St. Helena City Council
February 10, 2026

Testing Wildfire Evacuation Strategies and Coordination Plans for Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Communities in California 81 Phased Evacuation
The effectiveness of a phased evacuation strategy depends on the timing phases and size of the designated zones. However, this requires heavy communication and coordination tasks. Overall, when implementing a phased evacuation, it is essential to have an accurate assessment of the fire progression to prevent a situation where some people are exposed to the fire threat while waiting for the issuance of an evacuation order.

This strategy was also assessed in Zhao and Wong (2021), and their policy recommendations are still applicable based on results from this study:
• Research, develop, and distribute widely phased evacuation plans that create reasonable time bands.
• Use known boundaries and easy to identify landmarks and roads to set evacuation zones for phasing.
• Maintain relatively few potential zones to reduce confusion in the evacuation process and reduce the number of messages sent to evacuees.
• Convey emergency evacuation orders and warnings by zones. • Prepare for contingencies (e.g., changes in time bands) if the fire spreads faster or slower than expected.

In addition, the following policy recommendations should be considered:
• Conduct public education campaigns to raise awareness about the phased evacuation strategy, the importance of preparedness, and the actions residents should take during each phase. • Provide guidance on emergency kits, communication plans, and evacuation procedures to help individuals and communities prepare for evacuation in advance.

Street Parking Prohibition
The effectiveness of prohibiting street parking in in wildfire situations is highly context specific. In some areas, prohibiting street parking can effectively increase the road capacity and speed up the evacuation. However, this strategy requires active communication with residents before and during the evacuation, making it difficult to implement. To minimize trouble for residents, careful research should be conducted on where street parking has a significant impact on evacuation efficiency. Overall, this strategy is moderately recommended, but context-specific analysis is highly recommended.

Street parking has been demonstrated to have a great effect on the road capacity. It reduces road capacity by 16-30 percent (Wijayaratna, 2015; Cao et al., 2017). During evacuations, prohibiting street parking can greatly mitigate traffic congestion. Before wildfires occur, residents need to be notified to move their vehicles off the street. However, there may not be enough space off the street for vehicles to park. When formulating a street Agenda Item #11.1.

Testing Wildfire Evacuation Strategies and Coordination Plans for Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Communities in California 82 parking prohibition plan, it is essential to identify alternative parking spaces to ensure that vehicles have a place to park.

The following recommendations should be considered in developing a street parking prohibition policy:
• Judge the impact of street parking on the evacuation traffic. • Develop street parking prohibition plans that focus on highly congested roads and neighborhoods with few exits to maximize effectiveness and minimize disruptions to residents along the roads. • Notify residents along roads where street parking is prohibited on fire days ahead of time.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Testing Wildfire Evacuation Strategies and Coordination Plans for Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Communities in California 83 Summary and Conclusions
This study applied a spatial-queue-based dynamic traffic simulation model to analyze the impact of strategies for vehicle reduction, phased evacuation, and prohibiting street parking on the evacuation process. Background traffic was considered in conducting the simulations due to its effect on evacuation efficiency. These three strategies were tested on representative areas in Marin County, including Ross Valley, Woodacre Bowl, Tamalpais Valley, and a Novato neighborhood.

Simulation results show that vehicle reduction is a good strategy for evacuations based on the modeled average evacuation times and average wildfire exposure times. Road congestion is mitigated, and evacuation can be completed more quickly. Achieving an average of just two or three persons per vehicle can significantly reduce both average evacuation and exposure times, though beyond that improvements are only marginal.

Carpooling should be recommended during evacuation in these four areas.

The phased evacuation simulation results show that this strategy reduces peak demand on the roadway by spreading out evacuees temporally and reduces traffic congestion. The optimal time interval between phases depends on the speed the fire spreads and the number of evacuees. Time intervals that are too short or too long will be less efficient, suggesting a need for thoughtful planning.

The effect of prohibiting street parking varies. In some cases, prohibiting street parking can make a greatly improve evacuation efficiency, while in the other cases, it makes little difference. This result suggests that a thorough analysis should be conducted before a wildfire occurs to determine whether this strategy is appropriate for implementation during fires.

The simulations presented in this study involve many assumptions regarding road networks and vehicle behavior due to the level of detail that the model can support. Nevertheless, the results show that the proposed wildfire-traffic simulation framework can offer broader application for preparedness analysis especially for resource-strapped communities in WUI areas to undertake the most cost-effective precautionary measures and implement corresponding policies.

However, there are some limitations to this research. This study only involved two fire scenarios for each case study, one in the morning and one in the evening. Additional fire scenarios could be explored in future research, as traffic patterns differ at different times of the day. It may also be possible to develop distinct evacuation strategies tailored to specific periods of the day when fires may occur. Additional evacuation strategies could also be analyzed, such as making narrow roads one-way during Red Flag Days to increase road capacity.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Testing Wildfire Evacuation Strategies and Coordination Plans for Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Communities in California 84 References
BISWAS, S., CHANDRA, S. & GHOSH, I. 2017. Effects of on-street parking in urban context: A critical review.

Transportation in developing economies, 3, 1-14.

CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. 2017. 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines for Regional Transportation Planning Agencies [Online].
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportationplanning/documents/2017rtpguidelinesforrtpas-a11y.pdf [Accessed January 13, 2023].

CAO, Y., YANG, Z. & ZUO, Z. 2017. The effect of curb parking on road capacity and traffic safety. European Transport Research Review, 9, 1-10.

