HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7095
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7095)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 4/17/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study Results
Title: Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study Results
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Development Services Department
RECOMMENDATION
This is an Informational Report, no City Council action is required at this time. Staff
recommends that the City Council review the Seismic Risk Assessment Study prepared by
Rutherford + Chekene, structural engineers. The study includes input from City of Palo Alto’s
Seismic Risk Management Advisory Group. Once Council is familiar with this study, staff will
prepare to return for a study session and direction.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This informational item is intended to give the City Council advance background for an
upcoming study session related to a Seismic Risk Assessment Study of vulnerable building
construction in Palo Alto. In 2014, following the 6.0 magnitude earthquake in August 2014 in
the Napa Valley and the Office of Emergency Service’s Threats and Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment Report, the Council directed staff to identify and prioritize buildings that pose
a potential seismic hazard in Palo Alto; review ‘best practices’ used by other communities for
addressing retrofit of seismically vulnerable buildings; and review current and pending State
legislation addressing these building types.
Rutherford + Chekene was selected to perform a comprehensive assessment of the expected
performance of the City’s building stock in potential earthquakes, including a community
engagement effort to help identify resiliency goals and associated mitigation policies and
programs. Specific details about the report can be found in this staff report and attached
consultant report. (Attachments B)
In this staff report, staff has summarized the outcome of the Seismic Risk Assessment and the
Advisory Group’s input on revisions to consider for the City’s Building and Zoning Ordinances.
Some of the study recommendations have significant policy and cost implications that will
require further study and Council review. All of these recommendations are discussed in this
staff report and in the detailed technical reports attached. (Attachments B and G)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Next steps following council study session on this matter may include public outreach to
educate the community on vulnerable buildings. Staff, with the help of consultants, will review
potential incentives for retrofits and policies to minimize displacement of existing uses and
tenants. Staff would return to the Council with a recommendation to revise the current seismic
mitigation ordinance based on findings and community feedback. To be effective, there will
need to be a plan for staffing the program. Finally, during the study session staff will also
discuss potential policy implications such as displacement of existing building uses and tenants,
incentives for voluntary building retrofits, and the effects these benefits might have on
construction.
BACKGROUND
On September 15, 2014, the City Council directed staff to work with the Policy and Services
Committee to address the following:
A. Identification and prioritization of buildings that pose a potential hazard in an
earthquake, including soft-story buildings and other types of construction
B. Review of "best practices" from other cities regarding prioritization of various
seismically vulnerable buildings, including retrofit incentives and requirements
C. Review of current or pending State legislation related to soft-story buildings and other
structurally deficient buildings
Two events precipitated the Council’s direction: (1) the 6.0 magnitude earthquake on August
24, 2014, in Napa Valley and (2) the City Council’s review of the Office of Emergency Service’s
Threats and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment report on September 15, 2014, which
identified over 130 seismically vulnerable buildings. (Attachment C)
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43866>
Current Code Provisions, Building Identification and Prioritization
In 1986, the City Council adopted the Seismic Hazards and Identification Program codified at
PAMC Section 16.42. (Attachment A) This ordinance established a mandatory evaluation
and reporting program and created incentives for property owners primarily in the
Downtown area to voluntarily upgrade their structurally deficient buildings. Three
categories of buildings were identified, including:
1. Category I Buildings: Buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry (except for those
smaller than 1,900 square feet with six (6) or fewer occupants). These buildings are
located in the Downtown Commercial area.
2. Category II Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1935, containing one
hundred (100) or more occupants.
3. Category III Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to August 1, 1976, containing three
hundred (300) or more occupants.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The categories used in 1986 were developed by a citizens’ committee, reviewed by staff and
the Policy and Services Committee, and adopted by the City Council. These categories were
created to record known URM buildings and other potentially structurally deficient buildings
with relatively high numbers of occupants.
This program identified 89 buildings and was successful in two significant ways. One
hundred percent (100%) of the property owners complied with the ordinance and submitted
engineering reports detailing structural deficiencies and recommendations to strengthen
structures to alleviate the threat of collapse. Further, approximately seventy-four percent
(74%), or sixty-six buildings, were strengthened, demolished, or proposed to be demolished.
See (Attachment D) for current status of all inventoried properties.
Part of this success may be attributed to incentives that allowed upfront engineering report
costs be applied toward permit fees and the ability for property owners in the Downtown
Commercial (CD) district to add up to 2,500 square feet of new floor area, or twenty-five
percent (25%) of the existing building area, whichever is greater, to the site without having
to provide additional parking. This floor area bonus could be used onsite or transferred to
another owner or property in the Downtown Commercial district. Approximately twenty-
one (21) property owners took advantage of this incentive.
Despite its successes, twenty-three (23) buildings identified from that original inventory
remain vulnerable. Further, there are other building types in the City that were not
surveyed prior to adoption of the 1986 ordinance. For example, problems with soft story
wood-frame construction were documented following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake,
which resulted in changes to construction industry standards a few years later.
In 2003, the Collaborative for Disaster Mitigation at San Jose State University completed an
“Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings in Santa Clara County.” According to
the report, the City of Palo Alto had 130 soft story multi-family buildings including 1,263
residential units housing 3,158 occupants.
Other construction types of concern that were not surveyed in 1986 include non-ductile
concrete buildings, older steel moment frame buildings, and older concrete tilt-up buildings,
in addition to soft story wood-frame construction.
The City’s existing ordinance requires annual reporting to the City Council on the status of
the program. This reporting appears to have ended in 2004 for unknown reasons. More
recently, the City Council adopted an ordinance (Attachment E - update to ORD 5356)
modifying the seismic incentive so that parking must now be provided if an owner seeks to
add 2,500 square feet or 25% of the total building area in the CD District.
Policy and Services Recommendation and Council Authorization
On December 9, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee of the Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto Page 4
recommended the City Council authorize a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop
information for use in updating the City’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program (Ordinance
3666). See Staff Report 5293 “Discussion of Updating the Seismic Safety Chapter of the
Municipal Code for Hazardous Buildings” (Attachment D). The City Council approved the
recommendation and an RFP was prepared. A consulting team led by Rutherford + Chekene
was selected to:
A. Develop summarize relevant state and local seismic mitigation legislation
B. Obtain detailed information on Palo Alto’s existing building stock
C. Develop conceptual retrofits for vulnerable building types
D. Make loss estimates of expected damage to current and retrofitted building
E. Work with a City advisory group to develop policy recommendations for
consideration by the Council.
A stakeholder Advisory Group was convened and was an essential element in discussing
earthquake risks in Palo Alto’s existing building stock prepared by the consultant team and in
reviewing policy alternatives. Members included people with a range of relevant expertise
and interests, including interested citizens, earthquake risk and engineering experts, local
developers and owners, and representatives of various community groups. City
departments also participated in the Advisory Group, including Building, Planning, Fire,
Office of Emergency Services, and Public Works. See Attachment F for a list of Advisory
Group members.
City Policy Implications
Currently, the City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. In its Goal
statements, this document expresses the community’s vision for its future. Further, in its
policies, the Plan defines the appropriate actions to implement the vision. The Seismic Risk
Assessment Study’s findings and its guiding conclusions informed by the Seismic Risk
Management Advisory Group are integral to several key elements of the Comprehensive
Plan: the Safety Element, the Housing Element, and the approach to, and needs for,
coordinated Community Emergency Services. Policies being considered in the
Comprehensive Plan Safety Element support regular review and update of the City’s seismic
retrofit regulations.
Although focused on multiple family and commercial structures, the seismic risk assessment
identifies both the type of seismically vulnerable structures and the geographic areas in the
community that will be most affected by a major earthquake. To gage the impact, the study
looked at the cost of retrofitting each type of structure. It also evaluated the community
impact of the aftermath of a major earthquake in terms of loss of property and effect on the
City’s economy.
Palo Alto is currently participating with the other cities in the County in updating the State
and Federally mandated five-year update of the Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Plan (Santa Clara LHMP) as required by the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This
plan is required before Palo Alto can request FEMA assistance following a natural disaster.
The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan focuses on community mitigations to fire, flood and
earthquake events.
The data in the Seismic Risk Assessment Study will be useful as a tool to inform the Santa
Clara LHMP about the City’s needs in the event of a major earthquake. The Council’s
subsequent direction on revising of the City’s seismic renovation requirements will be
integrated into Palo Alto’s mitigations outlined in the Santa Clara LHMP plan.
The Seismic Risk Assessment Study and its implementation have important implications for
both City and emergency planning policy. First and foremost, the study provides valuable
information for the development of the City’s long range planning policy expressed in the
Comprehensive Plan in areas of community safety, housing, and coordination of community
services, which also includes community education and neighborhood volunteers. It also
provides information that can be used to refine the community’s vision regarding its
residents’ wellbeing and improve its preparedness for a major seismic event by addressing
risk to loss of life and property associated with vulnerable building types. The information
can also improve the community’s ability to recover from a major seismic event including
displacement of residents and businesses, loss of housing and commercial buildings and
community wide economic impacts and recovery.
Other policy implications involve the potential for displacement of existing uses and tenants
if building owners need to remove the uses/tenants to upgrade their buildings or if they
increase rents to cover the cost of engineering studies and retrofit work, and the how this
displacement can be minimized. Also, potential incentives for voluntary building retrofits
may need to be considered along with changes to the existing zoning incentives (Transfer of
Development Rights program) that grant bonus square footage to buildings that are
retrofitted downtown, and the potential impacts/benefits that might result from new
incentives or modifications.
SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT STUDY
The risk assessment carried out by R+C included a series of task reports. They have been
combined into one composite report as Attachment B and include surveys of state and local
seismic policies and practices, an inventory of buildings in Palo Alto, a summary of vulnerable
building categories, conceptual seismic retrofitting of representative vulnerable buildings, loss
estimates for the current condition of the building stock and if buildings are retrofit, a review of
past seismic retrofits in Palo Alto from selected City records, and a discussion of additional
recommended program features for an improved seismic risk mitigation program.
Table 1 summarizes the outcome of the seismic risk assessment and includes the Advisory
Group discussions. The table is organized around eight vulnerable building categories or
building types. Categories I, II and III encompass the identified vulnerable buildings for the
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Figure 1: Category IV, Wood-frame Soft Story Building built before 1977 Earthquake Damage
Figure 2: Category I, Unreinforced Masonry Building Earthquake Damage
Figure 3: Category I, Unreinforced Masonry Building Earthquake Damage
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Survey of State and Local Seismic Policies
The risk assessment study includes two reports that address (1) a detailed review of the
seismic risk management policy context within the State of California including relevant
State legislation, and (2) the status of local seismic safety and mitigation programs.
Development of the reports included searches of legislative data bases, search and
review of published and online reports and materials, phone interviews with community
leaders as well as local and State government staff, and development of insights from
the consulting team based on their experiences in this arena. The two reports were
discussed at Advisory Group meetings and helped inform the development of potential
seismic risk management policies relevant to Palo Alto.
State Level Policy Review
The report on State level risk mitigation policies provides review of relevant historic and
pending State legislation related to seismic risk mitigation of vulnerable buildings. High
level legislative findings from the report include the following:
A. Palo Alto is affected by numerous relevant California existing laws and
regulations dating from the 1930s through the present. These laws regulate
many aspects of Palo Alto’s built environment, including certain classes of
building uses such as hospitals, public schools, and essential facilities; setting
code minimums for new construction; and mandating land use planning and real
estate disclosure measures for natural hazards including earthquakes.
Unreinforced masonry (URM) is at present the only structural system type for
which the State requires local jurisdictions to have a program.
B. If it so chooses, Palo Alto has wide authority to expand or strengthen its
approaches to seismic mitigation. The power to do more about earthquake
vulnerabilities is primarily in the hands of the local jurisdictions that have
significant discretion in the kinds of policies they can adopt.
C. Palo Alto has many additional actions it can take to make sure it is complying and
taking greatest possible advantage of State level regulations and opportunities.
In particular, opportunities exist now to align a new seismic program with two
ongoing mandated planning efforts the City is already engaged in: Palo Alto’s
Comprehensive Plan update and the Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan update.
Based on what state laws allow and in some cases recommend policy directions Palo
Alto could pursue going forward include the following:
A. Implement measures to increase the effectiveness of its current program, for
instance by offering additional or larger incentives or devoting more resources to
program visibility and implementation
B. Expand the City’s current voluntary seismic mitigation programs to address
additional building types, uses, or sizes
City of Palo Alto Page 9
C. Add mandatory screening or evaluation measures for one or more vulnerable
building types such as soft-story wood frame or concrete buildings
D. Upgrade the City’s current voluntary URM program to make retrofitting
mandatory
E. Create a program that mandates seismic retrofits for one or more additional
(non-URM) vulnerable building types
F. Craft a program that combines any or all of the above measures. Local
precedents for all of these types of approaches exist
G. Continue the status quo current program
Local Program Best Practice Assessment
The local program best practices assessment report reviews current practices among local
jurisdictions and agencies that require seismic retrofitting. The report summarizes what has
been done legislatively and programmatically to increase awareness, assess, and motivate
mitigation of seismically vulnerable buildings.
Palo Alto is currently laying a solid foundation for future program development by investing
in new inventory and risk information as well as community outreach and internal staff
discussions. In doing so, it is joining a group of leading California coastal jurisdictions such as
Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles that have recently stepped up their
earthquake risk reduction efforts. San Leandro and Fremont have also had policies in place
for over a decade. While there is much learning and information sharing going on, each
jurisdiction has developed their own customized policy package. There is no single best
model that Palo Alto can straightforwardly adopt. Existing local approaches differ widely in
the following ways:
A. Policy mechanisms used to achieve progress
B. Scope of targeted building types or uses addressed
C. Prioritization for retrofit among vulnerable structures and compliance timeframes
D. Types of incentives offered to property owners
E. Disclosure measures used to increase public awareness
Policy Mechanisms
The policy mechanisms being used by other jurisdictions range from inventory only with no
subsequent requirements to mandatory retrofit completion in under five years. In between
are more gradual approaches such as voluntary retrofit advocacy, incentives, provisions that
make building deficiencies more visible to the public (disclosure measures), and mandatory
screening and evaluation requirements. An important policy decision is whether any
mandated actions are implemented on a fixed timeline or triggered at sale or at some
renovation cost threshold.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Scope of targeted building types and characteristics
The most commonly addressed building type is unreinforced masonry (URM) construction
due to state law SB 547, passed in 1986. Over half of URM building programs in the state
require mandatory retrofit, often but not always, with a time frame on the order of ten to
twenty years. By 2006, seventy percent of all identified URM buildings statewide were
either demolished or retrofitted. Retrofit rates on average were three times higher in
jurisdictions with mandatory retrofit compared to voluntary programs. Jurisdictions used a
wide variety of both financial and policy incentives to assist URM building owners. Some
voluntary URM building programs coupled with incentives, including Palo Alto’s, have
achieved similar rates of success to mandatory programs.
More recent programs have focused on soft-story wood frame multi-family residential
buildings, including ten Bay Area jurisdictions and, most recently, Los Angeles as of 2015.
Soft-story wood frame building programs range in requirements from notification only to
mandatory retrofit. Several jurisdictions have innovatively used intermediate mandatory
screening and evaluation phases to further assess risk exposure and determine the final set
of buildings that will be affected by retrofit requirements. Soft-story wood frame programs
have largely been supported in the local community. Compliance timeframes in soft-story
wood frame programs tend to be short, on the order of two to seven years.
A comparatively small number of Southern California jurisdictions have acted to address
older concrete buildings, including Los Angeles, Burbank, Santa Monica, and Long Beach.
Non-ductile concrete frame and tilt-up concrete structures, in particular, are known to pose
serious risks. Programs aimed at older concrete buildings range from voluntary guidelines to
mandatory evaluation and full retrofit requirements. Timeframes on mandatory retrofit of
older concrete buildings vary greatly, from years to decades. Information about the
implementation and outcomes of these few programs is very limited.
Incentives
To complement program compliance requirements, jurisdictions can offer either financial or
policy oriented incentives. Financial incentives in increasing order of cost and
implementation difficulty include: waivers or reductions of building department fees, pass
through of retrofit costs to tenants (in jurisdictions with rent control), property-assessed
financing loads, subsidized or special term loans, real estate transfer tax rebates, special
district or historic designation tax reductions, tax credits, grants, and general obligation
bonds. Program incentives in order of increasing difficulty include exemption from future
retrofit requirements, expedited reviews, exemption or relief from standards or non-
conforming conditions, condominium conversion assistance, technical assistance for
retrofitting, zoning incentives, transfer of development rights, and density or intensity bonus
such as a floor area or floor area ratio bonus. Jurisdictions vary widely in the extent and type
of incentives offered, and many offer a number of different types of incentives.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Disclosure Measures
Public disclosure provides a powerful mechanism for influencing the opinions and actions of
owners, renters, and buyers, particularly in programs without mandatory retrofitting
requirements. Officially publicizing a city’s concerns about deficiencies of a specific building
type could, for instance, change public opinion about the resale or rental value of listed
properties, an owner’s eligibility for refinancing or future loan terms, or the cost of
purchasing property and earthquake insurance.
Jurisdictions have used a variety of techniques to motivate attention to seismic risk
concerns.
Disclosure measures include the following:
A. Mandatory disclosure at time of sale: Sellers of property are required to disclose
features that could relate to earthquake performance.
B. Recorded notice on deed: Jurisdictions can record on the property title or deed, the
fact that the building is subject to additional requirements related to its seismic
vulnerability status.
C. Public listing of affected properties: Jurisdictions that operate web sites to describe
their programs can feature a full list of property addresses and the compliance status
of the property. Generally, owner names are not listed.
D. External signage: California law requires signage on all URM buildings. Similar
signage has been required since 2007 on soft-story wood frame buildings in the City
of Berkeley and non-complying soft-story wood frame buildings in San Francisco.
E. Tenant notification: Owners are required to present straightforward, standardized
information about the listed status of the property.
F. Earthquake performance rating systems: Owners can be either encouraged or
required to have their building rated on a standardized scale that classifies expected
performance in an earthquake. In 2015, the City of Los Angeles launched a voluntary
effort to encourage owners to rate the properties using the US Resiliency Council’s
rating system and pledged to rate its own public buildings. For more information
about the US Resiliency Council, see their website at <http://www.usrc.org/>.
Palo Alto Options
Based on the review of state and other jurisdiction policies, alternative program options
for Palo Alto were identified:
1. Status Quo: In this option, the existing ordinance with its mandatory evaluation,
voluntary retrofit approach remains in place without changes. Floor area ratio
bonuses are (were) available and could continue to be offered.
2. Increase Number of Building Types Regulated, but Retrofit Remains Voluntary:
Additional categories of structures are added to the mandatory evaluation
requirements beyond those of the current ordinance. These could include any or
City of Palo Alto Page 12
all of the building types discussed above, potentially also using additional location,
use, or occupancy criteria.
3. Increase Number of Building Types Regulated with Additional Disclosure Measures
Incorporated: This option would be similar to Option 2, but with increased use of
disclosure measures such as prominently posting the building list on the City
website, notifying tenants, requiring signage, and/or recording notice on the
property title.
4. Increase Number of Building Types Regulated, Some Building Types Have
Voluntary Retrofit and a Few Building Types Have Mandatory Retrofit, with
Enforcement by a Trigger Threshold: This option builds on Option 3, but
retrofitting would be required for some building types at whenever future time a
building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation above a set threshold.
5. Increase Number of Building Types Regulated, Retrofits for Some Categories are
Voluntary and a Few Categories are Mandatory, with Enforcement by a Fixed
Timeline: This option would be similar to Option 4, but retrofitting is required
according to a fixed timeline. Timelines and enforcement emphasis could vary
depending on tiers or priority groupings to motivate prompt action for the most
vulnerable or socially important structures.
6. Increase Number of Building Types Regulated, but More Categories are Required
to Have Mandatory Retrofits: This alternative is similar to Option 5, but retrofitting
would be required for additional categories on a fixed timeline.
Other Program Features and Implementation Factors
By updating its current ordinance, Palo Alto has a variety of opportunities to expand and
better link its earthquake mitigation program efforts to other City efforts in support of
community resilience goals. For instance, Palo Alto could encourage a building occupancy
and resumption program like San Francisco, encourage or fund installation of strong
motion instruments, or pursue special programs or requirements for cell phone towers,
facades, private schools, and/or post-earthquake shelter facilities. A detailed description
of several leading local program models and planning resources for these types of efforts
are included in Attachment B.
Building Inventory
Summary of Survey Methodology
One of the first steps in the Seismic Risk Assessment Study was to develop a digital
inventory of buildings in Palo Alto that includes all the information necessary to build the
exposure model for the loss estimate. Information sources used to develop the inventory
included county tax assessor files, City GIS files, a survey done by the Palo Alto Fire
Department and San Jose State University of soft-story wood frame buildings, field notes
from the building department files of selected buildings when the 1986 ordinance was
being developed, Google Earth and Street View visual reviews, and an extensive visual
sidewalk survey.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
After the sidewalk surveys and additional quality assurance refinements, the study
identified a total of 2,632 buildings in the study group for Palo Alto. This included 66
buildings subject to Palo Alto’s current seismic mitigation ordinance, because 23 of the
original 89 buildings subject to the ordinance have been demolished.
Not all buildings were field surveyed and not all key attributes needed for loss estimation
were available for all buildings. For buildings that were not surveyed and were missing
information, the missing attributes were developed using statistical comparisons with
buildings that were surveyed on a sector- by- sector basis. A multi-step procedure was
developed to fill in other missing attributes based on the best available comparative
information. As a result, while the information for buildings that were not surveyed may
not be fully accurate at the individual building level, the overall data set is seen as
sufficiently representative for the type of loss estimates used in the project and relative
comparisons made between different building types that are discussed ahead.
Replacement Cost Values for Palo Alto
In addition to the information discussed above, a locally-customized replacement cost
had to be established for each building. Standard 2014 RS Means Replacement Cost
values included in the project loss estimation software (Hazus) used were reviewed as a
starting point, but not considered representative for Palo Alto. R+C and Vanir
Construction Management prepared adjustments to RS Means values to capture 2016
data and local factors unique to Palo Alto. These were reviewed by a task group of the
City’s project Advisory Group that included local design professionals and developers
familiar with the local cost climate. The group recommended an increase of the values in
general and identified target values for selected common occupancies. Based on these
recommendations, R+C updated the values and Vanir reviewed them and revised the
non-targeted occupancies for estimating consistency. The resulting replacement costs
are shown in Table 2, and were used in the loss calculations. It is noted that resulting
costs are 1.7-2.6 times the RS Means-based Hazus default values (2014 cost data), and
that costs are intended to be representative of averages across the town.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Table 2: Average $/SF replacement building cost by Hazus occupancy class.
Occupancy Class RS
Means
2014
Average
Palo
Alto
Cost1
[$/SF]
Market
Factor
for
Palo
Alto
Escalation
Factor
from 2014
costs to
2016
costs
Demo &
Minimal
Sitework
(5’
around
building)
[$/SF]
Soft Cost
Premium2
Average
2016
Palo
Alto
Cost w/
Soft
Costs
[$/SF]
Multiplier
(Replaced
with Soft
Costs / RS
Means)
Multi Family, duplex $130.75 40% 10% $17.50 20% $263 2.01
Multi Family, triplex/quad $114.94 40% 10% $17.50 20% $233 2.03
Multi Family, 5-9 units $206.41 40% 10% $17.50 20% $402 1.95
Multi Family, 10-19 units $194.12 40% 10% $17.50 20% $380 1.96
Multi Family, 20-49 units $212.26 40% 10% $17.50 20% $413 1.95
Multi Family, 50+ units $199.90 40% 10% $17.50 20% $390 1.95
Temporary Lodging $217.83 40% 10% $17.50 20% $424 1.94
Institutional Dormitory $234.44 50% 14% $25.00 20% $511 2.18
Nursing Homes $238.07 50% 12% $25.00 20% $510 2.14
Retail Trade $121.66 80% 10% $17.50 20% $310 2.55
Wholesale Trade $118.13 60% 10% $17.50 20% $$270 2.29
Personal & Repair Services $143.47 60% 10% $17.50 20% $324 2.26
Professional/Technical/ Business
Services
$194.52 65% 12% $17.50 20% $452 2.33
Banks $281.88 40% 12% $25.00 20% $560 1.99
Hospitals $372.59 50% 14% $35.00 20% $807 2.16
Medical Office/Clinics $267.85 20% 10% $17.50 20% $445 1.66
Entertainment/Recreation $248.61 25% 12% $25.00 20% $448 1.80
Theaters $186.45 35% 12% $25.00 20% $368 1.98
Parking $84.59 20% 10% $17.50 20% $155 1.83
Heavy $144.71 25% 10% $17.50 20% $260 1.80
Light $118.13 25% 10% $17.50 20% $216 1.83
Food/Drugs/Chemicals $229.48 30% 12% $17.50 20% $422 1.84
Metal/Minerals Processing $229.48 30% 12% $17.50 20% $422 1.84
High Technology $229.48 40% 14% $17.50 20% $461 2.01
Construction $118.13 30% 10% $17.50 20% $224 1.89
Church $118.13 50% 12% $25.00 20% $268 2.27
Agriculture $199.08 10% 12% $17.50 20% $315 1.58
General Services $152.63 40% 10% $17.50 35% $341 2.23
Emergency Response $259.52 40% 14% $25.00 35% $593 2.28
Schools/Libraries $193.00 40% 12% $25.00 35% $442 2.29
Colleges/Universities $214.91 60% 12% $25.00 35% $554 2.58
Notes:
1. RS Means average cost includes RS Means default location factors to adjust national average to Palo Alto of 15% for
residential and 11% for commercial.
2. Soft costs include architect and engineer design fees, testing and inspection, utility connection fee, permits, and an
allowance for owner change order contingency.
3. Costs are intended to be representative of average in Palo Alto across the town, including downtown areas together
with other areas in the city.
4. Costs were previously prepared following a 3/7/2016 discussion with the Palo Alto Seismic Risk Program Advisory
Group Technical Advisory Committee. Table includes minor updates based on internal review between
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Rutherford + Chekene and Vanir Construction Management to achieve improved relative ratios between
different occupancy types.
Number and Distribution of Vulnerable Buildings by Aggregate Size and Value
Table 3 shows how the number and aggregate value of Palo Alto’s buildings is distributed
by type of structure, using the FEMA Model Building Type classification system for
structural system. The table is sorted by aggregate building value. Wood frame buildings
make up about 60% of the number of buildings and represent 35% of the total value.
About 20% of the buildings are concrete, and they represent over 40% of the total value.
Of the remaining 20%, about two-thirds are masonry buildings, and one-third steel.
However, the steel buildings represent about twice the value of the masonry buildings.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Table 3: Distribution of number of buildings, building area,
and building value by Model Building Type.
Model Building Type Number of
Buildings
Aggregate Square
Feet (1,000)
Aggregate Building
Value ($M)
Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 9,699 4,082
Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 8,054 3,368
Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 331 8,403 3,232
Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 307 6,209 2,369
Steel braced frame (S2) 50 3,116 1,391
Wood frame smaller residential (W1) 898 3,821 1,278
Steel moment frame (S1) 75 3,005 1,242
Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 285 2,806 1,209
Reinforced masonry, concrete floor (RM2) 30 574 211
Steel light metal frame (S3) 41 533 177
Precast concrete frame (PC2) 5 334 125
Concrete moment frame (C1) 18 325 117
Steel frame with concrete shear walls (S4) 13 162 72
Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM) 9 274 15
Concrete with masonry infill (C3) 8 26 8
Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 2 6 3
Totals 2,632 47,346 18,899
The study group of buildings can be further divided into age groups separated by
significant milestones in building code implementation. The following age groups were
selected: pre-1927, 1927-1961, 1962-1976, 1977-1997, and 1998 to present. The
milestones reflected include the first earthquake code in Palo Alto in 1926, adoption of
the 1961 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and associated more stringent design
requirements, code changes in the 1976 UBC following the 1971 San Fernando
Earthquake, and code changes in the 1998 UBC following the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake. Figure 1 shows a histogram of the year built of the buildings in the study
group.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Figure 1: Distribution of year built of buildings in study group with significant changes in the
building design practice.
Vulnerable Building Categories
One of the important tasks in the risk assessment study was to identify potentially
vulnerable building categories specific to Palo Alto. Using the building inventory that was
developed early in the project, R+C identified potentially vulnerable structural system
types based on insights from past earthquake events, milestone improvements in seismic
code requirements made in Palo Alto, rankings in prominent seismic risk assessment tools
such as the 2015 edition of FEMA P-154 Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential
Seismic Hazards, results from past seismic risk assessment studies in California
communities, and engineering judgment. The building categories were then evaluated in
analytical loss estimate studies, described ahead, which helped to narrow in on the most
important categories for Palo Alto. Key building vulnerability metrics include the risk of
deaths and injuries, the cost of damage, and the extent of downtime or loss of use.
Buildings in the identified vulnerable building categories tend to perform poorly with
respect to all three of these metrics though the relative degree of vulnerability to each
factor varies.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Community Resilience
Community resilience is improved if residents have homes that remain usable after an
earthquake and if businesses can still operate. From a program perspective, the consultant
team and advisory group believe that the greatest reduction in losses and the largest benefit
to community resilience will come from seismically retrofitting building types known to be
both potentially hazardous and present in significant numbers in Palo Alto. .
In addition to the three categories already in Palo Alto’s seismic hazard identification
ordinance (Categories I, II, and III below), five additional categories of vulnerable building
types were identified. All five categories meet the criteria of being potentially hazardous
and having a significant presence in Palo Alto. The eight categories and the approximate
number of buildings included in each category are as follows:
1. Category I: Constructed of unreinforced masonry, except for those small than 1,900
square feet with six or few occupants (10 remaining buildings in Palo Alto)
2. Category II: Constructed prior to January 1, 1935 containing 100 or more occupants
(4 remaining buildings)
3. Category III: Constructed prior to August 1, 1976 containing 300 or more occupants
(9 remaining buildings)
4. Category IV: Pre-1977 soft-story wood frame (294 buildings)
5. Category V: Pre-1998 tilt-up concrete (99 buildings)
6. Category VI: Pre-1977 concrete soft-story (37 buildings)
7. Category VII: Pre-1998 steel moment frame (35 buildings)
8. Category VIII: Other pre-1977 concrete construction (170 buildings)
The technical assessment confirms that the potential reduction in losses from retrofitting is
significant for these categories.
Conceptual Seismic Retrofitting of Representative Vulnerable Buildings
Retrofit was considered for all buildings that have not already been retrofitted and were
either constructed before 1961 or between 1962 and the “benchmark” year with a soft
story. A “benchmark” year is when the code requirements for that building type became
similar to those currently in place. Consistent with typical practice, the performance of the
retrofitted buildings in an earthquake is assumed to be less than that of newly constructed
buildings.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
For estimating the cost of retrofit for the improved buildings, R+C developed conceptual
designs for Model Building Types that represent a significant number and value of Palo Alto’s
building stock, as well as a significant loss and loss reduction after retrofit. This process
identified wood frame (W1, W1A, W2), steel moment frame (S1), concrete shear wall (C2),
concrete tilt-up (PC1), and reinforced masonry (RM1) and unreinforced masonry (URM) as
appropriate candidates. For each Model Building Type, the age, square footage and number of
stories were reviewed to identify a “prototype” building. In cases where the prototype building
was not representative of more than two-thirds of the total number of buildings, multiple
prototypes were considered.
Figure 2: Retrofit scheme for Large Multi-family Soft-Story Wood Frame Building.
An example of a conceptual retrofit for the W1A prototype building is shown in Figure 2
from a 2000 brochure by R+C for the City of San Jose entitled “Practical Solutions for
Improving the Seismic Performance of Buildings with Tuck-under Parking.” The retrofit
elements were keyed to representative details in 2006 FEMA 547 Techniques for the Seismic
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, and a written description of collateral impacts was
developed as well to provide sufficient detail to allow a rough order of magnitude cost
estimate to be prepared.
The cost estimators of Vanir Construction Management used the conceptual designs to
estimate a range of probable cost to implement the retrofits. The retrofit costs for each
prototype building are shown in Table 4. These costs include hard costs, which are the costs
the owner pays the contractor, plus a design contingency since these are conceptual
retrofits. The estimate further includes soft costs, representing architect and engineer
design fees, testing and inspection costs, permit fees, and an owner change order
contingency.
Considered costs do not include hazardous material abatement, costs associated with
performing the work while occupants are using the building, triggered accessibility upgrades,
cost premiums associated with retrofit of a historic building, tenant relocation or business
interruption during construction, project management, renovation, financing, repair of
existing conditions, and legal fees. These costs are more variable and project and site
specific, and are typically not included in loss estimates for this type of study.
The retrofit costs were extrapolated to Model Building Types not represented by a prototype
retrofit as shown in the fifth column of Table 4.
Additional information the conceptual retrofits and their estimate cost is contained in
Attachment B.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Table 4: Conceptual retrofit cost.
Retrofit
Prototype
Model Building Type Stories Square
Feet
Used for
Model
Building
Types
Used for
Square
Feet
Average
Retrofit
Cost
($/SF)
1 Wood frame smaller
residential (W1)
2 5,320 W1 All 12
2 Wood frame larger
residential (W1A)
2 9,500 W1A < 15,000 11
3 Wood frame larger
residential (W1A)
3 30,000 W1A ≥ 15,000 6
4 Wood frame
commercial/industrial (W2)
2 10,000 W2 All 14
5 Steel moment frame (S1) 2 43,900 S1, S2, S3 All 10
6 Concrete shear wall (C2) 1 5,000 C1, C2, S4,
PC2
< 10,000 50
7 Concrete shear wall (C2) 2 17,280 C1, C2, S4,
PC2
≥ 10,000 40
8 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 1 18,435 PC1 < 25,000 29
9 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 2 38,400 PC1 ≥ 25,000 21
10 Reinforced masonry, wood
floor (RM1)
1 2,750 RM1, RM2 < 5,000 74
11 Reinforced masonry, wood
floor (RM1)
2 8,150 RM1, RM2 ≥ 5,000 46
12 Unreinforced masonry
bearing wall (URM)
1 5,000 URM, S5, C3 All 110
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Loss Estimate Findings for Current Condition
Hazus is a geographic information system (GIS) based, standardized, nationally applicable
multi-hazard loss estimation methodology and software tool. It is used by local, state, and
federal government officials for preparedness, emergency response, and mitigation
planning. The Advanced Engineering Building Module from the latest Hazus version 3.1 was
used to conduct the loss estimates in the study so that individual buildings could be analyzed
using the specific inventory data collected for Palo Alto.
Analyses were conducted for two specific earthquake scenarios developed by the United
States Geological Survey (USGS): a major M7.9 San Andreas Fault event, and a strong M6.7
San Andreas Fault event.
Contour plots for the short period spectral acceleration for the two M6.7 and M7.9 scenarios
are shown in Figure 3. Spectral acceleration is a measure of the building response to shaking
at the site.
Figure 2: Predicted short period spectral acceleration in vicinity of Palo Alto (city boundary
shown) for two selected San Andreas Fault scenarios.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Estimated Losses for Buildings in Their Current Condition
Table 5 summarizes the total loss calculated by Hazus for the as-is condition for the two
earthquake scenarios. The results show that the estimated losses to Palo Alto buildings
and contents in a M6.7 scenario will be significant, on the order of $1.2 billion. Though
ground shaking in the M7.9 scenario is only about 25% larger than it is in the M6.7
scenario, overall building and content losses double to $2.4 billion. Average building
damage and content damage also approximately double with a M7.9 event. The
difference in the number of buildings that are heavily damaged with the larger
earthquake is more pronounced with a 12-fold increase from the M6.7 to the M7.9
scenarios. This is shown in the fourth column of Table 5 as the number of buildings with a
damage ratio exceeding 20%.
Table 5: Total losses for study group in as-is condition.
Earthquake
Scenario
Building
Value1
($B)
Content
Value2
($B)
Number of
Bldgs.
with
Damage
Ratio ≥
20%3
Estimated
Building
Damage4
($B)
Estimated
Content
Damage4
($B)
Total
Building
and
Content
Damage
($B)
M7.9 18.9 17.3 224 1.7 0.7 2.4
M6.7 18.9 17.3 19 0.8 0.4 1.2
Ratio of M7.9/M6.7 2 2 2
Notes:
1. Building value is the complete replacement cost for the building, and
includes the structure, architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
components (e.g., ceilings and lighting).
2. Content value includes the complete replacement cost of furniture and
equipment that is not integral with the structure (e.g., computers and
other supplies). They are estimated as a percent of structure replacement
value, dependent on occupancy.
3. Damage ratio is defined as the cost of repairing damage divided by the
replacement cost of the building.
4. Estimated building and content damage cost is the cost associated with
repair and replacement of the building and its content.
To put the loss from building damage in context, the average annual valuation of Palo
Alto construction permits was $400M between 2013 and 2016 (which represents a boom
period). The total loss of $1.7B in a major M7.9 earthquake represents more than four
years’ worth of construction, and the total loss of $0.8B in a strong M6.7 earthquake
represents more than two years’ worth of construction.
It should be noted that these losses do not include the effects of lives lost and business
disruption, or the ripple effects in the local economy or real estate market. Much of this
loss will not be insured.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Estimated Losses by Building Type
It is important to look at multiple metrics when deciding which buildings are the most
vulnerable and significant to the community as a whole. Table 6 breaks out the estimated
loss and damage ratio for various model building types, and it can be seen that it depends
on the metric used which building type is considered the poorest performer. Looking at
the total loss alone, concrete bearing wall buildings and commercial wood frame
buildings are responsible for the highest total loss. This tracks well with the earlier
finding that these structural systems are the most prevalent ones. If we look at the
highest average building damage ratio instead, buildings with unreinforced masonry
bearing walls and unreinforced masonry infills are the most prone to damage. However,
not very many of them exist in Palo Alto, and as a result they do not represent much of
the aggregate loss.
Additional information on the loss estimate for the existing building stock is contained in
Attachment B.
Table 6: Top three vulnerable building types ranked by total loss, average damage ratio,
and number of severely damaged buildings.
Building Type Number
of
Buildings
Building
Value
($M)
M7.9 EQ
Total
Building +
Content
Losses
($M)
M7.9 EQ
Average
Building
Damage
Ratio
M7.9 EQ
Number
of
Bldgs.
with
Damage
Ratio ≥
20%
Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 4,082 477 14% 75
Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 3,368 365 12% 32
Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 307 2,369 216 9% 9
Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 2 3 1 38% 1
Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM) 9 15 4 29% 9
Concrete frame with masonry infill (C3) 8 8 2 29% 6
Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 4,082 477 14% 75
Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 3,368 365 12% 32
Steel moment frame (S1) 75 1,242 130 18% 27
Loss Estimate Findings with Buildings Retrofitted
A second Hazus AEBM run was done assuming a retrofitted building stock. For this model
run, it was assumed that a building would be retrofitted if it has not already been
retrofitted and was either constructed before 1961 or between 1962 and the benchmark
year with a soft story. The Hazus model was rerun with the updated properties
simulating retrofit.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Table 7 shows the resulting total losses and damage ratios after buildings have been
retrofitted. Though total losses are still significant, comparing the results of Table 7 with
Table 5 shows a reduction in total loss of 45% for the M7.9 scenario, and 33% for the
M6.7 scenario. In other words, aggregate loss to the community if all considered
properties were retrofit could be reduced by one third in a very plausible event and
almost halved in a much larger event.
Another important improvement is the reduction of the number of buildings with more
than 20% damage. The M7.9 scenario shows a reduction from 224 buildings to 6
buildings. This means that the probability of building collapse and resulting injuries and
fatalities has become very low.
Finally, the damage and loss of the M7.9 scenario remain approximately two times the
amount of loss sustained in the M6.7 scenario. This suggests that the retrofit has a
similar impact for both levels of ground shaking.
Table 7: Total losses after retrofitting.
Earthquake
Scenario
Building
Value
($B)
Content
Value
($B)
Estimated
Building
Damage
($B)
Number
of Bldgs.
with
Damage
Ratio ≥
20%
Estimated
Content
Damage
($B)
Total
Building
&
Content
Damage
($B)
M7.9 18.9 17.3 0.9 6 0.5 1.3
M6.7 18.9 17.3 0.5 0 0.3 0.8
Ratio of M7.9/M6.7 2 - 2 2
Table 8 breaks out the reduction in total loss by model building type for the M7.9
scenario, and shows the associated retrofit cost. The average reduction in loss varies by
building type. URM buildings showed the highest reduction in loss after retrofit as a
percentage of the loss itself. Steel braced framed buildings showed the lowest reduction
in losses as a percentage of the loss itself. Wood frame and concrete buildings are
responsible for the largest reduction in total loss, with wood frame construction
representing over 20% of the loss reduction, and concrete buildings over 50%.
It should be noted that the data in Table 8 also includes buildings that were not retrofitted. As
a result, further parsing of the data is needed to better understand which buildings are
responsible for the most loss, and those that can be improved more cost-effectively.
Table 8: Comparison of retrofit benefits and costs by Model Building Type.
Model Building Type M7.9 EQ M7.9 EQ Average Retrofit
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Average
Damage
($/SF)
Total
Damage
Reduction
($1,000)
Damage
Reduction
($/SF)
Cost
($/SF)
Wood frame smaller residential (W1) 16 13,775 4 12
Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 25 61,317 7 6-11
Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 50 160,155 26 14
Steel moment frame (S1) 62 76,150 25 10
Steel braced frame (S2) 44 24,222 8 10
Steel light metal frame (S3) 108 38,163 72 10
Steel frame with concrete shear walls (S4) 101 11,118 69 40-50
Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 247 695 121 110
Concrete moment frame (C1) 55 8,045 25 40-50
Concrete shear wall (C2) 70 336,574 35 40-50
Concrete frame with masonry infill (C3) 120 865 34 110
Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 68 218,491 27 21-29
Precast concrete frame (PC2) 21 0 0 21-29
Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 59 87,697 31 46-74
Reinforced masonry, concrete floor (RM2) 35 3,727 6 46-74
Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (URM) 23 5,216 19 110
Totals 51 1,046,210 22
Table 9 shows those types of buildings that may be considered good candidates for a
retrofit program. Although representing only about 15% of the total inventory, these
buildings are responsible for over 30% of the total loss. This is reflected in the
considerably higher than average loss (fourth column of Table 9). The benefit of retrofit is
also considerable for this group of buildings, since they are responsible for over 50% of
the reduction in loss. Additionally, the cost to retrofit them is only a fraction of the losses
avoided in a major event, ranging from a third for the concrete buildings to a tenth for
the steel frames. Note that these values are based on conceptual retrofits. Actual
retrofit costs for individual buildings would vary substantially. The steel moment frame
benefit-to-cost ratio is higher than expected by engineering judgment, caused in part by a
comparatively low retrofit cost for this Model Building Type.
Additional information on the loss estimate for the retrofitted building stock is contained
in Attachment B.
Table 9: Comparison of benefits and costs by selected
Model Building Type, date and characteristics.
Model Building Type Number
of
Buildings
Total
SF
(1,000)
M7.9 EQ
Average
Loss by
M7.9 EQ
Average
Loss
Average
Cost to
Retrofit
(Average
Loss
Avoided)
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Building
($/SF)
Avoided
by
Retrofit
($/SF)
($/SF) /
(Average
Retrofit
Cost)
Pre-1977 wood frame soft-
story (W1, W1A, W2)
294 3,690 66 46 12 4
Pre-1998 tilt-up (PC1) 99 3,078 106 71 23 3
Pre-1977 concrete soft-story
(C1, C2, C3)
37 842 149 108 42 3
Pre-1998 steel moment frame
(S1)
35 690 152 110 10 11
Review of Past Seismic Retrofits
To gain a better understanding of the quality of the retrofits and identify relevant issues to
updating Palo Alto’s seismic risk mitigation program, a sample of the submitted engineering
studies and building retrofits drawings for existing buildings was reviewed.
The review identified the following relevant needs for future seismic risk mitigation
programs:
A. Clear identification of retrofit design intent, scope, and limitations, also for voluntary
retrofits
B. Identification of existing structural systems
C. Decision on requirements for buildings that have had partial seismic retrofits
completed; and may have remaining seismic deficiencies
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Additional Recommended Program Features
In addition to expansion of the building categories included within the City’s seismic risk
mitigation program and refinement of disclosure measures and incentive options, a number
of other program features are recommended. They are described in Attachment B, and
include the following:
A. Use the current inventory, taking note of its limitations - The inventory developed for
the effort to date involved use of digital information and field surveys. A complete
field survey of all buildings in Palo Alto was outside the scope of the project.
However, the inventory that has been developed is an excellent resource. The first
step in any future ordinance will involve notification of building owners that they
may be subject to the requirements of the ordinance. Those buildings that were field
surveyed and fall within the scope of the ordinance can be notified using the existing
inventory. For the remaining buildings, additional field survey is recommended. This
would be a rapid visual assessment and could be conducted by City staff or outside
consultants.
B. Use an initial screening form phase - Typically, as part of the notification process, a
screening form of about one page in length is sent, and the owner is required to have
a design professional, such as a structural engineer or architect, complete the form.
This cost for to confirm whether or not the building actually is subject to the City’s
ordinance should be relatively nominal.
C. Clearly specify seismic evaluation and retrofit scope - For all buildings subject to
regulation, the seismic evaluation (and retrofit) methodology for each building
category will need to be defined. Industry consensus standards exist and cover the
vulnerable building categories identified for Palo Alto. These include the 2015
International Existing Building Code (IEBC) and 2014 ASCE 41-13 Seismic Evaluation
and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Both are currently being updated by groups of
engineers and building officials. For soft-story wood frame buildings, there is also the
2012 FEMA P-807 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame
Buildings with Weak First Stories. For steel moment frame buildings, there is also the
2000 FEMA 351 Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing
Welded Moment Resisting Steel Structures. The following table provides
recommended evaluation and retrofit standards.
D. Provide detailed evaluation report submittal requirements - Minimum submittal
requirements for evaluation reports will need to be defined. The above evaluation
and retrofit standards provide some guidance but a short clear set of requirements
will be beneficial.
E. Specify how past partial retrofits will be handled: In the past, some buildings have had
partial seismic retrofits where only selected portions of the seismic force-resisting
system have been upgraded; Some seismic deficiencies may still exist in these
structures. If mandatory retrofit requirements are implemented that provide for
comprehensive retrofitting of the full seismic load path, there may be buildings with
previous partial retrofits that do not fully comply and need remaining deficiencies to
City of Palo Alto Page 29
be addressed. The seismic evaluation reports will help identify these cases.
F. Update both new and existing building permit submittal requirements: Review of City
records found that basic information such as the building structural system, date of
construction, and retrofit standard used (where applicable) are not readily available.
It is recommended that submittals for permit for both new buildings and existing
building renovations require this information. This will allow the city to have a much
better understanding of its total building stock and its expected performance in an
earthquake.
G. Write a new ordinance or set of ordinances to update the program: After the Council
has provided direction and the above issues have been addressed, an updated
ordinance will need to be written.
H. Carefully address program management and interdepartmental coordination needs:
To successfully manage Palo Alto’s updated Seismic Risk Mitigation Program, an
effective management plan is needed so that progress is monitored by the City and
community intent is achieved.
I. Delineate department and key staff responsibilities: For Palo Alto’s updated Seismic
Risk Mitigation Program, City staff will be responsible for several categories of
activities. These will include the basic activities such as managing the notification and
inventory process, reviewing evaluation reports and plan checking retrofit
construction documents, and field inspections of retrofit work. Less obvious activities
will include evaluating requested exceptions to the program or alternative means of
compliance; managing feedback from design professionals, owners, and the public;
tying pre-earthquake retrofitting to post-earthquake safety evaluations records; and
managing post-earthquake safety evaluation, repair, and recovery plans. Depending
on the scale of the updated program, it is possible that additional staff members,
consultants, and/or an appropriately experienced structural engineer may be needed
to provide advice on technical and program management issues, particularly as the
program moves to final definition and to initial implementation. Later, as is done in
some communities, it may be desirable to create volunteer review boards of local
structural engineers who review questions on the evaluation and retrofit criteria and
provide the City with technical opinions that staff can use.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Table 10: Recommended Evaluation and Retrofit Standards.
Category Description Evaluation and Retrofit Standards
I Unreinforced masonry IEBC Appendix Chapter A1
II Built before 1/1/35 with 100 or
more occupants
ASCE 41
III Built before 8/1/76 with 300 or
more occupants
ASCE 41
IV Pre-1977 soft-story wood
frame
IEBC Appendix Chapter A4, ASCE 41, or FEMA P-807
V Pre-1998 tilt-up IEBC Appendix Chapter A2 and ASCE 41
VI Pre-1977 soft-story concrete ASCE 41
VII Pre-1998 steel moment frame ASCE 41, or FEMA 351
VIII Other pre-1977 concrete ASCE 41
ADVISORY GROUP INPUT
Summary Report of the Advisory Group
The purpose of convening an Advisory Group composed of members with local expertise and
construction experience was not to create a consensus document or ratify particular
recommendations by majority vote. Instead, the goal was to educate, solicit, and explore
the range of issues and opinions among interested parties who participated. A summary
report, reviewed by all the members of the Group, was prepared to document their input in
to the study (Attachment G). The Advisory Group was a first step in community engagement
regarding seismic hazard reduction in Palo Alto. It was intended that the information in the
Advisory Group’s summary memo would be provided to the City Council as they consider
potential revisions to the City of Palo Alto’s seismic risk management program and seismic
hazard identification ordinance.
Preferred Policy Directions
In summary, discussions with the Advisory Group revealed little to no support for
maintaining the status quo. Strong support did exist for retrofitting buildings already in
the program, particularly URM buildings, and for addressing more building types,
particularly soft-story wood frame buildings and older concrete tilt-ups.
For buildings addressed in the current ordinance, the group generally thought a
mandatory retrofit requirement would be feasible and fair. Three decades later, market
forces alone have clearly not been enough to motivate upgrade of these remaining
structures. Because the barriers to retrofit work for these properties are not known,
case-by-case management by City staff may be necessary. There was hesitance, however,
about extending or increasing incentives for owners that had not voluntarily taken
advantage of the FAR bonus available in the past.
More detailed conversations took place about other building category priorities and
City of Palo Alto Page 31
policy features focused on extending the vulnerable building types they addressed and
the requirements for retrofit compliance. These program alternatives are incorporated
into Options 3, 4, and 5 (see the “Survey of State and Local Seismic Policies” section). The
Advisory Group was briefed on structural types generally known to be vulnerable that are
common or significant to Palo Alto and estimated to have reasonable loss reduction to
retrofit cost ratios. The Group’s goal was to focus on a subset of categories that seemed
to have high potential to benefit the owner, occupants, and the broader community.
Some participants showed greater concern about residential properties, and debated
whether commercial and residential properties should be treated the same or differently.
The Advisory Group showed high interest in addressing multi-family residential
earthquake risks, in particular by starting a soft-story wood frame program as many other
California cities have done. One soft-story wood frame program approach discussed was
to have two phases: 1) owners following notification would be given several years to do a
voluntary retrofit, along with more generous incentives; and 2) later a mandatory
timeline would kick in and incentives would be phased out. The group noted that
exemptions such as parking requirements, permission to add other unit(s), or the ability
to transfer development rights for additional square footage would likely be attractive
and useful incentives for the multi-family soft story building type.
Other vulnerable building categories of concern were also reviewed, including pre-1977
tilt-up concrete structures. There are a modest number of these buildings in Palo Alto,
but Advisory Group members noted that their uses are changing. Many buildings
previously used as warehouses are now being repurposed for office space. The higher
occupancies increase the public safety stakes of any seismic deficiencies. Currently, there
is no mandate in the regulations to address earthquake vulnerabilities while other
upgrades and build out are being done to these structures. A substantial renovation
trigger mandate might make sense, but the percent of the value of the structure used as a
trigger might need to be lowered in order to get compliance. Such properties with more
than one story should perhaps receive higher priority for retrofit.
Potential Issues for Future Study and Consideration
For some issues, based in part on Advisory Group discussions, additional information may
be beneficial to help develop a strategy and to better understand potential impacts on
key stakeholders and community concerns. Some of these issues are primarily economic
and were outside the scope of the current study. The City Council may wish to direct staff
and/or outside consultants to investigate some of these items in more detail as the
seismic risk management program effort proceeds. These issues include the following:
A. Occupants and tenants
a. How much would a typical retrofit add to the monthly rent of a multifamily
City of Palo Alto Page 32
soft-story wood frame apartment tenant?
b. Would some tenants be unable to afford a rent increase and seek housing
elsewhere in Palo Alto or move outside the city (and if so, how many might
be displaced)?
c. If soft-story wood frame apartments in Palo Alto are retrofitted in time
before the next major earthquake, how much less displacement of
residents would occur as a result of the earthquake?
d. What categories of buildings are most important to address in order to
help maintain the commercial viability and vitality of the City’s core
business districts and tax base?
B. Property owners, developers, and business owners
a. What are the characteristics of property owners that would be affected?
b. How might small businesses be affected compared to larger ones?
c. How many property owners are in need of lower cost capital or other
substantial financial assistance to fund retrofitting?
C. Impacts of Seismic Restoration on Retention of Historic Structures in the City
a. How can we ensure that the review of initial seismic evaluations identify
those structures that are listed in the City’s Historic Inventory or
potentially significant and flag them for attention during subsequent
review?
b. How can we develop a clear process for reviewing proposed seismic
retrofits to historic structures that is coordinated among responsible city
departments and is consistent with current regulations and Community
policies?
c. How can we ensure that property owners take advantage of Seek out
retrofit alternatives that are consistent with the Historic Building Code,
historic characteristics of the structure, and provide the required most risk
reduction?
D. City departmental resources and budgets
a. What would be the loss in revenue to the Building Department if fee
waivers were offered?
b. What would be the staffing and budgetary needs over time to administer
an expanded program that addresses additional building types?
c. What kinds of interdepartmental cooperation and staff resources in other
departments are necessary to ensure effective implementation and
coordination with other city planning and public safety efforts?
d. What would be the costs to provide and administer any incentives offered
to property owners?
E. Overall community economic health
a. What kind of benefits could accrue to Palo Alto in terms of maintaining
community function and ability to recover if various building categories are
retrofitted in time before the next major earthquake?
F. Other related issues
City of Palo Alto Page 33
a. It was brought up in the Advisory Group that the Building Department
needs flexibility and authority to take steps to get tough seismic mitigation
projects done. One idea was to grant the Building Official the ability to
classify certain projects (with well-specified criteria) as warranting a kind of
“seismic safety” or “earthquake resilience” fast tracking, with city
departments agreeing to coordinate on a specified accelerated project
review timeframe.
b. Although outside the formal scope of this planning effort, several Advisory
Group members commented that it would be desirable for the City to do
some kind of assessment of any earthquake mitigation needs in public
buildings and facilities serving the City.
c. Advisory group members recommended the community be informed of
Palo Alto’s overall potential seismic risk by providing a summary of
potential impacts on the City’s website, including the expected
performance of vulnerable buildings.
d. The group also had a high degree of support for recommending that the
City initiate and nest future earthquake mitigation programs within a
broader disaster or community resilience initiative, as cities such as Los
Angeles, Berkeley, and San Francisco have done. This could be
incorporated into the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Safety
Element. There was insufficient time in the project’s six advisory group
meetings to consider potential initiatives to assess risks for cell phone
towers, water supply, facades, private schools, post-earthquake shelter
facilities, and/or other assets important to community recovery.
TIMELINE
The timeline for updating the current seismic mitigation regulation is dependent on Council’s
review of the Seismic Risk Assessment Study and directions to staff.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Implementation of the report recommendations would result in additional costs to private
property owners and prior to any decision to proceed, staff is proposing additional public
outreach at a cost of about $50,000. Technical requirements and design guidelines to support
a new ordinance would require additional consultant services at an estimated cost of $50,000.
If desired, an analysis of the fiscal impact on residents and business could be prepared for an
additional $50,000. Any incentives offered to building owners could also have a cost to the
City, which would not be known until those incentives are further defined.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The preparation of the Seismic Risk Assessment Study is exempt from environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15306 (Information
collection leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or
funded).
City of Palo Alto Page 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ATTACHMENTS
A. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.42: Seismic Hazards Identification Program
B. Seismic Risk Assessment Study. The study includes the following items.
a. Legislative Review Report
b. Local Program Best Practices Assessment
c. Building Inventory for Loss Estimate
d. Conceptual Seismic Retrofits and Cost Estimate
e. Loss Estimate of Existing Building Stock
f. Loss Estimate of Retrofitted Building Stock
g. Review of Past Retrofits
h. Additional Recommended Program Features
C. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (August 2014)
D. Policy and Services Committee Staff Report 5293, Discussion of Updating the Seismic
Safety Chapter of the Municipal Code for Hazardous Buildings (December 9, 2014)
E. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.18: Downtown Commercial (CD) District
F. Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group Members
G. Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group Summary Report on Process,
Discussions, and Outcomes (November 21, 2016)
H. Advisory Group Meeting Minutes, Presentations and Handouts (contained at the Seismic
Risk Management Advisory Group website at
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/srmag.asp>
Attachments:
Attachments
Attachment_A_-_PAMC_16.42_Seismic_Hazards_ID_Prgm[1]
Attachment_B_-_Palo_Alto_Seismic_Risk_Assessment_Study_-_Final_Report_-
_2016_12_21[1]
Attachment_C_-_Palo_Alto_Threats_Hazards_Risk_Assessment_(August_2014.1)[1]
Attachment_D_-_Policy_and_Services_Staff_Report_5293[1]
Attachment_E_-_PAMC_18.18_CD_District[1]
Attachment_F_-
_Seismic_Risk_Management_Program_Advisory_Committee_Members_01.15.16[1]
Attachment_G_-
_Palo_Alto_Seismic_Risk_Mgt_Prog_AG_Summary_Rev_2016_11_21[1]
Attachment_H_-_SRMP_Advisory_Group_Agenda-Minutes-Presentations-Handouts[1]
20331.txt
Attachments A - H have been removed for this reviewing process.
Page 1
Final Report
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Palo Alto, California
21 December 2016
#2015-087S
Rutherford + Chekene
375 Beale Street, Suite 310
San Francisco, CA 94105
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PALO ALTO SEISMIC RISK ASSSESSMENT STUDY
Section / Subsection
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
II. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2. Current California Seismic-Related Building Codes, Legislation, and Key Institutions .................... 7
3. Legislative Leadership and Recent Development .......................................................................... 18
4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 20
5. References Cited ............................................................................................................................ 24
III. LOCAL PROGRAM BEST PRACTICES ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 25
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 28
2. Analysis of Policy Features and Outcomes of local Seismic Risk Mitigation Programs ................. 30
3. Implications and Potential Policy Directions for Palo Alto ............................................................ 67
4. References and Resources ............................................................................................................. 77
IV. BUILDING INVENTORY FOR LOSS ESTIMATE ............................................................................................... 79
V. VULNERABLE BUILDING CATEGORIES ......................................................................................................... 85
VI. CONCEPTUAL SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF REPRESENTATIVE VULNERABLE BUILDINGS ............................. 87
VII. LOSS ESTIMATING FINDINGS FOR EXISTING BUILDING STOCK ................................................................... 91
VIII. LOSS ESTIMATING FINDINGS WITH BUILDINGS RETROFITTED ................................................................... 97
IX. REVIEW OF PAST SEISMIC RETROFITS ....................................................................................................... 101
X. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FEATURES .............................................................................. 103
XI. QUESTIONS TO GUIDE COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS AND POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR FUTURE STUDY ............ 107
1. Questions to help guide council deliberations ............................................................................ 107
2. Potential issues for future study and consideration .................................................................... 108
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page ii
APPENDICES:
Appendix A - Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation.
Appendix B - Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation.
Appendix C - Table Describing Incentives Used in Local Earthquake Risk Reduction Programs.
Appendix D - Options for Moving to a Comprehensive, Resilience Approach
Appendix E – Retrofit Concepts Designs for 12 Prototype Buildings
Appendix F – Retrofit Cost Estimates for 12 Prototype Buildings
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 1
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION
In 1986, the City of Palo Alto was one of the first cities in California to establish a comprehensive
seismic mitigation program. It covers unreinforced masonry buildings, buildings built before 1935 with
over 100 occupants, and buildings built before August 1, 1976 with over 300 occupants. After 30 years,
75% of the 89 buildings included in the program have been demolished or retrofitted. The 2014 South
Napa Earthquake spurred the City to reevaluate its program. They engaged a team led by Rutherford +
Chekene (R+C) to perform a comprehensive assessment of the expected performance of the City’s
building stock in potential earthquakes, and started a community engagement effort to help identify
resiliency goals and associated mitigation policies and programs. The R+C project team includes Sharyl
Rabinovici, a public policy and community engagement specialist; Hope Seligson (initially with MMI
Engineering and now Seligson Consulting) for loss estimating; and Vanir Construction Management for
cost estimation of building replacement cost and retrofitting.
The technical assessment covered over 2,500 buildings (single family and two-family residences were
excluded) with a wide array of potentially vulnerable structural systems. The findings show that the
estimated losses to Palo Alto buildings and contents in a M7.9 scenario event will be significant, on the
order of $2.4 billion. Furthermore, this figure does not include business disruption, or ripple effects in
the local economy or real estate market, nor does it include the economic value of loss of life. Among
the categories of highest concern are pre-1977 “soft-story” wood frame, pre-1978 tilt-up concrete,
pre-1977 cast-in-place concrete construction, and pre-1998 steel moment frames. The technical
assessment revealed that the potential reduction in losses from retrofitting these buildings is over $1
billion in a M7.9 scenario event.
R+C’s scope included a series of tasks and associated task reports and presentations. These included
the following:
A survey of state and local seismic policies and best practices;
Development of a building inventory for Palo Alto using digital information and field surveys;
Assignment of costs to buildings and contents in the inventory;
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 2
Description of vulnerable building categories, including five additional categories not covered
under the current ordinance;
Conceptual seismic retrofitting of representative vulnerable buildings;
Loss estimate findings in a major seismic event for the current condition and after retrofitting;
Review of past seismic retrofits; and
Discussion of additional recommended program features.
These task reports and presentation information have been compiled to form this Seismic Risk
Assessment Study. Each chapter in the study addresses one or more of the project task efforts.
Appendices provide additional details for selected tasks.
A Seismic Risk Management Advisory Group made up of community and industry stakeholders and City
staff was appointed and was also an essential component of the overall project. The Advisory Group
insured that local building experience and community priorities were considered as the study moved
forward. The group met six times with City staff and the R+C team over a period of nine months. The
Advisory Group was introduced to the findings regarding the community’s earthquake vulnerability,
impacts on vulnerable building types, as well as the ‘best practices’ used by other communities to
promote community wide welfare and to encourage seismic retrofit of various vulnerable buildings
types. The Advisory Group then discussed the assessment findings and formulated potential directions
for City of Palo Alto leaders to consider going forward in updating the City’s seismic mitigation
programs. At the end of the Advisory Group process, a summary memo, reviewed by all members of
the Group, was prepared to document their input to the study. The November 21, 2016 memo is
entitled “Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group Summary Report on Process, Discussions,
and Outcomes.”
The following table summarizes the outcome of the seismic risk assessment and includes the Advisory
Group discussions. The table is organized around eight vulnerable building categories or building types.
Categories I, II and III encompass the identified vulnerable buildings for the 1986 ordinance and are
primarily located in the downtown commercial district. Categories IV through VIII include additional
buildings at risk, as identified in the Seismic Risk Assessment Study. These buildings are located
throughout the city.
There was little to no support for maintaining the status quo within the Advisory Group. As shown in
the following table, the Advisory Group favored requiring property-owner prepared seismic evaluation
reports for all categories, except for Category VIII (other older nonductile concrete buildings). They
also favored mandatory retrofit for the remaining Category I unreinforced masonry buildings identified
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 3
in the 1986 ordinance that have not been seismically retrofitted or demolished. For the Category II
and III buildings in the current ordinance, retrofit should be required when a certain event or “trigger”
occurs such as when a substantial renovation occurs or the property is put up for sale. Among the new
vulnerable building types, the greatest concern was expressed for soft-story wood frame buildings and
older concrete tilt-up buildings. The Advisory Group thought that retrofit of these structures should be
either mandatory or triggered by substantial renovation or sale. The Advisory Group was concerned
about delay in the retrofit of these structures given the number of the vulnerable buildings, the
number of people who could be affected should the buildings be significantly damaged, and the
considerable cost to the community if the structures in these categories were lost because of an
earthquake. The Advisory Group considered a timeline of 2-4 years for the mandatory evaluation
report and 4-8 years to complete mandatory retrofit construction. The Advisory Group supported
increasing disclosure measures on building status through website listing and tenant notification. They
also suggested that the most beneficial financial and policy incentives to encourage compliance with
the new requirements would be fee waivers, expedited permitting, and property-assessed financing
tools.
Following the preparation of the Advisory Group summary, R+C assisted City staff in preparing a staff
memo for an upcoming City Council meeting. It includes more detailed recommendations to the
Council on proposed revisions to the City’s seismic hazard mitigation ordinance and recommends that
the Council provide direction to City staff on revising and expanding the City’s building code and
related ordinances.
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 4
Summary of Recommended Policy Directions from the Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Category Approx.
Number
Building
Type
Date of
Construction
Occupants Evaluation
Report
Voluntary,
Triggered, or
Mandatory
Retrofit1
Deadlines for Evaluation Report and
Retrofit Construction (years)2
Disclosure Potential Incentives
Current Program (Potential Revision in Italics)
I 10 Un-
reinforced
masonry
NA Over 6
(and over
1,900 sf)
Required Mandatory Report: Expired
Construction: 2-4
Website
listing and
tenant
notification
Fee waiver, expedited
permitting, FAR bonus/
transfer of development
rights (TDR) II 4 Any Before 1/1/35 Over 100 Required Voluntary or
Triggered
Report: Expired
Construction
• Voluntary: Not required
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
III 9 Any Before 8/1/76 Over 300 Required Voluntary or
Triggered
Expanded Program
IV 294 Soft-story
wood
frame
Before 1977 Any Required Triggered or
Mandatory
Report: 2-4
Construction
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
• Mandatory: 4-6
Same as
above
Fee waiver, expedited
permitting, TDR, parking
exemptions, permission to
add units
V 99 Tilt-up Before 1998 Any Required Triggered or
Mandatory
Report: 2-4
Construction
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
• Mandatory: 4-6
Same as
above
Same as Categories I, II and
III
VI 37 Soft-story
concrete
Before 1977 Any Required Voluntary,
Triggered or
Mandatory
Report: 2-4
Construction
• Voluntary: Not required
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
• Mandatory: 6-8
Same as
above
Same as Categories I, II and
III
VII 35 Steel
moment
frame
Before 1998 Any Required Voluntary,
Triggered or
Mandatory
VIII TBD Other older
nonductile
concrete
Before 1977 Any Not rec. at
this time
Not
recommended
at this time
Report: NA
Construction: NA
NA NA
1Voluntary: Retrofit is voluntary.
Triggered: Retrofit is triggered when the building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation.
Mandatory: Retrofit is required per a fixed timeline.
2Deadlines provide a potential range. Timelines would vary depending on tiers or priority groupings of different subcategories.
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 5
CHAPTER II.
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW REPORT
Executive Summary
This chapter summarizes the seismic risk management policy context within the state of California to
support Palo Alto’s current effort to update its program. The report was prepared per Task 2 of the
Consulting Agreement between Rutherford + Chekene and the City of Palo Alto, dated August 17,
2015. The scope of Task 2 is to:
Review existing and pending State legislation related to soft-story buildings and other seismically
vulnerable buildings and provide a brief summary.
Provide a concise review of relevant and pending state legislation, with a summary that can be
presented at community and staff meetings or in reports to Council.
The process of creating this legislative review included searches of legislative data bases, search and
review of published and online reports and materials, several phone interviews with leaders in the
engineering profession as well as local and state government staff, and development of insights from
the consulting team based on their experiences in this arena.
High level findings include the following:
Palo Alto is affected by numerous relevant California existing laws and regulations dating from
the 1930s through the present. These laws regulate many aspects of Palo Alto’s built environment,
including certain classes of building uses such as hospitals, public schools, and essential facilities;
setting code minimums for new construction; and mandating land use planning and real estate
disclosure measures for natural hazards including earthquakes. Unreinforced masonry (URM) is at
present the only structural system type for which the state requires local jurisdictions to have a
program.
If it so chooses, Palo Alto has wide authority to expand or strengthen its approaches to seismic
mitigation. The power to do more about earthquake vulnerabilities is primarily in the hands of the
local jurisdictions that have significant discretion in the kinds of policies they can adopt.
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 6
Palo Alto has many additional actions it can take to make sure it is complying and taking greatest
possible advantage of state level regulations and opportunities. In particular, opportunities exist
now to align a new seismic program with two ongoing mandated planning efforts the City is already
engaged in: Palo Alto’s General Plan and its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Based on what state laws allow and in some cases recommend, many broad policy directions exist for
Palo Alto going forward in terms of updating its seismic mitigation program. For example, Palo Alto
could choose to:
(1) implement measures to increase the effectiveness of its current program, for instance by
offering additional or larger incentives or devoting more resources to program visibility and
implementation;
(2) expand the City’s current voluntary seismic mitigation programs to address additional
building types or uses;
(3) add mandatory screening or evaluation measures for one or more vulnerable building types
such as soft-story buildings or older concrete structures;
(4) upgrade the City’s current voluntary URM program to make retrofitting mandatory;
(5) create a program that mandates seismic retrofits for one or more additional (non-URM)
vulnerable building types;
(6) craft a program that combines any or all of the above measures. Local precedents for all
these types of approaches exist and are described and discussed in a separate Task 3 report; or,
(7) continue the status quo current program.
Although formally outside the scope of the current effort, Palo Alto also has additional opportunities
for strengthening and expanding its earthquake-related efforts in terms of land use planning, public
education and awareness, and small residential structures, such as:
(8) develop partnerships with the private and non-profit sectors to promote insurance take up
and business continuity planning; and,
(9) devote more resources to increasing awareness among its citizens about low cost or free
ways to become more aware and prepared for disasters more broadly.
Ultimately, the recommended policy directions and action steps for Palo Alto will be informed by
related efforts in this project to analyze the most current vulnerability information available, and later
determined through an inclusive decisionmaking process going forward.
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 7
1. INTRODUCTION
This report surveys the public policy landscape in the state of California related to earthquake
mitigation and describes each policy or program’s relevance for Palo Alto and similar jurisdictions. The
scope is intentionally broad so that it can serve as a primer or look-up resource for persons with varied
levels of background knowledge about the topic. Section 2 organizes information about the reviewed
policies, programs, and institutions based on the type of policy or program. These range from building
codes and mitigation mandates to educational efforts and tax-based loan financing strategies.
Section 3 briefly provides information about current State level policy leadership and the small amount
of earthquake-related recent and proposed legislation. Section 4 presents options for Palo Alto
through a summary of the review’s findings. Appendices A and B to this report provide detailed tables
of current and pending or recent legislative proposals, respectively.
The process of creating this Legislative Review included searches of the California’s LegInfo database,1
search and review of published and online reports and materials, several phone interviews with state
and engineering profession leaders, and development of insights from the consulting team based on
their experiences in this arena. This review covered over 50 related individual existing laws or passed
referenda, in addition to the state’s Existing and Historic Building Code provisions.
2. CURRENT CALIFORNIA SEISMIC-RELATED BUILDING CODES, LEGISLATION, AND KEY INSTITUTIONS
This section presents legislation and programs in narrative format to address interrelationships among
these laws and to present broader implications for Palo Alto. Relevant laws and programs related to
Palo Alto’s obligations and opportunities regarding earthquake mitigation are categorized by type and
how each works. Specific laws referenced are shown in bold. The accompanying table in Appendix A
lists the identified relevant current state legislation organized by year established.
State laws related to seismic safety can be categorized as relating to building codes, targeting of
existing building types or uses, land use planning, real estate practice requirements, and financial
policies such as the tax code, insurance, and incentives.
1 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov (Accessed January 13, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 8
Building Codes
New construction in Palo Alto is governed by the California Building Code (CBC) that is updated every
three years. Updates are adopted by the City Council. The International Building Code (IBC) is the
underlying model code on which the provisions of the CBC are based. Legally, every local jurisdiction in
California is required to adopt the state building code and to enforce that code. Above and beyond the
minimums of the CBC, each jurisdiction has flexibility if justified by local climatic, geological (including
seismic), and topographical conditions. Several jurisdictions have done that as part of their seismic
mitigation programs, as detailed later and in Chapter III.
Standards for rehabilitation, renovation, repairs, retrofits, or additions to existing structures exist in
Chapter 34 of the CBC. The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) provides additional specific
methodologies that jurisdictions may decide to adopt in whole or in reference to particular sections.
The City of Palo Alto has its own Historic Building Inventory of hundreds of buildings as well as several
Historic Districts and both state and federally designated historic properties. Therefore, the State
Historical Building Code2 is also relevant, as administered by the Division of the State Architect (DSA)
under the Department of General Services. Officially designated historic structures are subject to
different rules for rehabilitation which are generally more flexible and permissive than those in
Chapter 34 of the CBC. Local jurisdictions can specify enhancements for seismic reasons as long as the
justifications and nature of such changes are fully public and documented on record with the State
Historical Building Safety Board.3 A detailed list of key provisions is given on the DSA website4.
Targeted Building Types
Unreinforced Masonry (URM)
Inventories of specific building types have formed the backbone of California seismic policy
towards existing buildings since at least the 1930s, but it was the 1986 Unreinforced Masonry
(URM) Law that firmly established the precedent of using inventories to promote retrofits of
existing seismically vulnerable buildings. Through this policy, in Section 8875 of the California
Government Code, the State Legislature required all 366 local governments in Seismic Zone 4
(the highest hazard level) to inventory their URM buildings, establish some kind of loss-
2 Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 2.7, §18950-18961.
3 “Each local agency may make changes or modifications in the requirements contained in the California Historical Building
Code, as described in Section 18944.7, as it determines are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological,
seismic, and topographical conditions. The local agency shall make an express finding that the modifications or changes are
needed, and the finding shall be available as a public record. A copy of the finding and change or modification shall be filed
with the State Historical Building Safety Board. No modification or change shall become effective or operative for any
purpose until the finding and modification or change has been filed with the board.” [Health and Safety Code §18959.f.]
4 http://www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/AboutUs/shbsb/shbsb_health_safety.aspx (Accessed January 23, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 9
reduction or remediation program within four years, and report progress to the California
Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC).
Each county or municipality was allowed to design its own program. In general, three main
types of local programs were utilized: 1) mandatory retrofit, 2) voluntary retrofit, and 3) notice
to owners that the structure is a URM building. When retrofits were encouraged or required,
the local government set the standards to be met. Palo Alto already had an inventory and
program in place for URMs at the time the law was passed, and thus it was mainly subject to
the reporting requirements.
Mandatory signage was later required and is another controversial aspect of the State’s
approach to URM buildings. Section 8875.8 of the Government Code increased enforcement
efforts on the requirement for warning placards to be posted at the entrances to un-retrofitted
URM buildings. In 2006, URM building owners had posted 758 signs (see Figure 1 for required
text); almost all jurisdictions report the signage had no noticeable effects (CSSC, Status of the
Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, 2006).
Figure 1: URM sign example text.
Reviews of the URM Law by the CSSC have shown it to be a success over the long term. In 2006
(the last comprehensive state survey available), compliance with the policy was 93%, and over
70% of identified URM buildings have been either retrofitted or demolished (CSSC, Status of the
Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, 2006). More than half (52%) of affected jurisdictions
adopted a mandatory program, which has proven by far to be the most effective type. Eighty-
seven percent of identified properties have been retrofitted or demolished in jurisdictions with
mandatory programs, compared to thirteen to 25 percent in jurisdictions with other program
types.
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 10
Some of the URM law’s influences are subtler. The state URM law is credited with creating
greater awareness among community leaders and increasing practical experience and capacity
to address seismic policy implementation in local jurisdictions. It set the precedent of
preserving “local choice” in how to address the problems of seismically-vulnerable existing
buildings. This law also brought some public attention to the issue, through exposure to
warning signs at building entrances. In jurisdictions with highly effective programs, the URM
law likely set the stage for greater willingness to adopt stronger, more proactive approaches for
other building types.
Targeted Building Uses
Hospitals
Palo Alto is host to at least two major hospitals, the Palo Alto Veteran’s Administration Hospital
and the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, as well as a number of urgent care clinics and other
health care facilities, for instance related to Stanford Hospital. State-mandated seismic
minimums and upgrade requirements for hospitals were put in place in 1973 through SB 1953
and periodically amended since. The Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development
(OSHPD) develops guidelines, administers the program, and oversees compliance.
Extraordinary resources have been spent to upgrade and develop new hospitals in response to
SB1953, resulting in major improvements to both seismic safety and in patient care (OSHPD,
2005). However, progress has been slower than hoped, in part because of the costs of achieving
the high levels of performance that the law demands but also because of program complexity
and organizational difficulties in managing upgrade programs. A comprehensive study of SB
1953 implementation showed that even organizational leaders highly motivated to reduce risk
in the context of strict mandates were not always able to achieve timely progress (Alesch,
2012).
Public Schools
Following the 1933 Long Beach quake that rendered over 230 Southern California schools
unsafe, the Field Act was passed to require higher seismic design minimums in new public
school construction. The 1939 Garrison Act required school districts to retrofit or replace pre-
Field Act schools. However, many schools did not comply until the mid-1970s.The Division of
the State Architect (DSA) oversees this program, and since 2002 has done tracking via the “AB
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 11
300 List.” 5 Further detail about Field Act implementation statewide can be found in formal
state reports (See, e.g., CSSC, 2009).
The status of approximately six Palo Alto area schools that have buildings on the “AB 300 List,”
could be relevant to future policy development efforts depending on the extent to which the
city relies on schools in its emergency response plans. Functioning schools are also known to
play a large role in resumption of local business activity as part of recovery.
