Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, August 27, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, August 27, 2024
via Videoconference and In Person
PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may participate by being present at the Los Altos Council Chamber at Los Altos City Hall located at 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA during the meeting.

Public comment is accepted in person at the physical meeting location, or via email to [email protected].

RULES FOR CONDUCT: Pursuant to Los Altos Municipal Code, Section 2.05.010 "Interruptions and rules for conduct": Understanding that the purpose of the city council meetings is to conduct the people's business for the benefit of all the people, in the event that any meeting of the city council is willfully interrupted by a person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting impossible, the mayor, mayor pro tem, or any other member of the city council acting as the chair may order the removal of the person or persons responsible for the disruption and bar them from further attendance at the council meeting, or otherwise proceed pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.0 or any applicable penal statute or city ordinance.

REMOTE MEETING OBSERVATION: Members of the public may view the meeting via the link below, but will not be permitted to provide public comment via Zoom or telephone. Public comment will be taken in-person, and members of the public may provide written public comment by following the instructions below.
https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/83565185743?pwd=GM8nRGihwnQ36XRPbyraauGfcs9k1i.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 835 6518 5743 / Passcode: 574351 SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emails sent to this email address are sent to/received immediately by the City Council. Emails sent directly to the City Council as a whole or individually, and not sent to [email protected] will not be included as a public comment in the Council packet.

Please note: Personal information, such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included in your written comments, they will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper format must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Comments provided in hard copy/paper format after 2:00 p.m. will be distributed the following day and included with public comment in the Council packet. 1 8/27/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 4
The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

SPECIAL ITEM
Issue Proclamation Recognizing September as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. The Mayor will announce the time speakers will be granted before comments begin. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period. According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.
08-27-2024 Written Public Comments

CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be considered by one motion unless any member of the Council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.

1. Approve the Special and Regular Meeting Minutes for July 9 and July 13, 2024

2. Adopt a Resolution Amending the FY 2024-25 CIP budget increasing TDA Revenues by $129,725 to fund the Intersection Access Barrier Removal Project (TS-01058); and to program $129,725 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for the Intersection Access Barrier Removal Project (TS-01058) to fund the construction of the Hetch Hetchy Pathway Enhancements and Access Improvement Project and find that this action is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

3. Adopt a Resolution accepting the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), including Volume 1 and the Los Altos Annex

4. Approve the use of electronic voting during City Council meetings 2 8/27/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 4

5. Review and accept the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Program for Public Information Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (Year 3)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

6. Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos declaring certain property surplus land located within city limits and finding that such declaration is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)

7. Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos declaring the building located at 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA, 94022, a Public Nuisance Pursuant to Chapter 11.10 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and Directing the City Manager to abate the nuisance

8. Hold a Public Hearing and Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adding Chapter 3.60 to Title 3 Revenue and Finance of the Los Altos Municipal Code Enacting Regulations for Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

DISCUSSION ITEMS

9. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, Chapter 3.48 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; and
Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending Chapter 3.49 to Title 3 Revenue and Finance of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Affordable Housing Fees and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

10. Direct staff to explore private sector parking enforcement services, make parking restrictions uniform in similarly situated neighborhoods, and discuss other options for parking control measures as necessary

11. Designate a Voting Representative Delegate and Alternate to Vote on Proposed Resolutions at the CalCities 2024 Annual Conference in Long Beach, CA on October 16-18, 2024

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
There will be no discussion or action on Informational Items

12. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Implementation Update Calendar COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS, REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS & AB1234

REPORTS

ADJOURNMENT
3 8/27/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 4 of 4
(Council Norms: It will be the custom to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Prior to the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.)

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 947-2610.

All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk’s Office, City of Los Altos, located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record. 4 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Catherine Nunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 1:27 PM
To: City Council; Public Comment; Gabriel Engeland
Cc: Bruce Barton
Subject: [External Sender]Public Letter to Council re: Heritage Orchard and Need for Full Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE)
Attachments: Aug 19 2024 Council Letter and Public Comment-Historian and Historic Resource Evaluation for Heritage Orchard.pdf; PACSJ Public Letter 1 of 2 Mar82024- Los Altos Heritage Orchard copy.pdf; PACSJ Public Letter 2 of 2 City Exhange 2 Mar112024- Los Altos Heritage Orchard.pdf
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers and City Staff,
I've attached a formatted copy of this email letter in PDF form.

Thank you for your consideration and attention to these pressing Heritage Orchard, CEQA and environmental/historic preservation matters.

Sincerely, Catherine Nunes
********************************************************** August 19, 2024

Subject: Heritage (Civic Center) Orchard: Requests and Clarification a. City Request for LALE Patio Project Historian and CEQA Review Information b. Council Request for Full Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) and Study

Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Staff,

“A historical resource evaluation and intensive historic resource survey for the heritage orchard by a qualified professional in public view would be a welcome and long-requested record update by the city.” (Catherine Nunes, Aug 6, 2024, Town Crier, “Should heritage orchard be preserved forever? City to investigate.”)

As noted in my response to the recent Town Crier article, although encouraged by the City’s move to hire a historian to review the possible direct indirect and cumulative impacts required by CEQA of the proposed LALE patio project on the Heritage (Civic Center) Orchard, the scope of work, the historian’s qualifications, and the cost/source of funds for this historian remain unclear.

Article comments from City Staff about the historian and the role in conducting a “full” CEQA process were inadequate and vague, leading many people to believe the historic study being specific only to the LALE patio project, versus needed foundational work for official historical resource study of the Heritage Orchard across the City Center site. Full article link.

The lack of Council oversight as well as public review needs correction as “a full CEQA process," committed to in the article by Gabe England for the LALE patio application review requires a CEQA review with public transparency by definition, even for “private development.” This is particularly relevant for projects involving historic resources on public lands bound by city ordinances and commitments to historic preservation.

5 2
The need is real and the time is now for a full, qualified and intensive Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE), a foundational study for the Heritage (Civic Center) Orchard across the entire Civic Center site and all its identified elements of this historical resource.

A growing group of residents urge the Council and City staff to act upon the public and expert recommendations from organizations like the Preservation Action Council (See March public comment letters clarifying this recommendation, attached), and take immediate steps to conduct a thorough, foundational historic resource evaluation study and survey critical for the future of the Heritage Orchard.

The City of Los Altos would find a HRE is considered a best practice and also in line with the State of CA commitments made to historic preservation and the management of the integrity of its historic resources as a Certified Local Government.

Intensive HRE evaluations are more than a project-specific impact study or a land boundary survey, they would identify all elements that make up the Heritage Orchard–in this case, study would include acreage, trees, tree sites and restrictions, as well as character-defining features (agriculture and working orchard operations) and context-defining connections to historic time period, the region, environmentally-sensitive features and other structures like the J Gilbert Smith House. Meetings and conversations with both the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and the California Preservation organization reveal a number of technical resources on how to conduct an intensive HRE, and the unique needs of CEQA without exemptions for historic property evaluations. These are available for City staff, commissioners and particularly for Certified Local Governments, and may be helpful guides.

For example, as noted in the Preservation Action Council recommendation letter #1, a foundational, part of an intensive HRE would specifically study and identify a map with APOE’s (Areas of Potential Effects) that could inform construction and projects simultaneously impacting the Heritage Orchard–Library, LAYC, City Hall Patios, Library, Smith House/FOLA area for dog parking, Tree Removal permit of Northeast Grove, underground utility upgrades across the site. This mapped part of the evaluation can also better inform the Maintenance and funding needs for agricultural operations and restoration of this public land.

We urge the participation of the Historic Commission, Environmental Commission, Parks and Recreation and Planning Commission with outside qualified historians and agricultural land use experts, and even consideration of a cross-discipline community and commission Task Force to oversee the foundational HRE work. With over 15 years of preservation work, research and knowledge of historic orchards and the region, I’d be happy to participate and look forward to speaking with you further.

To City Staff: Please provide public release of the name of the contracted historian, the scope of the review for the LALE project and Orchard, the oversight and source materials used, and details on the entire CEQA review process (what is being studied) for this LALE patio project, and if what costs ($ and resources) are being funded by the City. If this is something requiring a public records request, please advise.

To City Council: Residents urge you take direct action to review reinstitute oversight for the review of the Library Patio Project, and all projects on the Civic Center site that sit in or adjacent to the Heritage Orchard, immediately fund a full, qualified Historic Resource Evaluation, and meet the City’s commitments to historic preservation as a Certified Local Government.

Sincerely,

6 3
Catherine Nunes
35 year resident, and representative for the working group, Preservation Action League-Los Altos

Attachments:
-March 8, Public Comment and Recommendation, Preservation Action Council - March 11, Public Comment and Response to City Letter, Preservation Action Council 7 August 19, 2024
Subject: Heritage (Civic Center) Orchard: Requests and ClarificaCon a. City Request for LALE PaCo Project Historian and CEQA Review InformaCon -b. Council Request for Full Historic Resource EvaluaCon (HRE) and Study Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Staff,
“A historical resource evalua0on and intensive historic resource survey for the heritage orchard by a qualified professional in public view would be a welcome and long-requested record update by the city.” (Catherine Nunes, Aug 6, 2024, Town Crier, “Should heritage orchard be preserved forever? City to inves8gate.”) As noted in my response to the recent Town Crier arCcle, although encouraged by the City’s move to hire a historian to review the possible direct indirect and cumula1ve impacts required by CEQA of the proposed LALE paCo project on the Heritage (Civic Center) Orchard, the scope of work, the historian’s qualificaCons, and the cost/source of funds for this historian remain unclear.

ArCcle comments from City Staff about the historian and the role in conducCng a “full” CEQA process were inadequate and vague, leading many people to believe the historic study being specific only to the LALE paCo project, versus needed foundaConal work for official historical resource study of the Heritage Orchard across the City Center site. Full arCcle link.

The lack of Council oversight as well as public review needs correcCon as “a full CEQA process" commi]ed to by Gabe England for the LALE paCo applicaCon review requires a CEQA review with public transparency by definiCon, even for “private development.” This is parCcularly relevant for projects involving historic resources on public lands bound by city ordinances and commitments to historic preservaCon.

The need is real and the Cme is now for a full, qualified and intensive Historic Resource Evalua0on (HRE), a founda0onal study for the Heritage (Civic Center) Orchard across the enCre Civic Center site and all its idenCfied elements of this historical resource.

A growing group of residents urge the Council and City staff to act upon the public and expert recommendaCons from organizaCons like the PreservaCon AcCon Council (See March 2024 public comment le]ers clarifying this recommendaCon, a]ached), and take immediate steps to conduct a thorough, foundaConal historic resource evaluaCon study and survey criCcal for the future of the Heritage Orchard.

The City of Los Altos would find a HRE is considered a best pracCce, and also in line with the State of CA commitments made to historic preservaCon and management of the integrity of its historic resources as a CerCfied Local Government.

Intensive HRE evaluaCons are more than a project-specific impact study or a land boundary survey, they would idenCfy all elements that make up this historic resource–in this case, study 8 would include acreage, trees, tree sites and restricCons, as well as character-defining features (agriculture and working orchard operaCons) and context-defining connecCons to historic Cme period, the region, environmentally-sensiCve features and other structures like the J Gilbert Smith House. MeeCngs and conversaCons with both the State Office of Historic PreservaCon (OHP) and the California PreservaCon organizaCon reveal a number of technical resources on how to conduct an intensive HRE, and the unique needs of CEQA without exempCons for historic property evaluaCons. These are available for City staff, commissioners and parCcularly for CerCfied Local Governments, and may be helpful guides.

For example, as noted in the PreservaCon AcCon Council recommendaCon le]er #1, a foundaConal, part of an intensive HRE would specifically study and idenCfy a map with APOE’s (Areas of Poten0al Effects) that could inform construcCon and projects simultaneously impacCng the Heritage Orchard–Library, LAYC, City Hall PaCos, Library, Smith House/FOLA area for dog parking, Tree Removal permit of Northeast Grove, underground uClity upgrades across the site. This mapped part of the evaluaCon can also be]er inform the Maintenance and funding needs for agricultural operaCons and restoraCon of this public land.

We urge parCcipaCon of the Historic Commission, Environmental Commission, Parks and RecreaCon and Planning Commission with outside qualified historian experts and qualified agricultural land use experts, and even consideraCon of cross-discipline community and commission Task Force to oversee the foundaConal HRE work. With over 15 years of preservaCon work, research and knowledge of historic orchards and the region, I’d be happy to parCcipate and look forward to speaking with you further.

To City Staff: Please provide public release of the name of the contracted historian, the scope of the review for the LALE project and Orchard, the oversight and source materials used, and details on the enCre CEQA review process (what is being studied) for this LALE paCo project, and if what costs ($ and resources) are being funded by the City. If this is something requiring a public records request, please advise.

To City Council: Residents urge you take direct acCon to review reinsCtute oversight for the review of the Library PaCo Project, and all projects on the Civic Center site that sit in or adjacent to the Heritage Orchard, immediately fund a full, qualified Historic Resource EvaluaCon, and meet the City’s commitments to historic preservaCon as a CerCfied Local Government.

Sincerely,
Catherine Nunes
35 year resident, and representaCve for the working group, PreservaCon AcCon League-Los Altos
A]achments: March 8, Public Comment and RecommendaCon, PreservaCon AcCon Council March 11, Public Comment and Response to City Le]er, PreservaCon AcCon Council
9 March 8, 2024
Los Altos City Council
1 N San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
VIA EMAIL ([email protected], [email protected]) Public Comment for Item Not on City Council Agenda 3/12/2024 Dear Councilmembers,
The Preservation Action Council of San Jose (PAC*SJ) is a membership-driven nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving San Jose and the Santa Clara Valley region’s unique and diverse architectural and cultural heritage through advocacy, education, and civic engagement. We write today concerning an issue in Los Altos that a number of our members have recently brought to our attention: a proposed library expansion project within or adjacent to the Los Altos Heritage Orchard, a certified historic resource and a significant cultural landscape positioned both literally and figuratively within the civic heart of the City of Los Altos.

We understand that the project has been initially determined exempt from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review and is proceeding without a proper analysis of its potential impacts to the environment, which include, per CEQA standards and definitions, historic and cultural resources like the Los Altos Heritage Orchard. With our organization’s 30+ years of experience monitoring and participating in environmental reviews and project entitlements in San Jose and the surrounding region, we strongly encourage the City of Los Altos to initiate a more robust, transparent, and legally defensible determination of findings relative to this project’s potential impacts to the historic integrity, physical configuration, and operational viability of the Orchard. At a minimum, this analysis should include a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) by a qualified cultural resources professional meeting the SOI (Secretary of the Interior) Standards for preservation planning.

Such an HRE would include a clearly delineated boundary of the historic resource, as well as a defined Area of Potential Effect (APE), recognizing the potential impacts of adjacent undertakings. It would also define the resource’s characterdefining features and identify both tangible and intangible elements of its unique historic, agricultural, and cultural significance.
10 2
Not only would this analysis better inform and guide you as decision-makers, but would also provide the general public a better opportunity to understand both the benefits and potential impacts not only of this current library expansion project, but of any future projects or decisions that could impact, either negatively or positively, the integrity and stewardship of the Los Altos Heritage Orchard, one of Los Altos’s most important historic and cultural resources.

Sincerely,
Ben Leech
Executive Director
Preservation Action Council of San Jose
cc: Gabriel Engeland, Los Altos City Manager ([email protected]) 11 PAC*SJ Public Exchange and Response with City of Los Altos Following Inquiry re:

Heritage Orchard and Proposed Encroachment of Library Patio Project Re: Los Altos Heritage Orchard environmental review
Ben Leech <[email protected]> Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 10:18 PM To: [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
My apologies for not cc’ing all to my earlier response to Mr. Engeland’s email below. Resending to all recipients. Thank you.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ben Leech <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Los Altos Heritage Orchard environmental review Date: March 11, 2024 at 7:53:57 PM PDT
To: Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Mr. Engeland,
Thank you for your reply and for your additional background on the Heritage Orchard issue. I hope it was clear (and apologize if it was not) that our comments were in no way meant to be adversarial or express a position for or against the LALE proposal at this point in time, for as you rightly point out, we have not seen the proposal and do not know how (or even if) if it would impact the Orchard as a historic resource. We are also aware that this is a private project, not a City-led project. But as you know, the City will play the role of Lead Agency in any environmental review, so I believe our comments were appropriately directed.

