CITY OF OAKLAND
2 5 0 F R A N K H . O G A W A P L A Z A , S U I T E 3 3 1 5 O A K L A N D , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 6 1 2 - 2 0 3 1 Planning and Building Department (510) 238-3941
Office of the Director FAX (510) 238-3674
TDD (510) 839-6451
A
ugust 4, 2023
Via E-mail
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
State of California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Policy and Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
RE: City Response Letter Following HCD’s Review of Oakland’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance under State ADU Law (Gov. Code, § 65852.2 et seq.) Dear Shannan West:
Thank you for your review and the July 5, 2023 technical assistance letter (HCD Letter), on behalf of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), following the City of Oakland (City) submittal of its Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance No. 13667 (Ordinance), which the City adopted January 18, 2022.
Please consider this response letter (Response Letter) the City’s timely reply to the HCD Letter, which Government Code section 65852.2(h)(2)(A) requires within thirty (30) days of the HCD Letter, or by August 4, 2023.
Since the City received the HCD Letter immediately prior to the City Council adjourning for its summer recess, City Staff and the City Attorney’s Office have not had an opportunity to confer with members of the City Council regarding this Response Letter. Therefore, this Response Letter may be subsequently amended following our meeting(s) with members of the Council, since it is solely within the Council’s purview to determine whether to amend the Planning Code. In other words, it is not the intent of City staff to usurp Council’s authority to make certain Planning Code amendments, or pre-commit the Council to a certain course of legislative action inasmuch as City Staff does not have the delegation of authority to do so outside Council authorization.
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
2 In addition to Council approval, the legislative process will require that City Staff bring any Planning Code amendments to the Planning Commission and Community and Economic Development Committee (CED) of the Council in their roles as advisory/recommending bodies to the Council. Once the item is brought before Council, the Planning Code amendments require two readings (two separate Council meetings), as required for enactments of City ordinances under the City Charter.
In addition, the City is hereby requesting the opportunity to meet and confer with HCD staff to discuss certain comments in the HCD Letter. The City specifically requests the opportunity to meet and confer in its response to specific HCD comments.
During the meet and confer and legislative process, the City commits to regularly update HCD as to the City’s Planning Code amendment process. For example, the City will provide regular updates to HCD: (1) as to when the City will bring forward Planning Code amendments for Planning Commission recommendation and City Council adoption that comply with an HCD comment, and/or (2) whether the City plans to re-adopt certain Planning Code provisions with findings that further explain why the City believes the Planning Code provision(s) comply with State law. Of course, the City may adopt Planning Code amendments in response to certain HCD comments, while also adopting findings, with no Planning Code revisions, in response to other HCD comments if the City disagrees with HCD’s comment and consensus cannot be reached. We will also keep you updated on the City’s legislative schedule as we work with you through HCD’s comments. While we still need to confer with Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers, we anticipate being able to complete the legislative process by early 2024.
Finally, City staff would like to thank you for confirming that the Ordinance addresses many statutory requirements, even if HCD believes the Ordinance does not comply with State ADU Law in some respects.
Below are the City’s individual responses to each of HCD’s comments. As to those aspects of the Ordinance where HCD believes the City is not in compliance, the City looks forward to continued collaboration with HCD to reach a result that addresses the housing crisis, fairly interprets State law, and protects public safety.
H CD Comment : . . . . while HCD is sympathetic to concerns about fire safety and the need to ensure adequate evacuation in the event of a fire, the City has not adequately demonstrated that new ADUs will impact public safety in the VHFHSZ. The findings as presented in 17.88.020 feature no data and refer more to vehicle use and evacuation than housing, while mentioning a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that “points out existing vulnerable and isolated populations in VHFHSZ areas” and a Vegetation Management Report that “underscores the fact that the area within the VHFHSZ is susceptible” to wildfires. Note that the VHFHSZ mapping was not intended to serve as a development moratorium. Rather, according to Cal Fire, these maps are intended to be used for planning purposes and mitigation measures such as building material requirements and zones of defensibility around structures.
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
3 Given the City’s attention to vehicle use as being a primary concern, the City does not account for the potential for ADUs to be excluded from requiring a parking space given the availability of public transit in the S-9 overlay. For example, Map 18 at the end of Appendix A shows several large sections of the S-9 overlay South of Piedmont; each of these areas is well served with bus stops for the 646, 652 and 682 bus lines within a half-mile walk. All such areas would not be required to provide parking spaces.
Furthermore, occupancy of an ADU does not necessarily guarantee the presence of another car on a lot.
Per State ADU Law, ADUs are permitted in all areas zoned for residential and mixed use, and a local agency may, by ordinance, designate areas for the creation of ADUs based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(A)).
However, local jurisdictions may not preclude the creation of categories of ADUs altogether. In this situation, any limits on where ADUs are permitted based on the impacts of public safety should be accompanied by detailed findings of fact explaining why ADU limitations are required and consistent with these factors.
Lastly, even if the City provided adequate justification for this restriction on ADUs under Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a), the City may not justify a restriction, such as exists in Sections 17.88.050 (A)(1), (A)(2) and (A)(3) on ADUs created under subdivision (e). Local development standards (such as an area restriction based on VHFHSZ designation) provided by the Ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (a) through (d), do not apply to ADUs created under Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e). Therefore, the City must ministerially permit units created pursuant to subdivision (e).
City Response: The City relied on more than just the findings in Oakland Municipal Code (O.M.C.) Section 17.88.020. In fact, the City relied on data in the Ordinance’s legislative package regarding the already significant issue of housing density and the lack of evacuation safety in Very High Fire Severity Zone (VHFSZ), and specifically a significantly narrower S-9 Overlay Zone where the risks for public health and safety are amplified even further. For example, the Ordinance’s legislative package contained the following documents:
o City of Oakland Zonehaven Model Evacuation of an Event Similar to the 1991 Oakland Firestorm Under Current Conditions (See Attachment A); o Excerpts from the Draft Oakland Hazard Mitigation Plan (2021-2026) ( See Attachment B);
o City of Oakland Wildfire Prevention Planning Report ( See Attachment C); o Excerpts from the Draft Oakland Vegetation Management Plan ( See Attachment D);
o City Administrator Letter to Planning Director Bill Gilchrist ( See Attachment E);
o Oakland Fire Department Letter In Support of Restrictions for ADUs ( See Attachment F); and
o UC Berkeley Study: Developing Transportation Response Strategies for Wildfire Evacuations via an Empirically Supported Traffic Simulation of Berkeley, California (See Attachment G).
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
4 Each of the above documents contain data and supporting evidence that show housing density in the Oakland hills (or, similarly, the Berkeley hills) presents very unique public safety challenges in the event of an emergency evacuation or ambulance/fire response.
For example, the Oakland Firestorm of 1991 is a grim reminder of the tragedy that can take place in the Oakland hills when people attempt an emergency evacuation. The Zonehaven Model shows how current housing density in this area is already at unmanageable levels for emergency response, even without additional density. If each single-family parcel is ministerially permitted to have two ADUs and one JADU per parcel (three ADUs total), then emergency response will further exacerbate and already unsustainable evacuation scenario.
In addition, ADUs often do not require off-street parking, leaving people who reside in these units to park their cars illegally on the sides of already narrow, legally nonconforming roads in the S-9 Overlay Zone, where street parking is just not possible due to substandard road widths. HCD is incorrect that the S-9 Overlay Zone is adequately served by public transit. As stated below, the public transit lines HCD has cited are not even in operation.
City consultants have also warned City officials against increasing housing density in the Oakland hills. For example, in the Draft Oakland Hazard Mitigation Plan (2021- 2026), Tetra Tech cited the “dense population” in the Oakland hills as a significant impact on evacuation. The Draft Oakland Hazard Mitigation Plan states:
The Oakland WUI is fully built out, and evacuation in the event of a widespread fire can be restricted by a dense population attempting to leave the area in many vehicles at the same time.
This can be compounded by narrow urban streets with parked cars creating barriers to evacuation. Planners and traffic engineers must look at the entire evacuation route. Most roads leading out of the City’s hills are one lane in each direction. This could inform mitigation strategies that address road
infrastructure projects in the WUI.
1 (Emphasis Added.)
In addition, on November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87940 C.M.S., declaring Wildfire Prevention a top priority for the City of Oakland and requesting the City Administrator to present a comprehensive report to the Council’s Public Safety Committee (PSC) that addresses Oakland’s Wildfire Prevention Strategies. Specifically, The Council directed the City Administrator to:
Submit a Report That Addresses: 1) How City Departments Will Address Wildfire Prevention In Their Planning, Programs And Projects For Oakland’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI),
Including The Extent To Which The Strategies Will Involve Multi- Disciplinary And Multi-Agency Teams In The Development Of 1 Tetra Tech prepared the Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City. While Attachment B contains an excerpt of the Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, City Staff provided the Planning Commission and Council a link to the entire Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is available at: https://cao- 94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2021-04-30_OaklandHMP_AgencySubmittalDraft_2021-05- 13-231111_rlny.pdf
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
5 Pre-Fire Plans, 2) What Wildfire Prevention Plans Will Include Such As Home Hardening, Evacuation And Other Wildfire
Prevention Strategies For Both Private And Public Properties, And Public Communication Strategies, Before, During And After A Wildfire Event, And 3) The Extent To Which Wildfire
Prevention Will Be Addressed In The Next Updates To The City’s General Plan, Safety, Open Space, Hazard Mitigation Plans And Other Similar Plans.
2 (Emphasis Added.)
In summary, the Wildfire Prevention Planning Report concluded that housing density would need to be limited in the S-9 Overlay Zone and a comprehensive evacuation plan would need to be developed for those already living in these areas due to lack of road infrastructure and access to escape routes in the event of a fire. To address this issue, the Wildfire Prevention Planning Report states:
[a] planning effort that is currently underway is writing the new ordinance to conform to the recently passed State Laws for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and incorporating regulations restricting ADUs in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which are included in the S-9 Fire Safety Protection Combining Zone. As part of writing the ADU ordinance, planning staff is coordinating with both OFD and OakDOT.
Similarly, the draft Oakland Vegetation Management Report was prepared to address vegetation management in the Oakland hills. Even though the report focuses primarily on vegetation management, City consultants advised the City that the current condition of “high housing density” and “congested roads during emergencies” presented significant challenges to the City in reducing wildfire risk to public safety.3
In light of these considerations, it is important that HCD understand that the Planning Commission and City Council were presented with evidence and data that pointed to the current level of housing density and lack of safe evacuation routes in the Oakland Hills. To add as much as three times, or more, of residential units to this area would put the public at greater substantial risk to the point where safe evacuation would not be reliable. The housing crisis is irrefutably a matter of primary concern for the State and the City: the ability of police, ambulance and fire units to protect Oakland residents wherever they are housed is also attendant in addressing this crisis and falls within the City’s reserved powers and responsibility, which we must also incorporate into any plan or policy to provide housing.
2 The City of Oakland Wildfire Prevention Report was prepared by Joe Devries, Assistant City Administrator, in consultation with Oakland Fire Department, Oakland Police Department, Oakland Department of Transportation, the Planning and Building Department, Oakland Public Works, and outside agencies such as East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and CalTrans.
3 Dudek, with assistance from Horizon Water and Environment, prepared the Draft Vegetation Management Plan in consultation with the Oakland Fire Department. While Attachment D contains an excerpt of the Draft Vegetation Management Plan, City Staff provided the Planning Commission and Council a link to the entire Draft Vegetation Management Plan, which is available at: https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Oakland- VMP_Revised-Draft_NOV-1-2019.pdf
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
6 The HCD Comment references Map 18 at the end of Appendix A and claims it shows several large sections of the S-9 Overlay Zone south of Piedmont that are “well served with bus stops for the 646, 652 and 682 bus lines within a half-mile walk.” Bus numbers 646 (Montera-Skyline), 652 (Montera-MacArthur) and 682 (Bishop O’Dowd High line) are school bus lines that run only during school times and are deployed for the purpose of serving as school transportation lines. None of these bus lines is currently active and there are no planned upcoming schedules for these bus lines. 4 As a result,
residents in this and other areas in the S-9 Overlay Zone must rely on vehicular transportation to and from their primary residences and ADUs. This specific issue underscores the need for cities to play an active role in local hazard planning as cities face the effects of climate change.
Regarding local response to climate change, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has provided guidance for local jurisdictions to address local hazards through their Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMPs) and General Plan Safety Elements to respond to mounting climate change impacts. 5 Specifically, local
governments are now required, in accordance with Senate Bill 379, Land Use: General Plan: Safety Element (Jackson, 2015) to include a climate change vulnerability assessment, measures to address vulnerabilities, and a comprehensive hazard mitigation and emergency response strategy. The City is tasked to confront the very real threat of wildfire including: the need for safe evacuation, unimpeded emergency response through emergency vehicle access, and the maintenance of clear space between structures.
