HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-21 City Council Agendas (9)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 11489)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/21/2020
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appeal of a Director's Interpretation Regarding Seismic
Rehabilitation
Title: Consideration of an Appeal of a Director's Interpretation Made
Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.01.025 and Related to
Seismic Rehabilitation. The Project is Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines
15061(b)(3).
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council uphold the director’s determination on the consent
calendar, thereby denying the appeal.
Executive Summary
This report provides background information in support of the director’s interpretation,
presents the appellant’s arguments for the appeal and concludes that the City’s public safety
interests justify the director’s action.
Background
The City’s zoning and building codes incentivize downtown area property owners to rehabilitate
seismically vulnerable buildings by offering a floor area bonus of 2,500 square feet (or greater)
in exchange for mitigating the seismic risk. Staff’s original implementation of this program
granted the bonus following the complete removal or demolition of these at-risk buildings.
However, several years ago for an unrelated matter, the City Council directed staff to strictly
interpret the zoning code. This direction followed Council review of a number of development
projects where it disagreed on appeal with some staff interpretations. Accordingly, while
previously allowing for demolition of buildings to receive the floor area bonus, staff
subsequently required owners to retain and rehabilitate the building instead of demolishing it.
The Design Within Reach building on University Avenue is one example of how this code
City of Palo Alto Page 2
provision has more recently been applied.
On December 7, 2015, the City Council amended the zoning code to authorize the director to
make interpretations of the zoning code and established a process to post formal
interpretations on the City’s website.1 No prior determinations have been made in reliance on
this code provision.
The subject director’s interpretation attempts to implement the intent of the code to promote
public health and allows a property owner to receive a floor area bonus when demolition is the
only feasible means to eliminate the seismic risk.
In accordance with the municipal code, this interpretation was posted online2 and as a courtesy
emailed to known interested community members. On July 13, 2020, a timely appeal was filed
by three former Councilmembers (Attachment B). To accept the director’s interpretation and
deny the appeal the matter can be approved on consent with an affirmative vote. To consider
the appeal three Councilmembers would need to pull the item from consent whereupon a
future noticed public hearing would be scheduled.
Discussion
In the 1980s the City established a seismic hazards identification program that required owners
of buildings constructed before a certain period to submit engineering reports evaluating the
building’s structural systems and present solutions to remedy any deficiencies. There are other
requirements to the program but upgrading the building to meet contemporary seismic
standards was voluntary. The downtown commercial district has an incentive that grants a floor
area bonus of 25% of the existing floor area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater, to
owners that seismically rehabilitate their buildings. This floor area bonus can be used onsite or
sold to a qualifying interested party.
These ordinances were established in recognition of Palo Alto’s proximity to the San Andreas
1 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.01.025 (Zoning Code Interpretation) sets forth the provision: Whenever in
the opinion of the Planning and Community Environment Director (PCE Director) there is any question regarding
the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan or the planning and land use provisions of Titles 16, 18 or 21 to any
specific case or situation, the PCE Director shall have the authority to interpret such planning codes. When in the
opinion of the PCE Director a formal written decision is warranted, the Director shall make the written decision
available to the public by posting on the City’s website. The interpretation shall become effective fourteen
consecutive calendar days from the date of posting unless appealed under this section. The interpretation shall
become the standard interpretation for future application of that provision of this Chapter unless changed by the
Council on appeal. In accordance with the provisions of Section 18.77.070(f), any person may appeal the PCE
Director’s written interpretation prior to its effective date. All final written interpretations made under this section
shall be made publicly available on the City’s website. Staff shall prepare a quarterly Information Report to the
Council summarizing all final interpretations made under this section.
2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/current/pds_director_interpretations.asp
City of Palo Alto Page 3
and Hayward faults and to promote public safety by identifying those buildings that exhibit
structural deficiencies and the extent to which these buildings have the potential for causing
loss of life or injury.
While this program was progressive when adopted and resulted in many buildings being
upgraded, it does not reflect contemporary standards that blend voluntary and mandatory
regulations to improve the safety of the City’s older building inventory. In fact, many buildings
have not been updated, including some of the more vulnerable building typologies, such as
unreinforced masonry buildings.
The City Council has directed staff to update the seismic ordinance and progress has been made
on this endeavor. However, the next steps require additional consultant work. A request for
funding was dropped by staff when City departments needed to make budget reductions in
response to the current downturn in the economy. When funding is available and staff is able
to secure a consultant, it will take about 12 months of effort before hearings can be scheduled,
but this project is currently unfunded and will likely be delayed several years.
Director’s Interpretation
The subject interpretation attempts to balance the Council’s direction to strictly interpret the
zoning code with the public interest in remediating buildings that are seismically vulnerable and
more susceptible to causing loss of life, injury or property damage within the parameters of an
incentive program designed to encourage owners of such buildings to upgrade and make safer
those buildings.
The code section being interpreted is Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.070(a)(2) and is
excerpted below:
A building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic
rehabilitation, but is not in Historic Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to increase
its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is
greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the
restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted
for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1
in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts. This bonus area must be fully parked. In
addition to any applicable parking provisions, this bonus may be parked by the
payment of in lieu parking fees under Section 18.18.090.
The formal director’s interpretation is provided in Attachment A. There has been discussion in
the past about the term “rehabilitation” in the context of granting floor area bonuses to
property owners that upgrade seismically vulnerable buildings. Under this provision, City staff
routinely granted the bonus to seismically vulnerable buildings that were demolished and
City of Palo Alto Page 4
replaced with new construction, as that eliminated the identified seismic risk. During a City
Council meeting in 2014/15, one or two Councilmembers commented on staff’s application of
the code to development projects and offered a perspective that demolition was inconsistent
with the plain reading of the code. Since then, projects have been required to retain and
upgrade the seismically vulnerable structure to qualify for the bonus. In 2015, staff sought to
codify this approach in the zoning code, but the matter was deferred by the Planning and
Transportation Commission and not acted upon by the City Council.
