CC 10-01-2024 Searchable Packet.pdf — Cupertino City Council, October 1, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

CITY OF CUPERTINO
CI

TY COUNCIL
AGENDA
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference Tuesday, October 1, 2024
6:45 PM
Televised Regular Meeting (6:45)

IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION Mem
bers of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:
1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. 2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV. 3) The meeting will also be streamed live on and online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and www.Cupertino.org/webcast
Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways:
1) Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall
2) E-mail comments by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 1 to the Council at [email protected]. These e-mail comments will also be forwarded to Councilmembers by the City Clerk’s office before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the meeting. Members of the public that wish to share a document must email [email protected] prior to the meeting.

Emailed comments that are related to an agenda item and received following the agenda publication, prior to or during the meeting, will be posted to the City’s website.

Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the Meeting as follows:

Oral public comments will be accepted during the meeting. Comments may be made during “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the public comment period for each agenda item.

Oral public comments may be made during the public comment period for each agenda

Page 1 ends

1 CC 10-01-2024
1 of 780
City Council A genda October 1, 2024
item.

Me
mbers of the audience who address the City Council must come to the lectern/microphone, and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves.

Completion of Speaker Cards and identifying yourself is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments.
3) Teleconferencing Instructions
To address the City Council, click on the link below to register in advance and access the meeting:

Online
Register in advance for this webinar:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_p6Z1SROIRjeWC4EjWVMqRg Phone
Dial: 669-900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 994 7719 4989 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak, *6 to unmute yourself). Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number.

Or an H.323/SIP room system:

H.323:
162.255.37.11 (US West)
162.255.36.11 (US East)
Meeting ID: 994 7719 4989
SIP: [email protected]
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Please read the following instructions carefully:

1. You can directly download the teleconference software or connect to the meeting in your internet browser. If you are using your browser, make sure you are using a current and up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.

2. You will be asked to enter an email address and a name, followed by an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. If you wish to make an oral public comment but do not wish to provide your

Page 2 ends

2 CC 10-01-2024
2 of 780
City Council A genda October 1, 2024
name, you may enter “C upertino Resident” or similar designation.

3. When the Mayor calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand,” or, if you are calling in, press *9. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.

4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted and the specific agenda topic.

5. Members of the public that wish to share a document must email [email protected] prior to the meeting. These documents will be posted to the City’s website after the meeting.

CALL TO ORDER
P

LEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: Recognition of 2nd week of October as Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week
Recommended Action: Recognize 2nd week of October as Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week

PRESENTATIONS

2. S
ubject: Annual Report of the Parks and Recreation Commission Recommended Action: Receive report of annual activities of the Parks and Recreation Commission

3. S ubject: Annual Report of the Teen Commission
Recommended Action: R eceive report of annual activities of the Teen Commission

4. S ubject: Annual Report of the Public Safety Commission Recommended Action: Receive report of annual activities of the Public Safety Commission

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY
O

RAL COMMUNICATIONS

Page 3 ends

3 CC 10-01-2024
3 of 780
City Council A genda October 1, 2024
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter within t
he jurisdiction of the Council and not on the agenda for discussion. The total time for Oral Communications will ordinarily be limited to one hour. Individual speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. As necessary, the Chair may further limit the time allowed to individual speakers, or reschedule remaining comments to the end of the meeting on a first come first heard basis, with priority given to students. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Council from discussing or making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. A councilmember may, however, briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by speakers. A councilmember may also ask a question for clarification, provide a reference for factual information, request staff to report back concerning a matter, or request that an item be added to a future City Council agenda in response to public comment.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5-10)
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine City business and may be approved by o
ne motion. Typical items may include meeting minutes, awards of contracts, the ratification of accounts payable, and second readings of ordinances. Any member of the Council may request to have an item removed from the Consent Calendar based on the rules set forth in the City Council Procedures Manual. Members of the public may provide input on one or more consent calendar items when the Mayor asks for public comments on the Consent Calendar.

5. Subject: Second reading of Ordinance No. 24-2263 “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Table 11.24.150 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Prohibition of Parking along certain streets,” prohibiting parking along the west side of Vista Dive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive. (Continued from September 17, 2024)
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance 24-2263, “AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TABLE 11.24.150 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITION OF PARKING ALONG CERTAIN STREETS.”
[Note: First Reading Agenda Item: Implementation of an on-street two-way Class IV bike lane on Vista Drive and Forest Avenue (Alternative 3) along the Lawson Middle School frontage and prohibition of parking along the west side of Vista Dive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive for the accommodation of Class IV bicycle lanes and adoption of an Ordinance Municipal Code Table 11.24.150, relating to prohibition of parking along certain streets.]
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance
B - July 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report

6. S ubject: Approve the September 17, 2024 City Council minutes Recommended Action: App rove the September 17, 2024 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes

Page 4 ends

4 CC 10-01-2024
4 of 780
City Council A genda October 1, 2024

7. Subject: Second reading of Ordinance No. 24-2264, designating a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Zone on the north side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue to 200 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, the south side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue and a point 150 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, and on Ann Arbor Avenue between Lauretta Drive and Hazelbrook Drive, daily between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 24-2264, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.27.145, DESIGNATION OF PREFERENTIAL

PARKING ZONES, TO ADD LAURETTA DRIVE BETWEEN ANN ARBOR AVENUE AND A POINT 200 FEET EAST OF ANN ARBOR AVENUE, (NORTH SIDE), LAURETTA AVENUE BETWEEN ANN ARBOR AVENUE AND A POINT 150 FEET

EAST OF ANN ARBOR AVENUE (SOUTH SIDE)AND ANN ARBOR AVE BETWEEN LAURETTA DRIVE AND HAZELBROOK DRIVE (DAILY, 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M.)" Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance
B - Permit Parking Map
C - September 17, 2024 City Council Staff Report

8. Subject: Adoption of local amendments to the California Energy Code and repeal of Municipal Code Chapter 16.32 (Local Sustainability Requirements for Newly Adopted Buildings)
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 24-2265, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.32: LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY

REQUIREMENTS FOR NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS, AND ADOPTING LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE”
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance

9. Subject: Approve a design-build project delivery method for the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation Capital Improvement Program Project.

Recommended Action: 1. Authorize the City Manager to undertake a design-build project delivery method for the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation Capital Improvement Program Project; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 24-092 approving the procurement of a design-build contract for the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation Capital Improvement Program Project.

Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - Public Contract Code Extracts
C- FY 24-25 CIP Project Narratives Excerpt

Page 5 ends

5 CC 10-01-2024
5 of 780
City Council A genda October 1, 2024

10. Subject: Adoption of the 2023 Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 Base Plan and Volume 2 City of Cupertino Annex Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 24-093 adopting the 2023 Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 Base Plan and Volume 2 City of Cupertino Annex
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan - Volume 1 Base Plan C - Draft Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan - Volume 2 City of Cupertino A
nnex

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Effective January 1, 2023, Government Code Section 65103.5 (SB 1214) limits the distribution of copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under SB 1214 may make an appointment with the Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to [email protected]. Plans will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal.

11. Subject: Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapters 19.04 (General Provisions),

19.08 (Definitions), and 19.60 (General Commercial (CG) Zones) and Associated Environmental Review. (Application No. MCA-2024-002; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Recommended Action
That the City Council conduct the public hearing and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 24-2266 (Attachments A &B) adopt an ordinance to:

1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Amend the following:
a. Chapter 19.04, General Provisions, and
b. Chapter 19.08, Definitions, and
c. Chapter 19.60, General Commercial (CG) Zones.

Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance No. 24-2266 (clean)
B - Draft Ordinance No. 24-2266 (redline)
C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-13
D - Public Comment

ACTION CALENDAR

12. S
ubject: City-Owned Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Program Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 24-094 Establishing a Policy for Automated License Plate Readers

Page 6 ends

6 CC 10-01-2024
6 of 780
City Council A genda October 1, 2024
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - Memorandum_of_Understanding_on_Use_of_ALPR_System
C – Flock Safety Quote for Services
D - Proposed Camera Locations

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
C

ITY MANAGER REPORT

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED

COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS

13. Subject: Councilmember Reports
A - Councilmember Report, Chao
B - Councilmember Report, Fruen
C - Councilmember Report, Mohan
D - Councilmember Report, Moore

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
A

DJOURNMENT
Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements: Individuals who influence or attempt to influence l
egislative or administrative action may be required by the City of Cupertino’s lobbying ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.100) to register and report lobbying activity. Persons whose communications regarding any legislative or administrative are solely limited to appearing at or submitting testimony for any public meeting held by the City are not required to register as lobbyists.

For more information about the lobbying ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014; telephone (408) 777-3223; email [email protected]; and website: www.cupertino.org/lobbyist.

The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.

Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should

Page 7 ends

7 CC 10-01-2024
7 of 780
City Council A genda October 1, 2024
call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours; and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section

2.08.100 written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website.

Page 8 ends

8 CC 10-01-2024
8 of 780

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-12940 Agenda Date: 10/1/2024
Agenda #: 1.

Subject: Recognition of 2nd week of October as Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week Recognize 2nd week of October as Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/25/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
9 CC 10-01-2024
9 of 780

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13128 Agenda Date: 10/1/2024
Agenda #: 2.

Subject: Annual Report of the Parks and Recreation Commission Receive report of annual activities of the Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/25/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
10 CC 10-01-2024
10 of 780

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13129 Agenda Date: 10/1/2024
Agenda #: 3.

Subject: Annual Report of the Teen Commission
Receive report of annual activities of the Teen Commission CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/25/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
11 CC 10-01-2024
11 of 780

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13130 Agenda Date: 10/1/2024
Agenda #: 4.

Subject: Annual Report of the Public Safety Commission
Receive report of annual activities of the Public Safety Commission CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/25/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
12 CC 10-01-2024
12 of 780

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13396 Agenda Date: 10/1/2024
Agenda #: 5.

Subject: Second reading of Ordinance No. 24-2263 “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Table 11.24.150 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Prohibition of Parking along certain streets,” prohibiting parking along the west side of Vista Dive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive. (Continued from September 17, 2024)
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance 24-2263, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TABLE 11.24.150 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITION OF PARKING ALONG CERTAIN STREETS.” [Note: First Reading Agenda Item: Implementation of an on-street two-way Class IV bike lane on Vista Drive and Forest Avenue (Alternative 3) along the Lawson Middle School frontage and prohibition of parking along the west side of Vista Dive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive for the accommodation of Class IV bicycle lanes and adoption of an Ordinance Municipal Code Table 11.24.150, relating to prohibition of parking along certain streets.]
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/25/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
13 CC 10-01-2024
13 of 780

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 1, 2024

Subject
Second reading of Ordinance No. 24-2263 “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Table 11.24.150 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Prohibition of Parking along certain streets,” prohibiting parking along the west side of Vista Dive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive.

Recommended Action
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance 24-2263, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TABLE 11.24.150 OF

THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITION OF PARKING ALONG CERTAIN STREETS.”
[Note: First Reading Agenda Item: Implementation of an on-street two-way Class IV bike lane on Vista Drive and Forest Avenue (Alternative 3) along the Lawson Middle School frontage and prohibition of parking along the west side of Vista Dive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive for the accommodation of Class IV bicycle lanes and adoption of an Ordinance Municipal Code Table 11.24.150, relating to prohibition of parking along certain streets.]

Reasons for Recommendation
The Lawson Middle School Bikeway Project (Project) was initiated because of the School Walk Audit Implementation Project. The purpose of the School Walk Audit Implementation Project was to enhance the safety of students walking or biking to Cupertino's fourteen public schools by identifying various improvement projects to enhance roadway safety for all school-age children. The Project developed a comprehensive list of recommendations for improving bicyclist and pedestrian safety surrounding Cupertino's public schools. One of the improvements identified in the School Walk Audit Implementation Project was the installation of a two-way separated bike path at Lawson Middle School, which would provide a safe and convenient way for students to access the campus bike cages. Due to the congested conditions during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times, the sidewalks adjacent to the school are crowded with students, and the streets around the school experience significant vehicular traffic. Installing the bike path would provide cyclists with a separate, 14 CC 10-01-2024
14 of 780

dedicated space, keeping them away from vehicles on the road and pedestrians on the sidewalks.

At the July 9 City Council meeting, staff presented the Lawson Middle School Bikeway Project. The staff report for that meeting is included as Attachment B. By unanimous vote, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the implementation of an on-street two-way Class IV bikeway on the west side of Vista Drive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive and the north side of Forest Avenue between Vista Drive (west) and Vista Drive (east), and to proceed with the preparation of the final design. The City Council also conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 24-2263, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Table 11.24.150 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Prohibition of Parking along certain streets.” The ordinance is required to prohibit on-street parking along the west side of Vista Drive necessary for the implementation of the Class IV bikeway.

Next Steps
Following Council adoption of this ordinance, staff will proceed with design and implementation of the on-street two-way Class IV bikeway. Project bid would be anticipated to occur Fall 2024, with construction occurring Spring 2025.

Sustainability Impact
The Implementation of the project supports walking and biking to school, which reduces traffic congestion and leads to reduced vehicle emissions, helping the City achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
This project is exempt from the CEQA under 14 C.C.R. Section 15304(h), Class 4, minor public, or private alterations in the condition of land, water and/or vegetation which does not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees for the creation of bicycle lanes on existing right of way.

_____________________________________

Prepared by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Tina Kapoor, Interim Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachment:

A – Draft Ordinance
B – July 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report
15 CC 10-01-2024
15 of 780
Attachment A

Attachment A – Page 1

ORDINANCE NO. __________________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TABLE 11.24.150 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATING TO PROHIBITION OF PARKING ALONG CERTAIN STREETS

The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

WHEREAS, implementation of the elements of the School Walk Audit Implementation project will encourage walking and bicycling to school, reduce reliance on the single -occupancy vehicle, reduce school -area traffic congestion, have a positive impact on sustainability, and enhance safety; and

WHEREAS, the Lawson Middle School Bikeway Project is identified as a n element in the School Walk Audit Implementation project; and

WHEREAS, removal of on-street parking is necessary in order to implement the Lawson Middle School Bikeway Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Adoption.

Table 11.24.150 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended.

The Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown below. Text added to existing provisions is shown in bold double-underlined text (example) and text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example). Text in existing provisions is not amended or readopted by this Ordinance. Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code. Only the affected portion of the Table is shown, for clarity.

Street Sides of Street Portion
Vista Ave West Between Forest Avenue and Merritt
Drive

16 CC 10-01-2024
16 of 780

2 SECTION 2: Severability and Continuity.

The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of such portion, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions.

SECTION 3: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION4: Publication.

The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law .

Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on July 9, 2024 and enacted at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on October 1, 2024 by the following vote:

Members of the City Council

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

17 CC 10-01-2024
17 of 780

3 SIGNED:
__________________
Sheila Mohan, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________
Christopher D. Jensen, City Attorney

________________________
Date

18 CC 10-01-2024
18 of 780
Attachment B

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: July 9, 2024

Subject
Implementation of an on-street two-way Class IV bike lane on Vista Drive and Forest Avenue (Alternative 3) along the Lawson Middle School frontage and prohibition of parking along the west side of Vista Drive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive for the accommodation of Class IV bicycle lanes and adoption of an Ordinance Municipal Code Table 11.24.150, relating to prohibition of parking along certain streets.

Recommended Action
(1) Authorize the implementation of an on-street two-way Class IV bikeway on the west side of Vista Drive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive and the north side of Forest Avenue between Vista Drive (west) and Vista Drive (east) and proceed with preparation of final design.
(2) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance 24-XXX, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Table 11.24.150 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Prohibition of Parking along certain streets.”

Reasons for R
ecommendation
Project Background and Description
The Lawson Middle School Bikeway Project (Project) was initiated as a result of the School Walk Audit Implementation Project. The purpose of the School Walk Audit Implementation Project was to enhance the safety of students walking or biking to the City of Cupertino's fourteen public schools by identifying various improvement projects to enhance roadway safety for all school-age children. The Project developed a comprehensive list of recommendations for improving bicyclist and pedestrian safety surrounding Cupertino's public schools. One of the improvements identified in the School Walk Audit Implementation Project was the installation of a two-way separated bike path at Lawson Middle School, which would provide a safe and convenient way for students to access the campus bike cages. Due to the congested conditions during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times, the sidewalks adjacent to the school are crowded with students, and the streets around the school experience significant vehicular traffic. Installing the bike path would provide cyclists with a separate, dedicated space, keeping them away from vehicles on the road and pedestrians on the sidewalks.
19 CC 10-01-2024
19 of 780
2 Figure 1: Project Location

The City Council authorized the Lawson Middle School Bikeway Project in the Fiscal Year (FY) 22-23 Work Plan, with a budget of $40,000, to evaluate alternative configurations for a bike path to access the bike racks from the neighboring streets.

Transportation Division staff hired Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. to assist with this effort.

Existing Neighborhood Roadway Conditions
Lawson Middle School is bordered by Merritt Drive to the north, Vista Drive to the east and Forest Avenue to the south (see Figure 1). The following description provides a detailed summary of adjacent streets and their current conditions. 20 CC 10-01-2024
20 of 780
3 Merritt Drive:

Merritt Drive is an east-west two-lane residential street with speed tables. On-street parking is available on both sides of Merritt Drive, although most spots require a permit during school hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday). Lawson Middle School has a staff parking lot with two driveways on Merritt Drive, which also serves as one of the two primary areas for parents to drop off or pick up their children.

Vista Drive:

Vista Drive is a north-south two-lane residential street between Merritt Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard with parking on both sides. Between Merritt Drive and Forest Avenue, the entire west side of Vista Drive fronts Lawson Middle School. South of Forest Avenue, Vista Drive continues with an offset that is approximately 200 feet west of the northern stretch. The school’s parking lot also has one driveway on Vista Drive.

The second main drop-off/pick-up area for the school is an on-site loop located along Vista Drive, which is accessed via two driveways (see Figure 1).

Forest Avenue / Lazaneo Drive:

Forest Avenue/Lazaneo Drive is an east-west two-lane residential street with speed tables and with parking on both sides. However, no parking is permitted on the north side of Forest Avenue along the Lawson Middle School frontage. Forest Avenue is blocked off to vehicular traffic just east of the northern stretch of Vista Drive. However, bicyclists and pedestrians are permitted through this road closure onto Forest Avenue.

Cupertino Unified School District (CUSD) offices are located immediately west of the school and have a parking lot with a driveway onto Forest Avenue. This location comprises the north leg of the intersection with the southern stretch of Vista Drive.

2Observed School Traffic Circulation
Data collection and analysis of existing conditions were performed in the Fall 2022 to understand current school operations, identify potential safety issues, and assess on- street parking usage. Intersection vehicle volume, pedestrian, and bicycle counts were conducted during the peak one-hour periods for school drop-offs and pick-ups. These counts occurred at the following five key locations near the school, as well as at each of the school's five driveways.
• Blaney Ave/Merritt Drive
• Vista Drive/Merritt Drive
• Vista Drive/Apple Tree Lane
• Vista Drive/Forest Ave
• Vista Drive/Lazaneo Drive

During the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods, parents can utilize either the school parking lot or the drop-off loop located on Vista Drive. There are also two different sets of bike cages for students to park their bikes. One bike cage is located at the northwest corner of the school, accessible via Merritt Drive. The other is located just 21 CC 10-01-2024
21 of 780
4 north of the school’s track field, accessible via Vista Drive. A crossing guard is positioned at the intersection of Vista Drive and Merritt Drive.

On-street parking utilization counts were conducted through field observations on a typical weekday and a typical weekend on Merritt Drive west of Blaney Avenue, Vista Drive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive, and on Apple Tree Lane. The weekday count was conducted to capture demand during peak school drop-off and pick-up operations, as well as during peak residential usage. The weekend count was conducted to understand peak demand during residential weekend usage.

Field observations were also conducted during a typical Tuesday and Wednesday (trash pickup day in the neighborhood) on Merritt Drive, Mariani Avenue, Vista Drive, and Forest Avenue to better understand typical behaviors during drop-off and pick-up, as well as identify potential safety issues related to bicycle/pedestrian, bicycle/vehicle, and pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.

Analysis
Data collection showed that vehicular traffic near the campus is generally low to moderate during the peak drop-off and pick-up operations, with less than 200 vehicles per direction. During the morning drop-off peak period, parents used the Merritt Drive 22 CC 10-01-2024
22 of 780
5 staff parking lot, the Vista drop-off loop, the CUSD parking lot, and the Apple campus parking lot at the end of Mariani Avenue. Some parents also elected to park on-street on Vista Drive and neighboring streets. Temporary queues would form on Merritt Drive and Vista Drive, but they would dissipate relatively quickly once school started.

During the school pick-up time, many parents arrived early. Parents would park on- street on Vista Drive and neighboring streets, as well as inside the Apple and the CUSD parking lots. Some queued inside the staff parking lot. Just prior to students leaving the school, the queue inside the staff lot would spill out onto Merritt Drive and back up towards Vista Drive. However, queues would quickly dissipate once pick-up operations began.

On-street parking utilization counts showed that during a normal school weekday, on- street parking utilization on Vista Drive picks up at around 8 a.m. and generally stays consistent at about 20 to 30 vehicles parked during the school day. At 3 p.m., when parents pick up their children, the utilization peaks at about 75 parked vehicles, then drops to 10 parked vehicles or fewer after 4 p.m. On-street parking utilization during the weekend was relatively low throughout the day.

Merritt Drive and Apple Tree Lane experienced similar patterns in parking utilization during school days and weekends. However, the peak parking demand on both streets did not exceed 60% of the available on-street parking spaces.

After-school sports activities occur three to four times a week, generally ending between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. There are also approximately 12 evening school-wide events per year.

These evening events, as well as some after-school sports events, have the potential to generate a considerable amount of on-street parking demand.

Pedestrian volumes were heavy before school started and after school ended. Some students were dropped off and/or picked up by parents who parked on the east side of Vista Drive. These students generally crossed Vista Drive midblock.

Bike counts showed that bike volumes south of the Vista Drive bike cage were relatively high before school started and after school ended. North of the Vista Drive bike cage, bike volumes were generally low on Merritt Drive. Students who used the Merritt Drive bike cage typically arrived from Mariani Avenue.

During field observations, many bicycle/vehicle, bicycle/pedestrian, and pedestrian/vehicle conflict areas were observed. Bicycle/pedestrian conflict areas generally included students biking on sidewalks (mostly along the west side of Vista Drive) and students biking across crosswalks, navigating around crossing pedestrians without yielding. Pedestrian/vehicle conflict areas generally included students crossing Vista Drive midblock. At the intersection of Vista Drive (north leg) and Forest Avenue, eastbound vehicles turning left onto Vista Drive do not have a stop sign, but these 23 CC 10-01-2024
23 of 780
6 vehicles are turning into a marked crosswalk. Staff observed some instances where pedestrians began walking across the crosswalk while vehicles were turning into the crosswalk. However, all these vehicles noticed the pedestrians and yielded.

Proposed B ikeway Alternatives
Four primary alternatives were developed during the project’s public outreach efforts to address these conflict areas. During the initial phases of the outreach, based on public input and feasibility of the alternatives, the alternatives were narrowed down to two primary alternatives that were the focus of more detailed discussions.

Alternative 2
The first, identified as Alternative 2 during the public process and in the feasibility study (See Attachment C, pages 31-32 of the Feasibility Study, Sheets 3 and 4), proposes to build a Class I two-way mixed-use trail along the school frontage, including the west side of Vista Drive from Merritt Drive to Forest Avenue and along the north side of Forest Avenue between Vista Drive (north leg) and Vista Drive (south leg). The proposed mixed-use trail would generally be 10-feet in width, with a two-foot shoulder on either side. However, due to utility constraints between the Vista Drive bike cage and Merritt Drive, the trail would need to be narrowed to eight feet in width, with a two-foot shoulder on either side. This reduced width would also require slightly narrowing Vista Drive. No narrowing is required south of the bike cage, and no on-street parking would be affected by this alternative.

At the intersection of Vista Drive and Merritt Drive, as well as the intersection of Vista Drive (south leg) and Lazaneo Drive, bicycle crossing enhancements would be provided to facilitate bicycle access to the multi-use trail.

Benefits of this alternative include:
• Bicycle physical separation from vehicles
• Fewer bike crossing of vehicle lanes required
• No on-street parking impacts

Drawbacks of this alternative include:
• Possible conflicts with pedestrians
• Utility relocations
• Removal of 19 small trees and 9 mature trees
• Curb relocation north of the Vista Drive bike cage
• High cost (about $1.15 million)

Alternative 3
The other concept, identified as Alternative 3 during the public process and the feasibility study (see Attachment B), proposes constructing an on-street Class IV two- way bike facility along the west side of Vista Drive from Merritt Drive to Forest Avenue and along the north side of Forest Avenue between Vista Drive (north leg) and Vista 24 CC 10-01-2024
24 of 780
7 Drive (south leg). The proposed bicycle facility, which would be constructed within the parking lane adjacent to the curb, would be eight feet wide (four feet in each direction) with a three foot buffer and physical vertical separation, consisting of flexible posts, from the vehicle lanes. This alternative would remove on-street parking on the west side of Vista Drive within the limits of the bicycle improvements. On-street parking is currently prohibited along the north side of Forest Avenue where the improvements are proposed.

Benefits of this alternative include:
• Bicycle physical separation from both vehicles and pedestrians • Fewer bike crossing of vehicle lanes required
• No tree removal or utility relocation required
• Low cost ($120,000)

Drawbacks of this alternative include:
• Removal of approximately 50 on-street parking spaces along the west side of Vista Drive

With respect to the removal of on-street parking associated with this alternative, within a five-minute walkshed of the school, there are approximately 500 on-street parking spaces. While the CUSD parking lot is not a public parking lot, CUSD staff has indicated that they are open to allowing parents to park in their lot during after-school or weekend events.

Figure 3: Walkshed Analysis

As shown in Table 1, both alternatives improve bicycle safety by reducing bicycle/vehicle conflicts. Both alternatives have their benefits and drawbacks related to on-street parking, utility relocation, tree removal, and costs. //
//
25 CC 10-01-2024
25 of 780
8 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Addresses Bike/Pedestrian/Vehicle Conflicts Yes Yes
Relocate Utilities Yes None
Remove Trees 28 None
Remove On-Street Parking Spaces None 50
Cost to Implement ~$1,150,000 ~$115,000
Notes:
• Starting at the BPC hearing, Alternative 2 is renamed to Alternative A and Alternative 3 is renamed to Alternative B during public meetings.

Table 1: Alternatives Evaluation

Outreach Efforts
Extensive outreach to neighbors, parents, students, and other stakeholders and members of the public was conducted. City staff established and maintained a project webpage.

Hexagon and City staff facilitated three community meetings, a stakeholder meeting, and presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC). Community meetings were heavily advertised to the public, including on the City’s social media channels, through the City’s Safe Routes to School mailing list, via school messaging from Lawson staff, laminated posters posted around the school, and property owners within several blocks of the site were directly notified with postcards mailed to the resident and owner mailing addresses. A brief discussion of each meeting is provided below, in chronological order.

Community Meeting #1
Hexagon and City staff hosted the first community meeting on November 10, 2022, in person at Lawson Middle School. Approximately 30 people attended. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the project to the public. The public provided input, as well as comments and suggestions related to the data collection efforts. This meeting informed Hexagon’s scope in data collection and field observations.

Stakeholder Meeting
Hexagon and City staff hosted a stakeholder meeting on February 9, 2023, with representatives from CUSD and Lawson Middle School. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce Hexagon’s analysis, present preliminary alternatives, and determine the level of stakeholder support. The preliminary alternatives presented to the stakeholders were:

• Alternative 1: Bike route and sharrow signage and pavement markings only • Alternative 2: Two-way mixed-use trail to replace existing sidewalk • Alternative 2A: A variant of Alternative 2 with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
• Alternative 3: On-street two-way Class IV bike facility

26 CC 10-01-2024
26 of 780
9 The stakeholders were generally supportive of the study’s direction and the presented alternatives.

Community Meeting #2
Hexagon and City staff hosted the second community meeting on March 16, 2023, virtually via Zoom. Approximately 30 people attended. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce Hexagon’s analysis and the preliminary alternatives presented during the stakeholder meeting.

The team collected public comments, answered questions, and polled the meeting attendees with a series of in-meeting survey questions to identify their preferences for the alternatives. Based on in-meeting surveys as well as email submissions of preferences after the meeting, the alternatives were narrowed down to three options:

Alternative 2, Alternative 2A, and Alternative 3. Alternative 2A was a slight modification of Alternative 2 and was originally created due to the uncertainty over the relocation of a light pole in the CUSD parking lot. However, City staff has since confirmed the infeasibility of relocating that pole, and as a result, Alternative 2A was not carried forward in the study process. Alternative 1 was also not carried forward due to lack of public support.

Alternatives 1st Preference 1st or 2nd Preference
Alternative 1 7% 7%
Alternative 2/2A 29% 86%
Alternative 3 50% 57%
No Change Alternative 4% 7%
Notes:
• Preferences obtained from virtual in-meeting polls and email submissions received after the meeting (from people who did not vote in the meeting) • Starting at the BPC hearing, Alternative 2 is renamed to Alternative A and Alternative 3 is renamed to Alternative B during public meetings.

Table 2: Community Preference

Community Meeting #3
Hexagon and City staff hosted the third community meeting on April 17, 2023, virtually via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting was to provide more details on Alternatives 2 and 3 and gauge public support for the alternatives. Similar to the second community meeting, the team collected public comments, answered questions, and polled the audience on a series of questions. These questions were designed to identify the public’s preferred alternative. The same poll questions were also published on the project website.

Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting
The results of the study were presented to the BPC at the May 17, 2023, meeting. The Commission voted 4-0, with Commissioner Ganga abstaining, to recommend that the 27 CC 10-01-2024
27 of 780
10 City Council direct staff to proceed with implementation of Alternative 3 (named Alternative B during public outreach).

In summary, due to lower cost, fewer impacts to trees and utilities, stronger community preference, and BPC recommendation, staff recommends moving forward with the implementation of Alternative 3.

Next Steps
Subject to Council approval of staff’s recommendation, staff will return to Council for the second reading of the Parking Prohibition Ordinance at the September 17, 2024, regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Staff will then proceed with design and implementation of the on-street two-way Class IV bikeway, with full funding provided through the Apple Donation Grant Agreement. Design and project bid would be anticipated to occur during Fall 2024, with construction occurring Spring 2025. Design and construction are funded through the Apple Donation Grant Agreement.

Sustainability Impact
Implementation of projects from the School Walk Audit Implementation Project supports walking and biking to school, which reduces traffic congestion and leads to reduced vehicle emissions, helping the City achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.

Fiscal Impact
The staff-recommended alternative is fully funded through the Apple Donation Grant Agreement, which allocated $1,221,863 towards School Walk Audit project (420-99-069) implementation. The estimated cost to design and implement the staff-recommended improvement is $115,000. There is no General Fund fiscal impact to proceed with implementation of Alternative 3. To date $40,000 has been spent for outreach and conceptual design efforts as part of the FY 22-23 City Work Program.

California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA)
Exempt from the CEQA under 14 C.C.R. Section 15304(h), Class 4, minor public, or private alterations in the condition of land, water and/or vegetation which does not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees for the creation of bicycle lanes on existing right of way.

_____________________________________

Prepared by: D avid Stillman, Transportation Manager
Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft Ordinance
28 CC 10-01-2024
28 of 780
11 B – On-Street Two-Way Class IV Bike Lane Concept
C – Lawson Middle School Bikeway Feasibility Study

29 CC 10-01-2024
29 of 780

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
23-12661 Agenda Date: 10/1/2024
Agenda #: 6.

Subject: Approve the September 17, 2024 City Council minutes Approve the September 17, 2024 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/25/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
30 CC 10-01-2024
30 of 780

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, September 17, 2024

At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Sheila Mohan called the Regular City Council Meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue and via teleconference.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Sheila Mohan, Vice Mayor J.R. Fruen, and Councilmembers Liang Chao (6:47 p.m.) and Kitty Moore. Absent: Councilmember Hung Wei.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT – None

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: Recognition of Joe Simitian, Santa Clara County Supervisor for his service to Cupertino
Recommended Action: Recognize Joe Simitian, Santa Clara County Supervisor

Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian made comments.

Mayor Mohan recognized Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian.

2. Subject: Recognition of September 21-27, 2024 as United Against Hate Week Recommended Action: Recognize September 21-27, 2024 as United Against Hate Week

Mayor Mohan recognized September 21-27, 2024 as United Against Hate Week.

PRESENTATIONS

3. Subject: Annual Report of the Arts and Culture Commission Recommended Action: Receive report of annual activities of the Arts and Culture Commission

31 CC 10-01-2024
31 of 780
City Council Minutes September 17, 2024

Page 2 ends

Written communications for this item included a presentation.

Council received the report of annual activities of the Arts and Culture Commission.

4. Subject: Annual Report of the Housing Commission
Recommended Action: Receive report of annual activities of the Housing Commission

Written communications for this item included a presentation.

Council received the report of annual activities of the Housing Commission.

5. Subject: Annual Report of the Library Commission
Recommended Action: Receive report of annual activities of the Library Commission

Written communications for this item included a presentation.

Council received the report of annual activities of the Library Commission.

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTION: Chao moved and Fruen seconded to continue Item 8 Second reading of Ordinance No. 24-2263 to the October 1, 2024 City Council Meeting. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Mohan, Fruen, Chao, and Moore. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wei.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Written communications for this item included emails to Council.

The following members of the public spoke:

Lisa Warren discussed Supervisor Joe Simitian’s public service and various proposed developments.

Jennifer Griffin discussed Supervisor Joe Simitian’s public service, Bambi Larson, and supportive housing.

Yuwen Su discussed regulations on sound amplification in parks.

Jerry Lami (representing West Coast Farmers Markets) discussed the Cupertino Farmers Market.

32 CC 10-01-2024
32 of 780
City Council Minutes September 17, 2024

Page 3 ends

Kim discussed the De Anza Blvd Buffered Bike Lanes Project.

Rhoda Fry discussed Builder’s Remedy projects and the Housing Element.

Claudio Bono discussed Builder’s Remedy and the Housing Element.

San R discussed Council meeting p rocedures, De Anza Buffered Bike Lanes Project , and proposed developments around Linda Vista Drive.

Tracy K discussed the City’s Investment Policy, proposed City Hall property acquisition, and property downzoning.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 6-10)

Item 9 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmembers Chao and Moore.

Mayor Mohan opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Fruen moved and Moore seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar except as indicated. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Mohan, Fruen, Chao, and Moore. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wei.

Item 9 was placed after the Action Calendar for consideration per rule.

6. Subject: Approve the September 4, 2024 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the September 4, 2024 City Council minutes

7. Subject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending August 2, 2024; August 9, 2024; August 9, 2024 MISC; August 16, 2024; August 23, 2024 and August 30, 2024 Recommended Action: A. Adopt Resolution No. 24-085 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending August 2, 2024;

B. Adopt Resolution No. 24-086 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending August 9, 2024;
C. Adopt Resolution No. 24-087 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending August 9, 2024 MISC;
D. Adopt Resolution No. 24-088 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending August 16, 2024;
E. Adopt Resolution No. 24-089 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending August 23, 2024; and
F. Adopt Resolution No. 24-090 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending 33 CC 10-01-2024
33 of 780
City Council Minutes September 17, 2024

Page 4 ends

August 30, 2024

8. Subject: Second reading of Ordinance No. 24-2263 “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Table 11.24.150 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Prohibition of Parking along certain streets.” Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance 24-2263, “AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TABLE 11.24.150 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITION OF PARKING ALONG CERTAIN STREETS.”
David Stillman, Transportation Manager

As noted under Postponements and Orders of the Day, t his item was continued to the October 1, 2024 City Council Meeting.

10. Subject: Adopt a resolution increasing the employer's contribution for medical and hospitalization insurance consistent with the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (“PEMHCA” or the “Act”) for retired annuitants hired with the City of Cupertino prior to August 2004
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 24-091 increasing the employer's contribution for medical and hospitalization insurance for retired annuitants hired with the City of Cupertino prior to August 2004

PUBLIC HEARINGS – None

ACTION CALENDAR

11. Subject: Designation of Residential Permit Parking (RPP) on the north side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue to 200 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, the south side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue and a point 150 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, and on Ann Arbor Avenue between Lauretta Drive and Hazelbrook Drive.

Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of and introduce Ordinance 24-2264, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.27.145, DESIGNATION OF PREFERENTIAL

PARKING ZONES, TO ADD LAURETTA DRIVE BETWEEN ANN ARBOR AVENUE AND A POINT 200 FEET EAST OF ANN ARBOR AVENUE (NORTH SIDE), LAURETTA AVENUE BETWEEN ANN ARBOR AVENUE AND A POINT 150 EAST

OF ANN ARBOR (SOUTH SIDE), AND ANN ARBOR AVE BETWEEN LAURETTA DRIVE AND HAZELBROOK DRIVE (DAILY, 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M.)" Presenter: David Stillman, Transportation Manager

Written communications for this item included a presentation and emails to Council.

34 CC 10-01-2024
34 of 780
City Council Minutes September 17, 2024

Page 5 ends

Director of Public Works Chad Mosley gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Mohan opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.

Jennifer Griffin
Kim
Constance Chao
Jessica Rose
Lloyd McKee

Mayor Mohan closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Fruen moved and Chao seconded to conduct the first reading of and introduce Ordinance 24 -2264, entitled "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending City Code Section 11.27.145, Designation of Preferential Parking Zones, to add Lauretta D rive Between Ann Arbor Avenue and a Point 200 Feet East of Ann Arbor Avenue (North Side), Lauretta Avenue between Ann Arbor Avenue and a Point 150 East of Ann Arbor (South Side), and Ann Arbor Ave between Lauretta Drive and Hazelbrook Drive (Daily, 7:00 A. M. to 10:00 P.M.) ." The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Mohan, Fruen, Chao, and Moore. Noes: None. Abstain: None.

Absent: Wei.

12. Subject: Adoption of local amendments to the California Energy Code and repeal of Municipal Code Chapter 16.32 (Local Sustainability Requirements for Newly Adopted Buildings)
Recommended Action: Conduct a first reading of and introduce Ordinance No. 24-2265, entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.32: LOCAL

SUSTAINABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS, AND ADOPTING LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE” Presenter: Christopher Jensen, City Attorney

Written communications for this item included a presentation.

City Attorney Christopher Jensen gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Mohan opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.

35 CC 10-01-2024
35 of 780
City Council Minutes September 17, 2024

Page 6 ends

Daniel Lin
San R

Mayor Mohan closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Fruen moved and Moore seconded the staff recommendation to conduct a first reading of and introduce Ordinance No. 24-2265, entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Repealing Municipal Code Chapter 16.32: Local Sustainability Requirements for Newly Constructed Buildings, and Adopting Local Amendments to California Energy Code.” The motion carried with the following vote:

Ayes: Mohan, Fruen, Chao, and Moore. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wei.

At 8:33 p.m., Mayor Mohan recessed the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 8:43 p.m. with all Councilmembers present (Wei absent).

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

9. Subject: Future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers (“TBD List”) Recommended Action: Review the TBD list and modify the list as recommended below Written communications for this item included a desk item report, Updated Attachment A - TBD List, and emails to Council.

This item was pulled from the consent calendar for discussion.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Mohan opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.

Jennifer Griffin
Rhoda Fry
San R

Mayor Mohan closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Chao moved the staff recommendation on items not mentioned below, such as #2, #3-#10, #11; and
 Create a sublist in TBD list for items to be considered for Council work program o Keep #3 (community meeting requirement for any project requiring a general plan amendment) and #14 on the Work Program sublist of the TBD list  Revise #1 on investment policy to an agenda request for policy on management of cash flow with short-term investment to maximize interest earnings, while providing fluidity for cash flow
36 CC 10-01-2024
36 of 780
City Council Minutes September 17, 2024

Page 7 ends

o Info memo - on the Advantage Checking earning 3% interest  Keep #9: Rephrase as “Council access to all closed session documents before and after closed sessions”
 Add: Study session/memo on legal boundaries and parameters when downsizing a Housing Element site or a non-Housing Element site
 Add: Study session/memo on legal requirements on CEQA oversights on projects and agencies who provide oversight
 Add: Consider allowing limited use of sound amplification devices in parks, such as it does not reach 50 feet away
o Maybe not allowed in nature preserve to not disturb wildlife There was no seconder, and the motion was not considered.

MOTION: Moore moved and Chao seconded to:
 Keep Item 1 (City's financial policy and best practices); and o consolidate with Item 13 (Investment Policy and Quarterly Treasurer’s Report with Audit Committee); and
o revise to include cash flow management policy
 Keep Item 9 (Policy for closed session documents)
 Approve the staff recommendations for all other TBD List Items  Receive an informational memo on “downzoning”
 Add a new TBD List item regarding sound amplification regulation in parks  Remove Item 11 (Farmers Market)

AMENDMENT: Moore amended the motion to remove Item 1 from the TBD List and add as a City Work Program item, including a cash flow management policy. (Chao accepted the amendment).

The amended motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Mohan, Fruen, Chao, and Moore. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wei.

CITY MANAGER REPORT – None

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED - None

COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS

13. Subject: Councilmember Reports

Councilmembers reported on their various committees and events as provided in the published agenda.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
37 CC 10-01-2024
37 of 780
City Council Minutes September 17, 2024

Page 8 ends

Council did not hear this item.

ADJOURNMENT

At 9:38 p.m., Mayor Mohan adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting.

Minutes prepared by:

_________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

38 CC 10-01-2024
38 of 780

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13339 Agenda Date: 10/1/2024
Agenda #: 7.

Subject: Second reading of Ordinance No. 24-2264, designating a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Zone on the north side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue to 200 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, the south side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue and a point 150 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, and on Ann Arbor Avenue between Lauretta Drive and Hazelbrook Drive, daily between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 24-2264, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.27.145,

DESIGNATION OF PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONES, TO ADD LAURETTA DRIVE BETWEEN ANN ARBOR AVENUE AND A POINT 200 FEET EAST OF ANN ARBOR AVENUE, (NORTH SIDE), LAURETTA AVENUE BETWEEN ANN ARBOR AVENUE AND A POINT 150

FEET EAST OF ANN ARBOR AVENUE (SOUTH SIDE)AND ANN ARBOR AVE BETWEEN LAURETTA DRIVE AND HAZELBROOK DRIVE (DAILY, 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M.)" CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/25/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
39 CC 10-01-2024
39 of 780

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 1, 2024

Subject
Second reading of Ordinance 24-XXX, designating a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Zone on the north side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue to 200 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, the south side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue and a point 150 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, and on Ann Arbor Avenue between Lauretta Drive and Hazelbrook Drive, daily between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Recommended Action
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance 24-XXX, designating a Residential Permit Parking Zone on the north side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue to 200 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, the south side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue and a point 150 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, and on Ann Arbor Avenue between Lauretta Drive and Hazelbrook Drive, daily between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Reasons for Recommendation
Preferential parking zones, also known as permit parking zones, involve a parking restriction on designated streets from which residents are exempt if a valid permit is displayed on their vehicle. These areas are generally areas permitted to prevent overflow parking from outside the neighborhood from encroaching on residential streets from within a neighborhood. A petition signed by 81% of the residents along a portion of Ann Arbor Avenue and Loretta Drive has been submitted to establish a preferential parking zone within their neighborhood in response to an influx of parking from users of Memorial Park.

At the September 17, 2024 City Council meeting, the City Council conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 24-XXX, designating a RPP Zone on the north side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue to 200 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, the south side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue and a point 150 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, and on Ann Arbor Avenue between Lauretta Drive and Hazelbrook Drive, daily between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The Ordinance is required to establish a preferential parking zone in Cupertino, in accordance with Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter

11.27. 40
CC 10-01-2024
40 of 780

The first reading of this ordinance on September 17 passed unanimously, with Councilmember Wei absent.

Next Steps
Upon approval of the second reading of the ordinance, staff will collect a fee of $1,149 (see “Fiscal Impact”, below), followed by installation of signs and issuance of permits to residents within the established permit parking zone area.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
A fee of $1,411 has been paid by the neighborhood for administrative costs related to review of the petition per the City’s fee schedule. Upon approval of the second reading of the ordinance, an additional fee of $1,149 will be paid by the neighborhood for costs related to fabrication and installation of signs. The ongoing costs for establishing this permit parking zone are paid for by the City (approximately $240 annually), as the City does not charge residents for ongoing renewal of permits.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
This action is not subject to environmental review because it is not a project, or alternatively, it is exempt from environmental review under CEQA guidelines section 15301(c) minor alteration of existing street. Additionally, the project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA section 15061(b)(3) due to there being no possibility of significant effect on the environment because of the parking restrictions on Ann Arbor Avenue and Lauretta Drive.

_____________________________________

A – Draft Ordinance
B – Permit Parking Map
C – September 17, 2024 City Council Staff Report

41 CC 10-01-2024
41 of 780
Attachment A
1 ORDINANCE NO. __________________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.27.145, DESIGNATION OF PREFERENTIAL

PARKING ZONES, TO ADD LAURETTA DRIVE BETWEEN ANN ARBOR
AVENUE AND A POINT 200 FEET EAST OF ANN ARBOR AVENUE, (NORTH

SIDE), LAURETTA AVENUE BETWEEN ANN ARBOR AVENUE AND A POINT 150 FEET EAST OF ANN ARBOR AVENUE (SOUTH SIDE)AND ANN ARBOR AVE BETWEEN LAURETTA DRIVE AND HAZELBROOK DRIVE (DAILY, 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M.)

The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 22507 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC), Municipal Code Chapter 11.27 allows the City Council to establish preferential parking zones in Cupertino.

WHEREAS, exemptions from such prohibition, when not otherwise indicated, will be by securing and displaying in a vehicle a type of parking permit described in Chapter 11.27.

WHEREAS, Christensen Drive, and Ann Arbor Court between Christensen Drive and Lauretta Drive, currently have an established preferential permit parking zone; and

WHEREAS, as a result of increased public use of Memorial Park, there is an increased influx of parking within the neighborhood adjacent to th e established preferential permit parking zone; and

WHEREAS, in conformance with the City’s established preferential parking zone program, a successful petition has been received by residents along the north side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue and a point 200 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, the south side of Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor and a point 150 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, and by residents of Ann Arbor Avenue between Lauretta Drive and Hazelbrook Drive, in w hich greater than two -thirds of residents support the establishment of a preferential parking zone; and

WHEREAS, necessary fees have been paid by residents of Lauretta Drive and Ann Arbor Avenue in conformance with the approved fee schedule to enable staff to bring the approval of this ordinance forward for City Council consideration.

42 CC 10-01-2024
42 of 780
Ordinance No. __________

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Adoption.

The Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A, at the bottom of this ordinance.

SECTION 2: Severability and Continuity.

The City Council declares that each section, sub -section, paragraph, sub -paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub -section, paragraph, sub -paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub -section, paragraph, sub -paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of such portion, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupert ino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions.

SECTION 3: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 4: Publication.

The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law .

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on September 17, 2024, and enacted at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on October 1, 2024 by the following vote:

Members of the City Council

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

__________________
Sheila Mohan, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

__________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________
Christopher Jensen, City Attorney

________________________
Date

44 CC 10-01-2024
44 of 780
Attachment A
Attachment A – Page 1

Attachment A – An ordinance to amend Table 11.27.145, adding Ann Arbor Avenue and Lauretta Drive to list of streets with Preferential Parking Zones

The sections of the Cupertino Municipal Code set forth below are amended or adopted as follows:

11.27.145 Designation of Preferential Parking Zones.

The following street areas are designated as preferential parking zones under this chapter:

Street Limits Special Hours
Ann Arbor
Avenue
Lauretta Drive to Hazelbrook Drive Daily 7:00 a.m.-- 10:00 p.m.

Ann Arbor
Court
Lauretta Drive to Christensen Daily 7:00 a.m.-- 10:00 p.m.

August Lane All M--F 9:00 a.m.-- 5:00 p.m.

Barbara Lane East side M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 7:30 p.m.

Barbara Lane Scofield Drive to Pepper Tree Lane Sat 8:00 a.m.--4:00 p.m.

Black Oak Way Sycamore Drive to end Sat, Sun, holidays 7:00 a.m.- -4:00 p.m.

Bonny Drive Sola to Scofield M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 7:30 p.m.

Bonny Drive Scofield Drive to Shelly Drive Sat 8:00 a.m.--4:00 p.m.

Byrne Avenue McClellan to 200 feet north M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 4:00 p.m.

Canyon Oak
Way
Cristo Rey Drive to 21101 Canyon Oak Way Sat, Sun, holidays 7:00 a.m.- -4:00 p.m.

Cedar Tree Lane Blaney to Orange Tree Lane Sun 7:00 a.m.-- 12:00 p.m.

Cedar Tree
Court
Cedar Tree Lane to end of cul de sac Sun 7:00 a.m.-- 12:00 p.m.