Essential Services Buildings
State law recognizes that buildings that house mission-critical jurisdictional services and
administrative functions should be safe and functional after a major local event. Palo Alto is
required by the California Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act of 1986 to follow
enhanced regulations during the design, rehabilitation, and construction of essential service
facilities, defined as fire stations, police, California Highway Patrol, or sheriff offices, or any
buildings used in part or whole to conduct emergency communications and operations. As with
hospitals, the DSA develops and maintains the design and construction requirements and tracks
compliance for this law.
Land Use, Zoning, and Real Estate Disclosure Requirements
General Plan Requirements
According to the State Planning and Zoning Law, Palo Alto and other California jurisdictions
have been required since 1971 to address earthquake vulnerabilities in their General Plans,
currently in the Safety Element.6 The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
provides General Plan Guidelines for what jurisdictions must do in creating and implementing
their plans, mostly recently in 2011.7 Typical earthquake-related provisions focus on avoiding
development in hazardous areas (for instance near known faults) and adoption of zoning and
use requirements that can reduce hazards (such as creation of retention and recharge basins to
lessen the impacts of storms).
Palo Alto’s last General Plan was adopted over ten years ago. Since 2008, staff have been
reviewing and updating different elements in turn. An analysis should be undertaken of any
relevant earthquake hazard-related aspects in it, and care should be taken to align and
integrate future mitigation program efforts with the City’s updated General Plan, which is
5 http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/ab300/AB_300_List.pdf (Accessed January 23, 2016). List described as up to date
as of Thursday, September 10, 2015.
6 Government Code §65300-65303.4.
7 https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/complete_pzd_2011.pdf (Accessed, March 6, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 12
currently in development. As of 2016, Palo Alto is working on a comprehensive update to be in
effect through 2020 to 2030. More detail is available on a city website designed specifically as
part of a highly engaged community involvement process.8
Zoning
Palo Alto is on the list of California cities that contain some areas designated by the state as an
“Earthquake Fault Zone” (Hart, 2010). The California Geological Survey (CGS) under the
California Department of Conservation (DOC) oversees implementation of the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972, a particularly important legacy policy in understanding
California earthquake risk management policy. The CGS regularly conducts and updates studies
that identify active faults. Buildings within an “Earthquake Fault Zone” face additional planning,
use, and disclosure obligations. Additionally, the 1990 Hazards Mapping Act gave DOC
responsibility for mapping areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and
amplified ground shaking. Within these mapped Zones of Required Investigation, geotechnical
investigations to identify hazards and formulate mitigation measures are required before
permitting most development.
Small Residential Real Estate Mandates and Disclosures
All sellers of real property in Palo Alto are required to disclose certain facts about the building
location and its condition related to earthquake hazards. These requirements began with the
Natural Hazards Disclosure Act of 1990, which has detailed provisions for what sellers of real
property are obligated to do and what kinds of information they must provide prior to point of
sale. Requirements are more extensive when the property being sold lies within one or more of
the state-mapped hazard areas, including landslides, liquefaction, and Earthquake Fault
Zones.”9
Since 1993, all sellers of residential properties of four units or less must under Government
Code Section 8897.1-8897.5:
o Inform the buyer about known home weaknesses related to earthquake risk;
o Properly strap the water heater;
o If the home was built before 1960, deliver a copy to the buyer of the Homeowner’s
Guide to Earthquake Safety10 brochure produced by the CSSC (The real estate agent is
holds responsibility for this requirement being met);
8 http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/ (Accessed January 23, 2016).
9 http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/disclose.aspx (Accessed January 20, 2016).
10 Available at: http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005_HOGreduced.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 13
o Deliver to buyers a Natural Hazards Disclosure Form telling buyers whether the home is
in an Earthquake Fault Zone or in a Seismic Hazard Zone; and,
o Complete and deliver to buyers a Residential Earthquake Hazards Report.
A similar document called the Commercial Property Owners Guide to Earthquake Safety11
makes recommendations for commercial property buyers and sellers at the time of sale. The
only requirement is that sellers must deliver a copy of the booklet to a buyer, “as soon as
practicable before the transfer,” (Government Code, Section 8893.2) if the property was built
before 1975 and has precast (tilt-up) concrete or reinforced masonry walls and wood-frame
floors or roofs.
Palo Alto currently features links to both the aforementioned guides on its Building Department
website.
Legal Obligations to Tenants
California case law in Green v. Superior Court (1974, 10 Cal.3d 616) established that a rental unit
must be “fit to live in,” or “habitable.” In legal terms, “habitable” means that the rental unit is
appropriate for occupation by human beings and that it substantially complies with state and
local building and health codes that materially affect tenants’ health and safety (CA Civil Code
§1941, 1941.1).
At time of writing, no common law precedents could be identified regarding thresholds related
to seismic risk that would be actionable for tenants to reasonably claim breach of a landlord’s
implied warranty of habitability. California law is broad by stating that “other conditions may
make a rented property not habitable” (CA Civil Code §1941, 1941.1). For example, a rented
property may not be habitable if it does not substantially comply with building and housing
code standards that materially affect tenants' health and safety (CDCA, 2012). This could be a
lead or mold hazard, sanitation issues, or an endangering nuisance, but also potentially if the
building is substandard because of a structural hazard.
In seeking to develop any new programs, Palo Alto should consider conducting a legal analysis
of this important but untested aspect of seismic mitigation policy. Some housing and tenant
rights groups have asserted that soft-story and other generally accepted seismic vulnerabilities
may constitute a deficiency that a landlord has an obligation to repair, regardless of whether
the local jurisdiction has required such work. Citizen complaints of this nature surfaced in
Berkeley for instance in 2008 to 2010 (personal communication, 2010 with Jay Kelekian, City of
Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board President).
11 Available at: http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2006-02_COG.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 14
Special Earthquake-Related State-Level Entities and Programs
Following are a few more important state-level entities and resources of which Palo Alto can take
advantage.
California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC)
The California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), established in 1975, advises the Governor,
Legislature, and state and local governments on aspects of earthquake vulnerability and policy.
Its staff offer technical assistance to cities in developing and carrying out seismic related
programs. The CSSC is responsible for maintaining a five-year California Earthquake Loss
Reduction Plan to establish strategy and coordination for state and local government actions to
mitigate earthquake hazards. The most recent statewide Loss Reduction Plan was published in
2013 (CSSC, 2013). It contains detailed lists of policy issues and recommendations that, while
comprehensive, prioritized, and sensible, have had limited traction owing to lack of elected
official leadership and budget. Other duties include tracking progress on the state URM law and
deriving policy lessons from earthquake events. Several CSSC publications are among the best
resources for evaluating local mitigation programs.
California Earthquake Authority (CEA)
The California Earthquake Authority (CEA) is a privately-funded, publically managed non-profit
entity that provides private insurance policies to homeowners and renters. Eligibility includes
homes of four units or less through participating insurers. The earthquake insurance take-up
rate statewide is around ten percent. As of January 2016, CEA-affiliated underwriters can now
offer a premium discount up to 20% for mitigation investments made. The number of small
residential buildings in Palo Alto whose owners carry earthquake insurance is not known, but
those that do or that purchase it from hereon could be eligible for this discount. Palo Alto
could potentially work to make sure this benefit is better advertised and utilized by building
owners.
Additionally, a substantial portion of CEA’s annual premium intake is legislatively required to be
spent on efforts to achieve mitigation in one-to-four unit homes throughout the state. These
funds have been invested in research as well as an important new mitigation grant program for
small residential houses called Earthquake Brace and Bolt, which is further described in the
Financial Incentives section on the California Residential Mitigation Program. Currently,
enrollment for cities is closed but expansion is planned in the future.
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Formerly known as the California Emergency Management Agency, the Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services (Cal-OES) coordinates statewide emergency preparedness and response
activities. Palo Alto might have untapped opportunities to train City employees at CAL-OES’s
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 15
Specialized Training Institute.12 For instance, they have an “Essential Emergency Services
Concepts – Earthquakes.”
Financial Provisions, Tax Code, and Other Incentive Policies
The potential difficulty of affording retrofit work is universally recognized as a barrier for public and
private owners alike. A variety of reports have attempted to catalog incentive, financing and in-kind
assistance options that are relevant to city earthquake and resilience programs (See e.g., ABAG, 1992;
ATC, 2010; ABAG, 2014; MMC, 2015).
This section highlights a few key pieces of enabling state legislation and federal tax programs that
jurisdictions such as Palo Alto could utilize. Specific examples of how different jurisdictions have used
specific financing and incentive programs are analyzed in the Task 3 Report.
General Obligation, Special District, and Mello-Roos District Bonds
Palo Alto is allowed to take on general obligation bond debt to help pay for retrofit or
construction of new public buildings and to generate funds for providing loans to private
owners for seismic work if doing so constitutes a compelling public purpose (Government Code
§43600-43638; Government Code §29900-29930).
Advocates have also speculated that communities might be able to use the Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code §53311-53317.5). This act allows localities
in California to create special Capital Facilities Districts that can sell bonds to generate funds for
infrastructure and community facilities and then levy additional property taxes on the real
property owners in that district. Such taxes are not subject to Proposition 13 restrictions on
property tax increases. Covered services may include streets, water, sewage and drainage,
electricity, infrastructure, schools, parks and police protection in old or newly developing areas.
The tax paid is used to make the payments of principal and interest on the bonds.
Historic Property Tax Reductions
Palo Alto has many historic structures and may be able to take advantage of the Mills Act of
1972,13 which gives local governments the authority to enter into contracts with owners who
restore and maintain historic properties. In exchange, the property owners could get significant
property tax savings. Although cumbersome, St. Helena, California is one example of a city that
used this tool to help owners of unreinforced masonry buildings to seismically retrofit (ABAG,
unpublished soft-story report, 2015).
12 See: http://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/california-specialized-training-institute (Accessed February 1, 2016).
13 California Government Code, Article 12, §50280-50290, California Revenue and Taxation Code, article 1.9, §439-439.4.
Further information available at: http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412 (Accessed February 1, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 16
Limits on Increases on Property Tax for Seismic Retrofit Costs
Existing state tax law (California Revenue and Taxation Code §74.5) provides that the cost of
an earthquake retrofit should not increase the property assessment used to determine the
amount of property taxes. The extent to which building owners take advantage of this benefit is
unknown and might be low because of requirements to submit specific information to their
County Assessor’s Office prior to conducting retrofit work. Many Assessors’ Offices do not have
forms for this purpose and their staff is not trained to process this benefit. At this time, it is not
known how Santa Clara County manages this issue. Palo Alto could potentially work to make
sure this benefit is better advertised and truly available to building owners.
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing
New financing programs are starting to exist that could help owners in Palo Alto who might
have difficulty securing financing on their own for a seismic retrofit. Based on the Property
Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) model first pioneered for solar improvements, owners can apply
for 100 percent financing for seismic retrofit work at competitive fixed rates over the useful life
of the improvements, to be repaid over up to 20 years with an assessment added to the
property’s tax bill. The levy stays with the building upon sale and costs can be shared with
tenants. Both Berkeley and San Francisco are participating in the open access AllianceNRG
Program14 that offer residential property owners this financing solution primarily for
sustainability upgrades and seismic strengthening projects for soft-story construction are also
eligible. The AllianceNRG program is offered through California’s Statewide Community
Development Authority (CSCDA) and partnerships with additional communities are now being
offered state-wide since 2015.
After the concept was launched in Berkeley in 2008, PACE programs stalled in 2010 the
country's two biggest home lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, decided not to
underwrite mortgages for PACE customers because it added too much risk in the event of
a default because the PACE loan took precedence over the mortgage. Anecdotally,
jurisdictions have had some difficulties implementing this type of program for energy
improvements.15 Challenges include setting up this complex financing instrument which has
heavy involvement of third parties, barriers to owners that want to refinance, and barriers to
the transfer of a PACE-financed properties to a new owner.
14 https://www.alliancenrg.com/retail/ (Accessed January 20, 2016).
15 See e.g., http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/science-environment/some-homeowners-looking-to-move-must-deal-
with-a-change-of-pace/ (Accessed February 2, 2016.
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 17
California Residential Mitigation Program (CRMP)
Palo Alto and other cities can benefit if the citizens can stay in their homes and “shelter in
place” following a major local quake. One new important effort on this front is the California
Residential Mitigation Program (CRMP). It was formed in August 2011 to carry out mitigation
programs to assist California homeowners who wish to seismically retrofit their houses. CRMP’s
goal is to provide grants and other types of assistance and incentives for these mitigation
efforts. The California Residential Mitigation Program is a joint-exercise-of-powers entity (JPA)
formed by two core members: the California Earthquake Authority (a public instrumentality of
the State of California known as CEA) and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal-
OES). CRMP is a legally separate entity from its members.
The first of these programs, Earthquake Brace + Bolt: Funds to Strengthen Your Foundation
(EBB)16 was launched as a pilot project in September 2013 in selected zip codes only. EBB offers
a cash grant up of to $3,000 for qualifying bolts or sill anchoring installment. Homeowners must
register and be accepted into the program, with a cap on the number of participants. The
current registration window was open from January 20 to February 20, 2016. Participation is
determined by lottery if more applications are received than funds are available. At present, no
Palo Alto zip codes are in the program. The selection of the specific neighborhoods and zip
codes was based upon analysis of U.S. Census data identifying areas of high seismicity and
having a concentration of owner-occupied homes built in 1979 or earlier. According to personal
communications with CEA mitigation program representatives, Palo Alto zip codes are not likely
to be prioritized highly owing to the modest number of very old single family homes.
Federally Mandated Municipal Obligations and Opportunities
Even though the focus of this review is California, two particularly relevant federal programs for Palo
Alto are described below. As with the state, no centralized governmental authority exists at the federal
level to regulate issues of seismic safety. Instead, authorities and strategies are widely distributed
among agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. For instance, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development operates several initiatives related to safer homes and resilient communities,17
and the General Services Administration must confront seismic risk concerns as it manages most
federal facilities. The federal role is concentrated in FEMA and principally focused on emergency
response and recovery, although mitigation is also addressed.
16 https://www.earthquakebracebolt.com/ (Accessed January 23, 2016)
17 See, e.g., the Smart Growth America Resilience States program, http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/resilience/
(Accessed February 1, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 18
Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Under the Disaster Management Act
The federal Disaster Management Act of 2000 (DMA) and subsequent amendments specify
that local jurisdictions and states must have approved Hazard Mitigation Plans in place in order
to be eligible for aid following Stafford Act Disaster declarations and a variety of other benefits.
The State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan of 201318 is a comprehensive source of
information about state level requirements, mitigation strategies, as well as local and state
progress and opportunities for coordination (CSSC, 2013b).
Palo Alto current complies with the DMA through its participation in the 2011 Santa Clara
County’s Office of Emergency Services Annex to a 2010 region-wide “umbrella” Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan (LHMP) created by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). To create
the plan, representatives from County departments, private sector businesses, stakeholders,
and thirteen of the fifteen incorporated cities in Santa Clara County collaborated in identifying
and prioritizing potential and existing hazards. Mitigation objectives were identified and
prioritized and specific action steps are listed, many of which have been taken. Palo Alto is
currently preparing its contributions for updates to the Santa Clara County LHMP which must
be completed, submitted to the state, and approved by June 2017. The LHMP process creates
an opportunity to build synergies between an updated seismic program and other mitigation
efforts city and county-wide.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants
Cities such as Palo Alto are eligible to apply to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant
Program19, created by Section 203 of the federal Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, funded annually by Congressional appropriation. The program aims
to assist States, territories, Federally-recognized tribes, and local communities in implementing
a sustained pre-disaster natural hazard mitigation program. Cities must submit a detailed
application during an open window to an annual competition. This program awards planning
and project grants as well as providing assistance in raising public awareness about reducing
future losses before disaster strikes. The program works on a 75%/25% cost share between
FEMA and the local jurisdiction, respectively, with a maximum grant of $3 million. Cities can
submit applications for multiple projects. Palo Alto could apply for support for future projects
ranging from updating city owned structures, direct financing or grants to a private class of
buildings or specific important structure.
18Available at: http://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/docs/SHMP_Final_2013.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2016).
19 http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program (Accessed January 15, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 19
The disaster occurrence that opens a funding availability window does not necessarily have to
affect Palo Alto directly. For instance, any California jurisdiction with an active LHMP was
permitted to propose projects based on the Presidential Disaster Declaration for the 2015
Valley and Butte fires.
Finally, if City of Palo Alto employees have not already taken advantage of it, training
opportunities are available at the FEMA Emergency Management Institute in Maryland.20
3. LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Palo Alto citizens are represented in the state Senate by Jerry Hill (D) and in the Assembly by Rich
Gordon (D), 24th District, both with terms ending in 2016. High earthquake exposure throughout
coastal California has led legislators from a variety of districts to author legislative proposals. Most
recently, leadership has come from elected officials Nazarian, Chiu, and Monning.
Several different committees in the California Assembly and Senate have jurisdiction over issues
related to seismic safety and mitigation, building codes, and earthquake-related programs. In the
Assembly, the Committee on Housing and Community Development has jurisdiction over building
standards, common interest developments, eminent domain, farm worker housing, homeless
programs, housing discrimination, housing finance (including redevelopment), housing, natural disaster
assistance and preparedness, land use planning, mobile homes/manufactured housing, and rent
control. The Assembly Committee on Local Government has authority over a range of General Plan,
city finance, and housing policies. The most relevant Senate committee is Transportation and Housing,
which governs issues such as transfer of ownership, financing districts, manufactured housing, building
codes and standards, and common interest developments.
Through these committees, legislators have considered several pieces of legislation related to
earthquake mitigation in recent years. This review identified around ten such pieces of legislation
debated in the 2013 to 2015 California legislative sessions, including passed, pending, vetoed or never
fully heard bills (see Appendix B). Three key legislative proposals of interest to Palo Alto are briefly
described here.
Vetoed: Seismic Mitigation Tax Credits
In the most recent session, Assembly Member Adrin Nazarian (District 46 in the San Fernando
Valley) has sponsored legislation to create a state-wide seismic mitigation tax credit. The 2015
version AB 428 passed the legislature but was vetoed by the Governor based on funding
availability, lack of technical and administrative capacity in the Franchise Tax Board, and the
20 https://training.fema.gov/emi.aspx (Accessed February 1, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 20
program’s potential complexity. The law would create a first-come first serve state tax credit
equal to 30 percent of a “qualified taxpayer’s” “qualified costs” incurred for “seismic retrofit
construction.”
Pending: Permissions to Expand CEA Insurance Mitigation Discounts
CEA was active in promoting legislation last year to empower the CRMP to offer grants for small
residential retrofit work. Currently pending are AB 1429 (Chiu) and AB 1440 (Nazarian) that will
provide $3 million dollars to the CRMP for expanding its current EBB program.
Dead: Soft-Story and Older Concrete Mitigation Program Authorization
AB 2181 (Bloom)21 would authorize each city, city and county, or county to require that owners
assess the earthquake hazard of soft story residential buildings and older concrete residential
buildings. It includes older concrete residential buildings constructed prior to the adoption of
building codes that ensure ductility, and to initiates programs to inform owners, residents and
the public about such dangers. There is no state law that forbids such programs, but this law if
passed would remove any ambiguity that such programs are permitted and further justify local
actions to that effect.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Palo Alto is affected by numerous California laws and regulations related to seismically vulnerable
structures, dating from the 1930s to the present day. The requirements relate to many aspect of the
city’s built environment, including:
Code minimums for new construction;
Standards for seismic rehabilitation, including special provisions for historic properties;
Special programs and expectations for certain classes of use such as hospitals and public
schools, and essential facilities;
Mandatory and voluntary unreinforced masonry programs;
Mandated zoning and land use planning requirements that restrict use and add
requirements;
Grant and insurance programs available to one to four unit dwellings;
Financing authorities such as issuance of general obligation bonds and provisions for
handling of property taxes for the costs of needed seismic retrofit; and
21 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2181 (Accessed February 1, 2016.
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 21
Real estate disclosure requirements.
Beyond some recent and pending efforts related to funding small residential mitigation grant programs
and Earthquake Early Warning, there is no apparent momentum at this time for new statewide
initiatives. That being said, Palo Alto can take any of several actions listed below to make sure it is
complying with and taking the greatest possible advantage of existing state laws and programs. For
example:
Palo Alto could confirm that all its URM buildings maintain the required signage.
Palo Alto could investigate the status of the approximately six Palo Alto area schools that
have buildings on the State’s “AB 300 List” related to the Garrison Act.
Palo Alto could identify and review the status of public facilities covered under the Essential
Services Building Seismic Safety Act and review its policies for guiding future planning for or
rehabilitation of such structures.
Palo Alto could take advantage of the current update process for its Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan to develop a strong, coherent, shared vision for how the city is going to address
earthquake risk, and encourage jurisdictions and special districts nearby to do the same.
Resources from FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants and knowledgeable partners such as the
Association of Bay Area Governments may be available to assist in this effort.
Palo Alto could work carefully to incorporate the most up-to-date assessment of local
earthquake vulnerabilities as it revises the Safety Element of its General Plan.
Palo Alto could make sure its employees have taken advantage of the best available state and
federal emergency management training programs that are relevant to earthquake disasters
and recovery.
Palo Alto could develop partnerships and devote resources to more fully realizing the benefits
of statewide offerings of tax relief and requirements regarding real estate disclosure in
private sales. These policies aim to empower buyers and sellers to be better informed and able
to make better mitigation decisions for themselves but may be carried out incorrectly and are
under-enforced. Palo Alto could, for instance, work to make sure building owners apply for
relief from any property assessment increases that would otherwise result from investing in an
earthquake retrofit.
Palo Alto could seek closer ties to the California Earthquake Authority to help in promoting
mitigation and insurance coverage for one to four unit homes. CEA has recently been one of
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 22
the lead entities in offering policy ideas and grant funding for earthquake mitigation of small
residential structures.
Palo Alto could evaluate whether it contains any vulnerable historic properties that might be
eligible for tax credits under the Mills Act. This Act provides the most significant direct source
of financial support from the state for local seismic retrofitting.
Palo Alto could investigate the issue of seismic habilitability minimums for suspected
earthquake vulnerable buildings. Legal uncertainty exists about whether tenants are already
entitled under current state law to request that their landlord upgrade a structure for being
“substandard.”
Palo Alto could join with fellow jurisdictions in advocating for changes in state law to
promote seismic mitigation.
Palo Alto could develop partnerships and devote resources to bringing more awareness
among its citizens about low cost or free ways to become more aware and prepared for
disasters more broadly. Cal-OES and many other state and non-profit institutions offer free
online tools such as http://myhazards.caloes.ca.gov/ to help citizens understand their risks and
take private action.
The power to address unmet seismic safety and recovery concerns clearly rests in the hands of cities,
counties, and special districts. If it so chooses, Palo Alto has legal authority to widen and/or strengthen
its structural mitigation program. Based on what state laws allow and in some cases recommends, this
review revealed the following non-exhaustive list of policy directions Palo Alto could pursue going
forward:
1. Palo Alto could implement measures to energize and raise the effectiveness of its current
program (outlined in City of Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.40), for instance by offering
additional or larger incentives or devoting more resources to program visibility and
implementation. Making the current program more effective would likely require additional
funding sources. Other jurisdictions are experimenting with some success in using tools such as
the new state-wide PACE financing program. Palo Alto could investigate opportunities to
establish special Mello-Roos or Mills Act districts to help finance local seismic mitigation.
2. Palo Alto could expand its voluntary seismic mitigation program to address one or more
combinations of additional building types, occupancy levels, or uses. The State Legislature has
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 23
formally passed advisory legislation that encourages jurisdictions to adopt policies for building
types like soft-story and older concrete.22
3. Palo Alto could create mandatory screening or evaluation measures for one or more
vulnerable building types such as soft-story buildings or older concrete structures. Local
precedents for these approaches exist and are described and discussed in a separate Task 3
report.
4. Palo Alto could make its current voluntary URM program mandatory. Mandatory URM
programs in the State have been on average three times more effective than voluntary ones.
5. Palo Alto could create a program that mandates seismic retrofits for one or more additional
(non-URM) vulnerable building types. The State Legislature has formally passed legislation that
authorizes cities to adopt rehabilitation requirements for such programs This is important
because cities must reference acceptable standards that state clearly how owners can comply
with the requirement to retrofit.
6. Palo Alto could craft a program that combines any or all of the above measures. The Task 3
report shows that most leading local earthquake programs involve a customized mixture of
goals, requirements, and features.
7. Palo Alto could continue the status quo current program. Nothing under current state law
requires Palo Alto to change its current approach.
The City of Palo Alto is currently gathering up to date earthquake risk information about its building
stock and engaging its citizens and local experts in order to develop and evaluate specific policy
alternatives. The ultimate goal is to recommend to city leaders the best possible policy directions for
Palo Alto moving forward.
22 Health and Safety Code §19160-19168 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=19001-
20000&file=19160-19168
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 24
5. REFERENCES CITED
ABAG. (1992). Seismic Safety Incentive Programs: A Handbook for City Governments. Association of Bay Area
Governments, Oakland.
ABAG. (2014). Soft-Story Housing Improvement Plan for the Cit of Oakland. Oakland. Retrieved from
http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/OaklandSoftStoryReport_102914.pdf
Alesch, D. J. (2012). Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy: Implementation, Organizational Choice, and Contextual
Dynamics. New York, NY: Springer Business Science.
ATC. (2010). Here Today—Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco. Community
Action Plan for Seismic Safety, Redwood City. Retrieved from
http://sfgov.org/esip/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/9757-atc522.pdf
CDCA. (2012). California Tenants: A Guide to Residential Tenants’ and Landlords’ Rights and Responsibilities.
Retrieved January 16, 2016, from http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/catenant.pdf
CSSC. (2006). Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law. California Seismic Safety Commission,
Sacramento.
CSSC. (2009). The Field Act and its Relative Effectiveness in Reducing Earthquake Damage in Public Schools
Appendices. California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento.
CSSC. (2013). California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan / Pre-Earthquake Economic Recovery. California Seismic
Safety Commission, Sacramento.
CSSC. (2013). California Enhanced State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Sacramento: California Seismic Safety
Commission.
Hart, W. A. (2010). Special Publication 42 (Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California)y. Retrieved from
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx
MMC. (2015). Developing Pre-Disaster Resilience based on Public and Private Incentivization. National Institute
of Building Sciences, Multihazard Mitigation Council of the Center on Fire, Insurance, and Real Estate.
OSHPD. (2005). California's Hospital Seismic Safety Law: History, Implementation and Progress. Sacramento.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 25
CHAPTER III
LOCAL PROGRAM BEST PRACTICES ASSESSMENT
Executive Summary
This chapter summarizes the status of local seismic safety and mitigation programs in California
with the purpose of informing Palo Alto’s effort to update its own approach. It has been
prepared per Task 3 of the Consulting Agreement between Rutherford + Chekene and the City
of Palo Alto. The content builds on the state-level policy review presented in Chapter II. The
scope of Task 3 is to:
Review present best practices among jurisdictions and agencies in this area that require
seismic retrofitting and provide incentives, and deliver a brief summary.
Provide a concise and practical written summary of what other jurisdictions and counties
have done legislatively and programmatically to increase awareness about, assess, and
motivate mitigation of seismically vulnerable buildings, both listing and helpfully classifying
various approaches that have been used.
The process of creating this review included search and review of published and online reports
and materials, several phone interviews with community leaders as well as local and state
government staff, and development of insights from the consulting team based on their
experiences in this arena.
Palo Alto is currently laying a solid foundation for future program development by investing in
new inventory and risk information as well as community outreach and internal staff
discussions. In doing so, it is joining a group of leading coastal California coastal jurisdictions
such as Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles that have recently stepped up their
earthquake risk reduction efforts. While there is much learning and information sharing going
on, each jurisdiction has developed their own customized policy package, and there is no single
best model that Palo Alto can straightforwardly adopt. Existing local approaches differ widely in
the following ways:
Policy mechanisms used to achieve progress;
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 26
Scope of targeted building types or uses addressed;
Prioritization and compliance timeframes; and
Types of incentives offered.
Policy mechanisms in use range all the way from inventory only to mandatory retrofit with
timeframes under five years. In between are more gradual approaches such as voluntary
retrofit advocacy, incentives, provisions that make building deficiencies more visible to the
public (disclosure measures), and mandatory screening and evaluation requirements. An
important policy decision is whether any mandated actions are implemented on a fixed
timeline or triggered at sale or at some renovation cost threshold.
Targeted building types and characteristics also vary. The most commonly addressed building
type is unreinforced masonry (URM) construction due to state law SB 547, as discussed in the
Task 2 report. Over half of URM programs in the state require mandatory retrofit, often but not
always with a time frame on the order of ten to twenty years. By 2006, seventy percent of all
identified URMs were either demolished or retrofit. Retrofit rates are on average three times
higher in jurisdictions with mandatory retrofit compared to voluntary programs. Jurisdictions
used a wide variety of both financial and policy incentives to assist URM owners. Some
voluntary URM programs, including Palo Alto’s, coupled with incentives, have achieved similar
rates of success to mandatory programs.
Newer programs have focused on soft-story wood frame buildings, including ten Bay Area
jurisdictions and most recently Los Angeles as of 2015. Soft-story wood frame building
programs also range in requirements from notification only to mandatory retrofit, but several
jurisdictions have innovatively used intermediate mandatory screening and evaluation phases
to further assess risk exposure and determine the final set of buildings that will be affected by
retrofit requirements. Soft-story wood frame programs have largely been supported in the local
community. Even voluntary soft-story wood frame programs can be effective at motivating
retrofit action; one fourth of the soft-story wood frame buildings in the City of Berkeley were
voluntarily retrofit within a few years after a mandatory evaluation ordinance was
implemented. Compliance timeframes in soft-story wood frame programs tend to be short, on
the order of two to seven years.
A comparatively small number of southern California jurisdictions have acted to address older
concrete buildings, including Los Angeles, Burbank, Santa Monica, and Long Beach. Nonductile
concrete frame and tilt-up concrete structures in particular are known to pose serious risks.
Programs aimed at older concrete range from voluntary guidelines to mandatory evaluation
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 27
and full retrofit requirements. Timeframes here vary greatly, from years to decades.
Information about the implementation and outcomes of these few programs is very limited.
Coming out of this local program review, alternative policy approaches for Palo Alto’s
consideration include:
Option 1: Status Quo. In this option, the existing ordinance with its mandatory evaluation,
voluntary retrofit approach remains in place without changes. Floor area ratio bonuses are
(were) available and could continue to be offered.
Option 2: Increase Scope, but Retrofit Remains Voluntary. Additional categories of structures
are added to the mandatory evaluation requirements. These could include any or all of the
building types discussed above, potentially also using additional location, use, or occupancy
criteria.
Option 3: Similar to Option 2, but Additional Disclosure Measures are Incorporated. This
option would be similar to Option 2, but with increased use of disclosure measures such as
prominently posting the building list on the City website, notifying tenants, requiring signage,
and/or recording notice on the property title.
Option 4: Increase Scope, Some Categories are Voluntary and a Few Categories are
Mandatory, with Enforcement by Trigger Threshold
This option builds on Option 3, but retrofitting would be required for some building types at
whenever future time a building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation above a set
threshold.
Option 5: Increase Scope, Some Categories are Voluntary and a Few Categories are
Mandatory, with Enforcement by a Fixed Timeline
This option would be similar to Option 4, but retrofitting is required according to a fixed
timeline. Timelines and enforcement emphasis could vary depending on tiers or priority
groupings to motivate prompt action for the most vulnerable or socially important structures.
Option 6: Increase Scope, but More Categories are Mandatory
This alternative is similar to Option 5, but retrofitting would be required for additional
categories on a fixed timeline. Palo Alto can also make its programs more stringent over time.
Explicit phasing has been successful in jurisdictions like Berkeley and San Francisco for
generating political consensus and enhancing administrative feasibility.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 28
Other program features and implementation factors should be considered in designing a future
program. Palo Alto will need to decide whether location, occupancy type, and/or number of
occupants should be included in the scope or just the timeline categories. Whether and which
incentives to offer is an important issue from a political and economic feasibility perspective,
one that affected community members will want to see inclusively addressed. The community
should also be involved in discussing which if any disclosure measures are considered necessary
and appropriate, such as signage.
Additionally, based on the work of cities such as Berkeley, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, Palo
Alto has a variety of opportunities to expand and better connect its earthquake mitigation
program efforts to other city efforts in support of community resilience goals more broadly. For
instance, Palo Alto could encourage building occupancy and resumption program like San
Francisco, encourage or fund installation of strong motion instruments, or pursue special
programs or requirements for cell phone towers, facades, private schools, and/or post-
earthquake shelter facilities. Several leading local program models and planning resources for
these types of efforts are introduced in Appendix D.
1. INTRODUCTION
This document is meant to be a resource and guide for the Palo Alto community and city
leadership as they weigh program needs and options for seismic mitigation policymaking going
forward. It offers comprehensive information on many topics so readers with different
backgrounds can advance their understanding, along with summary tables and conclusions
specific to Palo Alto’s present effort.
The approach taken was to document and assess existing and proposed programs that a
selected set of other jurisdictions are using to address earthquake vulnerabilities in local
buildings. This was done using analysis of city websites and documents, search and review of
published and online reports, several phone interviews with local officials and engineering
profession leaders, and development of insights from the consulting team based on their
experiences in this area.
Focusing on a selected set of jurisdictions was appropriate for several reasons. First, relatively
few jurisdictions are developing leading earthquake mitigation programs, and those are the
most informative models to draw upon. Second, data about jurisdictional programs is very
limited. Much of the information that does exist is anecdotal, and it was not within the scope of
this review to collect comprehensive new data or to cover a large number of jurisdiction
programs statewide or in other countries. Finally, this review emphasizes classification of
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 29
similarities and distinctions among a range of leading jurisdiction earthquake structural
mitigation efforts. Policies related to wider earthquake hazard science and awareness,
emergency management, and longer term recovery programs that have local relevance are
briefly mentioned, but are also beyond the scope of this report.
Following this introduction, Section 2 describes and compares a range of existing local policies
and programs. The information is organized by key features (for instance, the types of buildings
regulated, the kinds of requirements imposed on them, and the types of incentives offered).
Section 3 presents summary conclusions for Palo Alto. Figures throughout and two appendices
provide further detail on a range of program elements. Formal recommendations for Palo Alto
will evolve after completion of other project tasks, and through the process of Advisory Group
and City staff discussions.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 30
2. ANALYSIS OF POLICY FEATURES AND OUTCOMES OF LOCAL SEISMIC RISK MITIGATION PROGRAMS
This section analyzes the state of local earthquake policymaking in California by presenting
major types, similarities, and differences in program features. The word “features” indicates
here a wide array of program nuances, including but going well beyond the characteristics of
the buildings being targeted and the basic policy mechanism used, namely voluntary or
mandatory retrofit requirements. Woven throughout are examples of jurisdictional programs
that exemplify certain of these features and distinctions, along with discussion of program
outcomes and effectiveness. Analyzing programs this way highlights options and key factors
that Palo Alto should consider and tradeoffs it may need to confront in developing its own
seismic mitigation strategy going forward.
Much innovation in local earthquake risk reduction policy is happening in California from which
Palo Alto can learn. This is particularly true in the case of soft-story wood frame residential
buildings,23 for which mandatory retrofit ordinances are now in place in Fremont, San
Francisco, Berkeley, and Los Angeles. However, what makes one program different from or
more successful than others cannot be understood simply by identifying the types of structures
addressed. Also important are the specific set of requirements that owners must comply with,
the timeframes in which requirements must be carried out, and the types and sizes of the
incentives offered.
Comprehensive, summary information to inform this review are rare. In-depth California
Seismic Safety Commission URM reports cover every city and county for URM law compliance
up to 2006. But beyond URM programs, data to support this assessment was limited and largely
anecdotal because comprehensive research on seismic mitigation programs is rare. An
23 “Soft-story” refers to a condition where one of the stories in a multi-story building, usually a parking level that
doesn’t require partitions for functionality, is weaker and/or too flexible compared to the story above it. Another
acronym sometimes used is “Soft-, Weak-, or Open-Front” buildings, or SWOFs. During strong ground shaking,
concentration of damage in the soft or weak story can significantly increase the chance of collapse or damage
sufficient to render the building unusable after the event. Many communities are concerned with soft-story wood
frame buildings. Most of this type of construction can be found in apartment buildings built in the 1960s and
1970s with first floor garage openings and some mixed-use properties with ground floor commercial space. In that
era, the safety risks of soft-stories were not yet fully understood. Vast numbers of these buildings exist in California
communities that grew substantially prior to the 1980s and 90s when building code changes were introduced.
Findings related to evaluating and improving soft-story wood frame performance can be found in FEMA P-807,
available at: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32681 (Accessed February 3, 2016).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 31
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) survey that collected program information from
one third of California jurisdictions in the 1990s documented a wide variety of program
implementation, effectiveness, and incentive approaches; however, its information is now
significantly out of date. Policies of certain leading jurisdictions have been studied in depth at
various windows in time, such as Palo Alto ) (Herman et al, 1990), Berkeley (Rabinovici, 2012;
Chakos, 2002), Oakland (Olson, 1999), and Los Angeles (Comerio, 1992). These studies reveal
how unique and complicated local earthquake mitigation programs can be, not just in format
but also implementation. Outcomes cannot be understood without considering the local
building stock and economic context, concurrent policy developments, political support, local
government resources and administrative capacity, how policy features are combined,
community engagement strategies used, and emphasis put on enforcement.
At the outset, Palo Alto’s unique current program and historic role in the evolution of
earthquake mitigation program design should be recognized. Its 1986 law was among the first
to require owners of suspected hazardous properties to have a qualified engineer evaluate
their buildings. In addition, Palo Alto’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program (Chapter 16.42)
addressed three categories of buildings: URM buildings (Category 1), structures built before
1935 with over 100 occupants (Category 2); and structures built before August 1976 with over
300 occupants (Category 3). This demonstrates how occupancy level and year built can also be
used in combination with other factors as the basis for inclusion in a program. The mandatory
evaluation reports for these structures were due in 1990. The September 2014 status of
affected properties is shown in Table 1.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 32
Table 1: Status as of September 2014 of properties included under Palo Alto’s current earthquake
risk reduction ordinance.
Category I – Category II – Category III –
All Categories URM over 1900
sq.ft. and over
six occupants
Built before 1935
and over 100
occupants
Built before
8/1/76 and over
300 occupants
Retrofit 22 13 5 40
Demolished 14 2 5 21
Demolition
Proposed 0 0 4 4
Exempt 1 0 0 1
No Change 10 4 9 23
Totals 47 19 23 89
Source: 12/9/14 City of Palo Alto Policy and Services Committee staff report.
Palo Alto’s decision to focus on these three categories grew out of a broader earthquake risk
assessment effort going on at that time. City leaders initiated a comprehensive search of paper
records and a street walk-style inventory of a wide variety of seismically-vulnerable building
types in 1984. They then engaged the community in a deliberative process to assess risk and
determine priorities among building types and policy approaches (Herman, Russell, et al. 1990;
CSSC 2006).
The following section describes alternative ways different jurisdictions have chosen which
buildings to target.
Scope: Targeted Structural Systems, Year Built, and Other Characteristics
The primary feature that varies among jurisdictional programs is the types and characteristics
of the structures that are addressed. As discussed in the Task 2 report, California’s earthquake
policy history started in the 1930s with laws that increased design requirements for buildings
related to one particular use—public schools, and banned new construction of one particular
structural system or type—buildings with unreinforced masonry (URM) load bearing walls.
Much later in the 1970s and 80s, both state and local new laws were passed targeting URMs
built before 1933, certain locations (e.g., hazard zoning with prohibitions or heightened
evaluation and design scrutiny for new construction or rehabilitation in those zones), a wider
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 33
set of uses (e.g., hospitals and essential services buildings) and additional structural types (e.g.,
older concrete buildings and manufactured homes).
The choices jurisdictions make about which buildings to target are closely tied to the legal basis
underlying earthquake mitigation policymaking. Laws that impose added burdens or
responsibilities on certain properties or people must clearly specify which buildings are
applicable and justify why for those particular buildings have been selected. A compelling,
documentable, and actionable public purpose must exist to invoke a jurisdiction’s police
powers and responsibility for public wellbeing.
The central rationale for regulating seismically vulnerable structures is safety; a strong case for
government intervention exists where there is an unacceptably high likelihood of collapse or
damage that could lead to human entrapment, injury, or death. Technical research, evidence,
and evolving standards of practice in structural engineering must exist for this to be considered
reasonable. Once a new practice becomes embedded in a model building code, construction to
former code standards is no longer allowed. Jurisdictions review permits and inspect
construction work in progress, but lax compliance cannot entirely be ruled out.
For any particular structural system, year built (or age) is the most commonly used risk
indicator because it reflects the building code version that was in effect when a structure was
first constructed. What was once considered an acceptable construction practice may become
obsolete or even be considered negligent years later. Code updates are usually made on a
three-year cycle to keep up with changes in construction practices, technologic advancements,
and improved understanding how buildings perform under loads, but adoption by jurisdictions
can be uneven and lag behind many years.
Jurisdictions must also address which code year built they will use as inclusion criteria for their
earthquake mitigation programs. Benchmarking to newer standards may be justified if it
reaches more buildings that could experience significant damage in an earthquake, but a larger
percent of building owners and tenants will be affected. Code changes are also proposed based
on lessons learned from practical experience over time, in this case from earthquake
performance outcomes in jurisdictions all around the world.
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
URM buildings have been a concern for collapse and falling debris hazard ever since the
1933 Long Beach earthquake, after which new construction of URM structures in
California was outlawed. The most significant contemporary law addressing a specific
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 34
building type is the 1986 state legislation (Senate Bill 547). This state mandate, also
summarized in the Task 2 report, required jurisdictions to identify and adopt programs
for addressing existing URM buildings. Several jurisdictions (most prominently Long
Beach, Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, and San Francisco) had existing URM building
ordinances and programs in place prior to the state mandate. Counties and
municipalities were allowed to craft their own approach, resulting in a wide range of
strategies.
In general, three main types of local programs were utilized: 1) mandatory retrofit, 2)
voluntary retrofit, and 3) notice to owners that the structure is a URM building. When
retrofits were encouraged or required, the local government set the standards to be
met. More than half (52%) of affected jurisdictions adopted a mandatory program,
which has proven by far to be the most effective type. Eighty-seven percent of identified
properties have been retrofitted or demolished in jurisdictions with mandatory
programs, compared to thirteen to 25 percent in jurisdictions with other program types.
Reviews of the URM Law by the CSSC have shown it to be a success over the long term.
In 2006 (the last comprehensive state survey available), Compliance with the policy is
nearly universal at 93%, and over 70% of identified URM buildings have been either
retrofitted or demolished (CSSC, 2006). A comprehensive review of URM program
formats throughout the Western United States is available from FEMA and the California
Seismic Safety Commission (FEMA, 2009; CSSC, 2006).
Older Concrete Buildings
Older concrete structures (built pre-1970s and in some cases pre-1990s) exemplify the
importance and difficulties of using code year as an indicator of seismic risk. Public
awareness of older concrete risks may be lower than for soft-story wood frame
buildings, but they are common in large numbers in the Western US and throughout
California. The Concrete Coalition,24 a network of engineers, research organizations, and
policymakers, estimates that there are as many as 17,000 non-ductile concrete buildings
in California (Concrete Coalition, 2011). The societal importance of older concrete
structures can be significant, as they often have higher occupancies and are widely used
for residential tall buildings, commercial, or even critical service facilities.
24 Information about the Coalition can be found at the organization’s website: http://www.concretecoalition.org/,
Accessed March 18, 2016.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 35
Poorly performing concrete structures can have devastating effects for occupants,
owners, and communities, as numerous major quakes in California and abroad have
demonstrated. The 1971 Sylmar earthquake brought down several concrete structures,
killing 52, and the 1994 Northridge earthquake wrecked even more, including a Bullock's
department store and Kaiser medical office. In the 2011 quake in Christchurch, New
Zealand, two concrete office towers collapsed killing 133 people. Many of the 6,000
people killed in the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, were in concrete buildings.
A scenario report for the San Francisco Bay Area estimates that older concrete buildings
in a repeat 1906-level event would contribute a large portion of the predicted deaths
and injuries (ABAG, 1999). Also at risk are investors, the survival of occupying
businesses, and livelihoods. Neighborhoods can be at risk too if a district has a high
concentration of older concrete buildings, as they may be blighted or loose functionality
or economic viability after an event.
Older concrete buildings of concern have a variety of features and are not always easy
to characterize. One issue is nonductile (essentially too brittle, insufficiently reinforced)
concrete, prior to enforcement of ductile concrete codes in the 1970s. Another is tilt-up
structures, where a concrete is poured on the ground, cured, and then lifted (or “tilted”)
up and connected to roof and floor framing where the ties between the roof and wall
and floors and walls are often inadequate.
Vulnerable concrete structures can be difficult to spot and often complex to retrofit
(ATC, 2012). These are factors in why only a small number of California jurisdictions
have adopted policies for older concrete (Table 2). The City of Los Angeles (Building
Code Divisions 91 and 96) recently required evaluation and upgrade if needed for
nonductile concrete structures and since Northridge has required triggered upgrading
on pre-1976 tilt-ups. City of Santa Monica (Municipal Code 8.80) requires evaluation and
upgrade if needed for nonductile concrete structures, along with other structural types.
In 2014 Santa Monica hired the engineering firm Degenkolb to inventory buildings that
might be subject to its requirements—a first step in reviving efforts that had been
stalled for more than 20 years.25 Two jurisdictions, Long Beach (Chapter 18.71) and
Burbank, have taken the approach of providing voluntary guidance. Burbank’s program
addresses older reinforced concrete and concrete frame buildings with masonry infill.
25 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-monica-will-hire-quake-engineers-to-id-all-vulnerable-
buildings-20140527-story.html (Accessed March 20, 2016).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 36
Table 2: Summary table of local programs for addressing older concrete building vulnerabilities.
Jurisdiction
Number
of Older
Concrete
Buildings
Program
Type
Targeted
Building
Characteristics
Deadline
for
Screening
Deadline
for
Evaluation
Deadline
for
Completion
Los Angeles Unknown
(Concrete
Coalition
inventory*
= 1500)
Mandatory
evaluation
leading to
mandatory
retrofit
Pre-1976 tilt-
ups and
nonductile
concrete
3 years 10 years 25 years
Santa Monica Unknown
(Concrete
Coalition
estimate*
= 173)
Mandatory
evaluation
leading to
mandatory
retrofit
Pre-1978
nonductile
concrete.
n/a 275 days Deadlines
vary from 1
to 4 years
after
evaluation
report
submission,
depending
on priority
tiers. **
Long Beach Unknown
(Concrete
Coalition
estimate*
= 396)
Voluntary
guidance
Nonductile
concrete
n/a
Burbank Unknown
(Concrete
Coalition
estimate*
= 132)
Voluntary
guidance
Commercial
pre-1977
reinforced
concrete and
concrete frame
buildings with
masonry infill
n/a
* Source: (Concrete Coalition, 2011).
** Santa Monica’s Building Type definitions are: Type I: building that are vital in the event of an
emergency; Type II: >100 occupants; Type Ill: 20 - 100 occupants; Type IV: < 20 occupants.
Soft-Story Wood Frame Buildings
Wood frame soft-story buildings are a good example of a vulnerable building type that
gained widespread attention after performing poorly in specific earthquake events. In
October 1989, the hazard and widespread presence of this building type were made
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 37
evident by the dramatic and costly collapses and fires in the San Francisco Marina
District in the Loma Prieta earthquake. Then again, in the Northridge event in 1994,
widespread damage and several high profile collapses occurred. The Northridge-
Meadows apartment complex collapse that led to sixteen deaths in particular captured
media, public, and expert attention.
Following these events, soft-story residential buildings started to be viewed as not just a
threat to the owner’s pocketbook but to the surrounding community; tenant safety and
local recovery could also be at stake. Given their prevalence, losing hundreds of soft-
story apartment buildings could have large impacts on community. For example, soft-
story buildings constituted about half (7,700) of the 16,000 housing units rendered
uninhabitable in the Bay Area by the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and over 34,000 of
the housing units rendered uninhabitable by the Northridge Earthquake in 1994 (ABAG,
2003). Table 3 describes a wide range of local efforts to address soft-story wood frame
buildings, highlighting key program features and distinctions (many of which are
discussed in later sections regarding prioritization, timing, and policy mechanisms).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 38
Table 3: Summary of local soft-story wood frame policy efforts showing key distinguishing program features.
(Sources: Rabinovici, 2012; ABAG, 2016).
Jurisdiction Year
Number
of Soft-
story
Buildings
Program
Type
Targeted Building
Characteristics Priorities or Tiers
Deadline
for
Evaluation
Deadline
for
Permit
Deadline
for
Completion
Los Angeles 2015 unknown
Mandatory
Evaluation
leading to
Mandatory
Retrofit
Pre-1978 wood-
frame structures
with soft, weak or
open front first
floor conditions
with two or more
stories and five or
more units. Only
enforcement is
prioritized by
tiers.
Priority I - Buildings
containing 16 or more
dwelling units.
1 year 2 years 7 years
Priority II - Buildings with
three stories or more,
containing fewer than 16
dwelling units.
Priority III - Buildings not
falling within the
definition of Priority I or II.
Oakland 2015 1,380 Mandatory
Screening
(passed
2009)
leading to
Mandatory
Retrofit
Pre-1985 multi-
family wood
frame structures
with five or more
units
n/a
Table 3 (continued).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 39
Jurisdiction Year
Number
of Soft-
story
Buildings
Program
Type
Targeted Building
Characteristics Priorities or Tiers
Deadline
for
Evaluation
Deadline
for
Permit
Deadline
for
Completion
Berkeley 2014 310 (at
time of
2005
ordinance)
Mandatory
evaluation
law (2005)
leading to
mandatory
retrofit
(2014)
Multi-family wood
frame structures
with five or more
units
n/a 2 years
(under
previous
soft-story
evaluation
ordinance)
2 years 4 years
San Francisco 2013 2,800
Mandatory
evaluation
leading to
mandatory
retrofit
Wood frame
construction with
five or more
residential units
and two or more
stories with
permit for
construction
submitted prior to
January 1, 1978
and five or more
units
Tier I - Any building
containing educational,
assembly, or residential
care facility uses (Building
Code Occupancy E, A,
R2.1, R3.1, or R4)
1.5 years 2.5 years 4.5 years
Tier II - Any building
containing 15 or more
dwelling units
2.5 years 3.5 years 5.5 years
Tier III - Any building not
falling within another tier
3.5 years 4.5 years 6.5 years
Tier IV - Any building
containing ground floor
commercial uses (Building
Code Occupancy B or M),
or any building in a
mapped liquefaction zone
4.5 years 5.5 years 7.5 years
Table 3 (continued).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 40
Jurisdiction Year
Number
of Soft-
story
Buildings
Program
Type
Targeted Building
Characteristics Priorities or Tiers
Deadline
for
Evaluation
Deadline
for
Permit
Deadline
for
Completion
Alameda 2011 70 Mandatory
evaluation
Five or more units n/a 2 years
Fremont 2005 22 Mandatory
retrofit
Apartment house
with more than
ten units or more
than two stories
Group 1 - Apartment
house with more than ten
units or more than two
stories
n/a 2 years 4 years
Group II - Apartment
house with ten or less
units and fewer than three
stories high
n/a 2.5 years 5 years
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 41
Public Purpose, Occupancy, Location, and Other Considerations
Another stated goal of seismic mitigation laws is to promote continuity of vital services
related to the community’s social and economic viability. In addition to direct safety
concerns, this further justifies targeting special uses and buildings that affect larger
numbers of people such as schools, critical public buildings, and hospitals. Beyond
critical community functions, however, it is less obvious where to draw the line between
public and private risks and benefits. How many people need to live or work in a
building before a suspected earthquake vulnerability becomes something an owner or
tenant should not be allowed to make decisions about on their own?
The answer involves some sense of proportionality. In other words, local governments
tend to seek a reasonable balance between the number of building owners that will
need to comply and the burden of compliance, with the public benefits that will be
achieved (which we can assume to be protection of health and preservation of
community functionality). That is a key reason why buildings with higher occupancy or
higher residential unit total are sometimes targeted. Such buildings not only have more
human beings that work or live in them, but the fate of the buildings also has a larger
impact on local housing availability, parking, and other community impacts. For
instance, most existing soft-story wood frame programs are targeted at multifamily
buildings with five or more residential units (see Table 3). Larger structures are also
presumably worth more, so the owner is more likely to have sufficient equity in the
property or cash flow to make capital upgrades.
A structure’s number of stories may also relate to the degree of risk or perceptions of
public importance. Problematically, more stories may not always translate into higher
risk; for example, two-story soft-story buildings may not necessarily be less dangerous
compared to three story ones, depending on the materials used and the positioning of
occupied units (Bonowitz and Rabinovici, 2012).
A good example of a program that uses location or zoning as part of its targeting is Palo
Alto’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses incentive. The incentive is
only available for buildings in Commercial Downtown (CD) District, which has sub-zones
based on CD-C Commercial, CD-S Service, and CD-N Neighborhood designations. Zoning
benefits are different for each of these designations, the square footage, and also if the
building in question is historic property.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 42
Ownership structure is another potential scoping issue, for instance, whether
condominiums should be included.26 The City of Berkeley did not include condominiums
in its soft-story wood frame building ordinance, but the jurisdictions of San Francisco
and Fremont did. Condominiums often face additional barriers in both voluntary and
mandatory retrofit policy settings, because homeowner association policies and
practices can make it difficult to agree on what should be done and to obtain financing.
Anecdotally, in Palo Alto and elsewhere, properties where a majority of owners want to
retrofit have not been able to accomplish that work because of hold-out members that
do not want to proceed or pay an additional assessment in order for the association to
be able to afford it. The overall influence on retrofit behavior of either including or
excluding condominiums is not known.
A final point that should be noted about program scope is that some properties that would
otherwise be subject to a law can be classified as exempt for certain reasons. For instance, most
jurisdictional ordinances offer exemptions for buildings that have had significant recent
renovations or retrofit upgrades that addressed the hazardous condition. Some jurisdictions
explicitly include protocols for hardship provisions such as extended timelines that might be
made available for individual or institutional owners that can demonstrate an unusual degree of
difficulty raising sufficient funds to comply.
Timelines, Pacing, and Prioritization
For several reasons, jurisdictions find it useful to both prioritize and pace their earthquake
program efforts. Time is a powerful ally and policy variable. Once a jurisdiction commits to the
idea of a new program, timeframes can be used to make implementation manageable and
soften the economic impacts of the program on city staff and budgets, on owners, and on the
local economy. Retrofitting is also a process that cannot be sped up beyond a certain point.
Design, arrangement of financing, and completion of retrofit work can be an arduous process,
naturally taking from months to years. Lengthier time windows allow owners to plan for how to
comply in the way that works best for them. Longer time frames can also work to the
advantage of jurisdictions, which rarely have sufficient administrative capacity, political will,
and community tolerance to take on multiple seismic risk issues simultaneously over a short
26 Keep in mind that condominium status can change. The City of Berkeley decided not to include condominium
properties on its Suspected High Hazard Building list. However, owners in some apartment buildings in the process
of being converted to condominium status when needing complying with the law experienced difficulty getting
loans (Rabinovici, 2012).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 43
period of time. Following are several examples of how different jurisdictions have used timing
as part of their program structure.
Trigger-Enforced Timing
Some jurisdictions have opted to require earthquake retrofit to be done only when the
property is sold and/or an owner submits plans for renovation, additions, or
rehabilitation that meets certain criteria, for instance 50% of the assessed value. This is
similar to triggers for energy upgrading, sewer lateral replacement for single family
homes, modifications for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, or sprinkler and
other fire code changes.
A jurisdiction taking this approach does not need to inventory vulnerable structures in
advance and may be able to do project reviews at current staffing levels. However,
there are several downsides. Owners may resent encountering these potentially
substantial “surprise” costs when initiating a project, and might strategically manipulate
project valuation to avoid needing to comply, resulting in lower fees for the city. For
those owners that are aware of the provisions, potentially important non-seismic
renovation work that would have been done otherwise might be postponed as a result
of increased project cost and complexity. Most importantly, critical safety and resilience
retrofit work might go decades without being done.
Proactively-Enforced Timing with Phasing and/or Prioritization
Proactive enforcement means that a jurisdiction identifies, notifies, and actively seeks to
help owners participate or comply in a program. It is common when these programs
include mandates to use a variety of time frames for buildings with different
characteristics. For instance, Los Angeles’s 2015 ordinance requires compliance for soft-
stories within seven years and older concrete within 25 years. Another common
strategy is to classify buildings of a single targeted structural type into tiers or priority
levels among a particular type of building, for instance based on age, number of
stories, unit totals, or occupancy. Compliance can then be mandated sooner in order
from most to least serious in terms of estimated risk and social importance. Time frames
for soft-story programs, for instance, commonly relax deadlines by about one year per
tier (See Deadlines by programs in Table 3). Both of these phasing approaches allows
jurisdictions to set a feasible administrative pace and put an early focus on buildings
with vulnerabilities and characteristics that most affect the public.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 44
An overall pacing strategy can also be used to phase implementation of a larger set of
resilience policies and programs that go beyond different building types to address
other aspects of community earthquake vulnerability. For instance, San Francisco
mandated soft-story wood frame building retrofitting, then mandated its 120 private
schools to do seismic evaluations of their buildings regardless of structure type,27 and
then embarked on efforts to assess and create programs for poorly anchored façades
and unreinforced masonry chimneys.
All three approaches – 1) phasing and compliance time frames that differ for structures,
2) in different priority tiers, 3) within a multifaceted comprehensive plan – were used in
recommendations from San Francisco’s decade-long Community Action Plan for Seismic
Safety (CAPSS) project (ATC, 2010). Figure 2 shows an earlier version of how San
Francisco thought about address different building types and uses more or less quickly
and with gradually increasing requirements.
Later, these concepts were embedded into the jurisdiction’s policies as part of San
Francisco’s 30-year Earthquake Safety Implementation Plan (SF ESIP, 2011). That plan
represents a commitment by the city to phase in additional efforts over this extended
period, and deliberately addressed a wide range of vulnerable structure types, uses, or
occupancy combinations considered important to community resilience (e.g., private
schools, façades). Additional advantages of long time frames are to allow more time for
detailed studies or research if needed, for political or community consensus to develop,
and give owners ample notice of bigger changes to come.
27 Ordinance text available at: http://sfgov.org/esip/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/12716-
Ordinance%20No%20202-14%20Private%20Schools%20EQ%20Evaluation.pdf (Accessed February 3, 2016).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 45
Figure 2: Excerpt of Table 5 from the summary San Francisco CAPSS Project report (ATC, 2010)
showing recommended timelines for prioritizing and phasing different kinds of efforts to address
a variety of building types and uses.
Note: Categories represented in rows are not mutually exclusive. For instance, some private school
facilities may be located in a house of worship or historic structures.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 46
Policy Mechanisms and Requirements
In addition to creating a set of targeting and eligibility criteria, jurisdictions can use a variety of
methods to motivate appropriate seismic upgrades to be done. Requiring owners to do retrofit
work is only one approach. Other tools range from simple notification, disclosure measures,28
offering incentives, voluntary retrofit initiatives, and mandated screenings or evaluations, each
of which is described below in more detail. Another major distinction is whether a jurisdiction
implements requirements only when triggered during rehabilitation projects that meet certain
criteria, or proactively, such as doing an inventory to identify affected properties and imposed
deadlines.
Figure 3 provides definitions of a spectrum of policy mechanisms that have been used. This
view corrects the false impression that jurisdictional programs have to be either “voluntary” or
“mandatory.” In reality, most jurisdictions create a policy package that combines several
approaches. Furthermore, that package can evolve over time as more and more buildings are
upgraded, new information or technical recommendations become available, or with changes
in the political or economic climate.
Inventory
Identifying the number and locations of buildings of concern is an essential first step to
finding out which buildings are the most vulnerable and how significant those issues
may be for the community. Many jurisdictions launch their earthquake program
development process with a special-purpose, one-time discovery effort meant to
compile data about potentially seismic at-risk properties and to gauge the scope of the
issues faced by the community. This can be difficult and time consuming, and
jurisdictions often rely on outside consultants or professional organizations and
academic volunteers for assistance. Existing property databases generally contain less
than complete information to be able to draw conclusions, and some relevant
information may only exist in paper form. Street-walks, side walk surveys, or visits to a
selected sample of properties are common.
It is important to distinguish early investigation and risk analysis efforts that might
involve only a subset of properties from the development of an exhaustive list of
properties meeting certain criteria that could be officially noticed or subjected to a
28 Disclosure policies are designed to increase the transparency and openness surrounding an issue of social
importance. Examples include mandatory disclosure to tenants, freedom of information requirements, public
signage, searchable online listing, or official notice placed on a title or deed. These are described in Table .
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 47
particular ordinance. The City of Berkeley is one jurisdiction that used a list created by
staff and consultants as the basis for determining which properties should be included
on that city’s suspected hazardous properties list. Other cities have instead chosen to
put buildings on an initial suspected hazard list based on zoning, number of units, or
other generally available criteria.
Palo Alto’s current investigation into updating its seismic risk management program
involves review of digital records, paper records, and side walk surveys. The side walk
survey portion includes approximately half of the buildings of interest. A similar
detailed field effort would be needed on the remaining portion of buildings to develop a
comprehensive inventory list.
No inventory list will be perfect, so no matter which approach is used, some kind of
appeal, confirmation, or screening processes are needed before granting any
exemptions or enforcing requirements. Depending on the building type, issues of
improper inclusion or exclusion from a list may be more or less likely. For example,
rapid visual determination is easier for wood frame soft-story conditions, but it would
be hard for even an experienced engineer to identify a steel moment frame, braced
frame building, or a concrete frame building when the structural elements are hidden
from view by architectural finishes.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 48
Figure 3: Diagram showing a spectrum of mitigation policy approaches ranging from least to most stringent.
Inventory Only Notify Only Voluntary
Retrofit
Disclosure
Approaches
Mandatory
Screening
Mandatory
Evaluation
Mandatory
Retrofit
Staff, consultants,
and/or a volunteer
organization has
created an
inventory of one or
more suspected
hazard building
types, but the list is
not officially
released to the
public or acted
upon.
An inventory exists
and a policy has
been established to
notify owners if
their property is on
a suspected hazard
building list.
Owners of
properties on a
publically available
list are formally
encouraged to
retrofit, possibly by
offering of technical
assistance, financial
help, or policy
incentives.
Properties on a
publically available
list are subject to
one or more
methods of forced
information
sharing, such as
tenant notification,
public signage, or
recorded notice on
the property title.
Owners of
properties on a
publically available
list are required to
submit a form
within a fixed time
window that is filled
out by a licensed
building
professional.
Typically, the goal is
to determine
whether the
property has certain
characteristics that
might associate
with risk.*
Owners of
properties on a
publically available
list are required
submit within a
fixed time window a
formal evaluation
completed by a
licensed engineer.
Typically, a
determination is
then made about
whether the
property has certain
risk features.*
Owners of
properties on a
publically available
list are required to
complete a retrofit
by a certain date.
This step may be
implemented
following a
screening or
evaluation phase.*
* Note: Implementation and enforcement might be either: 1) triggered by sale or a significant work threshold or 2) via a proactive compliance timeline.
Increasingly Stringent
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 49
Notification
Once an inventory is created, a jurisdiction either by default or deliberately chooses
whether or not to make that list public or take further actions. Some jurisdictions have
created a list then not acted on it for a decade or more. For example, in the case of soft-
story wood frame buildings, Santa Clara County’s list has remained dormant since 2003,
and nine years passed between the creation of a list and when the City of Berkeley
passed its soft-story ordinance.
The most basic step is to notify owners that their property is on some kind of suspected
earthquake hazard list. This is currently the URM policy of a small number of California
jurisdictions, and the soft-story wood frame policy in the jurisdictions of San Leandro,
Sebastapol, and Richmond. Available data about notification only programs shows them
to have little impact; for instance, seven percent of URM properties in jurisdictions with
this type of program are retrofit as of 2006 (CSSC, Status of the Unreinforced Masonry
Building Law, 2006).
Little evidence exists about potential liability and market value impacts from becoming a
“listed” earthquake vulnerable building. However, concern exists that mere creation of a
list could have negative impacts if it becomes public (see more about Disclosure
Approaches below). A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filing (for instance, by a
journalist or citizen) could be used to compel a jurisdiction to reveal a list that has
remained dormant. This happened in the case of Los Angeles with the Concrete
Coalition’s inventory of suspected concrete structures.29 Experts in the earthquake field
believe that media coverage of the list contributed to eventual passage of that city’s
mandatory evaluation ordinance in 2015, which included concrete structures. In sum,
notification programs may have several downsides for owners while offering little in
terms of on the ground risk reduction for the community.
Voluntary Retrofit
Following an inventory and notification process, or even after a mandatory screening or
evaluation phase (see below), jurisdictions can choose to let owners decide whether or
not to retrofit their building. Simply urging building owners that own a potentially
earthquake vulnerable building may be enough to lead some to voluntarily retrofit.
29 Key Los Angeles Times articles can be found at: http://graphics.latimes.com/me-earthquake-concrete/ and
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-concrete-buildings-list-20140125-story.html (Accessed April 11,
2016).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 50
Retrofit rates for jurisdictions with voluntary URM retrofit programs averaged 16% in
2006 (CSSC, Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, 2006), and likely much
lower than that for soft-stories (though no systematic data currently exist).
Jurisdictions that take a voluntary route often do so because they have a small number
(presumably less socially-significant set) of vulnerable buildings. Another factor can be a
sense that public support is lacking among decision makers, residents, or other
stakeholders for mandatory requirements, perhaps because of local economic
conditions that would make it difficult for owners to afford or get financing. The
anticipated cost of the retrofit work can also come into play, as it can be more palatable
to require owners to make investments that are a smaller share of the building’s overall
value.
Despite perceptions of politically feasibility and some measurable voluntary retrofit
response, programs without mandates are almost always much less effective at actually
reducing earthquake risk in the community in a significant way. Several factors appear
to contribute to the handful of voluntary programs that have worked well. First and
foremost, voluntary programs vary in the level of resources devoted, sustained effort,
and set of complementary measures taken by the jurisdiction. The more dedicated a
jurisdiction is to having a successful voluntary program, the more likely it is to have one.
One tactic is to provide case by case assistance to owners in taking steps over time, a
tactic sometimes used by jurisdictions with a small number of affected buildings.
Another is to offer significant financial or policy incentives (examples of which are
discussed below). On the public awareness front, providing educational materials that
explain the risks to an owner and to the broader community and the benefits of
protecting their financial investment may help.
Another thing that can make voluntary programs more successful is to threaten to
institute a mandatory program in the future. Historically, many jurisdictions did adopt a
voluntary URM program first, and then shifted to mandates later on. In the past five
years, this has also happened with soft-story wood frame policies in the case of
Oakland, San Francisco, and Berkeley. An explicit multi-phased approach was
particularly effective in Berkeley, where one fourth of building owners affected by a
mandatory evaluation requirement invested in a voluntary retrofit within the first two
years. Owner interviews showed this was partly because they wanted to get a head start
on later mandates that appeared inevitable (Rabinovici, 2012).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 51
Disclosure Approaches
Notification and many voluntary programs are based on the idea that information and
communication by themselves can influence the opinions and actions of owners,
renters, and buyers. Officially publicizing a city’s concerns about deficiencies of a
specific building type could, for instance, change public opinion about the resale or
rental value of listed properties, an owner’s eligibility for refinancing or future loan
terms, or the cost of purchasing earthquake insurance.
Jurisdictions have used a variety of techniques to motivate attention to seismic risk
concerns. As discussed in the Task 2 report, mandatory disclosure at time of sale is a
key part of state laws for pre-1960 homes in earthquake fault zones (CSSC, 2005). The
most prominent policy is the state requirement for signage on all URM buildings. Similar
signage has been required since 2007 on soft-story wood frame buildings in the City of
Berkeley (Figure 4), and non-complying soft-story wood frame buildings in San Francisco
Figure 5.
In Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco tenants must be notified in writing, and official
notices are recorded on the deed for all listed soft-story wood frame buildings.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 52
Figure 4: Photo of the warning sign mandated to be posted on buildings on the City of Berkeley’s
Suspected Earthquake Hazard Building List (Photo: S. Rabinovici, 2011).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 53
Figure 5: Required placard for soft-story wood frame buildings that failed to comply on time with
the mandatory screening phase of San Francisco's mandatory retrofit program.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 54
In the case of soft-story wood frame buildings, leading jurisdictions have also put a
public, sometimes searchable list of affected properties on a jurisdiction’s website,
based on the idea that renters should be entitled to easily accessible information before
they sign a lease. Such lists include the street address and potentially also the
compliance status of the property. Owner names or contact information are not given,
although anyone could search for that information through public permit and property
records. Table 4 describes each of these tools in more detail and gives examples of use
as well as advantages and disadvantages.
What all these measures have in common is that they make seismic risk issues more
transparent and visible to affected members of the public. Disclosure is different than
and goes beyond general public awareness. These measures are also meant to inform
people about specific seismically vulnerable buildings, with the idea that it might change
offering prices, mortgage availability and terms, rental or purchase decisions, or even
whether someone wants to enter or stay very long in a building. In theory, as owners,
tenants, bankers, and potential buyers become more informed, they can better
incorporate seismic risk in their mitigation decisionmaking and assessment of property
values.
Evidence suggests that notification, notices, and public lists can and do influence beliefs
and behavior. For example, some soft-story wood frame condominium owners in
Berkeley reported difficulty refinancing (Rabinovici, 2012). Even perception of market
awareness can change opinions, even if there is little to no documented impact. In
Berkeley, some owners said the worried at first about reduced demand or market price
for units in their buildings and this motivated them to retrofit; however, these same
owners years later did not report experiencing any problems with tenant recruitment or
lost rental income (Rabinovici, 2012).
Earthquake warning signage was a prominent part of the state’s URM program
requirements; however, there is little evidence to show that such warnings are
effective. A study of California Proposition 61 carcinogen and reproductive health
warnings suggests that signs are not very powerful and become less influential on
behavior over time as people become used to them. Some building users may even be
personally annoyed by warning signs, because it reminds them of a risk that they can
personally do little about. Some owners of soft-story wood frame buildings in Berkeley
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 55
reported having tenants that actively complained about or repeatedly ripped the
required warning signs off the walls (Rabinovici, 2012).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 56
Table 4: Description of disclosure approaches used in local earthquake risk reduction programs.
Name Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Mandatory Disclosure
at Time of Sale
Sellers of property are required
to disclose features that could
relate to earthquake
performance.
California Earthquake
Fault Zone disclosure;
Sellers of pre-1960
homes are required to
fill out to the best of
their knowledge and
provide buyers with
Residential
Earthquake Hazards
Report.
Empowers buyers to be
aware of any known
existing hazard issues.
Anecdotally, many buyers do
not pay enough attention to
these disclosures, which occur
during emotional, busy
decisionmaking periods. They
may not seek expert
information to interpret the
reported information. It is also
possible that sellers shirk on
the disclosure requirements if
buyers do not know that they
are supposed to receive them.
Difficult to enforce.
Recorded Notice on
Deed
Jurisdictions can record on the
property title or deed the fact
that the building is subject to
additional requirements
related to its earthquake
vulnerable status.
For soft-story wood
frame: Oakland,
Berkeley, and San
Francisco.
Relatively low cost for
jurisdictions to implement.
Empowers buyers but also
mortgage companies to be
aware of any known
existing hazard issues.
Anecdotally, it is not clear how
many buyers or mortgage
companies pay attention to
these notices. Such notices are
primarily effective only at time
of sale or refinance.
Table 4 (continued)
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 57
Name Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Public Listing of
Affected Properties
Jurisdictions that operate web
sites to describe their
programs can feature a full list
of property addresses,
potentially also including also
the compliance status of the
property. In general, owner
names are not listed, though
that information is available if
a member of the public
searched for it separately.
For soft-story wood
frame: Oakland,
Berkeley, and San
Francisco.
Relatively low cost for
jurisdictions to implement.
Could be used by tenants
and buyers when
searching for properties,
thus empowering well-
informed market
negotiations over pricing.
Website information needs to
be updated on a regular basis
in order to be perceived as fair
and useful. Public lists work
better if the property
addresses are searchable,
rather than static (e.g., on a
pdf).
External Signage Jurisdictions that operate web
sites to describe their
programs can feature a full list
of property addresses,
potentially also including the
compliance status of the
property. Some lists are
searchable, while others are
static.
California state
requires a sign on all
URM buildings. Similar
signage has been
required since 2007
on soft-story wood
frame buildings in the
City of Berkeley.
Advocates argue that signs
are justified based on the
public's right to know. The
physical presence and
repeated viewing of
signage may make the
issue more salient for
visitors, employees, lease
holders, and owners alike.
Owners may view the signs as
stigmatizing or threatening to
property value or business
revenues, but anecdotally, it is
not clear how much visitors,
employees, residents, and
other users of a building pay
attention to signage when
entering or leaving a property.
Table 4 (continued)
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 58
Name Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Tenant Notification Owners are required to present
straightforward, standardized
information about the listed
status of the property. Some
jurisdictions require proof of
notification (e.g., tenant
signature) to be returned and
kept on file with the city.
For soft-story wood
frame: Oakland,
Berkeley, and San
Francisco.
Tenant notification may be
more influential than
signage because it is
personalized and the
information is delivered at
a useful time in that
person's decision process.
Advocates claim that
tenant notification is
justified based on the
public's right to know.
To be effective, tenant
notification should be required
to occur well before the
potential tenant is ready to
sign the lease.
Earthquake
Performance Rating
Systems
Owners can be either
encouraged or required to
have their building rated on a
standardized scale that
classifies expected building
performance in an earthquake
in an easier to understand
format, for instance from one
to five stars. Viable rating
systems exist for many building
types.
The City of Los
Angeles in 2015
officially launched a
voluntary effort to
encourage owners to
rate their properties
using the US
Resiliency Council
system and pledged to
rate its own public
buildings as well.
Rating system use is
common for institutions
like universities and
hospitals. Mechanisms for
implementing
performance ratings for
commercial use have
recently matured and are
now viable. Ratings have
the potential to inform
owner, renter and buyer
decisions, creating a
market effect.
Obtaining a rating potentially
adds cost to a design project.
Ratings systems such as USRC’s
are relatively new and not yet
widely implemented.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 59
An advantage of disclosure measures is they tend to be relatively inexpensive for jurisdictions
to administer. Up to date website posting of the list of affected properties and their compliance
status encourages people to visit the site as needed over time, people see signs every time they
enter or exit, and properties may exchange hands many times. Eventually, a tipping point in
community awareness and opinion about a class of properties can occur, as it did in the case of
Berkeley for soft-story wood frame buildings.
The use of positive disclosure remains an untapped potential influence on market value of
retrofitted properties as well as owners’ retrofit decisions. This review did not identify any city
programs that have taken the positive approach of recognizing or rewarding owners or
announcing buildings that have been retrofit. One recent development is the existence of viable
earthquake rating systems. In November 2015, the non-profit US Resiliency Council30 launched
a non-profit credentialing and verification service through which owners can obtain externally
checked, state-of-the-art assessment of the expected safety levels, repair costs, and time to
regain function for their property. USRC ratings have the potential to play the same kind of role
that the US Green Building Council did in promoting sustainable design, both for new
construction and for retrofits.
USRC’s system has already been adopted one California jurisdiction’s policy. Los Angeles Mayor
Eric Garcetti cited USRC ratings in that city’s Resilience by Design report (City of Los Angeles,
2015), asking building owners to voluntarily use it, pledging to educate the public about seismic
performance rating systems and how the information can be used, and announcing the
intention to use it or some similar system to rate all city-owned buildings.
Mandatory Screening
Screening programs help jurisdictions collect more information about targeted potentially
vulnerable buildings in a community, usually as a first step to later more stringent requirements
for the subset that are found to have features indicating significant deficiencies. With relatively
low cost and difficulty for owners, the jurisdiction can both make the issue visible and filter out
properties that do not meet the eligibility or targeting criteria, thereby reducing the
burdensome handling of errors and omission at a later stage. They also help jurisdictions
determine the overall scope of the problem—how many buildings exist that have certain risk
characteristics and how significant of a threat they pose in aggregate. This can help build the
case for further legislation.
30 The organization’s website is: www.usrc.org (Accessed April 13, 2016).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 60
For soft-story wood frame buildings, Oakland was a pioneer of the mandatory screening
approach. An inventory of multifamily apartment buildings was created in 2008 with the help of
volunteers and non-engineers under a contract with ABAG. This survey identified 24,273
residential units in 1,479 buildings with five or more units, between two and seven stories, built
prior to 1991, that had wide open spaces for parking or commercial uses on the ground floor
(ABAG, 2014). Spot testing suggested the list might have error rates that could potentially
undermine future program effectiveness, and might be politically unacceptable (personal
communication, Jeannie Perkins, 2008). Therefore, in 2009 the City passed ordinance Number
12966 which declared these buildings “potential soft-story buildings” and mandated submittal
of a Level 1 Screening–Non-Engineered Analysis. The screening had to be performed by a
registered design professional, licensed contractor or certified inspector, to provide some
assurance of accuracy regarding features that might related to risk. Anecdotally, the cost to
owners for this was generally around $200 to $500. This can be summarized as a rule-in
screening approach.
Persons involved with analyzing Oakland’s program (personal communication, Danielle
Hutchings-Mieler, 2011) concluded that many owners were confused, compliance was lower
than hoped, and exemptions may have been given without adequate quality control of the
reported data. This later contributed to the decision to incorporate mandatory evaluation
phase when the city of Oakland was ready to move towards a mandatory retrofit program. In
other words, a less than satisfactory implementation of a screening phase can slow down
progress towards and increase the effort required in future retrofit programming.
