HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-08 Policy & Services Committee Agenda PacketPOLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 08, 2023
Council Chambers & Hybrid
7:00 PM
Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the
option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety
while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to
participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and
participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if
attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/94618744621)
Meeting ID: 946 1874 4621 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
city.council@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection
on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your
subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,
the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong
cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not
accepted.
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
ACTION ITEMS
1.Approval of Office of City Auditor FY2024 Task Orders; CEQA Status – Not a project
2.Receive and Discuss the Seismic Risk Assessment Study and Seismic Hazards
Identification Ordinance Update
3.Referral: Discussion of City Council Procedures and Protocols Censure Policy
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to
discussion of the item.
3. Spoken public comments using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through
the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto
your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the
Meeting ID below.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 946‐1874‐4621 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
1 Regular Meeting August 08, 2023
Materials submitted after distribution are available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEERegular MeetingTuesday, August 08, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid7:00 PMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/94618744621)Meeting ID: 946 1874 4621 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tocity.council@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspectionon the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in yoursubject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,
the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong
cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
ACTION ITEMS
1.Approval of Office of City Auditor FY2024 Task Orders; CEQA Status – Not a project
2.Receive and Discuss the Seismic Risk Assessment Study and Seismic Hazards
Identification Ordinance Update
3.Referral: Discussion of City Council Procedures and Protocols Censure Policy
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2.For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to
discussion of the item.
3.Spoken public comments using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through
the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto
your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the
Meeting ID below.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 946‐1874‐4621 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at(650)329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, orservice.
2 Regular Meeting August 08, 2023
Materials submitted after distribution are available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEERegular MeetingTuesday, August 08, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid7:00 PMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/94618744621)Meeting ID: 946 1874 4621 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tocity.council@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspectionon the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in yoursubject line.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDERPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. ACTION ITEMS1.Approval of Office of City Auditor FY2024 Task Orders; CEQA Status – Not a project2.Receive and Discuss the Seismic Risk Assessment Study and Seismic HazardsIdentification Ordinance Update3.Referral: Discussion of City Council Procedures and Protocols Censure PolicyFUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s)
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2.For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to
discussion of the item.
3.Spoken public comments using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through
the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto
your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the
Meeting ID below.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 946‐1874‐4621 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at(650)329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, orservice.
3 Regular Meeting August 08, 2023
Materials submitted after distribution are available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org
2
7
6
8
Policy & Services Committee
Staff Report
From: City Auditor
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Auditor
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
Report #:2307-1786
TITLE
Approval of Office of City Auditor FY2024 Task Orders; CEQA Status – Not a project
BACKGROUND
The City Auditor recommends that the Policy & Services Committee recommend City Council
approval for the following Task Orders:
1) FY24-Task 01 – Citywide Risk Assessment
2) FY24-Task 02 – Annual Audit Plan
3) FY24-Task 03 – External Financial Auditor
4) FY24-Task 05 – Various Reporting & City Hotline
5) FY24-Task 06 – Evaluation and Benchmarking
ANALYSIS
In accordance with our agreement with the City1 including Amendment No. 1 to the contract2,
Baker Tilly is required to conduct recurring activities each year. Those recurring activities
including the following tasks outlined in our agreement:
•Task 1: Citywide Risk Assessment
•Task 2: Preparation of Annual Audit Plan
•Task 3: Assist with Selection of a Financial Auditor and Assist in Managing the Financial
Audit
•Task 5: Various Tasks including periodic reporting, fraud/waste/abuse hotline, office
administrative functions
1 September 28, 2020: Baker Tilly Contract Approval - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-
minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11624.pdf?t=64761.15
2 May 9, 2022: Baker Tilly Contract Amendment No. 1 Approval -
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-
agendas-minutes/2022/20220509/20220509pccsmamended-linked.pdf
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 4
2
7
6
8
•Task 6: Evaluation and Benchmarking
The Office of the City Auditor (OCA) is seeking approval from the Policy & Services Committee
of the Tasks Orders that correspond to the Tasks outlined above and recommendation to
forward these task orders to the City Council for approval. The Task Orders provide the
contractual authority to begin this work in the new Fiscal Year 2024. An excerpt from the
contract outlining these tasks is below for ease of reference.
Task 1 “Beginning with year 1 and continuing at a minimum every other year
thereafter, prepare a citywide risk assessment following the same review and approval
requirements described in Task 2. The risk assessment process will be the primary determinant
of subsequent audit activity.”
Task 2 “Prepare an annual audit plan for review by the City Manager and appropriate City
Council committee(s), and approval by the City Council, that identifies preliminary objectives of
each audit to be performed, the schedule for each audit, and the estimated not to exceed
resources and costs for each audit. The City Auditor shall consult with the City Attorney as
necessary when developing audit plans. The annual audit plan will be largely based on the risk
assessment required in Task 1.”
Task 3 “Selection of External Financial Auditor and Annual Audit Coordination: Coordinate the
annual external financial audit in each year of the contract term. Pursuant to the City Charter,
the City Auditor shall oversee the selection process for the annual external financial auditor.”
Task 5 “Preparation of Quarterly Reports, Annual Status Report, Provision of City Hotline, and
Other Ongoing Office Administrative Functions:
Prepare and issue quarterly reports describing the status and progress toward audit completion,
to be provided as information reports to the City Council and reviewed by the appropriate
committee, unless other reporting methods are directed by Council.
Prepare and issue an annual report in the first quarter of each fiscal year on the status of
recommendations made in completed audits, to be provided as an information report to the City
Council and reviewed by the appropriate committee, unless other reporting methods are
directed by Council.
Maintain and respond to the City’s employee “hotline” function provided through voicemail,
email or written submissions. Coordinate referrals as appropriate to other City offices,
departments or divisions and incorporate relevant referrals into future risk assessments, audit
plans or audit activity as appropriate.”
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 5
2
7
6
8
This task provides for authorization of travel during the full 2024 fiscal year assuming a trip
every other month (total of 6 trips). Although the contract stipulated an on site presence every
two weeks by the Office of the City Auditor, leveraging remote work efficiencies and ensuring
economical use of contract authority and funds, this task order revises that frequency. Baker
Tilly will use discretion to ensure travel is used to minimize travel expenses and maximize
effectiveness of time on site, ultimately ensuring alignment with audit work schedules and
Council and Committee activities.
Additionally, the current contract, Amendment NO.13, includes the budget schedule for FY
2023, FY 2024, and FY 2025 that shows a budget amount of $60,000 each year for Task 5. The
main activities related to this task have been meetings with management and City Council
members and preparing staff reports for City Council and Committee meetings. However, Baker
Tilly needs to perform other activities normally performed by the Internal Audit function,
namely, engagement project management and annual audit plan monitoring. Therefore, the
Maximum Compensation Amount in the proposed task order for Task 5 is $90,000 that includes
a $30,000 transfer from the Task 4 budget amount of $582,250 shown in the current contract.
Task 6 “Undergo a peer evaluation following the guidelines of the Association of Local
Government Auditors every two years (i.e., at the end of the initial contract term, then every
other year thereafter throughout the contract term), or as required by the City Council, so that
performance of the internal audit function can be objectively assessed.
Prepare a cost per audit analysis following the first completed fiscal year, to be submitted at the
beginning of the second fiscal year and every year thereafter throughout the contract term, that
includes benchmark agencies determined by the CITY, and obtain independent third-party
certification of data accuracy.
The cost per audit analysis will be used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of services provided by
the CONSULTANT. This evaluation will be incorporated into ongoing performance assessments
as required and will help ensure that fees for service provision throughout the duration of the
Agreement are objectively determined and mutually agreed upon.
This evaluation and report from the peer evaluator will be presented to the Policy and Services
Committee and City Council in alignment with typical audit reporting activities.”
The current contract, Amendment NO.1, includes the budget schedule that shows Task 6
budget amounts of $21,000, $6,000, and $21,000 for FY 2023, FY 2024, and FY 2025,
respectively. In preparation for and support of a peer evaluation in FY 2024, the Maximum
3 May 9, 2022: Baker Tilly Contract Amendment No. 1 Approval -
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-
agendas-minutes/2022/20220509/20220509pccsmamended-linked.pdf
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 6
2
7
6
8
Compensation Amount in the proposed task order for Task 6 is $24,000 that includes a $18,000
transfer from the Task 4 budget amount of $582,250 shown in the current contract.
As a result of transfers to Task 5 and Task 6, the remaining Task 4 budget amount is to be
adjusted to $534,250 for which an audit plan will be presented to the Policy and Services
Committee and City Council in coming months. The table below summarizing two budget
amount transfers from Task 4 to Task 5 and Task 6 shows the net effect on the total contract
value is $0.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Work recommended in these tasks is within both the approved scope and compensation of the
contract with Baker Tilly and funding levels in the FY 2024 Operating Budget for the Office of
the City Auditor.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
No stakeholder outreach was necessary to create task orders for the tasks described in the
signed contract.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is not a project as defined by CEQA because the Auditor task orders
are administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the
environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: TASK ORDER FY24-01 Citywide Risk Assessment
Attachment B: TASK ORDER FY24-02 Annual Audit Plan
Attachment C: TASK ORDER FY24-03 External Financial Auditor
Attachment D: TASK ORDER FY24-05 Various Reporting & City Hotline
Attachment E: TASK ORDER FY24-06 Evaluation and Benchmarking
APPROVED BY:
Adriane D. McCoy, City Auditor
FY 2023-24 Budget
per Amendment 1 Transfer Updated Budget Amount
Task 4 $582,250 -$48,000 $534,250
Task 5 $60,000 $30,000 $90,000
Task 6 $6,000 $18,000 $24,000
TOTAL $648,250 $0 $648,250
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 7
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
TASK ORDER FY24-01 Citywide Risk Assessment
Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this
Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical
and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO. C21179340
OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340
1B. TASK O RDER NO.: FY24-01
2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly US, LLP
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: November 1, 2023 COMPLETION: June 30, 2024
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $35,000
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT: TBD
5. BUDGET CODE_______________
COST CENTER________________
COST ELEMENT______________
WBS/CIP__________
PHASE__________
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:
Greg Tanaka, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A
I hereby authorize the performance of the
work described in this Task Order.
APPROVED:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of
this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Consultant.
APPROVED:
COMPANY NAME: ______________________
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
Item 1
Attachment A - TASK
ORDER FY24-01 Citywide
Risk Assessment
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment A
DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
Introduction
Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements:
Services and Deliverables To Be Provided
Schedule of Performance
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable)
Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount)
Services & Deliverables
Baker Tilly’s approach to conducting the Citywide Risk Assessment involves four (4) primary
steps:
Step 1: Project Planning & Management
Step 2: Information Gathering
Step 3: Analysis
Step 4: Reporting
Step 1 – Project Planning & Management
This step includes those tasks necessary to solidify mutual understanding of the risk
assessment scope, objectives, deliverables, and timing as well as ensuring that appropriate
client and consultant resources are available and well-coordinated. Tasks include:
Finalize project design – The first project activities will be to:
o Identify communication channels and reporting relationships and
responsibilities of project staff
o Review and confirm project timelines
o Review and confirm deliverables
Arrange logistics/administrative support – Matters to be addressed include schedules
for interviews and data collection, contact persons in the departments, any other
logistical matters, etc.
Conduct kick-off meeting with key project stakeholders
Step 2 – Information Gathering
This step involves gathering information, through various means, that will enable the project
team to understand the various risks facing the City. Tasks include:
Request and review background information – the project team will develop an
information request(s) in order to obtain various background information from the
City. The request will include, but not be limited to:
Item 1
Attachment A - TASK
ORDER FY24-01 Citywide
Risk Assessment
Packet Pg. 9
o Strategic plan(s)
o Financial reports, including the most recent City Budget and Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
o Operational policies and procedures
o Municipal code
o Consulting reports
o Other relevant information and reports
Conduct interviews with City Council and management
o Risk assessment interviews, aimed at understanding City functions and
identifying risks, will be conducted with City Council members as well as
department and division
Conduct a risk assessment survey, if necessary
Conduct research into key risks in order to identify relevant information to assess
risks
Overall, the project team will consider the risk categories including:
Strategic
Financial
Technology
Human Capital
Operational
Reputational
Economic
Compliance
Step 3 – Risk Analysis
In Step 3, the project team will develop a risk assessment consisting of auditable areas (also
referred to as an audit or risk universe). The risk assessment will be prepared in
consideration of the following risks types:
Environment, Strategy, and Governance – risks that have an organization wide impact
and are not subject to a specific department or function (e.g., ethics)
Significant Projects and Initiatives – risks associated with large projects (e.g., capital
projects, technology implementation) or City initiatives (e.g., employee engagement
initiative).
Function Specific Risks – risks associated with a specific department or function
(e.g., procurement policy compliance)
The project team will assess the likelihood and impact of potential adverse events in order to
quantitatively score each auditable area for purposes of prioritizing audit activities.
Step 4 – Reporting
In Step 4, the project team will finalize the draft Risk Matrix and prepare a draft Risk
Assessment Report. The project team will ask for input (general completeness, risk scoring)
on the Risk Matrix from key project stakeholders. Upon finalization of the Risk Matrix, the
project team will finalize the Risk Assessment Report.
Item 1
Attachment A - TASK
ORDER FY24-01 Citywide
Risk Assessment
Packet Pg. 10
Deliverables:
The following deliverables will be prepared as part of this engagement:
Risk Assessment Report
Presentation of Results to City Council (note that this may be combined with
presentation of the Task 2 Annual Audit Plan)
Schedule of Performance
Anticipated Start Date: November 1, 2023
Anticipated End Date: June 30, 2024
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule
The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this
Task is $35,000. The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 200 total project hours, of
which 20 are estimated to be completed by the City Auditor.
Reimbursable Expenses
We plan to complete all work remote including all interviews and documentation review. If at
any point the City and Baker Tilly mutually determine it will be beneficial to perform a portion
of the work on-site, we will submit an estimate of our reimbursable expenses for the City’s
approval prior to traveling to Palo Alto.
Item 1
Attachment A - TASK
ORDER FY24-01 Citywide
Risk Assessment
Packet Pg. 11
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
TASK ORDER FY24-02 Annual Audit Plan
Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this
Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical
and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO. C21179340
OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340
1B. TASK O RDER NO.: FY24-02
2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly US, LLP
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: November 1, 2023 COMPLETION: June 30, 2024
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $10,500
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT: TBD
5. BUDGET CODE_______________
COST CENTER________________
COST ELEMENT______________
WBS/CIP__________
PHASE__________
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:
Greg Tanaka, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A
I hereby authorize the performance of the
work described in this Task Order.
APPROVED:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of
this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Consultant.
APPROVED:
COMPANY NAME: ______________________
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
Item 1
Attachment B - TASK
ORDER FY24-02 Annual
Audit Plan
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment A
DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
Introduction
Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements:
Services and Deliverables To Be Provided
Schedule of Performance
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable)
Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount)
Services & Deliverables
Baker Tilly’s approach to preparing the Annual Audit Plan involves two (2) primary steps:
Step 1: Consultation with City Council and Management
Step 2: Reporting
Step 1 – Consultation with City Council and Management
The Risk Matrix and Risk Assessment Report will serve as the primary drivers of the Annual
Audit Plan. The project team will initiate discussions over Risk Assessment results, potential
audit activities, and audit coverage with City Council and Management. The purpose of those
conversations will be to understand the priorities of City Council, and to develop a Draft
Annual Audit Plan:
The Draft Annual Audit Plan will identify the following components for each audit activity:
Audit activity type – audit or consulting activity
Audit objectives and scope
Anticipated budget – both in terms of hours and budget
Anticipated timeline
Step 2 – Reporting
The project team will present the Draft Annual Audit Plan to the City Council in order to
obtain input on each potential audit activity. Upon refining the plan, the project team will
finalize the Annual Audit Plan for presentation to City Council.
Deliverables
The following deliverable will be prepared as part of this engagement:
Annual Audit Plan
Item 1
Attachment B - TASK
ORDER FY24-02 Annual
Audit Plan
Packet Pg. 13
Schedule of Performance
Anticipated Start Date: November 1, 2023
Anticipated End Date: June 30, 2024
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule
The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this
Task is $10,500. The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 50 total project hours, of
which 10 are estimated to be completed by the City Auditor.
Reimbursable Expenses
We plan to complete all work remote including all interviews and documentation review. If at
any point the City and Baker Tilly mutually determine it will be beneficial to perform a portion
of the work on-site, we will submit an estimate of our reimbursable expenses for the City’s
approval prior to traveling to Palo Alto.
Item 1
Attachment B - TASK
ORDER FY24-02 Annual
Audit Plan
Packet Pg. 14
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
TASK ORDER FY24-03 External Financial Auditor
Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this
Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical
and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO. C21179340
OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340
1B. TASK O RDER NO.: FY24-03
2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly US, LLP
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: July 1, 2023 COMPLETION: June 30, 2024
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $15,000
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT TBD
5. BUDGET CODE_______________
COST CENTER________________
COST ELEMENT______________
WBS/CIP__________
PHASE__________
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:
Greg Tanaka, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A
I hereby authorize the performance of the
work described in this Task Order.
APPROVED:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of
this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Consultant.
APPROVED:
COMPANY NAME: ______________________
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
Item 1
Attachment C -TASK
ORDER FY24-03 External
Financial Auditor
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment A
DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
Introduction
Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements:
Services and Deliverables To Be Provided
Schedule of Performance
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable)
Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount)
Services & Deliverables
Baker Tilly’s approach to the Office of the City Auditor’s role on the financial audit involves one
(1) primary step in FY23:
Step 1: Assistance in Managing the Financial Audit
Step 1 – Role in Managing the Financial Audit
In FY23, the project team will assist in managing the financial audit and presenting financial
audit results to the Finance Committee and to the City Council, in accordance with municipal
code.