CHEN, X. & ZHAN, F. B. 2008. Agent-based modelling and simulation of urban evacuation: Relative effectiveness of simultaneous and staged evacuation strategies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59, 25-33.

CHEN, Y., SHAFI, S. Y. & CHEN, Y.-F. 2020. Simulation pipeline for traffic evacuation in urban areas and emergency traffic management policy improvements through case studies. Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives, 7, 100210.

COHN, P. J., CARROLL, M. S. & KUMAGAI, Y. 2006. Evacuation behavior during wildfires: Results of three case studies. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 21, 39-48.

COMFORT, L., SOGA, K., STACEY, M., MCELWEE, M., ECOSSE, C., DRESSLER, J. & ZHAO, B. 2019. Collective action in communities exposed to recurring hazards: The Camp Fire, Butte County, California, November 8, 2018. Natural Hazards Center Quick Response Grant Report Series, 300.

COVA, T. J. & JOHNSON, J. P. 2002. Microsimulation of neighborhood evacuations in the urban–wildland interface. Environment and Planning A, 34, 2211-2229.

COVA, T. J. & JOHNSON, J. P. 2003. A network flow model for lane-based evacuation routing. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37, 579-604.

COVA, T. J. 2005. Public safety in the urban–wildland interface: should fire-prone communities have a maximum occupancy? Natural Hazards Review, 6, 99-108.

DE ARAUJO, M. P., LUPA, M. R., CASPER, C. T. & WATERS, B. 2014. Wildfire evacuation scenario in colorado:

Comparison of adapted four-step metropolitan planning organization modeling results and planning process findings with actual experience. Transportation Research Record, 2430, 133-144.

FEMA. 2021a. Integrated Public Alert \& Warning System [Online]. https://www.fema.gov/emergencymanagers/practitioners/integrated-public-alert-warning-system [Accessed March 3, 2023].

FEMA. 2021b. Planning Considerations: Evacuation and shelter-in-place guidance for state, local, tribal, and territorial partner [Online].
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/planning-considerations-evacuation-and-shelterin-place.pdf [Accessed February 4, 2023].

FINNEY, M. A. 1998. FARSITE, Fire Area Simulator--model development and evaluation, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

FINNEY, M. A. & ANDREWS, P. L. 1999. FARSITE—a program for fire growth simulation. Fire Management Notes, 59, 13-15.

GOLSHANI, N., SHABANPOUR, R., MOHAMMADIAN, A., AULD, J. & LEY, H. 2019. Analysis of evacuation destination and departure time choices for no-notice emergency events. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 15, 896-914.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Testing Wildfire Evacuation Strategies and Coordination Plans for Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Communities in California 85 KULIGOWSKI, E. 2021. Evacuation decision-making and behavior in wildfires: Past research, current challenges and a future research agenda. Fire Safety Journal, 120, 103129.

LI, P., ZHAO, B., JIANG, M., SOGA, K. & ZHANG, Y. 2022. Assessing the effectiveness of phased evacuation strategies under slow and fast fire scenarios with a real case study in Paradise, California. CICTP 2022.

LIM, G. J., ZANGENEH, S., BAHARNEMATI, M. R. & ASSAVAPOKEE, T. 2012. A capacitated network flow optimization approach for short notice evacuation planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 223, 234-245.

LOVREGLIO, R., KULIGOWSKI, E., GWYNNE, S. & STRAHAN, K. 2019. A modelling framework for householder decision-making for wildfire emergencies. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 41, 101274.

MARIN, F. 2020. Wildfire evacuation preparedness [Online]. https://firesafemarin.org/prepareyourself/evacuation-guide/#gsc.tab=0 [Accessed February 2, 2023].

MCCAFFREY, S., WILSON, R. & KONAR, A. 2018. Should I stay or should I go now? Or should I wait and see? Influences on wildfire evacuation decisions. Risk Analysis, 38, 1390-1404.

MCLENNAN, J., RYAN, B., BEARMAN, C. & TOH, K. 2019. Should we leave now? Behavioral factors in evacuation under wildfire threat. Fire Technology, 55, 487-516.

MOZUMDER, P., RAHEEM, N., TALBERTH, J. & BERRENS, R. P. 2008. Investigating intended evacuation from wildfires in the wildland–urban interface: Application of a bivariate probit model. Forest Policy and Economics, 10, 415-423.

MURRAY-TUITE, P. M. & MAHMASSANI, H. S. 2003. Model of household trip-chain sequencing in emergency evacuation. Transportation Research Record, 1831, 21-29.

MURRAY-TUITE, P. M. & MAHMASSANI, H. S. 2004. Transportation network evacuation planning with household activity interactions. Transportation Research Record, 1894, 150-159.

NOH, H., CHIU, Y.-C., ZHENG, H., HICKMAN, M. & MIRCHANDANI, P. 2009. Approach to modeling demand and supply for a short-notice evacuation. Transportation Research Record, 2091, 91-99.

ONSOLVE. 2021. CodeRED for IPAWS [Online]. https://www.onsolve.com/landing/codered-for-ipaws [Accessed February 21, 2023].

PAVEGLIO, T. B., BOYD, A. D. & CARROLL, M. S. 2012. Wildfire evacuation and its alternatives in a post-Black Saturday landscape: Catchy slogans and cautionary tales. Environmental Hazards, 11, 52-70.

