Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 9228
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9228) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Title: Palo Alto Fire Department’s Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation This is an informational report and staff recommends the City Council review the Palo Alto Fire Department’s (PAFD) Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover. Background and Discussion The Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover (SOC) is an important document in measuring and mitigating the community’s risk with respect to fire/rescue and ambulance services. Creating and maintaining a SOC is required under the accreditation model the PAFD is following. The SOC includes these components: 1) Review and documentation of the PAFD’s current deployment 2) Documentation and quantification of risks within the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University 3) Measurement of system performance using historical data (baselines) 4) Adoption of performance measures (benchmarks) 5) Development and validation of a methodology for meeting the performance measures 6) Completes an overall evaluation of the delivery system including recommendations for changes to deployment or policies within the PAFD 7) Implementation, measurement and evaluation of the SOC in accordance with the recommendations The SOC supports making objective risk analysis and deployment decisions. The purpose of maintaining such a document is to assist the agency in ensuring a safe and effective response force for fire suppression, emergency medical services, and specialty response situations. Finally, the SOC serves as a tool to document continuous improvement of the Fire Department’s performance. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The report follows a detailed and standardized accreditation model created by the Center for Fire Public Safety Excellence. In order to complete agency accreditation, the PAFD is expected to provide the SOC to the City Manager and City Council. The PAFD also will share the SOC with the community on the City’s web site. The SOC when combined with the City’s Annual Budget and Performance Report serve to inform the Council, City Manager and community of the PAFD’s capabilities, performance, areas for improvement and plans to correct any deficiencies. Attachments: Palo Alto Fire Department Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover May 2018 Effective Date: January 6, 2018 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California i Effective January 6, 2018 Introduction The following report serves as the Palo Alto Fire Department Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover. It follows the Center for Fire Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) Standards of Coverage model that develops written procedures to determine the distribution and concentration of a fire and emergency service agency’s fixed and mobile resources. The purpose for completing such a document is to assist the agency in ensuring a safe and effective response force for fire suppression, emergency medical services, and specialty response situations. Creating a Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan document requires that a number of areas are researched, studied, and evaluated. This report will begin with an overview of both the community and the agency. Following this overview, the plan will discuss areas such as risk assessment, critical task analysis, agency service level objectives, and distribution and concentration measures. The report will provide analysis of historical performance and will conclude with policy and operational recommendations. ESCI completed the first edition in November 2015, which at the time was compliant with the CPSE Standards of Coverage 5th Edition. In June 2017 to January 2018, the City of Palo Alto Fire Department and FireStats, LLC, revised and updated the Standards of Coverage and Community Risk Analysis to be compliant with the CPSE 6th Edition. The Community Risk Assessment; Standards of Cover is effective January 6, 2018. Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California ii Effective January 6, 2018 Palo Alto Fire Department Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto City Council Mayor Liz Kniss Vice Mayor Eric Filseth Council Member Tom DuBois Council Member Adrian Fine Council Member Karen Holman Council Member Lydia Kou Council Member Gregory Scharff Council Member Greg Tanaka Council Member Cory Wolbach Palo Alto City Manager’s Office City Manager James Keene Assistant City Manager Ed Shikada Deputy City Manager Rob de Geus Deputy City Manager Michelle Poché Flaherty Palo Alto Fire Department Risk Assessment/SOC Team Fire Chief Eric Nickel Deputy Chief, Support Services Geo Blackshire Deputy Chief, Operations Catherine Capriles Deputy Chief, Fire Marshal James Henrikson Accreditation Manager Battalion Chief, Kevin McNally Strategic Operations Manager Amber Cameron Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California iii Effective January 6, 2018 PAFD Category Authors Eric Nickel, Fire Chief Geo Blackshire, Deputy Chief, Support Services Catherine Capriles, Deputy Chief, Operations James Henrikson, Deputy Chief, Fire Marshal Amber Cameron, Strategic Operations Manager Kevin McNally, Battalion Chief, Accreditation Manager Ryan Stoddard, Battalion Chief Chris Woodard, Battalion Chief Bobby Davis, Battalion Chief Shane Yarbrough, Battalion Chief – Training Kimberly Roderick, Emergency Medical Services Chief Marc Muzzi, Fire Captain Kenneth Dueker, Office of Emergency Services Director Brian Baggott, Fire Captain Debra Burger and Mark Chase, Communications Managers Document Validation and Update Log Description Author Version Date Initial Draft Emergency Services Consulting International 2015-01 November 2015 Risk Analysis FireStats, LLC 2017-01 August 2017 2018 update to comply with 6th Edition RA/SOC Eric Nickel 2018-01 January 2018 Addition of 2017 ERF data and Community Risk Assessment Executive Summary FireStats, LLC, Kevin McNally 2018-02 February 2018 Updates based upon Accreditation Site Team analysis FireStats, LLC, Kevin McNally, Eric Nickel 2018-03 May 2018 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California iv Effective January 6, 2018 Risk Analysis: Standards of Cover Document Update Cycle The Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover for the Palo Alto Fire Department is intended to be a living document. This document is to be updated and validated on an annual basis as one component of the planning effort that includes the Palo Alto Fire Department Strategic Plan, Self-Assessment Manual, Annual Accreditation Compliance Reporting, the City of Palo Alto Annual Budget and the City of Palo Alto Annual Performance Report. Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... i Palo Alto Fire Department Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover ......................................................... ii Document Validation and Update Log ............................................................................................... iii Risk Analysis: Standards of Cover Document Update Cycle ................................................................. iv Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. iv Table of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1 Improvement Goals: ..........................................................................................................................3 Improvement Goal A: Adopt Response Performance Goals ..................................................................... 3 Dispatch Sequence Performance Goal .................................................................................................. 3 Turnout Time Performance Goal ........................................................................................................... 4 Response Time for the First-due Unit .................................................................................................... 4 Effective Response Force Performance Goal ......................................................................................... 5 Recommended Response Performance Goals....................................................................................... 6 Improvement Goal B: Improve Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................... 6 Improvement Goal C: Reduce Call Processing Time ................................................................................. 6 Improvement Goal D: Reduce Turnout Time ............................................................................................ 7 Improvement Goal E: Reduce Travel Time ............................................................................................... 8 Improvement Goal F: Add Peak Units to Better Serve Incident Demand ................................................. 9 Improvement Goal G: Reduce the Number of False Fire Alarm System Activations ................................ 9 Documentation of Area Characteristics – Criterion 2A ....................................................................... 11 Organization Overview............................................................................................................................ 11 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California v Effective January 6, 2018 Governance and Lines of Authority ..................................................................................................... 11 Organizational Finance ....................................................................................................................... 11 Performance Indicator 2A.1: Service Area Overview .............................................................................. 13 Insurance Services Office Public Protection Classification .................................................................. 13 Community Expectations for Type and Level of Service ...................................................................... 14 External Stakeholder Input.................................................................................................................. 14 Internal Stakeholder Input .................................................................................................................. 16 Community Outcome Goals ................................................................................................................ 16 Quarterly Performance Reporting and Customer Service Survey ....................................................... 17 Performance Indicator 2A.2: Boundries for other service responsibility areas ...................................... 17 Core Competency 2A.4: Assessment of the community planning zones considering the population density within planning zones and population areas for the purposes of developing total response time standards ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Performance Indicator 2A.6: planning zone methodology to identify response area characteristics ... 21 Naturally Occurring Characteristics .................................................................................................... 22 Human and Human-Related Characteristics ....................................................................................... 28 Human-Made Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 33 Performance Indicator 2A.7: Socio-Economic and demographic characteristics for the response area are identified. .......................................................................................................................................... 46 Perfomance Indicator 2A.8: Safety and remidation programs including fire prevention, public education and community risk reduction ............................................................................................... 47 Performance Indicator 2A.9: Critical infrastructure within the planning zones ..................................... 48 Description on Agency Programs and Services .................................................................................. 59 Programs and Services Provided ............................................................................................................. 59 Assets and Resources .............................................................................................................................. 61 Fire Stations ........................................................................................................................................ 61 Station Location and Deployment ....................................................................................................... 61 Apparatus............................................................................................................................................ 63 Staffing Information ................................................................................................................................ 64 Organizational Structure ..................................................................................................................... 64 Administration and Support Staff ....................................................................................................... 65 Emergency Services Staff .................................................................................................................... 66 Core Comptency 2A.3: Documented and Adopted Methodology for organizing the response area into geographical planning zones ................................................................................................................... 67 Performance indicator 2A.5: Property, life, injury, environmental and other associated losses ........... 69 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California vi Effective January 6, 2018 Population Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 72 Area land use .......................................................................................................................................... 72 Topography, Geology, Geography, climate, and Physiography .............................................................. 74 Building Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 74 Distance from Fire Station ...................................................................................................................... 75 Organizational Impact Factors ................................................................................................................ 76 Risk Calculations ...................................................................................................................................... 78 General Risk Scoring Methods ................................................................................................................ 78 Stanford University ................................................................................................................................. 78 Structure Fire Risk ................................................................................................................................... 78 Emergency Medical Risk ......................................................................................................................... 89 Technical Rescue Risk .............................................................................................................................. 94 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................... 98 Wildland Fires ....................................................................................................................................... 103 Conclusions and Limitations ................................................................................................................. 113 Emerging Hot Spot Analysis .................................................................................................................. 117 Incidents by Census Block Groups ........................................................................................................ 119 Incident Workload Projection ............................................................................................................... 125 Current Deployment and Performance ........................................................................................... 126 Methodology for Incident Staffing ........................................................................................................ 126 Current Service Delivery Objectives ...................................................................................................... 128 Historic System Response Workload .................................................................................................... 130 Temporal Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 131 Spatial Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 137 Census Block Group and Unit Workload Analysis ................................................................................. 140 Census Block Group Planning Zone Analysis ..................................................................................... 140 Census Block Group: 504601 ............................................................................................................. 141 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California vii Effective January 6, 2018 Census Block Group: 510600 ............................................................................................................. 143 Census Block Group: 510700 ............................................................................................................. 145 Census Block Group: 510801 ............................................................................................................. 147 Census Block Group: 510802 ............................................................................................................. 149 Census Block Group: 510803 ............................................................................................................. 151 Census Block Group: 510900 ............................................................................................................. 153 Census Block Group: 511000 ............................................................................................................. 155 Census Block Group: 511100 ............................................................................................................. 157 Census Block Group: 511200 ............................................................................................................. 159 Census Block Group: 511301 ............................................................................................................. 161 Census Block Group: 511302 ............................................................................................................. 163 Census Block Group: 511400 ............................................................................................................. 165 Census Block Group: 511500 ............................................................................................................. 167 Census Block Group: 511608 ............................................................................................................. 169 Census Block Group: 511609 ............................................................................................................. 171 Census Block Group: 511701 ............................................................................................................. 173 Census Block Group: 511704 ............................................................................................................. 175 Census Block Group: 511705 ............................................................................................................. 177 Census Block Group: 511707 ............................................................................................................. 179 Census Block Group: 513000 ............................................................................................................. 181 Response Unit Workload ................................................................................................................... 182 Mutual and Automatic Aid ................................................................................................................ 184 Second Unit Arrival Time ................................................................................................................... 186 Call Concurrency and Reliability ........................................................................................................ 186 Concurrency ...................................................................................................................................... 186 Reliability .......................................................................................................................................... 187 Unit Hour Utilization ......................................................................................................................... 188 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 189 Appendix A – Community Risk Assessment Executive Summary ......................................................... 189 Appendix B – Critical Tasking Charts and Alarm Assignments .............................................................. 194 Critical Tasking .................................................................................................................................. 196 Alarm Assignments ........................................................................................................................... 202 Appendix C – Baseline and Benchmark Performance Charts ............................................................... 207 Dynamics of Fire in Buildings ............................................................................................................ 207 Emergency Medical Event Sequence ................................................................................................. 209 People, Tools, and Time .................................................................................................................... 210 Benchmark Performance Charts - EMS ............................................................................................. 212 Benchmark Performance Charts – Structure response ..................................................................... 214 Benchmark performance charts – Full First Alarm ........................................................................... 216 Benchmark performance charts – Motor Vehicle Accidents ............................................................. 218 Benchmark performance charts – Rescue Assignments ................................................................... 220 Benchmark performance charts – Wildland Fires ............................................................................. 222 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California viii Effective January 6, 2018 Benchmark performance charts – Single Engine or Truck ................................................................ 223 Benchmark performance charts – Hazardous Materials .................................................................. 225 Appendix C – Additional Maps not Included in Other Sections ............................................................ 227 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California ix Effective January 6, 2018 Table of Figures Figure 1: Generated Revenue – FY 2018 ..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: Budget/Expenditures by Year, FY 2016 – FY 2018 ....................................................................... 12 Figure 3: Community Service Priorities ....................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Community Outcome Goals ......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5: Service Area Boundaries for the Palo Alto Fire Department including Mutual Aid agencies ...... 19 Figure 6: Population Density (2010 Census) ............................................................................................... 21 Figure 7: Natural Hazards Probability Rating Criteria ................................................................................. 23 Figure 8: Natural Hazard Rating Results ..................................................................................................... 23 Figure 9: FEMA 100-Year Flood Zones ........................................................................................................ 26 Figure 10: Wildland Fire Risk ....................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 11: Population Demographics City of Palo Alto, US Census 2010, 2016 estimate .......................... 28 Figure 12: Population History ..................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 13: Population Demographics Stanford Census Designated Place (CDP), US Census Estimate July 1, 2016 ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 14: Stanford University Enrollment, October 2016 ......................................................................... 30 Figure 15: Estimated Population by Age ..................................................................................................... 31 Figure 16: Socio-economic data, City of Palo Alto US Census 2010. 2016 estimate .................................. 32 Figure 17: Fire and Life Safety Risk Based on Zoning .................................................................................. 33 Figure 18: Area Land Use Variables Incorporated in Hexagon Grids .......................................................... 35 Figure 19 Parcels with Fire Suppression Systems ....................................................................................... 37 Figure 20: Hetch Hetchy Regional Water Distribution System ................................................................... 38 Figure 21: Fire Hydrant Distribution ........................................................................................................... 39 Figure 22: Hydrants within 500ft Buffer Zone ............................................................................................ 40 Figure 23: PG & E Natural Gas Transmission Lines ..................................................................................... 41 Figure 24: Electrical Transmission Lines...................................................................................................... 42 Figure 25: Facilities with Hazardous Materials and Number of Facilities by Census Block Group ............. 43 Figure 26: Map of transportation systems included within the risk assessment analysis.......................... 45 Figure 27: Palo Alto Airport ........................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 28: Critical Infrastructure: Priority and Counts of Facilities by Census Block Group ....................... 49 Figure 29 School Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 30: Health Care Facilities .................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 31: Child Care Facilities .................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 32: Adult Care Facilities ................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 33: High Rise Buildings ..................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 34: Buildings Three or More Stories in Height ................................................................................. 55 Figure 35: Buildings – 100,000 Square Feet and Larger .............................................................................. 56 Figure 36: Buildings With Needed Fire Flow 3,000 GPM or More .............................................................. 57 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California x Effective January 6, 2018 Figure 37: Public Assembly Facilities........................................................................................................... 58 Figure 38: Core Services Summary ............................................................................................................. 59 Figure 39: Current Facility Deployment ...................................................................................................... 62 Figure 40: PAFD Fire Stations and Apparatus ............................................................................................. 63 Figure 41: Organizational Structure ............................................................................................................ 65 Figure 42: Management, Administration, and Support Personnel by Position .......................................... 66 Figure 43: Emergency Response Personnel by Rank .................................................................................. 66 Figure 44: Example of Hexagon Grid ........................................................................................................... 67 Figure 45: Census Block Groups for the Palo Alto Fire Department Service Area ...................................... 68 Figure 46: Fire Loss Per Capita .................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 47: Reported Structure Fires by Extent of Fire Spread .................................................................... 70 Figure 48: Average Property Value by Land Use Type ................................................................................ 71 Figure 49: Parcel Building Height (Number of Stories) ............................................................................... 75 Figure 50: Distance from Palo Alto Fire Station (Mutual Aid/Auto Aid not measured) ............................. 76 Figure 51: Portion of an Hour Spent on Event by Type .............................................................................. 77 Figure 52: Distribution of Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology ................................................................ 81 Figure 53: Distribution of Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence .................................................... 81 Figure 54: Probability x Consequence: Structure Fire ................................................................................ 82 Figure 55: Risk Scores: Structure Fire ......................................................................................................... 83 Figure 56: Distribution of Non-Structure Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology ........................................ 86 Figure 57: Distribution of Non-Structure Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence ............................ 86 Figure 58: Probability x Consequence: Non-Structure Fires ....................................................................... 87 Figure 59: Risk Scores: Non-Structure Fires ................................................................................................ 88 Figure 60: Distribution of EMS Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology ............................................................... 91 Figure 61: Distribution of EMS Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence ................................................... 91 Figure 62: Probability x Consequence: EMS ............................................................................................... 92 Figure 63: Risk Scores: EMS ........................................................................................................................ 93 Figure 64: Distribution of Technical Rescue Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology .......................................... 95 Figure 65: Probability x Consequence: Technical Rescue ........................................................................... 96 Figure 66: Risk Scores: Technical Rescue .................................................................................................... 97 Figure 67: Distribution of Hazmat Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology ....................................................... 100 Figure 68: Distribution of Hazmat Scores: Probability & Consequence ................................................... 100 Figure 69: Probability x Consequence: Hazardous Materials ................................................................... 101 Figure 70: Risk Scores: Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 102 Figure 71: Distribution of Wildland Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology .............................................. 105 Figure 72: Distribution of Wildland Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence ................................... 105 Figure 73: Probability x Consequence: Wildland Fire ............................................................................... 106 Figure 74: Risk Scores: Wildland Fire ........................................................................................................ 107 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California xi Effective January 6, 2018 Figure 75: Distribution of Domestic Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology ..................................................... 110 Figure 76: Distribution of Domestic Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence ......................................... 110 Figure 77: Probability x Consequence: Domestic Preparedness .............................................................. 111 Figure 78: Risk Scores: Domestic Preparedness ....................................................................................... 112 Figure 79: Number of Years with Repeated Response to Address ........................................................... 114 Figure 80: Graduated Symbol Map: Repeat Responses to Same Address................................................ 115 Figure 81: Incidents by NFIRS Type in Risk Study Area ............................................................................. 116 Figure 82: Emerging Hot Spot Analysis for the PAFD ................................................................................ 118 Figure 83: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2012 ...................................................................... 120 Figure 84: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2013 ...................................................................... 121 Figure 85: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2014 ...................................................................... 122 Figure 86: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2015 ...................................................................... 123 Figure 87: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2016 ...................................................................... 124 Figure 88: Response Forecast 2015 – 2040 .............................................................................................. 125 Figure 89: Staffing Complement ............................................................................................................... 127 Figure 90: Resources Available from Adjacent Agencies .......................................................................... 128 Figure 91: Performance Objectives, Benchmarks and Baselines .............................................................. 129 Figure 92: Response Workload History, 2012 – 2016 ............................................................................... 130 Figure 93: Responses by Type of Incident by Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 130 Figure 94: Monthly Response Workload .................................................................................................. 131 Figure 95: Percentage Monthly Response Workload ............................................................................... 131 Figure 96: Monthly Response Workload Bar Graph (2017) ...................................................................... 132 Figure 97: Daily Response Workload ........................................................................................................ 132 Figure 98: Percentage Daily Response Workload ..................................................................................... 132 Figure 99: Daily Response Workload Bar Graph (2017)............................................................................ 133 Figure 100: Hourly Response Workload ................................................................................................... 134 Figure 101: Percentage Hourly Response Workload ................................................................................ 135 Figure 102: Hourly Response Workload ................................................................................................... 