Government Code section 65302(g)(3)(C)(iii) also requires the City to develop implementation measures for “[d]esigning adequate infrastructure if a new development is located in a state responsibility area or in a Very High Fire Severity Zone, including safe access for emergency vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for structural fire suppression.” In furtherance of the City’s responsibility to protect its residents, and in addition to the above referenced studies, the City is also in the process of developing its Safety Element as part of its Oakland 2045 General Plan.6
Chapter 2.2 of the Safety Element establishes the City’s policies for addressing wildfires from climate changes and the risks to public safety. Specifically, Goal SAF-
2.3 of the Draft Safety Element, entitled Development in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), sets forth a number of planning tools and mitigations for ensuring any development in the VHFHSZ does not exacerbate an already dangerous condition with respect to vehicular access and evacuation. Those planning tools and mitigations include:
4 The status of service for each line is listed on AC Transit’s website as follows:
Line 646: https://www.actransit.org/bus-lines-schedules/646 Line 652: https://www.actransit.org/bus-lines-schedules/652 Line 682: https://www.actransit.org/bus-lines-schedules/682 5 See California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines at Chapter 4: “Required Elements” available at: https://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html. 6 See the City of Oakland’s Public Review Draft Safety Element for the Oakland 2045 General Plan, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners, with contributions from Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and Environmental Science Associates, available at : https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Safety- Element_Public-Hearing-Draft_073123.pdf
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
7 Prioritize development in areas with existing adequate road networks, evacuation routes, and water infrastructure. Require any new development in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that minimizes risks by:
o Assessing site-specific characteristics such as topography, slope, vegetation type, wind patterns, etc. as part of a risk analysis. o Determination of fire response capability including the assistance of local fire protection agencies, and availability of local resources. o Siting and designing development to avoid hazardous locations (e.g., through community fire breaks) to the extent feasible.
o Incorporating fuel modification and brush clearance techniques in accordance with applicable fire safety requirements (including fuel breaks and their maintenance) and carried out in a manner which reduces impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat to the maximum feasible extent. Using fire-resistant building materials and design features, such as visible signage, consistent with the adopted Oakland Municipal Code and Fire and Building Code standards (including Fire Safe Regulations as minimum standard).
o Using fire-retardant, native plant species in landscaping. o Complying with established standards and specifications for fuel modification, visible home and street addressing and signage, defensible space, access and egress, and water facilities. o Banning fuel storage (e.g., fuel storage for power generators) in VHFHSZ.
o Requiring street improvements to comply with minimum fire road access standards.
o Disallowing new residential development/subdivisions in areas with less than two evacuation routes (as shown in Figure SAF-13b), unless a development were to be able to provide additional connections to ameliorate this condition.
o Following the most recent California Fire Code as adopted and amended.
o Participating in the City’s fire safety and public education efforts related to requirements for development, property maintenance, and emergency preparedness.
(City’s Public Review Safety Element, p. 2-13; Emphasis Added.)
By ministerially permitting three new dwelling units per lot in the VHFHSZ (and specifically the S-9 Overlay Zone where road networks are already too narrow and unsafe), the City would be ignoring or vitiating critical planning approaches and mitigation that its consultants listed in its Draft Safety Element. As a result, it would require the City to: (1) ignore or vitiate its state-mandated duty under the Safety Element and (2) place its residents in these areas at substantial risk due to lack of emergency vehicle access, lack of means of egress, and lack of appropriate fire mitigations for new development. Simply put, permitting ADUs at HCD’s required density would expose residents to injury and death in the event of a wildfire or catastrophic emergency.
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
8 This point is especially underscored by the fact that the S-9 Overlay Zone was created to highlight an area in Oakland where roads are already substandard under the O.M.C.
As City Staff cited in its staff report to the Planning Commission, roads in the S-9 Overlay Zone violate road width standards. 7 The City requires a minimum road width of 20 feet to enable emergency vehicle access. This standard is already not being met on many of the roads in the S-9 Overlay Zone.
With these real operational concerns and street standard in mind, the City respectfully requests that HCD and the City meet and confer on this HCD Comment so that: (1) HCD can better understand the local constraints the City faces in housing density and evacuation management in the S-9 Overlay Zone and (2) the City may have an opportunity to collaborate with HCD to develop a feasible solution that complies with State law, encourages housing, and protects public safety.
HCD Comment: 17.09.040 (A) – JADU Definition – The Ordinance prohibits JADUs “as a conversion of detached or attached accessory structures.” However, Government Code section 65852.22, subdivision (a)(4), states that an ADU Ordinance must “[r]equire a permitted junior accessory dwelling unit to be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family residence. For purposes of this paragraph, enclosed uses within the residence, such as attached garages, are considered a part of the proposed or existing single- family residence.” Therefore, the City must allow for the conversion of enclosed uses within the residence, such as attached garages.
City Response: The City acknowledges this HCD Comment and will recommend the Council approve a Planning Code amendment that allows for the conversion of enclosed uses within the residence, such as attached garages.
HCD Comment: 17.30.140 and 17.102.270 – Additional Kitchen – The Ordinance states, “No residential facility shall be permitted to have both an additional kitchen… and [an] ADU.” However, the presence of an additional kitchen cannot preclude the ministerial approval of an ADU that conforms to Government Code section 65852.2, though the presence of an ADU may preclude the creation of an additional kitchen. The City must note the exception.
City Response: The City acknowledges this HCD Comment and will recommend the Council approve a Planning Code amendment that makes it clear that the existence of an additional kitchen does not preclude an ADU. However, the City requests to meet and confer with HCD to determine whether the City may require the removal of the additional kitchen if it is not being used within the ADU or JADU and is not necessary for the primary residence. The City would be concerned about a primary dwelling containing two kitchens and additional kitchen(s) as part of an ADU and/or JADU.
HCD Comment: 17.33.040, Table 17.33.02 (L1) – Existing Primary Dwellings – The Ordinance states that in the Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone, ADUs “are permitted when there is an existing One-Family Dwelling on a lot….” The table appears to permit the development of two-family and multifamily dwellings as well. Per 7 September 1, 2021 Oakland Planning Commission Staff Report, Case File ZA21006, Attachment C, which is available at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/meeting/september-1-2021-planning-commission-meeting.
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
9 Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(1)(D)(ii), ADUs must be ministerially approved on any lot “zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing dwelling.” The Ordinance omits mention of proposed single-family dwellings and existing or proposed multifamily dwellings. The City must amend the language to comply with statute.
City Response: The City requests to meet and confer with HCD as to permitted uses in the Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone (CN Zone). Within the CN Zone, existing Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings are permitted; however, new Single- Family or Two-Family Dwellings are not permitted. For this reason, ADUs are permitted for existing Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings, but not for those that are proposed because those uses – if proposed -- are prohibited in the CN Zone. The CN Zone does permit both existing and proposed Multifamily Dwellings, so the City will recommend the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment requiring ADUs in existing or proposed Multifamily Dwellings.
HCD Comment: 17.88.050 (B)(1) – Fire Safety Parking Compromise– The Ordinance allows for alternative ADU development options in the S-9 Fire Overlay if “[a]t least one additional off-street parking space is created on the lot for the ADU in addition to any regularly required off-street parking spaces for the primary residential facility. Also, any lost parking spaces must be replaced on the lot….” The concern with the S-9 Overlay has previously been discussed. However, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (d), prohibits requiring parking when any of the following apply:
o The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. (Gov.
Code, § 65852.2 (d)(1).)
o The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2 (d)(2).)
o The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2 (d)(3).)
o On-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2 (d)(1)(d).)
o A car share vehicle is located within one block of the ADU. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2 (d)(5).)
Furthermore, pursuant to Government Code section 65852.22, subdivision (b)(1), a parking space may not be required under any circumstance for a JADU. Therefore, the City must remove this section.
City Response: As discussed above, the City requests to meet and confer with HCD on a comprehensive and common-sense strategy for addressing public safety and safe parking, traffic, and evacuation strategies in the S-9 Overlay Zone. Nevertheless, City Staff also would like to meet and confer with HCD on their comment regarding parking requirements for JADUs. The Ordinance already exempts parking for JADUs so the City seeks clarity on this comment.
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
10 HCD Comment: 17.103.080 (A)(3) – Separate Sale – The Ordinance currently prohibits the separate sale of an ADU or junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU).
However, Government Code section 65852.26 creates a narrow exception to allow separate conveyance of an ADU to a qualified buyer if the property was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation, among other things. The City should update the Ordinance to cite the exception.
City Response: City Staff will recommend the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment that creates an exception to allow separate conveyance of an ADU to a qualified buyer if the requirements of Government Code section 65852.26 are met.
HCD Comment: 17.103.080 (A)(9) – Exterior Visibility – The Ordinance states that “an exterior stairway proposed to serve an ADU or JADU on a second story or higher shall not be visible from the front public right of way. However, local development standards provided by the Ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (a) through (d), do not apply to ADUs created under Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e), which applies to converted units created on the second floor. Furthermore, as statute for both ADUs and JADUs require independent entry into the unit, a constraint on the location provisions necessary for independent entry may prohibit the creation of an additional housing unit. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (e)(1)(A)(ii) (Gov. Code, § 65852.22, subd. (a)(5)) Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to clarify that the exterior stairway must not be visible when feasible.
City Response: City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment that clarifies that the exterior stairway must not be visible, when feasible.
HCD Comment: 17.103.080 (A)(10)(a) and (10)(b) – Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey – The Ordinance creates special restrictions for ADUs in “structures rated ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey. Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(1)(B)(i), states that local jurisdictions may, "Impose standards on accessory dwelling units that… prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources." State statute does not acknowledge local registers. Therefore, the City must remove these sections.
City Response: City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment that removes special restrictions for ADUs in “structures rated ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘C’ by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey.” City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment that imposes standards on ADUs that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources.
HCD Comment: 17.103.080 (A)(12) – Landscaping Standards – The Ordinance requires trees to be planted for every ADU developed, with larger units requiring more trees. However, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(5), states, “No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision.” Therefore, ADU approval cannot be made contingent on planting trees. Moreover, local development standards
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
11 provided by the Ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (a) through (d), do not apply to ADUs created under Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e). While the City may award voluntary tree planting by providing incentives, it may not make it a requirement. The City might consider creating or modifying incentive programs to encourage tree planting. Accordingly, the City must either remove the tree planting requirement from the Ordinance or clarify it as an incentive.
City Response; City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment that clarifies that the ADU applicant may either: (1) receive additional incentive(s) if the applicant plants a tree, and/or (2) that the planting of a tree in conjunction with an ADU or JADU is voluntary.
HCD Comment: 17.103.080 (A)(15)(c) – Limited Amnesty Clause – The Ordinance states “The Planning Code amnesty and enforcement delay programs provided in this Section are available to any property owner whose Unpermitted Accessory Dwelling Unit meets the program requirements provided within this Section.” However, Government Code section 65852.23, subdivision (a), states “(a) Notwithstanding any other law… a local agency shall not deny a permit for an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit that was constructed before January 1, 2018, due to either of the following:
(1) The accessory dwelling unit is in violation of building standards pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The accessory dwelling unit does not comply with Section 65852.2 or any local ordinance regulating accessory dwelling units.” The City’s amnesty program has a narrower scope than state statute requires, as an ADU permit may not be denied for units created prior to January 1, 2018, even if it conflicts with building code standards, local development standards, or Government Code section 65852.2. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to comply with statute.
City Response: It appears that Government Code section 65852.23 was recently added on January 1, 2023 through the passage of SB 897. As such, City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt Planning Code amendments making clear that the City shall not deny a permit for an unpermitted ADU that was constructed before January 1, 2018 due to either of the following: (1) the ADU is in violation of the building standards pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part
1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, or (2) the ADU does not comply with Section 65852.2 or any local ordinance regulating ADUs.
However, City Staff requests to meet and confer with HCD to clarify that City Staff will also recommend to the Council that the City may “deny a permit for an ADU subject to the above if the City makes a finding that correcting the violation is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or occupants of the structure.” In addition, City Staff will recommend the Council clarify that Government Code section 65852.23 does not apply to a building that is deemed substandard pursuant to Section 17820.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
HCD Comment: 17.103.080 (A)(15)(f) – Amnesty Clause & S-9 – The Ordinance exempts units built in the S-9 Overlay from the amnesty program. As the concerns with the S-9 Overlay have already been discussed, exempting units in this area for an
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
12 amnesty program intended for all applicable unpermitted ADUs exceeds state statute.
The City must remove this reference.
City Response: City Staff requests a meet and confer with HCD regarding this comment. State law permits the City to find an unpermitted ADU ineligible for amnesty if “correcting the violation is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or occupants of the structure.” For all of the reasons already discussed above, the City has grave concerns about the life safety of occupants in the S-9 Overlay Zone, in terms of: (1) the ability to evacuate from the area in an emergency and access for Emergency services to reach residents suffering an emergency, (2) provision and maintenance of defensible space and building separations, and (3) building standards related to fire and life safety. In other words, State law permits local agencies to make life safety findings under Government Code section 65852.23 that would make an ADU ineligible for the Amnesty Program.