RADELOFF, V. C., HELMERS, D. P., KRAMER, H. A., MOCKRIN, M. H., ALEXANDRE, P. M., BAR-MASSADA, A., BUTSIC, V., HAWBAKER, T. J., MARTINUZZI, S. & SYPHARD, A. D. 2018. Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 3314-3319.

ROHAERT, A., KULIGOWSKI, E. D., ARDINGE, A., WAHLQVIST, J., GWYNNE, S. M., KIMBALL, A., BENICHOU, N. & RONCHI, E. 2023. Traffic dynamics during the 2019 Kincade wildfire evacuation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport And Environment, 116, 103610.

SBAYTI, H. & MAHMASSANI, H. S. 2006. Optimal scheduling of evacuation operations. Transportation Research Record, 1964, 238-246.

SHAHPARVARI, S., ABBASI, B. & CHHETRI, P. 2017. Possibilistic scheduling routing for short-notice bushfire emergency evacuation under uncertainties: An Australian case study. Omega, 72, 96-117.

SO, S. K. & DAGANZO, C. F. 2010. Managing evacuation routes. Transportation Research Part B:

Methodological, 44, 514-520.

SOGA, K., COMFORT, L., ZHAO, B., LORUSSO, P. & SOYSAL, S. 2021. Wildfire Evacuation Planning Can Be Greatly Enhanced by Considering Fire Progression, Communication Systems, and Other Dynamic Factors. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Testing Wildfire Evacuation Strategies and Coordination Plans for Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Communities in California 86 STRAHAN, K. 2017. Factors influencing householder self-evacuation in two Australian bushfires. Doctoral Dissertation, RMIT University.

THOMAS, D. S. & BUTRY, D. T. 2014. Areas of the US wildland–urban interface threatened by wildfire during the 2001–2010 decade. Natural Hazards, 71, 1561-1585.

TOLEDO, T., MAROM, I., GRIMBERG, E. & BEKHOR, S. 2018. Analysis of evacuation behavior in a wildfire event. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 31, 1366-1373.

US CENSUS BUREAU. 2021. Marin County Household Survey [Online]. https://data.census.gov/table?q=marin+%2B+household&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S1101 [Accessed Feburary 1, 2023].

VORST, H. C. 2010. Evacuation models and disaster psychology. Procedia Engineering, 3, 15-21.

WIJAYARATNA, S. Impacts of on-street parking on road capacity. Australasian Transport Research Forum, 2015. 1-15.

WIJAYARATNA, S. & WIJAYARATNA, K. P. 2016. Quantifying the impact of on-street parking on road capacity:

A case study of Sydney arterial roads.

WILMOT, C. G. & MEDURI, N. 2005. Methodology to establish hurricane evacuation zones. Transportation Research Record, 1922, 129-137.

WONG, S. & SHAHEEN, S. 2019. Current State of the Sharing Economy and Evacuations: Lessons from California. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies.

WONG, S. D., BROADER, J. C. & SHAHEEN, S. A. 2020. Can sharing economy platforms increase social equity for vulnerable populations in disaster response and relief? A case study of the 2017 and 2018 California wildfires. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 5, 100131.

WONG, S. D., BROADER, J. C., WALKER, J. L. & SHAHEEN, S. A. 2022. Understanding California wildfire evacuee behavior and joint choice making. Transportation, 1-47.

WONG, S. D., WALKER, J. L. & SHAHEEN, S. A. 2021. Trust and compassion in willingness to share mobility and sheltering resources in evacuations: A case study of the 2017 and 2018 California Wildfires.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 52, 101900.

ZHAO, B. & WONG, S. D. 2021. Developing transportation response strategies for wildfire evacuations via an empirically supported traffic simulation of Berkeley, California. Transportation Research Record, 2675, 557-582.

ZHAO, X., XU, Y., LOVREGLIO, R., KULIGOWSKI, E., NILSSON, D., COVA, T. J., WU, A. & YAN, X. 2022.

Estimating wildfire evacuation decision and departure timing using large-scale GPS data.

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 107, 103277.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

1 WHITE PAPER
Bay Area Wildland Urban Interface
Review of Risks, Plans, and Strategies
Association of Bay Area Governments & Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018 Agenda Item #11.1.

2 Disclaimer
This report does not include assessment nor recommendations regarding response activities related to wildfires. The report touches on notification, evacuation, and shelters, but recommendations on these topics are out of the scope of this work. For more information on these topics we recommend connecting with the Bay Area Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), who builds regional capabilities in these areas.

The work is supported by two working groups:
1) Emergency Management Work Group [sheltering resources] http://www.bayareauasi.org/programs/community-resiliency-recovery 2) Public Information and Warning Work Group [notification resources] http://www.bayareauasi.org/programs/public-information
For information on the 2017 North Bay Fires please refer to the County and State after action efforts.

If you have questions about the white paper please contact Michael Germeraad (Resilience Planner, ABAG|MTC) [email protected] (415) 820.7945.

Agenda Item #11.1.