You are correct that we were not aware that the City Council had explicitly directed Staff to undertake all proper environmental review at the appropriate time in the planning application process. This is encouraging and appreciated. Our initial position, while perhaps not fully informed, was in response to the attached and excerpted Notice of Exemption, which I would still assert is not entirely clear in scope and could conceivably be interpreted as an exemption for the entire project through final design review.

Shortly after my email, I also received a call from Nick Zornes, who clarified that the NOE was only intended to exempt the decision to authorize acceptance of a development proposal from LALE.

This is an entirely reasonable determination if that is indeed the limit of the NOE project scope.

Whether or not the project as submitted will ultimately merit a full CEQA review, PAC*SJ still strongly encourages the City of Los Altos as Lead Agency to require a full Historic Resource Evaluation as part of the project applicant’s submission. This is both a best practice in California and a requirement in most Certified Local Government jurisdictions that we are familiar with.

I’m happy to discuss this further with you at your convenience.

Sincerely, Ben Leech
Executive Director
Preservation Action Council of San Jose 408-998-8105 (office) 12 On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 4:28 PM Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for the email, Mr. Leech. It appears that your membership has misinformed you with regards to this project.

The project you are referring to is being brought forward by the Los Altos Library Endowment (LALE), which is a private organization and is not associated with the City. No project has been approved as no application has been submitted or received by the City.

The City Council has received two presentations from LALE on the concept of a library patio project. The City Council did not approve a project, but they did provide feedback to LALE that should be incorporated into any application that may be submitted. Because the proposed project would take place on City property it was important for the Council and the public to receive and discuss potential concepts. As you know, the City is required by State law to complete a CEQA analysis, but the City Council also explicitly included that a full, transparent CEQA process would take place as part of their direction to Staff in analyzing any potential application that may come forward.

As I am sure you understand, the City cannot make an analysis of any potential impacts to the environment, including CEQA standards and definitions, until a project application is received. The project location, size, scope, etc. have changed from the initial proposal to the last concept discussed in public and presented to the City Council. It is my understanding that LALE does intend to submit an application for a project, but the project will look different than the last one discussed in public at the City Council meeting. In order to complete a CEQA analysis the City needs to see a complete and final proposed project as part of an application. And as I have stated, this has not taken place.

The City has ensured the process has been both public and transparent to date and will continue to do so. Once an application is submitted by the applicant the City will be able to complete a full analysis, including CEQA review, as you request in your letter. The application will be processed in accordance with the City Code and all applicable State laws. I am sorry that your membership did not provide you with accurate information.

If you would like to discuss further, please let me know.

Thanks,
Gabe
Latest Los Altos news at your fingertips: Sign up for the City Manager Weekly Update.

Gabriel Engeland
City Manager, City of
Los Altos
13 (650) 947-
2740 | www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road |
Los Altos, CA 94022
From: Ben Leech <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 3:32 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Public Comment <[email protected]>
Cc: Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Los Altos Heritage Orchard environmental review To the Los Altos City Council:

I am submitting the atttached letter for public comment on an item not on the agenda for the Los Altos City Council meeting of 3/12/2024. Please enter and comment into the public record for the City Council meeting packet.

Thank you,
14 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Lynn Emrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 6:09 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: PoliceWeb; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: September 27, 2024 City Council meeting
Dear Los Altos City Council, MVLA Board, LAHS Administrative Staff, and members of Los Altos Police Department,
I'm writing in advance of the upcoming City Council meeting August 27 on the matter of parking around LAHS, agenda #10.

As a very long time neighbor, supporter of LAHS, parent of three LAHS student graduates and I myself as a LAHS alumni, I wish to thank all parties for their engagement with our community about our concerns for safety since last year’s unfortunate confusing and dangerous striping of Jardin. After a year of meetings and input, this year’s improvements are an improvement as it is less confusing for drivers and safer for bikers on the north side of Jardin with the wider bike lane when parents aren’t parking in that bike lane to drop off students or waiting to pick them up in the afternoon. We all appreciate the increased number of parking spaces in the school’s main parking lot and the removal of parking permit fees. The monitoring by LAHS Staff and Police during the first few days at the beginning of school is greatly appreciated. However in week two, several neighbors have been monitoring the traffic. The same chaos exists with drop offs on both sides of the street (very few in the drop off area), drop offs on the corners where it is marked with white striping, students crossing nowhere near any of the crosswalks, cars stopped in the middle of the lanes to drop off students, and u turns everywhere. It is as if no paint or signs exist at all after all the efforts and money that has been spent. Last Friday we were talking to one of the teachers who was monitoring the area of Jardin near the tennis court entrance. He observed all the illegal movement and even acknowledged that the school is directing students to not use a portion of the new bike lane on the south side because of cars crossing the bike lane for parking and drop off (not in the drop off zone). This teacher did not redirect cars or students, he just observed. Clearly at least two crossing guards are needed for safety purposes. We also noticed many staff cars parked on Jardin and on Los Ninos Way. The parking on Los Ninos seems even worse than last year.

The following additions need to be made in the near future to accommodate neighbors and students:

1. Add no parking within a one block radius of the school would be optimal (as per the suggestion of the City Engineer in his detailed report last spring) to alleviate the dangerous congestion of moving cars, sitting cars in the middle of the street as they drop of students on the side streets before they get to Jardin creating a backup on Los Ninos, Distel and Casita and the many parked cars on the narrow side streets which this new school year has added up to 30 cars on Los Ninos alone. These conditions are dangerous to the student walking from their cars towards the school, not to mention the total disruption to residents who can’t park in front of their own homes and visitors, repair persons, care givers, babysitters, etc. have no place to park. Residential parking permits would make more residents happy as they would no longer feel restricted in their own homes. Students have stated many times to school officials that they park in the neighborhood because it is easier for them to exit at lunch and the end of the day. If parking restrictions were within a one block radius, this would make neighborhood parking less convenient so hopefully students would park on campus or find other means of transportation.

Whatever the parking decision, all streets surrounding the school need to have equal parking restrictions.

2. Parking enforcement on Jardin and the surrounding streets is critical. Students continue to block mail boxes, fire hydrants and driveways. Last week our driveway was blocked twice. Once we called the police and when the police came out, his solution was to move our trash cans to allow us to angle out of our driveway but that did not solve the problem of other family members being able to enter our 15 2
driveway. Blocking driveways is illegal, why is this being ignored? No ticket or warning was given to the illegally parked car.

3. LAHS needs to find more on-campus parking for students and staff and continue its efforts to encourage students to apply for permits and/or consider whether permits are even needed (students may decide to skip the added hassle of applying for a permit, even if it's free, and instead park in the neighborhood). Convert dead space to parking space by the side of the tennis courts and baseball diamond (like it used to be in the past). Even now there are way too many Visitor slots in the main lot, even after Visitor spots have now been added to the staff lot near the administration buildings. And a lot of slots in the main lot are labeled for the district/school vans. These vans should move to the side of the school parallel to Alicia. A recent drive-by of the solar-paneled school parking lot shows that the lot is used primarily for staff vs. students; this proves why the students have to park on neighborhood streets. As a good neighbor to the residents, LAHS should continue to seek parking improvements to continue to garner good will from the neighbors that helped support “Friday Night Lights” and most recently, costly Bond Measures. Construction bids should have addressed parking for increased student population. There is still time to consider how to add parking on campus.

4. It is concerning regarding the proposed “No left Turn” at Casita as it forces a large number of drivers to turn right towards the very congested part of Jardin and as it has been observed by many, the cars stop in the middle of the driving lane on Jardin to drop off or pick up students or make illegal u-turns to get to the correct side of Jardin to drop students off. This not only creates congestion and back up, but it is also very dangerous for the students now crossing the street nowhere near a crosswalk.

5. If there are residents on a particular street who acknowledge they are not severely impacted by student parking and don’t want restrictions on their street, then there should be discussion to see if their wishes can be accommodated. However, the streets that are severely impacted (Los Ninos, Distel, Casita are the worst), need relief. Possibly the City could take a survey street by street, similar to what was done in 2003, 2006 and 2010 when the existing parking restrictions were put in place, that would be the most fair.

Sincerely,
Lynn Emrick,437 Los Ninos Way
16 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Mike Emrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 8:00 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Hearing Item 10 - City Council Meeting 8/27/2024 Dear Los Altos City Council and MVLA Board,
I'm writing in advance of the upcoming city council meeting August 27, 2024 on the matter of parking restrictions around LAHS (Public Hearing Item 10).

This year’s Jardin improvements are an improvement as it is less confusing for drivers and safer for bikers on the north side of Jardin with the wider bike lane. We all appreciate the increased number of parking spaces in the school’s main parking lot and the removal of parking permit fees. The monitoring by LAHS Staff and Police during the first few days at the beginning of school is greatly appreciated. This enforcement should continue throughout the school Year. Also, the council should consider a crossing guard with respect to Jardin.

Something the district should pay for!
The following additions need to be made in the near future to accommodate neighbors and students:

1. I believe adding no parking within a one block radius of the school would be optimal (as per the suggestion of the City Engineer in his detailed report last spring) to alleviate the dangerous congestion of moving cars, sitting cars in the middle of the street as they drop of students on the side streets before they get to Jardin creating a backup on Panchita, Los Ninos, Distel and Casita and the many parked cars on the narrow side streets This new school year has added up to 30 cars on Los Ninos alone. These conditions are dangerous to the student walking from their cars towards the school, not to mention the total disruption to residents who can't park in front of their own homes and visitors, repair persons, care givers, babysitters, etc. have no place to park.

2. Residential parking permits would make some residents happy as they would no longer feel restricted in their own homes. Students have stated many times to school officials that they park in the neighborhood because it is easier for them to exit at lunch and the end of the day. If parking restrictions were within a one block radius, this would make neighborhood parking less convenient so hopefully students would park on campus or find other means of transportation. Whatever the parking decision, all streets surrounding the school need to have equal parking restrictions.

3. If there are residents on a particular street who acknowledge they are not severely impacted by student parking and don’t want restrictions on their street, then there should be discussion to see if their wishes can be accommodated. However, the streets that are severely impacted (Los Ninos, Distel, Casita are the worst) and need relief. Possibly if the City took a survey street by street, similar to what was done in 2003, 2006 and 2010 when the existing parking restrictions were put in place, that would be fair to a majority of residents.

4. Parking enforcement on Jardin and the surrounding streets is critical. Students continue to block mailboxes, fire hydrants and driveways. Last week our driveway was blocked twice. Although it is against California Code Violation (22500-(e)) no ticket or warning was given to the illegally parked car.

5. LAHS needs to find more on-campus parking for students and staff and continue its efforts to encourage students to apply for permits and/or consider whether permits are even needed (students may decide to skip the permit application, even if it's free, and instead park in the neighborhood). Convert dead space to parking space by the side of the tennis courts and baseball diamond (like it used to be in the past). As a good neighbor 17 2
to the residents, LAHS should continue to seek parking improvements to continue to garner good will from the neighbors that helped support “Friday Night Lights” and most recently, costly Bond Measures. Construction bids should have addressed parking for an increased student population. There is still time to consider how to add parking on campus.

6. It is concerning regarding the proposed “No left Turn” at Casita as it forces a large number of drivers to turn right towards the very congested part of Jardin and as it has been observed by many, the cars stop in the middle of the driving lane on Jardin to drop off or pick up students or make illegal U-turns to get to the correct side of Jardin to drop students off. This not only creates congestion and back up, but it is also very dangerous for the students now crossing the street nowhere near a crosswalk.

Sincerely,
Michael Emrick
437 Los Ninos Way
Los Altos, Ca 94022
18 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Couture, Terri <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:10 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: city council meeting Aug 27 agenda item 6
Dear City council
I am writing to you as a tax payer and citizen of Los Altos. I am also a member of the PARC commission, but these words are not coming from me as a commissioner.

The City council meetings are for the citizens to give you our thoughts and yet you continually ignore or refuse to listen to us to have open discussions about our concerns.

The definition of surplus land that you quote would astonish most of the Los Altans. The parking lots are not surplus, but a valuable asset. Land is incredible valuable in this town, and your denial of this is most offensive.

There is nothing more offensive that an unethical scripted move to usurp tax payer assets.

Further, why is the government not held to the same standards as the public and commercial developers? CEQA is to protect everyone from environment abuse. It astounds me that you all are not better stewards of our valuable land.

Do not turn our beautiful Los Altos into the desolate San Francisco, Oakland etc cities.

Thank you,
Terri Couture
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 19 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Ken Girdley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:17 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: DO NOT Give Away Our Land
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
DO NOT give away our land.

Best Regards,
Ken Girdley
Los Altos Resident
20 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Alice Mansell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:46 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]Los Altos City Council Public Comment 8/27/24 To: Los Altos City Council
Subject: "The Oaks" Needs a Master Plan
By land sales and a deed of gift J. Gilbert and Margaret Smith let their beloved "The Oaks" home and working orchard be used first by the Los Altos Elementary School on San Antonio Road and later other portions of their land for the Hillview Elementary School and the Civic Center. Their land divestments were not always smooth. For example, at least once they had to sue (successfully) the Los Altos School District over a financial issue for monies owed to them.

Their land was more than mere "dirt" to them. J. Gilbert's mother was buried under her favorite oak tree she could see from her bedroom window. Their own ashes were placed together under an oak on their land. They never had children of their own so their fruit orchard trees, oaks, and the home he built with his own hands were in many ways their children. They did their best to try to ensure legally as much of their land as possible and their home would remain as an example of a family working orchard to benefit future generations of Los Altoans as they witnessed land use changes in our area from working orchards to ever denser housing and commercial buildings.

Yesterday, I spoke to the Los Altos Historic Commission about two items on their 2024/25 Work Plan:
"3. Review Ongoing Efforts to preserve the Historic Landmark Apricot Orchard "4. Provide a venue for public engagement regarding the city's heritage by safeguarding historic resources"
During their meeting the Historic Commissioners stated they won't add any new agenda items for their commission to discuss the escalating building encroachments at the orchard within the last year unless the Los Altos City Council directs them to do so. The encroachments include City staff with no public review "setting aside" land in Fall 2023 with healthy trees by not allowing the addition of new drip irrigation lines for those healthy trees and their rows for the Los Altos Youth Center (LAYC) expansion, Los Altos Library Endowment 21 2
(LALE) Library courtyard, and new underground utility lines as well as new pavement for parking and new structures being built now as well as the "possible" police building expansion mentioned by City staff as one reason, announced on June 26, 2024, to bulldoze 30% of the orchard.

Attached are City plans and documents for active construction projects on Civic Center land that directly and cumulatively impact the State designated historic resource of the Heritage Orchard and which are changing, altering and damaging the integrity of this historic resource.

In mid-June 2024, when I requested a copy of the approved $4,500,000 LAYC remodeling plans to become private City staff offices and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) plans, too, City staff informed me those plans were exempt from administrative review including any reviews with any commissioners or Council, as well as any public review, and were "copyrighted" thus not available for any public review.

Staff also stated the City decisions for these plans were "exempt" from all public-facing environmental and City design review, not even needing one public discussion for the "best use" of public facility buildings and public lands.

Then, with both of those plans complete by January 2023 [sic], the City staff determined that the site improvements (interior and exterior) were not larger than 1000 square feet, and thus did not require any expanded design review required by City ordinance 14.078 for public facilities. This is inconceivable as the LAYC project is gutting a 6,000-square-foot building, tearing out the back patio, and adding tall fencing and walkways over orchard land which had healthy trees in Summer 2023. Hearty survivors who'd lived through recent years of drought when City staff deliberately declined to allow any irrigation in the whole orchard.

Ever since as the staff's demolition by neglect of our Smith historic orchard resource, while attending Los Altos commissions this summer I've heard staffers say things like "trees won't grow" on the land close to the Library or along the road by the police building. "It's just dirt" to them who want more parking spaces between LAYC and the Library and across the road where three old apricot trees survive by the police station communications tower and Friends of the Library storage sheds. At a PRA&C Commission meeting in June 2024, a staffer said the staff preference for the Dog Park plans for lost Library parking spaces is take out all of the police lawn and two nearby old apricot trees and put there "reserved" staff parking spaces with some set aside for public use.
22 3
The City filed a CEQA exemption notice (March 2024, NOE) to keep their EOC plans from any public environmental review, including an historical resource impact study which would have involved the Historical Commission (even in an oversight capacity to outside historian landscape experts) as well as the Planning Commission. Interesting timing that filing given City staff declared a sudden emergency to remove two big oaks on the EOC project plans dated January 2023. Trees were removed with no updated arborist's report despite having a City contract with an on-call certified arborist company for such emergency tree "evaluation" and tree work. Thus, in March 2023 [sic] two 50+ inch diameter old oaks visible to Mrs. Smith Sr.'s bedroom window and with no public permit notice, those trees within three hours were cut down one early morning. CEQA paperwork box ticked: "no trees" to be removed for the EOC project. Thus, no paperwork trigger to require an environmental or historic resource study. In Spring 2024 those old oak's roots were so big it took many dozers to root them out of the new EOC generator's drainage field. No eyeballs on site to look for the bones or any other relics of Mrs. Smith, Sr.