While staff generally accepts the notion that rehabilitation is not demolition, the proposed
interpretation bridges the historical application of the code section with a strict reading of the
text to carve out a rare exception in the interest of protecting life and limiting property
damage. The proposed interpretation does not simply return to staff’s historical application of
the code; rather, it would apply only to a very narrow set of circumstances.
The project that precipitated the interpretation is the Mills Florist building at 233 University
Avenue. This project has received Architectural Review Board approval and was designed with
the intent to seismically upgrade portions of the building. The approved project largely retains
the look and character of the existing building and will reuse the existing brick façade on the
new building.3 However, when preparing construction drawings and engaging structural
engineers on the project, the applicant learned of concerns that made it impractical to retain
the existing walls. An engineer’s report found that the existing brick and masonry walls have
low strength and expected dangerous brittle failure – i.e. in any redevelopment scenario, this
wall would need to be rebuilt. Further, to construct the project, existing flooring and roof
diaphragms would need to be removed creating the potential for increased instability and
requiring supplemental bracing and greater excavation to keep the remaining walls in place.
Retaining and strengthening the unreinforced masonry building requires considerably more
effort, results in a less safe construction site, prolongs the time and expense of construction,
and achieves no measurable benefit to the City or the owner. Conversely, allowing for
demolition in this case not only addresses the noted concerns, it improves compliance with
building separation requirements (from the adjoining structure) and once constructed will have
an aesthetic that reflects the character of the existing building by cleaning and reusing the
existing bricks that are visible from University Avenue and Ramana Street.
Moreover, staff is under the impression that the project would not go forward without the
seismic floor area bonus, which would be used to help finance the project. This is a less
favorable outcome as unreinforced masonry buildings are particularly susceptible to collapse
during a seismic event. While staff recognizes this relies on the applicant’s representation as to
the future redevelopment of this property – and that it is the owner’s responsibility for
maintaining a safe building for its occupants and pedestrians – the City’s current seismic
3 The subject property has been evaluated and determined ineligible as an historic resource.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
policies do not compel property owners to upgrade seismically vulnerable buildings. Any such
policy change is several years from completion, if ultimately endorsed by the City Council.
Nevertheless, the engineer’s report and potential outcome of foregoing the necessary
remediation of the seismic risk prompted the director’s action.
The interpretation is anticipated to have limited applicability and only applies in the downtown
area. The interpretation is written to cover Seismic Category I, II, and III buildings, however, it is
the unreinforced masonry buildings, Seismic Category I, that face the greatest challenge for
rehabilitation when adding floor area because of the lack of existing structural systems to
support the building. Due to the risk factors associated with this building typology, it is
appropriate to use the City’s incentive program to aggressively mitigate these buildings. While
it is certainly the case that unreinforced masonry buildings can be strengthened to reduce this
risk, the project referenced above was able to demonstrate to the city’s building official that
there was no practical means to do so in this instance. Documentation provided by the
applicant is included with this report (Attachment C) and was peer reviewed before the building
official concurred with the analysis.
If the interpretation stands after appeal, other requests for demolition would similarly require
an engineer’s report to be prepared by the applicant and peer reviewed. The building official in
consultation with the department director would similarly need to conclude, based on the
supporting documentation that it is not practical to retain and strengthen a building in order to
mitigate a seismic risk and, in the downtown, receive a floor area bonus as an incentive for
abating that risk.
Appeal Statement
The appeal filed by three former Councilmembers is included with this report as Attachment B.
The appellants assert the director’s action is not an interpretation of the code, but rather
establishes new policy through a ministerial process. The appellants argue that a text
amendment is required to implement the director’s interpretation and requires public hearings
before the Planning and Transportation Commission and ultimately to the City Council, which is
the legislative body responsible for establishing policy. The appellant’s also object to the
practicality standard for determining whether rehabilitation is feasible noting it is undefined
and relies on the developer’s assertions as opposed to the plain reading of the code. There is
also a suggestion that the interpretation conflicts with regulations concerning historic
rehabilitations and that the interpretation itself is at odds with comments made by the director
in prior public meetings.
Staff Response
The appellants argue that the subject interpretation improperly establishes new City policy as
opposed to a clarifying interpretation of the existing policy. Staff’s perspective is that the
interpretation applies existing code, prioritizing the City’s interest to promote public safety over
City of Palo Alto Page 6
a narrow reading of the zoning code, which may forestall the removal of seismically vulnerable
buildings.
Accordingly, in this context, the appeal is principally about process. If the interpretation is
viewed as establishing new policy – its application is improper, and a text amendment is the
appropriate course of action. If the interpretation is viewed as a clarification of the intent of
existing code or applies the code to a unique circumstance, then the interpretation is an
acceptable means to address the issue. As noted above, the use of the word rehabilitation in
combination with other City policies inform one’s perspective on the issue.
The City’s comprehensive plan includes a number of policies and programs related to
minimizing the exposure of people and structures to seismic hazards; continuing to provide
incentives for seismic upgrades; and, using the results of the City’s seismic hazards
identification program and inventory to establish priorities and incentives to encourage
structural retrofits. Attachment D includes an excerpt from the City’s comprehensive plan
listing policies and programs related to earthquakes and natural hazards. More information is
also available online detailing the purpose and regulations related to the seismic hazards
identification program4 and process for approving floor area bonus for seismic rehabilitation.5
Beyond the process question, the appellants express concern that the term “infeasibility” is
undefined. Infeasibility is frequently used as a standard without express definition, relying
instead on reasonable, professional judgment. By way of example, documentation reviewed by
the City’s building official for the referenced property at 233 University Avenue is provided in
Attachment C. Included in this material are calculations the building official required to further
analyze the seismic systems and structural integrity of the building. These calculations were
prepared by the owner’s consultant and reviewed by City/contract staff before the building
official reviewed the data and concluded that keeping the building and seismically
strengthening it to support the approved project was infeasible. This example shows the extent
to which staff seeks to retain and strengthen buildings, but upon a finding of infeasibility, would
rather promote the City’s public safety interests and allow for the demolition of an
unreinforced masonry building known to be seismically insufficient to withstand a strong
earthquake. This conclusion stands in contrast to the arguments in the appeal statement that
the interpretation one-dimensionally addresses property owners’ objectives and not the
objectives of the code. Mitigating the seismic risk of buildings is in the City’s interest particularly
in areas with a lot of pedestrians.