Deliverables:
Legislative documents will be prepared to present the financial statements and reports
prepared by an external auditor to the Finance Committee
Schedule of Performance
Anticipated Start Date: July 1, 2023
Anticipated End Date: June 30, 2024
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule
The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this
Task is $15,000. The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 40 total project hours, of
which 40 are estimated to be completed by the City Auditor.
Item 1
Attachment C -TASK
ORDER FY24-03 External
Financial Auditor
Packet Pg. 16
Reimbursable Expenses
Baker Tilly anticipates planning one on-site fieldwork week. Given this possibility, Baker Tilly
could incur reimbursable expenses for this Task.
The not-to-exceed maximum for reimbursable expenses for this Task is $3,250.
The following summarizes anticipated reimbursable expenses:
Round-trip Airfare – $1,000
Ground Transportation (car rental or Uber/taxi) - $400
Hotel accommodation - $1,500 (4 nights)
Food and incidentals – $350
Item 1
Attachment C -TASK
ORDER FY24-03 External
Financial Auditor
Packet Pg. 17
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
TASK ORDER FY24-05 Various Reporting & City Hotline
Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this
Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical
and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO. C21179340
OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340
1B. TASK O RDER NO.: FY24-05
2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly US, LLP
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: July 1, 2023 COMPLETION: June 30, 2024
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $90,000
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT TBD
5. BUDGET CODE_______________
COST CENTER________________
COST ELEMENT______________
WBS/CIP__________
PHASE__________
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:
Greg Tanaka, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A
I hereby authorize the performance of the
work described in this Task Order.
APPROVED:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of
this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Consultant.
APPROVED:
COMPANY NAME: ______________________
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
Item 1
Attachment D - TASK
ORDER FY24-05 Various
Reporting & City Hotline
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment A
DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
Introduction
Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements:
Services and Deliverables To Be Provided
Schedule of Performance
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable)
Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount)
Services & Deliverables
Baker Tilly will provide the following services in Task 5:
Quarterly Reports
Annual Status Report
Provision of the City Hotline
Office Administrative Functions
Deliverables:
The following deliverable will be prepared as part of this engagement:
Quarterly Reports (4 in FY24)
Annual Status Report
Schedule of Performance
Anticipated Start Date: July 1, 2023
Anticipated End Date: June 30, 2024
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule
The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this
Task is $90,000. The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 300 total project hours, of
which 170 are estimated to be completed by the City Auditor.
Reimbursable Expenses
The City Auditor anticipates a trip every other month (total of 6 trips). Given this possibility,
Baker Tilly could incur reimbursable expenses for this Task.
The not-to-exceed maximum for reimbursable expenses for this Task is $19,500.
Item 1
Attachment D - TASK
ORDER FY24-05 Various
Reporting & City Hotline
Packet Pg. 19
The following summarizes anticipated reimbursable expenses:
Round-trip Airfare – $6,000 (6 round trip flights)
Ground Transportation (car rental or Uber/taxi) - $2,400
Hotel accommodation - $9,000 (24 nights)
Food and incidentals – $2,100
Item 1
Attachment D - TASK
ORDER FY24-05 Various
Reporting & City Hotline
Packet Pg. 20
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
TASK ORDER FY24-06 Evaluation and Benchmarking
Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this
Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical
and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO. C21179340
OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340
1B. TASK O RDER NO.: FY24-06
2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly US, LLP
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: July 1, 2023 COMPLETION: June 30, 2024
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $24,000
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT TBD
5. BUDGET CODE_______________
COST CENTER________________
COST ELEMENT______________
WBS/CIP__________
PHASE__________
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:
Greg Tanaka, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A
I hereby authorize the performance of the
work described in this Task Order.
APPROVED:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of
this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Consultant.
APPROVED:
COMPANY NAME: ______________________
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
Item 1
Attachment E - TASK
ORDER FY24-06
Evaluation and
Benchmarking
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment A
DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
Introduction
Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements:
Services and Deliverables To Be Provided
Schedule of Performance
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable)
Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount)
Services & Deliverables
Baker Tilly’s approach to undergoing a peer review involves three (3) primary steps:
Step 1: Preparation for a peer review
Step 2: A peer review by an independent evaluator
Step 3: Cost per audit analysis
Step 1 – Preparation for a peer review
The Office of the City Auditor (OCA) will conduct a self-assessment before a peer review.
Step 2 – A peer review by a qualified organization
OCA will undergo a peer review conducted by an independent evaluator. In order to
accomplish this task, OCA will:
Request a peer review from the Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA)
Provide documents and answer questions as requested by ALGA
Obtain a peer review report from ALGA
Step 3 – Cost per audit analysis
OCA will prepare a cost per audit analysis.
Deliverables:
Legislative documents will be prepared to present a peer review report from an
independent evaluator.
Schedule of Performance
Anticipated Start Date: July 1, 2023
Anticipated End Date: June 30, 2024
Item 1
Attachment E - TASK
ORDER FY24-06
Evaluation and
Benchmarking
Packet Pg. 22
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule
The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this
Task is $24,000. The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 95 total project hours, of
which 25 are estimated to be completed by the City Auditor.
Reimbursable Expenses
Baker Tilly anticipates no travel costs. All procedures including interviews and documentation
reviews are expected to be completed remotely.
Item 1
Attachment E - TASK
ORDER FY24-06
Evaluation and
Benchmarking
Packet Pg. 23
2
6
7
7
Policy & Services Committee
Staff Report
From: Chantal Gaines, Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
TITLE
Receive and Discuss Seismic Risk Assessment Study and Seismic Hazards Identification Ordinance
Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend the Policy and Services Committee receive a report from staff on the 2016 Seismic
Risk Assessment Study and discuss the Council-directed update to the Seismic Hazards Identification
Ordinance. No action is recommended at this time.
OVERVIEW
This report updates the Policy and Services Committee on progress on the Seismic Hazards Ordinance
update project; no Policy and Services Committee action is required or requested at this time. Staff
recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review the Seismic Risk Assessment Study
prepared by Rutherford + Chekene (R+C) (Attachment A), structural engineers. During the discussion,
staff requests Committee members’ input regarding the proposed next steps.
The Council identified the update of the seismic ordinance as a part of the Community Health and
Safety Priority in January 2023. This item is further nested under “Invest in reliable safety infrastructure
and systems.”1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the Planning and Development Services Department (PDS) prepares to draft amendments and
updates to the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the Regulation of Seismically Vulnerable Buildings, staff
seeks to familiarize the Policy and Services Committee with the topic, resources needed, and gain high
level input on the proposed action plan.
The Seismic Risk Assessment was prepared in 2016 and made available to the City Council in 2017.
Since that time, the composition of nearly the entire Council has changed significantly. Therefore, staff
desired to reintroduce the topic and report contents to the Policy and Services Committee before
undertaking outreach, pursuing consultants, and other work associated with prior Council direction.
1 https://medium.com/paloaltoconnect/council-adopts-extensive-objectives-building-upon-selection-of-2023-priorities-
13413012919e
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 24
2
6
7
7
This report begins with the background section, giving a brief history of the project. That is followed by
the policy implications, then a discussion of resources and draft work plan, and environmental review.
That is followed by a summary of the Seismic Risk Assessment Study. This summary largely mirrors an
informational report submitted to Council in April 2017. Lastly, the full study is provided as an
attachment. Additional information can be found in additional prior reports linked throughout the
report.
Staff wishes to note that the City’s contract with the consultant team that prepared the studies has
long since concluded. Staff regret that the consultant team is not available for preparation of this staff
report or nor during the Committee’s discussion.
BACKGROUND
Concise Project History
The effort to update the City’s seismic ordinance began with City Council direction in 2014. At that
time, 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.
A competitive bidding process was conducted and 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. The study was prepared and provided to Council as an informational
report on April 16, 2017.
On November 13, 2017, via a consent item, the Council directed staff to “Return to Policy and Services
Committee With Amendments to the Municipal Code for the Regulation of Seismic Vulnerable
Buildings.” To accomplish this directive, staff will engage a consultant to assist with designing an
updates seismic hazards identification and mitigation program. Staff will then bring forward proposed
legislative changes (draft ordinance) to Council for consideration and ultimately adoption. Finally, once
adopted staff will implement the policy (adopted ordinance) and associated seismic hazards
identification program. Follow-up to this direction was subsequently hampered by limited resources,
staff turnover, and other priorities.
In fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the Council appropriated funding to the Planning and
Development Services Department to carry out the update of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The funds
are designated to hire a consultant to aid in the development of the updated ordinance. Appropriated
in fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the amount available totals $225,000. Staff will carry out a
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 25
2
6
7
7
competitive procurement process, expecting to have a consultant team on board and ready to begin
work by January 2024.
Detailed Project History
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.
Palo Alto Seismic Hazards Identification program
In 1986, the City Council adopted the Seismic Hazards Identification Program codified at PAMC Section
16.42.2 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.
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
2 This section of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is available here:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-74168
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 26
2
6
7
7
(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, as of 2017, approximately 74 percent (74%), or 66 buildings, were strengthened, demolished,
or proposed to be demolished. An updated status of these buildings is being prepared in anticipation
of releasing a request for proposals (RFP) for the consultant team for this phase of the project.
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 21 property owners took advantage of this incentive.
More recently, the City Council adopted an ordinance updating PAMC 18.18 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.
Despite its successes, some 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. The draft ordinance may consider
reviving or adjusting the reporting requirement.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
On December 9, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee of the Palo Alto City Council recommended
the City Council authorize an RFP to develop information for use in updating the City’s Seismic Hazards
Identification Program (Ordinance 3666). The City Council approved the recommendation, and staff
prepared an RFP.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 27
2
6
7
7
A consulting team led by Rutherford + Chekene was selected to:
A. 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 C for a list of Advisory Group members.
A summary of the R+C report is provided after the “Environmental Review” section of this report.
ANALYSIS
Overall, an updated seismic ordinance aims to enhance the resilience of Palo Alto when seismic activity
occurs. Decreasing the number of buildings that sustain significant damage from an earthquake and
limiting the loss of life or injury that may occur are two ways the city can be more resilient. With more
structures suitable for occupancy after an earthquake, the City and its residents can more quickly
recover from the event. Further, with more multifamily structures habitable, fewer residents will be
displaced after an earthquake.
The desire to increase resilience, speed recovery, and limit the loss of life and limit property damage
must be weighed against the risk earthquakes pose and balanced with the cost of retrofitting
buildings. The R+C recommendations aim to balance resilience and recovery with risk and cost.
As the report further elaborates, different communities have balanced these objectives in a variety of
ways. Ranging from developing completely voluntary retrofitting programs to mandatory retrofitting
programs where the retrofits must occur within a fixed timeline.
Likewise, other California communities have created a range of incentives and/or financing options to
help property owners retrofit more cost effectively. These range from local development standards or
incentives (such as permit fee reduction, additional development rights, etc.) to tailored financing
programs.
As Council seeks to create safer buildings, especially dwelling units, this goal must be balanced with the
real costs property owners will incur to retrofit their buildings. Without appropriate incentives,
available financing, or other policy mechanisms, the costs of retrofits may be passed on to tenants in
the form of increased rents. Even if these financing tools are available additional policies may be
considered to limit the impact retrofitting may have on tenant rents.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 28
2
6
7
7
Proposed Action Steps
This section describes actions staff anticipate, pending Committee discussion and further Council
direction. In addition, this section notes decision points when Council direction will be needed to
advance the project. The following list outlines a high-level action plan, with associated sequencing of
steps. Of note, there is some overlap between action steps. Staff look forward to the Policy and
Services Committee’s suggestions on the proposed action steps.
•Develop and release a Request for Proposals for a consultant/consultant team (consultant):
During the study period of this effort, R+C provided significant technical expertise and
additional project management skills and resources that led to a very thorough report. In
addition to the study, the consultant assisted with preparing for and facilitating the Advisory
Group. Based on this experience, staff requested additional resources for a new contractor that
will be identified through a competitive bidding process.
Based on the volume of procurements from PDS and other departments that require Purchasing
assistance, staff hope to release the RFP and receive initial responses back by the end of 2023.
This would allow proposal review and any interviews to be conducted in late 2023/early 2024.
Following selection of the consultant, staff will bring a contract forward to City Council for
consideration and approval.
•Refresh aspects of the Seismic Risk Assessment study as needed. The study remains very
relevant and, due to its thorough nature, comprehensive. There may be limited need for the
selected consultant to refresh certain aspects of the report.
These updates may include assessing if the building code updates in the past two code update
cycles have any bearing on this project. In addition, we want to assess if enhanced seismic
knowledge from the past several years (often gained after an earthquake) indicates a need to
expand or otherwise adjust the building categories considered for inclusion in the seismic
program.
Lastly, given the rapid and steep increase in construction costs due to materials and labor cost
increases, refreshing the cost estimates for 2023 dollars may be prudent. The differences in
actual costs shape the incentives and/or financing options considered by the Council.
•Refresh the review of other cities policies, programs, and progress since 2017. The report
reviewed the seismic programs undertaken by several California jurisdictions. Programs were
at various stages of implementation at the time the report was written. The consultant team
may be asked to review the progress and/or changes to the programs that have occurred in the
intervening years. In addition, if a notable new program or policy has been adopted and
implemented by a California jurisdiction, the consultant will review and summarize that
program.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 29
2
6
7
7
Lastly, if any changes to California state law have occurred that impact the City of Palo Alto’s
ordinance, the consultant will be asked to summarize the law(s) and their impact on this project.
•Establish and execute a community engagement strategy. The consultants, along with City
staff, will re-establish the Advisory Group to assist in discussing the project and providing
feedback on the ordinance as it is drafted for Council consideration. The Advisory Group will
continue to include a wide range of stakeholders throughout Palo Alto and including partner
City departments. With clear tasks, scope, and meeting schedule along with skilled facilitation,
this group can once again provide valuable insight to staff and policy makers to shape a policy
that can be successfully implemented.
•Return to Council and/or Policy and Services Committee for policy direction based on
preliminary recommendations and policy framework. As the framework for a policy is
proposed by staff and the consultant, with assistance from the Advisory Group, staff will return
to Council for direction. This milestone will allow the Council to digest the policy options,
consider consequences of each option, and consider staff’s recommended policy path. This
recommendation will include potential incentives and/or financing tools as well as a draft
implementation plan.
Staff, with the consultant team, plan to present a framework for the policy with preliminary
recommendations. The framework and recommendations will build on the options presented
in the 2016 R+C Risk Assessment. The recommendations will have greater detail and resolution
to questions raised in the study.
•Draft ordinance in accordance with Council direction. Once Council provides clear direction
based on the policy framework (described immediately above), staff and the consultant team
will draft the ordinance and return to Council for adoption. Depending on the nature of the
ordinance and overall program, a recommendation from the Planning and Transportation
Commission may be needed. This would occur prior to Council consideration of the draft
ordinance.
•Council adoption of the ordinance and appropriation of implementation funds as needed.
Council will consider, potentially amend, and ultimately adopt the ordinance. At the same
time, staff would bring forward an implementation plan and a request for additional resources
for the plan.
Additional resources might include specific expertise in the plan review team of PDS, need for
outreach and promotion of the new policy, new or augmented technology, or additional needs
to successfully implement the program. Resources needs will also vary greatly depending on
the overall design of the program. For example, a mandatory retrofit program with a fixed
timeline may need greater resources than a voluntary retrofit program.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 30
2
6
7
7
RESOURCE IMPACT
In fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the Council appropriated funding to the Planning and
Development Services Department to carry out the update of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The funds
are designated to hire a consultant to aid in the development of the updated ordinance. Appropriated
in fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the amount available totals $225,000. Staff will carry out a
competitive procurement process, expecting to have a consultant team on board and ready to begin
work in January 2024.
In addition, managers and leaders within PDS will need to dedicate significant time to the project. This
includes the Chief Building Official, the Assistant Chief Building Official, and a Management Specialist.
Further, partner departments, such as the Office of Emergency Services, the Fire Department, and
others may be requested to participate in the Advisory Group, review the draft ordinance, and assist
with implementation to the extent the adopted program requires deployment of their skills and is
within the department’s purview.
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).
SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT STUDY
This section summarizes the Seismic Risk Assessment Study. The full study is provided as an
Attachment to this report. This summary provides a high-level overview. Readers seeking deeper
knowledge and understanding may review the accompanying section of the full study.
This section repeats, nearly verbatim, the staff report published on April 16, 2017 and again in
November 2017. The information is repeated here for the benefit of Council members and
Committee members as a refresher or introduction to the study and report’s original publication. In
addition, the information is repeated here to help inform the public to aid their participation in the
Committee discussion and/or the project overall.
The risk assessment carried out by R+C included a series of task reports. They have been combined
into one composite report as Attachment A 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 1986 ordinance and are
primarily located in the downtown commercial district. Categories IV through VIII include additional
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 31
2
6
7
7
buildings at risk, as identified in the Seismic Risk Assessment Study; these buildings are located
throughout the City.
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 (in
2017) 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.
Based on what state laws allow and, in some cases, recommend, policy directions Palo Alto could
pursue going forward include the following:
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 32
2
6
7
7
Table 1: 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
N/A Over 6
(and over
1,900 sf)
Required Mandatory Report: Expired
Construction: 2-4
II 4 Any Before 1/1/35 Over 100 Required Voluntary or
Triggered
III 9 Any Before 8/1/76 Over 300 Required Voluntary or
Triggered
Report: Expired
Construction
• Voluntary: Not required
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
Website
listing and
tenant
notification
Fee waiver, expedited
permitting, FAR bonus/
transfer of development
rights (TDR)
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
VII 35 Steel
moment
frame
Before 1998 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
VIII TBD Other older
non-ductile
concrete
Before 1977 Any Not rec. at
this time
Not
recommended
at this time
Report: N/A
Construction: NA
N/A N/A
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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 33
Item No. 2.Page 11 of 35
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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 34
Item No. 2.Page 12 of 35
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
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 through this
study. Through this study, the City has invested 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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 35
Item No. 2.Page 13 of 35
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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 36
Item No. 2.Page 14 of 35
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 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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 37
Item No. 2.Page 15 of 35
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.