In its approach to soft-story wood frame buildings, San Francisco opted for a screening phase to
weed out obviously non-affected properties, for instance those misidentified as having the
correct number of units, stories, or first floor uses (primarily focusing on ruling out
inappropriately included properties). Similar to Oakland, the screening had to be performed by
a registered design professional, such as a licensed contractor, engineer, or architect.
Compliance in filing screening forms by the initial deadline was 98%, a success which was
helped by a suite of outreach activities including four waves of post card reminders, a retrofit
fair, a weekly updated website, an advisory group process, and multiple public meetings. The
compliance postcards used took advantage of real-time information sharing to “nudge” owners
to respond, such as mentioning how many other owners had already taken action by that point
(see Figure 6).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 61
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 62
Figure 6: Front and back of a compliance reminder postcard sent to affected owners in the City of San
Francisco’s soft-story wood frame program.
Mandatory Evaluation
In the 1980s, Palo Alto was an early innovator with the technique of requiring owners of certain
buildings in a community to file a formal engineering evaluation (Herman et. al., 1990). Because
a licensed engineer (or structural engineer) must perform this work, such evaluations are
approximately an order of magnitude more expensive than screenings. Evaluation costs for
soft-story wood frame buildings in Berkeley, for example, were approximately $2,000 to $5,000
(Rabinovici, 2012). However, evaluation costs may vary substantially for other building types
that are more difficult to assess, in other jurisdictions, and/or where evaluation requirements
are more extensive or complex.
Evaluation programs are costlier for jurisdictions to administrate than screening programs for a
variety of reasons, but provide several advantages. Jurisdictions typically give owners more
time to comply longer, owners need more guidance on how to comply, and there is increased
need for processing time and more qualified reviewer labor. In Berkeley, report review was
contracted out to plan checkers for a flat fee of $583 per evaluation report, and this did not
cover jurisdiction staff time.
On the benefits side, evaluations offer greater hope of achieving tangible risk reduction. As
noted, a remarkable one in four soft-story wood frame building owners voluntarily retrofit in
the wake of mandatory evaluation policy implementation in Berkeley, which meant over 2,000
of its residents now live in buildings that likely would not have been retrofitted otherwise.
Interviews with soft-story wood frame owners in Berkeley also showed that many considered
mandatory evaluation more fair than a voluntary retrofit program because it “leveled the
playing field” (Rabinovici, 2012). Rather than having retrofit practices in their community
determined ad hoc, all owners of similar properties were now being treated alike.
However, the benefits of mandatory evaluation are undeniably uncertain and dependent on
whether community circumstances are conducive to create a significant voluntary retrofit
effect (Figure 7).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 63
Figure 7: Graph showing a seven-fold increase in permit applications in the four years immediately
following passage of Berkeley’s 2005 mandatory evaluation law for soft-story wood frame buildings.
Mandatory Retrofit
Through California’s URM law, hospital, and school programs as well as soft-story wood frame
buildings at the local scale, there is clear precedent for imposing earthquake retrofit work to be
done for certain buildings. This is the most effective type of program for ensuring that on the
ground risk reduction will be done. As discussed in the Task 2 report, on average over four
times as many URM building cases have been retrofit in California in mandatory programs
(70%) compared to voluntary ones (16%). However, because mandatory programs require all
buildings to be addressed, owners with the most marginal properties cannot avoid taking
action, in some cases leading to higher demolition rates (Comerio, 1992). In the case of URM
buildings, mandatory retrofit programs did have higher demolition rates than voluntary
programs, 17% compared to 8% respectively (CSSC, Status of the Unreinforced Masonry
Building Law, 2006).
Depending on the program timeline, it may take years to decades for tangible risk reduction to
be realized. Retrofit projects naturally occur in steps, and can only be carried out as quickly as
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 64
financing, contracting, any tenant relocation, or construction logistics allow. Thus, compliance
periods for mandatory retrofit programs need to be longer than for mandatory screening or
evaluation programs. For URM buildings, many jurisdictions tended to set deadlines of ten
years or more, followed by generous extensions. For soft-story wood frame programs,
jurisdictions have given owners one to three years for first steps such as appeals, hiring an
engineer, complete an acceptable engineering report, or submit a permit application and
retrofit plan. Following that, owners are typically given another one to three years to complete
construction (see Table 3), in part to secure financing, time to work around planned vacancies,
and for adequate design. Longer timelines or exemptions can be offered for complex buildings
that may require costlier or innovative engineering solutions (for instance, historic properties).
Again, this is where phasing or tiers can be helpful.
Another difficult aspect of retrofit programs (even voluntary ones) is that jurisdictions need to
set specific expectations for what constitutes an acceptable retrofit. Jurisdictions have handled
this in a variety of ways. Retrofit ordinances typically directly reference one or more particular
standards (or equivalent criteria). The table of soft-story wood frame programs (Table 3) shows
that five or more standards have been referenced recently and several jurisdictions reference
more than one, which can increase compliance ambiguity and the level of reviewer skill
required but also an engineer’s discretion to use the one most appropriate for their client’s
situation.
Also at issue is how much and how far a building’s vulnerabilities should be retrofit. For
instance, in the case of soft-story wood frame buildings, a retrofit can be designed to address
only the first story weaknesses, rather than all seismic vulnerabilities that are identified.
Jurisdictions such as San Francisco and Berkeley have chosen this route, in part because it
lessened political resistance to creating a mandate and addressed the most severe deficiencies.
Other deficiencies above the first story may remain and may lead to damage in an earthquake.
In the case of mandatory evaluation or retrofit programs, owners and their engineers will also
need guidance about how to prepare an acceptable evaluation, and how to submit a
concurrent retrofit permit application. Owners in Berkeley realized a major financial advantage
to paying their engineer to do both an evaluation for the jurisdiction and a full set of retrofit
plans at the same time (Rabinovici, 2012), so having clear retrofit standards in place already
was a major boon to those owners.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 65
The potentially negative effects on public safety and on owners of choosing a longer
compliance timeline should be noted. Earthquakes can occur at any time, so a program that
offers longer compliance windows in effect allows people in the community to spend more
time using and owning buildings that the jurisdiction has deemed unacceptable in the long run.
Also, real liability consequences may exist for owners that delay in doing mandated retrofit
work, even before an accepted compliance window has elapsed. A California Appellate court
awarded $2 million to family members of two women who died in a URM collapse in the 2003
San Simeon earthquake.31 In doing so, the court rejected the defendant’s claim that they had
no duty to retrofit the building until 2018, the deadline established by the San Louis Obispo
mandatory retrofit ordinance.
Incentives
To complement any of the above program formats, jurisdictions can offer either financing- or policy-
oriented incentives. Many ways exist to encourage and ease the path for owners to complete either
voluntary or required retrofit work, or even to help them submit timely screening forms or engineering
reports. Financial incentives and tools provide monetary assistance, either directly to an owner or via
the jurisdiction. Financial incentives include measures such as tax credits, tax rebates, grants, or fee
waivers that make a retrofit less expensive to complete. Financial tools (e.g., special low-interest
financing programs) provide a mechanism for an owner to obtain the necessary funding, potentially at
lower cost or paid back in ways other than for a traditional loan. Policy incentives are meant to
encourage private funding of mitigation, and include for example expedited review, exemptions,
development bonuses, or technical assistance. These measures offer owners indirect but potentially
valuable benefits as they take each mitigation steps.
Figure 8 provides a summary list of potential incentive types, while Appendix C gives details about
example uses, advantages, and disadvantages of each.
A group of agencies completed an inventory of jurisdiction incentive strategies using a survey of
California local governments in the mid-90s (ABAG, Seismic Retrofit Incentive Programs: A Handbook
for Local Governments, 1996). Though outdated and only 35% of contacted jurisdictions participated,
the report summarizes the types of URM and other earthquake programs that different jurisdictions
adopted and the kinds of assistance that owners could receive. The researchers also did interviews to
collect detailed information about fifteen illustrative cases at the time, including Palo Alto.
31See press coverage: http://calcoastnews.com/2010/06/court-finds-paso-robles-business-owners-liable-for-earthquake-
deaths/ Accessed April 13, 2016.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 66
FINANCIAL TOOLS AND INCENTIVES
(mechanisms that make financing
more accessible or directly reduce
project costs)
POLICY INCENTIVES
(mechanisms that deliver indirect
benefits to owners)
CO
S
T
A
N
D
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
D
I
F
F
I
C
U
L
T
Y
Hi
g
h
e
r
L
o
w
e
r
Waivers or Reductions of Building
Department Fees
Exemption from Future Retrofit
Requirements
Pass Through of Retrofit Costs to
Tenants (for jurisdictions with rent
control)
Expedited Permits, Inspections, and
Reviews
Property-Assessed Financing Loans
(PACE)
Exemptions or Relief from Standards
or Non-Conforming Conditions
Subsidized or Special Term Loans Condominium Conversion Assistance
Real Estate Transfer Tax Rebates Technical Assistance for Retrofit
Projects
Special District or Historic Designation
Tax Reductions
Zoning Incentives (e.g., relief from use
restrictions)
Tax Credits Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Grants Density or Intensity Bonuses (e.g.,
Floor Area Bonus)
General Obligation or Special Purpose
Bonds
Figure 8: Types of financial incentives and tools as well as policy incentives that have been used in local
earthquake risk reduction programs in California, in approximate order top to bottom from lowest to
highest cost and difficulty of implementation.
Several points stand out in the ABAG report regarding incentive use and effectiveness. First, most
jurisdictions offer a number of different incentives, rather than just one approach. This makes sense
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 67
because building and owner circumstances vary widely; what may help one owner might be irrelevant
or inappropriate for another and vice versa. Second, jurisdictions have taken widely different
approaches with incentives, from offering almost nothing to offering substantial loans and grants.
Jurisdictions tend to come up with incentive offerings closely tailored to their own goals and
circumstances, based on economic conditions, building stock vulnerabilities, political will, and other
factors. As a result, there is no single best incentive package to offer.
Another key point is that creation and operation of incentive programs is intense and must be locally
customized. Extensive community education and involvement are required to assess needs, design and
advertise the incentive offerings, and to help owners take advantage of them. Guiding community
members through the mitigation process is time consuming and difficult, usually requiring at least one
full time staff member who also has to coordinate with staff across several departments. That means
the personalities, technical skills, and political savvy of the internal team will be critical, and likely
variable over time, due to natural staff and political turnover issues.
The effectiveness of different incentive approaches, individually or in packages, has not been
systematically studied. Both ABAG and the San Francisco CAPSS project have produced high level lists
of potential incentive tools (ABAG, 2014; Samant & Tobin, 2008) but do not specify which tools are
being used where and to what effect. Many listed approaches are rarely or no longer being used. All
the variety makes it difficult to draw overall conclusions as to which incentives have worked “best”
where and why.
3. IMPLICATIONS AND POTENTIAL POLICY DIRECTIONS FOR PALO ALTO
Palo Alto is a medium sized, compact city with a diverse population and vibrant local economy. Nested
in the heart of Silicon Valley, the cost of living and development pressures are high, and space for
growth is limited. A high degree of interconnectedness with surrounding communities and a dynamic
natural environment is also evident.
As a community, Palo Alto cannot ignore its proximity to several major faults and the fact that it has
many different vulnerable building types. The estimated losses in a major event are significant.
Fortunately, Palo Alto has a legacy of proactive policy leadership in addressing earthquake risks, and a
relatively high degree of citizen and local government capacity. The potential benefits from retrofitting
are large. City leaders, by investing this year in risk assessment and a policy development dialog, have
demonstrated their capability and will to act.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 68
This review found no simple best local earthquake mitigation policy model for Palo Alto to follow. Each
of the jurisdictions mentioned in this report has crafted, often over a decade or more, a unique
package of measures suited to their own local economic, social, political, and risk realities. Palo Alto
must do the same.
In developing its own strategy, Palo Alto can learn from this variety among local mitigation programs. It
can build on the successful framework of its own existing program while also combining and tailoring
new elements that are working for other jurisdictions.
Choosing Goals and Desired Outcomes
One way to measure success is in relation to program goals and resource realities. From that
standpoint, each of the programs mentioned in this report is successful to some degree.
Some jurisdictions set out to do what they could with limited resources, progressing only the first steps
of developing an earthquake mitigation program. The City of Richmond, for example, developed an
inventory, hosted a community meeting, and notified owners as part of creating a very low cost
voluntary approach to soft-story wood frame buildings. The good news is that by doing so, it achieved
meaningful progress relative to jurisdictions that have done nothing. Public leaders and the broader
community are more aware, city reputation and visibility have been enhanced, and city staff are now
better connected to a network of local earthquake professionals that can help facilitate future action if
and when that becomes possible. The bad news is that Richmond has been stymied so far by the
departure of key staff, limited jurisdictional resources, and the limited resources of its soft-story wood
frame building owners and tenants; a more aggressive retrofit program is not realistic until an outside
source of funding is found.
At the other extreme, a few leading jurisdictions set out to comprehensively assess earthquake
vulnerabilities and risk reduction opportunities community-wide through a lengthy, relatively
expensive, and collaboratively-informed processes. San Francisco and more recently Los Angeles are
the most prominent users of this approach, producing in-depth reports and resilience plans intended
to guide city efforts for decades. Importantly, these plans encompass many city activities and roles,
types of buildings and building uses, different phases of the disaster cycle, and explicitly seek to
connect earthquake mitigation efforts to a host of other community resilience concerns, from sea level
rise to water supply reliability to telecommunications operations (Several leading local program models
and planning resources for these types of efforts are introduced in Appendix D).
In between are jurisdictions where program goals are either narrower in scope with more vigorous
requirements (such as the City of Fremont’s mandatory retrofit program for soft-stories) or wider
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 69
scope with less vigorous requirements (such as the City of Santa Monica, which mandates retrofits for
soft-story wood frame buildings and nonductile older concrete structures but only when triggered by a
substantial renovation).
The City of Berkeley took a phased, relatively aggressive approach to soft-stories, but has yet to put in
place a program to address the 50 or so tilt-up concrete structures it has identified. Oakland is also
somewhat unique in being a larger city that has mandated soft-story retrofits without initially taking a
comprehensive approach. However, both Berkeley and Oakland benefited first from substantial
volunteer professional involvement and later from sizeable, multi-year Rockefeller Foundation 100
Resilient Cities grants. Through the early help of both volunteers and consultants, Berkeley and
Oakland laid the groundwork for mandatory programs that likely helped to attract the additional
philanthropic attention and assistance. Berkeley has now produced, and Oakland is on its way to
producing, a comprehensive resilience assessment and plan similar to what was done by San Francisco
and Los Angeles.
In this light, Palo Alto is currently in the “middle” group in terms of its scope and requirements for
seismic safety compared to other leading jurisdictions. Palo Alto set new policy precedents in the
1980s with its community engagement, mandatory evaluation, and voluntary retrofit programs for
three different categories of structures. However, this only addressed a small subset of its overall
vulnerable building stock. By investing in data collection and community discussions this year, Palo Alto
is now poised to move forward into a new position of seismic policy leadership.
It is critical to first clarify community values and goals before designing a program to try to achieve
them. All stakeholders should be invited to participate in discussions of what matters most to the City
and the people who live, work, and invest in it. Common broad goals include increased public safety,
reduced private property damage, and reduced downtime and displacement of businesses, consumers,
and residents. However, addressing of different building types may advance these goals to different
degrees and with different levels of certainty and speed. For instance, addressing soft-story wood
frame housing may have little direct benefit for local businesses but would reduce renter
displacement. Retrofit of older concrete structures might address concerns about provision of basic
services after an event, but would have little or no benefit for housing.
If the goal is to achieve the greatest reduction in losses, Palo Alto should address building types known
to be potentially hazardous that occur in large numbers. Once community discussions lead to a sense
of priorities and preferences, trade-offs and alternatives for pursuing each goal can be understood and
considered.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 70
Wherever Palo Alto chooses to focus, it should strategically combine policy features to promote risk
reduction. As this report revealed, regardless of scope, the most effective programs use a package of
measures to tip the balance away from the status quo by publicizing and increasing the consequences
of not retrofitting while also publicizing, easing the costs, and increasing the benefits of retrofitting.
Potential Policy Directions
Coming out of this local program review is a list of alternative approaches for Palo Alto to consider:
Option 1: Status Quo
In this option, the existing ordinance with its mandatory evaluation, voluntary retrofit approach
remains in place without changes. This covers 89 buildings and has three categories: Category I—
unreinforced masonry (except for under 1,900 sf with 6 residents), Category II—built before 1/1/1935
with 100 or more occupants, and Category III—built before 8/1/1976 with 300 or more occupants. As
of 12/9/14, City records indicated that sixty-six of the buildings had been either retrofit, demolished,
planned to be demolished, or found exempt, while 23 remained unaddressed. Evaluation was
mandatory, and owner funded but retrofit is voluntary. The list is publically available by request, but
not advertised. Floor area ratio bonuses are (were) available.
Option 2: Increase Scope, but Retrofit Remains Voluntary
Additional categories of structures would be added to the mandatory evaluation requirements. Palo
Alto can consider programs for soft-story wood frame buildings, older concrete buildings, older tilt-up
buildings, and older steel moment frame buildings. Precedents exist for programs addressing each of
these structural types that pose well-identified, publicly important risks. Completion of an evaluation
report could be separated into different timelines, for instance three to ten years, depending on
degree of hazard. Palo Alto could also use location, occupancy type, and/or number of occupants as
criteria in defining the scope or compliance timelines.
Option 3: Similar to Option 2, but Additional Disclosure Measures are Incorporated
This option would be similar to Option 2, but the list of buildings and status could be prominently
posted on City website, tenants could be notified, signage could be required, and/or a recorded notice
could be added to the property title. These options enhance transparency with the public and reward
owners that retrofit by increasing the perceived benefits of retrofitting among potential tenants and
buyers. Relatively inexpensive measures like these have been shown to be effective in increasing public
awareness and motivating greater consideration of earthquake risk in private decisionmaking,
including voluntary retrofits.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 71
Option 4: Increase Scope, Some Categories are Voluntary and a Few Categories are Mandatory, with
Enforcement by Trigger Threshold
This option builds on Option 3, but retrofitting would be required for some building types at whenever
future time a building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation above a set threshold.
Option 5: Increase Scope, Some Categories are Voluntary and a Few Categories are Mandatory, with
Enforcement by a Fixed Timeline
This option would be similar to Option 4, but retrofitting is required according to a fixed timeline.
Timelines and enforcement emphasis could vary depending on tiers or priority groupings to motivate
prompt action for the most vulnerable or socially important structures. In some cases, longer time
frames are adopted for some building types such as older concrete, to ease the burden on owners and
allow for technical advancement in retrofit techniques.
Option 6: Similar to Option 5, but More Categories are Mandatory
This alternative is similar to Option 5, but retrofitting would be required for additional categories. Palo
Alto can also make its programs more stringent over time. Explicit phasing has been successful in
jurisdictions like Berkeley and San Francisco for generating political consensus and enhancing
administrative feasibility.
This array of options can be also be shown in diagram format (Figure 9), which shows how a number of
jurisdictions in this report have positioned themselves in terms of the relative strength of their
requirements and the number and scope of the building types addressed.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 72
Figure 9: Diagram showing alternative policy directions for Palo Alto in the context of other jurisdictional
earthquake mitigation programs.
When considering options, Palo Also leaders and community members should keep in mind the
following additional findings from this review:
Mandating retrofit is the surest way to achieve risk reduction.
Jurisdictions are increasingly using disclosure measures to motivate retrofits in both voluntary
and mandatory programs, and such approaches have been shown to be powerful and relatively
low cost to implement.
Many mandatory programs use intermediate mandatory screening and/or evaluation phases to
better gauge the risk and filter out properties that need not comply before implementing
retrofit requirements.
Fixed timelines allow a jurisdiction to prioritize and control the pace of risk reduction, provide a
predictable planning horizon for owners.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 73
Incentive Options and Considerations
By offering a strategic set of incentives and devoting a steady, adequate program budget, Palo Alto can
create a program that eases the financial and logistical burdens on owners and provides adequate
technical assistance to support retrofit project completion. Small incentives are meaningful and helpful
to owners, while larger incentives may be critical for a subset of owners that face particularly complex
or costly projects.
Palo Alto has several traits that could make policy incentives (non-monetary assistance) particularly
effective. One is a relatively manageable number of affected buildings for some building types. This
means city staff might be able to provide high quality assistance to owners in complying and taking
advantage of any special programs. Palo Alto is a highly desirable locale with a highly educated, real
estate savvy population, and robust real estate market. Palo Alto has experience using policy incentives
in the past, so staff and many owners are familiar with them.
Despite limited data on their use or effectiveness, incentives can be politically important and provide a
variety of benefits. Below are some specific ways incentives could play a role in Palo Alto’s future
program and some steps that Palo Alto can take to create a package of incentives effectively tailored to
its own goals and circumstances.
It is good to offer small incentives to all owners because it fosters positive interest in the
program and builds community good will. Modest incentives, on the order of a few
hundred dollars, help acknowledge the public value that is being created by the efforts
undertaken by owners. For example, offering fee waivers is a gesture that owners will
appreciate, if not expect. Expedited permitting is likely to be viewed similarly, because time
equates with money. Policy incentives tend to be in the direct control of the City to
implement, and are often cost-effective and very helpful for owners in smoothing the path
and easing the hassle of doing retrofit work.
Incentives are especially important to the outcomes of voluntary programs. Incentives
play slightly different roles in mandatory compared to voluntary programs. In the case of
mandated upgrades, incentives essentially ease the burden of doing what has to be done or
to make it happen more quickly. In the case of, voluntary programs, the goal of incentives is
to motivate retrofit work to occur that might not have otherwise. In this way, incentive
offerings are more critical to the degree of risk reduction achieved in the case of voluntary
programs, and to political viability, perceptions of program fairness, and speed of risk
reduction achieved in the case of mandatory programs. Bottom line, in the case of URMs, a
small number of voluntary programs with substantial incentives have achieved similar
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 74
success compared to mandatory programs. With soft-story wood frame buildings, voluntary
programs in the absence of incentives alone have not been enough to motivate retrofit
work to be done. An exception is for owners in financial hardship, where incentives are
most meaningful in mandatory programs.
Design the incentive strategy to match the circumstances of the locally targeted building
stock. FAR bonuses are likely irrelevant for soft-story wood frame buildings which are
seldom renovated to include more units or changes of use, but relaxing of parking
requirements or special provisions for condominiums may help. Mixed-used and historic
buildings may require deeper financial assistance when they face high costs associated with
retrofitting due to complex design issues, ADA compliance, and imposed restrictions on
changes in use.
Take time to assess actual need for incentives and the types that will make the most
difference to affected Palo Alto owners. Larger policy incentives like FAR bonuses can be
very effective, especially in higher income, higher growth communities like Palo Alto. In
contrast, larger financial incentives can be difficult to orchestrate and have not always been
as necessary or useful as hoped. Surprisingly, jurisdictions have sometimes found they have
to “sell” incentives programs to owners. Certain strategies tend to be very challenging and
costly to get the incentive to work compared to the amount of good they seem to do. Such
may be the case with PACE financing,32 as seen through the experiences of San Francisco
and Berkeley for soft-story wood frame buildings. When private market capital is
affordable, loan programs may not be needed or utilized. Use of larger, more complex
incentive instruments in general increases the amount of hand holding that is needed and
the amount of time until retrofits are completed.
Consider offering larger incentives to only those owners or properties that qualify or meet
certain social importance or hardship criteria. Interviews in Berkeley (Rabinovici 2012)
showed that soft-story wood frame building owners were open to the possibility of need-
based financial help. They did not want financing programs to reward ignorance or risky
business practices, but as long as the criteria are clear and the process is fair and
transparent, many expressed support for programs that would help fellow owners that are
truly burdened or in need. There was also support for using social or resilience importance
as part of the criteria for special financing eligibility.
32 Information about San Francisco’s PACE program can be found at: http://www.sfgov.org/esip/seismic-retrofit-financing
Accessed April 11, 2016. Information about Berkeley’s PACE programs can be found at: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/PACE/
(Accessed May 2, 2016.)
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 75
Integrate incentives as seamlessly as possible into the overall compliance process.
Incentives work best when they are delivered in a timely way, right when people are already
making important property or financial decisions. One notable example is the City of
Berkeley’s transfer tax rebate for single family home seismic improvements, which is
available retroactively two years before through two years after time of sale. Another is
Palo Alto’s floor area ratio (FAR) bonus for retrofit of designated vulnerable structures,
which allowed owners the chance to plan in additional space at the same time a retrofit is
being designed.
Beyond money, it will be important to offer technical assistance, and this can be very
helpful and even critical for some owners and engineers. Retrofitting is not a simple
process, and ironically it can become even harder for an owner if it happens as part of a
jurisdictional program that requires or is intended to encourage it. Obtaining financing,
especially through special programs, may also require intense staff effort.
Beware of the timing and costs of seeking public support for new bond financing. In
Berkeley, attempts were made to make a pool of funds available to owners through a
transfer tax increase measure on the November 2002 ballot, but it failed to get the required
two thirds vote. Participants in retrospect considered the campaign poorly run, but the
state of the local economy probably played more of a role than any decrease in support for
mandatory retrofit in concept.
Consider creation of formal cost-sharing arrangements between tenants and owners. Part
of the financial equation surrounding any upgrade work is the owner’s ability to capitalize
on the value added to the structure. In the case of rent control, the rate for pass through of
capital improvements is a matter of law. Jurisdictions like Oakland, Berkeley, and San
Francisco have negotiated cost-sharing arrangements ranging from 50 to 100% that allow
owners to increase rents up to a certain percent of the retrofit cost, over a specified time
period (usually 10 years). Even though Palo Alto does not have a rent control ordinance, it
could establish a permitted amortization schedule into any new retrofit law, which could
lessen the impact for tenants of any resulting rent increases.
Disclosure Measure Options
With relatively modest expense for a jurisdiction, disclosure measures can inform the populace and
leverage social and market awareness to amplify program effectiveness. In effect, signage, tenant
notification, internet lists, and other disclosure tactics make more transparent both useful risk
information and the policies a city is using to address risk.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 76
Public perception of disclosure policies has been on balance positive but not without critique. On the
one hand, revealing property addresses that are subject to an ordinance can be thought of as making
more accessible information that is already public. It spares all parties of going through the time and
hassle of formal information requests. It is also consistent with a philosophy of the public’s right to
know, and may be legally protective for both owners and jurisdictions against accusations that
important risk information is being held back. On the other hand, the media has at times portrayed
signage as a shaming device, though this may depend on a sign or placard’s particular graphic design
and wording. Soft-story wood frame owners in Berkeley described the overall suite of disclosure
measures imposed there as a “scarlet letter.”
San Francisco included disclosure practices as part of its first “nudging” phase in their program plan. In
essence, before and in complement to implementing mandates, San Francisco’s plan called for trying
to increase understanding in the real estate market empower tenants, buyers, and even owners (who
could now more credibly and prominently claim credit for early compliance, retrofitting ahead of
schedule, or voluntarily taking extra steps).
Evidence about the effectiveness of disclosure, either together with other policy requirements or
separately, is quite limited. In at least one case, voluntary retrofit programs combined with disclosure
measures have achieved significant risk reduction. Berkeley’s mandatory soft-story evaluation program
had several prominent disclosure features and resulted in a 25% voluntary retrofit rate in the first four
years (Rabinovici, 2012).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 77
4. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
ABAG. (1996). Seismic Retrofit Incentive Programs: A Handbook for Local Governments.
ABAG. (1999). Preventing the Nightmare. Oakland, CA.
ABAG. (2014). Soft-Story Housing Improvement Plan for the Cit of Oakland. Oakland. Retrieved from
http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/OaklandSoftStoryReport_102914.pdf
ATC. (2010). Here Today—Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco. Community
Action Plan for Seismic Safety, Redwood City. Retrieved from
http://sfgov.org/esip/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/9757-atc522.pdf
ATC. (2012). ATC 78-1: Evaluation of the Methodology to Select and Prioritize Collapse Indicators in Older
Concrete Buildings. Redwood City, CA.
Bonowitz, D. (2012). Soft-Story Risk Reduction: Lessons from the Berkeley Data. EERI, Oakland, CA.
Bonowitz, D., & Rabinovici, S. (2012). Soft-Story Risk Reduction: Lessons from the Berkeley Data. EERI, Oakland,
CA.
Chakos, A. P. (2002). Making It Work in Berkeley: Investing in Community Sustainability. Natural Hazards Review,
3(2), 55-67.
City of Los Angeles. (2015). Resilience by Design. Los Angeles.
Comerio, M. (1992). Impacts of the Los Angeles Retrofit Ordinance on Residential Buildings. Earthquake Spectra,
8(1), 9-94.
Concrete Coalition. (2011). The Concrete Coalition and the California Inventory Project: An Estimate of the
Number of Pre-1980 Concrete Buildings in the State.
CSSC. (2005). Homeowner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety . Sacramento, CA.
CSSC. (2006). Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law. California Seismic Safety Commission,
Sacramento.
FEMA. (2009). Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes: Developing Successful Risk Reduction
Programs.
Herman, F., Russell, J., Scott, S., & Sharpe, R. (1990). Earthquake Hazard Identification and Voluntary Mitigation:
Palo Alto's City Ordinance. California Seismic Safety Commission 90-05, Sacramento, CA.
NIST. (2015). Community Resilience Planning Guide Volume 1. National Institute of Building Sciences. Retrieved
from http://www.nist.gov/el/resilience/upload/NIST-SP-1190v1.pdf
Olson, R. S. (1999). Some Buildings Just Can't Dance: Politics, Life Safety, and Disaster. Stamford, CN : Jai Press
Inc.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 78
Rabinovici, S. (2012). Motivating Private Behavior with Public Programs: Insights from a Local Earthquake
Mitigation Ordinance. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley.
Samant, L., & Tobin, T. (2008). Memo to the Advisory Committee on Incentives to Encourage Seismic Retrofits:
Options for San Francisco”. San Francisco, CA. 5 Sept. 2008. San Francisco, CA: Community Action Plan
for Seismic Safety.
SF ESIP. (2011). Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety, San Francisco Earthquake Implementation Plan (ESIP)
Workplan 2012-2042. San Francisco, CA.
SPUR. (2008). The Resilient City: Defining What San Francisco Needs from Its Urban Resilience Strategy. San
Francisco, CA.
SPUR. (2011). Safe Enough to Stay: What will it take for San Franciscans to live safely in their homes after an
earthquake? San Francisco, CA.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 79
CHAPTER IV.
BUILDING INVENTORY FOR LOSS ESTIMATE
One of the first steps in the study was to develop a digital inventory of buildings in Palo Alto that
includes all the information necessary to build the exposure model for the loss estimate. Information
sources used to develop the inventory included county tax assessor files, City GIS files, a survey done
by the Palo Alto Fire Department and San Jose State University of soft-story wood frame buildings, field
notes from the building department files of selected buildings when the 1986 ordinance was being
developed, Google Earth and Street View visual reviews, and an extensive sidewalk survey.
The Santa Clara County tax assessor’s files, which included 21,187 parcels of real estate in the City of
Palo Alto, were used as a starting point to develop the building inventory. The 15,198 parcels
designated as single family or two-family residences were first removed, as these were excluded from
the study, leaving 5,989 parcels of interest. A parcel is not always equivalent to a building. On one
hand, there are some sites where there is one owner and one tax parcel, but there are multiple
buildings. Sometimes, it is easy to distinguish the separate buildings from an application like Google
Earth or Street View as there is sufficient separation between the structures; in other cases, a field
survey is needed when the seismic separation is small (or not present). On the other hand,
condominiums can be a single structure, but have multiple owners and thus multiple separate
taxpayers and parcel numbers. For the 3,630 residential parcels with three or more units, we found
1,324 distinct buildings. Of the remaining 5,989 – 3,630 = 2,359 tax parcels, we found that 961 tax
parcels were identified as “possessory interest.” They are used at the city-owned Palo Alto airport for
administration of property taxes for concessionaires and for other purposes at other locations in the
city, and they do not represent buildings. When they were removed, there were 1,398 non-residential
buildings. They were combined with the 1,324 residential buildings for a total of 2,722 buildings.
The assessor’s data typically included parcel number (APN), year built, occupancy type, square footage,
and number of stories. These data were supplemented with ArcGIS shape files of building and parcel
outline from City GIS files, providing the geospatial location of each parcel (by latitude/longitude).
In addition to this information, the exposure model requires basic data on structural system needed to
classify each building into a Hazus Model Building Type. For some buildings, this information was
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 80
available from earlier inventory efforts, including a select set of inventory forms used in developing the
current seismic mitigation program, and a survey by SJSU and the City’s Fire Department of soft-story
wood frame buildings. However, for many buildings no structural system could be assigned based on
available records.
The field survey was used to assign the seismic force-resisting system (using the basic FEMA Model
Building Type classification system), and to confirm and supplement information acquired from the
digital files for number of stories, occupancy (using the Hazus occupancy categories), building area, and
year built. In addition, buildings were surveyed for vertical and plan irregularities.
After the sidewalk surveys and additional quality assurance refinements, we identified a total of 2,632
buildings in the study group for Palo Alto. This included 66 buildings subject to Palo Alto’s current
seismic mitigation ordinance, because 23 of the original 89 buildings subject to the ordinance have
been demolished.
Not all buildings were field surveyed and not all key attributes needed for loss estimation were
available for all buildings. For buildings that were not surveyed and were missing information, the
missing attributes were developed using statistical comparisons with buildings that were surveyed on a
sector by sector basis. A multi-step procedure was developed to fill in other missing attributes based
on the best available comparative information. For example, buildings with missing occupancy and
number of stories were assigned occupancies and number of stories with the same distribution of
occupancies for surveyed buildings in that sector. For buildings with missing square footage data, the
median values in the sector for residential and non-residential buildings were used. In assigning
missing seismic force-resisting system information and year built, some rules were applied based on
typical building practices. As a result, while the information for buildings that were not surveyed may
not be fully accurate at the individual building level, the overall data set is seen as sufficiently
representative for the type of loss estimates used in the project and relative comparisons made
between different building types that are discussed ahead.
In addition to the information discussed above, a replacement cost had to be established for each
building. Standard 2014 RS Means Replacement Cost values included in the loss estimation software
(Hazus) used were reviewed as a starting point, but not considered representative for Palo Alto. R+C
and Vanir Construction Management prepared adjustments to RS Means values to capture 2016 data
and local factors. These were reviewed by a task group of the City’s project Advisory Group that
included local design professionals and developers familiar with the local cost climate. The group
recommended an increase of the values in general, and identified target values for selected common
occupancies. Based on these recommendations, R+C updated the values and Vanir reviewed them and
revised the non-targeted occupancies for estimating consistency. The resulting replacement costs are
shown in Table 5, and were used in the loss calculations. It is noted that resulting costs are 1.7-2.6
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 81
times the RS Means-based Hazus default values (2014 cost data), and that costs are intended to be
representative of averages across the town.
Table 5: Average $/SF replacement building cost by Hazus occupancy class.
Occupancy Class RS
Means
2014
Average
Palo
Alto
Cost1
[$/SF]
Market
Factor
for
Palo
Alto
Escalation
Factor
from 2014
costs to
2016 costs
Demo &
Minimal
Sitework
(5’
around
building)
[$/SF]
Soft Cost
Premium2
Average
2016
Palo
Alto
Cost w/
Soft
Costs
[$/SF]
Multiplier
(Replaced
with Soft
Costs / RS
Means)
Multi Family, duplex $130.75 40% 10% $17.50 20% $263 2.01
Multi Family,
triplex/quad
$114.94 40% 10% $17.50 20% $233 2.03
Multi Family, 5-9 units $206.41 40% 10% $17.50 20% $402 1.95
Multi Family, 10-19
units
$194.12 40% 10% $17.50 20% $380 1.96
Multi Family, 20-49
units
$212.26 40% 10% $17.50 20% $413 1.95
Multi Family, 50+ units $199.90 40% 10% $17.50 20% $390 1.95
Temporary Lodging $217.83 40% 10% $17.50 20% $424 1.94
Institutional Dormitory $234.44 50% 14% $25.00 20% $511 2.18
Nursing Homes $238.07 50% 12% $25.00 20% $510 2.14
Retail Trade $121.66 80% 10% $17.50 20% $310 2.55
Wholesale Trade $118.13 60% 10% $17.50 20% $$270 2.29
Personal & Repair
Services
$143.47 60% 10% $17.50 20% $324 2.26
Professional/Technical/
Business Services
$194.52 65% 12% $17.50 20% $452 2.33
Banks $281.88 40% 12% $25.00 20% $560 1.99
Hospitals $372.59 50% 14% $35.00 20% $807 2.16
Medical Office/Clinics $267.85 20% 10% $17.50 20% $445 1.66
Entertainment/Recreation $248.61 25% 12% $25.00 20% $448 1.80
Theaters $186.45 35% 12% $25.00 20% $368 1.98
Parking $84.59 20% 10% $17.50 20% $155 1.83
Heavy $144.71 25% 10% $17.50 20% $260 1.80
Light $118.13 25% 10% $17.50 20% $216 1.83
Food/Drugs/Chemicals $229.48 30% 12% $17.50 20% $422 1.84
Metal/Minerals
Processing
$229.48 30% 12% $17.50 20% $422 1.84
High Technology $229.48 40% 14% $17.50 20% $461 2.01
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 82
Table 5: Average $/SF replacement building cost by Hazus occupancy class.
Occupancy Class RS
Means
2014
Average
Palo
Alto
Cost1
[$/SF]
Market
Factor
for
Palo
Alto
Escalation
Factor
from 2014
costs to
2016 costs
Demo &
Minimal
Sitework
(5’
around
building)
[$/SF]
Soft Cost
Premium2
Average
2016
Palo
Alto
Cost w/
Soft
Costs
[$/SF]
Multiplier
(Replaced
with Soft
Costs / RS
Means)
Construction $118.13 30% 10% $17.50 20% $224 1.89
Church $118.13 50% 12% $25.00 20% $268 2.27
Agriculture $199.08 10% 12% $17.50 20% $315 1.58
General Services $152.63 40% 10% $17.50 35% $341 2.23
Emergency Response $259.52 40% 14% $25.00 35% $593 2.28
Schools/Libraries $193.00 40% 12% $25.00 35% $442 2.29
Colleges/Universities $214.91 60% 12% $25.00 35% $554 2.58
Notes:
1. RS Means average cost includes RS Means default location factors to adjust national average to Palo Alto of 15%
for residential and 11% for commercial.
2. Soft costs include architect and engineer design fees, testing and inspection, utility connection fee, permits, and an
allowance for owner change order contingency.
3. Costs are intended to be representative of average in Palo Alto across the town, including downtown areas together
with other areas in the city.
4. Costs were previously prepared following a 3/7/2016 discussion with the Palo Alto Seismic Risk Program Advisory
Group Technical Advisory Committee. Table includes minor updates based on internal review between Rutherford
+ Chekene and Vanir Construction Management to achieve improved relative ratios between different occupancy
types.
Table 6 shows how the number and aggregate value of Palo Alto’s buildings is distributed by structural
system, using the FEMA Model Building Type classification system for structural system. The table is
sorted by aggregate building value. Wood frame buildings make up about 60% of the number of
buildings, and represent 35% of the total value. About 20% of the buildings are concrete, and they
represent over 40% of the total value. Of the remaining 20%, about two-thirds are masonry buildings,
and one-third steel. However, the steel buildings represent about twice the value of the masonry
buildings.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 83
Table 6: Distribution of number of buildings, building area, and building value by Model Building
Type.
Model Building Type Number of
Buildings
Aggregate Square
Feet (1,000)
Aggregate Building
Value ($M)
Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 9,699 4,082
Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 8,054 3,368
Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 331 8,403 3,232
Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 307 6,209 2,369
Steel braced frame (S2) 50 3,116 1,391
Wood frame smaller residential (W1) 898 3,821 1,278
Steel moment frame (S1) 75 3,005 1,242
Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 285 2,806 1,209
Reinforced masonry, concrete floor (RM2) 30 574 211
Steel light metal frame (S3) 41 533 177
Precast concrete frame (PC2) 5 334 125
Concrete moment frame (C1) 18 325 117
Steel frame with concrete shear walls (S4) 13 162 72
Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM) 9 274 15
Concrete with masonry infill (C3) 8 26 8
Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 2 6 3
Totals 2,632 47,346 18,899
The study group can be further divided into age groups separated by significant milestones in building
code implementation. The following age groups were selected: pre-1927, 1927-1961, 1962-1976, 1977-
1997, and 1998 until now. The milestones reflected include the first earthquake code in Palo Alto in
1926, adoption of the 1961 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and associated higher forces, code changes in
the 1976 UBC following the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, and code changes in the 1998 UBC
following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Figure 10 shows a histogram of the year built of the
buildings in the study group.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 84
Figure 10: Distribution of year built of buildings in study group with significant changes in the building
design practice.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 85
CHAPTER V.
VULNERABLE BUILDING CATEGORIES
One of the important tasks in the risk assessment study was to identify potentially vulnerable building
categories specific to Palo Alto using the building inventory that was developed early in the risk
assessment study. Potentially vulnerable structural system types were identified based on experience
in past earthquake events, knowledge of milestones when improvements in seismic code requirements
were made in Palo Alto, rankings in prominent seismic risk assessment tools such as the 2015 edition
of FEMA P-154 Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, results from past
seismic risk assessment studies in California communities, and engineering judgment. The building
categories were then evaluated in analytical loss estimate studies described ahead which helped to
confirm the selected categories as appropriate for Palo Alto. Key building vulnerability metrics include
the risk of deaths and injuries, the cost of damage, and the extent of downtime or loss of use. Buildings
in the identified vulnerable building categories tend to perform poorly with respect to all three of
these metrics though the relative degree of vulnerability to each factor varies.
Community resilience is improved if residents have homes that remain usable after an earthquake
event, and if businesses can still operate. From a program perspective, the consultant team and
Advisory Group believe the greatest reduction in losses and the largest benefit to community resilience
will come from seismically retrofitting building types know to be both potentially hazardous and
present in significant numbers in Palo Alto.
In addition to the three categories already in Palo Alto’s seismic hazard identification ordinance
(Categories I, II, and III below), five additional categories of vulnerable building types were identified.
All five categories meet the criteria of being potentially hazardous and having a significant presence in
Palo Alto. The eight categories and the approximate number of buildings included in each category are
as follows:
Category I: Constructed of unreinforced masonry, except for those small than 1,900 square feet
with six or few occupants (10 remaining buildings in Palo Alto);
Category II: Constructed prior to January 1, 1935 containing 100 or more occupants (4
remaining buildings);
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 86
Category III: Constructed prior to August 1, 1976 containing 300 or more occupants (9
remaining buildings);
Category IV: Pre-1977 soft-story wood frame (294 buildings);
Category V: Pre-1998 tilt-up concrete (99 buildings);
Category VI: Pre-1977 concrete soft-story (37 buildings);
Category VII: Pre-1998 steel moment frame (35 buildings);
Category VIII: Other pre-1977 concrete construction (170 buildings).
The loss estimate discussed ahead in Chapter VIII confirmed that the potential reduction in losses from
retrofitting is significant for these categories.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 87
CHAPTER VI.
CONCEPTUAL SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF REPRESENTATIVE
VULNERABLE BUILDINGS
Retrofit was considered for all buildings that have not already been retrofitted and were either
constructed before 1961 or between 1962 and the “benchmark” year with a soft story. A “benchmark”
year is when the code requirements for that building type became similar to those currently in place.
Buildings built after a benchmark year are assumed not to have significant seismic deficiencies and are
typically not seismically retrofitted. Consistent with typical practice, the performance of the retrofitted
buildings in an earthquake is assumed to be less than that of newly constructed buildings.
For estimating the cost of retrofit for the improved buildings, Rutherford + Chekene developed
conceptual designs for Model Building Types that represent a significant number and value of Palo
Alto’s building stock, as well as a significant loss and loss reduction after retrofit. This process identified
wood frame (W1, W1A, W2), steel moment frame (S1), concrete shear wall (C2), concrete tilt-up (PC1),
and reinforced masonry (RM1) and unreinforced masonry (URM) as appropriate candidates. For each
Model Building Type, the age, square footage and number of stories were reviewed to identify a
“prototype” building. In cases where the prototype building was not representative of more than two-
thirds of the total number of buildings, it was judged that multiple prototypes should be considered.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 88
Figure 11: Retrofit scheme for Large Multi-family Soft-Story Wood Frame Building.
For example, for the W1A Model Building Type there were a significant number of two-story and three-
story buildings with a significant difference in average square footage. Therefore, a two-story and a
three-story prototype building were developed to represent this Model Building Type. Eventually this
led to the 12 prototype buildings shown in Table 7.
Based on a review of buildings of size similar to the prototypes, representative floor plans were
developed. A conceptual retrofit was then shown on the floor plans. An example of a conceptual
retrofit for the W1A prototype building is shown in Figure 11 from a 2000 brochure by Rutherford +
Chekene for the City of San Jose entitled “Practical Solutions for Improving the Seismic Performance of
Buildings with Tuckunder Parking.” The retrofit elements were keyed to representative details in 2006
FEMA 547 Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, and a written description of
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 89
collateral impacts was developed as well to provide sufficient detail to allow a rough order of
magnitude cost estimate to be prepared. The conceptual retrofit designs, description of collateral
impacts, and referenced details are included in Appendix E.
The cost estimators of Vanir Construction Management used the conceptual designs to estimate a
range of probable cost to implement the retrofits. The retrofit costs for each prototype building are
shown in Table 7. These costs include hard costs, which are the costs the owner pays the contractor,
plus a design contingency as these are conceptual retrofits. The estimate further includes soft costs,
representing architect and engineer design fees, testing and inspection costs, permit fees, and an
owner change order contingency.
Considered costs do not include hazardous material abatement, costs associated with performing the
work while occupants are using the building, triggered accessibility upgrades, cost premiums
associated with retrofit of a historic building, tenant relocation or business interruption during
construction, project management, renovation, financing, repair of existing conditions, and legal fees.
These costs are more variable and project and site specific, and are typically not included in loss
estimates for this type of study. A detailed breakdown of estimated cost is included in Appendix F
The retrofit costs were extrapolated to Model Building Types not represented by a prototype retrofit
as shown in the fifth column of Table 7.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 90
Table 7: Conceptual retrofit cost.
Retrofit
Prototype
Model Building Type Stories Square
Feet
Used for
Model
Building
Types
Used
for
Square
Feet
Average
Retrofit
Cost
($/SF)
1 Wood frame smaller
residential (W1)
2 5,320 W1 All 12
2 Wood frame larger
residential (W1A)
2 9,500 W1A < 15,000 11
3 Wood frame larger
residential (W1A)
3 30,000 W1A ≥ 15,000 6
4 Wood frame
commercial/industrial (W2)
2 10,000 W2 All 14
5 Steel moment frame (S1) 2 43,900 S1, S2, S3 All 10
6 Concrete shear wall (C2) 1 5,000 C1, C2, S4,
PC2
< 10,000 50
7 Concrete shear wall (C2) 2 17,280 C1, C2, S4,
PC2
≥ 10,000 40
8 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 1 18,435 PC1 < 25,000 29
9 Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 2 38,400 PC1 ≥ 25,000 21
10 Reinforced masonry, wood
floor (RM1)
1 2,750 RM1, RM2 < 5,000 74
11 Reinforced masonry, wood
floor (RM1)
2 8,150 RM1, RM2 ≥ 5,000 46
12 Unreinforced masonry
bearing wall (URM)
1 5,000 URM, S5,
C3
All 110
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 91
CHAPTER VII.
LOSS ESTIMATING FINDINGS FOR EXISTING BUILDING STOCK
Hazus is a geographic information system (GIS) based, standardized, nationally applicable multi-hazard
loss estimation methodology and software tool. It is used by local, state, and federal government
officials for preparedness, emergency response, and mitigation planning. FEMA has recently released
the latest version of Hazus (Hazus 3.1) which includes building inventory data reflecting 2010 census
data for residential structures and costs to 2014. Rather than using the embedded inventory data for
Palo Alto, which are estimated from census data, a detailed earthquake risk assessment of the
individual buildings in the study group was conducted using the Hazus Advanced Engineering Building
Module (AEBM).
Direct loss is calculated through a complex process in Hazus. In essence, the engine consists of a large
database of “fragility functions”. These fragility functions describe the probability of exceeding
threshold damage levels as a function of a seismic demand parameter. For example, spectral
displacement is linked to slight, moderate, extensive and complete damage states to describe the
performance of a structural system. The estimated level of damage for the level of ground shaking
under consideration is then used to assign the costs to repair or replace the damage to the building’s
structural and nonstructural systems and contents (the loss). Each Hazus fragility function represents a
combination of Model Building Type, number of stories, and seismic design level.
Analyses were conducted for two specific earthquake scenarios developed by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), a major M7.9 San Andreas Fault event, and a strong M6.7 San Andreas Fault
event.
The USGS has developed a suite of ShakeMap earthquake scenarios for different faults around
California. In the San Francisco Bay Area, they include events of different magnitude on a number of
faults, such as various segments of the San Andreas Fault and the Hayward Fault. The largest scenario
is a M7.9 event on the San Andreas Fault which represents a repeat of the 1906 earthquake. In this
scenario, all four segments (Santa Cruz Mountains, Peninsula, North Coast, and Offshore) of the San
Andreas Fault are assumed to rupture. There is a M7.2 event on the Peninsula segment with an
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 92
epicenter somewhat south of Palo Alto. In addition to the scenarios, a ShakeMap of the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake which had an epicenter southwest of Palo Alto is also available.
In reviewing the available scenarios, the repeat of the 1906 earthquake provided a desirable, easy to
communicate upper bound scenario. Since the 1989 Loma Prieta event did relatively little damage to
buildings in Palo Alto (though there was substantial damage to some of the older buildings at nearby
Stanford University), it was judged to be too small to provide meaningful information for policy choices
in Palo Alto. Most of the Hayward Fault scenarios also produce small to moderate shaking in Palo Alto.
Review of the M7.2 San Andreas scenario found that it produced relatively similar peak ground
acceleration and short period spectral accelerations to those of the M7.9 scenario. Tom Holzer, an
engineering geologist with the USGS, is a member of the project Advisory Group. With his help and the
ShakeMap team at USGS, two other scenarios were developed between the M7.2 scenario and the
Loma Prieta earthquake. These are a M6.9 scenario and a M6.7 scenario on the Peninsula segment of
the San Andreas with an epicenter directly adjacent to downtown Palo Alto.
In the end, the M6.7 scenario was selected in addition to the M7.9 scenario. The M6.7 scenario
provided values somewhat smaller than the M7.9 scenario event, values large enough to be
meaningful, and is a magnitude size commonly used in USGS communications. It also has a
substantially lower equivalent return period from the M7.9 scenario.
Contour plots for the short period spectral acceleration for the two M6.7 and M7.9 scenarios are
shown in Figure 12.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 93
Figure 12: Predicted short period spectral acceleration in vicinity of Palo Alto (city boundary shown) for
two selected San Andreas Fault scenarios.
Table 8 summarizes the total loss calculated by Hazus for the as-is condition for the two earthquake
scenarios. The results show that the estimated losses to Palo Alto buildings and contents in a M6.7
scenario will be significant, on the order of $1.2 billion. Though ground shaking in the M7.9 scenario is
only about 25% larger than it is in the M6.7 scenario, overall building and content losses double to $2.4
billion. Average building damage and content damage also approximately double with a M7.9 event.
The difference in the number of buildings that are heavily damaged with the larger earthquake is more
pronounced with a 12-fold increase from the M6.7 to the M7.9 scenarios. This is shown in the fourth
column of Table 8 as the number of buildings with a damage ratio exceeding 20%.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 94
Table 8: Total losses for study group in as-is condition.
Earthquake
Scenario
Building
Value1
($B)
Content
Value2
($B)
Number
of Bldgs
with
Damage
Ratio ≥
20%3
Estimated
Building
Damage4
($B)
Estimated
Content
Damage4
($B)
Total
Building
and
Content
Damage
($B)
M7.9 18.9 17.3 224 1.7 0.7 2.4
M6.7 18.9 17.3 19 0.8 0.4 1.2
Ratio of M7.9/M6.7 2 2 2
Notes:
1. Building value is the complete replacement cost for the building, and includes the
structure, architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components (e.g.,
ceilings and lighting).
2. Content value includes the complete replacement cost of furniture and equipment
that is not integral with the structure (e.g., computers and other supplies). They
are estimated as a percent of structure replacement value, dependent on
occupancy.
3. Damage ratio is defined as the cost of repairing damage divided by the
replacement cost of the building.
4. Estimated building and content damage cost is the cost associated with repair and
replacement of the building and its content.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 95
To put the loss from building damage in context, the average annual valuation of Palo Alto construction
permits was $400M between 2013 and 2016 (which represents a boom period). The total loss in a
major M7.9 earthquake represents more than four years’ worth of construction, and the total loss in a
strong M6.7 earthquake represents more than two years worth of construction.
It should be noted that these losses do not include the effects of lives lost and business disruption, or
the ripple effects in the local economy or real estate market, and that much of this loss will not be
insured.
Table 9 breaks out the estimated loss and damage ratio for various model building types, and it can be
seen that it depends on the metric used which building type is considered the poorest performer.
Looking at the total loss alone, concrete bearing wall buildings and commercial wood frame buildings
are responsible for the highest total loss. This tracks well with the earlier finding that these structural
systems are the most prevalent ones. If we look at the highest average building damage ratio instead,
buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls and unreinforced masonry infills are the most prone
to damage. However, not very many of them exist in Palo Alto, and as a result they do not represent
much of the aggregate loss. It is therefore important to look at multiple metrics when deciding which
buildings are the most vulnerable and significant to the community as a whole.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 96
Table 9: Top three vulnerable building types ranked by total loss, average damage ratio, and number
of severely damaged buildings.
Building Type Number
of
Buildings
Building
Value
($M)
M7.9 EQ
Total
Building
+ Content
Losses
($M)
M7.9
EQ
Average
Building
Damage
Ratio
M7.9
EQ
Number
of Bldgs
with
Damage
Ratio ≥
20%
Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 4,082 477 14% 75
Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 3,368 365 12% 32
Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 307 2,369 216 9% 9
Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 2 3 1 38% 1
Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM) 9 15 4 29% 9
Concrete frame with masonry infill (C3) 8 8 2 29% 6
Concrete shear wall (C2) 318 4,082 477 14% 75
Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 242 3,368 365 12% 32
Steel moment frame (S1) 75 1,242 130 18% 27
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 97
CHAPTER VIII.
LOSS ESTIMATING FINDINGS WITH BUILDINGS RETROFITTED
A second Hazus AEBM run was done assuming a retrofitted building stock. For this run, it was assumed
that a building would be retrofitted if it has not already been retrofitted and is either constructed
before 1961 or between 1962 and the benchmark year with a soft story. The Hazus model was rerun
with the updated fragilities simulating retrofit.
Table 10 shows the resulting total losses and damage ratios. Though total losses are still significant,
comparing the results of Table 10 with Table 8 shows a reduction in total loss of 45% for the M7.9
scenario, and 33% for the M6.7 scenario. In other words, aggregate loss to the community if all
considered properties were retrofit could be reduced by one third in a very plausible event and almost
halved in a much larger event.
Another important improvement is the reduction of the number of buildings with more than 20%
damage. The M7.9 scenario shows a reduction from 224 buildings to 6 buildings, meaning that the
probability of building collapse and resulting injuries and fatalities has become very low.
Finally, the damage and loss of the M7.9 scenario remain approximately two times the amount
sustained in the M6.7 scenario. This suggests that the retrofit has a similar impact for both levels of
ground shaking.
Table 10: Total losses after retrofitting.
Earthquake
Scenario
Building
Value
($B)
Content
Value
($B)
Estimated
Building
Damage
($B)
Number
of Bldgs
with
Damage
Ratio ≥
20%
Estimated
Content
Damage
($B)
Total
Building
&
Content
Damage
($B)
M7.9 18.9 17.3 0.9 6 0.5 1.3
M6.7 18.9 17.3 0.5 0 0.3 0.8
Ratio of M7.9/M6.7 2 - 2 2
Table 11 breaks out the reduction in total loss by model building type for the M7.9 scenario, and shows
the associated retrofit cost. The average reduction in loss varies by building type, with URM buildings
showing the highest reduction in loss after retrofit of 80%, and steel braced frames showing an 18%
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 98
reduction at the low end. On average, the retrofit costs are on the order of the damage reduction for
this scenario, though by building type the average damage reduction (loss avoided) divided by retrofit
cost ranges from 0.14 for steel light frame buildings to almost eight for reinforced masonry buildings.
Wood frame and concrete buildings are responsible for the largest reduction in total loss, with wood
frame construction representing over 20% of the loss reduction, and concrete buildings over 50%.
It should be noted that the data in Table 11 also includes buildings that were not retrofitted. As a
result, further parsing of the data is needed to better understand which buildings are responsible for
the most loss, and those that can be improved more cost-effectively.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 99
Table 11: Comparison of retrofit benefits and costs by Model Building Type.
Model Building Type M7.9 EQ
Average
Damage
($/SF)
M7.9 EQ
Total
Damage
Reduction
($1,000)
Average
Damage
Reduction
($/SF)
Retrofit
Cost
($/SF)
Wood frame smaller residential (W1) 16 13,775 4 12
Wood frame larger residential (W1A) 25 61,317 7 6-11
Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2) 50 160,155 26 14
Steel moment frame (S1) 62 76,150 25 10
Steel braced frame (S2) 44 24,222 8 10
Steel light metal frame (S3) 108 38,163 72 10
Steel frame with concrete shear walls (S4) 101 11,118 69 40-50
Steel frame with masonry infill (S5) 247 695 121 110
Concrete moment frame (C1) 55 8,045 25 40-50
Concrete shear wall (C2) 70 336,574 35 40-50
Concrete frame with masonry infill (C3) 120 865 34 110
Concrete tilt-up (PC1) 68 218,491 27 21-29
Precast concrete frame (PC2) 21 0 0 21-29
Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1) 59 87,697 31 46-74
Reinforced masonry, concrete floor (RM2) 35 3,727 6 46-74
Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (URM) 23 5,216 19 110
Totals 51 1,046,210 22
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 100
Table 12 shows those buildings types that may be considered good candidates for a retrofit program.
Although representing only about 15% of the total inventory, these buildings are responsible for over
30% of the total loss. This is reflected in the considerably higher than average loss (fourth column of
Table 12). The benefit of retrofit is also considerable for this group of buildings, as they are responsible
for over 50% of the reduction in loss. Additionally, the cost to retrofit them is only a fraction of the
losses avoided in a major event, ranging from a third for the concrete buildings to a tenth for the steel
frames. Note that these values are based on conceptual retrofits. Actual retrofit costs for individual
buildings would vary substantially, and the steel moment frame benefit-to-cost ratio is higher than
expected by engineering judgment. This is caused in part by a comparatively low retrofit cost for this
Model Building Type.
Table 12: Comparison of benefits and costs by selected Model Building Type, date and
characteristics.
Model Building Type Number
of
Buildings
Total
SF
(1,000)
M7.9 EQ
Average
Loss by
Building
($/SF)
M7.9 EQ
Average
Loss
Avoided
by
Retrofit
($/SF)
Average
Cost to
Retrofit
($/SF)
(Average
Loss
Avoided)
/
(Average
Retrofit
Cost)
Pre-1977 wood frame soft-story
(W1, W1A, W2)
294 3,690 66 46 12 4
Pre-1998 tilt-up
(PC1)
99 3,078 106 71 23 3
Pre-1977 concrete soft-story
(C1, C2, C3)
37 842 149 108 42 3
Pre-1998 steel moment frame
(S1)
35 690 152 110 10 11
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 101
CHAPTER IX.
REVIEW OF PAST SEISMIC RETROFITS
To gain a better understanding of the quality of the retrofits and identify relevant issues to updating
Palo Alto’s seismic risk mitigation program, a sample of the submitted engineering studies and building
retrofit drawings was reviewed.
Ten buildings were selected, so that their permit history could be reviewed and documents could be
retrieved from the archives of the Building Department. They were distributed over the three existing
hazardous buildings categories, and also included soft-story wood frame buildings. Records were
retrieved for four Category I buildings (to reflect the higher number of these), two Category II
buildings, two Category III buildings, and two soft-story wood frame buildings.
The City tracked permit numbers for the retrofit projects in their “hazardous buildings” database. Even
so, it proved difficult to retrieve associated documents. After careful review of the City’s records, some
archived documents showing structural modifications were retrieved. The type of documents available
varied from building to building. In about half of the cases, plans were available, and in the other half,
the documents consisted of calculations with sketches.
For one of the Category I buildings, plans showing a comprehensive retrofit were available. The 2001
California Building Code was referenced for seismic design. In a second case, the retrieved plans show
retrofit of a section of the building that appears to be intended to improve the original retrofit. It was
unclear if other sections of the building were improved in a similar fashion. In the third case, structural
calculations were provided. It is unclear what criteria were used, as the 1991 UCBC is used for certain
elements and the regular UBC seismic load calculations for global loading. The set of plans retrieved for
the last building is for a tenant improvement that appears to have been constructed a few years after
the original seismic retrofit. Interestingly, the structural engineer referenced the 1977 UBC as the
seismic design criteria. The building is identified on the plans as a concrete building, rather than a URM
building.
For the Category II buildings, in one case only the permit application worksheet was available; in the
other case there were detailed calculations and sketches (no construction documents). The permit
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 102
application for the first building indicates that shear walls were added as part of a voluntary seismic
upgrade. The sketches for the second building indicated that the retrofit was designed to mitigate the
deficiencies identified in the evaluation report. It references both elements and loads from the earlier
study.
For the Category III buildings, it appears that in both cases the projects were driven by modifications or
additions to the existing building. Since no plans were archived, and the calculations could not be easily
followed, it was not clear if the existing building was fully evaluated and if all deficiencies found in the
original evaluation report were addressed.
In 2003, the Collaborative for Disaster Mitigation at San Jose State University completed an “Inventory
of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings in Santa Clara County”. According to the report the City of
Palo Alto had 130 soft-first story multi-family buildings including 1,263 residential units housing 3,158.
The list of addresses from the San Jose State University report was updated with information from the
City of Palo Alto Fire Department, and resulted in a reduced list of 108 addresses. According to this list,
which was included in a recent Staff Report to Palo Alto’s Policy and Services Committee33, six buildings
were improved voluntarily. Two sets of plans were retrieved and reviewed; in one case the plans
improved two buildings with the same plan as a mirror image. One of the permits was issued in 2006
and one in 2009. It appears that in both cases the buildings were of a more recent vintage, as plans
show that existing plywood shear walls are present. On both sets of plans design criteria were
referenced, with one building referring to the 2001 California Building Code, and one Appendix Chapter
A4 of the 2006 International Existing Building Code.
Review of the submitted engineering studies and building retrofit drawings identified the following
relevant needs for future seismic risk mitigation programs:
Clear identification of retrofit design intent, scope, and limitations, also for voluntary retrofits;
Identification of existing structural systems;
Decision on requirements for buildings that have had partial seismic retrofits completed, and
may have remaining seismic deficiencies.
33 Policy and Services Committee Staff Report 5293, Discussion of Updating the Seismic Safety Chapter of the Municipal
Code for Hazardous Buildings, December 9, 2014, available online at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44945 (accessed 12/21/2016)
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 103
CHAPTER X.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FEATURES
In addition to expansion of the building categories included within the City’s seismic risk mitigation
program and refinement of disclosure measures and incentive options, a number of other program
features are recommended. They are described in the following:
Use the current inventory, taking note of its limitations: The inventory developed for the effort
to date involved use of digital information and field surveys. A complete field survey of all
buildings in Palo Alto was outside the scope of the project. However, the inventory that has
been developed is an excellent resource. The first step in any future ordinance will involve
notification of building owners that they may be subject to the requirements of the ordinance.
Those buildings that were field surveyed and fall within the scope of the ordinance can be
notified using the existing inventory. For the remaining buildings, additional field survey is
recommended. This would be a rapid visual assessment and could be conducted by City staff or
outside consultants.
Use an initial screening form phase: Typically, as part of the notification process, a screening
form of about one-page in length is sent, and the owner is required to have a design
professional, such as a structural engineer or architect, complete the form for a relatively
nominal cost to confirm whether or not the building actually is subject to the City’s ordinance.
Some buildings may appear from a rapid visual assessment to be one of the building categories
covered, but upon closer review they are exempt. This approach has been taken in many
communities in the past, and thus sample forms are available that can be easily tailored for
Palo Alto.
Clearly specify seismic evaluation and retrofit scope: The seismic evaluation (and retrofit)
methodology for each building category will need to be defined after the building categories
included in the updated ordinance are determined. Industry consensus standards exist and
cover the vulnerable building categories identified for Palo Alto. These include the 2015
International Existing Building Code (IEBC) and 2014 ASCE 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Existing Buildings. Both are currently being updated by groups of engineers and building
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 104
officials. For soft-story wood frame buildings, there is also the 2012 FEMA P-807 Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Buildings with Weak First Stories. For steel
moment frame buildings, there is also the 2000 FEMA 351 Recommended Seismic Evaluation
and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Moment Resisting Steel Structures. ASCE 41 has three
tiers of evaluation: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. Tier 1 is primarily a screening tool. As a minimum
standard, Tier 2 is recommended. Table 13 provides recommended evaluation and retrofit
standards.
Table 13: Recommended Evaluation and Retrofit Standards
Category Description Evaluation and Retrofit Standards
I Unreinforced masonry IEBC Appendix Chapter A1
II Built before 1/1/35 with 100
or more occupants
ASCE 41
III Built before 8/1/76 with 300
or more occupants
ASCE 41
IV Pre-1977 soft-story wood
frame
IEBC Appendix Chapter A4, ASCE 41, or FEMA P-807
V Pre-1998 tilt-up IEBC Appendix Chapter A2 and ASCE 41
VI Pre-1977 soft-story concrete ASCE 41
VII Pre-1998 steel moment
frame
ASCE 41, or FEMA 351
VIII Other pre-1977 concrete ASCE 41
Provide detailed evaluation report submittal requirements: Minimum submittal requirements
for evaluation reports will need to be defined. The above evaluation and retrofit standards
provide some guidance but a short clear set of requirements will be beneficial. This will include
such items as address, construction date, size, number of stories above and below grade,
owner, occupancy type, structural system type, the location and features of the primary
structural system, the extent of field review, material properties, the evaluation criteria and
methodology used, whether the structure meets the evaluation criteria, identified seismic
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 105
deficiencies if it does not. The current ordinance requires identification of retrofit measures to
address seismic deficiencies. Even in a voluntary program, it is recommended that this be
continued to help owners, tenants, and the City better understand what is necessary to
mitigate the issues that exist.
Specify how past partial retrofits will be handled: In the past, some buildings have had partial
seismic retrofits where only selected portions of the seismic force-resisting system have been
upgraded, and some seismic deficiencies may still exist in these structures. If mandatory retrofit
requirements are implemented that provide for comprehensive retrofitting of the full seismic
load path, there may be buildings with previous partial retrofits that do not fully comply and
need remaining deficiencies to be addressed. This will be identified in the seismic evaluation
report.
Update both new and existing building permit submittal requirements: Review of City records
found that basic information such as the building structural system, date of construction, and
retrofit standard used (where applicable) are not readily available. It is recommended that
submittals for permit for both new buildings and existing building renovations require this
information. For structural systems, both the categorization found in ASCE 41 and the ASCE 7
Table 12.2-1 is recommended. This will allow the city to have a much better understanding of
its building stock and its expected performance in an earthquake.
Write a new ordinance or set of ordinances to update the program: After the Council has
provided direction and the above issues have been addressed, an updated ordinance will need
to formally be written. This can be done by City staff, but will likely benefit from the
involvement of an appropriately experienced structural engineering consultant.
Carefully address program management and interdepartmental coordination needs: To
successfully manage Palo Alto’s updated Seismic Risk Mitigation Program, an effective
management plan is needed so that progress is monitored by the City and community intent is
achieved. It will include a realistic list of information that can be easily input, summarized, and
tracked in digital records such as the submittal requirements recommended above and that can
be used to link the seismic risk program data to other digital records such as assessor files or
GIS systems; quality assurance procedures for checking information; clearly defined roles and
responsibilities; timelines and requirements for reporting of information internally and
externally; procedures for gathering, assessing and implementing community feedback and
suggestions; and links between the seismic risk mitigation program and activities that will occur
following an earthquake, such as postearthquake safety evaluation.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 106
Delineate department and key staff responsibilities: For Palo Alto’s updated Seismic Risk
Mitigation Program, City staff will be responsible for several categories of activities.. These will
include the basic activities such as managing the notification and inventory process, reviewing
evaluation reports and plan checking retrofit construction documents, and field inspections of
retrofit work. Less obvious activities will include evaluating requested exceptions to the
program or alternative means of compliance; managing feedback from design professionals,
owners, and the public; tying pre-earthquake retrofitting to post-earthquake safety evaluations
records; and managing post-earthquake safety evaluation, repair, and recovery plans.
Depending on the scale of the updated program, it is possible that addition staff members or
consultants will be needed to handle the work flow. The City may also benefit from an
appropriately experienced structural engineer to provide advice on technical and program
management issues, particularly as the program moves to final definition and then to initial
implementation. Later, as is done in some communities, it may be desirable to create volunteer
review boards of local structural engineers who review questions on the evaluation and retrofit
criteria and provide the city with technical opinions that staff can use.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 107
CHAPTER XI.
QUESTIONS TO GUIDE COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS AND POTENTIAL
ISSUES FOR FUTURE STUDY
1. QUESTIONS TO HELP GUIDE COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS
Preferred policy directions were developed with the Advisory Group and staff as discussed in Chapter I
and include expansion of the building categories currently covered by the City’s ordinance, movement
toward mandatory requirements for some categories, additional disclosure measures and use of
incentives to increase the effectiveness and likelihood of compliance and of success. To help the
Council in its deliberations, a series of questions are given here. They are similar to questions and
issues discussed by the Advisory Group.
1. Does the Council wish to expand the current seismic hazard program to cover more vulnerable
building categories?
2. If so, which of the building categories in Table 1 should be included? The Advisory Group proposed
that the existing Categories I-III, plus the Categories IV-VII, be included as follows. The categories
are:
a. Category I: Constructed of unreinforced masonry, except for those smaller than 1,900 square
feet with six or fewer occupants (in the current ordinance)
b. Category II: Constructed prior to January 1, 1935 containing 100 or more occupants (in the
current ordinance)
c. Category III: Constructed prior to August 1, 1976 containing 300 or more occupants (in the
current ordinance)
d. Category IV: Pre-1977 soft-story wood frame
e. Category V: Pre-1998 tilt-up concrete
f. Category VI: Pre-1977 concrete soft-story
g. Category VII: Pre-1998 steel moment frame
An eighth category (Category VIII other older nonductile concrete buildings) was discussed, but
because of the lack of inexpensive analytical methods for reliably identifying the worst of these
buildings, inclusion of this building category in an updated ordinance is not recommended at this
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 108
time. Such buildings could be included in the future when the engineering community has
developed appropriate analytical methods.
3. In addition to mandatory initial evaluation requirements, should one or more of the categories of
buildings be subject to mandatory retrofit requirements? The Advisory Group had a consensus on
mandatory requirements for renovation for unreinforced masonry buildings and there was strong
support among many members for other categories such as soft-story wood frame buildings and tilt-
up buildings, particularly those with high occupancies.
4. Should the City develop a trigger mechanism based on sale or substantial renovation where seismic
retrofit is required? If so, which building categories should be subject to a trigger mechanism?
There was support among some Advisory Group members for a trigger mechanism for some building
categories, such as tilt-up industrial buildings, particularly those that are being converted to office
buildings and increasing the occupant load and thus exposure to seismic risk.
5. What public disclosure or notice measures of the need for retrofitting a building should be pursued?
The Advisory Group supported website listing and tenant notification, but there was low support for
placing notices on property titles or for signage or placing placards on the outside of buildings.
Other possibilities include encouraging earthquake performance rating systems and disclosing them
to the public or developing such a rating system for city-owned buildings.
6. What incentive measures to encourage property owners undertake a structural retrofit should be
pursued?
The Advisory Group supported incentives for fee waivers, expedited permitting, and property-
assessed financing tools. There was minimal interest in deep financial assistance such as establishing
a special district or passing of bond measure to assist property owners financially. . Opinions were
split on the use of transfer of development rights, floor area ratio bonuses, and parking exemptions.
8. How much time do you feel is reasonable for property owners of at risk buildings in the community
to: a) prepare the initial structural evaluation reports for regulated buildings; and b), to complete
mandatory structural retrofits to their buildings?
2. POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR FUTURE STUDY AND CONSIDERATION
For some issues, based in part on Advisory Group discussions, additional information may be beneficial to help
develop a strategy and to better understand potential impacts on key stakeholders and community concerns.
Some of these issues are primarily economic and were outside the scope of the current study. The City Council
may wish to direct staff and/or outside consultants to investigate some of these items in more detail as the
seismic risk management program effort proceeds. These issues include the following:
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 109
• Occupants and tenants
– How much would a typical retrofit add to the monthly rent of a multifamily soft-story wood
frame apartment tenant?
– Would some tenants be unable to afford a rent increase and seek housing elsewhere in Palo
Alto or move outside the city (and if so, how many might be displaced)?
– If soft-story wood frame apartments in Palo Alto are retrofitted in time before the next major
earthquake, how much less displacement of residents would occur as a result of the
earthquake?
– What categories of buildings are most important to address in order to help maintain the
commercial viability and vitality of the City’s core business districts and tax base?
• Property owners, developers, and business owners
– What are the characteristics of property owners that would be affected?
– How might small businesses be affected compared to larger ones?
– How many property owners are in need of lower cost capital or other substantial financial
assistance to fund retrofitting?
• Impacts of Seismic Restoration on Retention of Historic Structures in the City
– Insure that the review of initial seismic evaluations identify those structures that are listed in the
City’s Historic Inventory and flag them for attention during subsequent review.
– Develop a clear process for reviewing proposed seismic retrofits to historic structures that is
coordinated among responsible city departments and is consistent with current regulations and
Community policies.
– Seek out retrofit alternatives that are consistent with the Historic Building Code, historic
characteristics of the structure, and provide the most risk reduction.
• City departmental resources and budgets
– What would be the loss in revenue to the Building Department if fee waivers were offered?
– What would be the staffing and budgetary needs over time to administer an expanded program
that addresses additional building types?
– What kinds of interdepartmental cooperation and staff resources in other departments are
necessary to ensure effective implementation and coordination with other city planning and
public safety efforts?
Seismic Risk Assessment Study December 21, 2016
Final Report Page 110
• Overall community economic health
– What kind of benefits could accrue to Palo Alto in terms of maintaining community function and
ability to recover if various building categories are retrofitted in time before the next major
earthquake?
• Other related issues
– It was brought up in the Advisory Group that the Building Department needs flexibility and
authority to take steps to get tough seismic mitigation projects done. One idea was to grant the
Building Official the ability to classify certain projects (with well-specified criteria) as warranting
a kind of “seismic safety” or “earthquake resilience” fast tracking, with city departments
agreeing to coordinate on a specified accelerated project review timeframe.
– Although outside the formal scope of this planning effort, several Advisory Group members
commented that it would be desirable for the City to do some kind of assessment of any
earthquake mitigation needs in public buildings and facilities serving the City.
– Advisory group members recommended the community be informed of Palo Alto’s overall
potential seismic risk by providing a summary of potential impacts on the City’s website,
including the expected performance of vulnerable buildings.
– The group also had a high degree of support for recommending that the City initiate and nest
future earthquake mitigation programs within a broader disaster or community resilience
initiative, as cities such as Los Angeles, Berkeley, and San Francisco have done. This could be
incorporated into the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Safety Element. There was
insufficient time in the project’s six advisory group meetings to consider potential initiatives to
assess risks for cell phone towers, water supply, facades, private schools, post-earthquake
shelter facilities, and/or other assets important to community recovery.
APPENDIX A
Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction
Legislation
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
24
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Field Act 1933 Established regulations for the
design and construction of K -
12 and community college
buildings. The Division of the
State Architect enforces the
Field Act.
Palo Alto has school
facilities subject to this
policy.
Public Schools Education Code-
§17281
Riley Act 1933 Required local governments to
have building departments
that issue permits for new
construction and alterations
to existing structures and
conduct inspections. The Act
also set minimum seismic
safety requirements that have
since been incorporated into
all building codes.
Palo Alto has school
facilities subject to this
policy.
Public Schools
Garrison Act 1939 Required school boards to
assess building safety of pre -
Field Act schools, ordered
modernization of non-Field act
compliant structures.
As of 2011, Palo Alto had
six schools on the "AB300
list" of affected buildings.
Current status of these
properties is not known.
Public Schools
California
Planning and
Zoning Law
Requirements
1971 Required city and county plans
to include seismic safety
elements.
Palo Alto addresses
earthquake hazards in the
Safety element of its 2008
General Plan.
General Plan Government
Code § 65302
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
25
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act
1972 Required cities and counties
to require a geologic
investigation, before issuing
building permits, to ensure
that proposed buildings will
not be constructed across
active faults. Proposed
building sites must be
evaluated by a licensed
geologist. If an active fault is
found, a structure for human
occupancy cannot be placed
over the trace of the fault.
Palo Alto contains areas
located in Earthquake
Fault Zones where
construction is subject to
these rules about heighted
review or prohibitions
exist on new development.
Zoning Public Resources
Code § 2621-
2630
Strong Motion
Instrument Act
1972 Established a statewide
network of strong motion
instruments to gather vital
earthquake data for the
engineering and scientific
communities.
Palo Alto may have
relevant facilities within its
jurisdiction, and the
resulting information is a
planning resource. Data
obtained from the strong
motion instruments can be
used to recommend
changes to building codes,
assist local governments
in the development of
their general plans, and
help emergency response
personnel in events.
Research Public Resources
Code§§2700 -
2709.1
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
26
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Alfred E. Alquist
Hospital
Facilities
Seismic Safety
Act
1973 Regulated the design,
construction and alteration of
hospitals; set seismic safety
standards for new hospitals;
created an advisory Hospital
Building Safety Board. Office
of Statewide Health Planning
& Development enforces this
Act.