4 Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.42
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/title16buildingregulations*/chapter1642seismic
hazardsidentificationp?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca$anc=JD_Chapter16.42
5 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.070(b)
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/title16buildingregulations*/chapter1642seismic
hazardsidentificationp?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca$anc=JD_Chapter16.42
City of Palo Alto Page 7
The appellants also suggest the interpretation undermines the City’s interests in historic
preservation. The examples cited in the appeal statement ignores other City and state
regulations concerning historic resources and by inference exaggerates the limited scope of the
interpretation, which specifically states that all other municipal code requirements are
unchanged by the interpretation. Lastly, with respect to comments made previously by the
director regarding this code section, in 2015 staff did recommend a zoning amendment to
prohibit demolition as a means of qualifying for rehabilitation. This amendment was in
response to prior comments articulated by one or more Councilmembers prior to this time and
attempted to offer clarity as to what constituted rehabilitation. The Planning and
Transportation Commission and later the City Council both deferred making any change to the
municipal code, however.
Unreinforced masonry buildings are particularly vulnerable to partial or total collapse during a
strong seismic event. While the interpretation would permit demolition over seismically
strengthening the building, it does so in rare circumstances and only after preparation of
professional analysis, which is peer reviewed by a licensed structural engineer. Central to the
interpretation is whether demolition is ever an appropriate solution to mitigate a seismic risk
and whether such action is intended to convey a floor area bonus incentive to downtown area
property owners.
Policy Implications
The interpretation itself presents a policy consideration for the City Council and the argument
offered by the appellants is that the interpretation improperly establishes new policy as
opposed to interpets existing policy. If the Council agrees with this conclusion then the appeal
should be upheld. If the intepretation is a proper implementation of PAMC 18.01.025, then the
subsequent consideration for Council is whether demolition should be allowed in certain
circumstances to achieve the City’s public safety goals, which also results in downtown area
property owners receiving a floor area incentive bonus.
Resource Impact
There are no significant fiscal or budegatary impacts associated with the recommendation in
this report.
Timeline
If this item is pulled from the consent calendar it will be scheduled for a future public hearing
likely around late October or November.
Stakeholder Engagement
The interpretation was posted online as required by the municipal code and sent to known
interested parties.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Environmental Review
Council action to deny or uphold the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Director's Interpretation (Seismic Rehabilitation)
Attachment B: Appeal Statement
Attachment C: 233 University Seismic Information
Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan Natural Hazards Excerpt
CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100
DATE: June 29, 2020
TO: Planning & Development Services Staff and Interested Community Members
FROM: Jonathan Lait, Director
SUBJECT: Director’s Interpretation Related to Seismic Rehabilitation and Floor Area Bonuses
Authority
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.01.025 conveys authority to the Director of Planning and
Development Services to interpret planning and land use provisions of Title 16, 18, and 21. When
warranted, a formal written determination may be prepared and shared with the public by posting on
the City’s website.1 Written decisions shall be effective fourteen days following posting unless appealed
to the City Council in accordance with PAMC 18.77.070.
Director’s Interpretation
A floor area bonus in accordance with PAMC 18.18.070 (a)(2) shall be available to qualifying Seismic
Category I, II or III buildings in instances where seismic rehabilitation is determined infeasible by the
Chief Building Official. The Building Official may require an engineering analysis or other studies
appropriate to validate any claims of infeasibility.
Applicable Code Sections
Chapter 16.42 (Seismic Hazards Identification Program)
Section 18.18.070(a)(2) Available Floor Area Bonuses / Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
Section 18.18.070(d)(1) Procedure for Granting Floor Area Bonuses
Discussion
Palo Alto is vulnerable to strong or moderate earthquakes due to its proximity to the San Andreas and
Hayward Faults and may experience loss of life or serious injury as a result from damage to or collapse
of buildings (PAMC 16.42.010). City regulations encourage seismic upgrades to particularly vulnerable
buildings, including unreinforced masonry buildings, which pose a significant localized risk. To
incentivize safer buildings, the City offers a floor area bonus up to 25% of the building floor area or 2,500
square feet, whichever is greater, for qualifying seismically rehabilitated buildings.
1 This determination is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/pdsinterpretations
Formal Zoning
Interpretation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6174EB45-F2CC-479C-AB13-886CB6139690
In the recent past, several buildings in Palo Alto were allowed to be completely demolished as a means
to correct the seismically vulnerable building and received a seismic bonus.2 A closer review of the
municipal code, however, suggests that to qualify for the bonus floor area, the building must be
seismically rehabilitated, or retained and strengthened to contemporary structural standards. This later
interpretation has been the approach followed by staff for the past several years.
Recently, a project applicant demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building Official that
structurally rehabilitating the building at 233 University Avenue (Mills Florist) was not practical. While
technical rehabilitation compliance could be documented, the effort to do so was determined not
feasible nor safe by an engineering analysis.
In this instance, the plain reading of the municipal code and floor area bonus does not provide sufficient
incentive to encourage seismic strengthening of a building type known to be hazardous to building
occupants and pedestrians. Allowing replacement of the building – new building construction – would
remedy the seismic hazard. Moreover, the project as previously approved, retains the existing exterior
masonry brick (restored and reapplied), which preserves the look and character of the building.
