon recess hour). However, if a fence, gate or other physical barrier does not surround a portion of the school grounds, the 15 or 20 mph limit would be in effect any time of day or any day of the week Figure 7B-103(CA) in Appendix B of this memorandum illustrates the use of extended and reduced school zone speed limits. A number of jurisdictions in California have reduced the school zone speed limit on eligible residential district street to 15 or 20 mph since adoption of AB 321. The cities of Goleta, Lompoc, and Santa Maria were among the first jurisdictions to reduce school speed limits. In the summer of 2011, the City and County of San Francisco implemented a program of citywide 15 mph reduced school zone speed limits covering 181 public and private schools. San Jose implemented a pilot program to reduce the school zone speed limit to 15 mph at three schools. Sunnyvale is evaluating the possibility of establishing a reduced school speed limit program. The provisions of AB 321 apply to public, charter, and private schools. Reduced School Zone Speed Limits Recommendations 3 | Parisi Associates & Alta Planning + Design 2. Recommendations It is recommended that all of Palo Alto’s two-lane, residential-district roadways within school zones that are signed at 30 mph or less be declared by ordinance or resolution to have a reduced 15 mph school zone speed limit within 500 feet of the school grounds and an extended 25 mph school zone speed limit between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the school grounds. The use of 15 mph reduced speed zones, instead of 20 mph reduced speed zones, is suggested due to the potential for fewer severe injury or fatal collisions with the use of a lower speed limit, as shown in the previously discussed research. Table 1 and Figures 1-3 present locations where 15 mph school speed zones would be eligible in Palo Alto. Figures 1-3 also show eligible locations for an extended 25 mph school zone. It should be noted that in the absence of regular enforcement, the 15 mph speed limit signs could a limit potential in reducing speeds. Increased periodic enforcement should be provided within reduced speed zones. Reducing school zone speed limits below 25 mph is not allowable on roadways with more than two lanes, within non-residential districts, or when non-school speed limits exceed 30 mph. For such roadways, it is suggested that other measures be considered, such as using larger school speed limit assembly signs (i.e., SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT 25 WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT) and driver speed feedback signs (which cost up to $10,000 per sign). Table 1: Streets Eligible to 15MPH School/Street Posted Speed Limit Total Travel Lanes Start End Recommendation Addison Elementary School Addison Ave 25 MPH 2 500' SW of School Grounds 500' NE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Lincoln Ave 25 MPH 2 500' SW of School Grounds 500' NE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Webster St 25 MPH 2 Kingsley Ave Channing Ave Reduce to 15 MPH Middlefield Rd 25 MPH 2 Kingsley Ave Channing Ave Reduce to 15 MPH Barron Park Elementary School Barron Ave 25 MPH 2 Laguna Ave 500' NE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Duveneck Elementary School Alester Ave 25 MPH 2 Channing Ave Hamilton Ave Reduce to 15 MPH Channing Ave 25 MPH 2 500' W of School Grounds 500' E of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH El Carmelo Elementary School Bryant St 25 MPH 2 500' SE of School Grounds (Campesino Ave) Canal Reduce to 15 MPH City of Palo Alto 4 | Parisi Associates & Alta Planning + Design School/Street Posted Speed Limit Total Travel Lanes Start End Recommendation El Carmelo Ave 25 MPH 2 500' SW of School Grounds 500' NE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Ramona St 25 MPH 2 500' SE of School Grounds (Campesino Ave) Canal Reduce to 15 MPH Loma Verde Ave 25 MPH 2 500' SW of School Grounds 500' NE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Escondido Elementary School Bowdoin St 25 MPH 2 Running Farm Ln 500' W of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Escondido Rd 25 MPH 2 Stanford Ave 500' W of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Pine Hill Rd 25 MPH 2 Stanford Ave Running Farm Ln Reduce to 15 MPH Running Farm Ln 25 MPH 2 Pine Hill Rd Escondido Rd Reduce to 15 MPH Stanford Ave 25 MPH 2 500' SW of School Grounds Oberlin St Reduce to 15 MPH Fairmeadow Elementary School Meadow Dr 25 MPH 2 Waverly St 500' NE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Hoover Elementary School Waverley St 25 MPH 2 Charleston Rd Meadow Dr Reduce to 15 MPH Charleston Rd 25 MPH 2 530' SW of Waverly St 950' NW of Waverly St Reduce to 15 MPH Jan Lathrop Stanford Middle School Meadow Dr 25 MPH 2 500' SW of School Grounds 500' NE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Waverley St 25 MPH 2 500' NW of School Grounds 500' SE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Jordan Middle School California Ave 25 MPH 2 Middlefield Rd 500' NW of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Middlefield Rd 25 MPH 2 Garland Dr Portal Pl Reduce to 15 MPH Juana Briones Elementary School Georgia Ave 25 MPH 2 Orme St 500' N of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Maybell Ave 25 MPH 2 500' S of School Grounds 500' N of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Orme St 25 MPH 2 500' W of School Grounds Georgia Ave Reduce to 15 MPH Lucille Nixon Elementary School Stanford Ave 25 MPH 2 500' SW of School 500' N of School Reduce to 15 MPH Reduced School Zone Speed Limits Recommendations 5 | Parisi Associates & Alta Planning + Design School/Street Posted Speed Limit Total Travel Lanes Start End Recommendation Grounds Grounds Ohlone Elementary School Amarillo Ave 25 MPH 2 Louis Rd 500' NE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Palo Alto High School Churchill Ave 25 MPH 2 El Camino Real 500' NE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Palo Verde Elementary School Rorke Way 25 MPH 2 Ames Ave Loop around Ames Ave Reduce to 15 MPH Louis Rd 25 MPH 2 500' NW of School Grounds 500' SE of School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Terman Middle School Terman Dr 25 MPH 2 Arastradero Rd End of Terman Dr (School Grounds) Reduce to 15 MPH Walter Hays Elementary School Middlefield Rd 25 MPH 2 500' SE of School Grounds (Lowell Ave) 500' NW School Grounds Reduce to 15 MPH Figure 1: Northern Schools Figure 2: South Western Schools Figure 3: Southern Schools 3. Appendices 3.1 Appendix A: Assembly Bill No. 321 CHAPTER 384 An act to amend Section 22358.4 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. [Approved by Governor October 10, 2007. Filed with Secretary of State October 10, 2007.] AB 321, Nava. Vehicles: prima facie speed limits: schools. (1) Existing law establishes a 25 miles per hour prima facie limit when approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted up to 500 feet away from the school grounds, with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit also applies when approaching or passing school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign. A violation of that prima facie limit is an infraction. Existing law allows a city or county, based on an engineering and traffic survey that the prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour is more than is reasonable or safe, by ordinance or resolution, to determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, whichever is justified as the appropriate speed limit by that survey. This bill would additionally allow a city or county to establish in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, a 15 miles per hour prima facie limit when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit would also apply when approaching, at that same distance, or passing school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with one of those signs. The bill would provide that a 25 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, applies, as to those local authorities, when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from, one of those areas where children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period, that is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The bill would require that these prima facie speed limits apply only to highways that meet certain conditions. The bill would require a city or county that adopts a resolution or ordinance establishing revised prima facie limits to reimburse the Department of Transportation for any costs incurred by that department in implementing the bill. By authorizing a change in the prima facie limits, the bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 22358.4 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: 22358.4. (a) (1) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour established by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352 is more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, whichever is justified as the appropriate speed limit by that survey. (2) An ordinance or resolution adopted under paragraph (1) shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limit are erected upon the highway and, in the case of a state highway, until the ordinance is approved by the Department of Transportation and the appropriate signs are erected upon the highway. (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law, a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare prima facie speed limits as follows: (A) A 15 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds of a school building, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour. (B) A 25 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from, a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from, school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. (2) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply only to highways that meet all of the following conditions: (A) A maximum of two traffic lanes. (B) A maximum posted 30 miles per hour prima facie speed limit immediately prior to and after the school zone. (3) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply to all lanes of an affected highway, in both directions of travel. (4) When determining the need to lower the prima facie speed limit, the local authority shall take the provisions of Section 627 into consideration. (5) (A) An ordinance or resolution adopted under paragraph (1) shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limit are erected upon the highway and, in the case of a state highway, until the ordinance is approved by the Department of Transportation and the appropriate signs are erected upon the highway. (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), school warning signs indicating a speed limit of 15 miles per hour may be placed at a distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds. (C) For purposes of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), school warning signs indicating a speed limit of 25 miles per hour may be placed at any distance between 500 and 1,000 feet away from the school grounds. (D) A local authority shall reimburse the Department of Transportation for all costs incurred by the department under this subdivision. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. 3.2 Appendix B: California MUTCD 2012 Edition Section 7B.15 and 7B.16 Section 7B.15 School Speed Limit Assembly EXTENDED 25 MPH AND/OR REDUCED SPEEDS IN SCHOOL ZONES Option: A local authority may declare a 15 mph prima facie speed limit within 500 feet of a school building or school grounds and an extended 25 mph prima facie speed limit within 500 to 1000 feet from a school or school grounds. Support: The extended 25 mph school speed zone can provide a progressive speed reduction. Standard: If the local authority declares by ordinance or resolution the above prima facie speed limits, all of the following criteria shall be met: A. Street (or highway) is in a residential district. B. Street (or highway) outside of a school zone has a posted speed limit no greater than 30 mph. C. Street (or highway) has no more than a total of two through traffic lanes (one in each direction or two in one direction). D. The reduced school zone speed limit of 15 mph is within 500 feet of school grounds. E. The extended school zone speed limit of 25 mph is within 500 to 1000 feet of school grounds. When used, a local ordinance or resolution adopted to establish a 15 mph reduced school zone speed limit and/or an extended 25 mph school zone speed limit shall not be effective until School Speed Limit Assembly C (CA) giving notice of the speed limit(s) is erected upon the highway. On a State highway, the ordinance or resolution shall not be effective until the ordinance or resolution has been approved by the Department of Transportation and appropriate school zone speed signs are erected upon the State highway. For purposes of a 15 mph reduced prima facie speed limit, School Speed Limit Assembly C (CA) indicating a speed limit of 15 mph shall be placed at a distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds. For purposes of an extended 25 mph prima facie speed limit, School Speed Limit Assembly C (CA) indicating a speed limit of 25 mph shall be placed at any distance between 500 to 1,000 feet away from school grounds. Refer to Figure 7B- 103(CA). The established school speed limits shall be effective when children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess hour. The school speed limits shall also apply when the school grounds are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children (this condition can apply at any time of day or any day of the week). The determination to reduce a prima facie speed limit to 15 mph and/or extend a 25 mph school zone speed limit, as described above, shall be documented in writing, in an engineering study. The engineering study shall identify the provisions of Section 627 of the Vehicle Code that support the reduced and/or extended school zone speed limit(s). Guidance: When preparing an engineering study pursuant to the Standard above, the local authority should cite all elements of an Engineering and Traffic Survey, as discussed in Section 627 of the Vehicle Code, that support the need for a reduced speed limit of 15 mph and/or an extended 25 mph school zone speed limit. Support: The documentation of prevailing speeds found in CVC Section 627 can be used to establish an existing speed profile for the school zone, but the 85th percentile speed is not used to set the reduced or extended school speed limit. Standard: The local authority shall reimburse the Department of Transportation for all costs incurred by the Department under this section. Section 7B.16 Reduced School Speed Limit Ahead Sign (S4-5, S4-5a) Guidance: A Reduced School Speed Limit Ahead (S4-5, S4-5a) sign (see Figure 7B-1 or 7B-1(CA)) should be used to inform road users of a reduced speed zone where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 10 mph, or where engineering judgment indicates that advance notice would be appropriate for the School Advance Warning Assembly D (CA). Standard: If used, the Reduced School Speed Limit Ahead sign shall be followed by a School Speed Limit sign or a School Speed Limit Assembly C (CA). The speed limit displayed on the Reduced School Speed Limit Ahead sign shall be identical to the speed limit displayed on the subsequent School Speed Limit sign or School Speed Limit Assembly C (CA). EXTENDED 25 MPH AND/OR REDUCED SPEEDS IN SCHOOL ZONES Option: For school area traffic control with a reduced school zone speed limit of 15 mph and/or an extended school zone speed limit of 25 mph in a residential district, the Reduced Speed School Zone Ahead (S4-5, S4-5a) sign may be used to give advance notice of a reduced 15 mph school zone speed limit and/or an extended school zone speed limit of 25 mph. City of Palo Alto (ID # 8530) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fire Deployment Changes & Amendment to the Table of Organization & Budget Amendment Title: Fire Department Deployment Changes and the Conclusion of Meet and Confer With IAFF (International Association of Firefighters) Related to Impacts From the Stanford Fire Contract Revenue Reduction; Approve a Budget Amendment in the General Fund; and Approve an Amendment of the Table of Organization by Eliminating 7.0 Firefighter and 4.0 Apparatus Operator Positions From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Amend the Table of Organization by eliminating 4.0 FTE Apparatus Operators and 7.0 FTE Firefighter (Paramedics) positions; 2. Amend the FY 2018 Appropriation Ordinance for the General Fund by a. Increasing the Fire Department appropriation in the amount of $70,000; b. Decreasing the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve in the amount of $70,000. 3. Acknowledge completion of the meet and confer process with IAFF over impacts related to the reduction in Stanford Fire Contract revenue. Executive Summary If approved, the actions recommended in this report will implement service delivery deployment changes in the Fire Department realizing $1.5 million in annual savings and reducing daytime staffing by one position and nighttime staffing by three positions. This savings will assist in partially offsetting lower reimbursements from Stanford University for fire services. The proposed deployment saves approximately $1.5 million annually, adds a fourth ambulance, keeps all fire stations open and staffed 24 hours per day, results in no layoffs and is consistent with the performance standards of the department. The proposed model is responsive to service demand levels that increase during the daytime and decrease in the nighttime. It is anticipated that all aspects would be implemented no later than January 2018. In July 2016, the City of Palo Alto (City) began formal meet and confer sessions with the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) due to a significant revenue reduction from the Stanford Fire Contract. City of Palo Alto Page 2 A savings of $1.3M annually was planned in the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget to off-set some of the revenue loss from Stanford University. On August 8, 2017, the City and IAFF reached a verbal understanding and conclusion on impacts and mitigations related to deployment changes. While the IAFF will not agree to support cutting positions, they acknowledge that the City has met its legal requirement to meet and confer. On August 14, 2017, the Council directed the City Manager to formalize the meet and confer understanding and conclusion with IAFF. Background Palo Alto Fire Department provides fire rescue suppression services, emergency medical services (EMS), as well as ambulance medical services to the City of Palo Alto as well as Stanford University. Current deployment includes 27 firefighters for the entire 24-hour service delivery period (three scheduled shifts), regardless of the demand for services. Stanford University contracted with the City in October 1976 to provide all risk services including fire, rescue, emergency medical services (EMS) and ambulance transportation to the Central Campus and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) under a 50-year agreement. In May 2012, and at Stanford’s request, the SLAC fire station closed and protection was contracted to the Menlo Park Fire District. Stanford initiated discussions with the City to reduce costs associated with operating the Central Campus Fire Station. In October 2013, Stanford issued a two-year contract cancellation notice. Stanford simultaneously sought alternative public and private fire service providers through a request for proposal while continuing to negotiate with the City. By the contract cancellation in October 2015, Stanford had not secured another provider and asked the City to extend the contract for a series of short term extensions while both parties pursued mediation and continued negotiations. The City and Stanford have agreed to interim agreements at approximately 75 percent of the original contract terms, reflecting a $2 million reduction in reimbursements for services to the City in FY 2017. In recognition of this financial environment, the City looked to changes in the cost to deliver service to assist in offsetting this loss in revenue. The FY 2018 Adopted Budget included a $1.3 million reduction in appropriated expenses in recognition of these efforts and committed to returning to the City Council once agreement was reached among the impacted parties to articulate the implications of such a reduction in cost. Current Service Delivery Deployment The City of Palo Alto Fire Department operates from six stations, including one station on Stanford University campus, as well as a seventh seasonal station at Foothills Park that is staffed on high fire danger days (Station 8). Each station operates a full time engine and the fire system supports two dedicated ambulances, a full time ladder truck, as well as wildland equipment. This results in 27 positions staffing these various apparatus 24 hours a day (“daily positions”). Approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the Palo Alto Fire Department calls for service occur between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm. Figure 1. Current Deployment Station Number Address Assigned Equipment Daytime Staffing (8AM to 8PM) Nighttime Staffing (8PM to 8AM) Station 1 301 Alma Engine, Ambulance 5 5 Station 2 2675 Hanover Engine, Ambulance 5 5 Station 3 799 Embarcadero Engine 3 3 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Station 4 3600 Middlefield Engine, Ambulance (Cross-Staffed 24 Hr) 3 3 Station 5 600 Arastradero Engine, Wildland Engine (Cross-Staffed 24 Hr) 3 3 Station 6 (Stanford) 711 Serra Engine, Battalion Chief, Ladder Truck 8 8 TOTAL 27 27 Under California labor laws, the City must meet and confer in good faith with the labor group, IAFF, over bargainable impacts defined under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). IAFF is offered extensive opportunities to respond and identify impacts related to intended changes. MMBA allows for lengthy question and answer periods allowing the IAFF to seek clarification, request data and public records, and to propose alternative solutions for impacts within their bargaining unit. Discussion Since July 2016, the City conducted 14 meet and confer sessions with the IAFF. The City sought to identify expenditure reductions and cost recovery opportunities as a result of revenue reductions from the Stanford Fire Contract. The City also sought to continue to meet its service performance goals through the identification of efficient and alternative delivery models. The goals guiding these efforts include: a. Meeting adopted performance standards for emergency calls: o Eight minutes or less, 90 percent of the time in urban and suburban service areas o 20 minutes or less, 90 percent of the time in rural service areas of the Palo Alto Foothills b. Ensuring risk reduction (fire & life safety) inspections, mandated training, community service, and administrative assignments can be completed c. Strategically planning for future call growth o Emergency medical services call volume continues to increase due to larger daytime populations and community members aging into high risk demographics for EMS utilization d. Maintain at least one paramedic on every ambulance, fire engine, and ladder truck. At the conclusion of the meet and confer process, the parties understand that the revised deployment model will continue to maintain at least one paramedic on every fire engine, ladder truck and ambulance. Below provides a summary of the major deployment changes as recommended by the staff. The following sections in this report discuss in further detail these changes including an understanding of how they were arrived at. - Reduce daily staffing on the ladder truck from 4 personnel to 3 personnel - Cross-staff an engine apparatus and an ambulance apparatus at three of the six stations allowing personnel to respond on either apparatus depending on the call for service type - Four ambulances staffed during peak hours (8:00 am to 8:00 pm daily), increasing from the current level of three - The apparatus assigned to calls will be based on physical proximity to the needed call. City of Palo Alto Page 4 In looking at alternative deployment models, the Fire Department reviewed historical calls for service and modeled extensive scenarios through an analytical tool to develop a recommended solution. Approximately two-thirds of the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) calls for service occur between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm. The proposed model deploys 26 firefighters, EMTs and Paramedics each day from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, when the majority of calls for service occur, and 24 firefighters each night from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am when the service demand is lowest. It ensures that all fire stations remain open and staffed 24 hours per day, is expected to perform as well as the old model, and results in no layoffs as PAFD currently has 15 vacancies. One innovative approach already used in the PAFD, but expanded under this proposed deployment is to cross-staff apparatus. Cross-staffing is a way to increase service to the community by using one crew of three firefighters to staff multiple emergency apparatus. The crew uses the apparatus most appropriate for the call and leaves the other apparatus at the fire station or another location. The table below illustrates the proposed changes by station. The bold indicates a change from the current deployment model outlined earlier in this report. Following the chart is additional details on the specific changes and analysis utilized to come to this proposed deployment methodology. Community Risk Analysis, Standards of Cover, Quantitative Prediction Analysis The PAFD has undertaken an extensive and detailed analysis of community risk, the resources needed to mitigate the risk. This data-driven and objective planning process includes: Figure 2. Proposed Deployment BOLD: Indicates a change Station Number Address Assigned Equipment Daytime Staffing (8AM to 8PM) Nighttime Staffing (8PM to 8AM) Station 1 301 Alma Engine, Ambulance (12 Hr Overtime), Battalion Chief 6 4 Station 2 2675 Hanover Engine, Ambulance (Cross-Staffed 24 Hr) 3 3 Station 3 799 Embarcadero Engine, Ambulance (Cross-Staffed 12 Hr PM) 3 3 Station 4 3600 Middlefield Engine, Ambulance (Cross-Staffed 24 Hr) 3 3 Station 5 600 Arastradero Engine, Wildland Engine (Cross-Staffed 24 Hr) 3 3 Station 6 (Stanford) 711 Serra St Engine, Rapid Response Vehicle, Ambulance, Ladder Truck 8 8 TOTAL 26 24 City of Palo Alto Page 5 a. Measuring and prioritizing the fire, rescue and emergency medical services risks in the community b. Evaluating and prioritizing the PAFD’s resources to manage or reduce the identified community risks c. Identifying and establishing objective prevention and deployment strategies to meet established performance standards and adopted response policies d. Ensuring a safe and effective response force for fire suppression, emergency medical services, and specialty response situations e. Annually evaluating and validating crew size and configuration, effective response force performance on all types of incidents and overall system performance f. Informing policy makers, government leaders, and the public about the community’s risks and capabilities of the fire department to operate within the available resources g. Modeling system performance using advanced predictive data analytics that includes call volumes, locations of calls, and traffic patterns under a variety of unique resource deployments. Demand for fire and EMS services are directly related to the size of the population. There is a strong correlation between daytime and nighttime populations and the number of requests for fire and EMS services. The demographics for fire are influenced by the age of buildings, rentals versus ownership, maintenance of the buildings and the demographics of the occupants. EMS is very much driven by age, with young and old populations utilizing emergency medical services much more frequently. In Palo Alto and Stanford, the number of fire incidents has declined 32 percent since 2007. Residential structure fires have decreased by 82 percent in the same period. This is primarily a result of strong and effective building codes especially fire sprinklers, new construction practices that incorporate fire resistive materials, and fire safe appliances. In addition, public education has increased awareness among occupants and property owners regarding fire prevention and fire safe practices. EMS activity on the other hand has increased 36 percent and ambulance transports 52 percent since 2007. Much of this can be attributed to aging populations and the expanded awareness of the 9-1-1 system. A recent analysis showed that Palo Alto residents ages 65 and over account for 17 percent of the population, but account for nearly 50 percent of the ambulance transports to hospitals. The City of Palo Alto has been a leader nationally in providing pre-hospital emergency medical services. More recent advances in communication and monitoring technology, have contributed to the growing use of the 9-1-1 system. 9-1-1 provides an almost instantaneous link to first responders and quick response. The scope and quality of services provided by the PAFD is acknowledged in the annual National Citizens Survey as one of the top rated city service. Ambulance Staffing Currently the PAFD staffs three ambulances, two dedicated and one cross-staffed unit 24-hours per day, 7 days per week. The two dedicated ambulances are staffed with a crew of two firefighter/paramedics full time with no cross-staffing. The third ambulance, a cross-staffed ambulance, is staffed with a crew of three who can respond on either the ambulance or fire engine. Cross-staffing both the ambulance and fire engine is a way to increase efficiency and serve the community by using one crew of medical personnel and firefighters to staff multiple fire apparatus. Based upon the call, the dispatchers and emergency responders decide which apparatus the crew takes to the call. City of Palo Alto Page 6 The deployment change also modifies staffing for one of the department’s ambulances from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am, when calls for service are at their lowest. In the evening, the ambulance would be cross-staffed by an engine company. This new night staffing model (8:00 pm to 8:00 am), provides a total of 24 firefighters on duty each night. The new plan proposes staffing four ambulances 24-hours per day, 7 days per week. This is one more than the old deployment model. Daytime: From 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, two ambulances would have dedicated staffing as is the current practice. Two additional ambulances would be cross-staffed by two fire engine crews. Nighttime: From 8:00 pm to 8:00 am, when the call volume is the lowest, one ambulance would have dedicated staffing and three crews would cross-staff an ambulance and engine. The last modification would extend the PAFD’s practice of staffing all ambulances with at least one paramedic and one Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Truck Staffing Under the proposed deployment, there will be one less firefighter on duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, 26 under the proposed deployment, compared to 27 under the old. This is accomplished by staffing the PAFD’s ladder truck with three firefighters instead of four. This returns to the staffing configuration used on the ladder truck for decades in the PAFD. In 2013, the crew size increased from three to four firefighters. This ladder truck staffing modification is based upon a community-wide risk assessment, critical task analysis, and effective response forces needed to mitigate known hazards. Other factors considered include the emergency call volume and types of calls for the ladder truck. Finally, the City maintains and supports automatic aid agreements with neighboring jurisdictions that immediately dispatch multiple ladder trucks to high risk, low frequency incidents. PAFD’s primary automatic aid partner staffs their ladder truck with three personnel as well. Stanford Staffing Under the proposed deployment, a total of eight personnel staffing four apparatus will be located at the Stanford Fire Station. This includes one ambulance, the ladder truck, one fire engine and a smaller unit known as a rapid response vehicle (RRV). All units are available to respond to calls for service throughout the City of Palo Alto and Stanford. The RRV is a new and innovative EMS and fire apparatus, smaller than a municipal engine and slightly larger than a full size pick-up truck, designed to maneuver on narrow streets in the core campus area and other densely populated areas in downtown Palo Alto. The RRV contains medical equipment to function at the paramedic level. It also has a small pump and water tank designed to extinguish minor fires. The RRV responds to lower level and non-emergent EMS calls, small fires, service calls, and fire and supervisory alarms on Stanford Campus. A minimum of two personnel, one of whom is a paramedic, will staff the RRV. The crew assigned to the engine cross-staffs the fire engine and RRV. Timeline The implementation process will begin immediately after receiving Council Authorization to amend the table of organization and acknowledge completion of the meet and confer process. Fire Department City of Palo Alto Page 7 staff will work to make the appropriate changes to dispatch systems, conduct any staff alignment and station assignments with IAFF, and consult with neighboring fire jurisdictions to review mutual and automatic aid agreements. All proposed changes are anticipated to go into effect no later than mid- January 2018. Resource Impact The FY 2018 Adopted budget reflected anticipated reductions in expenses of $1.3 million as a result of these deployment changes. Although this model is anticipated to save $1.5 million, the current adopted reduction of $1.3 million is anticipated to be appropriate for FY 2018 due to the phasing of the implementation. The ongoing reduction in costs, namely the elimination of 11 full time positions will be included in the development of the FY 2019 budget. In order to implement these changes, some additional costs are anticipated. Additional uniform equipment is recommended to ensure turnout-times of cross-staffed crews are not delayed by moving personal protective equipment between two different apparatus. The one-time cost associated with this is anticipated to be $70,000 with ongoing costs estimated at $20,000 annually. This report, requests additional funds of $70,000 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and the ongoing funding will be evaluated as part of the FY 2019 budget with the goal of finding net- zero adjustments to absorb these costs in the Department and only adjustments brought forward as needed. The reduction in the BSR would result in a further reduction of the Budget Stabilization Reserve below the City Council approved 18.5 percent, however, it is anticipated that sufficient excess revenues and additional expense savings from FY 2017 will offset this once the FY 2017 financials are closed. Therefore, it is staff’s intent to restore the BSR to City Council approved target of 18.5 percent. If the actions recommended in this report are approved, in total approximately $823,000 will have been used from the BSR to date in FY 2018, primarily for the janitorial services contract approved in August 2017. In addition, the City in coordination with Stanford will need to design and purchase a new rapid response vehicle. It is expected that Stanford will pay the full cost of the apparatus as part of the new agreement. In the interim, the PAFD can modify an existing fire apparatus for a short-term and temporary solution. Environmental Impact This report is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Environmental review is not required. Attachments Attachment A - Data used to determine System Performance and Design during the Meet and Confer Process Attachment B – Unit Hour Utilization (UHU): Predicted Overall Utilization of new deployment, data analyzed May 2017 Attachments: Data used to determine System Performance and Design during the Meet and Confer Process October 16 2017 May 2017 UHU Analysis Data used to determine System Performance and Design during the Meet and Confer Process Time of Day Workload The time analysis that shows significant variation is response activity by hour of day. Response workload directly correlates with the activity of people, with workload increasing during daytime hours and decreasing during nighttime hours as shown in the following figure. Incident activity is at its highest between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM Unique Incidents Total 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Midnight 1135 233 241 225 227 209 1:00 AM 1043 213 219 205 196 210 2:00 AM 881 184 172 177 169 179 3:00 AM 747 163 153 150 137 144 4:00 AM 687 153 134 163 112 125 5:00 AM 717 149 156 139 139 134 6:00 AM 891 216 191 174 156 154 7:00 AM 1410 293 321 288 254 254 8:00 AM 2060 439 435 405 399 382 9:00 AM 2301 525 452 445 458 421 10:00 AM 2583 543 572 504 449 515 11:00 AM 2527 557 532 507 454 477 12:00 PM 2480 531 526 479 501 443 1:00 PM 2425 508 500 482 477 458 2:00 PM 2503 530 502 481 474 516 3:00 PM 2426 533 528 471 456 438 4:00 PM 2228 475 467 420 458 408 5:00 PM 2263 457 485 480 421 420 6:00 PM 2147 453 460 423 424 387 7:00 PM 1947 446 400 354 391 356 8:00 PM 1698 391 384 320 320 283 9:00 PM 1521 329 363 292 252 285 10:00 PM 1396 285 296 263 263 289 11:00 PM 1219 261 265 247 231 215 Total 41235 8867 8754 8094 7818 7702 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% Current Deployment UHU Rates Crew Average 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% Proposed Deployment UHU Rates Crew Average Deployment Change Analysis on Unit Hour Utilization Rates The charts below show the unit hour utilization rates comparing the deployment of resources as of June 2017, and the proposed deployment of resources proposed by the City. Data was generated from Code3 predictive analytic software, utilizing historical data from the computer aided dispatch system. Unit Hour Utilization Rates Crew Current Deployment Proposed Deployment Battalion Chief 3.8% 4.0% S1 Engine Crew 25.5% 25.8% S2 Engine Crew 10.2% 20.8% S3 Engine Crew 14.1% 19.2% S4 Engine Crew 14.8% 22.2% S5 Engine Crew 11.3% 12.3% S6 Engine Crew 14.7% 15.7% S1 Medic Crew 32.8% 19.0% S2 Medic Crew 33.3% N/A S6 Medic Crew N/A 24.9% Truck Crew 4.0% 4.0% Deployment Change Analysis on time committed to calls for service (stated in hours per 24-hour shift) PROPOSED DEPLOYMENT (HOURS PER 24-HOUR SHIFT) Sorted high-to-low PROPOSED NOT DEPLOYED (PER 24 HRS) CURRENT NOT DEPLOYED (PER 24 HRS) CHANGE IN DEPLOYED TIME S1 Engine Crew 6.19 17.81 6.12 17.88 0.07 S2/S6 Medic Crew* 5.97 18.03 7.99 16.01 -2.02 S4 Engine Crew 5.33 18.67 3.55 20.45 1.78 S2 Engine Crew 5.00 19.00 2.46 21.54 2.54 S3 Engine Crew 4.60 19.40 3.39 20.61 1.21 S1 Medic Crew** 4.57 7.43 7.88 16.12 -3.31 S6 Engine Crew 3.77 20.23 3.52 20.48 0.25 S5 Engine Crew 2.94 21.06 2.72 21.28 0.22 Average 4.80 hrs 17.70 hrs 4.70 hrs 19.30 hrs 0.09 hrs *S2 Medic Crew is the current model. S6 Medic Crew is the proposed model. **S1 Medic Proposed is based on a 12-hour shift. Current is based on a 24-hour shift. County Ambulance handling EMS calls in Palo Alto (Predicted Trufage) Turfage is a term used to describe when the Palo Alto Fire Department has committed all ambulances to calls for service and County Ambulance must respond to handle the subsequent emergency medical services call. Key P0b s001: Current deployment P4J1 s000: Proposed deployment Call Concurrency When evaluating the effectiveness of any resource deployment plan, it is necessary to evaluate the workload of response units to determine to what extent their availability for dispatch is affecting the response time performance. In simplest terms, a response unit cannot make it to an incident across the street from its own station in four minutes if it is unavailable to be dispatched to that incident because it is committed to another call. Concurrency looks at workload to examine the number of times multiple incidents happen within the same time frame in each system area. This is important because concurrent incidents can stretch available resources and extend response times. Incident Concurrency (CY 2016) Number of Concurrent Incidents Count Percentage of Total 1 3787 46.74% 2 2759 34.05% 3 1196 14.76% 4 301 3.71% 5 51 0.63% 6 7 0.09% 7 2 0.02% Drawdown Summary: Fire Engines (CY 2016) Number of Concurrent Incidents Count Percentage of Total 0 5326 64.58% 1 7958 25.98% 2 3578 7.38% 3 1087 1.55% 4 247 0.38% 5 65 0.11% 6 23 0.01% Drawdown Summary: Ambulances (CY 2016) Number of Concurrent Incidents Count Percentage of Total 0 3269 58.49% 1 5566 29.31% 2 3204 9.34% 3 1190 2.28% 4 340 0.49% 5 83 0.07% 6 16 0.01% 7 2 0.00% Response Time Performance Response time is defined as that period between notification of PAFD personnel by the dispatch center that an emergency is in progress until arrival of the first fire department response unit at the emergency. This key performance measure is the total of turnout time (the time it takes personnel from notification to “wheels rolling”) and travel time (the time it takes to drive to the call). Emergency Medical Service Calls 2016 2015 Count 4108 3957 Average Response Time 0:05:04 0:05:13 90% Percentile 0:07:24 0:07:36 Confirmed Structure Fire 2016 2015 Count 6 2 Average Response Time 0:05:16 0:05:17 90% Percentile 0:06:17 0:05:57 Confirmed Full First Alarms (larger fires) 2016 2015 Count 3 2 Average Response Time 0:04:42 0:03:54 90% Percentile 0:05:12 0:04:27 Motor Vehicle Accidents 2016 2015 Count 293 236 Average Response Time 0:05:29 0:05:37 90% Percentile 0:09:16 0:08:58 Hazardous Materials Incidents 2016 2015 Count 12 13 Average Response Time 0:05:54 0:06:25 90% Percentile 0:07:52 0:10:49 All incidents where there was a single engine responding (EMS, car & small fires, fire alarms) 2016 2015 Count 7049 6762 Average Response Time 0:05:31 0:05:39 90% Percentile 0:08:21 0:08:22 Overall Utilization Comparison -- All simulated units Utilization Comparison - PAF Core Units Utilization Comparison - Autoaid Units Predicted Utilization -- Medical "Turfage" City of Palo Alto (ID # 8207) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Vulnerable Buildings Seismic Risk Assessment Study Title: Direct Staff to Return to Policy and Services Committee With Amendments to the Municipal Code for the Regulation of Seismic Vulnerable Buildings and Receive a Summary Presentation of the Vulnerable Buildings Seismic Risk Assessment Study Previously Transmitted to the City Council on April 17, 2017 From: City Manager Lead Department: Development Services Department Recommendations 1. Accept the result of the Seismic Risk Assessment Study prepared by Rutherford + Chekene as the basis for improvements to the City’s seismic risk management program and ordinance. 2. Provide direction to staff regarding parameters for amendments to program, to be included in an ordinance for consideration at a future public hearing. At minimum, City Council direction is needed to address program options, building types, disclosures, and incentive options. 3. Direct staff to return to the Policy and Services Committee with: a. Strategy and costs to further define and verify the current inventory of vulnerable buildings. b. Strategy and costs to assess community, business and economic implications of implementing new program options. c. Community outreach plan and costs which seeks feedback from affected property owners about the program options, building types, timelines, incentive options, and to clarify wider impacts on housing availability, occupant turnover, business operations, including associated community costs and benefits to various constituencies from new risk reduction strategies. d. Suggested draft updates to local regulations, policies, and procedures including an analysis of any potential CEQA requirements and related costs based on City Council direction of program options, building types, disclosures and incentives. Background In 1986, the City Council adopted the Seismic Hazards and Identification Program, codified in City of Palo Alto Page 2 the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to establish a mandatory evaluation and reporting program including incentives for property owners to voluntarily upgrade their structurally deficient buildings. Three categories of buildings are addressed in the ordinance: 1. Category I Buildings: Buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry (URM), except for those smaller than 1,900 square feet with six or fewer occupants. These buildings are located in the Downtown Commercial area. 2. Category II Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1935, containing one hundred (100) or more occupants. 3. Category III Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to August 1, 1976, containing three hundred (300) or more occupants. On September 15, 2014, several weeks after August 24, 2014 Napa Valley earthquake, the City Council received an update from the Office of Emergency Services regarding the Threats and Hazard Identification Risk Assessment report. During the study session, City Council suggested that the Policy and Services Committee: 1. Identify and prioritize buildings that pose potential risks in earthquakes, including soft story buildings and other types of construction. 2. Review and summarize best practices from other government agencies regarding prioritization of various seismically vulnerable buildings, including retrofit incentives and requirements. 3. Review current or pending State legislation related to soft-story buildings and other structurally deficient buildings. On December 9, 2014 the Council’s Policy and Services Committee recommended the City Council authorize a Request for Proposal to prepare an update to the City’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program and update the inventory of structurally deficient buildings in the multi- family, commercial and industrial areas of the city, categorizing building typologies to include: 1. URM, 2. Soft-Story, 3. Tilt-Up Construction, 4. Non-ductile Concrete, and 5. Steel Moment Frame. On August 17, 2015, City Council approved a contract with Rutherford + Chekene to complete a study and provide recommendations for improvement of City’s Seismic Program. On April 17, 2017, staff advanced a comprehensive information report to City Council including the results of the Rutherford + Chekene report. Discussion The April 17, 2017 staff report (attached) is a thorough analysis including a 34 page staff summary of the Rutherford + Chekene’s 110 page report. The Rutherford + Chekene report is also attached however any non-pertinent appendixes have been removed to save paper. All documents related to the study and previous staff reports are located on the City’s website: City of Palo Alto Page 3 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/srmag.asp. In addition to the support from consultant, staff convened a Seismic Risk Management Advisory Group (SRMAG). The group consisted of residents, experienced contractors, property owners and local advocates. Six meetings were held, led by the Rutherford + Chekene and included staff from Building, Planning, Fire, Office of Emergency Services, and Public Works. The intent of the SRMAG process was not to gain consensus or ratify any particuarly policy proposal, but rather to gauge community interest, clarify alternative directions, and highlight key issues that need to be addressed moving forward. The SRMAG expressed little to no support for leaving the status quo program unchanged. Strong support did exist for: 1. taking action to resolve buildings (through retrofit or demolition) already in the program, particularly URM buildings, 2. addressing more building types, particularly soft story wood-frame, and 3. utilizing a variety of disclosure measures and potentially some incentives. All presentations and minutes from the meetings are also available on the aforementioned website. Attachment A summarizes policy options that came out of the Seismic Risk Assessment, as presented to staff and discussed by the SRMAG. Staff recommends that the Council and community read the April 17, 2017 staff report and Seismic Risk Assessment Study. Information provided in this staff report is summarized to provide City Council with specific focus areas related to the broad policy direction needed at this stage of analysis. Policy Direction At this step, being cognizant that staff will be returning to the Policy and Services Committee with further scoping, staff requests that City Council, at minimum, provide direction to address program options, building types, disclosure measures, and incentive options. As a starting point for discussion, staff recommendations for each topic are given below. Program Options: Staff recommends that City Council directed staff to pursue number 5 as listed below. The results of the SRMAG process resulted in this staff recommendation. 1. Status quo; 2. Increase number of building types regulated, but retrofit remains voluntary; 3. Increase number of building types regulated with additional disclosure measures incorporated; 4. Increase number of building types regulated, some building types have voluntary retrofit and a few building types have mandatory retrofit, with enforcement by a trigger threshold when the building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation; 5. Increase number of building types regulated, retrofits for some categories are voluntary and a few categories are mandatory, with enforcement by a fixed timeline; 6. Increase number of building types regulated, but more categories are required to have City of Palo Alto Page 4 mandatory retrofits. Building Types: Staff recommends adding four new building types as listed in numbers 4 -7 below. Attachment A is a summary table indicating the category, approximate number of buildings in each category, the building type, date of construction, occupant levels, threshold elements, deadlines and potential incentives. 1. Existing: Category I Buildings: Buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry (except for those smaller than 1,900 square feet with six (6) or fewer occupants). These buildings are located in the Downtown Commercial area. 2. Existing: Category II Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1935, containing one hundred (100) or more occupants. 3. Existing: Category III Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to August 1, 1976, containing three hundred (300) or more occupants. 4. Proposed: Category IV Buildings: Buildings constructed of soft-story wood frame, prior to 1977. 5. Proposed: Category V Buildings: Building constructed of tilt-up, prior to 1998. 6. Proposed: Category VI Buildings: Building constructed of soft-story concrete, prior to 1977. 7. Proposed: Category VII Buildings: Buildings constructed of steel moment frame, prior to 1998. Types of Disclosure Measures Staff recommends that City Council direct staff to pursue all options and return to Policy and Services with recommendation per building type. Attachment B is a table describing the disclosures listed below with their description, examples of use, advantages, and disadvantages. Given that staff has to further define and verify the current inventory of vulnerable buildings and assess community, business and economic implications, having all measures available will be helpful. 1. Mandatory disclosure at the time of sale 2. Recorded notice on deed 3. Public listing of affected properties 4. External signage 5. Tenant notification 6. Earthquake performance rating system Types of Incentives Staff recommends that City Council direct staff to pursue all options and return to Policy and Services with recommendation per building type. Attachment C is a table describing the incentives listed below with their description, examples of use, advantages, and disadvantages. Given that staff has to further define and verify the current inventory of vulnerable buildings and assess community, business and economic implications, having all available incentives may City of Palo Alto Page 5 decrease compliance timelines. 1. Expedited Planning Entitlement 2. Density or Intensity Bonuses, such as Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR) bonues 3. Exemptions for Non-Conformities 4. Zoning Incentives 5. Condominium Conversion Assistance 6. Exemption from Future Retrofit Requirements 7. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR’s) 8. Permission to add units (such as in soft-story wood frame apartment construction) 9. Expedited Building Permitting 10. Technical Assistance Summary of Seismic Risk Assessment Study Key Findings Due the volume and depth of information provided in the April 17, 2017 staff report as well as the Seismic Risk Assessment Study, staff and our consultant have prepared a high level key findings. Staff recommends the City Council and community read the April 17, 2017 staff report and the Seismic Risk Assessment Study. 1. Thirty years later, Palo Alto’s existing mandatory evaluation, voluntary retrofit program has been largely successful at addressing buildings with URM load-bearing walls. 2. The modest scope of the existing program and lessons learned from seismic events since the program was adopted, means that we now believe there are vulnerable building types that have not been addressed. Five additional categories were identified from the Risk Assessment Study as meeting the criteria of being potentially hazardous and having a meaningful presence in Palo Alto. The decision whether to include some or all of these five categories in an expanded seismic retrofit program is an important policy decision. Based on an initial review, there are approximately 635 buildings located throughout the City, both residential and commercial uses, that may fall into these categories. 3. If no action is taken, losses in these buildings from a large nearby seismic event may be significant, on the order of $2 billion. That estimate does not include lives lost, economic disruption, loss of housing, emergency services costs, displacement or other effects. 4. Estimated losses could be reduced by up to one third to one half if all the identified vulnerable structures were retrofitted. For all five additional categories recommended for consideration, analysis of protype retrofitting strategies showed high likelihood of being cost-effective. In other words, losses avoided will exceed retrofit costs, in some categories by fourfold or more. This does not suggest that all of the retrofits would necessarily be financially feasible for current building owners, particularly in the absence of incentives and/or favorable financing terms. 5. Over the past ten years, an increasing number of California cities have expanded their seismic mitigation programs to address one or more of the five additional vulnerable building types identified in the Risk Assessment. In particular, five Bay Area cities (San Leandro, Fremont, Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco) have well-established mandatory City of Palo Alto Page 6 retrofit programs for soft-story wood frame buildings, which are typically multi-family residential or mixed use. Cities with newer programs include Los Angeles and West Hollywood. Several cities have also implemented or are actively considering ordinances for tilt-up and older concrete structures. 6. Most programs package together a variety of policy features and timelines that differ by building type(s) and priority tiers. Education, notification and appeal, evaluation, permit application and retrofit deadlines are implemented in phases during an overall timeframe ranging from two to 25 years. A variety of incentives can also be offered for some or all affected owners, but in fact, very few cities offer any kind of significant financial assistance beyond fee waivers. Resource Impact Implementation of future City Council action and development of an expanded Seismic Hazards and Identification program and ordinance would result in additional costs to private property owners. Attachment D is a table of financing tools provide by Rutherford + Chekene. Staff is not seeking Council input at this stage. Upon returning to Policy and Services Committee, staff will provide recommendations for possible financing strategies. Staff time from Development Services, Planning and Community Environment, Fire, Office of Emergency Services, and Public Works departments will continue to be needed. Additionally, consulting services to further define and verify the current inventory of vulnerable buildings; assess community, business and economic implications; and to determine scope of updates to local regulations, policies and procedures will be required. Staff will return to the Policy and Services Committee with funding recommendations. Environmental Review No environment review is necessary under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at this time, as staff is continuing to collect information for City Council action. Staff will conduct the appropriate level of environmental assessment may be required prior to adoption of updates to the City’s Seismic program. Attachments: Attachment A - Program Options and Building Types Attachment B - Types of Disclosure Approaches Attachment C - Types of Policy Incentives Attachment D - Types of Financial Tools Attachment E - 4-17-17 Staff Report Attachment F - Seismic Risk Assessment Study by Rutherford + Chekene Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 4 Summary of Recommended Policy Directions from the Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group Category Approx. Number Building Type Date of Construction Occupants Evaluation Report Voluntary, Triggered, or Mandatory Retrofit1 Deadlines for Evaluation Report and Retrofit Construction (years)2 Disclosure Potential Incentives Current Program (Potential Revision in Italics) I 10 Un- reinforced masonry NA Over 6 (and over 1,900 sf) Required Mandatory Report: Expired Construction: 2-4 Website listing and tenant notification Fee waiver, expedited permitting, FAR bonus/ transfer of development rights (TDR) II 4 Any Before 1/1/35 Over 100 Required Voluntary or Triggered Report: Expired Construction • Voluntary: Not required • Triggered: At sale or renovation III 9 Any Before 8/1/76 Over 300 Required Voluntary or Triggered Expanded Program IV 294 Soft-story wood frame Before 1977 Any Required Triggered or Mandatory Report: 2-4 Construction • Triggered: At sale or renovation • Mandatory: 4-6 Same as above Fee waiver, expedited permitting, TDR, parking exemptions, permission to add units V 99 Tilt-up Before 1998 Any Required Triggered or Mandatory Report: 2-4 Construction • Triggered: At sale or renovation • Mandatory: 4-6 Same as above Same as Categories I, II and III VI 37 Soft-story concrete Before 1977 Any Required Voluntary, Triggered or Mandatory Report: 2-4 Construction • Voluntary: Not required • Triggered: At sale or renovation • Mandatory: 6-8 Same as above Same as Categories I, II and III VII 35 Steel moment frame Before 1998 Any Required Voluntary, Triggered or Mandatory VIII TBD Other older nonductile concrete Before 1977 Any Not rec. at this time Not recommended at this time Report: NA Construction: NA NA NA 1Voluntary: Retrofit is voluntary. Triggered: Retrofit is triggered when the building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation. Mandatory: Retrofit is required per a fixed timeline. 2Deadlines provide a potential range. Timelines would vary depending on tiers or priority groupings of different subcategories. Attachment A Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 56 Table 4: Description of disclosure approaches used in local earthquake risk reduction programs. Name Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Mandatory Disclosure at Time of Sale Sellers of property are required to disclose features that could relate to earthquake performance. California Earthquake Fault Zone disclosure; Sellers of pre-1960 homes are required to fill out to the best of their knowledge and provide buyers with Residential Earthquake Hazards Report. Empowers buyers to be aware of any known existing hazard issues. Anecdotally, many buyers do not pay enough attention to these disclosures, which occur during emotional, busy decisionmaking periods. They may not seek expert information to interpret the reported information. It is also possible that sellers shirk on the disclosure requirements if buyers do not know that they are supposed to receive them. Difficult to enforce. Recorded Notice on Deed Jurisdictions can record on the property title or deed the fact that the building is subject to additional requirements related to its earthquake vulnerable status. For soft-story wood frame: Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco. Relatively low cost for jurisdictions to implement. Empowers buyers but also mortgage companies to be aware of any known existing hazard issues. Anecdotally, it is not clear how many buyers or mortgage companies pay attention to these notices. Such notices are primarily effective only at time of sale or refinance. Attachment B Table 4 (continued) Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 57 Name Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Public Listing of Affected Properties Jurisdictions that operate web sites to describe their programs can feature a full list of property addresses, potentially also including also the compliance status of the property. In general, owner names are not listed, though that information is available if a member of the public searched for it separately. For soft-story wood frame: Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco. Relatively low cost for jurisdictions to implement. Could be used by tenants and buyers when searching for properties, thus empowering well- informed market negotiations over pricing. Website information needs to be updated on a regular basis in order to be perceived as fair and useful. Public lists work better if the property addresses are searchable, rather than static (e.g., on a pdf). External Signage Jurisdictions that operate web sites to describe their programs can feature a full list of property addresses, potentially also including the compliance status of the property. Some lists are searchable, while others are static. California state requires a sign on all URM buildings. Similar signage has been required since 2007 on soft-story wood frame buildings in the City of Berkeley. Advocates argue that signs are justified based on the public's right to know. The physical presence and repeated viewing of signage may make the issue more salient for visitors, employees, lease holders, and owners alike. Owners may view the signs as stigmatizing or threatening to property value or business revenues, but anecdotally, it is not clear how much visitors, employees, residents, and other users of a building pay attention to signage when entering or leaving a property. Attachment B Table 4 (continued) Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 58 Name Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Tenant Notification Owners are required to present straightforward, standardized information about the listed status of the property. Some jurisdictions require proof of notification (e.g., tenant signature) to be returned and kept on file with the city. For soft-story wood frame: Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco. Tenant notification may be more influential than signage because it is personalized and the information is delivered at a useful time in that person's decision process. Advocates claim that tenant notification is justified based on the public's right to know. To be effective, tenant notification should be required to occur well before the potential tenant is ready to sign the lease. Earthquake Performance Rating Systems Owners can be either encouraged or required to have their building rated on a standardized scale that classifies expected building performance in an earthquake in an easier to understand format, for instance from one to five stars. Viable rating systems exist for many building types. The City of Los Angeles in 2015 officially launched a voluntary effort to encourage owners to rate their properties using the US Resiliency Council system and pledged to rate its own public buildings as well. Rating system use is common for institutions like universities and hospitals. Mechanisms for implementing performance ratings for commercial use have recently matured and are now viable. Ratings have the potential to inform owner, renter and buyer decisions, creating a market effect. Obtaining a rating potentially adds cost to a design project. Ratings systems such as USRC’s are relatively new and not yet widely implemented. Attachment B Policy Incentives Used in Local Earthquake Risk Reduction Programs. Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Density or Intensity Bonuses Specific increases in the maximum allowable building density or intensity to help offset the added costs of seismic upgrades. Palo Alto’s Floor Area Ratio bonus program. Owners that invest in a retrofit can expand their projects in order to increase future revenue. Typically,feasible only in areas of high growth. Sometimes controversial because of potential community impacts such as increased traffic, parking needs, and rental rates. Exemptions for Non‐ Conformities Relief from timelines or waivers of required work such as fire resistance upgrades and sprinklers, Title 24 energy analysis and upgrades, parking, setback or other current code measures that would otherwise be triggered by the size of the project being undertaken for projects involving qualifying retrofit work. None identified.Offering relief from what may be expensive rehabilitation of nonconforming uses can make seismic retrofits easier to design and more affordable. May be viewed as an excessive concession to owners among some members of the public. Attachment C Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Zoning Incentives Specific concessions regarding encroachment into setbacks, increased allowable floor/area ratios (FAR), height limits, or onsite parking requirements to help offset the added costs of seismic upgrades. Since 1986, Palo Alto allowed owners of included buildings in the downtown area to expand the floor area if the owner performed seismic upgrades. Buildings were also exempted from onsite parking requirements and fees for offsite parking. Useful when bond financing options are prohibitively costly or not much more attractive than private credit terms. Most likely to work when zoning plans in the community generally call for limited to no growth. Costs to the city are mainly in the form of technical and design cost review of proposed projects. Similarly‐situated properties must be treated alike so as to avoid claims of "spot zoning." Citizens may object to special treatment for work that could be seen as essential anyhow. Not likely to work in locations with little development pressure or where the community favors growth. Condominium Conversion Assistance Process expediting for condo conversion for properties that seismically retrofit. None identified.In jurisdictions where condo conversation rates are capped or allocated by lottery, offering priority to buildings that retrofit could be an effective tool to promote seismic upgrading of multifamily buildings. May negatively impact other housing affordability goals. Only available to owners that can afford it, unless accompanied by other assistance programs. Exemption from Future Retrofit Requirements Relief from imposition of future retrofit requirements for a certain period following completion of qualifying seismic work. The City of Berkeley offered a 15‐year exemption from future retrofit requirements for soft‐story wood frame properties that did a retrofit concurrent with its mandatory evaluation program. This can motivate owners to complete retrofit work sooner rather than later in order to reduce uncertainty about future city policies, and allows owners to better anticipate business expenses over a longer term. The jurisdiction could not easily impose new regulation on exempted properties, even if such policies became warranted by new technologies or knowledge. Attachment C Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) TDR allow owners to transfer unused development rights that are comparable to the value of the retrofit to another site. Very commonly used for historic preservation, including in Palo Alto. Useful when the use of the building in question is not likely to generate added value to justify the costs of the retrofit work. This is most useful when retrofit costs can be particularly high and there are natural or regulatory use restrictions. Careful analysis of construction costs is necessary to avoid situations of under‐ or over‐ compensation. Expedited Permits, Inspections, and Reviews Prioritization, expediting, or bypassing of certain internal protocols for over the counter permits and inspection processes for projects involving seismic retrofit work. Several Bay Area cities have anecdotally stated that this is their internal policy, but no official records of such were identified. This can relieve the burden of time and hassle for owners in getting permits and inspections, which are a significant source of cost and uncertainty for owners during retrofit projects. Requires flexibility on the part of city staff and plan check consultants. Technical Assistance Case‐management style assistance for owners and/or engineers during the process of obtaining financing, complying, permitting, and carrying out retrofit projects. This is different than engineering advice about how to resolve specific technical issues of design. Cities such as Berkeley have found it necessary to maintain additional staff to operate their mitigation programs. A significant portion of their staff time is devoted to owner and engineer consultation. Knowledgeable staff can help owners navigate complex issues such as investigating and applying for incentives (if offered), following guidelines, or addressing the necessary standards. Labor costs to the city for additional staff. Difficulty sustaining project funding and staff continuity over time. Attachment C Financial Tools Used in Local Earthquake Risk Reduction Programs. Financial Tools Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns General Obligation or Special District Bonds Direct provision of funds for qualifying retrofit work based on voter approval of issuance of new municipal or state debt to be repaid by taxation. This mechanism is commonly used for seismic improvements to infrastructure, but also has been used in URM building programs and for retrofit of historic properties. One URM example is the city of Long Beach, which offered 11.3% interest financing to participating members of a Special District created for URM building owners. Once passed, this type of funding can be distributed over time as provided for in the approved wording. Must be approved by two thirds of voters, which sets a high bar even if there is significant public support. Jurisdictions must administer the allocation of funds and have at times not been able to use all of it. Owner education about the provisions of the program is critical. Owners of highly leveraged buildings and buildings in depressed areas may be unable to meet prerequisite loan‐to‐ value ratio criteria. Retrofits are generally not revenue‐ generating improvements upon which financing can be leveraged. Grants Direct provision of funds for qualifying retrofit work. CEA's Earthquake Brace & Bolt program for single family homes. Some sources exist for city‐scale projects or privately‐owned buildings, such as FEMA Pre‐ Disaster Mitigation Grants. Limited sources exist. Programs can be difficult to manage administratively. Fairness concerns exist over which owners can benefit. Attachment D Financial Tools Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Property‐Assessed Financing Loans Also known as a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, this works as a loan to an individual property owner, transferrable to future owners, where the upfront costs of qualifying work are repaid over a period of approximately 20 years through the owner's property tax assessment. San Francisco's PACE program. Provides an upfront way for owners to access private capital to afford retrofit projects. The loan can be paid off over time through higher rents or at future sale, as well as being transferrable to future owners. Administratively complex for both jurisdictions and owners. Challenges include setting up this complex financing instrument which has heavy involvement of third parties, barriers to owners that want to refinance, and barriers to the transfer of a PACE‐financed properties to a new owner. Owners may not need it if affordable regular market capital is available. Lenders may resist allowing an additional lien. Tax Credits Waiver of a portion of a business, parcel, or income tax for a number of years to encourage owners to retrofit. Although vetoed by the Governor, the legislature of California passed AB 428 in 2015, which would have offered up to 30% credit for qualifying retrofit costs. The funding source can be outside the local jurisdiction, and depending on the clarity of program requirements, owners can count on the funds as part of planning their project. Owners would need to be aware of the credit and verify qualifying work and complete all follow up documentation. Mostly benefits owners already intending to retrofit and those with more financial and business sophistication. Attachment D Financial Tools Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Real Estate Transfer Tax Rebates Building owners can apply for a rebate of a fraction (usually 1/3, up to a cap) of the amount of the transfer tax owed to the city for a property at sale for any qualifying seismic improvement expenditures made within a certain period before or after transfer of title. This policy has existed in Berkeley since 1991 for residential dwellings up to four units and in San Francisco since 2008 for properties worth $5 million or more. In Berkeley, the program was immediately popular and eventually highly influential in increasing support for other earthquake policies because it touched so many community members and firmly established a tone that the city takes seismic risk seriously and will put its “money where its mouth is.” About half the single‐family homes and one third of the smaller rental buildings in Berkeley have claimed the credit, leading to widespread community awareness of seismic safety issues. The jurisdiction forgoes tax revenue. Anecdotally in Berkeley, city officials had no easy way to assess the quality of work done. Some experts suspect that some of the funds went to incomplete or improperly done retrofits. Waivers or Reductions of Building Department Fees Full waivers, fixed,or percentage‐based reductions of building permit fee reductions. The Jurisdictions of San Francisco, Berkeley, and Alameda have offered flat or waived plan check fees as an incentive for owners to retrofit their buildings. Oakland currently offers a flat permit fee of $250 for owners of qualified single‐ family residences to perform seismic retrofits. Modestly reduces the cost of a retrofit project. Easy for city to implement. Perceived by owners as a significant gesture of good will by owners, who may feel it is "the least the city could do." This measure has direct loss of revenue implications for the jurisdiction. Attachment D Financial Tools Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Pass Through of Retrofit Costs to Tenants For residential properties in jurisdictions with rent control laws in place, owners who seismically retrofit their buildings could be allowed to pass through all or a fraction the costs of these retrofits to renters in rent‐controlled units, amortized over a particular time period such as 10 years. Berkeley is 100% pass‐ through, San Francisco is 50%, and Oakland is %75. Perceived as fair by owners because tenants that benefit most from the retrofit work pay a share of it. Owners can use this anticipated source of revenue as a basis for securing a loan. Tenants with fixed or low incomes might suffer hardship with the added costs, although hardship provisions can lessen those effects. Special District or Historic Designation Tax Reductions Creation of Mello‐Roos, Mills Act, historic or other special districts that are then eligible for special loans, grants, or tax credits. For URM buildings, the jurisdictions of St. Helena and West Hollywood used Mello‐Roos funding. Provides a clear way for a local jurisdiction to provide direct funding or special financing rates for privately‐owned vulnerable properties. Can be difficult for jurisdictions to initiate and carry out. Owners must join the special district at the outset or will be left out of future funding availability. Attachment D City of Palo Alto (ID # 7095) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 4/17/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study Results Title: Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study Results From: City Manager Lead Department: Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION This is an Informational Report, no City Council action is required at this time. Staff recommends that the City Council review the Seismic Risk Assessment Study prepared by Rutherford + Chekene, structural engineers. The study includes input from City of Palo Alto’s Seismic Risk Management Advisory Group. Once Council is familiar with this study, staff will prepare to return for a study session and direction. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This informational item is intended to give the City Council advance background for an upcoming study session related to a Seismic Risk Assessment Study of vulnerable building construction in Palo Alto. In 2014, following the 6.0 magnitude earthquake in August 2014 in the Napa Valley and the Office of Emergency Service’s Threats and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Report, the Council directed staff to identify and prioritize buildings that pose a potential seismic hazard in Palo Alto; review ‘best practices’ used by other communities for addressing retrofit of seismically vulnerable buildings; and review current and pending State legislation addressing these building types. Rutherford + Chekene was selected to perform a comprehensive assessment of the expected performance of the City’s building stock in potential earthquakes, including a community engagement effort to help identify resiliency goals and associated mitigation policies and programs. Specific details about the report can be found in this staff report and attached consultant report. (Attachments B) In this staff report, staff has summarized the outcome of the Seismic Risk Assessment and the Advisory Group’s input on revisions to consider for the City’s Building and Zoning Ordinances. Some of the study recommendations have significant policy and cost implications that will require further study and Council review. All of these recommendations are discussed in this staff report and in the detailed technical reports attached. (Attachments B and G) Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 2 Next steps following council study session on this matter may include public outreach to educate the community on vulnerable buildings. Staff, with the help of consultants, will review potential incentives for retrofits and policies to minimize displacement of existing uses and tenants. Staff would return to the Council with a recommendation to revise the current seismic mitigation ordinance based on findings and community feedback. To be effective, there will need to be a plan for staffing the program. Finally, during the study session staff will also discuss potential policy implications such as displacement of existing building uses and tenants, incentives for voluntary building retrofits, and the effects these benefits might have on construction. BACKGROUND On September 15, 2014, the City Council directed staff to work with the Policy and Services Committee to address the following: A. Identification and prioritization of buildings that pose a potential hazard in an earthquake, including soft-story buildings and other types of construction B. Review of "best practices" from other cities regarding prioritization of various seismically vulnerable buildings, including retrofit incentives and requirements C. Review of current or pending State legislation related to soft-story buildings and other structurally deficient buildings Two events precipitated the Council’s direction: (1) the 6.0 magnitude earthquake on August 24, 2014, in Napa Valley and (2) the City Council’s review of the Office of Emergency Service’s Threats and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment report on September 15, 2014, which identified over 130 seismically vulnerable buildings. (Attachment C) <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43866> Current Code Provisions, Building Identification and Prioritization In 1986, the City Council adopted the Seismic Hazards and Identification Program codified at PAMC Section 16.42. (Attachment A) This ordinance established a mandatory evaluation and reporting program and created incentives for property owners primarily in the Downtown area to voluntarily upgrade their structurally deficient buildings. Three categories of buildings were identified, including: 1. Category I Buildings: Buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry (except for those smaller than 1,900 square feet with six (6) or fewer occupants). These buildings are located in the Downtown Commercial area. 2. Category II Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1935, containing one hundred (100) or more occupants. 3. Category III Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to August 1, 1976, containing three hundred (300) or more occupants. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 3 The categories used in 1986 were developed by a citizens’ committee, reviewed by staff and the Policy and Services Committee, and adopted by the City Council. These categories were created to record known URM buildings and other potentially structurally deficient buildings with relatively high numbers of occupants. This program identified 89 buildings and was successful in two significant ways. One hundred percent (100%) of the property owners complied with the ordinance and submitted engineering reports detailing structural deficiencies and recommendations to strengthen structures to alleviate the threat of collapse. Further, approximately seventy-four percent (74%), or sixty-six buildings, were strengthened, demolished, or proposed to be demolished. See (Attachment D) for current status of all inventoried properties. Part of this success may be attributed to incentives that allowed upfront engineering report costs be applied toward permit fees and the ability for property owners in the Downtown Commercial (CD) district to add up to 2,500 square feet of new floor area, or twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing building area, whichever is greater, to the site without having to provide additional parking. This floor area bonus could be used onsite or transferred to another owner or property in the Downtown Commercial district. Approximately twenty- one (21) property owners took advantage of this incentive. Despite its successes, twenty-three (23) buildings identified from that original inventory remain vulnerable. Further, there are other building types in the City that were not surveyed prior to adoption of the 1986 ordinance. For example, problems with soft story wood-frame construction were documented following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, which resulted in changes to construction industry standards a few years later. In 2003, the Collaborative for Disaster Mitigation at San Jose State University completed an “Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings in Santa Clara County.” According to the report, the City of Palo Alto had 130 soft story multi-family buildings including 1,263 residential units housing 3,158 occupants. Other construction types of concern that were not surveyed in 1986 include non-ductile concrete buildings, older steel moment frame buildings, and older concrete tilt-up buildings, in addition to soft story wood-frame construction. The City’s existing ordinance requires annual reporting to the City Council on the status of the program. This reporting appears to have ended in 2004 for unknown reasons. More recently, the City Council adopted an ordinance (Attachment E - update to ORD 5356) modifying the seismic incentive so that parking must now be provided if an owner seeks to add 2,500 square feet or 25% of the total building area in the CD District. Policy and Services Recommendation and Council Authorization On December 9, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee of the Palo Alto City Council Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 4 recommended the City Council authorize a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop information for use in updating the City’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program (Ordinance 3666). See Staff Report 5293 “Discussion of Updating the Seismic Safety Chapter of the Municipal Code for Hazardous Buildings” (Attachment D). The City Council approved the recommendation and an RFP was prepared. A consulting team led by Rutherford + Chekene was selected to: A. Develop summarize relevant state and local seismic mitigation legislation B. Obtain detailed information on Palo Alto’s existing building stock C. Develop conceptual retrofits for vulnerable building types D. Make loss estimates of expected damage to current and retrofitted building E. Work with a City advisory group to develop policy recommendations for consideration by the Council. A stakeholder Advisory Group was convened and was an essential element in discussing earthquake risks in Palo Alto’s existing building stock prepared by the consultant team and in reviewing policy alternatives. Members included people with a range of relevant expertise and interests, including interested citizens, earthquake risk and engineering experts, local developers and owners, and representatives of various community groups. City departments also participated in the Advisory Group, including Building, Planning, Fire, Office of Emergency Services, and Public Works. See Attachment F for a list of Advisory Group members. City Policy Implications Currently, the City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. In its Goal statements, this document expresses the community’s vision for its future. Further, in its policies, the Plan defines the appropriate actions to implement the vision. The Seismic Risk Assessment Study’s findings and its guiding conclusions informed by the Seismic Risk Management Advisory Group are integral to several key elements of the Comprehensive Plan: the Safety Element, the Housing Element, and the approach to, and needs for, coordinated Community Emergency Services. Policies being considered in the Comprehensive Plan Safety Element support regular review and update of the City’s seismic retrofit regulations. Although focused on multiple family and commercial structures, the seismic risk assessment identifies both the type of seismically vulnerable structures and the geographic areas in the community that will be most affected by a major earthquake. To gage the impact, the study looked at the cost of retrofitting each type of structure. It also evaluated the community impact of the aftermath of a major earthquake in terms of loss of property and effect on the City’s economy. Palo Alto is currently participating with the other cities in the County in updating the State and Federally mandated five-year update of the Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 5 Plan (Santa Clara LHMP) as required by the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This plan is required before Palo Alto can request FEMA assistance following a natural disaster. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan focuses on community mitigations to fire, flood and earthquake events. The data in the Seismic Risk Assessment Study will be useful as a tool to inform the Santa Clara LHMP about the City’s needs in the event of a major earthquake. The Council’s subsequent direction on revising of the City’s seismic renovation requirements will be integrated into Palo Alto’s mitigations outlined in the Santa Clara LHMP plan. The Seismic Risk Assessment Study and its implementation have important implications for both City and emergency planning policy. First and foremost, the study provides valuable information for the development of the City’s long range planning policy expressed in the Comprehensive Plan in areas of community safety, housing, and coordination of community services, which also includes community education and neighborhood volunteers. It also provides information that can be used to refine the community’s vision regarding its residents’ wellbeing and improve its preparedness for a major seismic event by addressing risk to loss of life and property associated with vulnerable building types. The information can also improve the community’s ability to recover from a major seismic event including displacement of residents and businesses, loss of housing and commercial buildings and community wide economic impacts and recovery. Other policy implications involve the potential for displacement of existing uses and tenants if building owners need to remove the uses/tenants to upgrade their buildings or if they increase rents to cover the cost of engineering studies and retrofit work, and the how this displacement can be minimized. Also, potential incentives for voluntary building retrofits may need to be considered along with changes to the existing zoning incentives (Transfer of Development Rights program) that grant bonus square footage to buildings that are retrofitted downtown, and the potential impacts/benefits that might result from new incentives or modifications. SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT STUDY The risk assessment carried out by R+C included a series of task reports. They have been combined into one composite report as Attachment B and include surveys of state and local seismic policies and practices, an inventory of buildings in Palo Alto, a summary of vulnerable building categories, conceptual seismic retrofitting of representative vulnerable buildings, loss estimates for the current condition of the building stock and if buildings are retrofit, a review of past seismic retrofits in Palo Alto from selected City records, and a discussion of additional recommended program features for an improved seismic risk mitigation program. Table 1 summarizes the outcome of the seismic risk assessment and includes the Advisory Group discussions. The table is organized around eight vulnerable building categories or building types. Categories I, II and III encompass the identified vulnerable buildings for the Attachment E Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 7 Figure 1: Category IV, Wood-frame Soft Story Building built before 1977 Earthquake Damage Figure 2: Category I, Unreinforced Masonry Building Earthquake Damage Figure 3: Category I, Unreinforced Masonry Building Earthquake Damage Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 8 Survey of State and Local Seismic Policies The risk assessment study includes two reports that address (1) a detailed review of the seismic risk management policy context within the State of California including relevant State legislation, and (2) the status of local seismic safety and mitigation programs. Development of the reports included searches of legislative data bases, search and review of published and online reports and materials, phone interviews with community leaders as well as local and State government staff, and development of insights from the consulting team based on their experiences in this arena. The two reports were discussed at Advisory Group meetings and helped inform the development of potential seismic risk management policies relevant to Palo Alto. State Level Policy Review The report on State level risk mitigation policies provides review of relevant historic and pending State legislation related to seismic risk mitigation of vulnerable buildings. High level legislative findings from the report include the following: A. Palo Alto is affected by numerous relevant California existing laws and regulations dating from the 1930s through the present. These laws regulate many aspects of Palo Alto’s built environment, including certain classes of building uses such as hospitals, public schools, and essential facilities; setting code minimums for new construction; and mandating land use planning and real estate disclosure measures for natural hazards including earthquakes. Unreinforced masonry (URM) is at present the only structural system type for which the State requires local jurisdictions to have a program. B. If it so chooses, Palo Alto has wide authority to expand or strengthen its approaches to seismic mitigation. The power to do more about earthquake vulnerabilities is primarily in the hands of the local jurisdictions that have significant discretion in the kinds of policies they can adopt. C. Palo Alto has many additional actions it can take to make sure it is complying and taking greatest possible advantage of State level regulations and opportunities. In particular, opportunities exist now to align a new seismic program with two ongoing mandated planning efforts the City is already engaged in: Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan update and the Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update. Based on what state laws allow and in some cases recommend policy directions Palo Alto could pursue going forward include the following: A. Implement measures to increase the effectiveness of its current program, for instance by offering additional or larger incentives or devoting more resources to program visibility and implementation B. Expand the City’s current voluntary seismic mitigation programs to address additional building types, uses, or sizes Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 9 C. Add mandatory screening or evaluation measures for one or more vulnerable building types such as soft-story wood frame or concrete buildings D. Upgrade the City’s current voluntary URM program to make retrofitting mandatory E. Create a program that mandates seismic retrofits for one or more additional (non-URM) vulnerable building types F. Craft a program that combines any or all of the above measures. Local precedents for all of these types of approaches exist G. Continue the status quo current program Local Program Best Practice Assessment The local program best practices assessment report reviews current practices among local jurisdictions and agencies that require seismic retrofitting. The report summarizes what has been done legislatively and programmatically to increase awareness, assess, and motivate mitigation of seismically vulnerable buildings. Palo Alto is currently laying a solid foundation for future program development by investing in new inventory and risk information as well as community outreach and internal staff discussions. In doing so, it is joining a group of leading California coastal jurisdictions such as Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles that have recently stepped up their earthquake risk reduction efforts. San Leandro and Fremont have also had policies in place for over a decade. While there is much learning and information sharing going on, each jurisdiction has developed their own customized policy package. There is no single best model that Palo Alto can straightforwardly adopt. Existing local approaches differ widely in the following ways: A. Policy mechanisms used to achieve progress B. Scope of targeted building types or uses addressed C. Prioritization for retrofit among vulnerable structures and compliance timeframes D. Types of incentives offered to property owners E. Disclosure measures used to increase public awareness Policy Mechanisms The policy mechanisms being used by other jurisdictions range from inventory only with no subsequent requirements to mandatory retrofit completion in under five years. In between are more gradual approaches such as voluntary retrofit advocacy, incentives, provisions that make building deficiencies more visible to the public (disclosure measures), and mandatory screening and evaluation requirements. An important policy decision is whether any mandated actions are implemented on a fixed timeline or triggered at sale or at some renovation cost threshold. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 10 Scope of targeted building types and characteristics The most commonly addressed building type is unreinforced masonry (URM) construction due to state law SB 547, passed in 1986. Over half of URM building programs in the state require mandatory retrofit, often but not always, with a time frame on the order of ten to twenty years. By 2006, seventy percent of all identified URM buildings statewide were either demolished or retrofitted. Retrofit rates on average were three times higher in jurisdictions with mandatory retrofit compared to voluntary programs. Jurisdictions used a wide variety of both financial and policy incentives to assist URM building owners. Some voluntary URM building programs coupled with incentives, including Palo Alto’s, have achieved similar rates of success to mandatory programs. More recent programs have focused on soft-story wood frame multi-family residential buildings, including ten Bay Area jurisdictions and, most recently, Los Angeles as of 2015. Soft-story wood frame building programs range in requirements from notification only to mandatory retrofit. Several jurisdictions have innovatively used intermediate mandatory screening and evaluation phases to further assess risk exposure and determine the final set of buildings that will be affected by retrofit requirements. Soft-story wood frame programs have largely been supported in the local community. Compliance timeframes in soft-story wood frame programs tend to be short, on the order of two to seven years. A comparatively small number of Southern California jurisdictions have acted to address older concrete buildings, including Los Angeles, Burbank, Santa Monica, and Long Beach. Non-ductile concrete frame and tilt-up concrete structures, in particular, are known to pose serious risks. Programs aimed at older concrete buildings range from voluntary guidelines to mandatory evaluation and full retrofit requirements. Timeframes on mandatory retrofit of older concrete buildings vary greatly, from years to decades. Information about the implementation and outcomes of these few programs is very limited. Incentives To complement program compliance requirements, jurisdictions can offer either financial or policy oriented incentives. Financial incentives in increasing order of cost and implementation difficulty include: waivers or reductions of building department fees, pass through of retrofit costs to tenants (in jurisdictions with rent control), property-assessed financing loads, subsidized or special term loans, real estate transfer tax rebates, special district or historic designation tax reductions, tax credits, grants, and general obligation bonds. Program incentives in order of increasing difficulty include exemption from future retrofit requirements, expedited reviews, exemption or relief from standards or non- conforming conditions, condominium conversion assistance, technical assistance for retrofitting, zoning incentives, transfer of development rights, and density or intensity bonus such as a floor area or floor area ratio bonus. Jurisdictions vary widely in the extent and type of incentives offered, and many offer a number of different types of incentives. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 11 Disclosure Measures Public disclosure provides a powerful mechanism for influencing the opinions and actions of owners, renters, and buyers, particularly in programs without mandatory retrofitting requirements. Officially publicizing a city’s concerns about deficiencies of a specific building type could, for instance, change public opinion about the resale or rental value of listed properties, an owner’s eligibility for refinancing or future loan terms, or the cost of purchasing property and earthquake insurance. Jurisdictions have used a variety of techniques to motivate attention to seismic risk concerns. Disclosure measures include the following: A. Mandatory disclosure at time of sale: Sellers of property are required to disclose features that could relate to earthquake performance. B. Recorded notice on deed: Jurisdictions can record on the property title or deed, the fact that the building is subject to additional requirements related to its seismic vulnerability status. C. Public listing of affected properties: Jurisdictions that operate web sites to describe their programs can feature a full list of property addresses and the compliance status of the property. Generally, owner names are not listed. D. External signage: California law requires signage on all URM buildings. Similar signage has been required since 2007 on soft-story wood frame buildings in the City of Berkeley and non-complying soft-story wood frame buildings in San Francisco. E. Tenant notification: Owners are required to present straightforward, standardized information about the listed status of the property. F. Earthquake performance rating systems: Owners can be either encouraged or required to have their building rated on a standardized scale that classifies expected performance in an earthquake. In 2015, the City of Los Angeles launched a voluntary effort to encourage owners to rate the properties using the US Resiliency Council’s rating system and pledged to rate its own public buildings. For more information about the US Resiliency Council, see their website at <http://www.usrc.org/>. Palo Alto Options Based on the review of state and other jurisdiction policies, alternative program options for Palo Alto were identified: 1. Status Quo: In this option, the existing ordinance with its mandatory evaluation, voluntary retrofit approach remains in place without changes. Floor area ratio bonuses are (were) available and could continue to be offered. 2. Increase Number of Building Types Regulated, but Retrofit Remains Voluntary: Additional categories of structures are added to the mandatory evaluation requirements beyond those of the current ordinance. These could include any or Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 12 all of the building types discussed above, potentially also using additional location, use, or occupancy criteria. 3. Increase Number of Building Types Regulated with Additional Disclosure Measures Incorporated: This option would be similar to Option 2, but with increased use of disclosure measures such as prominently posting the building list on the City website, notifying tenants, requiring signage, and/or recording notice on the property title. 4. Increase Number of Building Types Regulated, Some Building Types Have Voluntary Retrofit and a Few Building Types Have Mandatory Retrofit, with Enforcement by a Trigger Threshold: This option builds on Option 3, but retrofitting would be required for some building types at whenever future time a building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation above a set threshold. 5. Increase Number of Building Types Regulated, Retrofits for Some Categories are Voluntary and a Few Categories are Mandatory, with Enforcement by a Fixed Timeline: This option would be similar to Option 4, but retrofitting is required according to a fixed timeline. Timelines and enforcement emphasis could vary depending on tiers or priority groupings to motivate prompt action for the most vulnerable or socially important structures. 6. Increase Number of Building Types Regulated, but More Categories are Required to Have Mandatory Retrofits: This alternative is similar to Option 5, but retrofitting would be required for additional categories on a fixed timeline. Other Program Features and Implementation Factors By updating its current ordinance, Palo Alto has a variety of opportunities to expand and better link its earthquake mitigation program efforts to other City efforts in support of community resilience goals. For instance, Palo Alto could encourage a building occupancy and resumption program like San Francisco, encourage or fund installation of strong motion instruments, or pursue special programs or requirements for cell phone towers, facades, private schools, and/or post-earthquake shelter facilities. A detailed description of several leading local program models and planning resources for these types of efforts are included in Attachment B. Building Inventory Summary of Survey Methodology One of the first steps in the Seismic Risk Assessment Study was to develop a digital inventory of buildings in Palo Alto that includes all the information necessary to build the exposure model for the loss estimate. Information sources used to develop the inventory included county tax assessor files, City GIS files, a survey done by the Palo Alto Fire Department and San Jose State University of soft-story wood frame buildings, field notes from the building department files of selected buildings when the 1986 ordinance was being developed, Google Earth and Street View visual reviews, and an extensive visual sidewalk survey. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 13 After the sidewalk surveys and additional quality assurance refinements, the study identified a total of 2,632 buildings in the study group for Palo Alto. This included 66 buildings subject to Palo Alto’s current seismic mitigation ordinance, because 23 of the original 89 buildings subject to the ordinance have been demolished. Not all buildings were field surveyed and not all key attributes needed for loss estimation were available for all buildings. For buildings that were not surveyed and were missing information, the missing attributes were developed using statistical comparisons with buildings that were surveyed on a sector- by- sector basis. A multi-step procedure was developed to fill in other missing attributes based on the best available comparative information. As a result, while the information for buildings that were not surveyed may not be fully accurate at the individual building level, the overall data set is seen as sufficiently representative for the type of loss estimates used in the project and relative comparisons made between different building types that are discussed ahead. Replacement Cost Values for Palo Alto In addition to the information discussed above, a locally-customized replacement cost had to be established for each building. Standard 2014 RS Means Replacement Cost values included in the project loss estimation software (Hazus) used were reviewed as a starting point, but not considered representative for Palo Alto. R+C and Vanir Construction Management prepared adjustments to RS Means values to capture 2016 data and local factors unique to Palo Alto. These were reviewed by a task group of the City’s project Advisory Group that included local design professionals and developers familiar with the local cost climate. The group recommended an increase of the values in general and identified target values for selected common occupancies. Based on these recommendations, R+C updated the values and Vanir reviewed them and revised the non-targeted occupancies for estimating consistency. The resulting replacement costs are shown in Table 2, and were used in the loss calculations. It is noted that resulting costs are 1.7-2.6 times the RS Means-based Hazus default values (2014 cost data), and that costs are intended to be representative of averages across the town. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 14 Table 2: Average $/SF replacement building cost by Hazus occupancy class. Occupancy Class RS Means 2014 Average Palo Alto Cost1 [$/SF] Market Factor for Palo Alto Escalation Factor from 2014 costs to 2016 costs Demo & Minimal Sitework (5’ around building) [$/SF] Soft Cost Premium2 Average 2016 Palo Alto Cost w/ Soft Costs [$/SF] Multiplier (Replaced with Soft Costs / RS Means) Multi Family, duplex $130.75 40% 10% $17.50 20% $263 2.01 Multi Family, triplex/quad $114.94 40% 10% $17.50 20% $233 2.03 Multi Family, 5-9 units $206.41 40% 10% $17.50 20% $402 1.95 Multi Family, 10-19 units $194.12 40% 10% $17.50 20% $380 1.96 Multi Family, 20-49 units $212.26 40% 10% $17.50 20% $413 1.95 Multi Family, 50+ units $199.90 40% 10% $17.50 20% $390 1.95 Temporary Lodging $217.83 40% 10% $17.50 20% $424 1.94 Institutional Dormitory $234.44 50% 14% $25.00 20% $511 2.18 Nursing Homes $238.07 50% 12% $25.00 20% $510 2.14 Retail Trade $121.66 80% 10% $17.50 20% $310 2.55 Wholesale Trade $118.13 60% 10% $17.50 20% $$270 2.29 Personal & Repair Services $143.47 60% 10% $17.50 20% $324 2.26 Professional/Technical/ Business Services $194.52 65% 12% $17.50 20% $452 2.33 Banks $281.88 40% 12% $25.00 20% $560 1.99 Hospitals $372.59 50% 14% $35.00 20% $807 2.16 Medical Office/Clinics $267.85 20% 10% $17.50 20% $445 1.66 Entertainment/Recreation $248.61 25% 12% $25.00 20% $448 1.80 Theaters $186.45 35% 12% $25.00 20% $368 1.98 Parking $84.59 20% 10% $17.50 20% $155 1.83 Heavy $144.71 25% 10% $17.50 20% $260 1.80 Light $118.13 25% 10% $17.50 20% $216 1.83 Food/Drugs/Chemicals $229.48 30% 12% $17.50 20% $422 1.84 Metal/Minerals Processing $229.48 30% 12% $17.50 20% $422 1.84 High Technology $229.48 40% 14% $17.50 20% $461 2.01 Construction $118.13 30% 10% $17.50 20% $224 1.89 Church $118.13 50% 12% $25.00 20% $268 2.27 Agriculture $199.08 10% 12% $17.50 20% $315 1.58 General Services $152.63 40% 10% $17.50 35% $341 2.23 Emergency Response $259.52 40% 14% $25.00 35% $593 2.28 Schools/Libraries $193.00 40% 12% $25.00 35% $442 2.29 Colleges/Universities $214.91 60% 12% $25.00 35% $554 2.58 Notes: 1. RS Means average cost includes RS Means default location factors to adjust national average to Palo Alto of 15% for residential and 11% for commercial. 2. Soft costs include architect and engineer design fees, testing and inspection, utility connection fee, permits, and an allowance for owner change order contingency. 3. Costs are intended to be representative of average in Palo Alto across the town, including downtown areas together with other areas in the city. 4. Costs were previously prepared following a 3/7/2016 discussion with the Palo Alto Seismic Risk Program Advisory Group Technical Advisory Committee. Table includes minor updates based on internal review between Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 15 Rutherford + Chekene and Vanir Construction Management to achieve improved relative ratios between different occupancy types. Number and Distribution of Vulnerable Buildings by Aggregate Size and Value Table 3 shows how the number and aggregate value of Palo Alto’s buildings is distributed by type of structure, using the FEMA Model Building Type classification system for structural system. The table is sorted by aggregate building value. Wood frame buildings make up about 60% of the number of buildings and represent 35% of the total value. About 20% of the buildings are concrete, and they represent over 40% of the total value. Of the remaining 20%, about two-thirds are masonry buildings, and one-third steel. However, the steel buildings represent about twice the value of the masonry buildings. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 16 Table 3: Distribution of number of buildings, building area, and building value by Model Building Type. Model Building Type Number of Buildings Aggregate Square Feet (1,000) Aggregate Building Value ($M) Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 9,699 4,082 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 8,054 3,368 Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 331 8,403 3,232 Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 307 6,209 2,369 Steel braced frame (S2) 50 3,116 1,391 Wood frame smaller residential (W1) 898 3,821 1,278 Steel moment frame (S1) 75 3,005 1,242 Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 285 2,806 1,209 Reinforced masonry, concrete floor (RM2) 30 574 211 Steel light metal frame (S3) 41 533 177 Precast concrete frame (PC2) 5 334 125 Concrete moment frame (C1) 18 325 117 Steel frame with concrete shear walls (S4) 13 162 72 Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM) 9 274 15 Concrete with masonry infill (C3) 8 26 8 Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 2 6 3 Totals 2,632 47,346 18,899 The study group of buildings can be further divided into age groups separated by significant milestones in building code implementation. The following age groups were selected: pre-1927, 1927-1961, 1962-1976, 1977-1997, and 1998 to present. The milestones reflected include the first earthquake code in Palo Alto in 1926, adoption of the 1961 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and associated more stringent design requirements, code changes in the 1976 UBC following the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, and code changes in the 1998 UBC following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Figure 1 shows a histogram of the year built of the buildings in the study group. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 17 Figure 1: Distribution of year built of buildings in study group with significant changes in the building design practice. Vulnerable Building Categories One of the important tasks in the risk assessment study was to identify potentially vulnerable building categories specific to Palo Alto. Using the building inventory that was developed early in the project, R+C identified potentially vulnerable structural system types based on insights from past earthquake events, milestone improvements in seismic code requirements made in Palo Alto, rankings in prominent seismic risk assessment tools such as the 2015 edition of FEMA P-154 Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, results from past seismic risk assessment studies in California communities, and engineering judgment. The building categories were then evaluated in analytical loss estimate studies, described ahead, which helped to narrow in on the most important categories for Palo Alto. Key building vulnerability metrics include the risk of deaths and injuries, the cost of damage, and the extent of downtime or loss of use. Buildings in the identified vulnerable building categories tend to perform poorly with respect to all three of these metrics though the relative degree of vulnerability to each factor varies. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 18 Community Resilience Community resilience is improved if residents have homes that remain usable after an earthquake and if businesses can still operate. From a program perspective, the consultant team and advisory group believe that the greatest reduction in losses and the largest benefit to community resilience will come from seismically retrofitting building types known to be both potentially hazardous and present in significant numbers in Palo Alto. . In addition to the three categories already in Palo Alto’s seismic hazard identification ordinance (Categories I, II, and III below), five additional categories of vulnerable building types were identified. All five categories meet the criteria of being potentially hazardous and having a significant presence in Palo Alto. The eight categories and the approximate number of buildings included in each category are as follows: 1. Category I: Constructed of unreinforced masonry, except for those small than 1,900 square feet with six or few occupants (10 remaining buildings in Palo Alto) 2. Category II: Constructed prior to January 1, 1935 containing 100 or more occupants (4 remaining buildings) 3. Category III: Constructed prior to August 1, 1976 containing 300 or more occupants (9 remaining buildings) 4. Category IV: Pre-1977 soft-story wood frame (294 buildings) 5. Category V: Pre-1998 tilt-up concrete (99 buildings) 6. Category VI: Pre-1977 concrete soft-story (37 buildings) 7. Category VII: Pre-1998 steel moment frame (35 buildings) 8. Category VIII: Other pre-1977 concrete construction (170 buildings) The technical assessment confirms that the potential reduction in losses from retrofitting is significant for these categories. Conceptual Seismic Retrofitting of Representative Vulnerable Buildings Retrofit was considered for all buildings that have not already been retrofitted and were either constructed before 1961 or between 1962 and the “benchmark” year with a soft story. A “benchmark” year is when the code requirements for that building type became similar to those currently in place. Consistent with typical practice, the performance of the retrofitted buildings in an earthquake is assumed to be less than that of newly constructed buildings. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 19 For estimating the cost of retrofit for the improved buildings, R+C developed conceptual designs for Model Building Types that represent a significant number and value of Palo Alto’s building stock, as well as a significant loss and loss reduction after retrofit. This process identified wood frame (W1, W1A, W2), steel moment frame (S1), concrete shear wall (C2), concrete tilt-up (PC1), and reinforced masonry (RM1) and unreinforced masonry (URM) as appropriate candidates. For each Model Building Type, the age, square footage and number of stories were reviewed to identify a “prototype” building. In cases where the prototype building was not representative of more than two-thirds of the total number of buildings, multiple prototypes were considered. Figure 2: Retrofit scheme for Large Multi-family Soft-Story Wood Frame Building. An example of a conceptual retrofit for the W1A prototype building is shown in Figure 2 from a 2000 brochure by R+C for the City of San Jose entitled “Practical Solutions for Improving the Seismic Performance of Buildings with Tuck-under Parking.” The retrofit elements were keyed to representative details in 2006 FEMA 547 Techniques for the Seismic Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 20 Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, and a written description of collateral impacts was developed as well to provide sufficient detail to allow a rough order of magnitude cost estimate to be prepared. The cost estimators of Vanir Construction Management used the conceptual designs to estimate a range of probable cost to implement the retrofits. The retrofit costs for each prototype building are shown in Table 4. These costs include hard costs, which are the costs the owner pays the contractor, plus a design contingency since these are conceptual retrofits. The estimate further includes soft costs, representing architect and engineer design fees, testing and inspection costs, permit fees, and an owner change order contingency. Considered costs do not include hazardous material abatement, costs associated with performing the work while occupants are using the building, triggered accessibility upgrades, cost premiums associated with retrofit of a historic building, tenant relocation or business interruption during construction, project management, renovation, financing, repair of existing conditions, and legal fees. These costs are more variable and project and site specific, and are typically not included in loss estimates for this type of study. The retrofit costs were extrapolated to Model Building Types not represented by a prototype retrofit as shown in the fifth column of Table 4. Additional information the conceptual retrofits and their estimate cost is contained in Attachment B. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 21 Table 4: Conceptual retrofit cost. Retrofit Prototype Model Building Type Stories Square Feet Used for Model Building Types Used for Square Feet Average Retrofit Cost ($/SF) 1 Wood frame smaller residential (W1) 2 5,320 W1 All 12 2 Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 2 9,500 W1A < 15,000 11 3 Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 3 30,000 W1A ≥ 15,000 6 4 Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 2 10,000 W2 All 14 5 Steel moment frame (S1) 2 43,900 S1, S2, S3 All 10 6 Concrete shear wall (C2) 1 5,000 C1, C2, S4, PC2 < 10,000 50 7 Concrete shear wall (C2) 2 17,280 C1, C2, S4, PC2 ≥ 10,000 40 8 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 1 18,435 PC1 < 25,000 29 9 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 2 38,400 PC1 ≥ 25,000 21 10 Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 1 2,750 RM1, RM2 < 5,000 74 11 Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 2 8,150 RM1, RM2 ≥ 5,000 46 12 Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM) 1 5,000 URM, S5, C3 All 110 Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 22 Loss Estimate Findings for Current Condition Hazus is a geographic information system (GIS) based, standardized, nationally applicable multi-hazard loss estimation methodology and software tool. It is used by local, state, and federal government officials for preparedness, emergency response, and mitigation planning. The Advanced Engineering Building Module from the latest Hazus version 3.1 was used to conduct the loss estimates in the study so that individual buildings could be analyzed using the specific inventory data collected for Palo Alto. Analyses were conducted for two specific earthquake scenarios developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS): a major M7.9 San Andreas Fault event, and a strong M6.7 San Andreas Fault event. Contour plots for the short period spectral acceleration for the two M6.7 and M7.9 scenarios are shown in Figure 3. Spectral acceleration is a measure of the building response to shaking at the site. Figure 2: Predicted short period spectral acceleration in vicinity of Palo Alto (city boundary shown) for two selected San Andreas Fault scenarios. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 23 Estimated Losses for Buildings in Their Current Condition Table 5 summarizes the total loss calculated by Hazus for the as-is condition for the two earthquake scenarios. The results show that the estimated losses to Palo Alto buildings and contents in a M6.7 scenario will be significant, on the order of $1.2 billion. Though ground shaking in the M7.9 scenario is only about 25% larger than it is in the M6.7 scenario, overall building and content losses double to $2.4 billion. Average building damage and content damage also approximately double with a M7.9 event. The difference in the number of buildings that are heavily damaged with the larger earthquake is more pronounced with a 12-fold increase from the M6.7 to the M7.9 scenarios. This is shown in the fourth column of Table 5 as the number of buildings with a damage ratio exceeding 20%. Table 5: Total losses for study group in as-is condition. Earthquake Scenario Building Value1 ($B) Content Value2 ($B) Number of Bldgs. with Damage Ratio ≥ 20%3 Estimated Building Damage4 ($B) Estimated Content Damage4 ($B) Total Building and Content Damage ($B) M7.9 18.9 17.3 224 1.7 0.7 2.4 M6.7 18.9 17.3 19 0.8 0.4 1.2 Ratio of M7.9/M6.7 2 2 2 Notes: 1. Building value is the complete replacement cost for the building, and includes the structure, architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components (e.g., ceilings and lighting). 2. Content value includes the complete replacement cost of furniture and equipment that is not integral with the structure (e.g., computers and other supplies). They are estimated as a percent of structure replacement value, dependent on occupancy. 3. Damage ratio is defined as the cost of repairing damage divided by the replacement cost of the building. 4. Estimated building and content damage cost is the cost associated with repair and replacement of the building and its content. To put the loss from building damage in context, the average annual valuation of Palo Alto construction permits was $400M between 2013 and 2016 (which represents a boom period). The total loss of $1.7B in a major M7.9 earthquake represents more than four years’ worth of construction, and the total loss of $0.8B in a strong M6.7 earthquake represents more than two years’ worth of construction. It should be noted that these losses do not include the effects of lives lost and business disruption, or the ripple effects in the local economy or real estate market. Much of this loss will not be insured. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 24 Estimated Losses by Building Type It is important to look at multiple metrics when deciding which buildings are the most vulnerable and significant to the community as a whole. Table 6 breaks out the estimated loss and damage ratio for various model building types, and it can be seen that it depends on the metric used which building type is considered the poorest performer. Looking at the total loss alone, concrete bearing wall buildings and commercial wood frame buildings are responsible for the highest total loss. This tracks well with the earlier finding that these structural systems are the most prevalent ones. If we look at the highest average building damage ratio instead, buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls and unreinforced masonry infills are the most prone to damage. However, not very many of them exist in Palo Alto, and as a result they do not represent much of the aggregate loss. Additional information on the loss estimate for the existing building stock is contained in Attachment B. Table 6: Top three vulnerable building types ranked by total loss, average damage ratio, and number of severely damaged buildings. Building Type Number of Buildings Building Value ($M) M7.9 EQ Total Building + Content Losses ($M) M7.9 EQ Average Building Damage Ratio M7.9 EQ Number of Bldgs. with Damage Ratio ≥ 20% Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 4,082 477 14% 75 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 3,368 365 12% 32 Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 307 2,369 216 9% 9 Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 2 3 1 38% 1 Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM) 9 15 4 29% 9 Concrete frame with masonry infill (C3) 8 8 2 29% 6 Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 4,082 477 14% 75 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 3,368 365 12% 32 Steel moment frame (S1) 75 1,242 130 18% 27 Loss Estimate Findings with Buildings Retrofitted A second Hazus AEBM run was done assuming a retrofitted building stock. For this model run, it was assumed that a building would be retrofitted if it has not already been retrofitted and was either constructed before 1961 or between 1962 and the benchmark year with a soft story. The Hazus model was rerun with the updated properties simulating retrofit. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 25 Table 7 shows the resulting total losses and damage ratios after buildings have been retrofitted. Though total losses are still significant, comparing the results of Table 7 with Table 5 shows a reduction in total loss of 45% for the M7.9 scenario, and 33% for the M6.7 scenario. In other words, aggregate loss to the community if all considered properties were retrofit could be reduced by one third in a very plausible event and almost halved in a much larger event. Another important improvement is the reduction of the number of buildings with more than 20% damage. The M7.9 scenario shows a reduction from 224 buildings to 6 buildings. This means that the probability of building collapse and resulting injuries and fatalities has become very low. Finally, the damage and loss of the M7.9 scenario remain approximately two times the amount of loss sustained in the M6.7 scenario. This suggests that the retrofit has a similar impact for both levels of ground shaking. Table 7: Total losses after retrofitting. Earthquake Scenario Building Value ($B) Content Value ($B) Estimated Building Damage ($B) Number of Bldgs. with Damage Ratio ≥ 20% Estimated Content Damage ($B) Total Building & Content Damage ($B) M7.9 18.9 17.3 0.9 6 0.5 1.3 M6.7 18.9 17.3 0.5 0 0.3 0.8 Ratio of M7.9/M6.7 2 - 2 2 Table 8 breaks out the reduction in total loss by model building type for the M7.9 scenario, and shows the associated retrofit cost. The average reduction in loss varies by building type. URM buildings showed the highest reduction in loss after retrofit as a percentage of the loss itself. Steel braced framed buildings showed the lowest reduction in losses as a percentage of the loss itself. Wood frame and concrete buildings are responsible for the largest reduction in total loss, with wood frame construction representing over 20% of the loss reduction, and concrete buildings over 50%. It should be noted that the data in Table 8 also includes buildings that were not retrofitted. As a result, further parsing of the data is needed to better understand which buildings are responsible for the most loss, and those that can be improved more cost-effectively. Table 8: Comparison of retrofit benefits and costs by Model Building Type. Model Building Type M7.9 EQ M7.9 EQ Average Retrofit Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 26 Average Damage ($/SF) Total Damage Reduction ($1,000) Damage Reduction ($/SF) Cost ($/SF) Wood frame smaller residential (W1) 16 13,775 4 12 Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 25 61,317 7 6-11 Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 50 160,155 26 14 Steel moment frame (S1) 62 76,150 25 10 Steel braced frame (S2) 44 24,222 8 10 Steel light metal frame (S3) 108 38,163 72 10 Steel frame with concrete shear walls (S4) 101 11,118 69 40-50 Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 247 695 121 110 Concrete moment frame (C1) 55 8,045 25 40-50 Concrete shear wall (C2) 70 336,574 35 40-50 Concrete frame with masonry infill (C3) 120 865 34 110 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 68 218,491 27 21-29 Precast concrete frame (PC2) 21 0 0 21-29 Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 59 87,697 31 46-74 Reinforced masonry, concrete floor (RM2) 35 3,727 6 46-74 Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (URM) 23 5,216 19 110 Totals 51 1,046,210 22 Table 9 shows those types of buildings that may be considered good candidates for a retrofit program. Although representing only about 15% of the total inventory, these buildings are responsible for over 30% of the total loss. This is reflected in the considerably higher than average loss (fourth column of Table 9). The benefit of retrofit is also considerable for this group of buildings, since they are responsible for over 50% of the reduction in loss. Additionally, the cost to retrofit them is only a fraction of the losses avoided in a major event, ranging from a third for the concrete buildings to a tenth for the steel frames. Note that these values are based on conceptual retrofits. Actual retrofit costs for individual buildings would vary substantially. The steel moment frame benefit-to-cost ratio is higher than expected by engineering judgment, caused in part by a comparatively low retrofit cost for this Model Building Type. Additional information on the loss estimate for the retrofitted building stock is contained in Attachment B. Table 9: Comparison of benefits and costs by selected Model Building Type, date and characteristics. Model Building Type Number of Buildings Total SF (1,000) M7.9 EQ Average Loss by M7.9 EQ Average Loss Average Cost to Retrofit (Average Loss Avoided) Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 27 Building ($/SF) Avoided by Retrofit ($/SF) ($/SF) / (Average Retrofit Cost) Pre-1977 wood frame soft- story (W1, W1A, W2) 294 3,690 66 46 12 4 Pre-1998 tilt-up (PC1) 99 3,078 106 71 23 3 Pre-1977 concrete soft-story (C1, C2, C3) 37 842 149 108 42 3 Pre-1998 steel moment frame (S1) 35 690 152 110 10 11 Review of Past Seismic Retrofits To gain a better understanding of the quality of the retrofits and identify relevant issues to updating Palo Alto’s seismic risk mitigation program, a sample of the submitted engineering studies and building retrofits drawings for existing buildings was reviewed. The review identified the following relevant needs for future seismic risk mitigation programs: A. Clear identification of retrofit design intent, scope, and limitations, also for voluntary retrofits B. Identification of existing structural systems C. Decision on requirements for buildings that have had partial seismic retrofits completed; and may have remaining seismic deficiencies Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 28 Additional Recommended Program Features In addition to expansion of the building categories included within the City’s seismic risk mitigation program and refinement of disclosure measures and incentive options, a number of other program features are recommended. They are described in Attachment B, and include the following: A. Use the current inventory, taking note of its limitations - The inventory developed for the effort to date involved use of digital information and field surveys. A complete field survey of all buildings in Palo Alto was outside the scope of the project. However, the inventory that has been developed is an excellent resource. The first step in any future ordinance will involve notification of building owners that they may be subject to the requirements of the ordinance. Those buildings that were field surveyed and fall within the scope of the ordinance can be notified using the existing inventory. For the remaining buildings, additional field survey is recommended. This would be a rapid visual assessment and could be conducted by City staff or outside consultants. B. Use an initial screening form phase - Typically, as part of the notification process, a screening form of about one page in length is sent, and the owner is required to have a design professional, such as a structural engineer or architect, complete the form. This cost for to confirm whether or not the building actually is subject to the City’s ordinance should be relatively nominal. C. Clearly specify seismic evaluation and retrofit scope - For all buildings subject to regulation, the seismic evaluation (and retrofit) methodology for each building category will need to be defined. Industry consensus standards exist and cover the vulnerable building categories identified for Palo Alto. These include the 2015 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) and 2014 ASCE 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Both are currently being updated by groups of engineers and building officials. For soft-story wood frame buildings, there is also the 2012 FEMA P-807 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Buildings with Weak First Stories. For steel moment frame buildings, there is also the 2000 FEMA 351 Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Moment Resisting Steel Structures. The following table provides recommended evaluation and retrofit standards. D. Provide detailed evaluation report submittal requirements - Minimum submittal requirements for evaluation reports will need to be defined. The above evaluation and retrofit standards provide some guidance but a short clear set of requirements will be beneficial. E. Specify how past partial retrofits will be handled: In the past, some buildings have had partial seismic retrofits where only selected portions of the seismic force-resisting system have been upgraded; Some seismic deficiencies may still exist in these structures. If mandatory retrofit requirements are implemented that provide for comprehensive retrofitting of the full seismic load path, there may be buildings with previous partial retrofits that do not fully comply and need remaining deficiencies to Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 29 be addressed. The seismic evaluation reports will help identify these cases. F. Update both new and existing building permit submittal requirements: Review of City records found that basic information such as the building structural system, date of construction, and retrofit standard used (where applicable) are not readily available. It is recommended that submittals for permit for both new buildings and existing building renovations require this information. This will allow the city to have a much better understanding of its total building stock and its expected performance in an earthquake. G. Write a new ordinance or set of ordinances to update the program: After the Council has provided direction and the above issues have been addressed, an updated ordinance will need to be written. H. Carefully address program management and interdepartmental coordination needs: To successfully manage Palo Alto’s updated Seismic Risk Mitigation Program, an effective management plan is needed so that progress is monitored by the City and community intent is achieved. I. Delineate department and key staff responsibilities: For Palo Alto’s updated Seismic Risk Mitigation Program, City staff will be responsible for several categories of activities. These will include the basic activities such as managing the notification and inventory process, reviewing evaluation reports and plan checking retrofit construction documents, and field inspections of retrofit work. Less obvious activities will include evaluating requested exceptions to the program or alternative means of compliance; managing feedback from design professionals, owners, and the public; tying pre-earthquake retrofitting to post-earthquake safety evaluations records; and managing post-earthquake safety evaluation, repair, and recovery plans. Depending on the scale of the updated program, it is possible that additional staff members, consultants, and/or an appropriately experienced structural engineer may be needed to provide advice on technical and program management issues, particularly as the program moves to final definition and to initial implementation. Later, as is done in some communities, it may be desirable to create volunteer review boards of local structural engineers who review questions on the evaluation and retrofit criteria and provide the City with technical opinions that staff can use. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 30 Table 10: Recommended Evaluation and Retrofit Standards. Category Description Evaluation and Retrofit Standards I Unreinforced masonry IEBC Appendix Chapter A1 II Built before 1/1/35 with 100 or more occupants ASCE 41 III Built before 8/1/76 with 300 or more occupants ASCE 41 IV Pre-1977 soft-story wood frame IEBC Appendix Chapter A4, ASCE 41, or FEMA P-807 V Pre-1998 tilt-up IEBC Appendix Chapter A2 and ASCE 41 VI Pre-1977 soft-story concrete ASCE 41 VII Pre-1998 steel moment frame ASCE 41, or FEMA 351 VIII Other pre-1977 concrete ASCE 41 ADVISORY GROUP INPUT Summary Report of the Advisory Group The purpose of convening an Advisory Group composed of members with local expertise and construction experience was not to create a consensus document or ratify particular recommendations by majority vote. Instead, the goal was to educate, solicit, and explore the range of issues and opinions among interested parties who participated. A summary report, reviewed by all the members of the Group, was prepared to document their input in to the study (Attachment G). The Advisory Group was a first step in community engagement regarding seismic hazard reduction in Palo Alto. It was intended that the information in the Advisory Group’s summary memo would be provided to the City Council as they consider potential revisions to the City of Palo Alto’s seismic risk management program and seismic hazard identification ordinance. Preferred Policy Directions In summary, discussions with the Advisory Group revealed little to no support for maintaining the status quo. Strong support did exist for retrofitting buildings already in the program, particularly URM buildings, and for addressing more building types, particularly soft-story wood frame buildings and older concrete tilt-ups. For buildings addressed in the current ordinance, the group generally thought a mandatory retrofit requirement would be feasible and fair. Three decades later, market forces alone have clearly not been enough to motivate upgrade of these remaining structures. Because the barriers to retrofit work for these properties are not known, case-by-case management by City staff may be necessary. There was hesitance, however, about extending or increasing incentives for owners that had not voluntarily taken advantage of the FAR bonus available in the past. More detailed conversations took place about other building category priorities and Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 31 policy features focused on extending the vulnerable building types they addressed and the requirements for retrofit compliance. These program alternatives are incorporated into Options 3, 4, and 5 (see the “Survey of State and Local Seismic Policies” section). The Advisory Group was briefed on structural types generally known to be vulnerable that are common or significant to Palo Alto and estimated to have reasonable loss reduction to retrofit cost ratios. The Group’s goal was to focus on a subset of categories that seemed to have high potential to benefit the owner, occupants, and the broader community. Some participants showed greater concern about residential properties, and debated whether commercial and residential properties should be treated the same or differently. The Advisory Group showed high interest in addressing multi-family residential earthquake risks, in particular by starting a soft-story wood frame program as many other California cities have done. One soft-story wood frame program approach discussed was to have two phases: 1) owners following notification would be given several years to do a voluntary retrofit, along with more generous incentives; and 2) later a mandatory timeline would kick in and incentives would be phased out. The group noted that exemptions such as parking requirements, permission to add other unit(s), or the ability to transfer development rights for additional square footage would likely be attractive and useful incentives for the multi-family soft story building type. Other vulnerable building categories of concern were also reviewed, including pre-1977 tilt-up concrete structures. There are a modest number of these buildings in Palo Alto, but Advisory Group members noted that their uses are changing. Many buildings previously used as warehouses are now being repurposed for office space. The higher occupancies increase the public safety stakes of any seismic deficiencies. Currently, there is no mandate in the regulations to address earthquake vulnerabilities while other upgrades and build out are being done to these structures. A substantial renovation trigger mandate might make sense, but the percent of the value of the structure used as a trigger might need to be lowered in order to get compliance. Such properties with more than one story should perhaps receive higher priority for retrofit. Potential Issues for Future Study and Consideration For some issues, based in part on Advisory Group discussions, additional information may be beneficial to help develop a strategy and to better understand potential impacts on key stakeholders and community concerns. Some of these issues are primarily economic and were outside the scope of the current study. The City Council may wish to direct staff and/or outside consultants to investigate some of these items in more detail as the seismic risk management program effort proceeds. These issues include the following: A. Occupants and tenants a. How much would a typical retrofit add to the monthly rent of a multifamily Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 32 soft-story wood frame apartment tenant? b. Would some tenants be unable to afford a rent increase and seek housing elsewhere in Palo Alto or move outside the city (and if so, how many might be displaced)? c. If soft-story wood frame apartments in Palo Alto are retrofitted in time before the next major earthquake, how much less displacement of residents would occur as a result of the earthquake? d. What categories of buildings are most important to address in order to help maintain the commercial viability and vitality of the City’s core business districts and tax base? B. Property owners, developers, and business owners a. What are the characteristics of property owners that would be affected? b. How might small businesses be affected compared to larger ones? c. How many property owners are in need of lower cost capital or other substantial financial assistance to fund retrofitting? C. Impacts of Seismic Restoration on Retention of Historic Structures in the City a. How can we ensure that the review of initial seismic evaluations identify those structures that are listed in the City’s Historic Inventory or potentially significant and flag them for attention during subsequent review? b. How can we develop a clear process for reviewing proposed seismic retrofits to historic structures that is coordinated among responsible city departments and is consistent with current regulations and Community policies? c. How can we ensure that property owners take advantage of Seek out retrofit alternatives that are consistent with the Historic Building Code, historic characteristics of the structure, and provide the required most risk reduction? D. City departmental resources and budgets a. What would be the loss in revenue to the Building Department if fee waivers were offered? b. What would be the staffing and budgetary needs over time to administer an expanded program that addresses additional building types? c. What kinds of interdepartmental cooperation and staff resources in other departments are necessary to ensure effective implementation and coordination with other city planning and public safety efforts? d. What would be the costs to provide and administer any incentives offered to property owners? E. Overall community economic health a. What kind of benefits could accrue to Palo Alto in terms of maintaining community function and ability to recover if various building categories are retrofitted in time before the next major earthquake? F. Other related issues Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 33 a. It was brought up in the Advisory Group that the Building Department needs flexibility and authority to take steps to get tough seismic mitigation projects done. One idea was to grant the Building Official the ability to classify certain projects (with well-specified criteria) as warranting a kind of “seismic safety” or “earthquake resilience” fast tracking, with city departments agreeing to coordinate on a specified accelerated project review timeframe. b. Although outside the formal scope of this planning effort, several Advisory Group members commented that it would be desirable for the City to do some kind of assessment of any earthquake mitigation needs in public buildings and facilities serving the City. c. Advisory group members recommended the community be informed of Palo Alto’s overall potential seismic risk by providing a summary of potential impacts on the City’s website, including the expected performance of vulnerable buildings. d. The group also had a high degree of support for recommending that the City initiate and nest future earthquake mitigation programs within a broader disaster or community resilience initiative, as cities such as Los Angeles, Berkeley, and San Francisco have done. This could be incorporated into the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Safety Element. There was insufficient time in the project’s six advisory group meetings to consider potential initiatives to assess risks for cell phone towers, water supply, facades, private schools, post-earthquake shelter facilities, and/or other assets important to community recovery. TIMELINE The timeline for updating the current seismic mitigation regulation is dependent on Council’s review of the Seismic Risk Assessment Study and directions to staff. RESOURCE IMPACT Implementation of the report recommendations would result in additional costs to private property owners and prior to any decision to proceed, staff is proposing additional public outreach at a cost of about $50,000. Technical requirements and design guidelines to support a new ordinance would require additional consultant services at an estimated cost of $50,000. If desired, an analysis of the fiscal impact on residents and business could be prepared for an additional $50,000. Any incentives offered to building owners could also have a cost to the City, which would not be known until those incentives are further defined. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The preparation of the Seismic Risk Assessment Study is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15306 (Information collection leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded). Attachment E City of Palo Alto Page 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ATTACHMENTS A. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.42: Seismic Hazards Identification Program B. Seismic Risk Assessment Study. The study includes the following items. a. Legislative Review Report b. Local Program Best Practices Assessment c. Building Inventory for Loss Estimate d. Conceptual Seismic Retrofits and Cost Estimate e. Loss Estimate of Existing Building Stock f. Loss Estimate of Retrofitted Building Stock g. Review of Past Retrofits h. Additional Recommended Program Features C. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (August 2014) D. Policy and Services Committee Staff Report 5293, Discussion of Updating the Seismic Safety Chapter of the Municipal Code for Hazardous Buildings (December 9, 2014) E. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.18: Downtown Commercial (CD) District F. Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group Members G. Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes (November 21, 2016) H. Advisory Group Meeting Minutes, Presentations and Handouts (contained at the Seismic Risk Management Advisory Group website at <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/srmag.asp> Attachments: Attachments Attachment_A_-_PAMC_16.42_Seismic_Hazards_ID_Prgm[1] Attachment_B_-_Palo_Alto_Seismic_Risk_Assessment_Study_-_Final_Report_- _2016_12_21[1] Attachment_C_-_Palo_Alto_Threats_Hazards_Risk_Assessment_(August_2014.1)[1] Attachment_D_-_Policy_and_Services_Staff_Report_5293[1] Attachment_E_-_PAMC_18.18_CD_District[1] Attachment_F_- _Seismic_Risk_Management_Program_Advisory_Committee_Members_01.15.16[1] Attachment_G_- _Palo_Alto_Seismic_Risk_Mgt_Prog_AG_Summary_Rev_2016_11_21[1] Attachment_H_-_SRMP_Advisory_Group_Agenda-Minutes-Presentations-Handouts[1] Attachment E Final Report Seismic Risk Assessment Study Palo Alto, California 21 December 2016 #2015-087S Rutherford + Chekene 375 Beale Street, Suite 310 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS PALO ALTO SEISMIC RISK ASSSESSMENT STUDY Section / Subsection I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 II. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 2. Current California Seismic-Related Building Codes, Legislation, and Key Institutions .................... 7 3. Legislative Leadership and Recent Development .......................................................................... 18 4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 20 5. References Cited ............................................................................................................................ 24 III. LOCAL PROGRAM BEST PRACTICES ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 25 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 28 2. Analysis of Policy Features and Outcomes of local Seismic Risk Mitigation Programs ................. 30 3. Implications and Potential Policy Directions for Palo Alto ............................................................ 67 4. References and Resources ............................................................................................................. 77 IV. BUILDING INVENTORY FOR LOSS ESTIMATE ............................................................................................... 79 V. VULNERABLE BUILDING CATEGORIES ......................................................................................................... 85 VI. CONCEPTUAL SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF REPRESENTATIVE VULNERABLE BUILDINGS ............................. 87 VII. LOSS ESTIMATING FINDINGS FOR EXISTING BUILDING STOCK ................................................................... 91 VIII. LOSS ESTIMATING FINDINGS WITH BUILDINGS RETROFITTED ................................................................... 97 IX. REVIEW OF PAST SEISMIC RETROFITS ....................................................................................................... 101 X. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FEATURES .............................................................................. 103 XI. QUESTIONS TO GUIDE COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS AND POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR FUTURE STUDY ............ 107 1. Questions to help guide council deliberations ............................................................................ 107 2. Potential issues for future study and consideration .................................................................... 108 Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page ii APPENDICES: Appendix A - Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation. Appendix B - Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation. Appendix C - Table Describing Incentives Used in Local Earthquake Risk Reduction Programs. Appendix D - Options for Moving to a Comprehensive, Resilience Approach Appendix E – Retrofit Concepts Designs for 12 Prototype Buildings Appendix F – Retrofit Cost Estimates for 12 Prototype Buildings Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 1 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION In 1986, the City of Palo Alto was one of the first cities in California to establish a comprehensive seismic mitigation program. It covers unreinforced masonry buildings, buildings built before 1935 with over 100 occupants, and buildings built before August 1, 1976 with over 300 occupants. After 30 years, 75% of the 89 buildings included in the program have been demolished or retrofitted. The 2014 South Napa Earthquake spurred the City to reevaluate its program. They engaged a team led by Rutherford + Chekene (R+C) to perform a comprehensive assessment of the expected performance of the City’s building stock in potential earthquakes, and started a community engagement effort to help identify resiliency goals and associated mitigation policies and programs. The R+C project team includes Sharyl Rabinovici, a public policy and community engagement specialist; Hope Seligson (initially with MMI Engineering and now Seligson Consulting) for loss estimating; and Vanir Construction Management for cost estimation of building replacement cost and retrofitting. The technical assessment covered over 2,500 buildings (single family and two-family residences were excluded) with a wide array of potentially vulnerable structural systems. The findings show that the estimated losses to Palo Alto buildings and contents in a M7.9 scenario event will be significant, on the order of $2.4 billion. Furthermore, this figure does not include business disruption, or ripple effects in the local economy or real estate market, nor does it include the economic value of loss of life. Among the categories of highest concern are pre-1977 “soft-story” wood frame, pre-1978 tilt-up concrete, pre-1977 cast-in-place concrete construction, and pre-1998 steel moment frames. The technical assessment revealed that the potential reduction in losses from retrofitting these buildings is over $1 billion in a M7.9 scenario event. R+C’s scope included a series of tasks and associated task reports and presentations. These included the following: A survey of state and local seismic policies and best practices; Development of a building inventory for Palo Alto using digital information and field surveys; Assignment of costs to buildings and contents in the inventory; Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 2 Description of vulnerable building categories, including five additional categories not covered under the current ordinance; Conceptual seismic retrofitting of representative vulnerable buildings; Loss estimate findings in a major seismic event for the current condition and after retrofitting; Review of past seismic retrofits; and Discussion of additional recommended program features. These task reports and presentation information have been compiled to form this Seismic Risk Assessment Study. Each chapter in the study addresses one or more of the project task efforts. Appendices provide additional details for selected tasks. A Seismic Risk Management Advisory Group made up of community and industry stakeholders and City staff was appointed and was also an essential component of the overall project. The Advisory Group insured that local building experience and community priorities were considered as the study moved forward. The group met six times with City staff and the R+C team over a period of nine months. The Advisory Group was introduced to the findings regarding the community’s earthquake vulnerability, impacts on vulnerable building types, as well as the ‘best practices’ used by other communities to promote community wide welfare and to encourage seismic retrofit of various vulnerable buildings types. The Advisory Group then discussed the assessment findings and formulated potential directions for City of Palo Alto leaders to consider going forward in updating the City’s seismic mitigation programs. At the end of the Advisory Group process, a summary memo, reviewed by all members of the Group, was prepared to document their input to the study. The November 21, 2016 memo is entitled “Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes.” The following table summarizes the outcome of the seismic risk assessment and includes the Advisory Group discussions. The table is organized around eight vulnerable building categories or building types. Categories I, II and III encompass the identified vulnerable buildings for the 1986 ordinance and are primarily located in the downtown commercial district. Categories IV through VIII include additional buildings at risk, as identified in the Seismic Risk Assessment Study. These buildings are located throughout the city. There was little to no support for maintaining the status quo within the Advisory Group. As shown in the following table, the Advisory Group favored requiring property-owner prepared seismic evaluation reports for all categories, except for Category VIII (other older nonductile concrete buildings). They also favored mandatory retrofit for the remaining Category I unreinforced masonry buildings identified Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 3 in the 1986 ordinance that have not been seismically retrofitted or demolished. For the Category II and III buildings in the current ordinance, retrofit should be required when a certain event or “trigger” occurs such as when a substantial renovation occurs or the property is put up for sale. Among the new vulnerable building types, the greatest concern was expressed for soft-story wood frame buildings and older concrete tilt-up buildings. The Advisory Group thought that retrofit of these structures should be either mandatory or triggered by substantial renovation or sale. The Advisory Group was concerned about delay in the retrofit of these structures given the number of the vulnerable buildings, the number of people who could be affected should the buildings be significantly damaged, and the considerable cost to the community if the structures in these categories were lost because of an earthquake. The Advisory Group considered a timeline of 2-4 years for the mandatory evaluation report and 4-8 years to complete mandatory retrofit construction. The Advisory Group supported increasing disclosure measures on building status through website listing and tenant notification. They also suggested that the most beneficial financial and policy incentives to encourage compliance with the new requirements would be fee waivers, expedited permitting, and property-assessed financing tools. Following the preparation of the Advisory Group summary, R+C assisted City staff in preparing a staff memo for an upcoming City Council meeting. It includes more detailed recommendations to the Council on proposed revisions to the City’s seismic hazard mitigation ordinance and recommends that the Council provide direction to City staff on revising and expanding the City’s building code and related ordinances. Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 4 Summary of Recommended Policy Directions from the Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group Category Approx. Number Building Type Date of Construction Occupants Evaluation Report Voluntary, Triggered, or Mandatory Retrofit1 Deadlines for Evaluation Report and Retrofit Construction (years)2 Disclosure Potential Incentives Current Program (Potential Revision in Italics) I 10 Un- reinforced masonry NA Over 6 (and over 1,900 sf) Required Mandatory Report: Expired Construction: 2-4 Website listing and tenant notification Fee waiver, expedited permitting, FAR bonus/ transfer of development rights (TDR) II 4 Any Before 1/1/35 Over 100 Required Voluntary or Triggered Report: Expired Construction • Voluntary: Not required • Triggered: At sale or renovation III 9 Any Before 8/1/76 Over 300 Required Voluntary or Triggered Expanded Program IV 294 Soft-story wood frame Before 1977 Any Required Triggered or Mandatory Report: 2-4 Construction • Triggered: At sale or renovation • Mandatory: 4-6 Same as above Fee waiver, expedited permitting, TDR, parking exemptions, permission to add units V 99 Tilt-up Before 1998 Any Required Triggered or Mandatory Report: 2-4 Construction • Triggered: At sale or renovation • Mandatory: 4-6 Same as above Same as Categories I, II and III VI 37 Soft-story concrete Before 1977 Any Required Voluntary, Triggered or Mandatory Report: 2-4 Construction • Voluntary: Not required • Triggered: At sale or renovation • Mandatory: 6-8 Same as above Same as Categories I, II and III VII 35 Steel moment frame Before 1998 Any Required Voluntary, Triggered or Mandatory VIII TBD Other older nonductile concrete Before 1977 Any Not rec. at this time Not recommended at this time Report: NA Construction: NA NA NA 1Voluntary: Retrofit is voluntary. Triggered: Retrofit is triggered when the building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation. Mandatory: Retrofit is required per a fixed timeline. 2Deadlines provide a potential range. Timelines would vary depending on tiers or priority groupings of different subcategories. Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 5 CHAPTER II. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW REPORT Executive Summary This chapter summarizes the seismic risk management policy context within the state of California to support Palo Alto’s current effort to update its program. The report was prepared per Task 2 of the Consulting Agreement between Rutherford + Chekene and the City of Palo Alto, dated August 17, 2015. The scope of Task 2 is to: Review existing and pending State legislation related to soft-story buildings and other seismically vulnerable buildings and provide a brief summary. Provide a concise review of relevant and pending state legislation, with a summary that can be presented at community and staff meetings or in reports to Council. The process of creating this legislative review included searches of legislative data bases, search and review of published and online reports and materials, several phone interviews with leaders in the engineering profession as well as local and state government staff, and development of insights from the consulting team based on their experiences in this arena. High level findings include the following: Palo Alto is affected by numerous relevant California existing laws and regulations dating from the 1930s through the present. These laws regulate many aspects of Palo Alto’s built environment, including certain classes of building uses such as hospitals, public schools, and essential facilities; setting code minimums for new construction; and mandating land use planning and real estate disclosure measures for natural hazards including earthquakes. Unreinforced masonry (URM) is at present the only structural system type for which the state requires local jurisdictions to have a program. If it so chooses, Palo Alto has wide authority to expand or strengthen its approaches to seismic mitigation. The power to do more about earthquake vulnerabilities is primarily in the hands of the local jurisdictions that have significant discretion in the kinds of policies they can adopt. Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 6 Palo Alto has many additional actions it can take to make sure it is complying and taking greatest possible advantage of state level regulations and opportunities. In particular, opportunities exist now to align a new seismic program with two ongoing mandated planning efforts the City is already engaged in: Palo Alto’s General Plan and its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Based on what state laws allow and in some cases recommend, many broad policy directions exist for Palo Alto going forward in terms of updating its seismic mitigation program. For example, Palo Alto could choose to: (1) implement measures to increase the effectiveness of its current program, for instance by offering additional or larger incentives or devoting more resources to program visibility and implementation; (2) expand the City’s current voluntary seismic mitigation programs to address additional building types or uses; (3) add mandatory screening or evaluation measures for one or more vulnerable building types such as soft-story buildings or older concrete structures; (4) upgrade the City’s current voluntary URM program to make retrofitting mandatory; (5) create a program that mandates seismic retrofits for one or more additional (non-URM) vulnerable building types; (6) craft a program that combines any or all of the above measures. Local precedents for all these types of approaches exist and are described and discussed in a separate Task 3 report; or, (7) continue the status quo current program. Although formally outside the scope of the current effort, Palo Alto also has additional opportunities for strengthening and expanding its earthquake-related efforts in terms of land use planning, public education and awareness, and small residential structures, such as: (8) develop partnerships with the private and non-profit sectors to promote insurance take up and business continuity planning; and, (9) devote more resources to increasing awareness among its citizens about low cost or free ways to become more aware and prepared for disasters more broadly. Ultimately, the recommended policy directions and action steps for Palo Alto will be informed by related efforts in this project to analyze the most current vulnerability information available, and later determined through an inclusive decisionmaking process going forward. Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 7 1. INTRODUCTION This report surveys the public policy landscape in the state of California related to earthquake mitigation and describes each policy or program’s relevance for Palo Alto and similar jurisdictions. The scope is intentionally broad so that it can serve as a primer or look-up resource for persons with varied levels of background knowledge about the topic. Section 2 organizes information about the reviewed policies, programs, and institutions based on the type of policy or program. These range from building codes and mitigation mandates to educational efforts and tax-based loan financing strategies. Section 3 briefly provides information about current State level policy leadership and the small amount of earthquake-related recent and proposed legislation. Section 4 presents options for Palo Alto through a summary of the review’s findings. Appendices A and B to this report provide detailed tables of current and pending or recent legislative proposals, respectively. The process of creating this Legislative Review included searches of the California’s LegInfo database,1 search and review of published and online reports and materials, several phone interviews with state and engineering profession leaders, and development of insights from the consulting team based on their experiences in this arena. This review covered over 50 related individual existing laws or passed referenda, in addition to the state’s Existing and Historic Building Code provisions. 2. CURRENT CALIFORNIA SEISMIC-RELATED BUILDING CODES, LEGISLATION, AND KEY INSTITUTIONS This section presents legislation and programs in narrative format to address interrelationships among these laws and to present broader implications for Palo Alto. Relevant laws and programs related to Palo Alto’s obligations and opportunities regarding earthquake mitigation are categorized by type and how each works. Specific laws referenced are shown in bold. The accompanying table in Appendix A lists the identified relevant current state legislation organized by year established. State laws related to seismic safety can be categorized as relating to building codes, targeting of existing building types or uses, land use planning, real estate practice requirements, and financial policies such as the tax code, insurance, and incentives. 1 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov (Accessed January 13, 2016). Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 8 Building Codes New construction in Palo Alto is governed by the California Building Code (CBC) that is updated every three years. Updates are adopted by the City Council. The International Building Code (IBC) is the underlying model code on which the provisions of the CBC are based. Legally, every local jurisdiction in California is required to adopt the state building code and to enforce that code. Above and beyond the minimums of the CBC, each jurisdiction has flexibility if justified by local climatic, geological (including seismic), and topographical conditions. Several jurisdictions have done that as part of their seismic mitigation programs, as detailed later and in Chapter III. Standards for rehabilitation, renovation, repairs, retrofits, or additions to existing structures exist in Chapter 34 of the CBC. The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) provides additional specific methodologies that jurisdictions may decide to adopt in whole or in reference to particular sections. The City of Palo Alto has its own Historic Building Inventory of hundreds of buildings as well as several Historic Districts and both state and federally designated historic properties. Therefore, the State Historical Building Code2 is also relevant, as administered by the Division of the State Architect (DSA) under the Department of General Services. Officially designated historic structures are subject to different rules for rehabilitation which are generally more flexible and permissive than those in Chapter 34 of the CBC. Local jurisdictions can specify enhancements for seismic reasons as long as the justifications and nature of such changes are fully public and documented on record with the State Historical Building Safety Board.3 A detailed list of key provisions is given on the DSA website4. Targeted Building Types Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Inventories of specific building types have formed the backbone of California seismic policy towards existing buildings since at least the 1930s, but it was the 1986 Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Law that firmly established the precedent of using inventories to promote retrofits of existing seismically vulnerable buildings. Through this policy, in Section 8875 of the California Government Code, the State Legislature required all 366 local governments in Seismic Zone 4 (the highest hazard level) to inventory their URM buildings, establish some kind of loss- 2 Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 2.7, §18950-18961. 3 “Each local agency may make changes or modifications in the requirements contained in the California Historical Building Code, as described in Section 18944.7, as it determines are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, seismic, and topographical conditions. The local agency shall make an express finding that the modifications or changes are needed, and the finding shall be available as a public record. A copy of the finding and change or modification shall be filed with the State Historical Building Safety Board. No modification or change shall become effective or operative for any purpose until the finding and modification or change has been filed with the board.” [Health and Safety Code §18959.f.] 4 http://www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/AboutUs/shbsb/shbsb_health_safety.aspx (Accessed January 23, 2016). Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 9 reduction or remediation program within four years, and report progress to the California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC). Each county or municipality was allowed to design its own program. In general, three main types of local programs were utilized: 1) mandatory retrofit, 2) voluntary retrofit, and 3) notice to owners that the structure is a URM building. When retrofits were encouraged or required, the local government set the standards to be met. Palo Alto already had an inventory and program in place for URMs at the time the law was passed, and thus it was mainly subject to the reporting requirements. Mandatory signage was later required and is another controversial aspect of the State’s approach to URM buildings. Section 8875.8 of the Government Code increased enforcement efforts on the requirement for warning placards to be posted at the entrances to un-retrofitted URM buildings. In 2006, URM building owners had posted 758 signs (see Figure 1 for required text); almost all jurisdictions report the signage had no noticeable effects (CSSC, Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, 2006). Figure 1: URM sign example text. Reviews of the URM Law by the CSSC have shown it to be a success over the long term. In 2006 (the last comprehensive state survey available), compliance with the policy was 93%, and over 70% of identified URM buildings have been either retrofitted or demolished (CSSC, Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, 2006). More than half (52%) of affected jurisdictions adopted a mandatory program, which has proven by far to be the most effective type. Eighty- seven percent of identified properties have been retrofitted or demolished in jurisdictions with mandatory programs, compared to thirteen to 25 percent in jurisdictions with other program types. Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 10 Some of the URM law’s influences are subtler. The state URM law is credited with creating greater awareness among community leaders and increasing practical experience and capacity to address seismic policy implementation in local jurisdictions. It set the precedent of preserving “local choice” in how to address the problems of seismically-vulnerable existing buildings. This law also brought some public attention to the issue, through exposure to warning signs at building entrances. In jurisdictions with highly effective programs, the URM law likely set the stage for greater willingness to adopt stronger, more proactive approaches for other building types. Targeted Building Uses Hospitals Palo Alto is host to at least two major hospitals, the Palo Alto Veteran’s Administration Hospital and the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, as well as a number of urgent care clinics and other health care facilities, for instance related to Stanford Hospital. State-mandated seismic minimums and upgrade requirements for hospitals were put in place in 1973 through SB 1953 and periodically amended since. The Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development (OSHPD) develops guidelines, administers the program, and oversees compliance. Extraordinary resources have been spent to upgrade and develop new hospitals in response to SB1953, resulting in major improvements to both seismic safety and in patient care (OSHPD, 2005). However, progress has been slower than hoped, in part because of the costs of achieving the high levels of performance that the law demands but also because of program complexity and organizational difficulties in managing upgrade programs. A comprehensive study of SB 1953 implementation showed that even organizational leaders highly motivated to reduce risk in the context of strict mandates were not always able to achieve timely progress (Alesch, 2012). Public Schools Following the 1933 Long Beach quake that rendered over 230 Southern California schools unsafe, the Field Act was passed to require higher seismic design minimums in new public school construction. The 1939 Garrison Act required school districts to retrofit or replace pre- Field Act schools. However, many schools did not comply until the mid-1970s.The Division of the State Architect (DSA) oversees this program, and since 2002 has done tracking via the “AB Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 11 300 List.” 5 Further detail about Field Act implementation statewide can be found in formal state reports (See, e.g., CSSC, 2009). The status of approximately six Palo Alto area schools that have buildings on the “AB 300 List,” could be relevant to future policy development efforts depending on the extent to which the city relies on schools in its emergency response plans. Functioning schools are also known to play a large role in resumption of local business activity as part of recovery. Essential Services Buildings State law recognizes that buildings that house mission-critical jurisdictional services and administrative functions should be safe and functional after a major local event. Palo Alto is required by the California Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act of 1986 to follow enhanced regulations during the design, rehabilitation, and construction of essential service facilities, defined as fire stations, police, California Highway Patrol, or sheriff offices, or any buildings used in part or whole to conduct emergency communications and operations. As with hospitals, the DSA develops and maintains the design and construction requirements and tracks compliance for this law. Land Use, Zoning, and Real Estate Disclosure Requirements General Plan Requirements According to the State Planning and Zoning Law, Palo Alto and other California jurisdictions have been required since 1971 to address earthquake vulnerabilities in their General Plans, currently in the Safety Element.6 The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provides General Plan Guidelines for what jurisdictions must do in creating and implementing their plans, mostly recently in 2011.7 Typical earthquake-related provisions focus on avoiding development in hazardous areas (for instance near known faults) and adoption of zoning and use requirements that can reduce hazards (such as creation of retention and recharge basins to lessen the impacts of storms). Palo Alto’s last General Plan was adopted over ten years ago. Since 2008, staff have been reviewing and updating different elements in turn. An analysis should be undertaken of any relevant earthquake hazard-related aspects in it, and care should be taken to align and integrate future mitigation program efforts with the City’s updated General Plan, which is 5 http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/ab300/AB_300_List.pdf (Accessed January 23, 2016). List described as up to date as of Thursday, September 10, 2015. 6 Government Code §65300-65303.4. 7 https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/complete_pzd_2011.pdf (Accessed, March 6, 2016). Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 12 currently in development. As of 2016, Palo Alto is working on a comprehensive update to be in effect through 2020 to 2030. More detail is available on a city website designed specifically as part of a highly engaged community involvement process.8 Zoning Palo Alto is on the list of California cities that contain some areas designated by the state as an “Earthquake Fault Zone” (Hart, 2010). The California Geological Survey (CGS) under the California Department of Conservation (DOC) oversees implementation of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972, a particularly important legacy policy in understanding California earthquake risk management policy. The CGS regularly conducts and updates studies that identify active faults. Buildings within an “Earthquake Fault Zone” face additional planning, use, and disclosure obligations. Additionally, the 1990 Hazards Mapping Act gave DOC responsibility for mapping areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. Within these mapped Zones of Required Investigation, geotechnical investigations to identify hazards and formulate mitigation measures are required before permitting most development. Small Residential Real Estate Mandates and Disclosures All sellers of real property in Palo Alto are required to disclose certain facts about the building location and its condition related to earthquake hazards. These requirements began with the Natural Hazards Disclosure Act of 1990, which has detailed provisions for what sellers of real property are obligated to do and what kinds of information they must provide prior to point of sale. Requirements are more extensive when the property being sold lies within one or more of the state-mapped hazard areas, including landslides, liquefaction, and Earthquake Fault Zones.”9 Since 1993, all sellers of residential properties of four units or less must under Government Code Section 8897.1-8897.5: o Inform the buyer about known home weaknesses related to earthquake risk; o Properly strap the water heater; o If the home was built before 1960, deliver a copy to the buyer of the Homeowner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety10 brochure produced by the CSSC (The real estate agent is holds responsibility for this requirement being met); 8 http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/ (Accessed January 23, 2016). 9 http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/disclose.aspx (Accessed January 20, 2016). 10 Available at: http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005_HOGreduced.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2016). Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 13 o Deliver to buyers a Natural Hazards Disclosure Form telling buyers whether the home is in an Earthquake Fault Zone or in a Seismic Hazard Zone; and, o Complete and deliver to buyers a Residential Earthquake Hazards Report. A similar document called the Commercial Property Owners Guide to Earthquake Safety11 makes recommendations for commercial property buyers and sellers at the time of sale. The only requirement is that sellers must deliver a copy of the booklet to a buyer, “as soon as practicable before the transfer,” (Government Code, Section 8893.2) if the property was built before 1975 and has precast (tilt-up) concrete or reinforced masonry walls and wood-frame floors or roofs. Palo Alto currently features links to both the aforementioned guides on its Building Department website. Legal Obligations to Tenants California case law in Green v. Superior Court (1974, 10 Cal.3d 616) established that a rental unit must be “fit to live in,” or “habitable.” In legal terms, “habitable” means that the rental unit is appropriate for occupation by human beings and that it substantially complies with state and local building and health codes that materially affect tenants’ health and safety (CA Civil Code §1941, 1941.1). At time of writing, no common law precedents could be identified regarding thresholds related to seismic risk that would be actionable for tenants to reasonably claim breach of a landlord’s implied warranty of habitability. California law is broad by stating that “other conditions may make a rented property not habitable” (CA Civil Code §1941, 1941.1). For example, a rented property may not be habitable if it does not substantially comply with building and housing code standards that materially affect tenants' health and safety (CDCA, 2012). This could be a lead or mold hazard, sanitation issues, or an endangering nuisance, but also potentially if the building is substandard because of a structural hazard. In seeking to develop any new programs, Palo Alto should consider conducting a legal analysis of this important but untested aspect of seismic mitigation policy. Some housing and tenant rights groups have asserted that soft-story and other generally accepted seismic vulnerabilities may constitute a deficiency that a landlord has an obligation to repair, regardless of whether the local jurisdiction has required such work. Citizen complaints of this nature surfaced in Berkeley for instance in 2008 to 2010 (personal communication, 2010 with Jay Kelekian, City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board President). 11 Available at: http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2006-02_COG.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2016). Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 14 Special Earthquake-Related State-Level Entities and Programs Following are a few more important state-level entities and resources of which Palo Alto can take advantage. California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC) The California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), established in 1975, advises the Governor, Legislature, and state and local governments on aspects of earthquake vulnerability and policy. Its staff offer technical assistance to cities in developing and carrying out seismic related programs. The CSSC is responsible for maintaining a five-year California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan to establish strategy and coordination for state and local government actions to mitigate earthquake hazards. The most recent statewide Loss Reduction Plan was published in 2013 (CSSC, 2013). It contains detailed lists of policy issues and recommendations that, while comprehensive, prioritized, and sensible, have had limited traction owing to lack of elected official leadership and budget. Other duties include tracking progress on the state URM law and deriving policy lessons from earthquake events. Several CSSC publications are among the best resources for evaluating local mitigation programs. California Earthquake Authority (CEA) The California Earthquake Authority (CEA) is a privately-funded, publically managed non-profit entity that provides private insurance policies to homeowners and renters. Eligibility includes homes of four units or less through participating insurers. The earthquake insurance take-up rate statewide is around ten percent. As of January 2016, CEA-affiliated underwriters can now offer a premium discount up to 20% for mitigation investments made. The number of small residential buildings in Palo Alto whose owners carry earthquake insurance is not known, but those that do or that purchase it from hereon could be eligible for this discount. Palo Alto could potentially work to make sure this benefit is better advertised and utilized by building owners. Additionally, a substantial portion of CEA’s annual premium intake is legislatively required to be spent on efforts to achieve mitigation in one-to-four unit homes throughout the state. These funds have been invested in research as well as an important new mitigation grant program for small residential houses called Earthquake Brace and Bolt, which is further described in the Financial Incentives section on the California Residential Mitigation Program. Currently, enrollment for cities is closed but expansion is planned in the future. Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Formerly known as the California Emergency Management Agency, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal-OES) coordinates statewide emergency preparedness and response activities. Palo Alto might have untapped opportunities to train City employees at CAL-OES’s Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 15 Specialized Training Institute.12 For instance, they have an “Essential Emergency Services Concepts – Earthquakes.” Financial Provisions, Tax Code, and Other Incentive Policies The potential difficulty of affording retrofit work is universally recognized as a barrier for public and private owners alike. A variety of reports have attempted to catalog incentive, financing and in-kind assistance options that are relevant to city earthquake and resilience programs (See e.g., ABAG, 1992; ATC, 2010; ABAG, 2014; MMC, 2015). This section highlights a few key pieces of enabling state legislation and federal tax programs that jurisdictions such as Palo Alto could utilize. Specific examples of how different jurisdictions have used specific financing and incentive programs are analyzed in the Task 3 Report. General Obligation, Special District, and Mello-Roos District Bonds Palo Alto is allowed to take on general obligation bond debt to help pay for retrofit or construction of new public buildings and to generate funds for providing loans to private owners for seismic work if doing so constitutes a compelling public purpose (Government Code §43600-43638; Government Code §29900-29930). Advocates have also speculated that communities might be able to use the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code §53311-53317.5). This act allows localities in California to create special Capital Facilities Districts that can sell bonds to generate funds for infrastructure and community facilities and then levy additional property taxes on the real property owners in that district. Such taxes are not subject to Proposition 13 restrictions on property tax increases. Covered services may include streets, water, sewage and drainage, electricity, infrastructure, schools, parks and police protection in old or newly developing areas. The tax paid is used to make the payments of principal and interest on the bonds. Historic Property Tax Reductions Palo Alto has many historic structures and may be able to take advantage of the Mills Act of 1972,13 which gives local governments the authority to enter into contracts with owners who restore and maintain historic properties. In exchange, the property owners could get significant property tax savings. Although cumbersome, St. Helena, California is one example of a city that used this tool to help owners of unreinforced masonry buildings to seismically retrofit (ABAG, unpublished soft-story report, 2015). 12 See: http://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/california-specialized-training-institute (Accessed February 1, 2016). 13 California Government Code, Article 12, §50280-50290, California Revenue and Taxation Code, article 1.9, §439-439.4. Further information available at: http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412 (Accessed February 1, 2016). Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 16 Limits on Increases on Property Tax for Seismic Retrofit Costs Existing state tax law (California Revenue and Taxation Code §74.5) provides that the cost of an earthquake retrofit should not increase the property assessment used to determine the amount of property taxes. The extent to which building owners take advantage of this benefit is unknown and might be low because of requirements to submit specific information to their County Assessor’s Office prior to conducting retrofit work. Many Assessors’ Offices do not have forms for this purpose and their staff is not trained to process this benefit. At this time, it is not known how Santa Clara County manages this issue. Palo Alto could potentially work to make sure this benefit is better advertised and truly available to building owners. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing New financing programs are starting to exist that could help owners in Palo Alto who might have difficulty securing financing on their own for a seismic retrofit. Based on the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) model first pioneered for solar improvements, owners can apply for 100 percent financing for seismic retrofit work at competitive fixed rates over the useful life of the improvements, to be repaid over up to 20 years with an assessment added to the property’s tax bill. The levy stays with the building upon sale and costs can be shared with tenants. Both Berkeley and San Francisco are participating in the open access AllianceNRG Program14 that offer residential property owners this financing solution primarily for sustainability upgrades and seismic strengthening projects for soft-story construction are also eligible. The AllianceNRG program is offered through California’s Statewide Community Development Authority (CSCDA) and partnerships with additional communities are now being offered state-wide since 2015. After the concept was launched in Berkeley in 2008, PACE programs stalled in 2010 the country's two biggest home lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, decided not to underwrite mortgages for PACE customers because it added too much risk in the event of a default because the PACE loan took precedence over the mortgage. Anecdotally, jurisdictions have had some difficulties implementing this type of program for energy improvements.15 Challenges include setting up this complex financing instrument which has heavy involvement of third parties, barriers to owners that want to refinance, and barriers to the transfer of a PACE-financed properties to a new owner. 14 https://www.alliancenrg.com/retail/ (Accessed January 20, 2016). 15 See e.g., http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/science-environment/some-homeowners-looking-to-move-must-deal- with-a-change-of-pace/ (Accessed February 2, 2016. Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 17 California Residential Mitigation Program (CRMP) Palo Alto and other cities can benefit if the citizens can stay in their homes and “shelter in place” following a major local quake. One new important effort on this front is the California Residential Mitigation Program (CRMP). It was formed in August 2011 to carry out mitigation programs to assist California homeowners who wish to seismically retrofit their houses. CRMP’s goal is to provide grants and other types of assistance and incentives for these mitigation efforts. The California Residential Mitigation Program is a joint-exercise-of-powers entity (JPA) formed by two core members: the California Earthquake Authority (a public instrumentality of the State of California known as CEA) and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal- OES). CRMP is a legally separate entity from its members. The first of these programs, Earthquake Brace + Bolt: Funds to Strengthen Your Foundation (EBB)16 was launched as a pilot project in September 2013 in selected zip codes only. EBB offers a cash grant up of to $3,000 for qualifying bolts or sill anchoring installment. Homeowners must register and be accepted into the program, with a cap on the number of participants. The current registration window was open from January 20 to February 20, 2016. Participation is determined by lottery if more applications are received than funds are available. At present, no Palo Alto zip codes are in the program. The selection of the specific neighborhoods and zip codes was based upon analysis of U.S. Census data identifying areas of high seismicity and having a concentration of owner-occupied homes built in 1979 or earlier. According to personal communications with CEA mitigation program representatives, Palo Alto zip codes are not likely to be prioritized highly owing to the modest number of very old single family homes. Federally Mandated Municipal Obligations and Opportunities Even though the focus of this review is California, two particularly relevant federal programs for Palo Alto are described below. As with the state, no centralized governmental authority exists at the federal level to regulate issues of seismic safety. Instead, authorities and strategies are widely distributed among agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. For instance, the Department of Housing and Urban Development operates several initiatives related to safer homes and resilient communities,17 and the General Services Administration must confront seismic risk concerns as it manages most federal facilities. The federal role is concentrated in FEMA and principally focused on emergency response and recovery, although mitigation is also addressed. 16 https://www.earthquakebracebolt.com/ (Accessed January 23, 2016) 17 See, e.g., the Smart Growth America Resilience States program, http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/resilience/ (Accessed February 1, 2016). Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 18 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Under the Disaster Management Act The federal Disaster Management Act of 2000 (DMA) and subsequent amendments specify that local jurisdictions and states must have approved Hazard Mitigation Plans in place in order to be eligible for aid following Stafford Act Disaster declarations and a variety of other benefits. The State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan of 201318 is a comprehensive source of information about state level requirements, mitigation strategies, as well as local and state progress and opportunities for coordination (CSSC, 2013b). Palo Alto current complies with the DMA through its participation in the 2011 Santa Clara County’s Office of Emergency Services Annex to a 2010 region-wide “umbrella” Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) created by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). To create the plan, representatives from County departments, private sector businesses, stakeholders, and thirteen of the fifteen incorporated cities in Santa Clara County collaborated in identifying and prioritizing potential and existing hazards. Mitigation objectives were identified and prioritized and specific action steps are listed, many of which have been taken. Palo Alto is currently preparing its contributions for updates to the Santa Clara County LHMP which must be completed, submitted to the state, and approved by June 2017. The LHMP process creates an opportunity to build synergies between an updated seismic program and other mitigation efforts city and county-wide. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants Cities such as Palo Alto are eligible to apply to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program19, created by Section 203 of the federal Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, funded annually by Congressional appropriation. The program aims to assist States, territories, Federally-recognized tribes, and local communities in implementing a sustained pre-disaster natural hazard mitigation program. Cities must submit a detailed application during an open window to an annual competition. This program awards planning and project grants as well as providing assistance in raising public awareness about reducing future losses before disaster strikes. The program works on a 75%/25% cost share between FEMA and the local jurisdiction, respectively, with a maximum grant of $3 million. Cities can submit applications for multiple projects. Palo Alto could apply for support for future projects ranging from updating city owned structures, direct financing or grants to a private class of buildings or specific important structure. 18Available at: http://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/docs/SHMP_Final_2013.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2016). 19 http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program (Accessed January 15, 2016). Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 19 The disaster occurrence that opens a funding availability window does not necessarily have to affect Palo Alto directly. For instance, any California jurisdiction with an active LHMP was permitted to propose projects based on the Presidential Disaster Declaration for the 2015 Valley and Butte fires. Finally, if City of Palo Alto employees have not already taken advantage of it, training opportunities are available at the FEMA Emergency Management Institute in Maryland.20 3. LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Palo Alto citizens are represented in the state Senate by Jerry Hill (D) and in the Assembly by Rich Gordon (D), 24th District, both with terms ending in 2016. High earthquake exposure throughout coastal California has led legislators from a variety of districts to author legislative proposals. Most recently, leadership has come from elected officials Nazarian, Chiu, and Monning. Several different committees in the California Assembly and Senate have jurisdiction over issues related to seismic safety and mitigation, building codes, and earthquake-related programs. In the Assembly, the Committee on Housing and Community Development has jurisdiction over building standards, common interest developments, eminent domain, farm worker housing, homeless programs, housing discrimination, housing finance (including redevelopment), housing, natural disaster assistance and preparedness, land use planning, mobile homes/manufactured housing, and rent control. The Assembly Committee on Local Government has authority over a range of General Plan, city finance, and housing policies. The most relevant Senate committee is Transportation and Housing, which governs issues such as transfer of ownership, financing districts, manufactured housing, building codes and standards, and common interest developments. Through these committees, legislators have considered several pieces of legislation related to earthquake mitigation in recent years. This review identified around ten such pieces of legislation debated in the 2013 to 2015 California legislative sessions, including passed, pending, vetoed or never fully heard bills (see Appendix B). Three key legislative proposals of interest to Palo Alto are briefly described here. Vetoed: Seismic Mitigation Tax Credits In the most recent session, Assembly Member Adrin Nazarian (District 46 in the San Fernando Valley) has sponsored legislation to create a state-wide seismic mitigation tax credit. The 2015 version AB 428 passed the legislature but was vetoed by the Governor based on funding availability, lack of technical and administrative capacity in the Franchise Tax Board, and the 20 https://training.fema.gov/emi.aspx (Accessed February 1, 2016). Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 20 program’s potential complexity. The law would create a first-come first serve state tax credit equal to 30 percent of a “qualified taxpayer’s” “qualified costs” incurred for “seismic retrofit construction.” Pending: Permissions to Expand CEA Insurance Mitigation Discounts CEA was active in promoting legislation last year to empower the CRMP to offer grants for small residential retrofit work. Currently pending are AB 1429 (Chiu) and AB 1440 (Nazarian) that will provide $3 million dollars to the CRMP for expanding its current EBB program. Dead: Soft-Story and Older Concrete Mitigation Program Authorization AB 2181 (Bloom)21 would authorize each city, city and county, or county to require that owners assess the earthquake hazard of soft story residential buildings and older concrete residential buildings. It includes older concrete residential buildings constructed prior to the adoption of building codes that ensure ductility, and to initiates programs to inform owners, residents and the public about such dangers. There is no state law that forbids such programs, but this law if passed would remove any ambiguity that such programs are permitted and further justify local actions to that effect. 4. CONCLUSIONS Palo Alto is affected by numerous California laws and regulations related to seismically vulnerable structures, dating from the 1930s to the present day. The requirements relate to many aspect of the city’s built environment, including: Code minimums for new construction; Standards for seismic rehabilitation, including special provisions for historic properties; Special programs and expectations for certain classes of use such as hospitals and public schools, and essential facilities; Mandatory and voluntary unreinforced masonry programs; Mandated zoning and land use planning requirements that restrict use and add requirements; Grant and insurance programs available to one to four unit dwellings; Financing authorities such as issuance of general obligation bonds and provisions for handling of property taxes for the costs of needed seismic retrofit; and 21 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2181 (Accessed February 1, 2016. Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 21 Real estate disclosure requirements. Beyond some recent and pending efforts related to funding small residential mitigation grant programs and Earthquake Early Warning, there is no apparent momentum at this time for new statewide initiatives. That being said, Palo Alto can take any of several actions listed below to make sure it is complying with and taking the greatest possible advantage of existing state laws and programs. For example: Palo Alto could confirm that all its URM buildings maintain the required signage. Palo Alto could investigate the status of the approximately six Palo Alto area schools that have buildings on the State’s “AB 300 List” related to the Garrison Act. Palo Alto could identify and review the status of public facilities covered under the Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act and review its policies for guiding future planning for or rehabilitation of such structures. Palo Alto could take advantage of the current update process for its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to develop a strong, coherent, shared vision for how the city is going to address earthquake risk, and encourage jurisdictions and special districts nearby to do the same. Resources from FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants and knowledgeable partners such as the Association of Bay Area Governments may be available to assist in this effort. Palo Alto could work carefully to incorporate the most up-to-date assessment of local earthquake vulnerabilities as it revises the Safety Element of its General Plan. Palo Alto could make sure its employees have taken advantage of the best available state and federal emergency management training programs that are relevant to earthquake disasters and recovery. Palo Alto could develop partnerships and devote resources to more fully realizing the benefits of statewide offerings of tax relief and requirements regarding real estate disclosure in private sales. These policies aim to empower buyers and sellers to be better informed and able to make better mitigation decisions for themselves but may be carried out incorrectly and are under-enforced. Palo Alto could, for instance, work to make sure building owners apply for relief from any property assessment increases that would otherwise result from investing in an earthquake retrofit. Palo Alto could seek closer ties to the California Earthquake Authority to help in promoting mitigation and insurance coverage for one to four unit homes. CEA has recently been one of Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 22 the lead entities in offering policy ideas and grant funding for earthquake mitigation of small residential structures. Palo Alto could evaluate whether it contains any vulnerable historic properties that might be eligible for tax credits under the Mills Act. This Act provides the most significant direct source of financial support from the state for local seismic retrofitting. Palo Alto could investigate the issue of seismic habilitability minimums for suspected earthquake vulnerable buildings. Legal uncertainty exists about whether tenants are already entitled under current state law to request that their landlord upgrade a structure for being “substandard.” Palo Alto could join with fellow jurisdictions in advocating for changes in state law to promote seismic mitigation. Palo Alto could develop partnerships and devote resources to bringing more awareness among its citizens about low cost or free ways to become more aware and prepared for disasters more broadly. Cal-OES and many other state and non-profit institutions offer free online tools such as http://myhazards.caloes.ca.gov/ to help citizens understand their risks and take private action. The power to address unmet seismic safety and recovery concerns clearly rests in the hands of cities, counties, and special districts. If it so chooses, Palo Alto has legal authority to widen and/or strengthen its structural mitigation program. Based on what state laws allow and in some cases recommends, this review revealed the following non-exhaustive list of policy directions Palo Alto could pursue going forward: 1. Palo Alto could implement measures to energize and raise the effectiveness of its current program (outlined in City of Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.40), for instance by offering additional or larger incentives or devoting more resources to program visibility and implementation. Making the current program more effective would likely require additional funding sources. Other jurisdictions are experimenting with some success in using tools such as the new state-wide PACE financing program. Palo Alto could investigate opportunities to establish special Mello-Roos or Mills Act districts to help finance local seismic mitigation. 2. Palo Alto could expand its voluntary seismic mitigation program to address one or more combinations of additional building types, occupancy levels, or uses. The State Legislature has Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 23 formally passed advisory legislation that encourages jurisdictions to adopt policies for building types like soft-story and older concrete.22 3. Palo Alto could create mandatory screening or evaluation measures for one or more vulnerable building types such as soft-story buildings or older concrete structures. Local precedents for these approaches exist and are described and discussed in a separate Task 3 report. 4. Palo Alto could make its current voluntary URM program mandatory. Mandatory URM programs in the State have been on average three times more effective than voluntary ones. 5. Palo Alto could create a program that mandates seismic retrofits for one or more additional (non-URM) vulnerable building types. The State Legislature has formally passed legislation that authorizes cities to adopt rehabilitation requirements for such programs This is important because cities must reference acceptable standards that state clearly how owners can comply with the requirement to retrofit. 6. Palo Alto could craft a program that combines any or all of the above measures. The Task 3 report shows that most leading local earthquake programs involve a customized mixture of goals, requirements, and features. 7. Palo Alto could continue the status quo current program. Nothing under current state law requires Palo Alto to change its current approach. The City of Palo Alto is currently gathering up to date earthquake risk information about its building stock and engaging its citizens and local experts in order to develop and evaluate specific policy alternatives. The ultimate goal is to recommend to city leaders the best possible policy directions for Palo Alto moving forward. 22 Health and Safety Code §19160-19168 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=19001- 20000&file=19160-19168 Attachment F Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 24 5. REFERENCES CITED ABAG. (1992). Seismic Safety Incentive Programs: A Handbook for City Governments. Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland. ABAG. (2014). Soft-Story Housing Improvement Plan for the Cit of Oakland. Oakland. Retrieved from http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/OaklandSoftStoryReport_102914.pdf Alesch, D. J. (2012). Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy: Implementation, Organizational Choice, and Contextual Dynamics. New York, NY: Springer Business Science. ATC. (2010). Here Today—Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco. Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety, Redwood City. Retrieved from http://sfgov.org/esip/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/9757-atc522.pdf CDCA. (2012). California Tenants: A Guide to Residential Tenants’ and Landlords’ Rights and Responsibilities. Retrieved January 16, 2016, from http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/catenant.pdf CSSC. (2006). Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law. California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento. CSSC. (2009). The Field Act and its Relative Effectiveness in Reducing Earthquake Damage in Public Schools Appendices. California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento. CSSC. (2013). California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan / Pre-Earthquake Economic Recovery. California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento. CSSC. (2013). California Enhanced State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Sacramento: California Seismic Safety Commission. Hart, W. A. (2010). Special Publication 42 (Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California)y. Retrieved from http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx MMC. (2015). Developing Pre-Disaster Resilience based on Public and Private Incentivization. National Institute of Building Sciences, Multihazard Mitigation Council of the Center on Fire, Insurance, and Real Estate. OSHPD. (2005). California's Hospital Seismic Safety Law: History, Implementation and Progress. Sacramento. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 25 CHAPTER III LOCAL PROGRAM BEST PRACTICES ASSESSMENT Executive Summary This chapter summarizes the status of local seismic safety and mitigation programs in California with the purpose of informing Palo Alto’s effort to update its own approach. It has been prepared per Task 3 of the Consulting Agreement between Rutherford + Chekene and the City of Palo Alto. The content builds on the state-level policy review presented in Chapter II. The scope of Task 3 is to: Review present best practices among jurisdictions and agencies in this area that require seismic retrofitting and provide incentives, and deliver a brief summary. Provide a concise and practical written summary of what other jurisdictions and counties have done legislatively and programmatically to increase awareness about, assess, and motivate mitigation of seismically vulnerable buildings, both listing and helpfully classifying various approaches that have been used. The process of creating this review included search and review of published and online reports and materials, several phone interviews with community leaders as well as local and state government staff, and development of insights from the consulting team based on their experiences in this arena. Palo Alto is currently laying a solid foundation for future program development by investing in new inventory and risk information as well as community outreach and internal staff discussions. In doing so, it is joining a group of leading coastal California coastal jurisdictions such as Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles that have recently stepped up their earthquake risk reduction efforts. While there is much learning and information sharing going on, each jurisdiction has developed their own customized policy package, and there is no single best model that Palo Alto can straightforwardly adopt. Existing local approaches differ widely in the following ways: Policy mechanisms used to achieve progress; Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 26 Scope of targeted building types or uses addressed; Prioritization and compliance timeframes; and Types of incentives offered. Policy mechanisms in use range all the way from inventory only to mandatory retrofit with timeframes under five years. In between are more gradual approaches such as voluntary retrofit advocacy, incentives, provisions that make building deficiencies more visible to the public (disclosure measures), and mandatory screening and evaluation requirements. An important policy decision is whether any mandated actions are implemented on a fixed timeline or triggered at sale or at some renovation cost threshold. Targeted building types and characteristics also vary. The most commonly addressed building type is unreinforced masonry (URM) construction due to state law SB 547, as discussed in the Task 2 report. Over half of URM programs in the state require mandatory retrofit, often but not always with a time frame on the order of ten to twenty years. By 2006, seventy percent of all identified URMs were either demolished or retrofit. Retrofit rates are on average three times higher in jurisdictions with mandatory retrofit compared to voluntary programs. Jurisdictions used a wide variety of both financial and policy incentives to assist URM owners. Some voluntary URM programs, including Palo Alto’s, coupled with incentives, have achieved similar rates of success to mandatory programs. Newer programs have focused on soft-story wood frame buildings, including ten Bay Area jurisdictions and most recently Los Angeles as of 2015. Soft-story wood frame building programs also range in requirements from notification only to mandatory retrofit, but several jurisdictions have innovatively used intermediate mandatory screening and evaluation phases to further assess risk exposure and determine the final set of buildings that will be affected by retrofit requirements. Soft-story wood frame programs have largely been supported in the local community. Even voluntary soft-story wood frame programs can be effective at motivating retrofit action; one fourth of the soft-story wood frame buildings in the City of Berkeley were voluntarily retrofit within a few years after a mandatory evaluation ordinance was implemented. Compliance timeframes in soft-story wood frame programs tend to be short, on the order of two to seven years. A comparatively small number of southern California jurisdictions have acted to address older concrete buildings, including Los Angeles, Burbank, Santa Monica, and Long Beach. Nonductile concrete frame and tilt-up concrete structures in particular are known to pose serious risks. Programs aimed at older concrete range from voluntary guidelines to mandatory evaluation Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 27 and full retrofit requirements. Timeframes here vary greatly, from years to decades. Information about the implementation and outcomes of these few programs is very limited. Coming out of this local program review, alternative policy approaches for Palo Alto’s consideration include: Option 1: Status Quo. In this option, the existing ordinance with its mandatory evaluation, voluntary retrofit approach remains in place without changes. Floor area ratio bonuses are (were) available and could continue to be offered. Option 2: Increase Scope, but Retrofit Remains Voluntary. Additional categories of structures are added to the mandatory evaluation requirements. These could include any or all of the building types discussed above, potentially also using additional location, use, or occupancy criteria. Option 3: Similar to Option 2, but Additional Disclosure Measures are Incorporated. This option would be similar to Option 2, but with increased use of disclosure measures such as prominently posting the building list on the City website, notifying tenants, requiring signage, and/or recording notice on the property title. Option 4: Increase Scope, Some Categories are Voluntary and a Few Categories are Mandatory, with Enforcement by Trigger Threshold This option builds on Option 3, but retrofitting would be required for some building types at whenever future time a building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation above a set threshold. Option 5: Increase Scope, Some Categories are Voluntary and a Few Categories are Mandatory, with Enforcement by a Fixed Timeline This option would be similar to Option 4, but retrofitting is required according to a fixed timeline. Timelines and enforcement emphasis could vary depending on tiers or priority groupings to motivate prompt action for the most vulnerable or socially important structures. Option 6: Increase Scope, but More Categories are Mandatory This alternative is similar to Option 5, but retrofitting would be required for additional categories on a fixed timeline. Palo Alto can also make its programs more stringent over time. Explicit phasing has been successful in jurisdictions like Berkeley and San Francisco for generating political consensus and enhancing administrative feasibility. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 28 Other program features and implementation factors should be considered in designing a future program. Palo Alto will need to decide whether location, occupancy type, and/or number of occupants should be included in the scope or just the timeline categories. Whether and which incentives to offer is an important issue from a political and economic feasibility perspective, one that affected community members will want to see inclusively addressed. The community should also be involved in discussing which if any disclosure measures are considered necessary and appropriate, such as signage. Additionally, based on the work of cities such as Berkeley, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, Palo Alto has a variety of opportunities to expand and better connect its earthquake mitigation program efforts to other city efforts in support of community resilience goals more broadly. For instance, Palo Alto could encourage building occupancy and resumption program like San Francisco, encourage or fund installation of strong motion instruments, or pursue special programs or requirements for cell phone towers, facades, private schools, and/or post- earthquake shelter facilities. Several leading local program models and planning resources for these types of efforts are introduced in Appendix D. 1. INTRODUCTION This document is meant to be a resource and guide for the Palo Alto community and city leadership as they weigh program needs and options for seismic mitigation policymaking going forward. It offers comprehensive information on many topics so readers with different backgrounds can advance their understanding, along with summary tables and conclusions specific to Palo Alto’s present effort. The approach taken was to document and assess existing and proposed programs that a selected set of other jurisdictions are using to address earthquake vulnerabilities in local buildings. This was done using analysis of city websites and documents, search and review of published and online reports, several phone interviews with local officials and engineering profession leaders, and development of insights from the consulting team based on their experiences in this area. Focusing on a selected set of jurisdictions was appropriate for several reasons. First, relatively few jurisdictions are developing leading earthquake mitigation programs, and those are the most informative models to draw upon. Second, data about jurisdictional programs is very limited. Much of the information that does exist is anecdotal, and it was not within the scope of this review to collect comprehensive new data or to cover a large number of jurisdiction programs statewide or in other countries. Finally, this review emphasizes classification of Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 29 similarities and distinctions among a range of leading jurisdiction earthquake structural mitigation efforts. Policies related to wider earthquake hazard science and awareness, emergency management, and longer term recovery programs that have local relevance are briefly mentioned, but are also beyond the scope of this report. Following this introduction, Section 2 describes and compares a range of existing local policies and programs. The information is organized by key features (for instance, the types of buildings regulated, the kinds of requirements imposed on them, and the types of incentives offered). Section 3 presents summary conclusions for Palo Alto. Figures throughout and two appendices provide further detail on a range of program elements. Formal recommendations for Palo Alto will evolve after completion of other project tasks, and through the process of Advisory Group and City staff discussions. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 30 2. ANALYSIS OF POLICY FEATURES AND OUTCOMES OF LOCAL SEISMIC RISK MITIGATION PROGRAMS This section analyzes the state of local earthquake policymaking in California by presenting major types, similarities, and differences in program features. The word “features” indicates here a wide array of program nuances, including but going well beyond the characteristics of the buildings being targeted and the basic policy mechanism used, namely voluntary or mandatory retrofit requirements. Woven throughout are examples of jurisdictional programs that exemplify certain of these features and distinctions, along with discussion of program outcomes and effectiveness. Analyzing programs this way highlights options and key factors that Palo Alto should consider and tradeoffs it may need to confront in developing its own seismic mitigation strategy going forward. Much innovation in local earthquake risk reduction policy is happening in California from which Palo Alto can learn. This is particularly true in the case of soft-story wood frame residential buildings,23 for which mandatory retrofit ordinances are now in place in Fremont, San Francisco, Berkeley, and Los Angeles. However, what makes one program different from or more successful than others cannot be understood simply by identifying the types of structures addressed. Also important are the specific set of requirements that owners must comply with, the timeframes in which requirements must be carried out, and the types and sizes of the incentives offered. Comprehensive, summary information to inform this review are rare. In-depth California Seismic Safety Commission URM reports cover every city and county for URM law compliance up to 2006. But beyond URM programs, data to support this assessment was limited and largely anecdotal because comprehensive research on seismic mitigation programs is rare. An 23 “Soft-story” refers to a condition where one of the stories in a multi-story building, usually a parking level that doesn’t require partitions for functionality, is weaker and/or too flexible compared to the story above it. Another acronym sometimes used is “Soft-, Weak-, or Open-Front” buildings, or SWOFs. During strong ground shaking, concentration of damage in the soft or weak story can significantly increase the chance of collapse or damage sufficient to render the building unusable after the event. Many communities are concerned with soft-story wood frame buildings. Most of this type of construction can be found in apartment buildings built in the 1960s and 1970s with first floor garage openings and some mixed-use properties with ground floor commercial space. In that era, the safety risks of soft-stories were not yet fully understood. Vast numbers of these buildings exist in California communities that grew substantially prior to the 1980s and 90s when building code changes were introduced. Findings related to evaluating and improving soft-story wood frame performance can be found in FEMA P-807, available at: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32681 (Accessed February 3, 2016). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 31 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) survey that collected program information from one third of California jurisdictions in the 1990s documented a wide variety of program implementation, effectiveness, and incentive approaches; however, its information is now significantly out of date. Policies of certain leading jurisdictions have been studied in depth at various windows in time, such as Palo Alto ) (Herman et al, 1990), Berkeley (Rabinovici, 2012; Chakos, 2002), Oakland (Olson, 1999), and Los Angeles (Comerio, 1992). These studies reveal how unique and complicated local earthquake mitigation programs can be, not just in format but also implementation. Outcomes cannot be understood without considering the local building stock and economic context, concurrent policy developments, political support, local government resources and administrative capacity, how policy features are combined, community engagement strategies used, and emphasis put on enforcement. At the outset, Palo Alto’s unique current program and historic role in the evolution of earthquake mitigation program design should be recognized. Its 1986 law was among the first to require owners of suspected hazardous properties to have a qualified engineer evaluate their buildings. In addition, Palo Alto’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program (Chapter 16.42) addressed three categories of buildings: URM buildings (Category 1), structures built before 1935 with over 100 occupants (Category 2); and structures built before August 1976 with over 300 occupants (Category 3). This demonstrates how occupancy level and year built can also be used in combination with other factors as the basis for inclusion in a program. The mandatory evaluation reports for these structures were due in 1990. The September 2014 status of affected properties is shown in Table 1. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 32 Table 1: Status as of September 2014 of properties included under Palo Alto’s current earthquake risk reduction ordinance. Category I – Category II – Category III – All Categories URM over 1900 sq.ft. and over six occupants Built before 1935 and over 100 occupants Built before 8/1/76 and over 300 occupants Retrofit 22 13 5 40 Demolished 14 2 5 21 Demolition Proposed 0 0 4 4 Exempt 1 0 0 1 No Change 10 4 9 23 Totals 47 19 23 89 Source: 12/9/14 City of Palo Alto Policy and Services Committee staff report. Palo Alto’s decision to focus on these three categories grew out of a broader earthquake risk assessment effort going on at that time. City leaders initiated a comprehensive search of paper records and a street walk-style inventory of a wide variety of seismically-vulnerable building types in 1984. They then engaged the community in a deliberative process to assess risk and determine priorities among building types and policy approaches (Herman, Russell, et al. 1990; CSSC 2006). The following section describes alternative ways different jurisdictions have chosen which buildings to target. Scope: Targeted Structural Systems, Year Built, and Other Characteristics The primary feature that varies among jurisdictional programs is the types and characteristics of the structures that are addressed. As discussed in the Task 2 report, California’s earthquake policy history started in the 1930s with laws that increased design requirements for buildings related to one particular use—public schools, and banned new construction of one particular structural system or type—buildings with unreinforced masonry (URM) load bearing walls. Much later in the 1970s and 80s, both state and local new laws were passed targeting URMs built before 1933, certain locations (e.g., hazard zoning with prohibitions or heightened evaluation and design scrutiny for new construction or rehabilitation in those zones), a wider Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 33 set of uses (e.g., hospitals and essential services buildings) and additional structural types (e.g., older concrete buildings and manufactured homes). The choices jurisdictions make about which buildings to target are closely tied to the legal basis underlying earthquake mitigation policymaking. Laws that impose added burdens or responsibilities on certain properties or people must clearly specify which buildings are applicable and justify why for those particular buildings have been selected. A compelling, documentable, and actionable public purpose must exist to invoke a jurisdiction’s police powers and responsibility for public wellbeing. The central rationale for regulating seismically vulnerable structures is safety; a strong case for government intervention exists where there is an unacceptably high likelihood of collapse or damage that could lead to human entrapment, injury, or death. Technical research, evidence, and evolving standards of practice in structural engineering must exist for this to be considered reasonable. Once a new practice becomes embedded in a model building code, construction to former code standards is no longer allowed. Jurisdictions review permits and inspect construction work in progress, but lax compliance cannot entirely be ruled out. For any particular structural system, year built (or age) is the most commonly used risk indicator because it reflects the building code version that was in effect when a structure was first constructed. What was once considered an acceptable construction practice may become obsolete or even be considered negligent years later. Code updates are usually made on a three-year cycle to keep up with changes in construction practices, technologic advancements, and improved understanding how buildings perform under loads, but adoption by jurisdictions can be uneven and lag behind many years. Jurisdictions must also address which code year built they will use as inclusion criteria for their earthquake mitigation programs. Benchmarking to newer standards may be justified if it reaches more buildings that could experience significant damage in an earthquake, but a larger percent of building owners and tenants will be affected. Code changes are also proposed based on lessons learned from practical experience over time, in this case from earthquake performance outcomes in jurisdictions all around the world. Unreinforced Masonry Buildings URM buildings have been a concern for collapse and falling debris hazard ever since the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, after which new construction of URM structures in California was outlawed. The most significant contemporary law addressing a specific Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 34 building type is the 1986 state legislation (Senate Bill 547). This state mandate, also summarized in the Task 2 report, required jurisdictions to identify and adopt programs for addressing existing URM buildings. Several jurisdictions (most prominently Long Beach, Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, and San Francisco) had existing URM building ordinances and programs in place prior to the state mandate. Counties and municipalities were allowed to craft their own approach, resulting in a wide range of strategies. In general, three main types of local programs were utilized: 1) mandatory retrofit, 2) voluntary retrofit, and 3) notice to owners that the structure is a URM building. When retrofits were encouraged or required, the local government set the standards to be met. More than half (52%) of affected jurisdictions adopted a mandatory program, which has proven by far to be the most effective type. Eighty-seven percent of identified properties have been retrofitted or demolished in jurisdictions with mandatory programs, compared to thirteen to 25 percent in jurisdictions with other program types. Reviews of the URM Law by the CSSC have shown it to be a success over the long term. In 2006 (the last comprehensive state survey available), Compliance with the policy is nearly universal at 93%, and over 70% of identified URM buildings have been either retrofitted or demolished (CSSC, 2006). A comprehensive review of URM program formats throughout the Western United States is available from FEMA and the California Seismic Safety Commission (FEMA, 2009; CSSC, 2006). Older Concrete Buildings Older concrete structures (built pre-1970s and in some cases pre-1990s) exemplify the importance and difficulties of using code year as an indicator of seismic risk. Public awareness of older concrete risks may be lower than for soft-story wood frame buildings, but they are common in large numbers in the Western US and throughout California. The Concrete Coalition,24 a network of engineers, research organizations, and policymakers, estimates that there are as many as 17,000 non-ductile concrete buildings in California (Concrete Coalition, 2011). The societal importance of older concrete structures can be significant, as they often have higher occupancies and are widely used for residential tall buildings, commercial, or even critical service facilities. 24 Information about the Coalition can be found at the organization’s website: http://www.concretecoalition.org/, Accessed March 18, 2016. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 35 Poorly performing concrete structures can have devastating effects for occupants, owners, and communities, as numerous major quakes in California and abroad have demonstrated. The 1971 Sylmar earthquake brought down several concrete structures, killing 52, and the 1994 Northridge earthquake wrecked even more, including a Bullock's department store and Kaiser medical office. In the 2011 quake in Christchurch, New Zealand, two concrete office towers collapsed killing 133 people. Many of the 6,000 people killed in the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, were in concrete buildings. A scenario report for the San Francisco Bay Area estimates that older concrete buildings in a repeat 1906-level event would contribute a large portion of the predicted deaths and injuries (ABAG, 1999). Also at risk are investors, the survival of occupying businesses, and livelihoods. Neighborhoods can be at risk too if a district has a high concentration of older concrete buildings, as they may be blighted or loose functionality or economic viability after an event. Older concrete buildings of concern have a variety of features and are not always easy to characterize. One issue is nonductile (essentially too brittle, insufficiently reinforced) concrete, prior to enforcement of ductile concrete codes in the 1970s. Another is tilt-up structures, where a concrete is poured on the ground, cured, and then lifted (or “tilted”) up and connected to roof and floor framing where the ties between the roof and wall and floors and walls are often inadequate. Vulnerable concrete structures can be difficult to spot and often complex to retrofit (ATC, 2012). These are factors in why only a small number of California jurisdictions have adopted policies for older concrete (Table 2). The City of Los Angeles (Building Code Divisions 91 and 96) recently required evaluation and upgrade if needed for nonductile concrete structures and since Northridge has required triggered upgrading on pre-1976 tilt-ups. City of Santa Monica (Municipal Code 8.80) requires evaluation and upgrade if needed for nonductile concrete structures, along with other structural types. In 2014 Santa Monica hired the engineering firm Degenkolb to inventory buildings that might be subject to its requirements—a first step in reviving efforts that had been stalled for more than 20 years.25 Two jurisdictions, Long Beach (Chapter 18.71) and Burbank, have taken the approach of providing voluntary guidance. Burbank’s program addresses older reinforced concrete and concrete frame buildings with masonry infill. 25 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-monica-will-hire-quake-engineers-to-id-all-vulnerable- buildings-20140527-story.html (Accessed March 20, 2016). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 36 Table 2: Summary table of local programs for addressing older concrete building vulnerabilities. Jurisdiction Number of Older Concrete Buildings Program Type Targeted Building Characteristics Deadline for Screening Deadline for Evaluation Deadline for Completion Los Angeles Unknown (Concrete Coalition inventory* = 1500) Mandatory evaluation leading to mandatory retrofit Pre-1976 tilt- ups and nonductile concrete 3 years 10 years 25 years Santa Monica Unknown (Concrete Coalition estimate* = 173) Mandatory evaluation leading to mandatory retrofit Pre-1978 nonductile concrete. n/a 275 days Deadlines vary from 1 to 4 years after evaluation report submission, depending on priority tiers. ** Long Beach Unknown (Concrete Coalition estimate* = 396) Voluntary guidance Nonductile concrete n/a Burbank Unknown (Concrete Coalition estimate* = 132) Voluntary guidance Commercial pre-1977 reinforced concrete and concrete frame buildings with masonry infill n/a * Source: (Concrete Coalition, 2011). ** Santa Monica’s Building Type definitions are: Type I: building that are vital in the event of an emergency; Type II: >100 occupants; Type Ill: 20 - 100 occupants; Type IV: < 20 occupants. Soft-Story Wood Frame Buildings Wood frame soft-story buildings are a good example of a vulnerable building type that gained widespread attention after performing poorly in specific earthquake events. In October 1989, the hazard and widespread presence of this building type were made Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 37 evident by the dramatic and costly collapses and fires in the San Francisco Marina District in the Loma Prieta earthquake. Then again, in the Northridge event in 1994, widespread damage and several high profile collapses occurred. The Northridge- Meadows apartment complex collapse that led to sixteen deaths in particular captured media, public, and expert attention. Following these events, soft-story residential buildings started to be viewed as not just a threat to the owner’s pocketbook but to the surrounding community; tenant safety and local recovery could also be at stake. Given their prevalence, losing hundreds of soft- story apartment buildings could have large impacts on community. For example, soft- story buildings constituted about half (7,700) of the 16,000 housing units rendered uninhabitable in the Bay Area by the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and over 34,000 of the housing units rendered uninhabitable by the Northridge Earthquake in 1994 (ABAG, 2003). Table 3 describes a wide range of local efforts to address soft-story wood frame buildings, highlighting key program features and distinctions (many of which are discussed in later sections regarding prioritization, timing, and policy mechanisms). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 38 Table 3: Summary of local soft-story wood frame policy efforts showing key distinguishing program features. (Sources: Rabinovici, 2012; ABAG, 2016). Jurisdiction Year Number of Soft- story Buildings Program Type Targeted Building Characteristics Priorities or Tiers Deadline for Evaluation Deadline for Permit Deadline for Completion Los Angeles 2015 unknown Mandatory Evaluation leading to Mandatory Retrofit Pre-1978 wood- frame structures with soft, weak or open front first floor conditions with two or more stories and five or more units. Only enforcement is prioritized by tiers. Priority I - Buildings containing 16 or more dwelling units. 1 year 2 years 7 years Priority II - Buildings with three stories or more, containing fewer than 16 dwelling units. Priority III - Buildings not falling within the definition of Priority I or II. Oakland 2015 1,380 Mandatory Screening (passed 2009) leading to Mandatory Retrofit Pre-1985 multi- family wood frame structures with five or more units n/a Attachment F Table 3 (continued). Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 39 Jurisdiction Year Number of Soft- story Buildings Program Type Targeted Building Characteristics Priorities or Tiers Deadline for Evaluation Deadline for Permit Deadline for Completion Berkeley 2014 310 (at time of 2005 ordinance) Mandatory evaluation law (2005) leading to mandatory retrofit (2014) Multi-family wood frame structures with five or more units n/a 2 years (under previous soft-story evaluation ordinance) 2 years 4 years San Francisco 2013 2,800 Mandatory evaluation leading to mandatory retrofit Wood frame construction with five or more residential units and two or more stories with permit for construction submitted prior to January 1, 1978 and five or more units Tier I - Any building containing educational, assembly, or residential care facility uses (Building Code Occupancy E, A, R2.1, R3.1, or R4) 1.5 years 2.5 years 4.5 years Tier II - Any building containing 15 or more dwelling units 2.5 years 3.5 years 5.5 years Tier III - Any building not falling within another tier 3.5 years 4.5 years 6.5 years Tier IV - Any building containing ground floor commercial uses (Building Code Occupancy B or M), or any building in a mapped liquefaction zone 4.5 years 5.5 years 7.5 years Attachment F Table 3 (continued). Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 40 Jurisdiction Year Number of Soft- story Buildings Program Type Targeted Building Characteristics Priorities or Tiers Deadline for Evaluation Deadline for Permit Deadline for Completion Alameda 2011 70 Mandatory evaluation Five or more units n/a 2 years Fremont 2005 22 Mandatory retrofit Apartment house with more than ten units or more than two stories Group 1 - Apartment house with more than ten units or more than two stories n/a 2 years 4 years Group II - Apartment house with ten or less units and fewer than three stories high n/a 2.5 years 5 years Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 41 Public Purpose, Occupancy, Location, and Other Considerations Another stated goal of seismic mitigation laws is to promote continuity of vital services related to the community’s social and economic viability. In addition to direct safety concerns, this further justifies targeting special uses and buildings that affect larger numbers of people such as schools, critical public buildings, and hospitals. Beyond critical community functions, however, it is less obvious where to draw the line between public and private risks and benefits. How many people need to live or work in a building before a suspected earthquake vulnerability becomes something an owner or tenant should not be allowed to make decisions about on their own? The answer involves some sense of proportionality. In other words, local governments tend to seek a reasonable balance between the number of building owners that will need to comply and the burden of compliance, with the public benefits that will be achieved (which we can assume to be protection of health and preservation of community functionality). That is a key reason why buildings with higher occupancy or higher residential unit total are sometimes targeted. Such buildings not only have more human beings that work or live in them, but the fate of the buildings also has a larger impact on local housing availability, parking, and other community impacts. For instance, most existing soft-story wood frame programs are targeted at multifamily buildings with five or more residential units (see Table 3). Larger structures are also presumably worth more, so the owner is more likely to have sufficient equity in the property or cash flow to make capital upgrades. A structure’s number of stories may also relate to the degree of risk or perceptions of public importance. Problematically, more stories may not always translate into higher risk; for example, two-story soft-story buildings may not necessarily be less dangerous compared to three story ones, depending on the materials used and the positioning of occupied units (Bonowitz and Rabinovici, 2012). A good example of a program that uses location or zoning as part of its targeting is Palo Alto’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses incentive. The incentive is only available for buildings in Commercial Downtown (CD) District, which has sub-zones based on CD-C Commercial, CD-S Service, and CD-N Neighborhood designations. Zoning benefits are different for each of these designations, the square footage, and also if the building in question is historic property. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 42 Ownership structure is another potential scoping issue, for instance, whether condominiums should be included.26 The City of Berkeley did not include condominiums in its soft-story wood frame building ordinance, but the jurisdictions of San Francisco and Fremont did. Condominiums often face additional barriers in both voluntary and mandatory retrofit policy settings, because homeowner association policies and practices can make it difficult to agree on what should be done and to obtain financing. Anecdotally, in Palo Alto and elsewhere, properties where a majority of owners want to retrofit have not been able to accomplish that work because of hold-out members that do not want to proceed or pay an additional assessment in order for the association to be able to afford it. The overall influence on retrofit behavior of either including or excluding condominiums is not known. A final point that should be noted about program scope is that some properties that would otherwise be subject to a law can be classified as exempt for certain reasons. For instance, most jurisdictional ordinances offer exemptions for buildings that have had significant recent renovations or retrofit upgrades that addressed the hazardous condition. Some jurisdictions explicitly include protocols for hardship provisions such as extended timelines that might be made available for individual or institutional owners that can demonstrate an unusual degree of difficulty raising sufficient funds to comply. Timelines, Pacing, and Prioritization For several reasons, jurisdictions find it useful to both prioritize and pace their earthquake program efforts. Time is a powerful ally and policy variable. Once a jurisdiction commits to the idea of a new program, timeframes can be used to make implementation manageable and soften the economic impacts of the program on city staff and budgets, on owners, and on the local economy. Retrofitting is also a process that cannot be sped up beyond a certain point. Design, arrangement of financing, and completion of retrofit work can be an arduous process, naturally taking from months to years. Lengthier time windows allow owners to plan for how to comply in the way that works best for them. Longer time frames can also work to the advantage of jurisdictions, which rarely have sufficient administrative capacity, political will, and community tolerance to take on multiple seismic risk issues simultaneously over a short 26 Keep in mind that condominium status can change. The City of Berkeley decided not to include condominium properties on its Suspected High Hazard Building list. However, owners in some apartment buildings in the process of being converted to condominium status when needing complying with the law experienced difficulty getting loans (Rabinovici, 2012). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 43 period of time. Following are several examples of how different jurisdictions have used timing as part of their program structure. Trigger-Enforced Timing Some jurisdictions have opted to require earthquake retrofit to be done only when the property is sold and/or an owner submits plans for renovation, additions, or rehabilitation that meets certain criteria, for instance 50% of the assessed value. This is similar to triggers for energy upgrading, sewer lateral replacement for single family homes, modifications for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, or sprinkler and other fire code changes. A jurisdiction taking this approach does not need to inventory vulnerable structures in advance and may be able to do project reviews at current staffing levels. However, there are several downsides. Owners may resent encountering these potentially substantial “surprise” costs when initiating a project, and might strategically manipulate project valuation to avoid needing to comply, resulting in lower fees for the city. For those owners that are aware of the provisions, potentially important non-seismic renovation work that would have been done otherwise might be postponed as a result of increased project cost and complexity. Most importantly, critical safety and resilience retrofit work might go decades without being done. Proactively-Enforced Timing with Phasing and/or Prioritization Proactive enforcement means that a jurisdiction identifies, notifies, and actively seeks to help owners participate or comply in a program. It is common when these programs include mandates to use a variety of time frames for buildings with different characteristics. For instance, Los Angeles’s 2015 ordinance requires compliance for soft- stories within seven years and older concrete within 25 years. Another common strategy is to classify buildings of a single targeted structural type into tiers or priority levels among a particular type of building, for instance based on age, number of stories, unit totals, or occupancy. Compliance can then be mandated sooner in order from most to least serious in terms of estimated risk and social importance. Time frames for soft-story programs, for instance, commonly relax deadlines by about one year per tier (See Deadlines by programs in Table 3). Both of these phasing approaches allows jurisdictions to set a feasible administrative pace and put an early focus on buildings with vulnerabilities and characteristics that most affect the public. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 44 An overall pacing strategy can also be used to phase implementation of a larger set of resilience policies and programs that go beyond different building types to address other aspects of community earthquake vulnerability. For instance, San Francisco mandated soft-story wood frame building retrofitting, then mandated its 120 private schools to do seismic evaluations of their buildings regardless of structure type,27 and then embarked on efforts to assess and create programs for poorly anchored façades and unreinforced masonry chimneys. All three approaches – 1) phasing and compliance time frames that differ for structures, 2) in different priority tiers, 3) within a multifaceted comprehensive plan – were used in recommendations from San Francisco’s decade-long Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) project (ATC, 2010). Figure 2 shows an earlier version of how San Francisco thought about address different building types and uses more or less quickly and with gradually increasing requirements. Later, these concepts were embedded into the jurisdiction’s policies as part of San Francisco’s 30-year Earthquake Safety Implementation Plan (SF ESIP, 2011). That plan represents a commitment by the city to phase in additional efforts over this extended period, and deliberately addressed a wide range of vulnerable structure types, uses, or occupancy combinations considered important to community resilience (e.g., private schools, façades). Additional advantages of long time frames are to allow more time for detailed studies or research if needed, for political or community consensus to develop, and give owners ample notice of bigger changes to come. 27 Ordinance text available at: http://sfgov.org/esip/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/12716- Ordinance%20No%20202-14%20Private%20Schools%20EQ%20Evaluation.pdf (Accessed February 3, 2016). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 45 Figure 2: Excerpt of Table 5 from the summary San Francisco CAPSS Project report (ATC, 2010) showing recommended timelines for prioritizing and phasing different kinds of efforts to address a variety of building types and uses. Note: Categories represented in rows are not mutually exclusive. For instance, some private school facilities may be located in a house of worship or historic structures. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 46 Policy Mechanisms and Requirements In addition to creating a set of targeting and eligibility criteria, jurisdictions can use a variety of methods to motivate appropriate seismic upgrades to be done. Requiring owners to do retrofit work is only one approach. Other tools range from simple notification, disclosure measures,28 offering incentives, voluntary retrofit initiatives, and mandated screenings or evaluations, each of which is described below in more detail. Another major distinction is whether a jurisdiction implements requirements only when triggered during rehabilitation projects that meet certain criteria, or proactively, such as doing an inventory to identify affected properties and imposed deadlines. Figure 3 provides definitions of a spectrum of policy mechanisms that have been used. This view corrects the false impression that jurisdictional programs have to be either “voluntary” or “mandatory.” In reality, most jurisdictions create a policy package that combines several approaches. Furthermore, that package can evolve over time as more and more buildings are upgraded, new information or technical recommendations become available, or with changes in the political or economic climate. Inventory Identifying the number and locations of buildings of concern is an essential first step to finding out which buildings are the most vulnerable and how significant those issues may be for the community. Many jurisdictions launch their earthquake program development process with a special-purpose, one-time discovery effort meant to compile data about potentially seismic at-risk properties and to gauge the scope of the issues faced by the community. This can be difficult and time consuming, and jurisdictions often rely on outside consultants or professional organizations and academic volunteers for assistance. Existing property databases generally contain less than complete information to be able to draw conclusions, and some relevant information may only exist in paper form. Street-walks, side walk surveys, or visits to a selected sample of properties are common. It is important to distinguish early investigation and risk analysis efforts that might involve only a subset of properties from the development of an exhaustive list of properties meeting certain criteria that could be officially noticed or subjected to a 28 Disclosure policies are designed to increase the transparency and openness surrounding an issue of social importance. Examples include mandatory disclosure to tenants, freedom of information requirements, public signage, searchable online listing, or official notice placed on a title or deed. These are described in Table . Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 47 particular ordinance. The City of Berkeley is one jurisdiction that used a list created by staff and consultants as the basis for determining which properties should be included on that city’s suspected hazardous properties list. Other cities have instead chosen to put buildings on an initial suspected hazard list based on zoning, number of units, or other generally available criteria. Palo Alto’s current investigation into updating its seismic risk management program involves review of digital records, paper records, and side walk surveys. The side walk survey portion includes approximately half of the buildings of interest. A similar detailed field effort would be needed on the remaining portion of buildings to develop a comprehensive inventory list. No inventory list will be perfect, so no matter which approach is used, some kind of appeal, confirmation, or screening processes are needed before granting any exemptions or enforcing requirements. Depending on the building type, issues of improper inclusion or exclusion from a list may be more or less likely. For example, rapid visual determination is easier for wood frame soft-story conditions, but it would be hard for even an experienced engineer to identify a steel moment frame, braced frame building, or a concrete frame building when the structural elements are hidden from view by architectural finishes. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 48 Figure 3: Diagram showing a spectrum of mitigation policy approaches ranging from least to most stringent. Inventory Only Notify Only Voluntary Retrofit Disclosure Approaches Mandatory Screening Mandatory Evaluation Mandatory Retrofit Staff, consultants, and/or a volunteer organization has created an inventory of one or more suspected hazard building types, but the list is not officially released to the public or acted upon. An inventory exists and a policy has been established to notify owners if their property is on a suspected hazard building list. Owners of properties on a publically available list are formally encouraged to retrofit, possibly by offering of technical assistance, financial help, or policy incentives. Properties on a publically available list are subject to one or more methods of forced information sharing, such as tenant notification, public signage, or recorded notice on the property title. Owners of properties on a publically available list are required to submit a form within a fixed time window that is filled out by a licensed building professional. Typically, the goal is to determine whether the property has certain characteristics that might associate with risk.* Owners of properties on a publically available list are required submit within a fixed time window a formal evaluation completed by a licensed engineer. Typically, a determination is then made about whether the property has certain risk features.* Owners of properties on a publically available list are required to complete a retrofit by a certain date. This step may be implemented following a screening or evaluation phase.* * Note: Implementation and enforcement might be either: 1) triggered by sale or a significant work threshold or 2) via a proactive compliance timeline. Increasingly Stringent Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 49 Notification Once an inventory is created, a jurisdiction either by default or deliberately chooses whether or not to make that list public or take further actions. Some jurisdictions have created a list then not acted on it for a decade or more. For example, in the case of soft- story wood frame buildings, Santa Clara County’s list has remained dormant since 2003, and nine years passed between the creation of a list and when the City of Berkeley passed its soft-story ordinance. The most basic step is to notify owners that their property is on some kind of suspected earthquake hazard list. This is currently the URM policy of a small number of California jurisdictions, and the soft-story wood frame policy in the jurisdictions of San Leandro, Sebastapol, and Richmond. Available data about notification only programs shows them to have little impact; for instance, seven percent of URM properties in jurisdictions with this type of program are retrofit as of 2006 (CSSC, Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, 2006). Little evidence exists about potential liability and market value impacts from becoming a “listed” earthquake vulnerable building. However, concern exists that mere creation of a list could have negative impacts if it becomes public (see more about Disclosure Approaches below). A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filing (for instance, by a journalist or citizen) could be used to compel a jurisdiction to reveal a list that has remained dormant. This happened in the case of Los Angeles with the Concrete Coalition’s inventory of suspected concrete structures.29 Experts in the earthquake field believe that media coverage of the list contributed to eventual passage of that city’s mandatory evaluation ordinance in 2015, which included concrete structures. In sum, notification programs may have several downsides for owners while offering little in terms of on the ground risk reduction for the community. Voluntary Retrofit Following an inventory and notification process, or even after a mandatory screening or evaluation phase (see below), jurisdictions can choose to let owners decide whether or not to retrofit their building. Simply urging building owners that own a potentially earthquake vulnerable building may be enough to lead some to voluntarily retrofit. 29 Key Los Angeles Times articles can be found at: http://graphics.latimes.com/me-earthquake-concrete/ and http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-concrete-buildings-list-20140125-story.html (Accessed April 11, 2016). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 50 Retrofit rates for jurisdictions with voluntary URM retrofit programs averaged 16% in 2006 (CSSC, Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, 2006), and likely much lower than that for soft-stories (though no systematic data currently exist). Jurisdictions that take a voluntary route often do so because they have a small number (presumably less socially-significant set) of vulnerable buildings. Another factor can be a sense that public support is lacking among decision makers, residents, or other stakeholders for mandatory requirements, perhaps because of local economic conditions that would make it difficult for owners to afford or get financing. The anticipated cost of the retrofit work can also come into play, as it can be more palatable to require owners to make investments that are a smaller share of the building’s overall value. Despite perceptions of politically feasibility and some measurable voluntary retrofit response, programs without mandates are almost always much less effective at actually reducing earthquake risk in the community in a significant way. Several factors appear to contribute to the handful of voluntary programs that have worked well. First and foremost, voluntary programs vary in the level of resources devoted, sustained effort, and set of complementary measures taken by the jurisdiction. The more dedicated a jurisdiction is to having a successful voluntary program, the more likely it is to have one. One tactic is to provide case by case assistance to owners in taking steps over time, a tactic sometimes used by jurisdictions with a small number of affected buildings. Another is to offer significant financial or policy incentives (examples of which are discussed below). On the public awareness front, providing educational materials that explain the risks to an owner and to the broader community and the benefits of protecting their financial investment may help. Another thing that can make voluntary programs more successful is to threaten to institute a mandatory program in the future. Historically, many jurisdictions did adopt a voluntary URM program first, and then shifted to mandates later on. In the past five years, this has also happened with soft-story wood frame policies in the case of Oakland, San Francisco, and Berkeley. An explicit multi-phased approach was particularly effective in Berkeley, where one fourth of building owners affected by a mandatory evaluation requirement invested in a voluntary retrofit within the first two years. Owner interviews showed this was partly because they wanted to get a head start on later mandates that appeared inevitable (Rabinovici, 2012). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 51 Disclosure Approaches Notification and many voluntary programs are based on the idea that information and communication by themselves can influence the opinions and actions of owners, renters, and buyers. Officially publicizing a city’s concerns about deficiencies of a specific building type could, for instance, change public opinion about the resale or rental value of listed properties, an owner’s eligibility for refinancing or future loan terms, or the cost of purchasing earthquake insurance. Jurisdictions have used a variety of techniques to motivate attention to seismic risk concerns. As discussed in the Task 2 report, mandatory disclosure at time of sale is a key part of state laws for pre-1960 homes in earthquake fault zones (CSSC, 2005). The most prominent policy is the state requirement for signage on all URM buildings. Similar signage has been required since 2007 on soft-story wood frame buildings in the City of Berkeley (Figure 4), and non-complying soft-story wood frame buildings in San Francisco Figure 5. In Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco tenants must be notified in writing, and official notices are recorded on the deed for all listed soft-story wood frame buildings. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 52 Figure 4: Photo of the warning sign mandated to be posted on buildings on the City of Berkeley’s Suspected Earthquake Hazard Building List (Photo: S. Rabinovici, 2011). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 53 Figure 5: Required placard for soft-story wood frame buildings that failed to comply on time with the mandatory screening phase of San Francisco's mandatory retrofit program. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 54 In the case of soft-story wood frame buildings, leading jurisdictions have also put a public, sometimes searchable list of affected properties on a jurisdiction’s website, based on the idea that renters should be entitled to easily accessible information before they sign a lease. Such lists include the street address and potentially also the compliance status of the property. Owner names or contact information are not given, although anyone could search for that information through public permit and property records. Table 4 describes each of these tools in more detail and gives examples of use as well as advantages and disadvantages. What all these measures have in common is that they make seismic risk issues more transparent and visible to affected members of the public. Disclosure is different than and goes beyond general public awareness. These measures are also meant to inform people about specific seismically vulnerable buildings, with the idea that it might change offering prices, mortgage availability and terms, rental or purchase decisions, or even whether someone wants to enter or stay very long in a building. In theory, as owners, tenants, bankers, and potential buyers become more informed, they can better incorporate seismic risk in their mitigation decisionmaking and assessment of property values. Evidence suggests that notification, notices, and public lists can and do influence beliefs and behavior. For example, some soft-story wood frame condominium owners in Berkeley reported difficulty refinancing (Rabinovici, 2012). Even perception of market awareness can change opinions, even if there is little to no documented impact. In Berkeley, some owners said the worried at first about reduced demand or market price for units in their buildings and this motivated them to retrofit; however, these same owners years later did not report experiencing any problems with tenant recruitment or lost rental income (Rabinovici, 2012). Earthquake warning signage was a prominent part of the state’s URM program requirements; however, there is little evidence to show that such warnings are effective. A study of California Proposition 61 carcinogen and reproductive health warnings suggests that signs are not very powerful and become less influential on behavior over time as people become used to them. Some building users may even be personally annoyed by warning signs, because it reminds them of a risk that they can personally do little about. Some owners of soft-story wood frame buildings in Berkeley Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 55 reported having tenants that actively complained about or repeatedly ripped the required warning signs off the walls (Rabinovici, 2012). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 56 Table 4: Description of disclosure approaches used in local earthquake risk reduction programs. Name Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Mandatory Disclosure at Time of Sale Sellers of property are required to disclose features that could relate to earthquake performance. California Earthquake Fault Zone disclosure; Sellers of pre-1960 homes are required to fill out to the best of their knowledge and provide buyers with Residential Earthquake Hazards Report. Empowers buyers to be aware of any known existing hazard issues. Anecdotally, many buyers do not pay enough attention to these disclosures, which occur during emotional, busy decisionmaking periods. They may not seek expert information to interpret the reported information. It is also possible that sellers shirk on the disclosure requirements if buyers do not know that they are supposed to receive them. Difficult to enforce. Recorded Notice on Deed Jurisdictions can record on the property title or deed the fact that the building is subject to additional requirements related to its earthquake vulnerable status. For soft-story wood frame: Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco. Relatively low cost for jurisdictions to implement. Empowers buyers but also mortgage companies to be aware of any known existing hazard issues. Anecdotally, it is not clear how many buyers or mortgage companies pay attention to these notices. Such notices are primarily effective only at time of sale or refinance. Attachment F Table 4 (continued) Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 57 Name Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Public Listing of Affected Properties Jurisdictions that operate web sites to describe their programs can feature a full list of property addresses, potentially also including also the compliance status of the property. In general, owner names are not listed, though that information is available if a member of the public searched for it separately. For soft-story wood frame: Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco. Relatively low cost for jurisdictions to implement. Could be used by tenants and buyers when searching for properties, thus empowering well- informed market negotiations over pricing. Website information needs to be updated on a regular basis in order to be perceived as fair and useful. Public lists work better if the property addresses are searchable, rather than static (e.g., on a pdf). External Signage Jurisdictions that operate web sites to describe their programs can feature a full list of property addresses, potentially also including the compliance status of the property. Some lists are searchable, while others are static. California state requires a sign on all URM buildings. Similar signage has been required since 2007 on soft-story wood frame buildings in the City of Berkeley. Advocates argue that signs are justified based on the public's right to know. The physical presence and repeated viewing of signage may make the issue more salient for visitors, employees, lease holders, and owners alike. Owners may view the signs as stigmatizing or threatening to property value or business revenues, but anecdotally, it is not clear how much visitors, employees, residents, and other users of a building pay attention to signage when entering or leaving a property. Attachment F Table 4 (continued) Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 58 Name Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns Tenant Notification Owners are required to present straightforward, standardized information about the listed status of the property. Some jurisdictions require proof of notification (e.g., tenant signature) to be returned and kept on file with the city. For soft-story wood frame: Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco. Tenant notification may be more influential than signage because it is personalized and the information is delivered at a useful time in that person's decision process. Advocates claim that tenant notification is justified based on the public's right to know. To be effective, tenant notification should be required to occur well before the potential tenant is ready to sign the lease. Earthquake Performance Rating Systems Owners can be either encouraged or required to have their building rated on a standardized scale that classifies expected building performance in an earthquake in an easier to understand format, for instance from one to five stars. Viable rating systems exist for many building types. The City of Los Angeles in 2015 officially launched a voluntary effort to encourage owners to rate their properties using the US Resiliency Council system and pledged to rate its own public buildings as well. Rating system use is common for institutions like universities and hospitals. Mechanisms for implementing performance ratings for commercial use have recently matured and are now viable. Ratings have the potential to inform owner, renter and buyer decisions, creating a market effect. Obtaining a rating potentially adds cost to a design project. Ratings systems such as USRC’s are relatively new and not yet widely implemented. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 59 An advantage of disclosure measures is they tend to be relatively inexpensive for jurisdictions to administer. Up to date website posting of the list of affected properties and their compliance status encourages people to visit the site as needed over time, people see signs every time they enter or exit, and properties may exchange hands many times. Eventually, a tipping point in community awareness and opinion about a class of properties can occur, as it did in the case of Berkeley for soft-story wood frame buildings. The use of positive disclosure remains an untapped potential influence on market value of retrofitted properties as well as owners’ retrofit decisions. This review did not identify any city programs that have taken the positive approach of recognizing or rewarding owners or announcing buildings that have been retrofit. One recent development is the existence of viable earthquake rating systems. In November 2015, the non-profit US Resiliency Council30 launched a non-profit credentialing and verification service through which owners can obtain externally checked, state-of-the-art assessment of the expected safety levels, repair costs, and time to regain function for their property. USRC ratings have the potential to play the same kind of role that the US Green Building Council did in promoting sustainable design, both for new construction and for retrofits. USRC’s system has already been adopted one California jurisdiction’s policy. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti cited USRC ratings in that city’s Resilience by Design report (City of Los Angeles, 2015), asking building owners to voluntarily use it, pledging to educate the public about seismic performance rating systems and how the information can be used, and announcing the intention to use it or some similar system to rate all city-owned buildings. Mandatory Screening Screening programs help jurisdictions collect more information about targeted potentially vulnerable buildings in a community, usually as a first step to later more stringent requirements for the subset that are found to have features indicating significant deficiencies. With relatively low cost and difficulty for owners, the jurisdiction can both make the issue visible and filter out properties that do not meet the eligibility or targeting criteria, thereby reducing the burdensome handling of errors and omission at a later stage. They also help jurisdictions determine the overall scope of the problem—how many buildings exist that have certain risk characteristics and how significant of a threat they pose in aggregate. This can help build the case for further legislation. 30 The organization’s website is: www.usrc.org (Accessed April 13, 2016). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 60 For soft-story wood frame buildings, Oakland was a pioneer of the mandatory screening approach. An inventory of multifamily apartment buildings was created in 2008 with the help of volunteers and non-engineers under a contract with ABAG. This survey identified 24,273 residential units in 1,479 buildings with five or more units, between two and seven stories, built prior to 1991, that had wide open spaces for parking or commercial uses on the ground floor (ABAG, 2014). Spot testing suggested the list might have error rates that could potentially undermine future program effectiveness, and might be politically unacceptable (personal communication, Jeannie Perkins, 2008). Therefore, in 2009 the City passed ordinance Number 12966 which declared these buildings “potential soft-story buildings” and mandated submittal of a Level 1 Screening–Non-Engineered Analysis. The screening had to be performed by a registered design professional, licensed contractor or certified inspector, to provide some assurance of accuracy regarding features that might related to risk. Anecdotally, the cost to owners for this was generally around $200 to $500. This can be summarized as a rule-in screening approach. Persons involved with analyzing Oakland’s program (personal communication, Danielle Hutchings-Mieler, 2011) concluded that many owners were confused, compliance was lower than hoped, and exemptions may have been given without adequate quality control of the reported data. This later contributed to the decision to incorporate mandatory evaluation phase when the city of Oakland was ready to move towards a mandatory retrofit program. In other words, a less than satisfactory implementation of a screening phase can slow down progress towards and increase the effort required in future retrofit programming. In its approach to soft-story wood frame buildings, San Francisco opted for a screening phase to weed out obviously non-affected properties, for instance those misidentified as having the correct number of units, stories, or first floor uses (primarily focusing on ruling out inappropriately included properties). Similar to Oakland, the screening had to be performed by a registered design professional, such as a licensed contractor, engineer, or architect. Compliance in filing screening forms by the initial deadline was 98%, a success which was helped by a suite of outreach activities including four waves of post card reminders, a retrofit fair, a weekly updated website, an advisory group process, and multiple public meetings. The compliance postcards used took advantage of real-time information sharing to “nudge” owners to respond, such as mentioning how many other owners had already taken action by that point (see Figure 6). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 61 Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 62 Figure 6: Front and back of a compliance reminder postcard sent to affected owners in the City of San Francisco’s soft-story wood frame program. Mandatory Evaluation In the 1980s, Palo Alto was an early innovator with the technique of requiring owners of certain buildings in a community to file a formal engineering evaluation (Herman et. al., 1990). Because a licensed engineer (or structural engineer) must perform this work, such evaluations are approximately an order of magnitude more expensive than screenings. Evaluation costs for soft-story wood frame buildings in Berkeley, for example, were approximately $2,000 to $5,000 (Rabinovici, 2012). However, evaluation costs may vary substantially for other building types that are more difficult to assess, in other jurisdictions, and/or where evaluation requirements are more extensive or complex. Evaluation programs are costlier for jurisdictions to administrate than screening programs for a variety of reasons, but provide several advantages. Jurisdictions typically give owners more time to comply longer, owners need more guidance on how to comply, and there is increased need for processing time and more qualified reviewer labor. In Berkeley, report review was contracted out to plan checkers for a flat fee of $583 per evaluation report, and this did not cover jurisdiction staff time. On the benefits side, evaluations offer greater hope of achieving tangible risk reduction. As noted, a remarkable one in four soft-story wood frame building owners voluntarily retrofit in the wake of mandatory evaluation policy implementation in Berkeley, which meant over 2,000 of its residents now live in buildings that likely would not have been retrofitted otherwise. Interviews with soft-story wood frame owners in Berkeley also showed that many considered mandatory evaluation more fair than a voluntary retrofit program because it “leveled the playing field” (Rabinovici, 2012). Rather than having retrofit practices in their community determined ad hoc, all owners of similar properties were now being treated alike. However, the benefits of mandatory evaluation are undeniably uncertain and dependent on whether community circumstances are conducive to create a significant voluntary retrofit effect (Figure 7). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 63 Figure 7: Graph showing a seven-fold increase in permit applications in the four years immediately following passage of Berkeley’s 2005 mandatory evaluation law for soft-story wood frame buildings. Mandatory Retrofit Through California’s URM law, hospital, and school programs as well as soft-story wood frame buildings at the local scale, there is clear precedent for imposing earthquake retrofit work to be done for certain buildings. This is the most effective type of program for ensuring that on the ground risk reduction will be done. As discussed in the Task 2 report, on average over four times as many URM building cases have been retrofit in California in mandatory programs (70%) compared to voluntary ones (16%). However, because mandatory programs require all buildings to be addressed, owners with the most marginal properties cannot avoid taking action, in some cases leading to higher demolition rates (Comerio, 1992). In the case of URM buildings, mandatory retrofit programs did have higher demolition rates than voluntary programs, 17% compared to 8% respectively (CSSC, Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, 2006). Depending on the program timeline, it may take years to decades for tangible risk reduction to be realized. Retrofit projects naturally occur in steps, and can only be carried out as quickly as Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 64 financing, contracting, any tenant relocation, or construction logistics allow. Thus, compliance periods for mandatory retrofit programs need to be longer than for mandatory screening or evaluation programs. For URM buildings, many jurisdictions tended to set deadlines of ten years or more, followed by generous extensions. For soft-story wood frame programs, jurisdictions have given owners one to three years for first steps such as appeals, hiring an engineer, complete an acceptable engineering report, or submit a permit application and retrofit plan. Following that, owners are typically given another one to three years to complete construction (see Table 3), in part to secure financing, time to work around planned vacancies, and for adequate design. Longer timelines or exemptions can be offered for complex buildings that may require costlier or innovative engineering solutions (for instance, historic properties). Again, this is where phasing or tiers can be helpful. Another difficult aspect of retrofit programs (even voluntary ones) is that jurisdictions need to set specific expectations for what constitutes an acceptable retrofit. Jurisdictions have handled this in a variety of ways. Retrofit ordinances typically directly reference one or more particular standards (or equivalent criteria). The table of soft-story wood frame programs (Table 3) shows that five or more standards have been referenced recently and several jurisdictions reference more than one, which can increase compliance ambiguity and the level of reviewer skill required but also an engineer’s discretion to use the one most appropriate for their client’s situation. Also at issue is how much and how far a building’s vulnerabilities should be retrofit. For instance, in the case of soft-story wood frame buildings, a retrofit can be designed to address only the first story weaknesses, rather than all seismic vulnerabilities that are identified. Jurisdictions such as San Francisco and Berkeley have chosen this route, in part because it lessened political resistance to creating a mandate and addressed the most severe deficiencies. Other deficiencies above the first story may remain and may lead to damage in an earthquake. In the case of mandatory evaluation or retrofit programs, owners and their engineers will also need guidance about how to prepare an acceptable evaluation, and how to submit a concurrent retrofit permit application. Owners in Berkeley realized a major financial advantage to paying their engineer to do both an evaluation for the jurisdiction and a full set of retrofit plans at the same time (Rabinovici, 2012), so having clear retrofit standards in place already was a major boon to those owners. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 65 The potentially negative effects on public safety and on owners of choosing a longer compliance timeline should be noted. Earthquakes can occur at any time, so a program that offers longer compliance windows in effect allows people in the community to spend more time using and owning buildings that the jurisdiction has deemed unacceptable in the long run. Also, real liability consequences may exist for owners that delay in doing mandated retrofit work, even before an accepted compliance window has elapsed. A California Appellate court awarded $2 million to family members of two women who died in a URM collapse in the 2003 San Simeon earthquake.31 In doing so, the court rejected the defendant’s claim that they had no duty to retrofit the building until 2018, the deadline established by the San Louis Obispo mandatory retrofit ordinance. Incentives To complement any of the above program formats, jurisdictions can offer either financing- or policy- oriented incentives. Many ways exist to encourage and ease the path for owners to complete either voluntary or required retrofit work, or even to help them submit timely screening forms or engineering reports. Financial incentives and tools provide monetary assistance, either directly to an owner or via the jurisdiction. Financial incentives include measures such as tax credits, tax rebates, grants, or fee waivers that make a retrofit less expensive to complete. Financial tools (e.g., special low-interest financing programs) provide a mechanism for an owner to obtain the necessary funding, potentially at lower cost or paid back in ways other than for a traditional loan. Policy incentives are meant to encourage private funding of mitigation, and include for example expedited review, exemptions, development bonuses, or technical assistance. These measures offer owners indirect but potentially valuable benefits as they take each mitigation steps. Figure 8 provides a summary list of potential incentive types, while Appendix C gives details about example uses, advantages, and disadvantages of each. A group of agencies completed an inventory of jurisdiction incentive strategies using a survey of California local governments in the mid-90s (ABAG, Seismic Retrofit Incentive Programs: A Handbook for Local Governments, 1996). Though outdated and only 35% of contacted jurisdictions participated, the report summarizes the types of URM and other earthquake programs that different jurisdictions adopted and the kinds of assistance that owners could receive. The researchers also did interviews to collect detailed information about fifteen illustrative cases at the time, including Palo Alto. 31See press coverage: http://calcoastnews.com/2010/06/court-finds-paso-robles-business-owners-liable-for-earthquake- deaths/ Accessed April 13, 2016. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 66 FINANCIAL TOOLS AND INCENTIVES (mechanisms that make financing more accessible or directly reduce project costs) POLICY INCENTIVES (mechanisms that deliver indirect benefits to owners) CO S T A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I O N D I F F I C U L T Y Hi g h e r L o w e r Waivers or Reductions of Building Department Fees Exemption from Future Retrofit Requirements Pass Through of Retrofit Costs to Tenants (for jurisdictions with rent control) Expedited Permits, Inspections, and Reviews Property-Assessed Financing Loans (PACE) Exemptions or Relief from Standards or Non-Conforming Conditions Subsidized or Special Term Loans Condominium Conversion Assistance Real Estate Transfer Tax Rebates Technical Assistance for Retrofit Projects Special District or Historic Designation Tax Reductions Zoning Incentives (e.g., relief from use restrictions) Tax Credits Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Grants Density or Intensity Bonuses (e.g., Floor Area Bonus) General Obligation or Special Purpose Bonds Figure 8: Types of financial incentives and tools as well as policy incentives that have been used in local earthquake risk reduction programs in California, in approximate order top to bottom from lowest to highest cost and difficulty of implementation. Several points stand out in the ABAG report regarding incentive use and effectiveness. First, most jurisdictions offer a number of different incentives, rather than just one approach. This makes sense Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 67 because building and owner circumstances vary widely; what may help one owner might be irrelevant or inappropriate for another and vice versa. Second, jurisdictions have taken widely different approaches with incentives, from offering almost nothing to offering substantial loans and grants. Jurisdictions tend to come up with incentive offerings closely tailored to their own goals and circumstances, based on economic conditions, building stock vulnerabilities, political will, and other factors. As a result, there is no single best incentive package to offer. Another key point is that creation and operation of incentive programs is intense and must be locally customized. Extensive community education and involvement are required to assess needs, design and advertise the incentive offerings, and to help owners take advantage of them. Guiding community members through the mitigation process is time consuming and difficult, usually requiring at least one full time staff member who also has to coordinate with staff across several departments. That means the personalities, technical skills, and political savvy of the internal team will be critical, and likely variable over time, due to natural staff and political turnover issues. The effectiveness of different incentive approaches, individually or in packages, has not been systematically studied. Both ABAG and the San Francisco CAPSS project have produced high level lists of potential incentive tools (ABAG, 2014; Samant & Tobin, 2008) but do not specify which tools are being used where and to what effect. Many listed approaches are rarely or no longer being used. All the variety makes it difficult to draw overall conclusions as to which incentives have worked “best” where and why. 3. IMPLICATIONS AND POTENTIAL POLICY DIRECTIONS FOR PALO ALTO Palo Alto is a medium sized, compact city with a diverse population and vibrant local economy. Nested in the heart of Silicon Valley, the cost of living and development pressures are high, and space for growth is limited. A high degree of interconnectedness with surrounding communities and a dynamic natural environment is also evident. As a community, Palo Alto cannot ignore its proximity to several major faults and the fact that it has many different vulnerable building types. The estimated losses in a major event are significant. Fortunately, Palo Alto has a legacy of proactive policy leadership in addressing earthquake risks, and a relatively high degree of citizen and local government capacity. The potential benefits from retrofitting are large. City leaders, by investing this year in risk assessment and a policy development dialog, have demonstrated their capability and will to act. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 68 This review found no simple best local earthquake mitigation policy model for Palo Alto to follow. Each of the jurisdictions mentioned in this report has crafted, often over a decade or more, a unique package of measures suited to their own local economic, social, political, and risk realities. Palo Alto must do the same. In developing its own strategy, Palo Alto can learn from this variety among local mitigation programs. It can build on the successful framework of its own existing program while also combining and tailoring new elements that are working for other jurisdictions. Choosing Goals and Desired Outcomes One way to measure success is in relation to program goals and resource realities. From that standpoint, each of the programs mentioned in this report is successful to some degree. Some jurisdictions set out to do what they could with limited resources, progressing only the first steps of developing an earthquake mitigation program. The City of Richmond, for example, developed an inventory, hosted a community meeting, and notified owners as part of creating a very low cost voluntary approach to soft-story wood frame buildings. The good news is that by doing so, it achieved meaningful progress relative to jurisdictions that have done nothing. Public leaders and the broader community are more aware, city reputation and visibility have been enhanced, and city staff are now better connected to a network of local earthquake professionals that can help facilitate future action if and when that becomes possible. The bad news is that Richmond has been stymied so far by the departure of key staff, limited jurisdictional resources, and the limited resources of its soft-story wood frame building owners and tenants; a more aggressive retrofit program is not realistic until an outside source of funding is found. At the other extreme, a few leading jurisdictions set out to comprehensively assess earthquake vulnerabilities and risk reduction opportunities community-wide through a lengthy, relatively expensive, and collaboratively-informed processes. San Francisco and more recently Los Angeles are the most prominent users of this approach, producing in-depth reports and resilience plans intended to guide city efforts for decades. Importantly, these plans encompass many city activities and roles, types of buildings and building uses, different phases of the disaster cycle, and explicitly seek to connect earthquake mitigation efforts to a host of other community resilience concerns, from sea level rise to water supply reliability to telecommunications operations (Several leading local program models and planning resources for these types of efforts are introduced in Appendix D). In between are jurisdictions where program goals are either narrower in scope with more vigorous requirements (such as the City of Fremont’s mandatory retrofit program for soft-stories) or wider Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 69 scope with less vigorous requirements (such as the City of Santa Monica, which mandates retrofits for soft-story wood frame buildings and nonductile older concrete structures but only when triggered by a substantial renovation). The City of Berkeley took a phased, relatively aggressive approach to soft-stories, but has yet to put in place a program to address the 50 or so tilt-up concrete structures it has identified. Oakland is also somewhat unique in being a larger city that has mandated soft-story retrofits without initially taking a comprehensive approach. However, both Berkeley and Oakland benefited first from substantial volunteer professional involvement and later from sizeable, multi-year Rockefeller Foundation 100 Resilient Cities grants. Through the early help of both volunteers and consultants, Berkeley and Oakland laid the groundwork for mandatory programs that likely helped to attract the additional philanthropic attention and assistance. Berkeley has now produced, and Oakland is on its way to producing, a comprehensive resilience assessment and plan similar to what was done by San Francisco and Los Angeles. In this light, Palo Alto is currently in the “middle” group in terms of its scope and requirements for seismic safety compared to other leading jurisdictions. Palo Alto set new policy precedents in the 1980s with its community engagement, mandatory evaluation, and voluntary retrofit programs for three different categories of structures. However, this only addressed a small subset of its overall vulnerable building stock. By investing in data collection and community discussions this year, Palo Alto is now poised to move forward into a new position of seismic policy leadership. It is critical to first clarify community values and goals before designing a program to try to achieve them. All stakeholders should be invited to participate in discussions of what matters most to the City and the people who live, work, and invest in it. Common broad goals include increased public safety, reduced private property damage, and reduced downtime and displacement of businesses, consumers, and residents. However, addressing of different building types may advance these goals to different degrees and with different levels of certainty and speed. For instance, addressing soft-story wood frame housing may have little direct benefit for local businesses but would reduce renter displacement. Retrofit of older concrete structures might address concerns about provision of basic services after an event, but would have little or no benefit for housing. If the goal is to achieve the greatest reduction in losses, Palo Alto should address building types known to be potentially hazardous that occur in large numbers. Once community discussions lead to a sense of priorities and preferences, trade-offs and alternatives for pursuing each goal can be understood and considered. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 70 Wherever Palo Alto chooses to focus, it should strategically combine policy features to promote risk reduction. As this report revealed, regardless of scope, the most effective programs use a package of measures to tip the balance away from the status quo by publicizing and increasing the consequences of not retrofitting while also publicizing, easing the costs, and increasing the benefits of retrofitting. Potential Policy Directions Coming out of this local program review is a list of alternative approaches for Palo Alto to consider: Option 1: Status Quo In this option, the existing ordinance with its mandatory evaluation, voluntary retrofit approach remains in place without changes. This covers 89 buildings and has three categories: Category I— unreinforced masonry (except for under 1,900 sf with 6 residents), Category II—built before 1/1/1935 with 100 or more occupants, and Category III—built before 8/1/1976 with 300 or more occupants. As of 12/9/14, City records indicated that sixty-six of the buildings had been either retrofit, demolished, planned to be demolished, or found exempt, while 23 remained unaddressed. Evaluation was mandatory, and owner funded but retrofit is voluntary. The list is publically available by request, but not advertised. Floor area ratio bonuses are (were) available. Option 2: Increase Scope, but Retrofit Remains Voluntary Additional categories of structures would be added to the mandatory evaluation requirements. Palo Alto can consider programs for soft-story wood frame buildings, older concrete buildings, older tilt-up buildings, and older steel moment frame buildings. Precedents exist for programs addressing each of these structural types that pose well-identified, publicly important risks. Completion of an evaluation report could be separated into different timelines, for instance three to ten years, depending on degree of hazard. Palo Alto could also use location, occupancy type, and/or number of occupants as criteria in defining the scope or compliance timelines. Option 3: Similar to Option 2, but Additional Disclosure Measures are Incorporated This option would be similar to Option 2, but the list of buildings and status could be prominently posted on City website, tenants could be notified, signage could be required, and/or a recorded notice could be added to the property title. These options enhance transparency with the public and reward owners that retrofit by increasing the perceived benefits of retrofitting among potential tenants and buyers. Relatively inexpensive measures like these have been shown to be effective in increasing public awareness and motivating greater consideration of earthquake risk in private decisionmaking, including voluntary retrofits. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 71 Option 4: Increase Scope, Some Categories are Voluntary and a Few Categories are Mandatory, with Enforcement by Trigger Threshold This option builds on Option 3, but retrofitting would be required for some building types at whenever future time a building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation above a set threshold. Option 5: Increase Scope, Some Categories are Voluntary and a Few Categories are Mandatory, with Enforcement by a Fixed Timeline This option would be similar to Option 4, but retrofitting is required according to a fixed timeline. Timelines and enforcement emphasis could vary depending on tiers or priority groupings to motivate prompt action for the most vulnerable or socially important structures. In some cases, longer time frames are adopted for some building types such as older concrete, to ease the burden on owners and allow for technical advancement in retrofit techniques. Option 6: Similar to Option 5, but More Categories are Mandatory This alternative is similar to Option 5, but retrofitting would be required for additional categories. Palo Alto can also make its programs more stringent over time. Explicit phasing has been successful in jurisdictions like Berkeley and San Francisco for generating political consensus and enhancing administrative feasibility. This array of options can be also be shown in diagram format (Figure 9), which shows how a number of jurisdictions in this report have positioned themselves in terms of the relative strength of their requirements and the number and scope of the building types addressed. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 72 Figure 9: Diagram showing alternative policy directions for Palo Alto in the context of other jurisdictional earthquake mitigation programs. When considering options, Palo Also leaders and community members should keep in mind the following additional findings from this review: Mandating retrofit is the surest way to achieve risk reduction. Jurisdictions are increasingly using disclosure measures to motivate retrofits in both voluntary and mandatory programs, and such approaches have been shown to be powerful and relatively low cost to implement. Many mandatory programs use intermediate mandatory screening and/or evaluation phases to better gauge the risk and filter out properties that need not comply before implementing retrofit requirements. Fixed timelines allow a jurisdiction to prioritize and control the pace of risk reduction, provide a predictable planning horizon for owners. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 73 Incentive Options and Considerations By offering a strategic set of incentives and devoting a steady, adequate program budget, Palo Alto can create a program that eases the financial and logistical burdens on owners and provides adequate technical assistance to support retrofit project completion. Small incentives are meaningful and helpful to owners, while larger incentives may be critical for a subset of owners that face particularly complex or costly projects. Palo Alto has several traits that could make policy incentives (non-monetary assistance) particularly effective. One is a relatively manageable number of affected buildings for some building types. This means city staff might be able to provide high quality assistance to owners in complying and taking advantage of any special programs. Palo Alto is a highly desirable locale with a highly educated, real estate savvy population, and robust real estate market. Palo Alto has experience using policy incentives in the past, so staff and many owners are familiar with them. Despite limited data on their use or effectiveness, incentives can be politically important and provide a variety of benefits. Below are some specific ways incentives could play a role in Palo Alto’s future program and some steps that Palo Alto can take to create a package of incentives effectively tailored to its own goals and circumstances. It is good to offer small incentives to all owners because it fosters positive interest in the program and builds community good will. Modest incentives, on the order of a few hundred dollars, help acknowledge the public value that is being created by the efforts undertaken by owners. For example, offering fee waivers is a gesture that owners will appreciate, if not expect. Expedited permitting is likely to be viewed similarly, because time equates with money. Policy incentives tend to be in the direct control of the City to implement, and are often cost-effective and very helpful for owners in smoothing the path and easing the hassle of doing retrofit work. Incentives are especially important to the outcomes of voluntary programs. Incentives play slightly different roles in mandatory compared to voluntary programs. In the case of mandated upgrades, incentives essentially ease the burden of doing what has to be done or to make it happen more quickly. In the case of, voluntary programs, the goal of incentives is to motivate retrofit work to occur that might not have otherwise. In this way, incentive offerings are more critical to the degree of risk reduction achieved in the case of voluntary programs, and to political viability, perceptions of program fairness, and speed of risk reduction achieved in the case of mandatory programs. Bottom line, in the case of URMs, a small number of voluntary programs with substantial incentives have achieved similar Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 74 success compared to mandatory programs. With soft-story wood frame buildings, voluntary programs in the absence of incentives alone have not been enough to motivate retrofit work to be done. An exception is for owners in financial hardship, where incentives are most meaningful in mandatory programs. Design the incentive strategy to match the circumstances of the locally targeted building stock. FAR bonuses are likely irrelevant for soft-story wood frame buildings which are seldom renovated to include more units or changes of use, but relaxing of parking requirements or special provisions for condominiums may help. Mixed-used and historic buildings may require deeper financial assistance when they face high costs associated with retrofitting due to complex design issues, ADA compliance, and imposed restrictions on changes in use. Take time to assess actual need for incentives and the types that will make the most difference to affected Palo Alto owners. Larger policy incentives like FAR bonuses can be very effective, especially in higher income, higher growth communities like Palo Alto. In contrast, larger financial incentives can be difficult to orchestrate and have not always been as necessary or useful as hoped. Surprisingly, jurisdictions have sometimes found they have to “sell” incentives programs to owners. Certain strategies tend to be very challenging and costly to get the incentive to work compared to the amount of good they seem to do. Such may be the case with PACE financing,32 as seen through the experiences of San Francisco and Berkeley for soft-story wood frame buildings. When private market capital is affordable, loan programs may not be needed or utilized. Use of larger, more complex incentive instruments in general increases the amount of hand holding that is needed and the amount of time until retrofits are completed. Consider offering larger incentives to only those owners or properties that qualify or meet certain social importance or hardship criteria. Interviews in Berkeley (Rabinovici 2012) showed that soft-story wood frame building owners were open to the possibility of need- based financial help. They did not want financing programs to reward ignorance or risky business practices, but as long as the criteria are clear and the process is fair and transparent, many expressed support for programs that would help fellow owners that are truly burdened or in need. There was also support for using social or resilience importance as part of the criteria for special financing eligibility. 32 Information about San Francisco’s PACE program can be found at: http://www.sfgov.org/esip/seismic-retrofit-financing Accessed April 11, 2016. Information about Berkeley’s PACE programs can be found at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/PACE/ (Accessed May 2, 2016.) Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 75 Integrate incentives as seamlessly as possible into the overall compliance process. Incentives work best when they are delivered in a timely way, right when people are already making important property or financial decisions. One notable example is the City of Berkeley’s transfer tax rebate for single family home seismic improvements, which is available retroactively two years before through two years after time of sale. Another is Palo Alto’s floor area ratio (FAR) bonus for retrofit of designated vulnerable structures, which allowed owners the chance to plan in additional space at the same time a retrofit is being designed. Beyond money, it will be important to offer technical assistance, and this can be very helpful and even critical for some owners and engineers. Retrofitting is not a simple process, and ironically it can become even harder for an owner if it happens as part of a jurisdictional program that requires or is intended to encourage it. Obtaining financing, especially through special programs, may also require intense staff effort. Beware of the timing and costs of seeking public support for new bond financing. In Berkeley, attempts were made to make a pool of funds available to owners through a transfer tax increase measure on the November 2002 ballot, but it failed to get the required two thirds vote. Participants in retrospect considered the campaign poorly run, but the state of the local economy probably played more of a role than any decrease in support for mandatory retrofit in concept. Consider creation of formal cost-sharing arrangements between tenants and owners. Part of the financial equation surrounding any upgrade work is the owner’s ability to capitalize on the value added to the structure. In the case of rent control, the rate for pass through of capital improvements is a matter of law. Jurisdictions like Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco have negotiated cost-sharing arrangements ranging from 50 to 100% that allow owners to increase rents up to a certain percent of the retrofit cost, over a specified time period (usually 10 years). Even though Palo Alto does not have a rent control ordinance, it could establish a permitted amortization schedule into any new retrofit law, which could lessen the impact for tenants of any resulting rent increases. Disclosure Measure Options With relatively modest expense for a jurisdiction, disclosure measures can inform the populace and leverage social and market awareness to amplify program effectiveness. In effect, signage, tenant notification, internet lists, and other disclosure tactics make more transparent both useful risk information and the policies a city is using to address risk. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 76 Public perception of disclosure policies has been on balance positive but not without critique. On the one hand, revealing property addresses that are subject to an ordinance can be thought of as making more accessible information that is already public. It spares all parties of going through the time and hassle of formal information requests. It is also consistent with a philosophy of the public’s right to know, and may be legally protective for both owners and jurisdictions against accusations that important risk information is being held back. On the other hand, the media has at times portrayed signage as a shaming device, though this may depend on a sign or placard’s particular graphic design and wording. Soft-story wood frame owners in Berkeley described the overall suite of disclosure measures imposed there as a “scarlet letter.” San Francisco included disclosure practices as part of its first “nudging” phase in their program plan. In essence, before and in complement to implementing mandates, San Francisco’s plan called for trying to increase understanding in the real estate market empower tenants, buyers, and even owners (who could now more credibly and prominently claim credit for early compliance, retrofitting ahead of schedule, or voluntarily taking extra steps). Evidence about the effectiveness of disclosure, either together with other policy requirements or separately, is quite limited. In at least one case, voluntary retrofit programs combined with disclosure measures have achieved significant risk reduction. Berkeley’s mandatory soft-story evaluation program had several prominent disclosure features and resulted in a 25% voluntary retrofit rate in the first four years (Rabinovici, 2012). Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 77 4. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES ABAG. (1996). Seismic Retrofit Incentive Programs: A Handbook for Local Governments. ABAG. (1999). Preventing the Nightmare. Oakland, CA. ABAG. (2014). Soft-Story Housing Improvement Plan for the Cit of Oakland. Oakland. Retrieved from http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/OaklandSoftStoryReport_102914.pdf ATC. (2010). Here Today—Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco. Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety, Redwood City. Retrieved from http://sfgov.org/esip/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/9757-atc522.pdf ATC. (2012). ATC 78-1: Evaluation of the Methodology to Select and Prioritize Collapse Indicators in Older Concrete Buildings. Redwood City, CA. Bonowitz, D. (2012). Soft-Story Risk Reduction: Lessons from the Berkeley Data. EERI, Oakland, CA. Bonowitz, D., & Rabinovici, S. (2012). Soft-Story Risk Reduction: Lessons from the Berkeley Data. EERI, Oakland, CA. Chakos, A. P. (2002). Making It Work in Berkeley: Investing in Community Sustainability. Natural Hazards Review, 3(2), 55-67. City of Los Angeles. (2015). Resilience by Design. Los Angeles. Comerio, M. (1992). Impacts of the Los Angeles Retrofit Ordinance on Residential Buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 8(1), 9-94. Concrete Coalition. (2011). The Concrete Coalition and the California Inventory Project: An Estimate of the Number of Pre-1980 Concrete Buildings in the State. CSSC. (2005). Homeowner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety . Sacramento, CA. CSSC. (2006). Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law. California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento. FEMA. (2009). Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes: Developing Successful Risk Reduction Programs. Herman, F., Russell, J., Scott, S., & Sharpe, R. (1990). Earthquake Hazard Identification and Voluntary Mitigation: Palo Alto's City Ordinance. California Seismic Safety Commission 90-05, Sacramento, CA. NIST. (2015). Community Resilience Planning Guide Volume 1. National Institute of Building Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.nist.gov/el/resilience/upload/NIST-SP-1190v1.pdf Olson, R. S. (1999). Some Buildings Just Can't Dance: Politics, Life Safety, and Disaster. Stamford, CN : Jai Press Inc. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 78 Rabinovici, S. (2012). Motivating Private Behavior with Public Programs: Insights from a Local Earthquake Mitigation Ordinance. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley. Samant, L., & Tobin, T. (2008). Memo to the Advisory Committee on Incentives to Encourage Seismic Retrofits: Options for San Francisco”. San Francisco, CA. 5 Sept. 2008. San Francisco, CA: Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety. SF ESIP. (2011). Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety, San Francisco Earthquake Implementation Plan (ESIP) Workplan 2012-2042. San Francisco, CA. SPUR. (2008). The Resilient City: Defining What San Francisco Needs from Its Urban Resilience Strategy. San Francisco, CA. SPUR. (2011). Safe Enough to Stay: What will it take for San Franciscans to live safely in their homes after an earthquake? San Francisco, CA. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 79 CHAPTER IV. BUILDING INVENTORY FOR LOSS ESTIMATE One of the first steps in the study was to develop a digital inventory of buildings in Palo Alto that includes all the information necessary to build the exposure model for the loss estimate. Information sources used to develop the inventory included county tax assessor files, City GIS files, a survey done by the Palo Alto Fire Department and San Jose State University of soft-story wood frame buildings, field notes from the building department files of selected buildings when the 1986 ordinance was being developed, Google Earth and Street View visual reviews, and an extensive sidewalk survey. The Santa Clara County tax assessor’s files, which included 21,187 parcels of real estate in the City of Palo Alto, were used as a starting point to develop the building inventory. The 15,198 parcels designated as single family or two-family residences were first removed, as these were excluded from the study, leaving 5,989 parcels of interest. A parcel is not always equivalent to a building. On one hand, there are some sites where there is one owner and one tax parcel, but there are multiple buildings. Sometimes, it is easy to distinguish the separate buildings from an application like Google Earth or Street View as there is sufficient separation between the structures; in other cases, a field survey is needed when the seismic separation is small (or not present). On the other hand, condominiums can be a single structure, but have multiple owners and thus multiple separate taxpayers and parcel numbers. For the 3,630 residential parcels with three or more units, we found 1,324 distinct buildings. Of the remaining 5,989 – 3,630 = 2,359 tax parcels, we found that 961 tax parcels were identified as “possessory interest.” They are used at the city-owned Palo Alto airport for administration of property taxes for concessionaires and for other purposes at other locations in the city, and they do not represent buildings. When they were removed, there were 1,398 non-residential buildings. They were combined with the 1,324 residential buildings for a total of 2,722 buildings. The assessor’s data typically included parcel number (APN), year built, occupancy type, square footage, and number of stories. These data were supplemented with ArcGIS shape files of building and parcel outline from City GIS files, providing the geospatial location of each parcel (by latitude/longitude). In addition to this information, the exposure model requires basic data on structural system needed to classify each building into a Hazus Model Building Type. For some buildings, this information was Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 80 available from earlier inventory efforts, including a select set of inventory forms used in developing the current seismic mitigation program, and a survey by SJSU and the City’s Fire Department of soft-story wood frame buildings. However, for many buildings no structural system could be assigned based on available records. The field survey was used to assign the seismic force-resisting system (using the basic FEMA Model Building Type classification system), and to confirm and supplement information acquired from the digital files for number of stories, occupancy (using the Hazus occupancy categories), building area, and year built. In addition, buildings were surveyed for vertical and plan irregularities. After the sidewalk surveys and additional quality assurance refinements, we identified a total of 2,632 buildings in the study group for Palo Alto. This included 66 buildings subject to Palo Alto’s current seismic mitigation ordinance, because 23 of the original 89 buildings subject to the ordinance have been demolished. Not all buildings were field surveyed and not all key attributes needed for loss estimation were available for all buildings. For buildings that were not surveyed and were missing information, the missing attributes were developed using statistical comparisons with buildings that were surveyed on a sector by sector basis. A multi-step procedure was developed to fill in other missing attributes based on the best available comparative information. For example, buildings with missing occupancy and number of stories were assigned occupancies and number of stories with the same distribution of occupancies for surveyed buildings in that sector. For buildings with missing square footage data, the median values in the sector for residential and non-residential buildings were used. In assigning missing seismic force-resisting system information and year built, some rules were applied based on typical building practices. As a result, while the information for buildings that were not surveyed may not be fully accurate at the individual building level, the overall data set is seen as sufficiently representative for the type of loss estimates used in the project and relative comparisons made between different building types that are discussed ahead. In addition to the information discussed above, a replacement cost had to be established for each building. Standard 2014 RS Means Replacement Cost values included in the loss estimation software (Hazus) used were reviewed as a starting point, but not considered representative for Palo Alto. R+C and Vanir Construction Management prepared adjustments to RS Means values to capture 2016 data and local factors. These were reviewed by a task group of the City’s project Advisory Group that included local design professionals and developers familiar with the local cost climate. The group recommended an increase of the values in general, and identified target values for selected common occupancies. Based on these recommendations, R+C updated the values and Vanir reviewed them and revised the non-targeted occupancies for estimating consistency. The resulting replacement costs are shown in Table 5, and were used in the loss calculations. It is noted that resulting costs are 1.7-2.6 Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 81 times the RS Means-based Hazus default values (2014 cost data), and that costs are intended to be representative of averages across the town. Table 5: Average $/SF replacement building cost by Hazus occupancy class. Occupancy Class RS Means 2014 Average Palo Alto Cost1 [$/SF] Market Factor for Palo Alto Escalation Factor from 2014 costs to 2016 costs Demo & Minimal Sitework (5’ around building) [$/SF] Soft Cost Premium2 Average 2016 Palo Alto Cost w/ Soft Costs [$/SF] Multiplier (Replaced with Soft Costs / RS Means) Multi Family, duplex $130.75 40% 10% $17.50 20% $263 2.01 Multi Family, triplex/quad $114.94 40% 10% $17.50 20% $233 2.03 Multi Family, 5-9 units $206.41 40% 10% $17.50 20% $402 1.95 Multi Family, 10-19 units $194.12 40% 10% $17.50 20% $380 1.96 Multi Family, 20-49 units $212.26 40% 10% $17.50 20% $413 1.95 Multi Family, 50+ units $199.90 40% 10% $17.50 20% $390 1.95 Temporary Lodging $217.83 40% 10% $17.50 20% $424 1.94 Institutional Dormitory $234.44 50% 14% $25.00 20% $511 2.18 Nursing Homes $238.07 50% 12% $25.00 20% $510 2.14 Retail Trade $121.66 80% 10% $17.50 20% $310 2.55 Wholesale Trade $118.13 60% 10% $17.50 20% $$270 2.29 Personal & Repair Services $143.47 60% 10% $17.50 20% $324 2.26 Professional/Technical/ Business Services $194.52 65% 12% $17.50 20% $452 2.33 Banks $281.88 40% 12% $25.00 20% $560 1.99 Hospitals $372.59 50% 14% $35.00 20% $807 2.16 Medical Office/Clinics $267.85 20% 10% $17.50 20% $445 1.66 Entertainment/Recreation $248.61 25% 12% $25.00 20% $448 1.80 Theaters $186.45 35% 12% $25.00 20% $368 1.98 Parking $84.59 20% 10% $17.50 20% $155 1.83 Heavy $144.71 25% 10% $17.50 20% $260 1.80 Light $118.13 25% 10% $17.50 20% $216 1.83 Food/Drugs/Chemicals $229.48 30% 12% $17.50 20% $422 1.84 Metal/Minerals Processing $229.48 30% 12% $17.50 20% $422 1.84 High Technology $229.48 40% 14% $17.50 20% $461 2.01 Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 82 Table 5: Average $/SF replacement building cost by Hazus occupancy class. Occupancy Class RS Means 2014 Average Palo Alto Cost1 [$/SF] Market Factor for Palo Alto Escalation Factor from 2014 costs to 2016 costs Demo & Minimal Sitework (5’ around building) [$/SF] Soft Cost Premium2 Average 2016 Palo Alto Cost w/ Soft Costs [$/SF] Multiplier (Replaced with Soft Costs / RS Means) Construction $118.13 30% 10% $17.50 20% $224 1.89 Church $118.13 50% 12% $25.00 20% $268 2.27 Agriculture $199.08 10% 12% $17.50 20% $315 1.58 General Services $152.63 40% 10% $17.50 35% $341 2.23 Emergency Response $259.52 40% 14% $25.00 35% $593 2.28 Schools/Libraries $193.00 40% 12% $25.00 35% $442 2.29 Colleges/Universities $214.91 60% 12% $25.00 35% $554 2.58 Notes: 1. RS Means average cost includes RS Means default location factors to adjust national average to Palo Alto of 15% for residential and 11% for commercial. 2. Soft costs include architect and engineer design fees, testing and inspection, utility connection fee, permits, and an allowance for owner change order contingency. 3. Costs are intended to be representative of average in Palo Alto across the town, including downtown areas together with other areas in the city. 4. Costs were previously prepared following a 3/7/2016 discussion with the Palo Alto Seismic Risk Program Advisory Group Technical Advisory Committee. Table includes minor updates based on internal review between Rutherford + Chekene and Vanir Construction Management to achieve improved relative ratios between different occupancy types. Table 6 shows how the number and aggregate value of Palo Alto’s buildings is distributed by structural system, using the FEMA Model Building Type classification system for structural system. The table is sorted by aggregate building value. Wood frame buildings make up about 60% of the number of buildings, and represent 35% of the total value. About 20% of the buildings are concrete, and they represent over 40% of the total value. Of the remaining 20%, about two-thirds are masonry buildings, and one-third steel. However, the steel buildings represent about twice the value of the masonry buildings. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 83 Table 6: Distribution of number of buildings, building area, and building value by Model Building Type. Model Building Type Number of Buildings Aggregate Square Feet (1,000) Aggregate Building Value ($M) Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 9,699 4,082 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 8,054 3,368 Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 331 8,403 3,232 Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 307 6,209 2,369 Steel braced frame (S2) 50 3,116 1,391 Wood frame smaller residential (W1) 898 3,821 1,278 Steel moment frame (S1) 75 3,005 1,242 Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 285 2,806 1,209 Reinforced masonry, concrete floor (RM2) 30 574 211 Steel light metal frame (S3) 41 533 177 Precast concrete frame (PC2) 5 334 125 Concrete moment frame (C1) 18 325 117 Steel frame with concrete shear walls (S4) 13 162 72 Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM) 9 274 15 Concrete with masonry infill (C3) 8 26 8 Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 2 6 3 Totals 2,632 47,346 18,899 The study group can be further divided into age groups separated by significant milestones in building code implementation. The following age groups were selected: pre-1927, 1927-1961, 1962-1976, 1977- 1997, and 1998 until now. The milestones reflected include the first earthquake code in Palo Alto in 1926, adoption of the 1961 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and associated higher forces, code changes in the 1976 UBC following the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, and code changes in the 1998 UBC following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Figure 10 shows a histogram of the year built of the buildings in the study group. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 84 Figure 10: Distribution of year built of buildings in study group with significant changes in the building design practice. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 85 CHAPTER V. VULNERABLE BUILDING CATEGORIES One of the important tasks in the risk assessment study was to identify potentially vulnerable building categories specific to Palo Alto using the building inventory that was developed early in the risk assessment study. Potentially vulnerable structural system types were identified based on experience in past earthquake events, knowledge of milestones when improvements in seismic code requirements were made in Palo Alto, rankings in prominent seismic risk assessment tools such as the 2015 edition of FEMA P-154 Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, results from past seismic risk assessment studies in California communities, and engineering judgment. The building categories were then evaluated in analytical loss estimate studies described ahead which helped to confirm the selected categories as appropriate for Palo Alto. Key building vulnerability metrics include the risk of deaths and injuries, the cost of damage, and the extent of downtime or loss of use. Buildings in the identified vulnerable building categories tend to perform poorly with respect to all three of these metrics though the relative degree of vulnerability to each factor varies. Community resilience is improved if residents have homes that remain usable after an earthquake event, and if businesses can still operate. From a program perspective, the consultant team and Advisory Group believe the greatest reduction in losses and the largest benefit to community resilience will come from seismically retrofitting building types know to be both potentially hazardous and present in significant numbers in Palo Alto. In addition to the three categories already in Palo Alto’s seismic hazard identification ordinance (Categories I, II, and III below), five additional categories of vulnerable building types were identified. All five categories meet the criteria of being potentially hazardous and having a significant presence in Palo Alto. The eight categories and the approximate number of buildings included in each category are as follows: Category I: Constructed of unreinforced masonry, except for those small than 1,900 square feet with six or few occupants (10 remaining buildings in Palo Alto); Category II: Constructed prior to January 1, 1935 containing 100 or more occupants (4 remaining buildings); Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 86 Category III: Constructed prior to August 1, 1976 containing 300 or more occupants (9 remaining buildings); Category IV: Pre-1977 soft-story wood frame (294 buildings); Category V: Pre-1998 tilt-up concrete (99 buildings); Category VI: Pre-1977 concrete soft-story (37 buildings); Category VII: Pre-1998 steel moment frame (35 buildings); Category VIII: Other pre-1977 concrete construction (170 buildings). The loss estimate discussed ahead in Chapter VIII confirmed that the potential reduction in losses from retrofitting is significant for these categories. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 87 CHAPTER VI. CONCEPTUAL SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF REPRESENTATIVE VULNERABLE BUILDINGS Retrofit was considered for all buildings that have not already been retrofitted and were either constructed before 1961 or between 1962 and the “benchmark” year with a soft story. A “benchmark” year is when the code requirements for that building type became similar to those currently in place. Buildings built after a benchmark year are assumed not to have significant seismic deficiencies and are typically not seismically retrofitted. Consistent with typical practice, the performance of the retrofitted buildings in an earthquake is assumed to be less than that of newly constructed buildings. For estimating the cost of retrofit for the improved buildings, Rutherford + Chekene developed conceptual designs for Model Building Types that represent a significant number and value of Palo Alto’s building stock, as well as a significant loss and loss reduction after retrofit. This process identified wood frame (W1, W1A, W2), steel moment frame (S1), concrete shear wall (C2), concrete tilt-up (PC1), and reinforced masonry (RM1) and unreinforced masonry (URM) as appropriate candidates. For each Model Building Type, the age, square footage and number of stories were reviewed to identify a “prototype” building. In cases where the prototype building was not representative of more than two- thirds of the total number of buildings, it was judged that multiple prototypes should be considered. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 88 Figure 11: Retrofit scheme for Large Multi-family Soft-Story Wood Frame Building. For example, for the W1A Model Building Type there were a significant number of two-story and three- story buildings with a significant difference in average square footage. Therefore, a two-story and a three-story prototype building were developed to represent this Model Building Type. Eventually this led to the 12 prototype buildings shown in Table 7. Based on a review of buildings of size similar to the prototypes, representative floor plans were developed. A conceptual retrofit was then shown on the floor plans. An example of a conceptual retrofit for the W1A prototype building is shown in Figure 11 from a 2000 brochure by Rutherford + Chekene for the City of San Jose entitled “Practical Solutions for Improving the Seismic Performance of Buildings with Tuckunder Parking.” The retrofit elements were keyed to representative details in 2006 FEMA 547 Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, and a written description of Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 89 collateral impacts was developed as well to provide sufficient detail to allow a rough order of magnitude cost estimate to be prepared. The conceptual retrofit designs, description of collateral impacts, and referenced details are included in Appendix E. The cost estimators of Vanir Construction Management used the conceptual designs to estimate a range of probable cost to implement the retrofits. The retrofit costs for each prototype building are shown in Table 7. These costs include hard costs, which are the costs the owner pays the contractor, plus a design contingency as these are conceptual retrofits. The estimate further includes soft costs, representing architect and engineer design fees, testing and inspection costs, permit fees, and an owner change order contingency. Considered costs do not include hazardous material abatement, costs associated with performing the work while occupants are using the building, triggered accessibility upgrades, cost premiums associated with retrofit of a historic building, tenant relocation or business interruption during construction, project management, renovation, financing, repair of existing conditions, and legal fees. These costs are more variable and project and site specific, and are typically not included in loss estimates for this type of study. A detailed breakdown of estimated cost is included in Appendix F The retrofit costs were extrapolated to Model Building Types not represented by a prototype retrofit as shown in the fifth column of Table 7. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 90 Table 7: Conceptual retrofit cost. Retrofit Prototype Model Building Type Stories Square Feet Used for Model Building Types Used for Square Feet Average Retrofit Cost ($/SF) 1 Wood frame smaller residential (W1) 2 5,320 W1 All 12 2 Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 2 9,500 W1A < 15,000 11 3 Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 3 30,000 W1A ≥ 15,000 6 4 Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 2 10,000 W2 All 14 5 Steel moment frame (S1) 2 43,900 S1, S2, S3 All 10 6 Concrete shear wall (C2) 1 5,000 C1, C2, S4, PC2 < 10,000 50 7 Concrete shear wall (C2) 2 17,280 C1, C2, S4, PC2 ≥ 10,000 40 8 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 1 18,435 PC1 < 25,000 29 9 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 2 38,400 PC1 ≥ 25,000 21 10 Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 1 2,750 RM1, RM2 < 5,000 74 11 Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 2 8,150 RM1, RM2 ≥ 5,000 46 12 Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM) 1 5,000 URM, S5, C3 All 110 Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 91 CHAPTER VII. LOSS ESTIMATING FINDINGS FOR EXISTING BUILDING STOCK Hazus is a geographic information system (GIS) based, standardized, nationally applicable multi-hazard loss estimation methodology and software tool. It is used by local, state, and federal government officials for preparedness, emergency response, and mitigation planning. FEMA has recently released the latest version of Hazus (Hazus 3.1) which includes building inventory data reflecting 2010 census data for residential structures and costs to 2014. Rather than using the embedded inventory data for Palo Alto, which are estimated from census data, a detailed earthquake risk assessment of the individual buildings in the study group was conducted using the Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM). Direct loss is calculated through a complex process in Hazus. In essence, the engine consists of a large database of “fragility functions”. These fragility functions describe the probability of exceeding threshold damage levels as a function of a seismic demand parameter. For example, spectral displacement is linked to slight, moderate, extensive and complete damage states to describe the performance of a structural system. The estimated level of damage for the level of ground shaking under consideration is then used to assign the costs to repair or replace the damage to the building’s structural and nonstructural systems and contents (the loss). Each Hazus fragility function represents a combination of Model Building Type, number of stories, and seismic design level. Analyses were conducted for two specific earthquake scenarios developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), a major M7.9 San Andreas Fault event, and a strong M6.7 San Andreas Fault event. The USGS has developed a suite of ShakeMap earthquake scenarios for different faults around California. In the San Francisco Bay Area, they include events of different magnitude on a number of faults, such as various segments of the San Andreas Fault and the Hayward Fault. The largest scenario is a M7.9 event on the San Andreas Fault which represents a repeat of the 1906 earthquake. In this scenario, all four segments (Santa Cruz Mountains, Peninsula, North Coast, and Offshore) of the San Andreas Fault are assumed to rupture. There is a M7.2 event on the Peninsula segment with an Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 92 epicenter somewhat south of Palo Alto. In addition to the scenarios, a ShakeMap of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake which had an epicenter southwest of Palo Alto is also available. In reviewing the available scenarios, the repeat of the 1906 earthquake provided a desirable, easy to communicate upper bound scenario. Since the 1989 Loma Prieta event did relatively little damage to buildings in Palo Alto (though there was substantial damage to some of the older buildings at nearby Stanford University), it was judged to be too small to provide meaningful information for policy choices in Palo Alto. Most of the Hayward Fault scenarios also produce small to moderate shaking in Palo Alto. Review of the M7.2 San Andreas scenario found that it produced relatively similar peak ground acceleration and short period spectral accelerations to those of the M7.9 scenario. Tom Holzer, an engineering geologist with the USGS, is a member of the project Advisory Group. With his help and the ShakeMap team at USGS, two other scenarios were developed between the M7.2 scenario and the Loma Prieta earthquake. These are a M6.9 scenario and a M6.7 scenario on the Peninsula segment of the San Andreas with an epicenter directly adjacent to downtown Palo Alto. In the end, the M6.7 scenario was selected in addition to the M7.9 scenario. The M6.7 scenario provided values somewhat smaller than the M7.9 scenario event, values large enough to be meaningful, and is a magnitude size commonly used in USGS communications. It also has a substantially lower equivalent return period from the M7.9 scenario. Contour plots for the short period spectral acceleration for the two M6.7 and M7.9 scenarios are shown in Figure 12. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 93 Figure 12: Predicted short period spectral acceleration in vicinity of Palo Alto (city boundary shown) for two selected San Andreas Fault scenarios. Table 8 summarizes the total loss calculated by Hazus for the as-is condition for the two earthquake scenarios. The results show that the estimated losses to Palo Alto buildings and contents in a M6.7 scenario will be significant, on the order of $1.2 billion. Though ground shaking in the M7.9 scenario is only about 25% larger than it is in the M6.7 scenario, overall building and content losses double to $2.4 billion. Average building damage and content damage also approximately double with a M7.9 event. The difference in the number of buildings that are heavily damaged with the larger earthquake is more pronounced with a 12-fold increase from the M6.7 to the M7.9 scenarios. This is shown in the fourth column of Table 8 as the number of buildings with a damage ratio exceeding 20%. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 94 Table 8: Total losses for study group in as-is condition. Earthquake Scenario Building Value1 ($B) Content Value2 ($B) Number of Bldgs with Damage Ratio ≥ 20%3 Estimated Building Damage4 ($B) Estimated Content Damage4 ($B) Total Building and Content Damage ($B) M7.9 18.9 17.3 224 1.7 0.7 2.4 M6.7 18.9 17.3 19 0.8 0.4 1.2 Ratio of M7.9/M6.7 2 2 2 Notes: 1. Building value is the complete replacement cost for the building, and includes the structure, architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components (e.g., ceilings and lighting). 2. Content value includes the complete replacement cost of furniture and equipment that is not integral with the structure (e.g., computers and other supplies). They are estimated as a percent of structure replacement value, dependent on occupancy. 3. Damage ratio is defined as the cost of repairing damage divided by the replacement cost of the building. 4. Estimated building and content damage cost is the cost associated with repair and replacement of the building and its content. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 95 To put the loss from building damage in context, the average annual valuation of Palo Alto construction permits was $400M between 2013 and 2016 (which represents a boom period). The total loss in a major M7.9 earthquake represents more than four years’ worth of construction, and the total loss in a strong M6.7 earthquake represents more than two years worth of construction. It should be noted that these losses do not include the effects of lives lost and business disruption, or the ripple effects in the local economy or real estate market, and that much of this loss will not be insured. Table 9 breaks out the estimated loss and damage ratio for various model building types, and it can be seen that it depends on the metric used which building type is considered the poorest performer. Looking at the total loss alone, concrete bearing wall buildings and commercial wood frame buildings are responsible for the highest total loss. This tracks well with the earlier finding that these structural systems are the most prevalent ones. If we look at the highest average building damage ratio instead, buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls and unreinforced masonry infills are the most prone to damage. However, not very many of them exist in Palo Alto, and as a result they do not represent much of the aggregate loss. It is therefore important to look at multiple metrics when deciding which buildings are the most vulnerable and significant to the community as a whole. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 96 Table 9: Top three vulnerable building types ranked by total loss, average damage ratio, and number of severely damaged buildings. Building Type Number of Buildings Building Value ($M) M7.9 EQ Total Building + Content Losses ($M) M7.9 EQ Average Building Damage Ratio M7.9 EQ Number of Bldgs with Damage Ratio ≥ 20% Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 4,082 477 14% 75 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 3,368 365 12% 32 Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 307 2,369 216 9% 9 Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 2 3 1 38% 1 Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM) 9 15 4 29% 9 Concrete frame with masonry infill (C3) 8 8 2 29% 6 Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 4,082 477 14% 75 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 3,368 365 12% 32 Steel moment frame (S1) 75 1,242 130 18% 27 Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 97 CHAPTER VIII. LOSS ESTIMATING FINDINGS WITH BUILDINGS RETROFITTED A second Hazus AEBM run was done assuming a retrofitted building stock. For this run, it was assumed that a building would be retrofitted if it has not already been retrofitted and is either constructed before 1961 or between 1962 and the benchmark year with a soft story. The Hazus model was rerun with the updated fragilities simulating retrofit. Table 10 shows the resulting total losses and damage ratios. Though total losses are still significant, comparing the results of Table 10 with Table 8 shows a reduction in total loss of 45% for the M7.9 scenario, and 33% for the M6.7 scenario. In other words, aggregate loss to the community if all considered properties were retrofit could be reduced by one third in a very plausible event and almost halved in a much larger event. Another important improvement is the reduction of the number of buildings with more than 20% damage. The M7.9 scenario shows a reduction from 224 buildings to 6 buildings, meaning that the probability of building collapse and resulting injuries and fatalities has become very low. Finally, the damage and loss of the M7.9 scenario remain approximately two times the amount sustained in the M6.7 scenario. This suggests that the retrofit has a similar impact for both levels of ground shaking. Table 10: Total losses after retrofitting. Earthquake Scenario Building Value ($B) Content Value ($B) Estimated Building Damage ($B) Number of Bldgs with Damage Ratio ≥ 20% Estimated Content Damage ($B) Total Building & Content Damage ($B) M7.9 18.9 17.3 0.9 6 0.5 1.3 M6.7 18.9 17.3 0.5 0 0.3 0.8 Ratio of M7.9/M6.7 2 - 2 2 Table 11 breaks out the reduction in total loss by model building type for the M7.9 scenario, and shows the associated retrofit cost. The average reduction in loss varies by building type, with URM buildings showing the highest reduction in loss after retrofit of 80%, and steel braced frames showing an 18% Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 98 reduction at the low end. On average, the retrofit costs are on the order of the damage reduction for this scenario, though by building type the average damage reduction (loss avoided) divided by retrofit cost ranges from 0.14 for steel light frame buildings to almost eight for reinforced masonry buildings. Wood frame and concrete buildings are responsible for the largest reduction in total loss, with wood frame construction representing over 20% of the loss reduction, and concrete buildings over 50%. It should be noted that the data in Table 11 also includes buildings that were not retrofitted. As a result, further parsing of the data is needed to better understand which buildings are responsible for the most loss, and those that can be improved more cost-effectively. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 99 Table 11: Comparison of retrofit benefits and costs by Model Building Type. Model Building Type M7.9 EQ Average Damage ($/SF) M7.9 EQ Total Damage Reduction ($1,000) Average Damage Reduction ($/SF) Retrofit Cost ($/SF) Wood frame smaller residential (W1) 16 13,775 4 12 Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 25 61,317 7 6-11 Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 50 160,155 26 14 Steel moment frame (S1) 62 76,150 25 10 Steel braced frame (S2) 44 24,222 8 10 Steel light metal frame (S3) 108 38,163 72 10 Steel frame with concrete shear walls (S4) 101 11,118 69 40-50 Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 247 695 121 110 Concrete moment frame (C1) 55 8,045 25 40-50 Concrete shear wall (C2) 70 336,574 35 40-50 Concrete frame with masonry infill (C3) 120 865 34 110 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 68 218,491 27 21-29 Precast concrete frame (PC2) 21 0 0 21-29 Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 59 87,697 31 46-74 Reinforced masonry, concrete floor (RM2) 35 3,727 6 46-74 Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (URM) 23 5,216 19 110 Totals 51 1,046,210 22 Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 100 Table 12 shows those buildings types that may be considered good candidates for a retrofit program. Although representing only about 15% of the total inventory, these buildings are responsible for over 30% of the total loss. This is reflected in the considerably higher than average loss (fourth column of Table 12). The benefit of retrofit is also considerable for this group of buildings, as they are responsible for over 50% of the reduction in loss. Additionally, the cost to retrofit them is only a fraction of the losses avoided in a major event, ranging from a third for the concrete buildings to a tenth for the steel frames. Note that these values are based on conceptual retrofits. Actual retrofit costs for individual buildings would vary substantially, and the steel moment frame benefit-to-cost ratio is higher than expected by engineering judgment. This is caused in part by a comparatively low retrofit cost for this Model Building Type. Table 12: Comparison of benefits and costs by selected Model Building Type, date and characteristics. Model Building Type Number of Buildings Total SF (1,000) M7.9 EQ Average Loss by Building ($/SF) M7.9 EQ Average Loss Avoided by Retrofit ($/SF) Average Cost to Retrofit ($/SF) (Average Loss Avoided) / (Average Retrofit Cost) Pre-1977 wood frame soft-story (W1, W1A, W2) 294 3,690 66 46 12 4 Pre-1998 tilt-up (PC1) 99 3,078 106 71 23 3 Pre-1977 concrete soft-story (C1, C2, C3) 37 842 149 108 42 3 Pre-1998 steel moment frame (S1) 35 690 152 110 10 11 Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 101 CHAPTER IX. REVIEW OF PAST SEISMIC RETROFITS To gain a better understanding of the quality of the retrofits and identify relevant issues to updating Palo Alto’s seismic risk mitigation program, a sample of the submitted engineering studies and building retrofit drawings was reviewed. Ten buildings were selected, so that their permit history could be reviewed and documents could be retrieved from the archives of the Building Department. They were distributed over the three existing hazardous buildings categories, and also included soft-story wood frame buildings. Records were retrieved for four Category I buildings (to reflect the higher number of these), two Category II buildings, two Category III buildings, and two soft-story wood frame buildings. The City tracked permit numbers for the retrofit projects in their “hazardous buildings” database. Even so, it proved difficult to retrieve associated documents. After careful review of the City’s records, some archived documents showing structural modifications were retrieved. The type of documents available varied from building to building. In about half of the cases, plans were available, and in the other half, the documents consisted of calculations with sketches. For one of the Category I buildings, plans showing a comprehensive retrofit were available. The 2001 California Building Code was referenced for seismic design. In a second case, the retrieved plans show retrofit of a section of the building that appears to be intended to improve the original retrofit. It was unclear if other sections of the building were improved in a similar fashion. In the third case, structural calculations were provided. It is unclear what criteria were used, as the 1991 UCBC is used for certain elements and the regular UBC seismic load calculations for global loading. The set of plans retrieved for the last building is for a tenant improvement that appears to have been constructed a few years after the original seismic retrofit. Interestingly, the structural engineer referenced the 1977 UBC as the seismic design criteria. The building is identified on the plans as a concrete building, rather than a URM building. For the Category II buildings, in one case only the permit application worksheet was available; in the other case there were detailed calculations and sketches (no construction documents). The permit Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 102 application for the first building indicates that shear walls were added as part of a voluntary seismic upgrade. The sketches for the second building indicated that the retrofit was designed to mitigate the deficiencies identified in the evaluation report. It references both elements and loads from the earlier study. For the Category III buildings, it appears that in both cases the projects were driven by modifications or additions to the existing building. Since no plans were archived, and the calculations could not be easily followed, it was not clear if the existing building was fully evaluated and if all deficiencies found in the original evaluation report were addressed. In 2003, the Collaborative for Disaster Mitigation at San Jose State University completed an “Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings in Santa Clara County”. According to the report the City of Palo Alto had 130 soft-first story multi-family buildings including 1,263 residential units housing 3,158. The list of addresses from the San Jose State University report was updated with information from the City of Palo Alto Fire Department, and resulted in a reduced list of 108 addresses. According to this list, which was included in a recent Staff Report to Palo Alto’s Policy and Services Committee33, six buildings were improved voluntarily. Two sets of plans were retrieved and reviewed; in one case the plans improved two buildings with the same plan as a mirror image. One of the permits was issued in 2006 and one in 2009. It appears that in both cases the buildings were of a more recent vintage, as plans show that existing plywood shear walls are present. On both sets of plans design criteria were referenced, with one building referring to the 2001 California Building Code, and one Appendix Chapter A4 of the 2006 International Existing Building Code. Review of the submitted engineering studies and building retrofit drawings identified the following relevant needs for future seismic risk mitigation programs: Clear identification of retrofit design intent, scope, and limitations, also for voluntary retrofits; Identification of existing structural systems; Decision on requirements for buildings that have had partial seismic retrofits completed, and may have remaining seismic deficiencies. 33 Policy and Services Committee Staff Report 5293, Discussion of Updating the Seismic Safety Chapter of the Municipal Code for Hazardous Buildings, December 9, 2014, available online at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44945 (accessed 12/21/2016) Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 103 CHAPTER X. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FEATURES In addition to expansion of the building categories included within the City’s seismic risk mitigation program and refinement of disclosure measures and incentive options, a number of other program features are recommended. They are described in the following: Use the current inventory, taking note of its limitations: The inventory developed for the effort to date involved use of digital information and field surveys. A complete field survey of all buildings in Palo Alto was outside the scope of the project. However, the inventory that has been developed is an excellent resource. The first step in any future ordinance will involve notification of building owners that they may be subject to the requirements of the ordinance. Those buildings that were field surveyed and fall within the scope of the ordinance can be notified using the existing inventory. For the remaining buildings, additional field survey is recommended. This would be a rapid visual assessment and could be conducted by City staff or outside consultants. Use an initial screening form phase: Typically, as part of the notification process, a screening form of about one-page in length is sent, and the owner is required to have a design professional, such as a structural engineer or architect, complete the form for a relatively nominal cost to confirm whether or not the building actually is subject to the City’s ordinance. Some buildings may appear from a rapid visual assessment to be one of the building categories covered, but upon closer review they are exempt. This approach has been taken in many communities in the past, and thus sample forms are available that can be easily tailored for Palo Alto. Clearly specify seismic evaluation and retrofit scope: The seismic evaluation (and retrofit) methodology for each building category will need to be defined after the building categories included in the updated ordinance are determined. Industry consensus standards exist and cover the vulnerable building categories identified for Palo Alto. These include the 2015 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) and 2014 ASCE 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Both are currently being updated by groups of engineers and building Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 104 officials. For soft-story wood frame buildings, there is also the 2012 FEMA P-807 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Buildings with Weak First Stories. For steel moment frame buildings, there is also the 2000 FEMA 351 Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Moment Resisting Steel Structures. ASCE 41 has three tiers of evaluation: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. Tier 1 is primarily a screening tool. As a minimum standard, Tier 2 is recommended. Table 13 provides recommended evaluation and retrofit standards. Table 13: Recommended Evaluation and Retrofit Standards Category Description Evaluation and Retrofit Standards I Unreinforced masonry IEBC Appendix Chapter A1 II Built before 1/1/35 with 100 or more occupants ASCE 41 III Built before 8/1/76 with 300 or more occupants ASCE 41 IV Pre-1977 soft-story wood frame IEBC Appendix Chapter A4, ASCE 41, or FEMA P-807 V Pre-1998 tilt-up IEBC Appendix Chapter A2 and ASCE 41 VI Pre-1977 soft-story concrete ASCE 41 VII Pre-1998 steel moment frame ASCE 41, or FEMA 351 VIII Other pre-1977 concrete ASCE 41 Provide detailed evaluation report submittal requirements: Minimum submittal requirements for evaluation reports will need to be defined. The above evaluation and retrofit standards provide some guidance but a short clear set of requirements will be beneficial. This will include such items as address, construction date, size, number of stories above and below grade, owner, occupancy type, structural system type, the location and features of the primary structural system, the extent of field review, material properties, the evaluation criteria and methodology used, whether the structure meets the evaluation criteria, identified seismic Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 105 deficiencies if it does not. The current ordinance requires identification of retrofit measures to address seismic deficiencies. Even in a voluntary program, it is recommended that this be continued to help owners, tenants, and the City better understand what is necessary to mitigate the issues that exist. Specify how past partial retrofits will be handled: In the past, some buildings have had partial seismic retrofits where only selected portions of the seismic force-resisting system have been upgraded, and some seismic deficiencies may still exist in these structures. If mandatory retrofit requirements are implemented that provide for comprehensive retrofitting of the full seismic load path, there may be buildings with previous partial retrofits that do not fully comply and need remaining deficiencies to be addressed. This will be identified in the seismic evaluation report. Update both new and existing building permit submittal requirements: Review of City records found that basic information such as the building structural system, date of construction, and retrofit standard used (where applicable) are not readily available. It is recommended that submittals for permit for both new buildings and existing building renovations require this information. For structural systems, both the categorization found in ASCE 41 and the ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1 is recommended. This will allow the city to have a much better understanding of its building stock and its expected performance in an earthquake. Write a new ordinance or set of ordinances to update the program: After the Council has provided direction and the above issues have been addressed, an updated ordinance will need to formally be written. This can be done by City staff, but will likely benefit from the involvement of an appropriately experienced structural engineering consultant. Carefully address program management and interdepartmental coordination needs: To successfully manage Palo Alto’s updated Seismic Risk Mitigation Program, an effective management plan is needed so that progress is monitored by the City and community intent is achieved. It will include a realistic list of information that can be easily input, summarized, and tracked in digital records such as the submittal requirements recommended above and that can be used to link the seismic risk program data to other digital records such as assessor files or GIS systems; quality assurance procedures for checking information; clearly defined roles and responsibilities; timelines and requirements for reporting of information internally and externally; procedures for gathering, assessing and implementing community feedback and suggestions; and links between the seismic risk mitigation program and activities that will occur following an earthquake, such as postearthquake safety evaluation. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 106 Delineate department and key staff responsibilities: For Palo Alto’s updated Seismic Risk Mitigation Program, City staff will be responsible for several categories of activities.. These will include the basic activities such as managing the notification and inventory process, reviewing evaluation reports and plan checking retrofit construction documents, and field inspections of retrofit work. Less obvious activities will include evaluating requested exceptions to the program or alternative means of compliance; managing feedback from design professionals, owners, and the public; tying pre-earthquake retrofitting to post-earthquake safety evaluations records; and managing post-earthquake safety evaluation, repair, and recovery plans. Depending on the scale of the updated program, it is possible that addition staff members or consultants will be needed to handle the work flow. The City may also benefit from an appropriately experienced structural engineer to provide advice on technical and program management issues, particularly as the program moves to final definition and then to initial implementation. Later, as is done in some communities, it may be desirable to create volunteer review boards of local structural engineers who review questions on the evaluation and retrofit criteria and provide the city with technical opinions that staff can use. Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 107 CHAPTER XI. QUESTIONS TO GUIDE COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS AND POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR FUTURE STUDY 1. QUESTIONS TO HELP GUIDE COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS Preferred policy directions were developed with the Advisory Group and staff as discussed in Chapter I and include expansion of the building categories currently covered by the City’s ordinance, movement toward mandatory requirements for some categories, additional disclosure measures and use of incentives to increase the effectiveness and likelihood of compliance and of success. To help the Council in its deliberations, a series of questions are given here. They are similar to questions and issues discussed by the Advisory Group. 1. Does the Council wish to expand the current seismic hazard program to cover more vulnerable building categories? 2. If so, which of the building categories in Table 1 should be included? The Advisory Group proposed that the existing Categories I-III, plus the Categories IV-VII, be included as follows. The categories are: a. Category I: Constructed of unreinforced masonry, except for those smaller than 1,900 square feet with six or fewer occupants (in the current ordinance) b. Category II: Constructed prior to January 1, 1935 containing 100 or more occupants (in the current ordinance) c. Category III: Constructed prior to August 1, 1976 containing 300 or more occupants (in the current ordinance) d. Category IV: Pre-1977 soft-story wood frame e. Category V: Pre-1998 tilt-up concrete f. Category VI: Pre-1977 concrete soft-story g. Category VII: Pre-1998 steel moment frame An eighth category (Category VIII other older nonductile concrete buildings) was discussed, but because of the lack of inexpensive analytical methods for reliably identifying the worst of these buildings, inclusion of this building category in an updated ordinance is not recommended at this Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 108 time. Such buildings could be included in the future when the engineering community has developed appropriate analytical methods. 3. In addition to mandatory initial evaluation requirements, should one or more of the categories of buildings be subject to mandatory retrofit requirements? The Advisory Group had a consensus on mandatory requirements for renovation for unreinforced masonry buildings and there was strong support among many members for other categories such as soft-story wood frame buildings and tilt- up buildings, particularly those with high occupancies. 4. Should the City develop a trigger mechanism based on sale or substantial renovation where seismic retrofit is required? If so, which building categories should be subject to a trigger mechanism? There was support among some Advisory Group members for a trigger mechanism for some building categories, such as tilt-up industrial buildings, particularly those that are being converted to office buildings and increasing the occupant load and thus exposure to seismic risk. 5. What public disclosure or notice measures of the need for retrofitting a building should be pursued? The Advisory Group supported website listing and tenant notification, but there was low support for placing notices on property titles or for signage or placing placards on the outside of buildings. Other possibilities include encouraging earthquake performance rating systems and disclosing them to the public or developing such a rating system for city-owned buildings. 6. What incentive measures to encourage property owners undertake a structural retrofit should be pursued? The Advisory Group supported incentives for fee waivers, expedited permitting, and property- assessed financing tools. There was minimal interest in deep financial assistance such as establishing a special district or passing of bond measure to assist property owners financially. . Opinions were split on the use of transfer of development rights, floor area ratio bonuses, and parking exemptions. 8. How much time do you feel is reasonable for property owners of at risk buildings in the community to: a) prepare the initial structural evaluation reports for regulated buildings; and b), to complete mandatory structural retrofits to their buildings? 2. POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR FUTURE STUDY AND CONSIDERATION For some issues, based in part on Advisory Group discussions, additional information may be beneficial to help develop a strategy and to better understand potential impacts on key stakeholders and community concerns. Some of these issues are primarily economic and were outside the scope of the current study. The City Council may wish to direct staff and/or outside consultants to investigate some of these items in more detail as the seismic risk management program effort proceeds. These issues include the following: Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 109 • Occupants and tenants – How much would a typical retrofit add to the monthly rent of a multifamily soft-story wood frame apartment tenant? – Would some tenants be unable to afford a rent increase and seek housing elsewhere in Palo Alto or move outside the city (and if so, how many might be displaced)? – If soft-story wood frame apartments in Palo Alto are retrofitted in time before the next major earthquake, how much less displacement of residents would occur as a result of the earthquake? – What categories of buildings are most important to address in order to help maintain the commercial viability and vitality of the City’s core business districts and tax base? • Property owners, developers, and business owners – What are the characteristics of property owners that would be affected? – How might small businesses be affected compared to larger ones? – How many property owners are in need of lower cost capital or other substantial financial assistance to fund retrofitting? • Impacts of Seismic Restoration on Retention of Historic Structures in the City – Insure that the review of initial seismic evaluations identify those structures that are listed in the City’s Historic Inventory and flag them for attention during subsequent review. – Develop a clear process for reviewing proposed seismic retrofits to historic structures that is coordinated among responsible city departments and is consistent with current regulations and Community policies. – Seek out retrofit alternatives that are consistent with the Historic Building Code, historic characteristics of the structure, and provide the most risk reduction. • City departmental resources and budgets – What would be the loss in revenue to the Building Department if fee waivers were offered? – What would be the staffing and budgetary needs over time to administer an expanded program that addresses additional building types? – What kinds of interdepartmental cooperation and staff resources in other departments are necessary to ensure effective implementation and coordination with other city planning and public safety efforts? Attachment F Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016 Final Report Page 110 • Overall community economic health – What kind of benefits could accrue to Palo Alto in terms of maintaining community function and ability to recover if various building categories are retrofitted in time before the next major earthquake? • Other related issues – It was brought up in the Advisory Group that the Building Department needs flexibility and authority to take steps to get tough seismic mitigation projects done. One idea was to grant the Building Official the ability to classify certain projects (with well-specified criteria) as warranting a kind of “seismic safety” or “earthquake resilience” fast tracking, with city departments agreeing to coordinate on a specified accelerated project review timeframe. – Although outside the formal scope of this planning effort, several Advisory Group members commented that it would be desirable for the City to do some kind of assessment of any earthquake mitigation needs in public buildings and facilities serving the City. – Advisory group members recommended the community be informed of Palo Alto’s overall potential seismic risk by providing a summary of potential impacts on the City’s website, including the expected performance of vulnerable buildings. – The group also had a high degree of support for recommending that the City initiate and nest future earthquake mitigation programs within a broader disaster or community resilience initiative, as cities such as Los Angeles, Berkeley, and San Francisco have done. This could be incorporated into the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Safety Element. There was insufficient time in the project’s six advisory group meetings to consider potential initiatives to assess risks for cell phone towers, water supply, facades, private schools, post-earthquake shelter facilities, and/or other assets important to community recovery. Attachment F City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO October 16, 2017 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 8563) DATE: October 16, 2017 TO: City Council Members FROM: Council Member Holman, Councilwoman Kou, Council Member DuBois SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS DUBOIS, HOLMAN AND KOU REGARDING STRENGTHENING RENTER PROTECTION FOR PALO ALTO RESIDENTS Issue: The cost of rental housing in Palo Alto and the region has soared in recent years as the pace of job growth has tripled the rate of housing growth. Housing that has been built is predominantly high-end or, to a lesser extent, subsidized, low-income housing. The needs of moderate-income workers and families too often have been ignored. These trends undermine our social and economic health and cannot be sustained. Goals: ● Support retention of a healthy, diverse community, an action that also supports our local economy; ● Moderate the rate of rent increases; ● Provide protections from unjust evictions by means that are fair to both renters and landlords; ● Continue to promote construction of new multi-unit rental developments. Background and Discussion: Approximately 44 percent of Palo Alto residents are renters who are predominantly long- term members of our community, contributing to our social balance and economy. In recognition of the vital importance that renters have on our civic vitality and economic health, past Palo Alto city councils have adopted long-standing renter protection ordinances. Those ordinances offer renters greater protection than under California State law and include provisions that: ● Require a sixty-day notice of large rent increases at multi-family rental units; ● Prevent discrimination against families by prohibiting landlords from requiring that fewer than two people per bedroom occupy a unit; ● Provide Tenant – Landlord mediation services; ● Require one-year leases to be offered. October 16, 2017 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 8563) Although the growth in our tech economy has been a boon to many, that growth has been accompanied by negative disruptions, including a steep increase in demand that has severely degraded our housing affordability and resulted in many long-term renters being forced out or having to spend inordinate amounts of their incomes on housing. Since 2011, the average monthly rent in Palo Alto has soared 50 percent while the county median income has risen less at 1/10 that rate. These trends are clearly not sustainable. Our affordable housing supply is far below demand while the cost of building new affordable units dwarfs our available resources. Furthermore, many vital members of our community have moderate incomes and are not eligible for our limited affordable housing; teachers, policemen, service and retail workers, nurses and health care providers are continuing to be priced out of their homes and are being forced to leave our community. To encourage new housing construction, cities that enact renter protections are required to do so within the framework of State law, restricting renter protections to multi-unit developments built on or before February 1, 1995. Recognizing the severity of the problem, Mountain View voters and the San Jose City Council recently passed renter protection measures. Other cities have recognized that the issue has reached a near crisis level and are considering similar measures. Palo Alto’s rental housing problems are even more severe than these other cities. Current and future economic forces have made additional renter protections necessary for the well-being of our community, its valuable diversity, and a viable economy. In addition, the Council’s Healthy City, Healthy Community priority identifies diversity as a key component. Renter protections are only one part of protecting our existing housing supply. This initiative is not intended to substitute for other measures that may be addressed separately from this memo including short-term rental abuses, loss of existing housing units, and investment homes left vacant for long periods of time. Recommendation: We recommend that Council refer this proposal to the Policy and Services Committee for review. The review should consider the following: ● An annual percentage cap on rent increases for buildings of 5 or more housing units built before Feb. 1, 1995. This removes any disincentive for new construction. ● Measures to protect tenants against termination without just cause while protecting the fair rights of property owners. ● Other updates to our existing renter protections as needed to continue a healthy community. In addition, the council may elect to refer the item to the Human Relations Commission as part of the review process. Staff Impact: October 16, 2017 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 8563) The breadth, diversity and complexity of policy, fiscal and legal issues implicated by this initiative will mean that fairly substantial staff resources could be needed, depending on the Council’s direction, to analyze and support the Council’s consideration of the issues. Staff from Planning & Community Environment, Administrative Services/Management & Budget, the City Manager’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office will be involved. As an initial step, staff has added a supplemental Memorandum from the City Attorney to this Colleagues’ Memorandum (see attached), which transmits two background reports from other jurisdictions regarding renter protection programs. These materials provide an overview of state and federal laws relating to municipal renter protection regulations; describe renter protection measures adopted by a number of California cities; and list key areas for policy determination. If Council adopts additional renter protection regulations, staff resources will be required to implement and administer the program. The resources required will vary widely depending on the program elements selected by the Council. The background reports attached to the City Attorney’s Memorandum describe staffing requirements typically associated with the various approaches to regulation in this area. Those range from very little or no staffing, to significant additional staffing including administrative boards and investigative, analytical, enforcement and legal personnel. Office Memorandum Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto Date: October 4, 2017 To: The Honorable City Council From: Molly Stump City Attorney Subject: Background Material on Municipal Renter Protection Programs Renter protection measures vary significantly between jurisdictions. Some programs are limited in scope and straightforward to administer. Others are complex, involving numerous program elements and raising potential legal and administrative challenges. As background material to assist the Council in its initial consideration of this topic, staff is attaching two reports prepared by Bay Area jurisdictions in recent years: 1. City of Fremont, Rent Control and Just-Cause Eviction: Review of Programs, Management Partners, June 2017 2. Continuum of Residential Tenant Protection Measures, County of San Mateo Interdepartmental Correspondence from County Counsel John C. Bieirs to All County Departments, September 23, 2015 These reports survey programs in cities throughout California, identifying trends and program options. The reports describe staffing requirements associated with implementation and enforcement of various types of programs. The San Mateo report provides a basic explanation of state and federal laws that constrain municipal regulation in this area. Finally, the San Mateo report includes a list of policy areas for discussion by jurisdictions considering additional renter protection measures. Depending on the Council’s direction, these reports will need to be updated to include recent developments in California and our region. June 2017 City of Fremont Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs 1730 MADISON ROAD • CINCINNATI, OH 45206 • 513 861 5400 • FAX 513 861 3480 MANAGEMENTPARTNERS.COM 2107 NORTH FIRST STREET, SUITE 470 • SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95131 • 408 437 5400 • FAX 408 453 6191 3152 RED HILL AVENUE, SUITE 210 • COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 • 949 222 1082 • FAX 408 453 6191 June 9, 2017 Mr. Dan Schoenholz Deputy Community Development Director City of Fremont 3300 Capitol Avenue Fremont, CA 94538 Dear Mr. Schoenholz: Management Partners is pleased to transmit this report, which provides the results of our review of rent control/stabilization and just‐cause eviction programs in California. This report provides information based on other cities’ experience with such programs including analysis and context regarding a range of policy and program options. We look forward to further discussion on this topic with the City as it seeks to develop a strategy associated with landlord/tenant issues to assist in the development of solutions appropriate to community needs in Fremont. Sincerely, Andrew S. Belknap Regional Vice President Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Table of Contents Management Partners i Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 3 November 2016 Election .................................................................................................................. 3 Fremont Rental Housing Profile .................................................................................................... 6 Residential Rent Increase Dispute Resolution Ordinance ........................................................ 12 RRIDRO Challenges ....................................................................................................................... 13 Overview of Rent Control/Just‐Cause Eviction Ordinances .......................................................... 15 Model A: (Berkeley/Santa Monica Style Rent Control) ............................................................. 17 Model B: (Alameda/West Hollywood Style Rent Regulation or Stabilization) ..................... 18 Just‐Cause Eviction ........................................................................................................................ 18 Public Outreach and Education ................................................................................................... 20 Rent Control/Rent Stabilization and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Elements ............................ 21 Governance ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Expenditures and Cost Recovery ................................................................................................. 22 Staffing ............................................................................................................................................. 24 Technology Support ....................................................................................................................... 25 General Observations Regarding Program Impacts ................................................................. 25 Affordable Housing and Rent Control ...................................................................................... 26 Vacancy Rates/Displacement .................................................................................................... 27 Housing Supply and the Housing Market ................................................................................ 28 Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options .............................................................................. 29 Option 1: Modified Residential Rent Increase Dispute Resolution Ordinance Process ....... 29 Option 1 Opportunities ............................................................................................................ 31 Option 1 Challenges ................................................................................................................. 32 Option 1 Cost Estimate............................................................................................................. 32 Option 2: Alameda/West Hollywood Style Rent Regulation or Stabilization ....................... 33 Option 2 Opportunities ............................................................................................................ 34 Option 2 Challenges ................................................................................................................. 35 Option 2 Cost Estimate............................................................................................................. 35 Option 3: Berkeley/Santa Monica Style Rent Control ............................................................... 35 Option 3 Opportunities ............................................................................................................ 36 Option 3 Challenges ................................................................................................................. 36 Option 3 Cost Estimate............................................................................................................. 37 Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Table of Contents Management Partners ii Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 38 Attachment A: Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Options ..................................... 39 Attachment B: Just‐Cause Eviction Survey ........................................................................................ 44 Tables Overview of November 2016 Rent Control Measures .................................................... 4 Overview of Recent Bay Area City Council Rent Control Activities .......................... 5 Overview of Fremont Housing Stock for 2006 through 2010 and 2011 through 2015 .................................................................................................................. 6 Overview of Fremont Vacancy Rates and Median Monthly Rent from 2011 to 2015 .................................................................................................................... 8 Fremont Gross Rent as a Percent of Household Income from 2011 to 2015 ............... 8 Summary of Peer Rental Housing for 2011 through 2015 (Five‐Year Estimates) ....... 9 Summary of Peer Renter Financial Information for 2011 through 2015 ................... 11 Average Rents for One and Two Bedroom Units in Fremont ..................................... 11 Rent Increase Case Reports from July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 .............. 13 Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Cost and Fee Comparisons ........... 24 Figures Fremont Percent of Occupied Housing Units Occupied by Owners versus Renters for 2011 through 2015 ............................................................................................................ 7 Peer Comparison of the Percent of Total Occupied Housing Units Occupied by Renters for 2011 through 2015 ........................................................................................... 10 Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Introduction Management Partners 1 Introduction In 2016, the Fremont City Council considered preliminary research and information prepared by City staff regarding rent control and just‐cause eviction programs in California and requested additional information about such programs to help inform their discussion of the issue. The City requested Management Partners’ assistance in providing more in‐ depth information regarding rent control and just‐cause eviction policies, options as well as program costs. City staff met with tenant and landlord organizations in 2016 to gather input from stakeholders concerning potential program changes. As stated in a report to the City Council on September 27, 2016, staff was unable to identify much common ground. The tenant group believes a much stronger and binding rent control and just cause eviction ordinance is necessary while the landlord group believes some improvements to the Residential Rental Increase Dispute Resolution Ordinance would be sufficient. At the September 27, 2016 meeting, Council directed staff to research rent control (also known as rent stabilization or rent regulation) and just‐cause (or just) evictions and develop options for consideration. The City Council approved a motion directing staff to: Investigate the operational impacts of rent control and just‐cause ordinances, Create optional models for an ordinance that meets City‐specific needs, and Present possible revisions to the existing Residential Rent Increase Dispute Resolution Ordinance (RRIDRO). The City of Fremont subsequently engaged Management Partners to assist in the analysis of rent control and just‐cause eviction ordinances. Management Partners has undertaken this type of work for the cities of San Jose, Santa Rosa, Burlingame and Richmond in the past two years. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Introduction Management Partners 2 This report includes four major sections: 1. Background, which briefly sets the context for this report; 2. Overview of rent control/just‐cause eviction ordinances, which provides a general overview of rent control and just‐cause eviction ordinances; 3. Rent control and just‐cause eviction program elements, which includes information on the costs and staffing requirements to operate rent control programs; and 4. Rent intervention alternatives (three options), which describes three possible options the City of Fremont may pursue as it determines next steps. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 3 Background Tenant displacement and issues related to the condition and availability of rental housing continue to be a focus of residents and local government officials in the Bay Area and various cities in Southern California. Rising rents in metropolitan regions have sparked discussions regarding local government roles and responsibilities in rental housing markets as well as actions by residents. November 2016 Election The November 2016 election had nine ballot measures related to apartment rent control in seven California cities and one mobile home rent stabilization measure. All of the apartment rent control measures were proposed in Bay Area cities. Table 1 below provides an overview of the nine rent control and tenant eviction ballot measures considered in the 2016 election. Most of the measures were placed on the ballot through a public petition; almost all of them included both rent stabilization and tenant eviction protections. Rent stabilization measures passed in five cities and failed in two cities. Roughly half of the measures were new, while half were modifications of existing rental programs. The cities of Alameda and Mountain View each had two different rent control and mediation ballot measures proposed. In both cities, the public initiated a rent stabilization and tenant eviction protection measure while the city councils placed a tenant‐landlord mediation measure on the ballot as an alternative. The results were split, with Alameda voters favoring the mediation program and Mountain View establishing a rent control program. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 4 Overview of November 2016 Rent Control Measures Source: Ballotpedia.org, City websites, and local newspapers and voter resources. Note: Table does not include mobile home rent measures. City Measure Components Initiated By New Measure or Modification Pass? Y/N Alameda Measure M1 Limits rent increases, provides eviction control, and requires certain relocation benefits Public Modification No Alameda Measure L1 Requires mediation for large rent increases, establishes eviction control, requires certain relocation benefits City Council Modification Yes Burlingame Measure R Repeals earlier ordinance prohibiting regulation of rents by the city and establishes rent control program Public New No East Palo Alto Measure J Streamlines administrative processes behind existing rent control ordinance City Council Modification Yes Mountain View Measure V Charter amendment establishing a rent and eviction control program Public New Yes Mountain View Measure W Alternative program requiring landlord‐tenant mediation in lieu of rent control City Council New No Oakland Measure JJ Extends existing rent control program to cover all buildings occupied prior to 1996. Original ordinance covered units occupied prior to 1980. Public Modification Yes Richmond Measure L Establishes traditional rent and eviction control program under a rent board assigned by the City Council Public New Yes San Mateo Measure Q Rent and eviction control Public New No Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 5 Table 2 summarizes City Council actions on rental housing issues over the past year in the Bay Area. Overview of Recent Bay Area City Council Rent Control Activities City Components Date Pacifica Established an interim ordinance for rent and eviction control. A permanent measure is planned for the ballot in November 2017. April 2017 (Second reading of ordinance in May) San Jose Created interim ordinance modifying existing rent control ordinance to reduce maximum increase allowed. Staff was instructed to return with long‐ term options for rent control, eviction protection, and anti‐ retaliation ordinances. April 2016 San Jose Approved an ordinance that defines eviction controls for rent stabilized units only. (Other possible changes to existing rent control programs are under development.) April 2017 Santa Rosa Established a rent and eviction control program but placed it on hold pending a special election on a measure submitted by City Council in response to a referendum petition created by opponents. The special election was held on June 6, 2017 and voters rejected the measure. The election results ended the rent control program. August 2016 and June 2017 Union City Established eviction controls. Council instructed staff to return with a proposal providing non‐binding mediation on large rent increases. April 2017 Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 6 Fremont Rental Housing Profile The Fremont City Council received the Report to Council on Rent Control, Just‐Cause Eviction and Other Options for Promoting Affordable Rental Housing on September 27, 2016. In the report, staff provided a high‐level overview of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing rent control and just‐cause for eviction programs. Quoting from a report prepared by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Staff noted that between 2010 and 2016 the, “…imbalance between demand and supply has resulted in high costs for both rental and for‐sale housing in the Bay Area and the rest of the State.” After declines in rents in 2008 and 2009 the average rental cost of a two‐ bedroom, one‐bathroom apartment in Fremont increased 64% (or almost 13% per year) between 2010 and 2015. More recently, between June 2015 and June 2016, rent increases moderated to an annual rate of 3.9%.1 Table 3 provides an overview of housing stock in Fremont. These five‐ year estimates are from the American Community Survey, which is a collection of population, housing, and workforce data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Estimates are based on 60 months of data during the periods of 2006 to 2010 and 2011 to 2015. The estimates show that the number of housing units has increased slightly between 2010 and 2015 across all categories except housing with three or more units. Overview of Fremont Housing Stock for 2006 through 2010 and 2011 through 2015 Data American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates 20101 20152 Total Housing Units 74,218 75,420 Total Occupied Units 68,969 72,684 Owner Occupied Units 44,684 45,144 Renter Occupied Units 24,285 27,540 Housing with 3 or more units 19,643 19,151 Source: American Community Survey 5‐year estimates. 1The 2010 estimate includes data collected from 2006 through 2010. 2The 2015 estimate includes data collected from 2011 through 2015. Note: The American Community Survey estimates for housing units and housing tenure (owner or renter occupied) have a margin of error less than 4%. The data on housing with 3 or more units has a larger margin of error of 8% for both estimates. 1 City of Fremont, City Council Meeting, Report to Council on Rent Control, Just‐Cause Eviction and Other Options for Promoting Affordable Rental Housing, dated September 27, 2016. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 7 Figure 1 shows the percentage of occupied housing units occupied by owners and renters according to the American Community Survey’s 2015 five‐year estimates. Renters occupy approximately 38% of total occupied housing in Fremont. Fremont Percent of Occupied Housing Units Occupied by Owners versus Renters for 2011 through 2015 Source: American Community Survey 5‐year estimates. Table 4 shows homeowner and rental vacancy rates as well as median monthly gross rents for Fremont from 2011 to 2015. These statistics come from the American Community Survey one‐year estimates, which are based on 12 months of data collected during each year shown in the table. For owner occupied housing units the vacancy rate has been below 2% over the five‐year period. The rental vacancy rate has fluctuated over the last few years, hitting a low of 2.2 percent in 2012 and then steadily rising to 4.9 percent for 2015 with an average of 3.9. The median rent has increased at a constant rate over the last five years. 62% 38% Percent of Owner Occupied Housing Units Pecent of Renter Occupied Housing Units Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 8 Overview of Fremont Vacancy Rates and Median Monthly Rent from 2011 to 2015 Data American Community Survey 1‐Year Estimates 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Homeowner vacancy rate (%) 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.3 1.0 Rental vacancy rate (%) 4.1 2.2 3.4 4.7 4.9 Median monthly gross rent $1,528 $1,613 $1,669 $1,832 $1,923 Source: American Community Survey 1‐year estimates. Table 5 below shows the gross monthly rent as a percentage of household income in Fremont over a five‐year period. The United States Census Bureau considers households that pay over 30% of their monthly income to rent as cost burdened. Over this five‐year period, an average of 41% of households paid 30% or more of their income for rent. The percent of households paying 30% or more of their income peaked in 2013 at 46% and has since remained around 40% or less. Fremont Gross Rent as a Percent of Household Income from 2011 to 2015 Percent of Household Income American Community Survey 1‐Year Estimates 5‐Year Average 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Less than 15% 10.0% 12.6% 16.0% 10.5% 13.9% 12.6% 15 to 19.9% 19.8% 15.7% 13.3%20.1% 11.6% 16.1% 20 to 24.9% 16.1% 20.6% 15.9% 21.0% 16.8% 18.1% 25 to 29.9% 10.6% 11.7% 8.7%10.4% 18.3% 11.9% 30% or more 43.6% 39.4% 46.0% 38.0% 39.3% 41.3% Source: American Community Survey 1‐year estimates. Table 6 provides a summary of rental housing information for the cities reviewed in this study of rent control and related programs. This American Community Survey data uses five‐year estimates, which is the most comprehensive information available for all peer jurisdictions. The population information shows there is diversity in the size of cities that have adopted rent stabilization programs. Similarly, there is a wide range of housing units and tenure among this group of cities. The cities of Los Angeles and San Jose were excluded from the average calculation in this table because they are outliers to the dataset. Fremont’s population is near the average for these cities. Fremont is also near the average for total housing units and total occupied housing units. However, Fremont has only half the number of renter‐occupied units and housing structures Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 9 with three or more units as the average for those communities with rent control/stabilization and related programs. Summary of Peer Rental Housing for 2011 through 2015 (Five‐Year Estimates) Cities Population Total Housing Units Total Occupied Housing Units Renter Occupied Housing Units Housing structures with three or more units Alameda 76,733 32,244 30,708 16,240 12,677 Berkeley 117,384 49,671 45,917 26,334 21,971 East Palo Alto 29,198 7,455 7,065 4,589 3,003 Los Angeles 3,900,794 1,436,543 1,342,761 848,079 744,523 Oakland 408,073 171,087 158,424 95,402 77,216 Richmond 107,597 39,922 36,973 18,981 12,037 San Francisco 840,763 383,676 353,287 224,589 223,316 San Jose 1,000,860 325,256 314,297 134,488 97,408 Santa Monica 92,169 50,934 46,688 34,095 38,179 West Hollywood 35,332 23,997 22,077 17,643 20,473 Fremont 225,221 75,420 72,684 27,540 19,151 Average 213,406 94,873 87,642 54,734 51,109 Source: American Community Survey 5‐year estimates. Note: The American Community Survey estimates for housing units and housing tenure (owner or renter occupied) have a margin of error less than 5% for all the peers. Figure 2 shows the percent of total occupied housing units occupied by renters. The average percent of housing units occupied by renters is 61% for the cities with rent control or related programs. Fremont has the smallest proportion of occupied housing occupied by renters. At only 38%, Fremont is more than one third below the peer average. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 10 Peer Comparison of the Percent of Total Occupied Housing Units Occupied by Renters for 2011 through 2015 Source: American Community Survey 5‐year estimates. Table 7 below provides a summary of peer renter financial information, including median household income, median monthly gross rent, and the percent of total renters with rent costing over 30% of their household income. It shows Fremont has the highest median renter household income. The median gross rents in Fremont are also greater than the average for the peers, which correlates with the income information. Fremont also has the smallest proportion of renters spending more than 30% of household income on rent and is 10% below the peer average. The figures reported below in Table 7 are estimates developed by the U.S. Department of Labor and reported in the American Community Survey. Care should be used in interpreting the rental rate information because of the multi‐year nature of the estimate, which may not completely track market conditions. This data is available for all peer jurisdictions, however. 53% 57% 65% 38% 63% 60% 51% 64% 43% 73% 80% 61% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percent of Total Occupied Housing Occupied by Renters Peer Average Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 11 Summary of Peer Renter Financial Information for 2011 through 2015 Cities Median Renter Household Income Median Monthly Gross Rent Percent of Renters with Rent Costing over 30% of Income Alameda $55,311 $1,407 47% Berkeley $40,074 $1,362 56% East Palo Alto $43,527 $1,433 66% Los Angeles $36,489 $1,209 61% Oakland $38,222 $1,144 55% Richmond $40,355 $1,205 57% San Francisco $62,532 $1,558 44% San Jose $55,152 $1,585 54% Santa Monica $63,476 $1,593 49% West Hollywood $50,722 $1,399 53% Fremont $81,695 $1,743 42% Average $49,277 $1,390 54% Source: American Community Survey 5‐year estimates. Another source of more recent rental information is the Rent Jungle website, which bases estimates on rent sampling data. Table 8 is a summary of Rent Jungle’s sampling data for one‐ and two‐bedroom rentals in Fremont gathered in March of each year from 2011 through 2017. Over this six‐year period, rents for one‐bedroom units increased 79% and two‐bedroom units increased by 64%. The increases peaked in the summer of 2015, with some moderation since. Average Rents for One and Two Bedroom Units in Fremont Year One Bedroom Change From Prior Year Two Bedroom Change From Prior Year 2011 $1,190 $1,520 2012 $1,532 29% $1,792 18% 2013 $1,638 7% $1,911 7% 2014 $1,760 10% $2,177 14% 2015 $1,981 13% $2,408 11% 2016 $2,137 8% $2,561 6% 2017 $2,134 0% $2,498 ‐2% Source: https://www.rentjungle.com/average‐rent‐in‐fremont‐rent‐trends/. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 12 The City has also experienced a decline in the number of Section 8 Federal Housing Program vouchers accepted by landlords from 1,363 in 2012 to 1,134 in 2015. This has impacted more than 200 of the lowest income residents. Residential Rent Increase Dispute Resolution Ordinance Fremont adopted a Residential Rental Increase Dispute Resolution Ordinance (RRIDRO) in 1997. The intent of the ordinance was to establish requirements for properly notifying tenants of rent increases and their rights regarding rent increases, and to provide formal processes for the resolution of complaints over rent increases. The RRIDRO allows one rent increase per year for all units and sets forth a three‐step process for complaint resolution. All parties have the opportunity to resolve disputes over rent increases in the three‐step process described below. 1. Conciliation. The tenant or landlord may work with an outside third party to assist with resolving any disagreement about a rent increase. The conciliator will work with the parties separately to resolve the disagreement. If successful, a written agreement is binding. 2. Mediation. If conciliation does not result in agreement, the parties move into formal mediation. The trained mediators generally work with the parties together. Any written agreement is binding. 