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.
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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 38
Item No. 2.Page 16 of 35
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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 39
Item No. 2.Page 17 of 35
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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 40
Item No. 2.Page 18 of 35
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.
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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 41
Item No. 2.Page 19 of 35
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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 42
Item No. 2.Page 20 of 35
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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 43
Item No. 2.Page 21 of 35
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, as of original report publication in 2017, 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.
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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 44
Item No. 2.Page 22 of 35
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 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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 45
Item No. 2.Page 23 of 35
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.
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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 46
Item No. 2.Page 24 of 35
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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 47
Item No. 2.Page 25 of 35
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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 48
Item No. 2.Page 26 of 35
not be insured.
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.
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.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 49
Item No. 2.Page 27 of 35
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
Average
Damage
($/SF)
M7.9 EQ
Total
Damage
Reduction
($1,000)
Average
Damage
Reduction
($/SF)
Retrofit
Cost
($/SF)
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 50
Item No. 2.Page 28 of 35
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.
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
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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 51
Item No. 2.Page 29 of 35
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
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.
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. The owner is required to have a design
professional, such as a structural engineer or architect, complete the form. This cost 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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 52
Item No. 2.Page 30 of 35
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 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,
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 53
Item No. 2.Page 31 of 35
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.
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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 54
Item No. 2.Page 32 of 35
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 C).
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 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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 55
Item No. 2.Page 33 of 35
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 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
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 56
Item No. 2.Page 34 of 35
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
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.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Seismic Risk Assessment Study Final Report
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 57
Item No. 2.Page 35 of 35
Attachment B: Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Committee Members
Attachment C: Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group Summary Report on Process,
Discussions, and Outcomes (November 2016)
Report #: 2307-1739
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 58
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 59
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 60
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.
V.
BUILDING INVENTORY FOR LOSS ESTIMATE............................................................................................... 79
VULNERABLE BUILDING CATEGORIES......................................................................................................... 85
CONCEPTUAL SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF REPRESENTATIVE VULNERABLE BUILDINGS............................. 87
LOSS ESTIMATING FINDINGS FOR EXISTING BUILDING STOCK................................................................... 91
LOSS ESTIMATING FINDINGS WITH BUILDINGS RETROFITTED................................................................... 97
REVIEW OF PAST SEISMIC RETROFITS....................................................................................................... 101
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FEATURES .............................................................................. 103
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page i
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 61
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page ii
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 62
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 1
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 63
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 2
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 64
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 3
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 65
Summary of Recommended Policy Directions from the Seismic Risk Management Program Advisory Group
Category Approx. Building
Number Type
Date of
Construction
Occupants Evaluation Voluntary,Deadlines for Evaluation Report and Disclosure
Retrofit Construction (years)
Potential Incentives
2ReportTriggered, or
Mandatory
1Retrofit
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
Fee waiver, expedited
permitting, FAR bonus/
transfer of development
rights (TDR)notificationII4
9
Any Before 1/1/35 Over 100 Required
Required
Voluntary or
Triggered
Voluntary or
Triggered
Report: Expired
Construction
• Voluntary: Not required
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
III Any Before 8/1/76 Over 300
Expanded Program
IV 294 Soft-story
wood
frame
Before 1977
Before 1998
Any
Any
Required
Required
Triggered or
Mandatory
Report: 2-4
Construction
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
• Mandatory: 4-6
Report: 2-4
Same as
above
Fee waiver, expedited
permitting, TDR, parking
exemptions, permission to
add units
Same as Categories I, II and
III
V 99 Tilt-up Triggered or
Mandatory
Same as
aboveConstruction
• Triggered: At sale or renovation
• Mandatory: 4-6
VI 37 Soft-story
concrete
Before 1977
Before 1998
Any
Any
Any
Required
Required
Voluntary,
Triggered or
Mandatory
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
VIII
35 Steel
moment
frame
Other older Before 1977
nonductile
concrete
TBD Not rec. at Not
this time
Report: NA NA NA
recommended Construction: NA
at this time
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 4
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 66
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 5
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 67
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 6
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 68
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 7
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 69
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
3 4Historical Building Safety Board. A detailed list of key provisions is given on the DSA website .
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 8
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 70
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 9
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 71
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 10
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 72
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.
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/complete_pzd_2011.pdf (Accessed, March 6, 2016).7
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 11
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 73
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
9
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/ (Accessed January 23, 2016).
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/disclose.aspx (Accessed January 20, 2016).
Available at: http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005_HOGreduced.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2016).10
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 12
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 74
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 13
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 75
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 14
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 76
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).
California Government Code, Article 12, §50280-50290, California Revenue and Taxation Code, article 1.9, §439-439.4.13
Further information available at: http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412 (Accessed February 1, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 15
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 77
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
15
https://www.alliancenrg.com/retail/ (Accessed January 20, 2016).
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 16
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 78
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)
See, e.g., the Smart Growth America Resilience States program, http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/resilience/17
(Accessed February 1, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 17
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 79
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.
18
19
Available at: http://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/docs/SHMP_Final_2013.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2016).
http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program (Accessed January 15, 2016).
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 18
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 80
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 19
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 81
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 20
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 82
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 21
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 83
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 22
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 84
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 23
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 85
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.
Palo Alto Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 24
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 86
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 25
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 87
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 26
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 88
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 27
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 89
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 28
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 90
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 29
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 91
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 30
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 92
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 31
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 93
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 –
URM over 1900 Built before 1935 Built before
8/1/76 and over
300 occupants
All Categoriessq.ft. and over
six occupants
and over 100
occupants
Retrofit 22
14
13
2
5
5
40
21Demolished
Demolition
Proposed
Exempt
No Change
Totals
0 0 4 4
1
10
47
0
4
19
0
9
23
1
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 32
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 94
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 33
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 95
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 34
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 96
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 35
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 97
Table 2: Summary table of local programs for addressing older concrete building vulnerabilities.
Number Targeted
Building
Deadline
for
Deadline
for
Deadline
forof Older
Concrete
Buildings
Program
TypeJurisdiction
Los Angeles
Characteristics Screening Evaluation Completion
Unknown Mandatory
(Concrete evaluation
Pre-1976 tilt-
ups and
3 years 10 years 25 years
Coalition
inventory* mandatory
leading to nonductile
concrete
= 1500)retrofit
Santa Monica Unknown
(Concrete
Coalition
Mandatory
evaluation
leading to
Pre-1978
nonductile
concrete.
n/a 275 days Deadlines
vary from 1
to 4 years
afterestimate* mandatory
= 173)retrofit evaluation
report
submission,
depending
on priority
tiers. **
Long Beach
Burbank
Unknown
(Concrete
Coalition
estimate*
= 396)
Voluntary
guidance
Nonductile
concrete
n/a
n/aUnknown
(Concrete
Coalition
estimate*
= 132)
Voluntary
guidance
Commercial
pre-1977
reinforced
concrete and
concrete frame
buildings with
masonry infill
* 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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 36
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 98
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 37
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 99
Table 3: Summary of local soft-story wood frame policy efforts showing key distinguishing program features.
(Sources: Rabinovici, 2012; ABAG, 2016).
Number
of Soft-
story
Deadline Deadline
for for
Evaluation Permit Completion
Deadline
forProgram
Type
Targeted Building
CharacteristicsJurisdiction
Los Angeles
Year Priorities or Tiers
Buildings
2015 unknown Mandatory Pre-1978 wood-
Evaluation frame structures
Priority I - Buildings
containing 16 or more
1 year 2 years 7 years
leading to with soft, weak or dwelling units.
Mandatory open front first Priority II - Buildings with
three stories or more,
containing fewer than 16
dwelling units.
Retrofit floor conditions
with two or more
stories and five or
more units. Only
enforcement is
prioritized by
tiers.
Priority III - Buildings not
falling within the
definition of Priority I or II.
Oakland 2015 1,380 Mandatory Pre-1985 multi-n/a
Screening
(passed
2009)
family wood
frame structures
with five or more
leading to units
Mandatory
Retrofit
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 38
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 100
Table 3 (continued).
Number
of Soft-
story
Deadline Deadline
for for
Evaluation Permit Completion
Deadline
forProgram
Type
Targeted Building
CharacteristicsJurisdiction
Berkeley
Year Priorities or Tiers
Buildings
2014 310 (at Mandatory Multi-family wood
time of evaluation frame structures
2005 law (2005) with five or more
ordinance) leading to units
mandatory
n/a 2 years
(under
2 years 4 years
previous
soft-story
evaluation
ordinance)retrofit
(2014)
San Francisco 2013 2,800 Mandatory Wood frame
evaluation construction with
leading to five or more
mandatory residential units
1.5 years 2.5 years 4.5 years
5.5 years
Tier I - Any building
containing educational,
assembly, or residential
care facility uses (Building
Code Occupancy E, A,
R2.1, R3.1, or R4)
retrofit and two or more
stories with
permit for 2.5 years 3.5 yearsTier II - Any building
containing 15 or more
dwelling units
construction
submitted prior to
January 1, 1978
and five or more
units
3.5 years 4.5 years
4.5 years 5.5 years
6.5 years
7.5 years
Tier III - Any building not
falling within another tier
Tier IV - Any building
containing ground floor
commercial uses (Building
Code Occupancy B or M),
or any building in a
mapped liquefaction zone
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 39
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 101
Table 3 (continued).
Number
of Soft-
story
Deadline Deadline
for for
Evaluation Permit Completion
Deadline
forProgram
Type
Targeted Building
CharacteristicsJurisdictionYear Priorities or Tiers
Buildings
Alameda
Fremont
2011
2005
70 Mandatory Five or more units
evaluation
n/a 2 years
22 Mandatory Apartment house Group 1 - Apartment
house with more than ten
units or more than two
stories
n/a
n/a
2 years 4 years
5 years
retrofit with more than
ten units or more
than two stories
Group II - Apartment
house with ten or less
units and fewer than three
stories high
2.5 years
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 40
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 102
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 41
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 103
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 42
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 104
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 43
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 105
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 44
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 106
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 45
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 107
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 46
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 108
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 47
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 109
Figure 3: Diagram showing a spectrum of mitigation policy approaches ranging from least to most stringent.
Voluntary
Retrofit
Disclosure
Approaches
Mandatory
Screening
Mandatory
Evaluation
Mandatory
RetrofitInventory Only Notify Only
Staff, consultants,
and/or a volunteer and a policy has
organization has
created an
inventory of one or their property is on encouraged to
more suspected
hazard building
types, but the list is
not officially
released to the
public or acted
upon.
An inventory exists Owners of
properties on a
been established to publically available
notify owners if list are formally
Properties on a
publically available properties on a
list are subject to
one or more
methods of forced submit a form
within a fixed time
Owners of Owners of
properties on a
publically available publically available publically available
Owners of
properties on a
list are required to list are required
submit within a
list are required to
complete a retrofit
a suspected hazard retrofit, possibly by information fixed time window a by a certain date.
building list.offering of technical sharing, such as window that is filled formal evaluation This step may be
implemented
following a
assistance, financial tenant notification, out by a licensed
help, or policy
incentives.
completed by a
licensed engineer.
Typically, a
public signage, or
recorded notice on professional.
the property title.
building
screening or
Typically, the goal is determination is
to determine
whether the
evaluation phase.*
then made about
whether the
property has certain property has certain
characteristics that risk features.*
might associate
with risk.*
* Note: Implementation and enforcement might be either: 1) triggered by sale or a significant work threshold or 2) via a proactive compliance timeline.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 48
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 110
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 49
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 111
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 50
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 112
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 51
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 113
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 52
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 114
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 53
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 115
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 54
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 116
reported having tenants that actively complained about or repeatedly ripped the
required warning signs off the walls (Rabinovici, 2012).
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 55
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 117
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 Sellers of property are required California Earthquake 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.
to disclose features that could
relate to earthquake
performance.
Fault Zone disclosure;
Sellers of pre-1960
homes are required to
fill out to the best of
their knowledge and
provide buyers with
Residential
at Time of Sale
Earthquake Hazards
Report.
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 Anecdotally, it is not clear how
jurisdictions to implement. many buyers or mortgage
Empowers buyers but also companies pay attention to
mortgage companies to be these notices. Such notices are
aware of any known
existing hazard issues.
primarily effective only at time
of sale or refinance.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 56
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 118
Table 4 (continued)
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
For soft-story wood
frame: Oakland,
Berkeley, and San
Francisco.
Relatively low cost for
jurisdictions to implement. be updated on a regular basis
Could be used by tenants
and buyers when
searching for properties,
thus empowering well-
informed market
Website information needs to
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).negotiations over pricing.
searched for it separately.
External Signage Jurisdictions that operate web
sites to describe their
California state
requires a sign on all
URM buildings. Similar public's right to know. The property value or business
signage has been
required since 2007
on soft-story wood
frame buildings in the issue more salient for
City of Berkeley.
Advocates argue that signs Owners may view the signs as
are justified based on the stigmatizing or threatening to
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.
physical presence and
repeated viewing of
signage may make the
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.
visitors, employees, lease
holders, and owners alike.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 57
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 119
Table 4 (continued)
Name Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Tenant Notification Owners are required to present For soft-story wood Tenant notification may be To be effective, tenant
straightforward, standardized
information about the listed
status of the property. Some
jurisdictions require proof of
notification (e.g., tenant
frame: Oakland,
Berkeley, and San
Francisco.
more influential than
signage because it is
personalized and the
notification should be required
to occur well before the
potential tenant is ready to
information is delivered at sign the lease.
a useful time in that
signature) to be returned and
kept on file with the city.
person's decision process.
Advocates claim that
tenant notification is
justified based on the
public's right to know.
Earthquake
Performance Rating
Systems
Owners can be either The City of Los
Angeles in 2015
Rating system use is
common for institutions
like universities and
hospitals. Mechanisms for
implementing
performance ratings for
commercial use have
recently matured and are
Obtaining a rating potentially
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
adds cost to a design project.
Ratings systems such as USRC’s
are relatively new and not yet
widely implemented.
officially launched a
voluntary effort to
encourage owners to
rate their properties
using the US
Resiliency Council
system and pledged to now viable. Ratings have
systems exist for many building rate its own public
types. buildings as well.
the potential to inform
owner, renter and buyer
decisions, creating a
market effect.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 58
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 120
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 59
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 121
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 60
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 122
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 61
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 123
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 62
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 124
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 63
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 125
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 64
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 126
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 65
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 127
FINANCIAL TOOLS AND INCENTIVES POLICY INCENTIVES
(mechanisms that make financing
more accessible or directly reduce
project costs)
(mechanisms that deliver indirect
benefits to owners)
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
Real Estate Transfer Tax Rebates
Condominium Conversion Assistance
Technical Assistance for Retrofit
Projects
Special District or Historic Designation
Tax Reductions
Zoning Incentives (e.g., relief from use
restrictions)
Tax Credits
Grants
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 66
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 128
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 67
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 129
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 68
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 130
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 69
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 131
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 70
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 132
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 71
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 133
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 72
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 134
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 73
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 135
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 74
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 136
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 75
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 137
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 76
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 138
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 77
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 139
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 78
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 140
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 79
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 141
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 80
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 142
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 Escalation Demo & Soft Cost Average Multiplier
Factor
for
Palo
Alto
Factor
from 2014 Sitework
Minimal Premium2 2016
Palo
Alto
Cost w/
Soft
(Replaced
with Soft
Costs / RS
Means)
costs to (5’
2016 costs around
building)
[$/SF]Costs
[$/SF]
Multi Family, duplex $130.75
$114.94
40%
40%
10%
10%
$17.50
$17.50
20%
20%
$263
$233
2.01
2.03Multi Family,
triplex/quad
Multi Family, 5-9 units $206.41
$194.12
40%
40%
10%
10%
$17.50
$17.50
20%
20%
$402
$380
1.95
1.96Multi Family, 10-19
units
Multi Family, 20-49
units
$212.26 40%10%$17.50 20%$413 1.95
Multi Family, 50+ units
Temporary Lodging
Institutional Dormitory
Nursing Homes
$199.90
$217.83
$234.44
$238.07
$121.66
$118.13
$143.47
40%
40%
50%
50%
80%
60%
60%
10%
10%
14%
12%
10%
10%
10%
$17.50
$17.50
$25.00
$25.00
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
$390
$424
$511
$510
$310
$$270
$324
1.95
1.94
2.18
2.14
2.55
2.29
2.26
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Personal & Repair
Services
Professional/Technical/
Business Services
$194.52 65%12%$17.50 20%$452 2.33
Banks $281.88
$372.59
$267.85
40%
50%
20%
25%
35%
20%
25%
25%
30%
30%
12%
14%
10%
12%
12%
10%
10%
10%
12%
12%
$25.00
$35.00
$17.50
$25.00
$25.00
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
$560
$807
$445
$448
$368
$155
$260
$216
$422
$422
1.99
2.16
1.66
1.80
1.98
1.83
1.80
1.83
1.84
1.84
Hospitals
Medical Office/Clinics
Entertainment/Recreation $248.61
Theaters $186.45
$84.59Parking
Heavy $144.71
$118.13
$229.48
$229.48
Light
Food/Drugs/Chemicals
Metal/Minerals
Processing
High Technology $229.48 40%14%$17.50 20%$461 2.01
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 81
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 143
Table 5: Average $/SF replacement building cost by Hazus occupancy class.