Based on the foregoing and to support overriding public health interests, this interpretation would allow
qualifying buildings (Seismic Category I, II or III), the opportunity to rebuild as new construction upon a
finding by the City’s Chief Building Official that rehabilitation is not practical. All other municipal code
requirements are unaffected or unchanged by this interpretation.
_______________________________
Jonathan Lait, Director
Planning and Development Services
Posted on Website: June 29, 2020
Appeal Deadline: July 13, 2020
2 657 Alma St. (101 Forest Ave.); 901 Alma St.; 431 Florence St.; 820 Ramona St.; 150 University Ave.; 171 University Ave.; 201
University Ave.; 270 University Ave.; 274 University Ave.; 380 University Ave.; and, 416/428 University Ave.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6174EB45-F2CC-479C-AB13-886CB6139690
July 13, 2020
To: Planning Director Jonathan Lait
Mayor Adrian Fine, Vice Mayor Tom DuBois, City Council members
Re: Appeal of the Director’s Interpretation Related to Seismic Rehabilitation and Floor Area Bonuses.
The code establishing bonus square footage and TDRs (Transferrable Development Rights) for
Seismic buildings is clear:
Municipal Code Section 18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses (a) (2) Seismic
Rehabilitation Bonus:
“A building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing
seismic rehabilitation (emphasis added) but is not in Historic
Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500
square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater…”
The staff, via an “Interpretation”, is proposing to use a ministerial process to establish city policy and
change the code to allow bonus square footage for demolished buildings. This interpretation is
counter to what staff itself writes in the Interpretation: “A closer review of the municipal code,
however, suggests that to qualify for the bonus floor area, the building must be seismically
rehabilitated, or retained and strengthened to contemporary structural standards.” (Emphasis
added). Demolished buildings by definition are not rehabilitated buildings.
Further, the Interpretation suggests replacing a clear and simple zoning law with a completely
undefined process that considers “financial infeasibility” or “impracticality” based on a developer’s
assertion of it being so. With no substantiating evidence, the Interpretation speculates “the plain
reading of the municipal code and floor area bonus does not provide sufficient incentive to
encourage seismic strengthening of a building type known to be hazardous…”. The Interpretation
thereby only addresses owners’ objectives and not the objective of the code: to incentivize the
rehabilitation of hazardous buildings. The code allows for on-site bonus square footage of a
rehabilitated building OR sale of qualified TDRs resulting from the rehabilitation. In other words,
owners’ objective may not be accomplished on site, but they may be otherwise incented to conduct
the seismic rehabilitation via TDR sale/s.
Furthermore, staff’s assertion that the “plain reading’ of the current code does not provide an
adequate incentive for developers or property owners, which is a clear acknowledgement that staff
believes there should be a change in policy and code, but has chosen to use a ministerial tool to
establish policy, thereby bypassing the PTC, City Council and public review.
This interpretation also carries with it an inherent conflict regarding historic buildings that are in need
of seismic retrofit. Will the new “Interpretation” extend to historic rehabilitations and the President’s
Hotel or the Post Office be vulnerable to the wrecker’s ball if an applicant is successful in convincing
the Building Official of some undefined “financial infeasibility” or “impracticality” if a similar
Interpretation determines the fate of such buildings? The PTC, City Council and the public must not
be circumvented by such an Interpretation as they are with the June 29 Interpretation.
The Interpretation includes that bonus square footage has been allowed for several demolished
seismic buildings. This runs counter to the code, counter to staff plain reading of the code, counter to
comments by the Director in the October 28, 2015 Planning Commission minutes and counter to
information in the December 7, 2015 CMR…all indicating that the code and the Council intentions
were that seismic bonus square footage are to be granted only for rehabilitated buildings.
In summary, this proposal is a significant code change and should not be subject to a Director’s
Interpretation, resulting in an expensive appeal process rather than normal and proper public
hearings for zoning code changes.
Submitted by:
Karen Holman, former Mayor, Councilmember
Greg Schmid, former Vice-Mayor, Councilmember
Pat Burt, Former Mayor, Councilmember
“T i m e l y S o l u t i o n s B a s e d O n T i m e l e s s P r i n c i p l e s”
HOHBACH-LEWIN,INC.STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGINEERS
E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A
260 Sheridan Ave, Ste 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930
PRINCIPALS:
DOUGLAS HOHBACH
DAN LEWIN
JOAQUIM ROBERTS
ANTHONY LEE
VIKKI BOURCIER
SAM SHIOTANI
LES TSO
ASSOCIATE PRINCIPALS:
KEVIN MORTON
STUART LOWE
MICHAEL RESCH
SENIOR ASSOCIATES:
VICKY RUNDORFF
GREG RODRIGUES
EDDIE HUI
MIKE DAVIES
STACY GADDINI
ASSOCIATES:
BRIAN HO
PHYLLIS MAK
MICHAEL MORGAN
MOHAMED IBRAHIM
MOLLY SOUKHASEUM
CE DEPT MANAGER:
BILL HENN
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
P.E.
S.E.
S.E.
June 11, 2020
Revised June 16, 2020
Mills Family, LLC cc: Ken Hayes
c/o Ms. Leslie Mills Hayes Group Architects
PO Box 44
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project: 233 University Avenue Seismic Evaluation
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Hohbach-Lewin Project No. 12929.2B
Dear Ms. Mills:
As you know, we are structural consultants to Hayes Group Architects for the
reconstruction of your building at 233 University Avenue. The existing building on the
site reportedly dates from the early 1900s, is rectangular, one-story with a partial
mezzanine, a partial basement and with a wood framed roof and floor and perimeter
unreinforced masonry walls. The rear portion of the building is an addition and is
constructed with hollow clay tiles, while the original construction is brick. The footprint of
the building is approximately 4,300 square feet.