136 Figure 103: Service Demand Density (2016) ............................................................................................. 137 Figure 104 Building Fires (2016) ............................................................................................................... 138 Figure 105: Emergency Medical Incidents per Square Mile (2016) .......................................................... 139 Figure 106: Response Unit Workload ....................................................................................................... 183 Figure 107: Average Time Committed to an Incident by Unit .................................................................. 183 Figure 108: Unit Hour Utilization .............................................................................................................. 184 Figure 109: Mutual and Automatic Aid ..................................................................................................... 185 Figure 110: Call Concurrency by Station ................................................................................................... 186 Figure 111: Incident Concurrency ............................................................................................................. 187 Figure 112: Drawdown Summary (Engines) .............................................................................................. 187 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California xii Effective January 6, 2018 Figure 113: Drawdown Summary (Ambulances) ...................................................................................... 187 Figure 114: 2016 UHU (8am - 8pm) for M61, M62, M64(E64) ................................................................. 188 Figure 115: 2016 UHU (8pm - 8am) for M61, M62, M64(E64) ................................................................. 188 Figure 116: Staffing Recommendations Based on Risk ............................................................................. 196 Figure 117: Fire Growth vs. Reflex Time ................................................................................................... 208 Figure 118: Fire Extension in Residential Structures – United States ....................................................... 209 Figure 119: Cardiac Arrest Event Sequence .............................................................................................. 210 Figure 120: Engine Distribution: 8-Minute Coverage ............................................................................... 227 Figure 121: Medic Distribution: 12-Minute Coverage .............................................................................. 228 Figure 122: All Incidents 2012 ................................................................................................................... 229 Figure 123: All Incidents 2013 ................................................................................................................... 230 Figure 124: All Incidents 2014 ................................................................................................................... 231 Figure 125: All Incidents 2015 ................................................................................................................... 232 Figure 126: All Incidents 2016 ................................................................................................................... 233 Figure 127: EMS Incidents ......................................................................................................................... 234 Figure 128: Fire Incidents .......................................................................................................................... 235 Figure 129: False Alarm Incidents ............................................................................................................. 236 Figure 130: Good Intent Incidents ............................................................................................................ 237 Figure 131: Haz Mat Incidents .................................................................................................................. 238 Figure 132: All Incidents Day (0800-2000) hours ...................................................................................... 239 Figure 133: All Incidents Night (2000-0800 hours) ................................................................................... 240 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 1 Executive Summary This document describes Palo Alto Fire Department’s Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan. Community risks, response resources, deployment strategies, and service levels have been evaluated in this study. It establishes response time objectives and standards for measuring the effectiveness of fire department services and the deployment of its resources. The document is organized into components based on the format recommended by the Center for Public Safety Excellence, Standards of Cover 6th Edition. The Description of Community Served section provided a general overview of the organization, including governance, lines of authority, finance, and capital and human resources, as well as an overview of the service area including population and geography served. The Review of Services Provided section detailed the core services the organization provides based on general resource/asset capability and basic staffing complements. During the Review of Community Expectations and Performance Goals, it was determined that the community had high expectations of the fire department and felt generally positive about its services. An overview of community risk was provided to identify the risks and challenges faced by the fire department. Geospatial characteristics, topographic and weather risks, transportation network risks, physical assets, and critical infrastructure were reviewed. As a factor of risk, community populations and demographics were evaluated against historic and projected service demand. Population and service demand has increased over the past decade and will continue to increase in the future. Evaluating risk using advanced geographic information systems (GIS) provided an increased understanding of community risk factors and led to an improved deployment policy. During the analysis of service level objectives, critical tasking assignments were completed for incident types ranging from a basic medical emergency to a high rise structure fire. Critical tasking required a review of on-scene staffing requirements to mitigate the effects of an emergency. These tasks ultimately determine the resource allocation necessary to achieve a successful operation. The results of the analysis indicate that a moderate risk structure fire required a minimum of 16 personnel. The review of historical system performance evaluated each component of the emergency incident sequence. These included call processing, turnout, and travel time. Beyond the response time of the initial arriving units, the additional components of concentration and effective response force, reliability, and call concurrency were evaluated. Based on the analysis and considering community expectations, improvement goals were developed to improve the delivery of fire and emergency services to the community by PAFD. Not all will be implemented at once. Some may wait until economic conditions allow their implementation. However, all of the goals were offered to chart a course to improved capability and service. The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) is a department of the City of Palo Alto, a city established and organized under California law. It provides fire protection, emergency medical, and rescue services to its Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 2 community. The department’s service area encompasses all of the City of Palo Alto. Since 1976, Stanford University has contracted with the City of Palo Alto for fire, rescue, EMS, and ambulance transportation services. The City of Palo Alto has a resident population of approximately 67,000 people. Approximately 13,800 students, faculty, and their families live on the Stanford University campus bringing PAFD’s total resident service population to 80,800. It is estimated that employment increases Palo Alto and Stanford’s daytime population by approximately 68,000. PAFD serves an area of approximately 38.7 square miles including 12.8 square miles occupied by Stanford University. The city operates seven fire stations and 26 response apparatus. 9-1-1 calls are answered and dispatched by the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD). The Insurance Services Office (ISO) reviews the fire protection resources within communities and provides a Community Fire Protection Rating system from which insurance rates are often based. The rating system evaluates three primary areas: the emergency communication and dispatch system, the fire department, and the community’s pressurized hydrant or tanker-based water supply. The overall rating is then expressed as a number between 1 and 10, with 1 being the highest level of protection and 10 being unprotected or nearly so. As of the latest survey (October 2015) ISO gave PAFD a rating of Class 2/9. PAFD’s service area, based on population density, is of two classifications: urban and rural. The community’s risk classifications should influence how response resources are distributed now and in the future. Since suburban areas are anticipated to develop to greater population densities, response performance objectives have been established that are uniform across the entire developable service area. A Performance Statement as well as Objectives for the services provided by PAFD has been developed. These further define the quality and quantity of service expected by the community and consistently pursued by the department. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 3 Improvement Goals: During the course of this study a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified. The following goals are intended to accomplish three primary objectives: Define clearly the expected level of performance provided by Palo Alto Fire Department. Improve service delivery with no, or minimal, expenditure of funds. Identify service level improvement opportunities that can be implemented as funding becomes available. The recommendations are described as improvement goals and should be implemented as funding allows. Each will improve PAFD’s ability to provide effective service to the community. IMPROVEMENT GOAL A: ADOPT RESPONSE PERFORMANCE GOALS A community’s desired level of service is a uniquely individual decision. No two communities are exactly alike. Performance goals must be tailored to match community expectations, community conditions, and the ability to pay for the resources necessary to attain the desired level of service. Levels of service and resource allocation decisions are the responsibility of the community’s elected officials, in this case the Palo Alto City Council. The policy making body must carefully balance the needs and expectations of its citizenry when deciding how much money to allocate to all of the services it provides. Palo Alto has two uniquely different service areas or zones; the urbanized area including Stanford University north of the 280 Freeway and the rural area to the south. All of PAFD’s resources are concentrated in the urban area except during summer months when Fire Station 8 is staffed. Response performance is substantially better in the urban area than the rural area. Palo Alto should adopt separate response performance goals for the urban zone and the rural zone. Attempting to provide the same level of service to the rural zone would be very expensive. With this in mind the following are recommended as PAFD’s fire and life safety response performance goals for the city’s urban and rural zones. These are not levels of service that must be achieved immediately but, instead, are targets for achievement when resources are available to do so. Dispatch Sequence Performance Goal There are two parts to this phase of total response time. PAPD is the primary public safety answering point (PSAP) for all 9-1-1 calls. The first part is referred to as “answer time,” the time taken from the first ring until the call is answered. The second part occurs once the call is answered by the call taker. The call taker and dispatcher must determine the nature and location of the emergency, determine which unit or units to dispatch, and relay the information to responders. This phase is referred to as “dispatch time.” Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 4 The two parts of the dispatch sequence are the first phase of overall response time. Though much information must be gathered to properly identify the resources needed to respond to the emergency, keeping this time as short as possible has a direct impact on response time. National Fire Protection Association Standard 1221 recommends a call be answered at the PSAP within 15 seconds, 95 percent of the time. This standard also recommends a call be processed by the dispatch center and responders notified within 90 seconds, 90 percent of the time for EMS, hazardous materials, and technical rescue incidents. Recommended Dispatch Sequence Goals: A 9-1-1 call will be answered within 15 seconds from receipt of the call at the PSAP 95 percent of the time for both the urban and rural zones. Current performance during 2017 calls answered within 15 seconds 99.58 percent of the time. Response resources shall be notified of a priority emergency medical, hazardous materials or technical rescue incident within 90 seconds from receipt of the call at the dispatch center, 90 percent of the time for both the urban and rural zones. Current performance during 2017 – Within two minutes, 12 seconds, 90 percent of the time. Turnout Time Performance Goal Turnout time is one area over which the fire department has total control and is not affected by outside influences. Turnout time, or the time between when the call is received by the response units (dispatched) and when the unit is actually in route to the scene (responding), affects overall response times. Reducing this response time component reduces total response time. National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 recommends turnout time performance objectives of 80 seconds or less for fire and special operations response and 60 seconds or less for all other priority responses. PAFD is not meeting the turnout time recommended in the national standard for both categories of incidents. Recommended Turnout Goal: Response personnel shall initiate response to a priority incident within 90 seconds from notification, 90 percent of the time for both the urban and rural zones. Current performance during 2017 – Within two minutes, 08 seconds, 90 percent of the time Response Time for the First-due Unit The time required to deliver the first response unit capable of intervening in the emergency includes both turnout time and travel time but not call processing time. Travel time is normally the longest phase of this response interval. Recommended First-Due Response Time Goal – Urban Zone: Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 5 The first response unit capable of initiating effective incident intervention shall arrive at a priority incident within six minutes, 30 seconds (6:30) from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. Current performance during 2017 – Within eight minutes, 07 seconds, 90 percent of the time The first response unit capable of initiating effective incident intervention shall arrive at a priority emergency medical incident within six minutes, 30 seconds (6:30) from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. Current performance during 2017 – Within seven minutes, 34 seconds, 90 percent of the time. Recommended First-Due Response Time Goal – Rural Zone: The first response unit capable of initiating effective incident intervention shall arrive at a priority incident within 20 minutes, 0 seconds (20:00) from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. Current performance during 2017 – Within 27 minutes, 56 seconds, 90 percent of the time. Effective Response Force Performance Goal A fire department’s concentration is the spacing of multiple resources close enough together so that an initial “Effective Response Force” (ERF) for a given risk can be assembled on the scene of an emergency within the specific time frame identified in the community’s performance goals for that risk type. An initial effective response force is defined as that which will be most likely to stop the escalation of the emergency. The minimum ERF for moderate risk structure fires in Palo Alto is identified as the arrival of at least three fire engines, one ladder truck, one ambulance, and one battalion chief (16 firefighters total). This initial ERF does not necessarily represent the entire alarm assignment, as additional units may be assigned based on long-term incident needs and risks. Additional engines, ladders, or other specialty companies are assigned to higher risk responses in order to accomplish additional critical tasks that are necessary beyond the initial attack and containment. Recommended Effective Response Force Goal – Urban: The minimum effective response force shall arrive at a moderate risk structure fire within twelve minutes (12:00) from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. Current performance during 2017 – Within eighteen minutes, 22 seconds, 90 percent of the time. Recommended Effective Response Force Goal – Rural: The minimum effective response force shall arrive at a moderate risk structure fire as soon as practical given the location of the incident and the availability of response resources. Current performance – Insufficient data is available to evaluate due to the lack of structure fires in the data set provided for this study. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 6 The following figure summarizes this recommendation. Recommended Response Performance Goals Goal Urban Rural Call answer time 15 seconds, 95% of the time 15 seconds, 95% of the time Call processing time 90 seconds, 90% of the time 90 seconds, 90% of the time Turnout time 90 seconds, 90% of the time 90 seconds, 90% of the time Travel time 5 minutes, 90% of the time 20 minutes, 90% of the time Response Time (First Arriving Unit) 8 minutes, 90% of the time 23 minutes, 90% of the time Effective Response Force 12 minutes, 90% of the time Best effort IMPROVEMENT GOAL B: IMPROVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS In order to fully evaluate capability and performance, complete and accurate information must be available and utilized. This includes incident data, unit response data, information about risks within the community, and others. Response performance should be regularly evaluated and the results shared within the fire department. PAFD is developing better information analysis capability. It has acquired software that will allow managers to evaluate performance by area, explore alternative deployment to improve service, and to better understand its overall performance and capability. Completing implementation of this software package will be valuable. In the Community Risk section of this report a variety of risks were documented and described. However, due to lack of information many of the risks within the Stanford University campus could not be detailed. Gathering more complete information about the risks in Stanford will assist PAFD in evaluating resource deployment. Finally, response performance information should be shared within the organization to increase staffs’ awareness of their individual contribution to the system. In particular, turnout time performance should be reported regularly to response crews. IMPROVEMENT GOAL C: REDUCE CALL PROCESSING TIME PAPD call processing performance exceeds national standards. There are opportunities to reduce the time required to notify response personnel of an incident that should be explored. In the dispatch process used by PAPD, the caller is questioned to determine the nature and location of the emergency. As reported, once the incidents location and basic nature of the emergency is gathered that information is transferred to a dispatcher who notifies response personnel. The call taker continues to gather additional information, which is then reported to responding personnel. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 7 This process is typically call “pre-alert” and attempts to reduce call processing time by getting the closest response unit responding quickly. However, current call processing times do not suggest that this is working well. Dispatch centers using the pre-alert process typically have call processing times in the 35 to 45 second range. PAPD and PAFD should review call processing procedures to ensure incidents are being dispatched through pre-alert as quickly as possible. The agencies should explore technology that could facilitate faster dispatch. This includes computer voice dispatching integrated into the computer aided dispatch system. Improving dispatch performance can reduce overall response time by one to two minutes at little to no cost. As such this should be an early priority for implementation. IMPROVEMENT GOAL D: REDUCE TURNOUT TIME PAFD has set its turnout time target at within 90 seconds, 90 percent of the time for fire and special operations incidents and within 90 seconds, 90 percent of the time for all other incidents. This is the time period between when dispatchers notify response personnel of the incident and when response crews begin travel towards the incident location. PAFD’s current turnout time performance is much longer. Like call processing time, shortening the time required for this phase of the response also reduces overall response time. Though certain technology and other physical modifications can help, rapid turnout time is largely a function of response crew performance. PAFD should review fire station configuration to determine if there are obstacles to rapid turnout. Solutions could include adding doors between rooms, rearranging furnishings, and adding dispatch alerting system speakers to improve audibility. PAFD should better utilize technology that will support rapid turnout time. In-vehicle routing systems are already installed making directions to the incident immediately available. This eliminates the time required to review a map in the station prior to response. However, personnel seem hesitant to utilize this information. Response personnel performance must also be addressed. Fire department management should regularly prepare information that describes current turnout time performance by individual response crews. Performance expectations should be reinforced and periodic monitoring conducted to determine if improvements are being made and sustained. Reducing turnout time to close to the recommended goal will reduce overall response time by as much as two minutes. Since late 2015 when this issue was first identified, fire management has initiated daily turnout monitoring and accountability with company officers. Times are tracked by shift and station and shared monthly through the Deputy Chief of Operations. In 2017, a count-down timer was placed in station 4 to test if turnout times would improve. Times did improve and as part of a capital budget approved in Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 8 FY17/18 a new station alerting system including the large LED timer clocks will be placed in all fire stations. IMPROVEMENT GOAL E: REDUCE TRAVEL TIME Travel time, the period between initiation of response vehicle movement towards the incident and the arrival of the first unit, is 59 seconds longer than the goal of five minutes or less, 90 percent of the time. Establish a traffic signal pre-emption program Some traffic signals within PAFD’s service area are equipped with pre-emption equipment. This allows a response unit to send a signal to the traffic signal controller turning the light green in the response unit’s direction of travel and red in all other directions. This allows the response unit to move more quickly through an intersection. It also reduces the chance of a collision with another vehicle. Equipping all traffic signals with pre-emption equipment is recommended. The PAFD is working with regional partners to incorporate signal preemption devices on high priority intersections. A capital budget request is included in the FY18/19 budget that would support a trial study of 25 intersections that are equipped with a signal preemption system integrated with the City’s traffic management software. If the trial study demonstrates improvement in travel times to calls in the area, the Fire Department will make an additional capital budget request for the remaining approximately 75 intersections. Continue development of closest unit dispatch technology All PAFD units are equipped with GPS equipment interconnected with the dispatch center’s computer aided dispatch system (CAD). When an emergency is reported, CAD calculates the travel time from all available appropriate units from their current location to the incident and selects the unit with the shortest travel time. This technology is far superior to station based dispatching. Response personnel report that the system is not working to its fullest effectiveness. Dispatchers often override the CAD recommendation. The data in the system has not been fully developed to include many barriers to travel. The system should receive ongoing refinements so it provides accurate and reliable unit recommendations. This will require continual improvements to the street and barrier data used by CAD. This would include ensuring short-term barriers such as street construction, predictable heavy traffic, and the like are included. Better manage response unit distribution The best travel time performance occurs when response units are appropriately distributed across the service area. Distribution is determined based on providing geographic coverage and ensuring units are located near predictable response workload. PAFD response units move about the city for reasons other than response. This includes such activities as picking up supplies and for training. PAFD regularly gathers three response units together for training Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 9 activities. This usually occurs during the busiest part of the day. The consequence is that units must travel farther to return to their primary service area when incidents occur. PAFD should strive to keep response units within their primary service area more often. As an example, a delivery service could be used to deliver supplies. Although some training requires response units be together, classroom based training can be delivered via video conferencing systems negating the need to move response units away from their primary service area. Finally, the on-duty battalion chief should monitor response activity and unit location closely. As multiple units become involved in incidents the battalion chief should move available units to locations that will ensure better unit distribution. The bias should be to areas with predictably high incident activity, especially the area around Station 1. IMPROVEMENT GOAL F: ADD PEAK UNITS TO BETTER SERVE INCIDENT DEMAND PAFD staffs one medic unit 24 hours per day. A second medic unit is staffed 12 hours (0800-2000 hrs.) with overtime personnel at station 1. A third and fourth medic unit is cross-staffed by personnel from Engine 64 and Engine 62. Additional resources are available from adjacent agencies as needed. If an engine is committed to another activity preventing it from cross-staffing the medic unit, the probability that any PAFD medic unit would be unavailable to respond to an incident during daytime hours increases. Incident workload at night is much lower and the probability that a medic unit would be unavailable drops. The value of this deployment option is better unit availability during the daytime when response activity is the highest. IMPROVEMENT GOAL G: REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FALSE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM ACTIVATIONS Out of 1,308 fire alarm activations during 2017, only 16 were due to an actual problem detected by the system. Only one was a building fire. The rest were alarm system malfunctions of one type or another. That so few fire alarm activations were for legitimate reasons is not at all uncommon. However, it requires a commitment of response resources until the situation is resolved. Reducing the number of false fire alarm activations will improve response system reliability. The presence of a fire alarm system gives the property owner special access to fire department services. While these systems are valuable in providing early detection of a problem, malfunctioning systems present an unnecessary demand on the emergency response system. There are several strategies that should be considered by PAFD: Require annual fire alarm system inspection and maintenance: Fire codes require that fire alarm systems be inspected and served annually by qualified technicians. A report of the service and any deficiencies found and corrected must be submitted to the fire department for review. Properly maintained systems have a much lower rate of false alarms than systems that are not maintained in this fashion. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 10 Implement a penalty for excessive false alarms: The fine should be sufficient to encourage system repairs to reduce false alarms. Discontinue response to buildings equipped with fire alarm systems that signal an excessive number of false alarms: If the fire alarm system is required for the use of the building, that use may be prohibited until the fire alarm system is functioning properly. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 11 Documentation of Area Characteristics – Criterion 2A ORGANIZATION OVERVIEW Governance and Lines of Authority The City of Palo Alto was incorporated on April 23, 1894. PAFD has existed as a fire protection agency within the State of California since 1894 as well. The city is provided the authority to levy taxes and raise revenue for operating an organized fire department. Policy direction for PAFD is provided by a mayor, vice mayor, and seven city council members. The mayor and vice mayor are elected to those positions by the council for one-year terms. The mayor, vice mayor, and council are provided the necessary power and authority to govern the provision of fire protection and emergency services. The council appoints a city manager who is responsible for implementing council policy and overseeing the operation of the fire department. The city manager appoints the fire chief. Organizational Finance Establishment of financial policy for the PAFD is the responsibility of the city council, with the city manager and fire chief responsible for fiscal administration. The City of Palo Alto has an assessed valuation of $31,954,381,415 and Stanford University Properties are assessed at $3,037,112,888 for a total assessed valuation of $34,991,494,3031. The city uses a one-year budget cycle to prepare the operating budget and the capital improvement plan based on a July through June fiscal year. The total fire department general fund budget for Fiscal Year 2018 is $31,773,872. Total budget including Capital Improvements is $40,023,564. 1 County of Santa Clara Compilation of Tax Rates and Information 2016, downloaded November 1, 2017 at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/fin/Controller- Treasurer%20Department/Property%20Tax%20Apportionment/Documents/Tax-Rate-Book-2016- 2017.pdf Planning Assumption Budget and fiscal constraints, especially unfunded pension liabilities and other post-retirement medical benefits, will challenge the status quo delivery model and performance standards. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 12 The figure below lists the amount of non-tax revenue for PAFD by division for fiscal year 2018. Fire Prevention revenue is included in the Development Center Budget and not the Fire Department Budget. Figure 1: Generated Revenue – FY 20182 Revenue Type Amount Charges for Services 9,970,718 Charges to other funds 161,322 From other agencies 397,000 Other revenue 57,000 Other taxes and fines 1,000 Permits and licenses 15,713 TOTAL $10,602,753 The figure below shows the general operating expenditure and capital improvement program history for the current and previous two fiscal years. Figure 2: Budget/Expenditures by Year, FY 2016 – FY 20183 Expenditures By Category Actual FY 2016 Adopted FY 2017 Adopted FY 2018 Salary & Benefits 23,172,338 24,782,955 27,150,008 Allocated Charges 3,132,327 2,860,444 2,903,441 Contract Services 453,343 516,325 645,325 Facilities and Equipment 162,882 157,200 196,700 General Expense 197,479 264,722 426,722 Supplies and Materials 433,549 365,645 451,676 Capital Improvement Program4 476,775 3,536,037 8,474,885 Total Budget $28,028,694 $32,483,328 $40,248,757 A comprehensive capital improvement and replacement program is important to the long-term financial and operational stability of any fire and emergency medical service organization. Such programs provide systematic development and renewal of the physical assets and rolling-stock of the agency. A capital program must link with the planning process to anticipate and time capital expenditures in a manner that does not adversely influence the operation of the agency or otherwise place the agency in a negative financial position. Items usually included in capital improvement and replacement programs are facilities, apparatus, land acquisition, and other major capital projects. The city has a formally 2 City of Palo Alto Adopted Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2018, downloaded September 13, 2017 at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61330 (pg. 266) 3 Ibid. (page 266) 4 City of Palo Alto Adopted Capital Budget, Fiscal Year 2018, downloaded September 13, 2017 at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61331 (pgs. 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 166, 669) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 13 adopted and funded capital improvement plan for facilities and major equipment. PAFD’s fleet and facilities are included in this plan. Significant fleet investments occurred in FY 2017 and a fire station replacement (Fire Station 3) is funded in FY 2017 and 2018. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.1: SERVICE AREA OVERVIEW The earliest historical record of the Palo Alto area was made by Spanish explorer Gaspar de Portolá in 1769. The city was named after a tall redwood tree, a noted area landmark. Ranching and commerce were early commercial activities. The township of Mayfield was established in 1855 in the area that is now southern Palo Alto. Leland Stanford began purchasing land for a horse farm starting in 1876. The City of Palo Alto incorporated in 1894. Mayfield was annexed to Palo Alto in 1925. Stanford University (officially Leland Stanford Junior University) was founded in 1891. It is a private research university and one of the world’s most prestigious institutions with the top position in numerous rankings and measures in the United States. Palo Alto became home for many of the faculty and staff who worked there. Palo Alto has become the central economic focal point for the Silicon Valley. It is home to over 7,000 businesses together employing nearly 100,000 people. A number of significant businesses are headquartered in Palo Alto. Stanford University and the Stanford University Medical Center are the largest employers. The City of Palo Alto is now an area of approximately 25.9 square miles. It has a resident population of approximately 66,861 people. Approximately 13,809 students, faculty, and their families live on the Stanford University campus bringing PAFD’s total resident service population to 80,670. It is estimated that employment increases Palo Alto and Stanford’s daytime population by approximately 68,000 to 148,670 people. PAFD also serves Stanford University under the provisions of a services contract. Stanford University has a total student enrollment of almost 17,000. It covers 12.8 square miles with nearly 700 major buildings totaling 18 million square feet and multiple stadiums seating up to 50,000 people. It has a total employment of over 22,000 and a daytime population that exceeds 38,000. Insurance Services Office Public Protection Classification The Insurance Services Office (ISO) reviews the fire protection resources within communities and provides a Community Fire Protection Rating system from which insurance rates are often based. The rating system evaluates three primary areas: the emergency communication and dispatch system, the fire department, and the community’s pressurized hydrant or tanker-based water supply. The overall rating is then expressed as a number between 1 and 10, with 1 being the highest level of protection and 10 being unprotected or nearly so. As of the latest survey (September 2012) ISO gave PAFD a rating of Class 2/9. Class 2 applies to all property within five road miles of a fire station and within 1,000 feet of a Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 14 fire hydrant. Class 9 applies to all property within five miles of a fire station but beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant. The emergency communications function includes the capabilities of the call receipt and dispatch system along with the quality and redundancy of communications systems between dispatchers and response units. ISO gave eight points out of a possible 10 points to this element. Minor deficiencies were noted in the alarm circuit integrity monitoring and testing of emergency power supplies. The fire department is evaluated on its ability to provide needed apparatus within specified distances of developed property, the pump capacity and equipment carried on those apparatus, and the number of personnel staffing each. Resources of adjacent agencies dispatched by automatic aid agreements are also counted. In addition, the fire department is evaluated on its training programs and facilities. The fire department received 38.48 points out of a possible 50 points for this element. Deficiencies included insufficient numbers of ladder companies (three are needed for maximum credit), and inadequate distribution of response units (an engine should be available within 1.5 road miles of any area and a ladder company within 2.5 miles of any area with buildings three or more stories in height). The fire department received 8.95 points out of a possible 15 for the number of firefighters on duty. The training program received 8.73 out of a possible nine points. The water system is evaluated on the amount of storage, size of water mains, distribution and condition of fire hydrants, and the ability of the system to deliver needed quantities of water based on specific risks within the service area. The water system received 38.26 points out of a possible 40 points. Minor deficiencies were noted in the water supply system (when needed water flow from fire hydrants is compared to available water flow) and in the fire hydrant inspection program. Certain buildings, their contents, functions, and size present a greater firefighting challenge and require special equipment, operations, and training. Information for risk analysis has been drawn from PAFD records and the Insurance Services Office (ISO) database. Community Expectations for Type and Level of Service The ultimate goal of any emergency service delivery system is to provide sufficient resources (personnel, apparatus, and equipment) to the scene of an emergency in time to take effective action to minimize the impacts of the emergency. This need applies to fires, medical emergencies, and any other emergency situation to which the fire department responds. Obtaining and understanding the desires and expectations of community stakeholders is an important first step. PAFD is committed to incorporating the needs and expectations of residents and policy makers in the service delivery planning process. External Stakeholder Input PAFD conducted an extensive community input process during the preparation of its Strategic Plan in 2013. Twenty-seven community members participated in the discussion. The full results of this process are described in the Strategic Plan. Portions relevant to this Standards of Coverage document are included below. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 15 The participants ranked emergency medical services as the most important with a score of 153. Fire suppression was second with a score of 139. The following figure illustrates the community’s service priorities. Figure 3: Community Service Priorities Program Ranking Score Emergency Medical Services 1 153 Fire Suppression 2 139 Technical Rescue 3 111 Fire Prevention 4 87 Hazardous Materials Mitigation 5 86 Domestic Preparedness Planning and Response 6 55 Public Fire/EMS Safety Education 7 54 Fire Investigation 8 43 Community expectations of PAFD were also captured. The top seven were: 1) To respond in a timely manner and effectively put out fires. To respond to all emergencies in a timely manner. 2) Coordination with police and Office of Emergency Services. Work with city departments. 3) Effective services = quality. 4) Adequate staffing and training to support the high-tech business community—both in prevention and response. Ongoing training. 5) Have proper equipment. Equipment readiness/including ALS-BLS capabilities. 6) Mitigation and prevention—public education. Education of community regarding prevention and medical emergency. 7) Professional manner interacting with the public. To represent the fire service in a professional and ethical manner. The community participants expressed a number of concerns regarding their fire and emergency services. These included: Firefighters typically do not live in Palo Alto thus they are not immediately available to be called back for major emergencies. Concern that limited funding will result in less service. Appropriate staffing levels should be maintained to balance safety needs and cost effectiveness. PAFD should have a stronger voice to ensure roadways are accessible for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. Sending a fire truck and ambulance to a medical emergency seems an overuse of resources. Excessive movement of personnel away from fire suppression. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 16 Internal Stakeholder Input Internal stakeholders report that PAFD has gone through significant change over the past five years. Members of the department still have a “can do” attitude with their primary goal of servicing the customer. However, it is reported that employee attrition is increasing. Concerns expressed included an awareness that turnout times are longer than should be experienced. There is concern that changes in the dispatch process have not fully matured leading to longer than expected call processing times. There was additional concern that the closest unit dispatch process was not fully developed and unit recommendations are too often overridden by the dispatcher. Looking forward, staff seeks to improve their ability to use data to evaluate performance and affect system changes that will lead to improved service and efficiency. Additional risk reduction efforts are desired including strengthening the fire sprinkler ordinance and other incident reducing activities. The number of false fire alarm activations is also a concern since it reduces system reliability. Some effort to reduce the number of false fire alarms is desired. Community Outcome Goals From these conversations general statements of outcome have been developed regarding the community’s expectations of its fire department. These statements have been synthesized by ESCI using its understanding of community expectations. They should provide PAFD with a better understanding of the needs and expectations of its community within each service area. Figure 4: Community Outcome Goals Service Community Outcome Goal Fire Suppression For all fire incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stop the escalation of the fire and keep the fire to the area of involvement. An effective concentration of resources shall arrive within time to be capable of containing the fire, rescuing at-risk victims, and performing property loss mitigation operations. Emergency Medical Services For priority emergency medical incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficiently trained and equipped personnel to provide advanced medical services that will stabilize the situation, provide care and support to the victim and reduce, reverse, or eliminate the conditions that have caused the emergency. Vehicle Extrication For all vehicle accidents where rescue of victims is required, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stabilize the situation and extricate the victim(s) from the emergency situation or location without causing further harm to the victim. High-Angle Rescue For all high-angle rescue incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stabilize the situation, rapidly access the victim, and perform the necessary rescue functions. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 17 Service Community Outcome Goal Trench and Collapse Rescue For all trench or collapse rescue incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stabilize the situation, protect the health and safety of victims and responders, and perform the necessary rescue functions. Swift-Water Rescue For all swift water rescue incidents PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to rapidly access the victim and perform the necessary rescue functions. Confined Space Rescue For all confined space rescue incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stabilize the situation, protect the health and safety of victims and responders, and perform the necessary rescue functions. Hazardous Materials Response For all hazardous materials incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stabilize the situation and perform the actions necessary to prevent or control the release, protect life and the environment and resolve the incident. Wildland Firefighting For all wildland fire incidents PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to protect valuable property at risk, minimize the number of acres consumed by fire, and protect people at risk. Quarterly Performance Reporting and Customer Service Survey Beginning in October 2014, the Fire Department contracted with an independent third party agency to conduct customer satisfaction surveys for EMS calls. Results are provided quarterly to the agency. In addition to conducting customer-focused surveys, this agency benchmarks the Department’s performance against providers across the country. The result of our customer feedback is outstanding, with overall scores in the mid-90 points range out of 100. This result aligns with recent results in the National Citizen Survey, which rated the ambulance service at 97% and the fire service at 95%. The results are provided to the City Council on a quarterly basis along with an overall department performance report. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.2: BOUNDRIES FOR OTHER SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY AREAS PAFD is a partner in an automatic aid agreement with the City of Mountain View, a participant in the regional mutual aid systems and the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreement. This automatic aid agreement with the City of Mountain View provides for the dispatch of closest apparatus, regardless of jurisdiction to ensure the closest appropriate units are sent to an emergency. The PAFD is a member in the Santa Clara County Operational Area mutual aid agreement, and maintains mutual aid agreements with San Mateo County agencies sharing a northern border including the Menlo Park Fire District and Woodside Fire District. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 18 Finally, the PAFD is a signatory to the State of California’s Master Mutual Aid Agreement. This provides for systematic mobilization, organization, and operation of necessary fire and rescue resources of the state and its political subdivisions in mitigating the effects of disasters, whether natural or man-caused. These systems provide the PAFD with ready access to a significant number of response resources. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 19 Figure 5: Service Area Boundaries for the Palo Alto Fire Department including Mutual Aid agencies Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 20 CORE COMPETENCY 2A.4: ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ZONES CONSIDERING THE POPULATION DENSITY WITHIN PLANNING ZONES AND POPULATION AREAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING TOTAL RESPONSE TIME STANDARDS The Census Blocks Groups are further evaluated by population density. 2010 U.S. Census Bureau guidelines are used. Population density is used to determine specific emergency response performance measured against CFAI urban and rural benchmarks. Population characteristics such as population density, age, gender, socioeconomic factors were calculated into the risk assessment analysis by using a variety of datasets, including the most recently available Census data, the American Community Survey data and data that was processed by both Santa Clara County GIS and San Mateo County GIS. Population density was calculated into the risk assessment by using a two-step process due to the risk analysis area crossing several jurisdictions. Data was available and used at the census block level for the City of Palo Alto and used at the census block group for Stanford and other areas falling within San Mateo County. In the areas of the risk assessment that did not fall within Santa Clara County, data from the San Mateo open data site were used. Population density was already calculated in two fields and this data was added into the hexagon grid so that there was one field called population density for the entire risk analysis study area. Population density was then ranked within each hexbin to distribute the variable relatively throughout the jurisdiction for incorporation into the probability formula. Urban: An urban area is comprised of a densely settled core of census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with contiguous territory containing nonresidential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core. To qualify as an urban area on its own, the territory identified according to the criteria must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least 1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters. Urban areas that contain 50,000 or more people are designated as urbanized areas (UAs); urban areas that contain at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people are designated as urban clusters (UCs). The term “urban area” refers to both UAs and UCs. Rural: The term “rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 21 Figure 6: Population Density (2010 Census) PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.6: PLANNING ZONE METHODOLOGY TO IDENTIFY RESPONSE AREA CHARACTERISTICS The City of Palo Alto is at risk from a variety of natural and non-natural hazards. Stanford University and other nearby communities are also at risk to many of these same hazards. 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. Link to THIRA document. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 22 Naturally Occurring Characteristics Topography, Geology, Geography, Climate, and Physiography In addition to the THIRA, the Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (LHMAP) provided other data layers that were used as variables within the risk assessment. LHMAP layers were produced for landslide risk, liquefaction hazards, probabilistic seismic hazards, sea level rise hazards, tsunami risk, and fire severity hazards. The fire severity data from the LHMAP was incorporated into the risk analysis for non- structure fires. The remaining layers were used to quantify the risk scores related to domestic preparedness. Link to LHMAP document. Weather Risk Palo Alto’s climate is best described as Mediterranean. Winters are cool and wet. Summers are warm and dry. The lowest temperature recorded was 15 degrees Fahrenheit in 2003 and the highest temperature recorded was 107 degrees Fahrenheit in 1961. Palo Alto receives an average of 15 inches of rainfall each year. Extreme weather is rare. Strong windstorms, occasional snowfall, and rainstorms occur at times. Natural Hazard Prioritization Each natural hazard was rated by the sum of three criteria. The first criterion was estimated likelihood of future occurrence on a scale of 1 - 4. The second criterion was potential impacts on a scale of 1 -4. Both of these scales are presented in Table 4-3 Natural Hazards Rating Criteria. The third criterion was based on results from a public survey conducted during the 2012 local hazard mitigation planning process. Respondents were asked to select the five hazards of most concern. The percentage of responses for the identified hazards was scored on a 10 point scale. For each hazard, the three criteria were summed, and the natural hazards with the highest rating were included in the hazards of most concern for the City of Palo Alto. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 23 Figure 7: Natural Hazards Probability Rating Criteria5 Figure 8: Natural Hazard Rating Results6 5 City of Palo Alto 2014 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (pg. 18), downloaded November 10, 2017 at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43866 6 Ibid. (pg. 18) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 24 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. Flood / Severe Winter Storm Summary: 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. Winter storms, which generate large amounts of rain and heavy winds, can result in flooding. 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 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. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 25 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, being planned 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. 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. The following figure illustrates the area designated by FEMA as 100-year flood zones. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 26 Figure 9: FEMA 100-Year Flood Zones Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 27 Wildfire Risk: Within the city’s developed area the risk of wildland fires is not significant. The southwestern Palo Alto Foothills, sparsely developed, area is rated as high to very high wildland fire risk by the California Division of Forestry as shown in the following figure. This, in combination with increase public use of open space is why PAFD staffs Station 8 on high fire danger days during summer months. Figure 10: Wildland Fire Risk Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 28 Human and Human-Related Characteristics Population / Population Demographics The City of Palo Alto’s population has grown slowly, with an average annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between 2000 and 2016. At the time of this study, Palo Alto has a resident population of approximately 67,000 people. Approximately 14,000 students, faculty and their families live on the Stanford University campus bringing PAFD’s total resident service population to approximately 81,000. It is estimated that daytime employment increases Palo Alto and Stanford’s daytime population by approximately 68,000 to 149,000 people. The City of Palo Alto has developed a population growth forecast to the year 2030. Population growth for the city is forecast to average 0.05 percent per year through 2030. Using this estimate, the city’s population could reach 77,000 by 2030. Including the Stanford University resident population the PAFD resident service population could reach 91,000 by 2030. Future development within the community is expected to be limited to redevelopment of existing underutilized property. Figure 11: Population Demographics City of Palo Alto, US Census 2010, 2016 estimate7 7 United States Census, Quick Facts Palo Alto, California, downloaded on November 10, 2017 at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/paloaltocitycalifornia/PST045216 Planning Assumption The aging population of citizens will have an impact on service demands for EMS and fire services. Citizens ages 65 and older disproportionally use EMS and have a 2.7 times greater risk of dying in a fire than the population as a whole. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 29 The following figure illustrates resident service population in the City of Palo Alto growth over the past 15 years. Figure 12: Population History Figure 13: Population Demographics Stanford Census Designated Place (CDP), US Census Estimate July 1, 2016 The 2010 US Census for the Stanford Census Designated Place (CDP) does not include the student population. Due to the high cost of housing in the Palo Alto area, Stanford University provides housing for most academic faculty and students. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 30 Figure 14: Stanford University Enrollment, October 20168 As of autumn 2016, 6,538 undergraduate and 5,971 graduate students live in university-provided housing. 97 percent of all undergraduates live in campus housing; 66 percent of graduate students live in university-provided housing designed for single students, couples and families with children.9 It is useful to assess the distribution of the population within the city since there is a direct correlation between population density and service demand. The following figure displays the population density of Palo Alto based on Census 2010 data. Census data only includes people who live full-time in their home. It does not include people who visit or reside temporarily in a community. 8 Stanford University Common Data Set 2016-2017, downloaded on November 10, 2017 at https://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/pdf/stanford_cds_2016.pdf 9 Stanford University Facts 2017: Campus Life, downloaded on November 10, 2017 at http://facts.stanford.edu/campuslife/ Planning Assumption The population growth that is projected through 2030 on the Stanford University Campus will increase emergency service demand in the busiest Census Block planning zones. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 31 One of the factors that can influence emergency service demand, particularly emergency medical services, is the population’s age. The following figure examines the PAFD’s population segmented by age groups. This data is based on 2013 American Community Survey estimates. Figure 15: Estimated Population by Age Based on the preceding figure, 15.8 percent of the population is 65 years of age or older and 5.4 percent of the population is under five years of age. This places a total of 21.2 percent of the area’s population within the age groups that are at highest risk in residential fire incidents and account for some of the highest use of emergency medical services. Senior citizens can have difficulty escaping from fire due to physical limitations. Seniors also tend to use emergency medical services more frequently than younger persons. As the population ages, this will create an increase in service demand for emergency medical services. The very young also represent a vulnerable population, both in regard to their ability to escape a structure fire as well as their susceptibility to serious medical ailments such as asthma, traumatic events, choking, or injury from vehicular accidents. Area Economics and Socio-economics The City of Palo Alto and Stanford University are in the heart of the Silicon Valley and represent some of the nation’s highest median household income, owner-occupied housing costs and education levels. The community’s high socio-economic and education levels combines with low rates of uninsured citizens, keeps the community risk level low. This upper income community supports high levels of key services and social systems. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 32 Figure 16: Socio-economic data, City of Palo Alto US Census 2010. 2016 estimate10 10 Ibid. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 33 Human-Made Characteristics Development The following community risk assessment has been developed based on intended land uses as described in the City of Palo Alto land use and zoning designations. The following figure translates land use and zoning to categories of relative fire and life risk. Low risk—Areas zoned and used for agricultural purposes, open space, and very low-density residential and uses. Moderate risk—Areas zoned for medium-density single family properties, small commercial and office uses, low-intensity retail sales, and equivalently sized business activities. High risk—Higher-intensity business districts, mixed use areas, high-density residential, industrial, warehousing, and large mercantile centers. The following figure depicts fire and life safety risk based on land use and zoning. Figure 17: Fire and Life Safety Risk Based on Zoning Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 34 Area land use Data related to land use came from several different sources and had to be joined together in order to apply consistently the risk methodology. The City of Palo Alto had a layer of parcel data with attributes that included property zone type; however Stanford University did not have the same data applied to each parcel. Area land use had to be applied to the hexagon grids in a multi-step process. First, data from the land parcels was added into the hexagon grids for the available parcel data. Then building data from Stanford University was used to join the building property use information to the Stanford parcels. This allowed the parcel level to be used consistently as the defined zone type. The parcel data contained several zone types and the zones were consolidated into 7 zones. Land use zones were grouped as follows: Zone Types Included Commercial/Manufacturing Commercial, Commercial/Manufacturing, General Manufacturing District Multi-Family Residential Residential, Residential Multi-Family Mixed Use Commercial, Research, Manufacturing, Residential, Commercial/Office Research/Residential, Commercial/Manufacturing/Residential, Commercial/Research/Manufacturing/Residential, Commercial/Residential, Commercial; Residential Multi-Family, Mixed Use Outside/Open Space Open Space, Outside, Special Property Public Public Facility Single Family Residential Residential, Residential Single Family No Zone Type Blank ZONE Planning Assumption On November 13, 2017, the City of Palo Alto adopted its Comprehensive Plan that allows the development of 1.7 million square feet of office space and up to 4,400 new housing units through 2030. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 35 Figure 18: Area Land Use Variables Incorporated in Hexagon Grids Using the land use data, an analysis was then performed to examine the relationship between land use and incidents by NFIRS type. The results of the analysis were incorporated within the formulas used to score the probability of events for each PAFD service. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 36 Most of the historical EMS events occurred within single family residentially zoned areas. Within calculations for EMS probability, single family residential areas were weighted the highest. There were very few historical NFRIS reported hazardous materials events, less than 3% of all incidents (Incident Type 400 Series) within the study area. Although there were few events reported there were enough events to review trends per land use. The majority of the hazardous conditions events occurred at mixed use land use zoned areas and they were therefore weighted the highest Land use/Zone types were not factored into the risk assessment related to the probability for domestic emergencies and wildland fires risk in the same manner as in the other services provided. The methodology used to weight land use/zone type as part of this risk assessment is dependent on the accuracy of the land use data and the ability to estimate the relationship between the property zone type and the request for fire department services. Better land use data for use in a regression analysis may be needed in future risk assessments to estimate the relationship more precisely. Building Characteristics The height and size of buildings are important variables for assessing risk because the size and height affects the impact to the organization, as more specialized resources may be needed the larger the structure. An analysis of the parcel data was performed to determine the distribution of building height throughout the jurisdiction. This data was then categorically grouped to reflect the different resources needed for single story structures, mid-rise structures, and high rise structures. Fire Protection Systems: Sprinkler, inspections, and other fire prevention datasets were considered as part of the analysis as mitigating factors within the risk assessment process specifically for the risk of structure fires. Sprinkler permit data was extracted from a PAFD reporting system for 2016 and was converted into a spreadsheet and the addresses were geocoded to identify the geographical areas where sprinklers were present in buildings. The addresses were then joined to parcels to identify the areas where fire protections systems are present. Additional research will be completed to determine if the sprinkler systems installed prior to 2016 can by identified and used to further reduce the risk of fire in the service area. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 37 Figure 19 Parcels with Fire Suppression Systems Service Type Infrastructure Water Distribution Palo Alto’s water comes from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This high quality water supply consists almost entirely of Sierra Nevada snowmelt delivered through the Hetch Hetchy water distribution system that stretches several hundred miles across Northern California. Precipitation levels can vary greatly within any given year. Even though we may experience periods of wet weather, a warm dry spell can affect water supplies later in the year. These climate conditions, along with our limited long-term water supplies drive water conservation and system upgrades and maintenance. The most obvious concern to the fire department is the water reservoir, water main, and fire hydrant system. Providing sufficient storage, distribution, and access to this valuable firefighting resource through well-distributed fire hydrants is very important. Figure 23 shows that fire hydrants are distributed through virtually all developed areas. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 38 Figure 20: Hetch Hetchy Regional Water Distribution System11 11 Hetch Hetchy Regional Water Distribution System, downloaded November 1, 2017 at http://sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=10131 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 39 Figure 21: Fire Hydrant Distribution The City of Palo Alto hydrant layer was also factored into the risk analysis as a variable related to impact and consequence. Considering the amount of hose carried on a standard Engine, a buffer area around each hydrant of 500 feet was created. Any of the areas outside the 500-foot distance of a hydrant was factored with a higher risk than within 500 feet of a hydrant (figure 24). These variables were given a presence or absence factor, 1 if outside the buffer zone and 0 if within the buffer zone. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 40 Figure 22: Hydrants within 500ft Buffer Zone Communications Emergency communication centers and the associated transmitting and receiving equipment are essential facilities for emergency response. The Palo Alto Police Department provides emergency 9-1-1 call receipt and dispatch service to PAFD. This center provides for the interrogation of 9-1-1 calls for help, dispatching of fire and other emergency responders, and important support to the incident management function. There are other communication facilities and equipment that are equally important to the community and government operations. These are the telephone company central offices and the transmission lines of local telephone service providers. Internet service providers, along with wireless cellular Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 41 communication providers, provide essential communication capabilities for the community as well as emergency personnel through their facilities and equipment. Natural Gas Pipeline and Electric Transmission Lines Pacific Gas & Electric (PG & E) and the City of Palo Alto Utilities natural gas and electrical transmission lines were incorporated into the risk assessment because the presence of these variables impacts risk in different capacities. These variables were included in the hexagon grids by using a presence/absence factor. Each grid that intersected with the pipeline and transmission lines was flagged and included in the probability calculations for Hazmat and Domestic preparedness risk. These variables were used as part of the impact calculation related to fire risk, because the presence of these factors impacts the number of resources required. Figure 23: PG & E Natural Gas Transmission Lines12 12 PG & E Natural Gas Pipeline Locations, downloaded on November 10, 2017 at https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/natural-gas-system-overview/gas- transmission-pipeline/gas-transmission-pipelines.page Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 42 Figure 24: Electrical Transmission Lines13 13 Energy Infrastructure Map of Northern California, downloaded on November 10, 2017 at http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/infrastructure/3part_enlargements.html City of Palo Alto City of Menlo Park Stanford University Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 43 Hazardous materials The presence of facilities containing hazardous materials was also included as a variable within the risk assessment. PAFD had a layer of addresses that were reported as Tier II sites, this layer did not specify the specific materials and quantities so all tier II sites were factored in the risk assessment equally. State laws require business that store hazardous materials in quantities greater than or equal to 55 gallons of a liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, or extremely hazardous substances, to report to Local Emergency Preparedness Committees (LEPC) so that fire departments are aware of the hazards when responding to incidents. The presence of hazardous materials was used as a probability factor for Hazmat risk, but was considered as an impact variable related to structure fire risk. Figure 25: Facilities with Hazardous Materials and Number of Facilities by Census Block Group Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 44 Transportation systems Transportation corridors provide necessary access and egress for the department. The configuration of transportation systems can also affect the response capability of emergency services. Limited access freeways and rail lines can interrupt street connectivity, forcing apparatus to negotiate a circuitous route to reach an emergency scene. Roadways, railway, and trails were added into the hexagon grid. Each one of these variables related to each risk differently. These variables were incorporated using presence or absence factors as a means to add them into the probability of certain risks. All scoring within the risk methodology is based on percentiles ranks that range from 0 to 10. Since these were presence/absence variables, if any of the variables were present within a hexagon grid, they were given a score of 10. The trails however were assigned two different levels; trails west of Interstate 280 were considered higher risk than those trails east of Interstate 280 due to access and terrain issues. Roads: Surface streets dominate the PAFD service area. Two state highways and several other arterials and expressways provide traffic circulation. The balance of the department’s service has a mix of relatively well interconnected street networks and neighborhoods characterized by cul-de-sacs and other dead end street systems. Both state highways, major arterials, and many other smaller streets are noted to have significant congestion issues, in particular during the morning and evening commutes. The stature of Palo Alto and Stanford attracts thousands of visitors each day to the most congested areas of the community, especially University Avenue and the Central Stanford Campus. The community encourages alternate forms of transportation, especially bike transportation. Many neighborhood street networks are characterized by narrow roads, parked cars, shared bike lanes, limited intersection visibility, and congested access. Both Palo Alto and Stanford are addressing traffic, transportation, and parking issues. Some traffic signals within the service area are equipped with signal pre-emption equipment. Signals so equipped provide a significant response time performance advantage as well as improved safety to motorists. Planning Assumption Increased motor vehicle traffic associated with commercial activities from Palo Alto businesses and Stanford University, especially work commuting, will pose barriers to emergency response time performance. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 45 Railroads: Caltrain operates a commuter rail service on tracks that bisect the city. Average weekday ridership in 2016 exceeded 59,500 people. This system carries commuter passengers between Gilroy and San Francisco. Union Pacific Railroad owns an easement along the route. It and other rail companies operate freight train service along the route both day and night. Hazardous materials loads are less common. Figure 26: Map of transportation systems included within the risk assessment analysis Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 46 Airport: The Palo Alto Airport sits on the border of the City of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto near the south end of the San Francisco bay. The airport is both critical infrastructure and a variable related to both the probability and impact for certain types of events. The Palo Alto Airport is operated by the City of Palo Alto. This facility is a general aviation focused airport without scheduled commercial or airline service. The airport has a single runway that is 2,443 feet long and handles 180,000 landings per year. PAFD provides aircraft crash rescue and firefighting. The City of Palo Alto has an airport layer that identifies traffic pattern zones, terminals, and the airplane runways. For inclusion in the risk assessment each area was considered in terms of presence or absence in a specific hexagon grid. Figure 27: Palo Alto Airport PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.7: SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE RESPONSE AREA ARE IDENTIFIED. The City of Palo Alto has a reputation as a world leader in technology and innovation and is a major employment center for the Bay Area. Thousands of companies are located here, delivering a wide range of products and services, from technology and its associated enterprises to community-serving businesses. Through the payment of various taxes, many of these companies directly contribute to City revenues and the delivery of needed services and infrastructure in our city. There are also numerous secondary and tertiary financial benefits as well (i.e. transient occupancy tax (TOT) generated from business trips, sales tax generated from business lunches, etc.). The City’s primary economic development goal is focused on supporting and attracting the businesses that support and grow the tax base, with an understanding that City values and policies help shape economic development strategy and practice. Significant contributors to the position as a major employment center are excellent local schools, access to talented people from institutions such as Stanford University, Stanford Medical Center and Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital; strong neighborhoods (many with historic qualities), with quality executive housing; access to transit; a temperate climate; a beautiful tree canopy and access to parks and open space; a diverse and highly educated populace; interesting and walk-able business districts; City Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 47 ownership of the suite of utilities including fiber optics; strong cultural amenities including community services, performance and visual arts; and good government. But the City government and the services it provides face numerous challenges. The disconnect between economic growth and local government tax structure limits the revenue yield that could be available to the City and fiscal challenges at the state/federal level continue to put cities at risk. City revenues in California are restricted by law and cities lack flexibility, full home rule, and some taxing authority to raise municipal revenues in an economy such as Palo Alto (no income tax, sales taxes on services, etc.). A number of other factors which impact the agency must be considered as part of the City’s economic development strategy. These include: managing growing employment demand at the right scale and pace; increasing access to public transit and enhancing its effectiveness; limited availability of commercial properties; affordable housing; City infrastructure; traffic and parking congestion; transitioning to low a carbon economy; population growth anticipated in young families and seniors into the next decade; and maintaining high quality schools. These challenges require balancing economic development goals and community values. The City’s Economic Development approach champions the innovative spirit of local businesses and the community to ensure Palo Alto maintains its leadership position as a global center for innovation and an attractive place to launch new ideas and businesses. Some companies in the “innovation” space may provide little direct revenue benefit (i.e. taxable sales, etc.) to the City’s general fund. Nonetheless, on the “soft side”, maintaining the City’s brand as a place where people’s creative ideas can become world renowned businesses keeps small city Palo Alto a globally competitive city, with indirect revenue benefits and economic, social, and community multipliers of real value. Demographic and socio-economic data can also be found in the Human and Human-related Characteristics Section, specifically Figure 17. PERFOMANCE INDICATOR 2A.8: SAFETY AND REMIDATION PROGRAMS INCLUDING FIRE PREVENTION, PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION The Department provides a variety of fire prevention, public education and community risk reduction programs. The fire prevention bureau is staffed to provide inspection, investigation, and plan checks on all construction within the city, as well as annual inspections on a variety of local businesses and properties with hazardous materials on site. The department’s public education program includes home site visits for at risk citizens, bicycle safety instruction for 3rd and 5th grade students, public safety demonstrations and talks to local schools and other organizations, hands only CPR training, as well as coordination of a fall prevention program. The department also works diligently to identify risks within the community and identifying means of reducing those risks or improving its ability to respond in an unpreventable incident (natural disaster). The city’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) has identified risks associated with events, infrastructure, and geography. The department and OES have worked together to develop response plans that would assist in recovering in the event of a large scale incident. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 48 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.9: CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE PLANNING ZONES Critical Infrastructure The City of Palo Alto’s Emergency Management Office developed and maintains a Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan. Within this plan, natural hazards and critical infrastructure are identified and catalogued. Data layers from the Local hazards mitigation plan were made available for use and incorporation into the risk analysis. An attribute table of 131 addresses where critical infrastructure was identified were joined into the risk analysis a buffer zone of 264 feet (.05 of a mile) around each address point was used. These variables were given a score based on presence or absence within a hexagon grid based on the priority assigned to the infrastructure. Score Priority Number of Critical Facilities 10 Priority I 7 7.5 Priority II 15 5 Priority III 80 2.5 Priority IV 29 131 Example of Priority I Facilities include; Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital, Space Systems Loral, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford Stadium, Tesla Motors Headquarters, Varian Medical Systems Building 4, and several facilities at Stanford University. Within this dataset, schools, government, medical facilities, and utilities were included. These critical facilities were used primarily as consequence factors as it allow the identification of critical utilities, critical services, schools and major employment centers. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 49 Figure 28: Critical Infrastructure: Priority and Counts of Facilities by Census Block Group Other critical facilities identified and used within the risk assessment included nursing and assisted living facilities. The assisted living facilities were also joined to the parcel data and any grid cell which intersected the parcels containing an assisted living facility were considered as increasing the probability of an EMS event. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 50 Schools Palo Alto is served by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAFUD). PAFUD operates 12 elementary schools, three middle schools, and two high schools along with several specialty programs. Total enrollment is over 12,000 students. The following figure shows the locations of school facilities. Figure 29 School Facilities Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 51 Health Care Facilities Hospitals and other health care facilities house vulnerable populations. Although these facilities are generally built of highly fire resistive construction with built-in fire suppression, emergencies can occur that require the quick movement of patients away from the hazard. The following figure shows the location of the health care facilities in the PAFD services area. Figure 30: Health Care Facilities Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 52 Child Care Facilities Children are vulnerable to fire and other emergencies. Adult guidance is essential when children are faced with an emergency. Along with schools, child care facilities house numerous children during many hours of the day. The following map shows the locations of child care facilities within the PAFD service area. Figure 31: Child Care Facilities Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 53 Adult Care Facilities The other vulnerable population is seniors. Physical and sometimes mental limitations require seniors and others to reside in care facilities. Though these buildings are often of fire resistive construction with built-in fire protection, an emergency at these facilities can require significant additional response resources. The following figure shows the locations of adult care facilities within the PAFD service area. Figure 32: Adult Care Facilities Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 54 High Rise Buildings High rise buildings present a unique challenge to fire departments. Additional personnel are required to move hose and equipment to upper floors of these buildings. A high rise building, as defined by the city’s building code, is any building having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access (approximately seven or eight stories). The following figure shows the locations of high rise buildings within the service area according to the ISO database. Figure 33: High Rise Buildings Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 55 Buildings Three or More Stories in Height The Insurance Services Office rating criteria call for a ladder truck within two and one half miles of developed areas containing buildings three or more stories in height. Accessing the upper floors and roof of buildings this tall typically requires ladder truck capability as ground ladders may not provide access. The following figure shows the locations of many of the buildings in the PAFD service area three or more stories in height according to the ISO database. Figure 34: Buildings Three or More Stories in Height Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 56 Large Square Footage Buildings Large buildings, such as warehouses, malls, and large “box” stores require greater volumes of water for firefighting and require more firefighters to advance hose lines long distances into the building. The following figure shows the locations of buildings 100,000 square feet and larger according to the ISO database. Figure 35: Buildings – 100,000 Square Feet and Larger Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 57 High Fire Flow Buildings Larger buildings can require substantial volumes of water be applied by the fire department in order to control and extinguish fire. This is determined by size, type of construction, and contents. The greater the volume of water required to extinguish a fire the greater the number of firefighters needed to apply that water. The following figure shows the locations of buildings with needed fire flow of 3,000 gallons per minute or more according to the ISO database. Figure 36: Buildings With Needed Fire Flow 3,000 GPM or More Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 58 Public Assembly Numerous buildings lie within the PAFD service in which large numbers of people gather for entertainment, worship, and such. A variety of nightclubs, theaters, and other entertainment venues exist in the downtown area. These facilities present additional risk, primarily for mass casualty incidents. Fire, criminal mischief, and potentially terrorism, could cause a major medical emergency requiring significant emergency service resources. The following figure shows the locations of buildings identified as public assembly facilities within the service area. Figure 37: Public Assembly Facilities Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 59 Description on Agency Programs and Services PROGRAMS AND SERVICES PROVIDED PAFD’s service area includes all of the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. PAFD also provides automatic and mutual aid to other agencies within the greater metropolitan area. PAFD provides a variety of response services, including structural and wildland fire suppression, advanced life support level emergency medical care and transportation, and entrapment extrication. PAFD also provides technical rescue services including high-angle, trench, and confined space. Finally, PAFD provides fully capable hazardous materials emergency response. PAFD also provides non-response services including staff training, new construction building plan review and inspection, existing occupancy fire safety inspections, public safety education, emergency preparedness, and fire investigation. 9-1-1 answering and dispatch service is provided by the Palo Alto Police Department. There are 104 personnel involved in delivering services to the jurisdiction. Staffing coverage for emergency response is through the use of career firefighters on 24-hour shifts. For immediate response, no less than 24 personnel are on-duty at all times. During summer months, when station 8 is staffed, on- duty staffing increases to 27. The following figure provides basic information on each of the department’s core services, its general resource capability for that service, and information regarding staff resources for that service. Figure 38: Core Services Summary Service General Resource/Asset Capability Basic Staffing Capability per Shift Fire Suppression 6 staffed Type 1 engines 1 staffed Type 3 engine (High fire danger days: June 1 to October 31) 1 staffed ladder truck 1 command response units 1 two-person fire/medic transport ambulance 1 two-person fire/medic transport ambulance during peak hours (0800-2000hrs) 2 fire/medic transport ambulance cross-staffed with Type 1 engine 1 fire/medic transport ambulance cross-staffed with Type 1 engine (2000-0800hrs) Additional automatic and mutual aid engines, aerials, and support units available 26 suppression-trained personnel Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 60 Service General Resource/Asset Capability Basic Staffing Capability per Shift Emergency Medical Services 6 Type 1 engines – ALS equipped and staffed 1 staffed Type 3 engine (High fire danger days: June 1 to October 31) ALS equipped and staffed 1 Ladder truck – ALS equipped and staffed 5 Ambulances – ALS equipped and staffed or cross-staffed 13 certified emergency medical technicians 14 paramedics Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Vehicle Extrication 1 truck equipped with hydraulic rescue tools, hand tools, air bags, stabilization cribbing and struts, and combination cutter-spreader hydraulic rescue tool 1 crossed staffed Breathing Support Unit equipped with hydraulic rescue tools, hand tools, air bags, stabilization cribbing and struts, and combination cutter-spreader hydraulic rescue tool All non-probationary firefighters are trained to use the hydraulic extrication equipment and cribbing. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. High-Angle Rescue 1 truck equipped with rescue-rated rope and all associated hardware 1 cross staffed Breathing Support Unit equipped with rescue-rated rope and all associated hardware All personnel trained to the operations level. 33 personnel to the technician level in high-angle rope rescue. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Trench and Collapse Rescue 1 trailer equipped with pneumatic shoring jacks, cribbing, limited lumber and hand tools for initial stabilization All personnel trained to the operations level. 12 personnel trained to the technician level in trench and collapse rescue. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Swift-Water Rescue All engines and trucks equipped with throw bags, PFDs, and helmets. All personnel trained to the operations level. Three (3) personnel trained to the technician level in swift-water rescue. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 61 Service General Resource/Asset Capability Basic Staffing Capability per Shift Confined Space Rescue 1 trailer equipped with tripod, cribbing, pneumatic shores, air monitoring equipment, basket stretchers, rescue-rated rope All personnel trained to the operations level. Eight (8) personnel trained to the technician level in confined space rescue. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Hazardous Materials Response Hazardous Materials (Cal OES Type 3) response vehicle equipped with personal protective equipment, gas and radiation monitoring equipment, containment supplies, and non-sparking tools All personnel trained to the operations level. Two (2) personnel per shift trained to the technician/specialist level in hazardous materials. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. ASSETS AND RESOURCES Fire Stations Fire stations play an integral role in the delivery of emergency services for a number of reasons. A station’s location will dictate, to a large degree, response times to emergencies. Fire stations also need to be designed to adequately house equipment and apparatus, as well as the firefighters and other personnel assigned to the station. Station Location and Deployment The PAFD delivers fire, emergency medical service (EMS), and other emergency response from seven fire stations located throughout the city including one on the Stanford campus. Note that Station 8 is staffed only part of the year. The following map shows the city boundaries, and the locations of PAFD and adjacent agency fire stations with which PAFD has mutual and automatic aid agreements. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 62 Figure 39: Current Facility Deployment Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 63 Apparatus Response vehicles are an important resource of the emergency response system. If emergency personnel cannot arrive quickly due to unreliable transport, or if the equipment does not function properly, then the delivery of emergency service is likely compromised. Fire apparatus are unique and expensive pieces of equipment, customized to operate efficiently for a specifically defined mission. The following figure lists apparatus assigned to each of the seven PAFD fire stations. Figure 40: PAFD Fire Stations and Apparatus Station Apparatus Year built Condition Station 1 Engine 61 2009 Good Medic 61 2016 Excellent Battalion Chief Engine 161 (Reserve) 2015 2009 Excellent Good Station 2 Engine 62 2009 Good Medic 62 2012 Good Engine 362 1992 Poor Technical Rescue Trailer 2007 Good Hazmat Trailer 2000 Fair Station 3 Engine 63 2009 Good Medic 63 Engine 663 2012 2001 Good Good Station 4 Engine 64 2009 Good Medic 64 Medic 68 (Reserve) 2011 2011 Good Good Station 5 Engine 65 2017 Excellent Engine 365 Engine 165 (Reserve)* 2010 2009 Good Good Station 6 Engine 66 2017 Excellent Truck 66 2014 Excellent Breathing Support 66 2005 Good Medic 66* 2016 Excellent Engine 660 2007 Good CO2 Trailer 2001 Good Confined Space 2000 Good Shoring Trailer 2010 Good Station 8 Engine 365 2008 Good MTV Station 4 Truck 155 (Shared Reserve Truck) 2017 Excellent *Spring 2018 expected delivery of replacement apparatus for Engine 362 PAFD uses several types of apparatus as shown in the table above. Each type is further described as follows: Engine—Primary response unit from each station for most types of service requests. Each is equipped with a pump and carries water. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 64 Truck—A specialized apparatus equipped with long ladders, salvage, overhaul equipment, and rescue tools. Used for structure fires, rescues, and other service requests. Medic—Vehicle designed to carry medical supplies and transport patients to a medical facility. Breathing Support Unit—A vehicle that carries spare self-contained breathing apparatus cylinders and equipment to refill cylinders at an incident. Trailers—Several different trailers are maintained carrying specialized equipment, tools, and supplies for different types of incidents. These include: Hazardous materials C02 extinguishing agent Confined space rescue Shoring equipment STAFFING INFORMATION PAFD provides staffing in three primary areas: Support Services, Operations, and Fire Prevention. Organizational Structure PAFD is organized in the typical top-down hierarchy. The chain of command is identified with common roles for a fire department of this size. PAFD has seven fire stations that house emergency response resources. The department’s multiple facilities and its three-shift, 24-hour-per-day, seven-day-per-week operational schedule create numerous internal communications and management challenges. The PAFD organizational chart is functional and primary roles are well identified. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 65 Figure 41: Organizational Structure Administration and Support Staff One of the primary responsibilities of a fire department’s administration and support staff is to ensure that the operational entities of the organization have the ability to accomplish their service delivery responsibilities to the public. Without sufficient oversight, planning, documentation, training, and maintenance, the operational entities will struggle to perform their duties well. Administration and support services require appropriate resources to function properly. There are 115 FTE) personnel involved in delivering services to the jurisdiction. The fire department’s primary management team includes the fire chief and the deputy chiefs for operations, support services, Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 66 and fire prevention. Additional administrative and support personnel include office staff, and fire and life safety staff. PAFD has 19.5 management, administration, and support staff. Figure 42: Management, Administration, and Support Personnel by Position Position Number Fire Chief 1 Deputy Chief 3 Administrative Assistant 1 Administrative Associate 3 Senior Management Analyst 1 EMS Chief 1 EMS Data Specialist 1 GIS Specialist 0.5 Training Battalion Chief 1 Training Captain 1 Hazardous Materials Inspectors 2 Fire Inspectors 4 TOTAL 19.5 Emergency Services Staff It takes an adequate and well-trained staff of emergency responders to put the community’s emergency apparatus and equipment to its best use in mitigating incidents. Insufficient staffing at an emergency decreases the effectiveness of the response and potentially increases damage and injury. PAFD uses career personnel to carry out emergency response functions. The following figure shows the distribution of emergency personnel by rank. Figure 43: Emergency Response Personnel by Rank Position Number Battalion Chief 3 Fire Captain 21 Fire Apparatus Operator 30 Firefighter 41 TOTAL 95 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 67 CORE COMPTENCY 2A.3: DOCUMENTED AND ADOPTED METHODOLOGY FOR ORGANIZING THE RESPONSE AREA INTO GEOGRAPHICAL PLANNING ZONES Various methodologies exist for quantitatively assessing risk, the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) requires a methodology that logically, systematically, and consistently classifies and assesses risk throughout the PAFD. The 9th edition of the Fire and Emergency Services Self-Assessment Manual (FESSAM) and the 6th edition of the Risk Assessment Standards of Cover Manual, offer guidance for two different approaches: a two-axis methodology for quantifying probability and consequence; and three- axis methodology for quantifying probability, consequence, and organizational impact. The methodology described here uses the three-axis methodology as described by the CPSE to assess risk within the response jurisdiction for the PAFD. The risk assessment was performed using a grid methodology first to consistently distribute risk variables across the PAFD geographic service region. A one acre hexagon grid was used to summarize risk variables which were then multiplied and added together using the formula specified by the CPSE to calculate the total risk score. Total scores were then summarized into larger hazard management zones consistent with Census Blocks Groups. Using Census Block Groups as the hazard management zones allows the PAFD to drive deployment and response based on the geographic calculated risk considering that PAFD utilizes Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) for deployment of the closest unit for dispatch. Figure 44: Example of Hexagon Grid Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 68 Figure 45: Census Block Groups for the Palo Alto Fire Department Service Area Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 69 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.5: PROPERTY, LIFE, INJURY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER ASSOCIATED LOSSES Consequence and loss data should include factors such as the potential for loss of life based off historical data, infrastructure impacted like schools or other critical facilities, and consequence to major employment and/or population centers. Consequence and loss data was only readily available for fire events. The data provided was directly produced from the City of Palo Alto Annual Report (FY16 Annual Report page 39-41). Fire loss in dollar values were not reported, however, the percent of fires confined to room of origin was detailed in the annual report. Trends from the last 10 fiscal years showed that 37% of fires were reported as extending beyond the room of origin. The NFPA reports that nationwide approximately 75% of fires are confined to room of origin or less and approximately 84% of the dollar loss comes from fires where fire has extended beyond the room of origin (see table). Using this national trend and the percent of fires that extended beyond the room of origin in Palo Alto, fire loss was calculated into the consequence scores using the percent rank of total property value and the expected loss due to fire extension beyond the room of origin. Figure 46: Fire Loss Per Capita $- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 National Average Regional Average Palo Alto $29.90 $33.40 $11.06 Fi r e l o s s p e r c a p i t a Planning Assumption The high levels of affluence and education will continue to mitigate fire loss. Reduced fire probability and consequences are supported by the citizens’ ability to afford monitored residential fire alarm and sprinkler systems. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 70 Figure 47: Reported Structure Fires by Extent of Fire Spread In order to apply consequence based on total property values, an additional analysis was needed as total property values were not available for the full study area. Property values for Stanford University land/property were not available; however since the area/land use type was available, property values per land use type were examined. The map below shows average property value by land use type, this data was then joined into the hexagon grids to use within the consequence calculations. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 71 Figure 48: Average Property Value by Land Use Type Consequence and loss data was not readily available for the other risk assessment categories. Hospital outcome data ideally should be used when assessing consequence of EMS. The only available outcome data for EMS was related to cardiac arrests. The cardiac arrest data available was only a sample of the full study period representing data from 2016 only. The data showed there were 34 attempted resuscitations where return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was reported in 38% of the patients. Because no other outcome data was available for inclusion in the consequence score, transport data was used. Based on historical data, 7 out of every 10 EMS calls resulted in a transport, therefore a 7:10 expected transport rate was used as a proxy for EMS consequence in conjunction with ROSC rate. In future assessments of EMS risk, other measures related to patient outcome and/or years of potential life lost should be considered. There was a lack of concrete loss data related to technical rescue, hazmat, and domestic preparedness incidents. Data needed for consequence of technical rescue events should include the loss of life or the loss of mobility, proxies such as income lost due to disability could also potentially be considered. Hazardous materials, domestic preparedness and wildland consequence is more easily quantified in terms of infrastructure impacted, critical facilities, property value and population affected. Consequences for these services were calculated similar to structure fire consequence. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 72 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Population characteristics such as population density, age, gender, socioeconomic factors were calculated into the risk assessment analysis by using a variety of datasets, including the most recently available Census data, the American Community Survey data and data that was processed by both Santa Clara County GIS and San Mateo County GIS. Population density was calculated into the risk assessment by using a two-step process due to the risk analysis area crossing several jurisdictions. Data was available and used at the census block level for the City of Palo Alto and used at the census block group level for Stanford and other areas falling within San Mateo County. Using the POP_DEC10_SSC_Block as the authoritative source, population density was calculated dividing the fields [PopCount] and [Sqmiles_total]. In the areas of the risk assessment that did not fall within Santa Clara County, data from the San Mateo open data site were used. Population density was already calculated in two fields [POP10_SQMI] and [POP12_SQMI], this data was added into the hexagon grid so that there was one field called population density for the entire risk analysis study area. Population density was then ranked within each hexbin to distribute the variable relatively throughout the jurisdiction for incorporation into the probability formula. Income statistics were calculated into the hexagon grids by using data from the American Community Survey 2015 data at the block group level. Median household income and aggregate household income by block group were joined into the hexagon grids. Four fields from the ACS income table (X-19) were joined to the census block group polygons. Income was then inversely ranked and incorporated as a variable into the probability formula. Age and gender demographics were added into the hexagon grid by using data at block group level from the American Community Survey age and sex table (X01_AGE_AND_SEX table). Total population, age, and sex totals were first added into the hexagon grids and then percentages were calculated and joined into the hexagon grids. Specifically, Total population, total population under 5 years of age, total population under 17 years of age and total population over 65 years in age were added into the hexagon grids. Areas with a higher percentage of children under the age of 17 and adults over the age of 65 were weighted with higher risk. AREA LAND USE Data related to land use came from several different sources and had to be joined together in order to apply consistently the risk methodology. The City of Palo Alto had a layer of parcel data with attributes that included property zone type; however Stanford University did not have the same data applied to each parcel. Area land use had to be applied to the hexagon grids in a multi-step process. First, data from the land parcels was added into the hexagon grids for the available parcel data. Then building data from Stanford University was used to join the building property use information to the Stanford parcels. This allowed the parcel level to be used consistently as the defined zone type. The parcel data contained several zone types and the zones were consolidated into 7 zones. Land use zones were grouped as follows: Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 73 Using the land use data, an analysis was then performed to examine the relationship between land use and incidents by NFIRS type. The results of the analysis were incorporated within the formulas used to score the probability of events for each PAFD service. The following tables and charts summarize the number of incidents occurring within the study area by land use and the weight used within each probability calculation. Simplified Zone Type Structure Fires Zone Weight Non-Structure Fires Zone Weight Commercial/Manufacturing 0.46 1.43 0.63 2.31 Multi-family Residential 2.28 7.14 0.48 1.76 Mixed Use 2.19 6.86 2.25 8.24 Outside/Open Space 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.11 Public 0.68 2.14 2.40 8.79 Single-Family Residential 3.20 10.00 1.50 5.49 No Zone Type (blank)* 1.14 3.57 2.72 10.00 Maximum Value 3.20 2.72 Scoring Multiplier 3.13 3.67 *No Zone Type (blank) areas include roadways and other areas within the study area that may or may not be assigned to a parcel. Most of the historical EMS events occurred within single family residentially zoned areas. Within calculations for EMS probability, single family residential areas were weighted the highest. Simplified Zone Type EMS EMS Zone Weight Commercial/Manufacturing 0.59 2.00 Multi-family Residential 1.76 6.00 Mixed Use 1.18 4.00 Outside/Open Space 0.00 0.00 Public 1.76 6.00 Single-Family Residential 2.94 10.00 No Zone Type (Blank) 1.76 6.00 Maximum Value 2.94 Multiplier 3.40 There were very few historical NFRIS reported hazardous materials events, less than 3% of all incidents (Incident Type 400 Series) within the study area. Although there were few events reported there were Zone Types Included Commercial/Manufacturing Commercial, Commercial/Manufacturing, General Manufacturing District Multi-Family Residential Residential, Residential Multi-Family Mixed Use Commercial, Research, Manufacturing, Residential, Commercial/Office Research/Residential, Commercial/Manufacturing/Residential, Commercial/Research/Manufacturing/Residential, Commercial/Residential, Commercial; Residential Multi-Family, Mixed Use Outside/Open Space Open Space, Outside, Special Property Public Public Facility Single Family Residential Residential, Residential Single Family No Zone Type Blank ZONE Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 74 enough events to review trends per land use. The majority of the hazardous conditions events occurred at mixed use land use zoned areas and they were therefore weighted the highest Simplified Zone Type Hazardous Materials Hazard Weight Commercial/Manufacturing 0.60 2.76 Multi-family Residential 1.45 6.71 Mixed Use 2.17 10.00 Outside/Open Space 0.02 0.08 Public 1.68 7.77 Single-Family Residential 2.11 9.73 No Zone Type (Blank) 1.98 9.12 Maximum Value 2.17 Multiplier 4.62 Land use/Zone types were not factored into the risk assessment related to the probability for domestic emergencies and wildland fires risk in the same manner as in the other services provided. The methodology used to weight land use/zone type as part of this risk assessment is dependent on the accuracy of the land use data and the ability to estimate the relationship between the property zone type and the request for fire department services. Better land use data for use in a regression analysis may be needed in future risk assessments to estimate the relationship more precisely. TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, GEOGRAPHY, CLIMATE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY The Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (LHMAP) provided other data layers that were used as variables within the risk assessment. LHMAP layers were produced for landslide risk, liquefaction hazards, probabilistic seismic hazards, sea level rise hazards, tsunami risk, and fire severity hazards. The fire severity data from the LHMAP was incorporated into the risk analysis for non-structure fires. The remaining layers were used to quantify the risk scores related to domestic preparedness. INSERT BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Risk Number of Stories Score Low 0 0 1 - 2 3.33 3 - 6 6.67 High 7+ 10 The height and size of buildings are important variables for assessing risk because the size and height affects the impact to the organization, as more specialized resources may be needed the larger the structure. An analysis of the parcel data was performed to determine the distribution of building height throughout the jurisdiction. This data was then categorically grouped to reflect the different resources needed for single story structures, mid-rise structures, and high rise structures. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 75 Figure 49: Parcel Building Height (Number of Stories) DISTANCE FROM FIRE STATION Although Palo Alto Fire uses an AVL closest unit dispatching, proximity of an incident to the fire station was included as a variable, weighting areas furthest from a fire station higher than areas closest to a fire station. Using the travel time polygons 8 minutes and the travel time polygons for stations 2, 5, 6 that went to 45 minutes, the areas closer were assigned less weight given. Relative rate, assuming the further away from a fire station the higher the consequence to the community. This analysis used this method however, in future risk assessments, considering AVL data. An analysis should be performed to determine the frequency in which units are being dispatched from the station versus from away from the station. Understanding whether 90% of units are dispatched from a stationary location is needed to fully utilize the travel time polygons. In addition, this analysis only examines PAFD Stations and does not take into consideration automatic and mutual aid fire stations in Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley and Woodside. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 76 Travel time was grouped and each the risk scores for this variable were included for every service line in the same methodology. Travel Time Within Score Low Within 4 minutes 2 Within 8 minutes 4 Within 15 minutes of a Fire Station 6 Within 30 minutes of a Fire Station 8 High Over 30 Minutes from a Palo Alto Fire Station 10 Figure 50: Distance from Palo Alto Fire Station (Mutual Aid/Auto Aid not measured) ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT FACTORS The 6th edition of the CPSEs Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover document added a new dimension of analysis with the addition of organizational impact. Organizational impact is characterized by the “potential impact drawn on the agency.” Differing methodologies and theories exist as to how Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 77 organizational impact should be incorporated into the risk assessment. Some means of quantifying organizational impact include factoring in the historical unit draw down, meaning historical trends related to the number of apparatus still available for service. Other methodologies include factoring the injury and death rate of fire service personnel as a variable related to organizational impact and other methodologies include looking at the impact on response times. Given the varying approaches and that no injury data was available at this time for incorporation into the risk assessment. Within Palo Alto, proxies for organizational impact were used based on the most available and reliable data available at the time this assessment was performed. To quantify organizational impact into the PAFD risk assessment across the services provided two different variables were used: Current deployment configurations The amount of time units are committed to events by event type Other impact variables were included per service line and the details of the additional variables are detailed within each risk score section. Service Engines Trucks Medics Battalion Chief Hazmat Team Total Apparatus Required Impact Score Structure Fire High Risk 3 2 1 2 0 8 10 Structure Fires 2 1 1 1 0 5 6.25 Technical Rescue 2 1 1 1 0 5 6.25 Water 1 1 0 0 0 2 2.5 Hazmat 2 1 1 1 1 6 7.5 EMS 1 0 1 0 0 2 2.5 Wildland 2 0 1 1 0 4 5 Figure 51: Portion of an Hour Spent on Event by Type Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 78 RISK CALCULATIONS The following tables and narratives explain specifically how each variable was calculated into the probability, consequence, and impact scores for each service provided by PAFD. Each of the six service areas will contain a brief description of the variables and will identify the formula used to calculate it. GENERAL RISK SCORING METHODS Using the variables that were summarized into the hexagon grids, a percent rank table was created to distribute variables across the risk analysis area. The percent rank table was used within the calculation of the probability, consequence, and impact scores. Once the scores were calculated, each variable was normalized so that the CPSE 3-Axis methodology formula could be used to calculate a total risk score. The data was then summarized on the census block group (GEOID); each census block group was given summary scores based on the grids that fell within each census block group. Because the three-axis formula is a relatively new tool provided by the CPSE, risk scores were also calculated using a two-axis methodology of probability and consequence. Probability and consequence were multiplied to get overall scores, and each normalized probability and consequence score was analyzed relationally. STANFORD UNIVERSITY Not all of the risks within Stanford University could be displayed in the foregoing discussion due to the lack of specific data. However, Stanford does contain most if not all of the risks commonly found in any urban setting. These include: Mid and high rise buildings A medical school for a major hospital Physical plant and utilities Child care facilities Public assembly facilities Hazardous materials use and storage Multi-family residences Large public gatherings These all contribute to potential and actual response workload on PAFD. Providing service to these risks also required PAFD conduct training and preparation to ensure effective service delivery when needed. STRUCTURE FIRE RISK The probability of a structure fire was calculated based on factors which included historical demands for service, population density, median income, and land use variables. Consequence was calculated using property value, expected loss from fire confinement beyond the room of origin, and presence of critical infrastructure variables. Organizational impact was calculated by including height of structures (stories), distance to hydrant (outside buffer zone), travel time polygon, time spent on structure fires, presence of building with sprinklers, and resources required. Probability(Structure Fires) = (Historical Incidents)+(Population Density Rank)+(Inverse Median Income Rank)x(Hot Spot Zone Type)+(Parcel Zone Type)x(Population Under 17)+(Population Over 65) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 79 Consequence (Structure Fire) = (Average Property Value by Zone Type Rank) + (Fire Confinement) + (Critical Buffer Rank) Impact (Structure Fire) = (Stories Rank) + (Within Hydrant Zone) + (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Time Spent on Structure Fires) + (Sprinkler Presence Rank) + (Resources Required Score) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Historical Incidents [Incident_Prior_Rank] 0.2415 History as predictor of future events Hot Spot Zone [EmergingHS_Rank] value History as predictor of future events Population Density [Pop_Density_Rank] value Population correlated with increased calls for service Income [MedianIncome_Inverse_Rank] value Socioeconomic factors associated with calls for service Age Under 17 [Percent_U17] 10 Demographic factors associated with calls for service Age Over 65 [Percent_Over65] 10 Demographic factors associated with calls for service Commercial/Manufacturing Zone [Comm_Manuf_Rank] 1.4286 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Outside/Open Zone [Outside_Rank] 0.1429 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Single Family Zone [SF_Rank] 10 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Multifamily Residential Zone [MFResidential_Rank] 7.1249 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Mixed Use Zone [Mixed_Rank] 6.8571 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Public Zone [Public_Rank] 2.1429 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones No Defined Zone [NullZone_Rank] 3.5714 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Property Value Rank [PropValue_byType] value Value of potential losses Expected Loss [Fire_Confinement] 10 Historical expected loss Critical Infrastructure [CI_Buffer_Rank] value Consequence to community if critical infrastructure is affected Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Height of Structure [StoriesRank] value Building height dictates need for Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 80 additional FD resources Outside Hydrant Zone [Hydrant_Rank] value Availability to establish water supply Distance from Fire Station [DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Time Spent on Incidents [TimeSpent_StructureFire] 10 Time unavailable for other incidents Sprinkler Presence [Sprinkler_Rank] value Suppression factors for mitigation FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired = 10] 10 Apparatus and resources required Note: value means the variable is not weighted, the score is calculated with the value that exists within that hexbin field (values change through the geography). The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for structure fire risk within the census blocks using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology. Structure Fire Distribution Statistic Structure Fire Score 4sd 1.484449506 Min 6.986275 3sd 7.483852355 Max 43.047913 2sd 13.4832552 Average 25.4820609 1sd 19.48265805 Standard Deviation 5.999402849 Average 25.4820609 Percentiles 1sd 31.48146375 0.25 22.333671 2sd 37.4808666 0.5 25.041196 3sd 43.48026945 0.75 29.504142 4sd 49.4796723 0.9 31.916998 5sd 55.47907515 0.95 33.187098 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 81 Figure 52: Distribution of Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 53: Distribution of Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 82 Figure 54: Probability x Consequence: Structure Fire Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 83 Figure 55: Risk Scores: Structure Fire Non- Structure Fire Risk Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 84 Non-structure fire probability was calculated based on factors which included historical demands for service, land use variables, presence of roadways, airports, and railroads. Consequence was calculated using property value, expected loss, presence of critical infrastructure and population affected. Organizational impact was calculated by including distance to hydrant (outside buffer zone), travel time distance, time spent on non-structure fires, and fire department resources required. Probability(Non-Structure Fires) = (Historical Incidents)x(Railroad Presence Rank)x(Major Road Presence Rank)x(Airport Presence Rank)x(Wildland Fire Severity)x(Parcel Zone Type) Consequence (Non-Structure Fire) = (Average Property Value by Zone Type Rank) + (Fire Confinement) + (Critical Buffer Rank) + (Population Density of specific zone types) Impact (Non-Structure Fire) = (Within Hydrant Zone) + (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Time Spent on Structure Fires*10) + (Resources Required Score) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Historical Incidents [Incident_Prior_Rank] 0.2415 Past history as predictor of future events Rail Presence [RailRoad_Rank] value Probability based on fire risk associated with railways Major Roadways [MajorRd_Rank] value Probability based on risk associated with vehicle fires Airport [Airport_Rank]) value Probability based on materials and equipment at airports Wildland Fire Threat Zones [WL_FireSevere_Rank] 10 Probability based on local hazard assessment plan threats Commercial/Manufacturing Zone [Comm_Manuf_Rank] 2.3077 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Outside/Open Zone [Outside_Rank] 0.1099 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Single Family Zone [SF_Rank] 5.4945 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Multifamily Residential Zone [MFResidential_Rank] 1.7582 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Mixed Use Zone [Mixed_Rank] 8.2418 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Public Zone [Public_Rank] 8.7912 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones No Defined Zone [NullZone_Rank] 10 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 85 Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Property Value Rank [PropValue_byType] value Value of potential losses Expected Loss [Fire_Confinement] 10 Historical expected loss Critical Infrastructure [CI_Buffer_Rank] value Consequence to community if critical infrastructure is affected Community Consequence [Outside_Rank]*[Pop_Density_Rank] value Population affected by non-structure fire Community Consequence [NullZone_Rank]*[Pop_Density_Rank] value Population affected by non-structure fire Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Outside Hydrant Zone [Hydrant_Rank] value Availability to establish water supply Distance from Fire Station [DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Time Spent on Incidents [TimeSpent_NonStructureFire] 10 Time unavailable for other incidents FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired = 6.25] 6.25 Apparatus and resources required The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for non-structure fire risk using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology. Non-Structure Fire Distribution Statistic Non-Structure Fire Score 3sd 0 Min 0.629456 2sd 1.684008 Max 19.140482 1sd 4.663249 Average 7.642489492 Average 7.642489 Standard Deviation 2.9792406 1sd 10.62173 Percentiles 2sd 13.60097 0.25 6.415937 3sd 16.58021 0.5 6.94921 4sd 19.55945 0.75 7.794727 5sd 22.53869 0.9 9.138785 0.95 16.242082 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 86 Figure 56: Distribution of Non-Structure Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 57: Distribution of Non-Structure Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 87 Figure 58: Probability x Consequence: Non-Structure Fires Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 88 Figure 59: Risk Scores: Non-Structure Fires Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 89 EMERGENCY MEDICAL RISK The probability for EMS Incidents was calculated based on factors which included historical demands for service, population density, age demographics, nursing home and assisted living facilities, hotspot zones, and land use types. EMS consequence was calculated using the expected transport rate, loss from Cardiac Arrest (no ROSC), and the presence of an AED as a reduction of consequence factor. Organizational impact was calculated by using the resources required, time spent on EMS incidents and distance from fire station variables. Probability(EMS) = (Historical Incidents)+(Population Density Rank)+(Hot Spot Zone)+(Parcel Zone Type)+(Percent under 5)+(Percent over 65)+(Nursing Home Presence) Consequence (EMS) = (Transport Rate) + (No ROSC)-(AED Presence) Impact (EMS) = (Time Spent on Transports) + (Resources Required) + (Distance from Fire Station Rank) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Historical Incidents [Incident_Prior_Rank] 10 Past history as predictor of future events Population Density [Pop_Density_Rank] value Population correlated with increased calls for service Hot Spot Zone [EmergingHS_Rank] value Past history as predictor of future events Nursing Home Facilities [NursingHome_Rank] value Probability based on Property use Commercial/Manufacturing Zone [Comm_Manuf_Rank] 2.7612 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Outside/Open Zone [Outside_Rank] 0.0807 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Single Family Zone [SF_Rank] 9.6773 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Multifamily Residential Zone [MFResidential_Rank] 6.7689 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Mixed Use Zone [Mixed_Rank] 10 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Public Zone [Public_Rank] 7.7733 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones No Defined Zone [NullZone_Rank] 9.1246 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Age under 5 [Calculated_Percent_Under5] 10 Demographic factors associated with calls for service Age over 65 [Percent_Over65] 10 Demographic factors associated with calls for service Historical Incidents [Incident_Prior_Rank] 10 Past history as predictor of future events Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 90 Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Expected Transport Rate [Transport_Percent] 10 Expected rate of transport Cardiac Arrest [NoROSC] 6.2 Expected No ROSC during cardiac arrest Early Defibrillation Access [AED_win50ft] (-)5 Mitigating factor with access to defibrillation devices Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Distance from Fire Station [DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Time Spent on Incidents [TimeSpent_Transports] 10 Time unavailable for other incidents FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired = 2.5] 2.5 Apparatus and resources required The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for EMS risk using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology. EMS Distribution Statistic EMS Score 3sd 4.00131255 Min 19.044053 2sd 12.0268396 Max 62.771413 1sd 20.0523667 Average 28.07789384 Average 28.0778938 Standard Deviation 8.025527097 1sd 36.1034209 Percentiles 2sd 44.128948 0.25 23.382621 3sd 52.1544751 0.5 27.093891 4sd 60.1800022 0.75 29.042549 5sd 68.2055293 0.9 31.726179 0.95 40.914952 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 91 Figure 60: Distribution of EMS Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 61: Distribution of EMS Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 92 Figure 62: Probability x Consequence: EMS Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 93 Figure 63: Risk Scores: EMS Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 94 TECHNICAL RESCUE RISK Technical Rescue probability was calculated using four variables, presence of trails, fault line presence, foothills/extension areas, and major roads. Consequence was calculated using only one variable, transport rate, as there was a lack of available data for quantifying consequence related to technical rescue. Organizational impact was calculated by including travel time polygons, time spent on rescue calls, and resources required. Probability (Technical Rescue) = (Trails Presence) + (Fault Line Rank) + (Extension Rank) + (Major Road presence rank) Consequence (Technical Rescue) = (Transport Rate) Impact (Technical Rescue) = (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Time Spent) + (Resources Required) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Presence of Trails [Trails_Rank] value Probability based on terrain and high angle rescues associated with trails Presence of Fault Line [FaultLine_Rank] value Probability based on local hazards assessment plane Extension Area [Extension_Rank] value Probability based on topography of extension area Major Roads [MajorRd_Rank] value Probability based on entrapments needing technical rescue Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Expected Transport Rate [Transport_Percent] 10 Expected rate of transport Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Distance from Fire Station [DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Time Spent on Incidents [TimeSpent_nfirs300] 10 Time unavailable for other incidents FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired = 6.25] 6.25 Apparatus and resources required Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 95 The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for technical rescue risk using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology Technical Rescue Distribution Statistic Technical Rescue Score 1sd 0 Min 0.282425 Average 7.7821 Max 42.681102 1sd 15.72251 Average 7.782100492 2sd 23.66291 Standard Deviation 7.940406 3sd 31.60332 Percentiles 4sd 39.54372 0.25 2.583033 5sd 47.48413 0.5 6.572297 0.75 10.775154 0.9 11.517434 0.95 19.374844 Figure 64: Distribution of Technical Rescue Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology The probability and consequence graph was not prepared for technical rescue events because all consequence was scored equally. In future risk assessments, better data is needed to more accurately estimate the consequence to the community. The time spent on extrication, the number of deaths per technical rescue events or disability sustained would all be appropriate for incorporation. Also given the differences geographically where technical rescue events occur, areas could be weighted differently based on changing rates of injury and death. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 96 Figure 65: Probability x Consequence: Technical Rescue Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 97 Figure 66: Risk Scores: Technical Rescue Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 98 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazmat probability was calculated using variables historical incidents, pipeline presence, hazardous materials presence and land use zones. Hazmat consequence was calculated using property value, population density, and expected loss. Organizational impact was calculated by including expected travel time, time spent on hazardous condition events, fire department resources required, and presence of complicating factors such as railroads. Probability (Hazmat) = (Trails Presence) + (Fault Line Rank) + (Extension Rank) + (Major Road presence rank) Consequence (Hazmat) = (Property Value) + (Critical Infrastructure) + (Hazmat Rank*Population Density) Impact (Hazmat) = (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Time Spent) + (Resources Required) + (Railroad) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Historical Incidents [Incident_Prior_Rank] 0.3506 Past history as predictor of future events Pipeline Presence [Pipeline_Rank] value Presence of a gas pipeline as a predictor for hazardous materials event Within Hazmat Zone [Hazmat_Buffer_Rank] Value Presence within distance of hazmat reported containing facility as a predictor for hazardous materials event Hazmat Facility [Hazmat_Rank] value Presence of hazmat reported containing facility as a predictor for hazardous materials event Commercial/Manufacturing Zone [Comm_Manuf_Rank] 1.6872 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Outside/Open Zone [Outside_Rank] 0 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Single Family Zone [SF_Rank] 10 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Multifamily Residential Zone [MFResidential_Rank] 4.1564 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Mixed Use Zone [Mixed_Rank] 4.4444 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Public Zone [Public_Rank] 3.2099 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones No Defined Zone [NullZone_Rank] 9.5473 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 99 Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Property Value Rank [PropValue_byType] value Value of potential losses Expected Loss [CI_Buffer_Rank] value Historical expected loss Population affected [Hazmat_Rank]x [Pop_Density_Rank] value Consequence to population surrounding hazardous facilities Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Distance from Fire Station [DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Time Spent on Incidents [TimeSpent_nfirs400] 10 Time unavailable for other incidents FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired] 7.5 Apparatus and resources required Railroad presence [RailRoad_Rank] value Hazmat transportation on railway and complications associated with response The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for hazmat risk using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology Hazmat Distribution Statistic Hazmat Score 1sd 2.9527 Min 0.972497 Average 7.074659 Max 19.460005 1sd 11.19662 Average 7.074659148 2sd 15.31858 Standard Deviation 4.121959137 3sd 19.44054 Percentiles 4sd 23.5625 0.25 4.55882 0.5 5.637962 0.75 9.293367 0.9 11.469585 0.95 14.07249 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 100 Figure 67: Distribution of Hazmat Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 68: Distribution of Hazmat Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 101 Figure 69: Probability x Consequence: Hazardous Materials Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 102 Figure 70: Risk Scores: Hazardous Materials Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 103 WILDLAND FIRES Wildland risk was calculated by using the fire threat and severity data produced by the local hazards mitigation plan and extension zones. Consequence was calculated using critical infrastructure and population affected. Organizational impact was calculated by including travel time polygons, resources required and geographical areas defined by the local hazards mitigation plan. Probability (Wildland) = (Fire Threat and Severity) + (Extension Rank) + (Extension D) Consequence (Wildland) = (Critical Infrastructure) + (Population Density) Impact (Wildland) = (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Time Spent) + (landslide areas) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Fire Threat and Severity [WL_FireSevere_Rank] value Probability based on local hazard assessment plan Within an Extension zone [Extension_Rank] value Probability based on geography of foothills Extension Area IIF([Extension_ESZ]='Extension D' = 10, 0 value Probability based on topography of extension area Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Critical Infrastructure [CI_Buffer_Rank] Value Consequence to community if critical infrastructure is affected Population affected [Outside_Rank]x [Pop_Density_Rank] Value Consequence to population in wildland and open areas Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Distance from Fire Station ([DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired = 5] 5 Apparatus and resources required Landslide zone [Landslide_Rank] value Impact related to topography of landslide areas Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 104 The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for wildland fire risk using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology Wildland Fire Distribution Statistic Wildland Fire Score 1sd 0 Min 0.002439 Average 2.38131 Max 40.661014 1sd 8.594957 Average 2.381310115 2sd 14.8086 Standard Deviation 6.21364684 3sd 21.02225 Percentiles 4sd 27.2359 0.25 0.555399 5sd 33.44954 0.5 0.996381 0.75 1.408686 0.9 2.044655 0.95 9.064159 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 105 Figure 71: Distribution of Wildland Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 72: Distribution of Wildland Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 106 Figure 73: Probability x Consequence: Wildland Fire Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 107 Figure 74: Risk Scores: Wildland Fire Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 108 Domestic Preparedness The probability for domestic preparedness events included variables related to the potential for natural disasters and human caused large scale emergencies. Probability was calculated using variables such as the presence of the Pacific Gas & Electric pipeline, critical infrastructure that could be targeted and natural disaster data from the local hazards assessment and mitigation plan. Consequence was calculated using property value, and population density. Organizational impact was calculated by including travel time, distance, time spent on weather and natural event emergencies, resources required and presence of complicating factors such as gas pipelines. Palo Alto and Stanford University are world-known communities, with high profile corporations, visitors, and events. All are potential target for terrorism against fixed facilities and the well-known public figures that live, work, and visit the area. At least once a week a head of state, corporate CEO, celebrities, and other public figures visit Palo Alto and Stanford. Most of the previous categorized facility risks in the community are targets for such terrorist activity. In addition, the city hosts numerous large gathering events during the year. The larger of these events, all potential terrorism targets, include: World Music Day Chili Cook-off Stanford Graduation Stanford football, basketball, tennis, track, etc. events Dignitary visitors Festival of the Arts Amphitheatre events on Stanford Campus The Senior Olympics Palo Alto is in close proximity to the City of San Francisco, which also has a terrorism risk. PAFD may either be impacted by the consequence of a terrorist act in San Francisco or be asked to support them in the aftermath of such an event. The fire department needs to be vigilant in its training and preparedness in the event one or more coordinated acts of terror occur in the region. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 109 Probability (Domestic) = (Pipeline Presence) + (Fault Line Rank) + (Landslide Rank) + (Population Density rank) + (Critical Infrastructure by Priority) Consequence (Domestic) = (Property Value) + (Population) Impact (Domestic) = (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Railroad Rank) + (Pipeline Rank) + (Time Spent on events) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Critical Infrastructure [Pipeline_Rank] value Probability based on target hazard and critical infrastructure Weather/Natural Disaster [FaultLine_Rank] value Probability based on geography of foothills Weather/Natural Disaster [Landslide_Rank] value Probability based on topography of extension area Population Density [Pop_Density_Rank] value Probability based on population density Critical Infrastructure [CI_Priority_Rank] value Probability based on target hazards and types (schools, water treatment etc.) Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Property value [PropValue_byType] Value Consequence to community based on potential losses Population affected [Pop_Density_Rank] Value Consequence to population affected Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Distance from Fire Station ([DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Railroad presence [RailRoad_Rank] 5 Complication factor Pipeline presence [Pipeline_Rank] value Complication factor Time Spent [TimeSpent_nfirs800] 10 Time unavailable for other events The following tables and charts illustrate domestic summary statistics for the values calculated using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis risk scores. Domestic Distribution Statistic Domestic Score 4sd 0 Min 0.752162 3sd 1.774912 Max 19.972416 2sd 5.94491 Average 14.28490475 1sd 10.11491 Standard Deviation 4.169997567 Average 14.2849 Percentiles 1sd 18.4549 0.25 13.263932 2sd 22.6249 0.5 15.346669 3sd 26.7949 0.75 17.034006 0.9 18.12505 0.95 18.48627 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 110 Figure 75: Distribution of Domestic Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 76: Distribution of Domestic Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 111 Figure 77: Probability x Consequence: Domestic Preparedness Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 112 Figure 78: Risk Scores: Domestic Preparedness Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 113 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS The preceding pages identify and categorize risks that are present within the PAFD service area. Over 30 different variables were categorized and the variables were used in different capacities for each service area. Although each service is considered independently, there are some overall themes related to the values of the final risk scores. Census GeoID: 15000US060855117071 This is the largest hazard management zone covered mostly by the foothills and other open park areas. This risk to this area is generally seen as high because of travel time factors which make responding to this area difficult when fire station 8 is not staffed with personnel. Although population density is not high in this area, nor is the probability of most of the services provided by PAFD, the consequence and impact to this area drives the risk scores higher. Census GeoIDs: 15000US060855130001, 15000US060855116081, 15000US060855130002 These areas near the Stanford Hospital, the Stanford Stadium and census block groups on the other side El Camino Real show several types of risk needed to be mitigated by PAFD. The combination of population density and demographic factors, presence of historical calls for service, and land use, drive the probability higher for these events to occur. While organizational impact and community consequence may be more individualized and not as high, these areas show the risk for EMS, structure fire, and hazmat incidents even given the proximity to fire stations. Data for performing the risk assessment was gathered from open data sites, internally produced data layers from the City of Palo Alto, and datasets provided by PAFD. The calculations and quantitative evaluations are dependent on high quality data to accurately assign risk across the jurisdiction. In some areas, it can be seen where better data may lead to a higher accuracy in the scoring. Specifically, for non-structure fires and technical rescue consequence, having access to better data may have helped shown more variability amongst the risk scoring. As an initial assessment the variables used and the scores derived provide a framework for the types of data needed to improve risk evaluation in the future. An analysis of the number of incidents per address was performed. Addresses with repeated responses were identified and the frequency of repeat response locations were added into the probability formula to identify how historical incidents should be weighted. Using the geocoded CAD data, 8,602 addresses were identified as requiring a PAFD response at least once between 2012 and 2016. Results showed that approximately 34% of the incidents happened at an address where an incident has happened before (see table). Repeat Responses Number of Years Observations Percent 1 5,641 65.578% 2 1,558 18.112% 3 776 9.021% 4 289 3.360% 5 338 3.929% Total 8,602 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 114 Figure 79: Number of Years with Repeated Response to Address This information was incorporated in the risk analysis as a way to determine how historical incidents should be weighted, meaning, given an incident happened here before, what is the likelihood an incident will happen here again. Not only was the number of addresses with repeat responses important in determining how to weight historical incidents the magnitude of the observation was needed. The map below uses graduated symbols to illustrate the magnitude of incidents at each address. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 115 Figure 80: Graduated Symbol Map: Repeat Responses to Same Address Each year with a repeated incident was used to show consistency of incidents over time; however 42% of all incidents were a repeat encounter at the same address. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 116 As part of determining how the historical incidents should be weighted and analysis of the incidents occurring within the study area was performed. All CAD incidents intersecting the risk assessment boundary area were selected then summarized by NFIRS Incident type category to produce tabular results. This table was incorporated into the probability formula to determine the type of incident. NFRIS Incident Type Category 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Percent of All incidents in Study Area 100 1.78% 1.56% 1.28% 1.40% 1.62% 1.52% 200 0.05% 0.06% 0.01% 0.09% 0.02% 0.05% 300 62.05% 62.93% 64.05% 62.80% 62.73% 62.93% 400 2.67% 2.48% 2.35% 1.69% 1.99% 2.21% 500 4.89% 4.16% 4.44% 5.64% 5.41% 4.94% 600 13.97% 14.24% 14.18% 15.79% 14.99% 14.69% 700 14.54% 14.58% 13.66% 12.60% 13.22% 13.65% 800 0.06% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Figure 81: Incidents by NFIRS Type in Risk Study Area Fire Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Percent of All Fires Structure Fires 28.95% 36.54% 36.56% 52.25% 42.75% 39.60% Non-Structure Fires 71.05% 63.46% 63.44% 47.75% 57.25% 60.40% Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 117 EMERGING HOT SPOT ANALYSIS The Emerging Hot Spot Analysis tool in ArcGIS Pro© was performed to identify areas where incident demand may be increasing. A time space cube was created using a distance interval of 360 feet (approximately 3 acres) and using a time step interval of 4 months, aggregating into a hexagon grid. The incident data was separated into 15 different time step intervals and 8,908 locations were analyzed, resulting in an analysis of 133,620 time-space bins analyzed, approximately 11% contained non-zero values. Neighborhoods were defined approximately as 2,734 feet. Areas identified with hot or cold trends included 7,733 of 8,908 locations. Summary of Results Type Hot Cold Descriptions New 41 1 Means the most recent time step interval is hot (cold) for the first time Consecutive 120 30 Means a single uninterrupted run of hot (cold) time step intervals, comprised of less than 90% Intensifying 1,480 626 Means at least 90% of time step intervals are hot (cold) , and becoming hotter over time Persistent 463 4,288 At least 90% of the time step interval is hot (cold) , with no upward or downward trend Diminishing 30 36 At least 90% of the time step intervals are hot and becoming less hot over time Sporadic 492 126 Sone of the time step intervals are hot (cold) Oscillating 0 0 Some of the time step intervals are hot ad some are cold Historical 0 0 At least 90% of the time step intervals are hot (cold) but the most recent time stamp is not The emerging hot spot analysis identified six different categories of hot spots were identified. Which allowed the analysis to consider all areas with potential for repeated incidents, not just those cell/addresses where incidents had occurred before. To incorporate this into the risk analysis persistent hot spots were considered as the highest risk and sporadic hot spots were considered with the lowest risk. Each category was scored as follows on a 0 to 10 scale: Score Hot Spot Type 10.00 Persistent 5.00 Intensifying 3.33 New 2.50 Consecutive 2.00 Diminishing 1.67 Sporadic Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 118 Figure 82: Emerging Hot Spot Analysis for the PAFD Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 119 INCIDENTS BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS In addition to these analyses the incident data was also stratified by census block groups and prepared into maps. The census block groups with the highest number of incidents occurring within them represent 55% of all the incidents within the 5 years. Below is a table of the top 5 census block groups with the summary of incidents (see maps pages 126-130) Top Census Block Group GEOID 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Percent 1 15000US060855116091 985 1,045 1,203 1,486 1,531 6,250 17.18% 2 15000US060855130001 554 635 570 606 535 2,900 7.97% 3 15000US060855113021 358 315 436 467 428 2,004 5.51% 4 15000US060855116081 192 280 298 328 362 1,460 4.01% 5 15000US060855117051 288 261 359 378 341 1,627 4.47% 6 15000US060855113022 165 197 308 346 335 1,351 3.71% 7 15000US060855115002 283 269 263 335 319 1,469 4.04% 8 15000US060855113011 184 248 279 257 258 1,226 3.37% 9 15000US060855108013 190 194 203 234 210 1,031 2.83% 10 15000US060855106003 137 151 170 166 162 786 2.16% Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 120 Figure 83: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2012 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 121 Figure 84: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2013 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 122 Figure 85: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2014 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 123 Figure 86: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2015 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 124 Figure 87: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2016 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 125 INCIDENT WORKLOAD PROJECTION The most significant predictor of future incident workload is population; 100 percent of requests for emergency medical service are people-driven. The National Fire Protection Association reports that approximately 70 percent of all fires are the result of people either doing something they should not have (i.e., misuse of ignition source) or not doing something they should have (i.e., failure to maintain equipment). Thus it is reasonable to use future population growth to predict future fire department response workload. The current fire department services utilization rate is 101 incidents per 1,000 population. This is somewhat higher than similar communities and is reflective of the significant employment influence on fire department workload. The utilization of fire department services is expected to grow modestly over time at a rate of about four percent per year. This, plus expected population growth, will increase the PAFD’s workload as shown in the following figure. Response workload by the year 2040 could reach 9,800 responses driven primarily by increased requests for emergency medical care. Figure 88: Response Forecast 2015 – 2040 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 In c i d e n t s Year Fire EMS Other Total Planning Assumption Continued strong business growth and Stanford Campus development will increase daytime populations and service demand in the core of the agency. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 126 Current Deployment and Performance PAFD employs 84 emergency response personnel for EMS, rescue, and fire suppression activities. During the year 26 personnel are on duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm and 24 are on duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. One high fire danger days during declared wildland fire season, typically July 1 to October 31, an additional crew of three personnel staff a wildland fire engine housed at Station 8. The resident population of the PAFD service area is 80,670. PAFD provides its community with 1.04 career firefighters per 1,000 population, and 0.32 firefighters per 1,000 population on duty at all times. When daytime employment population (of 68,000) is included the ratio is 0.57 career firefighters per 1,000 population and 0.17 firefighters per 1,000 population on duty at all times. METHODOLOGY FOR INCIDENT STAFFING This section will provide an analysis of how well PAFD is providing personnel and other resources for incidents within its primary service area. This data is important and can be an indicator of the effectiveness of its staffing efforts. For larger incidents, PAFD commonly acts together with one or more neighboring fire departments in providing fire and life protection through a coordinated regional response system of mutual and automatic aid agreements. This is particularly true for large structure fires, other high-risk incidents where staffing needs are great, and during periods of significant incident activity. This section will provide an overall view of aggregate staffing provided by PAFD and neighboring agencies. The prompt arrival of at least four personnel is critical for structure fires. Federal regulations (CFR 1910.120) require that personnel entering a building involved in fire must be in groups of two. Further, before personnel can enter a building to extinguish a fire, at least two personnel must be on scene and assigned to conduct search and rescue in case the fire attack crew becomes trapped. This is referred to as the two-in, two-out rule. There are, however, some exceptions to this regulation. If it is known that victims are trapped inside the building, a rescue attempt can be performed without additional personnel ready to intervene outside the structure. Further, there is no requirement that all four arrive on the same response vehicle. Many fire departments rely on more than one unit arriving to initiate interior fire attack. PAFD staffs fire engines with three firefighters, thus it must wait for a second unit to arrive before it can initiate interior fire attack operations in a non-rescue incident. Some incidents (such as structure fires) require more than one response unit. The ability of PAFD and its automatic aid neighbors to assemble an effective response force for a multiple unit incident within the specific period of time, also known as resource concentration, will be analyzed in a later section of this report. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 127 The following figure lists each station, staffed unit, and the staffing assigned to each at minimum staffing. Figure 89: Staffing Complement Station Apparatus Minimum On-duty Staffing 8am-8pm Minimum On-duty Staffing 8pm-8am Station 1 Engine 61 3 3 Medic 61 (peak-call time 8am-8pm) Battalion 61 2 1 0 1 Station 2 Engine 62 3 3 Medic 62 (daily cross-staffed) 0 0 Engine 362 0 0 Technical Rescue Trailer 0 0 Hazmat Trailer 0 0 Station 3 Engine 63 Medic 63 (cross-staffed 8pm-8am) 3 0 3 0 Engine 663 0 0 Station 4 Engine 64 Medic 64 (daily cross-staffed) 3 0 3 0 Station 5 Engine 65 3 3 Engine 365 0 0 Station 6 Engine 66 3 3 Truck 66 3 3 Medic 66 2 2 Rapid Response Vehicle 66 0 0 Breathing Support 66 0 0 CO2 Trailer 0 0 Confined Space Trailer 0 0 Shoring Trailer 0 0 Station 8 Engine 365 3 (seasonal) 3 (seasonal) TOTAL 26 / 29 (high fire danger days 24 / 27 (high fire danger days) Palo Alto and other fire agencies in the metropolitan area have developed a comprehensive system for sharing resources. Regional fire agencies rely on the regional mutual and automatic aid agreement for major structure fires, other higher risk incidents, and during periods of high incident activity. Though not a substitute for locally delivered services this system provides significant depth of coverage for unusual circumstances. The following figure lists resources typically available to Palo Alto through a third-alarm incident. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 128 Figure 90: Resources Available from Adjacent Agencies Resources Department Engines Ladders Trucks Other Total Available Staffing Mountain View 2 1 Battalion Chief 10 Santa Clara County 3 1 Battalion Chief 15 Sunnyvale 1 3 NASA Ames 1 Battalion Chief 4 Menlo Park 1 1 8 Cal Fire 10 Dozers, Crews, Aircraft, Overhead 81 TOTALS 17 4 121 CURRENT SERVICE DELIVERY OBJECTIVES The PAFD has adopted the following Performance Statement: Performance Statement Mission We are a professional team of men and women dedicated to safeguarding and enriching the lives of anyone, anytime, anywhere with compassion and pride. The PAFD has established response performance objectives, benchmarks and baselines. They are: Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 129 Figure 91: Performance Objectives, Benchmarks and Baselines Performance Objective Benchmark Baseline Call Answer Time 15 seconds or less, 95% of the time 15 seconds, 99.58% of the time Call Processing Time Priority emergency medical service Structure Fire Full First Alarm Vegetation Fires Injury Accident Rescue Response Hazardous Materials 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 9 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 6 seconds, 90% of the time 1 minute, 20 seconds, 90% of the time 1 minute, 52 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 21 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 33 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 17 seconds, 90% of the time Turnout Time Priority emergency medical service Structure Fire Full First Alarm Vegetation Fires Injury Accident Rescue Response Hazardous Materials 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 7 seconds, 90% of the time 1 minute, 17 seconds, 90% of the time 1 minute, 51 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 48 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 7 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 19 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 34 seconds, 90% of the time Travel Time Priority emergency medical service Structure Fire Full First Alarm Vegetation Fires Injury Accident Rescue Response Hazardous Materials 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes, 27 seconds, 90% of the time 4 minutes, 31 seconds, 90% of the time 5 minutes, 29 seconds, 90% of the time 4 minutes, 21 seconds, 90% of the time 7 minutes, 10 seconds, 90% of the time 9 minutes, 2 seconds, 90% of the time 5 minutes, 22 seconds, 90% of the time Effective Response Force Priority emergency medical service Structure Fire Full First Alarm Vegetation Fires Injury Accident Rescue Response Hazardous Materials 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 13 minutes, 4 seconds, 90% of the time 11 minutes, 22 seconds, 90% of the time 18 minutes, 22 seconds, 90% of the time 11 minutes, 47 seconds, 90% of the time 14 minutes, 57 seconds, 90% of the time 17 minutes, 34 seconds, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 5 seconds, 90% of the time Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 130 HISTORIC SYSTEM RESPONSE WORKLOAD Before a full response time analysis is conducted, it is important to first examine the level of workload (service demand) that a fire department experiences. Higher service demands can strain the resources of a department and may result in a negative effect on response time performance. The following figure shows response workload for five previous calendar years. Total response workload has increased 16 percent over the nine years, primarily driven by the increase in emergency medical responses. Figure 92: Response Workload History, 2012 – 2016 Unique Incidents Total 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 EMS Response 22948 4993 4963 4562 4280 4150 Full First Alarm 127 32 21 23 29 22 Hazmat 44 13 14 4 7 6 MVA 2211 456 368 445 484 458 Rescue Response 27 6 8 3 3 7 Single Engine 15528 3290 3315 2995 2942 2986 Structure Response 241 54 51 38 50 48 Vegetation Response 50 14 5 8 14 9 Water Evacuation 59 9 9 16 9 16 Total 41235 8867 8754 8094 7818 7702 Incident data used for the evaluation of current performance was all responses made during calendar year 2016 (study period). During the study period PAFD responded to 8,867 incidents. Emergency medical type responses (EMS and motor vehicle accidents) are the most common at 56.3 percent of total responses. The next figure lists the number of responses by incident type in both Palo Alto and Stanford University. These include only incidents within the city or university. Mutual or automatic aid responses to adjacent agencies are not included. Prior to the City implementing a new Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD) in 2015, staff were unable to differentiate CAD data between Stanford and Palo Alto. In 2016, 13.5 percent of the calls occurred on Stanford. Figure 93: Responses by Type of Incident by Jurisdiction Unique Incidents Total 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Palo Alto 38734 7669 7451 8094 7818 7702 Stanford 2501 1198 1303 0 0 0 Total 41235 8867 8754 8094 7818 7702 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 131 Temporal Analysis A review of incidents by time of occurrence also reveals when the greatest response demand is occurring. The following figures show how activity and demand changes for PAFD based on various measures of time. The following figure shows response activity during the study period by month. Monthly Figure 94: Monthly Response Workload Unique Incidents Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 January 3601 823 703 784 637 651 February 3254 701 684 638 620 601 March 3486 794 742 663 656 626 April 3379 718 709 733 581 632 May 3647 817 781 704 660 679 June 3663 795 744 723 691 694 July 3509 742 714 759 690 598 August 3608 780 744 725 712 651 September 3713 786 754 795 696 663 October 3885 814 830 784 732 702 November 3524 707 681 765 690 669 December 3649 802 781 681 729 652 Total 42912 9279 8867 8754 8094 7818 Figure 95: Percentage Monthly Response Workload Unique Incidents Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 January 8.4% 8.9% 7.9% 9.0% 7.9% 8.3% February 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 7.3% 7.7% 7.7% March 8.1% 8.6% 8.4% 7.6% 8.1% 8.0% April 7.9% 7.7% 8.0% 8.4% 7.2% 8.1% May 8.5% 8.8% 8.8% 8.0% 8.2% 8.7% June 8.5% 8.6% 8.4% 8.3% 8.5% 8.9% July 8.2% 8.0% 8.1% 8.7% 8.5% 7.6% August 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.8% 8.3% September 8.7% 8.5% 8.5% 9.1% 8.6% 8.5% October 9.1% 8.8% 9.4% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% November 8.2% 7.6% 7.7% 8.7% 8.5% 8.6% December 8.5% 8.6% 8.8% 7.8% 9.0% 8.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 132 Figure 96: Monthly Response Workload Bar Graph (2017) Day of Week Next, response workload is compared by day of week. In this case there is 22.4 percent more incident activity on the busiest day, Friday, versus the slowest day, Sunday in 2017. Figure 97: Daily Response Workload Day of Week Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Sunday 5,135 1,172 1,062 1,073 931 897 Monday 6,150 1,344 1,253 1,220 1,207 1,126 Tuesday 6,241 1,323 1,355 1,242 1,197 1,124 Wednesday 6,494 1,403 1,362 1,317 1,209 1,203 Thursday 6,368 1,328 1,281 1,313 1,237 1,209 Friday 6,618 1,435 1,362 1,331 1,262 1,228 Saturday 5,906 1,274 1,196 1,265 1,087 1,084 Total 42,912 9,279 8,871 8,761 8,130 7,871 Figure 98: Percentage Daily Response Workload Day of Week Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Sunday 12.0% 12.6% 12.0% 12.2% 11.5% 11.4% Monday 14.3% 14.5% 14.1% 13.9% 14.8% 14.3% Tuesday 14.5% 14.3% 15.3% 14.2% 14.7% 14.3% Wednesday 15.1% 15.1% 15.4% 15.0% 14.9% 15.3% Thursday 14.8% 14.3% 14.4% 15.0% 15.2% 15.4% Friday 15.4% 15.5% 15.4% 15.2% 15.5% 15.6% Saturday 13.8% 13.7% 13.5% 14.4% 13.4% 13.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% - 200 400 600 800 1,000 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 133 Figure 99: Daily Response Workload Bar Graph (2017) - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 134 Time of Day 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 where the PAFD runs 72 percent of their calls. Figure 100: Hourly Response Workload Unique Incidents Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Midnight 1,185 253 241 241 225 225 1:00 AM 1,062 228 211 217 209 197 2:00 AM 923 214 185 175 179 170 3:00 AM 788 186 162 154 150 136 4:00 AM 740 170 159 135 163 113 5:00 AM 750 164 146 158 143 139 6:00 AM 948 217 209 191 175 156 7:00 AM 1,470 324 294 313 286 253 8:00 AM 2,076 412 429 435 401 399 9:00 AM 2,387 507 528 452 444 456 10:00 AM 2,621 549 546 566 502 458 11:00 AM 2,606 551 553 532 513 457 Noon 2,680 628 545 521 483 503 1:00 PM 2,528 544 505 502 487 490 2:00 PM 2,481 513 516 502 476 474 3:00 PM 2,522 504 540 530 481 467 4:00 PM 2,301 474 472 469 427 459 5:00 PM 2,360 528 466 474 469 423 6:00 PM 2,279 495 447 474 433 430 7:00 PM 2,067 465 450 403 362 387 8:00 PM 1,808 385 392 383 321 327 9:00 PM 1,627 376 333 369 294 255 10:00 PM 1,415 298 287 301 262 267 11:00 PM 1,288 294 255 264 245 230 Total 42,912 9,279 8,871 8,761 8,130 7,871 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 135 Figure 101: Percentage Hourly Response Workload Hour Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Midnight 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 1:00 AM 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 2.6% 2.5% 2:00 AM 2.2% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0% 2.2% 2.2% 3:00 AM 1.8% 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 4:00 AM 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 2.0% 1.4% 5:00 AM 1.7% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 6:00 AM 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 2.0% 7:00 AM 3.4% 3.5% 3.3% 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 8:00 AM 4.8% 4.4% 4.8% 5.0% 4.9% 5.1% 9:00 AM 5.6% 5.5% 6.0% 5.2% 5.5% 5.8% 10:00 AM 6.1% 5.9% 6.2% 6.5% 6.2% 5.8% 11:00 AM 6.1% 5.9% 6.2% 6.1% 6.3% 5.8% Noon 6.2% 6.8% 6.1% 5.9% 5.9% 6.4% 1:00 PM 5.9% 5.9% 5.7% 5.7% 6.0% 6.2% 2:00 PM 5.8% 5.5% 5.8% 5.7% 5.9% 6.0% 3:00 PM 5.9% 5.4% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 4:00 PM 5.4% 5.1% 5.3% 5.4% 5.3% 5.8% 5:00 PM 5.5% 5.7% 5.3% 5.4% 5.8% 5.4% 6:00 PM 5.3% 5.3% 5.0% 5.4% 5.3% 5.5% 7:00 PM 4.8% 5.0% 5.1% 4.6% 4.5% 4.9% 8:00 PM 4.2% 4.1% 4.4% 4.4% 3.9% 4.2% 9:00 PM 3.8% 4.1% 3.8% 4.2% 3.6% 3.2% 10:00 PM 3.3% 3.2% 3.2% 3.4% 3.2% 3.4% 11:00 PM 3.0% 3.2% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Planning Assumption The PAFD will continue to be challenged with Travel Time performance due to traffic congestion related to businesses and Stanford, traffic-calming devices for bikes and pedestrians, multiple at grade railroad crossings and infrastructure construction. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 136 Figure 102: Hourly Response Workload - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 137 Spatial Analysis In addition to the temporal analysis of the current service demand, it is useful to examine geographic distribution of service demand. Incidents occurring during 2016 were plotted using geographic information system software. Due to some address inconsistencies 84 percent of all incidents were successfully plotted. The following figure series indicates the distribution of emergency incidents in PAFD during the study period. The first figure displays the number of incidents per square mile within various parts of the city. The area of greatest service demand is the Station 1 area. Figure 103: Service Demand Density (2016) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 138 The preceding figure reflects all calls served by PAFD. Service demand can vary by area based on incident type. The following figure displays the location of most building fires in the city during 2016. This illustrates that structure fire incidents are distributed in the city’s more populated areas. Figure 104 Building Fires (2016) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 139 Similarly, emergency medical incidents also occur in greater concentration in areas of higher population density. The following figure displays emergency medical incidents per square mile during 2016. Figure 105: Emergency Medical Incidents per Square Mile (2016) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 140 CENSUS BLOCK GROUP AND UNIT WORKLOAD ANALYSIS A review of workload by station and response unit can reveal much about response time performance. Although fire stations and response units may be distributed in a manner to provide quick response, that level of performance can only be obtained when the response unit is available in its primary service area. If a response unit is already on an incident and a concurrent request for service is received, a more distant response unit will need to be dispatched. This will increase response times. Census Block Group Planning Zone Analysis The agency has selected Census Block Groups as their planning zones. The Census Block Groups allow the agency to capture and analyze community characteristics, historical demand, detailed risk and emergency event data. This is the best method as the agency utilizes Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) for deployment of the closest unit for dispatch. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 141 Census Block Group: 504601 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 12 13 19 12 13 19 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 1 10 4 7 45 5 Good intent call, Other 36 47 40 88 99 78 Hazardous condition, Other 3 3 2 7 6 6 Rescue, EMS incident, other 107 113 109 303 329 285 Service Call, other 2 3 2 2 5 5 Total 161 189 176 419 497 398 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 5 2 7 0 0 0 2 16 1 7 1 0 0 0 1 3 12 2 0 0 2 0 5 3 0 10 3 10 0 0 6 0 13 0 29 4 3 1 1 5 1 0 5 16 5 1 5 2 0 0 2 0 10 6 2 14 2 5 2 9 1 35 7 0 0 15 5 1 1 9 31 8 6 21 17 31 16 8 0 99 9 1 20 34 13 35 26 0 129 10 4 9 18 14 16 16 10 87 11 3 21 18 21 25 31 1 120 12 6 22 12 33 6 9 8 96 13 3 24 16 21 18 21 6 109 14 2 21 19 16 11 12 0 81 15 11 28 11 26 11 21 15 123 16 5 13 10 13 17 15 7 80 17 8 18 2 15 12 6 5 66 18 18 6 11 9 0 22 9 75 19 5 3 2 2 5 4 4 25 20 0 5 0 1 7 3 3 19 21 0 0 0 0 7 3 12 22 22 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 10 23 0 1 0 0 8 2 3 14 Total 105 235 199 236 208 228 103 1314 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 142 Hex Bin Map: 504601 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 143 Census Block Group: 510600 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 50 59 65 60 79 80 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 2 6 5 16 16 18 Good intent call, Other 63 66 58 112 119 113 Hazardous condition, Other 9 8 6 21 26 17 Rescue, EMS incident, other 232 261 243 524 559 525 Service Call, other 26 42 46 40 59 59 Total 382 442 423 773 858 812 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 14 6 2 14 5 7 12 60 1 11 1 3 13 6 15 8 57 2 11 10 7 1 4 9 2 44 3 12 4 7 10 8 8 2 51 4 6 4 9 9 8 5 9 50 5 14 3 6 8 3 4 5 43 6 10 4 7 5 6 4 1 37 7 5 18 11 10 9 18 19 90 8 14 16 6 20 7 16 16 95 9 16 19 28 18 7 34 18 140 10 20 20 22 26 18 27 16 149 11 13 23 18 23 15 14 17 123 12 14 42 15 32 33 27 25 188 13 12 11 21 23 13 34 23 137 14 22 20 17 20 10 20 7 116 15 4 19 20 20 18 19 27 127 16 21 15 18 27 4 19 17 121 17 4 25 23 8 21 21 22 124 18 17 24 17 21 26 35 24 164 19 17 33 18 21 21 15 18 143 20 30 13 9 17 2 14 12 97 21 21 13 19 20 13 32 11 129 22 10 5 6 15 23 14 18 91 23 13 10 2 16 5 4 17 67 Total 331 358 311 397 285 415 346 2443 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 144 Hex Bin Map: 510600 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 145 Census Block Group: 510700 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 21 28 27 24 34 29 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 2 8 6 18 56 39 Good intent call, Other 43 46 52 98 92 109 Hazardous condition, Other 8 9 5 12 13 10 Rescue, EMS incident, other 242 264 293 532 575 654 Service Call, other 19 9 16 26 12 26 Total 335 364 399 710 782 867 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 8 4 16 0 2 15 7 52 1 12 3 13 12 4 14 11 69 2 0 8 7 3 4 4 13 39 3 7 6 4 6 4 11 7 45 4 2 4 3 4 4 8 2 27 5 6 6 7 2 6 13 6 46 6 11 8 12 7 4 7 13 62 7 5 8 7 14 18 13 8 73 8 10 13 25 22 23 11 14 118 9 21 21 17 22 14 16 34 145 10 23 24 30 19 19 17 17 149 11 11 39 27 20 17 20 19 153 12 13 10 23 15 16 12 15 104 13 13 23 14 24 17 13 15 119 14 10 16 16 9 14 38 11 114 15 4 16 17 13 19 28 13 110 16 15 9 11 16 15 22 11 99 17 24 30 31 21 25 14 14 159 18 10 11 14 19 10 16 29 109 19 23 23 13 16 17 16 28 136 20 22 20 15 13 9 16 29 124 21 12 13 25 11 6 21 10 98 22 4 9 25 12 13 9 17 89 23 21 17 15 9 17 20 21 120 Total 287 341 387 309 297 374 364 2359 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 146 Hex Bin Map: 510700 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 147 Census Block Group: 510801 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 41 40 33 49 59 43 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 6 4 8 24 18 40 Good intent call, Other 53 38 47 119 80 114 Hazardous condition, Other 6 5 7 23 13 16 Rescue, EMS incident, other 311 279 329 733 686 785 Service Call, other 27 32 35 38 41 40 Total 444 398 459 986 897 1038 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 10 11 11 3 10 11 26 82 1 9 6 9 9 9 9 13 64 2 9 2 6 7 5 4 22 55 3 13 4 3 6 3 4 15 48 4 5 7 4 6 8 0 6 36 5 8 4 4 20 16 6 8 66 6 8 8 2 8 11 5 7 49 7 13 15 18 9 17 12 25 109 8 17 52 24 33 24 19 12 181 9 12 33 28 23 16 25 23 160 10 25 23 24 48 34 19 23 196 11 18 14 21 22 17 23 16 131 12 12 28 20 19 20 15 25 139 13 18 13 9 18 21 30 12 121 14 20 19 20 19 17 21 19 135 15 29 24 31 39 17 32 33 205 16 11 29 23 22 33 43 15 176 17 18 31 21 32 45 52 8 207 18 33 51 32 21 26 56 21 240 19 27 33 19 35 20 19 26 179 20 17 3 11 24 24 15 20 114 21 11 22 6 26 12 14 26 117 22 8 9 4 5 19 3 9 57 23 4 8 4 14 3 17 4 54 Total 355 449 354 468 427 454 414 2921 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 148 Hex Bin Map: 510801 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 149 Census Block Group: 510802 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 14 13 12 17 18 15 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 1 3 3 5 18 11 Good intent call, Other 17 18 12 31 35 29 Hazardous condition, Other 1 3 3 1 3 4 Rescue, EMS incident, other 79 82 80 183 177 175 Service Call, other 11 10 9 17 12 11 Total 123 129 119 254 263 245 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 3 10 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 2 9 2 2 0 0 4 0 2 2 10 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 0 12 4 0 0 2 3 2 2 2 11 5 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 7 6 3 7 5 2 0 4 0 21 7 0 2 8 6 5 4 1 26 8 0 4 10 10 7 5 8 44 9 4 9 9 5 15 2 6 50 10 9 14 11 5 7 1 5 52 11 9 9 4 7 2 4 0 35 12 5 0 2 13 5 0 8 33 13 5 0 9 6 2 19 11 52 14 5 16 8 9 2 10 6 56 15 5 3 4 0 6 1 3 22 16 9 8 12 6 7 16 12 70 17 3 7 10 18 7 10 3 58 18 11 6 2 2 3 16 6 46 19 2 3 6 6 6 5 5 33 20 6 1 4 2 5 10 2 30 21 9 5 4 2 6 9 13 48 22 1 0 2 4 3 0 2 12 23 0 4 0 3 0 5 3 15 Total 97 104 118 119 94 127 103 762 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 150 Hex Bin Map: 510802 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 151 Census Block Group: 510803 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 30 35 63 36 49 101 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 2 3 2 27 12 12 Good intent call, Other 27 40 29 56 74 55 Hazardous condition, Other 4 4 1 13 9 8 Rescue, EMS incident, other 137 132 111 311 303 235 Service Call, other 22 10 23 25 13 34 Total 222 224 229 468 460 445 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 3 9 4 0 11 6 6 39 1 6 2 5 0 0 3 4 20 2 6 8 4 7 0 2 2 29 3 5 1 4 4 4 4 7 29 4 1 0 6 2 5 0 1 15 5 12 2 4 0 8 2 8 36 6 1 5 13 5 2 3 5 34 7 13 4 9 7 2 9 2 46 8 11 17 15 14 21 4 5 87 9 12 3 17 17 13 16 6 84 10 9 8 16 20 23 13 9 98 11 9 8 4 21 9 24 13 88 12 6 26 12 16 11 9 14 94 13 4 13 11 9 11 10 7 65 14 2 10 10 7 2 5 9 45 15 25 22 15 9 11 10 22 114 16 15 10 15 8 13 6 12 79 17 17 23 7 21 15 12 4 99 18 10 17 12 8 11 15 6 79 19 11 2 3 6 9 8 14 53 20 6 3 13 14 4 3 3 46 21 10 8 7 6 3 3 12 49 22 2 4 4 4 0 3 2 19 23 6 1 7 4 8 5 3 34 Total 202 206 217 209 196 175 176 1381 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 152 Hex Bin Map: 510803 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 153 Census Block Group: 510900 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 20 21 22 27 25 23 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 4 6 3 28 22 22 Good intent call, Other 36 32 26 79 66 48 Hazardous condition, Other 9 9 5 25 15 6 Rescue, EMS incident, other 147 157 168 322 340 371 Service Call, other 14 27 35 16 38 48 Total 230 252 259 497 506 518 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 6 4 5 5 4 5 8 37 1 3 3 3 4 5 3 9 30 2 3 13 3 4 1 2 10 36 3 8 3 3 2 0 2 5 23 4 2 3 7 3 0 6 3 24 5 5 3 8 5 5 0 3 29 6 3 1 4 3 4 4 2 21 7 7 6 12 7 5 8 5 50 8 16 17 11 11 8 11 6 80 9 6 26 10 4 8 16 12 82 10 14 13 13 17 14 14 14 99 11 15 11 12 12 3 11 18 82 12 9 8 10 17 1 9 13 67 13 14 4 11 22 13 8 20 92 14 30 21 21 11 23 6 9 121 15 22 14 14 16 10 8 7 91 16 13 8 8 20 6 9 4 68 17 8 9 9 18 18 10 12 84 18 14 15 4 17 17 9 7 83 19 15 19 10 12 5 7 20 88 20 20 9 15 8 3 7 21 83 21 6 6 4 3 16 13 14 62 22 3 6 4 11 6 14 12 56 23 6 2 10 4 0 10 9 41 Total 248 224 211 236 175 192 243 1529 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 154 Hex Bin Map: 510900 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 155 Census Block Group: 511000 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 13 19 25 17 22 31 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 1 4 5 5 13 24 Good intent call, Other 30 33 34 71 65 53 Hazardous condition, Other 3 11 4 12 27 15 Rescue, EMS incident, other 199 198 198 445 442 422 Service Call, other 17 35 39 26 42 53 Total 263 300 305 576 611 598 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 9 7 11 5 12 9 8 61 1 5 0 5 2 6 4 6 28 2 8 5 10 5 7 12 4 51 3 6 2 10 8 7 8 5 46 4 4 10 2 5 5 2 2 30 5 4 0 5 9 7 15 10 50 6 18 5 3 2 11 4 4 47 7 6 7 9 11 10 2 6 51 8 16 13 10 13 9 2 15 78 9 13 9 6 17 20 7 8 80 10 10 12 12 14 23 2 4 77 11 10 17 13 20 18 10 13 101 12 20 13 10 34 8 10 11 106 13 17 25 14 18 10 11 20 115 14 6 18 14 6 14 21 3 82 15 11 26 11 11 13 6 17 95 16 11 16 4 18 12 10 14 85 17 19 27 25 15 8 10 4 108 18 15 21 18 16 10 4 7 91 19 12 10 8 11 11 15 9 76 20 17 9 11 18 20 14 9 98 21 16 4 13 16 12 13 14 88 22 13 20 13 7 17 12 16 98 23 4 11 6 2 8 7 5 43 Total 270 287 243 283 278 210 214 1785 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 156 Hex Bin Map: 511000 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 157 Census Block Group: 511100 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 36 27 35 47 33 38 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 6 8 5 30 31 10 Good intent call, Other 39 30 53 72 57 97 Hazardous condition, Other 6 7 6 18 14 16 Rescue, EMS incident, other 161 167 187 350 380 412 Service Call, other 32 48 45 42 70 65 Total 280 287 331 559 585 638 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 9 6 2 6 7 6 6 42 1 10 6 6 8 2 1 4 37 2 1 5 5 7 2 4 8 32 3 6 2 4 5 2 8 4 31 4 5 7 7 1 5 8 4 37 5 5 2 3 4 7 16 6 43 6 9 4 10 4 4 7 9 47 7 19 12 11 11 1 5 16 75 8 10 5 7 9 5 20 11 67 9 12 9 24 14 10 21 19 109 10 18 13 6 18 19 14 14 102 11 22 13 12 6 24 16 5 98 12 15 8 15 18 25 15 16 112 13 8 15 9 16 11 12 22 93 14 11 16 7 26 16 14 7 97 15 16 9 9 16 6 35 19 110 16 15 12 26 18 6 9 8 94 17 9 18 20 22 14 12 9 104 18 22 7 15 8 10 26 12 100 19 22 8 18 14 11 16 13 102 20 16 7 9 4 12 14 25 87 21 8 19 12 14 4 16 1 74 22 11 11 9 4 8 8 5 56 23 9 8 14 6 4 4 3 48 Total 288 222 260 259 215 307 246 1797 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 158 Hex Bin Map: 511100 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 159 Census Block Group: 511200 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 32 47 43 38 60 53 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 5 4 2 29 18 11 Good intent call, Other 57 60 58 114 105 96 Hazardous condition, Other 7 12 6 21 35 14 Rescue, EMS incident, other 148 170 174 336 372 377 Service Call, other 29 17 23 36 24 26 Total 278 310 306 574 614 577 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 10 10 6 5 11 4 4 50 1 6 6 4 2 2 0 4 24 2 8 4 5 3 5 5 9 39 3 2 3 9 4 10 4 9 41 4 4 3 2 1 2 1 3 16 5 0 5 20 4 4 7 2 42 6 3 3 4 5 7 7 2 31 7 6 13 8 11 7 7 4 56 8 16 7 0 7 12 12 5 59 9 0 12 2 10 15 18 7 64 10 17 18 30 31 9 15 7 127 11 11 18 11 18 17 10 20 105 12 13 27 22 11 8 11 12 104 13 13 12 17 22 20 15 7 106 14 23 17 25 25 6 14 20 130 15 14 20 24 14 6 14 15 107 16 15 12 13 14 10 16 10 90 17 12 5 15 24 30 20 14 120 18 10 23 22 15 16 17 17 120 19 19 14 7 13 11 7 14 85 20 14 9 10 10 13 10 12 78 21 12 4 2 14 10 14 12 68 22 5 10 16 8 9 0 7 55 23 7 8 8 5 10 4 6 48 Total 240 263 282 276 250 232 222 1765 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 160 Hex Bin Map: 511200 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 161 Census Block Group: 511301 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 29 42 31 32 60 37 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 11 2 7 42 36 21 Good intent call, Other 55 35 48 127 60 84 Hazardous condition, Other 5 13 9 19 27 20 Rescue, EMS incident, other 209 204 254 461 443 548 Service Call, other 19 35 35 25 48 43 Total 328 331 384 706 674 753 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 3 4 5 3 10 6 7 38 1 6 2 4 7 2 0 10 31 2 4 2 9 6 7 6 3 37 3 4 2 7 1 4 9 8 35 4 8 4 2 5 4 2 3 28 5 5 3 4 7 4 5 4 32 6 0 2 5 9 8 8 4 36 7 6 13 7 10 20 13 9 78 8 10 7 16 30 17 11 16 107 9 6 19 38 23 24 18 11 139 10 23 26 34 21 9 21 17 151 11 14 25 36 19 27 23 21 165 12 15 13 11 10 11 20 19 99 13 18 26 15 30 21 14 4 128 14 13 21 16 31 20 34 12 147 15 16 18 17 15 9 20 10 105 16 16 11 9 21 9 14 16 96 17 10 19 18 13 8 17 13 98 18 13 14 36 24 18 13 12 130 19 25 12 14 25 13 17 24 130 20 29 14 10 11 17 16 9 106 21 21 12 9 8 8 12 19 89 22 12 11 15 8 2 4 28 80 23 5 4 4 8 6 10 11 48 Total 282 284 341 345 278 313 290 2133 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 162 Hex Bin Map: 511301 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 163 Census Block Group: 511302 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 80 110 114 109 154 162 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 14 8 16 36 68 32 Good intent call, Other 172 163 162 358 330 312 Hazardous condition, Other 13 13 18 29 45 54 Rescue, EMS incident, other 541 513 539 1190 1113 1161 Service Call, other 67 54 71 91 76 92 Total 887 861 920 1813 1786 1813 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 25 12 10 14 18 37 62 178 1 30 15 25 17 21 29 25 162 2 33 17 11 16 15 14 38 144 3 24 12 13 16 18 24 19 126 4 20 6 13 8 21 17 14 99 5 17 11 15 13 22 13 10 101 6 18 23 11 22 14 20 13 121 7 26 34 23 20 23 17 17 160 8 14 35 25 39 35 28 18 194 9 23 36 43 38 49 29 30 248 10 46 55 44 50 48 28 38 309 11 29 39 57 37 48 58 46 314 12 46 54 85 44 32 54 34 349 13 31 42 59 39 45 48 35 299 14 44 40 31 61 39 39 45 299 15 30 31 61 55 52 37 39 305 16 48 32 29 35 27 41 29 241 17 54 40 47 33 38 45 69 326 18 42 29 53 71 37 30 45 307 19 29 35 36 44 34 39 29 246 20 32 40 38 45 21 47 58 281 21 24 25 26 39 28 54 39 235 22 20 20 30 20 26 39 25 180 23 18 31 19 20 22 36 42 188 Total 723 714 804 796 733 823 819 5412 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 164 Hex Bin Map: 511302 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 165 Census Block Group: 511400 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 24 35 40 24 38 50 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 1 3 4 2 7 27 Good intent call, Other 33 35 40 53 53 79 Hazardous condition, Other 7 6 8 25 24 19 Rescue, EMS incident, other 105 97 116 239 220 260 Service Call, other 24 27 21 31 36 27 Total 194 203 229 374 378 462 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 15 1 3 2 1 2 0 3 9 20 2 1 0 5 3 2 3 2 16 3 4 2 9 7 3 0 0 25 4 0 4 2 2 7 1 5 21 5 2 2 1 3 0 0 2 10 6 4 7 1 2 5 1 3 23 7 4 4 3 5 2 0 5 23 8 6 8 6 19 10 4 3 56 9 17 2 15 15 8 17 8 82 10 20 14 12 17 22 17 3 105 11 24 4 15 22 18 10 12 105 12 9 11 9 5 6 3 8 51 13 1 9 4 11 23 6 8 62 14 0 22 10 15 8 7 9 71 15 7 7 11 14 8 13 9 69 16 4 13 12 19 16 9 3 76 17 5 7 7 12 9 16 1 57 18 13 16 6 16 8 11 1 71 19 3 5 13 14 12 6 9 62 20 10 4 13 11 5 8 6 57 21 11 11 12 13 9 3 0 59 22 4 4 4 5 4 7 11 39 23 2 2 2 5 9 7 12 39 Total 158 162 175 