Occupancy Class RS
Means
2014
Average
Palo
Alto
Cost1
[$/SF]
Market Escalation Demo & Soft Cost Average Multiplier
Factor
for
Palo
Alto
Factor
from 2014 Sitework
Minimal Premium2 2016
Palo
Alto
Cost w/
Soft
(Replaced
with Soft
Costs / RS
Means)
costs to (5’
2016 costs around
building)
[$/SF]Costs
[$/SF]
Construction $118.13
$118.13
$199.08
$152.63
$259.52
$193.00
$214.91
30%
50%
10%
40%
40%
40%
60%
10%
12%
12%
10%
14%
12%
12%
$17.50
$25.00
$17.50
$17.50
$25.00
$25.00
$25.00
20%
20%
20%
35%
35%
35%
35%
$224
$268
$315
$341
$593
$442
$554
1.89
2.27
1.58
2.23
2.28
2.29
2.58
Church
Agriculture
General Services
Emergency Response
Schools/Libraries
Colleges/Universities
Notes:
1. RS Means average cost includes RS Means default location factors to adjust national average to Palo Alto of 15%
for residential and 11% for commercial.
2. Soft costs include architect and engineer design fees, testing and inspection, utility connection fee, permits, and an
allowance for owner change order contingency.
3. Costs are intended to be representative of average in Palo Alto across the town, including downtown areas together
with other areas in the city.
4. Costs were previously prepared following a 3/7/2016 discussion with the Palo Alto Seismic Risk Program Advisory
Group Technical Advisory Committee. Table includes minor updates based on internal review between Rutherford
+ Chekene and Vanir Construction Management to achieve improved relative ratios between different occupancy
types.
Table 6 shows how the number and aggregate value of Palo Alto’s buildings is distributed by structural
system, using the FEMA Model Building Type classification system for structural system. The table is
sorted by aggregate building value. Wood frame buildings make up about 60% of the number of
buildings, and represent 35% of the total value. About 20% of the buildings are concrete, and they
represent over 40% of the total value. Of the remaining 20%, about two-thirds are masonry buildings,
and one-third steel. However, the steel buildings represent about twice the value of the masonry
buildings.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 82
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 144
Table 6: Distribution of number of buildings, building area, and building value by Model Building
Type.
Model Building Type Number of
Buildings
Aggregate Square
Feet (1,000)
Aggregate Building
Value ($M)
Concrete shear wall (C2)318
242
331
307
50
9,699
8,054
8,403
6,209
3,116
3,821
3,005
2,806
574
4,082
3,368
3,232
2,369
1,391
1,278
1,242
1,209
211
Concrete tilt-up (PC1)
Wood frame larger residential (W1A)
Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2)
Steel braced frame (S2)
Wood frame smaller residential (W1)
Steel moment frame (S1)
898
75
Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1)
Reinforced masonry, concrete floor (RM2)
Steel light metal frame (S3)
285
30
41 533 177
Precast concrete frame (PC2)5 334 125
Concrete moment frame (C1)18 325 117
Steel frame with concrete shear walls (S4)
Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM)
Concrete with masonry infill (C3)
Steel frame with masonry infill (S5)
Totals
13 162 72
9 274 15
8 26 8
2 6 3
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 83
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 145
Figure 10: Distribution of year built of buildings in study group with significant changes in the building
design practice.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 84
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 146
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 85
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 147
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 86
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 148
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 87
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 149
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 88
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 150
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 89
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 151
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
2
3
4
Wood frame smaller
residential (W1)
2
2
3
2
5,320
9,500
W1
W1A
All
< 15,000
≥ 15,000
All
12
11
6
Wood frame larger
residential (W1A)
Wood frame larger
residential (W1A)
30,000
10,000
W1A
Wood frame W2 14
commercial/industrial (W2)
5
6
Steel moment frame (S1)
Concrete shear wall (C2)
2
1
43,900
5,000
S1, S2, S3 All 10
50C1, C2, S4, < 10,000
PC2
7 Concrete shear wall (C2)2 17,280 C1, C2, S4, ≥ 10,000 40
PC2
8
9
Concrete tilt-up (PC1)
Concrete tilt-up (PC1)
1
2
1
18,435
38,400
2,750
PC1
PC1
< 25,000
≥ 25,000
< 5,000
29
21
7410Reinforced masonry, wood
floor (RM1)
RM1, RM2
11
12
Reinforced masonry, wood
floor (RM1)
2
1
8,150
5,000
RM1, RM2 ≥ 5,000 46
Unreinforced masonry
bearing wall (URM)
URM, S5,
C3
All 110
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 90
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 152
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 91
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 153
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 92
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 154
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 $2.4
billion. Average building damage and content damage also approximately double with a M7.9 event.
The difference in the number of buildings that are heavily damaged with the larger earthquake is more
pronounced with a 12-fold increase from the M6.7 to the M7.9 scenarios. This is shown in the fourth
column of Table 8 as the number of buildings with a damage ratio exceeding 20%.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 93
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 155
Table 8: Total losses for study group in as-is condition.
Earthquake Building Content
Value2
($B)
Number
of Bldgs
with
Damage
Ratio ≥
20%3
Estimated Estimated Total
Building
and
Content
Damage
($B)
Scenario Value1 Building
Damage4
($B)
Content
Damage4
($B)
($B)
M7.9
M6.7
18.9
18.9
17.3
17.3
224
19
1.7
0.8
2
0.7
0.4
2
2.4
1.2
2Ratio of M7.9/M6.7
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 94
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 156
To put the loss from building damage in context, the average annual valuation of Palo Alto construction
permits was $400M between 2013 and 2016 (which represents a boom period). The total loss in a
major M7.9 earthquake represents more than four years’ worth of construction, and the total loss in a
strong M6.7 earthquake represents more than two years worth of construction.
It should be noted that these losses do not include the effects of lives lost and business disruption, or
the ripple effects in the local economy or real estate market, and that much of this loss will not be
insured.
Table 9 breaks out the estimated loss and damage ratio for various model building types, and it can be
seen that it depends on the metric used which building type is considered the poorest performer.
Looking at the total loss alone, concrete bearing wall buildings and commercial wood frame buildings
are responsible for the highest total loss. This tracks well with the earlier finding that these structural
systems are the most prevalent ones. If we look at the highest average building damage ratio instead,
buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls and unreinforced masonry infills are the most prone
to damage. However, not very many of them exist in Palo Alto, and as a result they do not represent
much of the aggregate loss. It is therefore important to look at multiple metrics when deciding which
buildings are the most vulnerable and significant to the community as a whole.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 95
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 157
Table 9: Top three vulnerable building types ranked by total loss, average damage ratio, and number
of severely damaged buildings.
Building Type Number Building M7.9 EQ M7.9
EQ
Average Number
M7.9
EQofValue
($M)
Total
Buildings Building
+ Content Building of Bldgs
Losses
($M)
Damage
Ratio
with
Damage
Ratio ≥
20%
Concrete shear wall (C2)318
242
307
4,082
3,368
2,369
477
365
216
14%
12%
9%
75
32
9
Concrete tilt-up (PC1)
Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2)
Steel frame with masonry infill (S5)2
9
8
3
15
8
1
4
2
38%
29%
29%
1
9
6
Unreinforced masonry bearing wall (URM)
Concrete frame with masonry infill (C3)
Concrete shear wall (C2)
Concrete tilt-up (PC1)
Steel moment frame (S1)
318
242
75
4,082
3,368
1,242
477
365
130
14%
12%
18%
75
32
27
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 96
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 158
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 Building Content Estimated Number Estimated Total
Building
&
Content
Damage
($B)
Scenario Value
($B)
Value
($B)
Building
Damage
($B)
of Bldgs
with
Content
Damage
($B)Damage
Ratio ≥
20%
M7.9
M6.7
18.9
18.9
17.3
17.3
0.9
0.5
2
6
0
-
0.5
0.3
2
1.3
0.8
2Ratio of M7.9/M6.7
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 97
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 159
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 98
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 160
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)
Wood frame larger residential (W1A)
Wood frame commercial/industrial (W2)
Steel moment frame (S1)
16
25
13,775
61,317
160,155
76,150
24,222
38,163
11,118
695
4
7
12
6-11
145026
25
8
62 10
Steel braced frame (S2)44 10
Steel light metal frame (S3)108
101
247
55
72
69
121
25
35
34
27
0
10
Steel frame with concrete shear walls (S4)
Steel frame with masonry infill (S5)
Concrete moment frame (C1)
40-50
110
8,045 40-50
40-50
110
Concrete shear wall (C2)70 336,574
865Concrete frame with masonry infill (C3)
Concrete tilt-up (PC1)
120
68 218,491
0
21-29
21-29
46-74
46-74
110
Precast concrete frame (PC2)21
Reinforced masonry, wood floor (RM1)
Reinforced masonry, concrete floor (RM2)
Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall (URM)
Totals
59 87,697
3,727
31
635
23 5,216 19
22511,046,210
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 99
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 161
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 (1,000)
Total
SF
M7.9 EQ
Average
Loss by
Building
($/SF)
M7.9 EQ Average (Average
Average
Loss
Cost to
Retrofit Avoided)
Loss
Avoided
by
Retrofit
($/SF)
($/SF)/
(Average
Retrofit
Cost)
Pre-1977 wood frame soft-story
(W1, W1A, W2)
294
99
3,690
3,078
842
66 46
71
12
23
42
10
4
3Pre-1998 tilt-up
(PC1)
106
149
152
Pre-1977 concrete soft-story
(C1, C2, C3)
37 108
110
3
Pre-1998 steel moment frame
(S1)
35 690 11
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 100
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 162
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 101
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 163
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 102
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 164
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 103
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 165
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 ASCE 41
or more occupants
III
IV
Built before 8/1/76 with 300 ASCE 41
or more occupants
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 104
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 166
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 105
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 167
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 106
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 168
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 107
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 169
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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 108
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 170
•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
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 109
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 171
•
•
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.
Seismic Risk Assessment Study
Final Report
December 21, 2016
Page 110
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 172
APPENDIX A
Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction
Legislation
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 173
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
Field Act 1933 Established regulations for the Palo Alto has school
design and construction of K - facilities subject to this
Public Schools
Public Schools
Education Code-
§17281
12 and community college
buildings. The Division of the
State Architect enforces the
Field Act.
policy.
Riley Act 1933 Required local governments to Palo Alto has school
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.
facilities subject to this
policy.
Garrison Act 1939 Required school boards to
assess building safety of pre -
Field Act schools, ordered
As of 2011, Palo Alto had
six schools on the "AB300
list" of affected buildings.
Public Schools
modernization of non-Field act Current status of these
compliant structures. properties is not known.
California 1971 Required city and county plans Palo Alto addresses General Plan Government
Code § 65302Planning and
Zoning Law
Requirements
to include seismic safety
elements.
earthquake hazards in the
Safety element of its 2008
General Plan.
24
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 174
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act
1972 Required cities and counties
to require a geologic
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-
2630investigation, 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.
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
Research Public Resources
Code§§2700 -
2709.1
changes to building codes,
assist local governments
in the development of
their general plans, and
help emergency response
personnel in events.
25
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 175
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
Alfred E. Alquist 1973 Regulated the design,Palo Alto has at least two Hospitals Health and
Safety
Code§129675
Hospital
Facilities
Seismic Safety
Act
construction and alteration of major hospitals in its
hospitals; set seismic safety
standards for new hospitals;
created an advisory Hospital
Building Safety Board. Office
of Statewide Health Planning
& Development enforces this
Act.
jurisdiction that are
subject to this Act. Current
status of their facilities is
not known.
Seismic Safety
Commission Act
1975 Created the independent Palo Alto can take
advantage of the technical
Strategy Business and
Professions Code
§1014
California Seismic Safety
Commission (CSSC) to provide assistance offered by the
a consistent earthquake policy CSSC and its publications,
framework for the state. The in particular the statewide
mission of CSSC is “to provide Earthquake Hazard Loss
decision makers and the
general public with cost -
Mitigation Plan of 2013,
provides extensive advice
effective recommendations to about high priority
reduce earthquake losses and earthquake issues and
expedite recovery from
damaging earthquakes.
initiatives.
AB 2438 (Wray) 1980 Authorized local governments Palo Alto does not
to adopt ordinances requiring currently require gas shut
earthquake gas shut-off valves off valves but could
Utilities Chapter 971,
Statutes of 1980
in buildings open to the
public.
choose to do so.
26
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 176
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
SB 360 (Alquist) 1981 Required mobile home
bracing devices. It also
Palo Alto has one mobile
home park in its
jurisdiction, Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park. Status
of these homes with
Mobile Homes Chapter 533,
Statutes of 1981
required the Department of
Housing and Community
Development to administer
the program, test devices, and regard to bracing is not
issue certifications.known.
Mello Roos Act 1982 Permits cities to establish Although there is no Financing Government
Code §53311-
53317.5
Capital Improvement Districts precedent to date, Palo
that can issue special bonds to Alto may be able to use
fund facilities improvements
without coming under the
this tool to secure
additional funds for
caps on property tax increases retrofit projects for either
that were imposed under
Proposition 13.
public or private buildings.
SB 961 (Alquist) 1982 Required the Office of Palo Alto has at least two Hospitals Chapter 303,
Statutes of 1982Statewide Health Planning and major hospitals in its
Development to institute plan jurisdiction that are
review and field inspection of
hospital buildings being
subject to this Act.
constructed to ensure building
safety. Requires the State Fire
Marshal to ensure fire safety
of these buildings.
27
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 177
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
Alquist Hospital 1983 Required design and Palo Alto has at least two
major hospitals in its
jurisdiction that are
Hospitals Health and
Safety Code
§§130000 -
130070
Facilities
Seismic Safety
Act
construction standards for
hospitals; requires that after
Jan. 1, 2008 any general acute subject to this Act.
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.
Economic
Disaster Act
1984 Institutionalized the planning
and response of state
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
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.
28
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 178
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
SB 239 (L.
Greene)
1985 Created the Essential Services Palo Alto Building Essential
Department is required to Buildings
implement heightened
Chapter 1521,
Statutes of 1985Building Act and declared the
intent of the Legislature that
essential services buildings be review for its fire stations,
designed and constructed to a police stations, emergency
higher standard to resist
damage from earthquakes.
Established design and
communications, and
other qualifying buildings.
construction requirements.
Essential
Services
Building Seismic
1986 Required enhanced regulatory Palo Alto Building Essential Health and
Safety Code
§16000
oversight by local Department is required to Buildings
implement heightenedgovernments during the
Safety Act design and construction of
new essential service facilities, police stations, emergency
such as fire and police stations communications, and
review for its fire stations,
and emergency other qualifying buildings.
communications and
operations facilities. The
Division of the State Architect
within DGS enforces this Act.
Unreinforced
Masonry
Building Law
1986 Required local governments in Palo Alto mandated to URM Government
Code §§ 8875-
8875.10
high seismic regions of comply. Current program
in place has resolvedCalifornia to inventory un -
reinforced masonry buildings, nearly all cases but a few
establish mitigation programs, remain.
and report progress to the
CSSC. Signage requirements
were added in 2004.
29
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 179
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
California
Earthquake
Hazards
1986 Called for a coordinated state Established the legal basis Strategy Government
Code §8870program to implement new
and expanded activities to
significantly reduce the
earthquake threat.
for several key programs.
Established the legal basis
Reduction Act
SB 548 (Alquist) 1986 Created the California Strategy Chapter 1491,
Earthquake Hazard Reduction for several key programs.
Act which called for the
Statutes of 1985
Commission to administer a
program to “significantly
reduce hazards by January 1,
2000.”
SB 2453
(Maddy)
1989 Required surgical clinics to
hire architects and structural
engineers to assure that
medical equipment are
Palo Alto may have
relevant health facilities
within its jurisdiction.
Hospitals Chapter 1579,
Statutes of 1990
properly anchored.
Seismic Hazards 1990 Directed the Department of 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
Mapping Act 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.
30
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 180
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
Natural Hazards 1990 Required transferor of real All relevant real estate Disclosure Civil Code §1102
Disclosure Act property, consisting of not less transactions in Palo Alto
than one nor more than four are subject to this
dwelling units, to disclose to requirement, but
transferee if the real property compliance is not
lies within any of the following monitored or enforced.
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
Evidence suggests it is
common practice to check
"do not know" as a
blanket policy for seismic
vulnerability questions.
contain substantial forest fire
risks and hazards; an
earthquake fault zone; and/or
a seismic hazard zone.
AB 3313
(Woodruff)
1990 Required the State Architect
and the Building Standards
Commission to develop and
adopt seismic retrofit
Palo Alto may have
relevant facilities within its and
jurisdiction or be able to
take advantage of the
guidelines produced for
this program in
Public Buildings Chapter 1511,
Statutes of 1990
Universities
guidelines for state buildings,
including public universities.
considering rehabilitation
of its own facilities.
31
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 181
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
Earthquake
Safety and
Public Buildings
Rehabilitation
Bond Act
1990 Authorized the state to issue
$300 million in general
Funding is exhausted but
this legislation provides a
model of one pathway to
financial support to local
entities to do seismic
Public Buildings
and
Universities
Prop 122 &
Government
Code §§8878.50-
8878.52
obligation bonds for the
seismic retrofit of state and
local government buildings
($250 million for state -owned mitigation work.
buildings and $50 million for
partial financing of local
government essential services
facilities).
Executive Order 1990 Required CalTrans to prepare Palo Alto may have Infrastructure
D-86-90 plan to retrofit transportation related facilities within its
structures; requests UC and
requires CSU to give priority
consideration to seismic
safety in allocation of funds
for construction projects.
jurisdiction or that affect
its citizens or local
businesses.
AB 204
(Cortese)
1991 Created a model, minimum Palo Alto can reference
the codes that resulted
URM
building code for the retrofit
of buildings with brick-bearing from this law as input
walls.regarding methods for
URM retrofit.
AB 908 (Farr)1991 Specified that liquefaction and Palo Alto complies with General Plan Chapter 823,
Statutes of 1992other seismic hazards are
geologic hazards to be
addressed in the safety
element of a general plan.
this requirement through
its 2008 General Plan.
32
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 182
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
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
Tax Policy Chapter 8,
Statutes of 1991
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.