You have copied us on communication to Ken Hayes from George Hoyt, the Chief
Building Official of Palo Alto, regarding the building. Mr. Hoyt has requested that we
review the strength of materials testing data and the historical structural analyses for the
building and utilize this information to prepare a detailed analysis, that will include the
calculation of Demand/Capacity ratios in accordance with PAMC 16.42.050 for the two
walls that are proposed to remain, as shown in the most recent Hayes Group Architect’s
documents.
Historical Seismic Information
You have provided us the following historical analyses, listed below in chronological
order:
1935-36 Earthquake Hazard Survey prepared by the City of Palo Alto Board of Public
Work, 233-235 University Avenue excerpt – this document notes that the mortar in the
face brick is very soft and thus the originally provided anchors in the mortar joints
connecting the walls to the roof framing will likely be ineffective. This survey also
contains several useful sections showing the construction at the framing connections to
both the University Avenue and Ramona Street walls.
Per PAMC Chapter 16.42, Seismic Hazards Identification Program, dating from 1986,
the subject building has been identified as subject to an engineering report requirement,
based on the unreinforced masonry walls as well as the vintage and number of
occupants of the building. The required engineering report is intended to determine if the
building has the capability to resist the seismic forces codified in the 1973 Uniform
Building Code without collapse or partial collapse. If the building is not shown to have
E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A
260 Sheridan Ave, Ste 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930 Fax (650) 617-5932
this capability, a retrofit solution sufficient to “substantially eliminate a potential collapse
failure” is to be included in the report, described in sufficient detail to allow for a
construction cost estimate to be made. There is no requirement to implement the
retrofit.
The November 29, 1986 letter from Anthony J. Angelo, P.E. to Frank Mills was
apparently written to fulfill this requirement for an engineering report. Mr. Angelo had
visited the subject building and found the bracing of the unreinforced masonry walls to
be seriously deficient and the University Avenue wall to contain no bracing elements,
and stated his professional opinion that “any proposed scheme of reconstruction to meet
the requirements of the Seismic Hazard Reduction Program would involve such
extensive reworking of the existing structural components as to make complete
replacement a more logical course of action.”
In 2004, the Stanford Theatre Gallery Building was constructed adjacent to the subject
property at 227 University Avenue. Apparently, the concrete property line wall of the
previous building at 227 University was constructed utilizing the wall of 233 University as
a backside form, thus when this wall was demolished some portions of the 233
University wall needed to be repaired. Also of interest was the new wall at 227
University was reportedly constructed 4” in board from the property line in order to create
a seismic separation between the buildings. This information was provided in a
December 9, 2004 letter by Meserve Engineering. This letter also provides results for
brick shear tests taken at various locations of this property line wall, which range from a
low of 18 psi to a high of 148 psi, with an average of 73 psi.
As part of the effort to utilize portions of the existing building in a future remodel, testing
of key structural materials in the building was performed a couple of years ago. The May
8, 2018 Structural Investigation report by CEL Consulting Inc., which includes a
Concrete Coring Inspection Report, a Concrete Compression Core Test Report, a
Ground Penetrating Radar Scanning Report to determine reinforcing steel in the
concrete and a Brick In-planar Mortar Strength Shear Report summarizes the test
results. Of particular interest is the brick shear test #3, which tested a portion of the
University Avenue frontage wall and found the net mortar strength to be 20 psi, a very
low value.
The most recent seismic information is contained in a letter to you dated February 25,
2020 from Rick Lennen, P.E. of AKC Engineering, Inc. It provides a recap of the
technical issues that were presented at a meeting you had on 2/13/20 with the City of
Palo Alto. He references the current proposal to substantively build a new building at
233 University but keep two of the unreinforced masonry walls. He makes several
statements addressing the deficiencies of unreinforced masonry buildings in general and
recommends removing all of the existing unreinforced masonry walls.
Seismic Analysis
We have completed a basic seismic assessment of the subject property in its existing
condition based on information obtained from field measurements and testing results
and other info referenced above.
As noted, the building is of archaic construction, utilizing unreinforced masonry walls to
support gravity loads as well as provide lateral resistance. This is no longer permitted by
E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A
260 Sheridan Ave, Ste 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930 Fax (650) 617-5932
the California Building code, thus the building needs to be evaluated and any retrofit
designed, per a standard appropriate for existing buildings. Currently the standard of
practice is to utilize ASCE 41-17,Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings.
The seismic performance goal delineated in the PAMC Chapter 16.42 Seismic Hazards
Identification Program, is to resist the seismic forces codified in the 1973 Uniform
Building Code without collapse or partial collapse. A similar performance criterion is
passing a Tier 1 life safety analysis per ASCE 41-13,Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Existing Buildings when subjected to a BSE-1 earthquake ground motion.We have
analyzed the building per this criterion and this is expected to be deemed equivalent to
the Chapter 16.42 criterion by the Palo Alto Building Department.
We have prepared calculations to determine the mass of the building, the seismic
pseudo-forces that will be induced by a BSE-1 event and the demand-capacity ratios
comparing the in-plane shear strength of the key structural elements in the University
Avenue wall to the seismic demand. These calculations are attached.
Quickly summarizing, even with the most optimistic assumptions regarding the existing
brick mortar properties, the demand-capacity ratio of the piers in the University Avenue
wall is in excess of 10, compared to a maximum allowed value of 3. This indicates that
the building is indeed a potential collapse failure as defined by Chapter 16.42. Thus,
any new construction will need to provide a completely new lateral force resisting
element in the plane of this wall, with the wall being converted to a decorative veneer.
We did not perform calculations for the property line wall, however based on the
approximately 75 foot length of the brick front portion of the wall, we expect that the
front brick portion of the wall will have an acceptable in-plane shear demand-capacity
ratio. The approximately 25 foot length of the hollow clay tile rear portion of the wall
however will have an unacceptable in-plane shear demand capacity ratio and thus is a
definite collapse risk. In addition, the entire wall, including in particular the parapet, is
not currently adequately braced out of plane and is expected to be significantly damaged
in the evaluated seismic event.