Palo Alto has at least two
major hospitals in its
jurisdiction that are
subject to this Act. Current
status of their facilities is
not known.
Hospitals Health and
Safety
Code§129675
Seismic Safety
Commission Act
1975 Created the independent
California Seismic Safety
Commission (CSSC) to provide
a consistent earthquake policy
framework for the state. The
mission of CSSC is “to provide
decision makers and the
general public with cost -
effective recommendations to
reduce earthquake losses and
expedite recovery from
damaging earthquakes.
Palo Alto can take
advantage of the technical
assistance offered by the
CSSC and its publications,
in particular the statewide
Earthquake Hazard Loss
Mitigation Plan of 2013,
provides extensive advice
about high priority
earthquake issues and
initiatives.
Strategy Business and
Professions Code
§1014
AB 2438 (Wray) 1980 Authorized local governments
to adopt ordinances requiring
earthquake gas shut-off valves
in buildings open to the
public.
Palo Alto does not
currently require gas shut
off valves but could
choose to do so.
Utilities Chapter 971,
Statutes of 1980
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
27
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
SB 360 (Alquist) 1981 Required mobile home
bracing devices. It also
required the Department of
Housing and Community
Development to administer
the program, test devices, and
issue certifications.
Palo Alto has one mobile
home park in its
jurisdiction, Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park. Status
of these homes with
regard to bracing is not
known.
Mobile Homes Chapter 533,
Statutes of 1981
Mello Roos Act 1982 Permits cities to establish
Capital Improvement Districts
that can issue special bonds to
fund facilities improvements
without coming under the
caps on property tax increases
that were imposed under
Proposition 13.
Although there is no
precedent to date, Palo
Alto may be able to use
this tool to secure
additional funds for
retrofit projects for either
public or private buildings.
Financing Government
Code §53311-
53317.5
SB 961 (Alquist) 1982 Required the Office of
Statewide Health Planning and
Development to institute plan
review and field inspection of
hospital buildings being
constructed to ensure building
safety. Requires the State Fire
Marshal to ensure fire safety
of these buildings.
Palo Alto has at least two
major hospitals in its
jurisdiction that are
subject to this Act.
Hospitals Chapter 303,
Statutes of 1982
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
28
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Alquist Hospital
Facilities
Seismic Safety
Act
1983 Required design and
construction standards for
hospitals; requires that after
Jan. 1, 2008 any general acute
care hospital building
determined to be at potential
risk of collapse or poses a risk
of significant loss of life be
used only for non-acute care.
Palo Alto has at least two
major hospitals in its
jurisdiction that are
subject to this Act.
Hospitals Health and
Safety Code
§§130000 -
130070
Economic
Disaster Act
1984 Institutionalized the planning
and response of state
agencies to disasters in order
to reduce economic hardship
stemming from these
disasters to business. Upon
the completion of the
emergency phase and the
immediate recovery phase of
a disaster, appropriate state
agencies shall take actions to
provide continuity of effort
conducive to long -range
economic recovery.
This law establishes the
authorities and guidance
for coordination among
local and state entities in
the management and
recovery from a major
event.
Recovery Government
Code §8695
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
29
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
SB 239 (L.
Greene)
1985 Created the Essential Services
Building Act and declared the
intent of the Legislature that
essential services buildings be
designed and constructed to a
higher standard to resist
damage from earthquakes.
Established design and
construction requirements.
Palo Alto Building
Department is required to
implement heightened
review for its fire stations,
police stations, emergency
communications, and
other qualifying buildings.
Essential
Buildings
Chapter 1521,
Statutes of 1985
Essential
Services
Building Seismic
Safety Act
1986 Required enhanced regulatory
oversight by local
governments during the
design and construction of
new essential service facilities,
such as fire and police stations
and emergency
communications and
operations facilities. The
Division of the State Architect
within DGS enforces this Act.
Palo Alto Building
Department is required to
implement heightened
review for its fire stations,
police stations, emergency
communications, and
other qualifying buildings.
Essential
Buildings
Health and
Safety Code
§16000
Unreinforced
Masonry
Building Law
1986 Required local governments in
high seismic regions of
California to inventory un -
reinforced masonry buildings,
establish mitigation programs,
and report progress to the
CSSC. Signage requirements
were added in 2004.
Palo Alto mandated to
comply. Current program
in place has resolved
nearly all cases but a few
remain.
URM Government
Code §§ 8875-
8875.10
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
30
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
California
Earthquake
Hazards
Reduction Act
1986 Called for a coordinated state
program to implement new
and expanded activities to
significantly reduce the
earthquake threat.
Established the legal basis
for several key programs.
Strategy Government
Code §8870
SB 548 (Alquist) 1986 Created the California
Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Act which called for the
Commission to administer a
program to “significantly
reduce hazards by January 1,
2000.”
Established the legal basis
for several key programs.
Strategy Chapter 1491,
Statutes of 1985
SB 2453
(Maddy)
1989 Required surgical clinics to
hire architects and structural
engineers to assure that
medical equipment are
properly anchored.
Palo Alto may have
relevant health facilities
within its jurisdiction.
Hospitals Chapter 1579,
Statutes of 1990
Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act
1990 Directed the Department of
Conservation to identify and
map areas prone to
liquefaction, earthquake -
induced landslides, and
amplified ground shaking.
Requires geotechnical
investigations and mitigation
measures before permitting
developments in mapped
Zones of Required
Investigation.
Palo Alto contains areas
located where
construction is subject to
these additional rules for
heighted review or
prohibitions exist on new
development.
Zoning Public Resources
Code §§ 2690 -
2699.6
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
31
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Natural Hazards
Disclosure Act
1990 Required transferor of real
property, consisting of not less
than one nor more than four
dwelling units, to disclose to
transferee if the real property
lies within any of the following
hazardous areas: a Special
Flood Hazard Area (any type
Zone A or V) designated by
FEMA; an area of potential
flooding shown on a dam
failure inundation map; a very
high fire hazard severity zone;
wildland area that may
contain substantial forest fire
risks and hazards; an
earthquake fault zone; and/or
a seismic hazard zone.
All relevant real estate
transactions in Palo Alto
are subject to this
requirement, but
compliance is not
monitored or enforced.
Evidence suggests it is
common practice to check
"do not know" as a
blanket policy for seismic
vulnerability questions.
Disclosure Civil Code §1102
AB 3313
(Woodruff)
1990 Required the State Architect
and the Building Standards
Commission to develop and
adopt seismic retrofit
guidelines for state buildings,
including public universities.
Palo Alto may have
relevant facilities within its
jurisdiction or be able to
take advantage of the
guidelines produced for
this program in
considering rehabilitation
of its own facilities.
Public Buildings
and
Universities
Chapter 1511,
Statutes of 1990
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
32
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Earthquake
Safety and
Public Buildings
Rehabilitation
Bond Act
1990 Authorized the state to issue
$300 million in general
obligation bonds for the
seismic retrofit of state and
local government buildings
($250 million for state -owned
buildings and $50 million for
partial financing of local
government essential services
facilities).
Funding is exhausted but
this legislation provides a
model of one pathway to
financial support to local
entities to do seismic
mitigation work.
Public Buildings
and
Universities
Prop 122 &
Government
Code §§8878.50-
8878.52
Executive Order
D-86-90
1990 Required CalTrans to prepare
plan to retrofit transportation
structures; requests UC and
requires CSU to give priority
consideration to seismic
safety in allocation of funds
for construction projects.
Palo Alto may have
related facilities within its
jurisdiction or that affect
its citizens or local
businesses.
Infrastructure
AB 204
(Cortese)
1991 Created a model, minimum
building code for the retrofit
of buildings with brick-bearing
walls.
Palo Alto can reference
the codes that resulted
from this law as input
regarding methods for
URM retrofit.
URM
AB 908 (Farr) 1991 Specified that liquefaction and
other seismic hazards are
geologic hazards to be
addressed in the safety
element of a general plan.
Palo Alto complies with
this requirement through
its 2008 General Plan.
General Plan Chapter 823,
Statutes of 1992
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
33
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
AB 43 (Floyd) 1991 Excluded seismic retrofit
improvements to hazardous
buildings from property-tax
reassessments.
Palo Alto building owners
who invest in retrofits can
file paperwork to obtain
relief from any property
tax assessment increases
that might result. This law
provides a modest
incentive to invest in
retrofits (by removing any
new tax obligations that
might arise) but the
downside is these
investments do not
increase the local tax
base.
Tax Policy Chapter 8,
Statutes of 1991
Emergency
Room
Mandates
1991 Established seismic safety
standards for ambulatory
surgical centers; requires fixed
medical equipment (floor roof
or wall mounted) to be
installed using services of
licensed architect or structural
engineer; and requires
inspection every five years.
Palo Alto may have health
facilities subject to this
policy.
Hospitals Health & Safety
Code § 1226.5
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
34
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
SB 597 (Alquist) 1992 Required the state architect to
develop seismic retrofit
guidelines and standards for
certain buildings enclosing
more than 20,000 square feet
of floor area with concrete or
reinforced masonry column
construction.
Although outdated, this
law provides background
guidance on the
importance and potential
pathways to retrofitting
this particular high risk
category of large
commercial structures.
Palo Alto may have
qualifying structures in its
jurisdiction.
Concrete Chapter 1079,
Statutes of 1992
SB 119 (Hart) 1992 Enacted the Higher Education
Facilities Bond Act of June
1992 and required five-year
capital outlay plans at colleges
and universities to include a
schedule that prioritized the
seismic retrofitting needed to
significantly reduce seismic
hazards.
Palo Alto may have
relevant facilities within its
jurisdiction.
Public Buildings
and
Universities
Chapter 13,
Statutes of 1992
Seismic Retrofit
Bond Act
(California
Proposition
192)
1996 Authorized $2 billion for
seismic retrofitting, including
$650 million for seismic
retrofitting of toll bridges.
Palo Alto may have
relevant facilities within its
jurisdiction.
Bridges
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
35
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Highway Safety,
Traffic
Reduction, Air
Quality, and
Port Security
Bond Act
2006 Essential Facility Seismic
Safety Program. Provided
$125 million funding for
seismic retrofit work on local
bridges, ramps, and
overpasses; established Local
Bridge Seismic Retrofit
Account.
Palo Alto may have been
affected by some of the
projects resulting from this
law, though the budget is
now exhausted.
Bridges and
Roads
Proposition 1B,
Government
Code §8879.23(i)
General
Obligation
Bonds
A city or a city and county may
incur indebtedness pursuant
for seismic strengthening of
unreinforced buildings and
other buildings. Proceeds of
bonds authorized pursuant to
this section may be used to
make loans to public entities
or owners of private buildings.
Palo Alto may issue bonds
to create funds for use in
loan programs to cover
seismic retrofit costs for
publically- or privately-
owned buildings as long as
it can justify the public
purpose of the work.
Financing Government
Code Section
43600-43638
AB 964 (Aroner) Required the California
Earthquake Authority to
establish, in the operational
rules of the Earthquake Loss
Mitigation Fund, a plan for the
expedited expansion of the
residential retrofit program
statewide.
CEA has broad authority
to spend ELMF funds on
physical mitigation
improvements related to
1-4 unit dwellings.
Currently Palo Alto is not
in the program but it could
apply to be part of a
future pilot phase.
Small
Residential
Chapter 715,
Statutes of 1999
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
36
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Automatic Gas
Shut Off Valves
Authorized local governments
to adopt ordinances requiring
installation of earthquake
sensitive gas shutoff devices in
buildings; allowed Division of
the State Architect to
establish a certification
procedure for installation.
Palo Alto does not require
gas shut off valves but
could do so.
Utilities Health and
Safety Code
§§19180-83 &
§§19200-05
AB 3249 (Katz) Required private schools
constructed after July 1, 1987
to have plans that meet
applicable code standards.
Required their plans to be
reviewed by a structural
engineer, and that the
project’s design professionals
periodically review the
construction.
Palo Alto may have
relevant schools in its
jurisdiction, and their
status is unknown. The
City of San Francisco
identified earthquake
vulnerability of private
schools as a major public
concern and recently
passed a mandatory
evaluation ordinance.
Private Schools Chapter 439,
Statutes of 1986
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
37
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
AB 2959 (Klehs) Required the Seismic Safety
Commission to develop,
adopt, and publish a
Homeowner’s Guide to
Earthquake Preparedness by
January 1, 1992 (SSC 97-01)
This pamphlet is regularly
exchanged from seller to
buyer in smaller
residential real estate
transactions, as and by
state law, doing so meets
disclosure requirements.
Palo Alto currently
provides a link to this
document on the Building
Inspection website. There
is high potential to
improve this process so
that homeowners pay
attention the information
in the pamphlet.
Education Chapter 1499,
Statutes of 1990
AB 1968
(Areias)
Required the Seismic Safety
Commission to develop,
adopt, and publish a
Commercial Property Owner’s
Guide to Earthquake Safety
for distribution to real estate
licensees.
Palo Alto property owners
are required to provide
this pamphlet to a buyer
at sale. Palo Alto currently
provides a link to this
document on the Building
Inspection website.
Education Chapter 859,
Statutes of 1991
Natural Disaster
Assistance Act
Provided state financial
assistance for recovery efforts
to counties, cities and/or
special districts after a state
disaster has been proclaimed.
Palo Alto would be eligible
for applying for these
funds following a local
event.
Recovery Government
Code §8680
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
38
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
AB 1890
(Cortese)
Required new and
replacement water heaters to
be braced and anchored.
Properties in Palo Alto are
required to have two
seismic straps on their
water heater per CPC
508.2. Status of non-
inspected older water
heaters unknown.
Utilities Chapter 951,
Statutes of 1989
SB 1742 (L.
Greene)
Required local agencies to
review the structural design
and construction of certain
bridges, and required the
Caltrans director to establish a
statewide priority list for
retrofit projects based on
these reviews.
Palo Alto may have
infrastructure subject to
this policy.
Bridges and
Roads
Chapter 1082,
Statutes of 1990
ACR 96 (Perino) Requested the Seismic Safety
Commission to study the
problem of mobile-home
bracing and make
recommendations to the
Department of Housing and
Community Development for
implementation.
Resulting reports provide
information relevant to
planning effective mobile
homes policies.
Mobile Homes Resolution
Chapter 99,
Statutes of 1980
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
39
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
AB 631
(Bradley)
Required the Department of
Housing and Community
Development to adopt
regulations governing the
installation of earthquake-
resistant bracing systems on
manufactured homes or
mobile homes.
Palo Alto may have health
facilities subject to this
policy.
Mobile Homes Chapter 304,
Statutes of 1989
AB 958 (Areias) Directed the Seismic Safety
Commission to administer a
privately funded task force,
with specified membership, to
consider the development of
seismic safety building
guidelines for the use of state
and local governmental
agencies in evaluating
applications for the
construction of new cellular
facilities.
Palo Alto may have
relevant facilities within its
jurisdiction.
Telecommuni-
cations
Chapter 813,
Statutes of 1991
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
40
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
California
Earthquake
Authority
Created the California
Earthquake Authority and
authorized CEA to issues
policies of basic earthquake
insurance.
Residential renters and
owners of Palo Alto 1-4
unit properties are eligible
to purchase policies
through CEA. Rates of
insurance uptake average
about 10% statewide. The
level of uptake in Palo Alto
is not known but could be
researched and potentially
improved through
educational programs or
partnerships with CEA.
Insurance Insurance Code
§§ 10089.5 -
10089.54
Disaster
Recovery
Reconstruction
Act
Authorized and otherwise
enabled cities, counties, and
other entities to prepare in
advance of a disaster for the
expeditious and orderly
recovery and reconstruction
of the community or region;
Includes plans and ordinances
facilitating recovery and
reconstruction and
contingency plan of action and
organization for short -term
and long-term recovery and
reconstruction to be instituted
after a disaster.
This legislation sets out
relevant authorities and
guidance for effective pre-
disaster emergency
management and
recovery planning.
Recovery Government
Code §8877.1
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
41
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Public School
Tilt-Up Concrete
Inventory
Required the Department of
General Services to conduct
an inventory of public school
buildings that are concrete tilt
-up or have non-wood frame
walls that do not meet
requirements of the 1976
UBC, by Dec. 31, 2001.
Palo Alto may have
relevant facilities within its
jurisdiction.
Concrete Education Code
§17317
SB 1122
(Alarcón)
Required the Office of
Emergency Services, in
cooperation with the State
Department of Education, the
Department of General
Services, and the Seismic
Safety Commission, to
develop an educational
pamphlet for use by grades K-
14 personnel to identify and
mitigate the risks posed by
nonstructural earthquake
hazards.
Palo Alto could use this
pamphlet or more recent
versions in a public
education campaign in
coordination with local
schools.
Education Chapter 294,
Statutes of 1999
DRAFT
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
42
Type of Legislative Approach
Short Title
Year
Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
SB 577
(Rosenthal)
Replaced references to
earthquake sensitive or
seismic gas shutoff valves with
the term earthquake sensitive
or seismic gas shutoff devices.
Also revised the bracing
requirements for water
heaters to apply to all new
and replacement water
heaters, and all existing
residential water heaters;
required any water heater to
be secured in accordance with
the California Plumbing Code.
Provisions for seismic
strapping of water heaters
are contained in CPC
508.2.
Utilities Chapter 152,
Statutes of 1996
APPENDIX B
Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction
Legislation
DRAFT
Appendix B -- Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
43
*Sources: CSSC, 2009; LegInfo, 2016.
Type of Legislative
Approach
Short Title Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted
Use or
Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference Statute
or Code
AB 428 -- Income
Taxes Credit: for
Seismic Retrofits
(Nazarian)
This bill allows a tax credit in an
amount equal to a specified percent
of costs incurred by a qualified
taxpayer for any seismic retrofit
construction on a qualified building.
Requires certification from the
appropriate jurisdiction with authority
for building code enforcement that
the building is an at-risk property.
If a future version is passed
and funded, Palo Alto building
owners -- on a first come first
serve basis statewide -- could
receive up to 30 percent tax
credit on pre-approved
eligible seismic mitigation
investments.
Any Vetoed by Governor
for financial reasons.
DRAFT
Appendix B -- Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
44
*Sources: CSSC, 2009; LegInfo, 2016.
Type of Legislative
Approach
Short Title Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted
Use or
Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference Statute
or Code
SB 494 -- Seismic
Safety and
Earthquake-Related
Programs (Hill)
This bill creates the California
Earthquake Safety Fund. Upon
appropriation by the Legislature, the
moneys in the fund shall be used for
seismic safety and earthquake-related
programs, including the earthquake
early warning system. The bill
authorizes the fund to accept federal
funds, funds from revenue bonds,
local funds, and funds from private
sources for purposes of carrying out
its provisions. This bill also requires
the identification of funding of the
earthquake early warning system to
occur by July 1, 2016, and makes
conforming changes.
Sponsored by Palo Alto’s
District Assembly Member. If
this program is funded, Palo
Alto could advocate for local
public and private sector
involvement in the state's
Earthquake Early Warning
System.
Early
Warning
System
Signed by Governor
October 2015 –
Chapter 799,
Statutes of 2015
DRAFT
Appendix B -- Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
45
*Sources: CSSC, 2009; LegInfo, 2016.
Type of Legislative
Approach
Short Title Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted
Use or
Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference Statute
or Code
SB 1205 -- Commercial
Earthquake Risk
Management Courses
(Monning)
Requires an existing California
Department of Insurance (CDI) board
to develop or recommend educational
courses for agents and brokers on
commercial earthquake risk
management.
Recommendations and
resources materials will likely
be created within a few years
that could assist Palo Alto in
promoting greater awareness
and action among commercial
property agents and owners.
Education Signed by Governor
August 2014 –
Chapter 252
SB 602 -- California
Earthquake Authority:
Property Secured
Mitigation Program
(Monning)
This bill would authorize the CEA to
establish a state-wide program to
provide property assessment
financing for seismic retrofits.
This bill would create the
authority for another PACE-
type funding mechanism that
cities could use to offer loans
to owners for seismic
mitigation work, to be paid
off through higher property
tax assessment over the
course of 20 years.
Small
Residential
Pending
DRAFT
Appendix B -- Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
46
*Sources: CSSC, 2009; LegInfo, 2016.
Type of Legislative
Approach
Short Title Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted
Use or
Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference Statute
or Code
AB 1429 -- Earthquake
Mitigation Retrofit
Program: 5 to 10
Dwelling Units (Chui)
This bill requires the CRMP to
implement a grant program that
would give a grant to a qualifying
applicant who owns a residential
structure that contains between five
and ten dwelling units to defray the
owner’s cost of seismic retrofit work
to the structure, as specified, if the
Legislature appropriates funds for that
purpose.
If passed and funded, grant
funds might be made
available to Palo Alto small
multi-family residential
buildings.
Small
Multifamily
Pending
AB 1440 -- Earthquake
Mitigation Retrofit
Program: Single-
Family Residential
Structures (Nazarian)
This bill requires the CRMP to
implement a grant program and give a
grant to a qualifying owner of a single-
family residential structure to defray
the owner’s cost of seismic retrofit
work to the structure, as specified, if
the Legislature appropriates funds for
that purpose.
If passed and funded, grant
funds might be made
available to Palo Alto small
residential owners.
Small
Residential
Pending
DRAFT
Appendix B -- Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
47
*Sources: CSSC, 2009; LegInfo, 2016.
Type of Legislative
Approach
Short Title Description Relevance to Palo Alto
Program Update
Targeted
Use or
Structure
Type
Special
Programs
Status and
Reference Statute
or Code
SB 336 -- California
Earthquake Authority:
Mitigation Discount
(Roth)
This bill provides that CEA
policyholders who have retrofitted
their homes shall enjoy a premium
discount or credit of “at least” five
percent.
If passed, Palo Alto
homeowners that purchase
earthquake insurance would
have greater assurance that
premium discounts for
mitigation investments would
not be reducible below five
percent.
Small
Residential
Pending
AB 2181 -- Soft-Story
Local Program
Authorization
Authorizes each city, city and county,
or county to require that owners
assess the earthquake hazard of soft
story residential buildings and older
concrete residential buildings.
Includes concrete residential buildings
that were constructed prior to the
adoption of local building codes that
ensure ductility as potentially
hazardous if an earthquake occurs and
to initiate programs to inform owners,
residents and the public about such
dangers.
There is no state law that
forbids such programs, but
this law would have removed
any ambiguity that such
programs are permitted.
Soft-Story Dead in 2014, never
heard in committee.
APPENDIX C
Table Describing Incentives Used in Local Earthquake Risk
Reduction Programs
Appendix C. Table Describing Incentives Used in Local Earthquake Risk Reduction Programs.
Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
FINANCIAL TOOLS & INCENTIVES
General Obligation or
Special District Bonds
Direct provision of funds
for qualifying retrofit
work based on voter
approval of issuance of
new municipal or state
debt to be repaid by
taxation.
This mechanism is
commonly used for seismic
improvements to
infrastructure, but also has
been used in URM building
programs and for retrofit of
historic properties. One
URM example is the city of
Long Beach, which offered
11.3% interest financing to
participating members of a
Special District created for
URM building owners.
Once passed, this type of
funding can be distributed over
time as provided for in the
approved wording.
Must be approved by two thirds
of voters, which sets a high bar
even if there is significant public
support. Jurisdictions must
administer the allocation of
funds and have at times not
been able to use all of it. Owner
education about the provisions
of the program is critical.
Owners of highly leveraged
buildings and buildings in
depressed areas may be unable
to meet prerequisite loan-to-
value ratio criteria. Retrofits are
generally not revenue-
generating improvements upon
which financing can be
leveraged.
Grants Direct provision of funds
for qualifying retrofit
work.
CEA's Earthquake Brace &
Bolt program for single
family homes.
Some sources exist for city-scale
projects or privately-owned
buildings, such as FEMA Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grants.
Limited sources exist. Programs
can be difficult to manage
administratively. Fairness
concerns exist over which
owners can benefit.
Appendix C. Incentives, continued.
Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Property-Assessed
Financing Loans
Also known as a
Property Assessed Clean
Energy (PACE) program,
this works as a loan to
an individual property
owner, transferrable to
future owners, where
the upfront costs of
qualifying work are
repaid over a period of
approximately 20 years
through the owner's
property tax
assessment.
San Francisco's PACE
program.
Provides an upfront way for
owners to access private capital
to afford retrofit projects. The
loan can be paid off over time
through higher rents or at future
sale, as well as being
transferrable to future owners.
Administratively complex for
both jurisdictions and owners.
Challenges include setting up
this complex financing
instrument which has heavy
involvement of third parties,
barriers to owners that want to
refinance, and barriers to the
transfer of a PACE-financed
properties to a new owner.
Owners may not need it if
affordable regular market
capital is available. Lenders may
resist allowing an additional
lien.
Tax Credits Waiver of a portion of a
business, parcel, or
income tax for a number
of years to encourage
owners to retrofit.
Although vetoed by the
Governor, the legislature of
California passed AB 428 in
2015, which would have
offered up to 30% credit for
qualifying retrofit costs.
The funding source can be
outside the local jurisdiction,
and depending on the clarity of
program requirements, owners
can count on the funds as part
of planning their project.
Owners would need to be aware
of the credit and verify
qualifying work and complete all
follow up documentation.
Mostly benefits owners already
intending to retrofit and those
with more financial and business
sophistication.
Appendix C. Incentives, continued.
Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Rebates
Building owners can
apply for a rebate of a
fraction (usually 1/3, up
to a cap) of the amount
of the transfer tax owed
to the city for a property
at sale for any qualifying
seismic improvement
expenditures made
within a certain period
before or after transfer
of title.
This policy has existed in
Berkeley since 1991 for
residential dwellings up to
four units and in San
Francisco since 2008 for
properties worth $5 million
or more.
In Berkeley, the program was
immediately popular and
eventually highly influential in
increasing support for other
earthquake policies because it
touched so many community
members and firmly established
a tone that the city takes seismic
risk seriously and will put its
“money where its mouth is.”
About half the single-family
homes and one third of the
smaller rental buildings in
Berkeley have claimed the
credit, leading to widespread
community awareness of
seismic safety issues.
The jurisdiction forgoes tax
revenue. Anecdotally in
Berkeley, city officials had no
easy way to assess the quality of
work done. Some experts
suspect that some of the funds
went to incomplete or
improperly done retrofits.
Waivers or Reductions of
Building Department
Fees
Full waivers, fixed, or
percentage-based
reductions of building
permit fee reductions.
The Jurisdictions of San
Francisco, Berkeley, and
Alameda have offered flat
or waived plan check fees
as an incentive for owners
to retrofit their buildings.
Oakland currently offers a
flat permit fee of $250 for
owners of qualified single-
family residences to
perform seismic retrofits.
Modestly reduces the cost of a
retrofit project. Easy for city to
implement. Perceived by
owners as a significant gesture
of good will by owners, who
may feel it is "the least the city
could do."
This measure has direct loss of
revenue implications for the
jurisdiction.
Appendix C. Incentives, continued.
Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Pass Through of Retrofit
Costs to Tenants
For residential
properties in
jurisdictions with rent
control laws in place,
owners who seismically
retrofit their buildings
could be allowed to pass
through all or a fraction
the costs of these
retrofits to renters in
rent-controlled units,
amortized over a
particular time period
such as 10 years.
Berkeley is 100% pass-
through, San Francisco is
50%, and Oakland is %75.
Perceived as fair by owners
because tenants that benefit
most from the retrofit work pay
a share of it. Owners can use
this anticipated source of
revenue as a basis for securing a
loan.
Tenants with fixed or low
incomes might suffer hardship
with the added costs, although
hardship provisions can lessen
those effects.
Special District or
Historic Designation Tax
Reductions
Creation of Mello-Roos,
Mills Act, historic or
other special districts
that are then eligible for
special loans, grants, or
tax credits.
For URM buildings, the
jurisdictions of St. Helena
and West Hollywood used
Mello-Roos funding.
Provides a clear way for a local
jurisdiction to provide direct
funding or special financing
rates for privately-owned
vulnerable properties.
Can be difficult for jurisdictions
to initiate and carry out. Owners
must join the special district at
the outset or will be left out of
future funding availability.
POLICY INCENTIVES
Density or Intensity
Bonuses
Specific increases in the
maximum allowable
building density or
intensity to help offset
the added costs of
seismic upgrades.
Palo Alto’s Floor Area Ratio
bonus program.
Owners that invest in a retrofit
can expand their projects in
order to increase future
revenue.
Typically, feasible only in areas
of high growth. Sometimes
controversial because of
potential community impacts
such as increased traffic, parking
needs, and rental rates.
Appendix C. Incentives, continued.
Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Exemptions for Non-
Conformities
Relief from timelines or
waivers of required work
such as fire resistance
upgrades and sprinklers,
Title 24 energy analysis
and upgrades, parking,
setback or other current
code measures that
would otherwise be
triggered by the size of
the project being
undertaken for projects
involving qualifying
retrofit work.
None identified. Offering relief from what may
be expensive rehabilitation of
nonconforming uses can make
seismic retrofits easier to design
and more affordable.
May be viewed as an excessive
concession to owners among
some members of the public.
Zoning Incentives Specific concessions
regarding encroachment
into setbacks, increased
allowable floor/area
ratios (FAR), height
limits, or onsite parking
requirements to help
offset the added costs of
seismic upgrades.
Since 1986, Palo Alto
allowed owners of included
buildings in the downtown
area to expand the floor
area if the owner
performed seismic
upgrades. Buildings were
also exempted from onsite
parking requirements and
fees for offsite parking.
Useful when bond financing
options are prohibitively costly
or not much more attractive
than private credit terms. Most
likely to work when zoning plans
in the community generally call
for limited to no growth. Costs
to the city are mainly in the
form of technical and design
cost review of proposed
projects.
Similarly-situated properties
must be treated alike so as to
avoid claims of "spot zoning."
Citizens may object to special
treatment for work that could
be seen as essential anyhow.
Not likely to work in locations
with little development pressure
or where the community favors
growth.
Appendix C. Incentives, continued.
Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Condominium
Conversion Assistance
Process expediting for
condo conversion for
properties that
seismically retrofit.
None identified. In jurisdictions where condo
conversation rates are capped
or allocated by lottery, offering
priority to buildings that retrofit
could be an effective tool to
promote seismic upgrading of
multifamily buildings.
May negatively impact other
housing affordability goals. Only
available to owners that can
afford it, unless accompanied by
other assistance programs.
Exemption from Future
Retrofit Requirements
Relief from imposition of
future retrofit
requirements for a
certain period following
completion of qualifying
seismic work.
The City of Berkeley offered
a 15-year exemption from
future retrofit requirements
for soft-story wood frame
properties that did a retrofit
concurrent with its
mandatory evaluation
program.
This can motivate owners to
complete retrofit work sooner
rather than later in order to
reduce uncertainty about future
city policies, and allows owners
to better anticipate business
expenses over a longer term.
The jurisdiction could not easily
impose new regulation on
exempted properties, even if
such policies became warranted
by new technologies or
knowledge.
Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR)
TDR allow owners to
transfer unused
development rights that
are comparable to the
value of the retrofit to
another site.
Very commonly used for
historic preservation,
including in Palo Alto.
Useful when the use of the
building in question is not likely
to generate added value to
justify the costs of the retrofit
work. This is most useful when
retrofit costs can be particularly
high and there are natural or
regulatory use restrictions.
Careful analysis of construction
costs is necessary to avoid
situations of under- or over-
compensation.
Appendix C. Incentives, continued.
Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Expedited Permits,
Inspections, and Reviews
Prioritization,
expediting, or bypassing
of certain internal
protocols for over the
counter permits and
inspection processes for
projects involving
seismic retrofit work.
Several Bay Area cities have
anecdotally stated that this
is their internal policy, but
no official records of such
were identified.
This can relieve the burden of
time and hassle for owners in
getting permits and inspections,
which are a significant source of
cost and uncertainty for owners
during retrofit projects.
Requires flexibility on the part of
city staff and plan check
consultants.
Technical Assistance Case-management style
assistance for owners
and/or engineers during
the process of obtaining
financing, complying,
permitting, and carrying
out retrofit projects. This
is different than
engineering advice
about how to resolve
specific technical issues
of design.
Cities such as Berkeley have
found it necessary to
maintain additional staff to
operate their mitigation
programs. A significant
portion of their staff time is
devoted to owner and
engineer consultation.
Knowledgeable staff can help
owners navigate complex issues
such as investigating and
applying for incentives (if
offered), following guidelines, or
addressing the necessary
standards.
Labor costs to the city for
additional staff. Difficulty
sustaining project funding and
staff continuity over time.
APPENDIX D
Options for Moving to a Comprehensive, Resilience
Approach
Appendix D. Options for Moving Towards a Comprehensive Resilience Approach
Palo Alto’s current earthquake policy development effort is led by the Building Division and
focused on physical upgrade or retrofitting of privately-owned existing structures. In other
words, it deals with pre-disaster physical aspects of earthquake vulnerabilities in the current
building stock and the kinds of ordinances, code adjustments, and initiatives that could be
undertaken to reduce the risks posed by those buildings. Other City of Palo Alto efforts to
address earthquake risks and impacts more broadly are the responsibility for instance of the
Office of Emergency Services, Fire, Public Works, and Planning departments. These activities are
relevant to the present effort because its recommendations are intended to be well-informed
by and linked to other related ongoing jurisdictional activities.
In the future, Palo Alto has options for broadening the scope of its mitigation efforts. For
instance, the City could consider developing a formal Building Occupancy and Resumption
Program (BORP) as did San Francisco. It could also investigate creating special programs or
requirements for key infrastructure such as cell phone towers, vulnerable building features
such as facades, or important building uses such as publicly-owned buildings, private schools,
places of worship and large assembly, or post-earthquake shelter facilities. These types of
programs aim to create a more comprehensive, integrated approach that places earthquake
mitigation within the overall context of community resilience.
Jurisdictions can promote comprehensiveness in different ways. Four potential pathways that
Palo Alto could pursue, as well as examples of jurisdictional models, are briefly introduced
below.
Address More Phases of the Disaster Cycle
One useful way to think about public policy related to earthquakes is to consider the
“Disaster Cycle” (see Figure 1). Some activities primarily take place before an event (e.g.,
hazard assessment, building code adoption and enforcement, public education
campaigns) while others focus on things that happen during a crisis (e.g., emergency
response, building re-occupancy inspections). After an event, jurisdictions may operate
both short and long term programs as part of managing the overall recovery process
(e.g., temporary housing and business resumption efforts). The cycle begins again as
cities attempt to learn from the past to better inform plans and programs for the future.
Appendix D. Options for Moving Towards a Comprehensive Resilience Approach, continued.
Figure 1. Diagram of the Disaster Cycle and examples of local level programs that address
different phases.
Actions in all of these of phases contribute to the overall community goal of
Many different definitions exist for this term, but for the purposes of this report it can
be summarized as the local
to, and recover as completely as possible in long
acute shocks, one of which are
avoid, survive, and thrive as best they can in the midst of many current and potential
challenges and threats.
Integrate Earthquake Efforts into
Another way to address disaster resilience more broadly is to create plans and programs
that simultaneously address a large suite of physical threats. Many preparedness,
mitigation, response and recovery activities are similar for different types of disa
from floods to blast to bioterrorism to earthquakes. FEMA and many jurisdictions have
embraced the concept of multi
and savings through coordination, cross
improved communication.
relate to this –the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan process and FEMA Pre
Mitigation Grants –were described in the Task 2 report.
. Options for Moving Towards a Comprehensive Resilience Approach, continued.
. Diagram of the Disaster Cycle and examples of local level programs that address
Actions in all of these of phases contribute to the overall community goal of
definitions exist for this term, but for the purposes of this report it can
local capacity to be effectively protected from, respond quickly
to, and recover as completely as possible in long-term from chronic stresses as well as
, one of which are earthquakes. In some sense, all communities want to
avoid, survive, and thrive as best they can in the midst of many current and potential
Integrate Earthquake Efforts into Multi-Hazard Planning and Program
way to address disaster resilience more broadly is to create plans and programs
that simultaneously address a large suite of physical threats. Many preparedness,
mitigation, response and recovery activities are similar for different types of disa
from floods to blast to bioterrorism to earthquakes. FEMA and many jurisdictions have
embraced the concept of multi-hazard planning in order to achieve potential synergies
and savings through coordination, cross-functionality, eliminating redundanci
improved communication. The two main federal programs for local jurisdictions that
the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan process and FEMA Pre-Disaster
were described in the Task 2 report. Palo Alto could launch an effo
. Options for Moving Towards a Comprehensive Resilience Approach, continued.
. Diagram of the Disaster Cycle and examples of local level programs that address
Actions in all of these of phases contribute to the overall community goal of resilience.
definitions exist for this term, but for the purposes of this report it can
capacity to be effectively protected from, respond quickly
term from chronic stresses as well as
In some sense, all communities want to
avoid, survive, and thrive as best they can in the midst of many current and potential
Hazard Planning and Programs
way to address disaster resilience more broadly is to create plans and programs
that simultaneously address a large suite of physical threats. Many preparedness,
mitigation, response and recovery activities are similar for different types of disasters,
from floods to blast to bioterrorism to earthquakes. FEMA and many jurisdictions have
hazard planning in order to achieve potential synergies
functionality, eliminating redundancies, and
The two main federal programs for local jurisdictions that
Disaster
Palo Alto could launch an effort
Appendix D. Options for Moving Towards a Comprehensive Resilience Approach, continued.
to evaluate opportunities for leveraging and increasing alignment of its earthquake
programming with other multi-hazard mitigation efforts.
Create Linkages with Sustainability, Energy and Climate Adaptation Issues
Not all environmental threats to resilience are quick to arrive. Yet another dimension
Palo Alto could build connections between its disaster mitigation efforts and issues of
sustainability, environmental health, green tech, and climate change adaptation. The
interrelationships among these issues are clear. Modification of both physical and social
practices related to environmental trends could potentially enhance or work against
disaster preparedness, depending on how wisely such changes ae managed. Debris and
demolition following earthquakes can be a major environmental concern, with
significant greenhouse gas and carbon footprint implications. Research engineers are
actively working on ways to estimate the carbon implications of debris from demolished
structures after an earthquake, such as through the FEMA P-58 methodology.
Expand Scope to Address Overall Community Resilience
Social, cultural, and economic vulnerabilities and social justice and equity concerns are
clearly outside the scope of the present effort. However, it would be remiss to provide
Palo Alto guidance about development of new programs for earthquake mitigation
without mentioning that many leading cities have moved towards nesting their
earthquake resilience activities within very broad, longer term overall community
resilience assessment, planning, and programming initiatives. The connection between
overall community resilience and earthquake program effectiveness is now firmly
established, as exampled by a proliferation of initiatives briefly described below.
The ideological and programmatic shift to the concept of community resilience broadly
defined was accelerated by a large infusion of money, technical assistance, and
outreach from the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative (100RC1) in
2012. This ground breaking effort involved three rounds of applications from which 66
cities so far worldwide have been selected. San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, and Los
Angeles were selected in the first round. Rockefeller Resilient Cities were chosen
because they already were comprehensive leading cities in terms of their resilience
efforts. Palo Alto applied to the program but was not selected.
A core feature of the 100RC membership is funding to pay the salary of a Chief
Resilience Officer for two years. Patrick Otellini of San Francisco had the honor of being
the first Chief Resilience Officer (CRO) in the world. The two other main benefits of the
1 http://www.100resilientcities.org/ (Accessed January 11, 2016).
Appendix D. Options for Moving Towards a Comprehensive Resilience Approach, continued.
program are access to an online resilience platform and information repository and
increased connectedness with a network of other 100RC cities and their CROs.
Other significant federal and regional resources are being devoted to helping local
jurisdictions promote overall community resilience. Many useful technical guides and
potential partners for Palo Alto exist. Important national groups include the National
Institutes of Building Sciences Community Resilience Initiative, which has produced a
comprehensive resilience planning guide for cities (NIST, 2015), and the Community
Regional Resilience Institute (CARRI).2
On the local level, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research organization through
its Resilient City initiative has conducted a series of collaborative planning efforts and
resulting reports that address building performance goals, recovery strategy, and
tactical recommendations for San Francisco in pursuing a specific set of resilience goals
(SPUR, 2008). An example recovery objective SPUR endorsed is to have 95% of San
Francisco residents able to shelter-in-place following a major event (SPUR, 2011).
Additionally, ABAG has recently created a resilience policy tracking database, searchable
and available online,3 and the Los Angeles Community Disaster Resilience project4 offers
a well-documented model of multi-issue regional coordinated effort.
2 Information available at: http://www.resilientus.org/ (Accessed February 25, 2016).
3 Available at: http://abag.ca.gov/resilience/policies.html (Accessed February 25, 2016).
4 Information available at: http://www.laresilience.org/ (Accessed February 25, 2016).
APPENDIX E
Retrofit Concept Designs for 12 Prototype Buildings
Building 1 – Wood Light Frame (W1)
2-story, 5,320 sq.ft, 1960, 4 unit multi-family (RES3B-3D), one unit on ground floor, three on
second floor, partial parking on ground floor
Conventional framing, no plywood shearwalls, post and beam framing and open front in garage
Retrofit Basis of Design: IEBC A4
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install plywood sheathing, hold downs and anchor bolts on existing walls in garage
area
2. Install new moment frames (2) to balance open front (w/ new footing). Use W12x50
beam and W14x68 columns.
3. Install new collector along moment frame line
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace drywall at shear walls
2. Remove and replace slab on grade at moment frame
3. Remove and replace drywall along moment frame collector
4. Re-route SS drain locally
5. Re-route water line locally
6. Re-route electrical locally
Building 2 – Multi-Story, Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Residential (W1A)
2-story, 9,500 sq.ft, 1960, 10 unit multi-family (COM 3C-3F), 2 units on ground floor 8 on second
floor, partial parking on ground floor
Conventional framing, no plywood shearwalls, post and beam framing and open front in garage
Retrofit Basis of Design: IEBC A4
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install plywood sheathing, hold downs and anchor bolts on existing walls in garage
area
2. Install new moment frames (2) to balance open front (w/ new footing). Use W12x50
beam and W14x68 columns.
3. Install new collector along moment frame line
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace drywall at shear walls
2. Remove and replace slab on grade at moment frame
3. Remove and replace drywall along moment frame collector
4. Re-route SS drain locally
5. Re-route water line locally
6. Re-route electrical locally
Building 3 – Multi-Story, Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Residential (W1A)
3-story, 30,000 sq.ft, 1960, 34 unit multi-family (COM 3C-3F), 4 units on ground floor, partial
parking on ground floor
Conventional framing, no plywood shearwalls, post and beam framing and open front in garage
Retrofit Basis of Design: IEBC A4
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install plywood sheathing, hold downs and anchor bolts on existing walls in garage
area
2. Install new moment frames (4) to balance open front (w/ new footing). Use W12x50
beam and W14x68 columns.
3. Install new collector along moment frame line
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace drywall at shear walls
2. Remove and replace slab on grade at moment frame
3. Remove and replace drywall along moment frame collector
4. Re-route SS drain locally
5. Re-route water line locally
6. Re-route electrical locally
Building 4 – Commercial and Industrial Wood Frame (W2)
2-story, 12,000 sq.ft, 1960, commercial ground floor retail, second floor office (COM1, COM2,
COM3, COM4, COM7, COM8)
Conventional framing, no plywood shearwalls, post and beam interior framing, open front at
ground floor
Retrofit Basis of Design: IEBC A4
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install plywood sheathing, hold downs and anchor bolts on existing walls in retail area
2. Install new moment frames (3) in weak direction (w/ new footing). Use W12x50 beam
and W14x68 columns.
3. Install new collector along moment frame line
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace drywall at shear walls
2. Remove and replace slab on grade and flooring at moment frame
3. Remove and replace drywall along moment frame collector
4. Remove and replace casework in retail space
5. Re-route SS drain locally
6. Re-route water line locally
7. Re-route electrical locally
Building 5 – Steel Moment Frame (S1)
2-story, 43,900 sq.ft, commercial office suites (COM1-COM10, IND1-IND6)
Two-bay perimeter moment frames, steel gravity framing, concrete fill over metal deck floor
and roof,
Retrofit Basis of Design: ASCE 41, BPOE
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install braces in existing moment frame bays. Use HSS6x6x1/2 braces at top story and
HSS8x8x1/2 braces at first story
2. Enlarge pile caps and install new micropiles at braced frames (8 at each story)
3. Improve collectors at some braced frame lines
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace suspended ceiling at braced frame bays
2. Remove furring wall at braced frame bays
3. Chip down concrete fill locally in brace frame bays
4. Remove and replace slab on grade and flooring at new foundations
5. Remove and replace suspended ceiling along new frame collector
6. Re-route SS drain locally
7. Re-route water line locally
8. Re-route electrical locally
NOTE:
GRAVITY BEAMS NOT
SHOWN FOR CLARITY
Building 6 – Concrete Shear Wall (C2)
1-story, 5,000 sq.ft, 1920, commercial retail (COM1-COM10, IND1-IND6)
Concrete perimeter walls, post and beam interior framing, wood roof diaphragm sheathing,
open front
Retrofit Basis of Design: ASCE 41, BPOE
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install roof-to-wall anchors
2. Install new plywood sheathing over existing roof sheathing
3. Install new moment frames (2) in weak direction (w/ new footings). Use W12x50
beam and W14x68 columns.
4. Install new collector along moment frame lines
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace ceiling along concrete walls
2. Remove and replace slab on grade and flooring at moment frame
3. Remove and replace ceiling along moment frame collector
4. Re-route SS drain locally
5. Re-route water line locally
6. Re-route electrical locally
7. Remove and replace roofing
Building 7 – Concrete Shear Wall (C2)
2-story, 17,280 sq.ft, 1960, commercial ground floor retail, second floor office (COM1-COM10,
IND1-IND6)
Concrete perimeter walls, flat plate floor and roof framing, tall first story
Retrofit Basis of Design: ASCE 41, BPOE
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install FRP column wrap at discontinuous wall
2. Install new collectors below 2nd floor and roof slab
3. Install additional shear walls (w/ new foundation), 3 bays at each story
4. Shore slab adjacent to walls
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace drywall at columns to be wrapped
2. Remove and replace storefront locally at columns to be wrapped
3. Remove and replace slab on grade and flooring at new shear walls
4. Remove and replace ceiling along new collectors
5. Remove and replace furring walls at new shear walls
6. Re-route SS drain multiple locations
7. Re-route water line multiple locations
8. Re-route electrical multiple locations
(N) CONC. SHEAR WALL W/ GRADE BEAM
AND MICROPILES, TYP., SEE 33 (N) COLLECTORS BELOW 2ND AND ROOF,
TYP., SEE 34
Foundation/Roof/
(E) PILE CAP, TYP.
Building 8 – Tilt-up Concrete Shear Walls (PC1)
1-story, 20,000 sq.ft, 1960, commercial office/warehouse
Precast concrete perimeter wall panels, post and beam interior framing, wood roof diaphragm
sheathing, building has reentrant corner
Retrofit standard: IEBC A2
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install roof-to-wall anchors
2. Install new plywood roof sheathing around perimeter bay
3. Install new subpurlin continuity ties
4. Install new collectors at reentrant corner
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace ceiling along perimeter
2. Remove and replace roofing
3. Re-route SS drain locally
4. Re-route water line locally
5. Re-route electrical locally
Building 9 – Tilt-up Concrete Shear Walls (PC1)
2-story, 46,400 sq.ft, 1960, commercial office/warehouse
Precast concrete perimeter wall panels, concrete fill on metal deck at second floor with steel
framing and steel columns below, wood roof sheathing with wood beam and girder framing and
steel columns below.
Retrofit standard: IEBC A2
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install floor-to-wall anchors
2. Install roof-to-wall anchors
3. Install new plywood roof sheathing around perimeter bay
4. Install new subpurlin continuity ties at roof
5. Improve girder connection capacity at roof
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace ceiling along perimeter on both floors
2. Remove and replace roofing
3. Re-route SS drain locally
4. Re-route water line locally
5. Re-route electrical locally
Building 10 – Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (RM1)
1-story, 2,750 sq.ft, 1950, commercial retail (COM1-COM5, COM8, IND1-IND6)
CMU perimeter walls (3 sides), post and beam interior framing, wood roof sheathing, tall story,
open front.
Retrofit Basis of Design: ASCE 41, BPOE
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install roof-to-wall anchors
2. Install new purlin and joist continuity ties
3. Install new plywood roof sheathing
4. Install new steel braced frame to balance open front (w/ new footings). Use W24x76
beam, W12x96 columns, and HSS6x6x1/2 braces.
5. Install new collector at braced frame
6. Install new supplemental girder supports (on new footings)
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace ceiling along perimeter
2. Remove and replace slab on grade and flooring at braced frame
3. Remove and replace roofing
4. Re-route SS drain locally
5. Re-route water line locally
6. Re-route electrical locally
Building 11 – Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (RM1)
2-story, 12,000 sq.ft, commercial office suites (RES 3D-3F, RES4, RES5, RES6, COM1-COM9, IND1-
IND6)
CMU perimeter walls (3 sides), post and beam interior framing, wood floor and roof sheathing,
window wall on street side
Retrofit Basis of Design: ASCE 41, BPOE
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Install floor-to-wall anchors
2. Install roof-to-wall anchors
3. Install new purlin continuity ties
4. Install collector to existing masonry wall at roof and second floor
5. Install new plywood roof sheathing
6. Install plywood shear walls perpendicular to open front to break up diaphragm (w/
new grade beams)
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace ceiling along perimeter at both floors
2. Remove and replace slab on grade and flooring at shear walls
3. Remove and replace roofing
4. Re-route SS drain locally
5. Re-route water line locally
6. Re-route electrical locally
Building 12 – Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (URM)
1-story, 5,000 sq.ft, retail/assembly (COM1, COM2, COM3, COM4, COM5, COM8)
URM perimeter walls (3 sides), wood post and beam interior framing with joists (flat roof) or
trusses (pitched roof), wood roof sheathing, window wall on street side
Retrofit Basis of Design: IEBC A1
Structural Retrofit Elements
1. Roof-to-wall ties
2. Supplemental girder support
3. Install new moment frame at open front and additional frame at interior (2 total w/
footings). Use W12x50 beam and W14x68 columns.
4. Install new collector along moment frame line
5. Parapet bracing
6. Install new plywood roof sheathing
Collateral Impacts
1. Remove and replace ceiling along masonry walls
2. Remove and replace furring wall locally at supplemental supports
3. Remove and replace flooring and slab on grade at moment frame
4. Remove and replace ceiling
5. Remove and replace roofing
6. Re-route electrical locally
Typical Retrofit Details
APPENDIX F
Retrofit Cost Estimates for 12 Prototype Buildings
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
City of Palo Alto - Seismic
Risk Mitigation
Replacement and Retrofit Cost
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
Proposed Hazus Default
Full Replacement Cost
Models
Proposed Hazus Default Full Replacement Cost Models
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
Hazus
Occupancy
Class
Definition
Average $/SF
Cost of New
Bldg. ‐ 2016
Costs
Demo &
Minimal
Sitework (5'
around Bldg.)
$/SF
Average $/SF
of Replaced
Bldg. ‐ 2016
Cost
Soft Cost
Premium2
Average $/SF
of Replaced
Bldg. w/ Soft
Costs ‐ 2016
Cost
Retrofit $/SF ‐
2016
Soft Cost
Premium2
Average $/SF
of Retrofit w/
Soft Costs ‐
2016 Cost
Ratio
RES3A Multi Family Dwelling – duplex $201 $17.50 $219 20%$263 $0 25%$0 N/A
RES3B Multi Family Dwelling – triplex/quad $177 $17.50 $195 20%$233 $0 25%$0 N/A
RES3C Multi Family Dwelling – 5-9 units $318 $17.50 $335 20%$402 $0 25%$0 N/A
RES3D Multi Family Dwelling – 10-19 units $299 $17.50 $316 20%$380 $0 25%$0 N/A
RES3E Multi Family Dwelling – 20-49 units $327 $17.50 $344 20%$413 $0 25%$0 N/A
RES3F Multi Family Dwelling – 50+ units $308 $17.50 $325 20%$390 $0 25%$0 N/A
RES4 Temp. Lodging $335 $17.50 $353 20%$424 $0 25%$0 N/A
RES5 Institutional Dormitory $401 $25.00 $426 20%$511 $0 25%$0 N/A
RES6 Nursing Home $400 $25.00 $425 20%$510 $0 25%$0 N/A
COM1 Retail Trade $241 $17.50 $258 20%$310 $0 25%$0 N/ACOM2 Wholesale Trade $208 $17.50 $225 20%$270 $0 25%$0 N/A
COM3 Personal and Repair Services $253 $17.50 $270 20%$324 $0 25%$0 N/ACOM4 Professional/ Technical/Business Service $359 $17.50 $377 20%$452 $0 25%$0 N/A
COM5 Banks $442 $25.00 $467 20%$560 $0 25%$0 N/ACOM6 Hospital $595 $35.00 $630 20%$756 $0 25%$0 N/A
COM7 Medical Office/Clinic $354 $17.50 $371 20%$445 $0 25%$0 N/ACOM8 Entertainment & Recreation $334 $25.00 $359 20%$431 $0 25%$0 N/A
COM9 Theaters $261 $25.00 $286 20%$343 $0 25%$0 N/ACOM10 Parking $112 $17.50 $129 20%$155 $0 25%$0 N/A
IND1 Heavy $199 $17.50 $216 20%$260 $0 25%$0 N/AIND2 Light $162 $17.50 $180 20%$216 $0 25%$0 N/A
IND3 Food/Drugs/Chemicals $334 $17.50 $352 20%$422 $0 25%$0 N/A
IND4 Metals/Minerals Processing $334 $17.50 $352 20%$422 $0 25%$0 N/A
IND5 High Technology $366 $17.50 $384 20%$461 $0 25%$0 N/A
IND6 Construction $169 $17.50 $186 20%$224 $0 25%$0 N/A
REL1 Church $185 $25.00 $210 20%$252 $0 25%$0 N/A
AGR1 Agriculture $245 $17.50 $263 20%$315 $0 25%$0 N/A
GOV1 General Services $235 $17.50 $253 35%$341 $0 35%$0 N/A
GOV2 Emergency Response $414 $25.00 $439 35%$593 $0 35%$0 N/A
EDU1 Schools/Libraries $292 $25.00 $317 35%$428 $0 35%$0 N/A
EDU2 Colleges/Universities $349 $25.00 $374 35%$505 $0 35%$0 N/A
Notes:
1. RS Means average cost includes location factors to adjust national average to Palo Alto of 15% for residential and 11% for commercial.
2. Soft costs include architect and engineer design fees, testing and inspection, utility connection fee, permits, and an allowance for owner change order contingency.
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
Detailed
Estimate
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
MH MH UNIT TOTAL
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL EQUIP SUB DIRECT COST COST
Building 1 - Wood Light Frame (RES 3B -3D)5,320 SF, 2 story
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 31,100.00 $0 $0 $0 $31,100 $31,100 $31,100.00 $31,100
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area 5 LOC 2.000 carp $86.89 250.00 0.00 0.00 $869 $1,250 $0 $0 $2,119 $524.39 $2,622
Remover & replace SOG - see detail 0.000 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Remover & replace drywall at moment frame & collector 2 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89 400.00 50.00 0.00 $695 $800 $100 $0 $1,595 $989.77 $1,980
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 $0 $0 $0 $500 $500 $250.00 $500
Allowance to reroute water line 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 $0 $0 $0 $300 $300 $150.00 $300
Allowance to reroute electrical 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $500.00 $1,000
Paint and patch - final clean-up 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 350.00 $0 $0 $0 $700 $700 $350.00 $700
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 38,201 $0 $0 $0 $11,460 $11,460 $38,201 $11,460
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 49,662 $49,662 $12,415
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 1 - Wood Light Frame (RES 3B -3D) 5,320 SF $1,564 $2,050 $100 $45,060 $48,774 $11.67 $62,100
Building 2 - Multi Unit Wood Frame (COM 3C -3F)9,500 SF, 2 story
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 55,400.00 $0 $0 $0 $55,400 $55,400 $55,400.00 $55,400
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area 4 LOC 2.000 carp $86.89 250.00 0.00 0.00 $695 $1,000 $0 $0 $1,695 $524.39 $2,098
Remover & replace SOG - see detail 0.000 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Remover & replace drywall at moment frame & collector 2 LOC 6.000 carp $86.89 600.00 50.00 0.00 $1,043 $1,200 $100 $0 $2,343 $1,455.16 $2,910
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 $0 $0 $0 $750 $750 $750.00 $750
Allowance to reroute water line 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 $0 $0 $0 $500 $500 $500.00 $500
Allowance to reroute electrical 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500.00 $1,500
Paint and patch - final clean-up 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000.00 $1,000
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 64,158 $0 $0 $0 $19,247 $19,247 $64,158 $19,247
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 83,405 $83,405 $20,851
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 2 - Multi Unit Wood Frame (COM 3C -3F) 9,500 SF $1,738 $2,200 $100 $78,397 $82,435 $10.98 $104,300
Building 3 - Multi Story & Multi Unit Wood Frame (COM
3C -3F)
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 85,300.00 $0 $0 $0 $85,300 $85,300 $85,300.00 $85,300
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area, back wall 4 LOC 2.000 carp $86.89 250.00 0.00 0.00 $695 $1,000 $0 $0 $1,695 $524.39 $2,098
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area, side wall 5 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89 600.00 0.00 0.00 $1,738 $3,000 $0 $0 $4,738 $1,166.77 $5,834
Remover & replace SOG - see detail 0.000 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Remover & replace drywall at moment frame & collector 8 LOC 6.000 carp $86.89 600.00 50.00 0.00 $4,171 $4,800 $400 $0 $9,371 $1,455.16 $11,641
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 4 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $250.00 $1,000
Allowance to reroute water line 4 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 $0 $0 $0 $600 $600 $150.00 $600
Allowance to reroute electrical 4 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $500.00 $2,000
Paint and patch - final clean-up 4 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 350.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,400 $1,400 $350.00 $1,400
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 109,873 $0 $0 $0 $32,962 $32,962 $109,873 $32,962
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 142,834 $142,834 $35,709
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 3 - Multi Story & Multi Unit Wood Frame (COM
3C -3F)30,000 SF $6,604 $8,800 $400 $123,262 $139,065 $5.95 $178,500
CREW UNIT TOTAL COST
30,000 SF, 3 Story
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 5
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
MH MH UNIT TOTAL
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL EQUIP SUB DIRECT COST COST
CREW UNIT TOTAL COST DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT
Building 4 - Commercial and Industrial Wood Frame
(COM 1, COM 2, COM 3, COM 4, COM 7, COM 8)
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 59,100.00 $0 $0 $0 $59,100 $59,100 $59,100.00 $59,100
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area, side wall 8 LOC 2.000 carp $86.89 250.00 0.00 0.00 $1,390 $2,000 $0 $0 $3,390 $524.39 $4,195
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area, back wall 2 LOC 8.000 carp $86.89 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 $1,390 $2,000 $0 $0 $3,390 $2,097.54 $4,195
Remover & replace SOG - see detail 0.000 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Remover & replace drywall at moment frame & collector 4 LOC 8.000 carp $86.89 750.00 50.00 0.00 $2,780 $3,000 $200 $0 $5,980 $1,861.54 $7,446
Remover & replace casework on first floor 3 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89 100.00 0.00 0.00 $1,043 $300 $0 $0 $1,343 $576.77 $1,730
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 4 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $250.00 $1,000
Allowance to reroute water line 4 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 $0 $0 $0 $600 $600 $150.00 $600
Allowance to reroute electrical 4 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,000 $1,000.00 $4,000
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $1,500.00 $3,000
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 85,267 $0 $0 $0 $25,580 $25,580 $85,267 $25,580
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 110,847 $110,847 $27,712
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 4 - Commercial and Industrial Wood Frame
(COM 1, COM 2, COM 3, COM 4, COM 7, COM 8)10,000 SF $6,604 $7,300 $200 $93,280 $107,384 $13.86 $138,600
Building 5 - Steel Moment Frame (COM 1 - COM 10, IND 1
- IND 6)
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 221,600.0 $0 $0 $0 $221,600 $221,600 $221,600.00 $221,600
Remover & replace suspended ceiling at braced frame bays -
both floors 8 LOC 8.000 carp $86.89 400.00 100.00 0.00 $5,561 $3,200 $800 $0 $9,561 $1,507.54 $12,060
Remover furring walls at braced frame bays, both floors 8 LOC 8.000 carp $86.89 600.00 0.00 0.00 $5,561 $4,800 $0 $0 $10,361 $1,625.54 $13,004
Chip down concrete fill locally in braced frame bays, both
floors 8 LOC 4.000 clab $60.77 50.00 100.00 0.00 $1,945 $400 $800 $0 $3,145 $497.85 $3,983
Remover & replace suspended ceiling along new frame
collector of 2nd floor 4 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89 200.00 50.00 0.00 $1,390 $800 $200 $0 $2,390 $753.77 $3,015
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area, back wall 2 LOC 8.000 carp $86.89 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 $1,390 $2,000 $0 $0 $3,390 $2,097.54 $4,195
Remover & replace SOG - see detail 0.000 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000.00 $1,000
Allowance to reroute water line 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500.00 $1,500
Allowance to reroute electrical 16 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $12,000 $750.00 $12,000
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000.00 $5,000
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 277,358 $0 $0 $0 $83,207 $83,207 $277,358 $83,207
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 360,565 $360,565 $90,141
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 5 - Steel Moment Frame (COM 1 - COM 10, IND 1
- IND 6)43,900 SF $15,847 $11,200 $1,800 $324,307 $353,154 $10.27 $450,700
10,000 SF, 2 Story
43,900 SF, 2 Story
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 6
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
MH MH UNIT TOTAL
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL EQUIP SUB DIRECT COST COST
CREW UNIT TOTAL COST DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT
Building 6 - Concrete Shear Wall (COM 1 - COM 10, IND 1
- IND 6)5,000 SF, 1 Story
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 61,300.00 $0 $0 $0 $61,300 $61,300 $61,300.00 $61,300
Remove and replace roof, insulation & roof accessories 5,000 SF 0.082 rofc $74.83 4.60 0.50 0.00 $30,680 $23,000 $2,500 $0 $56,180 $14.12 $70,587
Remove and replace ceiling at the building perimeter for
access - 8 to 10 lf wide 300 LF 0.260 carp $86.89 17.00 0.80 0.00 $6,777 $5,100 $240 $0 $12,117 $50.82 $15,247
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 $0 $0 $0 $500 $500 $500.00 $500
Allowance to reroute water line 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000.00 $1,000
Allowance to reroute electrical 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000.00 $2,000
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500.00 $2,500
Remove & replace casework on first floor 3 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89 100.00 0.00 0.00 $1,043 $300 $0 $0 $1,343 $576.77 $1,730
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 154,865 $0 $0 $0 $46,460 $46,460 $154,865 $46,460
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 201,325 $201,325 $50,331
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 6 - Concrete Shear Wall (COM 1 - COM 10, IND 1
- IND 6)5,000 SF $38,500 $28,400 $2,740 $113,760 $183,399 $50.34 $251,700
Building 7 - Concrete Shear Wall (COM 1 - COM 10, IND 1
- IND 6)
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 271,700.00 $0 $0 $0 $271,700 $271,700 $271,700.00 $271,700
Remove and replace drywall furring at new shear walls 1,056 SF 0.096 carp $86.89 4.00 0.50 0.00 $8,808 $4,224 $528 $0 $13,560 $16.32 $17,234
Remove and replace drywall furring at new collectors 3,168 SF 0.096 carp $86.89 4.00 0.50 0.00 $26,425 $12,672 $1,584 $0 $40,681 $16.32 $51,703
Remove and replace drywall furring at columns for new shear
walls 576 SF 0.115 carp $86.89 4.80 0.50 0.00 $5,765 $2,765 $288 $0 $8,818 $19.47 $11,213
Remove and replace floor / ceiling finishes at shear walls /
collectors 720 LF 0.200 carp $86.89 12.00 2.00 0.00 $12,512 $8,640 $1,440 $0 $22,592 $39.46 $28,410
Remove / replace / patch roof finishes at shear walls /
collectors 216 LF 0.250 rofc $74.83 15.00 2.00 0.00 $4,041 $3,240 $432 $0 $7,713 $44.75 $9,667
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $1,500.00 $3,000
Allowance to reroute water line 6 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $6,000 $1,000.00 $6,000
Allowance to reroute electrical 6 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $12,000 $2,000.00 $12,000
Paint and patch - final clean-up 17,280 SF $0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $0 $0 $0 $17,280 $17,280 $1.00 $17,280
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 428,207 $0 $0 $0 $128,462 $128,462 $428,207 $128,462
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 556,670 $556,670 $139,167
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 7 - Concrete Shear Wall (COM 1 - COM 10, IND 1
- IND 6)17,280 SF $57,552 $31,541 $4,272 $438,442 $531,807 $40.27 $695,800
17,280 SF, 2 Story
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 7
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
MH MH UNIT TOTAL
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL EQUIP SUB DIRECT COST COST
CREW UNIT TOTAL COST DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT
Building 8 - Tilt-up Concrete Shear Walls (COM1-4,
COM7, COM9, IND1-IND6)18,435 SF, 1 story
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 134,800.0 $0 $0 $0 $134,800 $134,800 $134,800.00 $134,800
Remove and replace roof, insulation and roof accessories
around perimeter 11,520 SF 0.082 rofc $74.83 4.60 0.50 0.00 $70,687 $52,992 $5,760 $0 $129,439 $14.12 $162,634
Remove and replace ceiling at the building perimeter for
access - 8 to 10 lf wide 528 LF 0.260 carp $86.89 17.00 0.80 0.00 $11,928 $8,976 $422 $0 $21,326 $50.82 $26,835
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000.00 $1,000
Allowance to reroute water line 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500.00 $1,500
Allowance to reroute electrical 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000.00 $2,000
Paint and patch - final clean-up 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500.00 $2,500
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 331,269 $0 $0 $0 $99,381 $99,381 $331,269 $99,381
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 430,649 $430,649 $107,662
Total Construction Cost of:
18,435 SF $82,615 $61,968 $6,182 $241,181 $391,946 $29.20 $538,300
Building 9 - Tilt-up Concrete Shear Walls (COM1-4,
COM7, COM9, IND1-IND6)
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 299,600.0 $0 $0 $0 $299,600 $299,600 $299,600.00 $299,600
Remove and replace roof, insulation and roof accessories
around perimeter 11,712 SF 0.082 rofc $74.83 4.60 0.50 0.00 $71,865 $53,875 $5,856 $0 $131,596 $14.12 $165,344
Remove and replace ceiling at the building perimeter for
access - 8 to 10 lf wide 488 LF 0.260 carp $86.89 17.00 0.80 0.00 $11,024 $8,296 $390 $0 $19,711 $50.82 $24,802
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000.00 $2,000
Allowance to reroute water line 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $1,500.00 $3,000
Allowance to reroute electrical 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000.00 $4,000
Paint and patch - final clean-up 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $1,500.00 $3,000
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 501,746 $0 $0 $0 $150,524 $150,524 $501,746 $150,524
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 652,270 $652,270 $163,068
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 9 - Tilt-up Concrete Shear Walls (COM1-4,
COM7, COM9, IND1-IND6)38,400 SF $82,889 $62,171 $6,246 $462,124 $613,431 $21.23 $815,300
Building 10 - Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (COM1-
COM5, COM8, IND1-IND6)2,750 SF, 1 Story
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 70,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000.00 $70,000
Remove and replace roof, insulation & roof accessories 2,750 SF 0.082 rofc $74.83 4.60 0.50 0.00 $16,874 $12,650 $1,375 $0 $30,899 $14.12 $38,823
Remove and replace ceiling at the building perimeter for
access - 8 to 10 lf wide 210 LF 0.260 carp $86.89 17.00 0.80 0.00 $4,744 $3,570 $168 $0 $8,482 $50.82 $10,673
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000.00 $1,000
Allowance to reroute water line 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500.00 $1,500
Allowance to reroute electrical 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000.00 $2,000
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500.00 $1,500
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 125,496 $0 $0 $0 $37,649 $37,649 $125,496 $37,649
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 163,145 $163,145 $40,786
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 10 - Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (COM1-
COM5, COM8, IND1-IND6)2,750 SF $21,618 $16,220 $1,543 $113,649 $153,030 $74.15 $203,900
Building 8 - Tilt-up Concrete Shear Walls (COM1-4,
COM7, COM9, IND1-IND6)
38,400 SF, 2 Story
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 8
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
MH MH UNIT TOTAL
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL EQUIP SUB DIRECT COST COST
CREW UNIT TOTAL COST DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT
Building 11 - Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (RES3D -
3F, RES4, RES5, RES6, COM1-COM9, IND1-IND6)8,150 SF, 2 Story
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 114,500.0 $0 $0 $0 $114,500 $114,500 $114,500.00 $114,500
Remove and replace roof, insulation & roof accessories 3,925 SF 0.082 rofc $74.83 4.60 0.50 0.00 $24,084 $18,055 $1,963 $0 $44,101 $14.12 $55,411
Remove and replace ceiling for access at 1st floor new shear
walls & 2nd floor anchor walls 300 LF 0.520 carp $86.89 34.00 1.60 0.00 $13,540 $10,189 $479 $0 $24,208 $101.65 $30,461
Remove and replace ceiling for access at roof level 3,925 SF 0.026 carp $86.89 1.70 0.08 0.00 $8,867 $6,673 $314 $0 $15,853 $5.08 $19,948
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000.00 $1,000
Allowance to reroute water line 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,250.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250.00 $1,250
Allowance to reroute electrical 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000.00 $2,000
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000.00 $4,000
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 228,570 $0 $0 $0 $68,571 $68,571 $228,570 $68,571
Add for Soft Cost Premium 25% LS 297,141 $297,141 $74,285
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 11 - Reinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (RES3D -
3F, RES4, RES5, RES6, COM1-COM9, IND1-IND6)8,150 SF $46,490 $34,916 $2,756 $191,321 $275,483 $45.57 $371,400
Building 12 - Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (COM1,
COM2, COM3, COM4, COM5, COM8)5,000 SF, 1 Story
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 238,500.0 $0 $0 $0 $238,500 $238,500 $238,500.00 $238,500
Remove and replace roof, insulation & roof accessories 5,000 SF 0.082 rofc $74.83 4.60 0.50 0.00 $30,680 $23,000 $2,500 $0 $56,180 $14.12 $70,587
Remove and replace ceiling at 2nd floor of the building
perimeter for access - 8 to 10 lf wide 210 LF 0.260 carp $86.89 17.00 0.80 0.00 $4,744 $3,570 $168 $0 $8,482 $50.82 $10,673
Remove and replace ceiling for access at moment frame &
collector - both levels, 8 to 10 lf wide 1,000 SF 0.026 carp $86.89 1.70 0.08 0.00 $2,259 $1,700 $80 $0 $4,039 $5.08 $5,082
Remover and replace furring walls at supplemental supports 14 LOC 2.000 carp $86.89 96.00 25.00 0.00 $2,433 $1,344 $350 $0 $4,127 $372.17 $5,210
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000.00 $1,000
Allowance to reroute water line 1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500.00 $1,500
Allowance to reroute electrical 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $1,500.00 $3,000
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up 2 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $1,500.00 $3,000
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 338,553 $0 $0 $0 $101,566 $101,566 $338,553 $101,566
25% LS 440,119 $440,119 $110,030
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 12 - Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (COM1,
COM2, COM3, COM4, COM5, COM8)5,000 SF $40,116 $29,614 $3,098 $348,566 $421,394 $110.02 $550,100
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 9
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
Structural Cost
Estimate
Structural Cost Estimate
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
MH MH UNIT
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL EQUIP SUB DIRECT w/MU COST
Bldg 1
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing 4 LOC 4.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 150.00 0.00 $889 $0 $600 $0 $1,489 $1,882 $470.53
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing 4 LOC 4.000 b5 $67.34 600.00 100.00 0.00 $1,077 $2,400 $400 $0 $3,877 $4,726 $1,181.55
Add moment frame with all connections 2 LOC 16.000 skwk $81.42 4,568.75 500.00 0.00 $2,605 $9,138 $1,000 $0 $12,743 $15,401 $7,700.65
Add new collector with all connections 2 LOC 4.000 skwk $81.42 1,000.00 150.00 0.00 $651 $2,000 $300 $0 $2,951 $3,574 $1,786.88
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts 5 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89 350.00 50.00 0.00 $1,738 $1,750 $250 $0 $3,738 $4,654 $930.77
Load & move debris + clean area 2 LS 4.000 clab $60.77 0.00 100.00 0.00 $486 $0 $200 $0 $686 $878 $438.85
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 1 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 15,287.50 2,750.00 0.00 $7,448 $15,288 $2,750 $0 $25,485 $31,100 $31,100.00
Bldg 2
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing 4 LOC 4.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 150.00 0.00 $889 $0 $600 $2,000 $3,489 $3,882 $970.53
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing 4 LOC 4.000 b5 $67.34 600.00 100.00 0.00 $1,077 $2,400 $400 $0 $3,877 $4,726 $1,181.55
Add moment frame with all connections 2 LOC 20.000 skwk $81.42 5,443.75 500.00 0.00 $3,257 $10,888 $1,000 $0 $15,144 $18,326 $9,163.03
Add new collector with all connections 2 LOC 6.000 skwk $81.42 2,000.00 200.00 0.00 $977 $4,000 $400 $0 $5,377 $6,482 $3,240.82
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts 5 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89 350.00 50.00 0.00 $1,738 $1,750 $250 $0 $3,738 $4,654 $930.77
Load & move debris + clean area 1 LS 8.000 clab $60.77 0.00 250.00 0.00 $486 $0 $250 $0 $736 $937 $936.71
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
grade beam - 25 LF 1 LOC 10.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 250.00 0.00 $556 $0 $250 $0 $806 $1,029 $1,028.84
New concrete grade beam / SOG with dowel to
existing footing - 25 LF 1 LOC 18.000 b5 $67.34 3,500.00 750.00 0.00 $1,212 $3,500 $750 $0 $5,462 $6,615 $6,614.98
New shear wall w/plywood on both sides, 25 LF 1 LOC 24.000 Carp $86.89 4,800.00 250.00 0.00 $2,085 $4,800 $250 $0 $7,135 $8,712 $8,711.62
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 2 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 27,337.50 4,150.00 2,000.00 $12,278 $27,338 $4,150 $2,000 $45,765 $55,400 $55,400.00
Bldg 3
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing 8 LOC 4.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 150.00 0.00 $1,779 $0 $1,200 $3,000 $5,979 $6,764 $845.53
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing 8 LOC 4.000 b5 $67.34 600.00 100.00 0.00 $2,155 $4,800 $800 $0 $7,755 $9,452 $1,181.55
Add moment frame with all connections 4 LOC 16.000 skwk $81.42 4,568.75 500.00 0.00 $5,211 $18,275 $2,000 $0 $25,486 $30,803 $7,700.65
Add new collector with all connections 8 LOC 6.000 skwk $81.42 2,000.00 200.00 0.00 $3,908 $16,000 $1,600 $0 $21,508 $25,927 $3,240.82
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts -
back walls 4 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89 350.00 50.00 0.00 $1,390 $1,400 $200 $0 $2,990 $3,723 $930.77
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts -
side walls 5 LOC 6.000 carp $86.89 500.00 75.00 0.00 $2,607 $2,500 $375 $0 $5,482 $6,833 $1,366.66
Load & move debris + clean area 4 LS 4.000 clab $60.77 0.00 100.00 0.00 $972 $0 $400 $0 $1,372 $1,755 $438.85
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 3 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 42,975.00 6,575.00 3,000.00 $18,022 $42,975 $6,575 $3,000 $70,572 $85,300 $85,300.00
DESCRIPTION QTY
UNIT TOTAL COST UNIT CREW
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 11
Structural Cost Estimate
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
MH MH UNIT
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL EQUIP SUB DIRECT w/MU COST
DESCRIPTION QTY
UNIT TOTAL COST UNIT CREW
Bldg 4
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing 6 LOC 4.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 150.00 0.00 $1,334 $0 $900 $0 $2,234 $2,823 $470.53
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing 6 LOC 4.000 b5 $67.34 600.00 100.00 0.00 $1,616 $3,600 $600 $0 $5,816 $7,089 $1,181.55
Add moment frame with all connections 3 LOC 16.000 skwk $81.42 5,163.75 500.00 0.00 $3,908 $15,491 $1,500 $0 $20,899 $25,208 $8,402.75
Add new collector with all connections 2 LOC 6.000 skwk $81.42 2,000.00 200.00 0.00 $977 $4,000 $400 $0 $5,377 $6,482 $3,240.82
Add for mid span collector with all connections 1 LOC 10.000 skwk $81.42 3,000.00 200.00 0.00 $814 $3,000 $200 $0 $4,014 $4,851 $4,850.70
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts -
side walls 8 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89 350.00 50.00 0.00 $2,780 $2,800 $400 $0 $5,980 $7,446 $930.77
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts -
back walls 2 LOC 8.000 carp $86.89 600.00 75.00 0.00 $1,390 $1,200 $150 $0 $2,740 $3,428 $1,714.04
Load & move debris + clean area 2 LS 8.000 clab $60.77 0.00 200.00 0.00 $972 $0 $400 $0 $1,372 $1,755 $877.71
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 4 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 30,091.25 4,550.00 0.00 $13,792 $30,091 $4,550 $0 $48,434 $59,100 $59,100.00
Bldg 5
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing & micropile 28 LOC 4.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 150.00 0.00 $6,226 $0 $4,200 $0 $10,426 $13,175 $470.53
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing + headed bars 28 LOC 4.000 b5 $67.34 800.00 100.00 0.00 $7,542 $22,400 $2,800 $0 $32,742 $39,691 $1,417.55
Drill thru ( E) footings for new headed bar 14 LOC 8.000 b5 $67.34 100.00 250.00 0.00 $7,542 $1,400 $3,500 $0 $12,442 $15,737 $1,124.10
New micropile 28 LOC 8.000 skwk $81.42 350.00 100.00 0.00 $18,237 $9,800 $2,800 $0 $30,837 $38,941 $1,390.76
Add HSS brace frame all connections at ( E)
frames 8 LOC 16.000 skwk $81.42 5,408.73 500.00 0.00 $10,421 $43,270 $4,000 $0 $57,691 $69,535 $8,691.82
Add new collector with all connections 4 LOC 8.000 skwk $81.42 1,500.00 200.00 0.00 $2,605 $6,000 $800 $0 $9,405 $11,463 $2,865.76
Add for mobilization and special requirements 1 LS $0.00 0.00 25,000.00 0.00 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $29,500 $29,500.00
Load & move debris + clean area 8 LS 4.000 clab $60.77 0.00 100.00 0.00 $1,945 $0 $800 $0 $2,745 $3,511 $438.85
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 5 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 82,869.82 43,900.00 0.00 $54,519 $82,870 $43,900 $0 $181,289 $221,600 $221,600.00
Bldg 6
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing 4 LOC 4.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 150.00 0.00 $889 $0 $600 $0 $1,489 $1,882 $470.53
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing 4 LOC 6.000 b5 $67.34 800.00 100.00 0.00 $1,616 $3,200 $400 $0 $5,216 $6,381 $1,595.33
Add moment frame with all connections 2 LOC 20.000 skwk $81.42 6,804.38 500.00 0.00 $3,257 $13,609 $1,000 $0 $17,865 $21,537 $10,768.56
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall - tight working area 35 LOC 2.000 skwk $81.42 150.00 25.00 0.00 $5,699 $5,250 $875 $0 $11,824 $14,750 $421.44
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) at roof 5,000 SF 0.006 carp $86.89 2.00 0.10 0.00 $2,607 $10,000 $500 $0 $13,107 $15,831 $3.17
Load & move debris + clean area 2 LS 4.000 clab $60.77 0.00 100.00 0.00 $486 $0 $200 $0 $686 $878 $438.85
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 6 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 32,058.75 3,575.00 0.00 $14,554 $32,059 $3,575 $0 $50,188 $61,300 $61,300.00
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 12
Structural Cost Estimate
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
MH MH UNIT
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL EQUIP SUB DIRECT w/MU COST
DESCRIPTION QTY
UNIT TOTAL COST UNIT CREW
Bldg 7
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing / micropile- at perimeter 2 LOC 8.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 250.00 0.00 $889 $0 $500 $0 $1,389 $1,764 $882.07
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing / micropile - interior 1 LOC 10.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 300.00 0.00 $556 $0 $300 $0 $856 $1,088 $1,087.84
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing footing / pile cap 2 LOC 12.000 b5 $67.34 1,200.00 250.00 0.00 $1,616 $2,400 $500 $0 $4,516 $5,555 $2,777.65
New concrete footing / SOG at interior 1 LOC 12.000 b5 $67.34 1,250.00 250.00 0.00 $808 $1,250 $250 $0 $2,308 $2,837 $2,836.65
New micropile 12 LOC 10.000 skwk $81.42 450.00 250.00 0.00 $9,770 $5,400 $3,000 $0 $18,170 $22,808 $1,900.70
New concrete shear wall with dowel to existing
columns - first & 2nd floors 1,056 SF 0.700 b5 $67.34 15.00 5.00 0.00 $49,777 $15,840 $5,280 $0 $70,897 $90,627 $85.82
New concrete shear wall at interior - first & 2nd
floors 576 SF 0.600 b5 $67.34 12.50 3.00 0.00 $23,272 $7,200 $1,728 $0 $32,200 $41,255 $71.62
Shore slab during construction 136 LF 0.500 carp $86.89 25.00 15.00 0.00 $5,908 $3,400 $2,040 $0 $11,348 $14,218 $104.55
Core drill / opening in first floor slab & roof for
dowel / shear wall 136 LF 0.200 b89 $55.59 15.00 5.00 0.00 $1,512 $2,040 $680 $0 $4,232 $5,206 $38.28
Core drill / dowel and new concrete collector
below 2nd floor & roof + patch pour hole 264 LF 1.250 b5 $67.34 80.00 15.00 0.00 $22,222 $21,120 $3,960 $0 $47,302 $58,927 $223.21
Clean and prep col surface 2 LS 2.000 clab $60.77 25.00 25.00 0.00 $243 $50 $50 $0 $343 $439 $219.43
Add FRP at the column surface 300 SF 0.180 skwk $81.42 35.00 10.00 0.00 $4,397 $10,500 $3,000 $0 $17,897 $21,733 $72.44
Load & move debris + clean area 12 LS 4.000 clab $60.77 0.00 100.00 0.00 $2,917 $0 $1,200 $0 $4,117 $5,266 $438.85
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 7 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 69,200.00 22,488.00 0.00 $123,888 $69,200 $22,488 $0 $215,576 $271,700 $271,700.00
Bldg 8
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall two walls - tight working area 30 LOC 2.000 skwk $81.42 150.00 25.00 0.00 $4,885 $4,500 $750 $0 $10,135 $12,643 $421.44
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor at sub-
purlin - roof to wall two walls - tight working
area
48 LOC 6.000 skwk $81.42 200.00 50.00 0.00 $23,448 $9,600 $2,400 $0 $35,448 $45,111 $939.82
Add new collector with all connections 4 LOC 10.000 skwk $81.42 1,500.00 200.00 0.00 $3,257 $6,000 $800 $0 $10,057 $12,323 $3,080.70
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) roof at
perimeter 11,520 SF 0.006 carp $86.89 2.00 0.10 0.00 $6,006 $23,040 $1,152 $0 $30,198 $36,474 $3.17
Load & move debris + clean area 1 LS 12.000 clab $60.77 0.00 200.00 0.00 $729 $0 $200 $0 $929 $1,199 $1,198.56
Continuity ties (subpurlin, girder, purlin) 90 LOC 2.000 carp $86.89 50.00 10.00 0.00 $15,640 $4,500 $900 $0 $21,040 $27,017 $300.19
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 8 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 47,640.00 6,202.00 0.00 $53,965 $47,640 $6,202 $0 $107,807 $134,800 $134,800.00
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 13
Structural Cost Estimate
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
MH MH UNIT
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL EQUIP SUB DIRECT w/MU COST
DESCRIPTION QTY
UNIT TOTAL COST UNIT CREW
Bldg 9
Drill hole in concrete wall, add enhanced girder
connection 14 LOC 4.000 skwk $81.42 250.00 25.00 0.00 $4,559 $3,500 $350 $0 $8,409 $10,561 $754.38
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall along two walls - tight working area 25 LOC 2.000 skwk $81.42 150.00 25.00 0.00 $4,071 $3,750 $625 $0 $8,446 $10,536 $421.44
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor at sub-
purlin - roof to wall along two walls - tight
working area
96 LOC 6.000 skwk $81.42 200.00 50.00 0.00 $46,896 $19,200 $4,800 $0 $70,896 $90,223 $939.82
Drill hole in concrete wall, add steel angle &
anchor at floor level - wall all around - tight
working area
196 LOC 4.000 skwk $81.42 125.00 25.00 0.00 $63,831 $24,500 $4,900 $0 $93,231 $118,949 $606.88
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) roof at
perimeter 11,712 SF 0.006 carp $86.89 2.00 0.10 0.00 $6,106 $23,424 $1,171 $0 $30,701 $37,082 $3.17
Load & move debris + clean area 2 LS 8.000 clab $60.77 0.00 150.00 0.00 $972 $0 $300 $0 $1,272 $1,637 $818.71
Continuity ties (subpurlin, girder, purlin) 102 LOC 2.000 carp $86.89 50.00 10.00 0.00 $17,725 $5,100 $1,020 $0 $23,845 $30,619 $300.19
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 9 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 79,474.00 13,166.20 0.00 $144,160 $79,474 $13,166 $0 $236,800 $299,600 $299,600.00
Bldg 10
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing & micropile 2 LOC 4.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 150.00 0.00 $445 $0 $300 $0 $745 $941 $470.53
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing + headed bars 2 LOC 6.000 b5 $67.34 1,500.00 250.00 0.00 $808 $3,000 $500 $0 $4,308 $5,197 $2,598.33
Drill thru ( E) footings for new headed bar 0 LOC 8.000 b5 $67.34 100.00 250.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
New micropile 0 LOC 8.000 skwk $81.42 350.00 100.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing 2 LOC 6.000 b5 $67.34 800.00 100.00 0.00 $808 $1,600 $200 $0 $2,608 $3,191 $1,595.33
Add moment frame with all connections 2 LOC 20.000 skwk $81.42 6,804.38 500.00 0.00 $3,257 $13,609 $1,000 $0 $17,865 $21,537 $10,768.56
Add brace frame W24x76 & W12x96 with all
connections 0 LOC 32.000 skwk $81.42 6,475.00 500.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Add HSS brace frame all connections at ( E)
frames 0 LOC 16.000 skwk $81.42 5,408.73 500.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Add new collector with all connections 1 LOC 8.000 skwk $81.42 1,500.00 200.00 0.00 $651 $1,500 $200 $0 $2,351 $2,866 $2,865.76
Drill hole in concrete wall, add enhanced girder
connection 2 LOC 4.000 skwk $81.42 250.00 25.00 0.00 $651 $500 $50 $0 $1,201 $1,509 $754.38
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall - tight working area 12 LOC 2.000 skwk $81.42 150.00 25.00 0.00 $1,954 $1,800 $300 $0 $4,054 $5,057 $421.44
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor at sub-
purlin - roof to wall along one bay - tight working
area
14 LOC 6.000 skwk $81.42 200.00 50.00 0.00 $6,839 $2,800 $700 $0 $10,339 $13,157 $939.82
Add new continuity ties (subpurlin, girder, purlin) 22 LOC 2.000 carp $86.89 50.00 10.00 0.00 $3,823 $1,100 $220 $0 $5,143 $6,604 $300.19
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) roof at
perimeter 2,750 SF 0.006 carp $86.89 2.00 0.10 0.00 $1,434 $5,500 $275 $0 $7,209 $8,707 $3.17
New blocking where wall anchor does not allow -
Allowance 0 LS 8.000 carp $86.89 500.00 50.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Load & move debris + clean area 1 LS 12.000 clab $60.77 0.00 200.00 0.00 $729 $0 $200 $0 $929 $1,199 $1,198.56
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 10 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 31,408.75 3,945.00 0.00 $21,399 $31,409 $3,945 $0 $56,753 $70,000 $70,000.00
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 14
Structural Cost Estimate
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
MH MH UNIT
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL EQUIP SUB DIRECT w/MU COST
DESCRIPTION QTY
UNIT TOTAL COST UNIT CREW
Bldg 11
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
grade beam - 25 LF 2 LOC 10.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 250.00 0.00 $1,112 $0 $500 $0 $1,612 $2,058 $1,028.84
New concrete grade beam / SOG with dowel to
existing footing - 25 LF 2 LOC 18.000 b5 $67.34 3,500.00 750.00 0.00 $2,424 $7,000 $1,500 $0 $10,924 $13,230 $6,614.98
New shear wall w/plywood on both sides, 25 LF 2 LOC 24.000 Carp $86.89 4,800.00 250.00 0.00 $4,171 $9,600 $500 $0 $14,271 $17,423 $8,711.62
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall along two walls - tight working area 40 LOC 2.000 skwk $81.42 150.00 25.00 0.00 $6,513 $6,000 $1,000 $0 $13,513 $16,858 $421.44
Drill hole in concrete wall, install floor to wall
anchor at floor level 40 LOC 6.000 skwk $81.42 200.00 50.00 0.00 $19,540 $8,000 $2,000 $0 $29,540 $37,593 $939.82
Add new purlin continuity ties 25 LOC 2.000 carp $86.89 50.00 10.00 0.00 $4,344 $1,250 $250 $0 $5,844 $7,505 $300.19
Add new collector with all connections at second
floor 1 LOC 10.000 skwk $81.42 1,500.00 200.00 0.00 $814 $1,500 $200 $0 $2,514 $3,081 $3,080.70
Add new collector with all connections at roof 1 LOC 10.000 skwk $81.42 1,500.00 200.00 0.00 $814 $1,500 $200 $0 $2,514 $3,081 $3,080.70
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) roof 3,925 SF 0.006 carp $86.89 2.00 0.10 0.00 $2,046 $7,850 $393 $0 $10,289 $12,427 $3.17
Load & move debris + clean area 1 LS 12.000 clab $60.77 0.00 200.00 0.00 $729 $0 $200 $0 $929 $1,199 $1,198.56
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 11 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 42,700.00 6,742.50 0.00 $42,508 $42,700 $6,743 $0 $91,951 $114,500 $114,500.00
Bldg 12
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing 4 LOC 4.000 b89 $55.59 0.00 150.00 0.00 $889 $0 $600 $0 $1,489 $1,882 $470.53
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing 4 LOC 4.000 b5 $67.34 600.00 100.00 0.00 $1,077 $2,400 $400 $0 $3,877 $4,726 $1,181.55
Add moment frame with all connections - 12'-6"
span 1 LOC 16.000 skwk $81.42 5,382.50 500.00 0.00 $1,303 $5,383 $500 $0 $7,185 $8,661 $8,660.87
Add moment frame with all connections - 25'
span 1 LOC 20.000 skwk $81.42 6,804.38 500.00 0.00 $1,628 $6,804 $500 $0 $8,933 $10,769 $10,768.56
Allowance for increased footing size at 25' span
moment frame 1 LOC 2.000 b5 $67.34 200.00 50.00 0.00 $135 $200 $50 $0 $385 $473 $472.78
Add moment frame with all connections per
detail 28 - NOT APPLICABLE DETAIL 0 LOC 0.000 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Add new collector with all connections, 25' span 1 LOC 6.000 skwk $81.42 1,500.00 150.00 0.00 $489 $1,500 $150 $0 $2,139 $2,592 $2,591.82
Add new collector with all connections, 37' span 1 LOC 10.000 skwk $81.42 2,000.00 200.00 0.00 $814 $2,000 $200 $0 $3,014 $3,671 $3,670.70
Drill hole in URM wall, add supplemental vertical
support - 14 LOCATIONS 14 LOC 20.000 skwk $81.42 2,500.00 250.00 0.00 $22,797 $35,000 $3,500 $0 $61,297 $75,522 $5,394.40
Drill hole in URM wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall along each wall - tight working area 75 LOC 2.000 skwk $81.42 150.00 25.00 0.00 $12,213 $11,250 $1,875 $0 $25,338 $31,608 $421.44
Drill hole in URM wall, add parapet brace -
along each wall 38 LOC 6.000 skwk $81.42 1,250.00 50.00 0.00 $18,563 $47,500 $1,900 $0 $67,963 $82,795 $2,178.82
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) roof 5,000 SF 0.006 carp $86.89 2.00 0.10 0.00 $2,607 $10,000 $500 $0 $13,107 $15,831 $3.17
Load & move debris + clean area 1 LS 12.000 clab $60.77 0.00 200.00 0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 12 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 122,036.88 10,175.00 0.00 $62,514 $122,037 $10,175 $0 $194,726 $238,500 $238,500.00
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 15
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
Methodology
Cost Model
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
Cost Model Methodology - Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program project
All costs are current – 4th quarter of 2016 costs – escalation to the mid-point of construction to be added at a
later time based on the schedule of the construction work.