3. Fact Finding. If conciliation and mediation are not successful, the remaining step in the process is fact finding by a panel appointed by the City. The panel includes a tenant representative, a landlord representative and an outside third party. The panel’s role is to issue a fact‐finding report regarding the reasonableness of the rent increases and the impact of the rental rate on the affected households. The conclusions or recommendations of the panel are not binding. Conciliation, mediation, and fact‐finding services are provided by Fremont Fair Housing, the local division of “Project Sentinel,” a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development approved housing counseling agency. Project Sentinel provides housing related services under contract for many cities in the Bay Area. Table 9 provides a summary of the rent increase cases processed by Fremont Fair Housing from July 1 through December 31, 2016. In addition to these cases opened, Fremont Fair Housing received 130 rent Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 13 increase related phone calls. The majority of the phone calls (113) were made by tenants. Rent Increase Case Reports from July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 Activity Cases Opened Tenant Filed Landlord Filed Cases Sent to Dispute Resolution (Cases Opened) 31 31 0 Cases Resolved with Reduced Rent Increases 20 20 0 According to Fremont Fair Housing’s Year End Report: Representatives from the Rental Housing Association (RHA) continued to volunteer to assist with the conciliation of RRIDRO cases by using “peer counseling.” Fifteen cases, with increases ranging from 9.97% to 79.82%, were referred to RHA, and all cases were successfully resolved. In 13 cases, the landlords agreed to substantial rent increase reductions, and in the other two cases tenancies were preserved. Of the 31 cases opened, the increases ranged from a low of 2.23% to a high of 79.82%. In general, tenants reported that increases have been larger and more frequent (every year) than previously. In general, tenants also reported that the premium charged to rent on a month‐to‐month basis, rather than a fixed term lease, is higher than in previous years. In one case, the tenants were offered a 12‐month lease with an increase of $160 (6.0%), but if they wished to continue renting on a month‐to‐month basis, the increase was $2,827 (79.8%). The RHA successfully conciliated the case, resulting in a 1.6% rent increase as opposed to the proposed increase of 79.8%. RRIDRO Challenges As market rents began to climb in 2013, Fremont Fair Housing found it challenging to mediate rents. The Rental Housing Association serving southern Alameda County (RHA) sent an agent to assist in the process and reported to City staff that Fremont Fair Housing often was not able to navigate the frequently complex corporate relationships behind ownership of apartment complexes to identify the party having authority. In several cases, apparently, Fremont Fair Housing was not negotiating with people who had authority to reduce proposed rent increases, Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Background Management Partners 14 resulting in the decision makers refusing mediated terms. In several cases the RHA agent was able to help negotiate moderate increases. Based on best practices adopted by other jurisdictions with rent mediation processes similar to RRIDRO, and on improved results achieved by RRIDRO with active landlord involvement, there are a number of potential changes to the program the City may wish to consider. These are discussed in Options section below. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Overview of Rent Control/Just‐Cause Eviction Ordinances Management Partners 15 Overview of Rent Control/Just‐Cause Eviction Ordinances Of the 482 incorporated cities in California, the vast majority do not regulate rents. Still, whether by legislation or local petition, rent control and just‐cause eviction ordinances have become part of the municipal regulatory environment in a number of cities in California. Until 2016 approximately a dozen cities in the State of California had rent control regulations. As was noted earlier, the 2016 elections resulted in a few more cities in the Bay Area establishing rent control regulations. Some California cities have some type of regulation regarding rents which stops short of control or stabilization. These are usually mediation type programs similar to Fremont’s. Clearly there is more policy and community interest in this issue in the Bay Area than there has been in many years. Cities as well as stakeholders (sometimes through voter initiative) are trying to address rent control issues with a range of programs. The programs are typically designed to meet the needs of the local community, the economic and market environment as well as stakeholder interests. Programs vary in scope and degree of regulation, and are generally designed to address the following areas: Rent control or stabilization, Just‐cause for eviction requirements, Tenant protections against retaliation, and Relocation assistance for non‐fault tenant evictions in particular circumstances. Each program has unique elements, and there is a complex inter‐ relationship between government regulation and the market that almost always leads to unanticipated consequences. The analysis presented below reflects our best professional judgment, given these constraints and uncertainties. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Overview of Rent Control/Just‐Cause Eviction Ordinances Management Partners 16 As part of our work, we contacted the communities of Santa Monica, Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Jose, and East Palo Alto for information about their rent control and just‐cause for eviction programs. In addition, we reviewed ordinances and operating practices currently in place in the cities of Hayward and West Hollywood. While these programs have some common features, it is important to understand that each jurisdiction’s scope and implementation processes are unique to their experience of the issues and stakeholder interests. San Jose is currently operating under an interim ordinance while staff develop broad policy recommendations and a program to support a comprehensive program. (San Jose has had a rent control/stabilization program in place since the 1970s, but because rent increases of up to 8% were allowed per year, it rarely had an impact on rents.) Also noteworthy are programs adopted by the cities of Alameda and Santa Rosa in 2016, and the City of Richmond in 2017. However, the proposed ordinance in Santa Rosa was rejected by voters in a special election, in June 2017, so the program planned by the City will not be implemented. Therefore, these programs do not have data that can be used to inform discussions on this issue. Nevertheless, where appropriate we have used relevant information from these communities. Local ordinances to address rapidly escalating rents have existed in California since the late 1970s. Cities such as Santa Monica and Berkeley pioneered strong ordinances that strictly regulated rent increases. More typical are ordinances that provide for non‐binding mediation of landlord/tenant disputes similar to Fremont’s program. In response to the rent inflation experienced in the Bay Area since the end of the Great Recession, several cities are looking at their current programs or are considering developing a program to regulate rents and establish just‐ cause eviction procedures. The state has set some limits on the power of a local jurisdiction to address rent increases. In 1995, the California legislature passed the Costa‐Hawkins Rental Housing Act (AB 1164) (Costa‐Hawkins). Costa‐ Hawkins allows, among other things, property owners to set rental rates when there is a change in unit vacancy (known as “vacancy decontrol”). In addition, Costa‐Hawkins prohibits interfering in a property owner’s ability to set rents for any unit that received a certificate of occupancy after February 1, 1995, and any single‐family home and condominium. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Overview of Rent Control/Just‐Cause Eviction Ordinances Management Partners 17 Fremont staff estimated in their September 2016 staff report that there are 16,782 rental housing units in multifamily developments in Fremont, with 2,840 built after February 1995 and an additional 1,491 that are income restricted affordable units. (These numbers do not include renter occupied units that would not be subject to regulation, or alternative regulation, such as mobile homes, condominiums and single‐family homes.) Therefore, staff indicate that approximately 12,451 units may be covered by a rent control ordinance. 2 Today, these programs, also referred to as rent stabilization programs, generally take one of three forms. An overview of the elements of the three forms is provided in Attachment A. Model A: (Berkeley/Santa Monica Style Rent Control) Traditional or “Model A” rent control ordinances strictly regulate rent increases by providing the annual maximum rents for each unit rather than merely providing the maximum percentage allowed. Cities such as Berkeley and Santa Monica pioneered these types of ordinances, but ordinances that establish the allowed individual rent increases remain rare. Recently, the City of Richmond adopted a Model A rent control ordinance following a voter initiative. Model A rent control programs typically involve the city registering all eligible rental units. Limits on annual rent increases are generally defined in relation to either the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or a flat rate. Should a landlord believe increased operating costs justify a greater increase than permitted by regulation, they must petition for an individual rent adjustment. Similarly, tenants may petition to decrease rents if the services provided by the landlord are reduced. Individual petitions are typically heard by a hearing officer, with the ability of either party to appeal to some public body, usually a rent board, or ultimately the court. Rent boards may be independently elected (as in Berkeley), or appointed by the City Council (as in West Hollywood). Although they have been challenged in the courts, rent control ordinances in Berkeley, Santa Monica, East Palo Alto, West Hollywood and, very recently, Richmond have withstood legal challenge. 2 City of Fremont, City Council Meeting, Report to Council on Rent Control, Just‐Cause Eviction and Other Options for Promoting Affordable Rental Housing, dated September 27, 2016. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Overview of Rent Control/Just‐Cause Eviction Ordinances Management Partners 18 Due to the extensive regulatory apparatus associated with Model A rent control programs, these are the most complex and expensive for cities to implement and operate. Also, litigation typically ensues following the enactment of such programs. Model B: (Alameda/West Hollywood Style Rent Regulation or Stabilization) These programs are intended to address swings in the market that can lead to higher rent increases. They are triggered when a proposed rent increase exceeds some specified threshold (usually 5% to 10 %) and a tenant files a petition. Model B rent control programs typically try first to resolve issues through mediation, which can be a mandatory first step. If mediation fails, the next step is a hearing or arbitration that results in a binding decision. Most rent control programs provide for mediation as either a first step in the dispute resolution process, or as a required step. Some cities provide mediation services to address any type of landlord/tenant dispute before it escalates into formal hearings or court actions. These landlord/tenant dispute resolution programs are similar to Fremont’s RRIDRO. Participation in the program is sometimes mandatory, and failure to participate in good faith can be grounds for disallowing a rent increase. A mandated mediation program is intended to provide a tenant access to a grievance process that meets program guidelines for mediation and addresses the issue of tenants being uninformed about how to process rent or service‐related grievances. Mediation can be provided to resolve many landlord/tenant disputes on a “cost‐to‐the‐parties” basis. However, many cities choose to fund the service or charge only a nominal fee. Mediation services are typically provided through a third‐party contractor or non‐profit organization, as Fremont currently is utilizing. Just‐Cause Eviction State law allows a landlord to terminate a tenancy without cause at the end of a lease or other tenancy term by giving the tenant a 30‐ or 60‐day notice. A just‐cause for eviction ordinance retains the state’s noticing timelines, but also requires a landlord to provide written cause for the termination and evidence supporting the termination action. Typically, “just‐cause” ordinances provide a limited range of allowable causes for Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Overview of Rent Control/Just‐Cause Eviction Ordinances Management Partners 19 eviction. One of the primary impacts of these programs is that they shift the burden of proof for a tenant eviction from the tenant to the landlord, because failure to prove one of the allowable causes for eviction is an affirmative defense a tenant may use to contest the eviction. Just‐cause for eviction rules are often part of a strong rent regulation ordinance to protect tenants from a landlord’s ability to evict them without cause under civil procedures to gain potentially significant rent increases by creating a vacancy that allows greater market rents to be charged pursuant to the Costa‐Hawkins Act. However, just‐cause ordinances can also become problematic for a landlord seeking to evict a tenant for reasons other than to increase the rent. Because legitimately evicted tenants may use the appeals processes to delay the eviction, many landlords believe that just‐cause ordinances make it difficult to evict bad tenants. The effectiveness of just‐cause ordinances is difficult to track statewide because most of the cases are taken directly to the courts for resolution and the results are not published in a comprehensive way. However, to assess the effectiveness of such ordinances, Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) tracked their caseload over an eight‐month test period in 2014. CLSEPA provides defense for tenants facing eviction in East Palo Alto and many other areas of San Mateo County. Currently, East Palo Alto is the only city in San Mateo County with a just‐cause for eviction ordinance (it has also had a rent control ordinance since 2010). Over the test period CLSEPA obtained “pay and stay” settlements (where the tenant agrees to a rent increase and is not evicted) for 70% of cases in East Palo Alto. However, in all other San Mateo County cities pay and stay settlements were achieved in only 14% of cases. CLSEPA did not have the capacity to track cases beyond the test period. An important caveat to this example is that eviction in a rent control environment is different than in a non‐regulated environment. As stated above when rents are controlled landlords may have in incentive to evict to obtain the economic benefit of vacancy decontrol. Therefore, comparing eviction settlements in a controlled environment like East Palo Alto may not yield a meaningful comparison in a mainly unregulated environment such as other areas in San Mateo County. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Overview of Rent Control/Just‐Cause Eviction Ordinances Management Partners 20 While typically paired with rent control or stabilization, a just‐cause ordinance can be a stand‐alone ordinance designed to protect tenants from unilateral landlord eviction decisions. They can apply to most tenants as well as to specific tenants, such as to tenants of rent stabilized units only. For example, the just‐cause sections of ordinances for both Richmond and Berkeley apply to the rent‐controlled units as well as to almost all other rental units. Just‐cause ordinances also can be used to provide additional protections for certain classes of tenants, such as the disabled, elderly, infirm and families with children in school. Just‐cause for eviction programs typically are designed so the city is not an active participant in the process. Instead, the eviction processes play out through the courts. Rent board staff in several of the California cities with rent control contacted by Management Partners reported they did not track just‐cause eviction complaints so we were unable to determine the extent of such cases. A survey of just‐cause eviction provisions is provided as Attachment B. Fremontʹs neighbor, Union City, recently enacted a just‐cause ordinance in the absence of rent controls beyond a non‐binding mediation program. The effect of such a just‐cause ordinance on rents is not clear because it is too new to draw any conclusions from. Public Outreach and Education Although not strictly an element of rent control and just‐cause eviction ordinances, rent control related public outreach typically includes a range of tenant and landlord education or information programs to make sure the parties understand their rights and responsibilities. Topics covered often include processes for allowing yearly rent increases and/or petitioning higher rent increases to cover higher capital or operating costs, vacancy decontrol, habitability standards, and retaliation or anti‐ harassment provisions. The most effective tenant protection programs use extensive outreach and education to reduce the number of petitions and ordinance violations over time. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Control/Rent Stabilization and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Elements Management Partners 21 Rent Control/Rent Stabilization and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Elements The Fremont City Council directed staff to investigate operational impacts of rent control/rent stabilization and just‐cause ordinances. As noted previously, each jurisdiction with rent control and just‐cause for eviction ordinances has unique elements to meet specific community and stakeholder interests and needs. As such, programs vary widely among agencies. This section provides an overview of the major elements of rent control and just‐cause eviction programs and their operational impacts in the following areas: Governance, Expenditures and cost recovery, Staffing, and Other observations. Governance Most cities, whether their programs are regulatory or non‐binding, establish a board to provide oversight, to act as the final appeals body when parties fail to reach agreement after mediation, or to act as the hearing body for a decision by an arbiter or hearing officer for general landlord/tenant complaints such as excessive rent increases. These boards are generally appointed by a city council, although Berkeley and Santa Monica have an independently elected board. In most programs, initial decisions are made by trained hearing officers directly employed by the rent board or contracted by the board from independent organizations. These boards will typically hold public hearings to render a final binding decision on complaints. Although the board may be appointed by a council, we have not identified any ordinances where a board’s decisions are appealable to the city council. Most appeals of board decisions are made directly to the courts. Rent control boards may also get involved in Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Control/Rent Stabilization and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Elements Management Partners 22 other landlord/tenant issues, including providing informational and educational materials on landlord/tenant rights and other matters of interest to landlords and tenants. Although a board is typically created, we found two examples where governance is not being delegated to a rental control board. The City of Hayward’s program calls for arbitration; the arbiter’s decision is final (subject to court review should the matter be taken to court). Under San Jose’s new program, disputes are arbitrated by hearing officers and appealed to the courts. However, policy decisions remain with the City Council or are delegated to staff. Expenditures and Cost Recovery The cost of rent control programs varies widely across the state. The costs are related to the cost of staff required to administer the program. Programs that require detailed administrative action over routine activity such as rent increases and tenancy changes are higher in cost on a per rental unit basis. The programs in Berkeley and Santa Monica programs are examples of such programs. Programs that require little routine administrative control and are primarily complaint driven, such as San Francisco’s, are fairly inexpensive on a per unit basis. Scale reduces the per unit cost in the large cities dramatically. Some factors that influence costs are: The level of policy control of the rent boards and their need for staff support; The amount of information and frequency of reporting required by landlords; The complexity of the petition processes, especially those related to fair‐return on investment provisions; Whether proactive enforcement of the ordinance is performed (i.e., analysis of reporting data is used to act on rents outside of complaints); and The complexity of relocation programs. A city council is typically responsible for approving the budget for rent management programs. In at least three cities (Berkeley, Santa Monica and Richmond), the budget is set by the rent board with little oversight by the City Council (although the Council must set the associated rental housing fee). In cities with strong rent regulation reporting, most of the program budget is funded through a rental housing fee on each regulated unit charged to landlords. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Control/Rent Stabilization and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Elements Management Partners 23 Fees for Model A rent control programs currently are as high as $238 per unit per year, and cover annual costs and reserves necessary to properly fund them. The fee is established on an annual basis. If program costs increase, the fee can be increased. In some cities, a portion of the rental housing fee can be passed through to tenants through rent increases. To properly track regulated units and payment of fees, these cities require that units be registered or enrolled in a “rent registry.” In those cases where there is less rigorous rent control (i.e., with landlords only reporting on the occupied units), fees range from approximately $40 to $120 per year. Some cities support their rent control program through the general fund or through a combination of general fund support and fees. For non‐ binding mediation programs, a non‐profit may provide the service either through its own grant funding, or by charging a fee. Table 10 below provides information on program cost and fee data collected from communities that operate rent management programs. While all of the programs in Table 10 include rent control and just‐cause for eviction components, each of the cities’ programs provide a range of services as well as staffing strategies which make cost comparisons challenging. As an example, the programs in the cities of Berkeley and East Palo Alto require rental unit registration of actual rents while the others do not. The level of service also varies. The City of Alameda’s program includes mediation services for rental properties not subject to rent control while the now defunct City of Santa Rosa’s program excluded these services. Finally, the City of Hayward’s fees are significantly less than other communities due to its policy to recover only a portion of program costs. The Hayward program has limited administrative requirements and offers some unique program features, including those that allow a landlord to remove units from the rent control portion of the program if certain conditions are met. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Control/Rent Stabilization and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Elements Management Partners 24 Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Cost and Fee Comparisons Source: Annual budget documents, city websites and program reports. 1 The City of Alameda information represents an estimated amount as the program has just recently been approved; however, the fee has not yet been adopted. 2 The City of East Palo Alto budget includes $206,000 City overhead charges. 3 The City of Hayward includes various conditions that allow rent increases greater than 5%, including rent carry‐overs. Cost is based on 80% program recovery. A total of 20% is funded by the General Fund and 3,000 units are subject to the rent control portion of the program. 4 The City of Santa Rosa program fee was adopted on August 30, 2016 based on program cost and fee estimates. The Santa Rosa and Alameda programs were selected in part because they have just recently been adopted and include one‐time costs anticipated in program start up. The Santa Rosa program no longer exists because it was rejected by voters in a special election on June 6, 2017. With respect to the provision of legal services to support the function, we observed that programs utilized either the city attorney’s staff or employed their own attorneys to focus exclusively on the rent control program. For example, Alameda, East Palo Alto and Santa Rosa secure legal services for their program through their city attorneys’ offices. The cost of this staff time is tracked and included in the program costs. Santa Monica and Berkeley both have staff attorneys who are solely responsible for the rent control program and related litigation. Periodically, the rent control program attorneys in both of those cities require supplemental assistance from the City Attorney. Several of the rent control programs also budget for additional contract services including additional legal services (e.g., East Palo Alto and Santa Monica). Staffing The level of staffing for rent control programs is highly dependent on the type of program. A non‐binding mediation program can be managed with more limited staff resources. On the other hand, cities with highly regulatory programs may need a significant number of staff, including a City Number of Non‐Exempt Housing Units Current Program Operating Budget Annual Per Unit Program Fee Number of Program FTEs Annual Allowable Rent Increase Alameda1 13,037 $1,900,000 $131 6.0 5% Berkeley 19,093 $4,550,000 $234 20.6 1.5% (CPI Formula) East Palo Alto2 2,400 $650,000 $234 2.0 2.40% (CPI Formula) Hayward3 3,000 $27,875 $2.77 0.5 5.00% Oakland N/A $1,773,209 $30 12.0 2% (CPI Formula) Santa Rosa4 11,076 $1,248,674 $113 4.5 3% Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Control/Rent Stabilization and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Elements Management Partners 25 manager, administrative personnel, (e.g., support and accounting staff), analysts, legal services and hearing officers (which may be contracted). Staff may also conduct community outreach and education activities. The City of Berkeley’s rent control program, governed by an independent and elected rent board, employs 22 full‐time equivalent employees (FTEs) and has a budget of over $4.5 million. The City of Hayward’s program, which is a complaint‐based arbitration program for significant rent increases, is administered through the City Attorney’s Office and uses a portion of two FTEs for program administration along with contractual support for mediation and arbitration. It does not utilize a board for program oversight. Technology Support Until this year there was no commercially available software that supported rent control programs. Cities with long term programs have all used custom software developed specifically for them. The City of San Jose is in the process of creating custom configurations of its Customer Resource Management software to provide such support. The San Jose Housing Department has used that application for several years but processes supporting the new ordinances being developed will require more sophisticated functionality. The City of Richmond is in the process of developing similar functionality using their development permit tracking and inspection system. Both cities have information technology staff with significant skills with these products and both will likely require additional assistance from their vendors. On January 3, 2017, the City of Los Angeles went online with a new application developed for them by a southern California software development company. This company just contracted with the City of Beverly Hills to provide a version of the Los Angeles software as a “cloud‐based” service, but it is not yet installed. General Observations Regarding Program Impacts The degree to which there is an impact on the housing market from rent management programs will depend on the type of program adopted by the city, the market and general economic development conditions within a region. In general, there is limited research on the market impacts of any of the rent management programs as they currently exist in California after Costa‐Hawkins. Interest groups representing landlords and tenants rarely, if ever, agree on market impacts. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Control/Rent Stabilization and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Elements Management Partners 26 Objectively, concerns that local rent regulation would discourage new construction have largely been addressed by state law exempting new construction from rent regulation. There have been concerns that highly regulatory programs discourage investment and lead to deterioration in rental housing, but evidence of that is merely anecdotal. In reviewing the potential impacts of rental control programs, the following are some general observations about affordable housing, vacancy rates/displacement, and housing supply. Affordable Housing and Rent Control Defining housing affordability is a complex matter that is beyond the scope of this study. However, in the broadest sense, any definition of affordable housing typically includes a link between household income and the amount of income spent on rent and/or gross housing costs. As an example, HUD generally defines housing as being affordable if a median income household is paying no more than 30% of its income on housing‐related costs. While the HUD definition is commonly cited when discussing housing issues overall, a city’s affordable housing program is typically geared toward the development and maintenance of subsidized rental housing including eligibility requirements tied to household income, most commonly those households with an annual income less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Affordable housing and rent control are different in that the income of a tenant in a rent control environment is not used as a parameter in the rent setting process. We have not observed any affordability monitoring or control mechanism linking rents and household income in relation to the impact of rent regulation. Therefore, as a general observation rent control and just‐cause eviction ordinances, at best, maintain some level of affordability for those already in rental housing subject to the ordinance, but do not lead to an expansion in the availability of affordable housing. Notwithstanding this, proponents of rent control programs and associated stakeholders often assert these programs assist in promoting tenant stabilization, with varying degrees of success, by establishing a more clearly defined rent adjustment amount and by providing an outlet for grievances related to what may be viewed as unreasonable rent increases without regard to a household’s income or the amount of Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Control/Rent Stabilization and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Elements Management Partners 27 household income dedicated to monthly housing costs. In addition, educating tenants and landlords about tenant rights and processes for rent adjustments and/or evictions are often components of affordable housing programs. Affordable housing issues are not directly targeted by rent regulation. Such issues are much broader and bigger, and the subject of a lot of discussion among stakeholders and the housing industry. However, rent control and just‐cause eviction may provide additional public information and a process that may affect a subset of those impacted by high housing costs. Vacancy Rates/Displacement Management Partners has not found any current data indicating that rent control and just‐cause for eviction programs will increase or decrease vacancy rates. Our observation is based on conversations with representatives from the peer cities and the results of a questionnaire regarding vacancy rates in cities with rent control programs. Because the surveyed cities are not collecting data to track tenant displacement and/or the root causes for displacement, which are complex, we have not found any specific evidence indicating these programs improve or worsen tenant displacement. Notwithstanding the lack of available data, it seems reasonable to conclude that tenants are displaced when rent increases exceed the general cost of living, leading to a tenant being priced out of a unit and potentially out of the community. A program that mitigates rent increases accompanied by a just‐cause eviction ordinance may limit the impact of rent increases thereby preventing some displacement. Of course, the associated regulatory apparatus comes at a cost and landlords will oppose this intervention in the marketplace, and with respect to their property. As noted above, rent regulation programs are not targeted to those who may be most at risk of displacement. They provide a benefit to both those who may be displaced as well as others who can afford to pay market rents. For some tenants, the benefits of retaining a rent‐regulated unit will encourage them to remain in the unit, even when their incomes rise and they can afford market rents. Some believe this may result in less turnover in the rental market, especially for those older units that tend to be most affordable, even in a high‐cost area. While there is anecdotal evidence of this effect, we are not aware of any study that has quantified it. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Control/Rent Stabilization and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Elements Management Partners 28 Housing Supply and the Housing Market As noted earlier, Costa‐Hawkins has largely addressed the concern that local rent regulation would discourage new apartment construction. However, highly regulatory programs can lead to some loss of rental units to condominium conversion and to owners who choose to leave the rental market all together, usually by the owner or relative occupying a condo conversion or through demolition and major reconstruction. There is also a state law that allows evictions to remove a property from the rental market for a variety of reasons, commonly known as the Ellis Act. In response, some communities have adopted condominium conversion processes that require a rent board’s review of these applications to ensure the rental unit conversion to owner occupancy is consistent with rent control and just‐cause eviction program intent and practices. For example, the City of Berkeley requires a complex application review and payment of an affordable housing mitigation fee. Santa Monica reported in its 2015 Consolidated Annual Report that since 1986 a total of 2,019 units have been withdrawn from the rental housing market. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that there were more than 100 Ellis Act evictions each year between 2010 and 2013. Other cities that regulate rents have not reported significant losses of rental units through the Ellis Act or through condominium conversion. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options Management Partners 29 Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options The City Council directed staff to generate a range of program options. Management Partners has prepared three possible options at staff’s request. As part of these options, we defined program elements, administrative cost, and the potential advantages and disadvantages of each (also see Attachment A). These options represent a broad overview of program elements for City consideration. Should the City Council decide to pursue any of or a component of these options, additional research would be necessary to ensure that a program is drafted to address the unique needs, stakeholder interests and program objectives for the City of Fremont. Option 1: Modified Residential Rent Increase Dispute Resolution Ordinance Process The City Council directed staff to develop possible revisions or alternatives to the existing RRIDRO. A non‐binding mediation approach is appropriate for most communities whose objective is primarily to resolve landlord/tenant disputes. When there is balance between supply and demand in the rental market, such programs can probably help reduce displacements of lower‐income tenants. As market rents began to climb between 2013 and 2015, the City’s contractor, Fremont Fair Housing, was not successful at mediating rents in the overheated rental market until the Rental Housing Association (RHA) sent an agent to assist. The agent reported to staff that Fremont Fair Housing was not able to navigate the frequently complex corporate relationships behind apartment complex ownership. This resulted in Fremont Fair Housing sometimes negotiating with people lacking the actual authority to reduce proposed rent increases, which then resulted in the decision makers refusing mediated terms. The RHA had greater resources and experience identifying the decision makers. In several cases the RHA agent was able to negotiate reductions in the proposed increases. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options Management Partners 30 The City of San Leandro has a mediation‐based program similar to Fremont’s RRIDRO. San Leandro recently adopted an ordinance with program enhancements that may bolster the effectiveness of Fremont’s current RRIDRO. Elements of San Leandro’s ordinance that might be considered by Fremont include: Replacing the Fact‐Finding Panel under the current ordinance with a standing Rent Review Board consisting of two landlord representatives, two tenant representatives, and a neutral third party; Establishing a rent increase threshold for eligibility; Strengthening the mandatory participation provisions; and Continued peer‐to‐peer counseling by landlords. Fremont staff shared several additional possible RRIDRO revisions with our team, including the following. 1. Establish a Rent Review Board for mediation/fact finding of rent disputes to include: a. Failure to participate (landlord) will render the rent increase invalid. b. Failure to participate (tenant) will render the rent increase valid. c. If the Rent Review Board finds retaliation, the most current rent increase becomes invalid and no further increases are permitted for 12 months from the date of the finding. 2. Revise noticing provisions (statements to be included in a notice of rent increase) to include: a. A statement on the reason for increase. b. A statement on Rent Review Board processes. c. A statement that no more than one rent increase every 12 months will be made (9.60.040 (d)). d. Require 90 days‐notice of rent increases rather than encouraging landlords to provide at least 90 days‐notice (9.60.040 (c)). e. Failure to give proper notice including all statements renders the rent increase invalid and no additional rent increase notice is permitted for at least 90 days. 3. Retaliation Measures a. Increase the penalty for retaliation to a larger amount (currently $1,000) that would deter landlords from retaliatory actions (9.60.100; see Civ. Code § 1942.5). Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options Management Partners 31 b. Any retaliation renders the recent rent increase invalid and no additional rent increase notice is allowed for next 12 months from the date of the finding. 4. Additional conciliation process requirements a. Require mediation on rent and other terms of tenancy b. Require the individual representing the landlord in the process to have the authority to make rent adjustments c. Require meaningful participation or rent increase is rendered invalid. d. Codify AR 10.7 to clarify that if parties agree to more than one rent increase in a 12‐month period, it must be documented in a separate agreement (not the rental agreement) that identifies the agreed upon rental increase. e. Agreements reached in mediation are binding. 5. Additional mediation process requirements a. Require participation by representatives or the rent increase is invalid. b. Agreements reached following mediation are binding. 6. Additional Fact‐Finding Process Requirements a. Require participation or rent increase is invalid. b. Recommendations of the fact‐finding panel are not binding. c. Agreements reached by parties following fact finding are binding. In addition, staff suggested a regular evaluation of the program could help ensure its effectiveness. Option 1 Opportunities As noted in Attachment A, this model has several components. It: Creates an effective vehicle for addressing tenant concerns regarding significant rent increases, Promotes tenant stability regarding lease terminations, Improves landlord/tenant communication, Provides certainty and stability for landlords Reinforces non‐retaliation provisions, and Includes tenant relocation expenses in some programs. An additional rent mediation program element that has been used in the cities of Palo Alto and more recently Menlo Park is the requirement for Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options Management Partners 32 landlords to offer one‐year leases to tenants each year. The tenant retains the right to refuse such leases but landlords must offer them. This eliminates the risk of tenants receiving multiple rent increases each year and provides some level of stability for both landlords and tenants, especially where student housing is an element of volatility in the local rental market. However, tenants in several South Bay communities have complained to housing support agencies of demands for very high month‐to‐month rents if longer term leases were refused by the tenants. Mediation programs provide tenants with an opportunity to present their concerns about a rent increase to a neutral third party who can work with both the landlord and tenant to see if an agreement can be reached. Mediation is also a less restrictive approach with respect to landlords and their property. Transitioning the existing “panel” to a rent review board and establishing a more transparent process may provide additional incentive for both parties to reach a compromise. Option 1 Challenges This model will not address concerns regarding affordable housing or financial hardship resulting from higher than historical or perceived “normal” rent adjustments. In addition, the overall impact on displacement is difficult to quantify. Moreover, the Rental Housing Organization (RHO) in Fremont, as reported in the September 27, 2016 staff report, has recommended a 7% to 10% yearly threshold for rent increases prior to being subject to the mediation process. At this threshold, the mediation process might not have much impact. For example, the City of San Jose rent control ordinance has been in place since 1979. It has allowed an 8% annual increase with other opportunities for larger rent increases under certain circumstances. In a January 27, 2017 report, the City Auditor reported that between 1980 and 2014, the average rent increase was 4.9% and the 8% yearly allowable increase did not become a constraint on rent spikes except in the early 1980s when inflation was very high. San Jose’s 2015 interim apartment rent ordinance has reduced the threshold to 5%. Option 1 Cost Estimate This option has the advantage of having a relatively low program cost. The exact costs are difficult to determine precisely because the budgets for such programs are typically embedded in the budgets of larger housing departments or organizational units, which provide support for many other services such as placing low or moderate income tenants, Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options Management Partners 33 administering affordable mortgage programs, and assisting other housing functions. The City of San Leandro Housing Services Department offers broad housing services to low and moderate income residents and supports a Rent Board and binding mediation program at a cost of $874,963 in Fiscal Year 2016/2017. Of this, an estimated $100,000 is dedicated to the rent mediation program. As will be further explained, the cost of all three styles of rent control programs varies widely depending on sometimes small differences in the program policies and administrative processes supporting them, but Option 1 costs are typically the lowest. The volume of public education and outreach by each city or contract agency can have significant impact on the cost. Given the larger number of units subject to a program in Fremont suggests that even, a modest mediation program approach such as seen in San Leandro could approach $300,000 annually. With lower rent ceilings, more detailed administrative processes, and other support services being provided, the costs could approach $500,000. It is possible costs could be offset via a correctly designed fee that meets California nexus requirements, as seen with rent control programs. Option 2: Alameda/West Hollywood Style Rent Regulation or Stabilization A rent control and just‐cause eviction program could have the features listed below for rental units not exempted by Costa‐Hawkins (and City ordinance). Landlord requirement to notify and supply tenants with a copy of the program ordinance and annual rent increases. A threshold rent increase for accessing the program (5% to 10%). Potential to opt out of the rent control program with minimum reinvestment per unit. A complaint‐based program, (i.e., no ongoing tracking of regulated rentals); although, should a fee be established, the City would need to determine a collection method. A clear set of criteria for evaluating whether a rent increase over the threshold can be justified. Voluntary or required mediation. A fact‐finding process followed by a hearing before a hearing examiner or arbiter, should mediation not lead to agreement. An order from the hearing officer or arbiter is binding on the parties. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options Management Partners 34 An opportunity to appeal the order. A hearing before a board appointed by the City Council (should the matter be appealed). Option 2 Opportunities As noted in Attachment A, this option can provide several benefits depending on the structure focusing on each community’s needs. These include the potential to: Stabilize rent increases, Encourage habitability compliance, Expand tenants’ rights, Attract investment, Ensure a method to address landlord/tenant disputes, Provide a fair return on investment, and Encourage rental housing reinvestment. This type of program would insert the City’s regulatory authority into the rental housing market to address above “normal” rent increases to some degree. Because the program includes the authority to order modifications, it may lead to more good‐faith efforts for agreement. Depending on the threshold set for use of the program, it could also address only the most significant rent increases. It is important to remember that rent increases at the high levels experienced during the past few years have moderated. Over time, depending on the threshold, allowable rent levels may catch up to market rents. For example, assuming a 7% threshold and market rental inflation over four years of 13%, 9%, 4% and 2%, the permitted increases will have caught up to market rents by year four, but at a less impactful and more predictable rate. Because these programs are designed to address the specific housing type and needs of the respective jurisdiction, Fremont would need to consider its specific housing characteristics in the design process. Should the City move in the direction of some form of rent regulation, we suggest it also consider a just‐cause ordinance to avoid evictions related to rent regulation. An interesting element in the City of Hayward’s ordinance is the option for landlords to opt out of the rent control program by making certain capital improvements to the controlled properties. In this way, Hayward addressed a community interest in improving the condition of rental Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options Management Partners 35 stock. The City enacted an ordinance for rent control in 1983 but later repealed it. A new ordinance was enacted in 2003. Since the current rent control program went into effect in 2003, the number of rent‐stabilized units has declined from roughly 11,000 units initially to 3,000 units today. Option 2 Challenges Even under these programs, the affordable housing gap will persist for residents at or below the Area Median Income (AMI). Further, Option 2 contemplates only short‐term rent control, because voluntary vacancy and landlord compliance with permanent decontrol removes a unit from the program and rent increase limits. The program is designed to drive rental housing reinvestment, and since vacancy decontrol prohibits comprehensive application to all rental units (only units built before 1995 can be “controlled”), reinvestment is only encouraged for those units in the program. Option 2 Cost Estimate Option 2 would require significant staff resources and costs. Assuming just‐cause provisions are adopted, landlords would have to expend considerably more effort to evict tenants and be subject to potential legal challenge. Landlord costs may also increase if the City chooses to require them to pay relocation costs for certain types of evictions. Should the City wish to consider this option further, a more detailed analysis of the potential staffing requirements and program costs would need to be undertaken. The current budget for the City of Alameda’s program is $1,950,000, covering 14,699 units under rent control. The City of West Hollywood’s rent control program budget is roughly $1,900,000 to cover 16,805 controlled units. This rent control program is part of a larger, comprehensive housing department budget and costs are an estimate provided by their staff in 2016. A reasonable range of costs for Fremont is expected to be between $1,900,000 and $2,100,000. Again, there is potential for additional costs depending on program elements but West Hollywood and Alameda both provide a reasonable threshold cost estimate, depending on the number of units included. Option 3: Berkeley/Santa Monica Style Rent Control A rent control and just‐cause eviction program might include the following elements in relation to rental units not exempted by Costa‐ Hawkins. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options Management Partners 36 Requiring landlords to notify and supply tenants with a copy of the program ordinance and annual rent increases. Establishing a board with the authority to set an annual general adjustment to rents, generally based on the Consumer Price Index or some flat maximum amount. Establishing a procedure to apply for individual adjustments, and a set of criteria for evaluating requests for an individual adjustment. Enrolling all regulated units and payment of a fee to cover the costs of the program. Requiring voluntary or required mediation. Establishing a fact‐finding process followed by a hearing before a hearing examiner (should mediation not lead to agreement). Requiring an order from the hearing officer or arbiter to be binding on the parties with an opportunity to appeal the order. Requiring a hearing before a board appointed by the City Council (should the matter be appealed). As with the previous (Model B) program, should the City move in this direction, we would suggest it also consider a just‐cause for eviction ordinance. Option 3 Opportunities This option provides for the tracking of program units; a mechanism to identify, inform, and engage landlords and tenants; reasonable rent increases while stabilizing tenant population in rental units; compliance with code (habitability) requirements; and an accessible and efficient method to address landlord/tenant disputes. Although most California cities with such programs do not track rents on an ongoing basis, property owners must submit justification when rent increases are requested beyond the yearly allowable ceiling, and program hearing officers render decisions on whether the increase is justified. Similarly, tenant complaints of excessive increases are investigated by program staff and resolved by the hearing officers. In the most rigorous programs, such as those in Berkeley and Santa Monica, rents are tracked on every change in tenancy and change in tenancy terms (typically any rent increase). Option 3 Challenges As noted in Attachment A, the affordable housing gap persists for residents at or below Area Median Income (AMI). The vacancy rate Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Rent Intervention Alternatives – Three Options Management Partners 37 impact in the short‐run is negligible. There is a threat of reduction in rental units in the long‐run through increased condominium conversion such as experienced in Santa Monica. Vacancy decontrol also prohibits comprehensive application to all rental units (only units built before 1995 can be “controlled”). Traditional rent control programs cost more and require greater administrative complexity than Model B rent control or mediated rent control programs. For example, the staffing levels of the Berkeley and Santa Monica programs are twice those of the average staffing level per unit in cities with Model B rent control “unit‐registries.” Both cities have elected rent boards and program staff who must support their policy development and legislative processes. The budgets in Berkeley and Santa Monica are $4,550,000 and $4,755,170 respectively, supporting 19,093 and 27,542 rent controlled units respectively. The City of Los Angeles launched a rent registry in January 2017 with a much lower staffing level per rental unit. Nevertheless, the Los Angeles rental rights department has almost four times as many total staff as Berkeley or Santa Monica and a total budget over $22 million. Between scale and current generation technology support, Los Angeles hopes to be able to operate with minimal staffing increases. Option 3 Cost Estimate Option 3 for Fremont may have an initial cost between $3,500,000 and $4,000,000 because of the fewer units potentially under a rent control program. Whether the relatively low staffing levels in Los Angeles can be maintained will have to be determined as the history develops—but any new Model A rent control and just‐cause eviction programs would require a dedication of staff over a period of time to develop policies and processes and refine them for efficiency due to the high levels of control that characterize such programs. Los Angeles had lower levels of rent control for many years with a concerted focus on developing efficient policies and processes. For that reason, Fremont’s startup costs for this option are expected to be in the same range as the Santa Monica and Berkeley programs with possibly some reductions in staffing needs as technologies and other efficient program elements are developed. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Conclusion Management Partners 38 Conclusion The goal of most rent control and just‐cause eviction programs is to stabilize tenancy by moderating rent increases on existing tenants and by providing some due process protections for tenants to prevent rent spikes and landlord tenant relationship problems. The communities surveyed have each designed their programs, often with only subtle differences in the rules and regulations, to address problems specific to their local rental market and stakeholder interests. Program elements focus on each local housing market including the housing inventory, habitability challenges, and balancing the needs of tenants and landlords. Mediation and counseling do continue to play a critical role in stabilizing tenancy in all tenant protection models, even those that are highly controlled. The key to success in the communities we surveyed has been to identify the specific problems that are unique to the community and its rental housing and design or develop targeted approaches to resolve the problems. Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Attachment A: Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Options Management Partners 39 Attachment A: Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Options Program Features Option 1 Enhanced Mediation Program Option 2 Alameda/West Hollywood Style Rent Regulation/Stabilization Option 3 Berkeley/Santa Monica Style Rent Control Units Subject to Program Typically applies to rental units with three or more units Property owners with three to five or more units. Hayward example: Residential unit occupied by payment of rent, provided the unit is one of at least five residential units in Hayward with common ownership. Residential rental dwelling units and rooming houses with at least five rooms (each room is counted as an individual unit) with separate leases are included in the program, along with single family homes with at least four bedrooms that are being rented separately (each bedroom is a unit). Unit Exemptions Hotels/motels, government‐ subsidized housing, hospitals, transient housing, etc. Single family homes, all units occupied after February 1996 hotels/motels, government‐ subsidized housing, hospitals, transient housing, etc. Single family homes, all units constructed after 1996 hotels/motels, government‐ subsidized housing, hospitals, transient housing, etc. Funding Mechanisms General fund or other City Fund, Arbitration Service Fees Programs funded through administration fees (50% passed on to tenant) and may include general fund and other fund support Programs funded through registration (50% passed on to tenant) and enforcement fees, and may include general or other fund subsidies, and grants Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Attachment A: Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Options Management Partners 40 Program Features Option 1 Enhanced Mediation Program Option 2 Alameda/West Hollywood Style Rent Regulation/Stabilization Option 3 Berkeley/Santa Monica Style Rent Control Characteristics of Program No ongoing tracking of rental units or rents paid is typically done Due Process: Mandatory participation through conciliation, mediation and fact finding, mediated agreements are memorialized in writing. If fact‐finding process is incorporated, decisions are advisory Landlord must be current on all fees and in compliance with city requirements Landlord must confirm substantial compliance with habitability of unit All eligible rent units are loosely tracked. The rent policy body (rent board or city council) publish allowed yearly rent increase maximum Due Process: Petition Process with Hearing Examiner providing decisions. Mediation may be a preliminary option Housing quality standards maintained (owner/landlord compliance) Includes just‐cause eviction, anti‐harassment, and tenant/landlord problem mediation Active public education programs Voluntary vacancies trigger landlord option to remove unit from rent increases compliance with habitability standards (Hayward’s program). All eligible rental units are tracked and have an established rent ceiling. Landlord must report all changes in tenancy and terms of tenancy (rent increases) Due Process: Petition Process with Hearing Examiner providing decisions. Mediation may be a preliminary option for some petitions Housing quality and housing services (owner/landlord compliance) Includes just‐cause eviction, anti‐ harassment, and tenant/landlord counseling and mediation Active public outreach and training programs Optional program suspension ‐ 5% vacancy rate Required Tenant Notification of Program Eligibility and Features Yes, at time of initial rental, rent adjustments and notice of lease termination Yes, rent disputes and eviction for cause provisions Yes, rent disputes, terminate tenancy and good cause eviction provisions Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Attachment A: Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Options Management Partners 41 Program Features Option 1 Enhanced Mediation Program Option 2 Alameda/West Hollywood Style Rent Regulation/Stabilization Option 3 Berkeley/Santa Monica Style Rent Control Required Tenant Notification of Rent Increases and Rent Increase Thresholds Yes, if required by state law. Rent increases greater than 10% trigger mediation Yes Landlords provide notice to tenant of the ordinance and rent increase Rents may not increase more than 3‐5% per year (or some portion of CPI) and may not be raised more than once in 12 months Rent increases of less than the maximum allowed in a year may be “banked” (“untaken” rent increases from prior years can be applied to current year up to a maximum defined by the ordinance) Yes Rents can only be increased by the Annual General Adjustment (AGA) based on a standard percentage or percent of CPI as published by the Board each year Mediation Yes, but does not apply to just‐ cause evictions Yes Yes, staff provides counseling and mediation Arbitration Typically not Yes, Rent Review Officer decision is final Yes, hearing examiner decision is final unless appealed to the Rent Board Program Administration Contractor/non‐profit agency City staff or contractor Independent Rent Board and staff City Appointed Board/ Elected Rent Board Yes, if program includes fact‐ finding process Yes Yes Staff .25‐1 FTE planner or housing specialist 10‐12 FTE estimate 20.+ FTE (administration, law, hearing, registration and public information and IT) Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Attachment A: Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Options Management Partners 42 Program Features Option 1 Enhanced Mediation Program Option 2 Alameda/West Hollywood Style Rent Regulation/Stabilization Option 3 Berkeley/Santa Monica Style Rent Control Contract Services Used Contractor or non‐profit agency for mediation services Mediation and arbitration services provider (unit‐based charges $600 per mediation and $1,200 per arbitration), legal aid $300,000 for various professional services Annual Program Cost $100,000‐$300,000 Approximately $1,900,000 $4‐4.5 million ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES Expansion of Tenant Rights Yes Yes Yes Impact on Vacancy Rate No No data available. Program drives reinvestment in rental units and stabilizes rents for a limited period by setting a predictable increase. No data available. Program stabilizes rents by setting a predictable increase. Expansion of Affordable Housing No, however, will include some related components including JCE and tenant notification requirements. Program stabilizes rents of program units by setting a maximum allowable increase. Program stabilizes rents of program units by setting annual allowable rent increase. Effect on Tenant Displacement No data identified supporting impact on displacement. However, JCE should have some impact. Program monitors units not tenants. Program tracks units, not tenants. (Relocation assistance and demolition process can be included in ordinance.) Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Attachment A: Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction Program Options Management Partners 43 Program Features Option 1 Enhanced Mediation Program Option 2 Alameda/West Hollywood Style Rent Regulation/Stabilization Option 3 Berkeley/Santa Monica Style Rent Control Program Advantages Creates an effective vehicle for addressing tenant grievances regarding significant rent increases Promotes tenant stability regarding lease terminations Improves landlord/tenant communication Reinforces non‐retaliation provisions Some programs include tenant relocation expenses Stabilizes rent increases Units comply with code (habitability) Expands tenants’ rights Attracts investment Method to address landlord/tenant disputes Fair return (and “banking”) Facilitate rental housing reinvestment Tracks controlled units Mechanism to identify, inform, and engage landlords and tenant Educates tenants of rights Provides for reasonable rent increases and stabilizes tenant population in rental units Units comply with code (habitability) Accessible and efficient method to address landlord/tenant disputes Program Disadvantages Will not address concerns regarding affordable housing or financial hardship resulting from higher than normal rent adjustments Have not identified data indicating impact on tenant displacement overall Affordable housing gap persists for residents at or below Area Median Income (AMI) Neutral effect on vacancy rates in the short run Contemplates only short‐term rent control (voluntary vacancy and landlord compliance with permanent decontrol removes unit from program and rent increase limits) Program designed to drive reinvestment Vacancy decontrol prohibits comprehensive application to all rental units (only units built before 1995 can be “controlled”) Affordable housing gap persists for residents at or below Area Median Income (AMI) Neutral effect on vacancy rates in the short run Threat of reduction in rental units in the long run through increased condominium conversion Vacancy decontrol prohibits comprehensive application to all rental units (only units built before 1995 can be “cost controlled”) Rent Control and Just‐Cause Eviction: Review of Programs Attachment B: Just‐Cause Eviction Survey Management Partners 44 Attachment B: Just‐Cause Eviction Survey 1 12/19/2016 Attachment B: Just-Cause for Eviction Survey Berkeley East Palo Alto Los Angeles Oakland San Diego San Francisco Santa Monica West Hollywood Sources Rent Stabilization and Good Cause for Eviction Chapter 13.76 and Guide to Rent Control Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Rent Stabilization Rules and Regulations Chapter XV Rent Stabilization Ordinance (See website forms and public information) Regulations for the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance (Measure EE, Codified in the Oakland Municipal Code at 8.22.300, et.seq..) Chapter 9: Building, Housing and Sign Regulations Article 8: Housing, Division 7: Tenants’ Right to Know Regulations Chapter 37 of the San Francisco Administrative Code the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance Rent Control Charter Amendment Article XVIII and Rent Control Regulations Chapter 9 Title 17 Rent Stabilization and Guide: Rent Stabilization Eligible for Just-cause eviction All rental units All single family and multiple family dwellings All rental units built before October 1, 1978 Any rental units (pre-1980)Any rental unit with tenancy of at least two years All rental units built before June 13, 1979; newer buildings not covered based on original certificate of occupancy All rental units All rental units Rental Units Exempt Units in existence before December 31, 1979 and hotel/motel occupancy less than 14 consecutive days, cooperatives, hospitals, nursing and assisted living facilities and units rented to higher learning faculty Hotel/motel, care facilities, resident owner non-profit housing, units exempt by state and federal law and units within a dwelling shared with the landlord Single family, except where two or more units are located on the same lot (excludes duplexes and condominiums); hotel/motel, boarding and rooming houses with occupancy 30 days or less; non-profits; hospital, convent/monastery, extended care facilities; housing owned and operated by Los Angeles City Housing Authority; housing with a certificate of occupancy after October 1, 1978; luxury housing (rent thresholds on May 31,1978; substantial renovation (i.e., defined investment based on bedroom completed after September 1, 1980); affordable housing with regulatory agreement; cooperatives; mobile homes and recreational vehicle in a park Hotels and motels; hospital, skilled nursing and health facilities; nonprofit substance abuse treatment; temporary homeless facilities; owner-occupied units with three or less units; owner-occupied units where owner and tenant share kitchen and bath; units in trust held on behalf of developmentally disabled; newly constructed units and first rented after October 1980 (the effective date of the Residential Rent, Relocation and Arbitration Ordinance) Institutional facilities, governmental housing, transient hotel/motel, mobile homes and rooms rented (owner and tenant share kitchen and bath) Hotel, motel and rooming houses occupied for 31 days or less; nonprofit cooperatives; hospital, convent, monastery, extended care and adult day health facility; some government owned and rental units constructed after June 13, 1979 Single family homes not used for residential rental purposes on July 1, 1984 and those that are occupied for two years by owner as principle residence after voluntary vacancy Units occupied by owner or close relative as primary resident and nonprofit accommodations Legal Reasons to Evict • Failure to pay rent • Violates terms of rental agreement • Willful damage to unit • Fixed term expires and tenant refuses to sign new lease • Disturbs peace • Repeated denial of entry • Landlord needs to bring unit into compliance with code • Permit to demolish • Owner with 50% or more ownership moves in • Failure to sign identical lease • Failure to pay rent and following notice from landlord • Tenant fails to cure a violation of the terms of tenancy following landlord notice • Tenant initiated nuisance with landlord notice • Refusal to agree to new lease substantially identical to current • Disorderly conduct that persists following notice • Continues denial of access to unit following notice • Refusal access for substantial habitability repairs (ten times the amount of monthly rent) unit consist with code • Landlord secures demolition permits to remove unit from rental market and is denied access • Landlord secures permits to remove unit from rental housing use under the Ellis Act • Owner move-in • Refusal to move under terms of temporary rental agreement • Failure to vacate under government order • Tenant no longer qualifies for tenancy with a government entity • Sub tenancy without Owner approval • Failure to pay rent • Violation of tenancy • Nuisance • Illegal use of rental unit • Refusal to execute new lease with consistent terms • Tenant at lease term is subtenant not approved by landlord • Owner, relative move-in or resident manager (where no alternate unit available) • Tenant interferes (fails to move temporarily or honor permanent relocation agreement) with rehabilitation and landlord has an approved Tenant Habitability Plan (THP) • Demolition of unit or permanently remove from rental housing use • Order to Vacate or Abate • HUD owns and operates and seeks to recover • Residential hotel converted or demolished with City approvals (Application of Clearance) • Convert to affordable housing with exemption by the Housing and Community Investment Department • Failure to pay rent • Violation of rental agreement • Substantial repairs/damage (3 months or less) • Disorderly conduct/destroying peace and quiet • Unlawful drugs or using unit for illegal purposes • Failure to provide access to unit • Owner or Owner’s relative move-in • Owner previously occupied unit and has agreement with tenant to reoccupy as residence • Correct code violations • Refusal to renew lease • Remove unit from rental market (Ellis Act) • Nonpayment of rent • Violates terms of tenancy (pattern and substantial) • Illegal use • Refusal to sign new lease with similar terms • Nuisance • Refusal to provide access • Correct violation • Withdrawal of residential rental structure from rental market • Owner or relative move-in • Failure to pay rent • Violation of the terms of tenancy • Nuisance (pattern and substantial, including eviction protection of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking victims) • Illegal use of rental unit • Failure to sign a new lease • Refusal of access to unit • Tenant at the end of the term is subtenant not approved by landlord • Owner move-in • Sale of unit per City approved condominium conversion • Demolish or remove unit from rental housing use • Landlord secures permits to temporarily remove unit from housing use for capital improvement or rehabilitation • Substantial rehabilitation • Withdrawal of rental units within any detached physical structure • Demolish or remove unit from rental housing use • Lead remediation (temporary) • Good Samaritan Status (i.e., natural disaster) G1:G7 • Failure to pay rent • Violates terms of rental agreement • Willful damage to unit - nuisance • Tenant uses unit for illegal purposes • Tenant refuses to sign new lease • Tenant holding lease at expiration not approved by landlord • Landlord needs to bring unit into compliance with code and denied access • Owner move-in (50% ownership, no available unit in other properties, etc.) • Permit to demolish • Landlord filed "going-out-of-business" documents • Failure to pay rent • Violates terms of rental agreement • Caregiver after death of primary tenant • Nuisance • Refusal to sign new lease • Refuses to provide access • Subtenant not approved by Landlord • Termination of Resident Manager or Employee • Pre-existing Tenant before becoming resident manager • Owners temporary absence (sabbatical, extended vacation) from principal residence with associated agreement • Owner or relative move-in • Correct violations • Foreclosure (30 day notice) • Withdrawal from rental market (120 day notice) • Transfer to a different unit • Inclusionary housing (tenant income exceeds maximum allowable) • Demolition of rental housing units for low- and Moderate-Income Housing • Renter’s Insurance (if contained in lease) Notice: Landlord must provide proper notice of termination (three, thirty, sixty or ninety-day notices to quit. Landlord must provide a copy of the notice within five days after notice served to tenant to Rent Board. If Unlawful detainer served, copies must also be provided to the Rent Board within 5 calendar days. Landlord must file form of intention to evict with the City if police reports available or City Attorney engaged. Landlord required to file form of intention to evict with the City when taking possession to occupy, demolish, remove from rental use, or convert to affordable housing Landlord must file notice with Rent Adjustment Program within 10 days of service on the tenant. Landlord must provide proper notice. Tenant may raise landlord's noncompliance with Tenant's Right to Know Regulation as an affirmative defense. Landlord must disclose to prospective property purchaser the legal grounds to terminate tenancy. Copies of eviction notices and proof of tenant service must be filed with the Rent Board within ten days (see Ordinance for various time frames). Notice must also include the following information: tenant failed to respond, rental rate, eligibility for affordable housing, information provided in six languages. Rent Board reports of wrongful eviction. City contracts with legal aid service providers to assist with evictions to ensure law enforced. Landlord must file a copy of the tenant's notice of termination of tenancy to the Rent Board within 3 days. Landlord must provide a copy of unlawful detainers within 5 business days. [CCO-92427] COUNTY OF SAN MATEO INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: All County Departments From: John C. Beiers, County Counsel John D. Nibbelin, Chief Deputy County Counsel Subject: Continuum of Residential Tenant Protection Measures Date: September 23, 2015 I. Introduction and Executive Summary This memorandum provides legal and historical background for rent stabilization and other tenant protections (including just cause eviction and relocation assistance measures); surveys tenant protection measures that exist throughout the State; describes the legal powers of, and constraints on, local government agencies with respect to the adoption of rent stabilization and other tenant protection measures. Local jurisdictions throughout the area are confronting a housing affordability crisis and many of these cities and counties are considering a range of tools to address these circumstances. For example, at its meeting on August 5, 2015, the City of Richmond voted to adopt an ordinance that institutes rent stabilization and provides for “just cause evictions, for rental units in that city.1 The ordinance also provides for an elected “rent board” to discharge various functions under the ordinance. The City contemplates adding several staff members to administer rent stabilization. This action by the City of Richmond implements some of the tenant protection tools available to local jurisdictions and this memorandum discusses these and others across the continuum of options available to the County. In preparing this memorandum, we have surveyed the history of local government tenant protections in California, reviewed statutory and case law and constitutional provisions bearing on such protections and analyzed existing local government tenant protections, with a particular focus on Bay Area jurisdictions. In addition, we met with local stakeholders, including Community Legal Services in East Palo 1 The Richmond rent stabilization ordinance was the first new rent stabilization ordinance adopted in several decades. The ordinance was scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2015, but the California Apartment Owners Association has submitted a sufficient number of signatures to require a referendum on the ordinance before it goes into effect. The Contra Costa County Elections Office is presently validating the signatures. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 2 Alto and the California Apartment Owners Association. Finally, we have included the following attachments to this memorandum to supplement our work: Policy Arguments: a set of documents that briefly summarize the key characteristics of more common tenant protection measures and the policy arguments that are most commonly advanced for and against the measures Rent Stabilization Table: a table that summarizes the key characteristics of existing rent stabilization ordinances from a selection of representative jurisdictions II. Existing Statewide Laws Relating to Residential Tenancies a. Notice of Rent Increases California law sets forth in the Civil Code the standard that landlords must comply with before raising a residential tenant’s rent. If the tenant’s lease is for a term of more than thirty days, the rent cannot be raised during the term, unless the lease specifically allows for an increase. In cases where rent increases are allowed, California law requires that tenants receive at least 30 days’ advance notice before a rent increase goes into effect. Specifically, if a proposed rent increase is ten percent or less of the rent charged at any time during the preceding 12 months, the landlord must provide the tenant with at least 30 days advance written notice of the rent increase.2 If the proposed rent increase is more than ten percent of the rent charged at any time during the receding twelve months, the landlord must provide the tenant with at least sixty days’ advance written notice of the increase.3 In our research, we have found no jurisdictions that have attempted to impose, on a local basis, notice periods for rent increases longer than those required under the California Civil Code and, in our view, any such local efforts would be preempted by state law. 4 2 Cal. Civil Code § 827(b)(2). 3 Cal. Civil Code § 827(b)(3). 4 Subsection (c) of Civil Code section 827 states that “if a state or federal statute, state or federal regulation, recorded regulatory agreement or contract provides for a longer period of notice regarding a rent increase than that provided” by section 827, that longer period shall control Cal. Civil Code § 827(c) (emphasis added). This text strongly infers that only state and federal statutes or regulations may impose longer notice provisions than those set forth in section 827. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 3 b. Notice of Lease Termination Along similar lines, California law imposes certain notice obligations upon landlords who seek to end tenancies. If a lease is for a set term (e.g., one year), the tenancy ends on the last day of the lease term, unless the tenant does not vacate and the landlord allows the tenant to remain, in which case the tenancy is converted to a month-to-month periodic tenancy. To terminate a periodic (e.g., month to month) tenancy, the landlord must give either thirty or sixty days’ prior written notice. If all tenants in the rental unit have resided in the unit for at least one year, the landlord must give at least sixty days’ prior written notice of termination.5 If any tenant in the rental unit has resided there for less than one year or the landlord has contracted to sell the unit another person who intends to occupy it for at least a year after the tenancy ends, the landlord need provide only thirty days’ prior written notice.6 As discussed below, some local jurisdictions, such as the City of San Jose, have adopted ordinances that provide for longer notice periods to terminate a tenancy than those set forth in state law. Many local jurisdictions have determined that these state law provisions do not afford an adequate degree of protection to residential tenants and they have therefore adopted ordinances that provide additional protections, which we will discuss in this memorandum. III. The Continuum of Tenant Protection Measures Local government agencies have available and have implemented tenant protection measures that run along a continuum, in terms of the amount of government regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship and the agency resources dedicated to implementation of the regulation. At one end are measures that mandate a minimum lease term with stable rents during the term, required notice periods in addition to or beyond those required under State law and mandatory (but non-binding) mediation of certain landlord-tenant disputes, including with respect to rent increases. Further along the continuum are measures that limit the basis upon which a tenant may be evicted from a tenancy (so-called “just cause eviction ordinances”) and that may require a landlord to provide relocation assistance in some cases to displaced tenants. Finally, some jurisdictions have moved further along the continuum and adopted rent stabilization ordinances that limit, to some extent, the ability of a landlord to increase rents on covered units. The key characteristics of these ordinances vary among jurisdictions and many of them incorporate other tenant protection measures, such as just cause evictions and relocation 5 Cal.Civil Code § 1946.1(b). 6 Cal Civil Code §§ 1946, 1946.1(c), 1946.(d). All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 4 assistance. All of these ordinances are subject to limitations imposed by State law, including in the Costa-Hawkins Act. IV. Minimum Lease Term The City of Palo Alto has adopted a rental housing stabilization ordinance that provides, among other things, that a landlord must offer the prospective tenant of any rental unit (defined to include all multiple-family dwellings) a written lease for a minimum term of at least one year.7 The offered lease must set the rent for the unit at a rate certain for the entire one year term of the lease and the rent cannot be changed during that lease term, except as provided in the written lease. If the tenant rejects the offered one year lease, the parties are free to negotiate a lease term of less than one year. Requiring a landlord to offer a minimum one year term for a lease affords the tenant protection against rent increases during that term. However, while a landlord is required to offer a tenant a new one-year tenancy at the end of the succeeding one year lease term (if the landlord chooses to renew the lease with that tenant), the landlord is free to demand whatever rental rate the market will bear at the time of lease renewal. V. Enhanced Notice Provisions Other jurisdictions, while not requiring that landlords offer leases with specific minimum terms, do have ordinances requiring notice prior to termination of a tenancy in excess of the notice otherwise required by State law. San Jose, for example, requires 90 days’ prior notice before termination of a tenancy if the tenant has resided in the unit for one year or more.8 If the city’s housing director finds a “severe rental housing shortage,” 120 days’ notice is required. A shorter notice period (60 days; the amount of notice otherwise provided by State law) is allowed if the landlord agrees to arbitration on the termination date. As noted above, we believe that State law would preempt any local regulations that would purport to impose notice requirements for rent increases beyond the notice periods otherwise required under State law (i.e., thirty days notice for rent increases of ten percent or less and sixty days for rent increases of greater than ten percent). VI. Landlord-Tenant Mediation of Rent Increases We have also identified jurisdictions that have adopted ordinances that implement landlord- tenant mediation programs. These ordinances establish programs that offer or, in some cases, require, a mediation process before landlords are able to impose certain rent increases and, 7 Palo Alto Ordinance Code, § 9.68.030. 8 San Jose Ordinance Code § 17.23.610. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 5 depending on the jurisdiction, such programs may also require mediation of other aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship. Most ordinances imposing mandatory mediation of rent increases limit the types of rental properties that are subject to the mediation requirement (e.g., units in buildings with multiple dwelling units).9 Likewise, these ordinances typically specify the types of disputes that are subject to mandatory mediation (e.g., proposed rent increases of a set percentage above “base rent,” rent increases of more than a certain dollar amount per month, or multiple rent increases in any twelve-month period). Under many such ordinances, landlords are required to participate in a non-binding mediation process if a tenant requests mediation of a dispute within the scope of the ordinance and if a landlord fails to do so, the proposed rent increase is invalid. VII. Just Cause Eviction Ordinances Moving along the continuum of possible tenant protection measures, some jurisdictions have adopted ordinances that impose relatively extensive restrictions on the circumstances under which a landlord can evict a tenant. As noted below, jurisdictions with rent stabilization ordinances typically couple them with so-called “just cause eviction” ordinances. However, most such jurisdictions extend the just cause eviction protection of their ordinances to the tenants of rental units that are not themselves subject to rent stabilization, and the California courts have recognized that the Costa-Hawkins Act does not itself preempt just cause eviction ordinances. In fact, some jurisdictions have adopted just case eviction ordinances without instituting rent stabilization.10 Under these just cause eviction ordinances, landlords may evict a tenant only for reasons that are specifically enumerated in the ordinance. Examples of permissible grounds for evicting a tenant typically include the following: Failure to pay rent or habitually paying rent late; Violation of a material term of rental agreement, where there has been notice and an opportunity to correct the violation; Committing or allowing the existence of a nuisance; Damaging the unit or common areas; Unreasonably interfering with the comfort, safety or enjoyment of other tenants; Committing or allowing an illegal activity or use; 9 Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 9.72.010. 10 See, e.g., City of Glendale Municipal Code, Chapter 9.30; City of Maywood Municipal Code, Title 8, Ch. 17. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 6 Owner or family member occupancy; Resident manager occupancy; Substantial renovation; Denying landlord lawful entry; or Unauthorized subtenant in possession at the end of the lease term. In contrast, San Jose employs a narrower approach and only prohibits evictions where the landlord’s dominant motive is retaliation against a tenant’s exercise of his or her rights under the city’s rent stabilization ordinance, or to evade the purposes of the ordinance. In jurisdictions with a just cause eviction ordinance, landlords are often required to satisfy special notice requirements. For example, a landlord might be required to identify the grounds for the eviction, including the facts that support that determination, and to describe the renter’s rights and resources. Some jurisdictions require that a landlord give a former tenant notice when they are returning a property to the rental market where the eviction was based on owner occupancy. Tenant advocates maintain that just cause eviction ordinances afford tenants some degree of protection against arbitrary landlord actions, particularly in a tight rental market. Landlords often assert that such ordinances make it more difficult for them to act quickly to deal with problem tenants. VIII. Relocation Assistance Local jurisdictions often require landlords to provide relocation assistance payments to all tenants when the eviction is not the fault of the tenant (“no-fault evictions”). Other jurisdictions limit such mandated assistance based on the type of eviction or the status of the affected tenant; it is particularly common to require relocation assistance for evictions occurring when landlords require tenants to depart in order to occupy units themselves (so-called “owner-occupancy” evictions) or Ellis Act evictions (i.e., an eviction to remove a unit from the rental market). In addition to a lump sum payment, many cities require the landlord to pay for relocation assistance services. As with eviction controls, many local agencies extend the relocation assistance requirements to tenants in units that are not subject to rent stabilization. For example, in Mountain View, landlords are required to pay relocation assistance when evicting tenants under certain circumstances. The Mountain View ordinance applies only where a landlord vacates four or more rental units within a one-year period in order to (1) withdraw from the rental market (an Ellis Act eviction), (2) demolish the rental property, (3) perform substantial renovations, (4) convert to condominiums, or (5) change to a non-residential land use. Further, only tenants with a household income at or less than eighty percent of the area median All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 7 household income are eligible for relocation assistance.11 Other jurisdictions require relocation assistance payments without reference to the income level of the affected tenants.12 Under the Mountain View ordinance, in covered eviction cases, the landlord is required to refund the tenant’s security deposit (with limited exceptions), provide the affected tenants with a 60-day subscription to a rental agency, and pay the equivalent of three months’ rent, based on the median monthly rent for a similar-sized unit in Mountain View. Certain special-circumstances households, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and families with a dependent child, are entitled to an additional $3,000 payment. The ordinance also requires 90 days’ notice of termination. Other ordinances, such as the City of Glendale’s, require payment of “two times the amount of the fair market rent as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a rental unit of similar size of that being vacated in Los Angeles County . . . plus one thousand dollars.” Glendale Municipal Code § 9.30.035. IX. What is Rent Stabilization? A further step along the continuum of tenant protection measures is rent stabilization and the following sections describe rent stabilization and statutory/constitutional limits on rent stabilization ordinances and analyze existing rent stabilization ordinances. The cost of market-rate housing units fluctuates with changes in the housing market. For example, a recent report from the Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo states that the average cost of rent in the County has increased more than 45% over the last four years. The general purpose of rent stabilization is to protect tenants by limiting the amount that rents may increase as market rents increase. These ordinances provide tenants certainty that their rents will not increase above a certain amount each year, while also providing landlords with a fair return on their investments.13 a. Types of Rent Stabilization Ordinances Commentators typically speak of three general types of rent stabilization ordinances, two of which remain legal in California.14 11 In 2014, 80 percent of the median income for Santa Clara County was $71,300 for a four-person household. 12 See, e.g., City of Glendale Municipal Code, § 9.30.035; City of Maywood Municipal Code § 8.17.035. 13 Pennell v. City of San Jose (1988) 485 U.S. 1, 13. 14 Friedman et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord–Tenant (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶ 2:707, p. 2D–4. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 8 i. Vacancy Control The most restrictive type, known as “vacancy control,” sets the maximum rental rate for a unit and maintains that rate when the unit is vacated and another tenant takes occupancy.15 Under “vacancy control” ordinances – which, as discussed below, California law no longer allows – the rent that can be charged for a unit remains subject to control at all times, including upon the occurrence of a vacancy and the establishment of a new tenancy. ii. Vacancy Decontol-Recontrol A less restrictive form of rent regulation, known as “vacancy decontrol-recontrol,” allows a landlord to establish the initial rental rate for a vacated unit (typically at the then-prevailing market rate) but, after that rental rate is fixed, limits rent increases as long as the same tenant occupies the unit.16 For example, under such an ordinance, a landlord could set a monthly rent at the hypothetical prevailing market rate of $1,000 when a new tenant moves in and that amount would become the “base rent” during the term of that tenancy. During that tenancy, the limitations on rent increases would be applied against that $1,000 base rent. Thus, if the ordinance allowed for rent increases of up to 5% per year, the landlord could increase the rent to no more than $1,050 after the first year of the lease. However, if this tenant moves out and the landlord thereafter rents to a new tenant who is willing to pay rent of $1,500 per month, that $1,500 amount becomes the new “base rent” and the 5% limitation would be applied to this new base rent. iii. Permanent Decontrol The least restrictive type of rent control, known as “permanent decontrol,” limits rent increases only on units occupied at the time the ordinance is adopted and when such units are vacated, they become unregulated and landlords are free to determine the initial rental rate and any future rent increases.17 Stated differently, under “permanent decontrol,” rent stabilization would apply only to tenancies existing at the time that such an ordinance is adopted and, as these tenancies end when the tenants move out, the units would cease to be covered by the ordinance. iv. Scope Rent stabilization measures may be exhaustive in scope. In addition to capping permissible rent 15 Id., ¶ 2:708, p. 2D–4. 16 Id., ¶ 2:710, p. 2D–5. 17 Id., ¶ 2:711, p. 2D–5. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 9 increases, they may regulate landlord conduct that has the effect of imposing a rent increase (e.g., decrease in housing services without a corresponding decrease in rental rates).18 They may also impose “eviction controls,” such as those described above, which protect tenants from arbitrary evictions while ensuring that landlords can lawfully evict tenants for good cause.19 Also, as noted, rent stabilization ordinances may be, and often are, coupled with relocation assistance provisions, which require landlords who evict tenants for certain reasons to pay tenants some of their displacement costs in advance.20 X. What Legal Standards Apply to Rent Stabilization Ordinances in California? a. Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act Prior to the enactment of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 199521, there was no statutory provision limiting local rent stabilization ordinances in California.22 Costa-Hawkins was the California Legislature’s first major effort to limit local controls over rents chargeable to residential tenants.23 Proponents of the legislation viewed it as “a moderate approach to overturn extreme vacancy control ordinances . . . which deter construction of new rental housing and discourage new private investments . . . .” 24 Opponents, on the other hand, argued that the legislation was “an inappropriate intrusion into the right of local communities to enact housing policy to meet local needs” and that the law “would cause housing prices to spiral, with the result that affordable housing would be available to fewer households.”25 Costa-Hawkins imposed the following limitations on local rent stabilization ordinances: 1. Housing constructed on or after February 1, 1995 is exempt from such local ordinances;26 2. Single-family homes and condominiums (units where title is held separately) are exempt from such ordinances;27 and 3. Such ordinances cannot regulate the initial rate at which a dwelling unit is offered once the previous tenants have vacated the unit.28 In other words, “vacancy control” ordinances have been abolished and, with limited exceptions, landlords may impose “whatever rent they choose at the commencement of a tenancy.” Action Apartment Ass’n 18 Id., ¶ 5:1, p. 5–1. 19 Id. 20 For further discussion regarding relocation assistance mandates, see section IV.D of this memo. 21 See Cal. Civ. Code § 1954.50 et seq. 22 Legis. Analyst, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1164 (1995–1996 Reg. Sess.) p. 1. 23 Legis. Analyst, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1164 (1995–1996 Reg. Sess.) p. 1. 24 Id. at p. 6. 25 Id. at p. 6. 26 Cal. Civ. Code § 1954.52(a)(1). 27 Id. at § 1954.52(a)(3) 28 Id. at § 1954.53(a). All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 10 Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 1232, 1237. Costa-Hawkins allowed local jurisdictions to continue to impose rent stabilization on units that are not otherwise exempt, provided that the rents may be reset to market levels by landlords upon a new tenancy (i.e. “vacancy recontrol-decontrol”). b. Constitutional Issues Both the United States and California Supreme Courts have held that rent stabilization is a proper exercise of a local government’s police power if it is calculated to eliminate excessive rents and it provides landlords with just and reasonable returns on their property.29 Thus, in order to withstand constitutional scrutiny, a rent stabilization ordinance must provide a mechanism for ensuring landlords a “just and reasonable” return on their property.30 A “just and reasonable” return is one that is “sufficiently high to encourage and reward efficient management, discourage the flight of capital, maintain adequate services, and enable [landlords] to maintain and support their credit status.”31 At the same time, the amount of return should not defeat the purpose of rent stabilization, which is to prevent excessive rents.32 A rent stabilization scheme would be vulnerable to constitutional challenge if, for instance, it indefinitely freezes landlord profits, imposes an absolute (inflexible) cap on rent increases, or prohibits a particular class of landlords from obtaining rent increases.33 On the other hand, even a narrowly-drawn ordinance will be valid so long as it grants the responsible body or authority discretion to provide a fair return by approving rent increases in extraordinary cases.34 In addition to ensuring that landlords are guaranteed a “just and reasonable” return on their investments, any rent stabilization measure must avoid classification as a “regulatory taking” under federal and state constitutional law principles. Depending on how a rent stabilization ordinance is drafted and/or applied, it may violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the taking of private property for public use without “just compensation.”35 The “just compensation” provision is “designed to bar [g]overnment from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be 29 See Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 129; Pennell v. City of San Jose, supra, 485 U.S. at 12; Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. Super. Ct (1999) 19 Cal.4th 952, 962. 30 Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, supra, 17 Cal.3d at 165; Galland v. City of Clovis (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1003, 1021. 31 Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 281, 288-289; TG Oceanside, L.P. v. City of Oceanside (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1372; MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 220. 32 Ibid. 33 Donohue v. Santa Paul West Mobile Home Park (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1179. 34 Ibid. 35 See U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, 14. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 11 borne by the public as a whole.”36 A regulatory taking of private property occurs when a government regulation limits the uses of the property to such an extent that the regulation effectively deprives the owners of its economically reasonable use or value even though the regulation does not divest them of title to it.37 If the owners can show the value of their property has been diminished as a result of the regulation and that the diminution in value is so severe that the regulation has “essentially appropriated their property for public use[,]” then a regulatory taking has taken place and the local government which enacted the regulation must provide the owners “just compensation.”38 XI. Overview of Local Rent Stabilization Ordinances in California As of July 2015, we have identified 14 cities in California – many of which are in the Bay Area – that have instituted some form of rent stabilization.39 News reports also indicate that a number of jurisdictions are currently considering adopting rent stabilization (Santa Rosa) or increasing the stringency of existing measures (San Jose). No county, other than the City and County of San Francisco, has, to date, adopted a rent stabilization ordinance.40 As noted, rent stabilization ordinances are price control mechanisms subject to State and Federal constitutional limitations. Therefore, rent stabilization laws tend to be complex and to vary by jurisdiction. Generally, however, rent stabilization measures address the following points: the type of housing subject to rent stabilization; the limits on and procedure for setting or raising rents; and eviction controls. The chart included as an exhibit to this memorandum compares the key features of rent stabilization ordinances adopted by various jurisdictions and a summary of these ordinances is provided below. 36 First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 482 U.S. 304, 318-319 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). 37 See Yee v. City of Escondido (1992) 503 U.S. 519, 522-523; Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 10. 38 See Garneau v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1998) 147 F.3d 802, 807-808. The economic impact equation must also account for any valuable “quid pro quo” the property owners may have received as a result of the enactment. Id. Also, a temporary regulatory taking, consisting of the temporary deprivation of all economically viable use of the property, may require compensation for the period of time the regulation denied the owner all use of the land. See First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 482 U.S. 304, 318; Ali v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 246, 254-255. 39 California jurisdictions with rent stabilization ordinances include Richmond (which recently adopted a rent stabilization ordinance that may be subject to the referendum process), Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Los Gatos, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Santa Monica, Thousand Oaks, and West Hollywood. 40 Note that a number of counties (including San Mateo County) and many more cities have adopted rent control ordinances that apply only to mobilehome parks; although this type of rent control is subject to the same constitutional standards, mobilehome rent control is governed by a separate statutory scheme (California’s Mobilehome Residency Law) and a review of mobilehome rent control is not included in this memorandum. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 12 A. What Type of Housing May be Subject to Rent Stabilization? As discussed above, State law preempts local ordinances that purport to apply rent stabilization to single-family housing units and to housing built after 1995, or that purport to limit the initial rent established at the beginning of a new tenancy. Likewise, residential units owned or managed by the government, and units with government subsidized rents are exempt under all ordinances. Federal law expressly preempts local rent stabilization on federally-assisted rental buildings. Beyond the limits imposed by State and federal law, however, local governments often create additional exemptions and limits on the applicability of rent stabilization ordinances. Many jurisdictions that imposed rent stabilization prior to the 1995 adoption of the Costa-Hawkins Act typically exempted from their own ordinances units constructed and initially occupied after the date the local ordinance was adopted. For example, San Francisco imposes rent stabilization only on units built before 1979, when the San Francisco ordinance was adopted. While it is less relevant to cities or counties considering rent stabilization post-Costa Hawkins, cities tended to impose rent stabilization only on existing housing stock in order to avoid discouraging production of new housing. Similarly, some cities (such as Oakland and San Francisco) allow substantially renovated units to become exempt from rent stabilization if they meet certain criteria. Presumably this type of provision is intended to encourage substantial renovations when necessary. In addition, most jurisdictions exempt temporary or non-traditional residential uses, such as hotels, hospitals and other medical care facilities, school dormitories, and, in some locations, retirement homes, from rent stabilization. Under Costa Hawkins, rent stabilization may not be applied to single-family residences, but many cities also exempt small-unit residential buildings such as duplexes or triplexes. We did not identify jurisdictions in California that limit the applicability of rent stabilization based on tenant income, although cities in other states have adopted such an approach. In New York City, for example, tenants must have a combined income under $200,000 to qualify for rent stabilization. While not focused on tenant income, Los Angeles exempts “luxury” apartments from rent stabilization, based upon the rent level in effect at the time the ordinance was adopted.41 41 For example, a two-bedroom unit that rented for $588 per month or more in 1978 would not be subject to rent stabilization in Los Angeles. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 13 B. How are Rent Rates and Rent Increases Determined Under Rent Stabilization Ordinances? As described previously, State law allows for a form of rent stabilization called “vacancy decontrol,” which prevents local governments from regulating the setting of the initial rent at the beginning of a tenancy. The initial rent is set by the landlord, typically at a market level. After that point, though, local rent stabilization ordinances typically limit a landlord’s ability to raise the rents in covered units.42 Every rent stabilization jurisdiction, however, has some allowance for automatic periodic rent increases, and also for additional rent increases when required to ensure the landlord receives the constitutionally-required fair rate of return. 1. Automatic Rent Increases Each rent stabilization ordinance permits certain “automatic” rent increases that do not require prior agency approval. These increases typically fall into one of three categories: (1) annual or periodic increases; (2) increases to “pass through” landlord operating costs or registration fees; and (3) increases to market rent upon a unit vacancy. Examples of allowable annual or periodic rent increases for the various rent stabilization jurisdictions is provided in the chart attached to this memorandum. Some rent stabilization jurisdictions allow an annual increase that is tied to and limited by a corresponding increase in the regional Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). In addition, such jurisdictions often also cap annual rent increases by a certain percentage, regardless of the change in CPI. In San Francisco, for example, the automatic annual rent increase is 60 percent of the CPI increase in the year, but the maximum allowable increase is 7 percent regardless of the increase in CPI. Other rent stabilization jurisdictions allow greater annual rent increases that are not necessarily tied to changes in economic indicators. San Jose has such an ordinance, and allows annual increases of eight percent per year (or twenty-one percent if the last rent increase was more than twenty-four months prior). Many ordinances also provide mechanisms for landlords to pass increased operating costs on to their tenants (“pass-through” costs). Acceptable costs often include utilities, property taxes, or rent stabilization ordinance registration fees. Most jurisdictions limit the amount of the pass- through either to a portion of the increased cost or to a percentage of the overall rent. The last type of “automatic” rent increase is upon termination of a tenancy. As described previously, State law allows a landlord to set an initial rent (typically to market levels) at the start of a new tenancy. 42 California law would also allow for “permanent decontrol,” which would result in units covered by the law at the time of its adoption becoming non-rent stabilized when the existing tenants depart. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 14 2. Rent Adjustments Requiring Agency Approval The constitutional implications of rent stabilization require that any ordinance include a procedure to allow a landlord to petition for an additional rent when necessary to ensure a fair return on the landlord’s investment. These fair return requests must be considered on a case-by-case basis, but ordinances typically identify a non-exclusive list of factors that will be considered in determining whether an additional rent increase is justified. Common factors include atypical operating costs and maintenance expenses, physical condition or repair and improvements, level of housing services provided, taxes, and financing or debt service costs. “Fair return” increase approval procedures vary by jurisdiction. However, the general pattern is to require a written application to a rent board or other decision maker, subject to an initial staff determination and then an administrative appeal. The board’s decision must be based on evidence presented, with an opportunity for the affected parties to be heard. In addition to case-by-case “fair return” increases, many cities allow landlords to separately apply for rent adjustments to recover capital improvement and renovation costs. These ordinances distinguish “capital improvements” from ordinary maintenance and repairs, which do not justify special rent adjustments. The details vary by jurisdiction, but an approved rent increase based on capital improvements is often spread among the tenants who benefit from the improvements, and the increase is amortized over the useful life of the improvements. Apart from setting maximum rent increases, most ordinances also provide a mechanism for rent reductions to reflect a decrease in housing services that would otherwise effectively allow landlords to increase rent by reducing services. A number of cities vest their rent boards with power to approve tenant requests for rent reductions, usually for reduced housing services or defective conditions, such as code violations or uninhabitable conditions. The procedure usually requires a tenant to petition the rent board and provide documentation of the reduced services and their claimed value. Personal financial hardship is typically not an acceptable reason for a tenant to request a rent reduction by a rent board.43 C. Eviction Controls Because landlords are allowed to set the initial rent at the beginning of a tenancy, rent stabilization in the absence of eviction controls can create an incentive for landlords to terminate existing tenancies in order to raise rents upon establishing a new tenancy. As a result, in addition to limiting rent increases, most rent stabilization jurisdictions include relatively extensive “just cause” eviction restrictions such as those we describe above. Other evictions controls are 43 However, San Jose allows a tenant to raise personal financial hardship as a defense when a landlord requests an additional rent increase above the automatic increase provided by ordinance. All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 15 described below. 1. Ellis Act (Removing Property From Rental Use) Evictions The Ellis Act prohibits local governments from requiring residential property owners to offer or continue to offer a property for rent. (Gov. Code § 7060 et seq.) Subject to very limited exceptions, landlords have an absolute right to go out of the rental business and to evict tenants on that basis. As discussed above, local governments do have some ability to require payment of relocation assistance for Ellis Act evictions and to potentially regulate initial rents if a landlord later tries to re-enter the rental market. The mechanisms of these relocation assistance ordinances are described further below. 2. Evictions to Allow Owner to Occupy the Unit Eviction controls typically allow rental property owners to evict tenants so that the owner or the owner’s immediate relative can occupy the unit. To reduce the possibility of fraudulent owner occupancy evictions, State law requires that the owner-occupant or owner’s relative occupy the unit for at least six consecutive months after eviction of the prior tenant. (Civ. Code § 1947.10.) Some cities have adopted more stringent requirements, such as a requirement to move in within three months and remain for at least 36 months. Other cities prohibit corporate or partnership landlords from using this reason for eviction, and some cities prohibit these type of evictions altogether for certain sensitive populations (e.g., the terminally ill, disabled seniors, etc.). 3. Substantial Renovation Evictions Eviction of tenants to allow performance of substantial renovation work is often allowed, with limitations. For example, some cities require the landlord to demonstrate that clearing the property of renters is actually necessary for the type of work proposed, and others require that the displaced tenants have the right to return when the renovation is complete. In Oakland, where tenants are provided the right to return after the renovation is completed, the landlord is required to offer the same base rent with an increase amortizing the cost of approved capital improvement expenditure over time. 4. Condominium Conversion Evictions The conversion of apartment units to condominiums is subject to statewide regulation through the Subdivision Map Act. Local governments also often adopt conversion regulations to further protect their rental housing stock, and San Mateo County has such an ordinance in place. Sections 7108 and 7109 of the County’s Subdivision Regulations prohibit conversion of multifamily rental housing to condominiums, except under circumstances where the County’s overall housing vacancy, as determined by the California Department of Finance, exceeds 4.15 All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 16 percent. D. Relocation Assistance Also, as mentioned, rent stabilization jurisdictions often require landlords to make relocation assistance payments to tenants when the reason for the eviction is not the fault of the tenant (“no-fault evictions”). As with eviction controls, many local agencies extend the relocation assistance requirements to tenants in units that are not subject to rent stabilization. E. Administration of Rent Stabilization Ordinances 1. Administration by Rent Board or Other Means of Administration Most rent stabilization ordinances are operated and implemented by a rent board or similar body, which discharges a variety of tasks, including publishing the annual general rent adjustments allowed under the ordinance, adjudicating requests for rent adjustments beyond the annual general adjustment, and conducting studies and publishing reports. However, there is nothing in the law that requires a jurisdiction to establish such a board in adopting a rent stabilization ordinance. Rather, a jurisdiction could instead task officials or employees of the jurisdiction to discharge duties under the ordinance. 2. Certification of Rents vs. Complaint-Based System Some jurisdictions operate on a complaint basis (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose), which relies on tenants to raise concerns regarding rent increases that are alleged to violate the ordinance. Oakland’s complaint-based model, for example, relies on tenants to challenge a rent increase that they believe to be in violation of the ordinance. A hearing officer then evaluates information from the tenant and landlord and makes an initial decision, which can be appealed to a rent board. In all cases, decisions of the local agency can ultimately be appealed to the courts. Other jurisdictions with a more robust administrative approach require landlords to register and certify initial rent amounts (e.g., East Palo Alto and Santa Monica) and to thereafter certify rent increases on covered units. In East Palo Alto, for example, landlords must register all rental units each year. The city charges an annual registration fee ($234 in fiscal year 2014-2015), half of which the landlord is allowed to pass on to the tenant. On an ongoing basis, landlords are required to submit documentation to the rent stabilization board for each vacancy and new tenancy, including copies of any new leases. The rent stabilization board sets the annual general rent adjustment and promulgates regulations to implement the city’s rent stabilization ordinance. The rent stabilization board also All County Departments September 23, 2015 Page 17 issues a certificate of “maximum allowable rent” for each regulated unit upon initial rental of the unit and for each new tenant. The rent stabilization board then reviews any requests for rent adjustments against the certified maximum allowable rent. In addition to the proactive registration and certification component, East Palo Alto also provides for landlord and tenant petitions to challenge the rent stabilization board’s determinations and to enforce the ordinance where landlords are not in compliance. JCB:jdn Berkeley Los Angeles Oakland San Francisco San Jose Santa Monica West Hollywood Just Cause Eviction Extensive Extensive Extensive Extensive Minimal (dominant motive can’t be retaliation) Extensive (inc. units not subject to rent control) Extensive Relocation Assistance Yes Yes No relocation aid Yes No relocation aid Yes Yes Condo Conversion Limits Max 100 units/year Notice requirements Replacement unit requirement; notice First right of refusal to tenant First right of refusal; notice; 2/3 tenants must agree Permit req’d unless 2/3 tenants agree; right to remain CUP req’d, with findings (no adverse effect and vacancy >5%) Annual Rent Increase 65% of CPI, 7% max.; 1.7% for 2014 Equal to CPI; 3% min./8% max.; 3% for 7/1/14 to 6/30/15 Equal to CPI; 10% max; 1.9% from 7/1/14 to 6/30/15 60% of CPI, max. 7%; 1.0% from 3/1/14 to 2/28/15 8% per year, or 21% if no increase in 2 years 0.8% oe $14 per month effective 9/1/14; none if market rent set after Sept. 1, 2007 75% of CPI; 1.25% from 9/1/14 to 8/31/15 Landlord Cost Pass‐ Throughs None Gas and electric up to 1% of rent; capital improvement, rehab work None Generally allowed for utilites, with some restrictions Only if charge is new and approved by Council resolution $7 for gas and electric upon application and approval Up to 0.5% for gas/electric Other Automatic Rent Increases Additional T: 10% increase; Additional security deposit for pet(s) where previously prohibited Additional T: 10% increase; Smoke detectors; Rehab and capital improvement work Accumulate unused increases for up to 10 years Accumulate unused increases; Stormwater management; Property tax due to ballot measure approved between 11/1/96 & 11/30/98; 50% of property tax for bonds passed after 11/14/02; 50 percent of SFUSD or SFCCD bond costs None Security deposit for additional Ts or new pets; School tax surcharges; Stormwater management, clean beaches, and ocean parcel tax surcharges None Registration Fees $194/yr.; $4/month for 12 months may be passed through to T; Penalties if late; Reimbursement for low‐income Ts $24.51/yr.; $12.25 may be passed through to T One‐half of $30 service fee may be passed through to T $29 apartment registration fee; half may be passed through to T $174.96/yr; $13/month may be passed through; Low‐income, senior Ts exempt $120/yr.; $5/month may be passed through; Partial rebate for certain Ts Rent Increases Requiring Official Approval To yield fair return on investment; Capital improvements, with limitations; T not in occupancy To yield fair return Any ground (includes banking, capital improvements, uninsured repairs, housing service costs, or where necessary to meet fair return requirements); Enhanced notice required for capital improvements 7% annual cap based on “need”; Capital improvement up to 10% of base rent; Rehabilitation Debt service costs deemed “reasonable” under circumstances" by hearing officer if denial is hardship to L; Any ground for increase beyond 8% where T petitions, hardship to T may be considered; Any reason not provided in ordinance To yield fair return ; Street lighting; Capital improvement; Earthquake repairs; 12% cap for hardship Ts; To correct rent or amenities; T not in occupancy To yield fair return, up to 12% increase in first 12 month period after decision Tenant Application for Rent Reduction Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Detailed Comparison of Five Cities with Rent Stabilization Berkeley Los Angeles Oakland San Francisco San Jose Santa Monica West Hollywood Detailed Comparison of Five Cities with Rent Stabilization Exempt Units Hotels <14 days; Single family residences; Duplexes if L occupies one; New construction (only as to rent increases) Hotels <30 days; Luxury units; Single family dwellings; Substantially renovated units; New construction; Nonofit housing; Voluntarily‐ vacated units; Mobile‐ homes, recreational vehicles & parks Hotels; New construction; Substantially renovated units; Owner‐occupied buildings with up to 3 units; Nonprofit cooperatives Hotels <32 days; Substantially renovated units; New construction; Nonprofit cooperatives & units owned by nonprofit public benefit corporations Hotels <30 days; Voluntarily‐ vacated units; Prior T evicted for nonpayment of rent or breach of lease; New construction Hotels <14 days Retirement homes Owner‐occupied 1, 2 or 3‐unit building Single family residences New construction “Incentive” unit Hotels <30 days; New construction; Units first occupied after 7/1/79; Rooms rented to boarders where L occupies unit as principal residence; Dwelling units legally converted from nondwelling units Evictions for Substatial Renovation Must require more than 60 days to repair; T refuses to vacate during repair None for substantial renovation; Limited evictions permitted under Primary Renovation Program Obtain building permit for repairs necessary to comply with law or correct violation; L to apply for extension beyond 3 months; T offered right to return at same rent; Special notice requirements Former T may rerent at controlled rent; No mininimum cost for nonmajor work; Permits necesary prior to serving notice; No ulterior motive None Removal permit from city Permitted where building must be permanently eradicated or demolished b/c uninhabitable or if building may not be inhabited while correcting violation notice by government agency Special Eviction Notice Rules Grounds and specific facts; 120 days' notice to T & city for removal from market Grounds and specific facts; 60 days' notice to Ts in unit one year; Declaration with city for relative or owner‐ occupancy, major rehabilitation or permanent removal from rental use Grounds, statement that advice re termination available from Board & other req'd info; Copy of notice filed with Board within 10 days of service on T Grounds; Inform T in writing that advice concerning notice may be obtained from Board; File copies of notice with Board w/in 10 days after service 90 days' notice to Ts in unit one year; 120 days' notice where “severe housing shortage” (no “shortage” as of early 2014); Offer to arbitrate; Notice to city within 5 days Grounds and specific facts; 60 days' notice to Ts in unit one year; Owner/relative evictions to include current T & rent, info on proposed T; notice to board within 3 days of service on T Grounds and specific facts; 60 days' notice to Ts in unit 1 year; Relative/owner‐ evictions require 90‐ day notice specifying proposed T, with copy to city; Written statement of alleged violations for breach of covenant or refusal to renew Relocation Assistance Owner/relative occupancy: $4,500 if in unit 1 year or more; no eviction if elderly, disabled and in unit 5 years or more; Removal from market: $8,700; $13,700 if tenancy began prior to 1/1/99; additional $2,500 for Ts with minors, elderly, For elderly, disabled & Ts with minors, $16,350 if <3 years, $19,300 if >3 years or <80% AMI, $15,000 if “Mom & Pop” property; For others, $7,700 if <3 years, $10,200 if >3 years or <80% AMI, $7,450 if “Mom & Pop” property; L must pay tenant relocation assistance None $5,261 to eligible Ts (incl. subtenants, minors), max. of $15,783 per unit; additional $3,508 for elderly, disabled & Ts with minors; Fees different for Ellis Act evictions None $8,300 to $17,350 depending on number of bedrooms; $9,500 to $19,950 depending on number of bedrooms for seniors, disabled & parents with minor child, OR city approval of displacement plan OR move T to comparable unit $5,100 to $12,800 depending on number of bedrooms; $13,500 for seniors, disabled, Ts with dependent children, moderate income; $17,00 for low‐ income; L must reimburse city for relocation aid POLICY ARGUMENTS REGARDING JUST CAUSE EVICTION Main Policy Features: Tenants may only be evicted for certain enumerated reasons (i.e. “just causes”). Just cause ordinances specify the permissible bases for eviction, including those due to the tenant’s “fault” (e.g. nonpayment of rent, criminal activity, etc.) and those due to “no fault” of the tenant (e.g. landlord wishes to occupy the unit). Statewide Legal Baseline: Absent local regulation, state law provides that month‐to‐month tenants may be evicted for any or no reason (other than retaliation or discrimination) if served with 30 days’ written notice (or 60 days’ written notice if the tenant has resided in the unit for at least one year). Landlords may also initiate eviction proceedings with 3‐days’ notice when a tenant fails to pay rent, creates a nuisance or otherwise violates the lease agreement. Examples: Several California cities have adopted just cause eviction ordinances. See, e.g., City of San Diego Municipal Code, § 98.07; City of East Palo Alto Municipal Code §14.04.160; City of Oakland Municipal Code, § 8.22.300, et seq.; City of Berkeley Municipal Code, § 13.76.130. Arguments in Support of and in Opposition to Policy: 1 PRO CON Limits the ability of landlords to evict existing tenants, especially in low‐vacancy and expensive housing markets where landlords may have incentive to evict existing tenants in order to obtain higher rents. Protects tenants who have short‐term (month‐to‐month) leases. Slows down rapid increases in rent. Stabilizes communities by slowing down evictions and decreasing turnover rates. Generally restricts rights of property owners by limiting what they may do with their property, requiring additional legal process before taking action against a renter. May impact neighborhoods by making it harder for landlords to evict problematic tenants, including those suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Impacts surrounding neighborhood by making it difficult for landlord to remove “bad tenants.” 1 The arguments listed here are among those that are commonly advanced for and against the tenant protection measures in question. This office has not analyzed, and does not offer an opinion regarding, their validity. POLICY ARGUMENTS REGARDING RELOCATION BENEFITS Main Policy Features: Tenants who face “no‐fault” evictions are eligible for compensation from the landlord for moving costs and other costs of securing new housing. Statewide Legal Baseline: There is no state law mandate for landlords to assist displaced tenants by compensating for relocation costs. Examples: City of Mountain View has adopted a relocation assistance ordinance. See City of Mountain View Municipal Code, § 36.38. Arguments in Support of and in Opposition to Policy: PRO CON Helps ensure that displaced households find affordable and comparable replacement housing by providing compensation for relocation costs, such as first and last months’ rent and security deposit for new rental unit, enrollment for housing search services, moving costs and storage. Helps mitigate trauma and disruption to tenants and their families caused by unforeseen need for relocation (e.g. children leaving school mid‐year) by addressing some financial impacts. Requires landlords to internalize relocation costs as part of their “costs of doing business.” Amount of mandated compensation may be excessive relative to some tenants’ needs; landlords may not be able to afford. Relocation assistance payments may be spent on anything as ordinances do not require that compensation provided to displaced tenants be spent on costs of moving and securing new housing. May create a perceived windfall to well‐off tenants if relocation assistance not subject to stringent income‐specific criteria. If required to absorb relocation costs as part of their “costs of doing business”, landlords could build the cost of relocation benefits into rent structures. POLICY ARGUMENTS REGARDING RENT STABILIZATION Main Policy Features: Rent stabilization ordinances limit the amount that rents are allowed to increase each year as market values increase (usually based either on a fixed percentage or tied to inflation). Statewide Legal Baseline: Currently, under state law, there are no limits on the amount or frequency of rent increases. Landlords may set rent to market rate with every new tenancy (“vacancy decontrol”). Rent control may not be applied to units constructed after 1995, single family homes or condos. Examples: Thirteen cities in California have adopted rent stabilization ordinances. See, e.g., Santa Monica City Charter, Article XVIII; City of Los Gatos Municipal Code § 14.80; City of East Palo Alto Municipal Code, § 14.04.010, et seq. Arguments in Support of and in Opposition to Policy: PRO CON Prevents landlords from imposing rent increases that cause displacement and accordingly, helps preserve income diverse, stable neighborhoods. Substantial or frequent rent increases may adversely impact schools, youth groups and community organizations by displacing those who access these services. Long‐term tenants who contribute to a community’s stability have a legitimate interest in maintaining their tenancies. Provides a basic form of consumer protection – once tenants move into a vacant unit at market rate rents that they can afford and establish lives in these homes, they won’t have to renegotiate. Helps correct power imbalance between landlords and tenants. Because of the high cost of moving, tenants may be pressured by landlords to accept rent increases. Tenants may also be unaware of the real conditions of units until they move in. If the tenant complains about the Fundamentally unfair – why burden landlords for a broader societal problem? Interferes with free market – landlord should be able to rent unit at amount that market bears. May incentivize landlords to raise rents before any rent control ordinance takes effect in an attempt to evade impact of the regulation. As a general matter, restricts rights of property owners as it limits what they may do with their property. With a long line of potential tenants eager to move in at the ceiling price, discourages landlords from maintaining and repairing units until the end of a tenancy. Also, because rent increases are limited, the landlord’s ability to recoup costs of improvement or maintenance is also curtailed. Reduces “urban vitality” by discouraging mobility; decreases vacancy conditions, the landlord may threaten to increase the rent. Allows tenants to share in the benefit of Proposition 13, which generally caps annual increases in the assessed value of real estate at 2%. In the campaign to enact Proposition 13, advocates claimed that landlords would pass property tax savings along to tenants; rent control helps to ensure that this occurs. Housing is a positive human right that equals or exceeds the property rights of landlords. Without rent control, even tenants paying full rent can be forced unexpectedly from their homes through no fault of their own. Prevents landlords from making speculative profits in strong markets, but also enables landlords to obtain fair returns on their rental properties while ensuring that tenants have the certainty that their rents will not increase more than a certain amount each year. Can be structured in a way so as to minimize bureaucracy and administrative costs (i.e. complaint driven, instead of overseen by Rent Stabilization Board – “lean and mean” approach). rates/turnover in rental units because tenants want to keep their low‐rents and are unwilling to leave. Is not tailored to protect intended beneficiaries – i.e. poor or other vulnerable renters; rather, may incentivize landlord to create stringent standards for applications from prospective tenants (i.e. requiring resumes, credit reports and references) which poor or other vulnerable renters may have trouble meeting. Incentivizes landlords to discriminate against prospective tenants likely to stay for a long time, like retiree or couples with children. Triggers consequences such as bribes and a “shadow market” (e.g. prospective tenant offers landlord $5000 just to hold an $1800‐a‐month one‐bedroom apartment in an industrial neighborhood that he had yet to advertise; landlord offers existing tenant $5000 to vacate rent controlled unit so landlord can reset rent for vacant unit at amount that market will bear). Encourages some owners to take their units off the market and sell properties, rather than rent. Depending on how they are crafted, rent control ordinances may be extremely burdensome and expensive to administer. RENT STABILIZATION DECISION MATRIX UNITS COVERED ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS Duplexes, small apartment buildings? Substantially renovated units? Temporary, non‐traditional residential uses (dorms, hotels, hospitals, etc.) CONTROLS ON AMOUNT OF RENT CHARGED ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT Economic indicator, such as regional CPI o With or without maximum percentage increase Specify maximum percentage increase OTHER ADJUSTMENTS Automatic o Utilities, property taxes, registration fees Application for Fair Return/Adjudication o Capital improvements o Renovations o Reduction in housing services ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE COMPLAINT‐BASED OR REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION RENT BOARD OR OTHER STRUCTURE TERM INDEFINITE TEMPORARY Time‐based (specified number of years) Production‐based (specified number of affordable housing units) Market‐based (specified vacancy rate) ACCOMPANYING TENANT PROTECTIONS UNITS COVERED All housing units Only rent‐stabilized units JUST CAUSE EVICTION Identify acceptable grounds for eviction and any special limitations Notice requirements RELOCATION ASSISTANCE When is it required? Who qualifies? o Income limits to qualify for assistance? Amount of assistance? o Additional assistance for sensitive groups? RENT STABILIZATION DECISION MATRIX