239 195 154 131 1214 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 166 Hex Bin Map: 511400 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 167 Census Block Group: 511500 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 102 102 120 117 115 132 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 10 14 18 32 45 55 Good intent call, Other 100 71 94 176 148 148 Hazardous condition, Other 11 24 12 16 50 28 Rescue, EMS incident, other 484 487 473 1120 1082 1044 Service Call, other 36 39 37 48 48 55 Total 743 737 754 1509 1488 1462 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 21 12 14 9 14 23 32 125 1 32 7 4 12 6 18 23 102 2 12 4 16 4 9 9 11 65 3 8 8 12 3 12 2 7 52 4 9 3 14 7 16 12 9 70 5 11 1 9 10 3 8 7 49 6 7 25 19 20 14 5 11 101 7 19 28 29 42 26 36 18 198 8 16 34 33 19 33 39 10 184 9 34 46 49 61 32 58 20 300 10 48 42 41 50 53 39 24 297 11 31 51 31 42 46 29 53 283 12 34 49 41 37 29 54 37 281 13 42 62 39 43 48 47 49 330 14 16 57 50 31 24 35 17 230 15 21 36 36 36 43 24 35 231 16 15 62 51 36 47 43 20 274 17 18 23 25 41 34 32 38 211 18 31 37 42 46 15 27 38 236 19 18 18 37 32 26 24 23 178 20 19 16 31 34 25 24 17 166 21 19 42 35 20 22 20 26 184 22 16 27 24 24 34 24 13 162 23 28 10 29 9 8 24 42 150 Total 525 700 711 668 619 656 580 4459 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 168 Hex Bin Map: 511500 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 169 Census Block Group: 511608 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 130 139 194 146 161 215 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 8 6 4 25 6 13 Good intent call, Other 62 56 45 102 102 64 Hazardous condition, Other 8 11 10 28 30 21 Rescue, EMS incident, other 238 283 247 547 619 551 Service Call, other 6 3 8 8 4 13 Total 452 498 508 856 922 877 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 28 9 4 15 5 11 34 106 1 37 6 3 8 3 12 19 88 2 13 0 5 9 4 5 25 61 3 7 4 5 5 3 2 0 26 4 2 4 2 11 2 9 9 39 5 6 3 2 1 1 4 5 22 6 4 10 8 10 4 5 5 46 7 1 11 7 8 11 7 6 51 8 2 19 19 7 28 24 4 103 9 3 18 30 15 41 27 13 147 10 4 31 19 43 35 37 16 185 11 13 27 40 36 41 38 10 205 12 19 38 32 24 20 43 13 189 13 15 28 24 36 24 32 12 171 14 10 15 46 38 31 32 22 194 15 13 26 40 33 38 29 13 192 16 13 20 32 29 44 19 12 169 17 12 19 25 24 18 13 17 128 18 10 8 14 14 16 8 17 87 19 12 18 8 14 9 15 16 92 20 8 15 27 26 11 13 11 111 21 7 12 16 8 8 15 9 75 22 6 7 10 15 11 13 14 76 23 12 8 9 14 15 18 19 95 Total 257 356 427 443 423 431 321 2658 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 170 Hex Bin Map: 511608 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 171 Census Block Group: 511609 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 69 75 91 92 88 117 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 8 12 14 27 24 100 Good intent call, Other 291 313 282 528 567 542 Hazardous condition, Other 12 13 15 38 26 47 Rescue, EMS incident, other 1128 1153 1144 2558 2544 2487 Service Call, other 31 21 15 40 32 28 Total 1539 1587 1561 3283 3281 3321 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 31 29 28 23 20 36 47 214 1 24 19 25 42 34 26 29 199 2 26 35 30 28 34 37 19 209 3 29 26 28 24 25 38 28 198 4 34 7 34 23 42 20 31 191 5 22 19 14 22 23 30 26 156 6 17 30 20 25 22 47 29 190 7 21 52 38 50 55 40 40 296 8 40 68 83 63 65 63 44 426 9 39 70 82 99 79 68 58 495 10 58 82 85 125 117 104 92 663 11 48 126 98 124 121 122 86 725 12 57 113 119 78 161 126 93 747 13 46 104 89 109 110 107 61 626 14 55 106 121 105 122 129 66 704 15 64 123 100 130 93 93 30 633 16 73 73 87 110 79 70 84 576 17 60 84 82 69 84 80 64 523 18 57 83 64 35 62 50 62 413 19 42 53 58 81 59 81 72 446 20 43 40 34 59 70 56 70 372 21 66 49 61 50 60 52 64 402 22 43 41 20 42 41 35 37 259 23 25 52 16 33 45 21 30 222 Total 1020 1484 1416 1549 1623 1531 1262 9885 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 172 Hex Bin Map: 511609 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 173 Census Block Group: 511701 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 1 2 3 1 3 3 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 2 2 3 2 2 8 Good intent call, Other 33 35 37 38 45 40 Hazardous condition, Other 1 1 4 4 1 8 Rescue, EMS incident, other 15 20 26 27 34 52 Service Call, other 2 0 0 2 0 0 Total 54 60 73 74 85 111 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 6 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 8 2 0 0 3 0 2 15 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 6 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 7 7 1 0 2 0 6 1 2 12 8 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 7 9 2 8 7 1 3 1 2 24 10 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 7 11 1 0 9 3 0 5 3 21 12 1 0 5 0 2 0 7 15 13 5 2 2 5 6 3 0 23 14 0 1 0 1 1 4 4 11 15 2 1 0 4 5 3 1 16 16 2 0 4 2 4 5 7 24 17 3 2 7 1 1 2 0 16 18 2 1 8 2 1 3 2 19 19 0 1 3 0 2 1 2 9 20 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 5 21 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 8 22 1 0 1 1 2 0 4 9 23 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Total 35 27 52 25 47 41 43 270 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 174 Hex Bin Map: 511701 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 175 Census Block Group: 511704 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 0 0 1 0 0 1 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 0 1 4 0 2 6 Good intent call, Other 19 6 15 26 10 22 Hazardous condition, Other 0 0 1 0 0 1 Rescue, EMS incident, other 6 4 2 20 10 6 Service Call, other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 25 11 23 46 22 36 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 7 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 6 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 3 1 5 0 9 10 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 0 1 5 3 3 2 0 14 13 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 4 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 6 16 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 6 17 1 4 1 3 0 1 2 12 18 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 7 19 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 6 20 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 7 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 23 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 Total 6 16 15 23 13 16 15 104 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 176 Hex Bin Map: 511704 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 177 Census Block Group: 511705 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 70 64 91 81 77 111 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 7 7 8 23 23 24 Good intent call, Other 77 79 79 147 148 138 Hazardous condition, Other 13 8 6 31 15 17 Rescue, EMS incident, other 208 203 189 496 471 440 Service Call, other 22 11 12 33 16 14 Total 397 372 385 811 750 744 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 1 7 0 0 5 2 7 22 1 1 3 4 2 8 0 7 25 2 7 0 6 2 1 6 1 23 3 3 0 2 0 0 3 3 11 4 0 2 6 4 4 9 5 30 5 3 3 5 0 5 1 4 21 6 0 14 11 11 5 21 7 69 7 5 18 17 13 13 17 8 91 8 11 13 37 26 27 20 16 150 9 9 28 28 22 44 19 11 161 10 21 18 35 20 45 48 14 201 11 9 47 33 25 39 26 13 192 12 18 36 35 21 32 34 17 193 13 18 39 26 16 16 19 9 143 14 15 27 28 16 21 37 10 154 15 6 15 25 27 24 27 13 137 16 9 19 24 17 14 18 28 129 17 4 16 24 29 17 29 12 131 18 8 13 22 12 18 12 16 101 19 14 11 14 22 22 23 5 111 20 4 7 10 9 9 14 9 62 21 3 11 6 4 9 12 8 53 22 12 2 8 1 8 13 6 50 23 8 4 7 7 8 4 7 45 Total 189 353 413 306 394 414 236 2305 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 178 Hex Bin Map: 511705 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 179 Census Block Group: 511707 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 2 1 1 2 2 1 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 2 0 1 9 0 27 Good intent call, Other 21 9 21 57 39 58 Hazardous condition, Other 1 1 0 2 3 1 Rescue, EMS incident, other 21 23 26 109 112 119 Service Call, other 1 1 3 1 1 4 Total 48 35 52 180 157 210 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 1 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 8 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 6 1 0 1 2 8 0 0 12 7 0 5 4 0 6 1 2 18 8 1 0 4 2 2 8 6 23 9 2 3 7 3 0 12 4 31 10 5 10 0 7 7 8 12 49 11 11 8 2 2 12 12 14 61 12 0 0 9 5 5 14 9 42 13 0 4 5 9 2 7 9 36 14 24 0 13 12 5 11 2 67 15 3 0 8 13 9 12 2 47 16 7 0 8 8 9 4 0 36 17 2 1 8 3 0 5 8 27 18 2 6 8 2 0 0 0 18 19 13 11 2 9 4 1 0 40 20 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 6 21 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 7 22 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 Total 76 53 84 88 69 100 77 547 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 180 Hex Bin Map: 511707 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 181 Census Block Group: 513000 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 224 199 233 283 241 298 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 21 20 15 52 33 42 Good intent call, Other 69 72 91 132 131 162 Hazardous condition, Other 11 6 9 22 12 26 Rescue, EMS incident, other 357 317 341 774 668 737 Service Call, other 24 9 14 28 14 22 Total 706 623 703 1291 1099 1287 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 31 3 8 16 13 18 58 147 1 45 7 8 27 7 20 48 162 2 38 1 5 3 16 16 27 106 3 14 10 3 4 5 8 7 51 4 3 4 4 6 3 3 5 28 5 6 2 3 5 12 2 6 36 6 6 5 8 10 13 14 11 67 7 16 11 11 7 16 20 9 90 8 8 28 16 22 29 27 18 148 9 9 31 32 27 24 34 25 182 10 37 27 18 34 28 25 27 196 11 15 15 37 42 34 52 42 237 12 28 46 49 36 47 20 37 263 13 30 23 41 10 30 21 25 180 14 13 33 28 38 31 12 33 188 15 23 28 18 24 35 21 43 192 16 13 7 21 26 19 26 38 150 17 10 21 23 18 35 29 34 170 18 21 19 17 19 46 29 54 205 19 35 30 16 23 31 33 61 229 20 23 32 14 14 42 35 45 205 21 20 37 19 11 17 27 35 166 22 12 14 22 19 10 17 30 124 23 10 4 21 20 22 43 37 157 Total 466 438 442 461 565 552 755 3679 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 182 Hex Bin Map: 513000 Response Unit Workload The workload on individual response units during the study period is shown in the following table. Individual response unit workload can be greater than the workload in its home station area. Many incidents, such as structure fires, require more than one response unit. Engine 61, Medic 61, and Medic 62 are the busiest PAFD response units. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 183 Figure 106: Response Unit Workload During 2016, there were 8,867 total incidents within the PAFD. Total unit responses to the city incidents were 17,760 (including mutual aid). The amount of time a given unit is committed to an incident is also an important workload factor. The following figure illustrates the average time each unit was committed to an incident, from initial dispatch until it cleared the scene. Figure 107: Average Time Committed to an Incident by Unit Unit Responses Average Minutes Per Response Battalion 66 444 23.88 Engine 61 2443 19.20 Engine 62 1098 21.29 Engine 63 1433 21.23 Engine 64 1250 24.72 Engine 65 1134 21.92 Engine 66 1765 20.52 Medic 61 2820 45.48 Medic 62 2797 49.41 Medic 63 527 34.96 Medic 64 31 27.67 Truck 66 876 19.52 Unit hour utilization is an important workload indicator. It is calculated by dividing the total time a unit is committed to all incidents during a year divided by the total time in a year. Expressed as a percentage, it describes the amount of time a unit is not available for response since it is already committed to an Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 184 incident. The larger the percentage, the greater a unit’s utilization, and the less available it is for assignment to an incident. Unit hour utilization is an important statistic to monitor for those fire agencies using percentile-based performance standards, as does PAFD. In PAFD’s case, where performance is measured at the 90th percentile, unit hour utilization greater than 10 percent means that the response unit will not be able to provide on-time response to its 90 percent target even if response is its only activity. Figure 108: Unit Hour Utilization Mutual and Automatic Aid PAFD is a participant in the regional mutual and automatic aid system. This system provides for the automatic dispatch of adjacent agency response units into PAFD and from PAFD to adjacent agencies to ensure the closest appropriate units are sent to an emergency. This system provides PAFD with quick access to a significant number of response resources. PAFD maintains boundary drop and automatic aid agreements with the City of Mountain View. For the remaining agencies, the PAFD has mutual aid agreements with the exception of freeway responses on US Highway 101 and Interstate 280 with Menlo Park Fire District and Woodside Fire District. Study period incident data was evaluated to determine the benefit to and commitment of PAFD to this system. The results show that depending on the agency, PAFD both benefits from and supports agencies in the auto and mutual aid system. In the Study Period, PAFD provided service to 446 adjacent agency incidents. Other agencies provided service to 415 incidents in the PAFD service area. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 185 Figure 109: Mutual and Automatic Aid Mutual and Automatic Aid CY 2016 Study Period Aid Provided Agency Count Percent Mountain View Fire 369 82.7% Santa Clara County Fire 69 15.5% Menlo Park Fire 3 0.7% San Jose Fire 1 0.2% San Mateo Fire 1 0.2% Cal Fire 3 0.7% All Mutual and Auto Aid Provided 446 100.0% Aid Received Agency Count Percent Mountain View Fire 266 64.1% Menlo Park Fire 74 17.3% Santa Clara County Fire 52 12.5% Woodside Fire 20 4.8% Cal Fire 2 0.5% Moffett Fire 1 0.2% All Mutual and Auto Aid Received 415 100.0% Source: Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Reports FY15 Q3, Q4 and FY16 Q1, Q2 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 186 Second Unit Arrival Time All PAFD fire engines are staffed with three personnel. The ladder truck is staffed with three. Safety regulations require that at least four firefighters be on scene before firefighters can enter a burning building. The only exception is if it is known that a person is inside the building and needs rescue. Current staffing levels on apparatus require the arrival of a second response unit before non-rescue interior firefighting activities can be initiated. Incident data for building fires during the study period was reviewed to determine the time the second response unit arrived on the scene. According to the data the second unit arrived on scene of a structure fire within two minutes, 51 seconds, 90 percent of the time after the arrival of the first unit. Call Concurrency and Reliability When evaluating the effectiveness of any resource deployment plan, it is necessary to evaluate the workload of the individual 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 One way to look at resource workload is to examine the number of times multiple incidents happen within the same time frame in each station area. Incidents during the study period were examined to determine the frequency of concurrent incidents within each station’s response area. This is important because concurrent incidents can stretch available resources and extend response times. The following figure shows the number of concurrent and non-current calls for each PAFD station during the study period. Concurrent calls were highest in the Station 1 area at seven percent of total. Figure 110: Call Concurrency by Station 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 In c i d e n t s Station Concurrent Total Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 187 The number of incidents occuring at the same time city-wide was also evaluated. The following figure shows the number of times one or more incidents occurred during the same time period and the percentage of such occurrances. Figure 111: Incident Concurrency 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% Figure 112: Drawdown Summary (Engines) 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% Figure 113: Drawdown Summary (Ambulances) 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% Reliability The ability of a fire station’s first-due unit(s) to respond to an incident within its assigned response area is known as unit reliability. The reliability analysis is normally done by measuring the number of times response units assigned to a given fire station were available to respond to a request for service within that fire station’s primary service area. PAFD does not dispatch response units based on a particular geographic service area. Instead, the computer aided dispatch system assigns the closest unit to an incident based on calculated travel time. This is a far superior way to select response units for an incident. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 188 Hour: SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT Weekday Weekend Overall 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 26.40%31.70%21.90%21.10% 26.90%27.10%22.60%20.90% 28.00%23.70%23.70%18.60% 32.50%34.60%27.50%19.30% 35.90%29.10%28.00%21.10% 29.80%34.90%22.50%22.10% 36.90%33.90%36.00%32.10% 30.62%29.88%24.86%20.40% 31.65%32.80%28.95%26.60% 30.91%30.71%26.03%22.17% To determine reliability under this system, data should be collected to determine the number of times any response unit was available for an incident within the target travel time, in this case four minutes. Data is not currently available to make that calculation. Unit Hour Utilization Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) is a standardized way to measure workload levels in an agency’s system and to allow comparison to other systems. Typically used for measuring ambulance activity, UHU is calculated by dividing the time committed to calls by the number of "unit hours," with one unit hour defined as a fully equipped and staffed vehicle in the agency’s system. UHU does not measure other time activities such as training, vehicle maintenance, administrative details or fire inspections. Figure 114: 2016 UHU (8am - 8pm) for M61, M62, M64(E64) Figure 115: 2016 UHU (8pm - 8am) for M61, M62, M64(E64) Hour:8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 SUN 22.90%22.80%34.30%29.30%28.70%29.20%30.10%32.30%35.00%32.40%30.50%28.70% MON 35.30%37.40%39.10%40.10%41.60%43.40%44.30%38.90%40.50%40.80%39.60%38.00% TUE 30.30%42.40%48.40%48.00%44.80%39.90%43.60%44.20%37.40%33.80%43.10%34.10% WED 34.30%35.80%52.70%46.40%35.30%43.10%41.50%43.00%48.60%43.50%41.30%37.70% THU 24.40%28.50%38.80%45.20%50.00%31.20%38.50%42.40%33.80%37.20%37.30%29.40% FRI 34.90%34.20%41.20%44.40%40.60%41.90%41.80%39.30%33.20%38.30%37.90%36.50% SAT 25.40%30.90%34.10%42.30%42.60%33.90%36.90%37.60%37.30%34.50%31.00%42.00% Weekday 31.84%35.66%44.04%44.82%42.46%39.90%41.94%41.56%38.70%38.72%39.84%35.14% Weekend 24.15%26.85%34.20%35.80%35.65%31.55%33.50%34.95%36.15%33.45%30.75%35.35% Overall 29.64%33.14%41.23%42.24%40.51%37.51%39.53%39.67%37.97%37.21%37.24%35.20% Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 189 Appendix APPENDIX A – COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary Introduction The Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) is an organization that provides a framework for continuous quality improvement for Fire and Emergency Services agencies. The cornerstone of the CPSE’s continuous quality improvement process is through agency accreditation, through which the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) provides a model for Fire and Emergency Services agencies to conduct self-assessments that are validated and reviewed by external peer assessors. On completion of the self-assessment the accrediting agency, along with the peer assessor team lead, sits before the commission to seek approval for agency accreditation. The accreditation process requires every agency applying for accreditation to perform a community- based strategic plan, a self-assessment of over 250 performance indicators that includes a Standards of Cover and a Community Risk Assessment – both substantial written works with considerable background work and support The risk assessment is a core component of the self-assessment because only through identifying the risks within its community, can a department improve its service delivery and ensure the appropriate resources are delivered to incidents to meet the community needs. The CFAI requires that the risk assessment systematically both identifies risks within the service area/jurisdiction and quantifies in a score what those risks represent -- specifically, the probability that certain events will occur, and the potential consequence(s) to the community associated with each risk. Various methodologies exist for quantitatively assessing risk; however, at the most basic level, a risk assessment is about determining what and where the risks are. For every jurisdiction risks can be different because of the differences in variables that contribute to each risk, for example demographic factors, construction types, land uses, and vegetation fuel models. The CFAI requires a methodology that logically, systematically, and consistently classifies variables associated with the risks. The 9th edition of the Fire and Emergency Services Self-Assessment Manual (FESSAM) and the 6th edition of the Risk Assessment Standards of Cover Manual, identify core competencies which must be considered when performing a risk assessment such as organizing response areas into geographical planning zones, considering population density within each planning zone, and identifying characteristics of each planning zone that include hazards, risks, and service demands. In order to meet the requirements of the accreditation process, the Palo Alto Fire Department with the assistance of FireStats, LLC., used the guidance within the 6th Edition of the Risk Assessment Standards of Cover Manual to produce a comprehensive risk assessment for the Palo Alto Fire Department’s service area. Methods The CFAI offers guidance for two quantitative approaches of a risk assessment. One approach uses a standard two-axis methodology that seeks to quantify the probability of events occurring and the consequences associated with those events. The other approach is a three-axis methodology that seeks to quantify probability, consequence, and a third dimension called organizational impact. Palo Alto Fire Department’s risk assessment used both the traditional two-axis methodology and the three-axis Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 190 methodology to quantify risk within the response jurisdiction. The three-axis methodology is newer and more complex than the two-axis approach and will be refined by its Fire and Emergency Service users as it becomes more widely adopted. By producing a risk assessment which included both approaches, the comprehensiveness of the risk analysis could be incorporated into the Standards of Cover document as required by the CFAI. Maps were produced to illustrate the differences in each approach’s outcomes. Risks were analyzed and quantified for seven services that Palo Alto Fire Department provides to the community: 1. Structure Fires 2. Non-Structure Fires 3. Emergency Medical Services 4. Technical Rescue 5. Hazardous Materials Incidents 6. Wildland Fires 7. Domestic Preparedness-related Incidents The geographical planning zones used for the risk assessment were the city’s 2010 census block groups. To calculate the risks, the first step applied a geographical equally-distributed hexagonal grid across the service area. Risk variables were then applied into each hexagon based on a weighting of factors related to each service being analyzed. Finally, data was summarized into the census block groups in order to allow the Palo Alto Fire Department to drive deployment and response based on the calculated risk of each planning zone. Data for the variables included in the calculation of the risk scores were gathered from open data sites, internally produced data layers from the City of Palo Alto, and through datasets provided by the Palo Alto Fire Department. Historical demands for service, consequence and loss data, population density, demographic characteristics, critical infrastructure, roadways, and remediation factors were all considered within the quantitative process for defining risk. The following few pages summarize the risks for each service provided by the Palo Alto Fire Department and categorize the risk scores into low, moderate, high, and maximum risk categories. Structure Fire Risk Multiple variables are incorporated into the assessment of Structure fire risk: historical demands for service, population density, income, the presence of special populations (for example the elderly and children), as well as land use type such as multifamily dwellings. Land use, population density, and historical demands for service were used as the major factors in calculating the probability score for structure fire risk. Consequence variables, included critical infrastructure impacted, the expected dollar loss from fire, and population displaced. Impact, however, was assessed differently, as the impact of a structure fire, for example, can be reduced through prevention and mitigating measures. Impact must consider the resources that will be required by Palo Alto Fire Department as well as mitigating factors which help reduce risk or the potential impact. In Palo Alto, many buildings have sprinklers and are within 500 feet of hydrants; variables such as these were used to calculate the overall impact to the organization. Once probability and consequence were determined, impact was added to derive a complete risk score and each census block was identified as being low, moderate, high or maximum risk. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 191 Structure Fire Risk Scores Score Categorical Risk ≤ 20.1751 Low ≤ 25.358 Moderate ≤ 30.617 High ≤ 43.047 Maximum Four census blocks were identified with the maximum risk. The areas around the Stanford University campus are identified with a maximum risk for structure fires considering the probability, consequence, and impact should a structure fire occur. Although a maximum risk was calculated, when determining deployment, consideration must be made to the seasonal nature of the university campus. Twelve areas were identified as being high risk, 15 areas were identified with moderate risk and 30 areas were considered low risk for structure fires. The low risk areas include the census blocks near the airport and in the foothills as well as other areas with low populations and few residential structures. Non-Structure Fire Risk Non-structure fires include fires such as trash fires, vehicle fires, railway fires, and other outside fires that are not considered wildland fires. All, however, have the potential to extend to structures and/or adjacent or nearby vegetation. Based on an analysis of historical non-structure fires, the probability in Palo Alto is linked to the presence of roadways/highways, public and mixed use spaces, as well as land use zones that are undefined. Consequence and impact for non-structure fires is very similar to structure fires in that property values, expected loss, and critical infrastructure are variables that affect the consequence scores, and proximity to fire hydrants, distance from fire station and resources required are all variables that affect the impact to the organization. Using the CFAI’s formula, the risk scores derived for non-structure fires were distributed by census block with values ranging between 0 and 20 with a low statistical dispersion of approximately 1.4. Considering probability, consequence, and impact, most of the jurisdiction has a least a moderate fire risk to non-structures. Non-Structure Fire Risk Scores Score Categorical Risk ≤ 5.12 Low ≤ 7.54 Moderate ≤ 9.94 High ≤ 19.14 Maximum Emergency Medical Services Risk Emergency Medical (EMS) risks have high probabilities. The consequence to the community, however, may not score as high as structure fires or non-structure fires. EMS risk is very closely related to the demographics of the community, with age and socioeconomic status being key drivers of demand due to frequency of illness and injury as well as access to primary care and preventative resources – the latter two being close proxies for wealth. The variables used to calculate the probability scores for EMS included population density, historical demands for service, the presence of nursing home facilities, land use types, and presence of special populations (children and the elderly). Consequence was calculated using expected transport rate as well as cardiac arrest return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate as proxies for EMS consequence because outcome data from the hospitals was not available for analysis as part of the risk assessment. Fire department resources required, distance from fire station, and time spent committed to EMS events were the variables used in the impact calculation. Total EMS risk scores Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 192 ranged from 19 to 62, the two geographically most distant ends of the department’s service area were found to have the highest risks, as long response times to an emergency medical incident in those geographic areas may impact the outcome of the patient. Technical Rescue Risk Technical Rescue emergencies include rescues of people from collapsed structures, rescues from high angles (above and below grade, vehicles, confined spaces, entanglements and entrapments, trenches, remote locations and swift water). These types of emergencies require specialty skills, training, and equipment. They have a high risk to life, and potentially to property, but they have a low probability of occurring and those probabilities are not distributed equally across the city. To quantify the risks, probability was determined by including variables such as presence of trails, fault lines, and major high- speed highways and roads. Consequence was based on the associated risk to life, and impact was quantified by considering variables such as fire department resources required, the time spent on these events, as well as expected response time to the event. Technical Rescue Risk Scores Risk Score Categorical Risk ≤ 3.82 Low ≤ 9.06 Moderate ≤ 19.37 High ≤ 42.68 Maximum The maximum risk areas include the foothills and near the Pearson-Arastradero preserve, where fire department response times can be long and where hikers can get entrapped or injured. Hazardous Materials Risk The probability for hazardous materials events is highly dependent on where hazardous materials are stored and/or transported. Facilities that contain certain hazardous materials are required by California State law to report the specific materials and quantities to the local government entities that need to know – including the fire department. Businesses that store hazardous materials in quantities greater than or equal to 55 gallons of a liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, and/or store extremely hazardous substances, must report to Local Emergency Preparedness Committees (LEPC) so that fire departments are aware of the hazards when responding to incidents. Knowing where these materials are geographically located is critical to assessing the risk. Knowing the type(s) of material and the population or critical infrastructure likely to be impacted was used to calculate the risk scores. The probability of these events was determined by using historical hazmat event incidence, running an analysis to evaluate the relationship between hazmat events and land use/building types, as well as the presence of hazardous materials as a predictor. EMS Risk Scores Risk Score Categorical Risk ≤ 25.53 Low ≤ 32.625 Moderate ≤ 40.91 High ≤ 62.77 Maximum Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 193 Hazmat Risk Scores Risk Scores Categorical Risk ≤ 3.90 Low ≤ 7.56 Moderate ≤ 12.45 High ≤ 19.46 Maximum Wildland Fire Risk Wildland fires pose potentially devastating risk to property and life. In recognition of this, the City of Palo Alto has a comprehensive Local Hazards Mitigation Plan in which fire severity was analyzed. Using this data as a variable as well as several other variables to include land use information, distance from fire stations, population and critical infrastructure, the CFAIs model enhances the traditional fire severity analysis to comprehensively look at the risk of wildland fires. Probability of the event was primarily based on the fire severity maps. Not quantified within the risk calculations, but factors that should be considered in the probability of wildland fires include seasonal weather patterns and rainfall – proxies for wind, fuel moistures, fuel types, and fuel volumes. Wildland Risk Scores Risk Score Categorical Risk ≤ 2.18 Low ≤ 9.06 Moderate ≤ 24.35 High ≤ 40.66 Maximum Domestic Preparedness-related Incident Risk Quantifying the risk of domestic incidents (disasters, terrorist incidents, mass casualty incidents, damage to infrastructure) presents some challenges as the probability cannot be estimated as well as the consequence on the community. Some domestic events can be seasonally predicted and many of these hazards were also addressed in the local hazards mitigation plan, this includes flooding and mudslides. The more unpredictable domestic events include earthquakes and human-caused terrorist events such as mass shootings. Because of the unpredictability of some of these events and the broad category of domestic-related emergencies, the major variables used to calculate a score included critical infrastructure/target hazards and population density. Note, though, that dense population is itself a target hazard. The diversity in the types of events that are considered domestic incidents may have led to why some of the census blocks may have scored low, contradicting what is known about human- made hazards. Notice that the Stanford University area that encompasses the stadium and many of the dorms is scored low; however we know that these areas are at risk potentially for terrorist events or mass shooting. The probability may be low but the consequence could be high despite the score resulted from this analysis. Detailed modeling and an understanding of target hazards within each hazard management zone may be needed to fully understand and explain the risks beyond the quantitative scores calculated as part of this analysis. Conclusions and Limitations For the seven categories of risk analyzed within the Palo Alto Fire Department service area, risk is geographically distributed differently across each type. There are, however, some themes. Population Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 194 density plays a significant role in the many ways, related to both the probability of events occurring as well as consequence to the community. Critical infrastructure is also an important variable in many of these risk categories because a damaged critical infrastructure can significantly affect the community and reduce the effectiveness of the fire department’s response. In other categories, critical infrastructure is a major factor in the probability that an event will occur. Based on the risk assessment analysis, approximately half of Palo Alto’s hazard management zones have a low to moderate risk for structure fires, nearly 70% have moderate risk to non-structure fires and nearly 92% have a low to moderate EMS risk. Despite the risk score being categorized as low or moderate, the severity of the predicted events can be significant. It is simply the probability, consequence and impact collectively that equates to a moderate or low risk. Two-thirds of the hazard management zone has low to moderate technical rescue risk and hazmat risk. Most of the hazard management zones were found to have a low wildland risk -- most likely driven by the probability. However, as mentioned above, the probability of conflagration precipitated by vegetation fire cannot be ignored no matter how seemingly low in probability it may be. When reviewing the risk assessment and determining how it affects the Standards of Cover, consideration must be given to the other variables that were unable to be quantified as part of the risk assessment. The inclusion of other datasets may have more accurately calculated each risk. Moreover, improved data quality of existing datasets could have changed some of the scoring. With each CFAI accreditation process, the risk assessment will improve. Change in risk scoring will necessarily occur from one assessment to another based on improving and changing methods. The foundation of the process, however, is the systematic inventory and scoring of risks and a review of those risks by the appropriate bodies in a well-documented format that can be improved upon each time the self- assessment is completed. Additionally, each time the risk assessment is performed and a Standards of Cover is generated, the Palo Alto Fire Department is the only agency of relevance. The risk scores cannot be extrapolated to compare against other jurisdictions. While there are other models and resources available to fire departments and/or citizens to compare both performance and risk, they are completely different from the CFAI models and do not have the core competency requirements as outlined by the CFAI. Additionally, as the CFAI performs its continuous improvement process, the guidelines for conducting the self-assessment will evolve and be refined. APPENDIX B – CRITICAL TASKING CHARTS AND ALARM ASSIGNMENTS The PAFD service area has a densely populated urban environment and, as such, contains an elevated number, density, and distribution of risk. Further, its suburban and rural areas present unique challenges such as wildland fires. The fire department should have the resources needed to effectively mitigate the incidents that have the highest potential to negatively impact the community. As the actual or potential risk increases, the need for higher numbers of personnel and apparatus also increases. With each type of incident and corresponding risk, specific critical tasks need to be accomplished and certain numbers and types of apparatus should be dispatched. This section considers the community’s identified risks and illustrates the number of personnel that are necessary to accomplish the critical tasks at an emergency. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 195 Tasks that must be performed at a fire can be broken down into two key components: life safety and fire flow. Life safety tasks are based on the number of building occupants, and their location, status, and ability to take self-preservation action. Life safety related tasks involve the search, rescue, and evacuation of victims. The fire flow component involves delivering sufficient water to extinguish the fire and create an environment within the building that allows entry by firefighters. The number and types of tasks needing simultaneous action will dictate the minimum number of firefighters required to combat different types of fires. In the absence of adequate personnel to perform concurrent action, the command officer must prioritize the tasks and complete some in chronological order, rather than concurrently. These tasks include: Command Scene safety Search and rescue Fire attack Water supply Pump operation Ventilation Backup/rapid intervention Critical task analysis also applies to non-fire type emergencies including medical, technical rescue, and hazardous materials emergencies. Numerous simultaneous tasks must be completed to effectively control an emergency. The department’s ability to muster needed numbers of trained personnel quickly enough to make a difference is critical to successful incident outcomes. The following figure illustrates the minimum emergency incident staffing recommendations of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International. The following definitions apply to the figure: Low Risk—Minor incidents involving small fires (fire flow less than 250 gallons per minute), single patient non-life threatening medical incidents, minor rescues, small fuel spills, and small wildland fires without unusual weather or fire behavior. Moderate Risk—Moderate risk incidents involving fires in single-family dwellings and equivalently sized commercial office properties (fire flow between 250 gallons per minute to 1,000 gallons per minute), life threatening medical emergencies, hazardous materials emergencies requiring specialized skills and equipment, rescues involving specialized skills and equipment, and larger wildland fires. High Risk—High risk incidents involving fires in larger commercial properties with sustained attack (fire flows more than 1,000 gallons per minute), multiple patient medical incidents, major releases of hazardous materials, high risk rescues, and wildland fires with extreme weather or fire behavior. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 196 Figure 116: Staffing Recommendations Based on Risk Incident Type High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Structure Fire 29 15 6 Emergency Medical Service 12 4 2 Rescue 15 8 3 Hazardous Materials 39 20 3 Wildland Fire 41 (Red Flag level) 20 7 The PAFD has developed the following Critical Task analyses using the risk matrices included in the Critical Task section for various incident types. Further it has defined, based on current unit staffing levels, the number and type of apparatus needed to deliver sufficient numbers of personnel to meet the critical tasking identified. ESCI’s review of the Critical Task analysis concludes that all are generally in keeping with industry standards and provide the minimum number of personnel needed for effective incident operations. Establishing resource levels needed for various types of emergencies is a uniquely local decision. Factors influencing local decisions for incident staffing include the type of equipment operated, training levels of responders, operating procedures, geography, traffic, and the nature of building and other risks being protected. Critical Tasking Critical tasks are those activities that must be conducted early on and in a timely manner by firefighters at emergency incidents in order to control the situation, stop loss, and to perform necessary tasks required for a medical emergency. PAFD is responsible for assuring that responding companies are capable of performing all of the described tasks in a prompt, efficient, and safe manner. These are the minimum number of personnel needed by incident type. More personnel will be needed for incidents of increased complexity or size. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 197 Structure Fire Low Risk Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Pump Operations 1 Attack Line 2 Back-up Line 2 Search and Rescue 2 Ventilation 2 RIT 3 Hydrant 1 Medical Standby 2 Total 16 Structure Fire Moderate Risk Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Pump Operations 1 Attack Line 2 Back-up Line 2 Search and Rescue 2 Ventilation 2 RIT 3 Hydrant 1 Medical Standby 2 Total 16 Structure Fire High Risk Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 2 Pump Operations 1 Attack Line 3 Back-up Line 3 Search and Rescue 4 Ventilation 3 RIT 3 Medical Standby 2 Total 21 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 198 Wildland Interface Low Risk (Baylands) Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Pump Operations/Lookout 1 Attack Line 2 Exposure Lines 2 Water Supply 1 Total 7 Wildland Interface High Risk Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 3 Pump Operations/Lookout 5 Attack Line 20 Exposure Lines 4 Structure Protection 15 Ground Support (cutting line) 36 Water Supply 2 Tender Operator 1 Other (Mop-up, Overhaul, Aircraft, Support) 10 Total 96 Non-Structure Fire Low Risk (Dumpster fire) Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Pump Operations/Lookout 1 Attack Line 1 Total 3 Non-Structure Fire High Risk Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Pump Operations 1 Attack Line 4 Back-up Line / Exposure 2 Hydrant 1 Medical Standby 2 Total 11 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 199 Aircraft Emergency Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Aircraft Fire Suppression 2 Pump Operations 1 Back-up Line 2 Rescue 3 Emergency Medical Care 2 Water Supply 1 Total 12 Hazardous Materials- Level II Task Number of Personnel Command 1 Safety Officer 1 Assistant Safety Officer 1 Decontamination 3 Tech Ref 2 Entry team, and backup team 4 Entry Team Leader 1 Total 13 Hazardous Materials- Level I Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Research/Support 2 Total 3 Emergency Medical Aid Task Number of Personnel Scene Management/Safety 1 Patient Care 1 Transport 2 Documentation 1 Total 5 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 200 Major Medical Response (10+ Patients) Task Number of Personnel Incident Command/Safety 1 Triage 1 Medical Group Supervisor 1 Patient Care Onscene 12 Transportation Manager 1 Transportation / Patient Care to Hospital 14 Total 30 Motor Vehicle Accident (Non Trapped) Task Number of Personnel Scene Management/Documentation 1 Patient Care/Extrication 2 Transport 2 Total 5 *Second Engine or Ladder added as a Safety Support Vehicle for freeway or highway responses Motor Vehicle Accident (Trapped) Task Number of Personnel Command 1 Scene Safety Support 1 Patient Care / Transport 2 Extrication 3 Pump Operator/Suppression Line 2 Vehicle Stabilization 3 Total 12 Technical Rescue – Water Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Rescue Team 2 Backup Team 2 Patient Care / Transport 2 Rope Tender 3 Upstream Spotter 1 Downstream Safety 1 Total 12 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 201 Technical Rescue – Rope Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Technical Safety Officer 1 Rescue Team 2 Backup/support team 2 Patient Care / Transport 2 Rigger 2 Attendant 1 Edge Person 1 Total 12 Technical Rescue – Confined Space Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Rescue Team 2 Backup/support team 3 Patient Care / Transport 2 Attendant 1 Rigger 2 Air Monitor 1 Total 12 Technical Rescue – Trench Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Technical Safety Officer 1 Rescue Team 2 Backup 2 Patient Care / Transport 2 Shoring 4 Total 12 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 202 Alarm Assignments In order to ensure sufficient personnel and apparatus are dispatched to an emergency event the following first alarm response assignments have been established. “Total Staffing Needed” is the number identified in the Critical Tasking analysis above. The number of personnel and apparatus required to mitigate an active and complex working incident will require additional resources above and beyond the numbers listed below. Structure Fire Low Risk Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 3 9 Ladder 2 6 Ambulance 1 2 Battalion Chief 2 2 Total Staffing Provided 19 Total Staffing Needed 16 Structure Fire Moderate Risk Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 3 9 Ladder 2 6 Ambulance 1 2 Battalion Chief 2 2 Total Staffing Provided 19 Total Staffing Needed 16 Structure Fire High Risk (High-Rise) Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 4 12 Ladder 2 6 Battalion Chief 2 2 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 22 Total Staffing Needed 21 Wildland Interface Low Risk (Baylands) Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Battalion Chief 1 1 Total Staffing Provided 7 Total Staffing Needed 7 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 203 Wildland Interface High Risk Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine Type 1 4 12 Engine Type 3 10 30 Engine Type 6 2 6 Battalion Chief 3 3 Dozers 2 4 Air Tankers 2 2 Air Attack 1 2 Helicopter / Helitack Crew 1 11 Hand Crew 2 32 Total Staffing Provided 102 Total Staffing Needed 96 Non-Structure Fire Low Risk Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 1 3 Total Staffing Provided 3 Total Staffing Needed 3 Non-Structure Fire High Risk Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Truck 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 11 Aircraft Emergency Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Ladder 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 204 Hazardous Materials – Level II Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Ladder 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Hazardous Materials Unit 1 3 Total Staffing Provided 13 Total Staffing Needed 13 Hazardous Materials – Level I Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 1 3 Total Staffing Provided 3 Total Staffing Needed 3 Emergency Medical Service Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine or Ladder 1 3 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 5 Total Staffing Needed 5 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 205 Major Medical (10+ Patients) Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 3 9 Ladder 1 3 MCI Trailer 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 7 14 Total Staffing Provided 30 Total Staffing Needed 30 Motor Vehicle Accident (Non-Trapped) Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine or Ladder 1 (2)* 3 (6)* Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 5 (8)* Total Staffing Needed 5 *Second Engine or Ladder added as a Safety Support Vehicle for freeway or highway responses Motor Vehicle Accident (Trapped) Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Ladder 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Technical Rescue – Water Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Ladder 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 206 Technical Rescue – Rope Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Ladder 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Technical Rescue – Confined Space Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Truck 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Technical Rescue – Trench Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Truck 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 207 APPENDIX C – BASELINE AND BENCHMARK PERFORMANCE CHARTS Dynamics of Fire in Buildings Most fires within buildings develop in a predictable fashion, unless influenced by highly flammable material. Ignition, or the beginning of a fire, starts the sequence of events. It may take several minutes or even hours from the time of ignition until a flame is visible. This smoldering stage is very dangerous, especially during times when people are sleeping, since large amounts of highly toxic smoke may be generated during this phase. Once flames do appear, the sequence continues rapidly. Combustible material adjacent to the flame heat and ignite, which in turn heats and ignites other adjacent materials if sufficient oxygen is present. As the objects burn, heated gases accumulate at the ceiling of the room. Some of the gases are flammable and highly toxic. The spread of the fire from this point continues quickly. Soon the flammable gases at the ceiling as well as other combustible material in the room of origin reach ignition temperature. At that point, an event termed “flashover” occurs; the gases and other material ignite, which in turn ignites everything in the room. Once flashover occurs, damage caused by the fire is significant and the environment within the room can no longer support human life. Flashover usually occurs about five to eight minutes from the appearance of flame in typically furnished and ventilated buildings. Since flashover has such a dramatic influence on the outcome of a fire event, the goal of any fire agency is to apply water to a fire before flashover occurs. Although modern codes tend to make fires in newer structures more infrequent, today’s energy- efficient construction (designed to hold heat during the winter) also tends to confine the heat of a hostile fire. In addition, research has shown that modern furnishings generally ignite more quickly and burn hotter (due to synthetics). In the 1970s, scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that after a fire broke out, building occupants had about 17 minutes to escape before being overcome by heat and smoke. Today, that estimate is as short as three minutes.14 The necessity of effective early warning (smoke alarms), early suppression (fire sprinklers), and firefighters arriving on the scene of a fire in the shortest span of time is more critical now than ever. Perhaps as important as preventing flashover is the need to control a fire before it does damage to the structural framing of a building. Materials used to construct buildings today are often less fire resistive than the heavy structural skeletons of older frame buildings. Roof trusses and floor joists are commonly made with lighter materials that are more easily weakened by the effects of fire. “Light weight” roof 14 National Institute of Standards and Technology, Performance of Home Smoke Alarms, Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in Residential Fire Settings, Bukowski, Richard, et al. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 208 trusses fail after five to seven minutes of direct flame impingement. Plywood I-beam joists can fail after as little as three minutes of flame contact. This creates a dangerous environment for firefighters. In addition, the contents of buildings today have a much greater potential for heat production than in the past. The widespread use of plastics in furnishings and other building contents rapidly accelerate fire spread and increase the amount of water needed to effectively control a fire. All of these factors make the need for early application of water essential to a successful fire outcome. A number of events must take place quickly to make it possible to achieve fire suppression prior to flashover. The following figure illustrates the sequence of events. Figure 117: Fire Growth vs. Reflex Time As is apparent by this description of the sequence of events, application of water in time to prevent flashover is a serious challenge for any fire department. It is critical, though, as studies of historical fire losses can demonstrate. The rapid escalation of interior structure fires reinforces the need for active risk reduction and fire prevention activities by the PAFD as flashover is likely to occur prior to the arrival of the first due resources and certainly prior to the arrival of an ERF. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 209 The National Fire Protection Association found that fires contained to the room of origin (typically extinguished prior to or immediately following flashover) had significantly lower rates of death, injury, and property loss when compared to fires that had an opportunity to spread beyond the room of origin (typically extinguished post-flashover). As evidenced in the following figure, fire losses, casualties, and deaths rise significantly as the extent of fire damage increases. Figure 118: Fire Extension in Residential Structures – United States Consequence of Fire Extension In Residential Structures 2003–2007 Extension Rates per 1,000 Fires Civilian Deaths Civilian Injuries Average Dollar Loss Per Fire Confined to room of origin or smaller 2.44 25.67 $5,317 Confined to floor of origin 16.18 72.79 $34,852 Confined to building of origin or larger 27.54 54.26 $60,064 Source: National Fire Protection Association “Home Structure Fires,” March 2010 Emergency Medical Event Sequence Cardiac arrest is the most significant life-threatening medical event in emergency medicine today. A victim of cardiac arrest has mere minutes in which to receive lifesaving care if there is to be any hope for resuscitation. The American Heart Association (AHA) issued a set of cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines designed to streamline emergency procedures for heart attack victims, and to increase the likelihood of survival. The AHA guidelines include goals for the application of cardiac defibrillation to cardiac arrest victims. Cardiac arrest survival chances fall by seven to 10 percent for every minute between collapse and defibrillation. Consequently, the AHA recommends cardiac defibrillation within five minutes of cardiac arrest. As with fires, the sequence of events that lead to emergency cardiac care can be graphically illustrated, as in the following figure. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 210 Figure 119: Cardiac Arrest Event Sequence The percentage of opportunity for recovery from cardiac arrest drops quickly as time progresses. The stages of medical response are very similar to the components described for a fire response. Research stresses the importance of rapid cardiac defibrillation and administration of certain medications as a means of improving the opportunity for successful resuscitation and survival. People, Tools, and Time Time matters a great deal in the achievement of an effective outcome to an emergency event. Time, however, is not the only factor. Delivering sufficient numbers of properly trained, appropriately equipped personnel within the critical time period completes the equation. For medical emergencies this can vary based on the nature of the emergency. Many medical emergencies are not time critical. However, for serious trauma, cardiac arrest, or conditions that may lead to cardiac arrest, a rapid response is essential. Equally critical is delivering enough personnel to the scene to perform all of the concurrent tasks required to deliver quality emergency care. For a cardiac arrest, this can be up to six personnel; two to perform CPR, two to set up and operate advanced medical equipment, one to record the actions taken by emergency care workers, and one to direct patient care. Thus, for a medical emergency, the real test of performance is the time it takes to provide the personnel and equipment needed to deal effectively with the patient’s condition, not necessarily the time it takes for the first person to arrive. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 211 Fire emergencies are even more resource critical. Again, the true test of performance is the time it takes to deliver sufficient personnel to initiate application of water to a fire. This is the only practical method to reverse the continuing internal temperature increases and ultimately prevent flashover. The arrival of one person with a portable radio does not provide fire intervention capability and should not be counted as “arrival” by the fire department. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 212 Benchmark Performance Charts - EMS 90th Percentile EMS 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:07 0:02:09 0:02:11 0:02:04 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:32 0:02:07 0:02:30 0:02:51 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:29 0:05:27 0:05:33 0:05:29 -- -- Last OnScene 0:09:46 0:09:42 0:10:00 0:09:41 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:08:47 0:08:19 0:08:58 0:08:59 -- -- Last OnScene 0:13:33 0:13:04 0:13:54 0:13:43 -- -- Count EMS 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 10902 3757 3637 3508 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 10768 3745 3615 3408 0 0 Travel First OnScene 10848 3737 3639 3472 0 0 Last OnScene 10559 3649 3542 3368 0 0 Response First OnScene 11006 3787 3680 3539 0 0 Last OnScene 10786 3730 3617 3439 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound EMS 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:06 0:02:06 0:02:07 0:02:02 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:30 0:02:05 0:02:27 0:02:47 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:25 0:05:19 0:05:27 0:05:19 -- -- Last OnScene 0:09:39 0:09:24 0:09:43 0:09:32 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:08:41 0:08:13 0:08:48 0:08:48 -- -- Last OnScene 0:13:23 0:12:45 0:13:43 0:13:26 -- -- -- -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 213 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound EMS 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:10 0:02:11 0:02:14 0:02:06 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:24 0:02:10 0:02:34 0:02:55 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:34 0:05:35 0:05:44 0:05:36 -- -- Last OnScene 0:09:55 0:09:57 0:10:17 0:09:55 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:08:53 0:08:30 0:09:07 0:09:07 -- -- Last OnScene 0:13:44 0:12:45 0:14:17 0:14:03 -- -- -- -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 214 Benchmark Performance Charts – Structure response 90th Percentile Structure Response 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:41 0:02:06 0:02:24 0:03:12 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:06 0:01:37 0:02:18 0:01:58 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:04:31 0:04:19 0:04:16 0:04:37 -- -- Last OnScene 0:09:10 0:08:52 0:07:57 0:11:08 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:08:27 0:07:22 0:08:41 0:08:50 -- -- Last OnScene 0:13:46 0:11:21 0:11:44 0:15:47 -- -- Count Structure Fire 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 56 20 21 15 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 56 20 21 15 0 0 Travel First OnScene 56 20 21 15 0 0 Last OnScene 52 18 20 14 0 0 Response First OnScene 56 20 21 15 0 0 Last OnScene 52 18 20 14 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Structure Fire 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:314 0:01:34 0:01:59 0:02:25 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:01:50 0:01:20 0:01:53 0:01:31 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:03:58 0:03:33 0:03:44 0:03:53 -- -- Last OnScene 0:07:57 0:05:53 0:07:23 0:07:47 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:07:37 0:07:12 0:06:55 0:07:38 -- -- Last OnScene 0:11:44 0:09:19 0:11:11 0:12:18 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 215 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound Structure Fire 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:03:17 0:03:17 0:03:05 0:03:24 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:37 0:02:07 0:03:14 0:02:37 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:06:18 0:07:59 0:06:18 0:06:09 -- -- Last OnScene 0:12:25 0:10:45 0:12:15 0:12:25 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:10:39 0:12:25 0:10:06 0:10:39 -- -- Last OnScene 0:17:50 0:15:01 0:14:55 0:17:50 -- -- Total Response Last OnScene -- -- -- -- -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 216 Benchmark performance charts – Full First Alarm 90th Percentile Full First 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:02:27 0:01:20 0:02:26 0:02:25 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:32 0:01:51 0:03:11 0:02:34 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:29 0:05:46 0:05:26 0:05:00 -- -- Last OnScene 0:12:28 0:13:31 0:10:12 0:10:34 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:09:42 0:09:36 0:08:44 0:08:57 -- -- Last OnScene 0:19:05 0:18:22 0:18:30 0:16:54 -- -- Count Full First 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 33 12 11 10 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 32 12 11 9 0 0 Travel First OnScene 32 12 11 9 0 0 Last OnScene 26 11 8 7 0 0 Response First OnScene 34 12 12 10 0 0 Last OnScene 23 7 10 6 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Full First 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:01:49 0:01:14 0:01:49 0:01:33 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:15 0:01:26 0:02:07 0:02:18 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:04:38 0:03:33 0:02:53 0:03:53 -- -- Last OnScene 0:10:29 0:09:15 0:08:33 0:09:52 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:08:45 0:06:21 0:06:21 0:08:50 -- -- Last OnScene 0:16:18 0:11:42 0:15:12 0:14:27 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 217 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound Full First 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:03:15 0:01:34 0:03:05 0:03:15 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:03:42 0:02:02 0:03:42 0:02:46 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:07:43 0:07:43 0:06:18 0:05:22 -- -- Last OnScene 0:14:20 0:14:20 0:11:36 0:10:47 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:11:17 0:10:22 0:10:06 0:11:17 -- -- Last OnScene 0:21:47 0:20:01 0:21:47 0:17:49 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 218 Benchmark performance charts – Motor Vehicle Accidents 90th Percentile MVA 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:02:24 0:02:21 0:02:24 0:02:24 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:31 0:02:07 0:02:36 0:02:38 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:07:10 0:07:09 0:07:13 0:06:52 -- -- Last OnScene 0:10:56 0:11:03 0:10:54 0:10:04 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:11:09 0:10:48 0:11:20 0:11:08 -- -- Last OnScene 0:14:45 0:14:57 0:14:44 0:14:08 -- -- Count MVA 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 709 265 249 195 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 706 266 247 193 0 0 Travel First OnScene 692 260 239 193 0 0 Last OnScene 673 250 235 188 0 0 Response First OnScene 713 266 248 199 0 0 Last OnScene 697 260 242 195 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound MVA 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:02:15 0:02:02 0:02:11 0:02:01 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:24 0:01:55 0:02:30 0:02:27 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:06:44 0:06:10 0:06:44 0:06:07 -- -- Last OnScene 0:10:17 0:10:01 0:09:57 0:08:51 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:10:26 0:09:26 0:10:25 0:10:12 -- -- Last OnScene 0:14:13 0:13:49 0:14:02 0:13:37 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 219 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound MVA 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:02:34 0:02:41 0:02:55 0:03:00 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:37 0:02:17 0:02:49 0:02:52 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:08:01 0:08:28 0:08:35 0:08:26 -- -- Last OnScene 0:11:25 0:12:17 0:11:33 0:11:52 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:11:55 0:12:35 0:12:18 0:12:38 -- -- Last OnScene 0:15:38 0:16:08 0:16:13 0:15:49 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 220 Benchmark performance charts – Rescue Assignments 90th Percentile Rescue 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:02:20 0:02:33 0:01:55 0:01:37 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:42 0:02:19 0:02:40 0:02:38 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:09:02 0:09:04 0:08:13 0:08:11 -- -- Last OnScene 0:12:41 0:13:16 0:12:31 0:09:54 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:13:55 0:13:04 0:13:26 0:15:30 -- -- Last OnScene 0:17:29 0:17:34 0:16:00 0:13:19 -- -- Count Rescue 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 51 18 24 9 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 54 19 25 10 0 0 Travel First OnScene 59 21 27 11 0 0 Last OnScene 51 18 23 10 0 0 Response First OnScene 59 21 27 11 0 0 Last OnScene 53 20 23 10 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Rescue 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:01:48 0:01:53 0:01:38 0:01:11 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:25 0:01:40 0:02:24 0:02:24 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:07:42 0:08:16 0:06:39 0:03:59 -- -- Last OnScene 0:12:04 0:12:04 0:11:47 0:09:13 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:11:49 0:11:16 0:11:02 0:09:36 -- -- Last OnScene 0:16:08 0:16:29 0:14:44 0:13:08 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 221 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound Rescue 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:03:07 0:02:43 0:03:07 0:02:31 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:03:10 0:03:10 0:03:07 0:03:16 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:11:01 0:11:37 0:11:01 0:09:02 -- -- Last OnScene 0:13:54 0:13:54 0:13:21 0:12:42 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:15:53 0:14:57 0:15:12 0:19:04 -- -- Last OnScene 0:21:21 0:21:09 0:21:21 0:21:39 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 222 Benchmark performance charts – Wildland Fires Count Veg Low 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 2 0 1 1 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 2 0 1 1 0 0 Travel First OnScene 2 0 1 1 0 0 Last OnScene 2 0 1 1 0 0 Response First OnScene 2 0 1 1 0 0 Last OnScene 2 0 1 1 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Veg Low 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:01:27 0:01:52 0:01:01 -- -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:56 0:02:48 0:03:03 -- -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:04:21 0:06:01 0:02:41 -- -- -- Last OnScene 0:06:28 0:06:46 0:06:09 -- -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:07:16 0:08:49 0:05:44 -- -- -- Last OnScene 0:09:14 0:09:55 0:08:33 -- -- -- 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound Veg Low 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch -- 0:01:52 0:01:01 -- -- -- Turnout First Dispatch -- 0:02:48 0:03:03 -- -- -- Travel First OnScene -- 0:06:01 0:02:41 -- -- -- Last OnScene -- 0:06:46 0:06:09 -- -- -- Total Response First OnScene -- 0:08:49 0:05:44 -- -- -- Last OnScene -- 0:09:55 0:08:33 -- -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 223 Benchmark performance charts – Single Engine or Truck 90th Percentile Single Engine or Truck 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:11 0:02:12 0:02:11 0:02:09 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:26 0:02:08 0:02:26 0:02:37 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:58 0:05:59 0:06:02 0:05:51 -- -- First Dispatch 0:05:58 0:05:59 0:06:02 0:05:51 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:08:59 0:09:41 0:10:03 0:10:11 -- -- First OnScene 0:09:59 0:09:41 0:10:03 0:10:11 -- -- Count Single Engine or Truck 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 18777 6590 6251 5936 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 18368 6725 6151 5492 0 0 Travel First OnScene 18794 6620 6262 5912 0 0 First Dispatch 18794 6620 6262 5912 0 0 Response First OnScene 19463 6849 6492 6122 0 0 First OnScene 19473 6849 6492 6122 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Single Engine or Truck 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:09 0:02:10 0:02:09 0:02:07 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:25 0:02:07 0:02:35 0:02:35 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:54 0:05:54 0:05:54 0:05:44 -- -- First Dispatch 0:05:54 0:05:54 0:05:54 0:05:44 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:09:53 0:09:34 0:09:53 0:10:03 -- -- First OnScene 0:09:53 0:09:34 0:09:53 0:10:03 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 224 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound Single Engine or Truck 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:12 0:02:13 0:02:13 0:02:11 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:27 0:02:10 0:02:28 0:02:38 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:06:02 0:06:05 0:06:08 0:06:00 -- -- First Dispatch 0:06:02 0:06:05 0:06:08 0:06:00 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:10:05 0:09:49 0:10:13 0:10:20 -- -- First OnScene 0:10:05 0:09:49 0:10:13 0:10:20 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 225 Benchmark performance charts – Hazardous Materials 90th Percentile Hazardous Materials 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:45 0:02:17 0:02:52 0:02:29 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:33 0:02:34 0:02:33 0:01:57 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:22 0:04:59 0:04:00 0:06:42 -- -- First Dispatch 0:09:20 0:07:52 0:07:26 0:09:28 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:09:20 0:08:20 0:08:46 0:10:14 -- -- First OnScene 0:12:42 0:12:05 0:11:09 0:13:59 -- -- Count Hazardous Materials 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 27 12 8 7 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 25 12 8 5 0 0 Travel First OnScene 28 12 8 8 0 0 First Dispatch 28 12 8 8 0 0 Response First OnScene 28 12 8 8 0 0 First OnScene 28 12 8 8 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Hazardous Materials 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:22 0:01:37 0:02:22 0:01:50 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:10 0:02:10 0:02:02 0:01:33 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:04:38 0:03:33 0:03:13 0:04:38 -- -- First Dispatch 0:07:54 0:07:10 0:06:19 0:08:03 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:08:26 0:07:22 0:07:36 0:07:49 -- -- First OnScene 0:12:15 0:10:01 0:10:28 0:12:19 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 226 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound 0 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:03:07 0:03:07 0:03:00 0:02:36 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:59 0:02:59 0:02:58 0:02:01 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:07:06 0:05:15 0:05:36 0:07:06 -- -- First Dispatch 0:10:00 0:09:28 0:08:26 0:10:00 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:10:43 0:09:20 0:09:22 0:10:43 -- -- First OnScene 0:15:17 0:12:33 0:12:37 0:15:17 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 227 APPENDIX C – ADDITIONAL MAPS NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER SECTIONS Figure 120: Engine Distribution: 8-Minute Coverage Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 228 Figure 121: Medic Distribution: 12-Minute Coverage Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 229 Figure 122: All Incidents 2012 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 230 Figure 123: All Incidents 2013 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 231 Figure 124: All Incidents 2014 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 232 Figure 125: All Incidents 2015 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 233 Figure 126: All Incidents 2016 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 234 Figure 127: EMS Incidents Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 235 Figure 128: Fire Incidents Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 236 Figure 129: False Alarm Incidents Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 237 Figure 130: Good Intent Incidents Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 238 Figure 131: Haz Mat Incidents Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 239 Figure 132: All Incidents Day (0800-2000) hours Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 240 Figure 133: All Incidents Night (2000-0800 hours)