Recommendation
In our professional opinion, the most straightforward approach to meet the intent of
PAMC Chapter 16.42 and mitigate the risk of collapse of the subject unreinforced
masonry walls in a seismic event is to demolish them when the balance of the building is
demolished for the proposed new construction. None of the existing masonry walls are
suitable for use as part of the new construction and if retained, will add seismic mass
and irregularity to the building. In addition, the hollow clay tile portion of the wall will
need to be rebuilt in any case, due to its low strength and expected dangerous brittle
failure mode.
In addition, we are concerned about the practicality of retaining these two walls during
the course of construction of the new building, since they will be unstable when the
existing floor and roof diaphragms are removed and will need to be braced by
supplemental bracing. The need to deepen the basement to make it reasonable to
occupy will require the underpinning of the foundations of these walls, again creating a
potential instability that will need to be carefully addressed in the course of construction.
E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A
260 Sheridan Ave, Ste 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930 Fax (650) 617-5932
In any case, we recommend that these walls not be maintained in place during
construction, to create a safer construction site and allow construction to be completed
more expeditiously. From our perspective it is difficult to perceive any reason to preserve
the property line wall, due to its concealed location and its potential to make the
renovated building less seismically safe. Also an advantage to demolishing the property
line wall is that a code compliant separation between the new building and the building
at 227 University could be constructed.
We hope that the Palo Alto Building Department finds this letter to be informative.
Please contact me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Douglas Hohbach, S.E. S3131
Principal
Attachment: 233 University Calculations
HOHBACH-LEWIN INC.
S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R S
260 Sheridan Avenue, Suite 150
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 617-5930 Fax:(650) 617-5932
Structural Calculations
For
233 University Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
June 10 2020
Project No: 12929.2F
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
AKC Engineering Inc.
1200 Industrial Road, Suite 13
San Carlos, CA 94070 (650) 591-3050
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1
Mills Family LLC
P.O. Box 44
Palo Alto, CA 94302
Date: February 25, 2020
Re: 233/235 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Unreinforced Masonry Components
Proj: OSNC2646
Attn: Leslie Mills
This letter provides a recap of the technical issues we presented during our meeting on
2/13/20 at the City of Palo Alto. Any non-technical, permit related or planning issues are
beyond the scope of our comments.
It is proposed that the building at 233/235 University Avenue be fully renovated while
keeping two of the existing unreinforced masonry (URM) walls. One wall is at the front
along the sidewalk and the other is along the adjacent building (movie theatre).
For structural reasons as noted below we recommend removing all of the existing URM
walls.
1. CODE CRITERIA: URM buildings have been deemed unsafe and the Uniform
Code for Building Conservation, 1991 Edition was developed to reduce risk but
not eliminate it: its crucial to understand that it does not provide the level of life
safety provided by current standards. The lesser standards were intended to
balance safety with economics since the State of California took the rare step of
mandating that URM buildings be upgraded even though they were in compliance
when first built.
2. URM AS VENEER: Once the renovation is complete the building will no longer
be URM and the remaining brick walls will act as a very thick veneer. The
repurposed veneer will have much of the same characterizes of the original URM
walls. During an earthquake the URM veneer will try to pull away from the
structural frame. Normally the veneer is secured with mechanical anchors and
bolts. With consideration of the weak mortar, minimum spacing of anchor bolts,
depth of walls, property lines and the adjacent building; it is not possible to
AKC Engineering Inc.
1200 Industrial Road, Suite 13
San Carlos, CA 94070 (650) 591-3050
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
2
adequately secure all of the existing URM veneer and there will be a significant
risk to life safety.
3. STIFFNESS COMPADABILITY: Earthquake forces in a building will go the
stiffest elements but not necessarily the strongest. The URM wall along the
adjacent building is very long and thick and will take most all of the loading
unless isolated from the structure. The paradox is that it needs to be supported by
the new structural system and can’t be fully isolated.
4. STORE FRONT: Having field checked numerous similar buildings over the
years, we expect substandard grouting and very little structural continuity in the
URM of the at the store front. There is no engineering reason to risk the front
URM parapet peeling away from the structural frame and falling on to the
sidewalk along University Avenue.
It is our opinion that there is no technical reason to accept a lesser life safety standard for
any major remodel.
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are in accordance with the
current standards of structural engineering practice and no warranty is expressed or
implied. We trust this letter provides the information required at this time. If you have
any questions, please call.
Sincerely
AKC Engineering
Rick Lennen, P.E.
Principal
STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION
233 UNIVERSITY
233 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Performed for
Mills Family, LLC
Palo Alto, California
by: CEL Consulting
Anil Nethinsinghe, P.E.
Structural Investigation Manager
May 8th, 2018
Report Number 180430-S CEL Project No. 50-53563-S
Attachments: Coring Inspection Report Compression Test Report Ground Penetrating Radar Scanning Report Brick-Shear Report
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this testing program is to provide the structural condition of existing construction.
2. SCOPE OF TESTING
The scope of the testing program was to perform tests based on the Recommended Testing Scope
dated March 27th, 2018, by Hohbach-Lewin, INC.
1. Sampling and testing of (5) concrete cores for compressive strength and unit weight
testing per ASTM C42 and ASTM C39. The unit weight of samples were calculated by
dividing the saturated-surface-dry weight by the measured volume.
2. Scanning of concrete walls and one column at (2) locations using ground penetrating
radar to determine reinforcing steel layout and orientation.
3. Testing of (4) brick walls to determine the average in-planar mortar strength per IFBC
2012 Section A106.
3. TEST RESULTS
See attached reports for results of testing.
Report #:180430S
Day:IR#:
Reported to .
Material being cored includes:
Cored a total of locations.
Core locations include:
Technicians reviewed core locations with prior to leaving the jobsite.