The staff's paperwork claims are the EOC and LAYC projects are outside of the “boundaries” of the historic resource as they define it with no surveys or one professional historian public study, all at the same time the City staff and some political leadership started questioning the existence of all or any boundaries to the Heritage Orchard, as they continued allowing shrinkage of the Orchard acreage and altering the integrity of the resource.

By exemption of CEQA review and unqualified exemption of the City design review process using staff discretion on what square footage was considered “site improvements”, the City Council in March 2024 issued a blank check for $4,500,000 for the LAYC office project without any public plans review, a project which has significantly already damaged the Orchard as well as skirted municipal code and historical preservation ordinances. By May 2024, demolition and construction began for both the EOC and LAYC projects without posted public permits or public plan review, including for the LAYC project cutting down healthy orchard trees and with planned paving over two rows of "unirrigated" tree sites to build new private City staff patios, new public walkways, another utilities yard, with extensions 20 feet into the orchard lands as well as new parking spaces inside the orchard.

I obtained the LAYC and EOC plans through a public records request in July 2024. None of those plans were presented by staff to Council or any commissioners–Planning, Historic, Park & Rec, Environmental– for review before rows of trees were removed or left unirrigated in Fall 2023 to die by neglect in the apricot orchard.
23 4
Although nine City projects specific to the Heritage Orchard are noted below, I’d like to highlight three active City projects that help clarify the need for your immediate involvement. The January 2023 building plans for the LAYC ($4,500,000) and EOC ($800,000) projects, and the Library Patio Project ($1,000,000).

Among the documents for the EOC, is the newly found February 2023 negative CEQA document stating "no trees would be removed" for the EOC project despite removing in March 2023 the two scenic, mature heritage oaks next to the Bus Barn, both larger 50 inch diameter. Removed after staff claimed a sudden "emergency" with a contradictory old arborist report and no permit, trees noted in the EOC building plans as the site for new EOC generator's drainage field, and later half of the site of the June 2024 proposed Dog Park ($1,000,000). There was no public discussion of the historic nature of these trees which at one time were part of the now stripped Historic Tree inventory. Is this something the Historic Commission or City Council will ever look into as it appears management of our City's historic inventory assets lists has been overlooked in the Historic Commissions work plans for more than two years?
In August 2024, a new potentially damaging project for the Heritage Orchard of undergrounding new utility lines across the Civic site started on the east side LAYC, without public plans or review. After another public records request, I confirmed that this was "an add-on project" in plans dated March 2024. City staff only gave me January 2023 LAYC and EOC plans in my records request from July 2023, plans I printed out in July. The newer March 2024 LAYC plans I obtained in August 2024 include the boring of more underground utility lines to LAYC and to the Police Station underneath the Heritage Orchard. A construction crew chief of the LAYC project told me about the "add-on" contract work which includes a new fiber line to connect to the police building's existing server room as well as a new electrical "emergency" line. He told me the bores were supposed to be 10 feet underground to prevent harm to the orchard trees. I inspected one boring access hole within three feet of an old apricot orchard tree and saw the bored lines were not more than 2 feet underground. I photographed pieces of chewed up large tree roots on the ground by the boring access holes.

Signs and handouts in the orchard today with Museum and City logos say, "No trees will be harmed" but the visual piles of dirt say something different. Boring holes are not deep enough to avoid roots and thick root pieces appearing to be from apricot orchard trees are on the dirt next to the diggings. The LAYC plans also reveal the addition of a newly paved parking area, once again paving over unirrigated tree sites on the historic orchard 24 5
lands despite no study of the impacts of that new pavement on tree growing conditions in the orchard area by the playground and lawn's dog sculpture.

The digging, damaging construction, and tear out/cut down of the Heritage Orchard space is out of control, from all sides and underground, forever changing, altering, and damaging the Heritage Orchard historic resource you have been tasked to protect and preserve.

Please look closely at the LAYC plans to see new fence heights, new hardscape, and new above-ground utility fenced yard as well as the planned 6-foot fenced, private patios for the new staff private office and new parking spaces. All those exterior LAYC additions and all underground lines are deemed by staff to be "flat" work which staff relies upon to claim the projects fall within City ordinances for what sized projects must have or need no public review, as well as environmental, commission/administrative review with meaningful public transparency and opportunity for input. Council has allowed for the LAYC and EOC projects its staff to have 100% design discretion and operate by arbitrary and manipulative uses of exemption ordinance langauge to remove the need for following all City ordinances, ignoring commissions' review, and avoiding environmental and historic public studies.

Nevertheless, for historical resources under the State of California CEQA laws for environmental review, the City "shall not" use an exemption for review if a project "may" cause an impact on a historical resource like the Heritage Orchard. And as a Certified Local Government, our City has a set of obligations and commitments to our historic resources that your Historic Commission is named in oversight for preserving the integrity of historical resources.

There are at least 9 major City projects, contracts, and administrative actions that are impacting the Heritage Orchard that need your immediate review.

1. LAYC conversion to private City staff offices with new private patios

2. Review of LALE Courtyard project currently in internal review by City staff

3. Tree Removal Permit of Northeast Grove near police station

4. Compliance for the Museum's maintenance contract which has not produced one report such as the required Maintenance Plan since its signing last summer. The Maintenance Plan due January [sic] 2024 is still not a public document available for any public review after two drafting rounds between Museum staff and City Hall. The Museum;s Annual Report for the Orchard is due this month and also is not public. 25 6
Nor have there been any public discussions at the Museum of changing the heritage orchard historic context and character-defining elements except one pay-to-participate Museum meeting last month.

5. "Add-On" Underground Utility Wiring Project for LAYC

6. City Hall's private fenced patio, new bricked patio, and new ornamental flower bed extensions

7. Lack of Maintenance for other orchard areas and trees on Civic Center site, including Northeast Grove Police Station and next to J.Gilbert Smith House by the police communications tower as well as the continued placement of Friends of the Library book sheds

8. Removal and replacement of historic signage and interpretative signage

9. Dog Park parking mitigation proposal for lost library parking spaces to remove apricot trees by the Friend's sheds and other orchard lands to have more paved parking spaces

What needs to be done? And what can you as the City Council do? The public, local preservationists and regional historic experts (like Preservation Action Council San Jose) continue to call on the Council to fund and perform a foundational Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) on the Heritage Orchard resource, with an "intensive study and survey" as defined by the California State Office of Historic Preservation with outside, qualified landscape historians and experts. Not the David J. Powers' administrative review firm called upon by City staff to justify their desired CEQA exemptions.

As you know this survey and foundational evaluation goes way beyond clarifying the boundaries --it also includes in this space the elements that make up the resource including the acreage, trees, tree sites, restrictions, protections, character-defining features of a productive working orchard, AND make clear the context of the historic period it keeps with the design and function in tandem with the J.Gilbert Smith House. Our heritage orchard needs your help and preservation. This is NOT an orchard memorial, community garden or science project, ideas being floated now by the History Museum's Orchard Commons Committee. The Heritage Orchard is as the City Council in resolution 2021-477 codified it:
"a working historic orchard and city historic resource demonstrating and showcasing the City's and the region's historic agricultural roots and heritage that is maintained and kept productive."
2021 City of Los Altos Ordinance 2021-477

By all accounts, the Los Altos Historic Commission is the right governing group according to the City’s Certified Local Government status to be 26 7
responsible for the oversight and to request this foundational Historical Resource Evaluation (HRE) and study to ensure this City properly manages the integrity of this valuable historic asset-the Heritage (Civic Center) Orchard. The Commission also needs to get engaged in the review and oversight of the list of 9 projects endangering this historic resource identified in this letter. It’s in their 2024/5 Work Plan.

Time is of the essence, this work to care for the Heritage Orchard needs your immediate attention. You must activate the current goals of your Historic Commission's work plan, and require a special session for City Council to discuss all the recent and currently planned orchard encroachments. The Historic Orchard Resource should have a Master Plan and be listed as one of the City's major Capital Assets to ensure plans and budgets affecting it are not done piecemeal nor strictly inside City Hall by City staff with little to no public transparency. This work should be done in haste.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

Alice Mansell
Los Altos, California
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. CEQA Exempt Los Altos for Emergency Ops Center ENV24422-1 (1).pdf To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Commission Hillview Dog Park PPT 24.06.18 reduced file.pdf To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. EOC 50"+ trees Screenshot 2024-08-02 at 9.10.47 PM.png To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. EOC Approved Plan Set (1).pdf
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. LAYC Approved Plan set.pdf
27 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Jack Carsten <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 1:27 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Ron D. Parkard
Subject: Lack of notice and public input regarding parking requirements for future developments August 27 Council meeting had no public notice nor input regarding reduced parking for new developments.

Jack Carsten (50 year resident)
28 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Brian Korek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 1:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Parking Plazas are NOT Surplus Property As a long time resident of Los Altos, I was surprised to learn that 3 members of the City Council made 2 related decisions affecting parking:

1. They agreed to reduce the number of Distel Circle parking spots from 90 down to 40 - less than half of what was originally agreed.

2. They declared 2 of our Public Parking Plazas to be "Surplus Land” that can be turned into housing without guaranteeing any public parking spaces (just as they agreed to reduce Distel Circle’s public parking).

I would like to see Item #2 addressed publicly with a guaranteed minimum number of public parking spaces that can’t be reduced behind closed doors at a later date.

Yours Truly,
Brian Korek
29 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Ross Katchman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 3:00 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: RE Surplus Land Agenda Item August 27, 2024 City Council Meeting Dear City Council,
This afternoon, I was made aware of the "Surplus Land" item on this evening's meeting agenda. Based on what I learned today, this topic should have more community input before any important decision is made on the use/development of the property.

Please first schedule a study inviting broad resident input and participation regarding the uses/changes to the public land/parking plazas.

Since today is the first time my wife and I have heard of this issue and a potential City Council decision this evening (which we received notice of via an email from the Friends of Los Altos - Board of Directors), I would expect other residents similarly would want an opportunity to participate in a study and to provide input in advance of any important decision.

Thank you,
Ross Katchman
371 Solana Drive
.
30 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Eric Muller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 3:42 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment - agenda item #6 - August 27, 2024 - Surplus property Dear Council members,
Please do not sell the parking plazas 7 & 8. It seems premature to take such a drastic and irreversible action while planning other large scale developments (park, underground parking, theater) for the downtown area.

Eric Muller
Los Altos resident.
31 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Catherine Nunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:35 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment on Public Hearing Item #6 City Council Meeting, 8/27/2024 Re: Public Comment on Public Hearing Item #6, 8/27/2024 Dear Mayor and City Council,
Planning in the City of Los Altos is broken, plain and simple, especially on public lands.

Time and time again we see planning processes and decision-making for public lands riddled with exemptions, private-public deals, and skirting the rules to avoid public transparency and oversight.

All the while, hiding the fact that this decision and process appears manipulated to hasten development in a "free-leasing arrangement" with true costs and loss to the City and the residents simply unknown. Then the City dampens public interest and outcry by referring to it as "surplus land" to dilute the residents' attention to the matter, and to diminish the value of the parking/trees/beauty/spaces of the downtown public lands. This is shameful.

With a City unburdened by the need for real study, planning, review and discussion in claiming these decisions CEQA exempt from environmental review, or administrative oversight and review from public, commissions and Council review, we all lose much more than access to public lands.

The saddest part of all is that leaders and City planning claim this unqualified, dysfunctional decision-making to be in the name of "housing" as its overriding consideration, without any proper study, processes or public transparency to explicitly clarify those overriding considerations and submit a "no project alternative" for this project in this location as required in an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) required by the State of California. Again, it is declared CEQA review exempt.

Please deny any decisions to move forward on Item #6, gifting away our downtown– parking plazas, trees and public spaces–without a clear and proper review and understanding of the scope, processes and needed environmental review and CEQA process. This project and sale is not a master plan to solve some problem, this is a master class in bad planning and governance.

Sincerely,
Catherine Nunes
Los Altos
32 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Judy Dodge <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:36 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: By the way we are selling two of the downtown parking plazas ... Did we forget to mention that to you?
Out of town in vacation, but echoing the Friends of Los Altos email below. And…lest we forget, is the proposed theater replacing parking also still in the mix? Los Altos home owner who patronizes downtown businesses all the time.

View in browser
Friends of Los Altos (FOLA)
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

By the way we are selling two of the downtown parking plazas Did we forget to mention that to you?
t. The City of Los Altos Staff sent out a letter dated July 16th stating that two public parking p chase or lease. The two parking plazas, labeled “surplus property” by the city, are located beh d Second. Each is approximately an acre in size; together they provide 226 parking spots for ability,” was sent to a list of over 560 developers and government entities. e your attention, here are the specifics. The City will give priority to projects that provide at le rchaser must provide at least 226 replacement parking spots and adequate parking for reside 33 2
ent state law, however, says that adequate parking can mean a number much closer to zero th roject.
our opinion in person at tonight’s (August 27) Council meeting or send a letter to council. Age s.municode.com/adaHtmlDocument/index?cc=LOSALTOSCA&me=9c46f4b984ed499abe8 ppen?
City Council members are determined to turn the parking plazas into housing without holding oss of parking, the impact on the City finances or the health of the downtown. This process ha blic in a timely manner, and no further public input is required. The City Council allowed City S out consultation or supervision. Once started, this process means that residents, Staff, and Co l
the final project, with unknown consequences. Is it possible that the City could get paid noth ng spots in those lots, and have a housing development which provides no parking? Unfortun y.
ppen?
ere is a majority on the Council who apparently feel that either 1) sufficient public input has al be competent enough to initiate and proceed with this process without Council or resident inp Council members believe they have been given a mandate by the residents to build housing a hat housing on the City and certainly, without any public review and input.

When the Vision Plan was put together for downtown, housing on one or more parking plazas wever, and this is a big “however,” there was no real plan laid out for how to proceed. Residen happened, there would be public discussion and input, as those properties are an incredibly im . When the recently completed Housing Element included the idea, after public input, the City residents that there was no concrete plan, and public discussion and input would precede an 34 3
Once City Staff put out the “notice of availability” (irrespective of whether or not they obtaine tarted that now appears will NOT allow for any further public discussion or input. If a develope all further discussions and negotiations will happen in closed sessions of the City Council. Lea in height? What public amenities will be part of it? Will the existing parking be fully replaced a these important issues that need discussion and prioritization by the greater community WON to those who love the charm of our downtown is that the source of that charm is being seriou usiness/property owners DONATED the back portions of their properties to the City in order to plazas in order to induce shoppers and diners to our downtown. If those parking plazas are no g spots are replaced (at a cost estimated to be $10-15 million if above ground and $20-30 mil s a community suffer the consequences.
sks?
cess has evolved leaves residents with no input and the City Council with very little control of ntly approved low-income housing project on Distel Circle did not actually need to provide an stic analysis suggested over 100 spots would be required. The developer originally offered (a asked Council to reduce that number to 40 to decrease costs, AND THE THREE MEMBERS E REDUCED PARKING.
project has unfortunately demonstrated that despite an approved plan, the developer could a omised parking for the project. Such a scenario could easily play out on a much larger scale d ncial impact, we should also be concerned that this proposed development, along with others, owntown restaurants and retail with residential buildings, all looking to take advantage of the ough parking. The irony is that without sufficient parking, more and more retail and restauran downtown is in name only, with a few boutique stores and coffee shops surrounded by a sea his may be financially attractive for downtown property owners. We don’t think it serves the co should happen
35 4
will discuss the declaration of surplus land at its meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 2024, start th the lack of public notification, input and the process need to let Council know how they fee watching via Zoom and/or sending a letter to the City Council can be found here:
s.municode.com/adaHtmlDocument/index?cc=LOSALTOSCA&me=9c46f4b984ed499abe8 in compliance with all State laws and rules promulgated by HCD (the 800-pound gorilla in Sa state comply with housing laws), the City Council should schedule a study session to discuss ul housing project would look like and solicit public input (which hopefully they will actually liste development on our parking plazas is just too important to allow City Staff to proceed alone a t times, appears unaware as to the impact of development on surrounding neighbors. Telling ry housing project gets built in their backyard is just not okay. Good governance depends upo members of the City Council after having factored in input from the public.