Emergency
Room
Mandates
1991 Established seismic safety Palo Alto may have health Hospitals
facilities subject to this
Health & Safety
Code § 1226.5standards for ambulatory
surgical centers; requires fixed policy.
medical equipment (floor roof
or wall mounted) to be
installed using services of
licensed architect or structural
engineer; and requires
inspection every five years.
33
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 183
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
SB 597 (Alquist) 1992 Required the state architect to Although outdated, this Concrete Chapter 1079,
Statutes of 1992develop seismic retrofit law provides background
guidance on theguidelines and standards for
certain buildings enclosing importance and potential
more than 20,000 square feet pathways to retrofitting
of floor area with concrete or
reinforced masonry column
construction.
this particular high risk
category of large
commercial structures.
Palo Alto may have
qualifying structures in its
jurisdiction.
SB 119 (Hart)1992 Enacted the Higher Education Palo Alto may have Public Buildings
Universities
Chapter 13,
Statutes of 1992Facilities 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.
relevant facilities within its and
jurisdiction.
Seismic Retrofit 1996 Authorized $2 billion for Palo Alto may have
relevant facilities within its
jurisdiction.
Bridges
Bond Act
(California
Proposition
192)
seismic retrofitting, including
$650 million for seismic
retrofitting of toll bridges.
34
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 184
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
Highway Safety, 2006 Essential Facility Seismic 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)
Traffic Safety Program. Provided
$125 million funding for
seismic retrofit work on local
bridges, ramps, and
Reduction, Air
Quality, and
Port Security
Bond Act overpasses; established Local
Bridge Seismic Retrofit
Account.
General
Obligation
Bonds
A city or a city and county may Palo Alto may issue bonds Financing Government
Code Section
43600-43638
incur indebtedness pursuant
for seismic strengthening of
unreinforced buildings and
other buildings. Proceeds of
to create funds for use in
loan programs to cover
seismic retrofit costs for
publically- or privately-
bonds authorized pursuant to owned buildings as long as
this section may be used to
make loans to public entities
or owners of private buildings.
Required the California
Earthquake Authority to
establish, in the operational
it can justify the public
purpose of the work.
AB 964 (Aroner)CEA has broad authority
to spend ELMF funds on
physical mitigation
Small
Residential
Chapter 715,
Statutes of 1999
rules of the Earthquake Loss improvements related to
Mitigation Fund, a plan for the 1-4 unit dwellings.
expedited expansion of the
residential retrofit program
statewide.
Currently Palo Alto is not
in the program but it could
apply to be part of a
future pilot phase.
35
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 185
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
Automatic Gas
Shut Off Valves
Authorized local governments Palo Alto does not require
to adopt ordinances requiring gas shut off valves but
Utilities Health and
Safety Code
§§19180-83 &
§§19200-05
installation of earthquake
sensitive gas shutoff devices in
buildings; allowed Division of
the State Architect to
could do so.
establish a certification
procedure for installation.
AB 3249 (Katz)Required private schools
constructed after July 1, 1987 relevant schools in its
Palo Alto may have Private Schools Chapter 439,
Statutes of 1986
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.
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.
36
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 186
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
AB 2959 (Klehs)Required the Seismic Safety
Commission to develop,
adopt, and publish a
This pamphlet is regularly
exchanged from seller to
buyer in smaller
Education Chapter 1499,
Statutes of 1990
Homeowner’s Guide to
Earthquake Preparedness by
January 1, 1992 (SSC 97-01)
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.
AB 1968
(Areias)
Required the Seismic Safety
Commission to develop,
adopt, and publish a
Palo Alto property owners
are required to provide
this pamphlet to a buyer
Education
Recovery
Chapter 859,
Statutes of 1991
Commercial Property Owner’s at sale. Palo Alto currently
Guide to Earthquake Safety
for distribution to real estate
licensees.
provides a link to this
document on the Building
Inspection website.
Natural Disaster
Assistance Act
Provided state financial
assistance for recovery efforts for applying for these
Palo Alto would be eligible Government
Code §8680
to counties, cities and/or
special districts after a state
disaster has been proclaimed.
funds following a local
event.
37
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 187
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
AB 1890
(Cortese)
Required new and
replacement water heaters to required to have two
Properties in Palo Alto are Utilities Chapter 951,
Statutes of 1989
be braced and anchored.seismic straps on their
water heater per CPC
508.2. Status of non-
inspected older water
heaters unknown.
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
Resulting reports provide
information relevant to
planning effective mobile
homes policies.
Mobile Homes Resolution
Chapter 99,
Statutes of 1980
recommendations to the
Department of Housing and
Community Development for
implementation.
38
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 188
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
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 Mobile Homes
facilities subject to this
policy.
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
Palo Alto may have
relevant facilities within its cations
jurisdiction.
Telecommuni-Chapter 813,
Statutes of 1991
applications for the
construction of new cellular
facilities.
39
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 189
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
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
Insurance Insurance Code
§§ 10089.5 -
10089.54
educational programs or
partnerships with CEA.
Disaster Authorized and otherwise
enabled cities, counties, and
other entities to prepare in
advance of a disaster for the
expeditious and orderly
This legislation sets out
relevant authorities and
guidance for effective pre-
disaster emergency
Recovery Government
Code §8877.1Recovery
Reconstruction
Act
management and
recovery and reconstruction
of the community or region;
Includes plans and ordinances
facilitating recovery and
reconstruction and
recovery planning.
contingency plan of action and
organization for short -term
and long-term recovery and
reconstruction to be instituted
after a disaster.
40
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 190
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
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
Palo Alto may have
relevant facilities within its
jurisdiction.
Concrete Education Code
§17317
requirements of the 1976
UBC, by Dec. 31, 2001.
SB 1122
(Alarcón)
Required the Office of
Emergency Services, in
cooperation with the State
Palo Alto could use this
pamphlet or more recent
versions in a public
Education Chapter 294,
Statutes of 1999
Department of Education, the education campaign in
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.
coordination with local
schools.
41
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 191
Appendix A -- Table of Historic California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative Approach
Year Targeted Use
or Structure
Type
Status and
Reference
Statute or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto Special
ProgramsShort Title Description Program Update
SB 577
(Rosenthal)
Replaced references to
earthquake sensitive or
seismic gas shutoff valves with are contained in CPC
the term earthquake sensitive 508.2.
or seismic gas shutoff devices.
Also revised the bracing
Provisions for seismic
strapping of water heaters
requirements for water
heaters to apply to all new
and replacement water
Chapter 152,
Statutes of 1996Utilities
heaters, and all existing
residential water heaters;
required any water heater to
be secured in accordance with
the California Plumbing Code.
42
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 192
APPENDIX B
Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction
Legislation
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 193
Appendix B -- Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative
Approach*Sources: CSSC, 2009; LegInfo, 2016.
Targeted
Use or
Structure Programs
Status and
Reference Statute
or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto SpecialShort Title Description Program Update
Type
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
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
Any Vetoed by Governor
for financial reasons.
appropriate jurisdiction with authority eligible seismic mitigation
for building code enforcement that
the building is an at-risk property.
investments.
43
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 194
Appendix B -- Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative
Approach*Sources: CSSC, 2009; LegInfo, 2016.
Targeted
Use or
Structure Programs
Status and
Reference Statute
or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto SpecialShort Title Description Program Update
Type
SB 494 -- Seismic
Safety and
Earthquake-Related
Programs (Hill)
This bill creates the California Sponsored by Palo Alto’s Early Signed by Governor
Earthquake Safety Fund. Upon
appropriation by the Legislature, the
moneys in the fund shall be used for
District Assembly Member. If
this program is funded, Palo
Alto could advocate for local
Warning October 2015 –
System Chapter 799,
Statutes of 2015
seismic safety and earthquake-related public and private sector
programs, including the earthquake
early warning system. The bill
involvement in the state's
Earthquake Early Warning
authorizes the fund to accept federal System.
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.
44
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 195
Appendix B -- Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative
Approach*Sources: CSSC, 2009; LegInfo, 2016.
Targeted
Use or
Structure Programs
Status and
Reference Statute
or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto SpecialShort Title Description Program Update
Type
SB 1205 -- Commercial Requires an existing California
Earthquake Risk
Management Courses to develop or recommend educational be created within a few years
Recommendations and
Department of Insurance (CDI) board resources materials will likely
Education Signed by Governor
August 2014 –
Chapter 252
(Monning)courses for agents and brokers on
commercial earthquake risk
management.
that could assist Palo Alto in
promoting greater awareness
and action among commercial
property agents and owners.
SB 602 -- California
Earthquake Authority: establish a state-wide program to
Property Secured
Mitigation Program
(Monning)
This bill would authorize the CEA to This bill would create the
authority for another PACE-
type funding mechanism that
cities could use to offer loans
to owners for seismic
Small
Residential
Pending
provide property assessment
financing for seismic retrofits.
mitigation work, to be paid
off through higher property
tax assessment over the
course of 20 years.
45
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 196
Appendix B -- Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative
Approach*Sources: CSSC, 2009; LegInfo, 2016.
Targeted
Use or
Structure Programs
Status and
Reference Statute
or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto SpecialShort Title Description Program Update
Type
AB 1429 -- Earthquake This bill requires the CRMP to If passed and funded, grant
funds might be made
available to Palo Alto small
multi-family residential
buildings.
Small
Multifamily
Pending
Mitigation Retrofit
Program: 5 to 10
implement a grant program that
would give a grant to a qualifying
Dwelling Units (Chui) 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.
AB 1440 -- Earthquake This bill requires the CRMP to If passed and funded, grant Small
Residential
Pending
Mitigation Retrofit
Program: Single-
Family Residential
implement a grant program and give a funds might be made
grant to a qualifying owner of a single- available to Palo Alto small
family residential structure to defray residential owners.
Structures (Nazarian) the owner’s cost of seismic retrofit
work to the structure, as specified, if
the Legislature appropriates funds for
that purpose.
46
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 197
Appendix B -- Table of Contemporary California Earthquake Risk Reduction Legislation
Type of Legislative
Approach*Sources: CSSC, 2009; LegInfo, 2016.
Targeted
Use or
Structure Programs
Status and
Reference Statute
or Code
Relevance to Palo Alto SpecialShort Title Description Program Update
Type
SB 336 -- California
Earthquake Authority: policyholders who have retrofitted
Mitigation Discount
(Roth)
This bill provides that CEA If passed, Palo Alto Small
Residential
Pending
homeowners that purchase
earthquake insurance would
have greater assurance that
premium discounts for
mitigation investments would
not be reducible below five
percent.
their homes shall enjoy a premium
discount or credit of “at least” five
percent.
AB 2181 -- Soft-Story
Local Program
Authorization
Authorizes each city, city and county, There is no state law that Soft-Story Dead in 2014, never
heard in committee.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
forbids such programs, but
this law would have removed
any ambiguity that such
programs are permitted.
hazardous if an earthquake occurs and
to initiate programs to inform owners,
residents and the public about such
dangers.
47
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 198
APPENDIX C
Table Describing Incentives Used in Local Earthquake Risk
Reduction Programs
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 199
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 This mechanism is 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-
for qualifying retrofit
work based on voter
approval of issuance of
new municipal or state
debt to be repaid by
taxation.
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.
generating improvements upon
which financing can be
leveraged.
Grants Direct provision of funds CEA's Earthquake Brace &
for qualifying retrofit
work.
Some sources exist for city-scale Limited sources exist. Programs
Bolt program for single
family homes.
projects or privately-owned
buildings, such as FEMA Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grants.
can be difficult to manage
administratively. Fairness
concerns exist over which
owners can benefit.
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 200
Appendix C. Incentives, continued.
Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Property-Assessed
Financing Loans
Also known as a San Francisco's PACE Provides an upfront way for Administratively complex for
owners to access private capital both jurisdictions and owners.
to afford retrofit projects. The Challenges include setting up
loan can be paid off over time this complex financing
through higher rents or at future instrument which has heavy
Property Assessed Clean program.
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
sale, as well as being
transferrable to future owners.
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.
assessment.
Tax Credits Waiver of a portion of a
business, parcel, or
income tax for a number California passed AB 428 in
Although vetoed by the
Governor, the legislature of outside the local jurisdiction,
The funding source can be Owners would need to be aware
of the credit and verify
and depending on the clarity of
program requirements, owners
qualifying work and complete all
follow up documentation.
Mostly benefits owners already
intending to retrofit and those
with more financial and business
sophistication.
of years to encourage
owners to retrofit.
2015, which would have
offered up to 30% credit for can count on the funds as part
qualifying retrofit costs. of planning their project.
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 201
Appendix C. Incentives, continued.
Type of Incentive Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Rebates
Building owners can This policy has existed in
Berkeley since 1991 for
residential dwellings up to
four units and in San
In Berkeley, the program was
immediately popular and
eventually highly influential in
increasing support for other
earthquake policies because it
The jurisdiction forgoes tax
revenue. Anecdotally in
Berkeley, city officials had no
easy way to assess the quality of
work done. Some experts
apply for a rebate of a
fraction (usually 1/3, up
to a cap) of the amount
of the transfer tax owed Francisco since 2008 for
to the city for a property properties worth $5 million touched so many community suspect that some of the funds
at sale for any qualifying or more.
seismic improvement
expenditures made
within a certain period
before or after transfer
of title.
members and firmly established went to incomplete or
a tone that the city takes seismic improperly done retrofits.
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.
Waivers or Reductions of Full waivers, fixed, or
Building Department
Fees
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
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.
percentage-based
reductions of building
permit fee reductions.
perform seismic retrofits.
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 202
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
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 with the added costs, although
Tenants with fixed or low
incomes might suffer hardship
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
a share of it. Owners can use
this anticipated source of
revenue as a basis for securing a
loan.
hardship provisions can lessen
those effects.
retrofits to renters in
rent-controlled units,
amortized over a
particular time period
such as 10 years.
Special District or
Historic Designation Tax
Reductions
Creation of Mello-Roos,
Mills Act, historic or
other special districts
that are then eligible for Mello-Roos funding.
special loans, grants, or
tax credits.
For URM buildings, the
jurisdictions of St. Helena
and West Hollywood used
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.
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 203
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
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.
undertaken for projects
involving qualifying
retrofit work.
Zoning Incentives Specific concessions Since 1986, Palo Alto Useful when bond financing
regarding encroachment allowed owners of included options are prohibitively costly
Similarly-situated properties
must be treated alike so as to
avoid claims of "spot zoning."
Citizens may object to special
into setbacks, increased
allowable floor/area
ratios (FAR), height
buildings in the downtown
area to expand the floor
area if the owner
or not much more attractive
than private credit terms. Most
likely to work when zoning plans treatment for work that could
limits, or onsite parking
requirements to help
offset the added costs of also exempted from onsite
performed seismic
upgrades. Buildings were
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.
be seen as essential anyhow.
Not likely to work in locations
with little development pressure
or where the community favors
growth.
seismic upgrades.parking requirements and
fees for offsite parking.
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 204
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
None identified.In jurisdictions where condo
conversation rates are capped
or allocated by lottery, offering
May negatively impact other
housing affordability goals. Only
available to owners that can
seismically retrofit.priority to buildings that retrofit afford it, unless accompanied by
could be an effective tool to
promote seismic upgrading of
multifamily buildings.
other assistance programs.
Exemption from Future
Retrofit Requirements
Relief from imposition of The City of Berkeley offered This can motivate owners to The jurisdiction could not easily
impose new regulation on
exempted properties, even if
future retrofit
requirements for a
certain period following
a 15-year exemption from
future retrofit requirements rather than later in order to
for soft-story wood frame
complete retrofit work sooner
reduce uncertainty about future such policies became warranted
completion of qualifying properties that did a retrofit city policies, and allows owners by new technologies or
knowledge.seismic work.concurrent with its
mandatory evaluation
program.
to better anticipate business
expenses over a longer term.
Transfer of Development TDR allow owners to
Rights (TDR) transfer unused
Very commonly used for
historic preservation,
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.
development rights that including in Palo Alto.
are comparable to the
value of the retrofit to
another site.
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 205
Appendix C. Incentives, continued.
Type of Incentive
Expedited Permits,
Inspections, and Reviews expediting, or bypassing anecdotally stated that this time and hassle for owners in
Description Examples of Use Advantages Costs, Issues or Concerns
Prioritization,Several Bay Area cities have This can relieve the burden of Requires flexibility on the part of
city staff and plan check
of certain internal is their internal policy, but
no official records of such
were identified.
getting permits and inspections, consultants.
protocols for over the
counter permits and
inspection processes for
projects involving
which are a significant source of
cost and uncertainty for owners
during retrofit projects.
seismic retrofit work.
Technical Assistance Case-management style
assistance for owners
Cities such as Berkeley have Knowledgeable staff can help Labor costs to the city for
found it necessary to owners navigate complex issues additional staff. Difficulty
and/or engineers during maintain additional staff to
the process of obtaining operate their mitigation
such as investigating and
applying for incentives (if
offered), following guidelines, or
sustaining project funding and
staff continuity over time.
financing, complying,programs. A significant
permitting, and carrying portion of their staff time is addressing the necessary
out retrofit projects. This devoted to owner and standards.
is different than engineer consultation.
engineering advice
about how to resolve
specific technical issues
of design.
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 206
APPENDIX D
Options for Moving to a Comprehensive, Resilience
Approach
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 207
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.
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 208
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 resilience.
Many different definitions exist for this term, but for the purposes of this report it can
be summarized as the 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
acute shocks, 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
challenges and threats.
Integrate Earthquake Efforts into Multi-Hazard Planning and Programs
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 disasters,
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 redundancies, and
improved communication. The two main federal programs for local jurisdictions that
relate to this –the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan process and FEMA Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Grants –were described in the Task 2 report. Palo Alto could launch an effort
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 209
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).
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 210
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
3and available online, and the Los Angeles Community Disaster Resilience project offers4
a well-documented model of multi-issue regional coordinated effort.