Cost of retrofit includes:
Structural costs: The cost that a subcontractor charges a general contractor to perform structural work.
Architectural refinishing or collateral costs: The cost for architectural work associated with the structural
work that a subcontractor charges the general contractor. Included are items such as demolition and
replacement costs for wall and ceiling finishes, removal and reinstallation of electrical and mechanical
equipment, and reroofing. Assume an “average” level of finishes.
Overhead and profit: Overhead includes bonds, insurance, and general conditions, and it covers
administration and management of subcontractors.
Design contingency: Use and identify a design contingency that is appropriate to the conceptual retrofit
level of the retrofit descriptions to cover unknown costs of work not specified but which will likely be
necessary.
In order to gauge the impact of seismic retrofitting potentially hazardous building types and perform loss
estimates on the building stock with and without the retrofits, a conceptual cost estimates for the retrofits has
been developed, to compare the cost of retrofit with the losses.
R+C has developed a conceptual retrofits for a selected set of representative buildings. Vanir provided the
retrofit cost of these building for the seismic upgrade as well as the collateral cost of performing seismic works.
The conceptual cost estimate is based on Vanir cost model from seismic retrofit of various building types
modified and adjusted for the scope of these buildings, current construction market as well as the location
impact -Palo Alto across the town, including downtown areas.
Project: City of Palo Alto - Seismic Risk Mitigation
Title: Replacement and Retrofit Cost Estimate
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
Soft costs: including but not limited to:
Architect and engineer design fees
Testing and inspection fees
Permit and plan check fees
An allowance for owner change order contingency
Advertising, printing, and mailing fees
Hazardous material abatement costs, such as asbestos, lead paint, or soil contamination.
Occupants-in-place costs, (assumed building will be vacant for the seismic retrofit)
Relocation of the occupants / interim housing / swing space
Relocation of the building content – furniture and similar
Loss of use during construction
Accessibility / ADA upgrade
Cost of code upgrade
Premium for Historic buildings
Repair of existing conditions / differed maintenance
Renovation / retrofit over and beyond seismic work
Upgrade / enhancement of finishes / equipment / infrastructure
Project and construction management
Environmental documentation fees
Financing costs
Legal fees
Cost Categories exclude the cost / fee of the following items:
Structural | Geotechnical
375 Beale Street, Suite 310
San Francisco, CA 94105
Threat and Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment Report
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
Office of Emergency Services
With the assistance of
Unrestricted – For Public Release
15 August 2014
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. 1
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 2
1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 3
2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3
3 Goal Setting ............................................................................................................................. 5
4 Hazard Identification and Prioritization ................................................................................. 9
4.1 Identified Hazards and Threats ....................................................................................... 9
4.2 Natural Hazard Prioritization ......................................................................................... 17
4.3 Technological Hazard Prioritization ............................................................................... 19
4.4 Human Caused Threat Prioritization ............................................................................. 20
4.5 Threats and Hazards of Most Concern ........................................................................... 21
5 Hazard Profiles ...................................................................................................................... 22
5.1 Non-Natural Hazard Profile Structure .......................................................................... 22
5.2 Earthquake Hazard Summary ....................................................................................... 23
5.3 Flood/Severe Winter Storm Hazard Summary ............................................................. 23
5.4 Airplane Accident Profile ............................................................................................... 24
5.5 Urban Fire Profile .......................................................................................................... 28
5.6 Major Crimes .................................................................................................................. 29
5.7 Cyber Attack Profile ........................................................................................................ 31
5.8 Hostage/Assassin Profile ............................................................................................... 36
5.9 Sabotage/Theft Profile ................................................................................................... 37
5.10 Workplace Violence Profile ............................................................................................ 38
6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 39
6.1 Recommendations for Action ........................................................................................ 40
6.2 THIRA Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 44
7 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 44
Appendix A: Planning Team ..................................................................................................... 44
1
List of Tables
Table 4-1 National Planning Scenarios ..........................................................................................10
Table 4-2 Comprehensive List of Hazards and Definitions ........................................................... 11
Table 4-3 Natural Hazards Rating Criteria.................................................................................... 18
Table 4-4 Natural Hazard Rating Results...................................................................................... 18
Table 4-5 Technological Hazards Rating Criteria.......................................................................... 19
Table 4-6 Technological Hazard Rating Results ........................................................................... 19
Table 4-7 Human Caused Threat Rating Criteria ......................................................................... 20
Table 4-8 Human Caused Threat Rating Results ......................................................................... 20
Table 4-9 Summary of All Hazards Prioritization ......................................................................... 21
Table 5-1 Common Types of Cyber Attacks ................................................................................... 31
Table 5-2 Common Sources of Cybersecurity Threats ................................................................. 33
Table 7-1 Planning Team .............................................................................................................. 45
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 National Preparedness Core Capabilities ...................................................................... 5
Figure 5-1 Statistics of Part I and Part II Crimes in Palo Alto from the Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2013
Annual Report ............................................................................................................................... 30
2
1 Executive Summary
To evaluate the City of Palo Alto’s capabilities for addressing all hazard events, the City of Palo
Alto Office of Emergency Services (OES) conducted a collaborative planning process in order to
develop the City of Palo Alto 2014 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
(THIRA). This assessment provides the outcomes of this process and is compliant with the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201.
This THIRA report will be used to inform ongoing planning efforts throughout the city.
Palo Alto OES established a Planning Team of key stakeholders to ensure development of a well-
rounded, inclusive assessment of all relevant threats/hazards and the City’s capabilities to
address the five mission areas of prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery.
The Planning Team met in person for two full day workshops and additionally provided input
via virtual reviews conducted through email correspondence. Prior to the Planning Team
workshops, the executive committee met to draft Desired Outcomes. This preliminary
coordination by the leadership set the tone for the THIRA planning process and established
guidelines for the Planning Team.
The two full day workshops were designed to follow CPG 201. Each workshop was facilitated to
emphasize comprehensive discussion and integrate expertise by Planning Team members for
relevant topics. The first workshop focused on confirming the threats and hazards of concern
(CPG 201 Step 1) and developing context (CPG 201 Step 2) to help evaluate potential impacts.
The second workshop was a facilitated discussion to validate the potential impacts for each of
the developed scenarios. The Planning Team developed Capability Targets based on the greatest
estimated impact for each of the 31 Core Capabilities (CPG 201 Step 3). Once the Capability
Targets were approved, the Planning Team examined each of the core capabilities against the
Capability Target and identified gaps and recent advances in Planningorganization, equipment,
Training, and Exercise (POETE). For each of the identified gaps, subject matter experts
identified initial recommendations on how to address these gaps (CPG 201 Step 4).
As the City of Palo Alto moves forward with the results of the THIRA, it is recommended that
the identified gaps be further discussed and analyzed in order to identify the root cause of the
gap. Once the root cause is determined by the stakeholders, the identified recommendations
should be revised, corrective actions determined and resource estimations be made in order to
implement and prioritize the recommendations.
This document is published as Unrestricted – For Public Release. There is content published in
the Restricted version of this document which is not included in this report due to the sensitive
nature of this information. This includes Chapters 6 (Hazard Context), 7 (Vulnerability
Assessment), and 8 (Capability Target Statements and Evaluation).
2 Introduction
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.
Preventing, protecting from, mitigating, responding to, and recovering from hazards and threats
3
requires extensive coordination among City agencies and local partners, including Stanford. The
City’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) leads that coordination with the goal of “developing,
maintaining, and sustaining a citywide, comprehensive, all hazard, risk-based emergency
management program that engages the whole community”1. The Stanford University
Department of Public Safety and the Stanford University Environmental Health & Safety
(EH&S) Department partner with the City to enhance their emergency preparedness, mitigation,
and response capabilities. Under separate contracts, the City provides all 911 Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) dispatch services to Stanford, and is also the prime Fire and EMS
provider to the University. Together, the City’s OES and representatives from Stanford
University supported the formulation of this plan.
To better understand and effectively prioritize risk reduction measures, OES conducted a
collaborative planning process with an Executive Committee and a broader Stakeholder Group
to evaluate current capabilities with regard to prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and
recovery. This THIRA is the result of the collaborative planning process. It is compliant with the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201,
Second Edition, released in August 2013, which outlines a process to help communities identify
capability targets and resource requirements necessary to address anticipated and unanticipated
risks.
The result of the THIRA process is an organized evaluation of vulnerability and implementation
measures based on the necessary capabilities to deal with the hazards/threats of most concern.
This report should inform ongoing City and University planning efforts including, but not
limited to, the following:
• Emergency Operations Plan
• Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Emergency Planning & Homeland Security Strategic Plan
• Operating Budget
• Capital Budget
• Office of Emergency Services Annual Report
• Comprehensive Plan
DHS requires annual THIRAs from States and Tier 1 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
organizations. The City of Palo Alto THIRA, as a local government assessment, may be shared as
appropriate with the San Francisco Bay Area UASI and California Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services (Cal OES) to ensure consistency in vulnerability analyses. Both the
California State THIRA and San Francisco Bay Area UASI THIRA were consulted in the
preparation of this City of Palo Alto THIRA.
1 Office of Emergency Services (OES): Executive Summary (Rev. 8/24/12)
4
3 Goal Setting
Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness sets forth a national goal for “a secure
and resilient Nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent,
protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the
greatest risk”2. To achieve this, the National Preparedness Goal identifies 31 necessary core
capabilities. The City of Palo Alto Executive Team reviewed the National Preparedness Goal and
through discussion established a more refined set of desired outcomes for the City based on the
31 core capabilities.
Figure 3-1 National Preparedness Core Capabilities
The following statements represent an ideal condition of the whole community’s capability to
prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards of most
concern.
1. Planning
Conduct a consolidated, coordinated, integrated planning process to ensure participation by the
whole community using an all hazards approach and defined planning cycles.
2 National Preparedness Goal
5
2. Public Information and Warning
Provide information in a timely and appropriate manner to the affected population, including
those with functional needs. Information should be consistent with the threat or hazard and
enable people to take appropriate actions or protective measures.
3. Operational Coordination
Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational Incident Command System (ICS)
compliant structure and process that appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders to include
private/public partners (e.g. hospitals, residents, Emergency Services Volunteers, schools,
businesses, etc.) and supports the execution of core capabilities.
Prevention
4. Forensics and Attribution
Conduct investigation, evidence collection, and analysis for criminal prosecution as well as assist
in preventing initial or follow-on terrorist acts.
5. Intelligence and Information Sharing
Interface with allied public safety agencies, regional planning entities, and other relevant
stakeholders to collect, analyze, and disseminate timely, accurate, and actionable information.
6. Interdiction and Disruption
Coordinate with other agencies to facilitate interdiction of cargo and persons that could present
a threat to the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University.
7. Screening Search and Detection
Screen and search cargo, packages, and persons if/when legally permissible and justified. For
example, observe safety protocols with those entering Stanford Stadium for certain security-risk
events.
Protection
8. Access Control and Identity Verification
Establish verification of identity to authorize, grantor deny physical and cyber access to critical
infrastructure, key asset locations, and networks.
9. Cybersecurity
Protect against malicious activity directed toward critical infrastructure, key resources, and
networks.
6
10. Physical Protective Measures
Protect people, structures, materials, products, and systems of key operational activities and
critical infrastructure sectors against identified or perceived threats.
11. Risk Management for Protection Programs and Activities
Complete and/or encourage risk assessments, using standardized methodologies/models, for
critical infrastructure/key resources (CIKR) and assets.
12. Supply Chain Integrity and Security
Accounting for reliance on digital technology and modern management practices, work with and
encourage private sector to build resiliency in the supply chain and develop tangible and
intellectual methods to protect it.
Mitigation
13. Community Resilience
Engage the whole community in improving resilience through development and implementation
of local risk management plans, techniques, strategies, training, and exercises.
14. Long–term Vulnerability Reduction
Implement ongoing strategies to achieve measurable decreases in the long-term vulnerability of
critical infrastructure, systems, and community features at risk to identified threats and
hazards.
15. Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment
Maintain a risk assessment that includes identification and analysis of information about
security gaps, localized vulnerabilities and risk consequences in City systems and facilities.
16. Threats and Hazards Identification
Continually review/identify/maintain the assessment of identified threats and hazards.
Response
17. Critical Transportation
Establish physical access through appropriate transportation corridors and deliver required
resources in an effort to save lives and to meet the needs of disaster survivors.
18. Environmental Response/Health and Safety
Conduct health and safety hazard and critical systems assessments and disseminate guidance
and resources, including the deployment of hazardous materials teams, to support
environmental health and safety actions for response personnel and the affected population and
7
area. Conduct water sampling from established locations to determine potential access breach
and/or contamination.
19. Fatality Management Services
Conduct operations to recover fatalities in coordination with Operational Area/regional/state,
federal, and NGO partners.
20. Mass Care Services
Move and deliver resources and capabilities to meet the needs of disaster survivors, including
individuals with access and functional needs and others who may be considered at-risk.
Coordinate operations with government and NGO assistance partners.
21. Mass Search and Rescue Operations
Conduct search and rescue operations to locate and rescue persons in distress.
22. On-Scene Security and Protection
Establish a safe and secure environment for the affected area.
23. Operational Communications
Establish and maintain the capability and capacity for timely and sufficient integrated
communications in support of security, situational awareness, and operations. This includes
redundant capabilities and resilient systems and facilities.
24. Public and Private Services and Resources
Mobilize and coordinate governmental, nongovernmental, and private sector resources within
and outside the affected areas to save lives, sustain lives, meet basic human needs, stabilize the
incident, and transition to recovery.
25. Public Health and Medical Services
With operational area support as needed, complete triage and initial stabilization of casualties
and begin coordination of transport to definitive care for those likely to survive their injuries.
26. Situational Assessment
Deliver information sufficient to inform City decisions, through collaboration with key partners,
regarding immediate life-saving and -sustaining activities and engage governmental, private,
and civic-sector resources within and outside of the affected area to meet basic human needs
and stabilize the incident and maintain public services.
27. Infrastructure Systems
Decrease and stabilize immediate infrastructure threats to the affected population, following all
City EOP procedures.
8
Recovery
28. Economic Recovery
Develop a plan with whole community partners, with a specified timeline for redeveloping
community infrastructures to contribute to resiliency, accessibility, and sustainability.
29. Health and Social Services
Restore basic health and social services functions with support from Operational
Area/state/federal, and NGO partners.
30. Housing
Assess preliminary housing impacts and needs, identify currently available options for
temporary housing, and plan for permanent housing in coordination with Operational
Area/state/federal, and NGO partners.
31. Natural and Cultural Resources
Mitigate impacts, stabilize natural and cultural resources, and conduct a preliminary assessment
of the impacts to identify and implement protections during the various stages of incident
management—from stabilization through recovery.
4 Hazard Identification and Prioritization
4.1 Identified Hazards and Threats
Several City and regional emergency management and planning documents were reviewed
to identify a comprehensive list of hazards for consideration. These documents address
both natural and human caused hazards that have the potential to impact Palo Alto and the
Bay Area. Many of these documents estimate the impacts that result from the identified
hazards. City policies that aid in emergency prevention, protection, mitigation, response,
and recovery are highlighted in these documents. The reviewed documents which were
integral in providing key information are listed below:
City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan, June 2007
Palo Alto City Council Priority Update on Emergency Preparedness, September 2010
City of Palo Alto Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011
City of Palo Alto Energy Assurance Plan, July 2013
After Action Report Power Outage and Plane Crash, May 2010
After Action Report Winter Storm of December 23, 2012, February 2013
City of Palo Alto Emergency Planning Strategic Plan, November 2009
9
State of California THIRA Draft, December 2012
Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative THIRA, December 2012
San Francisco THIRA, 2012
National Planning Scenarios (See table 4-1 below)
San Francisco Bay Area Regional Emergency Coordination Plan, March 2008
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, July 20073; Land Use Designation Map, March
2011; Housing Element, November 2013; Updated version to be released in 2014/2015
In addition to the documents listed above, the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission Final
Report on Palo Alto’s Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead (December
2011) specifically helped to identify the City’s critical facilities and infrastructure used in
estimating impacts and assessing vulnerability.
Table 4-1 National Planning Scenarios
Scenario 1: Nuclear Detonation
Scenario 2: Biological Attack – Aerosol Anthrax
Scenario 3: Biological Disease Outbreak – Pandemic Influenza
Scenario 4: Biological Attack - Plague
Scenario 5: Chemical Attack – Blister Agent
Scenario 6: Chemical Attack – Toxic Industrial Chemicals
Scenario 7: Chemical Attack – Nerve Agent
Scenario 8: Chemical Attack – Chlorine Tank Explosion
Scenario 9: Natural Disaster – Major Earthquake
Scenario 10: Natural Disaster – Major Hurricane
Scenario 11: Radiological Attack – Radiological Dispersal Devices
Scenario 12: Explosives Attack – Bombing Using Improvised Explosive Devices
Scenario 13: Biological Attack – Food Contamination
Scenario 14: Biological Attack – Foreign Animal Disease (Foot and Mouth Disease)
Scenario 15: Cyber Attack
3 The City is in the process of updating the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan which will
contain updated goals, policies, and programs relating to safety and natural hazards. The
update is expected to be completed by the end of 2015 and will have an expected horizon year of
2030. The updated Comprehensive Plan will be consistent with this Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment.
10
Table 4-2 Comprehensive List of Hazards and Definitions presents the comprehensive list of
hazards as approved by the Executive Committee and considered by the Stakeholder Group.
Table 4-2 Comprehensive List of Hazards and Definitions
Natural Hazard Definition
Earthquake An earthquake is a phenomenon resulting from the sudden release
of stored energy in the crust of the Earth in the form of seismic
waves. They can devastate regions and destroy nearly any type of
asset. They can cause injuries and death due to falling debris and
broken glass. A major earthquake could trigger significant
landslides, spark fires, and release toxic chemicals. If an
earthquake occurred during the rainy winter season, landslides
would be worsened and flooding could occur, exacerbated by
damaged creek culverts and storm drains.
Extreme Heat A heat wave is defined as prolonged periods of excessive heat, often
combined with excessive humidity. Extreme heat is defined as
temperatures that hover ten degrees or more above the average
high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. The
main concern in periods of extreme heat is the potential public
health impact, such as heat exhaustion or heat stroke.
Flood/Winter Storm A flood is any high flow, overflow or inundation by water which
causes or threatens damage. Flooding is often caused by winter
storms in the City of Palo Alto. Flooding can contaminate potable
water, wastewater, and irrigation systems, which may negatively
affect the quality of the water supply and result in an increase of
water and food borne diseases. Severe winter storms can cause
flooding.
High Wind Wind is associated with multiple natural hazards. In some
hazards, wind is the primary cause of damage, while in others,
wind plays a contributory or auxiliary role. Damaging wind is
primarily associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, downbursts,
severe thunderstorms, and winter storms. Wind plays a
contributory role in wildfire generation and propagation and can
exacerbate severe droughts as well as cause trees to fall on power
lines.
Landslides In a landslide, masses of rock, earth or debris move down a slope.
Landslides may be small or large, slow or rapid. They are activated
by storms, earthquakes, fires, alternate freezing and thawing, and
steepening of slopes by erosion or human modification.
11
Public Health
Pandemic
The most readily apparent public health emergency is an outbreak
of influenza pandemic, although other public health emergencies
are just as likely. An influenza pandemic is a worldwide outbreak
of disease that occurs when a new influenza virus appears in
human population, causes serious illness and then spreads easily
from person to person worldwide. Pandemics are different from
seasonal outbreaks of the flu. Since 2005, a high virulent strain of
bird flu (H5N1), which developed in Asia, has steadily spread in
birds to the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. The fatality rate of
this particular strain is more than 50 percent. The Center for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that, in the
US alone, a "minor" influenza pandemic could infect up to 200
million people and cause between 100,000-200,000 deaths. The
potential financial impact on the US of this type of pandemic is
estimated at $166 billion. Pandemics could continue for up to 24
months and cause major disruptions in supply chains for essential
goods and services. Other outbreaks could include H1N1,
Whooping Cough, Salmonella, E. coli, and Measles.
Tornado A tornado appears as a rotating, funnel-shaped cloud that extends
from a thunderstorm to the ground with whirling winds that can
reach 300 miles per hour. Damage paths can be in excess of one
mile wide and fifty miles long. Waterspouts are tornadoes that
form over water.
Tsunami A tsunami is a sea wave of local or distant origin that results from
large-scale seafloor displacements associated with large
earthquakes, major submarine slides or exploding volcanic islands.
Wildland Fire A wildfire is an uncontrollable fire beginning in a wilderness area,
typified by its large size, and ability to spread quickly or change
direction suddenly. High temperatures and drought followed by an
active period of vegetation growth provide the most dangerous
conditions. Wildfires can affect any type of asset and may threaten
major population centers when they breakout on the rural-urban
fringe.
Technological Definition
12
Hazard
Airplane Accident Aviation accidents may be caused by problems originating from
mechanical difficulties, pilot error or acts of terrorism. Airplane
accidents can result from aircraft experiencing trouble while in
flight or from mid-air collisions between aircraft flying over or near
Palo Alto since the City lies in the flight path of two international
airports: San Jose and San Francisco. There is also the potential
for this type of accident to occur over water.
Dam Failure Flooding inundation areas in the event of dam failure extend
across a wide region of northeastern Palo Alto. Reservoir failures
that would affect Palo Alto include Felt Lake, Searsville Lake, and
Foothills Park (Boronda Lake).
Financial Disruption A situation where the markets cease to function in a regular
manner, typically characterized by rapid and large market declines.
Market disruptions can result from both physical threats to the
stock exchange or unusual trading (as in a crash). In either case,
the disruption typically causes panic and results in disorderly
market conditions.
Food/Water
Contamination
A water system can become contaminated as a result of flooding or
by saltwater intrusion. Food contamination refers to the presence
in food of harmful chemicals and microorganisms which can cause
consumer illness.
Hazardous Materials
Spill
The release of a hazardous material to the environment could cause
a multitude of problems. Although these incidents can happen
almost anywhere, certain areas of the city are at higher risk, such
as near roadways that are frequently used for transporting
hazardous materials and locations with industrial facilities that
use, store or dispose of such materials. Areas crossed by railways,
waterways, airways, and pipelines also have increased potential for
mishaps. Hazards can occur during production, storage,
transportation, use or disposal. Communities can be at risk if a
chemical is used unsafely or released in harmful amounts into the
environment. Hazardous materials can cause death, serious injury,
long-lasting health effects, and damage to buildings, the
environment, homes, and other property.
13
Oil Spill An oil spill is the release of a liquid petroleum hydrocarbon into
the environment due to human activity or technological error. The
term is usually applied to marine oil spills, but spills can also occur
on land. Spills may be due to releases of oil from tankers, offshore
platforms, and drilling rigs and wells. An oil spill represents an
immediate fire hazard and can contaminate drinking water
supplies. Contamination can also have an economic impact on
tourism and marine resource extraction industries. Clean up and
recovery is time and cost consuming.
Power
Blackout/Energy
Shortage/Utilities
Failure
Energy disruptions are considered to be a form of Lifeline System
Failure. This can be the consequence of any of the other hazards
identified or as a primary hazard, absent of an outside trigger. A
failure could involve the City's potable water system, power system,
natural gas system, wastewater system, communication system or
transportation system.
Train Accident Most train accidents are caused by human error, often relating to
communications, speed limits, and braking. Train accidents also
can occur because of equipment failure. Rail accidents include
derailment, collisions, railroad grade crossing, obstruction,
explosion or fire/violent rupture.
Urban Fire In addition to the areas within the City limits considered to be in
the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), the more densely built
“flatlands” are also at risk. The City has over 25,000 housing units
and a significant business base. The proximity of structures to
each other within the City creates additional exposure to
widespread urban fire. Localized, single-structure fires sometimes
occur in Palo Alto. Major uncontrolled events are a possibility, but
rarely occur.
Human Caused
Hazard
Definition
Agro-Terrorism Agro-terrorism is the use of a biological or chemical agent against
crops, livestock or poultry. The agent could be any of a wide range
of pathogens or toxins. Agro-terrorism may be used to endanger
public heath, to reduce the food supply or as a strategic economic
weapon.
Aircraft as a weapon Aircraft as a weapon (AAW) is a suicide attack using an airplane to
target an asset. The primary explosive is the airplane's fuel supply.
Aircraft include but are not limited to large commercial passenger
craft, cargo craft, small single or double engine private craft,
gliders, helicopters, and lighter-than-aircraft.
14
Biological Attack
(contagious and
non-contagious)
A contagious biological attack is an attack on a population using a
communicable, infectious disease. Effects occur after an
incubation period which varies with the biological strain in use.
They can quickly infect large populations. Bioterrorism can cause
mass panic and societal disruption.
Chemical
Agent/Toxic
Inhalation Release
Chemical weapons kill by attacking the nervous system and lungs
or by interfering with a body's ability to absorb oxygen. Some are
designed to incapacitate by producing severe burns and blisters.
These include such agents as mustard, tabun, sarin (GB), and
nerve gas. Chemical agents could be introduced through an HVAC
system or air inlets in buildings such as apartments, commercial
offices or public facilities.
Civil Disorder Civil disorder refers to unrest caused by a group of people and may
include terrorist activities. Public demonstrations have the
potential to lead to looting and rioting. There are many potential
causes for civil disorder including: animal rights, labor disputes,
civil rights, campus related issues, abortion rights, neighboring
jurisdictions, political issues, events (sports, music, etc.), and
spontaneous miscellaneous events. Potential consequences from
acts of civil disorder include: disruptions of police and city services,
closure of roads, rioting, property damage, and injuries to
protesters, police officers, and uninvolved parties.
Conventional Attack Light armed attack (small arms (ballistics) which include guns and
rockets or stand-off weapons such as rocket propelled grenades or
mortars) with one or more people acting for a terrorist group, anti-
government/anti-political group, etc.
Major Crime A major criminal incident (shooting, homicide, kidnapping)
including multiple suspects or multiple victims with an ongoing
threat to the community.
Cyber Attack A cyber terrorist can infiltrate many institutions including banking,
medical, education, government, military, and communication and
infrastructure systems. The majority of effective malicious cyber-
activity has become web-based. Recent trends indicate that
hackers are targeting users to steal personal information and
moving away from targeting computers by causing system failure.
15
Hostage/Assassin A hostage situation includes a person or group of people seized or
held as security for the fulfillment of a condition. An assassin is a
person who murders an important person in a surprise attack for
political or religious reasons.
IED Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are constructed using
conventional explosives and flammable materials. There are a
variety of detonation methods. Conventional explosives include,
but are not limited to: ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, TATP, TNT,
RDX, PETN, C4, Semtex or Dynamite. Flammable materials
include, but are not limited to: gasoline, kerosene, alcohol, iodine
crystals, magnesium, glycerin or aluminum powder. An IED is
likely to cause localized consequence primarily in the form of
casualties and economic impact.
Nuclear Attack/Acts
of War
The detonation of a nuclear weapon meets the US DODs definition
of a Weapon of Mass Destruction, which includes any weapon or
device that is intended or has the capability to cause death or
serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the
release of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, a
disease organism or radiation or radioactivity. A nuclear bomb
attack could occur without warning and cause mass devastation
within seconds. Radiation can exist in the atmosphere and in the
ground for years after an event. A nuclear attack would cause more
damage in a metropolitan area.
Radiological
Dispersion Device
(RDD)
RDDs (commonly known as “dirty bombs”) consist of radioactive
materials wrapped in conventional explosives, which upon
detonation release deadly radioactive particles into the
environment.
Sabotage/Theft Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity
through subversion, destruction, obstruction or destruction. The
result of sabotage could be the destruction or damage of a vital
facility. Some criminals have engaged in sabotage for reasons of
extortion. Political sabotage is sometimes used to harass or
damage the reputation of a political opponent.
Terrorism Terrorist activities include bombings, kidnappings, shootings, and
hijackings. 80% of terrorist activity is perpetrated through the use
of explosives, and the other 20% is a combination of arson,
vandalism, and assassination. The actual use of terrorist chemical,
nuclear, and biological weapons has occurred less than a handful of
times in the last 50 years. The common kinds of terrorist
situations (explosions, fires, vandalism, and shootings) are the
same kind of critical incidents first responders handle on a daily
16
basis. Terrorist activity can be conducted by an active shooter, an
individual actively engaging in killing or attempting to kill people
in a confined and populated area using a firearm. Targets of an
armed attack vary; however, in recent history, schools, office
buildings, federal/state owned buildings, religious institutions,
military installations, and large public areas have all been subject
to armed attacks. An active shooter may be a disgruntled student
or group of students, an employee or an anti-government/anti-
political/extremist citizen or group.
Vehicle Born IED Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs) are
constructed using conventional explosives and flammable
materials. VBIEDs involve the use of cars, trucks, and other
vehicles as the package/container to deliver explosive payloads to a
target. Larger vehicles enable larger amounts of explosives,
resulting in a greater impact. Functioning of devices can vary
within the same methods as the package types and can have the
same common characteristics as other IEDs. Some examples in the
U.S. include the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (a precursor to
9/11) and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Workplace Violence Workplace violence is violence or the threat of violence against
workers. It includes any act or threat of physical violence,
harassment, intimidation or other threatening disruptive behavior
that occurs at the worksite. It can occur at or outside the
workplace and can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical
assaults and homicide. It can affect and involve employees, clients,
customers, and visitors. Workplace violence includes locations
such as churches, malls, etc. and may be the result of a person
acting alone.
The Stakeholder Group, through a facilitated exercise reviewed the comprehensive list of
hazards/threats and prioritized them to identify those of most concern. The prioritization
methodology is presented in the following sections.
4.2 Natural Hazard 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.
17
Table 4-3 Natural Hazards Rating Criteria
Natural Hazards Probability Rating Criteria
Based on estimated likelihood of occurrence from historical data Score
Unlikely (Less than 1% probability in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of
greater than every 100 years.) 1
Somewhat Likely (Between 1 and 10% probability in next year or has a recurrence
interval of 11 to 100 years.) 2
Likely (Between 10 and 100% probability in next year or has a recurrence interval
of 10 years or less.) 3
Highly Likely (Near 100% probability in next year or happens every year.) 4
Natural Hazards Potential Impacts Rating Criteria
Based on percentage of damage to typical facility in community Score
Negligible - less than 10% damage 1
Limited - between 10% and 25% damage 2
Critical - between 25% and 50% damage 3
Catastrophic - more than 50% damage 4
Table 4-4 Natural Hazard Rating Results
Natural Hazard Probability Impact Survey Rating Score
Earthquake 2 4 9 15
Extreme Heat 2 1 0 3
Flood* 3 2 4 9
High Wind 2 1 0 3
Landslides 3 1 0 4
Public Health
Pandemic
2 3 2 7
Severe Winter Storm* 3 2 6 11
Tornado 1 1 0 2
Tsunami 1 1 0 2
Wildland Fire 3 3 1 7
*Most severe impacts of winter storms are flooding. These two hazards were combined for a
Rating Score of 10.
18
4.3 Technological Hazard Prioritization
Each technological hazard was reviewed for its potential to occur. The Stakeholder Group shared
knowledge, concerns, and other pertinent information to come to a consensus on rating each
technological hazard as low, medium, high or very high.
Table 4-5 Technological Hazards Rating Criteria
Technological Hazards Ranking Criteria Rating
An event is imminent. Experts have confirmed potential for
occurrence.
Very High
An event is expected/probable. Experts have confirmed potential
for occurrence.
High
An event is possible. Potential for occurrence is assumed but not
verified.
Medium
An event is unlikely. Potential for occurrence is extremely limited. Low
Table 4-6 Technological Hazard Rating Results
Technological Hazard Rating
Airplane Accident High
Dam Failure* Low
Financial Disruption Low
Food/Water Contamination Medium
Hazardous Materials Spill High
Oil Spill Medium
Power Blackout/Energy Shortage/Utilities Failure Medium
Train Accident Medium
Urban Fire High
* Rating results shown have been considered as independent hazards
and do not include secondary or cascading events. Dam failure
includes technological failure risk (engineering) and does not include
secondary risk from an earthquake.
19
4.4 Human Caused Threat Prioritization
Each human caused threat was reviewed for its potential to occur. The Stakeholder Group
shared knowledge, concerns, and other pertinent information to come to a consensus on rating
each human caused threat as low, medium, high or very high.
Table 4-7 Human Caused Threat Rating Criteria
Human Caused Threat Ranking Criteria Rating
The likelihood of a threat, weapon, and tactic being used
against a site or building is imminent. Internal decision
makers and/or external law enforcement and intelligence
agencies determine the threat is credible.
Very High
The likelihood of a threat, weapon, and tactic being used
against a site or building is expected. Internal decision
makers and/or external law enforcement and intelligence
agencies determine the threat is credible.
High
The likelihood of a threat, weapon, and tactic being used
against a site or building is possible. Internal decision makers
and/or external law enforcement and intelligence agencies
determine the threat is known, but is not verified.
Medium
The likelihood of a threat, weapon, and tactic being used in the
region or against the site or building is negligible. Internal
decision makers and/or external law enforcement and
intelligence agencies determine the threat is non-existent or
extremely unlikely.
Low
Table 4-8 Human Caused Threat Rating Results
Human Caused Threat Rating
Agro-Terrorism Medium
Aircraft as a weapon Low
Biological Attack Medium
Chemical Agent/Toxic Inhalation Release Medium
Civil Disorder Medium
Conventional Attack Medium
Major Crime Very High
Cyber Attack Very High
Hostage/Assassin High
IED Medium
Nuclear Attack/Acts of War Low
Radiological Dispersion Device Medium
20
Human Caused Threat Rating
Sabotage/Theft High
Terrorism Medium
Vehicle Born IED Medium
Workplace Violence Very High
4.5 Threats and Hazards of Most Concern
The prioritization process resulted in a pared down listing of natural, technological, and human
caused hazards/threats of most concern to the City of Palo Alto and its local partners. These are
presented in Table 4-9 Summary of All Hazards Prioritization.
To complete the THIRA process, we researched each of these hazards/threats to develop a more
complete understanding of their characteristics. Section 5 presents detailed hazard and threat
profiles.
Table 4-9 Summary of All Hazards Prioritization
Threats and Hazards of Most Concern
Natural Technological Human-caused
Earthquake Airplane Accident Major Crime
Flood/Severe Winter
Storm
Hazardous Waste/
Materials Spill Cyber Attack
Urban Fire Hostage/Assassin
Sabotage/Theft
Workplace Violence
21
5 Hazard Profiles
This section contains profiles detailing the characteristics of the hazards of most concern.
5.1 Non-Natural Hazard Profile Structure
Technological and human caused threats and hazards require a different approach to evaluating
likelihood and potential impacts as compared to natural hazards. With natural hazards, as done
in the local hazard mitigation planning process, an evaluation is based on past occurrences,
weather patterns, geography, and other relevant earth science. Technological and human caused
threats and hazards are not dependent upon earth science and do not occur with regular
patterns. For that reason, a modified approach is appropriate for evaluating the potential of
technological and human caused threats and hazards.
Each technological or human caused hazard profile contains the following components:
Application Mode: describing the human act(s) or unintended event(s) necessary to cause the
hazard to occur.
Duration: the anticipated length of time the hazard is present on the target. For example, the
duration of an earthquake may be just seconds, but a chemical warfare agent such as mustard
gas, if un-remediated, can persist for days or weeks under the right conditions.
Dynamic/Static Characteristic: describing the hazard’s tendency or that of its effects, to
either expand, contract or remain confined in time, magnitude, and space. For example, the
physical destruction caused by an earthquake is generally confined to the place in which it
occurs, and it does not usually get worse, unless there are aftershocks or other cascading
failures; in contrast, a cloud of chlorine gas leaking from a storage tank can change location by
drifting with the wind and can diminish in danger by dissipating over time.
Mitigating Conditions: characteristics of the target and its physical environment that can
reduce the effects of a hazard. For example, earthen berms can provide protection from bombs;
exposure to sunlight can render some biological agents ineffective; and effective perimeter
lighting and surveillance can minimize the likelihood of someone approaching a target unseen.
Exacerbating Conditions: characteristics that can enhance or magnify the effects of a
hazard. For example, depressions or low areas in terrain can trap heavy vapors, and
proliferation of street furniture (trash receptacles, newspaper vending machines, mail boxes,
etc) can provide concealment opportunities for explosive devises.
22
5.2 Earthquake Hazard Summary
Past land use decisions in Palo Alto have not always taken hazards into consideration. Moreover,
older buildings and infrastructure reflect the construction and engineering standards of their
era, which in most cases fall short of current standards for seismic safety. As a result, a portion
of the City, including 130 soft story structures, would be at some risk in the event of a major
earthquake. The greatest hazards are associated with fault rupture and ground shaking,
although liquefaction hazards are significant in the area east of Highway 101 due to the porous
nature and high water content of the soil. Landslides, a hazard that is common in the foothills of
Palo Alto, may result from heavy rain, erosion, removal of vegetationor 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.
5.3 Flood/Severe Winter Storm Hazard 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.
As noted in the 2011 LHMP, the City minimizes exposure to flood hazards through its
participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA makes NFIP flood insurance available to Palo Alto residents
and businesses as a result of the City’s adoption of required floodplain management regulations
into its Municipal Code (Chapter 16.52) that promote public health, safety and general welfare,
and minimize damages due to flood conditions. City staff reviews proposed development in
flood prone areas and enforces the floodplain management regulations for specified building
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. The City has long been a partner with the Santa Clara Valley Water
23
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.
5.4 Airplane Accident Profile
Aircraft accidents in Palo Alto can result from an aircraft experiencing trouble or from mid-air
collisions between aircraft flying over or near Palo Alto as they approach the three Bay Area
Airports (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose), as well as Moffett Field. In February 2010, a
small aircraft left the Palo Alto Airport and collided with power lines, causing a City-wide power
outage. The Palo Alto electrical utility feedpoint to PG&E (and the grid) is a single point, near
the airport.
Application mode: Aviation accidents may be caused by problems originating from
mechanical difficulties, pilot error or acts of terrorism. Extreme weather conditions may also
increase the potential of an accident. Airplane accidents can result from major aircraft
experiencing trouble while in flight or from mid-air collisions between aircraft flying over or
near Palo Alto. There is also the potential for this type of accident to occur over water.4
Duration: An airplane accident can occur in an instant and without notice or could be reported
but not remediated, lasting a few hours. Clean up after an accident could take days to weeks.
Longer term actions include repairing any buildings and infrastructure that may have been
damaged due to the accident and investigating the cause of the incident.
Dynamic/static characteristics: The number of fatalities/injuries and the area damaged by
the aircraft accident can vary depending on the type and magnitude of the accident. While
damage may be concentrated to the location of the incident, secondary impacts from the
accident, such as explosion and fire, as well as debris and hazardous materials, could spread
from the initial area of impact.
4 City of Palo Alto EOP (2007)
24
Mitigating conditions: The City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) outlines a response plan
to airplane accidents. The EOP also notes that consequences of an airplane accident from a
small aircraft associated with Palo Alto airport would be low. Issues in responding to the
February 2010 incident were identified in an After Action Report. These issues have been
addressed to provide better response to a potential future incident.
Exacerbating conditions: The City of Palo Alto lies between two international airports, San
Jose and San Francisco. Within the boundaries of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County operates the
Palo Alto Municipal Airport, a general aviation airport. There is potential for an accident to
occur in the air or on the ground near these locations as well as over water in Palo Alto’s
jurisdiction.
5.5 Hazardous Waste/Materials Spill Profile
Hazardous waste/materials are widely used or created at facilities such as hospitals, wastewater
treatment plants, universities and industrial/manufacturing warehouses. Several household
products such as cleaning supplies and paint are also considered hazardous materials and can be
found in households and stores. Hazardous materials include:
• Explosives;
• Flammable, non-flammable, and poison gas;
• Flammable liquids;
• Flammable, spontaneously combustible, and dangerous when wet solids;
• Oxidizers and organic peroxides;
• Poisons and infectious substances;
• Radioactive materials; and
• Corrosive materials.5
The release of a hazardous material to the environment could cause a multitude of problems.
Although these incidents can happen almost anywhere, certain areas of the City are at higher
risk, such as near roadways that are frequently used for transporting hazardous materials and
locations with industrial facilities that use, store or dispose of such materials. Areas crossed by
railways, waterways, airways, and pipelines also have increased potential for mishaps.
Incidences can occur during production, storage, transportation, use or disposal of hazardous
materials. Communities can be at risk if a chemical is used unsafely or released in harmful
5 National Archives and Records Administration, “Code of Federal Regulations Title 49:
Transportation” (July 1 2012), http://ecfr/gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr;sid=54f867044f1c9e1af52443eb305e1360;rgn=div5;view=text;node=49%3A2.1.1.3.7
;idno=49;cc=ecfr
25
amounts into the environment. Hazardous materials can cause death, serious injury, long-
lasting health effects, and damage to buildings, the environment, homes, and other property.6
Application mode: Hazardous waste/materials spills may be accidental or intentional, and
may occur at fixed facilities or on vehicles.
Accidental Hazardous Waste/Materials Spill
Hazardous materials accidents can range from a chemical spill on a highway to groundwater
contamination by naturally occurring methane gas to a household hazardous materials
accident.7 Potential hazards can occur during any stage of use from production and storage to
transportation, use or disposal. Production and storage occurs in chemical plants, gas stations,
hospitals, and many other sites. There are many reasons an unintentional hazardous
waste/materials spill may occur. Some of these include:
• Malfunction of equipment
• Natural disaster
• Accidents caused by humans8
Intentional Fixed Facility Hazardous Waste/Materials Spill
Hazardous material spills at fixed facilities may be internal or external to the facility. External
releases may involve industrial storage, firesor malicious acts. External releases may create
airborne plumes of chemical, biologicalor radiological elements that can affect a wide area and
last for hours or days. Internal releases occur inside buildings and can be caused by a chemical
spill or release of a biological or radiological agent. Internal releases can affect all occupants of a
building, particularly if the material is distributed throughout the building through the
heating/ventilation system.9
Intentional hazardous material releases at fixed facilities might include:
• Deliberate release of a hazardous substance by an employee of a facility that stores or
uses hazardous materials or produces hazardous waste;
• Deliberate release of a hazardous substance into the water supply
• Detonation of a “dirty bomb” – an explosive device containing radiological or biological
substances that are released into the air upon explosion;
6 City of Palo Alto EOP; Santa Clara County 2011 LHMP
7 University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System,
http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/disaster/haz/hazmat.html
8 Innovateus, “What is a Chemical Spill?”, http://www.innovateus.net/earth-matters/what-
chemical-spill
9 US Air Force, “Protective Actions for a Hazardous Material Release”, (22 October 2001),
Http://emc.ornl.gov/CSEPPweb/data/Reports/Misc.%20Reports/HAZMAT.pdf
26
• Redirection of toxic waste into water supply or ventilation system; and
• Delivery or placement of a hazardous material inside a building.
Intentional Mobile Hazardous Waste/Materials Spill
Intentional mobile releases may include:
• Release of a chemical, biological or radiological agent from a moving vehicle or train;
• Use of a vehicle as a dirty bomb, i.e. crashing a vehicle filled with hazardous materials
into a structure or building or exploding the vehicle;
• Targeting commercial/industrial chemical containers transported in bulk by both road
and rail;
• Release of hazardous materials from airplanes over densely populated areas; and
• Release of hazardous materials into water from a boat.
Duration: Accidental hazardous waste/materials spills can be reported immediately following
the spill, thus reducing the amount of time the spill is left uncontained. Most hazardous
waste/materials spills occur with little or no warning, and can be difficult to detect until
symptoms present themselves to those affected.10 External releases may create airborne plumes
of chemical, biologicalor radiological elements that can affect a wide area and last for hours or
days. Internal releases will most likely require evacuation of a facility for hours to days. Both
external and internal releases require extensive clean-up efforts, lasting from days to months
depending on the type and magnitude of the spill.
Dynamic/static characteristics: Both mobile and external hazardous materials releases can
spread and affect a wide area, through the release of plumes of chemical, biological or
radiological elements or leaks or spills. Conversely, internal releases are more likely to be
confined to the structure the material is stored in.
Chemicals may be corrosive or otherwise damaging over time. A hazardous materials release
could also result in fire or explosion. Contamination may be carried out of the incident area by
people, vehicles, wind, and water.11
Hazardous material releases are dynamic and may vary depending on the following factors:
• Type and amount of agent released;
• Environmental conditions – The micro-meteorological effects of the buildings and
terrain can influence the travel of agents12;
10 US Air Force, “Protective Actions for a Hazardous Material Release”, (22 October 2001),
Http://emc.ornl.gov/CSEPPweb/data/Reports/Misc.%20Reports/HAZMAT.pdf
11 FEMA, “Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks,” FEMA 428,
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/prevent/rms/428/fema428_ch1.pdf
27
• Location of release (urban vs. rural, water vs. air); and
• Remediation time, dependent on a locality’s or facility’s hazardous material release
preparedness programs.
Mitigating conditions: Facilities that store hazardous materials are reported to local and
federal governments. Security measures at these facilities can be heightened. Many facilities
have their own hazardous materials guides and response plans, including transportation
companies who transport hazardous materials.
The City’s EOP includes an annex identifying the actions and agencies involved in responding to
a hazardous materials incident. The City of Palo Alto Fire Department administers the County’s
hazardous materials emergency planning and community right-to-know program. They also
maintain Hazardous Materials Business Plans for every business in the City that handles a
hazardous material in quantities above the State’s reporting threshold. The City inspects and
issues annual permits to approximately 500 businesses with annual hazardous materials
permits that necessitate monitoring and inspection.
In addition, the City of Palo Alto provides safe hazardous waste disposal for residents and small
businesses at a specified Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Station. Their HHW Program
educates the public about the safe use, storage, disposal, and alternatives to hazardous products.
5.6 Urban Fire Profile
The entire City of Palo Alto is at risk to major fires impacting a section of the City or a large
complex. The City has over 25,000 housing units and a significant business base. The
proximity of structures to each other within the City creates additional exposure to widespread
urban fire. Localized, single-structure fires sometimes occur in Palo Alto. As of November
2013, the City had experienced three urban fires during the previous three months. Major
uncontrolled fires are a possibility, but rarely occur.13
Application mode: Urban fires can be accidentally caused through human error including
cooking accidents, smoking or unsafe use of woodstoves or space heaters. Malfunctioning
electrical equipment is also a major cause of fire in urban areas.14 Fires originating in the
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) also pose a threat as they can spread toward more developed
areas and cause significant damage to structures, residents, and natural resources. Arson or the
deliberate burning of property, is also a possibility within City limits. Arson attacks may be
imposed upon structures, motor vehicles, wildland areas or other “nonstructural” properties.
Duration: The duration of an urban fire is dependent on weather conditions, the magnitude of
the fire, and fire suppression resources. Structural fires could burn for several hours before
being fully contained.
12 FEMA, “Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks,” FEMA 428,
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/prevent/rms/428/fema428_ch1.pdf
13 City of Palo Alto EOP (2007)
14 National Fire Protection Association, (29 January 2013), Urban Fire Safety,
http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-consumers/populations/urban-fire-safety
28
Dynamic/static characteristics: Weather conditions (wind and warm, dry temperatures)
and the presence of fire fuel can cause fires to spread away from their source.
Mitigating conditions: In the event of a major urban fire, auto-aid and mutual-aid
agreements (with CAL FIRE) will be utilized, as outlined in the Palo Alto Emergency Operations
Plan. The City strives to minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid
emergency response, a sufficient water supply, proactive fire code enforcement, public
education programs, and adequate emergency management preparation.
To ensure a sufficient water supply, an emergency water supply and storage project, initiated in
2007, was primarily completed by the City in late 2013/early 2014. This project provides Palo
Alto with a self-sustaining emergency water supply through rehabilitating five City wells,
constructing three new wells, constructing a new 2.5 million gallon reservoir and associated
pump station and well, and upgrading an existing pump station (Mayfield Reservoir Pump
Station).
As part of the City’s emergency management preparation for wildland and urban fires, they
designed and implemented the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan. This plan pertains to
the Palo Alto Foothills area west of the Foothills Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard,
which represents a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area. The plan addresses a broad range of
integrated activities and planning documents to identify and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards
in the Palo Alto Foothills Area. Fire mitigation project areas include the boundaries of Foothills
Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve.
In urban areas, arsonists may target abandoned buildings. Limiting the number of abandoned
buildings or providing security near these buildings may deter arsonists. Both structure and
wildland arson data can be analyzed to depict trends in copy cat arsonists as well as in weather
and fuel conditions. Documenting these trends in a reporting system may assist in mitigating
future cases.
Exacerbating conditions: Increasing development in the wildland-urban interface can
exacerbate the spread of a wildfire into developed areas, making these areas vulnerable. While
planning and mitigation to reduce the risk of fire in Palo Alto’s WUI area is controlled through
the Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan, there is still potential a fire in this area could
impact the City’s public safety, cultural and economic activities, and environmental and natural
resource management.
5.7 Major Crimes
Major criminal incidents include shooting, homicide, and kidnapping crimes that may include
multiple suspects or multiple victims and are considered an ongoing threat to the community.
These types of crime have an ability to impact the community in such a way that can undermine
the quality of life within the Palo Alto community.
Application mode: For reporting purposes, criminal offenses are divided into two major
groups: Part I offenses and Part II offenses per the DOJ and FBI. Part I crimes comprise two
categories: violent and property crimes. Aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery
are classified as violent, while arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft are
29
classified as property crimes. Part I crimes are collectively known as Index crimes, this name is
used because the crimes are considered quite serious, tend to be reported more reliably than
others, and are reported directly to the police. In Part II, the following categories are tracked:
simple assault, curfew offenses and loitering, embezzlement, forgery and counterfeiting,
disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, drug offenses, fraud, gambling, liquor offenses,
offenses against the family, prostitution, public drunkenness, runaways, sex offenses, stolen
property, vandalism, vagrancy, and weapons offenses.
This categorization is informative as it links to Palo Alto Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2013
Annual Report. “Crime in Palo Alto has seen an overall decrease in the past five years. Violent
crimes have continued to decrease, while property crimes have increased. The most notable is
the increase in Residential and Auto Burglaries. Fiscal Year 2013 saw a sharp increase in
residential burglaries. The Police Department responded with a directed enforcement campaign,
and an increased presence in high risk areas. A total of 79 suspects were arrested for burglary,
attempted burglary and other associated charges.”
Figure 5-1 Statistics of Part I and Part II Crimes in Palo Alto from the Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2013 Annual
Report
Duration: A major crime may occur in a short amount of time, from seconds to hours, and it
usually occurs without immediate notice.
Dynamic/static characteristics: Major crimes can occur anywhere in the community.
Mitigating conditions: The Palo Alto Police Department and Stanford Department of Public
Safety participate in mutual aid and regional organizations to share information, capabilities,
and other resources to prevent major crimes from occurring. Additionally, increased 2013
staffing and effective training of Palo Alto Police Department personnel will likely have
deterrent effects.
30
Exacerbating conditions: Palo Alto businesses and residences are perceived as a soft target
resulting in increased property crimes by criminals who live outside Palo Alto. The increase of
such events increases the probability of a robbery going wrong resulting in a shooting or
homicide event.
5.8 Cyber Attack Profile
A cyber terrorist can infiltrate many institutions including banking, medical, education,
government, military, and communication and infrastructure systems. The majority of effective
malicious cyber-activity has become web-based. Recent trends indicate that hackers are
targeting users to steal personal information and moving away from targeting computers by
causing system failure.15
Application mode: Common types of cyber attacks are summarized in Table 5-1 Common
Types of Cyber Attacks16
Table 5-1 Common Types of Cyber Attacks
Type of Attack Description
Denial of service
A method of attack from a single source that denies system
access to legitimate users by overwhelming the target
computer with messages and blocking legitimate traffic. It
can prevent a system from being able to exchange data with
other systems or use the internet.
Botnet A collection of compromised machines (bots) under
(unified) control of an attacker (botmaster).
Distributed denial of service
A variant of the denial-of-service attack that uses a
coordinated attack from a distributed system of computers
rather than from a single source. It often makes use of
worms to spread to multiple computers that can then attack
the target.
Exploit tools
Publicly available and sophisticated tools that intruders of
various skill levels can use to determine vulnerabilities and
gain entry into targeted systems.
Logic bombs A form of sabotage in which a programmer inserts code that
causes the program to perform a destructive action when
some triggering event occurs, such as terminating the
15 Symantec, “Internet Security Threat Report” Volume 17 (2011),
www.symantec.com/threatreport
16 United States Government Accountability Office, “Critical Infrastructure Protection:
Department of Homeland Security Faces Challenges in Fulfilling Cybersecurity
Responsibilities”, Report #GAO-05-434 (May 2005), www.gao.gov/new.items/d05434.pdf
31
Type of Attack Description
programmer’s employment.
Phishing
The creation and use of e-mails and Web sites—designed to
look like those of well-known legitimate businesses,
financial institutions, and government agencies—in order to
deceive Internet users into disclosing their personal data,
such as bank and financial account information and
passwords. The phishers then take that information and use
it for criminal purposes, such as identity theft and fraud.
Sniffer
Synonymous with packet sniffer. A program that intercepts
routed data and examines each packet in search of specified
information, such as passwords transmitted in clear text.
Trojan horse
A computer program that conceals harmful code. A Trojan
horse usually masquerades as a useful program that a user
would wish to execute.
Virus
A program that infects computer files, usually executable
programs, by inserting a copy of itself into the file. These
copies are usually executed when the infected file is loaded
into memory, allowing the virus to infect other files. Unlike
the computer worm, a virus requires human involvement
(usually unwitting) to propagate.
War dialing Simple programs that dial consecutive telephone numbers
looking for modems.
War driving
A method of gaining entry into wireless computer networks
using a laptop, antennas, and a wireless network adaptor
that involves patrolling locations to gain unauthorized
access.
Worm
An independent computer program that reproduces by
copying itself from one system to another across a network.
Unlike computer viruses, worms do not require human
involvement to propagate.
32
One of the difficulties of malicious cyber activity is that its origin could be virtually anyone,
virtually anywhere. Table 5-2 Common Sources of Cybersecurity Threats summarizes common
sources of cybersecurity threats.17
Table 5-2 Common Sources of Cybersecurity Threats
Threat Description
Bot-network operators
Bot-network operators are hackers; however, instead of
breaking into systems for the challenge or bragging rights,
they take over multiple systems in order to coordinate
attacks and to distribute phishing schemes, spam, and
malware attacks. The services of these networks are
sometimes made available on underground markets (e.g.,
purchasing a denial-of-service attack, servers to relay spam
or phishing attacks, etc.).
Criminal groups
Criminal groups seek to attack systems for monetary gain.
Specifically organized crime groups are using spam,
phishing, and spyware/malware to commit identity theft and
online fraud. International corporate spies and organized
crime organizations also pose a threat to the United States
through their ability to conduct industrial espionage and
large-scale monetary theft and to hire or develop hacker
talent.
Foreign intelligence services
Foreign intelligence services use cyber tools as part of their
information-gathering and espionage activities. In addition,
several nations are aggressively working to develop
information warfare doctrine, programs, and capabilities.
Such capabilities enable a single entity to have a significant
and serious impact by disrupting the supply,
communications, and economic infrastructures that support
military power—impacts that could affect the daily lives of
U.S. citizens across the country.
17 United States Government Accountability Office, “Critical Infrastructure Protection:
Department of Homeland Security Faces Challenges in Fulfilling Cybersecurity
Responsibilities”, Report #GAO-05-434 (May 2005), www.gao.gov/new.items/d05434.pdf
33
Threat Description
Hackers
Hackers break into networks for the thrill of the challenge or
for bragging rights in the hacker community. While remote
cracking once required a fair amount of skill or computer
knowledge, hackers can now download attack scripts and
protocols from the Internet and launch them against victim
sites. Thus, while attack tools have become more
sophisticated, they have also become easier to use.
According to the Central Intelligence Agency, the large
majority of hackers do not have the requisite expertise to
threaten difficult targets such as critical U.S. networks.
Nevertheless, the worldwide population of hackers poses a
relatively high threat of an isolated or brief disruption
causing serious damage.
Insiders
The disgruntled organization insider is a principal source of
computer crime. Insiders may not need a great deal of
knowledge about computer intrusions because their
knowledge of a target system often allows them to gain
unrestricted access to cause damage to the system or to steal
system data. The insider threat also includes outsourcing
vendors as well as employees who accidentally introduce
malware into systems.
Phishers
Individuals or small groups, that execute phishing schemes
in an attempt to steal identities or information for monetary
gain. Phishers may also use spam and spyware/malware to
accomplish their objectives.
Spammers
Individuals or organizations that distribute unsolicited e-
mail with hidden or false information in order to sell
products, conduct phishing schemes, distribute
spyware/malware or attack organizations (i.e., denial of
service).
Spyware/malware authors
Individuals or organizations with malicious intent carry out
attacks against users by producing and distributing spyware
and malware. Several destructive computer viruses and
worms have harmed files and hard drives, including the
Melissa Macro Virus, the Explore.Zip worm, the CIH
(Chernobyl) Virus, Nimda, Code Red, Slammer, and Blaster.
Cyber-Terrorists
Cyber-Terrorists seek to destroy, incapacitateor exploit
critical infrastructures in order to threaten national security,
cause mass casualties, weaken economies or target
businesses, and damage public morale and confidence.
34
Threat Description
Cyber-Terrorists may use phishing schemes or
spyware/malware in order to generate funds or gather
sensitive information.
Given its location in Silicon Valley, Palo Alto is home to many large companies that could be
subject to a cyber attack.
Duration: The duration of a cyber attack is dependent on the complexity of the attack, how
widespread it is, how quickly the attack is detected, and the resources available to aid in
restoring the system.
Dynamic/static characteristics: A cyber attack could be geared toward one organization,
one type of infrastructure and/or a specific geographical area. The affected area could range
from small to large scale.
Cyber attacks generated toward large corporations can negatively affect the economy. The
Congressional Research Service study (2008) found the economic impact of cyber attacks on
businesses has grown to over $226 billion annually.18
Attacks geared toward critical infrastructure and hospitals can result in the loss of life and the
loss of basic needs, such as power and water, to the general public. Cyber attacks can also lead
to the loss of operational capacity.
Mitigating conditions: Palo Alto has three levels of security to prevent cyber attacks:
1. A Symantech anti-virus protection for desktops and laptops;
2. Malware Protection Systems for Web and email systems; and
3. A Barracuda Firewall for the IT Network.
In addition, the City is in the process of deploying a vulnerability management system to better
protect the IT network.
Access control to buildings, such as ID cards and badges, can help regulate the people who have
access to an agency’s or corporations’ cyber network. Palo Alto information technology network
locations include access control measures to prevent unauthorized access to these controlled
areas.
The City has an Energy Assurance Plan that focuses on minimizing energy interruptions during
emergencies. This plan could be updated to include a contingency plan for keeping energy
lifelines online given a cyber attack. Currently, the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) is responsible for ensuring energy industry compliance with Critical
Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards. These rules require organizations that deliver bulk
electricity to the North American power grid to identify and protect critical cyber assets. In
18 Defense Tech. http://defensetech.org/2008/10/20/the-cyber-attack-danger/
35
addition, bulk power suppliers must define methods, processes, and procedures for securing
critical cyber assets. “Cyber assets” are loosely defined as all “programmable electronic devices
and communication networks including hardware, software, and data.19
Exacerbating conditions: Humans are the weakest link in a chain of cyber security. It
remains difficult to continuously monitor and manage human/operator vulnerability. However,
to address this weakness the City has deployed an online security training program which all
employees are required to complete annually.
5.9 Hostage/Assassin Profile
A hostage situation includes a person or group of people seized or held as security for the
fulfillment of a condition. An assassin is a person who murders an important person in a
surprise attack for political, religious or monetary reasons.
Application mode: A hostage crisis can develop when one or more individuals or an
organized group of people seize people against their will and try to hold off authorities by force,
often threatening to kill hostages if provoked or attacked. Typically hostage takers will issue
demands, many times politically or religiously driven. Monetary demands are also possible. In
cases where the hostage situation was improvised as an attempt to avoid capture for another
crime, the demand usually revolves around exchanging the lives of the hostage(s) for transport
to safety. Hostage takers are usually armed with explosives, handguns, and/or other weapons.
Similar to a hostage situation, an assassination may be prompted by religious, political or
monetary motives. Assassinations can also be militarily driven or done to avenge a grievance or
to gain fame or notoriety. Car bombs and other explosives, poison, snipers, and handguns are
most commonly used in assassination attempts. In most cases, the assassin will have detailed
advanced knowledge of the intended victim’s itinerary in order to plan out the assassination.
Most modern assassinations have been committed either during a public performance or
transport, both because of weaker security and security lapses.
Duration: A hostage crisis can range from a couple of hours to years. Assassinations occur
without warning and, although they may take years to plan out, can transpire in a matter of
seconds.
Dynamic/static characteristics: For the most part, both hostage situations and
assassinations are static in that they are confined to one location. However, both scenarios
could escalate into a chase for the suspects, thus having the capacity to shut down an entire city
or multiple locations simultaneously. In addition, if bombs or other explosive devices are used,
impacts may be distributed throughout a larger area.
Mitigating conditions: Many high profile dignitaries travel with security, making the ability
to execute a hostage situation or assassination more difficult. Increased security in public places
where these incidents are more likely to occur has the potential to discourage these types of
events from taking place. The City’s police force includes a SWAT (Special Weapons and
Tactics) Team and Crisis Negotiation Team, both of which are trained to contain these
19 NextLabs. http://www.nextlabs.com/html/?q=nerc-and-ferc-cyber-security-standards
36
situations. Additionally, multi-jurisdiction intelligence sharing forums improve the awareness
of when such high profile visits take place; and enhanced coordination between these
jurisdictions closes the common operational gaps should a response be necessary. The City of
Palo Alto’s Office of Emergency Services hosts a monthly multi-jurisdictional intelligence
sharing meeting that reinforces this concept. The Palo Alto Police Department also is integrated
into the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) through their Terrorism
Liaison Officer (TLO) program that provides a direct conduit for intelligence sharing with this
agency.
Exacerbating conditions: The level of threat depends on the presence of dignitaries or
notable figures in the City. The risk of a hostage/assassin situation is exacerbated when high
level dignitaries visit, which occurs frequently. In addition, wealthy Silicon Valley executives
live in the City and could be potential targets.
5.10 Sabotage/Theft Profile
Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity (business, government, etc.)
through subversion, obstruction or destruction. The result of sabotage could be the destruction
of a vital facility or the disruption of operations. The principal identifying characteristic of
sabotage is that the attack is usually not intended to harm large numbers of people, but rather to
cause economic harm or embarrassment to the target.