Mark Twain both famously said “buy land, they ain’t making any more of it”. In this case a leg ven be selling the land instead of insisting on a long- term lease which would give the City bo on the property? So, while we are reserving judgment on the actual structure of a sale or lea sentially put out to public bid with the City indicating sale is a viable option. ny eventual impacts, we as a community should be disappointed that this process is happenin each step in the process. Equally important is that this process is happening without timely in nd, setting the minimum requirements for parking and addressing other considerations will hav viability of our downtown going forward. It sort of reminds us of someone selling your house a been sold. We expect and deserve better.
ay we see it.
ltos - Board of Directors
36 5
Friends of Los Altos
Los Altos, CA 94022 & 94024
You received this email because you signed up on our website or made a purchase from us.

Unsubscribe
Friends of Los Altos
37 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Pat Marriott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:51 PM
To: Public Comment; Catherine Nunes
Subject: Re: Public Comment on Public Hearing Item #6 City Council Meeting, 8/27/2024 This decision -- housing on Plaza 7 and 8 -- was made when the Housing Element was approved last year.

It's not new.

The parking plazas can be declared surplus land according to the law as described in the staff report.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2024 at 04:35:32 PM PDT, Catherine Nunes <[email protected]> wrote:

Re: Public Comment on Public Hearing Item #6, 8/27/2024 Dear Mayor and City Council,
Planning in the City of Los Altos is broken, plain and simple, especially on public lands.

Time and time again we see planning processes and decision-making for public lands riddled with exemptions, private-public deals, and skirting the rules to avoid public transparency and oversight.

The saddest part of all is that leaders and City planning claim this unqualified, dysfunctional decisionmaking to be in the name of "housing" as its overriding consideration, without any proper study, processes or public transparency to explicitly clarify those overriding considerations and submit a "no project alternative" for this project in this location as required in an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) required by the State of California. Again, it is declared CEQA review exempt.

Please deny any decisions to move forward on Item #6, gifting away our downtown–parking plazas, trees and public spaces–without a clear and proper review and understanding of the scope, processes and needed environmental review and CEQA process. This project and sale is not a master plan to solve some problem, this is a master class in bad planning and governance.

Sincerely,
Catherine Nunes
Los Altos
38 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Prof. Tony Lima <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:58 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: “Surplus land”
The purpose of this email is to voice my objection to declaring parts of the parking plazas surplus land. I simply do not believe that those parking spaces will actually be replaced. Have you bothered to consult with the downtown merchants or, for that matter, the residents who shop there? The City Council is becoming increasingly authoritarian. Please stop.

Tony Lima
181 North Avalon Dr., Los Altos
650.946.7469
Sent from my iPad 脥
39 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Ken Girdley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 5:09 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Do Not Give Away OR Sell Our Property
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
In my attempt to be brief I left out part of my message. I meant to say do not give away OR sell our property. It's ridiculous to consider those plazas surplus. We can't afford to lose those 226 parking spaces.

Respectfully Submitted,
Ken Girdley
Los Altos Resident
40 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Jean Fordis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 5:20 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Jean Fordis; Jerry Voight
Subject: Planned sale of parking lots behind State Street Dear Members of the Los Altos City Council,
The way in which the potential sale of the parking lots has proceeded is, in a word, outrageous. While housing is at a premium and getting low-income housing very important in our expensive town, this proceeding does not appear to have had sufficient community input
A vibrant city requires sufficient housing, of course, but it also requires the citizens of the city and close-by areas to have sufficient parking that they can come to the city. Without sufficient parking, the influx of shoppers and dinners cannot possibly continue (electric cars that drop us off and pick us back up do not appear to be in the offing) and that will ultimately reduce the vitality of the city.

There does not appear to have been sufficient notice that the citizens of the city have been able to express these views.

At a minimum, such views do not appear to have been taken sufficiently under consideration. I do not support NIMBY and do believe in the importance of low-income housing. But this decision seems rushed. And the opposing view points deserve to be heard and considered.

Please slow down the process and allow the citizens of Los Altos to raise their legitimate and heartfelt concerns. We love our city and want it to thrive.

Regards,
Jean Burke Fordis and Jerry Voight
280 Los Altos Court
Los Altos, CA
41 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Jane Osborn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 5:45 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council
Cc: Jane Osborn; Jonathan Shores
Subject: Public comment on agenda item #6, Council Meeting on 8/27/24 Dear honorable mayor and council members.

Please postpone your final decision regarding declaring the downtown parking plazas as "surplus land." I do not think most residents thought that the sale or lease of this land to developers was a "done deal." I think most people thought it was a concept that still was being explored.

I feel that more time is needed to reach out to residents and business owners to get their input.

When I saw the description of item #6 a couple of days ago, it never occurred to me that the city staff and council considered the heavily used and greatly appreciated downtown parking plazas to be "surplus land." These parking plazas are a critical and valued public resource, and this land is valuable and irreplaceable.

In particular, it seems that if you are going to sacrifice such a valuable public resource, it should not be primarily to benefit developers who prefer to build luxury housing for huge profits. There should be a requirement for far more than just 25% of affordable housing. Otherwise, developers and a few lucky people who are fortunate enough to be able to afford luxury housing will be the beneficiaries of a windfall, at the expense of the rest of the public, including Los Altos residents, downtown business owners and people in the surrounding communities who rely on the downtown area.

To forge ahead without getting sufficient public input regarding such a controversial issue seems as if it is a betrayal of the public trust.

If you haven't already done so, I feel it is especially critical to reach out and get sufficient input from downtown business owners. I learned about the history of the plazas only a few months ago, when a long time business owner commented at a council meeting,. He reminded everyone that the downtown business owners had donated their own property (located behind their buildings) to the city in the 1950s. At the time, there was an agreement that this land would be used specifically for parking plazas in order to support their businesses and to benefit their customers. While giving his comments, this business owner seemed very distressed, and I got the impression that many other business owners were also distressed. Unless business owners have been given sufficient opportunity to give their informed input and approval for the land to be used for other purposes, it seems as if the city's actions are a betrayal of their trust. It seemed that it would show a lack of good faith on the part of the city.

Also, it is my opinion that developers should be required to replace all of the lost public parking, and to provide sufficient additional parking for people living in the buildings.

Residents and business owners have been inundated with multiple controversial issues for the past decade or so, sometimes one after another, or multiple issues all at once. This is very overwhelming to most people. They need more time, outreach, and information in order to arrive at informed opinions and to give feedback to the city and council.
42 2
Please forgive the lateness of this email. I experienced a technical glitch after I initially tried to send it earlier,.

Most of the email did not save and was lost and I had to re-create it.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, and for your service to the community.

Jane Osborn
Los Altos resident
E. Jane Osborn, Ph.D. Nationally Certified School Psychologist, NCSP 24709. Licensed Educational Psychologist, LEP 1610. Cognitive and Developmental Psychology. Cell: 650-346-6390. Land Line: 650-967- 5167 (Preferred Option)
43 1
Melissa Thurman
From: JOHN A EISENBERG <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 5:58 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: Please do not lease or sell Los Altos downtown parking plazas Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: JOHN A EISENBERG <[email protected]>
Date: August 27, 2024 at 3:21:53 PM PDT
To: [email protected], JOHN A EISENBERG <[email protected]> Subject: Please do not lease or sell Los Altos downtown parking plazas Dear City Council,
I learned just today, August 27, that you are meeting today to sign off on selling or leasing downtown parking plazas for use as housing structures containing affordable housing units. These new structures may be required to contain up to 226 parking spaces, the number of spaces to be lost if our parking plazas are over built. However many of those spaces would not be available to patrons of the downtown shops as the residents of the new units would require them. Since most families have two cars only 113 units would fill them all up. This loss of parking spaces would reduce foot traffic in our State Street shops, stores and restaurants very significantly. If your plan is approved, the time required to build the new structures could easily be one to two years. This would mean no parking for folks wishing to patronize State Street businesses for that period of time and then greatly reduced parking after that as the 226 spaces will likely be used by residents.

What are you people thinking? Your proposed action will have such a negative effect on State Street businesses that many of them will be forced to close their doors. Replacing them will be much more difficult as new businesses ability to entice foot traffic will not be easy.

Perhaps you can tear down these businesses and put up more affordable housing. This is when I will seriously consider leaving Los Altos for another state.

Please hold hearings on this matter and let rational people present their views. Listen to what they present. Preserving what makes Los Altos such a lovely town is more important than blindly following State of California dictates.

Sincerely,
John Eisenberg
25 Parsons Way
Los Altos, CA 94022
44 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Alex Mendez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 6:05 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Cathy Mendez
Subject: Hearing 8/27 regarding "Surplus Property"
TO: City Council
FROM: Alex & Cathy Mendez, Los Altos Residents
We are unable to attend the meeting tomorrow but would like to state it is unconscionable the Los Altos City Council members have acted without public input to put the two public parking plazas ("surplus property" located behind State street stores between First and Second Street) available for purchase or lease. We are strongly opposed to this unilateral decision.

We believe that, in compliance with all State laws and rules promulgated by HCD, the City Council should schedule a study session to discuss the parameters around what a successful housing project would look like and solicit public input.

We are extremely unhappy with the lack of public notification, input process and decision to proceed in this manner.

Alex & Cathy Mendez
747 Arroyo Road
Los Altos, CA 94024.
45 CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2024
6:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor
Pete Dailey, Vice Mayor
Neysa Fligor, Councilmember
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember
Sally Meadows, Councilmember

SPECIAL MEETING
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Mayor Weinberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM:

All Councilmembers were present and in person during the meeting.

DISCUSSION ITEM(S)

1. Receive Training on Electronic Voting System for Use During Council Meetings on Agenda Items.

Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, provided training on an electronic voting system to the City Council.

There were no speakers regarding the item.

Informational item only. No motion taken.

ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of August 27, 2024.
_____________________________________ __________________________________ Jonathan D. Weinberg Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The July 9, 2024 City Council Special Meeting recording may be viewed via the following external website: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLosAltosCA The City of Los Altos does not own or operate YouTube. The video referenced on these minutes were live at the time the minutes were published.
46 Agenda Item # 1.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2024
7:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor
Pete Dailey, Vice Mayor
Neysa Fligor, Councilmember
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember
Sally Meadows, Councilmember
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM – All Councilmembers were present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Sally Meadows, Councilmember, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was one member of the public that spoke during the Closed Session meeting:
 Alice Mansell
There was no reportable action taken for the Closed Session meeting of July 9, 2024 at 6:15 p.m.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the order of the agenda.

SPECIAL ITEM
Recognition of 2024 Annual Employee Award Winners
Irene Barragan, Human Resources Director, announced the winners of the 2024 Employee Awards.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public spoke during Public Comment:
 Teresa Morris

CONSENT CALENDAR
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember, requested a clarification to Item 1 (Minutes) to correct a vote taken on Item 6, Public Hearing, reflecting her vote opposing the item.

Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, recommended approving the minutes as amended and the corrected minutes would be placed on the city’s website and provided to the City Council prior to the next regular meeting of August 27, 2024.

Motion by Fligor and Second by Dailey to approve the Consent Calendar, with amendment to Item 1. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

1. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 25, 2024 47 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 9, 2024

Page 2 of 4 ends

2. Adopt a Resolution entering into a Side Letter Agreement with the Los Altos Peace Officer Association to comply with California Code of Regulations, title 2, Section 571 (b)(1)(A) and California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 571.1 (a)(4) rules for identifying and defining special compensation

3. Adopt a Resolution entering into a Side Letter Agreement with the Sanitary Truck Drivers and Helpers Union Local # 350 to add clarifying language to Article 7. Pay Rates and Practices to address how a tie for the 6th peer city should be treated

4. Adopt resolution 2024 approving an updated fiscal year 2024/25 pay schedule to comply with California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CALPERS) statutory and regulatory requirements for compensation earnable and publicly available salary schedules

5. Adopt a Resolution accepting completion of the City Hall Council Chambers Audio/Visual Upgrade, Project CD-01021; and authorize the Public Works Director to record a Notice of Completion as required by law, and find the action exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15300.2

6. Rescind Resolution No. 2024-52 and Re-Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with C2R Engineering, Inc. of the Total Bid for the OnCall Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services FY 2024-2025 Project in the amount of $125,000.00 on behalf of the City, and find the action exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301

7. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 on behalf of the City with AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $16,200 for professional consulting services for various transportation engineering tasks for FY2023/24, which are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c)

8. Approve the formation of a Subcommittee of the City Council for a potential Childcare Subsidy Program

9. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $110,000 annually for On-Call City-wide Tree Maintenance Services and tree evaluations

10. Adopt a Resolution correcting the FY 2024/25 Fee Schedule for two fees

DISCUSSION ITEMS

11. City Council to receive the presentation on the Hillview Park permanent dog park conceptual design preferred plan and provide Staff with further direction, including action to move forward with construction documents and project schedule 48 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 9, 2024

Page 3 of 4 ends

Manny Hernandez, Parks & Recreation Director and Adnres Raygada, Verde Design Consultant, presented the report.

The following members of the public spoke regarding the item:
 Claire  Karen Solheim
 Andrea Wald  Robert Urban
 Teresa Morris  Viji Jagannathan
 Sri Jagannathan  Dan Beyer
 Catherine Hung  Jeanine Valadez
Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to approve the Preferred Plan Hillview Dog Park and that the Council approve the recommended Government Center parking modifications and the Council direct staff to move forward with construction documents as modified during the Council discussion. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

12. Approve the calendar for the transition to district elections Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager, presented the report.

There were no speakers regarding the item.

The City Council recommended holding the third Public Hearing on Wednesday August 28, 2024 at 4:00 p.m., if outside counsel and the Demographer are available.

The City Council approved the remaining calendar dates.

Discussion item only. No motion taken.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
There will be no discussion or action on Informational Items

13. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Implementation Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember – Requested future agenda items:
 City Attorney Contract Evaluation (No Support)
ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 9, 2024

Page 4 of 4 ends

The July 9, 2024 City Council meeting recording may be viewed via the following external website: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLosAltosCA
The City of Los Altos does not own or operate YouTube. The video referenced on these minutes were live at the time the minutes were published.
50 Agenda Item # 1.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SATURDAY, JULY 13, 2024
10:00 a.m.
1575 Holt Avenue ~ Los Altos, CA
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor
Pete Dailey, Vice Mayor
Neysa Fligor, Councilmember
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember
Sally Meadows, Councilmember

SPECIAL MEETING
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Mayor Weinberg called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM:

All Councilmembers were present and in person during the meeting.

DISCUSSION ITEM(S)

1. Hold a Public Hearing and receive public input regarding the process and criteria for establishing boundaries for district-based elections of the City Council Simran Mahal, Outside Counsel, presented the report.

Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, opened the Public Hearing.

The following members of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
 Kirby Hansen  Connie Mariottini
 Tony Lima  Freddie Wheeler
 John Fennell  Roberta Phillips
 Eric Steinle  King Lear
 Jon Baer  Megan Satterlee
 Eli Taub  Steve Chessin
 Sharon Fingold  Carole Wunderlich
 Katie Zoglin
A majority of the City Council voted to approve 5 district Council seats for future elections.

ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 1:47 p.m.

City of Los Altos
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
July 13, 2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

The July 13, 2024 City Council Special Meeting recording may be viewed via the following external website: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLosAltosCA The City of Los Altos does not own or operate YouTube. The video referenced on these minutes were live at the time the minutes were published.
52 Agenda Item # 1.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: August 27, 2024
Prepared By: Aida Fairman
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Adopt a Resolution for the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funding Allocation to Hetch Hetchy Pathway Enhancements

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☒Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☐Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution No. 2024 Amending the FY 2024-25 CIP budget increasing TDA Revenues by $129,725 to fund the Intersection Access Barrier Removal Project (TS-01058); and to program $129,725 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for the Intersection Access Barrier Removal Project (TS-01058) to fund the construction of the Hetch Hetchy Pathway Enhancements and Access Improvement Project and find that this action is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City’s TDA Allocation will fund construction of the Hetch Hetchy Pathway Enhancements and Access Improvements in the amount of $129,725. This amount would cover the cost of construction and there would be no impact on the General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the resolution is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), in that Section 15301(c) provides an exemption for operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing bicycle and pedestrian trails involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The adoption of the proposed resolution will facilitate funding for ordinary street maintenance, and none of the circumstances set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
June 27, 2023
53 Agenda Item # 2.