2
3
4
Information available at: http://www.resilientus.org/ (Accessed February 25, 2016).
Available at: http://abag.ca.gov/resilience/policies.html (Accessed February 25, 2016).
Information available at: http://www.laresilience.org/ (Accessed February 25, 2016).
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 211
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 212
APPENDIX E
Retrofit Concept Designs for 12 Prototype Buildings
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 213
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 214
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 215
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 216
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 217
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 218
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 219
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 220
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 221
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 222
NOTE:
GRAVITY BEAMS NOT
SHOWN FOR CLARITY
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 223
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 224
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 225
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 wall2. 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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 226
(N) CONC. SHEAR WALL W/ GRADE BEAM
AND MICROPILES, TYP., SEE 33 (N) COLLECTORS BELOW 2ND AND ROOF,
TYP., SEE 34
(E) PILE CAP, TYP.
Foundation/Roof/
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 227
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 228
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 229
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 230
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 231
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 232
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 233
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 234
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 235
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 236
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 237
Typical Retrofit Details
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 238
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 239
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 240
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 241
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 242
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 243
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 244
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 245
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 246
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 247
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 248
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 249
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 250
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 251
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 252
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 253
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 254
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 255
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 256
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 257
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 258
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 259
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 260
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 261
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 262
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 263
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 264
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 265
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 266
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 267
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 268
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 269
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 270
APPENDIX F
Retrofit Cost Estimates for 12 Prototype Buildings
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 271
City of Palo Alto - Seismic
Risk Mitigation
Replacement and Retrofit Cost
Date: May 9, 2016 & revised on November 9, 2016
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 272
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 273
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
Demo &
Minimal
Sitework (5'
around Bldg.)
Average $/SF
of Replaced
Bldg. w/ Soft
Costs - 2016
Average $/SF
Cost of New
Bldg. - 2016
Costs
Average $/SF
of Replaced
Bldg. - 2016
Cost
Average $/SFHazus
Occupancy
Class
Soft Cost
Premium2
Retrofit $/SF
2016
Soft Cost of Retrofit w/Definition RatioPremium2Soft Costs -
2016 Cost$/SF Cost
$263
$233
RES3A
RES3B
RES3C
RES3D
RES3E
RES3F
RES4
RES5
RES6
COM1
COM2
COM3
COM4
COM5
COM6
COM7
COM8
COM9
COM10
IND1
IND2
IND3
IND4
IND5
IND6
REL1
AGR1
GOV1
GOV2
EDU1
EDU2
Multi Family Dwelling – duplex
Multi Family Dwelling – triplex/quad
Multi Family Dwelling – 5-9 units
Multi Family Dwelling – 10-19 units
Multi Family Dwelling – 20-49 units
Multi Family Dwelling – 50+ units
Temp. Lodging
Institutional Dormitory
Nursing Home
Retail Trade
$201
$177
$318
$299
$327
$308
$335
$401
$400
$241
$208
$253
$359
$442
$595
$354
$334
$261
$112
$199
$162
$334
$334
$366
$169
$185
$245
$235
$414
$292
$349
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$25.00
$25.00
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$25.00
$35.00
$17.50
$25.00
$25.00
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$25.00
$17.50
$17.50
$25.00
$25.00
$25.00
$219
$195
$335
$316
$344
$325
$353
$426
$425
$258
$225
$270
$377
$467
$630
$371
$359
$286
$129
$216
$180
$352
$352
$384
$186
$210
$263
$253
$439
$317
$374
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
35%
35%
35%
35%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
35%
35%
35%
35%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$402
$380
$413
$390
$424
$511
$510
$310
$270
$324
$452
$560
$756
$445
$431
$343
$155
$260
$216
$422
$422
$461
$224
$252
$315
$341
$593
$428
$505
Wholesale Trade
Personal and Repair Services
Professional/ Technical/Business Service
Banks
Hospital
Medical Office/Clinic
Entertainment & Recreation
Theaters
Parking
Heavy
Light
Food/Drugs/Chemicals
Metals/Minerals Processing
High Technology
Construction
Church
Agriculture
General Services
Emergency Response
Schools/Libraries
Colleges/Universities
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.
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 274
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 275
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 COST
EQUIP
UNIT TOTAL
COSTDESCRIPTIONQTYUNITCREW/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL SUB DIRECT COST
Building 1 - Wood Light Frame (RES 3B -3D)5,320 SF, 2 story
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00
$86.89
$0.00
$86.89
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
250.00
0.00
400.00
0.00
0.00 31,100.00
0.00
$0 $0 $0
$0
$31,100
$0
$31,100 $31,100.00
$524.39
$0.00
$31,100
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area
Remover & replace SOG - see detail
Remover & replace drywall at moment frame & collector
Allowance to reroute SS Drain
5 LOC 2.000 carp
0.000
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$869
$0
$1,250
$0
$2,119
$0
$2,622
$00.00
0.00
$0 $0
2 LOC
2 LS
2 LS
2 LS
2 LS
4.000 carp $695
$0
$800
$0
$100
$0
$0 $1,595
$500
$989.77
$250.00
$150.00
$500.00
$350.00
$0.00
$1,980
$500250.00
150.00
500.00
350.00
0.00
$500
$300
$1,000
$700
$0
Allowance to reroute water line 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $300 $300
Allowance to reroute electrical 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000
$700
$1,000
$700Paint and patch - final clean-up 0.00 $0 $0 $0
0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
0.00 38,201
49,662
$0 $0 $0 $11,460 $11,460 $38,201
$49,662
$11,460
$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
$86.89
$0.00
$86.89
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
250.00
0.00
600.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
55,400.00
0.00
$0
$695
$0
$0
$1,000
$0
$0
$0
$55,400
$0
$55,400
$1,695
$0
$55,400.00
$524.39
$0.00
$1,455.16
$750.00
$500.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$55,400
$2,098
$0
$2,910
$750
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area
Remover & replace SOG - see detail
Remover & replace drywall at moment frame & collector
Allowance to reroute SS Drain
4 LOC 2.000 carp
0.000 0.00
0.00
$0 $0
2 LOC
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
6.000 carp $1,043
$0
$1,200
$0
$100
$0
$0 $2,343
$750750.00
500.00
1,500.00
1,000.00
0.00
$750
$500
$1,500
$1,000
$0
Allowance to reroute water line 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $500 $500
Allowance to reroute electrical 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $1,500
$1,000
$0
$1,500
$1,000
$0
Paint and patch - final clean-up 0.00 $0 $0 $0
0.00 $0 $0 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
0.00 64,158
83,405
$0 $0 $0 $19,247 $19,247 $64,158
$83,405
$19,247
$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)30,000 SF, 3 Story
Structural upgrade - See detail 1 LS $0.00
$86.89
$86.89
$0.00
$86.89
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
250.00
600.00
0.00
600.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
85,300.00
0.00
$0
$695
$1,738
$0
$0
$1,000
$3,000
$0
$0
$0
$85,300
$0
$85,300
$1,695
$4,738
$0
$85,300.00
$524.39
$1,166.77
$0.00
$1,455.16
$250.00
$150.00
$500.00
$350.00
$0.00
$85,300
$2,098
$5,834
$0
$11,641
$1,000
$600
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area, back wall
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area, side wall
Remover & replace SOG - see detail
Remover & replace drywall at moment frame & collector
Allowance to reroute SS Drain
4 LOC
5 LOC
2.000 carp
4.000 carp
0.000
0.00 $0 $0
0.00
0.00
$0 $0
8 LOC
4 LS
4 LS
4 LS
4 LS
6.000 carp $4,171
$0
$4,800
$0
$400
$0
$0 $9,371
$1,000
$600
250.00
150.00
500.00
350.00
0.00
$1,000
$600
$2,000
$1,400
$0
Allowance to reroute water line 0.00 $0 $0 $0
Allowance to reroute electrical 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,000
$1,400
$0
$2,000
$1,400
$0
Paint and patch - final clean-up 0.00 $0 $0 $0
0.00 $0 $0 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
0.00 109,873
142,834
$0 $0 $0 $32,962 $32,962 $109,873
$142,834
$32,962
$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
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 5
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 276
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 COST
EQUIP
UNIT TOTAL
COSTDESCRIPTIONQTYUNITCREW/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL SUB DIRECT COST
Building 4 - Commercial and Industrial Wood Frame
(COM 1, COM 2, COM 3, COM 4, COM 7, COM 8)
Structural upgrade - See detail
10,000 SF, 2 Story
1 LS $0.00
$86.89
$86.89
$0.00
$86.89
$86.89
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00 0.00 59,100.00
0.00
$0 $0 $0
$0
$59,100
$0
$59,100 $59,100.00
$524.39
$2,097.54
$0.00
$1,861.54
$576.77
$250.00
$150.00
$1,000.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$59,100
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area, side wall
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area, back wall
Remover & replace SOG - see detail
Remover & replace drywall at moment frame & collector
Remover & replace casework on first floor
Allowance to reroute SS Drain
8 LOC
2 LOC
2.000 carp 250.00
1,000.00
0.00
750.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$1,390
$1,390
$0
$2,000
$2,000
$0
$3,390
$3,390
$0
$4,195
$4,195
$0
$7,446
$1,730
$1,000
$600
$4,000
$3,000
$0
8.000 carp
0.000
0.00 $0 $0
0.00
0.00
$0 $0
4 LOC
3 LOC
4 LS
8.000 carp
4.000 carp
$2,780
$1,043
$0
$3,000
$300
$0
$200
$0
$0 $5,980
$1,343
$1,000
$600
0.00 $0
250.00
150.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
0.00
$0 $1,000
$600
$4,000
$3,000
$0
Allowance to reroute water line 4 LS 0.00 $0 $0 $0
Allowance to reroute electrical 4 LS 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
$3,000
$0
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up 2 LS 0.00 $0 $0 $0
0.00 $0 $0 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
0.00 85,267
110,847
$0 $0 $0 $25,580 $25,580 $85,267
$110,847
$25,580
$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
43,900 SF, 2 Story
1 LS $0.00
$86.89
$86.89
$60.77
0.00
400.00
600.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
221,600.0
0.00
$0
$5,561
$5,561
$1,945
$0
$3,200
$4,800
$400
$0
$800
$0
$221,600 $221,600 $221,600.00 $221,600
$12,060
$13,004
$3,983
Remover & replace suspended ceiling at braced frame bays -
both floors
Remover furring walls at braced frame bays, both floors
Chip down concrete fill locally in braced frame bays, both
floors
8 LOC 8.000 carp
8.000 carp
4.000 clab
$0
$0
$0
$9,561
$10,361
$3,145
$1,507.54
$1,625.54
$497.85
8 LOC 0.00
8 LOC 100.00 0.00 $800
Remover & replace suspended ceiling along new frame
collector of 2nd floor
Remover & replace drywall at shear wall area, back wall
4 LOC
2 LOC
4.000 carp $86.89 200.00 50.00 0.00 $1,390 $800 $200 $0 $2,390 $753.77 $3,015
8.000 carp
0.000
$86.89
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$1,390
$0
$2,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,390
$0
$2,097.54
$0.00
$4,195
$0Remover & replace SOG - see detail
Allowance to reroute SS Drain
Allowance to reroute water line
Allowance to reroute electrical
1 LS
1 LS
0.00 1,000.00
1,500.00
750.00
5,000.00
0.00
$0 $0 $1,000
$1,500
$12,000
$5,000
$0
$1,000
$1,500
$12,000
$5,000
$0
$1,000.00
$1,500.00
$750.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$1,000
$1,500
$12,000
$5,000
$0
0.00 $0 $0
16 LS
1 LS
0.00 $0 $0
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up 0.00 $0 $0
0.00 $0 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
0.00 277,358
360,565
$0 $0 $83,207 $83,207 $277,358
$360,565
$83,207
$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
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 6
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 277
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 COST
EQUIP
UNIT TOTAL
COSTDESCRIPTIONQTYUNITCREW/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL SUB DIRECT COST
Building 6 - Concrete Shear Wall (COM 1 - COM 10, IND 1
- IND 6)
Structural upgrade - See detail
5,000 SF, 1 Story
1 LS $0.00
$74.83
0.00 0.00 61,300.00
0.00
$0 $0 $0 $61,300
$0
$61,300 $61,300.00
$14.12
$61,300
Remove and replace roof, insulation & roof accessories
Remove and replace ceiling at the building perimeter for
access - 8 to 10 lf wide
5,000 SF 0.082 rofc 4.60 0.50 $30,680 $23,000 $2,500 $56,180 $70,587
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
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
3 LOC
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$86.89
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
500.00
1,000.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
0.00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500
$1,000
$2,000
$2,500
$0
$500
$1,000
$2,000
$2,500
$1,343
$0
$500.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,500.00
$576.77
$500
$1,000
$2,000
$2,500
$1,730
$0
Allowance to reroute water line
Allowance to reroute electrical 0.00 $0 $0
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up
Remove & replace casework on first floor
0.00
100.00
0.00
$0 $0
4.000 carp $1,043
$0
$300
$00.00 $0 $0.00
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
0.00 154,865
201,325
$0 $0 $46,460 $46,460 $154,865
$201,325
$46,460
$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)17,280 SF, 2 Story
Structural upgrade - See detail
Remove and replace drywall furring at new shear walls
1 LS
1,056 SF
3,168 SF
$0.00
$86.89
$86.89
0.00
4.00
4.00
0.00 271,700.00 $0
$8,808
$0
$4,224
$0
$528
$271,700 $271,700 $271,700.00 $271,700
$17,234
$51,703
0.096 carp
0.096 carp
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
$0
$0
$13,560
$40,681
$16.32
$16.32Remove and replace drywall furring at new collectors
Remove and replace drywall furring at columns for new shear
walls
Remove and replace floor / ceiling finishes at shear walls /
collectors
$26,425 $12,672 $1,584
576 SF
720 LF
216 LF
0.115 carp
0.200 carp
0.250 rofc
$86.89
$86.89
$74.83
4.80
12.00
15.00
0.50
2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$5,765
$12,512
$4,041
$2,765
$8,640
$3,240
$288
$1,440
$432
$0
$0
$0
$8,818
$22,592
$7,713
$19.47
$39.46
$44.75
$11,213
$28,410
$9,667Remove / replace / patch roof finishes at shear walls /
collectors
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 2 LS
6 LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,500.00
1,000.00
2,000.00
1.00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,000
$6,000
$12,000
$17,280
$0
$3,000
$6,000
$12,000
$17,280
$0
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$1.00
$3,000
$6,000
$12,000
$17,280
$0
Allowance to reroute water line
Allowance to reroute electrical
Paint and patch - final clean-up
6 LS
17,280 SF
0.00 $0.00
0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
428,207
556,670
$128,462 $128,462 $428,207
$556,670
$128,462
$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
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 7
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 278
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 COST
EQUIP
UNIT TOTAL
COSTDESCRIPTIONQTYUNITCREW/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL SUB DIRECT COST
Building 8 - Tilt-up Concrete Shear Walls (COM1-4,18,435 SF, 1 storyCOM7, COM9, IND1-IND6)
Structural upgrade - See detail
Remove and replace roof, insulation and roof accessories
around perimeter
Remove and replace ceiling at the building perimeter for
access - 8 to 10 lf wide
1 LS $0.00 0.00 0.00 134,800.0
0.00
$0 $0 $0 $134,800
$0
$134,800 $134,800.00 $134,800
$162,63411,520 SF 0.082 rofc $74.83 4.60 0.50
0.80
$70,687
$11,928
$52,992
$8,976
$5,760 $129,439
$21,326
$14.12
$50.82528 LF 0.260 carp $86.89 17.00 0.00 $422 $0 $26,835
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
0.00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$0
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$0
$1,000.00
$1,500.00
$2,000.00
$2,500.00
$0.00
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$0
Allowance to reroute water line
Allowance to reroute electrical
Paint and patch - final clean-up
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
331,269
430,649
$99,381 $99,381 $331,269
$430,649
$99,381
$107,662
Total Construction Cost of:
Building 8 - Tilt-up Concrete Shear Walls (COM1-4,
COM7, COM9, IND1-IND6)
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)38,400 SF, 2 Story
Structural upgrade - See detail
Remove and replace roof, insulation and roof accessories
around perimeter
Remove and replace ceiling at the building perimeter for
access - 8 to 10 lf wide
1 LS $0.00 0.00
4.60
0.00
0.50
299,600.0
0.00
$0 $0 $0 $299,600
$0
$299,600 $299,600.00 $299,600
$165,34411,712 SF 0.082 rofc
0.260 carp
$74.83 $71,865 $53,875 $5,856 $131,596
$19,711
$14.12
$50.82488 LF $86.89 17.00 0.80 0.00 $11,024 $8,296 $390 $0 $24,802
Allowance to reroute SS Drain 2 LS
2 LS
2 LS
2 LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
0.00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$3,000
$0
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$3,000
$0
$1,000.00
$1,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$3,000
$0
Allowance to reroute water line
Allowance to reroute electrical
Paint and patch - final clean-up
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
501,746
652,270
$150,524 $150,524 $501,746
$652,270
$150,524
$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
$74.83
0.00
4.60
0.00
0.50
70,000.00
0.00
$0 $0 $0 $70,000
$0
$70,000
$30,899
$70,000.00
$14.12
$70,000
$38,823Remove and replace roof, insulation & roof accessories
Remove and replace ceiling at the building perimeter for
access - 8 to 10 lf wide
2,750 SF 0.082 rofc
0.260 carp
$16,874 $12,650 $1,375
210 LF $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
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
0.00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$1,500
$0
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$1,500
$0
$1,000.00
$1,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$1,500
$0
Allowance to reroute water line
Allowance to reroute electrical
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
125,496
163,145
$37,649 $37,649 $125,496
$163,145
$37,649
$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
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 8
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 279
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 COST
EQUIP
UNIT TOTAL
COSTDESCRIPTIONQTYUNITCREW/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL SUB DIRECT COST
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
$74.83
0.00 0.00 114,500.0
0.00
$0 $0 $0 $114,500
$0
$114,500 $114,500.00 $114,500
$55,411Remove and replace roof, insulation & roof accessories
Remove and replace ceiling for access at 1st floor new shear
walls & 2nd floor anchor walls
3,925 SF 0.082 rofc 4.60 0.50 $24,084 $18,055 $1,963 $44,101 $14.12
300 LF 0.520 carp
0.026 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
1 LS
$86.89
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
1,250.00
1,000.00
2,000.00
0.00
$8,867
$0
$6,673
$0
$314
$0
$0
$1,000
$1,250
$2,000
$4,000
$0
$15,853
$1,000
$1,250
$2,000
$4,000
$0
$5.08
$1,000.00
$1,250.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$19,948
$1,000
$1,250
$2,000
$4,000
$0
Allowance to reroute SS Drain
Allowance to reroute water line 1 LS $0 $0 $0
Allowance to reroute electrical 2 LS $0 $0 $0