Samples were returned to the lab for the following tests:
Additional Comments:
Date:
233 University Avenue
5
50-53563-S
Hohback-Lewin, INC
Coring Inspection Report
Please note that additional sample was taken from locations C-2 and C-3 due
to poor consolidation. The original samples were compromised in the
extraction process.
withRichard Cody
Four concrete walls and one column.
Compression Test.
See attached pages titled "Test Locations".
See attached for compression test report, map of core locations, and pictures of cores for additional
information.
Project Name:
Date:
Location:
233 University
CEL Project #:
Thurs and Mon4/26 and 4/30
Signature:
Print Name:
Alex Cuevas
Alex Cuevas, Jose Jacobo
4/26/2018
Project Name:Mix #:Date Prepared:
CEL #:Design Strength:Time Prepared:
Report #:Nom. Agg Size:Date Tested:
Sampled By:Placement Date:Time Tested:
Tested By:Sample Date:Test Age:
Sample
#
Average
Length (in)
Average
Diameter
(in)
Break
Type
1 5.97 3.76 2
2 6.46 3.74 3
3 5.93 3.76 5
4 5.73 3.75 3
5 5.91 3.74 3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Maxim Break Types: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6
2ACI 318 requires the average strength of three cores to be at least 85% of the specified strength and no single
core strength less than 75% of the specified strength.
3Date and time prepared indicates when samples were last in contact with moisture after being wet sawed and
sealed in plastic.
1Testing in accordance with ASTM C42, ASTM C39 and ACI 318.
233 University
50-53563-S
180430S
Jose Jacobo and Alex Cuevas
J. B.
C-4 (Wall)Horizontal 139.0 5.98 0.97 1,410
C-5 (Column)Horizontal 146.5 6.25 0.97 3,650
C-2 (Wall)Horizontal 142.9 6.87 0.99 1,680
C-3 (Wall)Horizontal 137.6 6.20 0.97 1,800
Compression Test Report
C-1 (Wall)Horizontal 140.9 6.20 0.97 3,530
Table #1 - Compression Test Data (ASTM C42)
Core ID Core
Orientation
Calculated
Density
(lb/ft3)
Average
Length
After Cap
(in)
Correction
Factor
Corrected
Compressive
Strength
(psi)
5/2/2018
11:00 AM
5/7/2018
12:00 PM
28+ days
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4/30/2018
Rebar size for S1 location
Location S1: Scan area at roof for rebar spacing and size. Rebar at
12" O.C. E.W. Bar size is #4 round with deformation.
Report #:180430S
Day:IR#:
Reported to .
Tested a total of locations.
Technicians reviewed test locations with
Testing was performed in accordance to:
Bricks were
Additional Comments:
Date:Signature:
Print Name:
Jose Jacobo
J. Jacobo, A. Cuevas, J. Bayless
5/2/2018
4
50-53563-S
Cody Brock Commercial Builders
left in place
Four (4) Test locations on the existing brick walls was performed to
determine the average in-plane mortar strength of
the wall.
withEd Paul
See attached for test result, map of test locations, and/or pictures of test locations for additional
IEBC 2012 Section A106
Ed Paul prior to leaving the jobsite.
for client after testing.
In Situ Masonry Mortar Shear Strength Report
Project Name:
Date:
Location:
233 University
CEL Project #:
Monday4/30/2018
233 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project Name:Test Date:
CEL #:Tested By:
Report #:
Test #
Wall Height
Above Test
(ft)
Estimated
Wall
Thickness
(in)
Collar Joint
Cover (%)
Load at
First
Flaking
(lbs)
Motar
Strength
(psi)
Net Motar
Strength (psi)
1 12.00 N/A 50 8885 135 123
2 11.00 N/A 70 6808 103 92
3 9.00 4.00 0 1912 29 20
4 1.00 12.00 30 963 15 14
Table Test 1Testing in accordance with IEBC 2012 Section A106
Table #1 - In-Place Masonry Testing Result
Bedded Area
(sq in)Location Interior /
Exterior
Level 2- 12' from North Wall (Ramona St) Interior
Roof Level- 5' from South Wall Exterior
233 University
50-53563-S
180430S
4/30/2018
J. Jacobo, A. Cuevas, J. Bayless
In Situ Masonry Mortar Shear
Strength Report
66.0
66.0
Level 1- 4' from East wall (University Ave) Interior 66.0
Level 1- 60' from East wall (University
Ave)Interior 66.0
E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A
260 Sheridan Ave, Ste 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930
“T i m e l y S o l u t i o n s B a s e d O n T i m e l e s s P r i n c i p l e s”
HOHBACH-LEWIN,INC.STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGINEERS
PRINCIPALS:
DOUGLAS HOHBACH
DAN LEWIN
JOAQUIM ROBERTS
ANTHONY LEE
VIKKI BOURCIER
SAM SHIOTANI
LES TSO
ASSOCIATE PRINCIPALS:
KEVIN MORTON
SENIOR ASSOCIATES:
VICKY RUNDORFF
GREG RODRIGUES
BILL DALEY
STUART LOWE
EDDIE HUI
MICHAEL RESCH
ASSOCIATES:
MIKE DAVIES
STACY GADDINI
BRIAN HO
TJ WU
SENIOR STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERS:
MOHAMED IBRAHIM
CE DEPT MANAGER:
BILL HENN
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
S.E.
.
S.E.
March 27, 2018
The Hayes Group
Terrence Murphy
2657 Spring Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Project: 233 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. Project No. 12929E
Subject: Recommended Testing Scope
Dear Terrence:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize our recommendations for third party testing of the
existing construction. These recommendations are based on the site visit performed on March
26, 2018 in addition to the review of the preliminary architectural drawings prepared by the Hayes
Group dated July 15, 2017. The information we would like verified includes the following:
Concrete compressive strength of the existing perimeter basement walls. This can likely
be achieved using a Schmidt hammer in lieu of coring.