HCD Comment: 17.103.080 (A)(15)(h) – Expiration Clause – The Ordinance conditions the amnesty clause with “The Planning and Building Director or his or her designee shall not approve any applications for the Planning Code amnesty request or Building Code enforcement delay on or after January 1, 2030.” However, Government Code section 65852.23 has no condition for expiration. Therefore, the City must remove this section.
City Response: City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment removing this section. Government Code section 65852.23 was added after the City adopted the Ordinance, so this will serve to simply update the Ordinance with a recent change to State law.
HCD Comment: 17.103.01, Table A, Note 1 – Unit Mixture – The Ordinance states that “A Category One or Category Two ADU may be combined on the lot with one (1) JADU. However, a lot may not contain both a Category Two ADU and a Category One ADU. A lot with a One-Family Facility may only contain two ADUs if one (1) is a JADU.” This forces a developer or homeowner to choose either a converted unit or a detached new construction unit. However, Pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1), “Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application…to create any of the following: (A) One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single- family dwelling…(i) The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure.” Moreover subpart (B) permits “One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.” The use of the term ’any” followed by an enumeration of by- right ADU types permitted indicate that any of these ADU types can be combined on a lot zoned for single family dwellings. The Legislature, in creating the list did not use “or” nor “one of” to indicate only one or another would be applicable to the exclusion of the other.
Thus, if the local agency approves an ADU that is created from existing (or proposed) space of a single-family dwelling, or created from an existing accessory structure, and
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
13 the owner subsequently applies for a detached ADU permit (or vice versa), which meets the size and setback requirements, pursuant to the subdivision, the local agency cannot deny the applicant, nor deny a permit for a JADU under this section. This permits a homeowner, who meets specified requirements, to create one (1) converted ADU, one (1) detached, new construction ADU, and one (1) JADU, in any order without prejudice, totaling three units. This standard simultaneously applies to ADUs created pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(C) and (D), on lots with proposed or existing multifamily dwellings according to specified requirements.
Therefore, the City must revise the table and remove the note to establish the allowable unit combination.
City Response: City Staff will recommend that Council adopt a Planning Code amendment that revises the table to remove the note to establish the allowable unit combination. The City notes that this appears to be a shift from a prior HCD interpretation that subdivision (e) required two ADUs per lot, which the City relied upon in initially creating these tables. The fact that three ADUs (one conversion ADU, one JADU, and one detached ADU) may be approved per single-family lot only further underscores the gravity of the threat of increased population density on narrow and circuitous roads in the S-9 Overlay Zone. In addition, the State law apparently does not require off-street parking for these ADUs, even though the S-9 Overlay Zone is severely underserved, or not served at all as described above, by public transit. This will have disastrous consequences for fire evacuation in the S-9 Overlay Zone, both in terms of number of people needing to evacuate and vehicular congestion, both from anticipated on-street parking and vehicle delay on already narrow roadways.
HCD Comment: Tables 17.103.01 and 17.103.02 – Converted Size Limitations – The Ordinance creates size limitations for converted units within the primary and accessory structures for both single-family and multifamily buildings. However, size maximums do not apply to converted units, as local development standards provided by the Ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (a) through (d), do not apply to ADUs created under subdivision (e), and only new construction detached in subdivisions (e)(1)(B) and (e)(1)(D) have a discrete size limit stated therein. The City must note the exception.
City Response: City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment noting the exception that there are no size limitations for converted units within the primary and accessory structures for single-family and multifamily buildings.
However, City Staff requests to meet and confer with HCD prior to this recommendation to determine whether this creates a loophole where a property owner can create an oversized accessory structure, in some cases bigger than -- or the same size as -- the primary structure, and then simply convert the accessory structure to an ADU. City Staff is curious how that loophole is consistent with the general 1,200 square foot size limitation the City may impose on ADUs in Government Code section 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(v). While Government Code section 65852.2(e)(1)(A) does not apply a size limitation, it also does not prevent the City from applying the 1,200 square foot size limitation set forth in State law. The City questions whether HCD is too broadly applying the subdivision (e) preemption of subdivisions (a) through (d). This also appears to be a shift in HCD interpretation from the previous 2021 ADU Handbook.
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
14 HCD Comment: Numerous References – Height Limits – The Ordinance refers throughout to a height maximum of sixteen feet for ADUs. However, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (c)(2)(D), sets ADU height maximums at 16, 18, and 25 feet, depending on the applicable provisions. The City must review current state statute and amend the Ordinance accordingly.
City Response: City Staff requests to meet and confer with HCD on the City’s height limits. Unless the ADU violates setbacks, the height limitation will default to the height limitation established in the underlying zone. In every zoning district, the height limit is greater than 25 feet. Thus, the City’s height limits are more permissive in many instances than those established in Government Code section (c)(2)(D). Nevertheless, City Staff will review some of the limitations in 17.103.01 recommend the Council adopt Planning Code amendments to be consistent with this section.
HCD Comment: Tables 17.103.01 and 17.103.02 – Parking – The Ordinance sets out the conditions for which parking is not required with the creation of an ADU. However, it omits reference to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision(d)(1)(C), which states that no parking may be required when “…the accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure.” This would also include all JADUs. The City must note the exception.
City Response: City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment noting the exception to the parking requirement(s) for ADUs that are part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure. However, City Staff notes that Table 17.103.01 already states “none required” for JADUs. Thus, the Ordinance already notes the exception for JADUs.
HCD Comment: Table 17.103.01 – Owner Occupancy – The Ordinance states “Owner must occupy the JADU or the primary residence.” However, Government Code section 65852.22, subdivision (a)(2), states “Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.” The City must note the exception.
City Response: City Staff will recommend that Council adopt a Planning Code amendment noting the exception that “Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.”
HCD Comment: Table 17.103.02 – Unit Mixture – The Ordinance states that a Category 3 ADU “precludes creation of any other ADU.” There are three ADU types governed by Category 3. First, it includes some units created pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a) – namely, new-construction attached units.
However, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a), permits ministerial approval of a compliant ADU with an existing or proposed primary dwelling unit, either multifamily or single-family. Subsequent to this allowance in subdivision (a), subdivision (e) begins with “notwithstanding subdivisions (a) through (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-used zone to create any of the following…” before listing the four categories of subdivision (e) units. Therefore, the prior existence of an attached new-construction Category 3 ADU cannot preclude the development of a Category 1 or Category 2 ADU.
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
15 Secondly, another ADU type governed by Category 3 is a converted unit created to the same dimensions as a “legally existing attached accessory structure” in multifamily structures. This conforms to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(C).
The Ordinance must permit the combination of such a unit with other units built subject to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e), as discussed in the finding Unit Mixture above. The City must note the exceptions.
City Response: City Staff will recommend that Council adopt a Planning Code amendment that revises the table to remove the note to establish the allowable unit combination. The City notes that this appears to be a shift from a prior HCD interpretation, which the City relied upon in initially creating these tables. The fact that three ADUs (one conversion ADU, one JADU, and one detached ADU) may be approved per single-family lot or that a Category 3 ADU may be created in addition to subdivision (e) ADUs only further underscores the gravity of the threat of increased population density on narrow and circuitous roads in the S-9 Overlay Zone. In addition, the State law apparently does not require off-street parking for these ADUs under several circumstances, even though the S-9 Overlay area is severely underserved by public transit. This will have disastrous consequences for fire evacuation in the S-9 Overlay Zone, both in terms of number of people needing to evacuate and the vehicular congestion, both from anticipated on-street parking and vehicle delay on the already narrow and circuitous roadways.
HCD Comment: Table 17.103.01, Note (5) – Ingress – The Ordinance states that an expansion of not more than 150 square feet (s.f.) may be permitted for the purposes of ingress if “…the ADU is no greater than eight-hundred (800) square feet.” However, the allowance for expansion to accommodate ingress and egress may be for a unit that conforms to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(A)(i), which reads that the unit “…may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure.” (Emphasis added).
Note that such expansions are not dependent on the size of the unit but are only permissible with an “existing accessory structure.” Therefore, the City must remove this reference.
City Response: City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment removing reference to the square footage limitation for 150-square foot expansions for ingress and egress. However, City Staff will recommend that the Ordinance is clear that the expansion must not be more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure.
HCD Comment: Tables 17.103.01 and 17.103.02 – Maximum Size – The Ordinance states that converted One-Family units be “50% of floor area of primary residence or 850 s.f., whichever is greater, but shall not exceed 1,200 sf.” It later states that detached ADUs with multifamily primary dwellings be no larger than “850 sf. for studio or one-bedroom; 1,000 sf. for 2 bedrooms or more.” However, local design standards provided by the Ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (a) through (d), may not preclude a unit built subject Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e), which includes all converted units. Therefore, the City must amend the tables to note that no size maximums apply to any converted unit or any detached unit with a multifamily primary dwelling.
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
16 City Response: City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt a Planning Code amendment clarifying that no size maximums apply to any converted unit or any detached unit with a multifamily primary dwelling. However, as noted elsewhere in this Response Letter, the City seeks clarification as to how this is consistent with Government Code section 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(v), which permits the City to enact an ordinance wherein the ADU size limitation is 1,200 square feet. The City is also concerned that there may be circumstances where the existing or proposed structure is larger, or the same size as, the primary structure. In those cases, the ADU would be indistinguishable from the primary dwelling, which appears to be contrary to the intent of State law to have a structure that is truly “accessory” and subordinate to the primary structure, and may also affect the affordability level of the ADU. Again, the City believes HCD may be too broadly interpreting what they believe is a subdivision (e) preemption of every provision in subdivisions (a) through (d) when subdivision (e) is silent as to, for example, public safety or size limitation.
HCD Comment: Tables 17.103.01 and 17.103.02 – Front Setbacks – The Ordinance requires, for One-Family Primary dwellings, front setbacks “established by the development standards of the underlying zoning district, except when lot conditions preclude creating one ADU of no more than 800 s.f. and no more than 16 feet in height….” A similar condition exists for multifamily buildings in table 17.103.02, though two ADUs are allowed in the exception for Category 1 and 2 ADUs and one ADU is allowed in the exception for Category 3. The issues with restrictive unit allowances have already been addressed. However, the absence of alternative siting may not be a prerequisite for allowing an ADU in the front setback. Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (c)(2)(C), does not condition placement of an 800 square foot unit on no other sites being available. Therefore, the City must remove these sections.
City Response: City Staff requests that we meet and confer regarding this HCD Comment. Government Code section 65852.2(c)(2)(C) states that the City shall not establish by ordinance “[a] ny . . . limits on front setbacks . . . for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.” (Emphasis added.) The City simply requires that the applicant establish they cannot place the ADU elsewhere on the lot to avoid a proliferation of ADUs that violate the front setback. Such requirement does not prevent at least an 800 square foot ADU with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks and is thus consistent with State law. This provision of State law simply wants to ensure that a property owner will receive approval for an ADU of at least 800 square feet with four-foot rear and side yard setbacks. The Ordinance ensures that the ADU applicant would receive such ADU. The City simply requires that the ADU’s preferred location be behind or to the side of the primary structure instead of in the front setback. State law does not appear to prohibit such preference, but instead prevents the City prohibiting an ADU if the ADU can be placed in the front setback.
HCD Comment: Tables 17.103.01 and 17.103.02 – Lot Coverage, FAR and Open Space – The Ordinance allows “One JADU and One ADU of no more than 800 s.f. that is no more than 16 feet in height with at least 4-foot setbacks.” It also requires that, relative to FAR requirements for multifamily primary dwellings, “New ADUs must be
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
17 consistent with the regulations contained in the underlying zoning district, except to establish one or two Category Two ADUs of no more than 800 sf.” It requires that for multifamily primary dwellings, “required open space for existing units, as established by the underlying zoning district, must be maintained…” except to allow exempted units. It has already been noted that the City must ministerially permit ADUs subject to different sections of statute in combination with one another; likewise, the height limitation has been addressed. However, be further advised that lot coverage, FAR and Open space requirements may not preclude any unit subject to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e), which includes all conversions, JADUs, new construction detached units up to 800 square feet with single-family primary dwellings, and up to two detached units with multifamily dwellings. The City must amend the Ordinance to comply with statute.
City Response: City Staff will recommend that the Council adopt Planning Code amendments clarifying that development standards such as Lot Coverage, FAR and Open Space shall not preclude certain subdivision (e) ADUs. However, City Staff requests to meet and confer with HCD regarding the negative consequence this will have on existing tenants: specifically, that the reduction of Open Space on multifamily parcels will inevitably result in a reduction of an important tenant amenity (open space) in favor of a property owner creating an excessively large (and therefore less affordable) ADU (or two) on the property. This appears to be contrary to the intent of the State law to address the housing crisis through housing affordability. In fact, it will result in the reduction of tenant protections, and the construction of excessively large, and thereby less affordable, ADUs. As such, the absence of a square footage limitation on detached ADUs on multifamily properties appears to be nothing more than an oversight in State law, especially with the express size limitation of 1,200 square feet that is set forth in Government Code section 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(v). We understand subdivision (e) is “notwithstanding subdivision (a),” but subdivision (e) also does not expressly prevent the City from establishing a size limitation.