3 Contents
Preface ..........................................................................................................................................................5 A. The Document Layout...........................................................................................................................5 I. Characterization of WUI Fire Risk ..............................................................................................................6 A. Bay Area WUI Fire Hazard.....................................................................................................................6 Fire Responsibility Areas.......................................................................................................................7 Historic Bay Area Fire Occurrences.......................................................................................................7 Probability of Future Fire – Climate Influenced....................................................................................7 Existing Fire Hazard Maps for the Bay Area..........................................................................................8 Wildfire Ignition Sources.......................................................................................................................9 Smoke & Air Quality Mapping.............................................................................................................10 B. Fire Impacts on Assets........................................................................................................................19 People .................................................................................................................................................19 Buildings..............................................................................................................................................21 Infrastructure......................................................................................................................................21 Environment........................................................................................................................................22 C. Bay Area Fire Risk................................................................................................................................22 Analysis of Bay Area Wildfire Mapping...............................................................................................22 II. WUI Plans and Strategies........................................................................................................................27 A. Local Fire Plans – Lay of the Land.......................................................................................................27 Common Stakeholders & Networks....................................................................................................27 Common Plans....................................................................................................................................28 Integration of Plans.............................................................................................................................29 B. Bay Area Fire Plans..............................................................................................................................30 Analysis of Bay Area Fire Plans ...........................................................................................................34 C. Bay Area Fire Plan Strategies..............................................................................................................35 High Level Bay Area Strategy Insight and General Wildfire Strategies...............................................36 Strategy Types to Reduce Vulnerability..............................................................................................37 Strategy Types to Reduce Consequence.............................................................................................37 Managing Fires by Suppression ..........................................................................................................38 Strategy Mediums and Methods ........................................................................................................38 Funding Sources..................................................................................................................................40 Agenda Item #11.1.

4 III. Next Steps..............................................................................................................................................42 Coordination of planning processes and documents. ........................................................................42 Collect, analyze, and communicate parcel/building specific information..........................................43 Thoughtful expansion of the WUI code..............................................................................................43 Develop high quality, locally relevant education collateral................................................................44 Explore and pilot cost effective methods of vegetation management. .............................................44 Invite air quality experts to comment on wildfire plans and offer strategies to address smoke impacts................................................................................................................................................45 IV: WORKS CITED.........................................................................................................................................46 V: APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................48 A. Annotated Bibliography of Fire Planning Resources..........................................................................49 B. 2017 North Bay Wildfires – An Early Perspective...............................................................................50 C. List of Bay Area Cities with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone & Subject to SB 1241 .................53 D. List of Fire Districts in the San Francisco Bay Area .............................................................................54 E. Further Discussion on Wildfire Mapping Data Analysis......................................................................58 F. Further Discussion on Bay Area Wildfire Plan Strategies....................................................................58 G. Wildfire Funding Opportunities – From Santa Clara County CCWP...................................................61 H. Other Fire Types and Impacts.............................................................................................................62 Sidebar 1 – Structural Fires.................................................................................................................62 Sidebar 2 – Fire Following Earthquakes..............................................................................................62 Sidebar 3 – Rim Fire & Headwater Study & Climate Change Impact..................................................63 I. Fire Code Details..................................................................................................................................64 Agenda Item #11.1.

5 Preface
The Bay Area is a hazard-rich region. Flooding, earthquakes, landslides, drought, and wildfire all contribute to the region’s risk. In 2017 the Association of Bay Area Government’s Resilience Program published Risk Landscape, a document that characterized the range of hazards facing the Bay Area. To date the Program had focused many resources on earthquake risks, and partnered with the Bay Conservation Development Commission to study current and future flooding risks. Staff recognized a need to study the region’s wildfire risk in greater detail, and in the spring of 2017 began research to document the San Francisco Bay Area’s wildfire risks.

On October 8, 2017 the Bay Area experienced the most deadly wildfires in state history, and lost 10,000 homes. The risks being explored in the white paper were realized, and the region’s wildfire risk was front and center.

The scope of this White Paper does not focus on the 2017 fires directly, but instead explores the strategies communities currently use to mitigate wildfire risk. The report is a resource for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Association of Bay Area Governments and its member jurisdictions to better understand wildland fire risk in the region. The white paper characterizes wildfire hazard in the region, assesses existing wildfire hazard maps, and includes a literature review of Bay Area fire planning documents. A suite of appendices provide links to resources to support communities engaged in wildfire mitigation efforts in their communities. In addition to the paper, a searchable database of wildfire mitigation strategies is also available showcasing the 350+ strategies discussed in the 15 reviewed Bay Area fire planning documents.

Funding for this paper was provided through a FEMA Cooperative Technical Partnership [Grant No. EMF2016-CA-00010]. Any opinions, findings, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

A. The Document Layout
I: Characterization of Fire Risk – A range of mapping and assessment tools enable the characterization and modeling of wildfire risk. Each year new tools with improved accuracy and coverage are being developed to provide planners and decision makers with more information to understand the severity and extent of fire risk. The section describes the hazard mapping resources, general fire impacts, and concludes with a mapping analysis of the intersection of Bay Area wildfire hazard and Bay Area land use and vulnerable populations.

II: Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Plans and Strategies – In California, the state, local jurisdictions and community groups produce a range of wildfire planning documents. The chapter introduces the plan landscape, the coverage of the plans in the region, and their legislative links. Agency staff reviewed fifteen plans in the region, and aggregated a full list of strategies from each plan. The section summarizes and analyzes the range of wildfire strategies described in the plans, and common funding mechanisms.

III: Summary & Next Steps – The section outlines areas for the regional agencies and local jurisdictions to pursue to reduce wildfire risk with local partners. The next steps are built on areas of convergence between the fifteen studied plans.

Agenda Item #11.1.