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up 2 LS $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency
Add for Soft Cost Premium
30% LS
25% LS
228,570
297,141
$0 $0 $0 $68,571 $68,571 $228,570
$297,141
$68,571
$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
$74.83
0.00
4.60
0.00
0.50
238,500.0
0.00
$0 $0 $0 $238,500
$0
$238,500 $238,500.00 $238,500
$70,587Remove and replace roof, insulation & roof accessories
Remove and replace ceiling at 2nd floor of the building
perimeter for access - 8 to 10 lf wide
Remove and replace ceiling for access at moment frame &
collector - both levels, 8 to 10 lf wide
5,000 SF 0.082 rofc
0.260 carp
$30,680 $23,000 $2,500 $56,180 $14.12
210 LF $86.89
$86.89
17.00
1.70
0.80
0.08
0.00
0.00
$4,744
$2,259
$3,570
$1,700
$168
$80
$0
$0
$8,482 $50.82 $10,673
$5,0821,000 SF 0.026 carp
2.000 carp
$4,039
$4,127
$5.08
Remover and replace furring walls at supplemental supports 14 LOC $86.89 96.00 25.00 0.00 $2,433 $1,344 $350 $0 $372.17 $5,210
Allowance to reroute SS Drain
Allowance to reroute water line
Allowance to reroute electrical
Paint and patch, floors - final clean-up
1 LS
1 LS
2 LS
2 LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
0.00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,000
$1,500
$3,000
$3,000
$0
$1,000
$1,500
$3,000
$3,000
$0
$1,000.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$1,000
$1,500
$3,000
$3,000
$0
0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
Add for General Conditions & Design Contingency 30% LS
25% LS
338,553
440,119
$101,566 $101,566 $338,553
$440,119
$101,566
$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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 280
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 281
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 TOTAL COST
EQUIP SUB
UNITDESCRIPTIONQTYUNITCREW
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL DIRECT w/MU COST
Bldg 1
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing
4 LOC 4.000 b89 $55.59
$67.34
0.00 150.00 0.00 $889 $0 $600
$400
$0
$0
$1,489
$3,877
$1,882
$4,726
$470.53
4 LOC 4.000 b5 600.00 100.00 0.00 $1,077 $2,400 $1,181.55
Add moment frame with all connections
Add new collector with all connections
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts
Load & move debris + clean area
2 LOC
2 LOC
5 LOC
2 LS
16.000 skwk
4.000 skwk
4.000 carp
4.000 clab
$81.42
$81.42
$86.89
$60.77
$0.00
4,568.75
1,000.00
350.00
0.00
500.00
150.00
50.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$2,605
$651
$1,738
$486
$0
$9,138
$2,000
$1,750
$0
$1,000
$300
$250
$200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,743
$2,951
$3,738
$686
$0
$15,401
$3,574
$4,654
$878
$0
$7,700.65
$1,786.88
$930.77
$438.85
$0.000.00 $0
$0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 1 total
Bldg 2
1 LS 0.000 $0.00 15,287.50 2,750.00 $7,448 $15,288 $2,750 $25,485 $31,100 $31,100.00
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing
4 LOC
4 LOC
4.000 b89
4.000 b5
$55.59
$67.34
0.00 150.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
$889 $0 $600
$400
$2,000
$0
$3,489
$3,877
$3,882
$4,726
$970.53
600.00 $1,077 $2,400 $1,181.55
Add moment frame with all connections
Add new collector with all connections
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts
Load & move debris + clean area
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
grade beam - 25 LF
New concrete grade beam / SOG with dowel to
existing footing - 25 LF
New shear wall w/plywood on both sides, 25 LF
2 LOC
2 LOC
5 LOC
1 LS
20.000 skwk
6.000 skwk
4.000 carp
8.000 clab
$81.42
$81.42
$86.89
$60.77
5,443.75
2,000.00
350.00
0.00
500.00
200.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$3,257
$977
$10,888
$4,000
$1,750
$0
$1,000
$400
$250
$250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,144
$5,377
$3,738
$736
$18,326
$6,482
$4,654
$937
$9,163.03
$3,240.82
$930.77$1,738
$486250.00 $936.71
1 LOC 10.000 b89 $55.59
$67.34
0.00 250.00
750.00
0.00
0.00
$556 $0 $250
$750
$0
$0
$806 $1,029
$6,615
$1,028.84
$6,614.981 LOC
1 LOC
18.000 b5 3,500.00 $1,212 $3,500 $5,462
24.000 Carp $86.89
$0.00
4,800.00
0.00
250.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$2,085
$0
$4,800
$0
$250
$0
$0
$0
$7,135
$0
$8,712
$0
$8,711.62
$0.00
Bldg 2 total
Bldg 3
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
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing
8 LOC
8 LOC
4.000 b89
4.000 b5
$55.59
$67.34
0.00 150.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
$1,779
$2,155
$0 $1,200
$800
$3,000
$0
$5,979
$7,755
$6,764
$9,452
$845.53
600.00 $4,800 $1,181.55
Add moment frame with all connections
Add new collector with all connections
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts -
4 LOC
8 LOC
16.000 skwk
6.000 skwk
$81.42
$81.42
4,568.75
2,000.00
500.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
$5,211
$3,908
$18,275
$16,000
$2,000
$1,600
$0
$0
$25,486
$21,508
$30,803
$25,927
$7,700.65
$3,240.82
4 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89
$86.89
350.00
500.00
50.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
$1,390
$2,607
$1,400
$2,500
$200
$375
$0
$0
$2,990
$5,482
$3,723
$6,833
$930.77back walls
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts -
side walls
Load & move debris + clean area
5 LOC
4 LS
6.000 carp
4.000 clab
$1,366.66
$60.77
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$972
$0
$0
$0
$400
$0
$0
$0
$1,372
$0
$1,755
$0
$438.85
$0.00
0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $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
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 11
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 282
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 TOTAL COST
EQUIP SUB
UNITDESCRIPTIONQTYUNITCREW
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL DIRECT w/MU COST
Bldg 4
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing
6 LOC 4.000 b89 $55.59
$67.34
0.00 150.00 0.00 $1,334
$1,616
$0 $900
$600
$0
$0
$2,234
$5,816
$2,823
$7,089
$470.53
6 LOC 4.000 b5 600.00 100.00 0.00 $3,600 $1,181.55
Add moment frame with all connections
Add new collector with all connections
Add for mid span collector with all connections
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts -
3 LOC
2 LOC
1 LOC
16.000 skwk
6.000 skwk
10.000 skwk
$81.42
$81.42
$81.42
5,163.75
2,000.00
3,000.00
500.00
200.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$3,908
$977
$15,491
$4,000
$3,000
$1,500
$400
$0
$0
$0
$20,899
$5,377
$4,014
$25,208
$6,482
$4,851
$8,402.75
$3,240.82
$4,850.70$814 $200
8 LOC 4.000 carp $86.89
$86.89
350.00
600.00
50.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
$2,780
$1,390
$2,800
$1,200
$400
$150
$0
$0
$5,980
$2,740
$7,446
$3,428
$930.77side walls
Add plywood, hold downs and anchor bolts -
back walls
Load & move debris + clean area
2 LOC
2 LS
8.000 carp
8.000 clab
$1,714.04
$60.77
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$972
$0
$0
$0
$400
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,372
$0
$1,755
$0
$877.71
$0.00
0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 4 total
Bldg 5
1 LS 0.000 $0.00 30,091.25 4,550.00 $13,792 $30,091 $4,550 $48,434 $59,100 $59,100.00
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing & micropile
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing + headed bars
28 LOC
28 LOC
4.000 b89
4.000 b5
$55.59
$67.34
0.00 150.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
$6,226
$7,542
$0 $4,200
$2,800
$0
$0
$10,426
$32,742
$13,175
$39,691
$470.53
800.00 $22,400 $1,417.55
Drill thru ( E) footings for new headed bar 14 LOC
28 LOC
8.000 b5 $67.34
$81.42
100.00
350.00
250.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
$7,542 $1,400
$9,800
$3,500
$2,800
$0
$0
$12,442
$30,837
$15,737
$38,941
$1,124.10
$1,390.76New micropile 8.000 skwk $18,237
Add HSS brace frame all connections at ( E)
frames
Add new collector with all connections
Add for mobilization and special requirements
Load & move debris + clean area
8 LOC 16.000 skwk
8.000 skwk
$81.42 5,408.73
1,500.00
500.00
200.00
0.00 $10,421 $43,270 $4,000 $0 $57,691 $69,535 $8,691.82
4 LOC
1 LS
$81.42
$0.00
$60.77
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$2,605
$0
$6,000
$0
$800
$25,000
$800
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,405
$25,000
$2,745
$0
$11,463
$29,500
$3,511
$0
$2,865.76
$29,500.00
$438.85
$0.00
0.00 25,000.00
8 LS 4.000 clab 0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
$1,945
$0
$0
$0 $0
0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 5 total
Bldg 6
1 LS 0.000 $0.00 82,869.82 43,900.00 $54,519 $82,870 $43,900 $0 $181,289 $221,600 $221,600.00
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
2 LOC
6.000 b5 $67.34
$81.42
$81.42
800.00
6,804.38
150.00
100.00
500.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$1,616
$3,257
$5,699
$3,200
$13,609
$5,250
$400
$1,000
$875
$0
$0
$0
$5,216
$17,865
$11,824
$6,381
$21,537
$14,750
$1,595.33
$10,768.56
$421.44
Add moment frame with all connections
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall - tight working area
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) at roof
Load & move debris + clean area
20.000 skwk
2.000 skwk35 LOC
5,000 SF
2 LS
0.006 carp
4.000 clab
$86.89
$60.77
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$2,607
$486
$0
$10,000
$0
$500
$200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,107
$686
$0
$15,831
$878
$0
$3.17
$438.85
$0.00$0
0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 6 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 32,058.75 3,575.00 $14,554 $32,059 $3,575 $50,188 $61,300 $61,300.00
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 12
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 283
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 TOTAL COST
EQUIP SUB
UNITDESCRIPTIONQTYUNITCREW
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL DIRECT w/MU COST
Bldg 7
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing / micropile- at perimeter
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing / micropile - interior
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing footing / pile cap
2 LOC 8.000 b89 $55.59
$55.59
$67.34
0.00 250.00 0.00 $889
$556
$0 $500
$300
$500
$0
$0
$0
$1,389
$856
$1,764
$1,088
$5,555
$882.07
1 LOC
2 LOC
10.000 b89
12.000 b5
0.00 300.00
250.00
0.00
0.00
$0 $1,087.84
$2,777.651,200.00 $1,616 $2,400 $4,516
New concrete footing / SOG at interior 1 LOC 12.000 b5 $67.34
$81.42
1,250.00
450.00
250.00
250.00
0.00
0.00
$808 $1,250
$5,400
$250 $0
$0
$2,308 $2,837 $2,836.65
$1,900.70New micropile 12 LOC 10.000 skwk $9,770 $3,000 $18,170 $22,808
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
Shore slab during construction
Core drill / opening in first floor slab & roof for
dowel / shear wall
576 SF
136 LF
136 LF
0.600 b5 $67.34
$86.89
$55.59
12.50
25.00
15.00
3.00
15.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$23,272
$5,908
$1,512
$7,200
$3,400
$2,040
$1,728
$2,040
$680
$0
$0
$0
$32,200
$11,348
$4,232
$41,255
$14,218
$5,206
$71.62
$104.55
$38.28
0.500 carp
0.200 b89
Core drill / dowel and new concrete collector
below 2nd floor & roof + patch pour hole
Clean and prep col surface
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
2 LS
300 SF
12 LS
2.000 clab
0.180 skwk
4.000 clab
$60.77
$81.42
$60.77
$0.00
25.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.00
10.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$243
$4,397
$2,917
$0
$50
$10,500
$0
$50
$3,000
$1,200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$343
$17,897
$4,117
$0
$439
$21,733
$5,266
$0
$219.43
$72.44
$438.85
$0.00
Add FRP at the column surface
Load & move debris + clean area
$0
$0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 7 total
Bldg 8
1 LS 0.000 $0.00 69,200.00 22,488.00 $123,888 $69,200 $22,488 $0 $215,576 $271,700 $271,700.00
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall two walls - tight working area
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor at sub-
purlin - roof to wall two walls - tight working
area
30 LOC
48 LOC
2.000 skwk
6.000 skwk
$81.42
$81.42
150.00
200.00
25.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
$4,885 $4,500
$9,600
$750 $0
$0
$10,135
$35,448
$12,643
$45,111
$421.44
$939.82$23,448 $2,400
Add new collector with all connections
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) roof at
perimeter
4 LOC 10.000 skwk
0.006 carp
$81.42
$86.89
1,500.00
2.00
200.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
$3,257
$6,006
$6,000 $800 $0
$0
$10,057
$30,198
$12,323
$36,474
$3,080.70
$3.1711,520 SF $23,040 $1,152
Load & move debris + clean area 1 LS 12.000 clab
2.000 carp
$60.77
$86.89
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
200.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$729
$15,640
$0
$0
$4,500
$0
$200
$900
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$929
$21,040
$0
$1,199
$27,017
$0
$1,198.56
$300.19
$0.00
Continuity ties (subpurlin, girder, purlin)90 LOC
0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 8 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 47,640.00 6,202.00 $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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 284
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 TOTAL COST
EQUIP SUB
UNITDESCRIPTIONQTYUNITCREW
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL DIRECT w/MU COST
Bldg 9
Drill hole in concrete wall, add enhanced girder
connection
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall along two walls - tight working area
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor at sub-
14 LOC 4.000 skwk $81.42
$81.42
250.00 25.00 0.00 $4,559
$4,071
$3,500
$3,750
$350
$625
$0
$0
$8,409
$8,446
$10,561
$10,536
$754.38
25 LOC
96 LOC
2.000 skwk
6.000 skwk
150.00
200.00
25.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
$421.44
$939.82purlin - roof to wall along two walls - tight $81.42 $46,896 $19,200 $4,800 $0 $70,896 $90,223
working area
Drill hole in concrete wall, add steel angle &
anchor at floor level - wall all around - tight
working area
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) roof at
perimeter
196 LOC 4.000 skwk
0.006 carp
$81.42
$86.89
125.00
2.00
25.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
$63,831
$6,106
$24,500
$23,424
$4,900
$1,171
$0
$0
$93,231 $118,949 $606.88
$3.1711,712 SF $30,701 $37,082
Load & move debris + clean area 2 LS 8.000 clab
2.000 carp
$60.77
$86.89
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
150.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$972
$17,725
$0
$0
$5,100
$0
$300
$1,020
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,272
$23,845
$0
$1,637
$30,619
$0
$818.71
$300.19
$0.00
Continuity ties (subpurlin, girder, purlin)102 LOC
0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 9 total
Bldg 10
1 LS 0.000 $0.00 79,474.00 13,166.20 $144,160 $79,474 $13,166 $0 $236,800 $299,600 $299,600.00
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing & micropile
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing + headed bars
2 LOC
2 LOC
4.000 b89
6.000 b5
$55.59
$67.34
0.00 150.00
250.00
0.00
0.00
$445
$808
$0 $300
$500
$0
$0
$745 $941 $470.53
1,500.00 $3,000 $4,308 $5,197 $2,598.33
Drill thru ( E) footings for new headed bar 0 LOC
0 LOC
8.000 b5 $67.34
$81.42
100.00
350.00
250.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0.00
$0.00New micropile 8.000 skwk
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing
Add moment frame with all connections
Add brace frame W24x76 & W12x96 with all
2 LOC
2 LOC
0 LOC
6.000 b5 $67.34
$81.42
$81.42
800.00
6,804.38
6,475.00
100.00
500.00
500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$808
$3,257
$0
$1,600
$13,609
$0
$200
$1,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,608
$17,865
$0
$3,191
$21,537
$0
$1,595.33
$10,768.56
$0.00
20.000 skwk
32.000 skwkconnections
Add HSS brace frame all connections at ( E)
frames
Add new collector with all connections
Drill hole in concrete wall, add enhanced girder
connection
0 LOC
1 LOC
2 LOC
16.000 skwk
8.000 skwk
4.000 skwk
$81.42
$81.42
$81.42
5,408.73
1,500.00
250.00
500.00
200.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0
$651
$651
$0
$1,500
$500
$0
$200
$50
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,351
$1,201
$0
$2,866
$1,509
$0.00
$2,865.76
$754.38
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall - tight working area
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor at sub-
purlin - roof to wall along one bay - tight working
area
12 LOC
14 LOC
2.000 skwk
6.000 skwk
$81.42
$81.42
150.00
200.00
25.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
$1,954
$6,839
$1,800
$2,800
$300
$700
$0
$0
$4,054 $5,057 $421.44
$939.82$10,339 $13,157
Add new continuity ties (subpurlin, girder, purlin)
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) roof at
perimeter
22 LOC 2.000 carp
0.006 carp
$86.89
$86.89
50.00
2.00
10.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
$3,823
$1,434
$1,100
$5,500
$220
$275
$0
$0
$5,143
$7,209
$6,604
$8,707
$300.19
$3.172,750 SF
New blocking where wall anchor does not allow -
Allowance
Load & move debris + clean area
0 LS
1 LS
8.000 carp
12.000 clab
$86.89 500.00 50.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
$60.77
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$729
$0
$0
$0
$200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$929
$0
$1,199
$0
$1,198.56
$0.00
0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 10 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 31,408.75 3,945.00 $21,399 $31,409 $3,945 $56,753 $70,000 $70,000.00
City of Palo Alto - Seismic R6 - 12 21 2016
printed on 12/21/2016 Page 14
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 285
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 TOTAL COST
EQUIP SUB
UNITDESCRIPTIONQTYUNITCREW
/ UNIT COST MATL EQUIP SUB LABOR MATL DIRECT w/MU COST
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
New shear wall w/plywood on both sides, 25 LF
Drill hole in concrete wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall along two walls - tight working area
Drill hole in concrete wall, install floor to wall
2 LOC
2 LOC
18.000 b5 $67.34
$86.89
$81.42
3,500.00
4,800.00
150.00
750.00
250.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$2,424
$4,171
$6,513
$7,000
$9,600
$6,000
$1,500
$500
$0
$0
$0
$10,924
$14,271
$13,513
$13,230
$17,423
$16,858
$6,614.98
$8,711.62
$421.44
24.000 Carp
2.000 skwk40 LOC $1,000
40 LOC
25 LOC
1 LOC
1 LOC
6.000 skwk
2.000 carp
$81.42
$86.89
$81.42
200.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$19,540
$4,344
$814
$8,000
$1,250
$1,500
$2,000
$250
$0
$0
$0
$29,540
$5,844
$2,514
$37,593
$7,505
$3,081
$939.82
$300.19
anchor at floor level
Add new purlin continuity ties
Add new collector with all connections at second
floor
Add new collector with all connections at roof
Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) roof
Load & move debris + clean area
10.000 skwk 1,500.00 200.00 $200 $3,080.70
10.000 skwk
0.006 carp
12.000 clab
$81.42
$86.89
$60.77
$0.00
1,500.00
2.00
200.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$814
$2,046
$729
$1,500
$7,850
$0
$200
$393
$200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,514
$10,289
$929
$0
$3,081
$12,427
$1,199
$0
$3,080.70
$3.173,925 SF
1 LS 0.00 200.00
0.00
$1,198.56
$0.000.00 $0 $0
$0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Bldg 11 total
Bldg 12
1 LS 0.000 $0.00 42,700.00 6,742.50 $42,508 $42,700 $6,743 $91,951 $114,500 $114,500.00
Sawcut & remove concrete, excavate for new
footing
New concrete footing / SOG with dowel to
existing
Add moment frame with all connections - 12'-6"
span
Add moment frame with all connections - 25'
span
Allowance for increased footing size at 25' span
moment frame
Add moment frame with all connections per
detail 28 - NOT APPLICABLE DETAIL
4 LOC 4.000 b89
4.000 b5
$55.59
$67.34
$81.42
$81.42
$67.34
$0.00
0.00
600.00
5,382.50
6,804.38
200.00
0.00
150.00
100.00
500.00
500.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$889
$1,077
$1,303
$1,628
$135
$0
$2,400
$5,383
$6,804
$200
$600
$400
$500
$500
$50
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,489
$3,877
$7,185
$8,933
$385
$1,882
$4,726
$8,661
$10,769
$473
$470.53
$1,181.55
$8,660.87
$10,768.56
$472.78
4 LOC
1 LOC
1 LOC
1 LOC
0 LOC
16.000 skwk
20.000 skwk
2.000 b5
0.000 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00
Add new collector with all connections, 25' span
Add new collector with all connections, 37' span
Drill hole in URM wall, add supplemental vertical
support - 14 LOCATIONS
Drill hole in URM wall, add anchor tie down -
roof to wall along each wall - tight working area
Drill hole in URM wall, add parapet brace -
along each wall
1 LOC
1 LOC
6.000 skwk $81.42
$81.42
1,500.00
2,000.00
150.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
$489
$814
$1,500
$2,000
$150
$200
$0
$0
$2,139
$3,014
$2,592
$3,671
$2,591.82
$3,670.7010.000 skwk
14 LOC
75 LOC
38 LOC
20.000 skwk
2.000 skwk
6.000 skwk
$81.42
$81.42
$81.42
2,500.00
150.00
250.00
25.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$22,797
$12,213
$35,000
$11,250
$3,500
$1,875
$0
$0
$61,297
$25,338
$75,522
$31,608
$5,394.40
$421.44
1,250.00 $18,563
$2,607
$47,500
$10,000
$1,900
$500
$0
$0
$67,963
$13,107
$82,795
$15,831
$2,178.82
$3.17Add new plywood sheathing over ( E) roof 5,000 SF
1 LS
0.006 carp
12.000 clab
$86.89
$60.77
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Load & move debris + clean area
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
0.00 $0
0.00 $0
Bldg 12 total 1 LS 0.000 $0.00 122,036.88 10,175.00 $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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 286
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 287
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
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.