HCD Comment: Table 17.103.02 (2) – Nonhabitable Space Definition – The Ordinance defines non-habitable space in multifamily primary dwellings: “Non- habitable or non- livable space does not include detached accessory structures, existing residential units, commercial space, community rooms, gyms, laundry rooms or any other finished spaces that are meant to be occupied by people and used communally.” However, statute defines such space much more broadly in Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(C): “…including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages.” There is no condition in statute to require that such spaces not be “any other finished spaces that are meant to be occupied by people”. Defining it in this way is potentially restrictive and thus violates State statute. The City must remove the quoted language.
City Response: City Staff request to meet and confer with HCD regarding this Comment. Admittedly, State law does include the broad language, “including, but not limited to,” but also sets forth a class of spaces that are unfinished areas such as “storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages.” None of those areas listed would be construed as finished areas that are regularly used by tenants. In Oakland, tenant protection is a high priority, and is also another means of addressing the extreme housing crisis and lack of housing affordability. The City has
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
18 an interest in ensuring that property owners do not attempt to manipulate State law to constructively evict tenants by removing their important tenant amenities, such as laundry rooms, gyms, and other finished room amenities. Since none of these finished room spaces are mentioned in the “class” of examples provided, City Staff believes that the intent of State law was to permit ADU development in the unfinished spaces of multi-family buildings. Otherwise, State law would have stated that conversion ADU are permitted “anywhere in the multifamily building that is not already livable or habitable space.” Since the State law is not that broad, the legislature appears to have intended to limit it to a class of unfinished spaces. Finally, the City is concerned that an expansive use of this provision could also disincentivize affordable density bonus projects because the applicant can achieve added density through the 25% allowance after advertising a project with finished tenant amenities they simply intend to convert.
As such, City Staff would like to discuss this further with HCD.
City Staff appreciates HCD’s efforts to provide valuable feedback on the City’s Ordinance. The City also looks forward to meeting and conferring with HCD staff as to issues where there are still questions or interpretive differences.
Following your direction in the HCD Letter, City Staff will contact Mike Van Gorder to schedule a meeting with Mr. Van Gorder and other HCD staff on these unresolved issues.
During the meeting, City Staff will also be prepared to share updates on the legislative process to update the City’s Ordinance and/or findings. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
_____________________________________
William A. Gilchrist
Director, Planning and Building Department
City of Oakland
cc: Brian P. Mulry, Supervising Deputy City Attorney, Land Use [List of Attachments on Following Page]
Shannon West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
19 Attachments:
Attachment A: City of Oakland Zonehaven Model Evacuation of an Event Similar to the 1991 Oakland Firestorm Under Current Conditions
Attachment B: Excerpts from the Draft Oakland Hazard Mitigation Plan (2021-2026)
Attachment C: City of Oakland Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Attachment D: Draft Oakland Vegetation Management Report
Attachment E: City Administrator Letter to Planning Director Bill Gilchrist
Attachment F: Oakland Fire Department Letter In Support of Restrictions for ADUs
Attachment G: UC Berkeley Study: Developing Transportation Response Strategies for Wildfire Evacuations via an Empirically Supported Traffic Simulation of Berkeley, California
Annotated Screenshot of Zonehaven Software Model of Oakland’s 1991 Firestorm Under Current Roadway Conditions
Alameda County Office of Emergency Services has utilized Zonehaven, a software application that allows fire agencies throughout Alameda County to analyze emergency scenarios and determine infrastructure demands, including demand on streets, during mass evacuations. The software tool is currently being tested for a full public rollout later this year and will be critical to assisting with the real-time notification and coordination needs of any community evacuation.
Please note: This screenshot is for illustrative purposes only. It does not provide a full picture of the evacuation scenario, and it does not show all available inputs and outputs. The application requires an interpretation by a trained specialist from Oakland Fire Department. This exhibit is in support of a live demonstration of the tool by the OFD Chief during City Planning Commission hearing on June 2nd, 2021.
The image from one of Zonehaven tools is modeling an emergency evacuation scenario similar in scale to the Oakland firestorm of 1991. According to a trained OFD specialist, the image shows that there is not enough time or capacity to clear key intersections along main routes during mass evacuations from areas of Oakland Hills outlined in black. The map outlines the areas affected by a wildfire. The multi-colored circles with numbers represent the number of vehicles trying to escape through a given intersection along evacuation routes during a hypothetical mass evacuation. The brighter the circle, the more significant the “choke point” at a given intersection. Blue circles represent the least challenging intersections while red circles represent the most challenging and dangerous intersections.
ATTACHMENT A
This choke point issue goes beyond individual road pavement widths. Even wide intersections can experience severe bottlenecks during mass evacuations. The bottleneck issue also affects larger areas near or far away from the intersections shown, even in places where roads have sufficient pavement width.
Zonehaven demonstrates a situation where escaping vehicles cannot clear a stalled intersection and trapping people in their cars. This condition also prevents emergency vehicles from being able to get to the fire and people in need of emergency assistance.
ATTACHMENT A
Excerpts from Oakland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2021 – 2026 (Draft document):
Link to the full document: https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2021-04- 30_OaklandHMP_AgencySubmittalDraft_2021-05-13-231111_rlny.pdf
15.1.1 Fire Hazard Severity Zones
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has modeled and mapped wildfire hazard zones using a computer model that designates moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ). FHSZ ratings are derived from a combination of fire frequency (how often an area burns) and expected fire behavior under severe weather conditions. CAL FIRE’s model derives fire frequency from 50 years of fire history data. Fire behavior is based on factors such as the following (CAL FIRE, 2013):
• 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.
When the temperature is high, relative humidity is low, wind speed is increasing and coming from the east (offshore flow), and there has been little or no precipitation, so vegetation is dry, conditions are very favorable for extensive and severe wildfires. These conditions occur more frequently inland where temperatures are higher, and fog is less prevalent. • 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 land forms (fire spreads more easily uphill than downhill).
The model also is based on frequency of fire weather, ignition patterns, and expected rate-of spread. It accounts for flying ember production, which is the principal driver of the wildfire hazard in densely developed areas. A related concern in built-out areas is the relative density of vegetative fuels that can serve as sites for new spot fires within the urban core and spread to adjacent structures. The model refines the zones to characterize fire exposure mechanisms that cause ignitions to structures. Significant land-use changes need to be accounted for through periodic model updates.
ATTACHMENT B
15.2.2 Past Events
The most significant wildfire in recent history was the 1991 Tunnel Fire (aka Oakland Hills Fire and East Bay Hills Fire; see Figure 15-1). The fire started October 19 and was brought under control on October
23. It burned 1,520 acres, destroyed more than 3,200 structures, and had 25 confirmed deaths.
Northeasterly winds, known as Diablo Winds, that periodically occur in the fall contributed to the growth of the grass fire eventually generating its own wind, now known as a firestorm.
15.2.3 Location
In Alameda County, wildfire risk is primarily in the WUI areas with moderate, high, or very high fire threat risk. These are high-density areas in the mountainous and hillside areas of eastern Oakland and Berkeley, central Union City, and some portions of the southeastern corner of Alameda County (CAL FIRE, 2021). CAL FIRE’s FRAP website includes maps of the communities most at risk for wildfire that are within 1.5 miles of a high or very high wildfire threat on federal or non-federal lands.
15.2.6 Warning Time
If a fire does break out and spread rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within days or hours. A fire’s peak burning period generally is between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. Once a fire has started, fire alerting is reasonably rapid in most cases. The rapid spread of cellular and two-way radio communications in recent years has further contributed to a significant improvement in warning time.
15.7 Issues
• The number of annual wildfire events within Alameda County has held steady over the last 10 years at about 40 fires per year. Any of these 40 fires could have the potential to escalate, especially in the Oakland Hills as was seen in 1991.
• Over 13 percent of the planning area’s population lives in either high or very-high wildfire severity zones.
• Much of the planning area’s building stock is of wood-frame construction built before 2008 when California building codes began requiring minimum standards for buildings in fire hazard severity zones. Large clusters of structures are wood-frame structures in high and very high severity zones.
ATTACHMENT B
• An estimated 35 percent of the critical facilities in the planning area are located in wildfire risk areas. A large number of the facilities are believed to be wood-frame structures. These facilities could have a significant amount of functional downtime after a wildfire. This creates not only a need for mitigation but also a need for continuity of operations planning to develop procedures for providing services without access to critical facilities. • There are vulnerable and isolated populations in areas of high and very high risk for wildfire.
• Public education and outreach to people living in the fire hazard zones should include information about and assistance with mitigation activities such as defensible space, and advance identification of evacuation routes and safe zones.
• Wildfires could cause landslides as a secondary natural hazard. • Analyses based on the degree of wildfire risk should be updated to match new calculations. • Regional consistency, application and enforcement of higher building code standards such as residential sprinkler requirements and prohibitive combustible roof standards. • Fire departments require reliable water supply in high-risk wildfire areas. • The Oakland WUI is fully built out, and evacuation in the event of a widespread fire can be restricted by a dense population attempting to leave the area in many vehicles at the same time. This can be compounded by narrow urban streets with parked cars creating barriers to evacuation. Planners and traffic engineers must look at the entire evacuation route. Most roads leading out of the City’s hills are one lane in each direction. This could inform mitigation strategies that address road infrastructure projects in the WUI.
ATTACHMENT B
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR &
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Joe DeVries
Director, Interdepartmental
Operations
SUBJECT: Wildfire Prevention Planning DATE: September 14, 2020
City Administrator Date:
Approval
INFORMATION
On November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87940 C.M.S., declaring Wildfire Prevention a top priority for the City of Oakland and requesting the City Administrator to present a comprehensive report to the Public Safety Committee (PSC) that addresses Oakland’s Wildfire Prevention Strategies within 180 days. The specific guidance in the resolution was as follow:
Submit a Report That Addresses: 1) How City Departments Will Address Wildfire Prevention In Their Planning, Programs And Projects For Oakland’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), Including The Extent To Which The Strategies Will Involve Multi-Disciplinary And Multi- Agency Teams In The Development Of Pre-Fire Plans, 2) What Wildfire Prevention Plans Will Include Such As Home Hardening, Evacuation And Other Wildfire Prevention Strategies For Both Private And Public Properties, And Public Communication Strategies, Before, During And After A Wildfire Event, And 3) The Extent To Which Wildfire Prevention Will Be Addressed In The Next Updates To The City’s General Plan, Safety, Open Space, Hazard Mitigation Plans And Other Similar Plans.
BACKGROUND / LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Wildfires are a natural part of California’s landscape and the potential risk of wildfires impacting communities in, and adjacent to, forested areas is at an all-time high. In the last few years, California has experienced the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in its history.
Oakland’s history of wildfires is no secret in California, the Oakland firestorm of 1991 was one of the largest urban wildfires. The fire started on the border of Oakland and spread throughout the Oakland and Berkeley hills. Ultimately 25 lives were lost, 150 people were injured, over fifteen hundred acres of land were burned, and thousands of homes were destroyed. The high winds, steep terrain, and heavy fuel load made fighting this historic blaze a major challenge. The economic loss from the fire was estimated at $1.5 billion.
DISTRIBUTION DATE: _________________
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 2
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 87940 C.M.S. in response to the increased concerns of the past few fire seasons. As a response to this concern, the City established a Wildfire Prevention Working Group that meets regularly to both address short term needs and to continue the various long-term strategy planning and implementation. The Wildfire Prevention Working Group consists of the following Departments: Oakland Fire Department (OFD), Oakland Public Works (OPW), Department of Transportation (OakDOT), Bureau of Planning and Building (P&B), Oakland Police Department (OPD), and the City Administrator’s Office as convener.
Additionally, City Council staff serving constituents in the High Fire Hazard Zones in the hill areas were invited to attend.
This report is organized to be responsive to the three subject areas posed in the resolution and stated above. It also highlights some short-term actions that have been taken recently to reduce the risk of wildfire in Oakland. These include traffic control and parking restrictions in high fire danger areas, vegetation removal efforts, and coordination with outside agencies and jurisdictions.
1) How City Departments Will Address Wildfire Prevention In Their Planning, Programs And Projects For Oakland’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), Including The Extent To Which The Strategies Will Involve Multi-Disciplinary And Multi-Agency Teams In The Development Of Pre-Fire Plans
Oakland’s Vegetation Management Plan
The most critical piece to the City’s planning efforts at reducing the risk of wildfire is the Oakland Vegetation Management Plan (the Plan). The Plan is complete and OFD is preparing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on it to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Plan outlines a framework for managing fuel loads and vegetation on City-owned properties and along roadways in the City’s wildland urban interface (WUI) areas to reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic wildfire, such as the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire, and to reduce the likelihood and scope of injury and property damage if such a fire occurs.