6 I. Characterization of WUI Fire Risk
Risk is often characterized as the intersection of hazards and assets. This section characterizes the Bay Area wildland urban interface (WUI) fire hazard and general asset classes. The section ends with an assessment of hazard maps success in forecasting past wildfire perimeters, and a high-level exposure assessment of land uses and vulnerable populations in the region.

A. Bay Area WUI Fire Hazard
To narrow the paper scope, staff focused research on wildland urban interface fires. Other fire types, including: structural fires, infrastructure explosions, wildland fires, and fire following earthquake all are probable risks for the region, but are not included in this document. ABAG has chosen to focus on WUI wildfire risk because of the potential for regional or sub-regional impacts. However, for some communities other fire hazards like structural fires may be a greater risk. Therefore, as part of this research, staff compiled resources that touched on non-WUI fire impacts. Information on structural fires and fire following earthquake are described in Appendix H. Other Fire Types and Impacts.

Fires in the urban environment and in the wildland-urban interface result in direct damage to the built environment and can injure or kill residents. Wildland fires can cause significant impacts to critical structures such as housing; damage linear infrastructure systems that serve the Bay Area, causing subsequent outages; impact air quality in the entire region during the duration of the fire; and impact water quality in watersheds affected by a wildland fire. Wildland and wildland-urban interface fires can also damage natural and open space environments and cause lasting impacts to slopes and soils.

This document focuses research within the nine-county Bay Area. Fires elsewhere in the state can impact Bay Area air quality, and can damage infrastructure and natural systems that the Bay Area is dependent upon. While this research explores the fire risks within the nine-county region, Bay Area communities and agencies should recognize that their risks extend beyond the region. Appendix H.

Other Fire Types and Impacts describes impacts within the San Francisco Bay Area from the 2013 Rim Fire, which was located several hundred miles away from the Bay Area.

A vivid example of wildland urban interface fire is the 1991 Tunnel Fire in the Oakland and Berkeley Hills.

The firestorm occurred within a larger high fire hazard zone that is part of an approximately 60 mile stretch of hills running from the Carquinez Strait to San Jose in the eastern San Francisco Bay Area. The fire happened in an economically well-off, largely built-out residential area that has a long standing fire history linked to hot, dry fall winds and the presence of dense, flammable vegetation. WUI fires continue to be a risk for many Bay Area communities. The October 8, 2017 North Bay fires have many characteristics that closely resembled the Tunnel Fire conditions, and occurred just ten days earlier in the fire season than the October 19, 1991 fire.

There are a number of resources available to help communities characterize their fire risk. The next sections highlight the different entities responsible for fire services, perimeters of past fires, data on climate change’s influence on Bay Area fire, a variety of methods for mapping fire hazard, and information on wildfire smoke.

Agenda Item #11.1.

7 Fire Management Responsibility Areas
In the Bay Area fire management is shared by local, state, or federal entities. For each location in the region, a single agency has direct responsibility. In local areas (incorporated areas), local fire departments or fire protection special districts are responsible. In state areas (unincorporated areas), CAL FIRE is responsible. In Federal areas, the Department of the Interior is responsible. Localities and the State cover most of the region with the exception of West Marin County, and portions of Northern Napa which have large Federal lands. Figure 1 maps Bay Area fire responsibilities.

Many jurisdictions have partnerships and contracts with CAL FIRE for fire services both for managing wildland areas and for fire suppression. During a large wildfire, assets from local, state, and federal resources are tapped regardless of where a fire is burning.

Historic Bay Area Fire Occurrences
Wildfires are common events in the Bay Area. Prior to the 2017 fires in the North Bay, the 1991 fire in the Oakland-Berkeley Hills was the largest urban-wildland fire in the Bay Area, and resulted in $1.7 billion in losses. In that fire, 3,354 single-family dwellings and 456 apartments were destroyed, while 25 people were killed and 150 people were injured. Figure 2 maps the perimeter of fires since 1955. Marin County also includes approximate fire perimeters dating back 100 years. This map includes fires up to December 31, 2016. Figure 3 includes preliminary perimeters from the large 2017 North Bay wildfires.

Appendix B. 2017 North Bay Wildfires – An Early Perspective includes further discussion on the 2017 fires.

Where fires have occurred in the past can be a determinant of where fires are likely to occur in the future. These maps also provide an opportunity for communities to use a past fire as a scenario to characterize their risk. Sonoma County’s 2016 Community Wildfire Protection Plan highlights the impacts of a repeat of a 1964 fire, a fire that shared the name of the 2017 fire. Using scenarios is a helpful tool to articulate risks to decision makers. The Sonoma County example is described further in Appendix B. 2017 North Bay Wildfires – An Early Perspective.

Probability of Future Fire – Climate Influenced
Increases in wildfire risk as a result of climate change are primarily due to higher temperatures and longer dry periods over lengthier fire seasons. Potential changes in vegetation, wind patterns, or wind severity could also increase risks. Research out of UC Merced has projected the future fire risk impacted by climate change compared to existing fire risk. In the Bay Area the results are mixed. The research projects a decreased fire risk in some East Bay and South Bay locations (due to the already dry and small vegetation conditions), and a 50% increase in fire risk in portions of the Peninsula and North Bay (due to the more dense levels of vegetation that will be dryer than in the past) by 2085. Generally, across the Bay Area there is fairly limited change in fire risk in the year 2050, with the greatest change occurring between 2050 and 2085, especially in the high emission climate change scenario. The data, pulled from Cal Adapt – a state tool to support Climate Adaptation work – suggests that some jurisdictions might have to adapt more aggressively compared to others. Figure 4 shows the projected fire risk increase for the Bay Area with the greatest increase and decrease areas highlighted. Jurisdictions can use the State’s Cal Adapt tool (cal-adapt.org) to explore the best available state level data on climate influence on fire risk.