Christensen
Drive
All Daily 7:00 a.m.-- 10:00 p.m.

Clearcreek
Court
All F--Sun 6:00 p.m.-- 2:00 a.m.

Clearwood
Court
All F--Sun 6:00 p.m.-- 2:00 a.m.
45 CC 10-01-2024
45 of 780
Ordinance No. __________

Attachment A – Page 2
Dolores Avenue Byrne Avenue to 200 feet west of Orange
Avenue
M--F 7:00 a.m.-- 4:00 p.m.
while school is in session
Fairwoods
Court
South Stelling Road to end Daily
Fenway Court All Daily 7:00 a.m.-- 10:00 p.m.

Fort Baker Drive Presidio to Hyannisport M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 3:30 p.m.

Hammond Way East end to west end Sat, Sun, holidays 7:00 a.m.- -4:00 p.m.

Hyannisport
Drive
Fort Baker to Linda Vista Drive M--F 7:00 a.m.-- 4:00 p.m. while school is in session
Imperial
Avenue
Alcazar Avenue to McClellan Road M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 3:30 p.m. while school is in session
Juniper Court Oak Valley Road to end Sat, Sun, holidays 7:00 a.m.- -4:00 p.m.

Larry Avenue Merritt Drive to Lucille Avenue M--F, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

Lauretta Drive North side, Ann Arbor Avenue to a point 200 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue
Daily, 7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m.

Lauretta Drive South side, Ann Arbor Avenue to a point 150 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue
Daily, 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.

Lily Avenue All M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 7:30 p.m.

Lily Court All M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 7:30 p.m.

Madrid Road From McClellan Road to the end M--F 7:00 a.m.- -4:00 p.m.

McClellan Road East side, 430 feet west of Byrne Avenue to Madrid Road
M--F 7:00 a.m.-- 4:00 p.m.

Merritt Drive Blaney to east of Baywood Court 100 feet Sun 7:00 a.m.-- 12:00 p.m.

Merritt Drive Vista Drive to Orange Tree Lane M--F, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

New Haven
Drive
All M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 3:30 p.m.

Noble Fir Court All Daily, 8:00 a.m.-7:30 p.m.

Noonan Court All M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 4:00 p.m.

Oak Valley Road Cupertino City limit to Sycamore Drive Sat, Sun, holidays 7:00 a.m.- -4:00 p.m.

Old Town Court All M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 3:30 p.m.
46 CC 10-01-2024
46 of 780
Ordinance No. __________

Attachment A – Page 3
Orange Avenue East side McClellan to Noonan Court M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 4:00 p.m.

Orange Avenue West side McClellan to Dolores M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 4:00 p.m.

Orange Tree
Lane
Cedar Tree Lane south 175 feet Sun 7:00 a.m.-- 12:00 p.m.

Pacifica Avenue Northside from Torre Avenue to a point 460 feet easterly thereof
M--F 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.,
except holidays
Peppertree Lane All M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 7:30 p.m.

Peppertree Lane Stelling Road to Sat 8:00 a.m.--4:00 p.m.

Phar Lap Drive Stevens Creek Blvd. to Clearcreek Court F--Su 6:00 p.m.-- 2:00 a.m.

Presidio Drive Fort Baker to New Haven M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 3:30 p.m.

Presidio Drive Providence Court to New Haven Court M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 3:30 p.m.

Presidio Drive 100 feet east of New Haven Court to 100 feet west of New Haven Court
M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 3:30 p.m.

Randy Lane Merritt Drive to Lucille Avenue M--F 8:00 a.m.- 4:00 p.m.

Red Fir Court All Daily, 8:00 a.m.-7:30 p.m.

Rodrigues
Avenue
Southside from Torre Avenue to a point 230
feet easterly thereof
M--F 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.,
except holidays
Rodrigues
Avenue
Southside from a point 300 feet east of Torre
Avenue to a point 340 feet easterly there of
Daily
Rodrigues
Avenue
Southside from a point 340 feet east of Torre
Avenue to a point 625 feet easterly thereof
M--F 7:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.,
except holidays
Rose Blossom McClellan to Lily Way M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 7:30 p.m.

Santa Lucia
Road
Stevens Canyon to Merriman Road Daily
Scofield Drive Barbara to Western M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 7:30 p.m.

September
Court
All M--F 9:00 a.m.-- 5:00 p.m.

September Drive McClellan to 200 feet south of August Lane M--F 9:00 a.m.-- 5:00 p.m.

Serra Street All Sat, Sun, holidays 6:00 a.m.-
-2:00 p.m.

Shattuck Drive All M--F 8:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
when school is in session
Shelly Drive Bonny to Westacres M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 7:30 p.m. 47 CC 10-01-2024
47 of 780
Ordinance No. __________

Attachment A – Page 4
Stelling Road McClellan to Erin Daily
Stevens Canyon
Road
West side Santa Lucia north 200 feet Daily
Sycamore Drive St. Joseph Avenue to Oak Valley Road Sat, Sun, holidays 7:00 a.m.- -4:00 p.m.

Torre Avenue Eastside from Rodrigues Avenue to a point 265 feet southerly thereof
M--F 7:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.,
except holidays
Tula Court All First Saturday of each
month 8:00 a.m.--12:00 p.m.

Tula Lane All First Saturday of each
month 8:00 a.m.--12:00 p.m.

White Fir Court All Daily, 8:00 a.m.-7:30 p.m.

Wilkinson Ave Hyannisport to Columbus M--F 8:00 a.m.-- 3:30 p.m.

48 CC 10-01-2024
48 of 780
Attachment B
Christensen Dr
Ann Arbor Ave
Memorial Park Parking
49 CC 10-01-2024
49 of 780

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 17, 2024

Subject
Designation of Residential Permit Parking (RPP) on Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue to 200 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, and on Ann Arbor Avenue between Lauretta Drive and Hazelbrook Drive.

Recommended Action
Conduct the first reading of Ordinance 24-XXX, designating a Residential Permit Parking Zone on Lauretta Drive between Ann Arbor Avenue to 200 feet east of Ann Arbor Avenue, and on Ann Arbor Avenue between Lauretta Drive and Hazelbrook Drive, daily between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Reasons for R ecommendation
Established under the authority of California Vehicle Code Section 22507, Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 11.27 was established to allow designation of preferential parking zones in Cupertino. Preferential parking zones, also known as permit parking zones, involve a parking restriction on designated streets from which residents are exempt if a valid permit is displayed on their vehicle. These areas are generally areas permitted to prevent overflow parking from outside the neighborhood from encroaching on residential streets from within a neighborhood. Residential neighborhoods located near schools or large parks can be especially susceptible to the impacts of overflow parking, often to the extent that the residents themselves have difficulty finding on-street parking near their home. The establishment of preferential permit parking zones, through the process outlined below, is a means of addressing this issue.

The process for a resident to request a preferential parking zone includes:
• Staff review of the request to ensure that the establishment of a permit parking zone will not negatively impact adjacent streets that may not have permit parking. • Resident c irculation of a petition in support of establishing permit parking is needed.
• Requirement that two-thirds of residents that front the proposed permit parking zone support the change to proceed with the request.
50 CC 10-01-2024
50 of 780
• Confirmation by staff that residents received the petition, and the results are valid.
• Payment of fee per the City authorized Fee Schedule.
• Consideration by City Council and enactment of ordinance revisions.

In this instance, each of the process steps listed above has been completed except for the City Council adoption and enactment of the ordinance.

Ann Arbor Avenue and Lauretta Drive are residential streets in the Garden Gate neighborhood of the City (see Attachment B for map of area). These streets are very close to and within walking distance of Memorial Park. Due to the proximity of these streets to park amenities, some park visitors use these streets for parking rather than park in one of Memorial Park's two parking lots. Due to the recent increased use of park amenities at Memorial Park, Ann Arbor Avenue and Lauretta Drive have become impacted by overflow parking from park users. A contributing factor is that Christensen Drive and Ann Arbor Court, which are immediately adjacent to the northern edge of Memorial Park, are currently designated permit parking areas (these streets were designated a permit parking area in 1996) and therefore are unavailable for parking by the general public. A petition has been received from residents on Ann Arbor Avenue and Lauretta Drive requesting permit parking be established daily between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. to coincide with the restriction on the neighboring permit parking zones along Christensen Drive and Ann Arbor Court.

The petition has been signed by 75 percent (9 out of 12) of the neighborhood's property owners, and all steps of the process as outlined above have been completed, with the final step of City Council consideration being addressed with the proposed recommended action. The 12 residents understand that they will be subject to enforcement during the posted times and that permits will need to be displayed on their vehicles when parking on the street. All 12 residents, as well as nearby residents in the neighborhood, have been notified that this item will be considered by the City Council on September 17.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

California Environmental Quality Act (
CEQA)
51 CC 10-01-2024
51 of 780
This action is not subject to environmental review because it is not a project, or alternatively, it is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c) minor alteration of existing street. Additionally, the project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA section 15061(b)(3) due to there being no possibility of significant effect on the environment because of the parking restrictions on Ann Arbor Avenue and Lauretta Drive.
_____________________________________

Prepared by: D avid Stillman, Transportation Manager
Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft Ordinance
B – Permit Parking Map

52 CC 10-01-2024
52 of 780

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13320 Agenda Date: 10/1/2024
Agenda #: 8.

Subject: Adoption of local amendments to the California Energy Code and repeal of Municipal Code Chapter

16.32 (Local Sustainability Requirements for Newly Adopted Buildings) Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 24-2265, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.32: LOCAL

SUSTAINABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS, AND ADOPTING LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE”
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/25/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
53 CC 10-01-2024
53 of 780

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 1, 2024

Subject
Adoption of local amendments to the California Energy Code and repeal of Municipal Code Chapter 16.32 (Local Sustainability Requirements for Newly Adopted Buildings)

Recommended Action
Adopt Ordinance No. 24-2265, entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.32: LOCAL

SUSTAINABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS, AND ADOPTING LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE”

Reasons for Recommendation
On September 17, 2024, the City Council conducted a first reading and introduced Ordinance No. 24-2265. The proposed ordinance would repeal the City’s all-electric reach code in response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berk eley (2024) 89 F.4th 1094 and adopt local amendments to the California Energy Code to encourage energy efficiency and building electrification. If approved by the City Council, the ordinance will be submitted to the California Energy Commission for review and approval.

Sustainability Impact
The proposed ordinance advances the policy of requiring all-electric construction in newly constructed buildings set forth in Climate Action Plan 2.0.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

California Environmental Quality Act
The proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15308 (Actions Taken by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) and § 15061(b)(3) (“common sense” exemption).
_____________________________________

54 CC 10-01-2024
54 of 780
Prepared by: Christopher D. Jensen, City Attorney
Ursula Syrova, Environmental Programs and
Sustainability Manager
Sean Hatch, Building Official
Reviewed by: Tina Kapoor, Interim Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager

Attachments:

A – Proposed Ordinance

55 CC 10-01-2024
55 of 780

1 ORDINANCE NO. 24 – 2265

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.32: LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY

REQUIREMENTS FOR NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS, AND ADOPTING

LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE

The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

1. On November 1, 2022, the Cupertino City Council adopted Ordinance No. 22- 2245, including Municipal Code Chapter 16.32: Local Sustainability Requirements for Newly Constructed Buildings, which, subject to certain exemptions, required all-electric construction in newly constructed buildings.

2. On January 2, 2024, following denial of en banc review, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley (2024) 89 F.4th 1094, holding that restrictions on new natural gas infrastructure enacted by the City of Berkeley in 2019 were preempted by Subchapter IIII of the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6291 et seq.

3. Notwithstanding the court’s ruling in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, the Cupertino City Council reaffirms the policy stated in the City’s Climate Action Plan 2.0, which states the City’s goal to “[r]equire new residential and commercial development to be all-electric at time of construction.” (CAP

2.0, Table ES-2, Policy BE-4.) The City Council wishes to amend the Municipal Code to advance the policy commitments stated in the Climate Action Plan, while maintaining consistency with federal law as interpreted by a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley.

4. To that end, the City Council wishes to adopt local amendments to the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, 2022 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (“Energy Code”).

5. The Energy Code, a part of the California Building Standards Code, implements minimum energy efficiency standards in buildings through mandatory requirements, prescriptive standards, and performances standards.

56 CC 10-01-2024
56 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 2 ends

6. California Health and Safety Code section 17958 requires that local jurisdictions adopt building standards that are substantially the same as those adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and contained in the California Building Standards Code, subject to the ability to adopt local building standard amendments as described below.

7. California Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 provide that jurisdictions may make changes or modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Standards based upon express findings that such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

8. The Cupertino City Council finds that each of the amendments, additions, and deletions to the California Energy Code contained in this ordinance are reasonably necessary because of the local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions described in Section 1 of the Ordinance.

9. The Energy Code provides that local governmental agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for newly constructed buildings and additions, alterations, and repairs to existing buildings provided the following two requirements are met prior to any enforcement of the standards: (1) “[a] determination that the standards are cost effective is adopted by the local agency at a public meeting and subsequently filed with the Energy Commission; and (2) “the Energy Commission finds that the standards will require buildings to be designed to consume less energy than permitted by Title 24, Part 6.” (24 Cal.

Code Regs., Title 6, § 10-106.)

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Findings.
(a) Local Conditions. The City of Cupertino is located in Climate Zone 4 as established in the 2022 California Energy Code. Climate Zone 4 is inland of the coast but has some ocean influence which keeps temperatures from hitting more extreme highs and lows. The zone covers many microclimates from northern to southern parts of the state. The City experiences an annual average precipitation of approximately 26 inches per year. Ninety-five percent of precipitation falls during the months of November through April, leaving a dry period of approximately six months each year. Relative humidity remains moderate most of the time. The climate in Cupertino is characterized 57 CC 10-01-2024
57 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 3 ends

by warm summer temperatures (average highs above 80 degrees Fahrenheit) and moderate winters (average highs of approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit). Prevailing winds in the area come from the west. In August 2022, the City Council adopted the City’s “Climate Action Plan 2.0,” which, in addition to setting goals of reducing community-wide emissions by 50% below 2010 levels by 2030 and achieving community-wide carbon neutrality no later than 2040, includes a description of the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on the City of Cupertino. As documented in the City’s Climate Action Plan 2.0, the continued emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere subjects Cupertino to (1) adverse air quality impacts, exacerbated by local features such as a major highways; (2) extreme heat; (3) flooding from severe storms, particularly in the areas around Stevens Creek and Calabazas Creek; (4) wildfires and smoke, owing to the City’s proximity to the Santa Cruz Mountains and the urban- wildland interface; (5) drought; and (6) sea level rise. The Climate Action Plan includes policies and regulations to increase the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings because the City is vulnerable to the increase in global temperatures caused by the emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Local climatic geologic, and topographic conditions along with the greenhouse emissions generated from residential and nonresidential structures require exceeding the energy standards for building construction established in the 2022 California Buildings Standards Code. The local Energy Code Amendments adopted in this Ordinance will ensure that new buildings reduce their consumption of energy and avoid exacerbating the hazards posed by local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions.
(b) Cost Effectiveness and Energy Efficiency. The Cupertino City Council finds, based on evidence presented before the City Council and the recitals set forth above, which are incorporated by reference herein, that the local amendments to the Energy Code contained in this Ordinance are cost effective and will require buildings to be designed to consume less energy than permitted by the Energy Code.

SECTION 2: Repeal and Adoption.
(a) The Cupertino City Council hereby repeals Chapter 16.32 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Local Sustainability Requirements for Newly Constructed Buildings) in its entirety
(b) The Cupertino City Council hereby amends Chapter 16.54 of the Municipal Code (Energy Code), as set forth in Attachment A, to adopt local amendments to the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, 2022 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations.

58 CC 10-01-2024
58 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 4 ends

SECTION 3: Severability and Continuity.

The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of such portion, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions.

SECTION 4: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 5: Publication.

The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on September 17, 2024 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on October 1, 2024 by the following vote:

Members of the City Council

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
59 CC 10-01-2024
59 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 5 ends

SIGNED:

______________________
Sheila Mohan, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

_______________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________
Christopher D. Jensen, City Attorney

________________________
Date

60 CC 10-01-2024
60 of 780

Page 1 ends

Attachment A – Energy Code; Local Energy Code Amendments CHAPTER 16.54: ENERGY CODE
Section 16.54.010. Adoption of 2022 California Energy Code.

A. The provisions of the 2022 California Energy Code and each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code are referred to as if fully set forth in this chapter, and are by such reference adopted.

B. One (1) copy of the code therefor is on file in the office of the Building Official pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18942 and is made available for public inspection.

Section 16.54.020. Local Energy Code Amendments.

A. Amendments to Subchapter 1 (All Occupancies—General Provisions) Amend Section 100.1(b) of the 2022 California Energy Code to add the following definitions:

ELECTRIC HEATING APPLIANCE is a device that produces heat energy to create a warm environment by the application of electric power to resistance elements, refrigerant compressors, or dissimilar material junctions, as defined in the California Mechanical Code.

KITCHEN, INSTITUTIONAL COMMERCIAL is a kitchen dedicated to a foodservice establishment that provides meals at institutions including schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, correctional facilities, private cafeterias, nursing homes, and other buildings or structures in which care or supervision is provided to occupants.

KITCHEN, QUICK-SERVICE COMMERCIAL is a kitchen dedicated to an establishment primarily engaged in providing fast food, fast casual, or limited services.

Food and drink may be consumed on premises, taken out, or delivered to the customer’s location.

NET FREE AREA (NFA) is the total unobstructed area of the air gaps between louver and grille slats in a vent through which air can pass. The narrowest distance between two slats, perpendicular to the surface of both slats is the air gap height. The narrowest width of the gap is the air gap width. The NFA is the air gap height multiplied by the air gap width multiplied by the total number of air gaps between slats in the vent.

B. Amendments to Subchapter 3 (Nonresidential, Hotel/Motel Occupancies, and Covered Processes—Mandatory Requirements)
Amend Section 120.2 of the 2022 California Energy Code to read as follows:
61 CC 10-01-2024
61 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 2 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 2
SECTION 120.2

REQUIRED CONTROLS FOR SPACE-CONDITIONING SYSTEMS
(a) – (k): Subsections 120.2(a) – (k) are adopted without modification. (l) HVAC Hot Water Temperature. Zones that use hot water for space heating shall be designed for a hot water supply temperature of no greater than 130 °F.

Amend Section 120.6 of the 2022 California Energy Code to read as follows:

SECTION 120.6

REQUIRED CONTROLS FOR SPACE-CONDITIONING SYSTEMS
(a) – (j): Subsections 120.6(a) – (j) are adopted without modification. (k) Mandatory requirements for commercial kitchens. Electric Readiness for Newly Constructed Commercial Kitchens shall meet the following requirements:

1. Each quick-service commercial kitchens and institutional commercial kitchens shall include a dedicated branch circuit wiring and outlet that would be accessible to cookline appliances and shall meet all of the following requirements:
a. The branch circuit conductors shall be rated at 50 amps minimum. b. The electrical service shall have a minimum capacity of 800 connected amps.

2. The electrical service panel shall be sized to accommodate an additional either 208v or 240v 50-amp breaker.

EXCEPTION 1 to Section 120.6(k): healthcare facilities.

EXCEPTION 2 to Section 120.6(k): all-electric commercial kitchens.

C. Amendments to Subchapter 4 (Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies— Mandatory Requirements for Lighting Systems and Equipment, and Electrical Power Distribution Systems)
Amend Section 130.0 of the 2022 California Energy Code to read as follows:

SECTION 130.0

LIGHTING SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT, AND ELECTRICAL POWER
DISTRIBUTIONS SYSTEMS—GENERAL
(a) The design and installation of all lighting systems and equipment in nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings, outdoor lighting, and electrical power distribution systems 62 CC 10-01-2024
62 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 3 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 3
within the scope of Section 100.0(a), shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 130.0 through 130.5130.6.

NOTE: The requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.5130.6 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0 specifies which requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.5130.6 also apply to additions and alterations to existing buildings. (b) – (c): Subsections 130.0(b) – (c) are adopted without modification.

Amend Subchapter 4 of the 2022 California Energy Code to add Section 130.6 to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows:

SECTION 130.6

ELECTRIC READINESS REQUIREMENTS FOR SYSTEMS USING GAS OR

PROPANE
Where nonresidential systems using gas or propane are installed, the construction drawings shall indicate electrical infrastructure and physical space accommodating the future installation of an electric heating appliance in the following ways, as certified by a registered design professional or licensed electrical contractor. (a) Branch circuit wiring, electrically isolated and designed to serve all electric heating appliances in accordance with manufacturer requirements and the California Electrical Code, including the appropriate voltage, phase, minimum amperage, and an electrical receptacle or junction box within five feet of the appliance that is accessible with no obstructions. Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors; and (b) Labeling of both ends of the unused conductors or conduit shall be with “For Future Electrical Appliance”; and
(c) Reserved circuit breakers in the electrical panel for each branch circuit, appropriately labeled (e.g. “Reserved for Future Electric Range”), and positioned on the opposite end of the panel supply conductor connection; and
(d) Connected subpanels, panelboards, switchboards, busbars, and transformers shall be sized to serve the future electric heating appliances. The electrical capacity requirements shall be adjusted for demand factors in accordance with the California Electric Code; and
(e) Physical space for future electric heating appliances, including equipment footprint, and if needed a pathway reserved for routing of ductwork to heat pump evaporator(s), shall be depicted on the construction drawings. The footprint necessary for future electric heating appliances may overlap with non-structural partitions and with the location of currently designed combustion equipment.
63 CC 10-01-2024
63 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 4 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 4
D. Amendments to Subchapter 5 (Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies— Performance and Prescriptive Approaches for Achieving Energy Efficiency) Amend Section 140.0 of the 2022 California Energy Code to read as follows:

SECTION 140.0

PERFORMANCE AND PERSCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE APPROACHES
Nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings shall comply with all of the following:
(a) The requirements of Sections 100.0 through 110.12 applicable to the building project (mandatory measures for all buildings).
(b) The requirements of Sections 120.0 through 130.56 (mandatory measures for nonresidential and high-rise residential and hotel/motel buildings). (c) Either the performance compliance approach (energy budgets) specified in Section 140.1 or the prescriptive compliance approach specified in Section 140.2 for the Climate Zone in which the building will be located. Climate zones are shown in FIGURE 100.1- A.

NOTE to Section 140.0(c): The Commission periodically updates, publishes and makes available to interested persons and local enforcement agencies precise descriptions of the Climate Zones, which is available by zip code boundaries depicted in the Reference Joint Appendices along with a list of the communities in each zone.

NOTE to Section 140.0: The requirements of Sections 140.1 through 140.10 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0 specifies which requirements of Section 140.1 through 140.10 also apply to additions or alterations to existing buildings.

Amend Section 140.1 of the 2022 California Energy Code to read as follows:

SECTION 140.1
PERFORMANCE APPROACH: ENERGY BUDGETS
A building complies with the performance approach if provided that (1) the time- dependent valuation (TDV) energy budget calculated for the Proposed Design Building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a), and (2) the source energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) has a source energy compliance margin, relative to the energy budget calculated for the standard design building under Subsection (a), of at least 10 percent for all nonresidential occupancies. 64 CC 10-01-2024
64 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 5 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 5
EXCEPTION 1 to 140.1 item (2). A source energy compliance margin of 0 percent or greater is required when nonresidential occupancies are designed with single zone space-conditioning systems complying with Section 140.4(a)2. (a) – (c) Subsections 140.1 (a) – (c) are adopted without modification.

E. Amendments to Subchapter 7 (Single-Family Residential Buildings— Mandatory Features and Devices)
Amend Section 150.0 of the 2022 California Energy Code to read as follows:

SECTION 150.0

MANDATORY DEVICES AND FEATURES
Single-family residential buildings shall comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 150(a) through 150.0(v).

NOTE: The requirements of Sections 150.0 (a) through (v) apply to newly constructed buildings. Sections 150.2(a) and 150.2(b) specify which requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through 150.0(r) also apply to additions or alterations. The amendments to section 150.0(t) do not apply to additions or alterations.
(a) – (s): Subsections 150.0(a) – (s) are adopted without modification. (t) Heat pump space heater ready. Systems using gas or propane furnace to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following:

1. A dedicated 240 volt branch circuit wiring shall be installed within 3 feet from the furnace and accessible to the furnace with no obstructions. The branch circuit conductors shall be rated at 30 amps minimum. The blank cover shall be identified as “240V ready.” All electrical components shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code.

2. The main electrical service panel shall have a reserved space to allow for the installation of a double pole circuit breaker for a future heat pump space heater installation. The reserved space shall be permanently marked as “For Future 240V use.”

3. A designated exterior location for a future heat pump compressor unit with either a drain or natural drainage for condensate.
(u) – (v): Subsections 150.0(u) – (v) are adopted without modification.

F. Amendments to Subchapter 8 (Performance and Prescriptive Compliance for Single-Family Residential Buildings)
Amend Section 150.1 of the 2022 California Energy Code to read as follows:
65 CC 10-01-2024
65 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 6 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 6
SECTION 150.1

PERFORMANCE AND PERSCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE APPROACHES FOR

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
(a): Subsection 150.1(a) is adopted without modification (b) Performance Standards. A building complies with the performance standards if the energy consumption calculated for the proposed design building is no greater than the energy budget calculated for the standard design building using Commission-certified compliance software as specified by the Alternative Calculation Methods Approval Manual, as specified in sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 below.

1. Newly Constructed Buildings. The Energy Budget for newly constructed buildings is expressed in terms of the Energy Design Ratings, which are based on source energy and time-dependent valuation (TDV) energy. The Energy Design Rating 1 (EDR1) is based on source energy. The Energy Design Rating 2 (EDR2) is based on TDV energy and has two components, the Energy Efficiency Design Rating, and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating.

The total Energy Design Rating shall account for both the Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The proposed building shall separately comply with the Source Energy Design Rating, Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Total Energy Design Rating. A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building AND Source Energy compliance margin of at least nine, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.

EXCEPTION 1 to Section 150.1(b)1. A community shared solar electric generation system, or other renewable electric generation system, and/or community shared battery storage system, which provides dedicated power, utility energy reduction credits, or payments for energy bill reductions, to the permitted building and is approved by the Energy Commission as specified in Title 24, Part 1, Section 10-115, may offset part or all of the solar electric generation system Energy Design Rating required to comply with the Standards, as calculated according to methods established by the Commission in the Residential ACM Reference Manual.

EXCEPTION 2 to Section 150.1(b)1. A newly constructed building with a conditioned floor area less than 1,500 square feet shall achieve a Source Energy compliance margin of four or greater, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.
66 CC 10-01-2024
66 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 7 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 7
EXCEPTION 3 to Section 150.1(b)1. If a newly constructed building with a conditioned floor area less than 625 square feet demonstrates that due to conditions specific to the project it is technically infeasible to achieve compliance, the Building Official may reduce the compliance margin to between 0 and 4. (b)(2) – (3): Subsections 150.1(b)2 and (b)3 are adopted without modification. (c): Subsection 150.1(c) is adopted without modification G. Amendments to Subchapter 10 (Multifamily Buildings—Mandatory Requirements)
Amend Section 160.4 of the 2022 California Energy Code to read as follows:

SECTION 160.4

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER-HEATING SYSTEMS
(a) Reserved. Systems using gas or propane water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following components:

1. A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, 10 AWG copper branch circuit, within 3 feet from the water heater and accessible to the water heater with no obstructions. In addition, all of the following:

A. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated; and
B. A reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit in A above and labeled with the words “Future 240V Use”; and

2. A Category III or IV vent, or a Type B vent with straight pipe between the outside termination and the space where the water heater is installed; and

3. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater, and allows natural draining without pump assistance; and

4. A gas supply line with a capacity of at least 200,000 Btu/hr. (b) – (f): Subsections 160.4(b) – (f) are adopted without modification.

Amend Section 160.9 of the 2022 California Energy Code to read as follows:

SECTION 160.9

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC READY BUILDINGS
67 CC 10-01-2024
67 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 8 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 8
(a) – (c): Subsections 160.9(a) – (c) are adopted without modification. (d) Individual Heat Pump Water Heater Ready. Systems using gas or propane water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following components and shall meet the requirements of Section 160.9(f):

1. A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, copper branch circuit rated to 30 amps, within 3 feet from the water heater and accessible to the water heater with no obstructions. In addition, all of the following:

2. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater, and allows natural draining without pump assistance.

3. The construction drawings shall indicate the location of the future heat pump water heater. The reserved location shall have minimum interior dimensions of 39”x39”x96”.

4. A ventilation method meeting one of the following:

A. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall have a minimum volume of 700 cubic feet; or B. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall vent to a communicating space in the same pressure boundary via permanent openings with a minimum total net free area of 250 square inches so that the total combined volume connected via permanent openings is 700 cu. ft. or larger. The permanent openings shall be:
i. Fully louvered doors with fixed louvers consisting of a single layer of fixed flat slats; or
ii. Two permanent fixed openings, consisting of a single layer of fixed flat slat louvers or grilles, one commencing within 12 inches from the top of the enclosure and one commencing within 12 inches from the bottom of the enclosure.
68 CC 10-01-2024
68 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 9 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 9
C. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall include two 8” capped ducts, venting to the building exterior:
i. All ducts, connections and building penetrations shall be sealed. ii. Exhaust air ducts and all ducts which cross pressure boundaries shall be insulated to a minimum insulation level of R-6. iii. Airflow from termination points shall be diverted away from each other.
(e) Central Heat Pump Water Heater Electric Ready. Central water heating systems using gas or propane to serve multiple dwelling units shall include the following:

1. The system input capacity of the gas or propane water heating system shall be determined as the sum of the input gas or propane capacity of all water heating devices associated with each gas or propane water heating system.

2. Space reserved shall include:

A. Heat Pump. The minimum space reserved shall include space for service clearances and air flow clearances and shall meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum space reserved for the heat pump shall be 2.0 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating system, and the minimum linear dimension of the space reserved shall be 48 linear inches. ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum space reserved for the heat pump shall be 3.6 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating system, and the minimum linear dimension of the space reserved shall be 84 linear inches.
iii. The space reserved shall be the space required for a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.

B. Tanks. The minimum space reserved shall include space for service clearances and shall meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less 69 CC 10-01-2024
69 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 10 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 10
than 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum space reserved for the storage and temperature maintenance tanks shall be 4.4 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating system.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum physical space reserved for the storage and temperature maintenance tanks shall be 3.1 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating system.
iii. The space reserved shall be the space required for a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.

3. Ventilation shall be provided by meeting one of the following:

A. Physical space reserved for the heat pump shall be located outside, or B. A pathway shall be reserved for future routing of supply and exhaust air via ductwork from the reserved heat pump location to an appropriate outdoor location. Penetrations through the building envelope for louvers and ducts shall be planned and identified for future use. The reserved pathway and penetrations through the building envelope shall be sized to meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum air flow rate shall be 70 CFM per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating system and the total external static pressure drop of ductwork and louvers shall not exceed 0.17 inch when the future heat pump water heater is installed.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum air flow rate shall be 420 CFM per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating system and the total external static pressure drop of ductwork and louvers shall not exceed 0.17 inch when the future heat pump water heater is installed.
iii. The reserved pathway and penetrations shall be sized to serve a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible 70 CC 10-01-2024
70 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 11 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 11
person associated with the project.

4. Condensate drainage piping. An approved receptacle that is sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code to receive the condensate drainage shall be installed within 3 feet of the reserved heat pump location, or piping shall be installed from within 3 feet of the reserved heat pump location to an approved discharge location that is sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code, and meets one of the following:

A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, condensate drainage shall be sized for 0.2 tons of refrigeration capacity per input 10,000 BTU per hour.

B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, condensate drainage shall be sized for 0.7 tons of refrigeration capacity per input 10,000 BTU per hour.

C. Condensate drainage shall be sized to serve a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.

5. Electrical.

A. Physical space shall be reserved on the bus system of the main switchboard or on the bus system of a distribution board to serve the future heat pump water heater system including the heat pump and temperature maintenance tanks. In addition, the physical space reserved shall be capable of providing adequate power to the future heat pump water heater as follows:
i. Heat Pump. For the Heat Pump, the physical space reserved shall comply with one of the following:

A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, provide 0.1 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.

B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, provide 1.1 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.

C. The physical space reserved supplies sufficient electrical power required to power a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with 71 CC 10-01-2024
71 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 12 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 12
the project.
ii. Temperature Maintenance Tank. For the Temperature Maintenance Tank, the physical space reserved shall comply with one of the following:

A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, provide 1.0 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.

B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, provide 0.6 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
iii. The physical space reserved supplies sufficient electrical power required to power a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
(f) The building electrical system shall be sized to meet the future electric requirements of the electric ready equipment specified in sections 160.9 a – e. To meet this requirement the building main service conduit, the electrical system to the point specified in each subsection, and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each electric ready appliance in accordance with the California Electric Code.

H. Amendments to Subchapter 11 (Multifamily Buildings—Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches)
Amend Section 170.1 of the 2022 California Energy Code to read as follows:

SECTION 170.1

PERFORMANCE APPROACH
A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the standard design building under Subsection (a).

Additionally, (1) the energy budget, expressed in terms of source energy, of a newly constructed low-rise multifamily building (three habitable stories or less) shall be at least 9 percent lower than that of the standard design building; and (2) newly Constructed high-rise multifamily buildings (greater than four habitable stories) shall be at least 1 percent lower than that of the standard design building. 72 CC 10-01-2024
72 of 780
Ordinance No. 24-2265

Page 13 ends

Energy Code Local Amendments – Page 13
(a) – (d): Subsections 170.1(a) – (d) are adopted without modification.

73 CC 10-01-2024
73 of 780

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13397 Agenda Date: 10/1/2024
Agenda #: 9.

Subject: Approve a design-build project delivery method for the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation Capital Improvement Program Project.

1. Authorize the City Manager to undertake a design-build project delivery method for the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation Capital Improvement Program Project; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 24-092 approving the procurement of a design-build contract for the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation Capital Improvement Program Project.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/25/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
74 CC 10-01-2024
74 of 780

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 1, 2024

Subject
Approve a design-build project delivery method for the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation Capital Improvement Program project.

Recommended Action

1. Authorize the City Manager to undertake a design-build project delivery method for the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation Capital Improvement Program Project; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 24-XXX approving the procurement of a design-build contract for the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation Capital Improvement Program Project.

Executive Summary
This report provides background on the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation (PV) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project and its fiscal impact. The report also includes an overview of the design-build process, the advantages of undertaking this project delivery method, and the next steps pending Council approval.

Reasons for Recommendation
The Public Contract Code (PCC) allows for an exception to the traditional design-bid- build process if approved by the City Council. The PCC Section 22162(a) states:

Except as provided in subdivision (b), and notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, with approval of its governing body, may procure design-build contracts for public works projects in excess of one million dollars ($1,000,000), awarding the contract either the low bid or the best value, provided that this article shall not apply to any projects on the state highway system.

The PV project was approved by the City Council as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 24-25 annual budget. The PV project description included in the budget adoption and meeting details is attached (Attachment C).

The project delivery process proposed for the PV project is Design-Build, pursuant to California Public Contract Code section 22160 et seq., instead of conventional design- 75 CC 10-01-2024
75 of 780

bid-build project delivery. The procurement method for this design-build project is based on best value rather than low bid. Design-Build delivery involves contracting with a single entity known as the Design-Build Entity (“DBE”) for both design and construction of the project. Using Design-Build can potentially afford greater integration of services and flexibility more than the conventional design-bid-build, and typically reduces project costs and expedites project completion.

Design-build is a project delivery method that can save time and money. The advantages of this method include:
 Time and cost savings: Design-build can save time and costs by having all services delivered by a DBE which reduces overhead and increases communication when compared to other methods, such as design-bid-build.  Reduced risk: Design-build can reduce risk created by design or construction changes while saving time during design, scope development, and cost estimates when the designer and contractor work closely together.  Simplified project management: A single team manages the entire project, which can reduce claims and promote collaboration between vendors.  Single point of contact: The City of Cupertino will have a single contract and consistent project team for all aspects of the project.  Flexibility: Design-build process allows for negotiation of fees and services.

In addition to the projected cost savings, efficiency and flexibility noted above, utilizing design-build project delivery method is most likely to allow for an expedited schedule which is of critical importance to the success of the project. In April 2023, the City successfully submitted applications required to utilize PG&E’s Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0 rates rather than NEM 3.0 rates for photovoltaic systems at five City facilities.

The City must connect the proposed photovoltaic systems to the electrical grid by April 15, 2026 to take advantage of the NEM 2.0 rates, which provide 75 – 80% greater compensation than NEM 3 rates for electricity that is fed back into the electrical system.

The savings in utility costs are projected to be $500,000 annually, and $17.8 million over a 30-year lifespan.

The next steps for the project, pending Council’s approval of the design-build project delivery method, are:

1. Review of the photovoltaic systems for the five City facilities with Parks and Recreation Commission, Sustainability Commission, and the Community before returning to Council in December 2024 for approval of the design intent for each facility.

2. Initiate the Design-Build procurement process, which will culminate in Council’s approval of the proposed Design-Build Contract at a future Council meeting.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

76 CC 10-01-2024
76 of 780

Fiscal Impact
The Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation (budget unit 420-99-274) was approved as part of the FY 2024-25 Budget at $6,300,000. There are no recommended changes to the budget.

California Environmental Quality Act
The CIP project will be subject to any applicable environmental review prior to project approval.

_____________________________________

Prepared by: Susan Michael, Capital Improvement Program Manager Reviewed by: Christopher Jenson, City Attorney
Tina Kapoor, Interim Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft Resolution
B – Public Contract Code Extracts
C – FY 24-25 CIP Project Narratives Excerpt
77 CC 10-01-2024
77 of 780
Attachment A

RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING

THE PROCUREMENT OF A DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT FOR THE

PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS DESIGN AND INSTALLATION CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT
________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, the Photovoltaic Systems Design & Installation Capital Improvement Program project involves design and construction of energy systems for multiple City facilities; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 22162(a) of the Public Contract Code design-build contracts for public works projects over $1,000,000 may be procured and awarded through a best va lue process and are allowable with approval of its governing body; and

WHEREAS, the design -build process is most likely to deliver cost and schedule benefit for this project; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby authorize the City Manager to procure a design-build contract for the Photovoltaic Systems Design & Installation Capital Improvement Program project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1 day of October, 2024, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

________

________________________
78 CC 10-01-2024
78 of 780
Resolution No. __________________

Page 2 ends

Sheila Mohan, Mayor
City of Cupertino

Date
ATTEST:

________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date

79 CC 10-01-2024
79 of 780

ATTACHMENT B
Extracts from:

Public Contract Code - PCC
DIVISION 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS [1100 - 22355] ( Division 2 enacted by Stats. 1981, Ch. 306. )
PART 3. CONTRACTING BY LOCAL AGENCIES [20100 - 22185.11] ( Part 3 added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 465, Sec. 11. )
CHAPTER 4. Local Agency Design-Build Projects [22160 - 22169] ( Chapter 4 added by Stats. 2014, Ch. 931, Sec. 14. )
h
ps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displa yText.xhtml?lawCode=PCC&division=2.&tit le=&part=3.&chapter=4.&article=

22160.
(a) The Legislature ﬁnds and declares that the design-build method of project delivery, using a best value procurement methodology, has been authorized for various agencies that have reported beneﬁts from such projects including reduced project costs, expedited project completion, and design features that are not achievable through the traditional design-bid-build method.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the following occur:
(1) This chapter provides general authorization for local agencies to use design-build for projects, excluding projects on the state highway system. (2) This chapter shall not be deemed to provide a preference for the design-build method over other procurement methodologies.
(Added by Stats. 2014, Ch. 931, Sec. 14. (SB 785) Eﬀective January 1, 2015. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 22169.)

22161.

For purposes of this chapter, the following deﬁnitions apply:
page B-1
80 CC 10-01-2024
80 of 780
(a) “Best value” means a value determined by evaluation of objective criteria that relate to price, features, functions, life-cycle costs, experience, and past performance. A best value determination may involve the selection of the lowest cost proposal meeting the interests of the local agency and meeting the objectives of the project, selection of the best proposal for a stipulated sum established by the procuring agency, or a tradeoﬀ between price and other speciﬁed factors.
(b) “Construction subcontract” means each subcontract awarded by the design-build entity to a subcontractor that will perform work or labor or render service to the design-build entity in or about the construction of the work or improvement, or a subcontractor licensed by the State of California that, under subcontract to the design-build entity, specially fabricates and installs a portion of the work or improvement according to detailed drawings contained in the plans and speciﬁcations produced by the design-build team.
(c) “Design-build” means a project delivery process in which both the design and construction of a project are procured from a single entity.
(d) “Design-build entity” means a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, joint venture, or other legal entity that is able to provide appropriately licensed contracting, architectural, and engineering services as needed pursuant to a design-build contract. (e) “Design-build team” means the design-build entity itself and the individuals and other entities identiﬁed by the design-build entity as members of its team. Members shall include the general contractor and, if utilized in the design of the project, all electrical, mechanical, and plumbing contractors.
(f) “Local agency” means the following:
(1) A city, county, or city and county.
(g) (1) Except as speciﬁed in subdivision (h), for a local agency deﬁned in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f), “project” means the construction of a building or buildings and improvements directly related to the construction of a building or buildings, county sanitation wastewater treatment facilities, and park and recreational facilities, but does not include the construction of other infrastructure, including, but not limited to, streets and highways, public rail transit, or water resources facilities and infrastructure.
(unrelated sections deleted)
(Amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 201, Sec. 1. (AB 400) Eﬀective January 1, 2024. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 22169.)

page B-2
81 CC 10-01-2024
81 of 780
22162.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), and notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, with approval of its governing body, may procure design-build contracts for public works projects in excess of one million dollars ($1,000,000), awarding the contract either the low bid or the best value, provided that this article shall not apply to any projects on the state highway system.
(b) When a local agency described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) of Section 22161 awards a contract for the acquisition and installation of technology applications or surveillance equipment designed to enhance safety, disaster preparedness, and homeland security eﬀorts, there shall be no cost threshold and the contract may be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or by using the best value method.
(c) The local agency shall develop guidelines for a standard organizational conﬂict-of-interest policy, consistent with applicable law, regarding the ability of a person or entity, that performs services for the local agency relating to the solicitation of a design-build project, to submit a proposal as a design-build entity, or to join a design-build team. This conﬂict-of-interest policy shall apply to each local agency entering into design-build contracts authorized under this chapter.
(Added by Stats. 2014, Ch. 931, Sec. 14. (SB 785) Eﬀective January 1, 2015. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 22169.)

22162.4.

Upon approval of its governing body, a city, county, or city and county may use the design- build contracting process described in this chapter to award contracts for construction of projects that are necessary in order to comply with construction-related accessibility standards, as deﬁned in Section 65946 of the Government Code.
(Added by Stats. 2022, Ch. 900, Sec. 1. (SB 1354) Eﬀective January 1, 2023. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 22169.)

22164.

The procurement process for the design-build projects shall progress as follows:
(a) (1) The local agency shall prepare a set of documents se ing forth the scope and estimated
price of the project. The documents may include, but need not be limited to, the size, type, page B-3
82 CC 10-01-2024
82 of 780
and desired design character of the project, performance speciﬁcations covering the quality of materials, equipment, workmanship, preliminary plans or building layouts, or any other information deemed necessary to describe adequately the local agency’s needs. The performance speciﬁcations and any plans shall be prepared by a design professional who is duly licensed and registered in California.
(2) The documents shall not include a design-build-operate contract for any project. The documents, however, may include operations during a training or transition period but shall not include long-term operations for any project. (b) The local agency shall prepare and issue a request for qualiﬁcations in order to prequalify or short-list the design-build entities whose proposals shall be evaluated for ﬁnal selection. The request for qualiﬁcations shall include, but need not be limited to, the following elements:
(1) Identiﬁcation of the basic scope and needs of the project or contract, the expected cost range, the methodology that will be used by the local agency to evaluate proposals, the procedure for ﬁnal selection of the design-build entity, and any other information deemed necessary by the local agency to inform interested parties of the contracting opportunity. (2) Signiﬁcant factors that the local agency reasonably expects to consider in evaluating qualiﬁcations, including technical design and construction expertise, acceptable safety record, and all other nonprice-related factors.
(3) A standard template request for statements of qualiﬁcations prepared by the local agency. In preparing the standard template, the local agency may consult with the construction industry, the building trades and surety industry, and other local agencies interested in using the authorization provided by this article. The template shall require the following information:
(A) If the design-build entity is a privately held corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or joint venture, a listing of all of the shareholders, partners, or members known at the time of statement of qualiﬁcation submission who will perform work on the project.
(B) Evidence that the members of the design-build team have completed, or demonstrated the experience, competency, capability, and capacity to complete projects of similar size, scope, or complexity, and that proposed key personnel have suﬃcient experience and training to competently manage and complete the design and construction of the project, and a ﬁnancial statement that ensures that the design-build entity has the capacity to complete the project.
page B-4
83 CC 10-01-2024
83 of 780
(C) The licenses, registration, and credentials required to design and construct the project, including, but not limited to, information on the revocation or suspension of any license, credential, or registration.
(D) Evidence that establishes that the design-build entity has the capacity to obtain all required payment and performance bonding, liability insurance, and errors and omissions insurance.
(E) Information concerning workers’ compensation experience history and a worker safety program.
(F) If the proposed design-build entity is a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, joint venture, or other legal entity, a copy of the organizational documents or agreement commi
ing to form the organization.
(G) An acceptable safety record. A proposer’s safety record shall be deemed acceptable if its experience modiﬁcation rate for the most recent three-year period is an average of

1.00 or less, and its average total recordable injury or illness rate and average lost work rate for the most recent three-year period does not exceed the applicable statistical standards for its business category or if the proposer is a party to an alternative dispute resolution system as provided for in Section 3201.5 of the Labor Code. (4) (A) The information required under this subdivision shall be certiﬁed under penalty of perjury by the design-build entity and its general partners or joint venture members. (B) Information required under this subdivision that is not otherwise a public record under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code) shall not be open to public inspection.

(c) (1) A design-build entity shall not be prequaliﬁed or short-listed unless the entity provides an enforceable commitment to the local agency that the entity and its subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled and trained workforce to perform all work on the project or contract that falls within an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades, in accordance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1. (2) This subdivision shall not apply if any of the following requirements are met:
(A) The local agency has entered into a project labor agreement that will bind all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the project or contract to use a skilled and trained workforce, and the entity agrees to be bound by that project labor agreement.
page B-5
84 CC 10-01-2024
84 of 780
(B) The project or contract is being performed under the extension or renewal of a project labor agreement that was entered into by the local agency prior to January 1, 2017.
(C) The entity has entered into a project labor agreement that will bind the entity and all its subcontractors at every tier performing the project or contract to use a skilled and trained workforce.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, “project labor agreement” has the same meaning as in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500.
(d) Based on the documents prepared as described in subdivision (a), the local agency shall prepare a request for proposals that invites prequaliﬁed or short-listed entities to submit competitive sealed proposals in the manner prescribed by the local agency. The request for proposals shall include, but need not be limited to, the following elements:
(1) Identiﬁcation of the basic scope and needs of the project or contract, the estimated cost of the project, the methodology that will be used by the local agency to evaluate proposals, whether the contract will be awarded on the basis of low bid or best value, and any other information deemed necessary by the local agency to inform interested parties of the contracting opportunity.
(2) Signiﬁcant factors that the local agency reasonably expects to consider in evaluating proposals, including, but not limited to, cost or price and all nonprice-related factors. (3) The relative importance or the weight assigned to each of the factors identiﬁed in the request for proposals.
(4) Where a best value selection method is used, the local agency may reserve the right to request proposal revisions and hold discussions and negotiations with responsive proposers, in which case the local agency shall so specify in the request for proposals and shall publish separately or incorporate into the request for proposals applicable procedures to be observed by the local agency to ensure that any discussions or negotiations are conducted in good faith.

(e) For those projects utilizing low bid as the ﬁnal selection method, the competitive bidding process shall result in lump-sum bids by the prequaliﬁed or short-listed design-build entities, and awards shall be made to the design-build entity that is the lowest responsible bidder. (f) For those projects utilizing best value as a selection method, the design-build competition shall progress as follows:
page B-6
85 CC 10-01-2024
85 of 780
(1) Competitive proposals shall be evaluated by using only the criteria and selection procedures speciﬁcally identiﬁed in the request for proposals. The following minimum factors, however, shall be weighted as deemed appropriate by the local agency:
(A) Price, unless a stipulated sum is speciﬁed.
(B) Technical design and construction expertise.
(C) Life-cycle costs over 15 or more years.
(2) Pursuant to subdivision (d), the local agency may hold discussions or negotiations with responsive proposers using the process articulated in the local agency’s request for proposals.
(3) When the evaluation is complete, the responsive proposers shall be ranked based on a determination of value provided, provided that no more than three proposers are required to be ranked.
(4) The award of the contract shall be made to the responsible design-build entity whose proposal is determined by the local agency to have oﬀered the best value to the public. (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, upon issuance of a contract award, the local agency shall publicly announce its award, identifying the design-build entity to which the award is made, along with a statement regarding the basis of the award. (6) The statement regarding the local agency’s contract award, described in paragraph (5), and the contract ﬁle shall provide suﬃcient information to satisfy an external audit. (Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 615, Sec. 365. (AB 474) Eﬀective January 1, 2022. Operative January 1, 2023, pursuant to Sec. 463 of Stats. 2021, Ch. 615. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 22169.)