The Planning Area encompasses approximately 1,925 acres, and 308 miles along roadsides, including City surface and arterial streets, State Routes 13 and 24, and Interstate 580.
Staff provided an update to the Oakland City Council Public Safety Committee on December 3, 2019 and to the full Council on December 10, 2020 on the Plan.
Below is a link to the Agenda Report:
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4249996&GUID=62C57E61-1BD7- 4D2D-A104-4BC20395DD2E&Options=&Search=.
The timeline for the Plan is as follows:
• Horizon/Dudek provided the Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to City (August 2020);
• City reviewing Administrative EIR draft (Fall 2020);
• City publishes the Public Draft EIR (Fall 2020);
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 3
• Forty-five-day Comment period on Draft EIR commences (Fall 2020); • City presents the Draft EIR to Planning Commission and receives public comment (Fall 2020);
• Horizon/Dudek prepares final EIR including responses to comments received (Fall/Winter 2020);
• City revises Draft EIR and Revised Draft Plan (Fall/Winter 2020); • City presents the Plan and EIR to the Planning Commission (Winter 2020); • Certification of Plan and EIR by the City’s Planning Commission (Spring 2021); • City Council Committee meetings (Public Safety and Public Works) (Spring 2021); • City Council Hearings (expected Spring 2021);
• Adoption of the Plan by the City Council (Spring 2021); and • File Notice of Determination filed with Alameda County Clerk Recorders Office and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State Clearinghouse (Spring 2021; must be posted for 30 days).
Financing of Plan Implementation [Source: Council Informational Memo, December 10, 2019, https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4249996&GUID=62C57E61- 1BD7-4D2D-A104-4BC20395DD2E&Options=&Search=]
Members of the public have expressed interest in how the implementation of the Plan will be financed. The Plan itself does not provide any recommendations regarding sources of funding to implement the Plan. Those decisions are made by the City Council during the City’s Biennial Budget and Mid-Cycle Budget processes. However, the Plan does include preliminary estimates for the costs of actions contained in the Plan. Please refer to Section 12.5, Implementation Costs, on page 236 of the Plan and Appendix H of the Plan for more information. It should be noted that these costs will fluctuate over time, based upon a number of different factors; however, these estimates will provide baseline information that can help inform the City’s budget discussions and any planning for any future assessment.
Until 2017, OFD was able to use proceeds from the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District (WPAD) to pay for vegetation management activities. In order to provide funding for vegetation management and mitigation programs/services specific to the WPAD, a ten (10) year parcel assessment on properties located within the designated WPAD was approved by voters in 2004.
The assessment resulted in an annual WPAD budget with expenditure line items recommended and approved by the WPAD Citizen Advisory Board in conjunction with the OFD, to be used for vegetation management and mitigation programs/services. The WPAD provided the City with an average of one million seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) in revenues that could be used for wildfire hazard reduction services in the Oakland Hills. These services were described in the 2013-14 Engineer’s Report for the Assessment District as: Goat Grazing; Property Owner Chipping Program; Vegetation Management Program; Roving Fire Patrol Program; Support Services for Inspection Programs; and Public Outreach.
In November 2013, a ballot measure to continue the property tax assessment and activities supported by the WPAD was forward to voters; however, the WPAD failed to earn the
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 4
affirmative vote of more than 2/3 of the electorate in the District. As a result, the parcel tax expired in 2014 and the remaining fund balance was completely expended by June 30, 2017.
OFD Vegetation Management currently relies on funding appropriated from the General Purpose Fund (Fund 1010) by City Council in the City’s Adopted Policy Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-2021. For FY 2019-20 and 2020-21, OFD Vegetation Management was appropriated two million nine hundred and twenty-six thousand, five hundred and thirty dollars ($2,926,530) and two million forty-six thousand, two hundred and twelve dollars ($2,046,212), respectively. These amounts include for each FY one-time funding of one hundred thousand ($100,000) for the Plan and one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) in lieu of a renewed Wildfire Prevention District. An additional nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) in one-time funding was also provided in FY 2019-20 (Year 1 of the biennial budget) with the intention of accelerating vegetation management operations to prepare for FY 2020-21 (Year 2) wildfire season.
The Creation of a Multi-Disciplinary and Multi-Agency Approach to Wildfire Prevention Until the launch of the Wildfire Prevention Working Group, City departments were not entirely coordinated on the topic of wildfire prevention or large-scale emergency preparedness. The simple act of launching the Working Group focused on this single topic expanded the lens of City departments to see how each of their respective functions play an important role in how the City prevents, prepares for, and responds to wildfires.
During regular meetings, which occur twice monthly, working group members representing several departments have an opportunity to explore and learn about the range of strategies the City of Oakland uses to proactively mitigate wildfire risk, like the Fire Prevention Bureau’s vegetation management program. It also provides a chance for staff to ask and respond to questions from other City staff, elected officials, community organizations and residents on issues such as how we approach parking restrictions in the hills, best practices for home hardening, evacuation planning, and coordination with outside agencies such as PG&E or jurisdictions like East Bay Regional Park system.
The following sections of this report will break down the Multi-Disciplinary and Multi-Agency Strategies the City is applying in order to ensure it is strategic in its efforts to prevent the ignition, spread, growth and intensity of a wildfire in our city.
The Fire Prevention Bureau: Vegetation Management and Annual Inspections The Fire Prevention Bureau’s Vegetation Management Unit, a division of the Oakland Fire Department, has made outstanding progress in 2020 with regards to Wildfire Planning and Prevention. Beginning in March of 2020, the Vegetation Management Unit initiated the release of abatement contracts for roadside clearances and clearing of City owned parcels throughout Oakland’s designated Very High Fire Severity Zone. To date, 33 contracts have been released for competitive bid, and 19 of those abatement contracts have been completed, 4 are in progress and 10 are awaiting the encumberment of funding to begin. The Vegetation Management Unit anticipates releasing another 10 contracts before the end of the fiscal year. For the first time since
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 5
2014, the Vegetation Management Unit has been fully funded (an additional $1,000,000.00 was added into the Vegetation Management Unit 19/20 fiscal budget in October of 2019) with regards to its abatement account.
Major egress route roadways within the Oakland Hills were cut and cleared of hazardous roadside vegetation prior to the July 4th holiday, increasing the community’s safety and decreasing the fire threat. Additionally, through the contracted goat grazing program with Ecosystems’ Concepts Inc., goats were deployed in April 2020 to the Grizzly Peak Open Space, North Oakland Sports Field & Tunnel Road City Parcels and in June to the Kings Estates Open Space and Joaquin Miller Park with Knowland Park and Sheffield Village completed in July 2020.
The Vegetation Management Unit is on track to abate over two thirds of the City owned undeveloped parcels and parklands prior peak fire weather conditions of late August, September and October of 2020. The Acting Vegetation Management Supervisor and his team of Fire Inspectors are actively inspecting privately owned vacant lot parcels for fire code compliance and guiding the annual Residential Inspections conducted by the Engine Company Firefighters at 11 Oakland Hills Fire Stations that began in June 2020. While facing increased fire probability due to the weather patterns of the spring of 2020, the OFD as a team has made significant progress in wildfire mitigation this fire season.
Fire Prevention Inspections
In addition to the City’s current efforts to manage wildfire risk on its property, the City also adopts amendments to the California Fire Codes which requires owners of both public and private properties in the High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (H/VHFHSZ) to take additional safety measures to reduce the likelihood of wildfires and to prevent their spread.
Examples of these safety measures includes installing sprinklers on new structures or those undergoing a major remodel; and maintaining defensible space around a building. Defensible space is defined as an area around a building where vegetation, trash and debris, and other types of flammable fuels have been treated, cleared, or reduced to slow the spread of fire both to and from the building. Low-cost measures like maintaining defensible space or screening attic vents can help protect Oakland’s housing stock and increase fire safety community-wide.
The Oakland Fire Code not only establishes building and property maintenance standards, but also provides for their enforcement. The Vegetation Management Unit coordinates the City’s vegetation inspection efforts. Each year, property owners in the Oakland hills receive an annual inspection by OFD. Although properties are inspected once a year, they are expected to maintain defensible space around their property year-round.
Recent Inspection System Upgrade
OFD transitioned to a new inspection and permitting database called Accela which has been used by the Planning and Building Department for several years. This transition involved moving from paper/pen documentation to compiling inspection data with electronic devices (iPads and
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 6
iPhones). An essential piece of this conversion includes the documentation of inspections with photo images collected with electronic devices. By capturing images of the property/site at the time of inspection, OFD can document Compliance or Non-Compliance, ensure inspections are completed in accordance to inspection requirements, respond to complaints, use photos for inspection training and provide transparent inspection data to registered property owners and their authorized agents.
Digital images of the inspection site and status at the time of the inspection allows OFD to compile an accurate account of the inspection details. This information can then be reviewed to ensure quality inspection and training; and give a transparent account of the inspection. In combination with the use of the citizen facing portal called ACA (Accela Citizen Access), a registered user can access the record details in the Accela database. This project is a complete renovation of the former manual inspection system to the use of new software and hardware to document inspection details with real time data.
The technology provides clearer documentation of the inspections completed. It also allows inspection documentation to take place much more quickly and be linked to other vital information about the property through the Accela system.
OFD began using the technology in May of 2018 to process vegetation inspections in the Wildfire Protection areas of Oakland. These inspections are completed by firefighters and vegetation inspectors on an annual basis. The technology was deployed out of the Fire Marshal’s office with joint staff from the Fire Prevention Bureau and OFD command staff. The technology is used daily by the engine company staff and inspectors from the Fire Prevention Bureau to document scheduled inspections and complaints.
OFD is in the process of converting all of its fire inspections to the Accela system which will mean that any code, commercial, or other type of inspection will be tracked and stored in this system. This will create efficiencies that will improve fire safety citywide by allowing for more inspections to occur on an annual basis and will help identify problem properties where an elevated fire hazard may exist.
Additional Interdepartmental Coordination
Oakland Public Works
OPW – Keep Oakland Clean and Beautiful
Keep Oakland Clean and Beautiful (KOCB), a unit in OPW, clears public right of ways and hardscape medians below I-580. KOCB has a seven-person crew for this purpose. While the OFD is primarily responsible for vegetation management in the former Wildfire Prevention Assessment District areas, there are some instances where OPW provides service. For example, if there is vegetation in the right-of-way that is obstructing the view of a regulatory sign or traffic, OPW will attempt to resolve those issues. Previously, KOCB was also able to partner with non-profit organizations such as the Center for Employment Opportunities and the Alameda County Sherriff’s Work Alternative Program to assist with roadside clearance.
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 7
OPW – Parks and Tree Services Division
The Parks and Tree Services Division of OPW oversees tree removal activities for the City as well as landscaping on improved City of Oakland properties, such as Woodminster Amphitheater, Joaquin Miller Park, Leona Lodge, Sequoia Lodge, Montclair Golf Course, etc.
On improved parcels, brush is cleared a distance of at least fifteen (15) feet from buildings and structures. The Division also maintains landscaped medians throughout the City. Although the work was not done specifically as a wildfire prevention project, OPW did contract for the removal of ninety-five (95) dead and hazardous trees along Skyline Boulevard in 2019-20. As a result of budget reductions that occurred, OPW does not maintain City owned open space, nor does it prune or maintain trees for the purpose of wildfire prevention.
The Planning and Building Department
The Strategic Planning Division within the Planning and Building Department is addressing wildfire prevention strategies in several different areas in coordination with multiple departments and outside agencies. The department participates in the Working Group and their contribution to those efforts are covered below in section 3.
Department of Transportation
Fire Safe Streets Program (2015- Present)
Traffic Engineering Staff partners with OFD to determine ways to reduce the time it takes for OFD to arrive to the scene of emergencies. Every minute of a medical call, fire or other emergency, is critical to preserve lives and property. Cities and counties often use emergency response time as an evaluation measure. Further, responders require physical space in order to deploy their equipment at the scene, space which may be constrained by street design.
Poorly designed or inadequate infrastructure can hamper fire-suppression efforts and put residents and firefighters at risk. Reducing the risk of wildfire damage and destruction may require the City to implement measures beyond those involving an individual building or parcel.
It is also essential to enhance mitigation measures at the neighborhood and community levels, which will effectively expand the zone of protection beyond an individual parcel or building.
In 2015, the team began evaluating traffic and life safety issues regarding emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes in the Oakland hills and what is commonly referred to as the Very High Fire Severity Zone.
The conversations stemmed from incidents where there was a delayed emergency response, and ongoing questions and concerns that were raised by residents about evacuation routes in the hills due to parked cars blocking the roadway.