BACKGROUND
Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects,” which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of “TDA Article 3” funding.

The Hetch Hetchy Pathway is a paved bicycle and pedestrian multi-use path that traverses a small portion of Los Altos city limits and provides a connection to the Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Path and Arastradero Road. The trail is within the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) right-of-way and provides SFPUC and the City access for maintenance vehicles. The current path crossings at Estrellita Way and Los Altos Avenue do not meet current ADA requirements due to their age. The City would like to reconstruct these crossings to meet ADA requirements and to enhance this connector. This project provides the opportunity to add additional features at both crossings for bicycles, pedestrians, and drivers.

The Complete Streets Commission (CSC) discussed this project at their January 2022 meeting and received an array of potential alternatives for crossing enhancement features including signage, striping, bollards, and speed control measures. Proposed alternatives were based on precedent research done by Staff which included best practice pathway design based on the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines, as well as pathway design in neighboring cities.

The CSC and the public provided comments on their preferences for the various features at each crossing location. Staff incorporated this feedback into the plan and returned the updated plan to the CSC in March of 2022. Staff have since presented the updated plans to SFPUC Project Review Committee and received positive feedback, then submitted updated plans and the permit application to SFPUC. Staff received a draft consent letter to install improvements. Final consent letter will be provided by the SFPUC when the project is bid out and awarded.

ANALYSIS
The City receives TDA funding each year, in an amount that averages roughly $30,000 per year, with the option each year to either bank funds or program them to a project. After several years of banking, the City now has $129,725 available.

DISCUSSION
Staff recommends programming this balance to the Hetch Hetchy Pathway Enhancements and Access Improvements project for planned project delivery in FY24-25.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution
54 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING THE FY2024-25 CIMMP BUDGET BY $129,725 TO FUND PROJECT TS-01058 HETCH HETCHY PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS; ANDTO

APPROVE THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS TO THE

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR AN
ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROJECT FUNDING FOR FY24-25
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects,” which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of “TDA Article 3” funding; and WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; WHEREAS, the City adopted the FY2024-29 Five Year Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP) on June 11, 2024 by Resolution 2024-49; and WHEREAS, the City would like to add the Hetch Hetchy Pathway Improvement Project No. TS-0158 to the FT 2024-25 CIMMP Plan in the amount of $129,725; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the FY2024-25 Operating Budget on June 11, 2024 by Resolution 2024-28; and
WHEREAS, the Hetch Hetchy project will result in additional TDA Revenues in the amount of $129,725; and those revenues will need to be transferred out of the TDA Fund 25 and into the Capital Projects Fund 62; and
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND, by the City Council of the City of Los Altos, State of California, as follows:
55 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 2

1. the City of Los Altos declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code, and furthermore, be it

2. there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of Los Altos to carry out the project; and furthermore, be it

3. the City of Los Altos attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, be it

4. a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the case may be, of County of Santa Clara for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.

5. The City of Los Altos FY2024-25 CIMMP budget is amended as follows: 1) Increased appropriations in the amount of $129,725 to fund the Hetch Hetchy Pathway Improvement Project No. TS-1058; 2) Increased Revenue/Transfers in from the TDA Fund in the amount of $129,725.

6. The City of Los Altos Operating Budget is amended as follows: 1) Increased Revenues in the amount of $129,725 in TDA Fund 25; and 2) Increased Expenditures/Transfers out of Fund 25 in the amount of $129,725.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 27th day of August, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC,

CITY CLERK
56 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 3
Attachment A
Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2025 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding
Findings

1. That the City of Los Altos is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Los Altos legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in “Attachment B” of this resolution.

2. That the City of Los Altos has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B.

3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s).

4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested.

5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).

6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s).

7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or final design and engineering or quick build project; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic and/or Class IV separated bikeway; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of Los Altos within the prior five fiscal years.

8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, or included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.) or responds to an immediate community need, such as a quick-build project.

9. That any project described in Attachment B bicycle project meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in the California Highway Design Manual 57 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 4
or is in a National Association of City and Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidance or similar best practices document.

10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed in the allocated time (fiscal year of allocation plus two additional fiscal years).

11. That the City of Los Altos agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.
58 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 5
Attachment B
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form

1. Agency City of Los Altos

2. Primary Contact Steven Son

3. Mailing Address 1 N San Antonio Rd Los Altos CA 94022

4. Email Address [email protected] 5. Phone
Number
(650) 947-
2614

6. Secondary
Contact (in the
event primary is
not available)
Harun Musaefendic

7. Mailing address
(if different)
N/A☒

8. Email Address [email protected] 9. Phone
Number
(650) 947-
2650

10. Send allocation
instructions to (if
different from
above):

11.Project Title Hetch Hetchy Trail Maintenance and Accessibility Project

12.Amount
requested
$129,725 13.Fiscal Year of
Claim
2025

14.Description of Overall Project:

15.Project Scope Proposed for Funding: (Project level environmental, preliminary planning, and ROW are ineligible uses of TDA funds.)

16.Project Location: A map of the project location is attached or a link to a online map of the project location is provided below:

Reconstruction of curb ramps to the Hetch Hetchy Class I Pathway to meet current ADA standards. Installation of bike and pedestrian infrastructure including crosswalks, advance yield lines, crosswalk signage, bicycle striping and signage where the pathway approaches and intersects with Los Altos Avenue and Estrellita Wy. This will provide a continuous, accessible connection to the Palo Alto - Los Altos Bike Path.

Finalization of design, construction of the above improvements. 59 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 6
Project Relation to Regional Policies (for information only)

17.Is the project in an Equity Priority Community?
Yes☐ No☒

18.Is this project in a Priority Development Area or a Transit-Oriented Community? Yes☐ No☒
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Estrellita+Way,+Los+Altos,+CA+94022/@37.4015308,- 122.1234976,17.5z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x808fb08236f647b9:0x9578700e50c12ca6!8m2!3d37.4016687!4d122.122307!16s%2Fg%2F1w0p5w57?entry=ttu 60 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 7

19.Project Budget and Schedule
Project Eligibility
A. Has the project been reviewed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee? Yes☒ No☐
If “YES,” identify the date and provide a copy or link to the agenda.  March 30, 2022
https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/compl ete_streets_commission/meeting/81461/csc_agenda_033022.pdf  July 27, 2022
https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/compl ete_streets_commission/meeting/83840/csc_agenda_072722_r1.pdf If "NO," provide an explanation).

B. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? Yes☒ No☐
If "NO," provide expected date:__Project approved by CSC on July 27, 2022____
C. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? Yes☐ No☒
(If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page)
D. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria Yes☒ No☐
pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? E. 1. Is the project categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CCR Section 15301(c),Yes☒No☐
Existing Facility?

2. If “NO” above, is the project is exempt from CEQA for another reason? Yes☐ No☐
Cite the basis for the exemption. __________________________ N/A☐
If the project is not exempt, please check “NO,” and provide environmental Project Phase TDA 3 Other Funds Total Cost Estimated Completion (month/year)
Bike/Ped Plan
ENV
PA&ED
PS&E
ROW
CON
Total Cost
$10,000 September 2024
$119,725 September 2024
$129,725 December 2024
61 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 8
documentation, as appropriate.

F. Estimated Completion Date of project (month and year): _____December 2024_____________
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has Yes☒ No☐
the claimant arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other
than the Claimant is to maintain the facility, please identify below and provide the agreement.

H. Is a Complete Streets Checklist required for this project ? Yes☐ No☒
If the amount requested is over $250,000 or if the total project phase or construction phase is over $250,000, a Complete Streets checklist is likely required. Please attach the Complete Streets checklist or record of review, as applicable. More information
and the form may be found here:
https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/complete-streets 62 Agenda Item # 2.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: August 27, 2024
Prepared By: Kathryn Krauss
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Adoption of the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), including Volume 1 and the Los Altos Annex

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☒Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☒Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution accepting the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), including Volume 1 and the Los Altos Annex

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
January 9, 2018

DISCUSSION
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 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) 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.
63 Agenda Item # 3.

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.

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 Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is one of the only MJHMPs in the state to incorporate the updated guidance.

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. The Core Planning Team invited stakeholders from each jurisdiction 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 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning Team for Los Altos was made up of the following personnel:
 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  Vivian Chu, City of Los Altos, Finance Manager
64 Agenda Item # 3.
 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 Zornes, City of Los Altos, Development Services Director  Brian Glass, City of Los Altos, Assistant Fire Chief
The opportunity for public participation was 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 this 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.

Once the MJHMP is adopted by all the jurisdictional partners and approved by FEMA, the partnership will collectively and individually become eligible to apply for hazard mitigation project funding from both the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Upon adoption of Volume 1 and the City of Los Altos Annex of the MJHMP and subsequent approval of said plan by CALOES and FEMA, the City will be eligible to apply to apply for specified grants mentioned above. The grant funds are made available to states and local governments and can be used to implement the long-term hazard mitigation measures specified within the City of Los Altos annex of the MJHMP before and after a major disaster declaration. The MJPMP is considered a living document such that, as awareness of additional hazards develops and new strategies and projects are conceived to offset or prevent losses due to natural disasters, the MJHMP will be evaluated and revised on a continual 5-year time frame.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Final Draft Volume I Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)
65 Agenda Item # 3.

2. City of Los Altos Annex Draft Volume II MJHMP
66 Agenda Item # 3.

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
67 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mit igation Plan—DRAFT 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
68 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 69 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 70 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Acknowledgements iii
 Nathaniel Rainey, Emergency Services Coordinator, Office of Emergency Services  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  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
71 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Acknowledgements iv
 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  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 72 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Acknowledgements v
 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
73 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 SelfDetermination, 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
74 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
75 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 76 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.

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 covered 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. 77 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
78 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 this 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 inperson meetings were held to share information about the CWPP and MJHMP and solicit feedback from the public about the plans.

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. 79 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 hazard 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. 80 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 was 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 action 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 guiding principle. Objectives were selected that met multiple goals. Actions were prioritized based on the action meeting multiple objectives.
81 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 humaninduced 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.
82 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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, communitybased 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.
83 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 84 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 85 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 86 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 87 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 88 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 89 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 90 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 91 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 Comparison45F .....................................................87 Table 19: National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Soil Classification System46F ..........................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 Effects123F.............................160 Table 51: NOAA Solar Radiation Storms Space Weather Scale and Potential Effects124F..........................161 Table 52: NOAA Radio Blackouts Space Weather Scale and Potential Effects125F.....................................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 County18F........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 Table 67: Wildfire – Projected Santa Clara County Acres Burned ...........................................................212 92 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Table of Contents xxv
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 24F ...............................................................................................238 Table 78: Potential Downstream Hazard from Dams25F..............................................................................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 Flooding265F........................................................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 County27F
,
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 Table 117: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Tsunami ................................................................................351 Table 118: EMAP Consequence Analysis: Other Hazards of Interest .....................................................354 93 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Table of Contents xxvi
Table 119: Event Profiles for Terrorism301F ..................................................................................................357 Table 120: Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Spills 2019–202232F................................................372 Table 121: Corrosion Type........................................................................................................................375 Table 122: Leak Classifications ................................................................................................................377 Table 123: Electric Providers in Santa Clara County30F..............................................................................381 Table 124: Power Shutoffs Statewide31F .....................................................................................................382 Table 125: COVID-19 Cases Countywide and by City of Residence36F .....................................................386 Table 126: Disease Outbreaks Identified in Santa Clara County, 2018–202234F .......................................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 Rate27F ........................................................52 Figure 20: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale42F..............................................................................................85 Figure 21: Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years4F .............................86 Figure 22: Historic Earthquakes in the Operational Area ...........................................................................90 94 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Table of Contents xxvii
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 County86F ..............................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 Cycle13F........................................................................................................153 Figure 40: National Weather Service Wind Chill Chart.............................................................................154 Figure 41: Winter Storm Severity Index ....................................................................................................155 Figure 42: National Weather Service Heat Index Chart17F..........................................................................156 Figure 43: National Weather Service Heat Index Classifications and Corresponding Effects on the Body18F ..................................................................................................................................................................156 Figure 44: The Beaufort Wind Scale12F .......................................................................................................158 Figure 45: Palmer Drought Index from January 1, 2005, to May 20, 2023129F.............................................177 Figure 46: Palmer Hydrological Drought Index from January 1, 2005, to May 20, 2023130F........................177 Figure 47: Santa Clara Valley Water District System Water Supply14F.......................................................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 Category156F ..............................................................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 1880-202217F.............................................................................................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 County21F..................................................................235 Figure 59: Dam Inundation Depth Grids ...................................................................................................236 Figure 60: Levees in Santa Clara County23F ...............................................................................................237 Figure 61: Risk Rating 2.0: Project Premium Changes for Santa Clara County24F.....................................263 Figure 62: CRS Communities by Class Nationwide as of October 2022245F................................................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 Cover26F ..................................................................................297 Figure 66: Common Types of Landslides .................................................................................................314 Figure 67: Typical Debris Avalanche Scar and Track27F.............................................................................315 Figure 68: A Santa Clara County Debris Flow Triggered by Winter Storms Following the Loma Fire, 201728F ..................................................................................................................................................................326 Figure 69: SCVWD Historic Groundwater Conditions284F.............................................................................327 Figure 70: Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility in Santa Clara County.................................................329 Figure 71: Potential Tsunami Travel Times in the Pacific Ocean, In Hours291F ...........................................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 California31F ...............................................................................365 Figure 75: Highly Populated Areas with Hazardous Material Incidents Within Santa Clara County32F .....371 95 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Table of Contents xxviii
Figure 76: Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipelines in Santa Clara County325F ..............................................374 Figure 77: Santa Clara COVID Cases 2020–202335F .................................................................................385 Figure 78: Weekly Percentage of Emergency Department Visits for Influenza-Like Illness in Santa Clara County, 2019, to February 22, 202334F .......................................................................................................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 96 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.0F
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.1F
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.2F 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 costeffective 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 97 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.3F 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 coordinate 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 98 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 neighboring 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 results can be found in the Risk Assessment portion in Volume 1 of this plan. 99 Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 stakeholders.  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:
100
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 2022.4F
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/ 101
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.5F 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, including 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 focuses 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 “costeffectiveness” 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-duringcovid-19-pandemic/ 102
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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, 103
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 costeffectiveness • 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
104
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
105
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 SelfDetermination, 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). 106
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
107
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 108
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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, academic, 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
109
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 110
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 8 111
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
112
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
113
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
114
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
115
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
116
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
117
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 nonprofit 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.
118
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
119
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 OEM 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/multijurisdictional-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. 120
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
121
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 messaging 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, members 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 the 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 dashboard, 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. 122
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 inperson 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 123
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 124
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 125
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
126
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
127
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
128
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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,6F
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,7F 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 18th 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 129
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 19th 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. 130
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 hightechnology 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 Declarations8F
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 131
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 valley to Los Altos and Palo Alto. With the introduction of the electric water pump in the early 20th 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 subdivision 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.
132
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 subsurface textures and slow internal drainage due to a high clay content are problems for gardens, ornamental plants, and lawns.9F
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, 1981–202210F 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/ 133
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 134
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 39 safety facilities, utilities, government facilities, hazardous materials facilities, or vital community economic facilities.1F
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 135
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 40 Figure 11: Critical Facilities in the Operational Area
136
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
137
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 established 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 population.