22165.
(a) The design-build entity shall provide payment and performance bonds for the project in the form and in the amount required by the local agency, and issued by a California admi ed
surety. The amount of the payment bond shall not be less than the amount of the performance bond.
(b) The design-build contract shall require errors and omissions insurance coverage for the design elements of the project.
page B-7
86 CC 10-01-2024
86 of 780
(c) The local agency shall develop a standard form of payment and performance bond for its design-build projects.
(Added by Stats. 2014, Ch. 931, Sec. 14. (SB 785) Eﬀective January 1, 2015. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 22169.)

22166.
(a) The local agency, in each design-build request for proposals, may identify speciﬁc types of subcontractors that must be included in the design-build entity statement of qualiﬁcations and proposal. All construction subcontractors that are identiﬁed in the proposal shall be aﬀorded all the protections of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 4100) of Part 1. (b) Following award of the design-build contract, the design-build entity shall proceed as follows in awarding construction subcontracts with a value exceeding one-half of 1 percent of the contract price allocable to construction work:
(1) Provide public notice of availability of work to be subcontracted in accordance with the publication requirements applicable to the competitive bidding process of the local agency, including a ﬁxed date and time on which qualiﬁcations statements, bids, or proposals will be due.
(2) Establish reasonable qualiﬁcation criteria and standards. (3) Award the subcontract either on a best value basis or to the lowest responsible bidder.

The process may include prequaliﬁcation or short-listing. The foregoing process does not apply to construction subcontractors listed in the original proposal. Subcontractors awarded construction subcontracts under this subdivision shall be aﬀorded all the protections of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 4100) of Part 1. (Added by Stats. 2014, Ch. 931, Sec. 14. (SB 785) Eﬀective January 1, 2015. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 22169.)

22167.
(a) If the local agency elects to award a project pursuant to this article, retention proceeds withheld by the local agency from the design-build entity shall not exceed 5 percent if a performance and payment bond, issued by an admi
ed surety insurer, is required in the
solicitation of bids.
page B-8
87 CC 10-01-2024
87 of 780
(b) In a contract between the design-build entity and a subcontractor, and in a contract between a subcontractor and any subcontractor thereunder, the percentage of the retention proceeds withheld may not exceed the percentage speciﬁed in the contract between the local agency and the design-build entity. If the design-build entity provides wri en notice to any subcontractor
that is not a member of the design-build entity, prior to or at the time the bid is requested, that a bond may be required and the subcontractor subsequently is unable or refuses to furnish a bond to the design-build entity, then the design-build entity may withhold retention proceeds in excess of the percentage speciﬁed in the contract between the local agency and the design-build entity from any payment made by the design-build entity to the subcontractor. (Added by Stats. 2014, Ch. 931, Sec. 14. (SB 785) Eﬀective January 1, 2015. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 22169.)

22168.

Nothing in this article aﬀects, expands, alters, or limits any rights or remedies otherwise available at law.
(Added by Stats. 2014, Ch. 931, Sec. 14. (SB 785) Eﬀective January 1, 2015. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 22169.)

22169.

This chapter shall remain in eﬀect only until January 1, 2031, and as of that date is repealed. (Amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 201, Sec. 2. (AB 400) Eﬀective January 1, 2024. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, by its own provisions. Note: Repeal aﬀects Chapter 4, commencing with Section 22160.) page B-9
88 CC 10-01-2024
88 of 780
Photovoltaic Systems Design & Installation
Proposed Funding $ 6,300,000
City Funding $ 6,300,000
External Funding $ 0
Funding Source, Approved Plan CR, CAP
Project Category Facilities
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Various
Dept. Priority High
Origin of Request Public Works

Project Description
Pro
ject Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
In 2023 PG&E announced a rate decrease for electricity generated by photovoltaic (PV) systems (NEM 3), but provided a window to allow grandfathering the more economically-attractive NEM 2.0 rates if interconnection applications were successfully submitted and corresponding systems operational by 2026. NEM 2.0 Interconnection Applications were successfully submitted to PG&E for five Cupertino facilities: Blackberry Farm, Civic Center, Library, Quinlan Community Center & Senior Center, and Sports Center. This project aims to design and build PV systems at all five locations. This project proposes design/build of these systems, pending design development reviews for each facility.

The City must connect the proposed photovoltaic systems to the grid by 4/15/2026 in order to take advantage of the NEM 2.0 applications, which provides 75 80% greater compensation than NEM 3 rates for electricity that is fed back into the electrical system. The savings in utility costs are projected to be $500,000 annually, and $17.8M over a 30yr lifespan.

Conceptual Design development and cost analysis: Summer 2024 Design-Build: Winter 2024 to April 2026
Installation of the PV systems is projected to save $500,000 annually in utility costs. Additional staffing will not be required for ongoing operations and maintenance.

Installation of the PV systems is projected to save $500,000 annually. The use of cleaner energy sources is a CAP goal.

CA Government code allows for streamlined sourcing of Energy Service Companies (ESCO) for design/build implementation to facilitate these types of projects. It is projected that this project will qualify for $1.9M in Inflation Reduction Act credits.

The proposed budget will enable design and construction of the systems. Inflation Reduction Act credits projected for this project are approximately $1.9M. Staff will also pursue other grant funding opportunities.

CIP FY24-25 5-YEAR PLAN ATTACHMENT A page 5

ATTACHMENT C
89 CC 10-01-2024
89 of 780

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13401 Agenda Date: 10/1/2024
Agenda #: 10.

Subject: Adoption of the 2023 Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 Base Plan and Volume 2 City of Cupertino Annex Adopt Resolution No. 24-093 adopting the 2023 Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 Base Plan and Volume 2 City of Cupertino Annex CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/25/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
90 CC 10-01-2024
90 of 780

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 1, 2024

Subject
Adoption of the 2023 Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 Base Plan and Volume 2 City of Cupertino Annex

Recommended Action:

Adopt Resolution No. 24- _____ adopting the 2023 Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 Base Plan and Volume 2 City of Cupertino Annex

Executive Summary
This staff report provides an overview of the 2023 Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), including the background, planning, adoption process, public outreach, approach, and maintenance. Hazard mitigation involves the use of long-term and short-term policies, programs, projects, and other activities to alleviate the death, injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster. The City of Cupertino is part of the Santa Clara County Operational Area and contributed to the development of the 2023 MJHMP which provides a viable planning framework for natural hazards of concern for the local area. MJHMP is revised every five years and complies with federal and state hazard mitigation planning requirements.

Final adoption of this plan by City Council will establish the City’s eligibility for funding under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant programs.

Reasons for Recommendation

Background
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, commonly known as the Stafford Act, is a United States federal law designed to provide an orderly and systematic means of providing federal natural disaster assistance for state and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to aid citizens. Signed into law on November 23, 1988, it amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. The Act constitutes the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities, especially concerning 91 CC 10-01-2024
91 of 780

Page 2 of 6 ends

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its programs. The Stafford Act allows for a presidential disaster declaration of an emergency, which triggers financial and physical assistance through FEMA.

In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, amending the Stafford Act to support pre-disaster mitigation efforts. Recognizing the dangers of natural and human-caused events, Congress emphasized identifying hazards and evaluating community risks. The Act provides policy guidance for State Mitigation Officers and local jurisdictions to develop a Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). While not legally required, maintaining an MJHMP is necessary for jurisdictions to be eligible for mitigation funds and federal disaster relief under the Stafford Act.

In 2016, Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and all incorporated cities in Santa Clara County worked together to prepare an updated Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) tailored to the local needs and capabilities of the Santa Clara County Operational Area (OA). The City of Cupertino participated in the 2016 MJHMP development process. On June 5, 2018, the City Council adopted a resolution accepting all of Volume 1 and the City of Cupertino's portion of Volume 2 of the Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan to enable the City to qualify for hazard mitigation grants to respond to disasters. The adopted MJHMP was due for revision in 2022, but FEMA granted an extension due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Planning Process
In 2022, the County reconvened the planning team, and a consultant was hired to support the planning process. The consultant support allowed participating jurisdictions to focus on the ongoing response to hazard events, including multiple atmospheric rivers and a winter storm, while ensuring that mitigation planning efforts continued moving forward.

The City's local planning process included forming a local planning team led by the Office of Emergency Management. Staff made extra effort to integrate the priorities and projects identified in previously approved plans, such as the Climate Action Plan, to inform the development of the MJHMP.

The City's Local Planning Team Leads
participated in the MJHMP by attending meetings on the Plan Kick-Off, Risk Assessment, Mitigation Strategy, Wrap-up, and two one-on-one meetings with the planning consultant. In addition, the City filled out the requested forms for each section, which were used to develop this annex. The City also shared information regarding public opportunities to participate in the draft plan update utilizing the digital survey and seven in-person and virtual public outreach meetings. Further, the County coordinated with the City team to review the draft plan before submitting it to Cal OES and FEMA.

92 CC 10-01-2024
92 of 780

Page 3 of 6 ends

The 2023 MJHMP planning process differs from previous plans, including:
• The risk assessment comprises further considerations of emerging hazards, such as the impact of wildfire smoke.
• A concentrated effort to ensure plan integration between the Climate Action Plan, the Capital Improvement Plan, the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, and the Health and Safety Element of the City's General Plan updates, as well as other approved plans.
• Incorporating the additional special district planning partners of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, and Santa Clara Valley Water District are involved in hazard mitigation in the City. • The plan was developed following Emergency Management Accreditation Program standards.
• The risk assessment provides information on risk and vulnerability that will allow a measurement of cost-effectiveness.
• Mitigation goals, objectives, and criteria for prioritizing mitigation action items have been updated to include climate change, resiliency, and benefits to underserved and socially vulnerable populations.
• The update allowed the planning partners to engage residents, particularly those who are underserved and socially vulnerable, to gauge their perception of risk and support risk reduction through mitigation.
• Extreme weather events from climate change has been added as a hazard for the planning area.
• Expanded information about compliance in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Approach
The City supported a "whole community" approach to this plan update. Neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in mitigation activities, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests, were invited to be involved in the planning process by participating in planning meetings, public meetings, or reviewing the draft plan. In addition to the wide variety of stakeholders identified by the County, other stakeholders the City of Cupertino recommended including the Santa Clara Valley Water District, PG&E, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, Santa Clara County Fire Department, San Jose Water, and CalWater.

Public Outreach and Engagement
In addition to inviting a wide range of stakeholders, the City supported public outreach and engagement by participating in the countywide public outreach and engagement campaign. The City distributed a digital survey utilizing social media, the city website, and GovDelivery email distributions, and publicizing the availability of the survey at the in-person Cupertino Earth and Arbor Day Festival. Additionally, the Office of Emergency Management engaged with the Cupertino Citizen Corps and Block Leader programs to respond to the survey and distribute the survey to their contacts. This 93 CC 10-01-2024
93 of 780

Page 4 of 6 ends

survey reached members of underserved populations, including primarily non-English speaking households.

The MJHMP was discussed at two virtual and five in-person public meetings across Santa Clara County and coordinated by the County and its consultant. These in-person meetings were targeted toward areas with socially vulnerable populations. These meetings were also designed to be accessible for AFN (access and functional needs) populations. The public was also provided the opportunity to comment on the draft plan via the City website. Comments from the public survey were reviewed, evaluated for alignment with planning priorities, and incorporated as appropriate. Overall, the public expressed concerns regarding hazards like wildfire (including wildfire smoke), extreme heat, and flooding. In particular, evacuation routes and warning systems, including public outreach to help inform people about their options, were areas of concern. This feedback is reflected in the mitigation actions the City of Cupertino selected.

In addition to directly providing the public the opportunity to comment on the plan, the Santa Clara County Access and Functional Needs and Cultural Competency Working Group, which represents tens of community and faith-based organizations within the Santa Clara County operational area, was consulted. They provided feedback based on the populations they serve, representing approximately 100 nonprofits and Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster members participating in the AFN and Cultural Competency Working Group. Santa Clara County also had representation from community centers and two consulate generals. In addition, some advocates do not have an affiliation but are Santa Clara County residents and provide input on LGBTQ+ and Disability topics. Some organizations include but are not limited to San Andreas Regional Center, Immigrant Info Services, Vista Center for the Blind, American Red Cross, Parents Helping Parents, and Lighthouse. The direct interaction and represented voices generally shared similar concerns for the extreme heat and wildfire hazards, community preparedness, and education and outreach activities. Therefore, prioritization of the wildfire hazard and the corresponding mitigation actions, along with high attention to public outreach and education efforts, informed the plan's many related mitigation actions.

Adoption Process and Maintenance
The draft MJHMP Base Plan and associated jurisdictional annexes underwent multiple stages of review to ensure compliance and effectiveness. The plan was submitted to the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) for a comprehensive evaluation by the consultant. Following several rounds of feedback and necessary amendments in consultation with the County Office of Emergency Management and their consultant, CalOES granted conditional approval, ensuring that the plan adhered to state standards and effectively addressed critical hazards.

94 CC 10-01-2024
94 of 780

Page 5 of 6 ends

After receiving conditional approval at the state level, the MJHMP was submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for further assessment. FEMA's review process involved meticulously examining the plan's adherence to federal guidelines and alignment with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. In June 2024, FEMA granted conditional approval of the Base Plan and associated jurisdictional annexes, including the City of Cupertino, confirming that the plan met the essential criteria for federal compliance.

On Thursday, September 12, 2024, staff presented the draft MJHMP to the Public Safety Commission. The Commission unanimously recommended the MJHMP Volume 1 Base Plan and Volume 2 City of Cupertino Annex for adoption by City Council.

With these conditional approvals from CalOES and FEMA, the MJHMP is presented to the City Council for formal adoption. This formal adoption represents a significant milestone, ensuring that the plan is officially recognized and makes Cupertino eligible for federal grants, such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FEMA), and other state and federal mitigation grants.

The City's Office of Emergency Management will review the MJHMP annually and work with the County of Santa Clara Office of Emergency Management for a comprehensive revision no later than every five years per the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requirements. The City's Office of Emergency Management will maintain a diverse planning team in collaboration with the County Office of Emergency Management, City departments, and community stakeholders.

Sustainability Impact
In alignment with the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0, the MJHMP will address extreme weather events from climate change as a significant hazard, recognizing its potential to exacerbate risks such as poor air quality, flooding, heatwaves, and wildfires.

Specifically, CAP 2.0 measure Adaptation and Resiliency (AR) #3: “Strengthen Community Capacity and Resilience through Education, Resources, and Policies” and AR 2.3 “Integrate the vulnerability assessment results into emergency preparedness, management and response”

Fiscal Impact
By adopting this plan, the City of Cupertino will be eligible to apply for Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs, including but not limited to the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FEMA), and other state and federal mitigation grants.

California Environmental Quality Act
95 CC 10-01-2024
95 of 780

Page 6 of 6 ends

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) ("common sense" exemption). _____________________________________
Prepared by: Thomas Chin, Emergency Manager
Reviewed by: Christopher D. Jensen, City Attorney
Tina Kapoor, Interim Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft resolution adopting the 2023 Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 Base Plan and Volume 2 City of Cupertino Annex B – Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan - Volume 1:

Base Plan
C – Draft Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan - Volume 2:

City of Cupertino Annex
96 CC 10-01-2024
96 of 780

RESOLUTION NO. 24-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING THE 2023 SANTA CLARA COUNTY MULTIJURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN VOLUME 1 BASE PLAN AND VOLUME 2 CITY OF

CUPERTINO ANNEX

WHEREAS, all of Santa Clara County has exposure to natural hazards that increase the risk to life, property, environment and the County's economy;

WHEREAS, pro-active mitigation of known hazards before a disaster event can reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property;

WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) established new requirements for pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation programs;

WHEREAS, a coalition of several cities, towns, special districts, and the County of Santa Clara, with similar planning objectives, has been formed to pool resources and create consistent mitigation strategies within the Santa Clara County Operational Area planning area;

WHEREAS, this coalition has completed a planning process that engages the public, assesses the risk and vulnerability to the impacts of natural hazards, develops a mitigation strategy consistent with a set of uniform goals and objectives, and creates a plan for implementing, evaluating, and revising this strategy;

WHEREAS, the California Office of Emergency Services and Federal Emergency Management Agency officials have reviewed the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) Volume 1 and 2 and approved it contingent upon this official adoption of the participating governing body;

WHEREAS, upon adoption of Volume 1 Base Plan, and Volume 2 City of Cupertino Annex of the Santa Clara County Operational Area MJHMP Update of 2023 and subsequent approval of the said plan by CalOES and FEMA, the City of Cupertino will be eligible to apply for specified Hazard Mitigation Grants.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby adopts the 2023 Santa Clara County Multi -jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 97 CC 10-01-2024
97 of 780

Volume 1 Base Plan and Volume 2 City of Cupertino Annex.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City’s Director of Emergency Services is authorized to make minor adjustments to this Plan as necessary and appropriate to satisfy changing conditions and needs without impacting any City Council Policy.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1
st day of October 2024, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

________
Sheila Mohan, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date

98 CC 10-01-2024
98 of 780

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

MULTIJURISDICTIONAL

HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN
Volume 1: Base Plan

2023

Office of Emergency Management
County of Santa Clara
55 W. Younger Ave., San Jose, CA

99 CC 10-01-2024
99 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

This work was sponsored by the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management.

The research was conducted by IEM, incorporating data provided by Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management.

IEM is a global consulting house for safety, security, strategic performance, and sustainability. We combine objective, scientific analysis with a broad spectrum of experience to provide practical, effective solutions for public and private sectors. IEM’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

is a registered trademark.
© Copyright 2023 IEM
IEM documents are protected under copyright law.
http://www.iem.com
(800) 977-8191

100
CC 10-01-2024
100 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Acknowledgements i
Acknowledgements
County of Santa Clara Core Planning Team
 Dr. Parastou Najaf, Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management, Senior Emergency Manager – Mitigation/Recovery
 Magdalena Sta Maria, Santa Clara County Office of Sustainability, Sustainability Analyst  Samuel Gutierrez, Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Principal Planner
Planning Partners
 Michael Alvarez, County of Santa Clara, Principal Development Services Engineer/ Floodplain Administrator
 Dan Livingston, City of Campbell, Captain of Support Services Division, Police Department  Ron Taormina, City of Campbell, Acting Superintendent  Bob Lennen, City of Campbell, Building Official
 Meredith Albert, City of Cupertino, Emergency Management Analyst  Thomas Chin, City of Cupertino, Emergency Manager
 Andre Duurvoort, City of Cupertino, Sustainability Manager  Susan Michael, City of Cupertino, Capital Improvement Program Manager  Jimmy Tan, City of Cupertino, Assistant Director of Public Works  Chad Mosley, City of Cupertino, Acting Director of Public Works  Jennifer Chu, City of Cupertino, Senior Civil Engineer/City of Public Works  Esther Kwon, City of Cupertino, Public Information Officer  Andrew Young, City of Gilroy, Emergency Services and Volunteer Coordinator  Sharon Goei, City of Gilroy, Community Development Director  Daryl Jordan, City of Gilroy, Public Works Director/Floodplain Administrator  Kathryn Krauss, City of Los Altos, Captain of Operations, Police Department  Vency Woo, City of Los Altos, Management Analyst
 Irene Silipin, City of Los Altos, HR Manager
 Marisa Lee, City of Los Altos, Transportation Services Manager  Veronica Tinoco, City of Los Altos, Building Official  Stephanie Williams, City of Los Altos, Planning Services Manager/ Floodplain Manager  Franklin Wong, City of Los Altos, Public Works. CIP Manager 101
CC 10-01-2024
101 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Acknowledgements ii
 Vivian Chu, City of Los Altos, Finance Manager
 Manny Hernandez, City of Los Altos, Parks and Rec Director  Jon Maginot, City of Los Altos, Assistant City Manager  Angela Averiett, City of Los Altos, Police Chief
 June DU, City of Los Altos, Finance Director
 Sonia Lee, City of Los Altos, Public Information Officer  Nick Zorner, City of Los Altos, Development Services Director  Brian Glass, City of Los Altos, Assistant Fire Chief
 Ann Hepenstal, Town of Los Altos Hills, Emergency Management Consultant  Woojae Kim, Town of Los Altos Hills, Public Works Director/ Floodplain Administrator  John Chau, Town of Los Altos Hills, Associate Engineer  Elaine Ling, Town of Los Altos Hills, Senior Planner
 Jeremy Loh, Town of Los Altos Hills, Associate Planner  Jonathan Fox, Town of Los Altos Hills, Assistant Planner  Gerry Igtanloc, Town of Los Altos Hills, Building Technician  Cody Einfalt, Town of Los Altos Hills, Management Analyst II/ Interim Assistant to the City Manager
 Nicolle Burnham, Town of Los Gatos, Director of Parks and Public Works  Holly Young, Town of Los Gatos, Senior Analyst
 Toni-Lynn Charlop, City of Milpitas, Office of Emergency Management Coordinator  Elaine Marshal, City of Milpitas, Deputy Director, Public Works  Jay Lee, City of Milpitas, Principal Planner
 Bill Tott, City of Milpitas, Building Official
 Arthur Belton, City of Milpitas, Fire Marshal
 Michael Silveira, City of Milpitas, CIP Manger
 Samantha Vergara, City of Milpitas, Special Projects/Drought & Climate Change  Brian Petrovic, City of Milpitas, Floodplain Administrator  Jennifer Ponce, City of Morgan Hill, Emergency Services Coordinator  Hilary Holeman, City of Morgan Hill, Administrative Analyst  Scott Creer, City of Morgan Hill, Floodplain Administrator  Robert Maitland, City of Mountain View, Fire Department Public Information Officer, Office of Emergency Services Coordinator
 Eric Anderson, City of Mountain View, Advanced Planning Manager  Nena Bizjak, City of Mountain View, Chief Building Official  Renee Gunn, City of Mountain View, Associate Civil Engineer/ Floodplain Administrator 102
CC 10-01-2024
102 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Acknowledgements iii
 Ken Dueker, City of Palo Alto, Office of Emergency Services, Chief  Nathan Rainey, City of Palo Alto, Office of Emergency Services Coordinator  Karin North, City of Palo Alto, Assistant Director of Public Works, Environmental Services  Holly Boyd, City of Palo Alto, Assistant Director of Public Works, Engineering  Rajeev Hada, City of Palo Alto, Floodplain Administrator  Chitra Moitra, City of Palo Alto, Planner
 Christine Luong Manager, City of Palo Alto, Environmental Control Program – Sustainability  Ray Riordan, City of San Jose, Director of Emergency Management  Jay McAmis, City of San José, Deputy Director of Emergency Management  Mariana Chavez-Vazquez, City of San Jose, Assistant Director of Environmental Services Department
 Rajani Nair, City of San Jose, Deputy Director of Environmental Services Department  Jennifer Brown, City of San Jose, Division Manager of Environment Services Department  Jennie Loft, City of San Jose, Public Information Manager of Environmental Services Department  Kat Estrada, City of San Jose, Program Manager of Environmental Services Department  Sean Monlux, City of San Jose, Analyst II
 Kendra Yarn, City of San Jose, Program Manager/ Parks Recreation & Neighborhood Services  Torie O’Reilly, City of San Jose, Division Manager/Parks  Olympia Williams, City of San Jose, Division Manager/ Beautify  Sara Sellers, City of San Jose, Acting Deputy Director  Paul Lim, City of San Jose, Emergency Response program Manager  Steve Choy, City of San Jose, Acting Division Manager/ Division Manager Capital Improvement Project Program Manager
 Samuel Young, City of San Jose, Division Manager Development Services  Norman Mascarinas, City of San Jose, principal Engineer Transportation and Hydraulics Services  Sanhita Ghosal, City of San Jose, Planner IV/Supervising Planner/ Floodplain Administrator  Jennifer Guzman, City of Santa Clara, Emergency Management Analyst  Gary Welling, City of Santa Clara, Director of Water and Sewer Services  Shilpa Mehta, City of Santa Clara, Assistant Director of Water and Sewer Utilities  Craig Mobeck, City of Santa Clara, Director of Public Works  Michael Liw, City of Santa Clara, Assistant Director of Public Works  Falguni Armin, City of Santa Clara, Principal Engineer  Manuel Pineda, City of Santa Clara, Chief Electric Utility Officer  Kevin Kolnowski, City of Santa Clara, Electric Utility Chief Operating Officer  Andrew Crabtree, City of Santa Clara, Director of Community Development/ Floodplain Manager 103
CC 10-01-2024
103 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Acknowledgements iv
 John Davidson, City of Santa Clara, Principal Planner  Armand Lobao, City of Santa Clara, Building Official
 Ruben Torres, City of Santa Clara, Fire Chief
 John Madden, City of Santa Clara, Deputy Fire Chief
 Jeremy Ray, City of Santa Clara, Deputy Fire Chief
 Dennis Yee, City of Santa Clara, Fire Captain
 Wahid Kazem, City of Santa Clara, Assistant Police Chief  Cuong Phan, City of Santa Clara, Police Lieutenant
 Michelle Templeton, City of Santa Clara, Sustainability Manager  David Knight, City of Santa Clara, Communication Management Analyst  Aaron Yuma, City of Saratoga, Building Official
 Neil Valenzuela, City of Saratoga, West Valley Patrol Commander  David Dorcich, City of Saratoga, Associate Civil Engineer. Floodplain Administrator  Jason Falarski, City of Saratoga, Deputy Chief
 Thomas Scott, City of Saratoga, Facilities Manager
 Crystal Bothelio, City of Saratoga, Assistant City Manager  Trudi Ryan, City of Sunnyvale, Director, Community Development  Ramana Chinnakotla, City of Sunnyvale, Director, Environmental Services  Sean Smith, City of Sunnyvale, Street Operations Manager  Mary Jeyaprakask, City of Sunnyvale, Senior Planner
 Suzanne Park, City of Sunnyvale, Chief Building Official  Daniel Moskowitz, City of Sunnyvale, Lieutenant, Office of Emergency Services, Department of Public Safety
 Louay Toma, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Senior Program Specialist  Dennis Lollie, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Deputy Chief  Juan Ledesma, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Program Administrator Supervisor, Office of Emergency Services
 Andres Acevedo, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Senior Management Analyst  Jack XU, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Senior Engineer/ Hydra, Hydro & Geo  Liang XU, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Hydro, Hydra & Geomorph Manager  Jay Lee, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Watershed Field Ops Manager  Devin Mody, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Ops & Maintenance Engineer Support Manager  Greg Meamber, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Senior Engineer/ Operations & Maintenance  Nina Merrill, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Senior Water Resources Specialist  Steven Wu, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Senior Engineer/ Geotechnical 104
CC 10-01-2024
104 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Acknowledgements v
 Brandon Stewart, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Lands and Facilities Department Manager
 Korrine Skinner, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Public Affairs Manager  Matt Anderson, MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District, Chief Ranger and Visitor Services Manager
 Hillary Stevenson, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, General Counsel  Jane Mark, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Planning Manager  Jason Lin, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Engineering and Construction Manager  Deborah Hirst, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Grants Program Manager  Brad Bartholomew, IEM, Project Manager
 Jessica Mason, IEM, Leader Planner
 Kate Smith, IEM, GIS/Hazus Specialist
 Carron Day, IEM, Planner
 Casey Garnett, IEM, Planner
 Krystian Murray, IEM, Planner
 Alayna Payne, IEM, Planner
 Sabrina Lunsford, IEM, Planner

105
CC 10-01-2024
105 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Acronyms vi
Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AELR Annualized Earthquake Loss Ratio
AFN Access and Functional Needs
APA Approvable-Pending-Adoption
APG California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide
ARES Amateur Radio Emergency Service
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply Conservation Agency
BRIC Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal OES California Office of Emergency Services
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARAS Community Agency for Resources, Advocacy, and Services CCR California Code of Regulations
CDBG-DR Urban Development Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery CDBG-MIT Community Development Block Grant Mitigation
CDC U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA California Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act CERT Community Emergency Response Team
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
C-MIST Communication, Maintaining Health, Independence, Safety, Support Services, and Self - Determination, and Transportation
COOP Continuity of Operations Plan
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease of 2019
CPAD California Protected Area Database
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRS Community Rating System
CSZ Cascadia Subduction Zone
CWA Clean Water Act
CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CZM Coastal Zone Management
DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
DR Disaster Declaration
DSOD Division of Dam Safety
106
CC 10-01-2024
106 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Acronyms vii
DSOD Division of Safety of Dams
DWR Department of Water Resources
DWR Department of Water Resources
EAP Emergency Action Plan
EBB Earthquake Brace + Bolt Program
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EM Emergency Declaration
EMAP Emergency Management Accreditation Program
EOC Emergency Operations Center
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance
FMAG Fire Mitigation Assistance Grants
FRMP Flood Risk Management Program
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HHPD High Hazard Potential Dam
HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HMGP-PF Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Post Fire
HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hwy Highway
IBC International Building Code
ICARP Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program IED Improvised Explosive Device
IEM Innovative Emergency Management
IID Improved Incendiary Device
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IT Information Technology
JTTF Joint Terrorism Task Force
LEWS Landslide Early Warning Systems
LOMA Letter of Map Amendment
LOMR Letters of Map Revision
MJHMP Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NBS Nature Based Solutions
NCRIC Northern California Regional Intelligence Center NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NHD Natural Hazard Disclosure
NID National Inventory of Dams
107
CC 10-01-2024
107 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Acronyms viii
NIMS National Incident Management System
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conversation Services
NSI National Structure Inventory
NTHMP National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program
NWS National Weather Service
OA Operational Area
OEM Office of Emergency Management
PAL Provisionally Accredited Levee
PCA Project Cooperation Agreement
PDM Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Risk MAP Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning
SAFRR Science Application for Risk Reduction
SAR Suspicious Activity Report
SCCFD Santa Clara County Fire Department
SCCOEM Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SHMO State Hazard Mitigation Officer
SHMP State Hazard Mitigation Plan
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
STORM Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation SVACA Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDM U.S. Drought Monitor
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VHF Viral Hemorrhagic Fever
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
WHO World Health Organization
WNV West Nile Virus
WUI Wildland Urban Interface
WVFPO Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program 108
CC 10-01-2024
108 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Executive Summary ix
Executive Summary
Hazard Mitigation Planning Background
Hazard mitigation involves the use of long-term and short-term policies, programs, projects, and other activities to alleviate the death, injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster. Santa Clara County and a partnership of local governments and special districts within the county have developed a multijurisdictional hazard mitigation plan to reduce risks from natural disasters in the Santa Clara County Operational Area (OA)—defined as the unincorporated county and incorporated jurisdictions within the geographical boundaries of the county. The plan reaffirms the planning partners commitment to implementing cost-effective, environmentally sound, technically feasible mitigation actions. It also complies with federal and state hazard mitigation planning requirements to establish eligibility for funding under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant programs.

The whole community of the Santa Clara County OA—including individual and families, businesses, community and nonprofit organizations, schools and academia, and all levels of government —is the ultimate beneficiary of this MJHMP. Implementing the plan will reduce risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the OA. The plan provides a viable planning framework for natural hazards of concern for the area. Participation in development of the plan by key stakeholders helped ensure outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The resources and background information in the plan are applicable across the OA, and the plan’s goals and recommendations can lay the groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships for years to come.

History of Regional Planning Efforts for Hazard Mitigation The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) provides communities in the San Francisco Bay area with planning and research resources related to land use, housing, environmental and water resource protection, disaster resilience, energy efficiency, hazardous waste mitigation, risk management and financial services. In 2004, ABAG led a regional effort to address hazard mitigation planning for Bay Area jurisdictions. ABAG’s regional template was used by numerous counties and cities to meet federal hazard mitigation planning requirements. The ABAG process enabled individual planning processes to meet local government needs, while pooling resources and eliminating redundant planning efforts.

In 2010, ABAG conducted its second regional planning effort. Municipalities that used the 2010 updated ABAG tools to meet federal hazard mitigation planning requirements included the County of Santa Clara and the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale. ABAG discontinued its full support of the regional planning concept in 2015, so jurisdictions that were covere d under the regional plan must initiate individual or reformed multijurisdictional planning efforts to continue to comply with federal mitigation planning requirements.

In 2016, Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and all incorporated cities in Santa Clara County teamed together to prepare an updated Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan tailored to the local needs and capabilities of the Santa Clara County Operational Area. The planning partnership developed a new plan from scratch, using lessons learned from the earlier ABAG planning efforts. Compared to previous planning efforts, the plan focused on more localized concerns, newly available data and tools to enhance the risk assessment, considering FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) for flood insurance, and identifying cost-effective actions. 109
CC 10-01-2024
109 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Executive Summary x
The 2023 Santa Clara County Operational Area Planning Effort In 2022, Santa Clara County reconvened the planning team and a consultant was hired to support the planning process. This allowed participants to focus on ongoing hazard events including multiple atmospheric rivers and a winter storm while ensuring that mitigation planning effort continued moving forward. Additional ways the 2023 plan differs from previous plans includes:
 The risk assessment includes further considerations of emerging hazards, like the impact of wildfire smoke, which have recently threatened the OA.
 A concentrated effort to ensure plan integration between the County Community Wildfire Protection Plan and County Safety Element of the County General Plan updates as well as other approved plans.
 The incorporation of the additional special district planning partners of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, and Santa Clara Valley Water District, which are involved in hazard mitigation in the OA.
 The plan was developed in accordance with EMAP standards.  The risk assessment has been formatted to provide information on risk and vulnerability that will allow a measurement of cost-effectiveness.
 Mitigation goals and objectives and criteria for mitigation action item prioritization have been updated to include climate change, resiliency, and benefits to populations that are underserved and/or socially vulnerable.
 The update gave the planning partners an opportunity to engage residents, particularly those who are underserved and/or socially vulnerable and gauge their perception of risk and support for risk reduction through mitigation.
 The update also gave planning partners an opportunity to engage community stakeholders, particularly those that assist underserved and/or socially vulnerable and gauge their perception of risk and support for risk reduction through mitigation.  Climate change has been added as a hazard for the planning area.  Each planning partner has a minimum of one mitigation action per a hazard that can impact them.  Expanded information about planning partner participation and compliance in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Plan Development Approach
Phase 1: Schedule of Work
A Core Planning Team consisting of staff from the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management, Office of Sustainability, and Department of Planning and Development, and a contract consultant, Innovative Emergency Management (IEM), was assembled to facilitate the update of this plan.

This team then formed a planning partnership with local governments, special districts, and other County departments within the OA. Planning partners were also requested to identify additional stakeholders, both internal and external to their community or organization, were invited to participate in the planning process. Some of types of stakeholders identified by partners included representatives from academia, nonprofits, businesses, and other agencies involved in Hazard Mitigation like the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). The Core Planning Team oversaw the plan update, compliance with FEMA hazard mitigation planning guidelines, and the plan update schedule. Stakeholders were frequently engaged through meetings, one-on-one calls, and emails including meeting notes to ensure they understood their role in the plan update.
110
CC 10-01-2024
110 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Executive Summary xi
The plan schedule was updated to reflect the needs of the stakeholders and committing priorities as multiple disaster events occurred during the update process. This phase also included a review of the existing MJHMP, the current and draft California statewide hazard mitigation plan, and other existing programs and resources that support hazard mitigation actions in the OA.

Phase 2: Determine the Planning Area and Resources
The scale of the plan can determine the level of detail that may be included. In this case, the County lead a county-wide planning effort. Planning partners were provided the space to input even more localized data in their sections of the plan as well. New and updated resources and data sources were identified throughout the planning process. FEMA’s Hazus tool for natural hazard analysis was utilized where possible to assess risk and estimated building damage impacts.

Phase 3: Build the Planning Team
The Core Planning Team invited stakeholders to participate in a series of planning meetings on each of the components of the planning process. After each meeting, planning partners had the opportunity to add their input through forms such as Capability Assessment, Risk Assessment and Mitigation Project Worksheet. The planning team update was additionally supported by input from the public. This input was garnered through several collaborative public meetings, a digital survey, and the utilization of social media and a project website.

Phase 4: Create an Outreach Strategy
The opportunity for public participation is an important step of the hazard mitigation planning process. For this plan update, the Core Planning Team developed and implemented a whole community, multi -lingual, in-person, and virtual approach to public outreach. Since the County was already working on updating the County’s Safety Element, which includes different but similar hazard risk and disaster response and recovery considerations, the two planning teams collaborated to share information on th is Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). Two in-person listening sessions were held and one virtual town hall meeting was held to inform the public about the Safety Element and MJHMP update and to garner feedback about hazards of concern and levels of preparedness in the community.

The Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was also being updated simultaneously with the MJHMP, and the two project teams collaborated to share information. Four in- person meetings were held to share information about the CWPP and MJHMP and solicit feedback from the public about the plans.

The County and planning partners also requested public participation through a digital survey posted on the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management’s website available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog. This survey received almost 600 responses. Finally, the public was provided the opportunity to review and provide input on the draft MJHMP.

Phase 5: Review Community Capabilities
A thorough understanding of community capabilities can help decision makers identify feasible hazard mitigation actions. The planning team evaluated each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources including staff and funding resources. Applicable opportunities to expand upon on and improve these policies and programs were identified in the Mitigation Strategy. The main point of contact for each planning partner successfully engaged and utilized their planning teams as subject matter experts and planning support throughout the MJHMP process. 111
CC 10-01-2024
111 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Executive Summary xii
Phase 6: Risk Assessment
Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life resulting from natural hazards, as well as personal injury, economic injury, and property damage, in order to determine the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to natural hazards. The risk assessment provides the scientific basis for mitigation actions. It begins with hazard identification and profiling. Each ha zard that may impact the planning area was profiled utilizing the best available data from local, state, and federal resources including other plans, studies, and databases. Each hazard profile includes risk information such as the location, extent, previous occurrences, future probability of each hazard, and estimated cost of potential damage. Furthermore, a vulnerability assessment was incorporated into each profile to show the expected impacts on people, buildings, critical infrastructure, and future development. The role of climate change and potential cascading impacts is also described.

As part of a comprehensive risk assessment, planning partners used a hazard risk index to evaluate the probability of occurrence, potential life impact, property impact, percentage of planning area impacted, and extent for each applicable hazard. The overall hazard risk index results based on an average of partner indices is shown in Table 1. These results show which hazards pose the highest overall risk to the Operational Area.

Table 1: Average Overall Hazard Risk Index Results
Hazard Risk Order Hazard Average Overall Hazard Risk
Index Result
1 Earthquake 2.13
2 Wildfire, wildfire smoke, and air quality 1.71
3 Heavy precipitation, heavy winds,
extreme temperatures

1.45 4 Drought 1.25
5 Climate change, including sea-level rise 1.19
6 Dam and levee failure .83
7 Flood .79
8 Landslide and mass movement .41
9 Tsunami .03

Based on the average overall hazard risk index results from planning partner risk indices:
 The earthquake hazard has the highest risk results, followed by wildfire/smoke/air quality.  The inclement weather, drought, climate change hazards were a moderate risk to the Operational Area.
 The dam failure, flood, and landslide/mass movement hazards were a lower risk to the Operational Area.
 The tsunami hazard poses the lowest risk to the Operational Area, as not all planning partners can be impacted by this hazard due to geographic location. 112
CC 10-01-2024
112 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Executive Summary xiii
Phase 7: Develop a Mitigation Strategy
The Mitigation Strategy is often referred to as the heart of the plan, or the blueprint for breaking the cycle of disaster response and recovery. A risk-based, capabilities-informed mitigation strategy outlines the framework for short-term and long-term community resilience. A guiding principle as well as overarching goals and objectives were established for the Mitigation Strategy. In order to facilitate this important part of the plan update, a Mitigation Projects Working Group was convened. This group wa s responsible for coming up with suggestions for mitigation actions and reviewing and updating the 2017 Goals and Objectives to align with the changed hazard landscape and the new guidelines. Other plans previously approved by the planning partners were also evaluated for potential mitigation actions. Planning partners then assessed their mitigation actions from the past plan and updated them where needed as well as developed new mitigation actions. These actions were then compiled in their annexes in an ac tion plan which included information on the time, cost, funding source, and lead agency.

Phase 8: Draft Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan with Public Input and Maintenance Procedures
The Core Planning Team and Working Group assembled a document to meet federal hazard mitigation planning requirements for all partners. The updated plan contains two volumes. Volume 1 contains components that apply to all partners and the broader Operational Area and the unincorporated areas of the County. Volume 2 contains all components that are planning partner specific. Each planning partner has a dedicated annex in Volume 2. A plan maintenance strategy which included annual progress reporting, a strategy for continued public involvement, a commitment to plan integration with other relevant plans and programs, and a recommitment from the planning partnership to actively maintain the plan over the five-year performance period. The Planning Team and the public were each provided opportunities to review the draft plan and inputs were incorporated into the final draft.

Phase 9: Develop and Adopt Final Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The final draft will be submitted to Cal OES and FEMA for approval. Once pre-adoption approval has been granted by the California Office of Emergency Services and FEMA Region 9, the final adoption phase will begin. Each planning partner will individually adopt the updated plan. Plan implementation will occur over the next five years as the planning partners begins to implement the countywide and jurisdiction-specific actions identified in this plan.

Each planning partner main point of contact is responsible for the maintenance of their annex and partner-specific information in this MJHMP. This includes documenting successes and lessons learned, researching new or updated data, laws, policies, regulations, or initiatives that can contribute to future iterations of the MJHMP, reviewing potential funding availability, and monitoring and tracking the progress of action items identified in their annex and submitting a status summary to the County ’s project manager annually.

Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). A guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan were reviewed and approved by the larger Planning Team based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and updates to mitigation priorities since the previous MJHMP. The guiding principle, goals, objectives, and actions in this plan all support each other. Goals were selected to support the gui ding principle. Objectives were selected that met multiple goals. Actions were prioritized based on the action meeting multiple objectives.
113
CC 10-01-2024
113 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Executive Summary xiv
Guiding Principle
A guiding principle focuses the range of objectives and actions to be considered. This is not a goal because it does not describe a hazard mitigation outcome, and it is broader than a hazard -specific objective. The guiding principle for this MJHMP is as follows:

To equitably reduce risk and increase resilience by establishing and promoting a comprehensive mitigation program and efforts to protect the Whole Community and environment from identified natural and human- induced hazards.

Goals
The following are the mitigation goals for this plan:

1. Actively develop community awareness, understanding, and interest in hazard mitigation and empower the Operational Area to engage in the shaping of associated mitigation policies and programs.

2. Minimize potential for loss of life, injury, social impacts, and dislocation due to hazards.

3. Minimize potential for damage to property, economic impacts, and unusual public expense due to hazards.

4. Minimize likelihood and impact of hazards causing environmental damage or damaging open space/nature preserves in the County and preserving ecological connectivity in the region and by working with residents to help build community capacity to respond and adapt to hazards and emergencies.

5. Effectively deliver essential information to the whole community that promotes personal preparedness and includes advice to reduce personal vulnerability to hazards.

6. Encourage programs and projects that promote community resiliency by maintaining the functionality of critical Operational Area resources, facilities, and infrastructure.

7. Pursue feasible, cost-effective, grant eligible, and environmentally sound hazard mitigation measures.

8. Increase adaptive capacity to reduce risk from hazard impacts that stem from a changing climate.

9. Remove barriers for local governments to access mitigation funding (broad vs. specific) and reduce the administrative pain points to recipient agencies during the project deployment and auditing phases.

The effectiveness of a mitigation strategy is assessed by determining how well these goals are achieved.

Objectives
Each selected objective meets multiple goals, serving as a stand-alone measurement of the effectiveness of a mitigation action, rather than as a subset of a goal. The objectives also are used to help establish priorities and have been reviewed and approved by the Mitigation Strategy Working Group, and the larger Planning Team. The objectives are as follows:

1. Establish and maintain partnerships in the identification and implementation of mitigation measures in the Operational Area.

2. Implement hazard mitigation programs and projects that protect life, property, and the environment.
114
CC 10-01-2024
114 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Executive Summary xv

3. Develop and provide updated information about threats, hazards, vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategies to state, regional, and local agencies, as well as private sector groups, community - based organizations, and non-profits.

4. Improve understanding of the locations, potential impacts, and linkages among threats, hazards, vulnerability, and measures needed to protect life, property, and the environment.

5. Encourage the incorporation of mitigation best management measures into plans, codes, and other regulatory standards for public, private, and non-governmental entities within the Operational Area.

6. Inform the public on the risk exposure to natural hazards and ways to increase the public ’s capability to prevent, prepare, respond, recover, and mitigate impacts of these events.

7. Advance community and natural environment sustainability and resilience to future impacts through preparation and implementation of state, regional, and local projects.

8. Reduce repetitive property losses from all hazards.

9. Where feasible and cost-effective, encourage property protection measures for vulnerable structures located in hazard areas.

10. Improve the process on how public agencies select systems that provide warning and emergency communications for a broad array of agencies. This includes improving the selection process and ensuring warning and emergency communications processes are effective and accessible.

11. Partner with educational institutions that provide research, case studies and the like to help bolster agency communication that demonstrates the value of hazard mitigation.

Implementation
Full implementation of the recommendations of this plan will require time and resources. The measure of the plan’s success will be its ability to adapt to changing conditions. The County of Santa Clara and its planning partners will assume responsibility for adopting the recommendations of this plan and committing resources toward implementation. The framework established by this plan commits all planning partners to pursue actions when the benefits of a project exceed its costs. The planning partnership developed this plan with extensive public input, and public support of the actions identified in this plan will help ensure the plan’s success.