The pilot program was launched, whereby twenty-one (21) streets were successfully surveyed and designated as “no parking." The program allowed the City to proactively restrict parking on narrow streets to test effectiveness and public reception. The target area for the pilot was
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 8
neighborhoods north of Highway 13 between the Contra Costa/Berkeley border (to the west) and Keller Avenue (to the east). Community feedback about the program was very positive overall.
In 2019, the program transitioned from a pilot program to full implementation with the aim of providing safe passages throughout the designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (a state designated fire hazard zone) in Oakland.
The street segments below were identified by the OFD as locations where on-street parking has consistently obstructed emergency-vehicle access. For that reason, “No Parking Anytime” signs and, in some cases, red paint has been installed/refreshed on some or all of these roads:
Alvarado Road, Bristol Drive, Brunell Drive, Chelsea Drive, Dwight Way, Dwight Place, Gravatt Drive, Stonewall Road, Vicente Road, Vicente Place, Westview Drive, Florence Terrace, Westover Drive, Charring Cross Road, Capricorn Avenue, Norfolk Road, Ocean View Drive, and Heather Ridge.
Hazardous street conditions are brought to the attention of the City in the following ways:
• Correspondence from resident to City staff or Council member. • Social media posts or comments.
• Community meetings.
• News Inquiries (typically initiated by community interest). • Letters from community organizations.
• Reports from OFD crews following incidents.
• Calls to Oak311 and Parking Enforcement Dispatch
Streets are then surveyed, and some are identified as a roadway with limited emergency vehicle access. Streets are evaluated for sufficient width and space to allow safe passage and room to deploy equipment and personnel. Streets with limited access create significant challenges in providing emergency response for fire apparatus and ambulances year-round. Additionally, these streets may be the only option for escape during an escalating wildfire event or large-scale disaster. Unfortunately, OFD experienced this reality of vehicles not being able to navigate a road safely while evacuating and delaying emergency responders during the 1991 Firestorm, and other communities throughout California have experienced this more recently. Therefore, the following criteria are used in evaluating streets, and the determination of whether parking restrictions are necessary are specific to each road:
• Roads should be wide enough to allow evacuation and emergency vehicles simultaneous access. As a rule, the minimum width is 20 feet.
• However, street width is not the only determining factor used as most streets in the hills do not have consistent widths.
• Horizontal curves also require a wider clearance for vehicular passage and shoulder conditions, such as the presence of vegetation, walls, and other structures that affect how much a parked car would encroach onto the street, also contribute to the decision.
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 9
• Firefighters need room to deploy equipment and personnel. They also need to keep firefighters and equipment out of the collapse zone of structures. When working at the scene of an incident, fire departments usually need to accomplish some or all the following tasks:
o Open cab doors so that firefighters can exit the apparatus o Retrieve equipment from compartments on the side of vehicles o Retrieve ground ladders from the vehicle
o Connect fire hoses to pumps on the fire engine
o Move equipment and vehicles around or beside the
first fire vehicle to arrive at the scene
o Keep firefighters and equipment at a safe distance from a structure or landscape collapse zone, if possible
o When using an aerial ladder, OFD deploys stabilizers (a.k.a. outriggers) to prevent the ladder truck from tipping over when the ladder is extended to the side of the vehicle.
• The space that emergency responders need to be able to accomplish these tasks can vary considerably, depending on the kind of fire apparatus and other emergency response equipment chosen by a department, the type of incident, and the design of the neighborhood’s streets, building design and street network.
Heather Ridge Way Example
Between 2018-19, residents on Heather Ridge Way continuously expressed concerns about emergency services being able to access their homes and if needed their ability to escape during a wildfire.
In 2019, Heather Ridge was evaluated several times by both OakDOT and OFD, and it was determined that the entire street met the requirements for restricted parking/emergency access.
This evaluation consisted of measuring the entire street at different locations to determine where it fit into the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC).
The OFD and OakDOT staff met on site in May 2019 and drove a fire engine down the street (after measuring) to see if any areas could be used for “on street” parking and it was determined that was not practical and/or safe. All parties who worked on the project were dedicated to trying to accommodate the needs of the entire Heather Ridge community while also finding solutions to address the restricted ingress and egress issues.
Fire and OakDOT staff met in person multiple times with residents on the Heather Ridge. A community meeting was convened by Councilmember Sheng Thao’s office with neighbors and staff. OFD sent three letters to the neighbors to residents impacted by the issue and participated in several local media interviews highlighting the importance of creating safe access routes.
Ultimately, it was determined that a large portion of the street had to be designated “No Parking” in accordance with the OMC and to ensure preservation of life and property.
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 10
Enforcement
OakDOT’s Parking Enforcement Unit has supported these efforts the past several years in many ways, including attending staff and community meetings, promoting its dispatch service (available Monday through Friday, 8:30am to 5:00pm by calling 311 or 510.238.3099), and conducting special enforcement campaigns along the network of streets in Phase 1, 2 and 3. In addition to regular patrols, the Parking Enforcement unit now deploys technicians to the hills whenever there is a red flag warning. This standard procedure was implemented in mid-August with the City’s first red flag warning of the year, resulting in the issuance of two citations along the approximately 35 street segments targeted. A second red flag warning campaign produced similar results, indicating fairly good compliance with the new parking regulations.
Recent Efforts to address immediate hazards on Grizzly Peak When the Wildfire Prevention Working Group first came together in the spring, an immediate concern about Grizzly Peak Blvd was brought to the forefront. Large gatherings in the evenings, especially on weekends, were creating many hazards, especially with increased numbers of illegal fireworks being discharged leading up to the 4th of July Holiday. OFD tracked 6 wildfires on Grizzly Peak in a short 6-week period, the majority of which were caused by fireworks.
Additionally, as people gather late into the evening and consume alcohol, traffic accidents are especially dangerous along this winding stretch of roadway and there have been incidents of violence/shootings occurring at the turn-outs. The majority of this problematic behavior is occurring in the evening. There are nine separate turn-outs where this activity occurs and those locations are all accessed by the City of Oakland roadway but the underlying turn-outs are under the jurisdiction of UC Berkeley, the City of Berkeley, and East Bay Regional Park District.
The Wildfire Prevention Working Group evaluated different measures to mitigate these issues in the short and long term. On July 4th, the City closed Grizzly Peak Blvd. to all through traffic (except pedestrians and bicyclists) and successfully avoided any fires that day. This plan was supported with freeway signage by Caltrans and all the adjacent jurisdictions supported the effort as well.
The group evaluated three options as a long-term approach:
1. Closing these turn-outs 24/7 during the fire season using some form of traffic barriers that could be removed when the fire season ends. This could entail using K-rails in the short term and then engineering removable barriers in future years. OakDOT provided cost estimates to use barriers to close all the turn-outs during this fire season and the cost is very prohibitive, ranging from $300,000 to $500,000. There is the potential that people would still stop to observe the panoramic views of the Bay Area and block a travel lane which would create an additional hazard. Also, the loss of those scenic locations for people to enjoy the views during the day was a consideration that many neighbors have cited as a reason to keep them open.
2. Closing Grizzly Peak completely in the evenings to through traffic during the fire season.
A daily closure at the main entry points would require a smaller investment in physical barriers but would require staffing to close the gates each night, patrol the entire stretch to
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 11
allow people to leave (so they are not locked in), and then reopening in the morning. This poses too many logistical issues and a potential new safety issue for some neighborhoods that might use Grizzly Peak as an evacuation route (it is an identified evacuation route for the El Toyonal neighborhood of Orinda).
3. Prohibiting Stopping at all turnouts between 9pm and 6am and making them tow away zones on Red Flag Days.
The Wildfire Prevention Working Group selected option 3, and signs were installed on the week of August 29th. This measured approach gives law enforcement the proper signage to enforce the restriction through warnings and citations. The other jurisdictions that share responsibility can also issue citations, and the Wildfire Prevention Working Group can track the effectiveness this year and evaluate if more permanent barriers need to be installed or if this is sufficient. Also, this option allows for responsible persons to enjoy the view up until sundown while keeping the area off limits when the greatest potential hazards can occur.
The group is also evaluating locations on Skyline Blvd. in Council Districts 4 and 7 for a similar intervention due to large gatherings where fire hazards are high. Because the Wildfire Prevention Working Group meets on a regular basis with staff from all key departments, it has the ability to respond to emerging concerns quickly. The recent work on Grizzly Peak and recent efforts on Red Flag days are an example of that coordination.
Oakland Police Department
OPD has fully embraced the importance of Wildfire Safety and its impact on the Oakland Community. As a participant in the Wildfire Prevention Working Group, OPD will employ the following strategies to deter dangerous activity linked to wildfires:
• Police Area 2’s Community Resource Officers opened a community policing project with community organizers, stakeholders, and City partners to address short-term and long-term improvements to Grizzly Peak public safety fire dangers. • The OPD Public Information Officer (in conjunction with City and OFD media teams) will assist with public outreach and education regarding the importance of fire safety and the dangers of firework and unlawful activity related to fire danger in the City of Oakland. • OPD will maintain the ability to monitor a Fireworks Tip—Line for use during high-risk seasons or dates; the line will have the ability to accept anonymous information regarding fireworks.
• Community Resource Officers will run educational/enforcement operations to address illegal activity in the “Very High Fire Severity Zone(s)” such as Grizzly Peak • OPD will be the lead agency regarding the multi-jurisdictional annual shut down of the Grizzly Peak area during the July 4th (Independence Day) holiday. • Neighborhood Services Coordinators will continue to work closely with community groups to identify evacuation routes, problematic locations and other resources available
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 12
• When resources, personnel and priorities permit, high fire danger areas will be patrolled by patrol officers and community resource officers to mitigate fire danger and other public safety issues that potentially aggravate public safety fire danger.
Outside Agencies/Partnerships
The City’s partners in Wildfire Fire Prevention include the East Bay Regional Parks District, Moraga – Orinda Fire Department, East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), CALTRANS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, U.C. Berkeley and PG&E. Through cooperative communication, our partners have completed numerous vegetation management projects throughout their respective lands within or adjacent to the City of Oakland that benefit our residents through the reduction of roadside fuels, thinning of invasive eucalyptus trees and goat grazing.
The East Bay Regional Parks District Fuels Management Crew has already completed brush removal in Tilden Park along Grizzly Peak and in Redwood Regional Park along Skyline Blvd.
The Moraga – Orinda Fire Department recently completed controlled burns (June 2020) in both Moraga and Orinda (just 2.5 miles east of Oakland residential homes).
EBMUD conducted an invasive tree thinning project on watershed lands east of Grizzly Peak Blvd and south of Tilden Park that reduces canopy fire transfer along the wind-swept ridgeline to the northeast of Claremont Canyon area homes.
CALTRANS continues to abate the highway roadside vegetation along Highway 13 and Highway 580 with guidance from the OFD’s Vegetation Management Unit.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has deployed goats which are actively grazing on their parcels below the Panoramic Way homes of Oakland.
U.C. Berkeley has completed extensive fuels reduction north of Claremont Canyon including invasive tree removal on its properties below Grizzly Peak Blvd and along Claremont Avenue.
PG&E created a fuel break from Highway 13 at Highway 24 east adjacent to Pali Court and through the canyon and ridgeline south of the North Oakland Sports Field to Broadway Terrace at Skyline Blvd. to protect its high voltage transmission lines and provide a buffer to the homes of upper Broadway Terrace.
This work by PG&E was completed with input from Oakland’s Fire Prevention Bureau and its Vegetation Management Unit through monthly meetings provided by the Hills Emergency Forum, Diablo Fire Safe Council of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the OPW/ CALTRANS bi-monthly meeting.
The City’s efforts continue to mitigate hazardous vegetation wherever present within the Oakland Hills. The City is fortunate to have built proactive relationships with our partnering agencies who recognize that these actions are necessary to protect the City’s infrastructure,
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 13
preserve life and property and enable the City to prosper without catastrophic loss due to wildfire.
Overall, the City’s initiatives in this regard are working. The declared fire season of 2019 lasted 203 days in Oakland from May 13, 2019 to December 2, 2019. During that time, Oakland Fire responded to 11 wildland fire events in the Oakland Hills. No structures or lives were lost. That’s a 94.58 % fire free success rate due to the fuels abatement project’s work, reducing the probability of ignitions and most importantly, providing Firefighters time to respond and arrive on scene BEFORE an ignition event increases in size. Additionally, regular meetings with adjacent municipal Fire Departments, CALFIRE and other stake holder agencies provides familiarity with their Command Staff that transfers into efficient Fire Suppression Operations when fire events occur.
2) What Wildfire Prevention Plans Will Include Such As Home Hardening, Evacuation And Other Wildfire Prevention Strategies For Both Private And Public Properties, And Public Communication Strategies, Before, During And After A Wildfire Event Home Hardening
In regard to Home Hardening, much of the work is captured in the inspections that are conducted on an annual basis and discussed above. Additionally, the Vegetation Management Plan covers this topic but most importantly is public education and that is covered below under the communications strategy section.