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 concentrations 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 1,936,259.12 F
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 Data13F
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-populationestimates-and-components-of-change-byyear/#:~:text=California%E2%80%99s%20population%20declined%20by%20173%2C000%20persons%20between %20July,estimates%20released%20today%20by%20the%20Department%20of%20Finance. 138
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.14F
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.15F 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 facility 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 139
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 16F 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 Area17F 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-disasterschildren#:~: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 140
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.18F 19 Figure 14: Race Distribution in the Operational Area19F 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.20 F
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
141
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.21F
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.2 F 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
142
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 47 Figure 15: Santa Clara County Social Vulnerability Index 143
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 48 Figure 16: Social Vulnerability Index Themes
144
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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)23F 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, $15,225.24 F 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
145
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 146
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.25F
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 fall below pre-pandemic estimates in 2022. Overall, Santa Clara County experienced less unemployment than the rest of the State throughout this time period.26 F 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/
147
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 5: Santa Clara County Operational Area Profile 52 Figure 19: California and Santa Clara County Unemployment Rate27F 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 program 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 PresDisaster 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/
148
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.28F
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 reducing 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 decisionmaking 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
149
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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:29F 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 habitat 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-speciesact#:~:text=A%20threatened%20species%20is%20defined%20under%20the%20ESA,threatened%20or%20endange red%20are%20called%20%E2%80%9C%20listed%20species.%E2%80%9D 150
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 partnership 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.
151
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 disabilities. 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.
152
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
153
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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:30 F 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 beneficial values of floodplains. The requirements apply to the following activities31F 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/emergencywatershed-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 154
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.32F
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 F 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 public 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.34F
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 nonstructural 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-riskmanagement-standard-and34 National Archives. (n.d.). § 9.4 Definitions. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-44/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part9/section-9.4 35 Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). Fact Sheets, Emergency Relief Program. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructurelaw/er_fact_sheet.cfm#:~:text=The%20BIL%20continues%20the%20Emergency%20Relief%20program%2C%20whi ch,disasters%20or%20catastrophic%20failure%20from%20an%20external%20cause. 155
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 156
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 decisionmaking 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 157
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 in 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 floodrelated 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.
158
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 presented 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:35F 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 andtrade” 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 159
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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:36F 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-NHDStatement-REVISED-52022.pdf 160
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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, and 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.37 F
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) 161
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 responserelated 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 be 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. 162
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
163
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 164
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
165
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
166
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
167
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
168
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
169
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 170
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
171
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 172
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 173
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.38F
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-annualchance, 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-squarefoot-cost 174
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
175
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
176
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
177
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 178
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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, large 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 and 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 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/ 179
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.40F
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. Currently the most commonly used intensity scale is the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale, with ratings defined in Figure 19.41F 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 180
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 7: Earthquakes 85
Figure 20: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale42F
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 called 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 181
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.43F
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 potential 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 Years4F 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-releaseadditional-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 182
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 7: Earthquakes 87
Table 18: Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison45F 46 Modified
Mercalli
Scale
Perceived
Shaking
Potential Structure Damage
Estimated PGAa
Resistant (%g)
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 System46F 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
183
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.47F 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.48F 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.49F
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.50 F 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-earthquakefantasy#:~: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 184
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.51F 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 185
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.52F 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/dataresearch/earthquake 186
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.53F 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.54 F
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 stadium 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.5F 56 54 California Office of Emergency Services. (2016, July 6). Bay Area Earthquake Plan. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wpcontent/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 187
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 7: Earthquakes 92
Figure 23: Significant Known Faults in the Bay Area56F
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
188
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.58F
59 58 University of California Berkley. (2015, April 2). https://news.berkeley.edu/2015/04/02/calaveras-hayward-fault-linkmeans-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. 189
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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, depending 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. 190
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 60F
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. 191
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 7: Earthquakes 96

Figure 25: Hayward Magnitude 7.0 Fault Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration 192
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 7: Earthquakes 97
Figure 26: Calaveras Magnitude 7.0 Fault Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration 193
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 it, creating sand boils. Figure 27 shows the liquefaction susceptibility in the Santa Clara County OA. 194
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
195
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.62 F 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 the 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 1868.6F 67 USGS describe the fault as a “tectonic
time bomb.”.67F
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%20moderatesized%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/
196
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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” are 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 197
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 California69F

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-366 198
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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, turning 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.. 199
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.
200
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
Structure Contents Total Value
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 25.19 201
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 7: Earthquakes 106
Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Replacement
Structure Contents Total Value
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
Structure Contents Total Value
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
Structure Contents Total Value
Campbell $40,301,090 $98,620,250 $409,079,960 3.76
202
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 7: Earthquakes 107
Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Replacement
Structure Contents Total Value
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
Structure Contents Total Value
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
203
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 7: Earthquakes 108
Jurisdiction
Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake % of Total
Replacement
Structure Contents Total Value
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 water, 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/wpcontent/uploads/Preparedness/Documents/BayAreaEQConopsPub_Version_2016.pdf 204
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
205
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 206
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 softstory 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. 207
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 buckle, 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 208
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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
209
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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/wpcontent/uploads/Preparedness/Documents/BayAreaEQConopsPub_Version_2016.pdf 210
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 211
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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. 212
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.7F 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-catastrophicearthquake-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
213
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 lowincome, 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 thousands 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.
214
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 7: Earthquakes 119
Figure 31: Hayward Fault Earthquake Scenario80F
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/scienceapplication-for-risk-reduction/science/haywiredscenario#:~:text=The%20HayWired%20earthquake%20scenario%20is%20a%20magnitude%207.0,Ma%20By%20Ea rthquake%20Hazards%20Program%20June%2016%2C%202020
215
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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 highwater 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.
216
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT 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.

There may be additional cascading impacts, like
landslides, tsunamis, fires, or dam failures which
compound the event. Medical facilities, mass-care
shelters, and essential food and water supply chains
would be critical to quickly restore post-event.

Environment  Minimal to
severe
Earthquake-caused cascading impacts could negatively
impact the environment. Landslides, tsunamis, fires, and dam failures can occur after an earthquake. Disruption to waterways, such as through rerouting streams and debris, could possibly damage habitat and feeding areas.

Hazardous materials release would be a serious concern.

Economic Conditions  Minimal to
severe
Impacts to the economy will largely depend on the amount of damage and destruction to facilities, infrastructure, and transportation lifelines. Major damage or significant delays in recovery could severely impact the local, state, national, and even global economy.

Public Confidence in
the Government
Minimal to
severe
The public’s confidence in the government will depend on how it handles response and recovery efforts to the event. 217
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 122
8 Wildfire
Definitions
 Interface Area: An area susceptible to wildfires and where wildland vegetation and urban or suburban development occur together. An example would be smaller urban areas and dispersed rural housing in forested areas.
 Wildfire: Fires that result in uncontrolled destruction of forests, brush, field crops, grasslands, and real and personal property in non-urban areas. Because of their distance from firefighting resources, they can be difficult to contain and can cause a great deal of destruction.

8.1 General Background
A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning or by human activity such as smoking, campfires, equipment use, sparks from power lines, and arson.

Fire hazards present a considerable risk to vegetation and wildlife habitats. Short-term loss caused by a wildfire can include the destruction of timber, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and watersheds. Long-term effects include smaller timber harvests, reduced access to affected recreational areas, and destruction of cultural and economic resources and community infrastructure. The potential for significant damage to life and property exists in areas designated as “wildland urban interface areas,” where development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas.

There are a few different types of wildfires:
 Ground Fires: Fires that burn when surface fuels, such as organic soils, duff, decomposing litter, buried logs, roots, and the below-surface portion of stumps ignite and burn under the ground.

Ground fires may eventually burn through the ground surface and become surface fires.  Surface Fires: Fires that burn on the surface of the ground and are primarily fueled by low-lying vegetation such as leaf and needle litter, dead branch material, downed logs, bark, trees bones, and low statute living plants.
 Ladder Fuels: Dead or live vegetation such as low-lying tree branches, shrubs, and trees under the tree canopy that allows an active fire to spread from the forest floor into the tree canopy to become crown fires.
 Crown Fires: Fires that spread from treetop to treetop, typically at a rapid pace. They are often pushed by wind and can become extremely intense and difficult to put out.  Spotting Fires: Fires that involve burning embers which are thrown ahead of the main fire. This type of fire can be produced by crown fires depending on wind and topography. Once they begin, spotting fires are difficult to control.

The Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan was used to inform parts of this risk assessment and can be accessed for an in-depth look at the County’s wildfire risk and other supporting data. The plan can be found online with the following link:
https://www.sccfd.org/santa-clara-county-community-wildfire-protection-plan/ 218
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 123

8.2 Hazard Profile

8.2.1 Past Events
Wildfire poses a significant risk to public health and safety, economies, infrastructure, and irreplaceable cultural and natural resources within the OA.81F
82 Wildfire is an annual risk in Santa Clara County.82F83 The following are wildfires of over 10 acres that have been recorded in or near the OA before February 2023.83F
84 Table 41: Past Wildfire Events
Event Name
Event Period
Additional Information
From To
Lexington Fire 6/26/1985 7/19/1985 FEMA-739-DR-CA. This federal wildfire disaster included six counties. In Santa Clara County, the worst of the fires affected the Santa Cruz Mountains south of the City of San José, threatening at least 2,000 homes
and forcing the evacuation of more than 4,500
people.84 F
85 Felter Fire 10/25/2006 10/26/2006 Burned 200 acres.

Stevens Fire 8/30/2007 9/2/2007 Burned 151 acres near Stevens Canyon Reservoir.

Lick Fire 9/3/2011 9/11/2007 Burned 47,760 acres at Henry Coe State Park, with four residences and 20 outbuildings destroyed.

Summit Fire 5/22/2008 5/30/2008 FEMA-2766-FM-CA. Burned 4,270 acres along with 35 residences, 64 outbuildings at Summit Road and
Maymen Flats, south of the Town of Loma Prieta.

Whitehurst/
Hummingbird
Fires
6/21/2008 6/26/2008 Burned 794 acres at Hummingbird and 200 acres at Whitehurst.

Pacheco Fire 8/29/2009 8/30/2009 Burned 1,650 acres.

Croy Fire 9/23/2002 10/5/2002 FM-2465. Burned 13,128 acres.

McDonald Fire 7/21/2011 7/21/2011 Burned 27 acres east of the City of Morgan Hill below Anderson Lake.

Uvas Fire 7/12/2013 7/12/2013 Burned 50 acres along Uvas Road and Casa Loma Road, near Calero County Park and west of the City of
Morgan Hill.

Grant Fire 12/31/2013 12/31/2013 Burned 40 acres off Mount Hamilton Road near Grant Ranch County Park.
82 Santa Clara County Fire Department. (2016, August). Santa Clara Community Wildfire Protection Plan. https://www.sccfd.org/santa-clara-county-community-wildfire-protection-plan/ 83 County of Santa Clara. (2012). Silicon Valley 2.0. https://sustainability.sccgov.org/silicon-valley-20 84 State of California. (2023). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. https://www.fire.ca.gov/ 85 Los Angeles Times. (1985, July 10). Fire Imperils 2,000 Homes Near San José. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-07-10-mn-7612-story.html 219
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 124
Event Name
Event Period
Additional Information
From To
Curie Fire 6/30/2014 7/1/2014 Burned 125 acres off Curie Drive south of the City of San José.

Casa Fire 8/28/2014 8/31/2014 Burned 80 acres along Highway 152 at Casa De Fruta.

Highway Fire 6/30/2015 7/3/2015 Burned 42 acres off Highway 101 near Monterey Frontage Road, south of the City of Gilroy.

Pacheco Fire 9/9/2015 9/10/2015 Burned 215 acres off Highway 152 at Dinosaur Point, three miles west of San Luis Reservoir.

Sierra Fire 7/30/2016 7/31/2016 Burned 114 acres off Sierra Road and Calaveras Road.

Bailey Fire 8/17/2016 8/18/2016 Burned 100 acres off Highway 101 and Bailey Road.

Oak Fire 9/1/2016 9/2/2016 Burned 25 acres off Oak Glen Avenue, two miles west of the City of Morgan Hill.

Loma Fire 9/26/2016 10/12/2016 Burned 4,474 acres and destroyed 12 residences and 16 outbuildings off Loma Prieta Road and Loma
Chiquita Road, 10 miles northwest of the City of
Morgan Hill.

Quimby Fire 6/21/2017 6/21/2017 Burned 54 acres off Quimby Road, west of Great Ranch Park, East San José.

Ranch Fire 6/29/2017 6/29/2017 Burned 85 acres off Grant Road, Mt. Hamilton, east of the City of San José.

Felipe Fire 7/10/2017 7/10/2017 Burned 70 acres by San Felipe Road and Metcalf Road, 8 miles northeast of City of Morgan Hill.

Lariat Fire 7/11/2017 7/11/2017 Burned 101 acres along Lariat Lane and Claitor Way, six miles northeast of the City of San José.

Castro Fire 7/23/2017 7/23/2017 Burned 78 acres off Castro Valley Road & Highway 101, southwest of the City of Gilroy.

Weller Fire 7/26/2017 7/26/2017 Burned 51 acres along Weller Road and Calaveras Road, three miles east of the City of Milpitas.

Tilton Fire 8/11/2017 8/11/2017 Burned 100 acres by Hale Avenue and Tilton Avenue in the City of Morgan Hill.

Bally Fire 9/3/2017 9/3/2017 Burned 100 acres by Ballybunion Court in the City of Gilroy.

Keeler Fire 5/27/2018 5/27/2018 Burned 16 acres by Keeler Court and Santa Teresa Boulevard, south of the City of San José.

Tesla Fire 6/29/2018 6/29/2018 Burned 70 acres across Tesla Road and Reuss Road, east of the City of Livermore.

Bridle Fire 7/6/2018 7/6/2018 Burned 116 acres off Bridal Path Drive and Butch Drive, east of the City of Gilroy.

Curie Fire 7/10/2018 7/10/2018 Burned 70 acres by Curie Drive and San Ignacio Avenue, southwest of San José.

Hale Fire 7/10/2019 7/10/2019 Burned 51 acres at Hale Avenue and Monterey Street in the City of Morgan Hill.
220
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 125
Event Name
Event Period
Additional Information
From To
Country Fire 7/22/2018 7/22/2018 Burned 320 acres along Country Club Road and North Park Victoria Road in the City of Milpitas.

Quimby Fire 9/23/2018 9/23/2018 Burned 30 acres by Quimby Road and Borden Drive, East San José.

Park Fire 10/7/2018 10/7/2018 Burned 62 acres along Monterey Road and Coyote Creek Golf Drive, north of the City of Morgan Hill.

Canyon Fire 5/30/2019 6/11/2019 Burned 144 acres off Del Puerto Canyon Road and Diablo Grande Parkway, west of the City of Patterson.

Malech Fire 6/9/2019 6/11/2019 Burned 210 acres by Malech Road & Bailey Road, South San José.

Calaveras Fire 6/10/2019 6/17/2019 Burned 35 acres by Calaveras Road and Weller Road east of the City of Milpitas.

Mines Fire 6/26/2019 6/27/2019 Burned 17 acres by Mines Road and Turner Gulch in the San Antonio Valley.

Coyote Fire 7/2/2019 7/2/2019 Burned 74 acres by Northbound US 101 at Coyote Creek Golf Drive in the City of San José.

Aborn Fire 7/15/2019 7/15/2019 Burned 47 acres off Aborn Road and Murillo Avenue, East San José.

Sweigert Fire 7/24/2019 7/24/2019 Burned 80 acres off Kahler Court and Felter Road, East of the City of Milpitas.

Bayliss Fire 8/15/2019 8/15/2019 Burned 60 acres by Santa Teresa Boulevard and Bayless Drive, South San José.

Jamieson Fire 8/25/2019 8/25/2019 Burned 35 acres at Jamieson Road and Cañada Road near the City of Gilroy.

Reservoir Fire 9/21/2019 9/24/2019 Burned 128 acres near Calaveras Road and Felter Road, 5 miles northeast of the City of Milpitas.

Point Fire 10/7/2019 10/7/2019 Burned 29 acres between Highway 152 and Dinosaur Point Road.

Santa Clara Unit
(SCU) Lightning
Complex Fire
8/16/2020 10/1/2020 Burned 396,624 acres between Santa Clara County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin
County, Merced County, and Stanislaus County.

Silver Fire 6/4/2020 6/4/2020 Burned 19 acres by Dutch Flat Trail, East of the City of San José.

Colleen Fire 6/4/2020 6/7/2020 Burned 126 acres around Colleen Drive, South San José.

Park Fire 7/4/2020 7/6/2020 Burned 353 acres by East Dunne Avenue and Finley Ridge Road, east of the City of Morgan Hill.

Crews Fire 7/5/2020 7/13/2020 Burned 5,513 acres by Crews Road and Oak Spring Circle, north of the City of Gilroy.

Alum Fire 7/11/2020 7/11/2020 Burned 31 acres by Mt. Hamilton and Crothers Road, northeast of the City of San José.

Coyote Fire 8/21/2020 8/26/2020 Burned 143 acres by Monterey Road and Coyote Creek Golf Drive.
221
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 126
Event Name
Event Period
Additional Information
From To
Silicon Valley
Fire
6/14/2021 6/14/2021 Burned 35 acres by off Silicon Valley Road and Basking Ridge, East San José.