115
CC 10-01-2024
115 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xvi
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning ....................................................................................... 1

1.1 Why Prepare This Plan? ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1.1 The Big Picture .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.2 Purposes for Planning ............................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Who Will Benefit from This Plan?.............................................................................................. 3

1.3 Contents of This Plan ................................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1 Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)........................................................ 3 2 Plan Update: What Has Changed ........................................................................................................ 4

2.1 The Previous Plan ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Why Update? ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Federal Eligibility ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.2 Plan Integration ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.3 Changes in Development .......................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Why Update? — What is Different? ........................................................................................... 6 3 Planning for Climate Change and Equitable Outcomes ................................................................. 10 4 Plan Update Approach ....................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Grant Funding............................................................................................................................ 12

4.2 Formation of the Core Planning Team .................................................................................... 12

4.3 Defining Stakeholders .............................................................................................................. 13

4.4 Establishment of the Planning Partnership ........................................................................... 17

4.5 Defining the Planning Area ...................................................................................................... 21

4.6 Review of Existing Programs................................................................................................... 21

4.7 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 22

4.7.1 Strategy ................................................................................................................................... 22

4.7.2 Public Involvement Results ..................................................................................................... 27

4.8 Plan Development Chronology and Milestones ..................................................................... 31 5 Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile .................................................................................. 33

5.1 Geographic Overview ............................................................................................................... 33

5.2 Historical Overview ................................................................................................................... 33

5.3 Major Past Hazard Events ........................................................................................................ 35

5.4 Physical Setting ........................................................................................................................ 36

5.4.1 Geology and Topography ........................................................................................................ 36

5.4.2 Soils ......................................................................................................................................... 36

5.4.3 Climate .................................................................................................................................... 37

5.5 Development Profile ................................................................................................................. 38 116
CC 10-01-2024
116 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xvii

5.5.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 38

5.5.2 Critical Facilities, Infrastructure, and Assets ........................................................................... 38

5.5.3 Future Trends in Development ................................................................................................ 41

5.6 Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 42

5.6.1 Population ............................................................................................................................... 42

5.6.2 Age Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 43

5.6.3 Race, Ethnicity, and Language ............................................................................................... 45

5.6.4 Education ................................................................................................................................ 45

5.6.5 Individuals with Disabilities or with Access or Functional Needs ............................................ 46

5.6.6. Social Vulnerability ..................................................................................................................... 46

5.7 Economy .................................................................................................................................... 49

5.7.1 Income ..................................................................................................................................... 49

5.8 Industry, Businesses, and Institutions ................................................................................... 50

5.8.1 Employment Trends and Occupations .................................................................................... 50

5.9 Laws and Ordinances ............................................................................................................... 52

5.9.1 Federal .................................................................................................................................... 52

5.9.2 State ........................................................................................................................................ 60

5.9.3 Local ........................................................................................................................................ 67 6 Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment .................................................................... 70

6.1 Identified Hazards of Concern ................................................................................................. 70

6.2 Hazard Risk Index ..................................................................................................................... 71

6.2.1 Average Overall Hazard Risk Index Results ........................................................................... 74

6.3 Risk Assessment Tools ............................................................................................................ 74

6.3.1 Mapping ................................................................................................................................... 74

6.3.2 Hazus ...................................................................................................................................... 75

6.4 Risk Assessment Approach ..................................................................................................... 75

6.4.1 Earthquake and Flood ............................................................................................................. 76

6.4.2 Drought .................................................................................................................................... 77

6.4.3 All Other Assessed Hazards ................................................................................................... 77

6.5 EMAP Consequence Analysis ................................................................................................. 77

6.6 Sources of Data Used in Hazus Modeling .............................................................................. 78

6.6.1 Building and Cost Data ........................................................................................................... 78

6.6.2 Hazus Data Inputs ................................................................................................................... 78

6.6.3 Other Local Hazard Data ........................................................................................................ 78

6.6.4 Data Source Summary ............................................................................................................ 79

6.7 Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 80 7 Earthquake .......................................................................................................................................... 82

7.1 General Background ................................................................................................................. 82

7.1.1 Damage from Earthquakes ..................................................................................................... 83

7.1.2 Earthquake Classifications ...................................................................................................... 83

7.1.3 Ground Motion ......................................................................................................................... 85

7.1.4 Effect of Soil Types ................................................................................................................. 87

7.2 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................ 88

7.2.1 Past Events ............................................................................................................................. 88

7.2.2 Location ................................................................................................................................... 90

7.2.3 ShakeMaps ............................................................................................................................. 94

7.2.4 Frequency ............................................................................................................................. 100 117
CC 10-01-2024
117 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xviii

7.2.5 Severity ................................................................................................................................. 101

7.2.6 Warning Time ........................................................................................................................ 102

7.3 Cascading Impacts ................................................................................................................. 103

7.4 Exposure .................................................................................................................................. 103

7.4.1 Population ............................................................................................................................. 103

7.4.2 Property ................................................................................................................................. 104

7.4.3 Loss Potential ........................................................................................................................ 104

7.4.4 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 108

7.4.5 Environment .......................................................................................................................... 109

7.5 Vulnerability ............................................................................................................................. 109

7.5.1 Population ............................................................................................................................. 110

7.5.2 Property ................................................................................................................................. 111

7.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 112

7.5.4 Environment .......................................................................................................................... 116

7.5.5 Economic Impact ................................................................................................................... 116

7.6 Future Trends in Development .............................................................................................. 117

7.7 Scenario ................................................................................................................................... 118

7.8 Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 119 8 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................... 122

8.1 General Background ............................................................................................................... 122

8.2 Hazard Profile .......................................................................................................................... 123

8.2.1 Past Events ........................................................................................................................... 123

8.2.2 Location ................................................................................................................................. 126

8.2.3 Frequency ............................................................................................................................. 131

8.2.4 Severity and Impacts ............................................................................................................. 133

8.2.5 Warning Time ........................................................................................................................ 134

8.3 Cascading Impacts ................................................................................................................. 134

8.3.1 Smoke and Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 136

8.4 Exposure .................................................................................................................................. 137

8.4.1 Population ............................................................................................................................. 137

8.4.2 Property ................................................................................................................................. 139

8.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 140

8.4.4 Environment .......................................................................................................................... 142

8.5 Vulnerability ............................................................................................................................. 143

8.5.1 Population ............................................................................................................................. 143

8.5.2 Property ................................................................................................................................. 144

8.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 146

8.5.4 Wildlife and Livestock ............................................................................................................ 146

8.6 Future Trends in Development .............................................................................................. 146

8.7 Scenario ................................................................................................................................... 147

8.8 Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 148 9 Inclement Weather ............................................................................................................................ 150

9.1 General Background ............................................................................................................... 150

9.1.1 Heavy Precipitation/Atmospheric River ................................................................................. 150

9.1.2 Extreme Temperatures ......................................................................................................... 154

9.1.3 High Winds ............................................................................................................................ 156 118
CC 10-01-2024
118 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xix

9.1.4 Space Weather ...................................................................................................................... 159

9.2 Hazard Profile .......................................................................................................................... 163

9.2.1 Past Events ........................................................................................................................... 163

9.2.2 Location ................................................................................................................................. 169

9.2.3 Frequency ............................................................................................................................. 169

9.2.4 Severity ................................................................................................................................. 169

9.2.5 Warning Time ........................................................................................................................ 170

9.3 Cascading Impacts ................................................................................................................. 170

9.4 Exposure .................................................................................................................................. 170

9.4.1 Population ............................................................................................................................. 170

9.4.2 Property ................................................................................................................................. 171

9.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 171

9.5 Vulnerability ............................................................................................................................. 171

9.5.1 Population ............................................................................................................................. 172

9.5.2 Property, Critical Facilities, Infrastructure ............................................................................. 172

9.5.3 Environment .......................................................................................................................... 173

9.5.4 Economy ............................................................................................................................... 173

9.6 Future Trends in Development, Scenario, Issues................................................................ 174

9.7 Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 174

9.8 Consequence Analysis ........................................................................................................... 174 10 Drought ........................................................................................................................................ 176

10.1 General Background ........................................................................................................... 176

10.1.1 Monitoring and Categorizing Drought ................................................................................ 176

10.1.2 Normal Precipitation in California ...................................................................................... 178

10.1.3 Water Supply Strategy ...................................................................................................... 179

10.1.4 Water Supply Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 181

10.2 Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................... 183

10.2.1 Past Events ....................................................................................................................... 183

10.2.2 Location ............................................................................................................................. 187

10.2.3 Frequency ......................................................................................................................... 187

10.2.4 Warning Time .................................................................................................................... 188

10.2.5 Extent ................................................................................................................................ 188

10.2.6 Severity and Impacts ......................................................................................................... 189

10.2.7 Responses to Recent Drought .......................................................................................... 191

10.3 Cascading Hazards ............................................................................................................. 192

10.3.1 Drought and Wildfire ......................................................................................................... 192

10.3.2 Drought and Extreme Heat ............................................................................................... 192

10.3.3 Drought and Flooding ........................................................................................................ 192

10.3.4 Drought and Landslides .................................................................................................... 193

10.4 Vulnerability ......................................................................................................................... 193

10.4.1 Population ......................................................................................................................... 194

10.4.2 Property ............................................................................................................................. 195

10.4.3 Critical Facilities ................................................................................................................ 195

10.4.4 Environmental Impact ....................................................................................................... 195

10.4.5 Economic Impact ............................................................................................................... 198

10.5 Future Trends in Development .......................................................................................... 198

10.6 Scenario ............................................................................................................................... 199

10.7 Issues ................................................................................................................................... 199 119
CC 10-01-2024
119 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xx
11 Climate Change ........................................................................................................................... 201

11.1 General Background ........................................................................................................... 201

11.1.1 Climate Change Indicators ................................................................................................ 203

11.1.2 Projected Future Impacts .................................................................................................. 204

11.1.3 How Climate Change Impacts Hazard Mitigation ............................................................. 207

11.2 Responses to Climate Change .......................................................................................... 210

11.3 Vulnerability Assessment – Hazards of Concern ............................................................ 211

11.3.1 Earthquake ........................................................................................................................ 211

11.3.2 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................. 212

11.3.3 Inclement Weather ............................................................................................................ 213

11.3.4 Drought .............................................................................................................................. 214

11.3.5 Dam and Levee Failure ..................................................................................................... 216

11.3.6 Flood ................................................................................................................................. 217

11.3.7 Landslide ........................................................................................................................... 219

11.3.8 Tsunami ............................................................................................................................. 219

11.3.9 Extreme Temperatures ..................................................................................................... 220

11.3.10 Sea Level Rise .................................................................................................................. 222

11.4 Issues ................................................................................................................................... 227 12 Dam and Levee Failure ............................................................................................................... 229

12.1 General Background ........................................................................................................... 229

12.2 Causes of Dam and Levee Failure ..................................................................................... 229

12.2.1 Causes of Dam Failure ..................................................................................................... 229

12.2.2 Causes of Levee Failure ................................................................................................... 230

12.3 Hazard Profiles .................................................................................................................... 230

12.3.1 Past Dam Failure Events .................................................................................................. 230

12.3.2 Dam Location and Extent .................................................................................................. 234

12.3.3 Levee Location .................................................................................................................. 236

12.3.4 Frequency of Dam and Levee Failure ............................................................................... 245

12.3.5 Severity ............................................................................................................................. 245

12.3.6 Warning Time for Dam Failure .......................................................................................... 245

12.3.7 Warning Time for Levee Failure ........................................................................................ 246

12.4 Exposure .............................................................................................................................. 247

12.4.1 Population ......................................................................................................................... 247

12.4.2 Property ............................................................................................................................. 247

12.4.3 Environment ...................................................................................................................... 247

12.5 Vulnerability ......................................................................................................................... 247

12.5.1 Population ......................................................................................................................... 248

12.5.2 Property ............................................................................................................................. 249

12.5.3 Critical Facilities ................................................................................................................ 249

12.5.4 Environment ...................................................................................................................... 249

12.6 Cascading Hazards ............................................................................................................. 251

12.7 Regulatory Oversight for Dams ......................................................................................... 251

12.7.1 National Dam Safety Act ................................................................................................... 251

12.7.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program ....................................................... 251

12.7.3 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program ....................................... 251

12.7.4 State of California .............................................................................................................. 252

12.7.5 Santa Clara Valley Water District ...................................................................................... 253

12.7.6 Regulatory Oversight for Levees ...................................................................................... 254

12.8 Future Trends in Development .......................................................................................... 254 120
CC 10-01-2024
120 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xxi

12.9 Scenario ............................................................................................................................... 254

12.10 Issues ................................................................................................................................... 254

12.11 Consequence Analysis ....................................................................................................... 255 13 Flood ............................................................................................................................................. 257

13.1 General Background ........................................................................................................... 257

13.1.1 Measuring Floods and Floodplains ................................................................................... 258

13.1.2 Floodplain Ecosystems ..................................................................................................... 258

13.1.3 Effects of Human Activities ............................................................................................... 259

13.1.4 Federal Flood Programs ................................................................................................... 259

13.2 Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................... 265

13.2.1 Types of Flood-Related Hazards ...................................................................................... 266

13.2.2 Principal Flooding Sources ............................................................................................... 268

13.2.3 Past Events ....................................................................................................................... 269

13.2.4 Location ............................................................................................................................. 273

13.2.5 Frequency ......................................................................................................................... 274

13.2.6 Severity ............................................................................................................................. 275

13.2.7 Warning Time .................................................................................................................... 288

13.3 Cascading Impacts ............................................................................................................. 288

13.4 Exposure .............................................................................................................................. 289

13.4.1 Population ......................................................................................................................... 289

13.4.2 Property ............................................................................................................................. 290

13.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 292

13.4.4 Environment ...................................................................................................................... 296

13.5 Vulnerability ......................................................................................................................... 297

13.5.1 Population ......................................................................................................................... 298

13.5.2 Property ............................................................................................................................. 300

13.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 307

13.5.4 Environment ...................................................................................................................... 309

13.5.5 Economic Impact ............................................................................................................... 309

13.6 Future Trends in Development .......................................................................................... 310

13.7 Scenario ............................................................................................................................... 310

13.8 Issues ................................................................................................................................... 311 14 Landslide/Mass Movement ......................................................................................................... 313

14.1 General Background ........................................................................................................... 313

14.1.1 Landslide Types ................................................................................................................ 313

14.1.2 Landslide Modeling ........................................................................................................... 315

14.1.3 Landslide Causes .............................................................................................................. 316

14.1.4 Landslide Management ..................................................................................................... 317

14.1.5 Land Subsidence Effects .................................................................................................. 317

14.2 Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................... 318

14.2.1 Past Events ....................................................................................................................... 318

14.2.2 Location ............................................................................................................................. 327

14.2.3 Frequency ......................................................................................................................... 330

14.2.4 Severity ............................................................................................................................. 330

14.2.5 Warning Time .................................................................................................................... 330

14.3 Cascading Impacts ............................................................................................................. 331 121
CC 10-01-2024
121 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xxii

14.4 Exposure .............................................................................................................................. 331

14.4.1 Population ......................................................................................................................... 331

14.4.2 Property ............................................................................................................................. 332

14.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 333

14.4.4 Environment ...................................................................................................................... 336

14.5 Vulnerability ......................................................................................................................... 336

14.5.1 Population ......................................................................................................................... 336

14.5.2 Property ............................................................................................................................. 337

14.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 337

14.5.4 Environment ...................................................................................................................... 338

14.6 Future Trends in Development .......................................................................................... 338

14.7 Scenario ............................................................................................................................... 338

14.8 Issues ................................................................................................................................... 338 15 Tsunami ........................................................................................................................................ 341

15.1 General Background ........................................................................................................... 341

15.1.1 Tsunami ............................................................................................................................. 341

15.1.2 Seiche ............................................................................................................................... 343

15.2 Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................... 343

15.2.1 Past Events ....................................................................................................................... 343

15.2.2 Location ............................................................................................................................. 343

15.2.3 Frequency ......................................................................................................................... 344

15.2.4 Severity ............................................................................................................................. 345

15.2.5 Warning Time .................................................................................................................... 345

15.2.6 Extent ................................................................................................................................ 346

15.3 Cascading Impact................................................................................................................ 348

15.4 Exposure and Vulnerability ................................................................................................ 348

15.4.1 Population ......................................................................................................................... 348

15.4.2 Property ............................................................................................................................. 349

15.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure .................................................................................... 349

15.4.4 Environment ...................................................................................................................... 349

15.5 Future Trends in Development .......................................................................................... 349

15.6 Scenario ............................................................................................................................... 350

15.7 Issues ................................................................................................................................... 350 16 Other Hazards of Interest ........................................................................................................... 353

16.1 General Background ........................................................................................................... 353

16.1.1 EMAP Consequence Analysis .......................................................................................... 354

16.2 Intentional Hazards ............................................................................................................. 355

16.2.1 Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction ................................................................... 355

16.2.2 Active Threat ..................................................................................................................... 361

16.2.3 Hazard Profile .................................................................................................................... 363

16.2.4 Cyber Threats .................................................................................................................... 366

16.2.5 Hazard Profile .................................................................................................................... 369

16.3 Technological Incidents ..................................................................................................... 370

16.3.2 Hazard Profile .................................................................................................................... 378

16.3.3 Utility Failure, Power Outages, and Public Safety Power Shutoff ..................................... 379

16.3.4 Hazard Profile .................................................................................................................... 382 122
CC 10-01-2024
122 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xxiii

16.4 Epidemic and Pandemic ..................................................................................................... 384

16.4.2 Hazard Profile .................................................................................................................... 391

16.5 Fog ........................................................................................................................................ 392

16.5.1 Hazard Profile .................................................................................................................... 393

16.6 Identified Needs................................................................................................................... 394

16.7 Related Plans ....................................................................................................................... 396 17 Mitigation Strategy ...................................................................................................................... 397

17.1 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 397

17.1.1 Guiding Principle ............................................................................................................... 397

17.1.2 Goals ................................................................................................................................. 397

17.1.3 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 398

17.2 Mitigation Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 398

17.3 Santa Clara County 2023 Mitigation Action Plan ............................................................. 411

17.4 Financial Capabilities ......................................................................................................... 430

17.4.1 Federal .............................................................................................................................. 430

17.4.2 State .................................................................................................................................. 437

17.4.3 Local .................................................................................................................................. 440

17.5 Action Plan Prioritization ................................................................................................... 440

17.5.1 Benefit-Cost Review .......................................................................................................... 441

17.6 Plan Adoption ...................................................................................................................... 442

17.7 Plan Maintenance Strategy ................................................................................................ 442

17.8 Plan Implementation ........................................................................................................... 443

17.9 Plan Maintenance Element ................................................................................................. 443

17.9.1 Plan Update ....................................................................................................................... 444

17.9.2 Grant Monitoring and Coordination ................................................................................... 445

17.9.3 Continuing Public Involvement .......................................................................................... 445

17.9.4 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms ................................................................ 446

List of Tables
Table 1: Average Overall Hazard Risk Index Results .................................................................................. xii Table 2: Summary of Changes in the 2023 MJHMP .................................................................................... 7 Table 3: External Stakeholders Invited to Be Involved in Planning Process .............................................. 13 Table 4: Planning Partner Main Points of Contact ...................................................................................... 17 Table 5: One-on-One Meetings with Planning Partners ............................................................................. 18 Table 6: Summary of Public Outreach ........................................................................................................ 29 Table 7: Plan Development Chronology and Milestones ............................................................................ 31 Table 8: Presidential Disaster Declarations8F ............................................................................................ 35 Table 9: Normal Precipitation and Temperatures in the Operational Area, 1981 –202210F ....................... 37 Table 10: Unincorporated County Land Use............................................................................................... 38 Table 11: Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in the Operational Area ...................................................... 39 Table 12: Recent Population Data13F ......................................................................................................... 42 Table 13: Hourly Living Wage Calculation for Santa Clara County, California (2022) 23F .......................... 49 123
CC 10-01-2024
123 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xxiv
Table 14: Probability of Hazards ................................................................................................................. 72 Table 15: Hazard Risk Ranking by Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 73 Table 16: Average Overall Hazard Risk Index Results ............................................................................... 74 Table 17: Hazus Model Data Documentation ............................................................................................. 79 Table 18: Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison 45F.................................................. 87 Table 19: National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Soil Classification System 46F ....................... 87 Table 20: Recent Earthquakes Magnitude 5.0 or Larger Within a 100-Mile Radius of the Operational Area .................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Table 21: Earthquake Probabilities for the San Francisco Bay Area Region, 2014 –204368F .................. 101 Table 22: Earthquake Exposure by Jurisdiction........................................................................................ 104 Table 23: Loss Estimates for 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake............................................................. 105 Table 24: Loss Estimates for 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake............................................................. 105 Table 25: Loss Estimates for San Andreas Fault Scenario Earthquake ................................................... 106 Table 26: Loss Estimates for Hayward Fault Scenario Earthquake ......................................................... 106 Table 27: Loss Estimates for Calaveras Fault Scenario Earthquake ....................................................... 107 Table 28: Estimated Earthquake-Caused Debris ..................................................................................... 108 Table 29: Number of Critical Facilities Exposed to Earthquakes .............................................................. 109 Table 30: Estimated Earthquake Impact on Persons ............................................................................... 110 Table 31: Age of Structures in Operational Area ...................................................................................... 111 Table 32: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from 100-Year Earthquake ......................................... 112 Table 33: Essential Facility Functionality in 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake ...................................... 113 Table 34: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from 500-Year Earthquake ......................................... 113 Table 35: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from Hayward Fault .................................................... 113 Table 36: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from San Andreas Fault ............................................. 114 Table 37: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from Calaveras ........................................................... 114 Table 38: Damage to Potable Water Systems by Hazus Scenario .......................................................... 116 Table 39: Damage to Waste Water Systems by Hazus Scenario ............................................................ 116 Table 40: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Earthquake .............................................................................. 120 Table 41: Past Wildfire Events .................................................................................................................. 123 Table 42: Record of Fire Affecting Operational Area ................................................................................ 132 Table 43: Population Within Wildfire Hazard Areas .................................................................................. 138 Table 44: Exposure and Value of Structures in Moderate to High Wildfire Hazard Areas ....................... 139 Table 45: Land Within the Wildfire Hazard Classification Areas............................................................... 140 Table 46: Critical Facilities within Moderate to High Wildfire Hazard Areas ............................................. 141 Table 47: Critical Facilities Within 100 Meters of Moderate to High Wildfire Hazard Areas ..................... 141 Table 48: Loss Estimates for Wildfire within Moderate to High Wildfire Hazard Class ............................. 145 Table 49: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Wildfire .................................................................................... 148 Table 50: NOAA Geomagnetic Storms Space Weather Scale and Potential Effects 123F ........................ 160 Table 51: NOAA Solar Radiation Storms Space Weather Scale and Potential Effects 124F .................... 161 Table 52: NOAA Radio Blackouts Space Weather Scale and Potential Effects 125F ............................... 162 Table 53: 2001–2022 Heavy Rain and Hail Events .................................................................................. 163 Table 54: 2001–2022 Extreme Temperature Events ................................................................................ 166 Table 55:2002-2022 High Wind Events .................................................................................................... 167 Table 56: 1951–2022 Tornado Events ...................................................................................................... 168 Table 57: Population by Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................... 171 Table 58: EMAP Consequence Analysis Inclement Weather ................................................................... 174 Table 59: U.S. Department of Agriculture Disaster Declarations Including Santa Clara County, 2017 – 2022 .......................................................................................................................................................... 187 Table 60: Recent Federal and State Drought Responses ........................................................................ 191 Table 61: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Drought ................................................................................... 199 Table 62: Average Maximum Temperature – Santa Clara County187F.................................................... 205 Table 63: Number of Extreme Heat Days Per Year (Heat Is above 92.7 oF) Santa Clara County188F... 206 Table 64: Average Annual Precipitation – Santa Clara County189F ......................................................... 206 Table 65: Potential Direct and Related Climate Change Impacts in the Operational Area ...................... 208 Table 66: Climate Change Impacts on Natural and Other Hazards ......................................................... 209 124
CC 10-01-2024
124 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xxv
Table 67: Wildfire – Projected Santa Clara County Acres Burned ........................................................... 212 Table 68: Population and Buildings at Risk – Santa Clara County ........................................................... 213 Table 69: Silicon Valley 2.0 Santa Clara County Sea Level Rise Projections and Inundation Layers ..... 222 Table 70: Estimated Population Residing in Sea Level Rise Inundation Areas ....................................... 223 Table 71: Structure Type in Sea Level Rise Inundation Areas ................................................................. 224 Table 72: Structure and Contents Value in Sea Level Rise Inundation Areas ......................................... 225 Table 73: Structure and Contents Value in Sea Level Rise Inundation Areas, Unincorporated Santa Clara County ....................................................................................................................................................... 225 Table 74: Critical Facilities in Sea Level Rise Inundation Areas ............................................................... 226 Table 75: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Climate Change ...................................................................... 227 Table 76: Dams Classified as a High Hazard or an Extremely High Hazard Risk 217F,218F.................... 231 Table 77: Levees in Santa Clara County 224F .......................................................................................... 238 Table 78: Potential Downstream Hazard from Dams225F ........................................................................ 245 Table 79: Estimated Exposure and Value of Structures in the Dam Failure Inundation Area .................. 247 Table 80: Population in Dam Inundation Area .......................................................................................... 248 Table 81: Value of Exposed Structures in the Dam Inundation Area by Jurisdiction ............................... 250 Table 82: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Dam Failure ............................................................................ 255 Table 83: NFIP Status in the Operational Area ........................................................................................ 261 Table 84: CRS Community Status in the Operational Area246F ............................................................... 264 Table 85: History of Flood Events257F, 258F ............................................................................................. 270 Table 86: Crop Insurance Claims Paid from Excessive Moisture and Flood, 2003 -2022259F ................. 272 Table 87: Summary of Peak Discharges Within the Operational Area260F .............................................. 275 Table 88: Population Within the 10-Percent, 1-Percent, and 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Areas ......................................................................................................................................................... 289 Table 89: Value of Structures in the 10-Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area .............................. 290 Table 90: Value of Structures in the 1-Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area ................................ 291 Table 91: Value of Structures in the 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area ............................. 292 Table 92: Critical Facilities in the 10-Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area .................................. 293 Table 93: Critical Facilities in the 1-Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area .................................... 293 Table 94: Critical Facilities in the 0.2-Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area ................................. 294 Table 95: Habitats Expected to Be Impacted by Riverine Flooding 265F .................................................. 296 Table 96: Estimated Flood Impact on Persons ......................................................................................... 298 Table 97: Loss Estimates for 10-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood.............................................................. 300 Table 98: Loss Estimates for 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood ................................................................ 301 Table 99: Loss Estimates for 0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood............................................................. 302 Table 100: Estimated Flood-Caused Debris ............................................................................................. 303 Table 101: Flood Insurance Statistics268F ................................................................................................ 304 Table 102: Date of Floodplain Management Regulation Adoption ........................................................... 305 Table 103: Repetitive Loss Properties ...................................................................................................... 306 Table 104: Substantial Damage/Substantial Improvement Implementation ............................................. 307 Table 105: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from the 10% Annual Chance Flood .................................................................................................................................................................. 307 Table 106: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from the 1% Annual Chance Flood .................................................................................................................................................................. 308 Table 107: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from the 0.2% Annual Chance Flood .................................................................................................................................................................. 308 Table 108: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Flood ..................................................................................... 312 Table 109: Landslide Events in Santa Clara County277F, 278F, 279F, 280F, 281F ....................................... 319 Table 110: Population Exposed to Landslide Hazard ............................................................................... 331 Table 111: Exposure and Value of Structures in Moderate to High Landslide Risk Areas ...................... 332 Table 112: Acreage in Moderate to High Landslide Hazard Areas .......................................................... 333 Table 113: Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Moderate to Very High Landslide Risk Areas ............. 335 Table 114: Loss Potential Based on All Building Stock in Aggregated Landslide Areas .......................... 337 Table 115: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Landslide/Mass Movement ................................................... 339 Table 116: Tsunami Intensity Scale297F ................................................................................................... 346 125
CC 10-01-2024
125 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xxvi
Table 117: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Tsunami ................................................................................ 351 Table 118: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Other Hazards of Interest ..................................................... 354 Table 119: Event Profiles for Terrorism301F ............................................................................................. 357 Table 120: Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Spills 2019–2022323F .......................................... 372 Table 121: Corrosion Type........................................................................................................................ 375 Table 122: Leak Classifications ................................................................................................................ 377 Table 123: Electric Providers in Santa Clara County330F ........................................................................ 381 Table 124: Power Shutoffs Statewide331F ................................................................................................ 382 Table 125: COVID-19 Cases Countywide and by City of Residence336F ................................................ 386 Table 126: Disease Outbreaks Identified in Santa Clara County, 2018–2022343F .................................. 387 Table 127: Alternatives to Mitigate the Dam and Levee Failure Hazard .................................................. 399 Table 128: Alternatives to Mitigate the Drought Hazard ........................................................................... 400 Table 129: Alternatives to Mitigate the Earthquake Hazard ..................................................................... 401 Table 130: Alternatives to Mitigate the Flooding Hazard .......................................................................... 403 Table 131: Alternatives to Mitigate the Landslide/Mass Movement Hazard ............................................. 406 Table 132: Alternatives to Mitigate the Inclement Weather Hazard.......................................................... 407 Table 133: Alternatives to Mitigate the Tsunami Hazard .......................................................................... 408 Table 134: Alternatives to Mitigate the Wildfire Hazard ............................................................................ 410 Table 135: County of Santa Clara 2023 Action Items ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 136: FEMA Mitigation Funding Sources ......................................................................................... 431 Table 137: Additional Federal Funding Sources ....................................................................................... 434 Table 138: State Mitigation Funding Sources ........................................................................................... 437 Table 139: Plan Maintenance Matrix ........................................................................................................ 443 Table 140: Survey Results Level of Hazard Concern ............................................................................... A-2 Table 141: Level of Concern for Climate Change Impacts ....................................................................... A-2 Table 142: Types of Stakeholders Represented....................................................................................... A-3 Table 143: Public Comments .................................................................................................................... A-3 Table 144: General Feedback Received ................................................................................................ A-16

List of Figures
Figure 1: Planning Partners Meeting .......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2: Planning Partners Mitigation Strategy Meeting ........................................................................... 21 Figure 3: Picture of Public Survey Announcement ..................................................................................... 23 Figure 4: Public Survey Media Announcement ........................................................................................... 24 Figure 5: City of Campbell Social Media Outreach ..................................................................................... 25 Figure 6: Hazard Exposure and Social Vulnerability Map for Santa Clara Valley ...................................... 27 Figure 7: Public and Stakeholder Meeting with 99 Participants.................................................................. 28 Figure 8: Public and Stakeholder Meeting with 104 Participants ................................................................ 29 Figure 9: Samples of Public Comment Period Advertisements .................................................................. 30 Figure 10: Santa Clara County Operational Area (Planning Area) ............................................................. 34 Figure 11: Critical Facilities in the Operational Area ................................................................................... 40 Figure 12: Critical Infrastructure in the Operational Area ........................................................................... 41 Figure 13: Overall Age Distribution in the Operational Area17F ................................................................. 44 Figure 14: Race Distribution in the Operational Area19F ............................................................................ 45 Figure 15: Santa Clara County Social Vulnerability Index .......................................................................... 47 Figure 16: Social Vulnerability Index Themes............................................................................................. 48 Figure 17: Industry in Santa Clara County .................................................................................................. 50 Figure 18: Occupations in Santa Clara County........................................................................................... 51 Figure 19: California and Santa Clara County Unemployment Rate 27F ..................................................... 52 126
CC 10-01-2024
126 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xxvii
Figure 20: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale42F .......................................................................................... 85 Figure 21: Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years 44F .......................... 86 Figure 22: Historic Earthquakes in the Operational Area ........................................................................... 90 Figure 23: Significant Known Faults in the Bay Area56F ............................................................................ 92 Figure 24: 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration.................................. 94 Figure 25: Hayward Magnitude 7.0 Fault Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration ......................................... 96 Figure 26: Calaveras Magnitude 7.0 Fault Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration ....................................... 97 Figure 27: San Andreas Magnitude 7.8 Fault Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration ................................... 98 Figure 28: Liquefaction Susceptibility ......................................................................................................... 99 Figure 29: Peak Ground Acceleration with 10-percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years ............... 102 Figure 30: Highway Bridge Percentage Damage Exceeds Moderate: Calaveras Scenario ..................... 115 Figure 31: Hayward Fault Earthquake Scenario80F .................................................................................. 119 Figure 32: Air Tanker Dropping Fire Retardant on Lick Fire in Santa Clara County 86F ........................... 126 Figure 33: Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FSHZ) ........................................................................................ 128 Figure 34: Classified Wildfire Hazard ........................................................................................................ 130 Figure 35: Wildfire Risk to Structures ....................................................................................................... 131 Figure 36: Burned Hillslopes above Pulse Canyon near San Antonio Valley, SCU Lightning Complex, Santa Clara County94F ............................................................................................................................. 133 Figure 37: Post Fire Soil Erosion Potential ............................................................................................... 135 Figure 38: NOAA Atlas Intensity - Santa Clara, California ........................................................................ 151 Figure 39: Thunderstorm Life Cycle113F .................................................................................................. 153 Figure 40: National Weather Service Wind Chill Chart ............................................................................. 154 Figure 41: Winter Storm Severity Index .................................................................................................... 155 Figure 42: National Weather Service Heat Index Chart117F .................................................................... 156 Figure 43: National Weather Service Heat Index Classifications and Corresponding Effects on the Body118F ................................................................................................................................................... 156 Figure 44: The Beaufort Wind Scale121F .................................................................................................. 158 Figure 45: Palmer Drought Index from January 1, 2005, to May 20, 2023 129F ....................................... 177 Figure 46: Palmer Hydrological Drought Index from January 1, 2005, to May 20, 2023 130F .................. 177 Figure 47: Santa Clara Valley Water District System Water Supply 144F ................................................. 182 Figure 48: Hetch Hetchy Water System146F ............................................................................................ 183 Figure 49: U.S. Drought Monitor Time Series California 2000-2023 ........................................................ 188 Figure 50: U.S. Drought Monitory Map of California ................................................................................. 189 Figure 51: Reported Number of Drought Impacts by Category 156F ......................................................... 190 Figure 52: CMRA Drought Hazard: Days without Precipitation Indicator for Santa Clara County ........... 194 Figure 53: Tier 1 Tree Mortality High Hazard Zones162F ......................................................................... 197 Figure 54: Tier 2 Tree Mortality High Hazard Zones163F ......................................................................... 197 Figure 55: Global Temperature 1880-2022171F ....................................................................................... 202 Figure 56: Global Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over Time174F .......................................................... 203 Figure 57: Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health190F ................................................................. 207 Figure 58: Location of Dams Impacting Santa Clara County221F ............................................................ 235 Figure 59: Dam Inundation Depth Grids ................................................................................................... 236 Figure 60: Levees in Santa Clara County223F .......................................................................................... 237 Figure 61: Risk Rating 2.0: Project Premium Changes for Santa Clara County 244F ............................... 263 Figure 62: CRS Communities by Class Nationwide as of October 2022 245F .......................................... 264 Figure 63: Watersheds in the Operational Area256F ................................................................................ 269 Figure 64: Mapped Flood Hazard Areas in the Operational Area............................................................. 274 Figure 65: 100-Year Floodplain Area Land Cover266F ............................................................................. 297 Figure 66: Common Types of Landslides ................................................................................................. 314 Figure 67: Typical Debris Avalanche Scar and Track272F ....................................................................... 315 Figure 68: A Santa Clara County Debris Flow Triggered by Winter Storms Following the Loma Fire, 2017282F ................................................................................................................................................... 326 Figure 69: SCVWD Historic Groundwater Conditions284F ....................................................................... 327 Figure 70: Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility in Santa Clara County ................................................. 329 127
CC 10-01-2024
127 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents xxviii
Figure 71: Potential Tsunami Travel Times in the Pacific Ocean, In Hours 291F ...................................... 342 Figure 72: Tsunami Hazard Area .............................................................................................................. 344 Figure 73: Weapon Types Used in Terrorist Events in California310F ...................................................... 364 Figure 74: Targets of Terrorist Attacks in California311F .......................................................................... 365 Figure 75: Highly Populated Areas with Hazardous Material Incidents Within Santa Clara County 322F 371 Figure 76: Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipelines in Santa Clara County 325F ......................................... 374 Figure 77: Santa Clara COVID Cases 2020–2023335F ............................................................................ 385 Figure 78: Weekly Percentage of Emergency Department Visits for Influenza-Like Illness in Santa Clara County, 2019, to February 22, 2023344F .................................................................................................. 388 Figure 79: Sample of Public Survey Advertisement ................................................................................. A-1 Figure 80: Sample Public Feedback on Hazard Impacts - Gilroy Meeting ............................................. A-14 Figure 81: Sample Public Feedback on Hazard Impacts - Campbell Meeting ....................................... A-15 Figure 82: Sample In-Person Feedback Option - Gilroy Meeting ........................................................... A-16

128
CC 10-01-2024
128 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning 1 1 Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning

1.1 Why Prepare This Plan?

1.1.1 The Big Picture
Hazard mitigation is a key component of community resilience. There is no one definition of resilience; however, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network defines resilience as the ability of people and their communities to anticipate, accommodate and positively adapt to or thrive amidst changing climate conditions and hazard events. 0F0F
1 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines hazard mitigation as any sustainable action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from future disasters. 1F1F
2 It involves long- and short-term actions implemented before, during, and after disasters.

Hazard mitigation activities include planning and regulations, structure and infrastructure projects, natural system protection, and education and awareness programs as well as other steps to reduce the impact of hazards.

For many years, federal disaster funding focused on relief and recovery after disasters occurred, with limited funding for hazard mitigation planning in advance. The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA; Public Law 106-390), passed in 2000, shifted the federal emphasis toward planning for disasters before they occur. 2F2F 3 The DMA requires state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. Regulations developed to fulfill the DMA’s requirements are included in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR).

FEMA advocates for a “whole community” approach to hazard mitigation. This approach calls for everyone, from private property owners to commercial interests to nonprofits and local, state, and federal governments to be involved in preparing the nation for the next disaster event. By going through the local planning process outlined in the DMA, communities are able to articulate their needs for mitigation more easily. based on their understanding of their capabilities and risk. This can enhance their ability to develop projects and take mitigation actions, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost - effective risk-reduction projects.

The DMA also promotes sustainability in hazard mitigation. To be sustainable, hazard mitigation needs to incorporate sound management of natural resources and consider the wider social and economic implications.

1 Urban Sustainability Directors Network. (n.d.). Resilience Hubs.

USDN%20Resilience%20Hubs%20Guidance%20Document
2 Federal Emergency Management Agency. (n.d.). Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants. https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation#:~:text=FEMA%27s%20hazard%20mitigation%20assistance%20provides%2 0funding%20for%20eligible,cycle%20of%20disaster%20damage%2C%20reconstruction%20and%20repeated%20da mage.
3 Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2020, October 19). The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. https://www.fema.gov/blog/disaster-mitigation-act-2000-20-years-mitigation-planning 129
CC 10-01-2024
129 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning 2 To further enhance the planning process and the guidelines set by DMA, the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management follows a specific emergency management planning process. This locally developed process incorporates various nationally recognized best practices and concepts, like the whole community planning approach, with standard program management principles that can be easily integrated into the County’s existing governmental structure. This process brings together stakeholders, builds lasting community relationships, and results in a stronger and more comprehensive mitigation plan.

This process is key to building community resilience and was followed in the 2023 MJHMP update.

1.1.2 Purposes for Planning
Hazard mitigation planning is the foundation for mitigation investments. Hazard mitigation plans are required to be updated, approved, and adopted every five years in order to maintain eligibility for multiple federal mitigation grant programs. Through the update process, mitigation actions are developed as a part of a community-based, risk-informed decision-making process. 3F3F 4 Fourteen jurisdictions and three special districts within the Santa Clara County Operational Area (OA) — defined as the unincorporated county, incorporated jurisdictions, and special districts within the geographical boundaries of Santa Clara County—participated in the Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) prepared in 2023 by the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management with support from the consulting firm IEM. Participating jurisdictions and districts are referred to in this plan as planning partners. Elements and strategies in the MJHMP were selected because they meet a program requirement and because they meet the needs of the planning partners and their residents. One of the benefits of multijurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources and support partnerships to reduce redundant activities within the OA that have similar risk exposure and vulnerabilities. FEMA encourages multijurisdictional planning under its guidance for the DMA. This MJHMP will help guide and coordinat e mitigation activities throughout the OA. Additionally, it was developed to meet the following objectives:
 Meet or exceed requirements of the DMA.
 Comply with the requirements outlined in FEMA’s Local Mitigation Policy Planning Guide (April 2022), the requirements of which apply to all plans seeking agency approval on or after April 19, 2023.
 Enable all planning partners to continue using federal grant funding to reduce risk through mitigation.
 Meet the planning requirements of FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS), allowing planning partners that participate in the CRS program to maintain or enhance their CRS classifications.  Utilize EMAP standards for strategic planning.
 Coordinate existing plans and programs so high priority projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts have an increased opportunity to be funded and implemented.

The planning partners discussed using this plan to meet Community Rating System (CRS) requirements as well. Ultimately, it was decided that Santa Clara Valley Water will lead the development of a separate Floodplain Management Plan specifically dedicated towards this goal, allowing planning partners that participate in the CRS program to maintain or enhance their CRS classifications. Relevant information from this MJHMP will be incorporated into the Floodplain Management Plan.

4 Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2022, April 19). Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_local-mitigation-planning-policy-guide_042022.pdf 130
CC 10-01-2024
130 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 1: Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning 3

1.2 Who Will Benefit from This Plan?
The whole community of the Santa Clara County OA—including individual and families, businesses, community and nonprofit organizations, schools and academia, and all levels of government —is the ultimate beneficiary of this MJHMP. Implementing the plan will reduce risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the OA. The plan provides a viable planning framework for natural hazards of concern for the area. Participation in development of the plan by key stakeholders helped ensure outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The resources and background information in the plan are applicable across the OA, and the plan’s goals and recommendations can lay the groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships for years to come. Mitigation projects, particularly large projects with cascading impacts, will also benefit neighbor ing jurisdictions.

1.3 Contents of This Plan
This plan has been set up in two volumes so that elements that are planning partner-specific can easily be distinguished from those that apply to the overall Santa Clara County OA:
 Volume 1: Volume 1 includes all federally required elements of a disaster mitigation plan that apply to the OA and the unincorporated areas of the County. This includes the description of the planning process, public involvement strategy, goals and objectives, hazard risk assessment, mitigation actions, and a plan maintenance strategy.
 Volume 2: Volume 2 includes all federally required participant-specific elements, in annexes for each participating entity. It includes a description of the participation requirements established for participants in this plan.

Both volumes include elements required under federal guidelines. DMA compliance requirements are cited at the beginning of subsections as appropriate to illustrate compliance.

The following appendices provided at the end of Volume 1 include information or explanations to support the main content of the plan:
 Appendix A: Public outreach information used in preparation of this update.  Appendix B: Plan adoption resolutions from planning partners.

All planning partners will adopt the MJHMP once it has been reviewed by FEMA and reaches Approvable-Pending-Adoption (APA) status.

1.3.1 Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) This plan incorporates elements of the Emergency Management Standard set by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). A consequence analysis of the potential for detrimental impacts of hazards is included in this 2023 plan update for the EMAP. Each hazard identified in this plan is followed by the Consequence Analysis result. The methodology of this analysis and the resul ts can be found in the Risk Assessment portion in Volume 1 of this plan. 131
CC 10-01-2024
131 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Plan Update: What Has Changed 4
2 Plan Update: What Has Changed

2.1 The Previous Plan
Santa Clara County, 15 jurisdictions, and the Santa Clara County Fire Department were covered under the 2017 Santa Clara County Operational Area (OA)Hazard Mitigation Plan. The planning process used to develop the 2017 plan was as follows:
 Definition of the planning area and establishment of a working group of participating stakeholders which oversaw all phases of the plan update.
 Promotion of focused outreach to individuals identified for the working group as well as other individuals, agencies, and jurisdictions that had a vested interest in the recommendations in the hazard mitigation plan.
 Development of a strategy for public involvement in the plan update which included inviting members of the public to serve on the working group, conducting a public survey, utilizing multiple media avenues, and actively identifying and involving OA stakeho lders.  Assessment of existing programs including plans, studies, reports and technical information and all planning and regulatory, administrative, and technical, public outreach and education, and financial capabilities of planning partners to implement hazard mitigation actions.  Reevaluation of the 2010 plan update to ensure planning partners had the opportunity to provide comment.

Santa Clara Valley Water District had a 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan independent of the 2017 Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan. The district joined the OA Mitigation Plan as part of the 2023 Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) update. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space and Santa Clara County Fire Department also joined the 2023 plan update.

2.2 Why Update?

2.2.1 Federal Eligibility
Hazard mitigation plans are updated on a five-year cycle. A jurisdiction or special district covered by a plan that has expired is not able to pursue elements of federal funding under the Robert T. Stafford Act for which a current hazard mitigation plan is a prerequisite. Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) stipulates that hazard mitigation plans must present a schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. This provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been completed, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies. This update meets the requirements for hazard mitigation plans in order to maintain the eligibility for federal grant funding for Planning Participants.

Additionally, on April 19, 2022, FEMA updated the Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide. This means that all plans updated and approved after April 19, 2023, must adhere to the new mitigation planning policy requirements. The 2023 update of the Santa Clara MJHMP has incorporated all changes and is in compliance with all elements of the updated Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide. The Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is proud to be one of the only MJHMPs in the state to incorporate the updated guidance. Some of these elements include:
132
CC 10-01-2024
132 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Plan Update: What Has Changed 5
 Incorporating a broad range of representatives in the planning process, including organizations that support underserved communities.
 Incorporating the effects of climate change and future conditions in the risk assessment.  Emphasizing the importance of building codes, land use ordinances, and developmental regulations in local capabilities.
 Emphasizing the alignment of FEMA related mitigation programs, such as the NFIP.

2.2.2 Plan Integration
Since the last plan update, the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management has worked diligently to incorporate the 2023 MJHMP into other county wide planning initiatives.

Santa Clara County Safety Element (the Safety Element): The County is undergoing the 2023 Safety Plan update, which is part of the Santa Clara County General Plan. The purpose of the Santa Clara County Safety Element is to identify and include safety considerations during the decision -making and planning process by establishing goals and policies as they relate to future developments within the County. These goals and policies aim to reduce personal injury and loss of life, prevent property destruction, and reduce environmental damage throughout the community. The Safety Element focuses on addressing potential hazards such as earthquakes, flooding, wildfire, and more. The Safety Element, which will be completed in the Fall of 2023, incorporates risk and hazard data developed during the 2017 MJHMP update. It also strategically aligns with the mitigation goals and actions from the MJHMP.

Integration between the Safety Element and the MJHMP+
ensures the County is maximizing their future funding opportunities to reduce risk in the County and comply with Assembly Bill 2140 (2006), which affords the county additional benefits under the California Disaster Assistance Act.

Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP): In addition, the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management collaborated with the Santa Clara Fire Safe Council to integrate the MJHMP and the Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The CWPP identifies potential priority areas where mitigation measures are needed to protect from wildfire the irreplaceable life, property, and critical infrastructure within the County. The CWPP directly aligns with the MJHMP mitigation strategy and provides an even more in depth look at the County’s wildfire risk.

2.2.3 Changes in Development
Hazard mitigation plan updates must reflect changes in development within the OA since the previous plan (44 CFR Section 201.6(d)(3)). The plan must describe development changes in hazard -prone areas that increased or decreased vulnerability for each planning partner since the last plan was approved. If no changes in development impacted the partner’s overall vulnerability, plan updates may validate the information in the previously approved plan. The intent of this requirement is to ensure the plan ’s mitigation strategy continues to accurately address the risk and vulnerability of existing and potential development and takes into consideration possible future conditions that could impact vulnerability.

According to data from the California Department of Finance, the OA decreased in population by .5 percent between 2015 and 2022. 4F4F
5 The COVIID-19 pandemic, relocation of remote workers, and rising cost of housing likely contributed to some of this change. Other large urban centers around the nation experienced similar trends during the pandemic.

5 California Department of Finance. (n.d.). Demographic Reports. https://dof.ca.gov/reports/demographic-reports/ 133
CC 10-01-2024
133 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Plan Update: What Has Changed 6
Participating planning partners have adopted General Plans that govern land-use decisions and policymaking, as well as building codes and specialty ordinances based on state and federal mandates. 5F5F 6 Information on planning partner-specific changes in development is included in the participant annexes in Volume 2.

2.3 Why Update? — What is Different?
This update seeks to capitalize on some of the successes of the prior plan update, includ ing the good participation rates and format changes. The Santa Clara County OA’s 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update was prepared under the ABAG process however, the County OEM determined that the new format established in the 2017 multijurisdictional hazard mitigation plan update would be best to use moving forward as it better suits the needs and capabilities of the planning partners.

The plan update process included a greater focus on public involvement that concentrated on targeted public engagement instead of simply opening technical workshops to the public. A renewed effort was made to establish a plan maintenance and implementation protocol that clearly defines ongoing commitment to the plan’s success. Some of the major differences between the current and previous plans are as follows:
• The plan has been totally restructured as an Operational Area plan, focusing only on the geographic area of Santa Clara County. The risk assessment is not a subset of a larger regional effort. Instead, it is isolated to the Santa Clara County OA and focuse s on the hazards of concern for the OA.
• The risk assessment has been prepared to best support future grant applications by providing information on risk and vulnerability that will directly support the measurement of “cost - effectiveness” required under FEMA mitigation grant programs. • Newly available data and tools provide for a more detailed and accurate risk assessment using means such as FEMA’s Hazards U.S. (Hazus) Multi-Hazard computer model or new data such as FEMA’s countywide Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. • The planning process creates the opportunity for all municipal planning partners to prepare to meet the requirements of California Senate Bill 379 during the next plan update. That bill will require integration of quantitative climate change risk assessment in the development of climate change related initiatives as part of the safety element of general plans. • The plan is more user-friendly because it is confined to one package. • The update created an opportunity for the County of Santa Clara, local cities and towns, and other planning partners to engage citizens directly in a coordinated approach to gauge their perception of risk and support of the concept of risk reduction through mitigation.

6 San José Spotlight. (2022, April 2). Silicon Valley Residents Left in Droves During Pandemic. https://sanjosespotlight.com/silicon-valley-san-jose-santa-clara-sunnyvale-residents-left-in-droves-exodus-during- covid-19-pandemic/
134
CC 10-01-2024
134 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Plan Update: What Has Changed 7
• While priorities have remained the same, the plan’s goals objectives and actions are more clearly defined. The plan identifies actions rather than strategies as was the case with the prior plans. Strategies provide direction, but actions are fundable under grant programs. This plan replaces strategies with a guiding principle, goals, and objectives. The actions identified meet multiple objectives that are measurable, so that each planning partner can measure the effectiveness of its mitigation actions, which was difficult prior to this plan update.

Below is a table comparing the 2017 MHJMP and 2023 MHJMP. Changes to the plan’s format and contents involved a multistep process that included best practices research and an assessment of jurisdiction and special district planning needs.