Evacuation Planning
The City of Oakland Emergency Management Services Division, OFD, OPD, along with other public safety agencies throughout Alameda County have identified the need to create a countywide evacuation plan. During the Summer of 2018, OFD, the Alameda County Fire Department, Berkeley Fire Department, Hayward Fire Department, CalFire, and the Alameda County Sheriff Office created the Alameda County Evacuation Task Force (XALETF). The core mission for the XALETF is to develop a countywide evacuation plan that will allow for the facilitation of an organized and integrated wildfire evacuation that isn’t restricted to city or county boundaries.
In the fall of 2019, the multi-agency group initiated discussions with Zonehaven, a company that was creating technology to address the evacuation concerns of San Mateo County, Moraga/Orinda, and El Cerrito/Kensington. In early 2020, the XALETF agreed that the Alameda County Sheriff Office of Emergency Services would be the lead agency for coordinating the required funding utilizing grant allocations, facilitate sole sourcing, and negotiate a contractual agreement. The sole source process was completed early 2020, along with identifying a funding source to secure a five-year agreement with Zonehaven.
Unfortunately, in March 2020 progress on securing a contract was paused due to COVID 19.
Nonetheless, as County Counsel and Zonehaven work to finalize the contract, Zonehaven is
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 14
moving forward in creating the county evacuation zones and is working with the XALETF to develop a review and implementation plan. The XALETF anticipates having a preliminary platform in service by December 2020 assuming a contract can be executed in a timely manner and no additional unforeseen situations impede progress.
The Evacuation Management Platform
The Zonehaven Evacuation Management Platform is a zone-based application that makes it easy for OFD, law enforcement and the County Office of Emergency Services to collaborate, build, and maintain evacuation plans, train using evacuation simulations and scenarios, and notify agencies and the community in the event of a live emergency. The need for this cutting-edge technology has been demonstrated throughout California due to recent wildfires and in Oakland during the 1991 Tunnel Fire.
This evacuation platform will provide access to technology that will allow for the OFD, OPD, and Emergency Management Services Division to better understand community risk and assist with planning a safe and effective evacuation plan. Zonehaven is being developed as a regional evacuation application that will hopefully be utilized in all nine Bay Area counties eventually.
Zonehaven will be providing Oakland with a standardized evacuation plan that works on a common operating platform to facilitate essential cross boundary coordination. It will provide Oakland residents and first responders immediate evacuation warnings and orders when the situation dictates. The platform will empower OFD and OPD to make decisions on when to evacuate, which zones to evacuate, allow for monitoring critical evacuation traffic information in real-time, assist with creating pre-established traffic control points, pre-identify temporary refuge areas, and provides an interface to facilitate real-time wildfire modeling by Incident Commanders at the scene. Once operational, the vision is that a Zonehaven interface will be established that allows for connectivity with AC Alert, the Alameda County mass notification system that the City of Oakland utilizes (acalert.org). This concept of inter-connectivity is still in development between the two vendors. If successful, it will allow for evacuation information to be accelerated when needed. The Zone Haven Evacuation Management Platform will be used for all risk disaster mitigation that may include flooding, hazardous material leaks/spills, tsunami, and wildfires.
For more information about Zonehaven, go to the following links:
https://info.zonehaven.com/resources
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3pXJ9NKEfc&feature=youtu.be Communications Strategies Pre/During/Post Events
Timely, Accurate and Reliable information on the City website With the onset of fire season and a range of current events happening concurrently, including the Covid-19 global pandemic, the City of Oakland’s citywide public information team made up of
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 15
staff from several departments is working aggressively to create a single location on the City website where residents and other interested parties can locate and learn about the best ways to prepare and respond to emergencies before, during and after they occur. The current webpage addressing wildfires can be found here: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/wildfire-event Residents deserve to have access to a single reliable and accurate source where they can stay informed, and in the event of a major wildfire can get access to information at the following points:
• Before a fire: to prepare their household in advance
• When fire threatens: to stay ready in case they need to evacuate • During a fire: for information on how and when to evacuate • After a fire: for information on when they can return and what they’re returning to.
The homepage on the City website will have a banner year round to direct people to guidance regarding emergencies, especially for wildfires preparedness and red flag warning days which are often triggered by anticipated stretches of of extreme heat, high winds and low humidity.
Helping Residents Stay Informed in the Moment
Another public education initiative that has been underway for the last year is an effort to increase the number of Oakland residents subscribed to AC Alert. Oakland residents need to be ready to evacuate in a wildfire with or without notice from public safety officials. Signing up to receive AC Alert emergency notifications via phone, text and email, is the most effective tool available to ensure we can reach community members if an evacuation is ordered.
Meanwhile, as the City promotes the benefits of AC Alert to its residents, it continues to seek out ways to enhance its own use of the tool and is working internally and with its county partners to formalize the type and scale of event that would prompt an AC Alert notification, and the most effective messaging to use during such events. The intent is to have the AC Alert notification from the City link back to a specific emergency page on the site, thus providing not just a notification but educational resources as well.
Emergency Preparedness Starts at Home
OFD’s Emergency Management Division is in the midst of a major moment of growth, in terms of adding talented staffing capacity while seeking out opportunities for enhanced community partnerships. The City is looking forward to reinstituting a community preparedness program similar to Citizens of Oakland Responding to Emergencies (CORE) that would build relationships between the city and its residents, and creating neighbor-to-neighbor communication channels. Over the last year, the City has cultivated partnerships with organizations focused on fire safety and community preparedness. Among those groups is the Oakland Community Preparedness and Response, which is linked to the Oakland Firesafe Council, which is funded through grants from CAL Fire and the California Fire Foundation.
Their website provides residents with awareness, educational workshops, detailed guides and
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 16
“support to residents of the city of Oakland to help increase the overall community preparedness level and to improve disaster response capabilities. The City has the expressed approval of the Firesafe Council to promote their materials on our website and social media channels.
Socializing Fire Safety Tips and Information
In addition to the pages in development on the website, the City uses a range of public information tools to provide timely accurate information regarding emergency incidents and events. Unfortunately, sometimes the volume of options where people can gather information can have a negative impact as people may get confused or overwhelmed by the varying styles or volume of information available depending on the platform.
Currently, the City’s public information team utilizes the following tools to reach Oakland’s diverse constituencies:
· Facebook
· Twitter
· Instagram
· Nixel, used by OPD primarily to share crime prevention tips and traffic alerts · KTOP (public access Television)
· Press Release to the City’s media list
· NextDoor
· Active Campaign, an opt-in subscriber-based application used disseminate messages and newsletter style content from the City Administration.
In 2019, during the Public Safety Power Shutoff events, the public information team relied heavily on elected officials’ ability to share timely information with their constituents via their newsletters and social media regarding power outages, timelines and projected impacts to city services. In turn, the City benefitted from hearing back from those elected officials and community partners about what information residents needed in real time, as opposed to after the fact.
Staff recognizes that there is no greater tool to support communication efforts than neighbors speaking with neighbors and trusted community organizations sharing well-crafted and accessible informational materials with their members, clients and supporters.
In addition to evaluating its communications tools, the City is consistently considering what the most appropriate sequence is for notifying the public of emergency events or issues in the community.
In Oakland, the City Administration has benefitted immensely from the dedicated groups, many of which are based in the high fire hazard severity zone and have made it their mission to promote and educate people on the very real threat that wildfire poses in based on Oakland’s topography and its proximity to other threat zones. Over many years and to this day, these groups have been on the front lines promoting the annual inspection program, community preparedness
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 17
and emergency response training, while providing critical guidance to City leaders and departments about the need for greater departmental alignment and focus in the area of wildfire prevention.
3) The Extent To Which Wildfire Prevention Will Be Addressed In The Next Updates To The City’s General Plan, Safety, Open Space, Hazard Mitigation Plans And Other Similar Plans.
As mentioned above, the Strategic Planning Division within the Planning and Building Department is an active participant in the Working Group and, by definition, its efforts are primarily focused on planning efforts including the General Plan and its various elements as detailed below.
ADU Ordinance
A planning effort that is currently underway, is writing the new ordinance to conform to the recently passed State Laws for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and incorporating regulations restricting ADUs in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which are included in the S-9 Fire Safety Protection Combining Zone. As part of writing the ADU ordinance, planning staff is coordinating with both OFD and OakDOT.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will be updated by July of 2021 and the City will be reviewing and revising as necessary its wildfire prevention strategies. The plan will be led by the Emergency Management Services Division with the Strategic Planning Division assisting and coordinated with the Wildfire Prevention Working Group as well as the Department of Race and Equity along with outside agencies of Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), East Bay Municipal Utilities District, East Bay Regional Parks District, and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
Housing Element and Safety Element
The City will be updating its’ Housing Element and Safety Element as well as adopting a new Environmental Justice Element that are all due in December of 2022. As part of the update of these elements, the City will be reviewing and revising, where appropriate, its wildfire prevention strategies. Updating and creating these elements will involve the City Administrator’s Office and a number of departments, including Planning and Building, Fire, Housing and Community Development, Human Services, Race and Equity, Public Works as well as outside agencies of MTC/ABAG, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, East Bay Regional Parks District, and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
Land Use and Transportation Element
The City will be updating the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) as well as the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element. Densities and subdivisions within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and S-9 Fire Safety Protection Combining Zone will continue to be
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Wildfire Prevention Planning Report
Date: September 10, 2020 Page 18
limited, and updates for wildfire prevention strategies will be analyzed as well. There will also be multiple departments involved in this effort including Planning and Building; Transportation; Public Works; Economic and Workforce Development; Parks, Recreation, and Youth Development; Race and Equity, Human Services, and Public Library along with outside agencies of MTC/ABAG, East Bay Regional Parks District, Alameda County Transportation Commission, and AC Transit.
PUBLIC OUTREACH / INTEREST
The work of wildfire prevention requires everyone to be involved, especially the public, as their actions are the most important to preventing wildfire. The Hill Area Neighborhood Councils regularly discuss wildfire prevention and the Neighborhood Services Coordinator for those beats is a member of the Wildfire Prevention Working Group. Also, the Fire Safe Council of concerned neighbors meets regularly and has a strong ongoing relationship with City staff. On August 31, a Joint District 1 and 4 Town Hall meeting was conducted during which the main components of this report were shared.
Because wildfire prevention is an ongoing task, this report is a living document and receiving public input helps shape more effective decisions by the team.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe DeVries, Director, Interdepartmental
Operations, Office of the City Administrator
For questions, please contact Joe DeVries, Director, Interdepartmental Operations, at (510) 238- 3083.
Oakland Vegetation Management Report (Revised Draft )
Link to the full document: https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Oakland-VMP_Revised- Draft_NOV-1-2019.pdf
1. Brief Staff Analysis
The latest “Revised Draft” of the Oakland Vegetation Management Plan (the “Plan”) underscores the fact that the area within the Very High Fire Severity Zone (VHFSZ) is susceptible to Ground Fire, Surface Fire, and several types of Crown Fires. According to the Plan, the “topography, vegetation, and climatic conditions associated with the Plan Area combine to create a unique situation capable of supporting large-scale, high intensity, and sometimes damaging wildfires, such as the 1991 Tunnel Fire.” The history of wildfires in the Plan Area is set forth at Table 5 on page 76 (please see below for a relevant excerpt from Plan at pages 74-79).
As Table 5 shows, four (4) of the last eighteen (18) wildfires have occurred in 2017 alone, indicating that the threat of wildfires is on the rise with global warming. Table 5 also shows that nearly all of the significant wildfires have burned in the months of September, October, and November. As the Plan states, “this timeframe coincides with the end of the dry summer season, where vegetation has lower fuel moistures and Diablo winds return to the Plan Area. While not all the fires shown in Table 5 were associated with Diablo (easterly or northeasterly) winds, the larges and most damaging fires have occurred during such winds.” The Plan makes clear that the unique topographic, vegetative and climatic conditions of the VHFSZ is such that its inhabitants are facing a “perfect storm” of fire risk conditions, while wildfire events are also increasing as a result of global warming.
In addition, the Plan notes that further exacerbating this risk is the challenging “disadvantages” of road infrastructure and housing density. The Plan describes the “land use within the City’s VHFSZ that creates conditions that can be described as either a wildland urban interface or a wildland urban intermix.” The area where urban development abuts vegetative fuels is known as the wildland urban interface (WUI). This condition exists within the City’s VHFSZ where structures abut City parklands and open space. Areas where the density of housing units
ATTACHMENT D
and structures is lower and/or the space between structures consists of vegetative fuels capable of propagating fire are more typically characterized as a wildland urban intermix (Intermix).