The future fire risk model analyzes two primary variables: fuel availability and flammability of fuel. In California the change in fire risk is a result of either a densely forested ecosystem becoming drier, or a Agenda Item #11.1.

8 dry climate experiencing large vegetation growth after a year of above average precipitation. In the first scenario the suite of climate impacts (higher temperatures, less snow pack, earlier springs) result in previously wet dense fuel ecosystems becoming dry – increasing the fire risk dramatically. In the second ecosystem, dominated by grass and low density shrubs, the risk is often unchanged or decreased because the availability of fuel is the governing variable for fire risk, and the fuel remains unchanged or decreases as a result of projected precipitation (Westerling, 2008). These modeling characteristics are reflected in the Bay Area’s future fire risk map, and are why eastern Alameda County with already dry grasses remains unchanged, but western Sonoma County with wetter, dense vegetation will become dryer and more prone to wildfire.

The Bay Area, compared with other portions of California, especially those near the Oregon border and the headwater forests of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, have a much lower projected increase in fire risk due to climate change. Near the Oregon border, many areas are expecting a 500 percent increase in fire risk by 2085, with some areas projected to see their fire risk increase more than 10 times over the remainder of the century.

Existing Fire Hazard Maps for the Bay Area
The State produces a range of wildfire mapping products to support their wildfire management efforts, local efforts, and to meet regulatory requirements. A full set of resources are available through CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) (frap.fire.ca.gov). In addition to these state initiatives, some local governments, or local divisions of CAL FIRE have produced their own fire hazard maps. As part of the 2016 update, the Marin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan used granular mapping to characterize fire risk in the county. At the writing of this paper, Marin County is the Bay Area jurisdiction that has done the most to characterize and map wildfire hazard at the local level. As will be discussed in Section II of the white paper, many jurisdictions have an interest in updates of state fire hazard maps, granular maps of local areas, or granular mapping of high risk areas.

Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ)
CAL FIRE has developed maps depicting wildfire hazard areas. Figure 5 is a map of fire hazard severity in State Responsibility Areas. Fire hazard severity takes into account vegetation amount, topography, and weather (temperature, humidity, and wind), and represents the likelihood of an area burning over a 30- 50 year time period. In Figure 5, shadowed portions of the map depict very high fire hazard severity in Local Responsibility Areas. CAL FIRE only maps very high fire hazard severity in their final local responsibility areas. Local fire departments and protection districts may have other locally available hazard severity information for these areas, but often do not.

In addition to characterizing risk, FHSZ maps are also a regulatory tool. In all state areas, and in local areas within a very high zone, property owners are subject to mandatory code requirements for their structures and adjoining vegetation. The building code requirements, like most code requirements, are not retroactive and are only mandatory for new construction and large renovations. When CAL FIRE produces a Very High Hazard Severity map for a local jurisdiction, the local agency has an opportunity to comment on the map before adoption. In Section II the fire code is discussed in greater detail, with Appendix I. Fire Code Details providing an even greater description.

Additional legislation has been tied to the FHSZ designations. If local communities have a Very High designation, they are subject to Senate Bill 1241 (discussed in Section II). In addition to these hooks, the zones were previously used to designate additional parcel fees. Until the 2017 legislative update of Cap Agenda Item #11.1.

9 and Trade, property owners paid a special parcel fee to help pay for state fire expenses. As part of the 2017 Cap and Trade legislation, this fee was waived.

Fire Threat
CAL FIRE also has produced a threat map which produces a fire threat rating for all geographies regardless of responsibility. Fire Threat is a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard). Potential fire behavior is a function of the vegetation (fuel) and slope conditions that would support high or very high fire behavior when burned under typical severe weather conditions. Fires that burn in these areas under hot, dry, and windy conditions are difficult to control even by the world’s most comprehensive wildland fire protection system. These two factors are combined to create 5 threat classes: Extreme, Very High, High, Moderate, or Not Mapped (Cal Fire, 2003). The Extreme category is concentrated in Southern California, with the only Bay Area occurrence in Marin County with under 2,000 total acres in the category. Figure 6 maps the fire threat layer in the Bay Area counties.

Fire threat can be used to estimate the potential for impacts on various assets and values susceptible to fire. Impacts are more likely to occur and/or be of increased severity for the higher threat classes. The data set was published in 2004 as part of the 2003 California Forest and Range Assessment.

Section 1.C. Bay Area Fire Risk analyzes how well Fire Hazard Severity and Fire Threat have intersected with the region’s fire history. The main difference in the layers is not that one is better or worse than the other, but rather that Fire Threat maps fire risk across the entire Bay Area, while Fire Hazard Severity leaves many portions of local/urbanized areas unmapped.

Wildland Urban Interface
CAL Fire also produced WUI maps that highlight areas with burnable vegetation and residential density greater than one unit per 20 acres. These zones represent areas of potential fire and high exposure of people and property. Figure 7 is a map of CAL FIRE-designated WUI zones. Some local fire departments and districts have chosen to identify their own WUI zones based on their local knowledge of the landscape. Santa Rosa is one city example with a self-defined WUI Area. The state level WUI maps are made using state level data and alone, without local vetting, can be a less than polished product. Areas like Foster City captured by the map may be areas that would not be classified as WUI when exploring the model output locally.