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.
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.
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 288
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
Cost Categories exclude the cost / fee of the following items:
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
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Assessment Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 289
Structural | Geotechnical
375 Beale Street, Suite 310
San Francisco, CA 94105
Item 2
Attachment A - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Assessment
Study - Final Report -
2016 12 21
Packet Pg. 290
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
Item 2
Attachment B - Seismic
Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee
Members_01.15.16
Packet Pg. 291
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
Item 2
Attachment B - Seismic
Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee
Members_01.15.16
Packet Pg. 292
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
Item 2
Attachment B - Seismic
Risk Management
Program Advisory
Committee
Members_01.15.16
Packet Pg. 293
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
Item 2
Attachment C - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Mgt Prog AG
Summary Rev 2016 11 21
Packet Pg. 294
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
Item 2
Attachment C - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Mgt Prog AG
Summary Rev 2016 11 21
Packet Pg. 295
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.
Item 2
Attachment C - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Mgt Prog AG
Summary Rev 2016 11 21
Packet Pg. 296
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.
Item 2
Attachment C - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Mgt Prog AG
Summary Rev 2016 11 21
Packet Pg. 297
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.
Item 2
Attachment C - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Mgt Prog AG
Summary Rev 2016 11 21
Packet Pg. 298
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
Item 2
Attachment C - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Mgt Prog AG
Summary Rev 2016 11 21
Packet Pg. 299
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
Item 2
Attachment C - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Mgt Prog AG
Summary Rev 2016 11 21
Packet Pg. 300
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
Item 2
Attachment C - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Mgt Prog AG
Summary Rev 2016 11 21
Packet Pg. 301
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.
Item 2
Attachment C - Palo Alto
Seismic Risk Mgt Prog AG
Summary Rev 2016 11 21
Packet Pg. 302
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 subcategorie s.
Item 2
Attachment C - Palo Alto Seismic Risk
Mgt Prog AG Summary Rev 2016 11
21
Packet Pg. 303
Item No. 3.Page 1 of 3
Policy & Services Committee
Staff Report
From: Chantal Gaines, Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: August 8, 2023
TITLE
City Council Referral to Discuss and Recommend Council Procedures and Protocols on: Censure
Policy and other City Council referrals related to the City Council Procedures and Protocols.
CEQA status - not a project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee discuss the referral from the City
Council related to Censure Policy and make a recommendation to the Council for inclusion in
the City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The City Council discussed the City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook on January 30
and March 20, 2023 and adopted the most recent version on April 24, 2023. The City Council
referred a few discussion topics to the Policy and Services Committee during these discussions.
The Committee has made progress on these referrals and the progress is included in
parentheses next to the referrals listed below:
1. Procedures Section 1.1: Annual Organization of City Council (P&S discussed on May 9,
2023 and requested staff to bring this to City Council in the 4th quarter for City Council
to evaluate whether a ballot measure should be placed before the voters1).
2. Procedures Section 5.1a(4): Video Participation for Public Comment. Staff noted that
this would be studied and, if found feasible, it would just be implemented instead of it
being a discussion at Committee. This exploration language was included in the April
24th Adopted Handbook in this section.
3. Procedures Section 8.2: Censure language was referred to committee for review
(discussion planned for August 8, 2023).
1 May 9, 2023 Policy and Services Committee Agenda Item number three (3):
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=12150
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 304
Item No. 3.Page 2 of 3
4. Protocols Section 2.2: Refrain from Lobbying Board and Commission Members. (P&S
discussed this with Board/Commission Chairs on June 13, 2023 and recommended
language for Council consideration2).
5. Protocols Section 2.8: The Role of Council Liaison to Boards or Commissions. (P&S
discussed this with Board/Commission Chairs on June 13, 2023 and recommended
language for Council consideration3).
6. Protocols Section 4: International Travel (P&S Discussed on April 26, 2023 - Staff to bring
back a brief draft to P&S in Q3).
7. Protocols Section 4.1: Miscellaneous Expenditures. Council referral for the committee to
discuss the establishment of appropriate parameters for Council discretionary
expenditures and whether to allocate $2,000 annually from the Council contingency
fund for each Council member to decide its purpose.
These topics are being scheduled to Committee throughout the year to balance workload. The
topic highlighted for Committee discussion at the August 8, 2023 meeting is the Censure Policy
Draft Language. If time allows, the Committee can share thoughts about any other of the
referral topics listed above.
Staff previously shared draft language outlining a procedure for adopting a resolution of
censure against a Council member with the Policy and Services Committee on December 13,
20224 and subsequently with the City Council during the Handbook discussion. That language
was not accepted by the full City Council and the City Council asked the Committee to work on
this topic more (summary minutes of the January 30th City Council discussion are below).
2 June 13, 2023 Policy and Services Committee Meeting agenda item number two (2):
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?compiledMeetingDocumentFileId=8289
3 June 13, 2023 Policy and Services Committee Meeting agenda item number two (2):
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?compiledMeetingDocumentFileId=8289
4 December 13, 2022 Policy and Services Committee Agenda Packet:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=8939&compileOutputType=
1 (pdf page 50 for early draft censure language)
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 305
Item No. 3.Page 3 of 3
Excerpt of the January 30, 2023 Summary Minutes (related to the Censure section)5:
At the April 26, 2023 Policy and Services Committee meeting, the Committee requested that
Staff return to the Committee with updated draft language. Staff attached some updated draft
Censure language to this staff report as a starting place for the Committee discussion of
language to present to the City Council. The draft is included as Attachment A to this report.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
No fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Updated Draft Censure Policy
Report #: 2307-1782
5 January 30, 2023 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=1126&compileOutputType=
1
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Packet Pg. 306
Draft: City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook Section 8.2 Enforcement
Draft Language for Review: City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook
Section 8.2 Enforcement
8.2 Enforcement
(a)Purpose: This policy provides the mechanism by which the City Council may
adopt a resolution of censure or take other disciplinary action expressing the
Council's disapproval of the conduct of a Council member if the Council finds,
subject to the procedures set forth herein, that a Council member's conduct
violates federal, state or local law, this Handbook, or any other document
adopted by the Council.
(b)Should two or more Council members believe that actions by a Council member are
inconsistent with federal, state or local law, this Handbook, or any other
document adopted by the Council, those Council members may use a Colleagues
Memo to schedule public discussion of the matter at an upcoming City Council
meeting. A Colleagues Memo may initiate a discussion of Councilmember conduct
and Council expectations, may propose that Council protocols be clarified or a new
protocol be included in this Handbook, or may propose initiation of disciplinary
action. Proposed disciplinary actions may include:
(1)Admonition. An admonition may be directed to any or all members of the
City Council, reminding them that a particular type of behavior is in
violation of law or City policy, and that, if it occurs or is found to have
occurred, could make a member subject to sanction or censure. An
admonition may be issued in response to a particular alleged action or
actions, although it would not necessarily have to be triggered by such
allegations. An admonition may be issued by the City Council prior to any
findings of fact regarding allegations, and because it is a warning or
reminder, would not necessarily require an investigation or separate
hearings to determine whether the allegation is true.
(2)Direction to Correct. The direction should be given to the subject
Councilmember to correct the result of the particular behavior that
violated law or City policy.
(3)Informal Reprimand. The reprimand should be directed to the subject
member of the City Council based on a particular action (or set of actions)
that is determined to be in violation of law or City policy, but is considered
by the Council to be not sufficiently serious to require formal censure.
(4)Resolution of Censure. A resolution of censure may include the
Item 3
Attachment A- Updated
Draft Censure Policy
Packet Pg. 307
Draft: City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook Section 8.2 Enforcement
imposition of sanctions against the Councilmember as a majority of the
City Council deems appropriate, as allowed by law. Such sanctions may
include removal from a committee and restrictions on City-related travel
privileges.
(c)If a Colleagues Memo proposes censure or other discipline of a Council member, the
Memo must contain the specific charges on which the proposed discipline is based.
Completed Council Colleagues Memos shall be provided to the City Clerk’s staff by
noon on the Thursday 11 days prior to the Council meeting that the memo is
intended to be agendized, to provide time for the City Clerk to process for the Council
packet. The City Clerk will deliver a copy of the Colleagues Memo to the
Councilmember who is the subject of the memo no later than the Thursday 11 days
prior to the meeting at which the memo is agendized.
(d)The Council member who is the subject of the proposed disciplinary action may
address the matter in writing or at the Council meeting or both. If the Council
member submits written materials, those must be published in a supplemental
packet, no later than 72 hours before the meeting.
(e)During the Council meeting at which the Colleagues Memo is agendized, the Council
will decide, by majority vote, whether:
(1)A formal disciplinary hearing should be agendized for a future City Council
meeting;
(2)Further investigation of the charges is required;
(3)An admonition should be issued;
(4)Council protocol should be clarified or a new protocol should be introduced;
or
(5)No further action is necessary.
(f)If the Council determines that further investigation is required, the Mayor (or the
Vice Mayor if the mayor is the subject of the proposed disciplinary action) may
designate an ad hoc committee to conduct the investigation. The Council may select
an independent investigator to assist in conducting the investigation. The
independent investigator would be managed by the committee or individual
designated by Council to conduct the investigation. The Committee shall conduct an
investigation and arrive at a recommendation regarding the request and report its
conclusions, findings and a summary of its proceedings to the Council at its earliest
opportunity.
(g)Council Consideration: Upon receipt of the report of the ad hoc Committee, the
City Clerk shall place the matter on the Council's next agenda in order for the
Council to receive the Committee report and determine whether a censure
Item 3
Attachment A- Updated
Draft Censure Policy
Packet Pg. 308
Draft: City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook Section 8.2 Enforcement
hearing is warranted. If the Council decides to set the matter for censure
hearing, it shall schedule the hearing no sooner than three weeks after its
determination to hear the matter. The Council shall not schedule the matter
during any previously scheduled excused absence of the subject Councilmember.
(1)The Mayor (or the Vice Mayor if the Mayor is the subject of the proposed
disciplinary action) will designate a Council member responsible for preparing
and submitting to the City Clerk a censure resolution and supporting
materials by noon on the Thursday 11 days prior to the Council meeting that
the hearing is intended to be agendized, to provide time for the City Clerk to
process for the Council packet. The Council member will submit the draft
resolution and supporting materials to the City Attorney’s Office no later than
the Thursday 18 days before the hearing, to give the City Attorney’s Office
adequate time to review the materials before publication. The City Clerk
shall deliver written notice of the hearing, along with the report,
proposed resolution, and supporting materials, to the Councilmember
subject to the censure the Thursday 11 days prior to the Council meeting for
which the hearing is agendized.
(2)The Council member who is the subject of the proposed disciplinary action
may address the matter in writing or at the hearing or both. If the Council
member submits written materials, those must be published in a
supplemental packet no later than 72 hours before the hearing.
(3)At the disciplinary hearing, the Councilmember who is the subject of the
request for disciplinary action shall have the opportunity to rebut the
allegations in the censure resolution and to question any known accusers if
they agree to be questioned. The member subject to the charges may be
represented and may have the representative speak or question on their
behalf. The questioning or cross-questioning of witness may be reasonably
limited by the Mayor or Vice Mayor if the Mayor is the subject of the
proposed disciplinary action. Testimony shall be taken only from
witnesses having direct knowledge of facts or circumstances relevant to
the specific charges under consideration. However, the rules of evidence
and judicial procedure applicable in courts of law shall not be apply to this
hearing, and the procedures shall be generally informal.
(h)Disciplinary Action. If, at the close of the hearing, a majority of the City Council
finds that the subject member's conduct violates federal, state or local law, this
Handbook, or any other document adopted by the Council, the Council may take
one or more of the following measures:
(1)Admonition. An admonition may be directed to any or all members of the
City Council, reminding them that a particular type of behavior is in
Item 3
Attachment A- Updated
Draft Censure Policy
Packet Pg. 309
Draft: City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook Section 8.2 Enforcement
violation of law or City policy.
(2)Direction to Correct. The direction should be given to the subject
Councilmember to correct the result of the particular behavior that
violated law or City policy.
(3)Informal Reprimand. The reprimand should be directed to the subject
member of the City Council based on a particular action (or set of actions)
that is determined to be in violation of law or City policy, but is considered
by the Council to be not sufficiently serious to require formal censure.
(4)Resolution of Censure. The City Council may, by a majority vote, adopt a
resolution of censure based on clear and convincing facts supporting the
allegations of misconduct giving rise to the censure. A resolution of
censure may include the imposition of sanctions against the
Councilmember as a majority of the City Council deems appropriate, as
allowed by law. Such sanctions may include removal from a committee
and restrictions on City-related travel privileges.
Item 3
Attachment A- Updated
Draft Censure Policy
Packet Pg. 310