Application mode: One who engages in sabotage is a saboteur. A saboteur could be one
individual working alone or an organized crime group. They typically try to conceal their
identities because of the consequences of their actions. Many single-issue terrorists, including
ecological extremists and anti-abortion radicals, have used sabotage widely. Disgruntled
employees and activists may also use sabotage. Many times, a saboteur is an insider.
Sabotage can be conducted as a response to an environmental action, in which groups turn to
the destruction of property to stop actions they consider detrimental to the environment.
Another modern form of sabotage is the distribution of software intended to damage specific
industrial systems. Some criminals have engaged in sabotage for reasons of extortion, in which
destruction of property or the threat of destruction is used to obtain money, property or
services. Political sabotage is sometimes used to harass or damage the reputation of a political
opponent or group. Sabotage of lifeline infrastructure, energy systems or of hazardous materials
sites is also possible.
Duration: While planning sabotage may take an extended period of time, actually executing
the plan can happen instantaneously. An act of sabotage may take a matter of seconds to a few
hours, but the effects can be longer term. For example, if a train is targeted as an act of
sabotage, it may take days to months to rebuild the train infrastructure that was destroyed.
Dynamic/static characteristics: A sabotage incident may be concentrated to one general
area or personor could be more widespread, all depending on the tactic used. For example, a
disgruntled employee at a meat packing plant could sabotage the company by adding poison to
their product before distribution. Once the meat is distributed, the incident becomes a more
widespread problem.
37
Mitigating conditions: Some cases of sabotage can be categorized as terrorism. The City of
Palo Alto maintains a Terrorism Response Plan to prepare various City departments and
agencies to perform safely and effectively during a terrorist incident. The City’s EOP also
provides insight on how to deal with certain types of emergency incidents, such as hazardous
materials spills, which could be the result of a case of sabotage. Many employers undergo
training on how to identify and mitigate sabotage in the workplace. In addition, as discussed in
further detail in the “mitigating conditions” section of the Hostage/Assassin profile above, the
City’s Police Department and Office of Emergency Services are prepared to mitigate acts of
terrorism through training, intelligence sharing forums, and partnerships with the NCRIC.
Exacerbating conditions: Sabotage is difficult to detect and to trace to its origin. Sabotage
may cause lifeline infrastructure, for example water lines, to be disabled, and thus have
secondary impacts, such as causing or worsening flood/drought events, fire, hazardous material
spills, and other effects that could limit a city’s capacity to function as normal. Social media,
such as Twitter and Facebook, have become very popular in recent times and could be used as a
readily available means to sabotage companies, fellow employees or employers, and/or officials.
5.11 Workplace Violence Profile
Workplace violence is violence or the threat of violence against workers. It includes any act or
threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation or other threatening disruptive behavior
that occurs at the worksite. It can occur at or outside the workplace and can range from threats
and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide. It can affect and involve employees, clients,
customers, and visitors. Workplace violence includes locations such as churches, malls, etc. and
may be the result of a person acting alone.20
Application mode: Workplace violence can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical
assaults and homicide. These incidents can be caused by fellow employees, by employers or by
external clients.
Duration: Acts of workplace violence could be a onetime incident or could occur repetitively
over time, lasting weeks to years.
Dynamic/static characteristics: Workplace violence can occur at or outside the workplace.
Mitigating conditions: Many companies have established workplace violence prevention
programs and offer trainings on workplace violence including how to identify it and mitigate it.
Providing a secure workplace that has video surveillance, extra lighting, and alarm systems may
minimize access to outsiders.
Exacerbating conditions: Some workers are at increased risk to workplace violence. Among
them are workers who exchange money with the public, deliver passengers, goods or services; or
work alone or in small groups, during late night or early morning hours, in high-crime areas or
in community settings and homes where they have extensive contact with the public. As with
20 US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Act, www.OSHA.gov
38
sabotage, social media such as Twitter and Facebook may be a means of exacerbating workplace
bullying and violence.
6 Conclusion
The City of Palo Alto and its local partners should be commended for the tremendous
capabilities currently available to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover
from hazards and threats. One invaluable strength of the City’s emergency management
program is the ongoing coordination with local partners. Emergency planning, training, and
exercises are conducted in partnership with Stanford University, Stanford Hospital, neighboring
jurisdictions, community members, and other pertinent organizations such as the American Red
Cross.
Communications technology within the City is fairly robust. Mass notification systems are in
place. Responders and emergency managers will use the highest level of communication
technology available during/immediately following an incident. Communications and
notification systems are both for public safety agencies and the general public. There are a wide
range of communications options. Stanford University employs an Outdoor Warning System
(PA and sirens) for emergency alerts/notifications, but such a system does not exist in Palo Alto.
Stanford University and the City of Palo Alto have interoperable dispatch systems. A Mobile
Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) is available to enable communication coordination
should the primary EOC be compromised. Social media will be an asset for receiving
information from the public regarding attacks and impacts. KZSU, the Stanford radio station, is
an available resource that can be taken over from Palo Alto City Hall to provide supplemental
information, beyond and more-local than what might be available on other broadcast stations
via the Emergency Alert System (EAS). Certain businesses have two-way radio communications
within their neighborhood and to the City EOC. WebEOC enables efficient dissemination of
incident management information across local government agencies throughout the Operational
Area. Finally, the growth of social media tools is a resource to Palo Alto and Stanford.
Opportunities for residents and members of the public to contribute to the City’s resiliency are
bountiful. The Emergency Services Volunteer program provides supplemental resources to the
professional first responders and facilitates means for neighbors to help neighbors (including
businesses and other entities). This organization includes several City-sponsored emergency
preparedness volunteer programs:
• Neighborhood and Block Preparedness Coordinator program (BPC/NPC)
• Palo Alto CERT Program
• Palo Alto Auxiliary Communications Services: ARES/RACES
• Palo Alto Medical Reserve Corps
In addition to these formal opportunities for community members to receive training and assist
through specific roles, "see something, say something" campaigns are helpful in maintaining
vigilance throughout the City. Public education occurs via the Office of Emergency Services
39
presence on the web (www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicsafety), providing emergency preparedness
presentations to the “whole community”, and through the use of semi-annual utility bill inserts.
Policies and organizational processes are in place for the City government to achieve long term
resiliency. Examples include the zoning ordinance and building code enforcing safe
development. Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) sites are tagged in the new
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system for Palo Alto, Stanford University Campus, Los Altos,
and Mountain View. Current planning efforts include an update to the Comprehensive Plan, a
recent Hazard Mitigation Plan, and this THIRA report. The established THIRA Executive
Committee may prove to be helpful in ongoing planning efforts beyond regular updates of this
report.
6.1 Recommendations for Action
Throughout the THIRA process, the Stakeholder Group and Executive Committee identified
many actions to improve capabilities for prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and
recovery. These recommendations are captured in Table 8-1. The list below has been modified
to summarize clear actionable items the City may prioritize and incorporate into ongoing
planning and budgeting processes.
Planning
• Update the City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan and incorporate the identified
hazards as evaluated in this THIRA.
• Develop a detailed inventory of Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) among
Palo Alto and Stanford University that will foster improved planning for critical
infrastructure protection. Implement a plan to document risks to specified CIKR and
develop a strategy to mitigate these risks. This plan could include a template for CIKR
managers to conduct and document risk assessments for submission to the City of Palo
Alto.
• Explore sustainable solutions for energy assurance, including alternate energy for critical
facilities.
• Promote Utilities Infrastructure improvements that mitigate/improve resiliency (power,
water, wastewater, gas).
• Continue to collaborate with regional planning efforts to mitigate impacts of sea level
rise/ climate change.
• Implement an Infrastructure Management System – identified by IBRC.
• Conduct an updated assessment on the vulnerabilities of public safety communication
technologies and capabilities.
o Develop alternate communications capabilities to reduce reliance on commercial
carriers.
40
o Incorporate a city-wide public safety communications infrastructure assessment
and survey (including Stanford University and Stanford Hospital) to provide a
baseline capability to connect key facilities and nodes.
• Develop a Continuity of Operations/Continuity of Government Plan.
• Develop an emergency information technology plan, including business continuity and
disaster recovery (BCDR).
• Develop a supporting plan in conjunction with the Operational Area plan for mortuary
affairs, mass casualty, mass sheltering, points of distribution and points of dispensing
(mass prophylaxis) and other such regional activities.
• Encourage owners of CIKR to develop all hazard response plans and coordinate, where
applicable, support requirements with appropriate service providers.
• Develop a City of Palo Alto recovery plan including:
o Pre-identified locations for FEMA trailers and field hospital/medical treatment
areas.
o Plans for restoring basic health and social services functions following a
catastrophic event pre-identified alternative housing solutions for use following a
catastrophic event.
o An evaluation of options for expediting building permits following a catastrophic
event.
o Resources available from the City of Palo Alto airport.
• Convene THIRA executive committee annually to review and update the THIRA.
Organization
• Maintain an OES staff that is trained to develop, manage, and coordinate the
implementation of the Palo Alto family of emergency plans (EOP, COOP, HMP, THIRA,
etc.).
• Use the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) report to help
guide decisions related to prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery
related to threats that could affect the City.
• Implement a Joint Information System with North County stakeholders that will
improve public messaging during times of crises. Maintain trained staff to serve as local
alerting authorities consistent with the Integrated Public Alert and Warning system
(IPAWS).
41
• Maintain Palo Alto Emergency Services Volunteer, Stanford University volunteer
programs, corporate Emergency Response Teams, and similar programs throughout the
community.
• Maintain participation in regional efforts to address remaining flood concerns, e.g., SFC
JPA, SCVWD, South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, and Salt Pond Restoration
Project.
• Implement a Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) structure for storms/floods, public
works mutual aid, etc. Evaluate and improve coordination protocols within the
Operational Area, and with appropriate state and federal agencies.
• Bolster participation in the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC),
the Terrorism Liaison Officer (TLO) program, the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI),
and other means to share information among agencies, businesses, and partner
organizations.
• Establish an emergency resource directory and put in place advanced contracts for key
commodities or services identified during the planning, training, exercise process .
Equipment/Facilities
• Construct new Palo Alto Public Safety Building.
• Develop an Emergency Operations Staging Area (EOSA) to serve as a North County
staging area resource and to shelter the Palo Alto Mobile Emergency Operations Center
and other critical supplies.
• Improve video monitoring throughout the City of Palo Alto through collaboration and
coordination with privately owned video systems and city owned video systems.
• Increase access controls /physical security at critical city owned and operated facilities.
• Maintain at a high level of readiness emergency response vehicles and specialized
equipment required to respond to the threats and hazards listed in this report.
• Acquire alternative energy and energy efficient equipment that will reduce fuel
requirements and ease overall logistical burdens.
• Upgrade creek storm water monitoring systems to provide improved situational
awareness during storm events.
• Evaluate and implement a thermal sensors/camera network to cover the Wildland Urban
Interface (WUI).
• Coordinate with appropriate organizations to install battery backup systems on traffic
signals that increase public safety following a power outage scenario.
42
• Improve connectivity to partner EOCs and 911 PSAPs such as fiber, microwave, etc.
• Explore Video Teleconferencing (VTC) capabilities to link government and
nongovernment partners.
• Upgrade command and control software systems that improve communications,
collaboration, and situational awareness.
• Acquire base camp supplies and materials to sustain small response operations (30-50
responders) for events that occur in or around Palo Alto.
• Continue to participate in UASI CBRNE and HAZMAT equipment evaluation and
selection.
• Continue to evaluate feasibility of Regional Command Center at Moffett Field.
Training and Exercise
• Collaborate and regularly exercise with agencies/organizations referenced in the City’s
Emergency Operations Plan: Federal, State, agencies with a regional presence; Mutual
Aid Jurisdictions, Schools and Universities, Private Sector businesses, Not for Profit
organizations (Faith Based, Community Service); Hospitals & Health Care Facilities.
o Conduct training with other government agencies such as the FBI, State Dept.,
Secret Service, etc. to ensure collaborative processes and work through specific
scenario variables.
o Conduct collaborative planning, training and exercises with Caltrain and other
rail carriers operating in the area.
o Train and exercise road block/traffic diversion procedures such as in the vicinity
of Stanford Hospital and Stanford University.
• Conduct training and exercises with private sector entities such as Stanford Industrial
Park, Stanford Shopping Center, etc.
• Regularly conduct ICS and EOC staff training per the Palo Alto EOC Staff Development
Program prioritizing high threat hazards
• Conduct employee information technology security and awareness training and exercise
a cyber-security response effort with the information technology department as the
operations lead.
• Routinely conduct mass care and shelter training in coordination with American Red
Cross and City of Palo Alto partners.
43
Community Readiness
• Cultivate a culture of preparedness and community connection through efforts such as
outreach to public and private schools, Citizen Corps Council, City Staff and Volunteer
Disaster Service Worker training, and other “whole community” stakeholders.
o Continue to engage the business sector to improve their mitigation and
preparedness efforts; educate small businesses on the importance of resiliency
planning.
o Establish a goal for each family and business within the community to have an
adequate supply of water, food, etc.
o Pre-identify/establish public messaging campaigns that remind the community
of appropriate actions to a variety of potential hazard events (e.g. shelter in place,
evacuate, earthquake, flooding, etc.)
o Continue and improve promotion of family and business readiness to mitigate
service needs such as sheltering and mass care.
• Evaluate the potential for establishing a coordinating group for private airplane pilots (a
model exists in southern Santa Clara County) that could improve small-scale disaster
logistics operations.
6.2 THIRA Maintenance
The Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services (OES) will be responsible for reviewing this THIRA
report quarterly to make note of progress and/or items to update. Annually, the THIRA
Executive Committee will convene to discuss the progress and/or circumstances requiring
changes to the stated priorities.
The annual Executive Committee meeting will culminate in a summary memo prepared by OES
and submitted to the City Council for consent as a matter of public record.
Every two years the THIRA report will be updated and re-issued as a new version. On an
ongoing basis the THIRA report shall inform updates to the City’s Emergency Operations Plan.
The THIRA report is For Official Use Only and is not available in its entirety to the public.
Questions regarding this report may be directed to OES at 650-617-3197.
7 Appendices
Appendix A: Planning Team
Table 7-1 lists the Executive Committee and broader stakeholder group members who
participated in and contributed to the development of this THIRA.
44
Table 7-1 Planning Team
Name Agency Executive
Committee
Member
Aaron Aknin Acting Director, City of Palo Alto Planning,
Community & Environment (now employed
by Redwood City)
X
Andy Swanson City of Palo Alto, Airport Manager
Annette Glanckopf City of Palo Alto Emergency Services
Volunteer Program
Arrietta Chakos Dewberry Team
Bern Beecham City of Palo Alto Emergency Services
Volunteer Program (and former City
Councilmember)
Brad Wardle City of Mountain View, Fire Chief
Brandon Bond Stanford University Medical Center,
Administrative Director of Office of
Emergency Management
X
Brian Marquez Stanford Shopping Center, Security Manager
Cathleen Atchison Dewberry
Chris Cohendet Stanford University Department of Public
Safety, Sergeant
X
Claudia Keith Chief Communications Officer; City
Manager's Office
Corinne Bartshire Dewberry
David MacKenzie City of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, CEO
Dean Batchelor City of Palo Alto Utilities, Assistant Director
Dennis Burns City of Palo Alto Police Chief X
Donna Grider City of Palo Alto, City Clerk
Elizabeth Lam City of East Palo Alto Police Department, CSO
Eric Nickel City of Palo Alto Fire Chief X
Frank Grgurina City of Sunnyvale Department of Public
Safety, Chief
Greg Betts City of Palo Alto, Director of Community
Services
Hillary Gitelman City of Palo Alto Planning, Community &
Environment, Director
X
Houman Boussina City of Palo Alto, Interim Auditor
James Keene City of Palo Alto, City Manager X
Jim Dunnegan Varian Oncology Systems, EH&S Manager
Jim Schweikhard Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Safety
Manager
John StClair III City of Palo Alto Emergency Services
Volunteer Program, CERT
Jonathan Reichental City of Palo Alto, Chief Information
Technology Officer
X
Karen Bouvier Palo Alto Research Center
Karl Matzke American Red Cross
Kathryn Shen City of Palo Alto, Director of People Strategy
45
Name Agency Executive
Committee Member
& Operations
Kay Iida Stanford University Department of Public
Safety, Lieutenant
Keith Perry Stanford University EH&S X
Ken Dueker City of Palo Alto, Director of Emergency
Services
X
Lalo Perez City of Palo Alto, Director of Administrative
Services/Chief Financial Officer
Laura Wilson Stanford University Department of Public
Safety, Chief
X
Linda Barcomb Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
Linda Hibbs Lytton Gardens
Lydia Kou City of Palo Alto Emergency Services
Volunteer Program
Lynn Brown City of Mountain View, Emergency Services
Coordinator
Matt Sorgenfrei City of Palo Alto Emergency Services
Volunteer Program, CERT
Mike Sartor City of Palo Alto, Director of Public Works X
Molly Stump City of Palo Alto, City Attorney
Monique leConge City of Palo Alto, Library Director
Nathan Rainey City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services
Paul Lufkin City of Palo Alto Emergency Services
Volunteer Program, ARES/RACES
Peter Prinejad City of Palo Alto, Development Center
Director
Ryan Zollicoffer Menlo Park Fire Protection District,
Emergency Manager
Samantha Brichacek Stanford Industrial Park (SIP), EH&S
Manager
Scott Vermeer City of Mountain View, Chief of Police
Simon Williams City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services
Steve Drewniany City of Sunnyvale Department of Public
Safety, Deputy Chief
Tom Fehrenbach City of Palo Alto Economic Development
Manager
X
Tuck Younis City of Los Altos, Police Chief
Val Fong City of Palo Alto, Director of Utilities X
Victor Talavera Palo Alto Research Center
Vinny Mata City of Sunnyvale, Emergency Services
Coordinator
Walter Rossman City of Palo Alto, Director of Office of
Management and Budget
Zachary Perron City of Palo Alto Police Department,
Lieutenant
46
47
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5293)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 12/9/2014
Summary Title: Hazardous Buildings and Seismic Safety Study Session
Title: Discussion of Updating the Seismic Safety Chapter of the Municipal
Code for Hazardous Buildings
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Committee review the information included here regarding the
CΊχϴ͛ν ͋ϳΊνχΊΣͽ ΊΣϭ͋ΣχΪιϴ Ϊ͕ νχιϢ̽χϢι̯ΜΜϴ ͇͕͋Ί̽Ί͋Σχ ̼ϢΊΜ͇ΊΣͽν ̯Σ͇ χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν ͋ϳΊνχΊΣͽ Ϊι͇ΊΣ̯Σ̽͋
addressing these buildings, and recommend that the full Council authorize an immediate
Request for Proposals to prepare an updated inventory and to customize an approach for
ν͋ΊνΊ̯̽ΜΜϴ Ϣζͽι̯͇ΊΣͽ χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛s most vulnerable buildings.
Executive Summary
In 1986, the City adopted an ordinance categorizing seismically vulnerable buildings. (See Palo
Alto Municipal Code Section 16.42.) The ordinance required property owners to prepare an
engineering analysis of their buildings and provided incentives for owners to address identified
deficiencies. Twenty-three (23) of the buildings on the inventory remain vulnerable. In
addition, there are building typologies that were not included in the original inventory which
̯ι͋ ΣΪϮ ι͋̽ΪͽΣΊϹ͇͋ ̯ν ϭϢΜΣ͋ι̯̼Μ͋ ι͋θϢΊιΊΣͽ ̯͇͇ΊχΊΪΣ̯Μ ̯Σ̯ΜϴνΊν ̯Σ͇ ̯Σ Ϣζ͇̯χ͋ χΪ χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν
inventory and ordinance.
This report sets the framework for the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) discussion
related tΪ ν͋ΊνΊ̯̽ΜΜϴ ϭϢΜΣ͋ι̯̼Μ͋ ̼ϢΊΜ͇ΊΣͽν΅ ͜χ ͋ϳζΜΪι͋ν χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν ͋ϳΊνχΊΣͽ Ϊι͇ΊΣ̯Σ̽͋ ι͋ϭΊ͋Ϯν ̼͋νχ
practices from other communities and concludes with recommended discussion items/next
steps.
Background
On September 15, 2014, the City Council directed the Policy and Services Committee to address
the following:
identification and prioritization of buildings that pose a potential hazard in an
earthquake, including soft-story buildings and other types of construction
City of Palo Alto Page 1
review "best practices" from other cities regarding prioritization of various seismically
vulnerable buildings, including retrofit incentives and requirements
review current or pending State legislation related to soft-story buildings and other
structurally deficient buildings
Two events precipitated this recent direction. First, the 6.0 magnitude earthquake on August
24 2014 ΊΣ Ͳ̯ζ̯ Π̯ΜΜ͋ϴ ̯Σ͇ ν͋̽ΪΣ͇ χ·͋ CΊχϴ CΪϢΣ̽ΊΜ͛ν ι͋ϭΊ͋Ϯ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ͕͕Ί̽͋ Ϊ͕ E͋rgency
͋ιϭΊ̽͋͛ν Α·ι̯͋χν ̯Σ͇ H̯Ϲ̯ι͇ ͇͋͜ΣχΊ͕Ί̯̽χΊΪΣ ̯Σ͇ ·ΊνΙ !νν͋νν͋Σχ ι͋ζΪιχ ΪΣ ͋ζχ̼͋͋ι 15, 2014,
which identified over 150 seismically vulnerable buildings:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43866. Each of these study topics
are addressed below, followed by a recommended approach for the Committee to consider.
Building Identification and Prioritization
In 1986, the City Council adopted the Seismic Hazards and Identification Program codified at
Section 16.42 of the Municipal Code (Attachment A). This ordinance established a mandatory
evaluation and reporting program and created incentives for property owners to voluntarily
upgrade their structurally deficient buildings. Three categories of buildings were identified,
including:
Category I Buildings: Buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry (except for those
smaller than 1,900 square feet with six (6) or fewer occupants).
Category II Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1935 containing one
hundred (100) or more occupants.
Category III Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to August 1, 1976 containing three
hundred (300) or more occupants.
An unreinforced masonry building (or UMB, URM building) is a type of building where load
bearing walls, non-load bearing walls or other structures, such as chimneys are made of brick,
cinderblock, tiles, adobe or other masonry material, that is not braced by reinforcing beams.
Α·͋ ̯̽χ͋ͽΪιΊ͋ν ̯̼Ϊϭ͋ Ϯ͋ι͋ ͇͋ϭ͋ΜΪζ͇͋ ̼ϴ ̯ ̽ΊχΊϹ͋Σ͛ν ̽ΪΊχχ͋͋ ι͋ϭΊ͋Ϯ͇͋ ̼ϴ staff and the Policy
and Services Committee, and adopted by the City Council. These categories were created to
record known URM buildings and potentially and other structurally deficient buildings with high
occupancy volumes.
This program identified 89 buildings and was successful in two significant ways. One hundred
percent (100%) of the property owners complied with the ordinance and submitted engineering
reports detailing structural deficiencies and recommendations to strengthen structures to
alleviate the threat of collapse.1 Further, approximately seventy-five percent (75%), or sixty-six
buildings were strengthened, demolished, or proposed to be demolished. See Attachment B for
current status of all inventoried properties.
1 Based on a December 13, 2004 City Council Report from PCE
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Part of this success may be attributed to incentives that allowed upfront engineering report
costs be applied toward permit fees and the ability for property owners in the Downtown
Commercial (CD) district to add up to 2,500 square feet of new floor area, or twenty-five
percent (25%) of the existing building area, whichever is greater, to the site without having to
provide additional parking.2 This floor area bonus could be used onsite or transferred to
another owner or property in the CD district. Approximately twenty-one (21) property owners
took advantage of this incentive.
Despite its successes, however, twenty-three (23) buildings identified from that original
inventory remain vulnerable. Further, there are other building typologies that were not
surveyed prior to adoption of the 1986 ordinance. For example, problems with soft-story
construction were documented following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, which resulted in
changes to construction industry standards a few years later.
A soft story building is a multi-story building in which one or more floors have windows, wide
doors, large unobstructed commercial spaces, or other openings in places where a shear wall
would normally be required for stability as a matter of earthquake engineering design. A
typical soft story building is an apartment building Ϊ͕ χϮΪ Ϊι Ϊι͋ νχΪιϴ͛ν ΜΪ̯̽χ͇͋ Ϊϭ͋ι ̯ ͽιΪϢΣ͇
level with large openings, such as a parking garage or series of retail businesses with large
windows.
In 2003, the Collaborative for Disaster Mitigation at San Jose State University completed an
͜͞Σϭ͋ΣχΪιϴ Ϊ͕ Ϊ͕χ-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings in Santa Clara County.͟ According to the
report, the City of Palo Alto had 130 soft-story multi-family buildings including 1,263 residential
units housing 3,158 occupants. (Attachment C)
There are other construction types that were not surveyed in 1986, including non-ductile
concrete buildings, steel moment frame buildings, and concrete tilt-up buildings, in addition to
soft-story construction. It is unclear how many of these buildings exist in the city.
Α·͋ ̽Ίχϴ͛ν ͋ϳΊνχΊΣͽ Ϊι͇ΊΣ̯Σ̽͋ ι͋θϢΊι͋ν ̯ΣΣϢ̯Μ ι͋ζΪιχΊΣͽ χΪ χ·͋ CΊχϴ CΪϢΣ̽ΊΜ ΪΣ χ·͋ νχ̯χϢν Ϊ͕ χ·͋
program. This reporting appears to have ended in 2004 for unknown reasons. More recently,
the City Council adopted an interim ordinance modifying the seismic incentive such that parking
must now be provided if an owner seeks to add 2,500 square feet or 25% of the total building
area in the CD District. It is unclear how this policy change will affect continued participation in
the program.
Best Practices and Incentives
The Association of Bay Area Governments has a Resilience Program and developed a website
that has an inventory of ordinances from certain jurisdictions within its boundaries. It is
2 This incentive was also made available to properties in Historic Categories 1 and 2 not seeking seismic upgrades
City of Palo Alto Page 3
intended to serve as a toolkit for best practices. The website address is
http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/recovery/ordinances/.
In addition, staff contacted the Planning Advisory Service, which is a fee-based service and
research arm of th͋ !͋ιΊ̯̽Σ ΄Μ̯ΣΣΊΣͽ !ννΪ̽Ί̯χΊΪΣ΅ Α·Ίν ν͋ιϭΊ̽͋ ·͋Μζν ̯Ϣͽ͋Σχ νχ̯͕͕͛ν ι͋ν̯͋ι̽·
capabilities.
Based on a review of several city ordinances, it appears that there is some degree of variation
how local jurisdictions seek to mitigate structurally deficient buildings. Most go beyond
identifying and reporting to mandating retrofitting within specified periods of time. In some
instances, the more seismically vulnerable buildings are prioritized over other buildings in terms
of timelines for compliance to current retrofitting standards.
This is the typical process in most communities:
1. City develops an inventory and notifies owner
a. Inventory typically includes evaluation of URM; soft-story construction; concrete
tilt-up structures
b. Inventory is prepared by qualified city staff or consultants
c. Property owners have some right of appeal to challenge their placement on the
inventory
2. Owner submits a report to the city within a specified time period detailing:
a. χιϢ̽χϢι͋͛ν ̽ΪζΜΊ̯Σ̽͋ ϮΊχ· ΊΣΊϢ ̯͋ιχ·θϢ̯Ι͋ ν̯͕͋χϴ νχ̯Σ͇̯ι͇ν
b. Structural deficiencies and proposed retrofit plan
c. Demolition plan
3. Owners are given a timeline for compliance (often one or more years)
Many communities exempt detached residential structures and apartment buildings with fewer
than 5 units, as well as warehouses.
Penalties for non-compliance range from misdemeanor charges subject to fines or
imprisonment to orders that the building be vacated or demolished.
Some cities offer incentives. Berkeley for instance refunds one-third (1/3) of its 1.5% real estate
transfer tax for qualifying projects. Other cities reduce or eliminate building permit and
inspection fees associated with retrofitting. San Mateo at one point offered grants and loans for
certain projects.
Incentives, when offered, typically include:
Financial (waiving permit fees, grants or loans, reductions in property or real estate
taxes)
Process (streamlined permitting and inspection services)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
improving the performance of buildings during seismic events. Accordingly, there is a need to
Ϣζ͇̯χ͋ χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν ͋ϳΊνχΊΣͽ Ϊι͇ΊΣ̯Σ̽͋ χΪ ͋ϳζ̯Σ͇ χ·͋ ΜΊνχ Ϊ͕ ζΪχ͋ΣχΊ̯ΜΜϴ ϭϢΜΣ͋ι̯̼Μ͋ ̼ϢΊΜ͇ΊΣͽν ̯Σ͇
creating an additional mechanisms to encourage retrofitting buildings not previously identified.
At a minimum, it is recommended that the City update the inventory of structurally deficient
buildings in the multi-family, commercial and industrial areas of the city, categorizing building
typologies including:
a. URM
b. Soft-Story
c. Tilt-Up Construction
d. Non-ductile Concrete
e. Steel Moment
This task would require use of a consultant to:
f. Prepare the inventory update
g. Review existing engineering reports on file with the city as a result of the 1986
ordinance
h. Assist the city in prioritizing buildings to be retrofitted
i. Provide guidance for a new or revised ordinance
Depending on the breadth of the program, consultant costs could extend up to $100,000 based
on feedback received from other communities doing similar work.
In addition, the City may want to explore whether the program should be updated to require
mandatory retrofitting following a voluntary compliance period. The use of incentives could
continue play an important role and can help defray some costs associated with potentially
financially burdensome compliance requirements.
Staff would like the Committee͛ν ΊΣζϢχ ΪΣ χ·͋ν͋ ΊννϢ͋ν ζιΊΪι χΪ ̽ΪΣχι̯̽χΊΣͽ ͕Ϊι ̯Σ Ϣζ͇̯χ͇͋
inventory and preparing a revised ordinance.
Timeline
Preparation of an updated inventory will take approximately 4-6 months once a contractor is on
board. Depending on the number and type (including the current occupancy) of properties
identified, it could take considerably more time to conduct outreach to proprety owners and
the community, as well as prepare a draft ordinance for Committee review. Any amendments
that require changes to Title 18 – Zoning, would require review by the Planning and
Transportation Commission before the matter is brought to the Council.
The ordinance would set forth other timelines related to notice to owners, requirements for
owner prepared engineering reports and expected completion dates to retrofit buildings
determined to be structurall deficient.
Resource Impact
City of Palo Alto Page 7
It is anticipated that staff would prepare the ordinance amendments, however, preparation of
an updated inventory will require consultant assistance preliminarily estimated to be $100,000.
At the time a contract is awarded, staff would request that City Council approve a Budget
Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to increase the ͇͋ζ̯ιχ͋Σχ͛ν FΊν̯̽Μ Χ̯͋ι 2015 !͇Ϊζχ͇͋ ζ͋ι̯χΊΣͽ
Budget appropriation to include this expense.
Environmental Review
The recommended action in this report is not a project and, therefore, not subject to
environmental review. However, adoption of an ordinance to amend the muncipal code is
subject to enviromental review. It is anticipated that a future amendment would be exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act unless the ordinance would
have the potentail to result in significant displacement of existing uses/residents.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.42 (PDF)
Attachment B: Seismic Inventory Status Update (DOC)
Attachment C: Preliminary Soft-Story Construction List (DOCX)
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Chapter 16.42 SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM Page 1 of 7
Attachment A
Print
Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 16.42
SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM
Sections:
16.42.010 Purpose.
16.42.020 Definitions.
16.42.030 Scope of program.
16.42.040 Building categories and implementation schedule.
16.42.050 Engineering reports.
16.42.060 Review of reports.
16.42.070 Responsibilities of the building owners.
16.42.080 Program status reports to the city council.
16.42.090 Remedies.
16.42.010 Purpose.
It is found and declared that in the event of a strong or moderate local earthquake, loss of life
or serious injury may result from damage to or collapse of buildings in Palo Alto. It is generally acknowledged that Palo Alto will experience earthquakes in the future due to its proximity to both the San Andreas and Hayward faults. The purpose of this chapter is to promote public
safety by identifying those buildings in Palo Alto which exhibit structural deficiencies and by
accurately determining the severity and extent of those deficiencies in relation to their potential
for causing loss of life or injury. The city council finds it desirable to identify the hazards that these deficiencies may pose to occupants of buildings and pedestrians in the event of an
earthquake. Such a seismic hazards identification program is consistent with California Health
and Safety Code Sections 19160 - 19169 and is necessary to implement the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan's Environmental Resources Policy 14, Program 47.
(Ord. 3666 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.42.020 Definitions.
(a) "Bearing wall" means any wall supporting a floor or roof where the total superimposed
load exceeds one hundred pounds per linear foot, or any unreinforced masonry wall supporting
its own weight when over six feet in height.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 24/2014
Chapter 16.42 SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM Page 2 of 7
(b) "Building," for the purpose of determining occupant load, means any contiguous or
interconnected structure; for purposes of engineering evaluation, means the entire structure or a
portion thereof which will respond to seismic forces as a unit.
(c) "Capacity for transfer" means the maximum allowable capacity of a structural system or
connection to resist in a ductile manner the lateral forces it would encounter due to earthquake
forces.
(d) "Civil engineer or structural engineer" means a licensed civil or structural engineer registered by the state of California pursuant to the rules and regulations of Title 16, Chapter 5 of the California Administrative Code.
(e) "External hazard" means an object attached to or forming the exterior facade of a building
which may fall onto pedestrians or occupants of adjacent buildings. Examples of this type of
hazard include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Nonstructural exterior wall panels, such as masonry infill or decorative precast concrete;
(2) Parapets;
(3) Marquees, awnings or other roof-like projections from a building;
(4) Masonry or stone wall veneer and wall ornamentation, including cornices or other
decorative appendages;
(5) Masonry chimneys;
(6) Tile roofing;
(7) Wall signs and exterior lighting fixtures hung from a building exterior;
(8) Fire escapes or balconies.
(f) "Geometry" means a building's shape or configuration, including setbacks of wall/column
lines, reentrant corners, discontinuities in vertical and horizontal lateral force diaphragms, open storefront and building stiffness variations due to the distribution of resisting elements or the use
of materials of differing properties within the same structural element, or other irregularities in
plan or elevation.
(g) "Occupants" means the total occupant load of a building determinedm pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, or the actual maximum number of occupants in that building if that
number is less than seventy-five percent of the number determined pursuant to the code. The
number of actual occupants may be documented by counting actual seating capacity if permanent
seating is provided in the occupancy, or by employee and client counts which can be
substantiated as a practical maximum use of the space in the building. The chief building official will establish the procedure for documenting occupant loads.
(h) "Solution" means any justifiable method that will provide for the transfer of lateral forces
through a system or connection to a degree which will substantially eliminate a potential collapse
failure. A general description of the methods and materials to be used shall be included in
sufficient detail to allow for a cost estimate of the solution to be made (i.e., adding shear walls, overlaying horizontal diaphragms, strengthening critical connections, etc.).
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 24/2014
Chapter 16.42 SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM Page 3 of 7
(i) "Unreinforced masonry" ("URM") building means any building containing walls
constructed wholly or partially with any of the following materials:
(1) Unreinforced brick masonry;
(2) Unreinforced concrete masonry;
(3) Hollow clay tile;
(4) Adobe or unburned clay masonry.
(Ord. 4642 § 28, 2000: Ord. 3666 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.42.030 Scope of program.
(a) Applicability. The following buildings in Palo Alto shall be required to have an engineering report submitted to the city's building inspection division, pursuant to Section
16.42.050, to determine: (i) the existence, nature and extent of structural deficiencies which
could result in collapse or partial collapse of the building; and (ii) the existence, nature and extent of deficiencies in the anchoring of external hazards:
(1) Buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry (URM), except those of less than one
thousand nine hundred square feet containing six or fewer occupants;
(2) Buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1935 containing one hundred or more occupants;
(3) Buildings constructed prior to August 1, 1976 containing three hundred or more occupants.
(b) Exemptions. The following buildings need not comply with this chapter:
(1) Buildings which have been structurally upgraded in substantial accordance with either the
Los Angeles Division 88 Standard for URM buildings or the 1973, or later, edition of the
Uniform Building Code;
(2) Buildings whose uses are subject to amortization under this code; provided that, upon the termination of the nonconforming use, such a building shall be required to be rehabilitated to the
then current lateral force requirements in the Uniform Building Code prior to occupancy by a
conforming use.
(Ord. 3666 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.42.040 Building categories and implementation schedule.
(a) Building Categories. The categories of buildings within the scope of this chapter are set
forth in Table A, below.
(b) Owner Notification. The owners of buildings in categories I through III, except those
designated as historic buildings, shall be notified within six months of enactment of the ordinance codified in this chapter by the building inspection division of the city of Palo Alto that
their buildings are required to have an engineering report submitted to the city. Owners of
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 24/2014
Chapter 16.42 SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM Page 4 of 7
designated historic buildings, as defined in Chapter 16.49, shall be notified within eighteen
months of enactment of the ordinance codified in this chapter.
(c) Implementation Schedule. The owners of buildings in categories I through III must submit engineering reports within the time frame set out in Table A, below, from the date of mailed
notice by the city.
Table A
Engineering Report Submitted
Category Description Within Date of Mailed Notice
(in Years)
I All URM buildings. 1-1/2
II All pre-1935 buildings other than URM with 100 occupants or more. 2
All buildings with 300 occupants or III more constructed between January 1, 2-1/2 1935 and August 1976.
(Ord. 3666 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.42.050 Engineering reports.
(a) Preparation of Reports. Building owners shall employ a civil or structural engineer to prepare the investigation and engineering report outlined below.
(b) Purpose. To investigate, in a thorough and unambiguous fashion, a building's structural
systems that resist the forces imposed by earthquakes and to determine if any individual portion
or combination of these systems is inadequate to prevent a structural failure (collapse or partial
collapse).
(c) General. Each building shall be treated as an individual case without prejudice or comparison to similar type or age buildings which may have greater or lesser earthquake
resistance. Generalities or stereotypes are to be avoided in the evaluation process by focusing on
the specifics of the structural system of the building in question and the local geology of the land
on which the building is constructed.
(d) Level of Investigation. Some buildings will require extensive testing and field investigation to uncover potential structural deficiencies, while others will allow the same level
of overall evaluation by a less complicated process due to simplicity of design or the availability
of original or subsequent alteration design and construction documents.
It is the responsibility of the engineer performing the evaluation to choose the appropriate level of investigation which will produce a report that is complete and can serve as a sound basis for a
conclusion on the collapse hazard the building may present.
(e) Format for the Report. The following is a basic outline of the format each engineering
report should follow. This outline is not to be construed to be a constraint on the professional
preparing the report, but rather to provide a skeleton framework within which individual
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 24/2014
Chapter 16.42 SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM Page 5 of 7
approaches to assembling the information required by the ordinance may be accomplished. It
also will serve as a means for the city to evaluate the completeness of each report.
(1) General Information. A description of the building including: (i) the street address; (ii) the type of occupancy use within the building, with separate uses that generate different occupant
loads indicated on a plan showing the square footage of each different use; (iii) plans and
elevations showing the location, type and extent of lateral force resisting elements in the building
(both horizontal and vertical elements); (iv) a description of the construction materials used in
the structural elements and information regarding their present condition; (v) the date of original construction, if known and the date, if known, of any subsequent additions or substantial
structural alterations of the building; and (vi) the name and address of the original designer and
contractor, if known, and the name and address of the designer and contractor, if known, for any
subsequent additions or substantial structural alterations.
(2) Investigation and Evaluation of Structural Systems. All items to be investigated and the methods of investigation for each type of building under consideration are contained in
Appendices A and B, attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter, available from the city's
building inspection division.
(3) Test Reports. All field and laboratory test results shall be included in the report.
Evaluation of the significance of these test results shall be made with regard to each structural system or typical connection being evaluated. This evaluation may be limited to a statement of
the adequacy or inadequacy of the system or connection based on the lateral load demand it
would be required to resist by calculation. If tests reveal inadequacy, a conceptual solution must
be included in the report.
(4) Conclusions. Based on the demand/capacity ratio and the specific evaluation items contained in Appendices A or B attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter, a statement
shall be provided explaining the overall significance of the deficiencies found to exist in the
building's lateral force-resisting system regarding potential collapse or partial collapse failure.
(5) Recommendations. An appropriate solution, which could be used to strengthen the structure to alleviate any collapse or partial collapse threat, shall be specified.
(f) Exceptions and Alternatives. Exceptions to the specific items required to be included in an
engineering report may be granted by the chief building official upon review of a written request
from the engineer preparing the report. Such a request shall provide evidence that adequate
information concerning the required item(s) can be determined by alternate means or that a conclusion can be made about the item without following the solution called for in the
appropriate appendix. The purpose of granting such exceptions shall be to reduce the costs or
disruption that would result from taking required actions, when it can be shown that they are
unnecessary to provide information available by other equivalent means. In no case will an
exception be granted which would result in an item not being completely evaluated. The decision of the chief building official in granting exceptions is final.
(Ord. 3666 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.42.060 Review of reports.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 24/2014
Chapter 16.42 SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM Page 6 of 7
(a) The city shall utilize the services of civil or structural engineers to assist the building
inspection division in determining if the submitted engineering reports conform to the
requirements of this chapter.
(b) The cost of this review shall be recovered by a fee assessed from the building owner based
on the time required for the review. This fee amount shall be deducted from the plan checking
fee collected for any future construction work that deals directly with correcting any of the
structural inadequacies specified in the engineering report.
(c) Copies of the engineering reports shall be available to interested individuals for a standard copying fee or may be reviewed at the building inspection division offices.
(Ord. 3666 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.42.070 Responsibilities of the building owners.
(a) Notification of Building Tenants. A building owner shall notify all tenants, in writing, that a structural investigation has been performed and that the report is available at the building inspection division offices. This notice must be sent within thirty days of the date the report is
submitted to the city.
(b) Letter of Intent. A building owner shall submit a letter to the building inspection division
within one year of the date the engineering report was submitted, indicating the owner's intentions for dealing with the potential collapse hazards found to exist in the building.
(Ord. 3666 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.42.080 Program status reports to the city council.
The chief building official shall submit a semiannual report to the city council on the status of
the seismic hazards identification program. The reports shall include information regarding the number of buildings analyzed, the severity of the structural inadequacies discovered and any
actions taken by individual building owners to correct these inadequacies.
(Ord. 3666 § 1 (part), 1986)
16.42.090 Remedies.
It shall be unlawful for the owner of a building identified as being included in the scope of this chapter to fail to submit a report on either building collapse hazards or external hazards within
the time period specified in Section 16.42.040(c), Table A, or to fail to submit a letter of intent
within the time period specified in Section 16.42.070(b). The following remedies are available to
the city:
(a) The city may seek injunctive relief on behalf of the public to enjoin a building owner's violation of this chapter.
(b) Any building owner violating this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in Section 1.08.010 of this code. Such
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 24/2014
Chapter 16.42 SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM Page 7 of 7
building owner is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which
such violation of this chapter is committed, continued or permitted by such building owner.
(c) These remedies are not exclusive.
(Ord. 3881 § 9, 1989: Ord. 3666 § 1 (part), 1986)
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 24/2014
Attachment
Current Status of Existing Seismic
Hazards Buildings per Category
(September 2014)
Category I Buildings: Category II Buildings: Category III Buildings:
Buildings constructed of Buildings constructed prior to Buildings constructed prior to
unreinforced masonry (except January 1, 1935 containing one August 1, 1976 containing
for those smaller than 1,900 hundred (100) or more three hundred (300) or more
square feet with six (6) or occupants. occupants.
fewer occupants).
Strengthened/Retrofitted: 21 Strengthened: 13 Strengthened: 5
Demolished/New Building: 14 Demolished/New Building: 2 Demolished/New Building: 5
URM Wall Removed: 1 Proposed to be demolished: 4
Exempt: 1 No change: 4 No Change: 9
No Change: 10
Total Number: 47 Total Number: 19 Total Number: 23
1 of 4
Category I Seismic
(Unreinforced Masonry including In-fill)
Updated September 2014
Address Occupant Status
525 Alma Patagonia Strengthened UCBC Historic
529 Alma Pampas Strengthened UCBC Historic
539 Alma Premier Properties URM Wall Removed Historic
657 Alma Phil’s Coffee Demolished / New Building
705 Alma Ellison’s Garage Demolished / New Building #995138-1997 UBC
841 Alma Palo Alto Family
Housing Demolished / New Building
901 Alma No Change
425-31 Cali Fine arts No Change
437-41 Emerson Classic Gelato Strengthened UCBC
530-32 Emerson Jungle Printing Strengthened UCBC
544 Emerson Gravity Retrofitted 08rev-00239
611-19 Emerson Vivre/Fitness Strengthened #2000973 – w/ 25 % increase
626-40 Emerson Gordon Biersh Strengthened Permit # 871446 (Concrete beams
w/ infill)
744 Emerson Whole Foods Strengthened Permit 871186
847 Emerson No Change – Exempt from Ordinance
949-51 Emerson SOS Grocery No Change
2 of 4
150-56 Hamilton House of Foam No Change
411 High Criteo Corp. Strengthened Permit 981074 UBC
542 High Palantir No Change
160 Forest Costanoa Strengthened Permit # 902932
151 Homer Pete’s Coffee Demolished / New Building
230 Homer Strengthened Permit # 952276
232 Homer Strengthened Permit # 952276
265 Homer No Change
401 Florence Russo & Hale Strengthened Permit # 91104 w/ 25%
increase
431-39 Florence First Am. Title Demolished / New Building
522 Ramona Coupa Cafe Strengthened UCBC
634-636 Ramona No Change
820 Ramona Maple Investments Demolished / New Building
140 University Palo Alto grill Strengthened UCBC
150 University Palantir Demolished / New Building
171-77 University Palo Alto Bicycle Demolished / New Building
172-74 University Frendz Studio No Change
180-82 University Cot Plus Strengthened Permit # 933333 UBC
3 of 4
201-07 University Sushi Strengthened Permit # 941359
227 University Stanford theater
Addition Demolished #040514
233-35 University Mills Florist No Change
270 University Jos. A. Bank Demolished / New Building
274-78 University Keen Shoes Demolished / New Building
275-83 University Restoration
Hardware Strengthened Permit # 95939 UBC
380-82 University Slamon Consulting Demolished / New Building
384 University Chico’s Strengthened UBC
403-05 University O Sushi Strengthened Permit # 950778
400 University Union Bank No Change
424 University LuLuLemon Demolished / New Building
499 University Sprint Demolished / New Building
700 Welch Stanford Barn Strengthened Permit # 871528
Category I – Seismic Summary: September 2014
Total Number 47
Strengthened or Retrofitted 21
Demolished / New Building 14
URM Wall Removed 1
Vacated 0
Exempt 1
No Change 10
4 of 4
Category II Seismic
(Buildings constructed prior to 1935 with more than 100 occupants)
Updated September 2014
Address Occupant Status
450 Bryant
City of Palo
Alto/Senior Center
(Avenidas)
Strengthened Permit # 95109
518-26 Bryant Three Seasons Strengthened
661 Bryant Tencent Mandatory Seismic upgrade 10-00592
Strengthened Permit # 902764
205-25 Hamilton Institute for the
Future Strengthened Permit # 851796
231-47 Hamilton Cardinal Hotel No Change
255-67 Hamilton University Art Center Strengthening -seismic upgrade included in
permit to be submitted with historic
restoration late 2014
475 Homer Women’s Club No Change
1305 Middlefield City of Palo Alto/Stern
Center Strengthened Permit # 91689
211 Quarry Hoover Pavilion Strengthened 10-03433
5 of 4
668 Ramona Pacific Art League Strengthened 12-02860
223 University Stanford Theater Strengthened Permit #
251-55 University Fidelity Investments Strengthened Permit # 91455
300-14 University Walgreen’s Demolished / New Building
340-46 University Apple Store Demolished / New Building
456 University Border’s Books Strengthened Permit # 951243 25% Inc.
480 University President Apartments No Change
25 University McArthur Park No Change
745 Waverly St. Thomas Aquinas
Church Strengthened Permit # 871141
2300 Wellesley City of Palo
Alto/Library Strengthened
Category II – Seismic Summary: September 2014
Total Number 19
Strengthened 13
Demolished / New Building 2
No change 4
Historic 14
6 of 4
Category III Seismic
(Buildings constructed prior to 1976 with more than 300 Occupants)
Updated September 2014
Address Occupant Status
200
Arboretum
Nordstrom’s No Change
601
California
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Demolished / New Building
975
California
Merk No Change
1451
California
Stanford Planned community
development
To be demolished spring 2015
Strengthened Under Permit # 932441
1501
California Stanford Planned community
development
To be demolished spring 2015
Strengthened
1601
California Stanford Planned community
development
Current home of Theranos
Inc.
To be demolished spring 2015
Strengthened Under Permit # 891372
3333 Coyote
Hill
PARC/Xerox No Change
1069 East
Meadow
Sofia University Strengthened Under Permit # 89669
180 El
Camino Real
Macy’s No change
180 El Ca
Camino Real
Bloomingdales New building under construction with demo of
old building to follow.
3000 El
Camino Real
Palo Alto Square No Change
4249 El
Camino Real
Elks Club Demolished / New Building
4290 El Arbor real planned Demolished / New Building
7 of 4
Camino Real community development
3825 Fabian Space Systems Loral Strengthened Under Permit # 92859
3939 Fabian Altair planned community
Development Demolished / New Building
285
Hamilton
Palo Alto Development
Center
No Change
4001 Mirada Miranda Park Demolished / New Building
1651 Page
Mill
Stanford Clinics Strengthened
1801 Page
Mill
Multiple Tenants Strengthened Under Permit # 991605
3172 Porter Stanford Strengthened
500 Quarry Sakes Fifth Avenue No Change
865 Stanford LDS Church No Change
525
University
Tower No Change
Category II – Seismic Summary: September 2014
Total Number 23
Strengthened 5
Demolished / New Building 5
No Change 9
New Construction purposed in 2015 4
8 of 4
Attachment C
Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings - City of Palo Alto
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Updated September 2014
In 2003, the Collaborative for Disaster Mitigation at San Jose State University completed
an “Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings in Santa Clara County”.
According to the report the City of Palo Alto had 130 soft-first story multi-family
buildings including 1,263 residential units housing 3,158 occupants.
The following list of addresses updates the San Jose State University report with
updated information from the City of Palo Fire Department, complied in July 2010.
Address Occupant Status
1851 Alma
3043 Alma
3053 Alma
3065 Alma
3079 Alma
3087-3095 Alma
One (1) Building
3297 Alma
3353 Alma Voluntary Seismic Upgrade 06-
03192
3357 Alma
4157 Byron Voluntary Seismic Upgrade 06-
03088
4160 Byron
4170 Byron Voluntary Seismic Upgrade 06-
03089
4171 Byron
4180 Byron
4185 Byron
4190 Byron
720 California
750 California
780 California
122-128 Channing Possibly Demo – Need to Confirm
460 Channing Voluntary Seismic Upgrade
Foundation Only
634 College
657 College
664 College
811 College
819 College
827 College
725 Cowper
825 Cowper
936-940 Cowper
One (1) Building
220 Curtner Bldg 1 & 2
Two (2) Buildings
241 Curtner Bldg 1 & 2
One (1) Building
242 Curtner
250 Curtner Bldg 1 & 2
Two (2) Buildings
301 Curtner
320 Curtner
322 Curtner
330 Curtner
350 Curtner
380 Curtner Bldg 1 & 2
One (1) Building Voluntary Seismic Upgrade 06-
02139
385 Curtner
391 Curtner
3943 El Camino Real
518 Everett
528 Everett
601-619 Forest
One (1) Building
628 Forest
640 Forest
660-666 Forest
One (1) Building
668-674 Forest
One (1) Building
446-454 Grant
One (1) Building
456-464 Grant
One (1) Building
630-640 Hamilton
One (1) Building
403-407 James
409-419 James
One (1) Building
420 James
562 Kendall
630 Los Robles Bldg 1 & 2
Three (3) Buildings
559 Matadero
4211 McKellar
One (1) Building
4217 McKellar
575 Middlefield
759 Middlefield
801 Middlefield
3901 -3909 Middlefield
One (1) Building
570 Oxford
3833 Park
3860 Park
3875 Park
1072 Tanland
1080 Tanland
1090 Tanland
1091 Tanland
1093 Tanland
1094 Tanland
696 Towle
800 University
812 University Bldg 1 & 2
One (1) Building
831 University
836 University Bldg 1 & 2
One (1) Building
220 Ventura
290 Ventura
310 Ventura
330 Ventura Bldg 1 & 2
One (1) Building
382/384/386/388 Ventura
One (1) Building
392/394/396/398 Ventura
One (1) Building
438 Ventura
443 Ventura
577 Vista Bldg 1 & 2
One (1) Building
925 Waverly
355 Webster Bldg 1 & 2
One (1) Building
440 Webster
899 Webster
2051 Wellesley Bldg 1 & 2
One (1) Building
4290 Wilkie
4292 Wilkie
4294 Wilkie
4296 Wilkie
4298 Wilkie
2134 Williams
2145 Williams
2175 Williams
2251 Williams
2261 Williams
September 2014
SJSU Report City of PA Fire Department
Total Number 130 108
Voluntary Seismic Upgrade 6 6
No Change 124 102
1 of 3
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee Members
v7_GH_01.15.16
Organization or
Company Contact Name Title Stakeholder Category Commitment Status
ABAG Dana Brechwald Resilience Specialist policy AG Member
Applied Technology Christopher Rojahn Director Emeritus engineers AG Member
BCCI Construction Co.Nelson Vineyard Field Operations Manager contractors AG Member
BOMA (Building
Owners and Managers
Association)Sharon Fredlund Executive community AG Member
California Apartment
Association Tri-County Anil Babbar Executive Director tenants AG Member
City of Palo Alto -
Economic
Development Thomas Fehrenbach
Economic Development
Manager
city staff-economic
development AG Member
Cody Brock Richard Cody Principal contractors AG Member
Hayes Group Ken Hayes Principal architects AG Member
Hohbach-Lewin, Inc.Doug Hohbach Principal engineers AG Member
Hudson Pacific
Properties Shawn Kelly
Director, Portfolio
Engineering community AG Member
Hudson Pacific
Properties Teresa Marks Portfolio Manager community AG Member
2 of 3
Organization or
Company Contact Name Title Stakeholder Category Commitment Status
Office of the City
Administrator City and
County of San
Francisco Patrick Otellini Chief Resilience Officer policy AG Member
One Concern Ahmad Wani CEO and CoFounder community AG Member
Palo Alto Housing
Corp.Georgina Mascarenhas
Vice President of Property
Management community AG Member
Palo Alto Chamber of
Commerce Judy Kleinberg CEO/President business interests AG Member
PAN (Palo Alto
Neighborhoods)Al Dorsky
Emergency Service
Volunteer community AG Member
PAN (Palo Alto
Neighborhoods)Annette Glanckopf
Emergency Service
Volunteer community AG Member
Premier Properties Jon Goldman
Real Estate
Broker/Developer community AG Member
Rapp Development Roxy Rapp Owner developers AG Member
SILVAR (Silicon Valley
Assoc. of Realtors)Jessica Epstein
Government Affairs
Director community AG Member
Sobrato Organization Tim Steele
Senior Vice President, Real
Estate Development developers AG Member
USGS / Bay Area
Earthquake Alliance Tom Holzer
USGS Engineering
Geologist policy AG Member
City of Palo Alto -
Development Services Peter Pirnejad Director city staff-PCE-building Project Team Member
City of Palo Alto -
Development Services -
Building Division Bud Starmer
Building Inspector
Supervisor city staff-PCE-building Project Team Member
3 of 3
Organization or
Company Contact Name Title Stakeholder Category Commitment Status
City of Palo Alto -
Development Services -
Building Division George Hoyt Chief Building Official city staff-PCE-building Project Team Member
City of Palo Alto - Fire James Henrikson Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall city staff-fire Project Team Member
City of Palo Alto - Office
of Emergency Services Nathaniel Rainey Coordinator city staff-OES Project Team Member
City of Palo Alto -
Planning & Community
Environment Jeremy Dennis Planning Manager city staff-PCE-planning Project Team Member
City of Palo Alto -
Planning & Community
Environment Elena Lee Senior Planner city staff-PCE-planning Project Team Member
City of Palo Alto - Public
Works Hung Nguyen Project Engineer
city staff-PCE-public
works Project Team Member
Rutherford + Chekene Bret Lizundia Executive Principal R+C consulting team Project Team Member
Rutherford + Chekene Marko Schotanus Associate R+C consulting team Project Team Member
Sharyl Rabinovici
Consulting Sharyl Rabinovici
Disaster Mitigation
Researcher and Policy
Strategist R+C consulting team Project Team Member
1
PALO ALTO’S 2016 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADVISORY GROUP
SUMMARY REPORT ON PROCESS, DISCUSSIONS, AND OUTCOMES
November 21, 2016
OVERVIEW
On December 9, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee of the Palo Alto City Council
recommended the City Council authorize a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop information
for use in updating the City’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program (Ordinance 3666). The
City Council approved the recommendation, an RFP and scope of work was prepared, and a
consulting team led by Rutherford + Chekene was selected to develop summarize relevant state
and local seismic mitigation legislation, obtain detailed information on Palo Alto’s existing
building stock, develop conceptual retrofits for vulnerable buildings, make loss estimates of
expected damage to the building stock, and work with a City Advisory Group to develop policy
recommendations for consideration by the Council.
From an initial meeting in December 2015 through a final meeting in August 2016, the City of
Palo Alto (COPA) staff and consultants from Rutherford + Chekene hosted six meetings of a
Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group. The purpose was to discuss needs and
potential directions for COPA leaders to consider going forward in updating the city’s seismic
mitigation programs. The convening of a stakeholder advisory group was an essential element of
a the project to collect and analyze earthquake risks in Palo Alto’s existing building stock
(primarily multi-family and commercial) and narrow in on promising policy alternatives.
Over the course of twenty hours of face-to-face information exchange, non-staff participation
ranged from seven to 20 persons. Attendees included people with a range of relevant expertise
and interests from interested citizens, earthquake risk and engineering experts, local developers
and owners, and representatives of various community groups. COPA departments represented
included Building, Planning, Fire, Office of Emergency Services, and Public Works.
The process was informed by an extensive technical assessment of the earthquake risk landscape
in Palo Alto’s existing buildings (excluding single-family and two-family residences).
Consultants completed a document review, a street survey of a large sample of buildings, and a
loss estimation analysis with and without seismic retrofitting, as well as a comprehensive review
of other jurisdictional best practices and the state policy context. Advisory Group members
received in-depth briefings on the inventory and loss estimation methods and results. That
information formed the basis for clarifying and exploring a range of policy options.
This memo summarizes the process, discussions, and outcomes of the City of Palo Alto’s
Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group efforts. The process was not aimed at
creating a consensus document or ratification by majority vote. The end goal was a summary—
reflected by this document—of the range of issues and opinions expressed by interested parties
who participated. All Advisory Group members had the opportunity to review this memo prior to
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes
November 21, 2016
2
final submittal by the Consultants to COPA staff. The information herein will be provided to the
City Council later in the first quarter of 2017 as they consider potential revisions to the City of
Palo Alto’s current seismic risk management program and seismic hazard identification
ordinance.
POLICY OPTION DISCUSSIONS
Scope of the Seismic Risk Problem in Palo Alto
Palo Alto’s existing seismic mitigation program, one of the first and most innovative of its kind,
focuses on three categories of buildings based on age of construction and structural type and
occupancy. Category I is for unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings with more than six
occupants and more than 1,900 sf. Category II is for buildings built before 1935 with over 100
occupants. Category III is for buildings built before August 1, 1976 with over 300 occupants. In
the 12/9/14 COPA staff report, there were 47 buildings in Category I, 19 in Category II, and 23
in Category III. The program required owners to do a seismic evaluation, but left them the
choice of whether to actually perform a retrofit. Owners and developers were offered a Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) bonus in exchange for completing basic retrofit work. This tactic was
successful for addressing the majority of the Category I, II, and III buildings either by seismic
retrofitting or by demolition. Currently, approximately ten Category I, four Category II, and nine
Category III buildings remain standing without seismic retrofitting. The modest overall scope of
the ordinance left many other vulnerable building types unaddressed.
The current technical assessment covered a much larger set of buildings with a wider array of
potentially vulnerable structural systems. The findings showed that the estimated losses to Palo
Alto buildings and contents in a major event will be significant, on the order of $2.4 billion.
Furthermore, this figure does not include implications such as lives lost, business disruption, or
ripple effects in the local economy or real estate market. Much of this loss will not be insured.
Loss Estimates and Cost Benefit Assessments of Local Inventory
Generally, buildings designed to a more recent building code are expected to perform well.
Older buildings built before milestone improvements in code provisions can be more seismically
vulnerable. Among the building type categories of highest concern in Palo Alto besides the three
categories covered by the COPA ordinance are pre-1977 soft-story wood frame (with
approximately 294 buildings), pre-1998 tilt-up concrete (99 buildings), pre-1977 concrete soft-
story (37 buildings), pre-1998 steel moment frame (35 buildings), and other pre-1977 concrete
construction (170 buildings). Participants generally agreed that addressing building types known
to be potentially hazardous and with large numbers of buildings will lead to the greatest
reduction in losses. It was also nearly unanimous that Palo Alto should seek out ways to resolve
the approximately 23 cases of Category I, II, or III buildings that have not yet been addressed.
The technical assessment revealed that the potential reduction in damage costs from retrofitting
is significant. Some building categories have greater benefits than others in terms of loss
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes
November 21, 2016
3
reduction relative to estimated retrofit costs, with a low of approximately 1:1 to a high of
approximately 11:1. Two scenarios earthquake events along the San Andreas Fault developed by
the United States Geological Survey were used in the loss estimates: a major M7.9 event, and a
strong M6.7 event. For a more accurate estimate of costs and benefits, all future earthquakes
would need to be considered. It made sense to participants to use the estimated retrofit benefit-
cost ratio as one factor (among many) in considering which categories of buildings COPA should
address first. Other factors could include loss of life, business disruption, and displaced
residents, though these estimates were not within the scope of the loss estimate.
Approaches to Address Seismic Retrofitting Used by Other Jurisdictions
The policy and best practices reviews showed that a wide range of policy options are being used
in other jurisdictions to address vulnerabilities similar to those faced by Palo Alto. Potential
policy mechanisms include: inventory only, notify only, voluntary retrofit, disclosure
approaches, mandatory screening, mandatory evaluation, and mandatory retrofit, with either a
fixed timeline or when triggered (for instance, at time of transfer). Mitigation programs often
consist of a package of policy mechanisms for different building categories, and use several
mechanisms at the same time for different building categories or in phases. Participants were
also informed about precedents for a variety of incentives that can be offered for some or all
affected owners to ease the process of program compliance.
Bundled Options with Increasing Regulatory Strength
The Advisory Group, together with COPA staff, received detailed briefings on the above
findings, asked questions, and discussed potential community responses and concerns. Half way
through the process, consultants introduced to participants a range of specific policy options to
frame the conversation about the most needed and viable policy approaches. The aims were to
identify areas of general agreement, specific approaches that were either favored or not, and
issues needing further information or discussion. Six possible options were suggested as follows:
Option 1—Status Quo. Existing program (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.42)
ordinance with its mandatory evaluation, voluntary retrofit approach would remain in place
without changes.
Option 2—Increase Scope but Retrofit Remains Voluntary. Additional categories of
structures would be added to the mandatory evaluation requirements beyond those of the
current ordinance.
Option 3—Increase Scope with Additional Disclosure Measures. Like Option 2, this
option would target a larger set of building categories than the current ordinance and make
use of disclosure measures such as prominently posting the building list on the City website,
notifying tenants, requiring signage, and/or recording notice on the property title.
Option 4—Increase Scope with Some Categories Voluntary and a Few More Categories
Mandatory, with Enforcement by a Trigger Threshold. This option would require
retrofitting for some building types whenever certain future events take place, such as when a
building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation above a set threshold such as cost.
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes
November 21, 2016
4
Option 5—Increase Scope with Some Categories Voluntary and a Few Categories
Mandatory, with Enforcement on a Fixed Timeline. This option would be similar to
Option 4, but retrofitting is required according to a fixed timeline.
Option 6—Increase Scope, Retrofit is Mandatory for More Categories. Retrofitting
would be required on a fixed timeline for additional categories.
The possibility of having different requirements or timelines for residential compared to non-
residential properties was identified. The group was also open to using location, occupancy type,
and/or number of occupants as part of the criteria for selecting a structural type to be included in
the updated ordinance, and/or as a basis for setting appropriate timelines, prioritization, tiers, or
phasing. In general, mandatory evaluation was seen as a way to make sure building owners and
the City are properly informed about existing risks, and as a way to motivate more voluntary
retrofit work. Triggered upgrades were also discussed favorably, though some felt this kind of
uncertain timeline was not appropriate for risks that city leaders have concluded are
unacceptable. There was support for using combinations of the options for different building
types, so that some building types would have more stringent requirements than others. Many
members of the Advisory Group, though not all, were positive about including mandatory
requirements for some building categories (Option 5).
PERSPECTIVES ON DISCLOSURE MEASURES AND INCENTIVES
Along with these options, the group discussed how COPA could utilize a variety of disclosure
measures and incentives.
Disclosure Measures
Once introduced to the rationale and precedents for use of disclosure measures, the group
supported the idea of making the list of buildings affected by the current and any future
ordinance update more prominent and available to the public. The group regarded the City’s
website and possibly tenant notification as the best ways to do this, while they had less interest in
community education efforts. There was some concern that placing notice on the title would not
be worth the initial and ongoing efforts necessary to keep such information current. The group
discussed extensively but ultimately expressed relatively low support for signage or placarding,
unless this tactic was used later in a program as a penalty for failure to comply in a timely
manner.
Incentives to Undertake Seismic Retrofitting
The group was eager to discuss possible incentives, from the standpoint of both facilitating
prompt action and easing the burden on owners. Incentives were viewed as particularly important
to the success of any voluntary program. Most of the group were in favor of the City offering
modest financial help in the form of City fee waivers or expedited permitting, but acknowledged
that these measures may not significantly help the property owner lessen project costs.
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes
November 21, 2016
5
Therefore, there was wide agreement that these should not be the only types of incentives
offered. There was interest in having Palo Alto join the small but growing number of
jurisdictions that have joined statewide PACE1 loan financing programs, though it is not clear
how many potentially affected property owners would benefit from or actually take advantage of
this kind of help.
The group expressed minimal interest in pursuing ways to offer owners deep financial assistance,
such as declaration of special district or passage of bond measures. Opinions were split about the
effectiveness of using transfer of development rights (TDR)2, floor area ratio bonuses, and
parking exemptions. Some participants felt their constituencies would not benefit, or would be
negatively impacted, by these measures. Others felt that such concessions on the part of the City
would be a very effective way, as they have been in the past, for motivating earthquake
improvements without issuing heavy mandates. Relaxation from parking provisions for
example, could be seen as a helpful incentive to commercial property owners, but it would less
desirable for tenants and others seeking parking in congested parts of the city such as the
downtown area. Allowing conversion of a portion of ground story parking to occupied
residential space as an incentive to spur retrofitting of soft-story wood frame buildings was
discussed, as this is being considered in other jurisdictions. It was noted that parking is a
desirable feature to renters and this may not be strong incentive if rental rates are reduced due to
lack of parking. Some policy incentives, especially the complicated TDR, might be
administrative challenging to implement and will require deep cooperation with Planning
Department and coordination with the City’s general plan.
PREFERRED POLICY DIRECTIONS
Discussions with the Advisory Group revealed little to no support for maintaining the status quo.
Strong support did exist for:
Implementing retrofit of buildings already in the current program, particularly URM
buildings.
Addressing more building types, particularly soft-story wood frame and older
concrete tilt-up, that would affect the most people.
Completion of the City’s Current Seismic Program
For buildings under the current ordinance, the Advisory Group generally thought a mandatory
retrofit requirement would be feasible and fair. Three decades later, market forces alone have not
1 With a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) loan, first pioneered for solar panels by the City of Berkeley in
2008, owners can apply for 100 percent financing for seismic retrofit work at competitive fixed rates over the useful
life of the improvements, to be repaid over up to 20 years with an assessment added to the property’s tax bill. 2 TDR allows owners to transfer unused development rights that are comparable to the value of the retrofit to
another property in the community. In other words, in exchange for completing certain seismic rehabilitation work,
additional development rights are gained elsewhere. This is a common measure used for historic structures.
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes
November 21, 2016
6
been enough to motivate upgrade of these structures. Because the barriers to retrofit work for
these properties are not known, case-by-case management by COPA staff may be necessary.
There was hesitance, however, about extending or increasing incentives for owners that had not
voluntarily taken advantage of the FAR bonus available in the past.
Extending the Seismic Program to Other Potentially Vulnerable Building Types
In the discussion of expanding the scope of the City’s seismic program, the goal was to focus on
a subset of categories that seemed to have high potential to benefit the owner, occupants, and the
broader community. Consultants briefed the group on structural types generally known to be
vulnerable that are common or significant to Palo Alto and estimated to have reasonable loss
reduction to retrofit cost ratios. Detailed conversations took place about other building category
priorities and policy features that could be incorporated into Options 3, 4, and 5.
The group showed high interest in addressing multi-family residential earthquake risks, in
particular by starting a soft-story wood frame program as many other California cities have done.
One soft-story wood frame program approach discussed was to have two phases, where owners
would first be given several years following notification to do a voluntary retrofit, along with
more generous incentives. Later, a mandatory timeline would kick in and incentives would be
phased out. The group discussed that exemptions such as parking requirements, permission to
add other unit(s), or the ability to transfer development rights for additional square footage
would likely be attractive and useful incentives for this building type.
Other building categories of concern were reviewed at the last meeting. Regarding pre-1998 tilt-
up concrete buildings, there are a modest number in Palo Alto, but group members noted that
their uses are changing. Many of what previously might be warehouses are now being
repurposed for use as office space, and the higher occupant density increases the safety stakes of
any seismic deficiencies. There is currently no policy or code requirement to address earthquake
vulnerabilities if other upgrades and build out are being done but there is no significant impact or
revision to the structural system. A renovation trigger was discussed, where substantial
renovation work would trigger a mandatory seismic upgrade. The trigger could be based on
whether a ratio is exceeded of the cost of the renovation work to the replacement value of the
building. This has been done in some jurisdictions in the past. The replacement value could be
based on a standardized set of costs per square foot for different occupancy types. It should be
noted that some individuals in the group expressed concern that a renovation trigger might
discourage owners from upgrading or renovating their buildings, depending on the trigger
threshold and the cost of the retrofit.
POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR FUTURE STUDY
For some issues, based on Advisory Group discussions, additional information may be beneficial
to help in refining a new strategy and to better understand potential impacts on key stakeholders
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes
November 21, 2016
7
and community concerns. These issues are primarily economic and are outside the scope of the
current study. The City Council may wish to direct staff and/or outside consultants to investigate
some of these items in more detail as the seismic risk management program effort proceeds.
Issues include the following:
• Occupants and tenants
– How much would a typical retrofit add to the monthly rent of a multifamily soft-
story wood frame apartment tenant?
– Would some tenants be unable to afford a rent increase and seek housing
elsewhere in Palo Alto or move outside the city (and if so, how many might be
displaced)?
– If soft-story wood frame apartments in Palo Alto are retrofitted in time before the
next major earthquake, how much less displacement of residents would occur as a
result of the earthquake?
– What categories of buildings are most important to address in order to help
maintain the commercial viability and vitality of the City’s core business districts
and tax base?
• Property owners, developers, and business owners
– What are the characteristics of property owners that would be affected?
– How might small businesses be affected compared to larger ones?
– How many property owners are in need of lower cost capital or other substantial
financial assistance to fund retrofitting?
• City departmental resources and budgets
– What would be the loss in revenue to the Building Department if fee waivers were
offered?
– What would be the staffing and budgetary needs over time to administer an
expanded program that addresses additional building types?
– What kinds of interdepartmental cooperation and staff resources in other
departments are necessary to ensure effective implementation and coordination
with other city planning and public safety efforts?
• Overall community economic health
– What kind of benefits could accrue to Palo Alto in terms of maintaining
community function and ability to recover if various building categories are
retrofitted in time before the next major earthquake?
• Other related issues
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes
November 21, 2016
8
– It was brought up that the Building Department needs flexibility and authority to
take steps to get tough seismic mitigation projects done. One idea was to grant the
Building Official the ability to classify certain projects (with well-specified
criteria) as warranting a kind of “seismic safety” or “earthquake resilience” fast
tracking, with COPA departments agreeing to coordinate on a specified
accelerated project review timeframe.
– Although outside the formal scope of this planning effort, several Advisory Group
members commented that it would be desirable for the City to do some kind of
assessment of any earthquake mitigation needs in public buildings and facilities
serving the City.
– Advisory group members recommended the community be informed of Palo
Alto’s overall potential seismic risk by providing a summary of potential impacts
on the City’s website, including the expected performance of vulnerable
buildings.
– The group also had a high degree of support for recommending that the City
initiate and nest future earthquake mitigation programs within a broader disaster
or community resilience initiative, as cities such as Los Angeles, Berkeley, and
San Francisco have done. This could be incorporated in the update of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan Safety Element. There was insufficient time in the project’s
six advisory group meetings to consider potential initiatives to assess risks for cell
phone towers, water supply, facades, private schools, post-earthquake shelter
facilities, and/or other assets important to community recovery.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED POLICY DIRECTIONS
There was broad consensus that the City’s seismic program should go beyond the status quo by
increasing the number of building types that are included and the associated requirements. The
following table summarizes the City’s current seismic risk management program features, and it
provides recommended policy directions for different types of building categories, both for those
in the current program and those proposed to be added to the program, including the approximate
number of affected buildings, construction type and date, evaluation report and construction
completion deadlines, potential preferred disclosure and incentive options, and whether
retrofitting remains voluntary, is triggered by a sale or a substantial renovation, or is mandatory.
The following summarizes the key issue of whether voluntary, triggered, or mandatory
approaches were preferred.
There was broad consensus that seismic retrofitting for the remaining URM buildings
(Category I) should be made mandatory.
There was general agreement that soft-story wood frame buildings (Category IV) and
somewhat general agreement that older tilt-up buildings (Category V) should require
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes
November 21, 2016
9
strengthening either by a sale or substantial renovation trigger or on a mandatory fixed
timeline.
There was less of a consensus on whether the older higher occupancy buildings in the
current ordinance (Category II and III) should be converted to use a mandatory approach,
though a triggered approach may represent a reasonable middle ground.
There were supporters, but no clear consensus, for voluntary, triggered, or mandatory
approaches to addressing older soft-story concrete buildings (Category VI) and older
steel moment frame buildings (Category VII).
Other older nonductile concrete buildings (Category VIII) were discussed, but due to the
lack of inexpensive analytical methods for reliably identifying the worst of these
buildings, inclusion of this building category in an updated ordinance is not
recommended at this time. Such buildings could be included in the future when such
analytical methods have been developed in the engineering community.
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Summary Report on Process, Discussions, and Outcomes
November 21, 2016
10
Summary of Recommended Policy Directions
Category Approx.
Number
Building
Type
Date of
Construction
Occupants Evaluation
Report
Voluntary,
Triggered, or
Mandatory
Retrofit1
Deadlines for Evaluation Report
and Retrofit Construction (years)2
Disclosure Potential Incentives
Current Program (Potential Revision in Italics)
I 10 Un-
reinforced
masonry
NA Over 6
(and over
1,900 sf)
Required Mandatory Report: Expired
Construction: 2-4
Website
listing and
tenant
notification
Fee waiver, expedited
permitting, FAR bonus/
transfer of development
rights (TDR) II 4 Any Before 1/1/35 Over 100 Required Voluntary or
Triggered
Report: Expired
Construction
• Voluntary: Not required
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
III 9 Any Before 8/1/76 Over 300 Required Voluntary or
Triggered
Expanded Program
IV 294 Soft-story
wood frame
Before 1977 Any Required Triggered or
Mandatory
Report: 2-4
Construction
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
• Mandatory: 4-6
Same as
above
Fee waiver, expedited
permitting, TDR, parking
exemptions, permission to
add units
V 99 Tilt-up Before 1998 Any Required Triggered or
Mandatory
Report: 2-4
Construction
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
• Mandatory: 4-6
Same as
above
Same as Categories I, II and
III
VI 37 Soft-story
concrete
Before 1977 Any Required Voluntary,
Triggered or
Mandatory
Report: 2-4
Construction
• Voluntary: Not required
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
• Mandatory: 6-8
Same as
above
Same as Categories I, II and
III
VII 35 Steel
moment
frame
Before 1998 Any Required Voluntary,
Triggered or
Mandatory
VIII TBD Other older
nonductile
concrete
Before 1977 Any Not rec. at
this time
Not
recommended
at this time
Report: NA
Construction: NA
NA NA
1Voluntary: Retrofit is voluntary.
Triggered: Retrofit is triggered when the building is sold or undergoes substantial renovation.
Mandatory: Retrofit is required per a fixed timeline.
2Deadlines provide a potential range. Timelines would vary depending on tiers or priority groupings of different subcategories.
Seismic Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee Meeting #1
Dec 16th, 2015
2pm-5pm
MEETING MINUTES – PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
Attendees: George Hoyt (GH), Chief Building Official, City of Palo Alto (COPA)
Bud Starmer (BS), Building Inspection Supervisor, COPA
Nathan Rainey (NR), OES Coordinator, COPA
Thomas Fehrenbach (TF), Economic Development, COPA
Peter Pirnejad (PP), DSD Director, COPA
Nathaniel Rainey (NR), OES, COPA
Bret Lizundia (BL), Rutherford + Chekene (R+C)
Sharyl Rabinovici (SR), Public Policy and Community Engagement Consultant
Marko Schotanus (MS), R+C
Anil Babbar
Dana Brechwald, Policy
Richard Cody, Contractor
Al Dorsky, Community
Jessica Epstein, Community
Sharon Fredlund, Community
Annette Glanckopf, Community
Jon Goldman, Community
Ken Hayes, Architect
Doug Hobach, Architect
Tom Holzer, Policy
Shawn Kelly, Community
Judy Kleinberg, Business Interest
Teresa Marks, Community
Georgina Mascarehas, Community
Roxy Rapp, Developer
Christopher Rojahn, Engineer/Resident
Tim Steele, Developer
Nelson Vineyard, Contractor/Resident
Ahmad Wani, Community
Minutes Prepared
By:
Lisa Green, Admin Assoc II, COPA
ITEMS DISCUSSION
Welcome GH: Welcome to the Advisory Committee. This Committee has been put together to
get expert advice and have some open discussions.