Table 2: Summary of Changes in the 2023 MJHMP
Changes Throughout the Plan
• Comprehensive review and update of hazard history, risk and vulnerability data and information • New hazards of climate change, sea-level rise, wildfire smoke, and air quality added • Expanded outreach to vulnerable and historically underserved populations • Lens of planning for climate change and equitable outcomes used to create a comprehensive and inclusive plan
• Integrated MJHMP planning process with the planning processes of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Safety Element of the General Plan update • It was determined that all CRS requirements will be met in a forthcoming floodplain management plan created by Santa Clara Valley Water District
• City of Monte Sereno was not an active participant in this plan update, but is referenced in the plan as applicable
• Santa Clara Valley Water District and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District joined as Planning Partners
• Plan was updated to meet 2023 FEMA hazard mitigation plan guidance and requirements

Volume I: Base Plan
Section Changes
Section 1: Introduction to Hazard
Mitigation Planning
• Updated explanation of importance and purpose of hazard mitigation planning
Section 2: Plan Update: What Has
Changed
• Summary list of plan changes and updates included
Section 3: Planning for Climate
Change and Equitable Outcomes
• Section added to highlight Santa Clara County’s goal of continuing to integrate equity into all aspects of emergency management Section 4: Plan Update Approach • Information added to highlight the concentrated effort to ensure plan integration between the County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan and County Safety Element of the County General Plan updates as well as other approved plans
• Explanation of the ways planning partners engaged residents, particularly those who are underserved and/or socially vulnerable, 135
CC 10-01-2024
135 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Plan Update: What Has Changed 8
Volume I: Base Plan
Section Changes
and gauged their perception of risk and support for risk reduction through mitigation
• Explanation of the ways planning partners engaged community stakeholders, particularly those that assist underserved and/or socially vulnerable, and gauged their perception of risk and support for risk reduction through mitigation
• Updated plan development chronology and milestones
Section 5: Santa Clara County
Operational Area Profile
• All information updated using the most recent data available Sections 6-16: Identified Hazards
of Concern and Risk Assessment
• The risk assessment includes further considerations of emerging hazards, like the impact of climate change, wildfire smoke, and air quality, which have recently impacted the OA with increasing frequency since the 2017 plan
• Hazard risk ranking updated and is now hazard risk index criteria • Wildfire, drought, and climate change are now considered to have higher average overall hazard risk by Planning Partners when compared to their hazard risk ranking scores in the 2017 plan • Updated and expanded information on hazard history, location, extent, frequency, and severity; exposure, vulnerability, cascading hazards, and how climate change may impact the frequency, extent, and severity of each hazard
• The risk assessment has been formatted to provide information on risk and vulnerability that will allow a measurement of cost- effectiveness
• Severe weather terminology updated to inclement weather • Updated maps and graphics
• Hazus data and findings updated
• The plan was developed in accordance with the most recent EMAP standards
• Latest disaster declaration data added
• High Hazard Potential Dam Grant Program (HHPD) requirements were considered and referenced
Section 17: Mitigation Strategy • Mitigation goals and objectives and criteria for mitigation action item prioritization have been updated to include climate change, resiliency, and benefits to populations that are underserved and/or socially vulnerable.
• Expanded detail on plan monitoring, evaluating, and updating to include roles and responsibilities and description of specific methods and schedules

136
CC 10-01-2024
136 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 2: Plan Update: What Has Changed 9
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
• Each Planning Partner has a minimum of one mitigation action per a hazard that can impact them • Actions and project identified in the Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan included in annexes, as applicable
• Expanded information about Planning Partner participation and compliance in the National Flood Insurance Program
• All data and information updated, including Local Planning Team members, jurisdiction or special district profile, capability assessment, opportunities to integrate the mitigation plan into other local planning initiatives, hazard event history, jurisdiction- or special district-specific vulnerabilities, future development trends, hazard risk index, future needs to better understand risk and vulnerability, status of previous action items, and maps.
• Mitigation successes highlighted, as applicable
• Risk and vulnerability assessment expanded to include climate change, wildfire smoke, and air quality • Local floodplain managers identified by name in each annex, as applicable • Development trends since the 2017 plan identified
• Sea-level rise map added to the City of Palo Alto’s annex

Appendices
• Appendix B updated from progress report template to adoption resolutions from all participating jurisdictions.

137
CC 10-01-2024
137 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Planning for Climate Change and Equitable Outcomes 10 3 Planning for Climate Change and Equitable
Outcomes
Local jurisdictions have a responsibility to ensure that the plan’s mitigation strategy complies with all applicable legal requirements related to civil rights, to ensure nondiscrimination. Such compliance can help achieve equitable outcomes through the mitigation planning process for all communities, including underserved communities and socially vulnerable populations.

To ensure that the planning process and outcomes of the local mitigation plan benefit the whole community, equity must be central in its development. Climate change increases the frequency, duration, and intensity of natural hazards, such as wildfires, extreme heat, drought, storms, heavy precipitation, and sea level rise. Communities are feeling the impacts of a changing climate now.

Respecting and leveraging the diversity of cultures in Santa Clara County ensures that mitigation planning is fair and equitable by applying a race and social justice framework to analyzing situations, evaluating options, and implementing solutions.

The Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management (SCCOEM) has adopted the FEMA’s equity definition of “the consistent and systematic fair, just and impartial treatment of all individuals.” In addition, SCCOEM acknowledges that historically underserved communities and individuals are often overburdened by systemic injustices/disparities, and these are amplified during the disaster cycle including mitigation.

Therefore, the County of Santa Clara’s goal is to continue integrating equity into all aspects of emergency management by:
 Leveraging the Access and Functional Needs (AFN) and Cultural Competency Working Group that regularly meets with members of the entire Operational Area, including the community.  Involving members from a variety of groups represent the diverse community living in the County, as well as representatives from historically marginalized groups in the planning process.  Conducting outreach events that focus on the county’s diverse population and most vulnerable community members like people with access and functional needs.  Providing multilingual outreach and communication to residents of the County.  Adopting Communication, Maintaining Health, Independence, Safety, Support Services, and Self - Determination, and Transportation (C-MIST) Framework. C-MIST is a function-based perspective composed of the five (5) functions that delineate areas where preparedness intervention can reduce disaster vulnerability and risk to the whole community.  Building, engaging, and sustaining partnerships with groups that have experienced inequities. For example, individuals experiencing communication, health, independence, safety, support services, self-determination, and transportation barriers during disasters.  Developing assessments and plans that prioritize assistance to those with the greatest needs and include vulnerable populations in the planning process.  Identifying needs and assets, as well as pre-existing vulnerability and resilience.  All community members can exercise their agency through free and informed choice(s).

138
CC 10-01-2024
138 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 3: Planning for Climate Change and Equitable Outcomes 11 Through these strategies, SCCOEM will continue to lay the foundation for closing gaps identified through lessons learned from previous EOC activations such as COVID-19, Wildfires, and Inclement Weather Episodes, and Active Shooter events that have impacted Santa Clara County.

Mitigation decisions and actions strive to provide benefit for all residents equally. SCCOEM Mitigation Program is designed to identify and remove social and institutional barriers that hinder or preclude people with disabilities and all those in the community historically subjected to unequal treatment from full and equal enjoyment of the programs, goods, services, activities, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided. Additionally, during mitigation planning and applying for mitigation funding, the County will identify opportunities to increase equity and create new opportunities for the post-disaster state of the County.

An equitable community mitigation rests on the foundation of a “complete community” that applies equitable and fair practices in all the County’s planning and implementation. The concept demonstrates local government’s commitment to inclusion and fairness while managing a recovery process that links regional, state, and federal practices.

139
CC 10-01-2024
139 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 12
4 Plan Update Approach
This plan update process had the following primary objectives:
 Secure grant funding.
 Form a planning group.
 Identify stakeholders.
 Establish a planning partnership.
 Define the Santa Clara County OA.
 Identify and coordinate with other agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities.  Review and integrate existing plans, policies, and programs.  Engage the public.

These objectives are discussed in the following sections.

4.1 Grant Funding
This planning effort was supplemented by a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grant under DR-4569 California Wildfires. The County of Santa Clara Office of Emergency Management (OEM) was the sub-applicant for the grant. OEM applied in 2021 and was awarded the grant in 2022. It covered 75 percent of the cost for the development of this plan.

4.2 Formation of the Core Planning Team
Santa Clara County OEM hired IEM to assist with the development and implementation of the plan. The lead IEM planner reported directly to the Santa Clara County Operational Area Mitigation Program Manager and the project manager for the plan update. Meetings were held on a weekly and biweekly basis to discuss the plan update status, outreach and engagement strategies, and planning milestones. A Core Planning Team was formed to lead the planning effort, made up of the following members:
 Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management
 Santa Clara County Office of Sustainability
 Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development  IEM

This planning team—designated the Santa Clara County Operational Area Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) Core Planning Team (or the Core Planning Team)—coordinated regularly over the course of this project to track plan development milestones, brainstorm outreach and engagement strategies, and identify meeting content to help with development of the update. The Core Planning Team also consisted of members of the County Safety Element update, ensuring visibility between plans. 140
CC 10-01-2024
140 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 13

4.3 Defining Stakeholders
For this planning process, “stakeholder” was defined as: any person or public or private entity that owns or operates facilities that would benefit from the mitigation actions of this plan, and/or has an authority or capability to support mitigation actions identified by this plan. This includes, but is not limited to, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development, neighboring communities, representatives of businesses, academi c, and other private organizations such as those that sustain community lifelines, and representatives of nonprofit organizations including community-based organizations that work directly with and/or provide support to underserved communities and socially vulnerable populations.

For the sake of clarity, when developing outreach materials, stakeholders were separated into two categories:
 Internal Stakeholders: Stakeholders identified and engaged by participants to enhance the planning process and the update of the MJHMP. These stakeholders are subject matter experts within the participating jurisdictions or special districts who impact or may be impacted by a mitigation action or policy. This included people in positions who had the authority to regulate development of the plan. These stakeholders informed the planning teams about specific topics and offered different points of view while providing data, reviewing the MJMP draft, attending planning workshops, and advocating for mitigation measures. Internal stakeholders for each planning partner are identified in the participant annexes in Volume 2.  External Stakeholders: Planning partners identified stakeholders outside their jurisdiction or special district who impact or can be impacted by a mitigation action or policy. These stakeholders were not necessarily involved in all stages of the planning process, but as subject matter experts, they informed the planning teams on specific topics and offered different points of view while providing data, reviewing the MJHMP draft, and advocating for mitigation measures.

At the beginning of the planning process, planning partners identified a list of stakeholders to engage during the development of the Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan. The following stakeholders were invited to play a role in the planning process via email:

Table 3: External Stakeholders Invited to Be Involved in Planning Process Agency or Organization Point of Contact
American Red Cross Ann Herosy, Disaster Services
American Red Cross – Silicon Valley Chapter Ginny Ortiz, Disaster Program Manager Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) Barton Smith, Coordinator Avenidas John Sink, Vice President
CADRE - Collaborating Agencies’ Disaster Relief
Effort
Marsha Hovey, Executive Director
California Office of Emergency Services (Cal
OES)
Victoria LaMar-Haas, Chief, Mitigation Planning
Division
Cal OES Brian Buckhout, Emergency Services Coordinator California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection
Edgar Orre, Division Chief
California Department of Transportation Shawn Casteel, Acting Senior Environmental Supervisor
Campbell Community Emergency Response
Team
Mark Dunkle, President
141
CC 10-01-2024
141 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 14
Agency or Organization Point of Contact
Campbell Union School District Rosana Palomo, Director, Student Services Cattlemen’s Association Brent Kirk, President
City of East Palo Alto Melvin Gaines, City Manager
City of Menlo Park Justin Murphy, City Manager
Cooper-Garrod Estate Vineyards Bill Cooper, Vintner
Cupertino Sanitation District Benjamin Porter, District Manager Department of Homeland Security Staff, Transportation Security Administration Coordination Center
Department of Toxic Substances Claude Jemison, Regulator for Los Lagos Golf Course and SAP Center (former landfill and
cleanup site)
Department of Toxic Substances Sagar Bhatt, Regulator for Watson Park (former landfill)
Department of Toxic Substances Jovanne Villamater, Regulator for Vista Montana Parks
Department of Toxic Substances Julie Pettijohn, Manager for all regulatory sites except Watson Park
Downtown Streets Team Jim Rettew, Interim Executive Director Emergency Medical Services Michael Cubano, Duty Chief
Emergency Services Volunteer Representative Annette Glanckopft, Volunteer Emergency Services Volunteer Representative Esther Nigenda, Volunteer Federal Aviation Administration David Zakaski, Airport Tower Manager Fellowship Plaza Shreya Shah, Senior Project Manager
Foothill - De Anza Community College District Simon Pennington, Associate Vice President, College and Community Relations, Marketing, and
Communications
Foothill - De Anza Community College District Joel Cadiz, Executive Director, Facilities Foothill - De Anza Community College District
Police Department
Daniel Acosta, Police Chief
Gavilan College Jaime Mata, Interim Vice President,
Administrative Services
Gilroy Unified School District Aurelio Rodriguez Coordinator, Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Gilroy/Hollister California Highway Patrol Phil Cooper, Captain Google Katherine Williams, Corporate Communications
Hidden Villa farm Lukas Wiborg, Assistant Property Manager Intel Corporation Stacy Sher, Crisis Manager
Kaiser Permanente—Santa Clara Brendan Gadd, Safety Specialist Kaiser Permanente—Santa Clara Charles L. Smith, Support Services Administrator Life Moves Philip Dah, Opportunity Center Manager
Loma Prieta Volunteer Fire Department Alex Leman, Chief Los Altos Hills County Fire District J. Logan, General Manager 142
CC 10-01-2024
142 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 15
Agency or Organization Point of Contact
Los Altos Hills County Fire District Captain (Ret.) Denise Gluhan Los Altos Hills County Fire District Eugenia Woods, Programs, Planning and Grants Manager
Los Altos School District Erik Walukiewicz, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District Dina Iden, Executive Director Morgan Hill Unified School District Carmen Garcia, Superintendent Moffett Field Ames Research Center, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Anastasiya Maynich, Emergency Management
Specialist
National Weather Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Brian Garcia, Meteorologist
Pacheco Pass Water District Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Charlie Weidanz, Executive Director Palo Alto Medical Foundation Richard Stilleke, Director, Environmental Health and Safety
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation
Commission
Doria Summa, Vice Chair
Palo Alto Unified School District Mike Jacobs, Emergency Manager Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Kevin Conant, Senior Public Safety Specialist Purissima Water District Phil Witt, General Manager
Purissima Water District Anthony Stoloski, Operations Manager Ravenswood Family Health Center Daisy Garcia, Associate, Disaster Preparedness and Project Management
Regional Water Quality Control Board Ava Castanha, Regulator, Environmental Innovation Center
Regional Water Quality Control Board Celina Hernandez, Regulator, Fire Training Regional Water Quality Control Board Alyx Karpowicz, Regulator, Roberts and Story Road Landfills
Regional Water Quality Control Board Vic Pal, Regulator, Singleton Landfill Rotating Safe Car Park Norman Puck, Program Director
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Margaret Bruce, Executive Director San José Water John Tang, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Government Relations
Santa Clara County CERT President
Santa Clara County FireSafe Council Seth Schalet, Chief Executive Officer Santa Clara County FireSafe Council Amanda Brenner, Program Director, Hazardous Fuel Reduction
Santa Clara County FireSafe Council Dede Smullen, 2nd Vice President Santa Clara County Local Oversight Program Gerald O’Regan, Regulator for Fire Training Santa Clara County Local Oversight Program Joe Muzzio, Regulator for Fire Station at 1138 Olinder Road
Santa Clara County Local Oversight Program Shalom Marquardt, Regulator for Fire Station 8 143
CC 10-01-2024
143 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 16
Agency or Organization Point of Contact
Santa Clara County Parks Don Rocha, Director
Santa Clara County Planning & Development Samuel Gutierrez, Principal Planner Santa Clara County Planning & Development Michael Alvarez, Deputy Director Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Neil Valenzuela, Commander, West Valley Patrol Division
Santa Clara University Tyler Masamori, Emergency Planning Manager Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Derek Newman, Manager, Field Operations Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Megan Robinson, Supervising Open Space Technician
Santa Cruz County David Reid, Director, Office of Emergency Management
Saratoga Amateur Radio Association Jack Griswold, President Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council Tylor Taylor, Executive Director Saratoga CERT Charles Rader, Volunteer Lead
Saratoga Fire Protection District Commissioner Joseph Long Jr.

Saratoga Fire Protection District Commissioner Ernest Kraule Saratoga Fire Protection District Commissioner Eugene Zambetti Saratoga Fire Protection District Trina Whitley, Business Manager Saratoga Retirement Community Sarah Stel, Executive Director Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) Heidi Springer, Executive Assistant Silicon Valley Clean Energy Girish Balachandran, Executive Director San José Fire Department, San José Mineta
International Airport
Brendan Buller, Battalion Chief
San José Police Department, San José Mineta
International Airport
Jason Pierce, Lieutenant
Spring Valley Volunteer Fire Department Mike Hacke, Chief St. Louise Hospital (Santa Clara County Hospital
System)
Geoff Tull, Emergency Management Coordinator
Stanford Healthcare Kathy Harris, Emergency Manager
Stanford Healthcare Laura Jackson, Senior Manager, Office of Emergency Management
Stanford Healthcare Monica Plumb, Project Coordinator, Office of Emergency Management
Stanford Healthcare Taylor Wyatt, Project Coordinator, Office of Emergency Management
Stanford University Cody Hill, Associate Director, Stanford Resiliency and Emergency Response
Stanford University Board of Trustees Staff, Board of Trustees Office Stanford University Office of Emergency
Management
Keith Perry, Assistant Director and Emergency
Manager
Stanford University, IT Facilities, Infrastructure,
and Resilience
Matthew Ricks, Senior Director
144
CC 10-01-2024
144 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 17
Agency or Organization Point of Contact
Stanford University, Water Resources and Civil
Infrastructure
Tom Zigterman, Senior Director
Stanford University/Real Estate Mark Smith, Manager
Stanford University/Real Estate Ramsey Shuayto, Director, Asset Management The Villas Scott Clawson, Manager
Valley Water Flood Information Team Greg Meamber, Senior Engineer Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired Karae Lisle, Chief Executive Officer West Valley Clean Water Program Authority Sheila Tucker, Executive Director West Valley College Stephanie Kashima, President
West Valley Sanitation District Jon Newby, District Manager Westwind Barn Tori Dye, Barn Manager

4.4 Establishment of the Planning Partnership
Santa Clara County OEM opened this planning effort to all eligible local governments and special districts within the OA. Each jurisdiction or special district wishing to join the planning partnership was asked to provide a “letter of intent to participate” that designated a point of contact and confirmed the organization’s commitment to the process and understanding of expectations. All planning partners provided this letter of intent. The planning partners covered under this plan are listed below.

Table 4: Planning Partner Main Points of Contact
Planning Partner Main Point of Contact
County of Santa Clara Dr. Parastou Najaf, Senior Emergency Manager – Mitigation/Recovery, Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management
City of Campbell Dan Livingston, Captain of Support Services Division, Police Department
City of Cupertino Meredith Gerhardt, Emergency Management Analyst, Office of Emergency Management
City of Gilroy Andrew Young, Emergency Services and Volunteer Coordinator, Office of Emergency Services
City of Los Altos Kathryn Krauss, Captain of Operations, Police Department Town of Los Altos Hills Ann Hepenstal, Emergency Preparedness Consultant, Town of Los Altos Hills
Town of Los Gatos Nicolle Burnham, Director, Parks and Public Works Department
City of Milpitas Toni-Lynn Charlop, Manager, Office of Emergency Services City of Morgan Hill Jennifer Ponce, Coordinator, Office of Emergency Services City of Mountain View Robert Maitland, Emergency Services Coordinator, Office of Emergency Services
City of Palo Alto Nathaniel Rainey, Emergency Services Coordinator, Office of Emergency Services
145
CC 10-01-2024
145 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 18
Planning Partner Main Point of Contact
City of San José Jay McAmis, Deputy Director, Office of Emergency Management
City of Santa Clara Jennifer Guzman, Emergency Management Analyst, Office of Emergency Services
City of Saratoga Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager, City Manager’s Department
City of Sunnyvale Daniel Moskowitz, Lieutenant, Office of Emergency Services, Department of Public Safety
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District
Brandon Stewart, Land and Facilities Department Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Santa Clara County Fire Department Louay Toma, Senior Emergency Manager, Santa Clara County Fire Department
Santa Clara Valley Water District Juan Ledesma, Program Administrator Supervisor, Office of Emergency Services

One-on-one planning meetings were held with planning partners throughout the planning process . A total of 43 individual meetings were held with plan participants to gather information and to provide guidance for the jurisdictions and special districts throughout the planning stages. Each meeting is described in Table 5.

Table 5: One-on-One Meetings with Planning Partners
Planning Partner Date Discussion Topic(s)
City of Campbell February 13, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
May 15, 2023  Planning documentation review
City of Cupertino February 6, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
April 20, 2023  Mitigation strategy
City of Gilroy February 14, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
City of Los Altos February 14, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
April 27, 2023  Capabilities assessment
 Mitigation strategy
May 9, 2023  Planning documentation review
City of Milpitas March 17, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
 Risk assessment
May 1, 2023  Risk assessment
 Mitigation strategy
City of Morgan Hill February 14, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
146
CC 10-01-2024
146 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 19
Planning Partner Date Discussion Topic(s)
City of Mountain View January 31, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
March 15, 2023  Risk assessment
April 13, 2023  Mitigation action items
May 1, 2023  Mitigation strategy
City of Palo Alto February 7, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
 Planning process timeline
City of Santa Clara February 8, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
 Planning process timeline
March 16, 2023  Risk assessment with local planning team March 17, 2023  Risk assessment with water and sewer team March 26, 2023  Mitigation strategy
May 10, 2023  Planning documentation review
City of San José February 13, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
April 27, 2023  Capabilities assessment
 Mitigation strategy
May 16, 2023  Planning documentation review
City of Saratoga February 9, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
March 14, 2023  Risk assessment
City of Sunnyvale January 26, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
March 3, 2023  Risk assessment
April 7, 2023  Risk assessment
 Mitigation strategy
Midpeninsula
Regional Open
Space District
March 6, 2023  Planning process contacts
 Capabilities assessment
 Risk assessment
 Planning process timeline
Santa Clara County
and Santa Clara
County Fire
Department*
February 10, 2023  Planning process contacts
 Capabilities assessment
March 2, 2023  Planning process contacts
 Capabilities assessment
March 8, 2023  Capabilities assessment
 Risk assessment
March 28, 2023  Capabilities assessment
 Risk assessment
 Mitigation strategy
147
CC 10-01-2024
147 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 20
Planning Partner Date Discussion Topic(s)
Santa Clara Valley
Water District
January 23, 2023  Annex layout and contents
 Community Rating System
February 21, 2023  Community Rating System
March 13, 2023  Community Rating System
April 21, 2023  Mitigation strategy
 GIS and mapping
Town of Los Altos
Hills
March 17, 2023  Risk assessment
April 25, 2023  Risk assessment
 Mitigation strategy
June 20, 2023  Annex draft review
Town of Los Gatos February 13, 2023  Planning process contacts  Capabilities assessment
April 27, 2023  Capabilities assessment
 Mitigation strategy
*Santa Clara County and Santa Clara County Fire Department held meeting together due to shared staff and resources.

Figure 1: Planning Partners Meeting
148
CC 10-01-2024
148 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 21

Figure 2: Planning Partners Mitigation Strategy Meeting

4.5 Defining the Planning Area
The defined planning area for this update has been defined as the Santa Clara County Operational Area (OA). The OA is defined as the unincorporated county and incorporated cities within the geographical boundary of Santa Clara County. Relevant OA characteristics are described in Section 5. The City of Monte Sereno did not actively participate in this MJHMP and does not have a planning partner annex; however, information and data related to the city are included throughout the plan as appropriate and relevant.

4.6 Review of Existing Programs
Hazard mitigation planning must include review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). Section 5.9 of this plan provides a review of laws and ordinances in effect within the OA that can affect hazard mitigation actions. In addition, the following programs can affect mitigation within the OA:
 California Fire Code.
 2016 California Building Code.
 California State Hazard Mitigation Forum.
 Local Capital Improvement Programs.
 Local Emergency Operations Plan.
 Local General Plans.
 Housing Element.
 Safety Element (prior and 2023 draft components).
 Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2016 version and components of the 2023 draft).  Local Zoning Ordinances.
149
CC 10-01-2024
149 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 22
 Local Coastal Program Policies.

An assessment of all planning partners’ regulatory, technical, and financial capabilities to implement hazard mitigation actions is presented in the individual planning partner-specific annexes in Volume 2.

Many of these relevant plans, studies and regulations are cited in the capability assessment.

4.7 Public Involvement
Broad public participation in the planning process helps ensure that diverse points of view about the OA ’s needs are considered and addressed. Additionally, the plan must document how the public had an opportunity to be involved in the planning process, including underserved communities and vulnerable populations within the planning area were provided an opportunity to be involved. The public must have opportunities to comment on disaster mitigation plans during the drafting stages and prior to plan approval (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(1)).

4.7.1 Strategy
The planning team developed a robust public outreach process within the very short project timeline, attempting to reach as many Santa Clara County community members and stakeholders as possible through the following activities:

 Development of a public outreach plan approved by the Core Planning Team .  Partner with planners updating the Safety Element and Community Wildfire Protection Plan planning processes to expand public outreach efforts.
 Attendance at advertised public outreach events and virtual meetings with live interaction.  Development and advertisement of a public survey posted on the SCCOEM’s webpage to collect pertinent information from residents and the business community.  Publication of the survey in Santa Clara County’s most spoken languages: English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese.
 Use of social media, such as Nextdoor, Facebook, and Twitter to publicize the survey.

Stakeholder Outreach
Stakeholders are the individuals, departments, agencies, and jurisdictions that have a vested interest in the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan. The effort to include stakeholders in this process included stakeholder participation on the Steering Committee. The following federal, state, regional, and local stakeholders also played a role in the planning process:
 FEMA Region IX provided planning guidance throughout the planning process.  The California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) provided planning guidance throughout the planning process. Cal OES also reviewed the draft and final version of the MJHMP as part of the hazard mitigation planning process required by DMA.  Many local external stakeholders, including state agencies, local agencies, universities, and non - profit organizations, were given the opportunity to review the draft plan and provide input. A list of these stakeholders is included in Table 3.

The strategy to involve the public and external stakeholders in this plan include the following:
 Utilize a survey to determine if the public’s perception of risk and support of hazard mitigation has changed since the initial planning process.
150
CC 10-01-2024
150 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 23
 Utilize social media and local media to share information about the MJHMP process and inform OA citizens about opportunities to participate.
 Identify and involve a comprehensive range of OA stakeholders.  Partner with planners updating both the Safety Element and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan to expand public outreach efforts.

Public Survey
The planning team relied on the community survey (available in English, Spanish, Tagalog, Chinese, and Vietnamese) as the primary method for gathering information and feedback from the public. The secondary method was multiple in-person combined planning meetings which participants were introduced to hazard mitigation and invited to take the survey. The survey was approved by the Core Planning Team and was available to complete via the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management’s website. Flyers were also posted around the County and on participating jurisdiction’s official websites and social media pages.

Figure 3: Picture of Public Survey Announcement
151
CC 10-01-2024
151 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 24

Figure 4: Public Survey Media Announcement
The survey included 35 questions to:
 Gauge the public’s perception of risk and identify what citizens are concerned about;  Identify the best ways to communicate with the public;  Determine the level of public support for the different mitigation strategies; and  Understand the public’s willingness to invest in hazard mitigation.

Social Media
At the beginning of the plan development process, a website hosted on the Santa Clara County OE M main website was utilized to keep the public posted on plan development milestones and to solicit relevant input. The website was publicized in all press releases and public meetings. Information on the plan development process, the survey, and phased drafts of the plan was made available to the public on the site throughout the process. Santa Clara County OEM intends to keep a website active after the plan’s completion to keep the public informed about successful mitigation projects and future plan updates.

The website can be accessed at this link: https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/multi- jurisdictional-hazard-mitigation-plan-mjhmp.

Many of the participating local jurisdictions also promoted the website on social media and used social media platforms to share public meeting information, notice of the public survey, and notice of the public comment period. Valley Water, for example, posted to Twitter five times and Facebook 4 times as part of a multi-prong strategy. An example of the social media outreach is provided below.

152
CC 10-01-2024
152 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 25

Figure 5: City of Campbell Social Media Outreach
Local Media and Press Releases
The Planning Team conducted a wide range of outreach activities in local media. The County developed three key messages to highlight the significance of the Public Survey Period:

1. Announcement of the Public Survey Period: Informing the community about the survey ’s availability.

2. Planning for the Future: Emphasizing the importance of proactive hazard mitigation planning.

3. Your Participation Matters: Encouraging community members to participate and contribute to the planning process by taking the survey.

During the Public Survey Period for the MJHMP, Santa Clara County disseminated one press release to the various media outlets and utilized a specific media monitoring service to report media coverage for the MJHMP. Unfortunately, despite the County’s best efforts, no major media outlets covered the event.

However, Sing Tao Dailey, a prominent Chinese media outlet, published the information on their website on April 17, 2023. This media outlet boasts a wide-reaching presence across the United States, maintaining offices in major markets which includes New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The press release was also published to the Office of Emergency Management ’s website as part of the Newsroom page.

Valley Water also reached out to communities via local media, including Chinese News, El Observador, Murcury News, Metro, Nextdoor, and Vietnam Daily.

153
CC 10-01-2024
153 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 26
Information was posted to the County’s social media sites including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, as well as the Department of Planning and Development’s website and the County’s main website during the public survey period. To amplify public messaging, the County encouraged key stakeholders, including the Operational Area Joint Information System, the Access and Functional Needs & Cultural Competency Work Group, and the Operational Area Emergency Managers to amplify messagin g with their served community members.

To simplify access to the survey and increase participation, the County established a user -friendly vanity URL. This URL received significant traction, directing 74% of community members to the Hazard Mitigation Webpage, resulting in 880-page views and 767 visits. Additionally, 81% of users who accessed the Hazard Mitigation Page were successfully redirected to the actual survey page. The Hazard Mitigation page was the second most popular site for the period.

The strategic use of local communication channels successfully enhanced community engagement, ensuring a more robust Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Joint MJHMP Outreach
Plan integration was considered throughout the development of a public outreach approach for this plan update. As the Safety Element was being updated at the same time as the Santa Clara County Operational Area HMP, the Core Planning Team members coordinated to include hazard mitigation planning components during outreach for the Safety Element. At this meeting, me mbers of the public were presented with interactive boards and polling questions to gauge their hazard concerns, personal preparedness measures, public outreach and education needs, and support for common infrastructure enhancements. The Hazard Mitigation Plan update was discussed, and the public was provided with information on hazard mitigation and hazard mitigation planning including a link to t he public survey. This meeting was conducted at the Campbell Community Center, targeting vulnerable populations in the City of San Jose and central Santa Clara valley. The county geographically designed this approach to ensure that those residence who could not travel to the South County community outreach event in Gilroy (mentioned below) still had an opportunity to have their voices heard. Valley Water had staff representation in the audience to respond to and capture inquiries pertaining to Valley Water’s jurisdictions. More than 40 residents from across the county, including vulnerable pockets in the City of San Jose and the Santa Cruz mountain range, interacted and worked with the MJHMP to voice their concerns.

In determining which vulnerable communities to target for outreach, planning partners referenced the California Hazard Exposure and Social Vulnerability map, Figure 6 below. Two underserved or socially vulnerable communities were identified according to their estimated hazard exposure and social vulnerability. The largest area in San Jose is east of Highway 87 and a much smaller area is in South Santa Clara County, specifically the City of Gilroy. In addition, by using the CalEMA GIS dashboa rd, these two areas are also recognized for having a median household income of less than 80% of the statewide average and for having significant earthquake ground shaking potential.

154
CC 10-01-2024
154 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 27

Figure 6: Hazard Exposure and Social Vulnerability Map for Santa Clara Valley

The County also actively facilitated meetings and coordinated outreach between the team working on the HMP and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Like the HMP, the CWPP includes recommendations for mitigation measures across the OA. It also includes annexes for the many of the same planning partners which highlight their unique wildfire history and considerations. These similarities presented a valuable opportunity for the two teams to solicit input from the public together. Four joint in- person Public Outreach meetings were conducted in remote, access and functional needs (AFN) areas of the incorporated County as well as an in-person meeting in the Gilroy/South County area where there are pre-identified vulnerable populations. All were welcome to attend. For those that could not make it in person, an additional online outreach meeting was held.

Draft Plan Final Public Comment Period
A public comment period was conducted to allow the public to provide feedback on the proposed draft of the plan prior to submittal to Cal OES for pre-adoption review and approval. This public comment period ran for 14 days from July 14 to July 28, 2023. The draft plan was shared by participating jurisdictions via their social media sites and emails to external stakeholders. The posted plan was accompanied by a narrative explaining to the public the purpose and content of the plan and was available to view on the County’s website.

The Planning Team received 17 comments from the public during the comment period. These comments were reviewed by the Planning Team and incorporated in the plan as appropriate.

4.7.2 Public Involvement Results
Survey Results
The survey received 588 responses. There were 576 responses to the English survey, 10 responses to the Chinese survey, and 2 responses to the Spanish survey. The use of multi-lingual outreach material proved to be valuable in providing the opportunity for more participation and in receiving a 155
CC 10-01-2024
155 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 28
broader range of feedback. The results of the survey were presented to the planning partners and will be used in all future decisions making regarding mitigation, risks, and hazards . The survey results regarding respondent’s concern for hazards are summarized in Appendix A of this volume.

Public Outreach Events
As mentioned, many joint planning efforts occurred between the Santa Clara County MJHMP, Safety Element, and Community Wildfire Protection Plan. This is the first time in Santa Clara County history that this kind of planning effort and coordination has occurred. There were several public meetings for each planning initiative, and each meeting included presentations about the Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.

By engaging the public both virtually and in person, the concept of mitigation was widely shared, and the public was provided the opportunity to review the draft plan. Participants at each meeting were encouraged to participate via the public survey. Table 6 summarizes each public outreach meeting that occurred across the OA.

Recordings of each meeting can be found at https://sccfiresafe.org/cwpp/

Figure 7: Public and Stakeholder Meeting with 99 Participants 156
CC 10-01-2024
156 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 29

Figure 8: Public and Stakeholder Meeting with 104 Participants Table 6: Summary of Public Outreach
Date Summary of Outreach
November 10,
2022
MJHMP presentation and invitation for public comment and feedback at the joint Safety Element Virtual Town Hall (virtual)
December 6,
2022
MJHMP presentation and invitation for public comment and feedback at the joint CWPP Community Outreach Meeting Campbell (in-person)
 59 fliers distributed, 24 individual risk assessments conducted, 75+ contacts made regarding the plan
December 7,
2022
MJHMP presentation and invitation for public comment and feedback at the joint CWPP Community Outreach Meeting San Jose (in-person)
December 13,
2022
MJHMP presentation and invitation for public comment and feedback at the joint CWPP Community Outreach Meeting Milpitas (in-person)
December 15,
2022
MJHMP presentation and invitation for public comment and feedback at the joint CWPP Community Outreach Meeting Morgan Hill (in-person) December 15,
2022
MJHMP presentation and invitation for public comment and feedback at the joint Safety Element CARAS South County Community Listening Meeting (in-person) March 15,
2023
MJHMP presentation and invitation for public comment and feedback at the joint Safety Element Listening Session
June 14-28, 2023 Draft MJHMP published online and a public comment period was in place for two weeks. Comments were considered and implemented where applicable. 157
CC 10-01-2024
157 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 30
Draft MJHMP Public Comment Period
During the development of the MJHMP, the public had the opportunity to review the Draft and make final comments. Every participating jurisdiction advertised this public comment period by using multiple online resources, including official social media accounts, websites, and online newsletters. These comments were taken into consideration and implemented where applicable.

Figure 9: Samples of Public Comment Period Advertisements Public Representation
In addition to directly providing the public the opportunity to comment on the plan, the Santa Clara County Access and Functional Needs and Cultural Competency Working Group which represents tens of community and faith-based organizations within the SCC operational area were consulted on the plan and were able to provide feedback based on the populations they serve. Approximately 100 non-profits and VOAD members participate in the AFN and Cultural Competency Working Group. SCC also has representation from community centers and two consulate generals. In addition, there are also advocates who do not have an affiliation but are Santa Clara County residents and provide input on LGBTQ+ and Disability topics. Some of the organizations include but are not limited to San Andreas Regional Center, Immigrant Info Services, Vista Center for the Blind, American Red Cross, Parents Helping Parents, Lighthouse. In general, the direct interaction and represented voices shared similar sentiments in concern for specifically the extreme heat and wildfire hazard, community preparedness, and education and outreach activities. Therefore, prioritization of the wildfire hazard, and the corresponding mitigation actions, along with high attention to public outreach and education efforts informed the many such related mitigation actions in the plan.
158
CC 10-01-2024
158 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 31

4.8 Plan Development Chronology and Milestones
Table 7 summarizes important milestones in the plan update process.

Table 7: Plan Development Chronology and Milestones
Date Event Description
December
8, 2022
Initial meeting with Core Planning
Team
 Planning groups
 IEM project staff
 Project phases
 Proposed workshop schedule
 Administration and logistics
December
14, 2022
Kick off meeting with planning
partners
 Introductions
 IEM project staff
 Planning groups
 Mitigation overview
 Mitigation planning benefits
 Intent of plan update
 Plan participants
 Hazards covered
 Updated FEMA requirements
 Planning expectations
 Project phases
 County planning efforts underway
 Plan integration opportunities
 Stakeholder identification
 Use of SharePoint
January 18,
2023
Community Capabilities Review
Workshop with planning partners
 Planning groups
 Planning process contacts
▪ Local planning teams
▪ Internal stakeholders
▪ External stakeholders
 Capabilities assessment
 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
 Use of SharePoint
February
15, 2023
Risk Assessment Workshop with
planning partners
 Project phases
 Public outreach and documentation
 Hazus
 GIS
 Community Rating System (CRS)
 Risk assessment
 Planning documents
 Risk ranking
March 15,
2023
Stakeholder Engagement
Workshop #1
 Workshop goals
 Hazard mitigation planning
▪ Overview
159
CC 10-01-2024
159 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 4: Plan Update Approach 32
Date Event Description
▪ Planning process
 Project phases
 Mitigation action items
 Feedback on data sources
April 3,
2023
Stakeholder Engagement
Workshop #2
 Workshop goals
 Multijurisdictional hazard mitigation plan recap
 Mitigation strategy
 Mitigation action items
 Funding sources
 Mitigation integration
April 3,
2023
Mitigation Strategy Workshop with
planning partners
 Mitigation strategy
 Mitigation projects working group
 2017 mitigation strategy
 Review of 2017 actions
 New action items
 Mitigation incorporation
April 4,
2023
Public survey published on County
of Santa Clara Office of
Emergency Management website
Thirty-five question survey published at
https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/pa
rtners/hazard-mitigation-program
April 18,
2023
Mitigation Strategy Working Group
Meeting
 Working group expectations
 Review of 2017 MHMP goals and objectives
 Review of 2017 MHMP projects
 Discussion of the current gaps in identifying
projects and accessing funding
May 19,
2023
Public survey closed Total of 588 responses received: 576 in English, 10 in Chinese, and 2 in Spanish.

June 2,
2023
Planning process wrap up meeting
with planning partners
 Public survey results summary
 Implementation
 Monitoring and evaluation
 Maintenance
 Adoption
 Draft review
 Draft plan publicity for public and stakeholders
July 13,
2023
Draft plan published on County of
Santa Clara Office of Emergency
Management website for public
and stakeholder review
Public comment period was open for two weeks
to give the public a chance to review the Draft
and make comments.

September
25, 2023
Plan submittal to Cal OES Final draft plan submitted to Cal OES for review and approval.

January 16,
2024
Plan submittal to FEMA Final draft plan submitted to FEMA for review and approval.

Plan Approvable Pending
Adoption (APA) by FEMA.

FEMA to provide APA Letter once they approve
the final draft plan.

February 8,
2024
First planning partner adopts
approved plan.

All participants must formally adopt the plan. The
five-year lifecycle begins with the first adoption.
160
CC 10-01-2024
160 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 33 5 Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile

5.1 Geographic Overview
The Santa Clara County Operational Area is in north-central California in the southern portion of the San Francisco Bay area (see Figure 9). With its numerous natural amenities and one of the highest standards of living in the country, the OA has long been considered one of the best areas in the United States in which to live and work. The county is also referred to as “Silicon Valley.”

The Santa Clara County OA has a total area of 1,312 square miles. With a diverse population of more than 1.9 million residents, 6F6F
7 it is one of the largest counties in the state and encompasses 15 incorporated cities.

San José is the largest city, with just over 1 million people, 7F7F 8 followed by Sunnyvale and Santa Clara; the
west valley bedroom communities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga; the high-tech communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Mountain View, and Palo Alto; industrial Milpitas, and the south county suburban expansion/rural interface areas of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and their surrounding unincorporated areas. A significant portion of the county’s land area is unincorporated ranch and farmland.

The OA has a rich culture of ethnic diversity, artistic endeavors, sports venues, and academic institutions.

Numerous public and private golf courses are located throughout the OA and Santa Clara County operates 28 parks covering more than 50,000 acres, including lakes, streams, and miles of hiking and biking trails. The OA is home to three major universities—Stanford University, Santa Clara University, and San José State University—as well as several community colleges.

5.2 Historical Overview
The early inhabitants of the area now known as Santa Clara County were the indigenous Ohlone people, thought to occupy the area at least 1,000 years before Spain began to colonize California in the 18 th century.

Spanish settlers established the Santa Clara Valley’s first mission and pueblo in Santa Clara and San José, respectively, and governed “El Llano de Los Robles” (Plain of the Oaks), until the Mexican Revolution led to Mexican control from the 1820s through 1840s. In 1850, California was admitted into the United States, and Santa Clara County was incorporated as one of the state’s original 27 counties.

Deriving its name from Mission Santa Clara, the county originally included much of what was Washington Township (part of Union City and Fremont) in what is now Alameda County. The current county boundaries were set in 1853 when Alameda County was established.

From 1850 to 1870, ranchers made a transition from raising cattle and sheep to cultivating hay and grain.

French immigrants planted the first vineyards. Mercury mining flourished. California ’s first colleges were founded in Santa Clara County and the coming of the railroad produced a small boom in real estate.

7 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Quick Facts: Santa Clara County. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/santaclaracountycalifornia 8 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Quick Facts: San José City. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanjosecitycalifornia,santaclaracountycalifornia/PST045222 161
CC 10-01-2024
161 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 34

Figure 10: Santa Clara County Operational Area (Planning Area) After 1870, orchards began displacing grain fields and vineyards. The Santa Clara Valley became the world’s leading producer of canned fruit and processed dried fruit. By the end of the 19 th century, wealthy San Franciscans, such as Leland Stanford and James Lick, established farms and summer homes in the county.

Santa Clara County remained pastoral until World War II, when many people gravitated to California to work in war-related industries. To accommodate the growing population, mass-produced housing spread across the Santa Clara Valley, and agricultural land was subdivided and developed for housing. Like much of the rest of the United States in the decades immediately following the war, development in the county shifted from largely agricultural to largely suburban.

162
CC 10-01-2024
162 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 35 At the same time, technology companies began to flourish in Santa Clara County, with significant support and encouragement from Stanford University. The Stanford Industrial Park, established in 1951, later became the Stanford Research Park and provided space for companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Eastman Kodak, General Electric, and Lockheed. Related companies began to form around the region, and by the 1970s Santa Clara County and surrounding areas became known as a center of high - technology development. The term Silicon Valley was coined in 1971, referring to the high concentration of companies in the area that are involved in making silicon semiconductors and the computers that rely on them. Technology industries remain central to the area’s economy to this day.

5.3 Major Past Hazard Events
Presidential disaster declarations are typically issued for hazard events that cause more damage than state and local governments can handle without assistance from the federal government. A presidential disaster declaration puts federal recovery programs into motion to help disaster victims, businesses, and public entities. Some of the programs are matched by state programs. Santa Clara County has experienced 20 events (14 major disaster declarations, three emergency declarations, two fire management assistance declarations, and one fire suppression declaration) since 1950 for which presidential disaster declarations were issued. These events are listed in Table 8.

Table 8: Presidential Disaster Declarations 8F8F
9 Type of Event FEMA Disaster
Number* Date
Severe Winter Storm DR-3592 03/10/2023
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides DR-4683 January 14, 2023 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides EM-3591 January 9, 2023 Wildfires DR-4558 August 22, 2020
SCU Lightning Complex Fire DR-5338 August 21, 2020
COVID-19 Pandemic DR-4482 March 22, 2020
COVID-19 EM-3428 March 13, 2020
Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4308 April 1, 2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4301 February 14, 2017 Summit Fire DR-2766 May 22, 2008
Wildfires DR-3287 06/28/2008
Croy Fire FS-2465 September 25, 2002
Severe Winter Storms and Flooding DR-1203 February 9, 1998 Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides DR-1155 January 4, 1997 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding Landslides, and Mud Flow DR-1046 March 12, 1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mud Flows DR-1044 January 10, 1995 Severe Freeze DR-894 February 11, 1991
Loma Prieta Earthquake DR-845 October 18, 1989
Severe Storms and Flooding DR-758 February 21, 1986
Grass, Wildlands, and Forest Fires DR-739 July 18, 1985

9 Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2023). Declared Disasters. https://www.fema.gov/disaster/declarations 163
CC 10-01-2024
163 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 36 Type of Event FEMA Disaster
Number* Date
Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides, and Tornadoes DR-677 February 9, 1983 Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides, and High Tide DR-651 January 7, 1982 Drought EM-3023 January 20, 1977
* DR = Disaster Declaration; EM = Emergency Declaration; FM = Fire Management; FS = Fire Suppression

Review of these events helps to identify targets for risk reduction and ways to increase a community ’s capability to avoid large-scale events in the future. Still, many natural hazard events do not trigger federal disaster protocol but have significant impacts on their communities. These events are also important to consider in establishing recurrence intervals for hazards of concern. Additional information about previous hazard events is included in Section 6 of this plan.

5.4 Physical Setting

5.4.1 Geology and Topography
The OA’s topography is characterized by its location in the southern San Francisco Bay area. The Santa Clara Valley runs the entire length of the county from north to south, ringed by the rolling hills of the Diablo Range on the east, and the Santa Cruz Mountains on the west. Salt marshes and wetlands lie in the northwestern part of the county, adjacent to the waters of San Francisco Bay.

5.4.2 Soils
Prior to 1950 and as far back as the late 1800s, Santa Clara Valley was the scene of a vibrant and productive agriculture industry. Many of the soils of the Santa Clara Valley are alluvial, deposited on fans or floodplains within the valley. The young, deep soils (Elder, Elpaloalto, Still, Stevens Creek, Landelspark, Botella, and Campbell) are naturally very fertile. Field crops were cultivated on the lower parts of the valley, and orchards spanned from the hills east of Milpitas and San José across the val ley to Los Altos and Palo Alto. With the introduction of the electric water pump in the early 20 th century, irrigation water from the plentiful ground-water supply became readily available on farms, increasing productivity.

The Santa Clara Valley became widely known for the production of high-quality orchard fruits, which were shipped across the United States.

Dams were constructed on major streams to store irrigation water and control flooding. As groundwater was rapidly pumped from a depth of several hundred feet, subsurface materials compacted which led to land subsidence. Subsidence damaged pipes and other in-ground structures, and levees were required to block tidewater from entering subsided land. The benefit of this control of streams and pumping of groundwater was a valley relatively free from flooding and high groundwater, an ideal condition for the rapid urban expansion that followed.

After World War II, urban growth in the San Francisco Bay area began to expand down to the south end of the bay and into the Santa Clara Valley. After 1950, the pace of development quickened, and subdivisions began to spring up. The first wave of development occurred on the soils along the El Camino Real corridor, where the alluvial fans were relatively level, with slopes of 2 percent or less. Development exploded in the 1960s and topsoil was moved to house lots from the street areas. This type of subdivisi on construction continued until about 1980, when more shaping of house lots to control drainage began. By 1980, home construction had started to slow because many of the level areas fit for construction were now already developed.

164
CC 10-01-2024
164 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 37 After 1980, subdivision development moved up areas of alluvial fans and greater slopes, and lot -shaping became more common. After 1990, development moved into steep areas at the edge of the valley and the foothills. Soil disturbance can be severe in these areas, with more than 5 feet of cuts or fills.

Fills may consist of materials from several feet below the soil surface, have a high content of clay or fragments, and be low in organic matter and fertility. Cut areas may have subsoil materials at the surface, which also may have a high content of clay or fragments and be low in organic matter and fertility. Many residents have modified the soil surface texture in garden areas with sandy materials and mulches. In areas of the basin soils (Hangerone, Clear Lake, and Embarcadero), clay surface and subsurfac e textures and slow internal drainage due to a high clay content are problems for gardens, ornamental plants, and lawns. 9F9F
10 5.4.3 Climate
Table 9 summarizes normal climate date from 1981 through 2022 at the National Climatic Data Center weather station at San José. The Mediterranean climate of the OA remains temperate year -round due to the area’s geography and its proximity to the Pacific Ocean. The area is warm and dry much of the year.

Rarely is the humidity uncomfortable, and the thermometer seldom drops below freezing. Rain is generally limited to winter and snow to the tops of local mountains.

Table 9: Normal Precipitation and Temperatures in the Operational Area, 1981 –20221 0F10F 11 Months Mean Precipitation
(inches)
Minimum
Temperature (°F)
Maximum
Temperature (°F)
January 2.65 32 68
February 2.56 35 74
March 2.28 38 79
April 0.91 41 87
May 0.41 46 91
June 0.10 50 97
July 0.01 53 95
August 0.02 54 96
September 0.16 51 95
October 0.66 45 90
November 1.55 37 77
December 2.35 32 68
Annual 13.39 30 100

10 United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). Supplement to the Soil Survey of Santa Clara. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/natural-resource-concerns/soil/soil-science 11 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.). Climate Data Online. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/ 165
CC 10-01-2024
165 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 38

5.5 Development Profile

5.5.1 Land Use
Table 10 shows current land use for unincorporated Santa Clara County; complete land use data was not available for municipalities in the OA. Land use information is analyzed in this plan for each identified hazard that has a defined spatial extent and location.