Thickness of the existing perimeter basement walls
Vertical and horizontal reinforcement size and spacing at the perimeter basement walls.
We recommend this be obtained via radiographic (x-ray) or similar methodology.
Footing width and thickness at the perimeter basement walls. We recommend one
location at each of the 4 perimeter basement walls.
Push test on the existing brick walls to determine the average in-plane mortar strength of
the wall. This would require removing one brick at each testing locations in order to
install the jack. We recommend testing in a minimum of three locations. One location at
the front elevation and one location at each of the side walls.
Please contact me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Hohbach-Lewin, Inc.
Michael Resch, S.E.
Senior Associate
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SAFETY ELEMENT
150
POWER
Policy S-1.13 Support the development of an independent, redundant power grid with local generation in Palo Alto, in order
to ensure energy resiliency in the event of natural disasters or other threats.
Program S1.13.1 Identify solutions to add an additional power line to Palo Alto to ensure redundancy.
Program S1.13.2 Explore incentives to adopt emerging, residential off-grid capabilities and technologies,
including back-up power sources vital in the event of natural disasters or other threats.
Program S1.13.3 Continue citywide efforts to underground utility wires to limit injury, loss of life and damage
to property in the event of human-made or natural disasters.
Program S1.13.4 Enhance the safety of City-owned natural gas pipeline operations. Work with customers,
public safety officials and industry leaders to ensure the safe delivery of natural gas
throughout the service area. Provide safety information to all residents on City-owned natural
gas distribution pipelines.
Program S1.13.5 Provide off-grid and/or backup power sources for critical City facilities to ensure
uninterrupted power during emergencies and disasters.
NATURAL HAZARDS
GOAL S-2 Protection of life, ecosystems and property from natural hazards and disasters, including
earthquake, landslide, flooding, and fire.
GENERAL SAFETY MEASURES
Policy S-2.1 Incorporate the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation and
Adaptation Plan (LHMP), as periodically adopted by
the City Council and certified by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), into the
Safety Element. In the event of any conflict between
the provisions of the LHMP and any other provision
of the Safety Element, the LHMP shall control.
Policy S-2.2 Focus efforts to reduce exposure to natural hazards in areas of the city identified as vulnerable to the greatest
risks, as shown on the maps in this Element.
Policy S-2.3 Implement public safety improvements, such as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is
sensitive to the environment.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SAFETY ELEMENT
151
EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Policy S-2.4 Expand citizen awareness of seismic and geologic
hazards through public education and
preparedness.
Policy S-2.5 Minimize exposure of people and structures to
geologic hazards, including slope stability,
subsidence and expansive soils, and to seismic
hazards including groundshaking, fault rupture,
liquefaction and landslides.
Program S2.5.1 Periodically review and update
the City’s Seismic Hazard
Ordinance.
Program S2.5.2 Continue to provide incentives for
seismic retrofits of structures
throughout the city, particularly
those building types that would affect the most people in the event of an earthquake.
Policy S-2.6 Promote seismic rehabilitation and renovation of existing buildings, particularly those whose loss would have
the greatest community impacts, using incentives as a way to ensure safe and structurally sound buildings.
Program S2.6.1 Encourage efforts by individual neighborhood or block-level groups to pool resources for
seismic retrofits.
Program S2.6.2 Continue to use a seismic bonus and a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance for
seismic retrofits for eligible structures in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone.
Program S2.6.3 Evaluate the TDR Ordinance so that transferred development rights may be used for
residential development on the receiver sites.
Program S2.6.4 Study the possibility of revising the TDR program to encourage seismic retrofits.
Program S2.6.5 Explore the use of Community Development Block Grants, Palo Alto Housing Funds and
other sources of funding to support owners of lower income and senior housing to retrofit
seismically-unsafe construction.
Policy S-2.7 Encourage property owners, business owners and the PAUSD to evaluate their vulnerability to earthquake
hazards and take appropriate action to minimize their risk.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SAFETY ELEMENT
152
Program S2.7.1 As part of the construction permitting process for proposed new and redeveloped buildings
in areas of identified hazard shown on Map S-2, require submittal to the City of a geotech-
nical/seismic report that identifies specific risks and appropriate mitigation measures.
Program S2.7.2 Review and update, as appropriate, City code requirements for excavation, grading, filling and
construction to ensure that they conform to currently accepted and adopted State standards.
Program S2.7.3 Utilize the results of Palo Alto’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program and inventory of
potentially seismically vulnerable building types to establish priorities and consider incentives
to encourage structural retrofits.
FLOOD HAZARD AND MITIGATION
Policy S-2.8 Minimize exposure to flood hazards by protecting existing development from flood events and adequately
reviewing proposed development in flood prone areas.
Program S2.8.1 Implement flood mitigation requirements of FEMA in Special Flood Hazard Areas as
illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Program S2.8.2 Continue participating in FEMA’s Community Rating System to reduce flood insurance for
local residents and businesses and strive to improve Palo Alto’s rating in order to lower the
cost of flood insurance.
Program S2.8.3 Collaborate with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the Santa Clara Valley
Water District on environmentally-sensitive efforts to stabilize, restore, maintain and provide
one percent (100-year) flood protection adjacent to San Francisquito Creek.
Program S2.8.4 Work with East Palo Alto, Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Francisquito Creek Joint
Powers Authority on efforts to increase the flows within the San Francisquito Creek possible
solutions include replacing the City-owned Newell Road Bridge and District-owned Pope
Chaucer Street Bridge.
Policy S-2.9 Partner with appropriate agencies to expand flood zones as appropriate due to sea level rise, changes in creek
channels, street flooding or storm drain overload due to increased likelihood of extreme storm events caused by
climate change.
Policy S-2.10 Prohibit new habitable basements in the development of single-family residential properties within 100-year
flood zones of the FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area.
Program S2.10.1 Keep basement restrictions up to date with changing flood hazard zones.