Paseo Fire 6/25/2021 6/25/2021 Burned 37 acres by Paseo Robles Avenue and Paseo Vista Avenue, east of the City of Morgan Hill.

The 2020 fire season was the largest wildfire season recorded in California’s modern history. It was also the most devastating in recent Santa Clara County history. One fire significantly outpaced the rest. The SCU Lightning Complex fire started as a series of almost twenty fires on August 16, 2020, and burned until October 1, 2020, engulfing 396,624 acres five counties. At least 26 structures were damaged and 225 destroyed. There were 6 confirmed injuries to fire personnel and civilians and no deaths. As of this writing, it was the fourth largest fire in California’s recorded history.

8.2.2 Location
Wildfires occur in two distinct spaces: wildlands, and the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Wildland fires that burn in natural, undeveloped settings actually benefit the landscape through cleaning the forest floor from heavy brush, killing disease, providing food and habitat to forest animals and birds in the new vegetation that grows, and supporting new generations of plants that require intense heat for seed germination.

According to the U.S. Fire Administration,85F
86 the WUI is the zone of transition between occupied land and human development. It is the line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. The WUI possess unique wildfire risks as fire can easily move between structural and vegetative fuels. The WUI has seen exponential growth in recent years. It is vital that WUI communities continue to work to address the WUI wildfire issue.

Figure 32: Air Tanker Dropping Fire Retardant on Lick Fire in Santa Clara County86F 87 Fire-prone areas in California are divided into three categories: federal responsibility areas, state responsibility areas, and local responsibility areas. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has responsibly for fire prevention and firefighting services within the state 86 U.S. Fire Administration. (2022). What is the WUI? https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/what-is-the-wui.html 87 Schulz, W. (n.d.). Air tanker dropping fire retardant on Lick Fire in Santa Clara County [Photograph]. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California. 222
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 127
responsibility areas, while local agencies have local responsibility areas, and the U.S. Forest Service has fire-related responsibilities in the federal responsibility areas.

CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program has modeled and mapped fire hazard risk using a science-based and field-tested model that assigns a hazard score based on factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior such as fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetation), predicted flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and typical fire weather for an area. These factors include the following:
 Fuel: Fuel may include living and dead vegetation on the ground, along the surface as brush and small trees, and above the ground in tree canopies. Lighter fuels such as grasses, leaves and needles quickly expel moisture and burn rapidly, while heavier fuels such as tree branches, logs and trunks take longer to warm and ignite. Trees killed or defoliated by forest insects and diseases are more susceptible to wildfire.
 Weather: Relevant weather conditions include temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation amount and duration, and the stability of the atmosphere. Of particular importance for wildfire activity are wind and thunderstorms:
▪ Strong, dry winds produce extreme fire conditions. Such winds generally reach peak velocities during the night and early morning hours. It accounts for flying ember production, which is the principal driver of the wildfire hazard in densely developed areas. ▪ The thunderstorm season typically begins in June with wet storms and turns dry with little or no precipitation reaching the ground as the season progresses into July and August. Traditionally, this “fire season” between July and November would be when the State sees the most wildfires. However, according to the 2018 Strategic Fire Plan, climate change has rendered that term obsolete, as fires now burn year-round.  Terrain: Topography includes slope and elevation. The topography of a region influences the amount and moisture of fuel; the impact of weather conditions such as temperature and wind; potential barriers to fire spread, such as highways and lakes; and elevation and slope of landforms (fire spreads more easily uphill than downhill).  Probability of Future Occurrence: The likelihood of an area burning over a 30- to 50-year time period, based on history and other factors.

Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) are ranked into the following risk classifications: moderate, high, or very high. The model covers the State Responsibility Area (SRA), which is the land where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires. It does not include lands within incorporated city boundaries or in federal ownership.

Significant land-use changes need to be accounted for through periodic model updates. The Wildfire Hazard Severity Zone Map87 F
88 was updated in 2007, and since updated in 2023 to reflect all that has happened in terms of scientific data, a changing climate, and other factors. The new model incorporates local climate data and changes in burn probability based on recent trends in fire occurrence. Overall, the map shows increase fire hazard, reflecting the State’s increase in wildfire occurrence and severity. It is important CAL FIRE continues to maintain these maps in order to build more resilient, fire-adapted communities. GIS data of the 2023 update was not yet released to include in the maps for this plan. The FHSZs shown throughout use the 2007 data.

Figure 32 shows the FHSZ mapping for the Santa Clara County OA. 88 State of California. (2023). Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-map/ 223
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 128
Figure 33: Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FSHZ)
Typically, wildfires will occur anywhere in the County outside of the urbanized Highway 101 corridor and Santa Clara Valley. In general, the areas with the highest fire risk hazard are found in the parts of the OA farthest from urbanized areas, including along the border with Stanislaus and Santa Cruz Counties.

However, there are also Very High FHSZs near urban areas, including south of Los Gatos, west of Saratoga, west of Morgan Hill, and west of Gilroy.
224
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 129
Wildfires are not also limited to Very High risk areas and can occur in Moderate or High FHSZs. The Santa Clara County General Plan8F
89 suggests much of Santa Clara County is at high risk to wildfires due to:
 Climatic factors, such as rainfall, humidity, and wind patterns;  Volume of naturally occurring fuel, such as brush, dead trees, and grasses that ignite easily and burn hotly;
 Steepness of slopes; and
 Inaccessibility and lack of available water supplies for fire suppression.

Additional information on wildfire hazard and risk to structures are available in the 2020 Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Mateo County Wildfire Risk to Structures and Classified Wildfire Hazard Maps.89F 90 The
classified wildfire hazard was calculated by 9 weighted input data sets that contribute to the potential for wildfire. These include fire environment factors such as fuel, weather, topography and ignition sources, the probability of a fire occurring at a specific point during a specific time period, and the expected distribution of intensity. This wildfire hazard model resulted in a 20-meter raster with 6 classes of relative wildfire hazards. Because this classified hazard data was of finer resolution and completed more recently, it was the primary source used to evaluate potential exposure and risk in the OA. 89 County of Santa Clara. (1994, December 20). General Plan. https://plandev.sccgov.org/ordinances-codes/generalplan 90 Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network. (2020) Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Mateo County Wildfire Risk to Structures and Classified Wildfire Hazard Maps for Fire Prevention Planning. 225
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 130
Figure 34: Classified Wildfire Hazard
 This hazard classification does not account for resources or assets exposed to the hazard.

Wildfire risk is the potential for adverse consequences to valued resources or assets. The Wildfire Risk to Structures map models risk by one value: structures. This map displays 10-acre hexagons ranked for wildfire hazard and structure density. Hexagons with high structure density and high wildfire hazard indicate areas of greatest concern.
226
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 131
Figure 35: Wildfire Risk to Structures

8.2.3 Frequency
Wildfire frequency can be assessed through review of the portion of an area burned in previous wildfire events. Table 42 includes a summary of CAL FIRE records of fires from 1950 to 2021. About 39 percent of the mapped wildfire risk zones in the Santa Clara County OA have burned in that period. 227
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 132
Table 42: Record of Fire Affecting Operational Area
Fire Hazard
Severity Zone
(FHSZ)
Total Area in
Wildfire Severity Zone
(acres)
Area Burned, 1950-2021
Acres Percent of Total
Moderate FHSZ 33,549 2,377 7.1
High FHSZ 372,517 119,693 32.1
Very High FHSZ 148,389 93,224 62.8
Total 554,455 215,295 38.8
The National Fire Plan directs funding to be provided for projects intended to reduce fire risks to a community. To meet this object, high risk communities within the wildland-urban interface were identified and publicized in the Federal Register in 2001. Since then, states have been responsible for updating this list. According to CAL FIRE’s list of Communities at Risk,90F 91 14 out of 15 local jurisdictions within Santa
Clara County are at high risk of damage from wildfire. The City of Mountain View is not included on this list. It is surrounded by urban development and the San Francisco Bay.

It is important to consider changing conditions when assessing the future probability of wildfires in the OA.

According to CAL FIRE,91F
92 over the last 5 years, 13 out the 20 most destructive wildfires in California’s history have occurred. Thousands of homes, business, and pieces of infrastructure were damaged or destroyed. This isn’t a new trend. Since the 1970s, the number of statewide fires has steadily been increasing. NASA’s Earth Observatory92F
93 summarized the causes of this surge of large, destructive of fires as; heat waves and droughts influenced by climate changed, a century of fire suppression, and fastgrowing populations expanding the WUI.

Despite recent storm and flooding events, the U.S. Drought Monitor indicates that most of California is still experiencing moderate to severe drought conditions. Santa Clara County is in a moderate drought and experienced the 35th driest year to date over the past 128 years in 2022. Drought leads to more severe, costly fires as it contributes to high burn intensity, the rate at which fire spreads, availability of dry fuels, and fires in typically wet parts of the state. When fuel is dry, sparks from both natural sources such as lightning and human sources like power lines, are more likely to ignite. Droughts can hamper first responder’s firefighting capabilities by reducing water reserves necessary to combat the blazes, resulting in longer lasting, wider spreading events.

According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment,93F 94 the frequency of extreme wildfires may
increase, and the average area burned statewide may increase by 77% if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Water resources, both in terms of rainfall and the availability of fuel for fires and water for fire suppression, also may be impacted by shifting water patterns due to climate change. 91 State of California. (n.d.). Communities at Risk. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-plan/communities-at-risk/#c 92 State of California. (2023). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. https://www.fire.ca.gov/ 93 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Earth Observatory. (2021). What’s Behind California’s Surge of Large Fires? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148908/whats-behind-californias-surge-of-large-fires 94 State of California. (2018). California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. https://climateassessment.ca.gov/ 228
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 133
Figure 36: Burned Hillslopes above Pulse Canyon near San Antonio Valley, SCU Lightning Complex, Santa Clara County94F
95 Changing fire management practices also impact fire risk. Early in the 20th century, fire fighters adopted practices of fire suppression, with few prescribed burns. That meant that vegetation which would have been thinned due to naturally occurring fires was allowed to become overgrown and dense. Now, decades later, the impacts of those practices are being felt. A new consensus is developing that proactive fuel treatment is critical to wildfire management.

Human behavior will also play a large role in predicting the future probability of wildfire. Human-caused fires, both accidental and arson, are the leading cause of wildfires in California. Education and outreach campaigns are important tools for reducing the risk of human-caused fires.

Further information on the impact of climate change on the probability of wildfire is included in Section 15, Tsunami.

Probability in OA: Highly Likely

8.2.4 Severity and Impacts
Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, and natural resources. There are no recorded incidents of loss of life from wildfires in the OA. There have been multiple destructive wildfires in the OA destroying residences, burning thousands of acres, and forcing people to evacuate. Given the immediate response times to reported fires, the likelihood of injuries and casualties is minimal. Economic losses may also occur given the size and location of the fire event. The 95 Spangler, E. (2020). Burned hillslopes above Pulse Canyon [Photograph]. California Department of Conservation. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/landslides/recent
229
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 134
extent of a wildfire can be moderate to severe and depends on the size, rate of spread, fuel type, cause, and impact on communities. The greater the extent, the more severe the wildfire will be.

The Santa Clara County CWPP states that high fire danger conditions that can support very active fire behavior may be uncommon, but when it does occur, it can have very severe and destructive potential.

Instances such as the 1985 Lexington fire burned 37 homes, 4,200 acres, and caused $7 million in damage. The 2009 Loma Pieta fire burned 669 acres, cost $2.7 million to suppress, involved 1,742 fire fighters, destroyed 1 residence, and caused 4 injuries. It is important to know while these cases are rare, the severity can be detrimental.

8.2.5 Warning Time
Wildfires are often caused by humans, intentionally or accidentally. Approximately 94% of wildfires in California are human caused.95F
96 There is no way to predict when one of these human-caused wildfires might break out. Dry seasons and droughts are factors that greatly increase fire likelihood. Dry lightning may trigger wildfires. Inclement weather can be predicted, so special attention can be paid during weather events that may include lightning. Reliable National Weather Service lightning warnings are available on average 24 to 48 hours prior to a significant electrical storm.

The National Weather Service alerts fire departments through Red Flag Warnings & Fire Weather Watches when there is critical weather and dry conditions that could lead to the development or rapid increase of wildfire activity. A Fire Weather Watch is issued when weather conditions could exist in the next 12–72 hours. A Red Flag Warning is the highest alert. It is important that all residents and visitors take step to prevent wildfires, particularly when either of these alerts are issued.

If a fire does break out and spread rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within hours or days. Once a fire has started, fire alerting is reasonably rapid in most cases. The rapid spread of cellular phone and two-way radio communications in recent years has further contributed to a significant improvement in warning time. Recent wildfires have put these warning systems to the test. Rapidly spreading severe California wildfires has left residents with only minutes to evacuate in some cases.

8.3 Cascading Impacts
Wildfires can have a range of cascading impacts, which in some cases may cause more widespread and prolonged damage than the fire itself. They strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff. This in turn can weaken soils and cause failures on slopes. Major landslides can occur several years after a wildfire. The following figure depicts the areas of the OA most at risk for landslides post wildfire:
96 State of California. (2023). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. https://www.fire.ca.gov/. 230
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 135
Figure 37: Post Fire Soil Erosion Potential
Wildfires cause the contamination of reservoirs, destroy transmission lines, and contribute to flooding.

Most wildfires burn hot and for long durations which can bake soils, especially those high in clay content, thus increasing the imperviousness of the ground. This increases the runoff generated by storm events, thereby increasing the chance of flooding. Flash floods are particularly common after a wildfire. Even areas that are not traditional at high-risk to flooding can flood due to changes in the landscape post-fire.96F 97 Flooding and flood damage after fire is often more severe, as debris and ash left from the fire can form mudflows. As rainwater moves across charred and barren ground, it can also pick up soil and sediment and carry it in a stream of floodwaters. Impacts to the watershed can be felt for years after a wildfire. 97 Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2020, November). FEMA Fact Sheet Flood after Fire: Flood Risks Increase after Fires. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_flood-after-fire_factsheet_nov20.pdf 231
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 136
Fires can cause direct economic losses in the reduction of harvestable timber and indirect economic losses in reduced tourism. Cultural and historic resources, scenic vista, and recreational areas may burn.

Fire and smoke can reduce employee’s ability to go to work, decrease productivity, and delay outdoor projects. Adapting to these conditions will cost businesses, consumers, and governments.97F 98 Wildfires can
also affect personal and household economics through loss of income, increased medical costs, and property damage that may not be covered by insurance.

Wildlife can also be impacted by wildfires. After the historic wildfire seasons California has seen recently, there were increased sighting of animals such as mountain lions, raccoons, and coyotes in urban neighborhoods. Wildfires may be one reason why they are encroaching on urban areas, both putting urban populations at risk from these animals and exposing these animals to the risk humans present to them.

8.3.1 Smoke and Air Quality
Smoke exposure is one of the most concerning secondary impacts of wildfires. Smoke generated by wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vapor, and minerals), gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides), and toxics (formaldehyde, benzene). Emissions from wildfires depend on the type of fuel, the moisture content of the fuel, the efficiency (or temperature) of combustion, and the weather. The biggest threat from smoke is fine particles. Fine particles in smoke can get into eyes and respiratory systems, cause burning eyes, runny noses, and illness like bronchitis, as well as aggravate chronic heart and lung disease potentially resulting in premature death for people with these conditions.98F 99 The inhalation of wildfire smoke can harm many
and become fatal. Wildfire smoke is known to be even more dangerous than wildfire flames and burns.

Wildfire smoke is rolling back decades of investments in improving air quality in the U.S. Over the last decade, the estimated amount of each individual’s exposure to light, medium, and heavy wildfire smoke has gone up.9F
100 The rapid acceleration of poor air quality days and number of people exposed is particularly concerning. One study found a 27% increase in people annually exposed to a particle pollution known as PM2.5 – an increase from less than half a million people only a decade ago to over eight million exposed on at least one day a year ago now10F 101. Smoke does not recognize jurisdictional
boundaries. The impact of this hazard can be felt far from its source. Wildfires started outside of the OA, from northern California to Oregon, have brought smoke to the Bay Area in recent years.