For hazards that lack this spatial reference, the information in the table serves as a baseline estimate of land use and exposure. The distribution of land uses for the unincorporated county will change over time.

Table 10: Unincorporated County Land Use
Type of Land Use Area (acres) Percentage of Total Area
Agricultural 33,355.5 5.53
General / Institutional 5,381.3 0.89
Open Space 548,603.4 90.88
Low Density Residential 15,988.7 2.65
High Density Residential 68.6 0.01
Commercial 161.8 0.03
Industrial 85.0 0.01
Total 603,644.5 100.00

5.5.2 Critical Facilities, Infrastructure, and Assets
Critical facilities and infrastructure are those that are essential to the health and welfare of the population.

These features become especially important after a hazard event. Critical facilities typically include public safety stations, schools, department operation centers, and emergency operations centers. Critical infrastructure can include the roads and bridges that provide ingress and egress and allow emergency vehicles access to those in need, and the utilities that provide water, electricity, and communication services to the community. Critical facilities identified in this plan were selected, mapped, and included in geographic information system (GIS) databases based on information provided through the Working Group meetings, stakeholder information requests, and the 2018 State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Although many facilities and assets of the Santa Clara County OA are important to the quality of life, this plan focuses on those whose loss would result in the greatest impacts on life and safety in the event of a natural hazard. As defined for this hazard mitigation plan update, critical facilities are:

Structures or other improvements, public or private, that, because of function, size, service area, or uniqueness, have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, extensive property damage, or disruption of vital socioeconomic activities if it is destroyed or damaged or if its functionality is impaired. Critical facilities may include but are not limited to health and 166
CC 10-01-2024
166 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 39 safety facilities, utilities, government facilities, hazardous materials facilities, or vital community economic facilities. 11F11F 12 All critical facilities and infrastructure were analyzed in Hazus to help rank risk and identify mitigation actions. The risk assessment for each hazard qualitatively discusses critical facilities with regard to that hazard. Table 11 summarizes the general types of critical facilities and infrastructure by local jurisdiction.

Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the locations of critical facilities and infrastructure in the OA. Due to the sensitivity of this information, a detailed list of facilities is not provided. The list is on file with Santa Clara County OEM.

Table 11: Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in the Operational Area Jurisdiction Essential
Facilities Transportation Utilities Hazardous
Materials
Community
Assets Jurisdiction
Campbell 21 23 0 6 7 93
Cupertino 26 26 2 5 16 95
Gilroy 25 34 2 7 13 118
Los Altos 22 8 0 0 11 73
Los Altos Hills 6 21 0 0 2 55
Los Gatos 20 35 0 1 6 79
Milpitas 32 66 1 60 19 178
Monte Sereno 1 1 0 0 1 5
Morgan Hill 22 14 1 8 10 69
Mountain View 37 52 1 20 29 174
Palo Alto 49 42 4 26 46 207
San José 370 498 18 135 191 1,479
Santa Clara
(city)
53 63 9 103 36 295
Saratoga 18 32 0 0 11 70
Sunnyvale 40 49 3 51 27 232
Unincorporated
County
38 187 17 4 48 327
Total 777 1151 58 426 473 3,549

12 Organization of American States. (n.d.). Critical Facilities Mapping. https://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea66e/ch07.htm 167
CC 10-01-2024
167 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 40

Figure 11: Critical Facilities in the Operational Area
168
CC 10-01-2024
168 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 41

Figure 12: Critical Infrastructure in the Operational Area

5.5.3 Future Trends in Development
An understanding of population and development trends can assist in planning for future development and ensuring that appropriate mitigation, planning, and preparedness measures are in place to protect human health and community infrastructure. The DMA requires that communities consider land use trends, which can alter the need for, and priority of, mitigation options over time. Land use and development trends significantly affect exposure and vulnerability to various hazards. For example, significant development in a hazard area increases the building stock and population exposed to that hazard. New development that has occurred in the last five years within the OA and potential future development in the next five years, as identified by each jurisdiction, is addressed in the planning partner annexes located in Volume 2 of this plan.
169
CC 10-01-2024
169 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 42 The municipal planning partners have adopted general plans that govern land use decision and policy making for their jurisdictions. Decisions on land use will be governed by these programs. This plan will work together with these programs to support wise land use in the future by providing vital information on the risk associated with natural hazards in the OA. Incorporating information from the hazard mitigation into the general plan as the plans are updated will ensure that future development will be esta blished with the benefits of the information on risk and vulnerability to natural hazards identified in this plan.

5.6 Demographics
Some populations are at greater risk from hazard events because of decreased resources or physical abilities. Those who are older, for example, may be more likely to require additional assistance. Research has shown that people living near or below the poverty line, those who are older, women, children, those who are racial and/or ethnic minorities, renters, individuals with disabilities, and others with access and functional needs, may all experience more severe impacts from disasters than the general popu lation.

These more vulnerable populations may vary from the general population in risk perception, living conditions, access to information before, during, and after a hazard event, capabilities during an event, and access to resources for post-disaster recovery. Indicators of vulnerability—such as disability, age, poverty, and minority race and ethnicity—often overlap spatially and often in the geographically most vulnerable locations. Detailed spatial analysis to locate areas where there are higher concen trations of more vulnerable community members helps to extend focused public outreach and education and resources to these most vulnerable residents.

5.6.1 Population
Resident Population
Information about population is a critical part of planning because it directly relates to land needs such as housing, industry, stores, public facilities and services, and transportation. The 2020 U.S. Census estimated the OA’s population at 1,936,259. 12F12F
13 Population changes are useful socio-economic indicators. A growing population generally indicates a growing economy, while a decreasing population signifies economic decline. In this case, population estimates are assumed to be influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, rising cost of living including housing, and decline in foreign immigration due to change in federal policy. Since 2011, California has experienced an increased number of people moving out of the State in a year than into it. The OA is no exception. Table 12 shows the population in the OA from 2000 to 2022 according to the California Finance Department.

Table 12: Recent Population Data 13F13F
14 Jurisdiction
Population
2000 2005 2010 2015 2022
City of Campbell 38,138 37,406 39,349 41,986 42,833

13 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Quick Facts: Santa Clara County. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/santaclaracountycalifornia 14 State of California Department of Finance. (2021, December). E-2 California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/e-2-california-county-population- estimates-and-components-of-change-by-
year/#:~:text=California%E2%80%99s%20population%20declined%20by%20173%2C000%20persons%20between %20July,estimates%20released%20today%20by%20the%20Department%20of%20Finance. 170
CC 10-01-2024
170 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 43 Jurisdiction
Population
2000 2005 2010 2015 2022
City of Cupertino 50,546 53,632 58,302 58,038 59,610
City of Gilroy 41,464 45,782 48,821 54,324 59,269
City of Los Altos 27,693 27,381 28,976 30,513 31,526
Town of Los Altos Hills 7,902 7,852 7,922 8,595 8,400
Town of Los Gatos 28,592 28,070 29,413 31,157 33,062
City of Milpitas 62,698 62,177 66,790 74,140 80,839
City of Monte Sereno 3,483 3,324 3,341 3,445 3,488
City of Morgan Hill 33,556 35,011 37,822 42,382 46,451
City of Mountain View 70,708 70,629 74,066 76,712 83,864 City of Palo Alto 58,598 60,723 64,403 67,331 67,473
City of San José 894,943 901,159 945,942 1,030,053 976,482 City of Santa Clara 102,361 107,058 116,468 121,580 130,127 City of Saratoga 29,843 29,630 29,926 30,060 30,667
City of Sunnyvale 131,760 131,853 140,081 146,629 156,234 Unincorporated County 100,300 96,547 90,020 87,029 84,458 Total 1,682,585 1,698,234 1,781,642 1,903,974 1,894,783 Daily Commuting Population
According to the California Employment Development Department, Santa Clara County is the single largest commuter destination in Submarket C of the San Francisco Bay Area Economic Market, holding and/or importing 1,009,391 commuters daily. 14F1 4F
15 This large commuter contingent has impacts on planning for the OA’s infrastructure and service needs, as well as on planning for hazard mitigation and emergency management. Commuters may be familiar with the area immediately surrounding their place of business or regular route to work but may be less familiar with the services and resources provided to the population during a disaster event.

The U.S. Census estimates that over 66.8 percent of workers in the OA commute alone (by car, truck, or van) to work, and mean travel time to work is 24 minutes. The state average is 28 minutes. 1 5F15F 16 5.6.2 Age Distribution
As a group, the adults who are older are more apt to lack the physical and economic resources necessary for response and resiliency for hazard events and are more likely to suffer health -related consequences making recovery slower. They are more likely to be vision, hearing, and/or mobility impaired, and more likely to experience mental impairment or dementia. Additionally, adults who are older are more likely to live in assisted- living facilities where emergency preparedness occurs at the discretion of fa cility operators. These facilities are typically identified as “critical facilities” by emergency managers because

15 California Employment Development Department. (2020, August 28). WIOA Regional Planning Units. https://edd.ca.gov/siteassets/files/Jobs_and_Training/pubs/wsd20-01.pdf 16 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Quick Facts: Santa Clara County; California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santaclaracountycalifornia,CA/LFE305221 171
CC 10-01-2024
171 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 44 they require extra notice to implement evacuation. Residents who are older and living in their own homes may have more difficulty evacuating and could be stranded in dangerous situations. This population group is more likely to need special medical attention, which may not be readily available during natural disasters due to isolation caused by the event. Specific planning attention for the those who are older is an important consideration given the current trend of aging of the American population.

Children under 18 are particularly vulnerable to disaster events as well because of their young age and dependence on others for basic necessities. Children often experience increased physical and health challenges as well as issues learning after a disaster event. Additionally, very young children may be vulnerable to injury or sickness; this added vulnerability can be worsened during a natural disaster because they may not understand the measures that need to be taken to protect themselves from hazards. The unique needs of children are important to factor into disaster response and recovery efforts as well as when calculating the benefit and costs of mitigation alternatives. 1 6F16F 17 The overall age distribution for the OA is illustrated in Figure 13. Based on U.S. Census 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate, the mean age in the OA is 48.2 compared to California ’s mean age of 37.6 years. Additionally, 14.5 percent of the OA’s population is 65 or older, compared to the state estimate of 15.2 percent. An estimated 21.2 percent of the OA population is 18 or younger, compared to the state estimate of 22.4 percent.

Figure 13: Overall Age Distribution in the Operational Area 17F1 7F 18 17 Society for Research in Child Development. (2020, August 13). Understanding the Impacts of Natural Disasters on Children. https://www.srcd.org/research/understanding-impacts-natural-disasters- children#:~:text=Every%20year%2C%20175%20million%20children%20globally%20are%20expected,communities% 20better%20prepare%20for%20and%20respond%20to%20disasters. 18 United States Census Bureau. (2021). American Community Survey, Age and Sex Santa Clara County, California. https://data.census.gov/table?q=Age+in+Santa+Clara+County+2021&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0101 172
CC 10-01-2024
172 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 45

5.6.3 Race, Ethnicity, and Language
Research shows that racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to be involved in pre-disaster planning and experience higher mortality rates during a disaster event. Post-disaster recovery can be ineffective and is often characterized by cultural insensitivity. Since higher proportions of ethnic minorities live below the poverty line than the majority white population, poverty can compound vulnerability. According to the 2020 U.S. Census, the racial composition of the OA is predominantly Asian, at about 39 percent. The next most common race is White, at 32 percent. The racial distribution in the OA is shown below.

The OA has a 40.3 percent foreign-born population. Other than English, the most commonly spoken languages in the OA are Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog, followed by Spanish. 18F18F 19 Figure 14: Race Distribution in the Operational Area 19F19F 20 5.6.4 Education
Understanding educational attainment of the population is important when developing appropriate outreach and educational materials. The U.S. Census estimates that 28 percent of the population OA 25 years and older has attained a bachelor’s degree, and 27 percent a graduate or professional degree.

Seventy-six percent of the population has attended college for some period, and 10 percent have not achieved a high school or equivalent degree. 20F20F
21 19 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Santa Clara County, California. https://data.census.gov/profile?g=050XX00US06085
20 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Santa Clara County, California. https://data.census.gov/profile?g=050XX00US06085
21 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Santa Clara County, California. https://data.census.gov/profile?g=050XX00US06085
173
CC 10-01-2024
173 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 46

5.6.5 Individuals with Disabilities or with Access or Functional Needs The U.S. Census estimates that over 42 million non-institutionalized people with disabilities live in the U.S. Individuals with disabilities are more likely to have difficulty with resilience and responding to a hazard event than the general population. 21F21F
22 Local government may be the first level of response to assist these individuals, and coordination of efforts to meet their access and functional needs is paramount to life safety efforts. It is important for emergency and incident managers to distinguish between functional and medical needs in order to plan for incidents that require evacuation and sheltering. Knowing the percentage of population with a disability will allow emergency management personnel and first responders to have personnel available who can provide services needed by those with access and functional needs.

According to the U.S. Census 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 169,467, or 9 percent, of individuals have some form of disability in the OA. 22F22F 23 5.6.6. Social Vulnerability
The Social Vulnerability Index provides a visual representation of the potential negative effects on communities that natural hazards or other external stresses on human health. The index is based on 16 variables from the U.S. Census to indicate areas that may need additional support before, during or after disasters. These indices include measures of socioeconomic status, household characteristics, racial and ethnic minority status, and housing type and transportation. The overall social vulnerability for Santa Clara County is shown in Figure 14. A summary of the four categories of indices that contribute to the overall index is shown in Figure 15. The darker toned colors indicate areas with potentially higher vulnerability.

22 United States Census Bureau. (2020). United States. https://data.census.gov/profile/United_States?g=010XX00US 23 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Santa Clara County, California. https://data.census.gov/profile?g=050XX00US06085
174
CC 10-01-2024
174 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 47

Figure 15: Santa Clara County Social Vulnerability Index 175
CC 10-01-2024
175 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 48

Figure 16: Social Vulnerability Index Themes
176
CC 10-01-2024
176 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 49

5.7 Economy

5.7.1 Income
In the United States, individual households are expected to use private resources to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters to some extent. This means economically disadvantaged households are automatically disadvantaged when confronting hazards. Additionally, those who are economically disadvantaged typically occupy more poorly built and inadequately maintained housing. Mobile or modular homes, for example, are more susceptible to damage in earthquakes and floods than other types of housing. In urban areas, those who are economically disadvantaged often live in older houses and apartment complexes, which are more likely to be made of un-reinforced masonry, a building type that is particularly susceptible to damage during earthquakes. Furthermore, those who are economically disadvantaged are less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses incurred from natural disasters.

This means they may have a great deal to lose during an event and may be the least prepared to deal with potential losses. The events following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 illustrated that personal household economics significantly impact people’s decisions on evacuation. Individuals who cannot afford gas for their cars will likely decide not to evacuate.

A living wage calculator developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates the hourly living wage needed to support different types of families. The calculator takes into consideration basic needs such as health, housing, transportation, and other necessities and interprets the living wage as a geographically specific hourly rate required to acquire basic minimum necessities cost. Table 13 presents summary information from the living wage calculator for 2022. Each hourly rate is adjusted per each working adult.

Table 13: Hourly Living Wage Calculation for Santa Clara County, California (2022) 2 3F23F 24 Wage Level One Adult One Adult + Two
Children Two Adults Two Adults + One Child
Living Wage $26.86 $68.69 $38.42 $46.79
Poverty Wage $6.53 $11.07 $8.80 $11.07
Minimum Wage $15.50 $15.50 $15.50 $15.50

Based on 2022 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the median household income in Santa Clara County was $141,562. It is estimated that about 16 percent of households receive an income between $100,000 and $149,999 per year and over 47 percent of household incomes are above $150,000 annually. About 9 percent of the households in the OA make less than $25,000 per year. The poverty threshold for a family of four in 2022 was $30,186; for a family of three, $22,892; for a family of two under 65 years, $19,597 and for unrelated individuals under 65 years, $15,225. 24F24F 25 The 2015 living wage calculations cited in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan were notably different than the current estimates. For example, the living wage for one adult was $14.52 and $11.30 for two adults.

When incomes do not match the cost-of-living increase, households may be forced to reduce household on nonessential items. Hazard mitigation measures, such as flood insurance and voluntary structural retrofitting, are not usually considered essential despite their demonstrated long-term cost effectiveness.

24 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2023). Living Wage Calculator, Santa Clara County. https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06085
25 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Santa Clara County, California. https://data.census.gov/profile?g=050XX00US06085
177
CC 10-01-2024
177 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 50

5.8 Industry, Businesses, and Institutions
The county’s economy is strongly based in the professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services industry, followed by educational services and health care and social assistance, manufacturing, and retail trade. Figure 16 shows the breakdown of industry types in the OA. Santa Clara County is part of one of the state’s busiest urbans areas.

The OA benefits from a variety of business activity. Major businesses include Apple, Inc, Alphabet Inc. (Google), Netflix, Roku, Inc. Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, eBay Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Applied Materials Inc., Flextronics International, Intel Corp, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Liberty Tax Service, Lockheed Martin Space Systems, NASA, Phillips Lumileds Lighting Company, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, and many others.

Major educational and research institutions in the OA include Stanford University, San José State University, Santa Clara University, Mission College, De Anza College, Foothill College, West Valley College, Mission College, Evergreen Valley College, San José City College, and Gavilan College.

Figure 17: Industry in Santa Clara County

5.8.1 Employment Trends and Occupations
According to the Census Bureau, 66.6 percent of the Santa Clara County population 16 years and over is in the labor force. Management, business, science, and arts occupations make up 59 percent of jobs in the County. Other major occupations include sales and office (15 percent) and service (13 percent).

Multiple major employers in California are located in Santa Clara County, including Apple, Cisco Systems, Advanced Micro Devices Inc, Amazon, Apple, Applied Materials Inc, California ’s Great America, Cisco 178
CC 10-01-2024
178 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 51 Systems, Intel Corp, Intuit, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Alphabet Inc. (Google), and Nvidia Corp., and Yahoo. The largest of these are Applied Materials Inc, Apple, Cisco Systems, Intel Inc, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Google, and Yahoo each with 10,000 or more employees. The others employ between 1,000- 4,999 employees. 25F2 5F
26 Figure 18: Occupations in Santa Clara County
The figure below compares the California and the Santa Clara County unemployment trends from 2017 to 2021. According to the State of California’s Employment Development Department, the Santa Clara County unemployment rate was trending downward prior to 2020 when it spiked upward, likely in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic. By 2021, the unemployment rates started to fall again. They continued to fal l below pre-pandemic estimates in 2022. Overall, Santa Clara County experienced less unemployment than the rest of the State throughout this time period. 26F26F 27 26 United States Census Bureau. (2021). American Community Survey, Selected Economic Characteristics Santa Clara County, California.
https://data.census.gov/table?q=employment+in+Santa+Clara+County,+California&tid=ACSDP1Y2021.DP03 27 State of California Employment Development Department. (2023). Economic Development Data Library. https://data.edd.ca.gov/
179
CC 10-01-2024
179 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 52

Figure 19: California and Santa Clara County Unemployment Rate 2 7F27F 28 5.9 Laws and Ordinances
Existing laws, ordinances, and plans at the federal, state, and local level can support or impact hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required to include a review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as part of the planning process (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). The following federal and state programs have been identified as programs that may interface with the actions identified in this plan. Each progr am enhances capabilities to implement mitigation actions or has a nexus with a mitigation action in this plan.

Information presented in this section can be used in addition to local capabilities to implement the actions found in the jurisdictional and special district annexes of Volume 2 of this plan. Each planning partner has individually reviewed existing local plans, studies, reports, and technical information in its jurisdictional or special district annexes, presented in Volume 2 of this plan.

5.9.1 Federal
Stafford Act
The Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (“Stafford Act”) is the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities for FEMA and FEMA programs. The Stafford Act initially provided limited resources mitigation and pre-disaster community resilience. It did include the Pres- Disaster Hazard Mitigation (PDM) program however, funding was often ad hoc and historically much less than traditional disaster spending. Subsequent legislation has since amended the Stafford Act, opening the doors to additional mitigation opportunity.

28 State of California Employment Development Department. (2023). Economic Development Data Library. https://data.edd.ca.gov/
180
CC 10-01-2024
180 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 53 Disaster Mitigation Act
The DMA is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. It emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. It specifically addresses planning at the local level, requiring plans to be in place before certain hazard mitigation funds are available to communities. This plan is designed to meet the requirements of DMA, improving eligibility for future hazard mitigation funds.

Disaster Recovery Reform Act
The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 amended the Stafford Act and provided 56 provisions for FEMA policy or regulation changes. Crucially, the Act set aside 6 percent of the total aid amount awarded in the previous year for pre-disaster mitigation. FEMA estimates this mean $300-500 million dollars will be available for mitigation annually. 28F28F
29 This creates a much more consistent, reliable stream of pre-disaster mitigation dollars than ever seen before. Additionally, the Act expanded language for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to include an increased focused on resilience and reducin g future damage in the post-disaster environment which may encourage proactive mitigation measures. It also provided states, tribes, and local jurisdictions with additional authority to use FEMA funding to rebuild to the latest building codes to reduce future risk to the Nation.

National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposal actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions, alongside technical and economic considerations. NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), whose regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) set standards for NEPA compliance. Consideration and decision- making regarding environmental impacts must be documented in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. Environmental impact assessment requires the evaluation of reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, solicitation of input from organizations and individuals that could be affected, and an unbiased presentation of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.

Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 to conserve species facing depletion or extinction and the ecosystems that support them. The act sets forth a process for determining which species are threatened and endangered and requires the conservation of the critical habitat in which those species live. The ESA provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed species and contains exceptions and exemptions.

It is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA and the Convention.

29 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2020). Hazard Mitigation Assistance. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/IN11187.pdf
181
CC 10-01-2024
181 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 54 Federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and use their authorities in furtherance of the ESA’s purposes. The ESA defines three fundamental terms:29F2 9F 30  Endangered means that a species of fish, animal or plant is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” (For salmon and other vertebrate species, this may include subspecies and distinct population segments.)
 Threatened means that a species “is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” Regulations may be less restrictive for threatened species than for endangered species.  Critical habitat means “specific geographical areas that are…essential for the conservation and management of a listed species, whether occupied by the species or not.”

Five sections of the ESA are of critical importance to understanding it:
 Section 4: Listing of a Species—The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service is responsible for listing marine species; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for listing terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species. The agencies may initiate reviews for listings, or citizens may petition for them. A listing must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” After a listing has been proposed, agencies receive comment and conduct further scientific reviews for 12 to 18 months, after which they must decide if the listing is warranted. Economic impacts cannot be considered in this decision, but it may include an evaluation of the adequacy of local and state protections. Critical habi tat for the species may be designated at the time of listing.
 Section 7: Consultation—Federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or proposed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. This includes private and public actions that require a federal permit. Once a final listing is made, non-federal actions are subject to the same review, termed a “consultation.” If the listing agency finds that an action will “take” a species, it must propose mitigations or “reasonable and prudent” alternatives to the action; if the proponent rejects these, the action cannot proceed.
 Section 9: Prohibition of Take—It is unlawful to “take” an endangered species, including killing or injuring it or modifying its habitat in a way that interferes with essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
 Section 10: Permitted Take—Through voluntary agreements with the federal government that provide protections to an endangered species, a non-federal applicant may commit a take that would otherwise be prohibited as long as it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity (such as developing land or building a road). These agreements often take the form of a “Habitat Conservation Plan.”
 Section 11: Citizen Lawsuits—Civil actions initiated by any citizen can require the listing agency to enforce the ESA’s prohibition of taking or to meet the requirements of the consultation process.

FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts.

Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.

30 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.). Glossary: Endangered Species Act. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/laws-and-policies/glossary-endangered-species- act#:~:text=A%20threatened%20species%20is%20defined%20under%20the%20ESA,threatened%20or%20endange red%20are%20called%20%E2%80%9C%20listed%20species.%E2%80%9D 182
CC 10-01-2024
182 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 55 The Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s surface waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.”

Evolution of CWA programs over the last decade has included a shift from a program -by-program, source-by-source, and pollutant-by-pollutant approach to more holistic watershed-based strategies.

Under the watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. A full array of issues is addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority.

Involvement of stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining water quality and other environmental goals is a hallmark of this approach.

FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts.

Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.

National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides federally backed flood insurance in exchange for communities enacting floodplain regulations. Participation and good standing under NFIP are prerequisites to grant funding eligibility under the Robert T. Stafford Act. Santa Clara County and all of the partner cities for this plan participate in the NFIP and have adopted regulations that meet the NFIP requirements. At the time of the preparation of this plan, all participating jurisdictions in the partners hip were in good standing and in full compliance with the minimum requirements of the NFIP.

Community Rating System
The Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary incentive program for communities that participate in the NFIP and adopt and enforce floodplain management practices that exceed minimum requirements.

Flood insurance premium discounts reflect the ways in which the community meets the following goals of the program:
 Reduce and avoid flood damage to insurable property.
 Strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the National Flood Insurance Program.  Foster comprehensive floodplain management.

Participating in the CRS program not only encourages communities to reduce the risk to life and property from flooding through a proactive floodplain management program, but provides a clear, monetary incentive for residents for supporting mitigation activities. Many planning partners participate in the CRS.

Many planning partners participate in the CRS. The planning partners discussed using this plan to meet CRS requirements as well. Ultimately, it was decided that Santa Clara Valley Water will lead the development of a separate Floodplain Management Plan specifically dedicated towards this goal, allowing planning partners that participate in the CRS program to maintain or enhance their CRS classifications. Relevant information from this Hazard Mitigation Plan will be incorporated into the Floodplain Management Plan.

Coastal Zone Management Act
The national Coastal Zone Management Act requires federal agencies to conduct their planning, management, development, and regulatory activities in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the policies of state Coastal Zone Management (CZM) programs. State CZM lead agencies have the authority to review federal actions for consistency with their federally approved CZM programs.
183
CC 10-01-2024
183 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 56 In California, the California Coastal Commission, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the California Coastal Conservancy are the three CZM agencies empowered to conduct federal consistency reviews. The informational and procedural requirements for CZM federal consistency reviews are prescribed by federal regulations (15 CFR 930). Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.

National Incident Management System
The National Incident Management System is a systematic approach for government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together to manage incidents involving hazards. The system provides a flexible but standardized set of incident management practices. Incidents typically begin and end locally, and they are managed at the lowest possible geographical, organizational, and jurisdictional level. In other instances, success depends on the involvement of multiple jurisdictions, levels of government, functional agencies, and emergency-responder disciplines. These instances necessitate coordination across this spectrum of organizations. Communities using the National Incident Management System follow a comprehensive national approach that improves the effectiveness of emergency management and response personnel across the full spectrum of potential hazards (including natural hazards, terrorist activities, and other human-caused disasters) regardless of size or complexity.

Although participation is voluntary, federal departments and agencies are required to make adoption of NIMS by local and state jurisdictions a condition to receive federal preparedness grants and awards. The content of this plan is considered to be a viable support tool for any phase of emergency management.

The NIMS program is considered as a response function, and information in this hazard mitigation plan can support the implementation and update of all NIMS-compliant plans within the planning area.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Amendments
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeks to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and government activities. The most recent amendments became effective in January 2009 (P.L. 110-325). Title II of the ADA deals with compliance with the act in emergency management and disaster-related programs, services, and activities. It applies to state and local governments as well as third parties, including religious entities and private nonprofit organizations.

The ADA has implications for sheltering requirements and public notifications. During an emergency alert, officials must use a combination of warning methods to ensure that all residents have any necessary information. Those with hearing impairments may not hear radio, television, sirens, or other audible alerts, while those with visual impairments may not see flashing lights or visual alerts. Two stand -alone technical documents have been issued for shelter operators to meet the needs of people with disabil ities. These documents address physical accessibility as well as medical needs and service animals.

The ADA also intersects with disaster preparedness programs in regard to transportation, social services, temporary housing, and rebuilding. Persons with disabilities may require additional assistance in evacuation and transit (such as vehicles with wheelchair lifts or paratransit buses). Evacuation and other response plans should address the unique needs of residents. Local governments may be interested in implementing a special-needs registry to identify the home addresses, contact information, and needs for residents who may require more assistance.

FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts.

Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.

Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and requires equal access to public places and employment. The act is relevant to emergency management and hazard mitigation in that it prohibits local governments from favoring the needs of one population group over another.
184
CC 10-01-2024
184 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 57 Local government and emergency response must ensure the continued safety and well -being of all residents equally, to the extent possible. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.

Rural Development Program
The mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Program is to help improve the economy and quality of life in rural America. The program provides project financing and technical assistance to help rural communities provide the infrastructure needed by rural businesses, community facilities, and households. The program addresses rural America’s need for basic services, such as clean running water, sewage and waste disposal, electricity, and modern telecommunications and broadband. Loans and competitive grants are offered for various community and economic development projects and programs, such as the development of essential community facilities including fire stations. Some of the actions identified in this plan may be eligible for funding available under this program.

Community Development Block Grant Disaster Resilience Program In response to disasters, Congress may appropriate additional funding for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant programs to be distributed as Disaster Recovery grants (CDBG-DR). These grants can be used to rebuild affected areas and provide seed money to start the recovery process. CDBG-DR assistance may fund a broad range of recovery activities, helping communities and neighborhoods that otherwise might not recover due to limited resources. CDBG-DR grants often supplement disaster programs of FEMA, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Housing and Urban Development generally awards noncompetitive, nonrecurring CDBG-DR grants by a formula that considers disaster recovery needs unmet by other federal disaster assistance programs. To be eligible for CDBG -DR funds, projects must meet the following criteria:
 Address a disaster-related impact (direct or indirect) in a presidentially declared county for the covered disaster.
 Be a CDBG-eligible activity (according to regulations and waivers).  Meet a national objective.

Incorporating preparedness and mitigation into these actions is encouraged, as the goal is to rebuild in ways that are safer and stronger. CDGB-DR funding is a potential alternative source of funding for actions identified in this plan.

Community Development Block Grant Mitigation
The Community Development Block Grant Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) program was developed to support communities impacted by recent disasters in carrying out strategic and high-impact mitigation actions to reduce losses from future events. Congress may appropriate additional CDBG-MIT funding for the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development following a disaster event. The goals of CDBG -MIT funding are:
 Support data-informed investments, focusing on repetitive loss of property and critical infrastructure;
 Build capacity to comprehensively analyze disaster risks and update hazard mitigation plans;  Support the adoption of policies that reflect local and regional priorities that will have long -lasting effects on community risk reduction, including risk reduction to community lifelines and decreasing future disaster costs; and
185
CC 10-01-2024
185 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 58  Maximize the impact of funds of encouraging leverage, private/public partnerships, and coordination with other federal dollars.

This would be a potential post-disaster financial capability of jurisdictions covered in this plan which could be put towards implementing the identified mitigation actions.

Emergency Watershed Program
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service administers the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, which responds to emergencies created by natural disasters. Eligibility for assistance is not dependent on a national emergency declaration. The program is designed to help people and conserve natural resources by relieving imminent hazards to life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural occurrences. The Emergency Watershed Protection is an emergency recovery program.

Financial and technical assistance are available for the following activities: 30F30F 31  Remove debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges.  Reshape and protect eroded banks.
 Correct damaged drainage facilities.
 Establish cover on critically eroding lands.
 Repair levees and structures.
 Repair conservation practices.

This federal program could be a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan.

Presidential Executive Orders 11988 and 13690
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short -term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. It requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and benefici al values of floodplains. The requirements apply to the following activities 3 1F31F 32:
 Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities.  Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements.  Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing.

Executive Order 13690 expands Executive Order 11988 and acknowledges that the impacts of flooding are anticipated to increase over time due to the effects of climate change and other threats. It mandates a federal flood risk management standard to increase resilience against flooding and help preserve the natural values of floodplains. This standard expands management of flood issues from the current base flood level to a higher vertical elevation and corresponding horizontal floodplain when federal dollars are involved in a project.

31 National Resources Conservation Service. (n.d.). Emergency Watershed Protection. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/ewp-emergency-watershed-protection/kentucky/emergency- watershed-protection
32 Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2015, October 8). Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_implementing-guidelines-EO11988-13690_10082015.pdf 186
CC 10-01-2024
186 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 59 The goal is to address current and future flood risk and ensure that projects funded with taxpayer dollars last as long as intended. 32F3 2F
33 All actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with all applicable presidential executive orders.

Presidential Executive Order 11990
Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. The requirements apply to the following activities: 3 3F33F 34  Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities.  Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements.  Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing.

All actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with all applicable presidential executive orders.

Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program
The U.S. Forest Service’s Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program was established to assist federal agencies with repair or reconstruction of tribal transportation facilities, federal lands transportation facilities, and other federally owned roads that are open to pub lic travel and have suffered serious damage by a natural disaster over a wide area or by a catastrophic failure. The program funds both emergency and permanent repairs. 34F34F
35 Eligible activities under this program meet some of the goals and objectives for this plan and the program is a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Programs
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has several civil works authorities and programs related to flood risk and flood hazard management:
 Floodplain Management Services are 100-percent federally funded technical services such as development and interpretation of site-specific data related to the extent, duration, and frequency of flooding. Special studies may be conducted to help a community understand and respond to flood risk. These may include flood hazard evaluation, flood warning and preparedness, or flood modeling.
 For more extensive studies, the Corps of Engineers offers a cost-shared program called Planning Assistance to States and Tribes. Studies under this program generally range from $25,000 to $100,000, with the local jurisdiction providing 50 percent of the cost.  The Corps of Engineers has several cost-shared programs (typically 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal) aimed at developing, evaluating, and implementing structural and non- structural capital projects to address flood risks at specific locations or within a specific watershed:

33 Obama White House. (2015, January 30). Executive Order – Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/executive-order-establishing-federal-flood-risk- management-standard-and-
34 National Archives. (n.d.). § 9.4 Definitions. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-44/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part- 9/section-9.4
35 Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). Fact Sheets, Emergency Relief Program. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-
law/er_fact_sheet.cfm#:~:text=The%20BIL%20continues%20the%20Emergency%20Relief%20program%2C%20whi ch,disasters%20or%20catastrophic%20failure%20from%20an%20external%20cause. 187
CC 10-01-2024
187 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 60 ▪ The Continuing Authorities Program for smaller-scale projects includes Section 205 for Flood Control, with a $7 million federal limit and Section 14 for Emergency Streambank Protection with a $1.5 million federal limit. These can be implemented without specific authorization from Congress.
▪ Larger scale studies, referred to as General Investigations, and projects for flood risk management, for ecosystem restoration or to address other water resource issues, can be pursued through a specific authorization from Congress and are cost-shared, typically at 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal.
▪ Watershed Management planning studies can be specifically authorized and are cost-shared at 50 percent federal and 50 percent non-federal.
 The Corps of Engineers provides emergency response assistance during and following natural disasters. Public Law 84-99 enables the Corps to assist state and local authorities in flood fight activities and cost share in the repair of flood protective structures. Assistance afforded under PL 84-99 is broken down into the following categories:
▪ Preparedness: The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act establishes an emergency fund for preparedness for emergency response to natural disasters; for flood fighting and rescue operations; for rehabilitation of flood control and hurricane protection structures.

Funding for Corps of Engineers emergency response under this authority is provided by Congress through the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act. Disaster preparedness activities include coordination, planning, training and conduct of response exercises with local, state, and federal agencies.
▪ Response Activities: PL 84-99 allows the Corps of Engineers to supplement state and local entities in flood-fighting for urban and other non-agricultural areas under certain conditions (Engineering Regulation 500-1-1 provides specific details). All flood-fight efforts require a Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) signed by the public sponsor and a requirement for the sponsor to remove all flood-fight material after the flood has receded. PL 84-99 also authorizes emergency water support and drought assistance in certain situations and allows for “advance measures” assistance to prevent or reduce flood damage conditions of imminent threat of unusual flooding.
▪ Rehabilitation: Under PL 84-99, an eligible flood protection system can be rehabilitated if damaged by a flood event. The flood system would be restored to its pre-disaster status at no cost to the federal system owner, and at 20-percent cost to the eligible non-federal system owner. All systems eligible for PL 84-99 rehabilitation assistance have to be in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program prior to the flood event. Acceptable operation and maintenance by the public levee sponsor are verified by levee inspections conducted by the Corps on a regular basis. The Corps has the responsibility to coordinate levee repair issues with interested federal, state, and local agencies following natural disaster events where flood control works are damaged.

All of these authorities and programs are available to the planning partners to support any intersecting mitigation actions.

5.9.2 State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was enacted in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act’s main purpose is to prevent construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. Before a new project is permitted, cities and counties require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed on active faults. 188
CC 10-01-2024
188 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 61 The act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as liquefaction or seismically induced landslides. The law requires geologists from the State of California to establish regulatory zones around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. All seismic hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

California General Planning Law
California state law requires that every county and city prepare and adopt a comprehensive long -range plan to serve as a guide for community development. The general plan expresses the community ’s goals, visions, and policies relative to future land uses, both public and private. The general plan is mandated and prescribed by state law (Cal. Gov. Code §65300 et seq.) and forms the basis for most local government land use decision-making.

The plan must consist of an integrated and internally consistent set of goals, policies, and implementation measures. In addition, the plan must focus on issues of the greatest concern to the community and be written in a clear and concise manner. City and county actions, such as those relating to land use allocations, annexations, zoning, subdivision and design review, redevelopment, and capital improvements, must be consistent with the plan.

All municipal planning partners to this plan have general plans that are currently compliant with this law and have committed to integrating this mitigation plan with their general plans through provisions referenced below (AB-2140 and SB-379).

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970, shortly after the federal government enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA requires state and local agencies in California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of development projects. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local agency ’s decision- making process.

CEQA establishes a statewide environmental policy and mandates actions all state and local agencies must take to advance the policy. Jurisdictions conduct analysis of the project to determine if there are potentially significant environmental impacts, identify mitigation measures, and possible project alternatives by preparing environmental reports for projects that requires CEQA review. This environmental review is required before an agency takes action on any policy, program, or project.

Santa Clara County has sought exemption from CEQA for the Hazard Mitigation Plan based on four different sections of the CEQA Guidelines:
 Section 15183(d): “The project is consistent with…a general plan of a local agency, and an EIR was certified by the lead agency for the...general plan.”  Section 15262: “A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. This section does not apply to the adoption of a plan that will have a legally binding effect on later activities.”
 Section 15306: “(Categorical Exemption) Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These may be strictly for information gathering 189
CC 10-01-2024
189 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 62 purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded.”
 Section 15601(b)(3): “...CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”

Planning partners may seek exemption at their discretion.

California Coastal Management Program
The California Coastal Management Program under the California Coastal Act requires each city or county lying wholly or partly within the coastal zone to prepare a local coastal plan. The specific contents of such plans are not specified by state law, but they must be certified by the Coastal Commission as consistent with policies of the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code, Division 20). The Coastal Act has provisions relating to geologic hazards but does not mention tsunamis specifically. Section 30253(1) of the Coastal Act states that new development shall minimize risks to life and property i n areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. Development should be prevented or limited in high hazard areas whenever possible. However, where development cannot be prevented or limited, land use density, building value, and occupancy should be kept at a minimum.

There are identified coastal zones in the Santa Clara County Operational Area and affected planning partners have developed local coastal plans to address them. Any mitigation project identified in this plan that intersects the mapped coastal zone will be consistent with the recommendations of the local coastal plan.

California State Assembly Bills
Assembly Bill 162: Flood Planning, Chapter 369, Statutes of 2007 This California State Assembly Bill (AB) passed in 2007 requires cities and counties to address flood - related matters in the land use, conservation, and safety and housing elements of their general plans.

The land use element must identify and annually review the areas covered by the general plan that are subject to flooding as identified in floodplain mapping by either FEMA or the Department of Water Resources (DWR). During the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element of the general plan must identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitat, and land that may accommodate floodwater for groundwater recharge and stormwater management. The safety element must identify information regarding flood hazards, including:
 Flood hazard zones;
 Maps published by FEMA, DWR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Central Valley Flood.

Protection Board, and CalOES;
 Historical data on flooding; and
 Existing and planned development in flood hazard zones.

The general plan must establish goals, policies, and objectives to protect from unreasonable flooding risks, including:
 Avoiding or minimizing the risks of flooding new development;  Evaluating whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones; and  Identifying construction methods to minimize damage.
190
CC 10-01-2024
190 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 63 Assembly Bill 2140: General Plans—Safety Element, Chapter 739, Statutes of 2006 This bill allows jurisdictions to be eligible for state funding to cover the local match of public assistance costs for recovery activities after hazard events if the local jurisdiction incorporates their Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into the safety element of their general plan. In addition, this bill requires Cal OES to give preference for federal mitigation funding to cities and counties that have adopted local hazard mitigation plans. The intent of the bill is to encourage cities and counties to create and adopt hazard mitigation plans.

The County OEM has worked with the safety element team throughout 2022 and 2023 in updating the Safety Element, to ensure the County is maximizing their future funding opportunities to reduce risk in the County and comply with Assembly Bill 2140 (2006), which affords the county additional benefits under the California Disaster Assistance Act. The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be incorporated into the Safety Element as the Safety Element update comes to a completion and is pre sented to the Board of Supervisors for Adoption.

Assembly Bill 70: Flood Liability, Chapter Number 367, Statutes of 2007 This bill provides that a city or county may be required to contribute a fair and reasonable share to compensate for property damage caused by a flood to the extent that it has increased the state ’s exposure to liability for property damage by unreasonably approving new development in a previously undeveloped area that is protected by a state flood control project, unless the city or county meets specified requirements.

Assembly Bill 32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act This bill addresses greenhouse gas emissions. It identifies the following potential adverse impacts of global warming:

the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.

AB 32 establishes a state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 25 percent from forecast emission levels), with further reductions to follow. The law requires the state Air Resources Board to do the following: 35F35F 36  Establish a program to track and report greenhouse gas emissions.  Approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost -effective reductions from sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
 Adopt early reduction measures to begin moving forward.  Adopt, implement, and enforce regulations—including market mechanisms such as “cap and- trade” programs—to ensure that the required reductions occur.

The Air Resources Board recently adopted a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit and an emissions inventory, along with requirements to measure, track, and report greenhouse gas emissions by the industries it determined to be significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

36 California Air Resources Board. (2018, September 28). AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ab-32-global-warming-solutions-act-2006 191
CC 10-01-2024
191 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 64 Assembly Bill 2800: Climate Change: Infrastructure Planning This California State Assembly bill, in effect through July 1, 2020, requires state agencies to consider the current and future impacts of climate change when planning, designing, building, operating, maintaining, and investing in state infrastructure. The bill requires the agency to establish a climate -safe infrastructure working group by July 1, 2017, to examine how to integrate scientific data concerning projected climate change impacts into state infrastructure engineering.

Assembly Bill 38: Fire Safety: Low-Cost Retrofits: Regional Capacity Review: Wildfire Mitigation
The Governor approved assembly bill 38 in October 2019 expanding pre-existing obligations to review regional capacity to improve forest health, fire resilience, and safety as well as provide a prescribed disclosure notice to buyers of property informing them of their fire home hardening options. In addition, it authorized Cal OES and CALFIRE to jointly develop a wildfire mitigation program now known as the “Home Hardening Program.” This effort is intended to encourage cost-effective wildfire resilience measures by providing financial assistance for retrofits, hardening, and the creation of defensible space. 1998 Natural Hazard Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazard Disclosure Act, which became effective in June 1998, requires sellers to provide home buyers with a natural hazard disclosure report (NHD) in order to sell a home in a natural hazard zone. Failure to comply with this act may result in the buyer or agent being liable for any damage experienced by the buyer. There are six main hazards required to be disclosed in an NHD: 36F36F 37  A special flood hazard area
 An area of potential flooding on a dam failure inundation map  A very high fire severity zone
 A wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards  An earthquake fault zone
 A seismic hazard zone
California State Senate Bills
Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill 97, enacted in 2007, amends CEQA to clearly establish that greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. It directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop draft CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or their effects by July 1, 2009, and directs the California Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt the CEQA Guidelines by January 1, 2010.

Senate Bill 1000 General Plan Amendments: Safety and Environmental Justice Elements Senate Bill 1000 amends California’s Planning and Zoning Law in two ways:
 The original law established requirements for initial revisions of general plan safety elements to address flooding, fire, and climate adaptation and resilience. It also required subsequent review and revision as necessary based on new information. Senate Bill 1000 specifies that the

37 California Association of Realtors. (n.d.). Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement. https://www.car.org/- /media/CAR/Documents/Transaction-Center/PDF/QUICK-GUIDES/Quick-Guide--Natural-Hazard-Disclsoure-NHD- Statement-REVISED-52022.pdf
192
CC 10-01-2024
192 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 65 subsequent reviews and revision based on new information are required to address only flooding and fires (not climate adaptation and resilience).
 Senate Bill 1000 adds a requirement that, upon adoption or revision of any two other general plan elements on or after January 1, 2018, an environmental justice element be adopted for the general plan or environmental justice goals, policies and objectives be incorporated into other elements of the plan.

Senate Bill 1241: General Plans: Safety Element—Fire Hazard Impacts In 2012, Senate Bill 1241 was enacted, requiring that all future General Plans address fire risk in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones in their safety element. In addition, the bill requires cities and counties to make certain findings regarding available fire protection and suppression services before approving a tentative map or parcel map.

Senate Bill 379: General Plans: Safety Element—Climate Adaptation Senate Bill 379 builds on the flood planning inclusions into the safety and housing elements and the hazard mitigation planning safety element inclusions in General Plans outlined in AB 162 and AB 2140.

Senate Bill 379 specifically focuses on a new requirement that cities and counties include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety element of their General Plans beginning January 1, 2017. In addition, this bill requires general plans to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives, an d specified implementation measures based on the conclusions drawn from climate adaptation research and recommendations.

This update process for this hazard mitigation plan was conducted with the intention of full compliance with this bill. However, at the time of the update, there was no clear guidance from the state on what constitutes full compliance or what protocol is to be used to determine compliance. When such guidance has been established, the planning partners will submit this plan or its subsequent updates to the state for review and approval.

Senate Bill 190: Fire Safety: Building Standards: Defensible Space Program In October 2019, Senate Bill 190 amended the Government Code and Health and Safety Code to build a common understanding of site and structure fire risk reduction measures. Among other things, the bill authorized the Office of the State Fire Marshall to develop a model defensible space program which would be available for city and county code enforcement officials to utilize. Additionally, it directed the Office of the State Fire Marshall to develop and make publicly available a Wildland -Urban Interface Fire Safety Building Standards compliance training intended for local building officials, builders, and fire service personnel. 37F37F
38 California State Building Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24 (CCR Title 24), also known as the California Building Standards Code, is a compilation of building standards from three sources:
 Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes.
 Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions.
 Building standards authorized by the California legislature that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes adopted to address particular California concerns.

38 California Legislative Information. (2019, October 2). SB-190 Fire Safety: Building Standards: Defensible Space Program. Bill Text - SB-190 Fire safety: building standards: defensible space program. (ca.gov) 193
CC 10-01-2024
193 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 66

The state Building Standards Commission is authorized by California Building Standards Law (Health and Safety Code Sections 18901 through 18949.6) to administer the processes related to the adoption, approval, publication, and implementation of California’s building codes. These building codes serve as the basis for the design and construction of buildings in California. The national model code standards adopted into Title 24 apply to all occupancies in California, except for modifications adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies. Since 1989, the Building Standards Commission has published new editions of Title 24 every 3 years. All municipal planning partners to this plan have adopted building codes that are in full compliance with the California State Building Code.

California has also passed the first green building code in the Nation, known as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen establishes new green building standards in order to promote sustainable development. The goals of the program include:
 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.
 Promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work.  Reduce energy and water consumption.
 Respond to the environmental directives of the administration.

Standardized Emergency Management System
CCR Title 19 establishes the Standardized Emergency Management System to standardize the response to emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions. The system is intended to be flexible and adaptable to the needs of all emergency responders in California. It requires emergency response agencies to use basic principles and components of emergency management. Local governments must use the Standardized Emergency Management System by December 1, 1996, to be eligible for state funding of response - related personnel costs under CCR Title 19 (Sections 2920, 2925 and 2930). The roles and responsibilities of individual agencies contained in existing laws or the state emergency plan are not superseded by these regulations. This hazard mitigation plan is considered to b e a support document for all phases of emergency management, including those associated with SEMS.

California State Hazard Mitigation Plan
Under the DMA, California must adopt a federally approved state multi-hazard mitigation plan to be eligible for certain disaster assistance and mitigation funding. California has elected to develop an enhanced plan, which makes it eligible for additional mitigation funding. The State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) is the State’s primary hazard mitigation guidance. It incorporates:
 An updated analysis of the state’s historical and current hazards.  Hazard mitigation goals and objectives.
 Hazard Mitigation strategies and actions.