Introduction of
Project History,
Motivations and
Vision
GH: After the 2014 earthquake Council directed staff to analyze the existing Seismic
Hazard Identification Program and make modifications and recommendations.
GH: The goals are to gather technical information, analyze the information, and make
recommendations for future policy.
GH: The City adopted its ordinance in 1986 which includes three different categories
of buildings. Category I was for unreinforced masonry buildings, except those smaller
than 1,900 sf with six or fewer occupants. Category II was for buildings building
prior to 1935 with 100 or more occupants. Category III was for buildings built prior
to August 1, 1976 with 300 or more occupants. “Soft story” structures or other
buildings types currently considered vulnerable were not included. There are 23
buildings on the City’s list that have not been retrofitted.
The City wants to turn to the Advisory Committee for advice, expertise, and different
perspectives.
1 Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee
| City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee Meeting #1
Dec 16th, 2015
2pm-5pm
MEETING MINUTES – PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
GH: The Committee will look at the policy questions and gather “food for thought.”
The City will use the advice for future guidelines and to raise awareness. The City
wants to hear the experiences, expertise, view points, and opinions of the Advisory
Committee.
Self-Introductions
GH introduced City of Palo Alto Project Team and key staff (see above section,
“Attendees” list)
SR introduced the Rutherford + Chekene (R+C) consulting team – SR pointing to
green packets highlighting the pink card asking attendees to give their name,
affiliation, and write down “How do earthquake issues relate to your work or the
group you represent?”
GH: Welcomed guests and community representatives (see above section,
“Attendees” list).
Attendees introduced themselves, their affiliations, and their interest in the Advisory
Committee.
Overview of
Project Plan
BL presentation: The project plan overview highlighted what is currently known, not
known, and to be studied regarding seismic vulnerabilities in Palo Alto’s existing
buildings. We want to know/understand the inventory in PA. What kind of structural
systems does PA have? We have some idea but we need to understand more. The City
Council wants the Advisory Committee to provide advice and input to the project, and
hopefully a coordinated set of recommendations for Council to consider. BL
summarized some key information that is known based on County assessor files, City
GIS files, and earlier inventory efforts. There are over 21,000 tax parcels in PA. Of
these over 15,000 are for one and two family residences which are not included in the
project tasks for inventories or loss estimates. Of the remaining approximately 6,000
parcels, about 3,600 are multi-family residential with three or more units, and there
are about 940 retail, 680 public, 200 industrial, and 540 other occupancies. For most,
we have the square footage, year built, and the occupancy. BL presented a slide
showing the anticipated level of shaking from two USGS earthquake scenarios on the
San Andreas Fault. We currently do not know the structural system of the buildings,
or the building types expected to have the greatest aggregate risk of lost units or cost
of repairs or reduction in losses from mitigation efforts. We do not yet know the level
of community interest in an updated seismic risk management program. Key project
tasks include development of an electronic inventory database based on digital files
and sidewalks surveys, loss estimates for two earthquake scenarios with and without
retrofitting, prioritization of potentially hazardous building types, and
recommendation on options for program updates. As information is collected and
refined, it will be shared with the Advisory Committee to help them provide advice on
recommendations. Key questions include what building types might be included in the
future program. What geographical areas do we look at? What do we worry about
and not worry about? Older tilt up buildings? Soft story wood frame buildings?
Houses on hills? Steel frame buildings? What are the recommendations and what will
shape the recommendations?
SR is developing a report on state and local legislative context and what other cities
have done and are currently doing. She provided a brief summary to the group. There
are currently approximately 50 state laws for earthquakes. Cities are empowered to
make laws for earthquake safety, and they will have to mandate what retrofits are
applicable. Large incentives do work and they do help with getting through stumbling
blocks. The range of activities covered by different cities and the approach they use
2 Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee
| City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee Meeting #1
Dec 16th, 2015
2pm-5pm
MEETING MINUTES – PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
varies widely. The Committee will need to think about how we can engage the
community more; what will work? Cities have done different things such as
mandatory retrofits (Fremont). Some have done it in phases with multiple efforts.
What about soft-story retrofits? There was a San Francisco flagship effort; it’s a study
on line, called the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) which led to a
current comprehensive program called the Earthquake Safety Implementation
Program (ESIP). Think about this type of plan by San Francisco. A recovery plan is
very important. A Response plan is also very important. This Committee, if it wants,
can recommend that the City look into defining broader community goals and
priorities for a comprehensive resilience plan, but what we’re dealing with here is the
structural mitigation aspect.
Please look at Key Policy Questions for the Advisory Group (Policy Questions). The
homework is to check to see what questions are important to you or that you want to
know more about. The Committee will need to answer these questions by the end of
this process.
San Francisco did a retrofit fair. It was a successful public outreach activity.
There are questions at the bottom of the agenda. Grade them on a scale of 1-10, with
1 most important. Things the Committee will need to consider are what are the
priorities of all the buildings; which are more vulnerable (soft story, weak 1st story)?
What we want to know is where this question is on your priority level.
Questions and answers to follow:
Audience: What standards are you using for loss estimate guidelines?
BL Reply: We are using the HAZUS methodology, which is the national standard for
regional loss estimation of large portfolios of buildings.
Audience: Will we come up with any safety goals?
Reply: Yes, first goal will be that buildings don’t collapse. However, we have realized
that we need to worry about how fast the community can recover. We need structural
performance goals that are related to resilience goals.
Audience: Will you have broad hazard reduction goals? Does PA have incentives?
PP reply: Yes, but we need to focus on the study/inventory first and not incentivize
the wrong things. We have a seismic risk mitigation ordinance in PA; our URM
policy was one of the first in the state. It’s successful because of the speed of impact
and the engagement of the community. We will look at the success of different
incentives used and will be looking for recommendations at the end of this process.
The Advisory Committee will be getting a report on what was successful and what
was not successful for other cities.
Audience: Regarding the Napa quake - Mobile homes were impacted and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) oversaw the
supports…. There was no real communication between the Building Dept. and HCD.
Are you looking at the jurisdictional issues?
GH reply: No, we haven’t. It’s complex, and it’s a huge hole with a ton of issues. The
biggest issue is fire.
Audience: Question about the bullet point of Resilience - rather than our ideas coming
3 Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee
| City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee Meeting #1
Dec 16th, 2015
2pm-5pm
MEETING MINUTES – PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
to you, can you share some of the context you have thought about around the hazard
mitigation plan, general plan updates, and any recovery plans? And how is this going
to fit into the larger suite of thought in the City?
GH reply: This is a huge topic. We’ll start here, but we’ll only be able to do so much
of that. We can only tackle some of the pieces. PP commented that at this point we
are talking about buildings not places. Second step would be to tackle how this
connects with the Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Plan and hope we can get
further with this than we started.
Audience: Will the inventory include small residences as well as larger buildings,
schools for example?
Reply BL: The only buildings that are excluded are one- and two-family homes. The
extent to which schools will be included is not known yet.
Audience: How are we going to prepare for the earthquake and how will we attack it
after the quake? Are there going to be programs for inspections to check earthquake
stability and quickly assess buildings in a fast manor, like the program San Francisco
has?
Reply: GH says this is a large focus for PA. We are working with EOC. We are
currently in contact with our bigger facilities like HP and Space Systems Loral which
has plans for post-earthquake buildings safety evaluations using private engineering
consultants. We have initiated those conversations and working on those programs.
We have included Planning and Fire to come up with a resiliency plan. Council
doesn’t want people leaving and shutting downtown business and losing income for
this issue. . We’ll be looking at best practices and setting guidelines.
Audience: Businesses create a huge influx of people during business hours; we are
looking for reassurance for daytime earthquake emergency. Small businesses don’t
have any plans or preparedness. Are we going to address this?
Reply GH: OES is here, and they have a strong focus on daytime populations. Ken
Dueker knows a lot about this issue, and we’ll try to have him come to talk about this
issue and how this fits into their effort. We’ll continue to build on this topic and
include it in the timeline.
Audience: VM Ware is prepared for an earthquake as well as some other known
companies like Roche. Nathan Rainey might be able to expand on this.
Audience member: We have lots of data for sub-block / city-block level. Some of it is
artificially generated, AI. We have a probability/fragility function for every city block.
This information might be helpful.
BL Reply: Yes, we are open to any information that we can obtain if you’re willing to
share.
Audience: A question about the chart, the PA Ordinance that had 89 buildings total
with only one building that had no change and quite a few that were retrofitted or
demolished. What does that really represent? Is that a past study?
Reply: GH said it was a study that was done in the late 80s where they had an
advisory committee with a lot of engineers and representatives from the community.
They established what the priority of buildings would be. They established the
different three levels of categories. There were originally six levels covering a larger
4 Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee
| City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee Meeting #1
Dec 16th, 2015
2pm-5pm
MEETING MINUTES – PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
scope of PA buildings, but the extent was reduced to the final three categories due to
community concerns. They set up some exemptions like historical buildings. We
have buildings that haven’t been included or touched.
BL: The question is do you want to do more than what is currently being done?
What’s in the ordinance is quite small. Should the ordinance be expanded to include
more categories?
Audience: A goal should be setting priorities for the different levels in saving lives
and people getting hurt. Some priorities may not be mandated.
Reply BL: Back then 30 years ago the priority was on life safety, the riskiest buildings
(like unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings), and how many people are
threatened by building damage. As time has gone on, there is a broader way of
thinking about possible performance objectives that include reducing building losses
and downtime from damage. There is more interest now in keeping people in their
homes and businesses to help improve community resilience. After major
earthquakes, like the Northridge earthquake, what we know now about vulnerability
has deepened and widened.
Audience: What’s the scope of this study?
Reply PP: Staff is instructed to develop a section of our website with all of our
standing committees including this one. There will be a scope of this study, agendas,
minutes, as well as all other supporting materials. It will give you the background and
information that will provide you with a basis. It was suggested we put up Code
information as well. We’ll put all this information in a place that is readily available.
Development of
key questions and
issues list
SR began an open discussion to solicit input and issues that the Advisory Group wants
to look into. She took notes on whiteboard comments and questions (see pictures
below).
• There is a limited geography scope.
• What’s the vulnerability of the City?
• We need a clear understanding of risks. Will we know enough from the inventory
to make recommendations and, if not, where are the key information gaps?
BL said this Committee is going into new territory. We will take a good look at the
old territory and see what can be improved. We’ll do loss estimates on a variety of
building types. We’ll answer some key things about how will the community be
affected.
• Will the recovery plan include sufficient City resources? GH says a lot is being
done regarding being prepared for earthquake impacts. Right now we are putting
Inspectors and Planning personnel through training.
• Does the City’s current seismic mitigation ordinance only cover buildings in the
5 Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee
| City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee Meeting #1
Dec 16th, 2015
2pm-5pm
MEETING MINUTES – PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
downtown area?
• How can we get a more holistic view and approach from the City?
• We need more information sharing: what’s already been done and what were the
mistakes?
• What is the definition of community? Small business will be struggling to keep
their doors open. We want to be careful about what we want the “community” to
do.
Audience comment: We need advocacy for small business, renters, and lower income
people. They are vulnerable. It’s important to remember that policies will affect
people in different ways.
Audience comment: There are 3,630 multi-family buildings over two units. It’s got
profound implications.
SR: Write your comments on the yellow notecard included in the green folder. We’d
like to get a pulse. Is this important? Is there interest?
Five people turned in postcards. Written comments received are below (Scale: 1 =
highest and 10 = lowest):
• Importance of structural vulnerability issues for Palo Alto:
o 1
o 1
o “1” if there are a large number of buildings that could collapse in a
magnitude 7.2 or larger event, 3 to 4 if not.
o 4
o “7” – we should encourage owners to be proactive participants (i.e.,
rather than solely relying on city government).
o 8
• Community interest in the City doing more on this issue:
o 2
o 5 to 6 – could be higher if presented correctly (e.g., What will this do for
me?”
o 6
o 7
o 10
6 Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee
| City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee Meeting #1
Dec 16th, 2015
2pm-5pm
MEETING MINUTES – PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
Discussion of
plan for Advisory
Group role and
process
BL presentation: What’s the Advisory Committee approach? The scope is broad and
we need to narrow the focus. Presented the Advisory Group Process slide.
There will be six meetings for this plan. It will be very challenging to fit all the
information sharing, discussions, and development of recommendations we need in
this amount of time. These meetings have to be efficient and effective.
Draft Advisory Committee Process and Questions will give us a sense of the scope.
This Committee will need to corral this issue and get a focus. We need to come to a
resolution or get a consensus.
There will be a report that will be available to the Committee about what other
communities are doing.
By February, we will have the bulk of the Palo Alto inventory work done. We’ll
share what we learned. We should have performance and resilience goals. What level
of safety are we looking for?
The March meeting could be a retreat for the group.
The Policy & Services Committee will become involved and then it will go to
Council.
Do we want to have a Chair, Co-Chair, or no Chair? Do we want to take votes? What
are the rules? When do you want to meet, morning, or afternoon?
Summarize
meeting
outcomes,
planned interim
steps, and agenda
topics/date for
next meeting
PP: What are we trying to deliver, what are the expectations? We’ll get an initial
seismic inventory of our vulnerable buildings first. We’ll have to get more technical
data and what criteria are we going to use? What is the definition of vulnerable? Soil
types? After the survey what will we do with that information? What management
plan will we come up with? What incentives? Will it be an optional or mandatory
ordinance? Which ones will we decide to retrofit, what does retrofit mean? We should
have clear expectations and deliverables for the next meeting.
PP: We’ll have meeting minutes that will list what decisions were made and the action
steps we still need to take. Each meeting will have a clear expectation and
deliverables.
PP: We’ll send a Doodle request to get a consensus on when is the next meeting. A
website will be on Development Services website, under Task Force. It will have all
related information for this meeting.
GH comment: We are not doing a full survey of all the buildings in PA, just in certain
areas. We have a limited budget to work with. We are in a discovery phase. When this
is complete the Committee will create policies and go to Policy & Services.
PP: Our goal is two hour meetings with recommendations. The exception will be the
retreat. Maybe we can get a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) as a sub group. BS
understands all the Utilities requirements, no need for a Utilities Rep in this meeting.
When possible, the goal is two weeks before the meeting we’ll have materials
available on the website.
Audience: Would like to see the subgroups on the next agenda.
7 Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee
| City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee Meeting #1
Dec 16th, 2015
2pm-5pm
MEETING MINUTES – PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
Action Items For the January meeting, a Doodle request will be sent for a consensus on the date and
time. Post-Meeting Note: The January meeting has been scheduled for 1/27/16,
2-4pm at the downtown library.
A link to the website will be sent.
The January agenda will be made available on the website.
Please look at Key Policy Questions and think about answers. Add to the questions if
necessary.
8 Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee
| City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee Meeting #1
Dec 16th, 2015
2pm-5pm
MEETING MINUTES – PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
9 Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee
| City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee Meeting #1
Dec 16th, 2015
2pm-5pm
MEETING MINUTES – PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
10 Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee
| City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management Program
Advisory Group Meeting #1
December 16, 2015
Project Plan Briefing
Project Goals
•Make a leading program even better
•Extensive city and stakeholder involvement
•Efficient inventory creation
•Focused loss estimation
•Thoughtful, consensus-based, holistic
recommendations for program updates
Project Plan Overview Topics
•Summary of current Palo Alto ordinance status
•What is currently known?
•What is currently not known?
•What will be studied in this project regarding
seismic vulnerabilities in Palo Alto’s existing
buildings?
Current Palo Alto Ordinance
Category I
(URM over
1900 sf & 6
occupants)
Category II
(Before 1935
and over 100
occupants)
Category III
(Before 8/1/76
and over 300
occupants)
All
Categories
Total 47 19 23 89
Retrofit 22 13 5 40
Demolished 14 2 5 21
Demo Proposed 0 0 4 4
Exempt 1 0 0 1
No change 10 4 9 23
Source: 12/9/14 City of Palo Alto Policy and Services Committee staff report. Status as of
September 2014.
What is Currently Known?
•From County assessor files, we have:
–APN, number of parcels
–Year built, occupancy type
–Square footage, number of stories
•From City GIS files we have:
–Shape file of building footprint
–Location by latitude/longitude
•From earlier inventory efforts, we have:
–Inventory forms for select set of buildings
–Wood frame soft-story survey by SJSU and Palo Alto
Fire Department
Year Built
Occupancy
Parcels in
Scope
•Total PA parcels: 21,187
•1 and 2 family: 15,198
•Remaining: 5,989
–3 or more unit
residential: 3,630
–Retail: 938
–Public: 684
–Industrial/mfr: 198
–Other: 539
Residential 1+2
Residential 3+
Retail
Public
Industrial &
Manufacturing
Other
Retail
Public
Industrial &
Manufacturing
Other
What is Currently Known?
M7.2 M7.9
Gunn Gunn
What is Currently
Not Known?
•Structural systems of
buildings in assessor files
•Actual number of
buildings that are in
different building types,
including those
considered potentially
hazardous
What is Currently Not Known?
•Building types expected to have the
greatest aggregate damage
–Largest risk of lost units
–Largest cost of repair
•Achievable reduction in losses from
retrofit of selected buildings
•Effectiveness of past retrofit work in
current context
What is Currently Not Known?
•Level of community interest in an updated
seismic risk management program
Key Project
Tasks:
Understand
Building Stock
•Digital files
•Internet
•Review of drawings
•Sidewalk survey
–Trial run
–Sidewalk survey
DOWNTOWN:
RETAIL
E. MEADOW CIRCLE:
OFFICE/
MANUFACTURING
CURTNER AVE:
APARTMENTS
PORTER DRIVE:
OFFICE
11/24/15
Trial Run
Key Project Tasks:
Understand Potential Impacts
•Loss estimates
–Two scenarios
–Dollar losses and percent damaged
–By building type and location
–With retrofit and without
•Realistic retrofits:
–Conceptual retrofits with cost estimates
Key Project Tasks:
Prioritize Building Types & Conditions
•Understanding of hazardous buildings evolves
•Building code typically gets more stringent
•Possible hazardous building types:
–Remaining URM
–Multi-unit wood
frame buildings
with weak
first stories
–Older concrete
Key Project Tasks:
Prioritize Building Types & Conditions
•Possible hazardous
types (cont.)
–Older tilt-up buildings
–Older steel moment frames
–Hillside homes
–Mobile homes without
bracing
–Buildings on sites subject to
fault displacement,
landslides or liquefaction
Key Project Tasks:
Recommend Policy Directions
•Advisory Group input and consultant
analyses on options that should be
considered in a program update
–What and why
–Who and how
Timeline
2015
•October 15: Project kickoff meeting
•November 24: Trial run of sidewalk survey
•Today: Advisory Group kickoff meeting
2016
•January: Inventory complete
•February: Loss estimates
•March/April “Retreat”: Preliminary alternatives
•May/June: Refine recommendations
•Summer: City Staff/Committee/Council review
•October: End of project
Q&A: Clarification about Elements
of the Project Plan
State and Local Policy Context
•Active area of policy innovation in California
and elsewhere
•Consensus on need for action
•State laws give cities latitude to widen and
strengthen their approaches
•Palo Alto is “average” in terms of its current
scope and requirements
What are Other Cities Doing?
•Programs generally address specific building
types by structural features and/or use or
critical functions
•Programs also vary in:
–Degree of emphasis on mandates and
enforcement
–Amount of time until requirements kick in
–Technical definitions and standards
–Types of assistance offered
–Roles of community and consultant input
Soft-Story
Program
Type
Inventory
Only
Notify
Only
Mandatory
Screening
Mandatory
Evaluation
Mandatory
Retrofit
Jurisdiction
Santa Clara
County (2003)
San Jose (2003)
San Leandro
(2006)
Sebastopol (2011)
Richmond (2012)
Oakland (2009)
San Francisco
(2013)
Berkeley (2010)
Alameda (2011)
(2014)
(2015)
(2014)
Fremont (2005)
Compiled by S. Rabinovici, 2015.
Increasingly Stringent
The Example of Bay Area Soft-Story
Policies: Varied and Evolving
•Identify, prioritize, ramp up
•Different timelines based on “tiers”
In Development:
Hayward
San Francisco’s Flagship Effort
•CAPSS 5-year effort (over
12 years)
•30-year implementation
plan
•URMs, soft-story, private
schools, masonry
chimney, façade,
houses, neighborhood
clusters and beyond
•Resilience target focus:
safety and recovery
speed and strength
The Disaster Cycle
Response
Short Term Recovery
Long Term Recovery & Planning
Mitigation
Preparedness Incident
•Neighborhood Emergency
Response Team training
(NERT)
•Retrofit Ordinances
•Transfer Tax Rebates
•Triggers
•Building Codes
•Local Hazard Mitigation Plans
•Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
Disclosure
•Post-Event Reconstruction Standards
•Building Occupancy Resumption Program
(BORP)
•Emergency Response Plans
•Shelter-in-Place Protocols
Coercion Spectrum
Possible Community Goals and
Priorities for Reducing Building Risks
•Increase understanding
of local risks and impacts
•Increase building stock
quality
–Increase safety
–Reduce economic losses
–Limit disruption and speed
recovery
•Less need for services
during and after events
•Build back better
Key Questions for the Advisory
Group (Policy Questions Handout)
•Many choices shape a
program:
–Inclusion & exclusion criteria
–Requirements & standards
–Pace and prioritization
–Technical and financial
assistance
–Process transparency and
public participation
–Intensity of enforcement
–Post-event measures
Your Thoughts & Questions
•Priority issues the Advisory Group should focus
on
•Community goals and priorities
•Importance and level of community interest in
updating the City’s approach
•What’s not been brought up yet that’s
important to you?
[ 10 minute Stretch Break ]
Advisory Group Approach
•Scope of Advisory Group effort
•Limited number of meetings, so they all have
to be very efficient
•Planned topics and timeline
Advisory Group Process
•Chair, co-chairs, or no chair?
•Voting, polls, or consensus?
•Distribution of information material:
–Before meetings, at meeting, and/or after
meetings?
–How far in advance?
•Website plans
•Morning or afternoon meetings?
Meeting Wrap-Up and Follow-Ups
•Outcomes from today
•Minutes
•Date for next meeting
–Options: Tu 1/19, Wed 1/20, Wed 1/27
•Meeting materials
–Next agenda
–Findings:
•Preliminary Inventory results
•Legislative and Local Program Best Practices
report
1
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program
Topics for Advisory Group Process
December 14, 2015
Broad Policy Priorities and Readiness to Act
1. What broad priorities should we be focusing on as a community in terms of seismic
safety and disaster resilience in the local building stock?
· One way to think about this is to consider resilience objectives, which can
include preventing collapse, preventing loss of life, preventing injuries,
helping families plan for sheltering-in-place after an event, preserving
neighborhood character, minimizing economic losses, preserving the local
economy and tax base, protecting businesses and helping them recover, or
balancing earthquake mitigation efforts relative to other community
resilience goals.
2. How important is it for the City of Palo Alto to more proactively address earthquake
risks to local buildings than is currently being done? Rate from 1 (more important)
to 10 (less important).
3. What is the level of community interest and support at this time for updating the
City’s approach to managing earthquake risks? Rate from 1 (more important) to 10
(less important).
4. Is enough known about existing vulnerabilities in the building stock to proceed with
developing specific policy and program proposals? (If not, what information is still
needed?)
5. How swiftly should the City seek to act on these issues (scale of 1-slower to 10-
faster)?
Program Scope: Privately-Owned Buildings
6. Building Types:
a. Should remaining unreinforced masonry buildings be included (i.e., those
under 1,900 sf with 6 or fewer occupants)?
b. Should wood frame soft-story buildings be included?
c. Should older concrete buildings be included
d. Should older tilt-up concrete buildings be included?
e. Should older steel moment frame buildings be included?
f. Should hillside homes be included?
g. Should mobile homes without a supplemental earthquake bracing system be
included?
h. Should buildings on sites subject to fault displacement, landslides, or
liquefaction be included?
2
i. What other types should be included (if any)?
7. Inclusion Criteria:
a. Should age (year built) be a criterion?
b. Should the number of occupants be a criterion?
c. Should the current use or occupancy class be a criterion?
d. Should certain combinations of criteria be organized to create “tiers” of
structures that are treated differently with regard to such things as
requirements, incentive eligibility, penalties, and/or timelines?
8. Exclusion / Exemption Criteria:
a. Should properties owned or occupied by non-profit or community service
oriented organizations (e.g., churches) be exempt?
b. Should special policies be developed for historic or landmark properties?
9. Notification and Transparency:
a. Should all included owners be notified at once at the beginning, or should
notification occur in stages based on certain criteria?
b. Should the addresses and compliance status of properties included in the
program be proactively made public, for instance on a regularly updated city
website?
Program Scope: Publically-Owned Buildings
10. Should part of the program involve evaluating or strengthening City-owned
structures, particularly those needed for critical services?
Program Elements
11. Should Palo Alto’s seismic mitigation program emphasize voluntary initiatives,
mandatory measures, or use a mix of these approaches?
12. Should the program include more stringent triggers for upgrading?
13. Should the program include a mandatory screening process?
14. Should the program include mandatory evaluations?
15. Should the program include mandatory retrofits?
16. Should the program include mandatory signage?
17. Should the program include mandatory notification of current and potential tenants
or lease holders?
18. Should the program include placement of formal notice on title or deed?
19. Should the program provide protection from future regulatory action for some
period of time following compliance?
20. Should enforcement include financial penalties, and if so, of what magnitude?
3
Rating Programs
21. Should Palo Alto have its publically-owned buildings rated, such as per new US
Resiliency Council standards (1 to 5 stars for Safety, Damage and Recovery indices),
or the University of California’s original system (Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor), or
FEMA P-154 (numeric score related to collapse potential)?
22. Should ratings be encouraged for private buildings?
23. Should ratings be required for certain building types?
Retrofit Requirements and Standards
24. Should the program hire an external consultant to advise and develop retrofit
standards or rely on existing approaches?
25. Should special guidelines or trainings be developed and offered for engineers and/or
local contractors in terms of how to complete work that adheres to program
requirements?
Incentives and Handling of Costs
26. Should the program expedite processing and waive, or offer reduced permit fees, for
projects involving retrofit work?
27. Should the program offer development bonuses for projects involving retrofit work
completed that meets certain criteria?
28. Should the program offer waivers of policy requirements (e.g., parking
requirements) for retrofit projects that meet certain criteria?
29. Should owners be limited in the amount and/or pace at which retrofit or other
program compliance costs are passed on to tenants in the form of rent increases?
Planning for Post-Event Reconstruction and Replacement
30. Should the program seek to develop proposals for post-event repair, rehabilitation,
and retrofit requirements?
31. Should the City develop a Building Occupancy and Resumption Program, permitting
individual owners to establish a relationship with an on-call structural engineer to
perform post-earthquake evaluations of their buildings?
32. Should the City encourage or fund additional strong motion instrumentation in
selected buildings and free-field sites?
33. Should the City increase ATC-20 training of its staff?
34. Should the City link its inventory database to post-event planning and data
collection?
4
Beyond Buildings: Readiness, Relationships, Response, Recovery, and Research
35. Should the program include a significant public education and awareness-building
component?
36. Should the program include an effort to build the capacity of local organizations to
understand and respond to earthquake threats?
37. Should the program include efforts to build partnerships with and/or policies related
to local schools and universities—public, private, or both?
38. Should the program include efforts to build partnerships with local (small to large)
businesses and employers—public, private, or all sectors?
39. Should the updated program seek to develop and implement policy strategies to
address nonstructural aspects of seismic risk, such as damage to contents, building
re-occupancy, business resumption and retention, or shelter-in-place capacity?
40. Should the City adopt a policy to collect voluntarily or mandatory information at
time of building permit that identifies and classifies retrofit projects for use in future
evaluation of retrofit technologies and approaches?
41. Should the City investigate methods for increasing the structural requirements for
cell phone towers, such as increasing the Importance Factor used in seismic design
to a value of 1.5?
42. Should the City investigate approaches for understanding and addressing threats to
basic utilities such as water and power?
43. Should the City consider developing requirements for private-school buildings?
44. Should the City develop a façade maintenance ordinance?
45. Should the City develop a program for identifying post-earthquake shelter facilities?
Other Questions
46. What other issues and questions not on the list above should be considered?
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #2
January 27th, 2016
2-4pm
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
Attendance By: Peter Pirnejad (PP), Development Services Director COPA
George Hoyt (GH), Chief Building Official COPA
James Henrikson (JH), Fire Marshal COPA
Bud Starmer (Bud S), Building Inspection Supervisor COPA
Nathan Rainey (NR), OES Coordinator COPA
Jeremy Dennis (JD) Planning Manager COPA
Blake Salzman (Blake S), Contract Plans Examiner COPA
Bret Lizundia (BL), Principal, Rutherford+Chekene (R+C)
Sharyl Rabinovici (SR), sub consultant to R+C
Ahmad Wani, Community
Al Dorsky, Community
Anil Babbar, Tenants
Annette Glanckopf, Community
Chris Rojahn, Engineers
Dana Brechwald (DB), Policy
Doug Hohbach, Engineers
Judy Kleinberg (JK), Business Interests
Ken Hayes, Architects
Teresa Marks, Community
Tim Steele, Developers
Tom Holzer, Policy
City Staff Unable to Attend:
Elena Lee, Senior Planner COPA
Hung Nguyen, Project Engineer COPA
Minutes Prepared
By:
Blake Salzman, Contract Plans Examiner
ITEMS DISCUSSION
Introduction
General:
Introduction by GH: The focus of this meeting is to present
information developed since the last meeting. The Advisory Group
will be given an update on information posted to the Advisory
Group webpage, recent activities and what items are coming up
that the advisory group should be aware of.
Goals for Meeting:
BL reviewed the meeting agenda with the group. Goals for the
meeting are to review the project progress, re-review and reiterate
project goals and the role of the Advisory Group, clarify questions
1 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #2
January 27th, 2016
2-4pm
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
regarding Palo Alto’s seismic hazard ordinance requirements,
present information from the legislative and local government best
practices reports, discuss inventory findings and plans for the
upcoming sidewalk surveys, and discuss the timing for the next
Advisory Group meeting.
• GH will walk through the COPA website, and instruct the group on
how to find key documents related to the Advisory Group and the
project in whole. The website address is:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/srmag.asp
• Have an open discussion on whether or not anyone in the group
has any missing best practices that they think should be included
in the project.
• Discuss some of the details regarding the inventory and loss
estimate tasks and review the intended outcome.
• Have a clear picture of the purpose of the Advisory Group.
PowerPoint Presentation: A copy of the presentation slides shown during
the meeting will be posted on the Advisory Group webpage.
Review of Minutes:
The previous meeting minutes were reviewed, and the group had
no additional comments regarding these minutes.
Introduction of Group Members from COPA:
GH introduced James Henrikson, Fire Marshal, and Jeremy
Dennis, Planning Manager, to the group as they were unable to
attend the previous Advisory Group meeting.
Advisory Group
Webpage
GH led the group in a demonstration of how the Advisory Group
webpage works. The webpage can be found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/srmag.asp
The files on the webpage create a timeline of documents that have
been created in relation to this project, with the newest documents
shown at the top. The history of documents was discussed as well
as the intent for each step.
At the last meeting, the group asked for more information about
current COPA regulations related to the Seismic Hazards
Identification program. The Ordinance can be found under the link
2 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #2
January 27th, 2016
2-4pm
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
“CPAMC 16.42 Seismic Hazards Identification Program”.
Information about incentives handled by the planning department
can also be found on the webpage.
During the discussion regarding the review of the Advisory Group
Webpage, the topic of current regulations was briefly discussed.
Questions regarding whether or not the current incentives given by
the municipal code applied to only the CD district was asked by
the group. It was clarified that the floor area bonus was the only
aspect that was applied to the “CD District.”
The Floor Area Bonus program was discussed, including the
geographic limits in the City where that incentive can be used.AG
member Ken Hayes noted that the program extended to the areas
between Forest and Addison as well.
Program Timeline The timeline and purpose of the Advisory Group was discussed.
A general timeline for the project as well as the Advisory Group
meetings was shared by BL. The loss estimate without retrofits to
the building stock is expected to take place by the next meeting,
and loss estimate with retrofit to selected building types will take
place following Advisory Group Meeting #3.
Presentation of findings to the Policy and Services Committee is
currently planned between Advisory Group Meetings 5 and 6.
The project is expected to end in October, with the
recommendations to Council taking place in the summer.
PP wanted to clarify that potential incentives would not be decided
on as part of this program, but rather recommendations would be
made with how to move forward after the end of this project. BL
confirmed that incentives may be considered during the advisory
group meetings and reflected in the recommendations made on
the issues and project features that the Advisory Group and
project team believe are beneficial for the City to consider. SR
stated that a forthcoming Best Practices report would cover types
of incentives that other cities have used.
Best Practices
SR began the discussion about state legislation and local programs
3 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #2
January 27th, 2016
2-4pm
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
by describing some of the key entities that govern earthquake
mitigation plans and policies in California. She also reviewed some of
the major pieces of legislation that COPA is obliged to comply with
and that govern how mitigation work can be done. .SR found that
existing laws approach seismic risk management in different ways,
including:
• Building code provisions;
• Use-specific, such as schools and hospitals;
• Building type specific requirements, the most prominent of which is
the state’s unreinforced masonry law;
• Planning and zoning rules; and,
• Financing and taxation policies. For example, property taxes
cannot be increased because of added value due to a seismic
upgrade.
SR then presented a framework for looking at similarities and
differences between local programs. Cities can be categorized as
Inactive, Learning, or Leading depending on how many policy
measures they have in place, how many building types are
addressed, and how successful those programs have been.
• Leading cities tend to have mandates in place, devote more
resources to managing and enforcing their programs, and
address more than one building type.
• Learner cities are investing in information gathering, risk
assessment, and community engagement to lay the
groundwork for future policy efforts.
PP asked where Palo Alto currently falls on the Learning/Leading
scale. SR replied that Palo Alto is a Leader for URMs and is now a
Learner with regards to other building types and through this
project is being set up well to become a Leading city.
PP asked how many other cities are using a Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) bonus in their seismic risk management programs and what
the frequency of retrofitting in those cities has been compared with
the time since the original passage of the ordinance. SR said that
FAR programs for seismic work are rare and there is no
effectiveness data available. The Planning Department may have
data available that could be used to analyze its effectiveness in
Palo Alto.
The group questioned how Palo Alto’s voluntary system or other
4 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #2
January 27th, 2016
2-4pm
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
development incentives would work during future time periods
experiencing a less robust economy. This should be considered
for the long-term success of the project.
DB brought up the concern that she has found that incentive-
based programs tend to reward those that would complete the
project regardless of the incentive, but projects that are more
financially challenged have difficulty regardless of the incentive.
She also noted that it is important to have phased approaches to
reduce difficulties such as owners arranging financing or tenant
displacement.
JK asked how can program effectiveness be measured and what
has been the experience with displaced residents during
retrofitting. SR stated that a few cities have data but most
information we have about impacts on owners and tenants are
anecdotal.
Inventory
BL discussed the amount of structures that will be a part of the
study based on detailed review work R+C has been conducting.
Sidewalk surveys are expected to start on February 4th with Palo
Alto Building and Fire staff and on February 11th with Stanford
structural engineering graduate students.
The group was shown the model of seismic events that would be
used for the purpose of determining losses.
BL explained how losses would be defined. The loss will be
calculated as the percentage of damage multiplied by the
replacement cost of the building. He noted that deaths and
casualties are not included in the scope of the loss estimate.
BL noted that the Hazus methodology has default values for
replacement costs based on occupancy type and geographic
location using RS Means values. He noted that the values are
lower than typical construction costs on the Peninsula.
The Advisory Group concurred that the replacement cost values
presented are noticeably lower than those in the current market.
There was general interest in investigating revised values specific
to Palo Alto, perhaps by using a multiplier on the default values.
5 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #2
January 27th, 2016
2-4pm
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
This may be addressed using a Technical Advisory Committee.
Several Advisory Group members expressed interest in being part
of such a committee. It was agreed that a future email would be
sent to the group to organize a side discussion of this specific
issue.
Action Items The inventory including loss estimate without retrofit is expected to
be completed by the next AG meeting.
The legislative review and local government best practice reports
will be distributed via the webpage prior to the next AG meeting.
The group is open to discussion or research regarding the cost of
replacement construction to help in the loss estimates.
Timing and agenda for the next meeting was discussed and the
goal is to have the meeting mid-March, mid-week, and in the
afternoon.
.
6 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management Program
Advisory Group Meeting #2
January 27, 2016
Agenda and Objectives
•Review project and Advisory Group (AG)
status
•Review project goals and AG role
•What are other communities doing?
•Update on what we’ve learned about Palo
Alto’s building stock
•Next steps, including next meeting
Input and Intended Outcomes
•Input from the Advisory Group
–Is the website helpful?
–Are there other program and policy options we haven’t mentioned?
–Whether the Advisory Group or a Technical Advisory Group wants to weigh in on the replacement costs used in the loss estimates
•Intended Outcomes
–You have a clearer picture of the Advisory Group’s purpose and scope and key milestones on the project timeline
–You are better informed about what other communities are doing and what policy options we will be considering moving forward
–You have a better understanding of the building stock that we will be studying and about the loss estimates we will be performing
Project and AG Process Status
•Review of minutes from 12/16/15 AG1 meeting
•Review of document availability on website
•Re-cap of current Palo Alto seismic ordinance
Document Availability
•Seismic Risk Management Program Website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/srmag.asp
•Currently Includes
–Contract scope of work
–Key City documents: 12/9/14 Council minutes and
Policy and Services memo
–AG agendas, minutes, and PowerPoint presentations
–Policy questions to consider
•Coming
–Consultant reports, results of project tasks, project
timeline
Re-Cap of Current Ordinance
Category I
(URM over
1900 sf & 6
occupants)
Category II
(Before 1935
and over 100
occupants)
Category III
(Before 8/1/76
and over 300
occupants)
All
Categories
Total 47 19 23 89
Retrofit 22 13 5 40
Demolished 14 2 5 21
Demo Proposed 0 0 4 4
Exempt 1 0 0 1
No change 10 4 9 23
Source:12/9/14 City of Palo Alto Policy and Services Committee staff report. Status as of
September 2014.
Re-Cap of Current Ordinance
•Original ordinance
–Palo Alto Municipal Code
–Chapter 16.42 Seismic Hazards Identification Program
(passed 1986)
–Applies to buildings in the three categories anywhere in
the city
–Only structural system explicitly covered is URM
–Engineer report is mandatory; doing the work is
voluntary. Reports were due long ago (1990).
•Zoning ordinance
–Palo Alto Municipal Code
–Chapter 18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
–Covers buildings in Commercial Downtown (CD) District
Re-Cap of Current Ordinance
•CD District is split into
–CD-C Commercial
–CD-S Service
–CD-N Neighborhood
•Zoning benefits if:
–CD-C and Floor Area Ratio ≤ 3.0 or
–CD-N/CD-S and FAR ≤ 2.0
•If building is not historic:
–Retrofit permits sf increase of greater of 25% or 2500 sf
•If building is historic:
–Retrofit permits sf increase of greater of 50% or 5000 sf
•Many other specific rules
AG1
AG2
AG3
AG6
Project
End
Rec’s
to
Council
-Introductions
-Project overview
-Policy questions
12/16/15 1/27/16
Survey
Loss Estimate
w/o Retrofit
Purpose of Advisory Group
To review and discuss implications of
the project's technical findings and
provide input about community
concerns, priorities, and preferences.
Before Meeting
•AG1 minutes
•AG2 agenda
•AG website
At Meeting
•Recap Palo Alto policies
•State legislative review
•Local policy review
•Update on inventory and
loss estimate efforts
-Inventory results
-Loss estimate results
-Preliminary policy
discussion
March
AG4
April June Oct
AG5
May
-Final loss estimates
-Detailed policy
discussion
-Finalize
rec’s
-Draft
rec’s
Policy & Services
Committee
Summer
Loss Estimate
w/ Retrofit
What are Other Communities Doing?
•Task 2 report on state legislation
•Task 3 report on local programs
Overview: State Level Policy Context
•Numerous existing laws
–Building-specific
–Planning related
–Financing
–URM buildings
•Current developments
–Some leadership
–Recent failed proposals
–“PACE” funding
Building-Specific Requirements
•CODES
–Code minimums for new construction
–Standards for rehabilitation, including
historic structures
•USES
–Hospitals, public schools, and essential
facilities
•TYPES
–Mandated unreinforced masonry
programming
Planning Requirements
•General Plan Seismic
“Safety” Element
•Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zones
•Real estate disclosure
and education
requirements
Financing and Taxation
•Fundraising authority highlights
–General obligation bonds
–Mello-Roos Districting (?)
–PACE loans
•Provisions for handling of property taxes
for the costs of needed seismic retrofit
State Unreinforced Masonry Law
(SB547, 1986)
•URMs can kill
•All hazardous
jurisdictions must
have program
•By 2006:
–98% of cities had
complied
–70% retrofitted or
demolished
Photo: EERI, 1989.
Agency and Program Highlights
•Building Standards Commission
–Administers triennial code updates
•Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC)
–Statewide planning and coordination
•California Earthquake Authority (CEA)
–Small residential insurance and grants
•Concrete Coalition
–Volunteer-created inventory effort
Federal Mandates & Opportunities
•Disaster Management Act of 2000
–Requires Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
–Palo Alto is revising for 2017 renewal
•FEMA Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program
–Open window for Notices of
Interest letters ends 1/29/16
State Laws Give Cities Broad
Authority
•Codes: cities can set adoption pace,
stringency, trigger terms, etc.
•URMs: cities can choose from
notification to voluntary to mandatory
•Retrofit requirements can be less
stringent than contemporary code
when justified by cost-benefit ratio
A Spectrum of Broad Policy Options
1.Maintain the status quo
2.Expand current voluntary program to address additional building types or uses
3.Make current voluntary URM program mandatory
4.Create new mandatory program that address one or more additional building types or uses
5.Combination of alternatives 2, 3, and 4
6.Other alternatives
Overview: Local Program Review
•Framework for analyzing what cities are
doing:
–Inactive, Learning, and Leading Cities
•Leading cities are differentiated by:
–Focused vs. comprehensive in nature and
effectiveness
–Policy development trajectory
–Program design distinctions
What are Other Cities Doing?
California:
•482 cities total
•283 (59%) in high
EQ hazard areas
MO
T
I
V
A
T
I
O
N
IMPLEMENTATION
LEADING
LEARNING
INACTIVE
Concept adapted from May and Birkland, 1994.
What Distinguishes Earthquake
Program “Leadership”?
•Some form of mandated action
•Higher motivation, commitment and
capacity
•Higher implementation effectiveness
URM Progress Statewide (2006)
Effectiveness:
3x more
buildings
retrofitted or
demolished in
Leading cities
LEADING
52%
LEARNING
33%
INACTIVE
15%
Data Source: CSSC, 2006 (Table 3).
= Mandatory
retrofit
= Voluntary retrofit
= Notification
only or no
program
California Cities by Strength of URM
Program Type and Effectiveness
Soft-Story Progress Statewide
Effectiveness:
In Leading cities,
10-30% have been
retrofitted
LEADING
2%
LEARNING
3%
INACTIVE
95%
California Cities by Strength of
Soft-Story Efforts
Source: S. Rabinovici, unpublished data.
Inventory
Only
Notify
Only
Voluntary
Retrofit
Mandatory
Screening
Mandatory
Evaluation
Mandatory
Retrofit
Santa Clara
County
San Jose
San Leandro
Richmond
Sebastopol Oakland
San Francisco
Berkeley
Alameda
Fremont
Compiled by S. Rabinovici, 2015.
Increasing Requirements
Bay Area Learners and Leaders in
Soft-Story Programs
In Development: Hayward
LEARNING LEADING
What Makes “Comprehensive
Leadership” Different?
LEADERS
FOCUSED
LEADERS COMPREHENSIVE
LEADERS
MO
T
I
V
A
T
I
O
N
IMPLEMENTATION
•Inventories of other building types
•Ordinances for other building types
•Stricter requirements
•Quicker timetables
•More resources devoted
•More enforcement
•% retrofits completed
•Larger and wider variety of
incentives
•In-depth plans for further risk
reduction efforts
•Mandates for one building
type (URM) and/or high
implementation success
Other Ways to Be Comprehensive:
Link to Other Disaster Cycle Programs
Response
Short Term Recovery
Long Term Recovery & Planning
Mitigation
Preparedness Incident
•Neighborhood Emergency
Response Team Training
(NERT)
•Public Education
•Retrofit Ordinances
•Transfer Tax Rebates,
Loans, or Grants
•Triggers
•Building Code and Standards Adoption
•Local Hazard Mitigation Plans
•Real Estate Disclosure
•Post-Event Reconstruction Standards
•Building Occupancy Resumption Program
(BORP)
•Emergency Response Plans
•Shelter-in-Place Protocols
Other Ways to Be Comprehensive:
Link to Overall Community Resilience
•Sustained effort and
integration across
threats and resilience
goals
•High capacity,
commitment,
capacity, community
involvement, and
partnerships
Source: Torrens Resilience Institute, 2012.
Community
Connectedness
Available
Resources
RESILIENCE
Risk and
Vulnerability
Planning and
Procedures
Example Resilience Leaders
•San Francisco, CA
•Los Angeles, CA
•Oakland, CA
Volunteer-based and paid partnerships:
ABAG, SPUR, USGS, ATC, EERI, SEAONC…
Strong and committed local leadership
All Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities
Profiles of Local Seismic Mitigation
Efforts
COMPREHENSIVE-LEADING
•Berkeley, CA –Mandatory Soft-Story Retrofit plus robust Disaster Cycle and Resilience Programs
FOCUSED-LEADING
•Fremont, CA –Mandatory Soft-Story Retrofit
•Alameda, CA –Mandatory Soft-Story Evaluation
LEARNING
•Hayward, CA –Developing Soft-Story Approach
•Albany, CA –Soft-Story Inventory
Enforce and
Maintain
Policy Development Process
ImplementAdopt[Develop
Ordinance]
Develop
StrategyInventoryAssemble
Team
Initiate
Discussion
Timeline
LEARNING LEADING
Variations in Mitigation Approaches
Among Leading Cities
•Inclusion, exclusion, and prioritization
criteria
–Inventory method
–Age, occupancy, height, # of units
•Compliance timelines by tiers
•Types of incentives and assistance offered
•Cost-sharing arrangements
•Community and technical input
approaches
City of Berkeley, CA --2005
Number of Soft-Story
Buildings Building Inventory Notification of
Tenants
Mandated Screening or
Engineering Report Mandated Retrofit
321 X X X X
Accepted Retrofit Standards Tiers
Timeframe
Evaluation Permit Completed
ASCE 41-06
ASCE 41-06
FEMA P-807
Chapter A4 of 2012 IEBC
Phase 1 Evaluation findings determine
inclusion in Phase 2 mandated retrofit
program
2 years (under previous
soft story ordinance)
2 years 4 years
Soft Story Criteria Incentives Other Considerations
Wood-frame residential
buildings with five or more
residential units permitted for
construction prior to 1978
Tenant pass through of 100% over 15
years
Can apply for a hardship extension of 1-
year
Must install automatic gas shut-off valves
Acceleration of deadlines apply under certain
circumstances
Source: Dana Brechwald, ABAG, unpublished report, 2015.
City of Alameda, CA --2009
Number of Soft-Story Buildings Building Inventory Notification of
Tenants
Mandated Screening
or Engineering Report Mandated Retrofit
70 X X X
Accepted Retrofit Standards Priority Tiers Timeframe
Evaluation Permit Completed
IEBC Chapter A4 of 2006 N/A 1.5 years N/A N/A
Soft Story Criteria Incentives Other Considerations
Wood-frame multi-unit
residential buildings with five or
more dwelling units permitted
for construction prior to
December 17, 1985 and where
the ground floor portion
contains parking or other similar
open floor space and have one
or more levels above the
ground floor
Engineering report filing fees reductions
based on time until report is submitted:
100% reduction if within 3 months
75% reduction if within 6 months
50% reduction within 9 months
25% reduction within 12 months
Must install an earthquake-activated gas
shutoff valve within 60 days of notification of
inclusion in the inventory
Reduction in parking requirements for existing
facilities
Retrofitting removes buildings from the
inventory for a period of 15 years after retrofit
Source: Dana Brechwald, ABAG, unpublished report, 2015.
City of Fremont, CA --2002
Number of buildings Building
Inventory
Notification of
tenants Mandated Screening
or Engineering
Report
Mandated Retrofit
22 X X X
Accepted Retrofit
Standards
Tiers Timeframe
Evaluation Permit Completed
City of Fremont Building
Code sections 7-10302 and
7-10304
Group 1: 10 units or more than
two stories N/A
2 years 4 years
Group II: 10 or less units and
fewer than three stories high
2.5 years 5 years
Soft Story Criteria Incentives Other Considerations
Wood frame, multi-unit (3
or more) residential
buildings constructed
before January 1, 1978
Waived plan check and building
permit fees for the seismic
retrofit work if done within the
appropriate timeframe
Condo conversions must comply
Making Things Public: Forums, Lists,
Signs, Tenants, and Notices
Other Kinds of Comprehensive:
More Types, Uses, and Features
•San Francisco, CA
–CAPSS led into 30 year ESIP implementation plan
–Adopted: soft-story >4 units, mandatory evaluations
for private schools
–In progress: façade ordinance
–Collaborations: SPUR, ATC, SEONC, 100RC…
–Preparedness: shelter-in-place, 72hours.org
–Planned: programs for smaller residential
Other Kinds of Comprehensive:
Critical Infrastructure and Systems
•Los Angeles, CA
–2013 Mayoral leadership and Technical Advisory
Group
–Resilient by Design report and plan:
•Buildings
•Telecomm
•Water
–Adopted: soft-story >4 units, voluntary building
rating system program
–Collaborations: USGS, SEAOC, CalOES, 100RC…
Comprehensive Programs Can
Still Falter
•Santa Monica, CA
–1994 mandatory retrofit
ordinance for steel
office towers, older
concrete buildings and
wood multi-story
apartment houses
−City leadership revived inventory efforts that
stagnated for 20 years by funding a 2014 study
(No notifications, timeline or enforcement)
−In progress: figuring out how to proceed based on
their findings
−Collaborations: SEAOC, ConcreteCoalition…
What Kind of Approach is Right for
Palo Alto?
•Unique policy background
•Inventory update
•Loss estimation and risk assessment
•Advisory Group engagement
•Evaluate alternatives
•Recommend directions
Update on Building Vulnerabilities
•Building inventory update
•Sidewalk survey update
•Loss estimate update
Building Inventory
•Significant effort reviewing, processing, combining
digital tax assessor files, GIS files, and SJSU/Palo Alto
Fire Department survey of soft-story wood frame
buildings
•Converted tax parcels to buildings
•Summarized certain aspects of inventory
•Begun planning for sidewalk survey using inventory
results
Parcels in Scope
•Total Palo Alto parcels: 21,187
–1 and 2 family: 15,198
–Remaining parcels: 5,989
•3 or more unit residential parcels: 3,630
–Actual distinct buildings: 1,324
•Other occupancy types: 2,369
–Removed 961 designated as Possessory Interest
–Remaining buildings: 1,408
•Total in Study Group: 1,324 + 1,408 = 2,732
Study Group Occupancy Types
44%
36%
3%
8%
9%
Residential 3+
Retail
Public
Industrial &
Manufacturing
Other
Soft Story Wood Frame
Multi-Family Residential:
94 buildings
Study Group Year Built
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
18
8
0
18
9
6
19
0
2
19
0
8
19
1
4
19
2
0
19
2
5
19
3
0
19
3
6
19
4
1
19
4
8
19
5
3
19
5
8
19
6
3
19
6
8
19
7
3
19
7
8
19
8
3
19
8
8
19
9
3
19
9
8
20
0
3
20
0
8
20
1
3
Nu
m
b
e
r
B
u
i
l
t
Year Built
Known: 2435
Unknown:297
Total: 2732
Study Group Number of Stories
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1 2 3 4 5 - 10 6 - 20
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Stories
Known: 2293
Unknown: 439
Total:2732
Study Group Area of Building
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Co
u
n
t
o
f
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Area (sf)
Known: 2397
Unknown:335
Total: 2732
Study Group Building Materials
Quality Class
A:Structural Steel Framing 31
B:Reinforce Concrete Columns and Beams 11
C:Masonry-type Exterior Walls 651
D:Wood Framing 1451
S:Specialized/not in above categories 105
Unknown 483
Building Material vs. Model Building Type
•A. Structural Steel Framing
–S1: Steel moment-resisting frame
–S2: Steel braced frame
–S3: Light metal building
–S4: Steel frames with cast-in-place concrete shear
walls
–S5: Steel frames with unreinforced masonry infill
walls
Key Parameters for Input to
Loss Estimates
Legend for Plots
Color Indicates
0-2 Parameters Known
3-4 Parameters Known
5-6 Parameters Known
Key Parameters Known Unknown Total
LAT/LONG 2732 0 2732
Year Built 2435 297 2732
Stories 2293 439 2732
Building Area 2397 335 2732
Occupancy 2207 525 2732
Model Building Type 0 2732 2732
Quality Class 2249 483 2732
Building Value 0 2732 2732
Study Group
Building Locations
N
Downtown
N
California Avenue/
Page Mill Road Area
N
Soft-Story Wood Frame
Multi-Family
Residential Buildings
N
Sidewalk Survey
Sidewalk Survey
•February 4 with building/fire department
•February 11with Stanford structural engineering
graduate students/professors
•Post-processing and checking of uploaded surveys
•Follow-up survey quality assurance checks
Survey Clusters
N
Loss Estimates
•Two scenarios
•Initial run: without new retrofit
•Develop conceptual retrofits with cost
estimates
•Second run: with new retrofit
•Dollar losses and percent damaged
–By building type and location
–With retrofit and without
Earthquake Scenarios
M7.9 M7.2
City Hall
0.60g
City Hall
0.56g
Earthquake Scenarios
M6.9 M6.7
City Hall
0.56g
City Hall
0.48g
Loss Estimates Will Provide
•Building types expected to have the
greatest aggregate damage
–Largest risk of lost units
–Largest cost of repair
–Geographic concentrations of largest loss
•Achievable reduction in losses from
retrofit of selected buildings
•Effectiveness of past retrofit work in
current context
Issue: Replacement Cost
•Loss = Cost of Damage / Replacement Cost
•Example: $100,000 loss in a building that would
cost $2,000,000 to replace
Loss = $100,000 / $2,000,000 = 5%
Issue: Replacement Cost
•Hazus program has default replacement costs
in $/square foot
•Example: 10,000 sf building with a
replacement cost of $200/sf
Replacement cost = 10,000 sf x $200/sf
Replacement cost = $2,000,000
Issue:
Replacement
Cost ($/sf)
•Hazus default full replacement cost models are based on RS Means (2014)
•Location factors for Palo Alto: Residential = 15%, Commercial = 11%
•Is use of the default values acceptable?
Hazus
Occupancy
Class Definition
Average Palo Alto
Cost per Square
Foot
RES3A Multi Family Dwelling –duplex $130.75
RES3B Multi Family Dwelling –triplex/quad $114.94
RES3C Multi Family Dwelling –5-9 units $206.41
RES3D Multi Family Dwelling –10-19 units $194.12
RES3E Multi Family Dwelling –20-49 units $212.26
RES3F Multi Family Dwelling –50+ units $199.90
RES4 Temp. Lodging $217.83
RES5 Institutional Dormitory $234.44
RES6 Nursing Home $238.07
COM1 Retail Trade $121.66
COM2 Wholesale Trade $118.13
COM3 Personal and Repair Services $143.47
COM4 Professional/ Technical/Business Service $194.52
COM5 Banks $281.88
COM6 Hospital $372.59
COM7 Medical Office/Clinic $267.85
COM8 Entertainment & Recreation $248.61
COM9 Theaters $186.45
COM10 Parking $84.59
IND1 Heavy $144.71
IND2 Light $118.13
IND3 Food/Drugs/Chemicals $229.48
IND4 Metals/Minerals Processing $229.48
IND5 High Technology $229.48
IND6 Construction $118.13
REL1 Church $118.13
AGR1 Agriculture $199.08
GOV1 General Services $152.63
GOV2 Emergency Response $259.52
EDU1 Schools/Libraries $193.00
EDU2 Colleges/Universities $214.91
Meeting Wrap-Up and Follow-Ups
•Outcomes from today
•What will be added to the website
•Next steps
–Survey and processing
–Loss estimate
•Date for next meeting in March
–Options: x, y, z
•Scope of next meeting
–Review inventory findings
–Review loss estimate results
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #3
March 17th, 2016
2-4pm
Mitchell Park Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
1 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Attendance By: Peter Pirnejad (PP), Development Services Director COPA
George Hoyt (GH), Chief Building Official COPA
James Henrikson (JH), Fire Marshal COPA
Nathan Rainey (NR), OES Coordinator COPA
Evon Ballash (EB) Assistant Building Official COPA
Blake Salzman (Blake S), Contract Plans Examiner COPA
Elena Lee, Senior Planner COPA
Bret Lizundia (BL), Principal, Rutherford + Chekene (R+C)
Sharyl Rabinovici (SR), sub consultant to R+C
Al Dorsky, Community
Anil Babbar, Tenants
Annette Glanckopf, Community
Dana Brechwald (DB), Policy
Doug Hohbach, Engineers
Jessica Epstein, Policy
Ken Hayes, Architects
Georgina Mascarenhas, Community
Roxy Rapp, Developers
Chris Rojahn, Engineers
Tim Steele, Developers
Tom Holzer, Policy
Minutes Prepared
By:
Blake Salzman, Contract Plans Examiner
ITEMS DISCUSSION
Introduction
General:
Introduction by GH: Meeting minutes for Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting on 01/27/16 were approved by group. George provided a
quick update of the project over a busy month and a half. Sidewalk
surveys have been completed, the resulting information has been
quality controlled, then entered into FEMA’s Hazus program, and
loss estimates have been performed.
The project timeline was re-reviewed based on the current
progress. The timeline is available on the Seismic Advisory Group
webpage.
Replacement Cost
Methodology
Based on the last meeting’s discussion of the replacement cost in
which the default values used in Hazus were reviewed, it was
clear that the replacement cost values should be revised. The cost
needs to be updated for inflation and increased based on location.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #3
March 17th, 2016
2-4pm
Mitchell Park Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
2 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
It includes the construction bid costs, plus soft costs for demolition,
third party inspection, permit fees, utility fees, and design fees.
Costs that are not included are abatement, project management
costs, financing, legal fees, accessibility compliance costs, etc.
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) related to replacement
cost methodology held a conference call on 3/7/16 to review
proposed changes to increased replacement values. The
increased costs were still deemed low. Agreement was reached
on targets for the revised values. The updated values prepared by
R+C were distributed and no exceptions were taken. R+C’s sub
consultant then made minor adjustments upward for some of the
non-targeted occupancies to provide an appropriate ratio to the
other costs. These final costs were used in the loss estimates and
were shown in the meeting presentation.
Occupancies focused on by the TAC were multi-family residential,
offices for professional services, high technology, medical office,
and retail. The costs used were intended to represent average
values appropriate for all of Palos Alto, including both the
downtown areas and those in the southern part of the City.
Inventory BL discussed the sidewalk surveys and collection of data to be
used for the loss estimates.
The inventory started from tax assessor files, GIS files, Google
Earth, the 1980s building survey by COPA, and the 12/9/14 COPA
Policy and Services memo on seismic compliance status that was
the genesis of this program. Single family and two-family dwellings
are not included in the scope of the inventory. Stanford University
was also not included in the scope of the inventory.
The bulk of the work was a field sidewalk survey using the app
created for documenting visual assessments, with extensive
quality assurance, and resurveying as necessary. In terms of
overall scope, 2645 buildings were included in the study.
Loss Estimate BL discussed the overall loss estimates based on the entire study
group. Estimates were based on a M7.9 and a M6.7 seismic
event. Both events were calculated with retrofit and without retrofit.
The total replacement value of the buildings is $23 billion, and total
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #3
March 17th, 2016
2-4pm
Mitchell Park Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
3 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
contents replacement value within those buildings is $24 billion.
The largest group of buildings of the inventory is wood frame small
residential buildings. The greatest value of buildings comes from
wood frame commercial and industrial. There is a total of 9 un-
retrofitted URM bearing wall buildings in the study. There is also a
surprising amount of tilt up concrete structures.
The cost of building replacement by occupancy type was
presented. The occupancy with the largest number of buildings
and most expensive aggregate total value is professional and
technical office buildings.
The group reviewed the age of the study group buildings. The
largest group in the study was built between the first seismic code
in Palo Alto in 1926 and the SEAOC bluebook used in the 1961
UBC. The oldest buildings (pre 1927) had the largest average
building damage ratio. Steel moment built pre 1927 had an
average building damage ratio of 44%,compared to 4% for those
built after code changes following the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake.
The loss estimate accounts for features such as year built, square
footage, occupancy, design level, retrofit status, soft story status,
height, and model building type.
The estimated building damage in a M7.9 earthquake is $1.9
billion, and it is $900 million for the M6.7 event. The number of
buildings with a damage ratio greater than 20% is estimated at
227 in a M7.9 event, but only 19 in a M6.7 event.
The three-year average in boom development times for Palo Alto
is $400 million in total construction. The total repair of $1.9 billion
in damage would take at least 5 years based on the boom time
average of $400 million if no other work were done. Actual repair
would likely take much longer.
The structural systems with the highest building damage ratios are
steel frame with masonry infill, URM bearing wall, and concrete
frame with masonry infill. The systems with the largest aggregate
damage in dollar losses are concrete shear wall, concrete tilt up
and wood frame commercial and industrial.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #3
March 17th, 2016
2-4pm
Mitchell Park Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
4 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Implications for
Policy Options
BL discussed the implications of the loss estimate and how it could
effect the policy options for Palo Alto moving forward.
The estimated loss in a major event and potential reduction from
retrofitting are significant. For example, retrofitted URM buildings
had an average building damage of 4% compared to 29% for non-
retrofitted.
Addressing building types with the largest aggregate dollar losses
(rather than simply the highest damage ratios) will lead to the
greatest reduction in losses. These include soft story wood frame
buildings, older concrete buildings, older tilt up buildings, and older
steel moment frame buildings.
Soft story deficiencies significantly increase the percentage of
building with large loss ratios and approximately double the
average damage ratio.
Best Practices
SR reviewed policy options for Palo Alto based on the assessment
of other local models.
Programs were broken down by targeted building types,
requirements, priority tiers, timelines, and incentives. Palo Alto’s
current program targets a mix of building criteria (structural system
and occupant load). Floor area ratio bonus incentives are
available in downtown locations
Sunshine measures are ensuring publicity and knowledge of
seismic risks. This is not taken full advantage of in the current
system.
Palo Alto’s current program relies on voluntary action and planning
incentives such as the floor area bonus. The options for
addressing the remaining properties are to mandate evaluation,
retrofit, or increase voluntary program.
URM programs are required to report to the state, so and
published reports on effectiveness (defined as retrofitting or
demolishing) are available. Soft story buildings have been a focus
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #3
March 17th, 2016
2-4pm
Mitchell Park Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
5 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
for the City. 25% of soft story buildings in Berkeley that were
mandated to perform an evaluation performed a retrofit within 2
years.
Action Items What is the right policy package for Palo Alto? This will be one of
the final tasks of the advisory group.
Scope of the next Advisory Group meeting will include review loss
estimate of retrofitted buildings and continued policy option
discussion. If the group is available for a 3-hour meeting, it would
be ideal for the amount of information that needs to be covered
during the next meeting.
PP wants to schedule a meeting with the planning department to
discuss planning incentives and to determine if those will be
pursued.
The agenda for the next Advisory Group meeting will include
information on people/units affected by soft-story, loss estimation
with retrofit and retrofit costs, reactions from AG to loss estimates
and current program effectiveness/intensity. The group also
wanted to discuss any factors given for time of occupancy in
buildings.
City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management Program
Advisory Group Meeting #3
March 17, 2016
AG1
AG2
AG3
AG6
Project
End
Rec’s
to
Council
- Introductions
- Project overview
- Policy questions
12/16/15 1/27/16
Survey
Loss Estimate
w/o Retrofit
Purpose of Advisory Group
To review and discuss implications of
the project's technical findings and
provide input about community
concerns, priorities, and preferences.
Before Meeting
•AG2 minutes
•AG3 agenda
•Task 2 report
At Meeting
•Update on inventory and loss
estimate efforts
•Local program goals,
effectiveness, and options
•Start policy process discussion
3/17/16
AG4
4/14/14 June Oct
AG5
May
-Final loss estimates
-Detailed policy
discussion
- Finalize
rec’s
- Draft
rec’s
Policy & Services
Committee
Summer
Loss Estimate
w/ Retrofit
Task 3 Report
Project and AG Process Status
•Review of minutes from 1/27/16 AG2 meeting
•Seismic Risk Management Program Website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/s
rmag.asp
–Added content includes slides from last meeting
and Task 2 report
Inventory and Loss Estimates
•Replacement cost Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) report
•Inventory update
•Loss estimate results for existing building stock
Replacement Cost TAC Report
Reminder:
•Hazus program has default replacement costs
in $/square foot
•Example: 10,000 sf building with a
replacement cost of $400/sf
Replacement cost = 10,000 sf x $400/sf
= $4,000,000
Calculating Loss
•Loss = Cost of Damage / Replacement Cost
•Example: $200,000 loss in a building that would
cost $4,000,000 to replace
Loss = $200,000 / $4,000,000 = 5%
Issue:
Replacement
Cost ($/sf)
•Hazus default full
replacement cost
models are based on RS
Means (2014)
•Location factors for
Palo Alto: Residential =
15%, Commercial = 11%
•At the Advisory Group
Meeting #2, we
concluded the default
values should be
revised for Palo Alto
Hazus
Occupancy
Class Definition
Average Palo Alto
Cost per Square
Foot
RES3A Multi Family Dwelling – duplex $130.75
RES3B Multi Family Dwelling – triplex/quad $114.94
RES3C Multi Family Dwelling – 5-9 units $206.41
RES3D Multi Family Dwelling – 10-19 units $194.12
RES3E Multi Family Dwelling – 20-49 units $212.26
RES3F Multi Family Dwelling – 50+ units $199.90
RES4 Temp. Lodging $217.83
RES5 Institutional Dormitory $234.44
RES6 Nursing Home $238.07
COM1 Retail Trade $121.66
COM2 Wholesale Trade $118.13
COM3 Personal and Repair Services $143.47
COM4 Professional/ Technical/Business Service $194.52
COM5 Banks $281.88
COM6 Hospital $372.59
COM7 Medical Office/Clinic $267.85
COM8 Entertainment & Recreation $248.61
COM9 Theaters $186.45
COM10 Parking $84.59
IND1 Heavy $144.71
IND2 Light $118.13
IND3 Food/Drugs/Chemicals $229.48
IND4 Metals/Minerals Processing $229.48
IND5 High Technology $229.48
IND6 Construction $118.13
REL1 Church $118.13
AGR1 Agriculture $199.08
GOV1 General Services $152.63
GOV2 Emergency Response $259.52
EDU1 Schools/Libraries $193.00
EDU2 Colleges/Universities $214.91
Costs Included in Hazus Default
Values
•Bid cost (what owner pays the
contractor directly)
•A default location factor for Palo Alto.
This needs adjustment.
•2014 dollar values
This needs adjustment to 2016 dollars.
Soft Costs Sometimes Included in
Loss Estimates
•Demolition of existing building and
limited site work
•Design fees for architect and engineers
•Testing and inspection costs
•Permit fees
•Utility connection fee
•Owner change order contingency
Costs Typically Not Included in
Loss Estimates
•Hazardous material abatement costs
•Occupants-in-place costs
•Accessibility costs
•Historic building costs
•Relocation/interruption costs (though sometimes done)
•Project management costs
•Renovation costs
•Financing costs
•Repair of existing conditions
•Legal fees
•FF&E (furniture, fixtures, and equipment) is not included
since Hazus calculates content damage separately.
Replacement Cost TAC Report
•R+C and Vanir Construction Management
prepared proposed adjustments to RS Means values.
•Reviewed in 3/7/16 TAC conference call
•TAC recommended increased values in general,
and identified target values for selected common
occupancies.
•R+C updated values and distributed them to
Advisory Group; no objections received.
•Vanir reviewed values and refined a few upward
for estimating consistency in non-target
occupancies. Those were used in loss estimates.
Replacement Costs Used
Target Occupancies
•5-9 Unit Residential: $402/sf
•50+ Unit Residential: $390/sf
•Retail Trade: $310/sf
•Professional/Technical Office: $452/sf
•Medical Office: $445/sf
•High Technology: $461/sf
•Costs are1.7-2.6 times the RS Means default values.
•Costs are intended to be representative of averages across the town.
Building Inventory Sources of
Information
•Digital tax assessor files
•GIS files
•Google Earth and Street View
•1980s Palo Alto Building Dept. survey for the 1986 ordinance
•SJSU/Palo Alto Fire Dept. survey of soft-story wood frame
•12/9/14 memo on compliance status with City ordinance
•Field sidewalk survey
•Extensive quality assurance and re-surveying
Buildings in Scope of Study
•Total Palo Alto parcels: 21,187
–1 and 2 family: -15,198
–Remaining parcels: 5,989
•3 or more unit residential parcels: 3,630
–Actual distinct buildings: 1,324
•Other occupancy types: 2,369
–Removed 961 designated - 961
as “Possessory Interest”
–Remaining buildings: 1,408
•Initial total in study group: 1,324 + 1,408 = 2,732
•Following field surveys, final total in study group: 2,645
What is the Total Exposure?
•Number of buildings:
2,645
•Total replacement value of buildings:
$23B
•Total value of contents:
$24B
What are the Major Building Types?
25%
21%
17%
8%
6%
6%
2%
15%
Number of Buildings
Professional/Technical
Residential: 3-4 Units
Residential: 5-9 Units
Retail Trade
Residential: 10-19 Units
Entertainment and Recreation
Residential: 20-49 Units
Other
35%
20% 6% 5%
5%
5%
4%
20%
Building Value
Professional/Technical
Hospital
Residential: 50+ Units
Residential: 5-9 Units
Schools/Libraries
Retail Trade
Residential: 10-19 Units
Other
Study Group Occupancy Types
Year Built
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1880 1902 1914 1925 1936 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008
Nu
m
b
e
r
B
u
i
l
t
Year Buillt
First Seismic
Code in Palo Alto
in 1926
SEAOC
Bluebook
used in
1961 UBC
Northridge EQ
Changes in
1997 UBC
262
Buildings
357
Buildings
532
Buildings
491
Buildings
1003
Buildings
San Fernando EQ
Changes in
1976 UBC
Loss Estimates
•Two scenarios
•Today: Initial run, without new retrofit
•Future:
–Develop conceptual retrofits with cost
estimates
–Second run: with new retrofit
Earthquake Scenarios
M7.9
City Hall
0.60g
M6.7
City Hall
0.48g
Loss Estimation Features
Model Building Type
Rube Goldberg’s
Version of Hazus
Year Built
Occupancy Design Level
Replacement Cost
Earthquake
Shaking
(M7.9/M6.7)
Content Value
Soil Conditions
at Site
Distance from
Fault
Retrofit Status
Soft Story Status
Building Damage
($, % for M7.9/M6.7)
Content Damage
($, % for M7.9/M6.7)
Height
Square Footage
What are the Total Losses?
Takeaway: Ratio for $ loss and average % damage is about 2,
but is about 12 for number of buildings with over 20% loss.
How Do the Building Losses Compare to
Permit Valuations Processed Per Year?
•M7.9 building losses: $1.95B
•Palo Alto permit valuations
–2013/2014: $336M
–2014/2015: $480M
–2015/2016: $191M first half, say $382M total
–Three-year average in boom times: $400M
•$1.95B repair and replacement costs ÷
$400M/year = 5 years
Building Damage Ratio
Building Damage Ratio
Downtown Southwest
Building
Damage
Ratio
Southeast
Takeaways
•Depends on
metric used
•Types with the
largest $ losses
≠
types with the
highest
damage %
What are the Worst Building Types?
What are the Worst Occupancies?
Takeaways
•Like building type, worst occupancy depends on metric used.
•Largest $ losses ≠ highest damage %
How Does Year Built Affect Losses?
What is the Impact of a Soft Story?
Takeaways: Soft story…
•Approximately doubles the average damage ratio
•Significantly increases the % of buildings with large loss ratios
Light Wood Frame Building Damage
With Soft Story Without Soft Story
How Does Year Built Affect Steel
Moment Frames?
Takeaway: Year built (and design code) makes a significant
difference. Benchmark is post-Northridge changes in 1997 UBC.
How Does Year Built Affect Tilt-Up
Buildings?
Takeaway: Year built (and design code) makes a significant
difference. Benchmark is post-Northridge changes in 1997 UBC.
Tilt-up Building Damage
Building Damage by Survey Sector
What Benefit Do URM Retrofits Provide?
Takeaways
•Retrofitting URMs makes a significant reduction in average
damage and in the number with large damage ratios.
•There are few URM buildings compared to other building
types.
Implications for Policy Options
•The estimated losses in a major event and potential
reduction from retrofitting are significant.
•Addressing building types known to be potentially
hazardous and with large numbers of buildings will lead to
the greatest reduction in losses.
•Possible building types to consider:
–Soft story wood frame buildings
–Older concrete buildings
–Older tilt-up buildings
–Older steel moment frame buildings
•Requirements imposed on different building types impact
different groups of owners, tenants, and occupants.
Options for Palo Alto Based on
Assessment of Other Local Models
•Programs break down by targeted
building types, requirements, priority
tiers, timelines, and incentives
•Success is relative to goals
•Effectiveness data is limited, but we
know some paths achieve more retrofit
progress and momentum than others
Targeted Structural Systems, Year
Built, and Other Characteristics
Structural Systems / Age— e.g., URM, soft-story, older concrete
Higher Occupancy / # Units — e.g., 5 or more residential units, 100+ persons
Location — e.g., state-determined Earthquake Fault Zones, historic or downtown districts
Uses — e.g., public schools, hospitals, essential services buildings
Palo Alto’s Current Program Targets a
Mix of Building Criteria and Location
•Three categories based on structure type, occupancy and age
•Relates to Central Business District
•Options for addressing buildings with other vulnerabilities or characteristics:
–Older concrete
–Soft-story residential
–Other structural feature/use/occupancy combinations (e.g., private schools, façades)
Understanding and Taking Action on
Older Concrete Building Risks
Concrete Coalition organization and
volunteer inventory:
–23 case study cities
–Estimated 16,000–17,000 pre-1980 concrete
buildings in California high risk counties
–San Francisco building taxonomy study
Example Local Programs for Older Concrete
•City of Los Angeles Building Code Divisions 91 & 96:
–(1994 - 1996) triggered upgrading on pre-1976 tilt-ups
–(2014) mandatory evaluation and upgrade if needed for nonductile concrete
•City of Long Beach Chapter 18.71
–Voluntary guidance
•City of Santa Monica Municipal Code 8.80
–Mandatory evaluation and upgrade if needed for existing nonductile concrete buildings
•City of Burbank --
–voluntary guidelines for older reinforced concrete and concrete frame buildings with masonry infill
2015 Los Angeles Ordinance
Policy development timeline:
–Concrete Coalition inventory effort
–LA Times freedom of information request to force Univ. of Calif. to release data, followed by featured article
–Great ShakeOut
–Mayor Garcetti create Seismic Advisory Task Force, headed by Lucy Jones (USGS)
–Resilience by Design report
Passed October 2015 Ordinance
–Mandatory screening (3 yrs), evaluation (10 yrs), and subsequent retrofit (25 yrs) of nonductile concrete
–Also included: mandatory evaluation and subsequent retrofit of soft-story
Inventory
Only
Notify
Only
Voluntary
Retrofit
Mandatory
Screening
Mandatory
Evaluation
Mandatory
Retrofit
Santa Clara
County
San Jose
San Leandro
Richmond
Sebastopol
Oakland
San Francisco
Berkeley
Alameda
Los Angeles
Fremont
Compiled by S. Rabinovici, 2016.
Increasing Requirements
California Learners and Leaders in Soft-
Story Programs
In Development: Hayward
LEARNING LEADING
Options for Policy Mechanisms and
Requirements
Inventory
Only
Notify
Only
Voluntary
Retrofit
“Sunshine”
Approaches
Mandatory
Screening
Mandatory
Evaluation
Mandatory
Retrofit
City staff,
consultants,
and/or a
volunteer
organization has
created an
inventory of one
or more
suspected
hazard building
types, but list is
not officially
released to the
public or been
acted upon.
An inventory
exists and a
policy has been
established to
notify owners if
their property is
on a suspected
hazard building
list.
Owners of
properties on a
publically
available list are
formally
encouraged to
retrofit, possibly
by offering of
technical
assistance,
financial help, or
policy
incentives.
Properties on a
publically
available list are
subject to one or
more methods of
forced
information
sharing, such as
tenant
notification,
public signage,
recorded notice
on the property
title.
Owners of
properties on a
publically
available list are
required to
submit a form
within a fixed
time window
that is filled out
by a licensed
building
professional.
Owners of
properties on a
publically
available list are
required submit
an evaluation
completed by a
licensed
engineer within
a fixed time
frame.