Wildfire Ignition Sources
In many of the Bay Area plans there is data on the cause of fire ignitions. After the high number of undetermined ignition sources, power lines, vehicles, campfires, debris burning, and equipment were the highest sources of wildfire ignitions in the region. Across many plans there was recognition that nonnatural fire ignitions were the majority of wildfire ignitions. Figure 8 shows the frequency of each ignition type for wildfire plans that included data. In Marin County, data was available for multiple years, while all other plans only reported ignition history for a single year. In addition to the plans included in Figure 8, the Alameda County and Contra Costa County plans provided a narrative of ignition sources, citing that human related ignitions (arson, camp/picnic activities, powerlines, fireworks, fuel reduction activities, smoking, playing with fire, and vehicles) were the most common, with only 1% of fires caused by lightning.

Agenda Item #11.1.

10 Many of the plans included that the ignition source is important as it relates to fire weather conditions, primarily when there are high winds. When concerned about ignition and severe fire spread conditions, electric line ignitions are especially problematic because they typically occur during periods of high wind activity (Santa Clara County [Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2016]). The co-occurrence of high winds causing downed power lines with arcing and rapid rates of spread from the ignition site can cause electric fires to have faster spread than other ignition types that are less correlated to wind.

Smoke & Air Quality Mapping
Wildfires are primarily responsible for the worst air quality days in the San Francisco Bay Area. The particulate matter observed in the recent North Bay Fires were at times a full order of magnitude greater than a typical poor day. Figure 9 shows the ten worst air quality days in the region since 2003, six of which were due to wildfire smoke.

Smoke from wildland urban interface fires is complex. In fully wildland fires the smoke is more predictable, and is mostly caused by the burning of organic material. Smoke from these fires is unhealthy by itself. When structures, equipment, and other inorganic components become a source of the smoke, it can be toxic. To help understand the complexities of smoke, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors the air and shares information with stakeholders. In addition to what is in the smoke, the Air District forecasts smoke plume directions to inform sub-regions that will have worsened air quality. For local, in-region wildfires, the forecast can be trickier because the plumes are narrow and impact a smaller band of the region. For out-of-region wildfires it is easier to predict impacts because the plumes are broad and will impact large portions of the region similarly.

After the fires are out, air quality impacts remain at a hyper local level. Localized air quality can be diminished adjacent to burn areas with large quantities of ash. Special precautions should be taken to protect those cleaning debris, rebuilding, and living/working adjacent to the burn areas.

Agenda Item #11.1.

11 Figure 1 Fire Management Responsibilities in the San Francisco Bay Area Agenda Item #11.1.

12 Figure 2 Historic Bay Area Fire Perimeters 1955 – 2016 Agenda Item #11.1.

13 Figure 3 Historic Bay Area Fire Perimeters 1955 – 2016 and Unofficial 2017 North Bay Fire Perimeters Agenda Item #11.1.

14 Figure 4 Climate Change Influence of Future Fire Risk Agenda Item #11.1.

15 Figure 5 Fire Hazard Severity Zones with Local Responsibility Areas Outlined Agenda Item #11.1.

16 Figure 6 Fire Threat in the San Francisco Bay Area
Agenda Item #11.1.

17 Figure 7 State Defined Wildland Urban Interface
Agenda Item #11.1.

18 Figure 8: Ignition Source Ranked by Frequency for Bay Area Plans with Ignition Data.

Summation of
All Plans
Marin CWPP
(1974-2014)
Marin Unit
Plan
(2005-2014)
Santa Clara,
Alameda,
Contra Costa
Unit Plan
(2015)
San Mateo
Unit Plan
(2015)
Santa Clara
CWPP
(2014)
Sonoma, Napa,
Solano Unit
Plan
(2013)
Unkown,
Undetermined 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Powerlines 2 5 2 2 6 3 2
Vehicles 3 5 3 2 6 2 4
Campfire 4 2 5 7 9
not
included
not
included
Debris Burning 5 10 4 6 4 4 2
Equipment 6 5 6 4 3
not
included
not
included
Arson 7 4
not
included 5 2
not
included
not
included
Accidental,
Playing with Fire 8 3
not
included
not
included 9 6
not
included
Smoking 9 8
not
included 9 5 5
not
included
Lightning 10 9
not
included 7 6 7
not
included
Railroad 11 11
not
included 9 9
not
included
not
included
Plan (Ignition Data Year(s))
Ignition
Source
Agenda Item #11.1.

19 Figure 9 Top Ten PM2.5 Days in the Bay Area Since 2003 (BAAQMD, 2018) B. Fire Impacts on Assets
Fires have significant impacts. Their most devastating and focused impact is burning assets. The result of burned landscape can create cascading hazard impacts, resulting in impaired water quality, increased mudslide risk, increased landslide risk, and possible change to flooding dynamics. In addition to the impacts of burning, fires also produce smoke that has direct impacts on people and the built environment. A general characterization of fire impacts on people, buildings, infrastructure, and the environment is provided. For more information on assets and including asset impacts in a risk assessment, Risk Profile 2017 provides additional discussion (ABAG, 2017a).