The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is responsible for leading the plan update in coordination with key planning stakeholders and sources of information. The 2018 SHMP is being updated at the time of this plan’s update to reflect changing conditions and add new information as well as incorporate the new FEMA planning policy guidance.

Under 44 CFR Section 201.6, local hazard mitigation plans must be consistent with their state ’s hazard mitigation plan. In updating this plan, the Steering Committee reviewed the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan to identify key relevant state plan elements. 194
CC 10-01-2024
194 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 67 Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08
Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08 enhances the state’s management of climate impacts from sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation and extreme weather events. There are four key actions in the executive order:
 Initiate California’s first statewide climate change adaptation strategy to assess expected climate change impacts, identify where California is most vulnerable, and recommend adaptation policies by early 2009. This effort will improve coordination within state government so that better planning can more effectively address climate impacts on human health, the environment, the state’s water supply and the economy.
 Request that the National Academy of Science establish an expert panel to report on sea level rise impacts in California, to inform state planning and development efforts.  Issue interim guidance to state agencies for how to plan for sea level rise in designated coastal and floodplain areas for new projects.
 Initiate a report on critical infrastructure projects vulnerable to sea level rise.

5.9.3 Local
Plans, Reports, and Codes
Plans, reports, and other technical information were identified and provided directly by participating jurisdictions and stakeholders or were identified through independent research by the planning consultant. These documents were reviewed to identify the following:
 Existing jurisdictional and special district capabilities.  Needs and opportunities to develop or enhance capabilities, which may be identified within the local mitigation strategies.
 Mitigation-related goals or objectives considered during the development of the overall goals and objectives.
 Proposed, in-progress, or potential mitigation projects, actions, and initiatives to be incorporated into the updated mitigation strategies.
 The following local regulations, codes, ordinances, and plans were reviewed in order to develop complementary and mutually supportive goals, objectives, and mitigation strategies that are consistent across local and regional planning and regulatory mechanisms:
▪ General Plans (Housing Elements, Safety Elements).
▪ Building Codes.
▪ Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
▪ NFIP Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances.
▪ Stormwater Management Plans.
▪ Emergency Management and Response Plans.
▪ Land Use and Open Space Plans.
▪ Climate Action Plans.
▪ Capability Assessment.

195
CC 10-01-2024
195 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 68 All participating jurisdictions and special districts compiled an inventory and analysis of existing authorities and capabilities called a “capability assessment.” A capability assessment creates an inventory of a jurisdiction’s mission, programs, and policies, and evaluates its capacity to carry them out.

This assessment identifies potential gaps in the jurisdiction’s capabilities and opportunities to expand and improve upon existing capabilities.

The planning partners views all core jurisdictional and special district capabilities as fully adaptable to meet an organization’s needs. Every code can be amended, and every plan can be updated. Such adaptability is itself considered to be an overarching capability. If the capability assessment identified an opportunity to add a missing core capability or expand an existing one, then doing so has been selected as an action in the jurisdiction’s action plan, which is included in the individual annexes presented in Volume 2 of this plan.

Capability assessments for each planning partner are presented in the jurisdictional and special district annexes in Volume 2 of this plan. The sections below describe the specific capabilities evaluated under the assessment.

Legal and Regulatory Capabilities
Jurisdictions have the ability to develop policies and programs and to implement rules and regulations to protect and serve residents. Local policies are typically identified in a variety of community plans, implemented via a local ordinance, and enforced through a governmental body.

Jurisdictions regulate land use through the adoption and enforcement of zoning, subdivision, and land development ordinances, building codes, building permit ordinances, floodplain, and stormwater management ordinances. When effectively prepared and administered, these regulations can lead to hazard mitigation.

Fiscal Capabilities
Assessing a jurisdiction’s or special district’s fiscal capability provides an understanding of the ability to fulfill the financial needs associated with hazard mitigation projects. This assessment identifies both outside resources, such as grant-funding eligibility, and local authority to generate internal financial capability, such as through impact fees.

Administrative and Technical Capabilities
Legal, regulatory, and fiscal capabilities provide the backbone for successfully developing a mitigation strategy; however, without appropriate personnel, the strategy may not be implemented. Administrative and technical capabilities focus on the availability of personnel resources responsible for implementing all the facets of hazard mitigation. These resources include technical experts, such as engineers and scientists, as well as personnel with capabilities that may be found in multiple departments, such as grant writers.

NFIP Compliance
Flooding is the costliest natural hazard in the United States and, with the promulgation of recent federal regulation, homeowners throughout the country are experiencing increasingly high flood insurance premiums. Community participation in the NFIP opens up opportunity for additional grant funding associated specifically with flooding issues. Assessment of the jurisdiction ’s current NFIP status and compliance provides planners with a greater understanding of the local flood management program, opportunities for improvement, and available grant funding opportunities.

Public Outreach Capability
Regular engagement with the public on issues regarding hazard mitigation provides an opportunity to directly interface with community members. Assessing this outreach and education capability illustrates 196
CC 10-01-2024
196 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 69 the connection between the government and community members, which opens a two -way dialogue that can result in a more resilient community based on education and public engagement.

Participation in Other Programs
Other programs, such as the Community Rating System, StormReady, and Firewise, enhance a jurisdiction’s ability to mitigate, prepare for, and respond to natural hazards. These programs indicate a jurisdiction’s desire to go beyond minimum requirements set forth by local, state, and federal regulations in order to create a more resilient community. These programs complement each other by focusing on communication, mitigation, and community preparedness to save lives and minimize the impact of natural hazards on a community.

Development and Permitting Capability
Identifying previous and future development trends is achieved through a comprehensive review of permitting since completion of the previous plan and in anticipation of future development. Tracking previous and future growth in potential hazard areas provides an overview of increased exposure to a hazard within a community.

Adaptive Capacity
An adaptive capacity assessment evaluates a jurisdiction’s ability to anticipate impacts from future conditions. By looking at public support, technical adaptive capacity, and other factors, jurisdictions identify their core capability for resilience against issues such as sea level rise. The adaptive capacity assessment provides jurisdictions with an opportunity to identify areas for improvement by ranking their capacity high, medium, or low.

Expanding and Improving Mitigation Capabilities
Both pre- and post-disaster mitigation capabilities change over time. The intent of this mitigation plan is to evaluate current mitigation capabilities and identify if there are any gaps which could be further addressed. In Volume 2 of this plan, in addition to an individual capability assessment, there is a discussion of the capabilities which could be expanded upon for each participant. County items, such as increasing funding for community education and outreach including translated materials as well as funding regional planning and coordination, serve as examples of what this looks like. If there are any challenges or limitations for each participant, they have stated so in the in their respective annex.

Integration Opportunity
The assessment looked for opportunities to integrate this mitigation plan with the legal/regulatory capabilities identified. Capabilities were identified as integration opportunities if they can support or enhance the actions identified in this plan or be supported or enhanced by components of this plan.

Planning partners considered actions to implement this integration as described in the jurisdictional and special district annexes in Volume 2 of this plan.

197
CC 10-01-2024
197 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 70 6 Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk
Assessment
Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from identified hazards. It allows emergency management personnel to establish early response priorities by identifying potential hazards and vulnerable assets. The process focuses on the following elements:
 Hazard identification: Use all available information to determine what types of hazards may affect a jurisdiction, how often they can occur, and their potential severity.  Exposure identification: Estimate the total number of people and properties in the jurisdiction that are likely to experience a hazard event if it occurs.
 Vulnerability identification and loss estimation: Assess the impact of hazard events on the people, property, environment, economy, and lands of the region, including estimates of the cost of potential damage or cost that can be avoided by mitigation. 
The risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan update evaluates the risk of natural hazards prevalent in the OA and meets requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(2)).

To protect individual privacy and the security of critical facilities, information on properties assessed is presented in aggregate, without details about specific individual personal or public properties.

6.1 Identified Hazards of Concern
The Core Planning Group considered the full range of natural hazards that could affect the OA and then listed hazards that present the greatest concern. The process incorporated a review of state and local hazard planning documents as well as information on the frequency of, magnitude of, and costs associated with hazards that have struck the OA or could do so. Anecdotal information regarding natural hazards and the perceived vulnerability of the OA’s assets to them was also used. Based on the review, this plan addresses the following hazards of concern (presented in order of the hazard risk index results; the order of listing does not indicate the hazards’ relative severity):
 Earthquake
 Wildfire
 Inclement Weather
 Drought
 Climate Change
 Dam and Levee Failure
 Flood
 Landslide
 Tsunami

198
CC 10-01-2024
198 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 71 In addition to the hazards of concern for which full risk assessments were performed, other hazards of interest were identified for inclusion in this plan: intentional hazards, technological hazards, and epidemic and pandemic. These hazards are of interest because they present risk to the OA. However, no methodologies are currently available to perform risk assessments on them that are equivalent to those used for the natural hazards of concern addressed in detail in this plan.

6.2 Hazard Risk Index
FEMA requires all hazard mitigation planning partners to have jurisdiction-specific mitigation actions based on local risk, vulnerability, and community priorities (FEMA, 2011). This plan included a risk index procedure for each planning partner, in which the degree of risk posed by each hazard was calculated based on a set of factors.

Risk index factors were assigned a numerical degree of risk level based on information presented in the hazard profiles and planning partner annexes. This number was then weighted, and a formula was used to aggregate the values into an overall hazard risk index number. The weight given to each factor was based on a review of best practices and agreed upon by the Core Planning Team.

All planning partners calculated risk for their own jurisdiction or special district following the same methodology. The higher the overall risk index number, the greater the hazard risk . This methodology does not compare hazards to each other or rank hazards against one another. Instead, this process provides a sense of hazard priorities or relative risk and allows comparison of the same hazard across participants. It provides planning participants with a sense of hazard priorities, or relative risk. By doing this analysis, mitigation planning and initiatives can focus on the greatest risk. While hazards occur together or as a consequence of others (e.g., dam failure may cause flooding and earthquakes may cause landslides), participants considered hazards as a singular event for the purposes of rating. This approach is part of a holistic hazard risk analysis that includes complementary qualitative and quantitative elements and provides a consistent metric across different hazards.

This hazard analysis methodology can:
 Help establish priorities for planning, capability development, and hazard mitigation;  Serve as a tool in the identification of hazard mitigation measures;  Be one tool in conducting a hazard-based needs analysis;  Serve to educate the public and public officials about hazards and vulnerabilities; and  Help communities make objective judgments about acceptable risk.

The factors and their corresponding numeric indices and weight factors are detailed in Table 14.

Individual and OA-level hazard risk indices were used to inform the action plan development process and mitigation priorities for each planning partner. Each annex presents the risk indices for each planning partner.

199
CC 10-01-2024
199 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 72 Table 14: Probability of Hazards
Risk Index
Factor
Degree of Risk
Level Criteria
Factor
Weight for
Degree of
Risk Level

Probability of
Future Events

0 Unlikely
Less than 1 percent probability of occurrence
in the next year or a recurrence interval of
greater than every 100 years.

30%
1 Occasional
1 to 10 percent probability of occurrence in
the next year or a recurrence interval of 11 to
100 years.
2 Likely
11 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in
the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to
10 years.
3 Highly Likely
91 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in
the next year or a recurrence interval of less
than 1 year.

Life Impact

0 Minor Very few injuries, if any at all.
35% 1 Limited Minor injuries.
2 Critical Multiple deaths and/or injuries.
3 Catastrophic High number of deaths and/or injuries.

Property Impact

0 Minor
Only minor property damage and minimal
disruption of life. Temporary shutdown of
critical facilities.
25%
1 Limited
More than 10 percent of property in affected
area damaged/destroyed. Complete
shutdown of critical facilities for more than
one day.
2 Critical
More than 25 percent of property in affected
area damaged/destroyed. Complete
shutdown of critical facilities for more than
one week.
3 Catastrophic
More than 50 percent of property in affected
area damaged/destroyed. Complete
shutdown of critical facilities for 30 days or
more.

Percentage of
Area Impacted

0 Negligible Less than 10 percent of planning area or
isolated single-point occurrences.
10%
1 Minimal 10 to 25 percent of the planning area or
limited single-point occurrences.
2 Significant 26 to 74 percent of planning area or frequent single-point occurrences.
3 Extensive 75 to 100 percent of planning area or
consistent single-point occurrences.

200
CC 10-01-2024
200 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 73 Table 15: Hazard Risk Ranking by Jurisdiction
Earthquake Wildfire Inclement
Weather Drought Climate
Change
Dam and
Levee Failure Flood Landslide Tsunami
Campbell 2 0.9 1.7 0.7 0 1.75 0.55 0 0
Cupertino 2.7 1.9 1.1 1.45 1.55 0.45 0.5 0.4 0
Gilroy 2.9 1.05 1.25 0.9 0.3 2 0.4 0 0
Los Altos 2 1.95 2.05 1.8 1.6 0.95 0.65 0 0
Los Altos Hills 2 2.1 1.4 1.95 1.3 0 0.65 1.3 0
Los Gatos 1.45 2.55 1.15 0.6 1.2 0.35 0.35 0.65 0
Milpitas 2.3 2.05 0.9 1.2 2.3 1.85 1.8 0.6 0
Monte Sereno - - - - - - - - -
Morgan Hill 2.9 1.05 1.25 0.9 0.3 2 1.25 0 0
Mountain
View
2 0.65 1.4 2 1.3 0 2 0 0
Palo Alto 2 1.95 2.05 2.05 1.85 0.95 0.65 0 0
San Jose 1.25 1.6 1.8 1.45 0 1.9 1.9 0 0
Santa Clara
City
3 1.3 1.7 1.45 1.4 1.8 2 0 0.35
Saratoga 2.7 2 0.95 0.8 0.4 0 0 0.85 0
Sunnyvale 2.9 1.05 1.25 0.9 0.3 2 0.3 0 0
Santa Clara
County

2.1 1.7 1.55 0.8 1.6 1.75 0.65 0.4 0
SCC 2.1 1.7 1.55 0.8 1.6 1.75 0.65 0.4 0
MidPen 1.35 3 1.3 1.2 1.8 0.25 1.2 1.55 0
SCCFD 2.7 1.7 1.55 0.8 1.6 1.75 0.65 0.4 0

SCVWD - - - - - - - - -
Average 2.24 1.68 1.44 1.21 1.13 1.19 0.90 0.36 0.02

201
CC 10-01-2024
201 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 74

6.2.1 Average Overall Hazard Risk Index Results
The overall hazard risk index results based on an average of partner indices is shown in Table 16. These results show which hazards pose the highest overall risk to the Operational Area.

Table 16: Average Overall Hazard Risk Index Results
Hazard Risk Order Hazard Average Overall Hazard Risk
Index Result
1 Earthquake 2.24
2 Wildfire, smoke, and air quality 1.68
3 Inclement weather* 1.44
4 Drought 1.21
5 Climate change, including sea-level
rise

1.13 6 Dam and levee failure 1.19
7 Flood .90
8 Landslide and mass movement .36
9 Tsunami .02
*Listed as separate hazards in the hazard profile and annexes: heavy precipitation, high wind, extreme heat, extreme cold, and space weather.

Based on the average overall hazard risk index results from planning partner risk indices:

• The earthquake hazard has the highest risk results, followed by wildfire/smoke/air quality.  The inclement weather, drought, climate change hazards were a moderate risk to the Operational Area.
 The dam failure, flood, and landslide/mass movement hazards were a lower risk to the Operational Area.
 The tsunami hazard poses the lowest risk to the Operational Area, as not all planning partners can be impacted by this hazard due to geographic location.

6.3 Risk Assessment Tools

6.3.1 Mapping
National, state, and county databases were reviewed to locate available spatially based data relevant to this planning effort. Maps were produced using geographic information system (GIS) software to show the spatial extent and location of hazards when such datasets were available. These maps are included in the hazard profile sections and planning partner annexes of this MJHMP. 202
CC 10-01-2024
202 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 75

6.3.2 Hazus
Overview
In 1997, FEMA developed the standardized Hazards U.S. (Hazus) model to estimate losses caused by earthquakes and identify areas that face the highest risk and potential for loss. Hazus was later expanded into a multi-hazard methodology with new models for estimating potential losses from hurricanes and floods.

Hazus is a GIS-based software program used to support risk assessments, mitigation planning, and emergency planning and response. It provides a wide range of inventory data, such as demographics, building stock, critical facility, transportation and utility lifeline, and multiple models to estimate potential losses from natural disasters. The program maps and displays hazard data and the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings and infrastructure. Its advantages include the following:
 Provides a consistent methodology for assessing risk across geographic and political entities.  Provides a way to save datasets so that they can readily be updated as population, inventory, and other factors change and as mitigation planning efforts evolve.  Facilitates review of mitigation plans because it helps to ensure that FEMA methodologies are incorporated.
 Supports grant applications by calculating benefits using FEMA definitions and terminology.  Produces hazard data and loss estimates that can be used in communication with local stakeholders.
 Is administered by the local government and can be used to manage and update a hazard mitigation plan throughout its implementation.

Levels of Detail for Evaluation
Hazus provides default data for inventory, vulnerability, and hazards; the default data can be supplemented with local data to provide a more refined analysis. The model can carry out three levels of analysis, depending on the format and level of detail of information about the OA:
 Level 1: All of the information needed to produce an estimate of losses is included in the software’s default data. These data are derived from national databases and describe in general terms the characteristic parameters of the OA.
 Level 2: More accurate estimates of losses require more detailed information about the OA. To produce Level 2 estimates of losses, detailed information is required about local geology, hydrology, hydraulics, and building inventory, as well as data about utilities and critical facilities.

This information is needed in a GIS format.
 Level 3: This level of analysis generates the most accurate estimate of losses. It requires detailed engineering and geotechnical information to customize it for the OA.

6.4 Risk Assessment Approach
The risk assessments in this plan describe the risks associated with each identified hazard of concern.

The following steps were used to define the risk of each hazard:
 Identify and profile each hazard: The following information is given for each hazard:
▪ Geographic areas most affected by the hazard.
▪ Event frequency estimates.
203
CC 10-01-2024
203 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 76 ▪ Severity estimates.
▪ Warning time likely to be available for response.
 Define probability: probability of future events was identified utilizing the following terms:
▪ Unlikely – less than 1 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years.
▪ Occasional – 1 to 10 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.
▪ Likely – 11 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years.
▪ Highly Likely – 91 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year.
 Determine exposure to each hazard: Exposure was assessed by overlaying hazard maps with an inventory of structures, facilities, and systems to decide which of them would be exposed to each hazard.
 Assess the vulnerability of exposed facilities: Vulnerability of exposed structures and infrastructure was evaluated by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing structures, facilities, and systems that are exposed to each hazard. Tools such as GIS and Hazus were used for this assessment for the flood and earthquake hazards. Outputs similar to those from Hazus were generated for other hazards, using data generated through GIS.

6.4.1 Earthquake and Flood
The following hazards were evaluated using Hazus:
 Flood: A Level 1 user-defined analysis was performed for general building stock in flood zones and for critical facilities and infrastructure. Digital Elevation Models (DEM) for the OA was used to delineate flood hazard areas and estimate potential losses from the 10-percent-annual-chance, 1- percent-annual-chance, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood events. To estimate damage that would result from a flood, Hazus uses pre-defined relationships between flood depth at a structure and resulting damage, with damage given as a percent of total replacement value.

Curves defining these relationships have been developed for damage to structures and for damage to typical contents within a structure. By inputting flood depth data and known property replacement cost values, dollar-value estimates of damage were generated.  Earthquake: A Level 2 analysis was performed to assess earthquake exposure and vulnerability for three scenario events and two probabilistic events:
▪ A Magnitude-7.0 event on the Hayward Fault with an epicenter approximately 25 miles north of the City of Palo Alto.
▪ A Magnitude-7.0 event on the Calaveras Fault with an epicenter approximately 25 miles north of the City of Milpitas.
▪ A Magnitude-7.8 event on the San Andreas Fault with an epicenter approximately 148 miles northwest of the City of Palo Alto.
▪ The standard Hazus 100- and 500-year probabilistic events. 204
CC 10-01-2024
204 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 77

6.4.2 Drought
The risk assessment methodologies used for this plan focus on damage to structures. The risk assessment for drought was more limited and qualitative than the assessment for the other hazards of concern because drought does not affect structures.

6.4.3 All Other Assessed Hazards
Historical datasets were not adequate to model future losses for most of the hazards of concern.

However, areas and inventory susceptible to some of the hazards of concern were mapped by other means and exposure was evaluated. A qualitative analysis was conducted for other hazards using the best available data and professional judgment.

6.5 EMAP Consequence Analysis
A consequence analysis of the potential for detrimental impacts of hazards is included in this 2023 plan update for the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). Each hazard identified in this plan is followed by the Consequence Analysis result.

In this analysis all nine natural hazards profiled for Santa Clara County have been addressed, with the impacts that each will have on the following:
 Impact on the Public: What is the scope of impact on the health and safety of people in the area of the incident?
 Impact on Responders: What is the scope of impact on health and safety of responders (i.e., firefighters, law enforcement, emergency management personnel, etc.) in the area responding to the incident?
 Continuity of Operations: Will the organization need to relocate in order to fulfill duties? Will any other continuity measures be implemented?
 Impact on Property, Facilities, and Infrastructure: What are potential damages to structures (private and public), utilities, treatment plants, electric grid, roads, and bridges?  Delivery of Services: What impacts occur to the delivery of services such as food, medical, or any other life sustaining entities?
 Impact on the Environment: How has the incident affected the surrounding environment, i.e., contamination (water, soil, or air), erosion, crop damage, etc.?  Impact on the Economy: Are there any affects to the economy due to loss of revenue, cleanup efforts, and reconstruction?
 Impact of the Public Confidence in the Jurisdiction’s Governance: How has the hazard affected public confidence?

The Consequence Analysis includes ranking determinations for each of the above elements. The ranking elements are categorized as Minimal, Moderate, or Severe. The Risk Assessment portion of the MJHMP was used to ascertain prior damages in an effort to estimate ratings on future impacts. The ratings are meant to be a guide, and not all inclusive, due to the variances that could apply such as population, location, time, hazard type, and the number of jurisdictions within the hazard area. 205
CC 10-01-2024
205 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 78

6.6 Sources of Data Used in Hazus Modeling

6.6.1 Building and Cost Data
Replacement cost values and detailed structure information and census data are included within Hazus

6.0. This recently updated version of Hazus uses 2020 census data and dasymetric census blocks for improved floodplain model accuracy. The stock building inventory data is from the National Structure Inventory (NSI), a point-based dataset developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). When available, updated data provided by Santa Clara County was used in place of the Hazus defaults for critical facilities and infrastructure.

Replacement cost is the cost to replace the entire structure with one of equal quality and utility.

Replacement cost is based on industry-standard cost-estimation models published in RSMeans Square Foot Costs.3 8F38F
39 It is calculated using the RSMeans square foot cost for a structure, which is based on the Hazus occupancy class (i.e., multi-family residential or commercial retail trade), multiplied by the square footage of the structure from the tax assessor data. The construction class and number of stories for single-family residential structures also factor into determining the square foot costs.

6.6.2 Hazus Data Inputs
The following hazard datasets were used for the Hazus Level 2 analysis conducted for the risk assessment:
 Flood: A USGS 10-meter Digital Elevation Model for the OA was used to delineate flood hazard areas and generate flood depth grids that are integrated into the Hazus model. These depth grids are used to estimate potential losses from the 10-percent-annual-chance, 1-percent-annual- chance, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood events.
 Earthquake: Earthquake ShakeMaps and probabilistic data prepared by the USGS were used for the analysis of this hazard. A National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program soils map from the California Department of Conservation, USGS liquefaction susceptibility data and susceptibility to deep-seated landslide from the California Geological Survey were also integrated into the Hazus model. Hazus uses classifications within these datasets to derive probabilities that ground deformation can occur in areas of higher liquefaction or landslide susceptibility. It should be noted that deep-seated landslides are generally large landslides that are slow moving during rainfall induced movement, but some can be fast moving and may occur during earthquakes. However, this dataset does not specifically measure earthquake induced landslides. Inclusion of liquefaction and landslide data in Hazus represent ground deformation that may occur during an earthquake that can contribute to structural damage. As such, inclusion of these datasets tends to increase the amount and cost of damage modeled by Hazus.

6.6.3 Other Local Hazard Data
Locally relevant information on hazards was gathered from a variety of sources. Frequency and severity indicators include past events and the expert opinions of geologists, emergency management specialists, and others. Data sources for specific hazards were as follows:
 Landslide: Susceptibility to deep-seated landslide data were provided by the California Geological Survey.

39 RSMeans data from Gordian. (2023). Estimating Square Foot Cost. https://www.rsmeans.com/estimating-square- foot-cost
206
CC 10-01-2024
206 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 79  Sea Level Rise: Sea level rise data were provided by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. A sea level rise of 6 feet above current mean higher high water was used for the exposure analysis.
 Dam Inundation: Dam inundation exposure areas were acquired from the California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams. Many of these are owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
 Levee Inundation: Levee inundation exposure areas were defined with boundaries provided by Santa Clara County.
 Severe Storm: No GIS format severe storm area datasets were identified for the OA.  Tsunami: Tsunami inundation map was prepared by California Department of Conservation in cooperation with the University of Southern California, California Geological Survey, and California Emergency Management Agency.
 Wildfire: Wildfire Hazard Classification and Structures at Risk data were provided by Tukman Geospatial. Additional fire severity data was acquired from California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).

6.6.4 Data Source Summary
Table 17 summarizes the data sources used for the risk assessment for this plan.

Table 17: Hazus Model Data Documentation
Data Source Date Format
Building information such as area,
occupancy, date of construction,
and stories
FEMA Hazus version 6.0,
National Structure Inventory
(NSI), Santa Clara County
2023 Digital (tabular)
format
Building replacement cost FEMA Hazus version 6.0 2023 Digital (GIS and tabular) format
Population data FEMA Hazus version 6.0, US
Census Bureau
2020 Digital (GIS and
tabular) format
Flood hazard data FEMA 2016 Digital (GIS)
format
Tsunami CGS (State of California) 2021

Digital (GIS)
format
Earthquake ShakeMaps USGS, provided via Hazus
version 6.0
Downloaded
2023
Digital (GIS)
format
Liquefaction susceptibility USGS (via ABAG) 2006 Digital (GIS) format
National Earthquake Hazard
Reduction Program
California Department of
Conservation, California
Geological Survey
Downloaded
2023
Digital (GIS)
format
Dam Inundation Areas California Department of
Water Resources, Division of
Safety of Dams
Varies
2019-2021
Digital (GIS)
format
Landslide California Geological Survey 2011 Digital (GIS) format
207
CC 10-01-2024
207 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 80 Data Source Date Format
Sea Level Rise Adapting to Rising Tides -
San Francisco Conservation
and Development
Commission
2018 Digital (GIS)
format
Wildfire Tukman Geospatial, CAL
FIRE
2022, 2007 Digital (GIS)
format
Digital Elevation Model USGS Downloaded
2023
Digital (GIS)
format
Critical Facilities and Assets Hazus version 6.0, Santa Clara County
2023 Digital (GIS)
format
Emergency operation centers,
airport facilities, bus facilities, light
rail facilities, rail facilities,
communication facilities, electric
power facilities, potable water
facilities, wastewater facilities
FEMA Hazus version 6.0
Default Critical Facilities Data
2023 Digital (GIS)
format
Points of interest (city halls,
community centers, other county
facilities, child day care facilities)
Santa Clara County 2023 Digital (GIS)
format
Santa Clara County critical facilities
(fire stations, hospitals, skilled
nursing facilities and clinics, police
stations, public / private schools,
universities, and colleges)
FEMA Hazus version 6.0,
Santa Clara County
2023 Digital
(spreadsheet)
format
Superfund sites (hazardous material
sites)
EPA 2022 Digital (GIS)
format
Toxic release inventory facilities
(hazardous material facilities,
designated communications
centers, electric power, and
petroleum facilities)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
Downloaded
2023
Digital (GIS)
format
State and local bridges (highway
bridges, light rail bridges, rail
bridges, includes pedestrian
bridges)
Hazus 6.0 Inventory, Santa
Clara County
2023 Digital (GIS)
format

6.7 Limitations
Loss estimates, exposure assessments, and hazard-specific vulnerability evaluations rely on the best available data and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from the following:
 Approximations and simplifications necessary to conduct a study.  Incomplete or outdated inventory, demographic or economic parameter data.  The unique nature, geographic extent, and severity of each hazard.  Mitigation measures already employed.
208
CC 10-01-2024
208 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 6: Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment 81  The amount of advance notice residents have to prepare for a specific hazard event.  Lack of a standardized model for assessing sea level rise impacts. Multiple models provide multiple results. Not all models were run in the development of the sea level rise analysis.

These factors can affect loss estimates by a factor of two or more. Therefore, potential exposure and loss estimates are approximate and should be used only to understand relative risk. Over the long term, Santa Clara County will collect additional data to assist in estimating potential losses associated with other hazards.

209
CC 10-01-2024
209 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 82
7 Earthquake
Definitions
 Earthquake: The shaking of the ground caused by an abrupt shift of rock along a fracture in the earth or a contact zone between tectonic plates.
 Epicenter: The point on the earth’s surface directly above the hypocenter of an earthquake. The location of an earthquake is commonly described by the geographic position of its epicenter and by its focal depth.
 Fault: A fracture in the earth’s crust along which two blocks of the crust have slipped with respect to each other.
 Hypocenter: The region underground where an earthquake’s energy originates.  Liquefaction: Loosely packed, water-logged sediments losing their strength in response to strong shaking, causing major damage during earthquakes.

7.1 General Background
An earthquake is the vibration of the earth’s surface following a release of energy in the earth’s crust. This energy can be generated by a sudden dislocation of the crust or by a volcanic eruption. Most destructive quakes are caused by dislocations of the crust. The crust may first bend and then, when the stress exceeds the strength of the rocks, break and snap to a new position. In the process of breaking, vibrations called “seismic waves” are generated. These waves travel outward from the source of the earthquake at varying speeds.

Geologists have found that earthquakes tend to reoccur along faults, which are zones of weakness in the earth’s crust. Even if a fault zone has recently experienced an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the stress has been relieved. Another earthquake could still occur. In fact, relieving stress can increase stress in other parts of the affected fault and other faults. Additional earthquakes, called aftershocks, are common after a large earthquake.

California is seismically active because of movement of the North American Plate, east of the San Andreas Fault, and the Pacific Plate to the west, which includes the state’s coastal communities.

Movement of the tectonic plates against one another creates stress, which is released as energy that moves through the earth as seismic waves.

Faults are classified in terms of their activity level; “active,” “potentially active,” or “inactive.” Most seismic activity occurs along faults that are known to have geologic evidence of activity. However, inactive faults, where no such displacements have been recorded, also have the potential to reactivate or experience displacement along a branch sometime in the future. An example of a fault zone that has been reactivated is the Foothills Fault Zone. The zone was considered inactive until evidence of an earthquake (approximately 1.6 million years ago) was found near Spenceville, California. Then, in 1975, an earthquake occurred on another branch of the zone near Oroville, California (now known as the Cleveland Hills Fault). The State Division of Mines and Geology indicates that increased earthquake activity throughout California may cause tectonic movement along currently inactive fault systems. 210
CC 10-01-2024
210 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 83

7.1.1 Damage from Earthquakes
A direct relationship exists between a fault’s length and location and its ability to generate damaging ground motion at a given site. Small, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can still be strong, and damage can be significant in areas close to the fault. In contrast, la rge regional faults can generate earthquakes of great magnitudes but, because of their distance and depth, they may result in only moderate shaking in an area.

Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over five minutes; they may also occur as a series of tremors over a period of several days. Aftershocks may be felt for months or years after the mainshock. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or death. People that fall over during the quake may experience more mild injuries like broken bones. Casualties generally result from falling objects and debris, because earthquakes shake, damage, or demolish furnishings a nd buildings and other structures. Disruption of communications and internet, electrical power, gas, sewer, and water services should be expected in the affected area. Earthquakes may trigger dam failures and landslides. Their damage may cause fires and releases of hazardous material, compounding the disastrous effects.

7.1.2 Earthquake Classifications
Earthquakes are typically classified in one of two ways: by the amount of energy released, measured as magnitude; or by the impact on people and structures, measured as intensity.

Magnitude
An earthquake’s magnitude is a measure of the energy released at the source of the earthquake. It is commonly expressed by ratings on either of two scales (Michigan Tech University) 39F 39F 40:
 The Richter scale measures magnitude of earthquakes based on the amplitude of the largest energy wave released by the earthquake. Richter scale readings are suitable for smaller earthquakes; however, because it is a logarithmic scale, the scale does not distinguish clearly the magnitude of large earthquakes above a certain level. Richter scale magnitudes and corresponding earthquake effects are as follows:
▪ 2.5 or less: Usually not felt, but can be recorded by seismograph. ▪ 2.5 to 5.4: Often felt, but causes only minor damage. ▪ 5.5 to 6.0: Slight damage to buildings and other structures. ▪ 6.1 to 6.9: May cause a lot of damage in very populated areas. ▪ 7.0 to 7.9: Major earthquake; serious damage.
▪ 8.0 or greater: Great earthquake; can totally destroy communities near the epicenter.

40 Michigan Tech University. (n.d.) How do we measure Earthquake Magnitude? https://www.mtu.edu/geo/community/seismology/learn/earthquake-measure/ 211
CC 10-01-2024
211 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 84
 While the Richter scale may be well known, the most commonly used scale today is the moment magnitude (Mw) scale. The moment magnitude scale is based on the total moment release of the earthquake (the product of the distance a fault moved, and the force required to move it).

Moment magnitude roughly matches the Richter scale but provides more accuracy for larger magnitude earthquakes. The scale is as follows:
▪ Great: Mw > 8.
▪ Major: Mw = 7.0 - 7.9.
▪ Strong: Mw = 6.0 - 6.9.
▪ Moderate: Mw = 5.0 - 5.9.
▪ Light: Mw = 4.0 - 4.9.
▪ Minor: Mw = 3.0 - 3.9.
▪ Micro: Mw < 3.

Intensity
For an earthquake, intensity varies across the area. Intensity will be larger near the fault rupture, in the direction of the rupture, and in sedimentary basins. Sedimentary basins are depressions in the earth ’s surface that consist of alluvial deposit and sedimentary rocks, which are geologically younger and have slower seismic wave velocities. 40F40F
41 Sedimentary basins like the Evergreen basin, which lies beneath the northeastern margin of the Santa Clara Valley near the south end of the San Francisco Bay, amplify the ground shaking during an earthquake, increasing the intensity of the quake. Currentl y the most commonly used intensity scale is the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale, with ratings defined in Figure 19.4 1F41F 42 41 U.S. Geological Survey. (2020). Earthquake Science Center Seminars, Sedimentary basin effects in ground motions from empirical models and simulation platforms. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/contactus/menlo/seminars/1297#:~:text=Sedimentary%20basins%20are%20depressions %20in,in%20thickness%20towards%20their%20margins.
42 U.S. Geological Survey. (n.d.). The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale assigns intensities as…. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/modified-mercalli-intensity-mmi-scale-assigns-intensities 212
CC 10-01-2024
212 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 85

Figure 20: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 42F42F
43 7.1.3 Ground Motion
Earthquake hazard assessment is also based on expected ground motions. During an earthquake when the ground is shaking, it experiences acceleration. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) is the largest increase in velocity recorded by a particular station during an earthquake. PGA indicates the severity of an earthquake and is a measure of how hard the earth shakes, or accelerates, in a given geographic area. It is measured in g (the acceleration due to gravity), expressed as a percentage of that acceleration (%g). Horizontal and vertical PGA varies with soil or rock type. Instruments call ed accelerographs record levels of ground motion due to earthquakes at stations throughout a region. These readings are recorded by state and federal agencies that monitor and predict seismic activity. Earthquake hazard assessment involves estimating the annual probability that certain ground motion accelerations will be exceeded, and then summing the annual probabilities over the time period of interest.

National maps of earthquake shaking hazards, which have been produced since 1948, provide information for creating and updating seismic design requirements for building codes, insurance rate structures, earthquake loss studies, retrofit priorities and land use planning. After thorough review of the studies, professional organizations of engineers update the seismic-risk maps and seismic design requirements contained in building codes, the USGS updated the National Seismic Hazard Maps in 2018.

43 U.S. Geological Survey. (n.d.). The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale Assigns Intensities as... https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/modified-mercalli-intensity-mmi-scale-assigns-intensities 213
CC 10-01-2024
213 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 86
New seismic, geologic, and geodetic information on earthquake motion, soil amplification factors, and local seismic velocity models was incorporated into the revised maps, allowing the USGS, for the first time, to calculate probabilistic seismic hazard curves for an expanded time period and site classes as well as account for long-period ground motions in deep sedimentary basins like the San Francisco Bay region.43F4 3F
44 The USGS is currently working on updating this model with a targeted release later in 2023.

These maps influence earthquake insurance rates and support government official, emergency managers, community planners, and the public in understanding the potent ial risks to their community.

Building codes that include seismic provisions specify the horizontal force due to lateral acceleration that a building should be able to withstand during an earthquake. Buildings, bridges, highways, and utilities built to meet modern seismic design requirements are typically able to withstand earthquakes better, with less damage and disruption. PGA values are directly related to these lateral forces that could damage “short period structures” (e.g., single-family dwellings). Longer-period response components determine the lateral forces that damage taller structures with longer natural periods (apartment buildings, factories, high-rises, bridges). Figure 20 lists damage potential and perceived shaking by PGA factors, compared to the Mercalli scale.

Figure 21: Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years 4 4F44F 45 44 U.S. Geological Survey. (2021, September 23). Data Release for Additional Period and Site Class Data for the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model for the Conterminous United States. https://www.usgs.gov/data/data-release- additional-period-and-site-class-data-2018-national-seismic-hazard-model 45 U.S. Geological Survey. (2018). 2018 Long-term National Seismic Hazard Map. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/2018-long-term-national-seismic-hazard-map 214
CC 10-01-2024
214 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 87
Table 18: Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison 4 5F45F 46 Modified
Mercalli
Scale
Perceived
Shaking
Potential Structure Damage
Estimated PGAa
(%g) Resistant
Buildings
Vulnerable
Buildings
I Not Felt None None <0.17%
II-III Weak None None 0.17% - 1.4%
IV Light None None 1.4% - 3.9%
V Moderate Very Light Light 3.9% - 9.2%
VI Strong Light Moderate 9.2% - 18%
VII Very Strong Moderate Moderate/Heavy 18% - 34%
VIII Severe Moderate/Heavy Heavy 34% - 65%
IX Violent Heavy Very Heavy 65% - 124%
X - XII Extreme Very Heavy Very Heavy >124%
a PGA measured in percent of g, where g is the acceleration of gravity.

7.1.4 Effect of Soil Types
The impact of an earthquake on structures and infrastructure is largely a function of ground shaking, distance from the source of the quake, and liquefaction, a secondary effect of an earthquake in which soils lose their shear strength and flow or behave as liquid, thereby damaging structures that derive their support from the soil. Liquefaction generally occurs in soft, unconsolidated sedimentary soils and shallow water table.

A program called the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) creates maps based on soil characteristics to help identify locations subject to liquefaction. Table 19 summarizes NEHRP soil classifications. NEHRP Soils B and C typically can sustain ground shaking without much effect, dependent on the earthquake magnitude. The areas that are commonly most affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E, and F. In general, these areas are also most susceptible to liquefaction.

Table 19: National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Soil Classification System 46F46F 47 NEHRP Soil Type Description
Mean Shear
Velocity to 30 m
(m/s)
A Hard Rock 1,500
B Firm to Hard Rock 760–1,500
C Dense Soil/Soft Rock 360–760
D Stiff Soil 180–360
E Soft Clays < 180

46 SanAndreasFault.org. (2010). Did you feel it? http://www.sanandreasfault.org/feelit.html 47 National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. (n.d.). Seismic Site Classification. https://www.masw.com/files/NEHRP.pdf
215
CC 10-01-2024
215 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 88
NEHRP Soil Type Description
Mean Shear
Velocity to 30 m
(m/s)
F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive clays, organic soils, soft clays >36 m thick)

The USGS has created a soil type map for the San Francisco Bay area that provides rough estimates of site effects based on surface geology. NEHRP soil types were assigned to a geologic unit based on the average velocity of that unit, and the USGS notes that this approach can lead to some inaccuracy. For instance, a widespread unit consisting of Quaternary sand, gravel, silt, and mud has been assigned as Class C soil types; however, some of the slower soil types in this unit fall under Class D. USGS does not have any way of differentiating units for slower-velocity soils in its digital geologic dataset. 47F47F 48 7.2 Hazard Profile
The Bay region is located within the active boundary between the Pacific and the North American tectonic plates. The western edge of the Santa Clara County OA is on the Pacific Plate, which is constantly moving northwest past the North American Plate at a rate of about 2 inches per year. 48F48F 49 Earthquakes in
the San Francisco Bay region result from strain energy constantly accumulating across the region because of the motion of the Pacific Plate relative to the North American Plate. The San Andreas Fault, on which earthquakes of magnitude 7.8 and 7.9 have occurred in historical time, including the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, is the fastest slipping fault along the plate boundary.

7.2.1 Past Events
The last major earthquake with an epicenter in the Santa Clara County OA was the 1984 Morgan Hill Earthquake (Magnitude 6.2). The epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (Magnitude 7.1) was just a few miles outside the OA. Since then, there have been no significant seismic events in Santa Clara County.4 9F49F
50 Other significant earthquakes in California include the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the 2014 Napa earthquake, and the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake.

The Morgan Hill Earthquake of April 24, 1984, was a moderate size earthquake on the Calaveras Fault. It caused moderate damage that extended southward from the epicenter. In the Santa Clara County OA, where most of the damage occurred, more than 550 structures experienced minor damage. Major structural damage was mostly confined to a small area on two streets in the Jackson Oaks subdivision east of Morgan Hill. There were numerous reports of fires resulting from the earthquake. Minor damage was also reported in San Martin and Coyote. Twenty-seven people were injured. 50F50F 51 This event led to a
FEMA major disaster declaration (DR-845).

48 U.S. Geological Survey. (2006). Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2006/2918/sim2918_geolposter-stdres.pdf 49 U.S. Geological Survey. (n.d.). Earthquake Facts & Earthquake Fantasy. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/earthquake-facts-earthquake- fantasy#:~:text=The%20Pacific%20Plate%20moves%20northwestward%20past%20the%20North,tiny%20shocks%2 0and%20a%20few%20moderate%20earth%20tremors.
50 Association of Bay Area Governments. (n.d.). Resilience. https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience 51 Association of Bay Area Governments. (2011). Bay Area Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Taming Natural Hazards. https://abag.ca.gov/2011-bay-area-hazard-mitigation-plan 216
CC 10-01-2024
216 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 89
The Loma Prieta Earthquake on October 17, 1989, occurred near Loma Prieta in the Santa Cruz Mountains along the San Andreas Fault. Thousands of landslides across the area blocked roads and highways, impacting rescue efforts and damaging structures. In Santa Clara County, collapsed and damaged buildings were reported in Gilroy, Los Gatos, and San José. 51F5 1F 52 California has been included in 13 FEMA major disaster (DR) or emergency (EM) declarations for earthquakes. Santa Clara County was included in only one declaration: DR-845 for the Loma Prieta Earthquake, which occurred in 1989. The declaration for this event covered Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Sacramento. Table 20 and Figure 21 summarize recent earthquakes of magnitude of

5.0 or greater within a 100-mile radius of the OA.

Table 20: Recent Earthquakes Magnitude 5.0 or Larger Within a 100-Mile Radius of the Operational Area
Date Magnitude Epicenter Location
10/25/2022 5.1 9 miles east-southeast of Alum Rock, California 4/5/2018 5.3 19 miles southwest of Santa Cruz, California 8/24/2014 6.0 South Napa, California
10/21/2012 5.3 15 miles east-northeast of King City, California 10/31/2007 5.5 San José, California
5/14/2002 5.0 Northern California
9/3/2000 5.0 Northern California
8/12/1998 5.2 Central California
4/18/1990 5.4 Northern California
10/17/1989 6.9 Loma Prieta, California Earthquake
10/18/1989 5.1 4 miles southwest of Monte Sereno, California 8/8/1989 5.4 Northern California
6/27/1989 5.3 Northern California
6/13/1988 5.3 San Francisco Bay Area, California
2/20/1988 5.1 Central California
3/31/1986 5.7 Northern California
1/26/1986 5.4 Central California

52 Association of Bay Area Governments. (2011). Bay Area Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Taming Natural Hazards. https://abag.ca.gov/2011-bay-area-hazard-mitigation-plan 217
CC 10-01-2024
217 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 90

Figure 22: Historic Earthquakes in the Operational Area

7.2.2 Location
Santa Clara County is exposed to three major regional faults: Hayward, Calaveras, and San Andreas.

The Hayward and Calaveras faults are in the central portion of Santa Clara County and present the greatest earthquake threat to the OA. The San Andreas Fault is on the northwestern boundary of the OA and runs through hills separating Santa Clara County from Santa Cruz County. The primary seismic hazard for the OA is potential ground shaking from these three large faults. 5 2F52F 53 The Greenville fault in the
northeastern portion of the county presents less risk than these three major faults. Figure 22 provides

53 Association of Bay Area Governments. (n.d.). Earthquake. https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/data- research/earthquake
218
CC 10-01-2024
218 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 91
location and probability of area fault lines. The three major faults are described further in the following sections.

Hayward Fault
The Hayward Fault runs parallel to and east of the San Andreas Fault. It extends from San José about 74 miles northward along the base of the East Bay Hills to San Pablo Bay. The fault is a right -lateral slip fault. The Hayward Fault extends through some of the Bay Area’s most populated areas. Communities on or near the fault include San José, Oakland, Fremont, Richmond, Berkeley, Hayward, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Kensington, and Milpitas. Among other sites, the fault runs directly under the now-abandoned old city hall in downtown Hayward, the University of California -Berkeley football stadium, the Mira Vista Golf Course near Berkeley, Lake Temescal, Contra Costa College, and Port Pinole Shoreline Regional Park. It is the single most urbanized earthquake fault in the United States. 53F5 3F 54 The Hayward Fault is becoming a hazard priority throughout the Bay Area because of its increased chance for activity and its intersection with multiple highly populated areas and critical infrastructure.

According to the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Volume 3, released in March 2015, the probability of experiencing a Magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake along the Hayward Fault in the next 30 years (starting from 2014) is 14.3 percent. 54F54F
55 An earthquake of this magnitude has regional implications for the entire Bay Area, as the Hayward Fault crosses transportation and resource infrastructure, including multiple highways, regional gas and water pipelines, electrical transmission lines, and the Hetch-Hetchy Aqueduct. Disruption of the Hetch-Hetchy system has the potential to severely impair water service to the Santa Clara County OA.

An important difference between the Hayward and San Andreas faults is “aseismic creep.” The San Andreas Fault is locked in many places; much of its energy is released in the form of earthquakes.

However, creep occurs in spots along the Hayward Fault. The ground moves a few millimeters each year, pulling apart sidewalks, pipelines and other structures that sit astride the fault. At Memorial Stadium at the University of California Berkeley, which was built in 1923, creep has caused the two sides of the stadiu m to be offset more than a foot, requiring retrofitting with expansion joints. Creep accounts for a small part of the total motion that takes place on a fault over geologic time; earthquakes account for the rest. 55F55F 56 54 California Office of Emergency Services. (2016, July 6). Bay Area Earthquake Plan. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/Preparedness/Documents/BayAreaEQConopsPub_Version_2016.pdf. 55 U.S. Geological Survey. (2015, March). UCEFR3: A New Earthquake Forecast for California’s Complex Fault System. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2015/3009/pdf/fs2015-3009.pdf 56 California Department of Conservation. (2008, October 7). Hayward Fault Fact Sheet. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/Pages/HaywardFaultFactSheet.aspx 219
CC 10-01-2024
219 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 92

Figure 23: Significant Known Faults in the Bay Area 56F 57 57 U.S. Geological Survey. (2016, August). Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf
220
CC 10-01-2024
220 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 93
Calaveras Fault
The Calaveras Fault is a major branch of the San Andreas Fault, located to the east of the Hayward Fault. It extends 76 miles from the San Andreas Fault near Hollister to Danville at its northern end. The Calaveras Fault is one of the most geologically active and complex faults in the Bay Area. Recent research from the University of Berkeley suggests that the Hayward fault is essentially an offshoot of the Calaveras Fault. 57F
58 This means that they could go off together, potentially creating a larger event as an earthquake’s magnitude is relative to its length. In a worst case scenario, a rupture along the Hayward fault could extend to the Calaveras Fault and south to where the Calaveras Fault meets the San Andreas Fault. The probability of experiencing a Magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake along the Calaveras Fault in the next 30 years is 7.4% percent.

San Andreas Fault
The San Andreas Fault extends 810 miles from the East Pacific rise in the Gulf of California through the Mendocino fracture zone off the shore of northern California. The fault is estimated to be 28 million years old. The San Andreas Fault is an example of a transform boundary exposed on a continent. It forms the tectonic boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate, and its motion is right -lateral strike-slip.