Owners of
properties on a
publically
available list are
required to
retrofit by a
certain date.
This step may be
implemented
following a
screening or
evaluation
phase.
•Packaging and phasing
Palo Alto’s Current Program Relies on
Voluntary Action and Planning Incentives
•Floor Area Bonus
•Options for addressing remaining
properties on the existing list:
–Mandate evaluation
–Mandate retrofit
–Ramp up voluntary program with added
features (e.g., technical assistance,
increase incentives, or sunshine measures)
City of Berkeley Soft-Story: 2005 – 2013
Mandatory Evaluation to Mandatory Retrofit
City
Program
Inventory
Method and
Timing
Targeted
Buildings
Deadline for
Evaluation
Deadline for
Permit
Deadline
for
Retrofit
Berkeley
1996 and 2003
(collaboration
with UC
Berkeley and
EERI)
5 or more
units, pre-
1996
2 years
(under 2005
law)
2 years
4 years
The Impact of Mandated Soft-Story Evaluations:
Seven Fold Increase in Permit Application Rate
7
2 2 2 3
5
18
30 31
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
&
P
e
n
d
i
n
g
Year
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
Note: Data collected April 2010, Source: D. Lambert, personal communication.
Law
Implemented
ONE IN FOUR BERKELEY
SOFT STORY OWNERS
COMPLETED A
VOLUNTARY RETROFIT
WITHIN TWO YEARS.
URM Progress Statewide (2006)
ON AVERAGE, THREE
TIMES MORE
BUILDINGS HAVE
BEEN RETROFIT OR
DEMOLISHED IN
CITIES WITH
MANDATORY
PROGRAMS
Data Source: CSSC, 2006 (Table 3)
Prioritization and Pacing
•Among targeted buildings, sequence or
timelines can be structured differently
–Year built, number of stories, unit totals, occupancy, or combinations thereof
–Puts most important and/or risky building first
•Most soft-story policies use this tactic
–SF, Oakland, and LA have “tiers”
•Eases both owner compliance and
program operations
Palo Alto’s Current Program Uses
Categorization to Shape Goals & Timing
•Options for further leveraging
prioritization and pacing:
–Create graduated schedule to emphasize
most important buildings first
–Allow owners more time to comply for
more costly and complex projects
–Gradually reduce incentives for owners
that take longer to comply
“Sunshine” Measures: Searchable
Lists, Signs, Tenants, and Notices
Palo Alto’s Current Program Does Not
Take Full Advantage of Sunshine
•Options for making more visible and
increasing the costs of not retrofitting:
–Make listing of buildings more accessible
–Publicize list of buildings
–Tenant notification
–Community forums
•These options ALSO increase the benefits
of retrofitting
Nudging and Easing the Path With
Incentives
Financial Tools Policy Tools
Bonds Density or Intensity Bonuses
Grants Exemptions for Non-Conformities
Loans Zoning Incentives
Property-Assessed Financing Loan (PACE) Condominium Conversion Assistance
Tax Credits
Exemptions or Relief from Standards or Non-
Conforming Conditions
Real Estate Transfer Tax Rebates Exemption from Future Retrofit Requirements
Waivers or Reductions of Building
Department Fees Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Pass Through of Retrofit Costs to Tenants Expedite Permits, Inspections, and Reviews
Special District or Historic Designation Tax
Reductions
Strategically Combine Policy Features
to Promote Risk Reduction
56
PUBLIC SAFETY, LOSS AVOIDANCE,
AND RESILIENCE BENEFITS FROM
RETROFIT WORK
TACTIC 1: Publicize and
increase the consequences
of not retrofitting
TACTIC 2: Publicize, ease the
costs, increase the benefits
of retrofitting
STATUS QUO
1.Which buildings to target?
–Expand to one or more other types or same
categories as now?
2.Which requirements and features?
–Expand voluntary program measures, add
mandatory screening or evaluation, and/or
mandate retrofit
3.How to motivate and sustain progress?
–Phases, tiers, timing, and enforcement
–Offer a strategic range of incentives
–Adequate program budget
What’s the Right “Policy Package”
for Palo Alto Going Forward?
The Advisory Group Process Moving
Forward
Suggested pathway to reach
recommendations for Council:
•Reach agreement on the most
important sources of risk
•Define program goals and priorities
based on implications for the
community
•Evaluate policy options
Meeting Wrap-Up and Follow-Ups
•Outcomes from today
•What will be added to the website
•Next steps
–Completion of Task 3 report and issue
–Conceptual retrofit
–Loss estimate of retrofitted buildings
•Scope of next meeting on April 14
–Review loss estimate of retrofitted buildings
–Continue policy option discussion
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #4
May 16, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
1 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Attendance By: Peter Pirnejad (PP), Development Services Director COPA
George Hoyt (GH), Chief Building Official COPA
Evon Ballash (EB), Assistant Building Official COPA
Bud Starmer (Bud S), Building Inspection Supervisor COPA
James Henrikson (JH), Fire Marshal COPA
Meg Monroe (MM), Senior Planner COPA
Bret Lizundia (BL), Principal, Rutherford+Chekene (R+C)
Sharyl Rabinovic (SR), Sub Consultant to R+C
Ken Joye, Venura NPC
Rich Cody, Cody Brock
Anil Babbar, CAA
Chris Rojahn, ATC
Tom Holzer, USGS
Dana Brechwald, ABAG
Teresa Marks, Hudson Pacific
Blake Salzman, Allerion Consulting Group
Roxy Rapp, Developer
Ken Hayes, Hayes Group
Annette Glanckopf, Community
Minutes Prepared By: Evon Ballash
ITEMS DISCUSSION
Introduction General:
Introduction by GH: The objectives of this meeting are to review
the loss estimation findings; introduce policy, incentive and
disclosure options; and then the advisory group will break out in
small groups to discuss possible policy directions and options.
Approval of Meeting #3 minutes was passed without comments.
BL reviewed meeting agenda in more detail with the group.
Goals for the meeting are to review the project progress,
discuss plans for the sidewalk survey, review the first round of
loss estimates from AG3 for unretrofitted buildings, show the
retrofit schemes developed for buildings of interest, and
summarize the second round of loss estimate that cover
retrofitted buildings. The meeting will also discuss policy,
incentive, and disclosure options and issues. Handouts have
been provided for discussion in small groups. They cover
Guiding Principles, potential program options, building types to
be considered, types of disclosure measure options, incentive
option types that includes financial and policy incentives. A list
of Straw Poll Questions has also been distributed and will be
used for the small group discussion and an anonymous poll.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #4
May 16, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
2 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Program Timeline The timeline and purpose of the Advisory Group was discussed.
A general timeline for the project as well as the Advisory Group
meetings was shared by BL.
Findings and results will be presented to the Policy and
Services Committee later in the summer.
Advisory group program recommendations are to be presented
to city council for review by October.
Inventory This project inventory excludes one and two family dwellings,
public schools and OSPHD – regulated hospitals. It currently
contains 2632 buildings.
Under the current Palo Alto seismic retrofit ordinance from 1986
there 25 buildings remaining that have not yet been retrofitted or
demolished.
615 additional building have been identified as potentially
hazardous and may be considered in the expanded ordinance.
The building types within this inventory that are considered a
high priority for consideration in an updated City program
include wood frame soft-story multi-family residential and
commercial buildings, concrete tilt-up buildings, old concrete
buildings including soft-stories, and steel moment frame
structure (pre-Northridge).
Loss Estimates There are two scenarios considered: damage from earthquake
with magnitude of 6.7 (M6.7) and with a magnitude of 7.9
(M7.9).
The ratio of M7.9/M6.7 of buildings with a damage ratio ≥ 20%
is 12:1 without retrofitting. Average ratio of M7.9/M6.7 for Total
Losses (building damage plus content damage in dollars)
without retrofitting is 2:1. Total losses for M7.9 are $2.4 billion.
After retrofitting, the number of buildings with damage ratio ≥
20% is significantly reduced. The losses for M7.9 event are $1.3
billion.
Retrofitting reduces the expected damage in a M7.9 event by
approximately $1.1 billion in building damage and content.
For building types: the worst damage depended on the metrics
used. Building types with the largest dollar amount losses were
not necessarily buildings with the highest percentage of damage
since there are different numbers and sizes of buildings in the
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #4
May 16, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
3 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
different building types. The building types with the largest
aggregate building damage dollar losses are concrete shear
wall, concrete tilt-ups, and wood frame commercial/industrial
buildings.
For building occupancies: the worst occupancy for damage also
depended on the metrics used. Occupancies with largest dollar
amount damages were not necessarily the worst damaged. The
occupancy types with the largest aggregate building damage
dollar losses were Professional/ Technical, School/ Libraries
and Retail occupancies.
Older buildings performed worst on average than newer
buildings. Retrofit improvements to older pre-1927 buildings
and buildings built between 1927–1961 had the most benefit in
total aggregate damage dollar loss reduction.
For building damage by survey sector, one of the sectors wit h
the greatest reduction in aggregate building damage dollar
losses occurred along Page Mill Rd where there are a number
of older commercial buildings.
The ratio of average damage for soft story buildings without
retrofitting compared to buildings without soft stories was
doubled. Soft story buildings also significantly increased the
percentage of buildings with large loss ratios.
The benefits of retrofitting soft story buildings are significant
Retrofit Schemes The 12 most common building prototypes seen in Palo Alto
were considered.
Study Example Prototype: Wood frame larger residential with
soft story prototype:
• Infill steel moment frame along the first floor soft story level
• provide new plywood shear walls in the perpendicular walls
Performance Expectations Unstrengthened building had significant damage after M7.9 with
the risk of collapse on the ground floor and significant cracking
of the stucco walls and interior partition damage. There were a
higher percentage of red tagged structures compared to green
and yellow tags.
Rehabilitated structures for life safety concerns had less
damage with a lower amount red tags and a higher number of
green tags.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #4
May 16, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
4 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Retrofit Costs Hard costs include the contractor bid cost and design
contingencies to conceptual retrofits.
Soft costs include design fees for architect and engineers,
testing and inspection costs, permit fees and owner change
orders.
Not included are hazmat abatement, occupants-in-place cost,
accessibility upgrades, historic building costs, relocation/
interruption of tenants, program management, renovation costs,
repair of existing conditions, financing costs, legal fees, etc.
The 12 retrofit prototype buildings types were:
1. Woodframe Smaller Residential, 2 stories
2. Woodframe Larger Residential, 2 stories
3. Woodframe Larger Residential, 3 stories
4. Woodframe Commercial/ Industrial, 2 stories
5. Steel Moment Frame, 2 stories
6. Concrete Shear Wall, 1 story
7. Concrete Shear Wall, 2 stories
8. Concrete Tilt-up, 1 story
9. Concrete Tilt-up, 2 stories
10. Reinforced Masonry, 1 story
11. Reinforced Masonry, 2 stories
12. Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall, 1 story
For the retrofit prototypes, the average retrofit costs ranged from
$6/s.f. to $110/s.f.
Cost Benefits Model Building Type:
The average damage reduction from retrofitting ranged from
$4/s.f. to $121/s.f.
Steel frame building with masonry infill showed the highest
retrofit benefit of $121/s.f.
The retrofit costs were on order with the damage reduction.
Selected Building Types with Highest Benefit to Cost Ratio:
Pre-1977 Woodframe Soft Story Buildings:
1. Inventory of 294 buildings
2. $46/s.f. average damage loss avoided by retrofitting
3. Cost to retrofit $4/s/f
4. Average loss avoided/average retrofit cost: 4:1
Pre-1998 Tilt-Up Buildings:
1. Poor connections of roof to walls
2. Intermediate and end roof bays collapses
3. Average loss avoided/average retrofit cost: 3:1
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #4
May 16, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
5 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Pre-1977 Concrete Soft Story Buildings:
1. Inventory of 37 buildings
2. Average loss avoided/average retrofit cost: 3:1
Pre-1998 Steel Moment Frame Buildings:
1. Average loss avoided/average retrofit cost: 11:1 (high)
2. Low cost retrofits with steel brace frames.
Policy Mechanisms Range of Policies Approaches:
Inventory Only: create a list of hazard building types for the
public
Notify Only: the inventory list is used to notify property owners
Voluntary Retrofit: owners on the public inventory list are
encouraged to retrofit.
Disclosure Measure: publically available lists are disclosed to
tenants, public signage, recorded notice.
Mandatory Screening: owners on the public inventory are
required to submit a form by a licensed professional
Mandatory Evaluation: owners on the public inventory are
required to submit an evaluation by a licensed professional
Mandatory Retrofit: owners on the public inventory are required
to retrofit by a certain date.
Bundled Options with Increasing Regulatory Strength:
Option 1: Status Quo, do nothing. The cities of Albany, Alameda
and Richmond have chosen this path.
Option 2: Add more building type requirements with voluntary
retrofit.
Option 3: Add more building types with voluntary retrofit plus
disclosure.
Option 4: Add more building types with some triggered
mandatory measures.
Option 5: Add more building types with some mandates with
fixed timelines.
Option 6: Add more building types with more mandates with
timelines. This option was used by Los Angeles and San
Francisco.
Bud S noted that Town & Country Shopping Center has
completed extensive retrofit. The cost of retrofit is exempt from
property tax increases for improvements.
Disclosure Methods Bundle 1: Basic Transparency, inventory lists and information
are readily available for owners on websites.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #4
May 16, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
6 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Bundle 2: Community Awareness: public inventory lists are
focused for tenants and citizens, such as tenant notification
forms to be signed and on file with the city. San Francisco runs
retrofit fairs, similar to a trade show with vendors and regulatory
agencies.
Bundle 3: Onsite signage on buildings with seismic hazards.
Example signs can be multi-lingual. Also includes building
rating systems.
Examples of website disclosure lists can be found with the City
of Alameda, Berkeley.
USRC (U.S. Resiliency Council) provides a rating system of
buildings for safety, damage and recovery.
Incentives Financial Incentives:
Type 1: Basic Help
1. Provide fee waivers or reductions of building permit fees.
Type 2: Project Facilitation:
1. Property-Assessed Financing Loan, PACE, subsidized loan
that is paid off through tax increments over 20 years.
Type 3: Deeper Financial Assistance:
1. Real estate transfer tax rebates
2. Special district or historical designation tax reduction
3. Tax credits
4. Grants
5. Special purpose bonds.
Policy Incentives:
Type 1: Basic Help
1. Exemption from future retrofit requirements
2. Expedited building permits and inspections
Type 2: Project Facilitation
1. Exemptions or relief from standards or non-conforming
conditions
2. Zoning relief, e.g. set-backs, parking
3. Density or intensity bonuses, e.g. increase F.A.R. Floor Area
Ratios
4. Transfer of Development Rights
Small Group Breakout The advisory group participants were split into 4 groups and
asked to discuss the merits and drawbacks of the various policy
options, disclosure methods and incentive options. At the end
of the discussion, participants are asked to complete an
anonymous straw poll survey.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #4
May 16, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
7 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Large Group Discussion Group A Comments:
Discussed policy options of owner evaluation of soft story
residential multi-family buildings on a 1 -2 year lease. Tenant
notices, building evaluations and retrofits could be on timeline
as triggers may not be applicable or desirable.
Commercial building tenants have longer leases of 5 years and
are not readily vacant to retrofit, so a timeline may not be
feasible. Possibly a trigger by building sale could be used.
Incentives to allow lease termination to facilitate retrofit work
and TDR/FAR expiration.
Group B Comments:
Concerned about repercussions of rental increases for retrofit
work.
Concerned that short term triggers may compromised quality.
Loss estimation for individual properties could be beneficial.
Incentive to retrofit was already high for owners.
Quality of life matters and there may be resistance to zoning
relief.
Residents care if buildings are safe and that people are
informed with signage.
Group C Comments:
Discussed concerns of residents separately from business
owners
Residents favor signage on buildings and sunset triggers for
incentives
Business owner finds sunset triggers were a disincentive and
considers FAR to be a valuable incentive tool for large
commercial buildings.
Favors bundles 1 & 2 for disclosure measures, seems to be
more realistic, but signage might be too much.
Signage could kick in after a certain time period if no retrofit
action occurs.
Group D Comments:
Felt that soft story retrofits were the “best bang for the buck”
value wise and easier to retrofit without disturbing occupants.
Include older tilt-up building type, with feasible retrofits by
improving roof ledger connections.
Provide incentives and mandates for older URM buildings that
have not yet been retrofitted to get them safe. Liability concerns
on these 25 URM buildings may need to ramp up with
notifications.
Favors Type 2: Project Facilitation using policy incentives,
financial incentives may not be as critical in Palo Alto.
Parking incentives for retrofitting to be transferrable.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #4
May 16, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
8 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Straw Poll Results Policy Options;
Option 5 received the most votes with 9, which covered
increased scope, some categories voluntary and some
categories mandatory with enforcement by a fixed timeline.
Option 3 received the next highest votes of 4, and supported
increased scope, voluntary retrofit and some disclosure
measures.
Option 1: Status Quo received one vote
Option 6: Increase scope with mandatory measures received
one vote.
Building Types:
Soft Story was almost unanimous in all combinations, except for
one vote
Combinations of all types were favored by all.
Disclosure Measures:
Combination of the various bundles was chosen by all
Signage received less robust support. It may be desirable to
implement this with voluntary programs and/or after the owner
has not progress in retrofitting.
Incentives:
Type 2: Project Facilitation tied for the most votes with 7
Type 4: Combination of all types received 7 votes
Type 3: Deep Financial Assistance received 1 vote
Level of Interest:
High interest was selected for all
Action Items Create a consensus from the advisory group to make
recommendations to the city council
Next meeting in 4 - 5 weeks (mid to late June). Send out doodle
pool to members.
City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management Program
Advisory Group Meeting #4
May 16, 2016
AG1
AG2
- Recap Palo Alto policies
- State legislative review
- Local policy review
- Inventory & loss estimate update
AG6
Project
End
Rec’s
to
Council
- Introductions
- Project overview
- Policy questions
12/16/15 1/27/16
Survey
Losses
w/o Retrofit
Purpose of Advisory Group
To review and discuss implications of
the project's technical findings and
provide input about community
concerns, priorities, and preferences.
Before Meeting
•AG3 minutes
•AG4 agenda
& handouts
•Task 2 report
•Task 3 report
At Meeting
•Review loss estimation
findings & cost/benefit results
•Introduce policy, incentive,
and disclosure options
•Discuss potential policies
3/17/16
AG4
5/16/14 July Oct
AG5
June
- Finalize
rec’s
- Draft
rec’s
Policy & Services
Committee/Council
Summer
Losses
w/ Retrofit Task 3
Report
- Inventory and loss
estimate update
- Local program goals,
effectiveness, and
options
Retrofit Concept/
Estimate
Task 2
Report
AG3
Project and Advisory Group
Process Status
•Review of minutes from 3/17/16 AG3 meeting
•Seismic Risk Management Program Website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/s
rmag.asp
–Added content includes presentation slides and
minutes from last meeting
Guiding Principles
•Palo Alto faces significant losses.
•Potential benefits from retrofitting are also significant.
•Addressing known potentially hazardous building types that are present in large numbers maximizes risk reduction.
•A range of policy approaches can be combined into a program package.
•A range of incentives can help ease the process.
How Many Buildings are We Talking
About? (the Short Version)
•Covered by current ordinance, but
not yet retrofit or demolished: 25
•Additional buildings that are
potentially hazardous and
recommended for a possible
expanded ordinance: 615
The Longer Version
Tax parcels
21,187
Study group
buildings
2,632
Consolidate parcels to buildings
Remove 1 & 2 family, public schools,
and OSHPD-regulated hospitals
Not
demolished
66
Wood
(W1, W1a, W2)
1532
Tilt-up
(PC1)
239
Old concrete
(C1-C3)
324
Steel MF
(S1)
73
Soft story
294
Other
297
Pre-Northridge
35-52
Soft story
37
Remaining
25
Addressed
41
Addressed
xxx
Pre-Northridge
99-232
Total additional buildings for a potential ordinance
465-615
Retrofittable
884
Retrofittable
35-52
Retrofittable
207
Retrofittable
99-232
Retrofittable
162-180
Total that
could be
retrofit
1387-
1555
Range for tilt-up, steel MF, and
other is due to whether 1962-
1997 non-soft stories are retrofit
Not covered by
ordinance
2566
Current
ordinance
89
What is the Total Exposure?
•Number of buildings:
2,632
•Total replacement value of buildings:
$18.9B
•Total value of contents:
$17.3B
What are the Major Building Types?
Loss Estimates
•Two scenarios (M6.7 and M7.9)
•Last meeting:
–Initial run: Losses without new retrofit
•Today:
–Updated the initial run to exclude hospitals not regulated by Palo Alto
–Developed conceptual retrofits with cost estimates
–Losses with new retrofit
–Losses avoided by retrofitting
What are the Total Losses Without New
Retrofitting?
Takeaways:
•Ratio for $ loss and average % damage is about 2,
but is about 12 for number of buildings with over 20% loss.
•Losses in M7.9 are $2.4B.
What are the Total Losses With New
Retrofitting?
Takeaways:
•Ratio for $ loss and average % damage is about 2,
and the number of buildings with over 20% loss is dramatically
reduced (e.g. in M7.9 224 without retrofit vs. 6 with retrofit)
•M7.9 losses are $1.3B.
What is the Improvement due to
Retrofitting?
Takeaway: Retrofitting reduces the expected damage in a M7.9
event by about $1 billion in building and content damage.
Improvement = Reduction in damage
= Losses without retrofit – losses with retrofit
Building Damage Ratio –
Without New Retrofit
Building Damage Ratio –
With New Retrofit
Building Damage Ratio - Downtown
Without Retrofit With Retrofit
Takeaways
•Depends on metric used
•Largest $ losses ≠ types with the highest damage %
What are the Worst Building Types?
What are the Worst Occupancies?
Takeaways
•Like building type, worst occupancy depends on metric used.
•Similarly, largest $ losses ≠ highest damage %.
How Does Year Built Affect Losses?
Before Retrofit | San Andreas M7.9 Earthquake
Which Age Group Benefits Most?
After Retrofit | San Andreas M7.9 Earthquake
Building Damage Ratio
by Survey Sector
Without Retrofit With Retrofit
Building Damage Reduction
by Survey Sector
What is the Impact of a Soft Story?
Takeaways: Soft story…
•Approximately doubles the average damage ratio
•Significantly increases the % of buildings with large loss ratios
What is the Benefit of Retrofitting
a Soft Story Building?
Takeaway: Retrofitting a soft story provides significantly more
benefit in the ratio of losses avoided.
Conceptual Retrofits
•12 building prototypes, covering the
most common types in Palo Alto
•For each prototype
–Written description and sketch of building &
retrofit scope by R+C, with typical retrofit
details from FEMA 547
–Estimate by cost subconsultant Vanir
Construction Management
Example Prototype: Woodframe
Larger Residential
Source: “Practical Solutions for Improving the
Seismic Performance of Buildings with
Tuckunder Parking,” by Rutherford + Chekene,
for the City of San Jose, May 2000
Retrofitting Techniques
Source: Rutherford + Chekene, 2000
Performance Expectations
Source: Rutherford + Chekene, 2000
Building Prototype 3 in Palo Alto
Retrofit Costs Include
•Hard cost
–Cost the owner pays the contractor
(the bid cost)
–Design contingency as these are
conceptual retrofits
•Soft costs
–Architect and engineer design fees
–Testing and inspection costs
–Permit fees
–Owner change order contingency
Retrofit Costs Do Not Include
•Hazardous material abatement costs
•Occupants-in-place costs
•Accessibility costs
•Historic building costs
•Relocation/interruption costs
•Project management costs
•Renovation costs
•Financing costs
•Repair of existing conditions
•Legal fees
Conceptual Retrofit Prototype Costs
Comparison of Benefits and Costs by
Model Building Type
Takeaways:
•Average damage and damage reduction vary by building type.
•Retrofit costs are on the order of the damage reduction.
Comparison of Benefits and Costs by
Selected Model Building Type, Date and
Characteristics
Takeaway:
•The selected building types with their deficiencies have a
higher benefit-to-cost ratio than the average types and a
substantial number of buildings.
Guiding Principles
•Palo Alto faces significant losses.
•Potential benefits from retrofitting are also significant.
•Addressing known potentially hazardous building types that are present in large numbers maximizes risk reduction.
•A range of policy approaches can be combined into a program package.
•A range of incentives can help ease the process.
Alternative Policy Mechanisms and
Requirements
Inventory
Only Notify Only Voluntary
Retrofit
Disclosure
Measures
Mandatory
Screening
Mandatory
Evaluation
Mandatory
Retrofit
City staff,
consultants,
and/or a
volunteer
organization has
created an
inventory of one
or more
suspected
hazard building
types, but list is
not officially
released to the
public or been
acted upon.
An inventory
exists and a
policy has been
established to
notify owners if
their property is
on a suspected
hazard building
list.
Owners of
properties on a
publically
available list are
formally
encouraged to
retrofit, possibly
by offering of
technical
assistance,
financial help, or
policy
incentives.
Properties on a
publically
available list are
subject to one or
more methods of
forced
information
sharing, such as
tenant
notification,
public signage,
recorded notice
on the property
title.
Owners of
properties on a
publically
available list are
required to
submit a form
within a fixed
time window
that is filled out
by a licensed
building
professional.
Owners of
properties on a
publically
available list are
required submit
an evaluation
completed by a
licensed
engineer within
a fixed time
frame.
Owners of
properties on a
publically
available list are
required to
retrofit by a
certain date.
This step may be
implemented
following a
screening or
evaluation
phase.
Comparison of Policy Options for Palo Alto
Options Current 3
Categories
Soft Story
Wood Frame
Older
Concrete Older Tilt-Up
Older Steel
Moment
Frame
Mechanism Timeline
1: Status Quo Voluntary Retrofit Elapsed
2: Same Program,
More Types ? ? ? ? Voluntary Retrofit None
3: Same Program,
More Types, +
Disclosure ? ? ? ? Voluntary Retrofit
plus Disclosure None
4: More Types, Some
Triggered
Mandates ? ? ? ? Some mandatory
measures Triggered Events
5: More Types Some
Fixed Timeline
Mandates ? ? ? ? Some mandatory
measures Fixed Timeline
6: More Mandates,
All on Fixed
Timeline ? ? ? ? More mandatory
measures Fixed Timeline
Regulatory Strength
Inventory Only Strict Mandates
Sc
o
p
e
Fe
w
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
y
p
e
s
Mo
r
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
y
p
e
s
Santa Monica Burbank
Alameda
OPTION 1:
Status Quo
OPTION 3:
More Types
+ Disclosure
OPTION 2:
More Types
OPTION 4:
More Types,
Triggered
Mandates
Long Beach
Richmond
Albany
OPTION 6:
More Types,
More Mandates,
Fixed Timeline
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Fremont
Berkeley
Oakland
OPTION 5:
More Types,
Some Mandates,
Fixed Timeline
Palo Alto
Which Direction is Best for Palo Alto?
Digital data on all buildings of interest
Walking survey to collect further data for
about half those buildings, clustered by
sectors to improve sample rigor
•Palo Alto can now go one of two routes:
–Detailed field effort on remaining of buildings
to develop a comprehensive inventory list
–Use generic “building of interest” criteria then
have owners go through an extra screening
phase
Status of Palo Alto’s New Inventory
Key Additional Considerations
•Potential disclosure measures
•Types and sizes of incentives to offer
•Potential to integrate with other
disaster-related programs or initiate
an overall community resilience effort
•e.g., post-disaster rehabilitation ordinances or
re-occupancy program
Bundle 3—Signage
•Onsite-focused
•Some ongoing enforcement costs
•May draw public attention
•Owners fear more stigma than
may actually occur
Bundle 2—Community Awareness
•Tenant- and citizen- focused
•Some upfront and ongoing
enforcement costs
•Empowers informed decisions
Bundle 1—Basic Transparency
•Building owner-focused
•Some upfront and ongoing IT
costs
•Promotes information access
Disclosure Measures Vary in Strategy, Ease
of Implementation, and Effectiveness
More
Difficult to
Implement
DISCLOSURE MEASURES
Make the list more prominent on city website
Include compliance status on the city website
Record notice on title
Require tenant notification
Community events (e.g., forums, retrofit fairs)
Distribute educational materials
Require signage until retrofit is completed
Require signage in perpetuity
Encouraging or requiring use of building rating
systems
Easier to
Implement
City Websites and Online Lists Vary in
Sophistication, Content, and Format
Displayed or Downloadable PDFs
City of Alameda Soft-Story List
Includes Owner Names
Options for Informing the
Community
•Tenant Notification
is required in the
ordinances of
most Bay Area
soft-story wood
frame programs
City of San Francisco Soft-Story Wood
Frame Program Online Searchable Map
•Compliance status updated weekly
Retrofit Fairs
•Trade show style
event at Bill
Graham
auditorium
•One-stop-shop for
both ordinance
compliance and
service providers
•Open to the public
City of San Francisco Retrofit Fairs – 2014 and 2016
Broader Community Education Events
City of Berkeley Preparedness Fair – April 2016
Signage Examples City of San Francisco Non-Compliance
Sign for Wood Frame Soft-Story
City of Berkeley Required Sign for Wood
Frame Soft-Story
Example
Required URM
Building Sign
City Involvement in Use of Building
Rating Systems
•Similar strategy to
US GBC LEED
•City of Los
Angeles pledged
to implement for
its own buildings
Disclosure Measure Considerations
•Makes building characteristics more
visible and understandable
•Transparency, public’s right to know
•Increases the downsides of not
retrofitting (esp. in voluntary programs)
•Increases the benefits of retrofitting
•Relatively low cost to city
•Some initial resistance re: stigmatizing
Incentives Options: Basic Help
More
Difficult to
Implement
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES (direct money) POLICY INCENTIVES (indirect or in-kind)
Waivers or reductions of building
department fees
Property-Assessed Financing Loan (PACE*)
Other subsidized or special term loans
Real estate transfer tax rebates
Special district or historic designation tax
reductions
Tax credits
Grants
General obligation or special purpose
bonds
Exemption from future retrofit
requirements
Expedited permits, inspections, and
reviews
Exemptions or relief from standards or
non-conforming conditions
Technical assistance for owners on
navigating financing, compliance, and
project management issues
Zoning relief (e.g., setbacks, parking)
Density or intensity bonuses (e.g., FAR)
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Easier to
Implement
* PACE = Property Assessed Clean Energy
Type 1: Basic Help
Incentives: Facilitate Projects
More
Difficult to
Implement
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES (direct money) POLICY INCENTIVES (indirect or in-kind)
Waivers or reductions of building
department fees
Property-Assessed Financing Loan (PACE*)
Other subsidized or special term loans
Real estate transfer tax rebates
Special district or historic designation tax
reductions
Tax credits
Grants
General obligation or special purpose
bonds
Exemption from future retrofit
requirements
Expedited permits, inspections, and
reviews
Exemptions or relief from standards or
non-conforming conditions
Technical assistance for owners on
navigating financing, compliance, and
project management issues
Zoning relief (e.g., setbacks, parking)
Density or intensity bonuses (e.g., FAR)
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Easier to
Implement
* PACE = Property Assessed Clean Energy
Type 2: Project Facilitation
PACE = Property Assessed Clean
Energy, Now Available for Seismic
•AllianceNRG: https://www.alliancenrg.
com/retail/
•Cities statewide can opt in (Berkeley,
San Francisco)
•100% loan paid off through tax
increments over 20 years
•Backed by Deutche Bank
•Do owners really need it?
Incentives: Help Pay for Projects
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES (direct money) POLICY INCENTIVES (indirect or in-kind)
Waivers or reductions of building
department fees
Property-Assessed Financing Loan (PACE*)
Other subsidized or special term loans
Real estate transfer tax rebates
Special district or historic designation tax
reductions
Tax credits
Grants
General obligation or special purpose
bonds
Exemption from future retrofit
requirements
Expedited permits, inspections, and
reviews
Exemptions or relief from standards or
non-conforming conditions
Technical assistance for owners on
navigating financing, compliance, and
project management issues
Zoning relief (e.g., setbacks, parking)
Density or intensity bonuses (e.g., FAR)
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Easier to
Implement
Type 3: Deeper
Financial Assistance
Type 1: Basic Help
Incentive Options for Palo Alto
More
Difficult to
Implement
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES POLICY INCENTIVES
Waivers or reductions of building
department fees
Property-Assessed Financing Loan (PACE*)
Other subsidized or special term loans
Real estate transfer tax rebates
Special district or historic designation tax
reductions
Tax credits
Grants
General obligation or special purpose
bonds
Exemption from future retrofit
requirements
Expedited permits, inspections, and
reviews
Exemptions or relief from standards or
non-conforming conditions
Technical assistance for owners on
navigating financing, compliance, and
project management issues
Zoning relief (e.g., setbacks, parking)
Density or intensity bonuses (e.g., FAR)
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Easier to
Implement
Type 2: Project Facilitation
Type 3: Deeper
Financial Assistance
* PACE = Property Assessed Clean Energy
Policy Incentive Considerations
•Can relieve design challenges in what may
be complex projects
•Potential to compensate for project cost
through increased revenues or resale value
•Helps owners navigate unfamiliar terrain
and overcome barriers
•Shows a spirit of compromise
•Can be difficult to implement for all parties
5 Minute Stretch Break
Small Group Activity
•About four per group
•25 minutes
•Choose a scribe
•Discuss the five handout questions
•Project Team members are a resource
•Volunteer from each reports back to
the larger group
1.Which of the six policy options do you
most favor at this time?
2.Which building types do you think Palo
Alto should address?
–Top priorities
–Approximate timeframes
Discussion Questions: Program
Scope and Requirements
3.Which disclosure measures do you most
favor?
4.Which incentives do you most favor?
Discussion Questions: Program
Features
5.How in favor are you of recommending
that Palo Alto address other disaster
and broader community resilience
issues?
Discussion Questions: Looking to the
Future
Straw Poll Results
Meeting Wrap-Up and Follow-Ups
•Outcomes from today
•What will be added to the website
•Next steps
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Management Program
Advisory Committee Member
Rinconada Library (Embarcadero Room)
1213 Newell Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303
MEETING OBJECTIVES
• Advisory Group members discuss and compare details regarding the two most promising policy
directions
• Prepare list of points of agreement, further discussion needed, and plan for final report
AGENDA
Time Subject Lead
1:00 pm Welcome George Hoyt I
1:05 pm Project business and meeting·overview Bret Lizundia
• Review/approve minutes from 5/17/16 AG4
meeting
• Quick recap of ongoing activities and timeline
• Review meeting agenda and outcomes
1:15 pm Policy options overview and large group discussion: Bret Lizundia
• Building categories that reflect greatest potential
for aggregate risk reduction
• Preferred requirements for each
• Potential subcategories or priority tiers
• Appropriate timelines
2:30 pm Stretch Break
2:40 pm Large group discussion of additional policy features: Sharyl Rabinovici
• Highest potential disclosure measures
• Highest potential incentive measures
3:30 pm Meeting Wrap-Up All I Bret Lizundia
• Generate lists of draft conclusions and issues
requiring further discussion
• Next steps
4:00pm Adjourn
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #5
June 27, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
1 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Attendance By: George Hoyt (GH), Chief Building Official COPA
Evon Ballash (EB), Assistant Building Official COPA
James Henrikson (JH), Fire Marshal COPA
Meg Monroe (MM), Senior Planner COPA
Bret Lizundia (BL), Principal, Rutherford+Chekene (R+C)
Sharyl Rabinovic (SR), Sub Consultant to R+C
Rich Cody (RC), Cody Brock
Tom Holzer, USGS
Teresa Marks, Hudson Pacific
Roxy Rapp (RR), Developer
Ken Hayes (KH), Hayes Group
Annette Glanckopf, Community
Doug Hohbach (DH), Hohbach – Lewin
Jessica Epstein, Silvar, Policy
Minutes Prepared By: Evon Ballash
ITEMS DISCUSSION
Introduction/Project
Timeline
General:
Introduction by GH/BL: This is the last work session before that
final advisory meeting. The objectives of this meeting are to
review the previous straw poll results and policy framework
handout; refine policy options; and identify conclusions, points
of agreement, and issues warranting further attention.
Eventually, the Advisory Group effort will develop
recommendations for the City Council.
The Meeting #4 minutes were approved without comment.
BL reviewed timeline of the Advisory Group up to AG4. Draft
recommendations will be developed following the meeting, with
completion at the final AG6 meeting. There will not be a Policy
and Services review meeting. Rather, recommendations go
directly to the City Council in November or December.
Following the meeting, a 12/5/16 date for presentation to the
City Council was established.
Guiding Principles Palo Alto faces significant losses.
Potential benefits from retrofitting are also significant.
Addressing known potentially hazardous building types that are
present in large numbers in Palo Alto maximizes risk reduction.
Range of policy approaches can be considered for building
types that pose a worse than average risk and lend themselves
to available ordinances with engineering techniques adoptable
to retrofit.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #5
June 27, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
2 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Parameters for Comparing
Different Building Types to
Target
Review the number of affected buildings including multi-family
residential units and commercial.
The impacted areas are distributed all over town. There are no
areas of high concern.
Broad implications for collapse prevention, losses avoided, the
retrofit costs incurred, and the average loss avoided/retrofit cost
ratio
Potential Further Study Areas not covered in this study but that might be considered by
the City in the future include:
· Historic buildings in each building type category and whether
they should have special requirements in an updated
ordinance.
· Parking implications: the loss of parking spaces caused by
retrofitting, either temporarily during construction or
permanently.
· Small businesses that are impacted by seismic retrofits, loss
of business, as well as improvements in speed of recovery.
· Renter impacts: displacement during construction, rental
rate increases, vacancy rates.
Policy Framework Six possible package options:
1. Status quo
2. Add more building types to the scope, but retrofit remains
voluntary
3. Add more disclosure measures
4. Add triggered mandates, such as when a building is sold or
undergoes substantial renovation
5. Add mandated, fixed timelines for selected building types
6. More building types, mandates, fixed timelines, everything
included (e.g., S.F., L.A.)
Straw poll strongly favored Option #5, with some for Option #3
and none for Option #1.
Option #3 discussion: Complete the URM retrofit program;
address the soft-story wood frame buildings.
Will tenants be displaced for soft-story retrofits? BL: Retrofit
ordinances focus on the soft-story deficiency at the ground floor
parking level. As a result, most of the retrofit work can be done
at the ground story without affecting the living areas above.
There will be some noise and dust, and temporary loss of
parking. There is less amount of disruption to occupants with
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #5
June 27, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
3 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
this building category than other building categories.
There is Advisory Group support for enhancing disclosure
measures and incentives.
Topics Discussed Which building type categories to add to the program.
The extent of mandatory requirements for each new category.
Whether residential (multi-family) or non-residential buildings
should have different requirements.
General timelines for retrofitting.
Second handout shows a Comparison of Selected Categories:
Column 4 “Number of Housing Units” was added to address
questions and concerns from the Advisory Group
Category IV: Soft-Story Woodframe (SSWF) Buildings:
Inventory of 294 buildings and 2001 housing units.
Includes building types W1 (smaller residential), W1a (larger
multi-family residential), and W2 (commercial).
Large losses of $244M for M7.9 earthquake event
Loss avoided if retrofitted was $172M.
The average loss avoided divided by the average retrofit cost
was 4:1 and is considered comparatively high.
Category V: Pre-1988 Tilt-up Buildings:
Inventory of 99 buildings with no housing units.
Located mostly in south Palo Alto
Harder to retrofit than the woodframe buildings.
Losses of $327M with loss avoided if retrofitted of $218M
Average loss avoided / average cost ratio is 3:1.
Category VI: Pre-1977 Concrete Soft-Story Buildings:
Inventory of 37 buildings and 42 housing units.
Losses of $125M with loss avoided if retrofitted of $108M
Average loss avoided / average cost ratio is 3:1.
Category VII: Pre-1998 steel moment frame
Inventory of 35 buildings and 85 housing units.
Losses of $105M with loss avoided if retrofitted of $76M
Highest average loss avoided / average retrofit cost ratio of 11:1
due to loss retrofit cost assumed. Actual ratio likely to be lower.
Category VIII: Other pre-1977 concrete buildings:
This category was added, in part because the City of L.A. has
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #5
June 27, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
4 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
an ordinance.
Which buildings are the worst performers in this overall category
can be difficult to quickly identify and is currently the subject of
on-going study.
25 year timeline to retrofit in L.A.
BL recommends only Categories IV – VII be considered at this time.
Policy Discussion Due to meeting time, only the soft-story wood frame buildings were
discussed in detail. Other potential building categories will be
discussed at the final meeting.
Type IV: SSWF buildings
Usage: Residential vs. non-residential
Size: Area, number of occupants or units.
W1- inventory of 175 units. How many are 50 units or less? BL
approximately 20%.
1st step: Notification from Building Department that the building
has been identified as a potential soft-story woodframe building.
2nd step: Short, inexpensive screening form completed by a
design professional to confirm the building is in fact a soft story
and woodframe structure and thus subject to the ordinance.
3rd step: Structural evaluation to determine if structure is o.k.
The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) standard can
be used for evaluation as well as retrofit. Current version is the
2015 IEBC. Other possibilities are ASCE 41-13 or FEMA P-
807. All three are permitted in San Francisco as part of their
soft-story wood frame ordinance.
SR: $2,000 - $5,000 estimated cost for seismic evaluation in
Berkeley. It was cheaper to develop plans for mandatory retrofit
than a structural evaluation and retrofit plan.
There was concern for tenant displacement and cost pass-
through for retrofits. Renter impacts include: will they have to
move-out, e.g. ave cost/s.f. and number unit $10/unit over 10
year, could be written as an ordinance.
What about SSWF and URM building that already have been voluntarily
retrofitted after the retrofit ordinance has been passed:
How to address past partial retrofit conditions and what is fair.
Would a structural evaluation by the owner provided to the
building department be sufficient?
Ordinance should define retrofit scope.
Rating System through USRC, U.S. Resiliency Council
Following an evaluation, the building receives a rating related to
several seismic risk metrics
Non-profit organization, similar to USGBC, LEED.
Possibility of influencing market for rental rates, insurance
premiums lowered, etc.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #5
June 27, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
5 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
BL/KH ask Advisory Group: How many are in favor of woodframe soft-
story retrofits?
11 in favor.
0 oppose.
1 abstains.
Advisory Group Discussion:
PACE program is available to help finance retrofits and there is
some interest.
SSWF buildings should have mandatory retrofit.
Loss of life concern has compelling concerns for mandates to
retrofit.
Population of Palo Alto is approximately 67,000. 5 -10% of the
population could be displaced from SSWF.
Risk to life is smaller in SSWF buildings
Cost of displacement is much higher in SSWF
Loss of housing stock in post-earthquake event, usually the
most affordable units are impacted, due to lower quality
construction.
Will the cost of retrofit be fair to landlords or will it impose an
undue burden?
Level of incentives can help to level the playing field.
RR comments that structural evaluation will inform the owner
and tenants the building’s risks and may help the city to justify
more action to be taken.
Structural report may not have influence on insurance
companies.
If a rating system is available, this may affect bank lenders.
GH comments that the Building Division currently has a Class 1
ISO rating in part because of the existing seismic mitigation
ordinance.
SR comments that currently there is no insurance benefit for
retrofits.
The City of Berkeley ordinance requires a seismic evaluation
and a cost estimate.
DH advocated use of mandatory triggers, such as when there is
a change of use, a sale or a substantial renovation that costs
more than 50% of the replacement cost of the building
BL explained San Francisco had a cumulative cost trigger
where all previous renovation work was included as well. The
Advisory Group did not support this due to the difficulty of
enforcement and administration.
Advisory Group non-staff members were polled: “How many agree on
mandatory SSWF retrofit?” and “How many support mandatory
triggers?” There were 7 non-staff members present. One consistently
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #5
June 27, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
6 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
abstained, leaving 6 “voting.” Synthesis of results is as follows:
Option 3 (mandatory evaluation, voluntary retrofit, disclosure,
incentives): 6 support at least doing this.
Option 4 (mandatory evaluation, retrofits triggered on sale or
substantial renovation): 4 support going this far, 2 prefer not
stay at Option 3
Option 5 (mandatory evaluation and retrofit): 2 of the remaining
4 support going this; the other 2 do not
Option 6: zero.
Discussion on polled results:
Mandatory triggers were useful in past ordinance.
Advisory Group suggests mandatory retrofits on low hanging
fruit, i.e., building types that have the lowest average cost to
retrofit
SR comments that triggers are a stop-gap measure to a
mandatory retrofit. A mandatory evaluation with a trigger would
be an intermediate measure.
Disclosure Measures Bundle 1—Basic Transparency: Inventory lists and information
are readily available for owners on websites.
· A pdf list that is downloadable from city website
· Interactive and/or searchable map
· Monthly updates on pdf list
· Only the property address should be shown, rather than the
owner’s name
· List SSWF on deed and title search
· Post list after mandatory screening
· Staff time concern to support and maintain posting
Bundle 2—Community Awareness: Public inventory lists are
focused on tenants and citizens, such as tenant notification
forms to be signed and on file with the city.
· Obtaining signatures is difficult. The Advisory Group does
not support this.
· Passive notification at time of rental lease signing may be
simpler
Bundle 3: Onsite signage on buildings with seismic hazards.
Example signs can be multi-lingual. Also includes building
rating systems.
Advisory Group preferences on disclosure measures:
Notice on title: low interest
Tenant notification: strong interest for passive only approach
Community events, involvement, and awareness: good support,
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #5
June 27, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
7 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
should repeat every few years
Required signage following building evaluation, implement only
later if retrofit is not undertaken: low to moderate interest.
Benefits are less clear.
Incentives Who will these measures help: residential or commercial
owners?
Use housing inventory list element, for preferred density sites to
increase FAR, if community benefits are provided.
What about SSWF that are condominium developments that
need financial help or multi-family buildings with low-equity
owners?
PACE loans are paid through real estate taxes. Most banks will
not allow transferrable PACE loans for refinancing.
More incentives are needed on a shorter timeline.
Advisory Group preferences on incentives:
Fee waiver or expedited review for SSWF and to include
residential and commercial: high interest.
FAR bonuses that are transferrable: high interest for residential
Parking bonus for when dimensional changes reduces density:
low interest
PACE – like loan program: sounds good, but there was low
interest on the 8% rate.
Meeting Wrap-Up SR: We obtained enough information from AG4 and AG5
meetings to develop draft language for recommendations
RC: Needs more buy-in from Advisory Group in the next
meeting that decisions will be made.
BL: The final AG6 meeting will focus on discussing the
approach to be take with the remaining building categories
City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management Program
Advisory Group Meeting #5
June 27, 2016
AG1
AG2
- Recap Palo Alto policies
- State legislative review
- Local policy review
- Inventory/loss estimate
plans
AG6
Council
Reviews
Rec’s
- Introductions
- Project overview
- Policy questions
12/16/15 1/27/16
Survey
Losses
w/o Retrofit
Purpose of Advisory Group
To review and discuss implications of
the project's technical findings and
provide input about community
concerns, priorities, and preferences.
Before Meeting
•AG4 minutes
and straw poll
results
•AG5 handout
At Meeting
•Refine policy options
•Identify conclusions, points of
agreement, and issues
warranting further attention
3/17/16
AG4
5/16/16 August
AG5
6/27/16
-Integration with
overall disaster
program
-Finalize rec’s
Draft
Recommendations
Nov/Dec
Losses
w/ Retrofit Task 3
Report
- Inventory/unretrofitted
loss estimate
- Local program goals,
effectiveness, and
options
Retrofit Concept/
Estimate
Task 2
Report
AG3
- Retrofitted loss estimate/
cost-benefit comparison
- Introduce policy, incentive,
and disclosure options
- Discuss potential policies
Materials for
Council
Project and Advisory Group
Process Status
•Review of minutes from 5/16/16 AG4 meeting
•Seismic Risk Management Program Website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/s
rmag.asp
–Added content includes presentation slides and
minutes from last meeting plus Task 3 report on
local program best practices
Guiding Principles
•Palo Alto faces significant losses.
•Potential benefits from retrofitting are also
significant.
•Addressing known potentially hazardous
building types that are present in large numbers
maximizes risk reduction.
•A range of policy approaches can be
combined into a program package.
•A range of disclosure measures and incentives
can help stimulate and ease the process.
Parameters for Comparing Different
Building Types to Target
•Number of affected buildings,
residential units, commercial tenants
•Impacted locations in community
•Broad implications for:
–Collapse prevention
–Losses avoided
–Retrofit costs incurred
–Average loss avoided/retrofit cost ratio
Potential Further Study
•Implications for:
–Parking
–Historic preservation and aesthetics
–Small business losses, recovery, and
retention
–Business recovery and retention
–Renter impacts—rental rates, vacancy
–Resident recovery and retention
Regulatory Strength
Inventory Only Strict Mandates
Sc
o
p
e
Fe
w
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
y
p
e
s
Mo
r
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
y
p
e
s
Santa Monica Burbank
Alameda
OPTION 1:
Status Quo
OPTION 3:
More Types
+ Disclosure
OPTION 2:
More Types
OPTION 4:
More Types,
Triggered
Mandates
Long Beach
Richmond
Albany
OPTION 6:
More Types,
More Mandates,
Fixed Timeline
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Fremont
Berkeley
Oakland
OPTION 5:
More Types,
Some Mandates,
Fixed Timeline
Palo Alto
Possible Directions for Palo Alto
Narrowing in on a Recommended
Direction
•Little to no support for the status quo
•Support existed for:
–Resolving buildings already in program,
particularly URM buildings
–Addressing more building types,
particularly soft story woodframe
–Including some mandatory requirements
–Utilizing a variety of disclosure measures
and incentives
Still Needing Discussion
•Which building types (categories) to
add to the program
•Extent of mandatory requirements for
each new category
•Possibly different requirements for
residential vs. non-residential
•Appropriate timelines
•Which disclosure and incentive
measures to focus on
Policy Option 3: Beyond Soft Story Woodframe, Which Categories Also Warrant Voluntary Measures? (p. 5 in Handout)
Category Approx. Building Type Date of Occupants Mandatory Deadlines for Disclosure Incentives
Number Construction or Report/
Voluntary Construction
(years)
Current Program (Potential Revision in /111/ics)
I 10 URM NA Over 6 (and Voluntary Report: Expired Website FAR bonus/
over 1900 Const: Not Req. listing. notice TDR
sf) 011 title. fVaiver on
[I 4 Any Before 1935 Over 100 Voluntary Report: Expired ten am fees.
Const: Not Rea. not/ficatio11. exemption
Ill 9 Any Before 8/1 /76 Over 300 Voluntary Report: Expired community from fi1111re
Const: Not Rcq. evems. requirements, dis1ribute expedited educatit>11al
nwrerials permit/
review.
parking
bom,s/TDR
Expanded Program
rv 294 Soft story woodfrnme Before 1977 \ny Voluntary Repon:4 Same as Same as
Const: Not Rc<J. above'? above'?
V 99 Tilt-up Before 1998 l'.ny Voluntary Report: 6 Ditto Ditto
Const: Not Req.
Vl 37 Soft story concn:te Before 1977 l\ny Voluntary Repor1: 8
Const: Not Rcq.
Dit10 Dit10
vu 35 Steel moment frame Before 1998 ~ny Voluntary Rcpon: I 0 Ditto Ditto
Const: Not Rcq.
Vlll TBD Other older Before 1977 l'.ny Voluntary Report: 25 Ditto Ditto
nonductile concrete Const: Not Rcq.
Policy Option 5: Which Additional Categories Warrant Mandatory or
Voluntary Measures?(p. 6 in Handout)
Category Approx. Building Type Date of Occupants Mandatory Deadlines for Disclosure Incentives
Number Const.ruction or ReporU
Voluntary Construction
(years)
Current Program (Revisions in Red)
l 10 URM NA Over 6 (and Mandatory Report: Expired Website FAR bonus/
over 1900 Const: 6 listing. notice TOR
sf) 011 title. ~Vaiver on
n 4 Any Before 1935 Over 100 Voluntary Report: Expired tenant fees.
Const: Not Rea. 11otiflcatio11. exemption
lU 9 Any Before 8/1/76 Over 300 Volunt'Jry Report: Expired commrmity from fi, I II re
Const: Not Rcq. eveuf.(;, requireme111s, distribute expedited educarional
materials permit/
review.
parking
bonus!TDR
Exp,mded Pmgram
JV 294 Soft Story woodfrnme Before 1977 Any Mandatory ,eport: 4 Same as Same as
~onst: 10 above'? above'?
V 99 Tilt-up Before 1998 Any Voluntary cport:6 Ditto Ditto
~onst: Not Rcq.
Vl 37 Soft stocy concrete Before 1977 Any Voluntary cport: 8
~onst: Not R.eq.
Ditto Ditto
VII 35 Steel moment frame Before 1998 Any Voluntary cport: 10 Ditto Ditto
"onst: Not Req.
Vlll TBD Other older Before 1977 Any Voluntacy eport: 25 Ditto Ditto
nonductile concrete ~onsl: Not Rcq.
Comparison of Selected Categories
Takeaways:
•Categories IV-VII have higher benefit-to-cost ratios than the
average types and a substantial number of buildings.
•Category VIII, without a focus on nonductile characteristics,
has an average benefit-to-cost ratio.
Which Building Categories to Target
•Issues for each potential category:
–Whether to add the category to the
current ordinance scope
–Whether the category should be
mandatory or voluntary
–Whether the category characteristics
should be refined/defined by
•Usage (such as residential vs. non-residential)
•Size (such as square footage, occupants, or
units)
Which Building Categories to Target
•IV: Pre-1977 woodframe soft story
•V: Pre-1998 tilt-up
•VI: Pre-1977 concrete soft story
•VII: Pre-1998 steel moment frame
•VIII: Other pre-1998 concrete
Which Building Categories to Target
•Should comprehensive upgrades be
required for past partial retrofits of
buildings in mandatory category?
–Example: URM building with parapet
strengthening and roof-to-wall ties, but no
other retrofit work like out-of-plane wall
bracing, in-plane wall strengthening, or
diaphragm strengthening.
Policy Option 3: What Are Appropriate Timelines for Additional Voluntary Measures?
Category Approx. Building Type Date of Occupants Mandatory Deadlines for Disclosure Incentives
Number Construction or Report/
Voluntary Construction
(years)
Current Program (Potential Revision in /111/ics)
I 10 URM NA Over 6 (and Voluntary Report: Expired Website FAR bonus/
over 1900 Const: Not Req. listing. notice TDR
sf) 011 title. fVaiver on
[I 4 Any Before 1935 Over 100 Voluntary Report: Expired ten am fees.
Const: Not Rea. not/ficatio11. exemption
Ill 9 Any Before 8/1 /76 Over 300 Voluntary Report: Expired community from fi1111re Const: Not Rcq. evems. requirements, dis1ribute expedited educatit>11al
nwrerials permit/
review.
parking
bom,s/TDR
Expanded Program
rv 294 Soft story woodfrnme Before 1977 Any Voluntary Repon:4 S· h1e as Same as
Const: Not Rc<J. a pve'? above'?
V 99 Tilt-up Before 1998 Any Voluntary Report: 6 D to Ditto
Const: Not Req.
Vl 37 Soft story concn:te Before 1977 Any Voluntary Repor1: 8
Const: Not Rcq.
D 10 Dit10
vu 35 Steel moment frame Before 1998 Any Voluntary Rcpon: I 0 D to Ditto
Const: Not Rcq.
Vlll TBD Other older Before 1977 Any Voluntary Report: 25 D to Ditto
nonductile concrete Const: Not Rcq.
Policy Option 5: What Are Appropriate Timelines for Mandatory Measures?
Category Approx. Building Type Date of Occupants Mandato , Deadlines for [ ~closure Incentives
Number Const.ruction or ReporU
Voluntar Construction
(years)
Current Program (Revisions in Red)
l 10 URM NA Over 6 (and Mandato, Report: Expired JI ibsite FAR bonus/
over 1900 Const: 6 Ii ing. notice TOR
sf) 0 title. ~Vaiver on
n 4 Any Before 1935 Over 100 Voluntari Report: Expired /~ ant fees.
Const: Not Rea. II ~iflcatio11. exemption
lU 9 Any Before 8/1/76 Over 300 Volunt'Jry Report: Expired c, mnrmity from fi, I II re
Const: Not Rcq. e lmts. requireme111s, d tribute expedited e, 1carional permit/ II teria/s review.
parking
bonus!TDR
Exp,mded Pmgram
JV 294 Soft Story woodfrnme Before 1977 Any Mandator Report: 4 s 11e as Same as
Const: 10 a pvc'? above'?
V 99 Tilt-up Before 1998 Any Voluntar} Report: 6 C no Ditto
Const: Not Rcq.
Vl 37 Soft stocy concrc1c Before 1977 Any Volun1ar Report: 8 LJ tto Ditto
Const: Not Req.
VII 35 Steel moment frame Before 1998 Any Voluntary Report: 10
Const: Not Req.
LJ tto Ditto
Vlll TBD Other older Before 1977 Any Voluntary Report: 25 C no Ditto
nonductile concrete Const: Not Rcq.
Timeline Possibilities
•Compliance milestones:
–Submit a screening form
–Submit an evaluation report
–Submit drawings for permit
–Complete the work
•Often several subcategories or priority
tiers are set up with phased timelines
–# units, use, # stories, soil conditions
–Higher risk to life usually is done first
Approaches to Soft Story Woodframe
Jurisdiction # of Soft-story
Buildings Program Type Targeted Building
Characteristics Priorities or Tiers
Deadline
for
Evaluation
Deadline
for
Permit
Deadline
for
Completion
Los
Angeles
unknown
Mandatory
Evaluation
leading to
mandatory
retrofit
Pre-1978 wood-frame
structures with soft, weak or
open front first floor
conditions with two or more
stories and five or more
units. Only enforcement is
prioritized by tiers
Priority I - Buildings
containing 16 or more
dwelling units
1 year 2 years 7 years
Priority II - Buildings with
three stories or more,
containing fewer than 16
dwelling units
Priority III - Buildings not
falling within the
definition of Priority I or
II
San
Francisco
2,800
Mandatory
evaluation
leading to
mandatory
retrofit
Wood frame construction
with five or more residential
units and two or more
stories with permit for
construction submitted
prior to January 1, 1978 and
five or more units
Tier I - educational,
assembly, or residential
care facility uses
1.5 years 2.5 years 4.5 years
Tier II - 15 or more
dwelling units
2.5 years 3.5 years 5.5 years
Tier III - Any building not
falling within another
tier
3.5 years 4.5 years 6.5 years
Tier IV - ground floor
commercial uses
4.5 years 5.5 years 7.5 years
Approaches to Soft Story Woodframe
Jurisdiction # of Soft-story
Buildings Program Type Targeted Building
Characteristics Priorities or Tiers Deadline for
Evaluation
Deadline
for Permit
Deadline for
Completion
Oakland 1,380 Mandatory Screening
(passed 2009)
leading to mandatory
retrofit
Pre-1985 multi-family
wood frame
structures with five or
more units
n/a
Berkeley 310 (at time of
2005 ordinance)
Mandatory
evaluation law
(2005) leading to
mandatory retrofit
(2014)
Multi-family wood
frame structures with
five or more units
n/a 2 years
(under
previous
soft-story
evaluation
ordinance)
2 years 4 years
Alameda 70 Mandatory
evaluation
Five or more units n/a 2 years
Fremont 22 Mandatory retrofit Apartment house with
more than ten units or
more than two stories
Group 1 -
Apartment house
with more than
ten units or more
than two stories
n/a 2 years 4 years
Group II -
Apartment house
with ten or less
units and fewer
than three stories
high
n/a 2.5 years 5 years
Existing Approaches to Older Concrete
Jurisdiction
# Older
Concrete
Buildings
Program Type Targeted Building
Characteristics
Deadlines
Screening Evaluation Completion
Los Angeles ~1500 Fixed timeline
mandatory
evaluation
leading to
mandatory
retrofit
Pre-1976 tilt-ups and
nonductile concrete
3 years 10 years 25 years
Santa
Monica
~173 Triggered
mandatory
evaluation
leading to
mandatory
retrofit
Pre-1978 nonductile
concrete
n/a 275 days 1 to 4 years
depending on
priority tiers
Long Beach ~396 Voluntary
guidance
Nonductile concrete n/a
Burbank ~132 Voluntary
guidance
Commercial pre-1977
reinforced concrete
and concrete frame
buildings with
masonry infill
n/a
10 Minute Stretch Break
Bundle 3—Signage
•Onsite-focused
•Some ongoing enforcement costs
•May draw public attention
•Owners fear more stigma than
may actually occur
Bundle 2—Community Awareness
•Tenant- and citizen- focused
•Some upfront and ongoing
enforcement costs
•Empowers informed decisions
Bundle 1—Basic Transparency
•Building owner-focused
•Some upfront and ongoing IT
costs
•Promotes information access
Disclosure Measures Vary in Strategy, Ease
of Implementation, and Effectiveness
More
Difficult to
Implement
DISCLOSURE MEASURES
Make the list more prominent on city website
Include compliance status on the city website
Record notice on title
Require tenant notification
Community events (e.g., forums, retrofit fairs)
Distribute educational materials
Require signage until retrofit is completed
Require signage in perpetuity
Encouraging or requiring use of building rating
systems
Easier to
Implement
Possible Directions for Use of
Disclosure
•Strong support for transparency and
community awareness measures
•Support for requiring signage was lower
and contingent on type of program,
type of building, content, and timing
Disclosure Measure Questions
•Notice on title
•Tenant notification
•Community events and public
education?
•Require signage?
–If so, when? (e.g., only for voluntary
categories after a period of time without
retrofit)
•Rating system
Type 1: Basic Help
Incentive Options for Palo Alto
More
Difficult to
Implement
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES POLICY INCENTIVES
Waivers or reductions of building
department fees
Property-Assessed Financing Loan (PACE*)
Other subsidized or special term loans
Real estate transfer tax rebates
Special district or historic designation tax
reductions
Tax credits
Grants
General obligation or special purpose
bonds
Exemption from future retrofit
requirements
Expedited permits, inspections, and
reviews
Exemptions or relief from standards or
non-conforming conditions
Technical assistance for owners on
navigating financing, compliance, and
project management issues
Zoning relief (e.g., setbacks, parking)
Density or intensity bonuses (e.g., FAR)
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Easier to
Implement
Type 2: Project Facilitation
Type 3: Deeper
Financial Assistance
* PACE = Property Assessed Clean Energy
Possible Directions on Incentives
•Basic assistance viewed favorably but not as
especially helpful
•Little support for major bond initiative or
special districting
•Strongest interest was in project facilitation
measures, particularly policy incentives
–Zoning relief, transfer of development rights, floor
area bonus
Which Incentive Measures Would Be
Most Feasible and Effective?
•Fee waiver or expedited review
•Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus
•Parking bonus
•Transfer of development rights (TDR)
•Need for PACE-like loan program
Meeting Wrap-Up and Follow-Ups
•Outcomes from
today
•Next steps
Comparison of Selected Categories
Takeaways:
•Categories IV-VII have higher benefit-to-cost ratios than the
average types and a substantial number of buildings.
•Category VIII, without a focus on nonductile characteristics,
has an average benefit-to-cost ratio.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #6
Aug 15, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
1 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Attendance By: George Hoyt (GH), Chief Building Official COPA
Evon Ballash (EB), Assistant Building Official COPA
Meg Monroe (MM), Senior Planner COPA
Nathan Rainey (NR), OES Coordinator COPA
Bret Lizundia (BL), Principal, Rutherford+Chekene (R+C)
Sharyl Rabinovici (SR), Subconsultant to R+C
Anil Babbar (AB), CAA
Dana Brechwald (DB), ABAG
Rich Cody (RC), Cody Brock
Doug Hohbach (DH), Hohbach – Lewin
Tom Holzer (TH), USGS
Teresa Marks (TM), Hudson Pacific
Roxy Rapp (RR), Developer
Minutes Prepared By: Evon Ballash
ITEMS DISCUSSION
Introduction General:
Introduction by GH/BL: This is the last advisory meeting. The
objectives of this meeting are to discuss the Seismic Risk
Management Advisory Group (SRMAG) draft status report
summary and complete the Advisory Group review of the
remaining building types.
Meeting #5 minutes were approved without comments.
Program Timeline The timeline and purpose of the Advisory Group was discussed.
After this meeting, the SRMAG draft report summary will be
updated for review by the SRMAG.
The SRMAG report summary will be included in the documents
the City Council receives for their Dec. 5th meeting.
Council packet is due six (6) weeks prior to the meeting.
The packet will be available to the public and the SRMAG 1-2
weeks prior on the website.
This meeting will discuss:
Draft report summary
Policy options for tilt-up buildings, soft story concrete buildings
and other non-ductile concrete buildings, and older steel
moment frame buildings.
Guiding Principles Possible directions: Consensus was to go beyond the status
quo:
Options 3, 4, 5: Had the most preference
Definitions:
Option 3: Voluntary measures
Option 4: Triggered measures e.g., at the time of sale or when
there is a substantial renovation
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #6
Aug 15, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
2 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Option 5: Mandatory measures with timelines for survey report
start and complete work.
RR: What are the relative risks to life for URM, soft-story wood
frame (SSWF), and tilt-up?
BL: URM buildings are the most risky building type both from
the threat to life safety and to property damage. Certain subsets
of wood frame buildings have increased risk, e.g. SSWF where
there is significantly increased risk of damage or collapse at the
weak and flexible ground story. In older tilt-up buildings, the
primary concern is inadequate connections between the roof
and floor diaphragms and the concrete wall which can lead to
the walls falling outward and partial collapse.
Large Group Discussion on
Building Categories,
Timelines and Incentives
SR: Incentives for policy and financial:
Type 1: Basic help
Type 2: COPA to could consider using PACE loans; there is
mixed data on desirability of TDR or FAR bonuses. High
interest as motivation for voluntary measures; this would ease
the burden of mandatory measures.
RR: Concerned that mandatory or retrofit without incentives
would not be successful or well received by developers and
contractors.
SR: Work on a matrix of building types with incentives to reduce
risk.
GH: Would prefer at a minimum that a mandatory seismic
evaluation is required for all potentially hazardous building
types.
TM: Prefers a menu of incentives for multi-family and
commercial instead of a matrix.
GH: An incentive could be exemptions or relief from standard or
non-conforming conditions from a planning perspective.
DB: Brings up San Francisco Chronicle newspaper article on
the progress of San Francisco’s mandatory soft-story wood
frame ordinance where converting ground story parking to
occupied space was noted as an important development and
incentive.
BL: This could be done in Palo Alto as well.
RC: Focus on owners of SSWF to encourage them to retrofit.
RC: Also focus on those who don’t care or can’t afford
retrofitting without some form of assistance or incentive.
DH: URM retrofitting should be mandatory, and SSWF may
have softer language.
DH: TDR or FAR would be very productive, but stay within the
same occupancy and building types. City Council may not be
favorable to increase in commercial density.
BL: What is the approximate market value of TDR? Group
suggested that if a property has a $1000/sf value for the land
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #6
Aug 15, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
3 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
and building, with the land at $400/sf and the building at
$600/sf, that the TDR might be half of the building value or
$300/sf.
DH: Consider a trigger threshold of say 50% of market value.
Thus, if the renovation were more than $250/sf for a building
with a replacement cost of $500/sf, it would exceed the
substantial renovation trigger.
RR: URM commercial buildings will not attract Class A tenants
TM: Parking relief is not attractive to renters and tenants.
BL: Loss estimate in the project scope only considers property
damage. If an estimate were to monetize loss of life and loss of
use, then the benefit-to-cost ratio would increase.
RR: Those owners that have not retrofitted that receive the most
benefits will not be well received by the community.
SR: 1:5 homeowners think that their insurance covers
earthquake damage.
BL: PML (Probable Maximum Loss) evaluations are used in the
banking world. When the PML loss is greater than 20% of
replacement value, it may be difficult to get a loan.
RR: Landlord incentives would be lower insurance and better
tenants.
RC: Absentee owners may not be aware of incentives. The
voluntary program may not be as effective.
RR: Voluntary program is only effective for the progressive
owners with interest in renovation.
RR: There are many owners in Palo Alto who inherited property
and they just want to keep the property as it is and maintain the
current rent stream.
SR: City of Berkeley had a 2-phase retrofit program:
1st phase: voluntary with more incentives
2nd phase: mandatory with less incentives
TM: This sounds promising.
BL: This is similar to Option 5 with declining incentives.
RC: Should come up with a cost range for seismic evaluations.
SR: In Berkeley, a $2,000 – $12,000 range for soft-story
engineering evaluation was reported. It was often found to be
cost effective to combine the evaluation with the final retrofit
design.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #6
Aug 15, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
4 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
Large Group Discussion on
Category V: Tilt-Up
Buildings
BL: Tilt-up buildings include approximately 100 buildings in Palo
Alto. Many are located east of Highway 101 or just west of 101
and north of San Antonio Road, and are mostly commercial
buildings with offices. The focus is on older buildings that
include pre-1998 construction. There was significant damage in
San Fernando Valley in Northridge earthquake and the building
code was upgraded in 1997 to improve performance,
particularly with the connections between the perimeter walls
and the roof and floors. The tilt-up building category contains a
large overall square footage value.
DH: Are the 2-3 story tilt-ups as dangerous as the one-story tilt-
ups that were damaged in the San Fernando and Northridge
Earthquakes?
BL: Good question. Details of the floor-to-wall connections in
these multi-story tilt-ups would be a key feature of an
engineering seismic evaluation.
RC: Tilt-up buildings can be retrofitted with the building
occupied.RC: Foresees 50% of new owners retrofitting tilt-up
buildings. A common scenario is taking a warehouse and
converting it to a start-up, where the occupant density
increases. Thus, while the building hazard is similar, the risk to
life safety has increased.
TM: Tilt-up buildings should have mandatory screening with
voluntary measures.
BL: Substantial could be a trigger, such as Option 4.DH:
Without triggers, owners may not be fully aware of inherent
risks. Previously, the building code had a cost trigger that was
50% of the replacement cost. The Engineering News Record
(ENR) cost was used, and for Palo Alto it is too low.
BL: Group consensus is there is strong interest in retrofitting tilt-
ups because there is a large overall square footage in the
category, the retrofit cost is comparatively low, there is
substantial renovation work that could be leveraged, and
exposure is increasing as a result of the conversions.
Large Group Discussion on
Category VI: Soft Story
Concrete Buildings
BL: The concrete soft-story building category focuses on older
(pre-1977) buildings before certain detailing provisions were
added to the code and that have a weak or flexible ground story
which can have an increased likelihood of collapse. The
category includes 42 housing units. These buildings can be
expensive and not so easy to retrofit. Substantial retrofit
requires the building to be vacant.
GH: Building Official’s perspective would want mandatory
screening and evaluation.
SR: It is important to recognize the difference between
screening and an engineering evaluation and the different
associated costs.
Seismic Advisory Group
Meeting #6
Aug 15, 2016
1 – 4 pm
Rinconada Library
MEETING MINUTES – SEISMIC RISK
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
5 Seismic Risk Management Project | City of Palo Alto
BL: Screening can be a one-page form to be confirmed and/or
completed by typically an architect or engineer for a nominal
cost. An engineering evaluation would be more detailed, and
can vary significantly depending on the type of building and the
scope of services. It may include document review, finish
removal to investigate building details, material testing, and
calculations to standards such as the International Existing
Building Code (IEBC) or ASCE 41.
RR: Planning review is the most difficult and time consuming to
approve, “Time is money”.
RR: Provide expedited planning review for building permits as
an incentive.
Large Group Discussion on
Category VII: Steel Moment
Frame Buildings
BL: Category VII: Pre-1998 steel moment frame buildings had
unforeseen serious damage in the Northridge Earthquake. As a
result, there were code changes to the 1997 building codes to
address these concerns. These buildings have the highest
benefit to cost ratio for seismic retrofitting. There are
approximately 85 residential units in the estimated 35 buildings.
However, these buildings are difficult to screen as the structural
beam and column framing members are under fire-proofing
coatings and gypsum board coverings. These buildings are
generally one to five stories in height.
DB: Good candidate for voluntary retrofit due to the high benefit-
to-cost ratio and relative ease to retrofit.
Large Group Discussion on
Category VIII: Other Older
Non-Ductile Concrete
Buildings
BL: Category VIII: Older Pre-1977 concrete buildings. New
information shows that the performance for many of these
buildings may be better than expected. Due to the lack of
inexpensive analytical methods for reliably identifying the worst
of these buildings, inclusion of this building category in an
updated ordinance is not recommended at this time. Such
buildings could be included in the future when such analytical
methods have been developed in the engineering community.
Advisory Group concurred.
Meeting Wrap-Up BL: Based on discussions, mandatory retrofit is preferred for
remaining URMs, there is high interest in retrofitting SSWF and
relatively high interest in retrofitting tilt-up buildings particularly
those undergoing conversions, there is some interest in
retrofitting soft story concrete buildings and older steel moment
frames. Incentives are desired.
SR: An update of the SRMAG memo will incorporate Advisory
Group input and be issued for review after the meeting.
SR: The City may wish to include an Advisory Group member
as a speaker during the presentation to Council on December 5.
City of Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Management Program
Advisory Group Meeting #6
August 15, 2016
AG1
AG2
- Recap Palo Alto policies
- State legislative review
- Local policy review
- Inventory/loss estimate
plans
AG6
Council
Reviews
Rec’s
- Introductions
- Project overview
- Policy questions
12/16/15 1/27/16
Survey
Losses
w/o Retrofit
Purpose of Advisory Group
To review and discuss implications of
the project's technical findings and
provide input about community
concerns, priorities, and preferences.
Before Meeting
•AG5 minutes
•Draft status
summary
report
At Meeting
•Review draft summary report
•Discuss remaining building
categories
3/17/16
AG4
5/16/16 8/15/16
AG5
6/27/16
Draft Rec’s
(handout)
12/5/16
Losses
w/ Retrofit Task 3
Report
- Inventory/unretrofitted
loss estimate
- Local program goals,
effectiveness, and
options
Retrofit Concept/
Estimate
Task 2
Report
AG3
- Retrofitted loss estimate/
cost-benefit comparison
- Introduce policy, incentive,
and disclosure options
- Discuss potential policies
Materials for
Council
- Refine policy options
- Identify points of
agreement and issues
- Focus on soft-story WF
Project and Advisory Group
Process Status
•Review of minutes from 6/27/16 AG5 meeting
•Seismic Risk Management Program Website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/s
rmag.asp
–Added content includes presentation slides from
last meeting
Agenda and Meeting Goals
•Discussion of draft status summary
report handout
•Discuss policy options for:
–Tilt-up buildings
–Soft-story concrete and other older
nonductile concrete buildings
–Older steel moment frames
•Conclusions and wrap-up
Guiding Principles
•Palo Alto faces significant losses.
•Potential benefits from retrofitting are also
significant.
•Addressing known potentially hazardous
building types that are present in large numbers
maximizes risk reduction.
•A range of policy approaches can be
combined into a program package.
•A range of disclosure measures and incentives
can help stimulate and ease the process.
Regulatory Strength
Inventory Only Strict Mandates
Sc
o
p
e
Fe
w
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
y
p
e
s
Mo
r
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
y
p
e
s
Santa Monica Burbank
Alameda
OPTION 1:
Status Quo
OPTION 3:
More Types
+ Disclosure
OPTION 2:
More Types
OPTION 4:
More Types,
Triggered
Mandates
Long Beach
Richmond
Albany
OPTION 6:
More Types,
More Mandates,
Fixed Timeline
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Fremont
Berkeley
Oakland
OPTION 5:
More Types,
Some Mandates,
Fixed Timeline
Palo Alto
Possible Directions for Palo Alto
Bundle 3—Signage
•Onsite-focused
•Some ongoing enforcement costs
•May draw public attention
•Owners fear more stigma than
may actually occur
Bundle 2—Community Awareness
•Tenant- and citizen- focused
•Some upfront and ongoing
enforcement costs
•Empowers informed decisions
Bundle 1—Basic Transparency
•Building owner-focused
•Some upfront and ongoing IT
costs
•Promotes information access
Disclosure Measures Vary in Strategy, Ease
of Implementation, and Effectiveness
More
Difficult to
Implement
DISCLOSURE MEASURES
Make the list more prominent on city website
Include compliance status on the city website
Record notice on title
Require tenant notification
Community events (e.g., forums, retrofit fairs)
Distribute educational materials
Require signage until retrofit is completed
Require signage in perpetuity
Encouraging or requiring use of building rating
systems
Easier to
Implement
Type 1: Basic Help
Incentive Options for Palo Alto
More
Difficult to
Implement
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES POLICY INCENTIVES
Waivers or reductions of building
department fees
Property-Assessed Financing Loan (PACE*)
Other subsidized or special term loans
Real estate transfer tax rebates
Special district or historic designation tax
reductions
Tax credits
Grants
General obligation or special purpose
bonds
Exemption from future retrofit
requirements
Expedited permits, inspections, and
reviews
Exemptions or relief from standards or
non-conforming conditions
Technical assistance for owners on
navigating financing, compliance, and
project management issues
Zoning relief (e.g., setbacks, parking)
Density or intensity bonuses (e.g., FAR)
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Easier to
Implement
Type 2: Project Facilitation
Type 3: Deeper
Financial Assistance
* PACE = Property Assessed Clean Energy
Policy Option 5: Increase Scope, with Some Categories Voluntary and a Few Categories Mandatory with Fixed Deadlines(p. 8 in Handout)
Still Needing Discussion
•Policies for remaining building
categories
•Should FAR bonuses and parking
exemptions be permitted for:
–Retrofitted buildings?
–Other buildings through TDR?
•Include PACE loans in incentives?
•Appropriate timelines
•Other issues
Comparison of Selected Categories
Takeaways:
•Categories IV-VII have higher benefit-to-cost ratios than the
average types and a substantial number of buildings.
•Category VIII, without a focus on nonductile characteristics,
has an average benefit-to-cost ratio.
Meeting Wrap-Up and Follow-Ups
•Outcomes from
today
•Next steps