Severe smoke events are expected to only get worse as climate change increases the frequency and severity of wildfires. This poses a chance to exasperate already challenging air quality issues. According to the American Lung Association’s 2023 State of the Air report, Santa Clara County received a grade of “F”. An estimated almost 1.9 million people within the OA are considered to be at risk from poor air quality. While wildfires are certainly not the only source of air pollution, the increase in wildfire smoke in recent years has still demonstrated the serious impact of poor air quality across sectors. 98 Lappe, B. & Vargo, J. (2022, November). Disruptions from Wildfire Smoke: Vulnerabilities in Local Economies and Disadvantaged Communities in the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. https://www.frbsf.org/communitydevelopment/publications/community-development-research-briefs/2022/november/disruptions-from-wildfire-smoke/ 99 Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, June 16). Wildfires and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/wildfires-and-indoor-air-quality-iaq 100 Lappe, B. & Vargo, J. (2022, November). Disruptions from Wildfire Smoke: Vulnerabilities in Local Economies and Disadvantaged Communities in the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. https://www.frbsf.org/communitydevelopment/publications/community-development-research-briefs/2022/november/disruptions-from-wildfire-smoke/ 101 Garthwaite, J. (2022, September). Stanford researchers find wildfire smoke is unraveling decades of air quality gains, exposing millions of Americans to extreme pollution levels. Wildfire smoke is unraveling decades of air quality gains | Stanford News
232
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 137
Smoke and poor air quality disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations and frontline workers (those in outdoor occupations typically without air filtration). The most vulnerable to smoke’s impacts include the elderly, children, people with pre-existing conditions including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, communities of color, and low-income populations. One of the most common pieces of advice to people during a severe smoke event is to stay indoors. However, particularly in inadequate housing situations or when people do not have the means to evacuate, simply staying indoors is not sufficient considering how smoke can infiltrates buildings through windows and doors, vents, air conditioning, and small cracks or other openings. Additional measures such as clean air centers, masks, and air purifiers may be required.

Smoke is as disruptive as it is deadly. Exposure to air pollution by children can reduce lung growth, inhibit brain development, and increase the risk of health conditions like asthma.10F 102 Children’s education can
also be disrupted, resulting in decreased test scores and educational attainment. Although these impacts may be hard to quantify now, it is likely those exposed will be experiencing them for years to come. The economy is also impacted through decrease labor income, employment, and labor force participation.

Wildfire smoke reduced earnings across the country by an estimated $125 billion a year between 2007 and 2019.102F
103

8.4 Exposure

8.4.1 Population
Population could not be examined by wildfire hazard classification because the boundaries of census block groups do not coincide with the zone boundaries. However, population was estimated using the residential building count in the areas of moderate to high hazard and multiplying by the 2017-2021 US Census Bureau average population per household for Santa Clara County. Table 43 presents the results.

Hazus 6.0 demographic data indicates that 260,705 persons or 13.5 percent of the population in the OA are over 64 years old, and 422,719 persons or 21.8 percent of the population within the OA under 18 years of age. These ages groups may experience worse affects from poor air quality resulting from a wildfire. They may also have a greater dependency on assistance from others in the event of an evacuation.
102 United Nations Environment Programme. (October 2018). Young and old, air pollution affects the most vulnerable.

Young and old, air pollution affects the most vulnerable (unep.org) 103 Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. (December 2022). Wildfires reveal the large toll of air pollution on labor market outcomes. Wildfires reveal the large toll of air pollution on labor market outcomes | Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR)
233
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 138
Table 43: Population Within Wildfire Hazard Areas
Jurisdiction
Number of Buildings in Wildfire Hazard Area Population in Wildfire Hazard Area Residential Public Industrial Commercial
Total
Number of
Buildings
Population % of Total
Population
Campbell 83 1 1 0 85 247 0.57
Cupertino 2,116 4 5 42 2,167 6,306 10.40
Gilroy 4,426 7 40 109 4,582 13,189 22.18
Los Altos 1,019 7 10 31 1,067 3,037 9.55
Los Altos Hills 2,305 5 20 65 2,395 6,869 81.27
Los Gatos 2,789 9 23 87 2,908 8,311 24.79
Milpitas 1,401 2 17 36 1,456 4,175 5.20
Monte Sereno 535 0 2 13 550 1,594 46.21
Morgan Hill 5,237 17 56 167 5,477 15,606 34.65
Mountain View 318 1 1 30 350 948 1.15
Palo Alto 574 3 4 23 604 1,711 2.50
San José 15,507 44 118 453 16,122 46,211 4.56
Santa Clara (city) 109 0 0 4 113 325 0.25
Saratoga 2,823 7 33 96 2,959 8,413 27.10
Sunnyvale 348 2 6 10 366 1,037 0.67
Unincorporated
County 10,913 66 242 664 11,885 32,521 36.03
Total 50,503 175 578 1830 53,086 150,499 7.78
234
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 139

8.4.2 Property
Property damage from wildfires can significantly alter entire communities. The number of structures in each FHSZ within the OA and their values are summarized in Table 44. Table 45 shows the general land use of parcels exposed to the wildfire hazard in unincorporated areas of the OA. According to the Santa Clara County CWPP, there are 107 properties and districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Santa Clara County. Many of these sites are urban, but some are within the WUI. The Lick Observatory is one such place of historic and cultural significant which was almost burned due to a recent wildfire.

Table 44: Exposure and Value of Structures in Moderate to High Wildfire Hazard Areas Jurisdiction Buildings
Exposed
Value Exposed % of Total
Replacement
Structure Contents Vehicle Value
Campbell 85 $26,018,757.17 $13,518,215 $2,718,000 0.37
Cupertino 2,167 $851,005,863 $433,722,243 $66,474,000 8.17 Gilroy 4,582 $1,915,907,959 $1,063,212,359 $137,916,000 22.02 Los Altos 1,067 $443,693,069 $241,831,582 $30,906,000 8.56 Los Altos Hills 2,395 $1,234,211,033 $654,595,360 $67,059,000 71.11 Los Gatos 2,908 $1,310,513,983 $712,187,966 $93,780,000 19.75 Milpitas 1,456 $513,489,424 $279,091,477 $44,361,000 4.02 Monte Sereno 550 $269,260,704 $137,202,957 $15,273,000 43.58 Morgan Hill 5,477 $2,273,625,913 $1,266,973,143 $179,847,000 29.65 Mountain View 350 $114,334,578 $63,331,824 $14,103,000 0.88 Palo Alto 604 $319,419,553 $166,253,134 $25,092,000 2.26 San José 16,122 $6,080,110,863 $3,333,308,139 $487,431,000 4.77 Santa Clara
(city) 113 $34,986,342 $17,821,587 $3,978,000 0.16
Saratoga 2,959 $1,347,146,278 $736,302,667 $86,508,000 26.01 Sunnyvale 366 $116,046,797 $65,337,581 $15,030,000 0.53 Unincorporated
County 11,885 $5,720,386,230 $3,403,867,991 $444,906,000 44.35 Total 53,086 $22,570,157,353 $12,588,558,231 $1,715,382,000 8.14 235
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 140
Table 45: Land Within the Wildfire Hazard Classification Areas Type of Land Use
Moderate
Hazard Zone
High
Hazard Zone
Very High
Hazard Zone
Area
(acres) % of total Area (acres) % of total Area (acres) % of total Campbell 7.8 0.2% 5.33 0.1% 0.69 0.0%
Cupertino 415.13 5.8% 262.34 3.6% 62.11 0.9%
Gilroy 1249.51 11.8% 1080.12 10.2% 117.51 1.1%
Los Altos 115.63 2.8% 44.83 1.1% 2.2 0.1%
Los Altos Hills 1491.83 25.7% 697.59 12.0% 38.52 0.7%
Los Gatos 929.39 12.5% 667.03 8.9% 139.32 1.9%
Milpitas 322.51 3.7% 303.12 3.5% 127.1 1.5%
Monte Sereno 142.96 13.8% 66.92 6.4% 3.56 0.3%
Morgan Hill 1131.79 13.7% 876.38 10.6% 249.36 3.0%
Mountain View 65.66 0.8% 49.97 0.6% 13.29 0.2%
Palo Alto 1246.27 7.5% 1180.12 7.1% 735.18 4.4%
San Jose 6722.21 5.8% 5036.3 4.4% 1951.14 1.7%
Santa Clara 40.39 0.3% 5.15 0.0% 0 0.0%
Saratoga 1269.79 15.5% 723.72 8.8% 71.02 0.9%
Sunnyvale 44.85 0.3% 30.79 0.2% 2.48 0.0%
Unincorporated 111,878.48 18.5% 144,629.2 24.0% 129,146.5 21.4% Total 127,074.2 15.2% 155,658.9 18.6% 132,660 15.9%

8.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Table 46 and Table 47 identify critical facilities exposed to the wildfire hazard in the OA. In the event of wildfire, there would likely be little damage to the majority of infrastructure. Most road and railroads would be without damage except in the worst scenarios. Power lines are the most at risk to wildfire because most are made of wood and susceptible to burning. In the event of a wildfire, pipelines could provide a source of fuel and lead to a catastrophic explosion.

The Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan notes that there are many arterial roads and highways that are critical to transportation in the WUI. The transportation networks exposed to the WUI include Skyline/Highway 35, Summit Road, Junipero Serra Blvd/Foothill Expressway, Blossom Hill Road, Almaden Road, Old Monterey Highway, Page Mill Road, Stevens Canyon Road, Highway 9, Highway 17, Old Santa Cruz Highway, Watsonville Road, Hecker Pass/Highway 152 West, Pacheco Pass/Highway 152 East, and Mt. Hamilton Road/Highway 130.
236
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 141
Table 46: Critical Facilities within Moderate to High Wildfire Hazard Areas Jurisdiction Essential
Facilities Transportation Utilities Hazardous Materials Community
Assets
Campbell 0 0 0 0 0
Cupertino 0 7 0 0 1
Gilroy 1 7 0 0 4
Los Altos 0 0 0 0 0
Los Altos Hills 0 8 0 0 1
Los Gatos 0 1 0 0 3
Milpitas 0 2 0 0 0
Monte Sereno 0 0 0 0 1
Morgan Hill 0 5 0 3 6
Mountain View 0 3 0 0 1
Palo Alto 0 1 0 0 6
San Jose 2 26 2 2 19
Santa Clara 0 1 0 0 2
Saratoga 1 9 0 0 2
Sunnyvale 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated 3 100 14 1 29
Total 7 170 16 6 75
Table 47: Critical Facilities Within 100 Meters of Moderate to High Wildfire Hazard Areas Jurisdiction Essential
Facilities Transportation Utilities Hazardous Materials Community
Assets
Campbell 1 7 0 0 2
Cupertino 2 11 0 0 8
Gilroy 12 29 2 2 7
Los Altos 7 6 0 0 6
Los Altos Hills 6 21 0 0 2
Los Gatos 11 25 0 0 7
Milpitas 4 24 0 0 13
Monte Sereno 0 1 0 0 1
Morgan Hill 16 14 1 5 10
Mountain View 2 26 0 2 7
Palo Alto 4 4 1 3 16
San Jose 62 207 8 19 91
Santa Clara 7 13 1 2 5
Saratoga 9 31 0 0 10
Sunnyvale 3 17 2 2 8
237
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 142
Jurisdiction Essential
Facilities Transportation Utilities Hazardous Materials Community
Assets
Unincorporated 28 177 16 2 37
Total 174 610 31 37 230
There are registered hazardous material containment sites in wildfire risk zones in the OA. During a wildfire, containers for these materials could rupture due to excessive heat and act as fuel for the fire, causing rapid spreading and escalating the fire to unmanageable levels. In addition, they could leak into surrounding areas, saturating soils and seeping into surface waters, and have a disastrous effect on the environment.

Although the risk assessment did not include any modeling to determine specific damage estimates for these facilities, it does indicate a large number of assets are exposed to wildfire hazard. There are a large number of essential facilities, transportation features, and other community assets within close proximity to high wildfire hazard classification areas. Structures may be exposed to damage directly from fire.

Additionally, utility services may be disrupted, particularly areas with above ground utility systems, some of which have been identified in the 2023 CWPP. Further evaluation may be needed to consider building construction materials, landscape conditions, road access, and defensible space to further determine their susceptibility to wildfire and where specific priority mitigation actions are needed.

8.4.4 Environment
Fire is a natural and critical ecosystem process in most terrestrial ecosystems, dictating in part the types, structure, and spatial extent of native vegetation. However, wildfires can cause severe environmental impacts:
 Soil Erosion: The protective covering provided by foliage and dead organic matter is removed, leaving the soil fully exposed to wind and water erosion. Accelerated soil erosion occurs, causing landslides and threatening aquatic habitats.
 Spread of Invasive Plant Species: Non-native woody plant species frequently invade burned areas. When weeds become established, they can dominate the plant cover over broad landscapes, and become difficult and costly to control.  Disease and Insect Infestations: Unless diseased or insect-infested trees are swiftly removed, infestations and disease can spread to healthy forests and private lands. Timely active management actions are needed to remove diseased or infested trees.  Destroyed Endangered Species Habitat: Catastrophic fires can have devastating consequences for endangered species.
 Soil Sterilization: Topsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellant, and soil nutrients may be lost. It can take decades or even centuries for ecosystems to recover from a fire.

Some fires burn so hot that they can sterilize the soil.  Damaged Fisheries: Critical fisheries can suffer from increased water temperatures, sedimentation, and changes in water quality.

Many ecosystems are adapted to historical patterns of fire occurrence. These patterns, called “fire regimes,” include temporal attributes (e.g., frequency and seasonality), spatial attributes (e.g., size and spatial complexity), and magnitude attributes (e.g., intensity and severity), each of which have ranges of natural variability. Ecosystem stability is threatened when any of the attributes for a given fire regime diverge from its range of natural variability.
238
Agenda Item # 3.

Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan—DRAFT Section 8: Wildfire 143

8.5 Vulnerability
There are significant assets, including structures, systems, populations, and community lifelines, vulnerable to wildfire in the OA. In particular, the communities of Gilroy, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, and the unincorporated county have substantial percentages of their area, population, and structural value within high risk areas.

Changes in conditions: Increase in Vulnerability
• Recent drought has impacted vegetation, tree mortality and other • CMRA data indicates an increase in the annual number of days without precipitation, an increase in the number of consecutive days without precipitation, and the number of days with high temperatures. These conditions can all contribute to greater wildfire risk. • Large wildfires occur throughout California, and poor air quality from smoke from wildfire in other portions of the state contribute to poor air quality in the OA. • These climate trends are ongoing and projected to continue. • Management of fire risk requires repetitive action to manage fuels and maintain defensible space.

Vulnerability will increase without ongoing management. • Many areas throughout the OA reside in foothill areas where roads may be narrow, be located on dead end spurs, or have long drive-times to fire response facilities, which may increase the difficulty of fire suppression near these structures. Residents bear some of the burden in maintaining vegetation near their homes to try and reduce the risk of fire. • Wildfire leads to an increased risk of debris flow in burned areas, with increases vulnerability to homes and roadways in foothills following a wildfire.

8.5.1 Population
There are no recorded incidents of loss of life from wildfires within the OA. Given the immediate response times to reported fires, the likelihood of injuries and casualties is minimal; therefore, injuries and casualties were not estimated for the wildfire hazard.

That is not to say that wildfires would not impact the OA population. If any OA residents were to be injured or killed by a wildfire, besides fire responders, it would most likely be a member of a vulnerable population. This includes people with limited mobility that required assistive devices like wheelchairs or medical oxygen, people with respiratory or other illnesses, people over 60, people with a communication barrier, migrant populations, people from low-income communities, and people without regular access to a vehicle they could use to evacuate. Wildfire may threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires too. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke.

Gilroy, Los Altos hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Saratoga all have a significant percentage of their population within or close to high wildfire risk areas. People residing in these areas are at higher risk to possible injury and also from being displaced from their homes if an evacuation is required.

The public is also exposed to the negative impacts of smoke. Public health impacts associated with wildfire include difficulty in breathing, odor, and reduction in visibility. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard, especially for vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, outdoor workers, and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The 2018 wildfires alone were estimated to have health costs in Santa Clara County over $1.5 billion.103F 104
104 Bay Area Council Economic institute. (November 2021). The True Cost of Wildfires Analyzing the Impact of Wildfires on the California Economy. BACEI_WildfireImpacts_Nov2021.pdf (bayareaeconomy.org) 239
Agenda Item # 3.

Los Altos City CouncilAugust 27, 2024

Los Altos City Council
August 27, 2024