The San Andreas Fault is typically referenced in three segments. The southern segment extends from its origin at the East Pacific Rise to Parkfield, California, in Monterey County. The central segment extends from Parkfield to Hollister, California. The northern segment extends northwest from Hollister, through Santa Clara County, to its ultimate junction with the Mendocino fracture zone and the Cascadia subduction zone in the Pacific Ocean. The probability of experiencing a Magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake along the San Andreas Fault within the next 30 years is 6.4 percent.

Maps of Earthquake Impact on the OA
The impact of an earthquake is largely a function of the following components:
 Surface fault rupture
 Ground shaking (ground motion accelerations)
 Liquefaction (soil instability)

Impacts vary with distance from the source (both horizontally and vertically). Mapping that shows the impacts of these components was used to assess the risk of earthquakes within the OA, as described in the sections below.

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map
A probabilistic seismic hazard map shows the hazard from earthquakes that geologists and seismologists agree could occur. The maps are expressed in terms of probability of exceeding a certain ground motion, such as the 10-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This level of ground shaking has been used for designing buildings in high seismic areas. 5 8F 59 58 University of California Berkley. (2015, April 2). https://news.berkeley.edu/2015/04/02/calaveras-hayward-fault-link- means-potentially-larger-quakes/
59 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment, Association of Bay Area Government Resilience Program (2018, February 22) https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=c3a21989363b484ca6f9c0730e14d9f6. 221
CC 10-01-2024
221 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 94

Figure 24: 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration

7.2.3 ShakeMaps
A ShakeMap is a representation of ground shaking produced by an earthquake. The information it presents is different from the earthquake magnitude and epicenter that are released after an earthquake because ShakeMaps focus on the ground shaking resulting from the earthquake, rather than the parameters describing the earthquake source. An earthquake has only one magnitude and one epicenter, but it produces a range of ground shaking at sites throughout the region, depe nding on the distance from the earthquake, the rock and soil conditions at sites, and variations in the propagation of seismic waves from the earthquake due to complexities in the structure of the earth’s crust. A ShakeMap shows the extent and variation of ground shaking in a region immediately following significant earthquakes.

222
CC 10-01-2024
222 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 95
Ground motion and intensity maps are derived from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors (accelerometers), with interpolation based on estimated amplitudes where data are lacking, and site amplification corrections. Color-coded instrumental intensity maps are derived from empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity.

There are two types of scenario ground motion maps: a ShakeMap of median shaking for a fault rupture; and a map of simulated ground motions for a specified earthquake hypocenter and fault rupture. The latter is more like an earthquake event and presents more variability in ground motions than a scenario ShakeMap.

Earthquake scenario maps describe the expected ground motions and effects of hypothetical large earthquakes for a region. The following scenarios were chosen for this plan:
• A Magnitude 7.0 on the Hayward Fault with an epicenter approximately 25 miles north of the City of Palo Alto. 59F
60 • A Magnitude 7.0 on the Calaveras Fault with an epicenter approximately 25 miles north of the City of Milpitas. 6 0F
61 • A Magnitude 7.8 on the San Andreas Fault with an epicenter approximately 148 miles northwest of the City of Palo Alto. 61F
62 60 U.S. Geological Survey Shakemap Scenario. (n.d.) M 7.0 Scenario Earthquake – Hayward – Rodgers Creek. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/scenarios/eventpage/nclegacyhaywardrodgerscreekhnhsm7p0_se/executive. 61 U.S. Geological Survey Shakemap Scenario (n.d.) M 7.0 Scenario Earthquake – Calaveras North + Central+ South. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/scenarios/eventpage/nclegacycalaverascncccsm7p0_se/executive. 62 USGS Shakemap Scenario (n.d.) M 7.8 Scenario Earthquake – N. San Andreas; North Coast + Peninsula + Santa Cruz Mountain.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/scenarios/eventpage/nclegacynpsanandreassansapsasm7p8_se/executive. 223
CC 10-01-2024
223 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 96

Figure 25: Hayward Magnitude 7.0 Fault Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration

224
CC 10-01-2024
224 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 97

Figure 26: Calaveras Magnitude 7.0 Fault Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration

225
CC 10-01-2024
225 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 98

Figure 27: San Andreas Magnitude 7.8 Fault Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration Liquefaction Maps
Soil liquefaction maps are useful tools to assess potential damage from earthquakes. When the ground liquefies, sandy or silty materials saturated with water behave like a liquid, causing pipes to leak, roads and airport runways to buckle, and building foundations to be damaged. In general, areas with NEHRP Soils D, E, and F are also susceptible to liquefaction. If there is a dry soil crust, excess water will sometimes come to the surface through cracks in the confining layer, bringing liquefied sand with i t, creating sand boils. Figure 27 shows the liquefaction susceptibility in the Santa Clara County OA.

226
CC 10-01-2024
226 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 99

Figure 28: Liquefaction Susceptibility
Alquist-Priolo Zone Maps
The sliding movement of earth on either side of a fault is called fault rupture. Fault rupture begins below the ground surface at the earthquake hypocenter, typically between 3 and 12 miles below the ground surface in California. If an earthquake is large enough, the fault rupture will travel to the ground surface, potentially destroying structures built across its path.

California’s Alquist-Priolo Zone maps define regulatory zones for potential surface fault rupture where fault lines intersect with future development and populated areas. The purpose of these maps is to assist in the geologic investigation before construction begins to ensure that structures will not be located on an active fault.
227
CC 10-01-2024
227 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 100
Cities and counties affected by the zones must regulate certain development projects while sellers of real estate must disclose at the time of sale that the property lies within such a zone. The Santa Clara County OA is located in a designated Alquist-Priolo Zone for the Hayward Fault. 62F 63 Alquist-Priolo maps were referenced, but not specifically used, in the assessment of risk for this plan. This plan assumes that the studies conducted and information provided by the State of California are the best available data for surface rupture risk and could not be improved through a separate assessment for this plan. Alquist-Priolo maps are available to the public on the California Department of Conservation website.63F
64 7.2.4 Frequency
California experiences hundreds of earthquakes each year, most with minimal damage and magnitudes below 3.0 on the Richter Scale. Earthquakes that cause moderate damage to structures occur several times a year. According to the USGS, a strong earthquake measuring greater than 5.0 on the Richter Scale occurs every 2 to 3 years and major earthquakes of more than 7.0 on t he Richter Scale occur once a decade.

The USGS estimated in 2016 that there is a 72-percent probability of at least one earthquake before 2043 with a magnitude of 6.7 or greater that could cause widespread damage in the San Francisco Bay area. 64F 65 According to the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, the probability of moderate -sized earthquakes (magnitude 6.5 to 7.5) is lower than previously forecasted, whereas that of larger events is higher.65F
66 This is because the new study took into account the possibility of ruptures along multiple faults simultaneously. Probabilities for earthquakes on major fault lines in the San Francisco Bay Area have been estimated by the USGS in its 2016 report, as summarized in Table 21.

A major earthquake could happen at any time. Both the San Andreas and the Hayward Faults have the potential for experiencing major to great events. Large earthquakes along the Hayward Fault have occurred on average every 150 years – the last being in 1868. 6 6F 67 USGS describe the fault as a “tectonic
time bomb.”.6 7F
68 Any seismic activity of 6.0 or greater on faults within the OA would have significant impacts throughout the OA. Bay Area communities can use the likelihood of a 6.8 -7.0 earthquake near San Francisco as a predictive model of what to prepare for.

Further information on the impact of climate change on the probability of earthquakes is included in Section 11.

Probability in OA: Likely

63 California Department of Conservation. (2008). Hayward Fault Fact Sheet. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/Pages/HaywardFaultFactSheet.aspx 64 California Department of Conservation. (2023). The California Seismic Hazards Program. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/sh
65 U.S. Geological Survey. (2016, August). Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf
66 Southern California Earthquake Center. (2017). Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast. https://www.scec.org/ucerf#:~:text=UCERF3%20shows%20the%20likelihood%20of%20moderate- sized%20earthquakes%20%28magnitude,may%20occasional%20rupture%20together%20to%20cause%20larger%2 0earthquakes.
67 California Earthquake Authority. (2020, July 8). What to Expect from an Earthquake along the Hayward Fault. https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/Blog/2019/hayward-fault-earthquake-prediction 68 U.S. Geological Survey. (2008). The Hayward Fault – Is it Due for a Repeat of the Powerful 1868 Earthquake? https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3019/
228
CC 10-01-2024
228 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 101
Table 21: Earthquake Probabilities for the San Francisco Bay Area Region, 2014–204368F 69 Fault Probability of One or More M ≥ 6.7 Quake
2014–2043
Hunting Creek 16%
Green Valley 16%
Concord 16%
Greenville 16%
Berryessa 16%
Calaveras 26%
Maacama 8%
Rodgers Creek Fault 33%
Hayward 33%
San Andreas 22%
San Gregorio 6%

7.2.5 Severity
The severity of an earthquake can be expressed in terms of intensity or magnitude:
 Intensity represents the observed effects of ground shaking at any specified location. The intensity of earthquake shaking lessens with distance from the earthquake epicenter. Tabulated peak ground accelerations for listed “maximum credible earthquakes” ar e a measure of how a site will be affected by seismic events on distant faults.  Magnitude represents the amount of seismic energy released at the hypocenter of the earthquake. It is based on the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on instruments.

Magnitude is thus represented by a single, instrumentally determined value.

69 U.S. Geological Survey. (2017). Map of Known Active Faults and Earthquake Probabilities. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/map-known-active-faults-and-earthquake-probabilities 229
CC 10-01-2024
229 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 102

Figure 29: Peak Ground Acceleration with 10-percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years ABAG estimates a potential loss of 159,000 housing units in Bay Area communities after a large earthquake. This loss would have disastrous effects on local and regional economies. Recovery, repair, and rebuilding time for each household would be lengthy because of the number of homes that would need repair or replacement.

Annual losses also represent a sizable economic burden on the OA. According to FEMA 2023 report Hazus Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States, the annualized earthquake loss ratio (AELR)—or the estimated building loss value as a fraction of the building inventory replacement value—for the San José metro area is the second highest in California 69F

70. The metro areas include San
José, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. This finding emphasizes the fact that the severity of more frequent, non-catastrophic earthquakes is still significant enough to warrant further seismic risk reduction actions.

7.2.6 Warning Time
There is no current reliable way to predict when an earthquake will occur at any given location. Research and beta testing are being done with warning systems that use telecommunications that can travel faster than an earthquake’s high energy waves, called S waves.

70 FEMA. (April 2023). Hazus Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States. Hazus Estimated Annualized earthquake losses for the United States, FEMA P-366 230
CC 10-01-2024
230 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 103
The warning is generated by a rupture at an earthquake’s hypocenter and telecommunicated to provide a warning for shaking before the S waves arrive. These potential earthquake early warning systems could give up to approximately 40 seconds’ notice of peak earthquake shaking. In 2019, California became the nation’s first state to have a statewide earthquake early warning system. Early Warning California is able to provide alerts to the public seconds before an earthquake is felt. The warning time is very short, but it could allow for someone to get under a desk, step away from a hazardous material, or shut down a computer system.

7.3 Cascading Impacts
Earthquakes can cause a variety of cascading hazards including landslides, tsunamis, fires, dam failures, and hazardous material releases. Earthquakes cause large and sometimes disastrous landslides and mudslides. River valleys are vulnerable to slope failure, often as a result of loss of cohesion in clay-rich soils. Soil liquefaction occurs when water-saturated sands, silts, or gravelly soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose contact with one another and “float” freely in the water, t urning the ground into a pudding-like liquid. Building and road foundations lose load-bearing strength and may sink quicksand-like into what was previously solid ground. Unless properly secured, hazardous materials can be released, causing considerable damage to the environment and people.

Depending on the location, earthquakes can also trigger tsunamis. Most tsunamis are caused by underwater earthquakes. The tsunami hazard is furthered described in Section 13. Earthen dams and levees are highly susceptible to seismic events, and the impacts of their eventual failures can be considered secondary risk exposure to earthquakes. Dams do not have to be destroyed in an earthquake for there to be devastating consequences. Dams can be cracked due to embankment deformation induced by ground shaking, experience foundation damage, or be impacted by an earthquake-cased landslide. Dam failures can result in significant downstream flooding. This hazard is further described in Section 12.

Additionally, fires can result from gas lines or power lines that are broken or downed during the earthquake. It may be difficult to control a fire, particularly if the water lines feeding fire hydrants are also broken. After the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, for example, a fire burned for three days, destroying much of the city and leaving 200,000 people houseless. 70F 71 Fires in urban areas present unique firefighting
and public health challenges. They would be a considerable concern after a major earthquake event.

7.4 Exposure

7.4.1 Population
The entire population of the OA is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes.

The degree of exposure is dependent on many factors, including the age and construction type of the structures people live in, the soil their homes are constructed on, their proximity to fault location, etc.

Whether directly impacted or indirectly impact, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself.

71 The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). San Francisco Earthquake, 1906. https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/sf#:~:text=On%20the%20morning%20of%20April%2018%2C%201906 %2C%20a,three%20days%20and%20destroyed%20nearly%20500%20city%20blocks.. 231
CC 10-01-2024
231 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 104

7.4.2 Property
According to Santa Clara County Tax Assessor records, there are 535,391 buildings in the OA, with a total replacement value of $381 billion. Since all structures in the OA are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this total represents the property exposure to seismic events. Table 22 shows the exposure value breakdown by jurisdiction with the OA.

Table 22: Earthquake Exposure by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Number of Buildings Total Building Value:

Structure and Contents
Campbell 14,494 $9,337,059,000
Cupertino 17,460 $14,466,910,000
Gilroy 11,597 $7,140,035,000
Los Altos 13,433 $9,697,438,000
Los Altos Hills 3,342 $4,077,127,000
Los Gatos 10,467 $7,634,327,000
Milpitas 20,912 $13,830,811,000
Monte Sereno 1,078 $986,431,000
Morgan Hill 21,044 $5,547,035,000
Mountain View 6,545 $14,501,750,000
Palo Alto 19,914 $16,233,190,000
San José 25,5703 $168,553,959,000
Santa Clara (city) 32,978 $26,584,014,000
Saratoga 10,214 $8,348,159,000
Sunnyvale 41,941 $28,567,428,000
Unincorporated County 54,269 $46,077,151,000
Total 535,391 $381,582,824,000

7.4.3 Loss Potential
Property losses were estimated through the Level 2 Hazus analysis for the 100-year and 500-year earthquakes and the three scenario events. Table 23 through Table 27 show the results for two types of property loss:
 Structural loss, representing damage to building structures.  Contents loss, representing the value of lost contents and inventory.  Total loss, representing a combination of direct (structural and content) and indirect costs such as relocation, income loss, rental loss, and wage loss.

232
CC 10-01-2024
232 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 105
Table 23: Loss Estimates for 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake
% of Total
Replacement
Value
Structure Contents Total
Campbell $83,411,720 $147,383,480 $714,842,110 6.42
Cupertino $110,113,070 $202,728,570 $944,296,790 5.58
Gilroy $111,762,750 $186,420,740 $919,308,810 10.87
Los Altos $60,407,350 $105,705,000 $516,809,420 4.75
Los Altos Hills $15,337,870 $32,413,630 $143,905,510 3.27 Los Gatos $52,214,200 $97,964,100 $469,109,470 5.21
Milpitas $229,633,340 $366,547,460 $1,792,104,770 10.79 Monte Sereno $5,582,230 $9,912,830 $48,082,010 4.59
Morgan Hill $85,693,050 $144,753,610 $647,026,030 9.86 Mountain View $138,215,630 $228,950,290 $1,135,921,470 6.55 Palo Alto $123,276,450 $234,519,070 $1,143,458,680 5.89 San José $2,271,729,230 $3,804,754,590 $18,548,766,290 9.19 Santa Clara (city) $371,540,110 $623,137,970 $2,922,510,780 9.07 Saratoga $46,922,910 $87,663,150 $411,758,710 4.52
Sunnyvale $277,402,330 $471,198,590 $2,271,326,290 6.81 Unincorporated
County
$491,709,760 $847,476,000 $4,002,857,370 7.40
Total $4,474,952,000 $7,597,529,080 $36,632,084,510 8.07

Table 24: Loss Estimates for 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Replacement
Value Structure Contents Total
Campbell $332,939,800 $514,222,930 $2,637,075,050 23.67 Cupertino $483,321,680 $773,618,650 $3,846,779,640 22.62 Gilroy $325,070,990 $496,300,090 $2,565,057,320 30.59
Los Altos $253,325,050 $368,045,620 $1,957,493,570 17.73 Los Altos Hills $79,356,360 $139,360,770 $675,309,730 14.98 Los Gatos $237,262,800 $375,686,540 $1,937,596,360 21.33 Milpitas $868,837,200 $1,284,918,220 $6,491,226,210 39.92 Monte Sereno $24,465,000 $32,498,890 $181,964,270 17.12 Morgan Hill $278,620,680 $446,000,140 $2,045,968,380 31.44 Mountain View $554,403,710 $860,895,660 $4,359,290,900 25.19 233
CC 10-01-2024
233 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 106
Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Replacement
Value Structure Contents Total
Palo Alto $508,699,590 $904,493,750 $4,518,057,520 23.11 San José $7,547,645,640 $12,175,341,680 $60,078,192,300 30.15 Santa Clara (city) $1,281,702,680 $2,143,040,010 $10,023,437,510 31.60 Saratoga $215,118,140 $317,501,240 $1,672,277,590 18.05 Sunnyvale $1,022,240,280 $1,620,535,330 $8,017,810,470 24.07 Unincorporated County $1,834,740,210 $2,763,641,700 $13,914,201,350 25.85 Total $15,847,749,810 $25,216,101,220 $142,921,738,170 27.77

Table 25: Loss Estimates for San Andreas Fault Scenario Earthquake Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Replacement
Value Structure Contents Total
Campbell $49,214,560 $92,236,240 $432,374,280 3.91
Cupertino $81,301,810 $153,677,230 $710,419,020 4.24
Gilroy $33,481,560 $61,301,010 $280,483,670 3.24
Los Altos $55,804,220 $90,175,700 $462,202,090 4.27
Los Altos Hills $10,926,300 $20,917,530 $97,960,120 2.25 Los Gatos $27,424,860 $45,440,870 $234,302,660 2.58
Milpitas $296,969,340 $464,378,390 $2,282,091,580 13.76 Monte Sereno $2,727,410 $4,081,180 $21,982,080 2.10
Morgan Hill $24,995,170 $42,475,860 $184,472,540 2.78
Mountain View $132,855,600 $217,121,870 $1,083,896,690 6.22 Palo Alto $97,695,850 $200,178,300 $936,127,860 4.90
San José $1,868,771,120 $3,118,303,370 $14,933,844,800 7.34 Santa Clara (city) $325,662,720 $591,625,640 $2,655,220,690 8.28 Saratoga $27,814,510 $48,360,240 $237,674,840 2.62
Sunnyvale $260,122,500 $429,175,020 $2,076,576,830 6.17 Unincorporated County $288,238,330 $481,595,870 $2,294,416,020 4.20 Total $3,584,005,860 $6,061,044,320 $28,924,045,770 6.34

Table 26: Loss Estimates for Hayward Fault Scenario Earthquake Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Replacement
Value Structure Contents Total
Campbell $40,301,090 $98,620,250 $409,079,960 3.76
234
CC 10-01-2024
234 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 107
Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Replacement
Value Structure Contents Total
Cupertino $76,928,120 $182,120,770 $752,020,960 4.56
Gilroy $30,147,280 $73,497,000 $305,747,590 3.72
Los Altos $45,091,440 $101,276,690 $433,600,270 4.03
Los Altos Hills $25,102,370 $58,726,440 $246,663,700 5.56 Los Gatos $49,681,050 $105,154,360 $470,871,870 5.23
Milpitas $22,068,720 $68,614,250 $254,995,140 1.61
Monte Sereno $4,912,510 $10,456,710 $45,981,960 4.41
Morgan Hill $17,740,240 $47,816,600 $177,511,110 2.78
Mountain View $65,744,520 $161,424,770 $669,374,410 3.94 Palo Alto $74,475,780 $202,860,830 $827,014,160 4.32
San José $412,039,580 $1,243,445,510 $4,732,726,140 2.46 Santa Clara (city) $78,077,550 $242,884,660 $886,193,970 2.89 Saratoga $48,918,390 $105,223,740 $456,057,380 5.04
Sunnyvale $97,943,980 $261,626,210 $1,041,138,290 3.22
Unincorporated
County
$206,686,640 $460,193,440 $1,944,849,460 3.66
Total $1,295,859,260 $3,423,942,230 $13,653,826,370 3.13

Table 27: Loss Estimates for Calaveras Fault Scenario Earthquake Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Replacement
Value Structure Contents Total
Campbell $40,939,680 $86,487,180 $386,261,760 3.56
Cupertino $71,012,520 $146,392,880 $651,211,640 3.95 Gilroy $19,238,740 $45,359,670 $188,770,670 2.26
Los Altos $50,620,630 $86,562,830 $431,369,830 4.03
Los Altos Hills $10,762,060 $20,780,700 $96,841,280 2.23 Los Gatos $23,993,340 $43,003,930 $213,109,080 2.40
Milpitas $209,898,010 $374,708,150 $1,728,857,450 10.54 Monte Sereno $2,665,370 $4,043,610 $21,636,660 2.08
Morgan Hill $15,897,370 $34,459,240 $137,948,090 2.14 Mountain View $105,347,590 $194,639,980 $921,924,650 5.39 Palo Alto $84,410,530 $188,043,650 $842,872,700 4.49 San José $1,354,935,210 $2,533,808,530 $11,560,267,970 5.78 Santa Clara (city) $250,185,320 $521,829,550 $2,208,182,000 6.99 Saratoga $26,733,350 $47,643,880 $231,358,470 2.57
235
CC 10-01-2024
235 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 108
Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Replacement
Value Structure Contents Total
Sunnyvale $198,860,640 $368,380,050 $1,711,126,870 5.17 Unincorporated
County
$211,495,100 $406,336,080 $1,828,500,120 3.42
Total $2,676,995,460 $5,102,479,910 $23,160,239,240 5.16

A summary of the property-related loss results is as follows:
 For a 100-year probabilistic earthquake shaking, the estimated damage potential is $36.6 billion, or 8 percent of the total replacement value for the OA.  For a 500-year probabilistic earthquake shaking, the estimated damage potential is $142.9 billion, or 27.8 percent of the total replacement value for the OA.  For a 7.8-magnitude event on the San Andreas Fault, the estimated damage potential is $28.9 billion, or 6.3 percent of the total replacement value for the OA.  For a 7.0-magnitude event on the Hayward Fault, the estimated damage potential is $13.7 billion or 5 percent of the total replacement value for the OA.  For a 7.0-magnitude event on the Calaveras Fault, the estimated damage potential is $23.2 billion, or 5.6 percent of the total replacement value for the OA.

The Hazus analysis also estimated the amount of earthquake-caused debris in the OA for the 100-year and 500-year earthquakes and the three scenario events, as summarized in Table 28: .

Table 28: Estimated Earthquake-Caused Debris
Scenario Debris to Be Removed (Thousands of Tons)
100-Year Earthquake 4,589
500-Year Earthquake 17,862
San Andreas Fault Scenario 3,902
Hayward Fault Scenario 1,106
Calaveras Fault Scenario 2,638

7.4.4 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
All critical facilities in the OA are exposed to the earthquake hazard. Table 29: Number of Critical Facilities Exposed to Earthquakes lists the number of each type of facility by jurisdiction. Additionally, communities in the Bay Area are serviced by infrastructure that is susceptible to damage from earthquakes, as nearly all the infrastructure connection that the area depends on for wa ter, electric power, fuel, and transportation services cross a fault. 71F 72 Hazardous materials releases can occur during
an earthquake from fixed facilities or transportation-related incidents. Transportation corridors can be disrupted during an earthquake, leading to the release of materials to the surrounding environment.

72 California Office of Emergency Services. (2016, July 6). Bay Area Earthquake Plan. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/Preparedness/Documents/BayAreaEQConopsPub_Version_2016.pdf 236
CC 10-01-2024
236 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 109
Facilities holding hazardous materials are of particular concern because of possible isolation of neighborhoods surrounding them. During an earthquake, structures storing these materials could rupture and leak into the surrounding area or an adjacent waterway, having a disastrous effect on the environment, or emit chemicals in a toxic plume.

Table 29: Number of Critical Facilities Exposed to Earthquakes Jurisdiction
Number of Facilities by Jurisdiction
Critical
Facilities Transportation Utilities Community
Assets
Hazardous
Materials Total
Campbell 21 23 0 7 6 57
Cupertino 26 26 2 16 5 75
Gilroy 25 34 2 13 7 81
Los Altos 22 8 0 11 0 41
Los Altos Hills 6 21 0 2 0 29
Los Gatos 20 35 0 6 1 62
Milpitas 32 66 1 19 60 178
Monte Sereno 1 1 0 1 0 3
Morgan Hill 22 14 1 10 8 55
Mountain View 37 52 1 29 20 139
Palo Alto 49 42 4 46 26 167
San José 370 498 18 191 135 1,212
Santa Clara (city) 53 63 9 36 103 264
Saratoga 18 32 0 11 0 61
Sunnyvale 40 49 3 27 51 170
Unincorporated
County
35 187 17 48 4 291
Total 777 1151 58 473 426 2885

7.4.5 Environment
The entire OA is a seismically active area and could be exposed to ground shaking from several different faults. According to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones map for the San Francisco Bay Region, all of the OA is likely to experience very strong, severe, or violent shaking. Environmental problems as a result of an earthquake could occur anywhere in the OA. Cascading hazards will likely have some of the most damaging effects on the environment.

7.5 Vulnerability
Earthquake vulnerability data was generated using a Level 2 Hazus analysis. Once the location and size of a hypothetical earthquake are identified, Hazus estimates the intensity of the ground shaking, the number of buildings damaged, the number of casualties, the damage to transportation systems and utilities, the number of people displaced from their homes, and the estimated cost of repair and cleanup.

Changes in conditions: No change in vulnerability
237
CC 10-01-2024
237 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 110
• Overall, the OA is in a seismically active area with multiple fault sources. • The OA has a significant population and number of assets exposed to damage from earthquake which constitutes a high risk.
• Population and building development has grown but at a very slow rate and new buildings are built in accordance with seismic codes.

7.5.1 Population
Impacts on persons and households in the OA were estimated for the 100-year and 500-year shaking from earthquakes and the three scenario events through the Level 2 Hazus analysis. One of the primary impacts on population is being displaced from their homes and seeking alternative shelter. Table 30:

Estimated Earthquake Impact on Persons summarizes the results. People can also experience physical injury or death, be impacted by disruptions to transportation and utility systems, loss or wages or other loss of services from business interruptions.

There are estimated to be 29,329 people in 10,010 households living on soils with high to very high liquefaction potential in the OA, or about 1.52 percent of the total population. Higher liquefaction potential contributes to structural damage and subsequent displacement of people from their residences.

A summary analysis of demographics using the Hazus data identified populations with additional factors that add to their vulnerability to earthquake hazard. The Hazus model does not provide results for how specific demographic categories will be impacted by the different earthquake scenarios . This only provides a general indication of the number of people who may have a more difficult time recovering from the impacts of an earthquake.
 Economically Disadvantaged Populations: It is estimated that 2.45 percent of the people within the OA are economically disadvantaged, defined as having household incomes of $20,000 or less.
 Population over 64 Years Old: It is estimated that 260,705 persons or 13.5 percent of the population in the OA are over 64 years old.
 Population under 16 Years Old: It is estimated that 422,719 persons or 21.8 percent of the population within the OA under 18 years of age.
 Racial and ethnic minorities comprise a significant proportion of the population: 39% are Asian and 25% are Hispanic.

Table 30: Estimated Earthquake Impact on Persons
Scenario Number of Displaced
Households
Number of Persons Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
100-Year Shaking from Earthquakes 16,071 8,076
500-Year Shaking from Earthquakes 77,037 38,242
San Andreas ShakeMap Scenario 4,364 2,047
Calaveras ShakeMap Scenario 8,199 4,047
Hayward ShakeMap Scenario 2,708 1,282

The 100-year shaking results are less than the 500-year shaking results because stronger shaking occurs less often and is more likely to occur in a 500-year period than a 100-year period. 238
CC 10-01-2024
238 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 111

7.5.2 Property
Building Age
Table 31 identifies significant milestones in building and seismic code requirements that directly affect the structural integrity of development. Using these time periods, the Core Planning Group used the National Structure Inventory to identify the number of structures in the OA by date of construction. The NSI provided limited data on the number of structures built between 2005 and 2016.

Table 31: Age of Structures in Operational Area
Time Period
Number of Current
OA Structures
Built in Period
Significance of Time Frame
1939-1940 7,853 In 1940, the first strong motion recording was made. 1941-1960 96,753 In 1960, the Structural Engineers Association of California published guidelines on recommended earthquake provisions. 1961-1975 224,356 In 1975, significant improvements were made to lateral force requirements.
1976–1993 141,510 In 1994, the Uniform Building Code was amended to include provisions for seismic safety.
1994–present 65,144 Seismic code is currently enforced. Please note that data on more recent structures are limited.

Total 535,616

The number of structures does not reflect the number of total housing units, as many multi -family units and attached housing units are reported as one structure.

Approximately 38.5 percent of the OA’s structures were constructed after the Uniform Building Code was amended in 1994 to include seismic safety provisions.

Soft-Story Buildings
A soft-story building is a multi-story building with one or more floors that are “soft” because of structural design. If a building has a floor that is 70-percent less stiff than the floor above it, it is considered a soft- story building. This soft story creates a major weak point in an earthquake. Since soft stories are typically associated with retail spaces and parking garages, they are often on the lower stories of a building. When they collapse, they can take the whole building down with them, causing serious structural damage that may render the structure totally unusable.

These floors can be especially dangerous in earthquakes because they cannot cope with the lateral forces caused by the swaying of the building during a quake. As a result, the soft story may fail, causing what is known as a soft-story collapse. Soft-story collapse is one of the leading causes of earthquake damage to private residences.

Loss estimation and vulnerability analyses based on models with specified fragility curves for soft -story construction in the OA are not currently available to support quantitative analyses of risk. There are qualitative reports on risk available within the OA. These reports were not used for this analysis due to their lack of quantitative data. ABAG and other agencies in the Bay Area have programs generating this type of data, but it is not known when such data will be available for the Santa Clara County OA. This type of data will need to be generated to support future risk assessments of the earthquake hazard. 239
CC 10-01-2024
239 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 112
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
Unreinforced masonry buildings are constructed from materials such as adobe, brick, hollow clay tiles, or other masonry materials and do not contain an internal reinforcing structure, such as rebar in concrete or steel bracing for brick. Unreinforced masonry poses a significant danger during an earthquake because the mortar holding masonry together is typically not strong enough to withstand significant earthquakes.

Additionally, the brittle composition of these houses can break apart and fall away or buckl e, potentially causing a complete collapse of the building.

In the Santa Clara County OA, unreinforced masonry buildings are generally brick buildings that were constructed before modern earthquake building codes and designs were enacted. The State of California enacted a law in 1986 that required all local governments in Seismic Zone 4 (nearest to active earthquake faults) to inventory unreinforced masonry buildings. The law encourages local governments to adopt local mandatory strengthening programs, delineate seismic retroﬁt standards, and put into place measures to reduce the number of people in unreinforced masonry buildings.

According to ABAG, housing units in unreinforced masonry buildings account for only 1 -percent of the total Bay Area housing stock. 72F
73 7.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Level of Damage
Hazus classifies the vulnerability of critical facilities to earthquake damage in five categories: no damage, slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, or complete damage. Hazus also classifies facilities in terms of loss-of-function and possible restoration times. The model was used to assign a vulnerability category to each critical facility category in the OA.

The analysis was performed for the 100-year and 500-year events and for all three fault scenarios.

Selected results are summarized in Table 32 through Table 37.

Table 32: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from 100-Year Earthquake Type of Critical Facility Total
With
Moderate
Damage
With
Complete
Damage
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 1
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 7
Essential Facilities 777 151 0 257 N/A
Transportation 1154 12 0 1146 1154
Utilities 58 49 0 30 57
Community Assets 515 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hazardous Materials 426 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Overall 2927 212 0 1433 1211
Notes: Damage level represents the highest-probability damage state for each facility. Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. See Section 6.7 for discussion of data limitations.

This scenario modeled significant impacts to essential facilities. Loss of functionality of these services will result in difficult response in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake. Furthermore, of the 656,063

73 Association of Bay Area Governments. (2016, March). Resilience Policy Guidance Document Soft Story Retrofit Program Development. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/soft_story_report_web_version_v2.pdf 240
CC 10-01-2024
240 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 113
households, 203,485 are expected to be without potable water, and 358,285 without electric power on day one. Transportation systems will mostly remain functional.

Table 33: Essential Facility Functionality in 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Facility Total With >50% Functionality on
Day 1
Hospital 20 7
Schools 617 195
EOCs 7 4
Police Stations 35 12
Fire Stations 98 39

Table 34: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from 500-Year Earthquake Type of Critical
Facility Total
With
Moderate
Damage
With
Complete
Damage
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 1
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 7
Essential Facilities 777 654 62 0 N/A
Transportation 1154 599 23 607 942
Utilities 58 58 14 0 31
Community Assets 515 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hazardous Materials 426 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Overall 2957 1311 99 607 973
Notes: Damage level represents the highest-probability damage state for each facility. Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. See Section 6.7 for discussion of data limitations.

Table 35: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from Hayward Fault Type of Critical
Facility Total
With
Moderate
Damage
With
Complete
Damage
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 1
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 7
Essential Facilities 777 25 0 704 N/A
Transportation 1154 0 0 1153 1154
Utilities 58 32 0 33 58
Community Assets 515 N/A N/A N/A N/A
241
CC 10-01-2024
241 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 114
Type of Critical
Facility Total
With
Moderate
Damage
With
Complete
Damage
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 1
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 7
Hazardous Materials 426 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Overall 2927 57 0 1890 1212
Notes: Damage level represents the highest-probability damage state for each facility. Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. See Section 6.7 for discussion of data limitations.

Table 36: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from San Andreas Fault Type of Critical
Facility Total
With
Moderate
Damage
With
Complete
Damage
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 1
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 7
Essential Facilities 777 124 0 531 N/A
Transportation 1154 10 0 1151 1154
Utilities 58 29 0 33 58
Community Assets 515 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hazardous Materials 426 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Overall 2927 163 0 1715 1212
Notes: Damage level represents the highest-probability damage state for each facility. Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. See Section 6.7 for discussion of data limitations.

Table 37: Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from Calaveras Type of Critical
Facility Total
With
Moderate
Damage
With
Complete
Damage
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 1
With
Functionality
>50% on Day 7
Essential Facilities 777 45 0 579 N/A
Transportation 1154 10 0 1150 1154
Utilities 58 29 0 33 53
Community Assets 515 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hazardous Materials 426 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Overall 2927 84 0 1762 1207
Notes: Damage level represents the highest-probability damage state for each facility. Values shown are accurate for comparison of results in this plan. See Section 6.7 for discussion of data limitations.

Hazardous Materials
An earthquake can cause hazardous material releases from fixed facilities and transportation -related releases. The Bay Area includes numerous oil refineries, chemical plants, tank farms, pipelines, high tech and biotechnology laboratories and production facilities and other industrial facilities. 73F 74 74 California Office of Emergency Services. (2016, July 6). Bay Area Earthquake Plan. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/Preparedness/Documents/BayAreaEQConopsPub_Version_2016.pdf 242
CC 10-01-2024
242 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 115
Additionally, there are there are multiple highways and railroads which transport HAZMAT, oil, and natural gas products in the OA. Although the Hazus scenarios did not include specific damage estimates for hazardous materials facilities, any facility could experience damage from severe ground shaking that could result in a HAZMAT incident.

Transportation
Liquefaction, landslides, and fault surface rupture during an earthquake can significantly damage roads.

Access to major roads is crucial to life and safety after a disaster event as well as to response and recovery operations. Disruptions in transportation systems are of particular concern in areas with limited access via transportation corridors, as a major event has the potential to isolate these communities from critical assistance and aid. Several communities in the OA extend into the foothills, where narrow and dead-end spur roads are common. Landslide susceptibility is also higher in these areas. Although the Hazus models did not indicate significant functional disruption to transportation network, past events indicate transportation damage should be expected that will disrupt response and recovery, and also require costly repairs.

Bridges
Earthquake shaking, liquefaction and landslides can significantly damage bridges, which often provide the only access to some neighborhoods. Since soft soil regions generally follow floodplain boundaries, those bridges that cross water courses are considered vulnerable. Key factors in the degree of vulnerability are the facility’s age and type of construction and soil classification at the bridge support structure, which indicate the standards to which the bridge was built. An example of the location of bridges in the OA with potential damage in the Calaveras Hazus Scenario is shown in Figure 29.

Figure 30: Highway Bridge Percentage Damage Exceeds Moderate: Calaveras Scenario Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Water and sewer infrastructure would likely suffer considerable damage in the event of an earthquake. If water and wastewater treatment plants were damaged, there could be a lack of potable water and spilling of raw sewage into bays or rivers. 74F
75 Distribution systems with older brittle pipes are vulnerable to shaking

75 California Seismic Safety Commission. (1999). Earthquake Risk Management: A Toolkit for Decision-Makers. https://ssc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2020/08/ssc_1999-04_risk_toolkit.pdf 243
CC 10-01-2024
243 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 116
and liquefaction in particular. Water and sewer restoration generally takes longer than other critical infrastructure. There would be significant regional needs for water after a Bay Area earthquake. Table 38 and Table 39 give more details on potential damage to these systems based on Hazus models. These indicate a significant number of residents across the OA without essential services for an extended time.

Table 38: Damage to Potable Water Systems by Hazus Scenario Potable Water Total Pipelines
Length
Number of
leaks
Number of
Breaks
Households
without service
at Day 7
100 Year 7,119 2,050 777 147,285
500 Year 7,119 13,762 4,974 625,830
San Andreas 7119 4,717 1,457 362,907
Calaveras 7119 4,696 1,375 342,397
Hayward 7,119 2,947 839 170,876

Table 39: Damage to Waste Water Systems by Hazus Scenario Waste Water Total Pipelines
Length
Number of
leaks
Number of
Breaks
100 Year 4,272 1,030 390
500 Year 4,272 6,913 2,498
San Andreas 4,272 2,369 733
Calaveras 4,272 2,359 691
Hayward 4,272 1,480 421

7.5.4 Environment
Environmental problems as a result of an earthquake can be numerous. Earthquakes can cause ground shaking, soil liquefaction, landslides, fissures, fires, dam failures, and tsunamis. Cascading hazards will likely have some of the most damaging effects on the environment. Earthquake-induced landslides in landslide-prone areas can significantly damage surrounding habitat. It is also possible for streams to be rerouted after an earthquake. Rerouting can change the water quality, possibly damaging habitat and feeding areas. There is a possibility that streams fed by groundwater wells will dry up because of changes in underlying geology. Hazardous material releases, including through transportation incidents, damage to sewers, and natural gas lines, as well as other infrastructure could seriously impact the environment.

7.5.5 Economic Impact
Earthquake events can severely disrupt the economy of the affected area. Economic impact will be largely associated with the disruption of power, gas, telecommunication, water, and wastewater services caused by an earthquake event. In general, major events may cause damage to land, buildings, transportation infrastructure, and businesses. With an event of such significance, economic recovery could take years, depending on available recovery funds.

244
CC 10-01-2024
244 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 117
The total economic impact of a major earthquake is likely to spread well beyond the impacted area, especially in a population center like the Santa Clara County OA. This is often referred to the “ripple effect.”75F
76 The United States has a highly developed, specialized, interdependent, money economy. While those features make the economy productive and resilient, they also mean that a large magnitude earthquake will not be just a regional event. It has the potential to impact the national economy. An earthquake can result in impacts to the national economy including through disruptions to supply chains, shocks to financial markets, and drain on the insurance system.

Various sectors of the OA economy would be impacted differently. For example, tourism would likely be impacted over a long term while the impacted area recovers. The retail sector would likely recover quickly to support recovery, and the construction sector would eventually experience growth. Businesses would experience different levels of damage to property, loss of revenues, loss of market share and/or reputation. Business interruptions in recent California earthquakes have caused the failure of a number of small and medium-sized businesses. 76F
77 Failed businesses impact the sales, property, and other tax revenue for local governments. Recovery of the economy is a key sign of a community ’s resilience.

7.6 Future Trends in Development
Since all of the Santa Clara County Operational Area is located within an earthquake hazard zone, all future development will, to some extent, be exposed to the earthquake hazard. In the 30 years since the Loma Prieta earthquake, the bay region has invested about $80 billion (in 2016 U.S. dollars) in seismic strengthening of transportation, water, and other critical infrastructure; hospitals, schools, and governments facilities; and unreinforced masonry, soft story, and other types of buildings. 77F 78 More work
needs to be done to prepare the region for the next major event. A key part of that is adopting and enforcing land use practices and building codes that consider seismic hazards.

Land use planning is directed by general plans adopted under California’s General Planning Law.

Municipal planning partners are encouraged to establish General Plans with policies directing land use and dealing with issues of geologic and seismic safety. These plans provide the capability at the local municipal level to protect future development from the impacts of earthquakes. All planning partners reviewed their general plans under the capability assessments performed for this effort. Deficiencies identified by these reviews can be identified as mitigation actions to increase the capability to deal with future trends in development.

Unincorporated Santa Clara County and the development departments in participating jurisdictions will strictly enforce all seismic building codes and design standards to prevent loss of life and property caused by earthquake. Public education, cooperation with the development community, and individual preparedness are essential as the OA welcomes thousands of new residents and hundreds of new businesses to each year. It will take a whole community approach to prepare for the next seismic event.

Kaiser Permanente, a health care organization, was highlighted by FEMA as a mitigation best practice for its work to seismically retrofit or replace its existing hospitals and buildings, including the Santa Clara Medical Center, in accordance with California Senate Bill 1953. ABAG’s Resilience Program assists Bay Area local governments and residents in planning and preparing for earthquakes through data, planning, policy, and implementation tools. Plan Bay Area 2050 proposes long-term strategies for minimizing damage from a major earthquake.

76 National Academies of Since, Engineering and Medicine. (1992). The Economic Consequences of a Catastrophic Earthquake. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/2027/the-economic-consequences-of-a-catastrophic- earthquake-proceedings-of-a
77 California Seismic Safety Commission. (1999). Earthquake Risk Management: A Toolkit for Decision-Makers. https://ssc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2020/08/ssc_1999-04_risk_toolkit.pdf 78 U.S. Geological Survey. (2021, October). They HayWired Earthquake Scenario. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2021/3054/fs20213054.pdf
245
CC 10-01-2024
245 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 118
It aims to provide means-based financial support for the retrofit of existing residential buildings. These investments would ensure higher seismic standards to protect residents, especially those with low - income, from earthquakes.

7.7 Scenario
With the abundance of fault exposure in the Bay Area, the potential scenarios for earthquake activity are many. An earthquake does not have to occur within the OA to have a significant impact on the people, property, and economy of the OA. In 2018, the USGS in partnership with the Southern California Earthquake Center shared hypothetical earthquake scenario known as the HayWired Earthquake Scenario which imagined a M7.0 earthquake centered in Oakland, California rupturing the Hayward fault along its length for about 52 miles. In this scenario, the entire OA would experience ground shaking and severe impacts. A screenshot from the computer simulation of the earthquake shows the region that would be impacted in Figure 30.

If this type of event were to occur, there would be significant impacts through the OA, region, and nation.

More than a million Bay Area homes would be impacted. 78F 79 Potential warning systems would be able to
provide mere seconds or tens of seconds of warning time. This would not provide adequate time for preparation. There would be immediate need for first responder assistance. Many thousands of people could be stranded in elevators or under debris. Models predict hundreds of deaths and tho usands of injuries. There would be massive structural failure of property on NEHRP C, D, E, and F soils. Levees and revetments built on these poor soils would likely fail, representing a loss of critical infrastructure. Fires could be started and, in worse case scenarios, turn into to firestorms, devastating urban areas. Electricity may not return for days. Water restoration may take up to a month. Many homes, particularly those built to older building code standards, would be considered unsafe to return to. Tens of thousands of households could be displaced. Aftershocks would continue to rock the area, causing more damage than the main shock in communities like Palo Alto. 79F
80 Aftershocks would be felt for months to years after the earthquake event. Cascading impacts, like landslides and mudslides, could further damage structures.

River valley hydraulic-fill sediment areas are also vulnerable to slope failure, often as a result of loss of cohesion in clay-rich soils. Soil liquefaction would occur in water-saturated sands, silts, or gravelly soils.

The long-term impacts of an earthquake like this would be enormous. The estimated financial loss to residential, commercial, and infrastructure would be over $100 billion around the Bay Area.

79 California Earthquake Authority. (2020, July 8). What to Expect from an Earthquake along the Hayward Fault. https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/Blog/2019/hayward-fault-earthquake-prediction 80 U.S. Geological Survey. (2018). The HayWired Scenario: An Urban Earthquake in a Connected World. https://geonarrative.usgs.gov/haywired_vol1/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Geological%20Survey%20%28USGS%29%2 0HayWired%20scenario%20considers,fact%2C%20the%20HayWired%20earthquake%20will%20probably%20never %20occur.
246
CC 10-01-2024
246 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 119

Figure 31: Hayward Fault Earthquake Scenario 8 0F
81 7.8 Issues
Important issues associated with an earthquake include the following:
 More quantitative information is needed on the exposure and performance of soft -story construction within the OA.
 Approximately 29 percent of the OA’s building stock was built prior to 1975, when seismic provisions became uniformly applied through building code applications.  Based on the modeling of critical facility performance performed for this plan, a portion of facilities in the OA is expected to have complete or extensive damage from scenario events. These facilities are prime targets for structural retrofits.
 Critical facility owners should be encouraged to create or enhance continuity of operations plans using the information on risk and vulnerability contained in this plan.  Geotechnical standards should be established that consider the probable impacts from earthquakes in the design and construction of new or enhanced facilities.  There are a large number of high risk dams within the OA. Dam failure warning and evacuation plans and procedures should be reviewed and updated to reflect the dams ’ risk potential associated with earthquake activity in the region.

81 U.S. Geological Survey. (2018, January 18). HayWired Scenario. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/science- application-for-risk-reduction/science/haywired-
scenario#:~:text=The%20HayWired%20earthquake%20scenario%20is%20a%20magnitude%207.0,Ma%20By%20Ea rthquake%20Hazards%20Program%20June%2016%2C%202020
247
CC 10-01-2024
247 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 120
 Earthquakes could trigger other natural hazard events such as liquefaction, dam failures and landslides, and fire which could severely impact the OA.  A worst-case scenario would be the occurrence of a large seismic event during a flood or high - water event. Levee failures would happen at multiple locations, increasing the impacts of the individual events.
 Citizens are expected to be self-sufficient up to 3 days after a major earthquake without government response agencies, utilities, private-sector services, and infrastructure components.

Education programs are currently in place to facilitate development of individual, family, neighborhood, and business earthquake preparedness. Government alone can never make this region fully prepared. It takes individuals, families, and communities working in concert with one another to truly be prepared for disaster.
 After a major seismic event, the Santa Clara County Operational Area is likely to experience disruptions in the flow of goods and services resulting from the destruction of major transportation infrastructure across the broader region.
 The Santa Clara County OA is home to multiple tech centers that provide goods and services to the nation and world. A major earthquake in the region would disrupt these service providers and severely impact the economic and functional stability of the region and potentially the country.

Table 40: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Earthquake
Subject  Ranking  Impacts/Earthquake
Public  Minimal to
severe
Depending on the size and location of the earthquake, the public may be at significant risk from an earthquake event.

They could sustain injuries from falls, collapsing building, fall items, and damaged utilities, as well as any number of cascading impacts. Loss of life is possible. There could be significant disruption to normal life following an event.

People with disabilities and access/functional needs, as well as other diverse characteristics that may impact their ability to respond and recover from an event, will need additional assistance.

Responders  Minimal to
severe
First responders would be relied upon during the
aftermath of an earthquake and potentially exposed to
increased risk of injury and loss of life, particularly from aftershocks.

Continuity of
Operations (including
continue delivery of
services)
Minimal to
severe
Earthquakes can damage buildings, roads, utilities, and other critical infrastructure necessary for normal
operations. Government facilities may be impacted.

Records and systems may be damaged or destroyed.

Damages may take a long time to repair. Delivery of
services may be disrupted.
248
CC 10-01-2024
248 of 780
Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Section 7: Earthquakes 121
Subject  Ranking  Impacts/Earthquake
Property, Facilities, and
Infrastructure
Minimal to
severe
Depending on the location and magnitude of the
earthquake, buildings be damaged or destroyed; bridges, highways, dams, and other public infrastructure may fail; utilities would be interrupted; and community lifelines would be impacted. There would be debris to clean-up.

Cupertino City CouncilOctober 1, 2024

Cupertino City Council
October 1, 2024