The Plan notes that the “WUI disadvantages” to the Oakland Fire Department (OFD), and its efforts at fire suppression, consist of the following:
WUI Disadvantages
• High housing density
• Congested roads during emergencies
• Limited options if the community water systems fail
Conversely,
the Wildland Urban Intermix “advantages” cite “low housing density” as one of the area’s “advantages” in fighting fire suppression, while the Plan lists the following “disadvantages” to the Intermix area:
Intermix Disadvantages
• Increased Risk to firefighters
• Emergency equipment can only protect single assets
• Delayed emergency equipment response times due to:
o Rural roads (single lane, windy, heavy fuel loading)
o Long driveways
• Congested roads during emergencies
• Diversity in water supply systems
• Housing surrounded by vegetation
As
set forth above, the “disadvantages” to fire suppression in both areas is related to “housing density,” water supply, and congested and challenging road infrastructure. As supported by OFD and the Plan, adding more human population to these areas, in the form of additional housing and population, will only further exacerbate the “disadvantages” to fire suppression and create further life safety dangers in the VHFSZ. Further, as laid out in Table 5, the wildfire danger is only increasing in recent years, with over 20% of the last century’s wildfires occurring in 2017.
All of this evidence, in addition to evidence provided by OFD on the record, supports a prohibition of ADU development in the VHFSZ in order to limit human population, housing density, and the risk of congested road infrastructure so that OFD can stand the best chance at fire suppression when the next wildfire occurs in the area.
ATTACHMENT D
2. Relevant Excerpt from Vegetation Management Plan
2.4 Fire History and Ignitions
Fire history is an important component in understanding fire frequency, fire type, significant ignition sources, and vulnerable areas. The topography, vegetation, and climatic conditions associated with the Plan Area combine to create a unique situation capable of supporting large- scale, high-intensity, and sometimes damaging wildfires, such as the 1991 Tunnel Fire. The history of wildfires in the Plan Area is presented in Table 5.
As presented in Table 5, nearly all significant wildfires have burned in the months of September, October, or November. This timeframe coincides with the end of the dry summer season, where vegetation has lower fuel moistures and Diablo winds return to the Plan Area. While not all the fires shown in Table 5 were associated with Diablo (easterly or northeasterly) winds, the largest and most damaging fires have occurred during such winds.
The history of wildfire ignitions in the Plan Area is directly related to human activity. Notable ignition locations include view spots along Grizzly Peak Boulevard or Skyline Boulevard that offer views of the San Francisco Bay and congregation areas within Joaquin Miller Park, along
ATTACHMENT D
Skyline Boulevard near Sequoia Point. Stolen vehicle dump sites are another potential wildfire ignition source, with notable locations in Joaquin Miller Park (near Sequoia Point) and at the water tank on Skyline Boulevard, approximately 0.5 miles west of its intersection with Grass Valley Road, near the entrance to Knowland Park. Mechanized and power equipment use (e.g., mowers) on private, residential parcels is another potential ignition source, one that was responsible for igniting the 1970 Diablo Fire. Fireworks present another potential ignition source in early summer on or near July 4, notably at King Estate Open Space Park (Crudele, pers. comm. 2017). Joaquin Miller
2.5 Fire Hazard Severity Zoning
As noted, the Plan Area is located within the City’s adopted VHFHSZ. Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) are “geographical areas designated pursuant to California Public Resources Codes, Sections 4201 through 4204 and classified as Very High, High, or Moderate in State Responsibility Areas or as Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones des ignated
pursuant to California Government Code, Sections 51175 through 51189” (California Building Standards Commission 2016). Oakland’s VHFHSZ is a Local Agency VHFHSZ, as defined, and the City is considered a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). OFD is the responsible agency for fire protection within the City’s VHFHSZ. The Plan Area abuts lands where the responsibility for fire protection lies with the State of California (State Responsibility Areas (SRA)). The boundary of SRA lands proximate to the Plan Area is depicted in Figure 2.
California Public Resources Code Sections 4201–4204 and Government Code Sections 51175– 51189 direct California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. The resulting FHSZs define the application of various mitigation strategies to reduce risk associated with wildland fires (CAL FIRE 2016a). The model used to determine the extent of FHSZs is based on an analysis of potential fire behavior, fire probability predicated on frequency of fire weather, ignition patterns, expected rate of spread, ember (brand) production, and/or past fire history (CAL FIRE 2016a). Structures built in FHSZs are subject to more stringent fire hardening requirements than those that are not.
2.6 Wildland Urban Interface/Intermix
The pattern of development and land use within the City’s VHFHSZ creates conditions that can be described as either a wildland urban interface or a wildland urban intermix. Urban areas are predominantly built-up environments with little or no exposure to vegetative fuels. Such areas
are located primarily to the west of the City’s VHFHSZ. The area where urban development abuts vegetative fuels is known as the wildland urban interface (WUI). This condition exists within the City’s VHFHSZ where structures abut City parklands and open space. Areas where the density of housing units and structures is lower and/or the space between structures consists of vegetative fuels capable of propagating fire are more typically characterized as a wildland urban intermix (Intermix). This condition exists throughout the City’s VHFHSZ, notably where smaller undeveloped lots consisting of vegetative fuels are situated between structures. Both conditions present advantages and disadvantages with respect to reducing wildfire hazard, as described below.
ATTACHMENT D
2.6.1 Wildland Urban Interface
WUI areas are those within the “vicinity” of wildland vegetation. The wildland fire risk associated with WUI areas includes propagation of fire throughout WUI communities via house- to-house fire spread, landscaping-to-house fire spread, or ember intrusion. Advantages and disadvantages associated with WUI areas are as follows.
WUI Advantages
• Community water supply systems in place
• Multiple homes accessed by a single road
• Emergency equipment protects multiple assets at once
• Houses usually only exposed to flammable fuels on one side WUI Disadvantages
• High housing density
• Congested roads during emergencies
• Limited options if the community water systems fail
2.6.2 Wildland Urban Intermix
Intermix areas are those where housing and vegetation intermingle. In the Intermix, wildland vegetation is continuous, and more than half of the land area is vegetated with combustible fuels.
The wildland fire risk associated with Intermix areas includes vegetation-to-house fire spread or ember intrusion. Advantages and disadvantages associated with Intermix areas are as follow.
Intermix Advantages
• Low housing density
• Diversity in water supply systems
Intermix Disadvantages
• Increased risk to firefighters
• Emergency equipment can only protect single assets
• Delayed emergency equipment response times due to:
ATTACHMENT D
o Rural roads (single lane, windy, heavy fuel loading)
o Long driveways
• Congested roads during emergencies
• Diversity in water supply systems
• Houses surrounded by vegetation
ATTACHMENT D
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 11th Floor • Oakland, CA 94612
Joe DeVries, Director, Interdepartmental Operations Phone: 510-238-3083 Email: [email protected] Fax: 510-238-7084
To: William A. Gilchrist, Director, Planning and Building Department Re: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Planning Code Amendments and Restrictions in the High Fire Severity Zone
Date: August 20, 2021
Director Gilchrist,
I am offering this letter of support for the revised staff proposal regarding the ADU Planning Code Amendments and the restrictions that are included on parcels located in the High Fire Severity Zone.
As you know, the City Council adopted Resolution 87940 C.M.S. in 2019 declaring Wildfire Prevention as a top priority for the city and this led to the creation of the Wildfire Prevention Working Group. The Working Group includes several departments to ensure we take a comprehensive approach to prevention and that has elevated the importance of the Planning Department’s contribution to prevention through appropriate zoning restrictions.
In recent years, the Fire Department and Department of Transportation conducted an inventory of streets in the High Fire Severity Zone and identified multiple “choke points” where it is very difficult for a fire engine to get through.
However, in the wake of the tragic Camp Fire that swept through Paradise, CA, fire departments everywhere are seeing that evacuation routes quickly become overwhelmed in a fast-moving fire.
Adding ADUs and creating a higher level of density would be dangerous to everyone in those communities, including the very people the new ADUs are designed to serve.
Planning Staff, in partnership with the Fire Department brought forward a proposal this summer to restrict ADUs in the Very High Fire Severity Zone and heard the concerns raised by the Planning Commission that the restrictions went too far. The staff went back to work with the requested approach that the restrictions be refined and made more precise. I believe they have revised the proposal with that precision in mind and are presenting a new option that balances the need to responsibly address California’s housing crisis and protect Oaklanders from the very real threat of wildfire.
I want to praise the staff for their responsiveness and the Planning Commission for suggesting we strike a better balance. I believe the new proposed option captures that balance and is a thoughtful path forward.
In partnership,
Joe DeVries, Director, Interdepartmental Operations
Office of the City Administrator
CITY OF OAKLAND
Office of the City Administrator
CITY OF OAKLAND
LIONEL J. WILSON BUILDING ● 150 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA, SUITE 3354 ● OAKLAND, CA 94612 Office of the Fire Chief (510) 238-4084
Reginald D. Freeman
To: William A. Gilchrist, Director, Planning and Building Department Re: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Planning Code Amendments and Restrictions in the High Fire Severity Zone
Date: October 26, 2021
Dear Council President Bas and Members of the City Council, I am offering this letter of support for the revised staff proposal regarding the ADU Planning Code Amendments and the restrictions that are included on parcels located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
Oakland’s history of wildfires is no secret in California, the Oakland firestorm of 1991 was one of the largest urban wildfires in history. The fire started on the border of Oakland and spread throughout the Berkeley hills. Ultimately 25 lives were lost, 150 people were injured, 1,520 acres of land was burned, and thousands of homes were destroyed. The high winds, steep terrain, and heavy fuel load made fighting this historic blaze a major challenge. The economic loss from the fire was estimated at $1.5 billion.
Nearly 30 years later, with the clear intent to align City departments in the interest of safety and preparedness, City Council adopted Resolution 87940 C.M.S. in 2019 declaring Wildfire Prevention as a top priority for the city and this led to the creation of the Wildfire Prevention Working Group. The strategic working group entrusts several departments to ensure Oakland is taking a coordinated approach to prevention. That has elevated the importance of the Planning Department’s contribution to prevention through appropriate zoning restrictions. The working group meetings cover a range of issues related to immediate fire safety challenges, ongoing hazard mitigation, with a strong emphasis on coordination between departments and nearby jurisdictions, and community stakeholders.
Now more than ever, Oakland residents and communities throughout the region are looking for their government to take proactive steps to increase and promote public safety and reduce wildfire risk. A surge in ADUs in the VHFHSZ project put new and existing residents at risk during mass evacuations during wildfires. .
It remains the belief of the working group that adding ADUs and creating a higher level of density, fuel load, and congestion in the fire prone Oakland hills will be hazardous to everyone in the high fire risk communities, including the very people the new ADUs are designed to serve.
It is important to note that the Fire Department is not making this recommendation in vacuum. The Fire Department conducts a range of actions on an annual basis that have played a critical role in preventing Oakland from experiencing the types of wildfire events that we continue to see in cities across California and in neighboring states. Those actions include:
• Proactive annual inspections of over 25,000 privately, city-owned and vacant parcels.
ATTACHMENT F
• Deploying one of the largest goat herds in the state. Each year goats prove to be a valuable and cost-effective fire prevention tool. In 2021, goats have cleared approximately 900 acres of hazardous and hard to reach dry vegetation.
• Contracting with vendors each year to mitigate hazardous vegetation on city owned property, clearing 60 miles of vegetation along roadways in addition to hundreds of acres of vegetation on public parcels.
• For the last two years, over July 4th weekend in partnership with neighboring jurisdictions, Oakland Fire and Oakland Police have proactively closed stretches of roadways and scenic lookouts along both Grizzly Peak and Skyline boulevards to prevent large gatherings and hazard activity and stop illegal parking that might cause delays in emergency responses along that hillside corridor.
• Closing parks, upstaffing fire crews, doing roving patrols, and pushing out extensive public messaging during Red Flag Warning and extreme weather events. • Establishing the Fire Safe Streets Program with the city’s Department of Transportation whereby the two departments have conducted an inventory of streets in the High Fire Severity Zone and identified multiple “choke points” where it is very difficult for a fire engine to get through. Once identified, the departments begin the lengthy process of conducting outreach to residents about proposed changes to parking restrictions, signage, and enforcement. • Launching the Know Your Zone campaign in partnership with Zonehaven. Now every Oakland resident lives in an evacuation zone identified by a number so they can stay informed in the event that their community is being evacuated.
Planning Staff, in partnership with the Fire Department brought forward a proposal this summer to restrict ADUs in the Very High Fire Severity Zone. We heard the concerns raised by the Planning Commission that the restrictions went too far. The staff went back to work with the requested approach that the restrictions be refined and made more precise.
Following an extensive evaluation process, the Fire Department holds firm that prohibiting the the development of ADU’s in the CAL Fire designated VHFHSZ is the best approach to preventing loss of life and property to wildfire. However, I believe that staff have been thoughtful and diligent in their efforts to identify two options that balance the need to responsibly address California’s housing crisis and protect Oaklanders from the very real threat of wildfire.
I wish to recognize the dedicated staff for their responsiveness and the Planning Commission for their consideration of this important issue. I encourage members of the City Council to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the Fire Department’s position on this issue.
Thank you for your consideration,
Reginald D. Freeman
Chief, Oakland Fire Department
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G