People
Fires threaten safety and public health. Without warning and sufficient evacuation strategies, fires can kill and injury people. In addition to the fire directly, smoke causes severe public health impacts. Smoke impacts are much more widespread than the fire itself, and strategies are needed to address this risk.

This research focused efforts on studying in-region wildfire risks, but smoke impacts from fires burning out of the region can have smoke impacts on Bay Area residents. Conversely, wildfires within the region can worsen air quality for Central Valley residents, who bear the brunt of poor air quality.

For healthy people, smoke from wildfire will cause temporary health impacts. Chest tightness, congestion, watery eyes, and a dampened immune system are common symptoms that can take time to recover from once the poor quality air has cleared. For individuals who have trouble breathing to begin with, smoke becomes an added challenge. Children are at greater risk because they breathe at a higher Agenda Item #11.1.

20 rate than adults, so they’ll take in greater quantities of smoke relative to their body weight. The elderly and populations with cardiovascular, lung disease, emphysema, and bronchitis are at a higher risk as well.

Fire deaths in the state of California have been steadily declining over the past three decades (see Figure 10). This data set does not distinguish which deaths were from wildfires versus other fire types. Much of the decline has been credited to updated building codes which have targeted structural fire risks with strategies like fire sprinklers. The data set also does not include any deaths that were associated with indirect smoke impacts.

Figure 10 Fire Death Rates per Million Population in California Vulnerable Populations
Certain members in the community are more at risk of being harmed by disasters and specifically fires than others, including the very young, the very old, the disabled and the chronically ill, and residents without access to vehicle. These individuals are more susceptible to the extreme conditions created by a disaster and have less mobility to evacuate out of harm’s way.

In 2013 ABAG and BCDC worked with stakeholders to define vulnerable population characteristics that make individuals less able to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. Ten census-collected attributes were determined to be indicators for high social vulnerability and were mapped to uncover block groups in the region with high percentages of socially vulnerable populations. The ten indicators are: population over 75, population under 5, housing cost burdened, transportation cost burdened, no high school diplomas, very low income, limited English households, people of color, no vehicle households, and rental households. For each indicator, a specific level of significance was determined that indicates that the particular block group has a higher than average concentration of that indicator.

Block groups with more than one indicator were aggregated to create a vulnerability “score” for that block group. While these indicators were developed for earthquake and flooding risk, they are also applicable for other hazards such as fire. For more information on vulnerable population see Stronger Housing Safer Communities, 2015,
http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/projects/stronger_housing_safer_communities_2015/.

Agenda Item #11.1.

21 Buildings
Buildings and their contents are at risk of being destroyed by fire. Not all structures are equal in their ignitability. Some construction materials are more resistant to fire and while other construction materials or design methods are at a higher risk for igniting.

For a long time, the California building code has incrementally adjusted portions of the fire code to address structural fire concerns. This has resulted in standards such as fire sprinklers, building materials, and fireproofing elements. Most fire code improvements were focused on reducing structural fires rather than WUI fire risks. In 1991, the State adopted the first WUI code in Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code. The code required defensible space standards and required the California Board of Forestry to map WUI areas. It wasn’t until 2005 and 2008 that the California Building Code Chapter 7A and the California Residential Code Section R327 were improved to include increased building standards for new construction. The code has standards for roofing, attic ventilation, exterior walls, underfloors (decking, floors), and ancillary structures. It applies to buildings built in State Responsibility Areas and Local Responsibility Areas with a Fire Hazard Severity Zone rating of Very High (see Figure 5 for these areas).

Buildings constructed prior to 2005 and buildings outside of the above described areas do not have to meet these WUI fire code standards. For more on the building codes see Appendix I. Fire Code Details.

Individual jurisdictions are able to pass more stringent standards that require a broader area of homes to comply with the WUI code, or require property owners within the regulated area to bring their structures up to code, often in the form of a triggering action, like the owner requesting a permit for a large renovation.

In order to accurately characterize WUI fire risk, the attributes of buildings are needed. It is important to know if a structure is located within a high fire hazard zone, but the risk is much greater if it has a wood roof and exposed eaves, which are vulnerable characteristics of fire-prone buildings. To best understand a community’s WUI fire risk it is important to understand the attributes of buildings in the community.

Infrastructure
In fires, above ground infrastructure is at risk to damage. Telecommunication and electric poles and lines can be damaged in fires, and mechanical infrastructure components like transformers and electrical equipment can also be damaged not only by fire, but by smoke leading to power outages. In the 2013 Rim Fire, infrastructure equipment for power generation was damaged by dense smoke. Linear transportation infrastructure such as roads and rail lines are not a significant fire risk compared with other utilities, but debris clearance following a fire can limit access, and structures such as transit stations can be impacted. Fire can also impact transit by burning buses or trains, impacting transit service after a fire. In areas with old local roads there can be infrastructure such as bridges that are built with wood, which are at risk of damage.

Aside from components that can burn above ground, watershed basins can be impacted by fires. The reduction of vegetation in a watershed can result in greater erosion leading to greater turbidity in streams and lakes. The nutrient mix after a fire can also result in different conditions making algae blooms a greater possibility in the years following the fire. Lastly, for fires that burn into urbanized areas, the range of plastics and chemicals that burn in the fire can result in toxic byproducts that wash into waterways or down into groundwater aquifers.

Underground infrastructure can experience damage in high intensity fires depending on its proximity to the surface and the intensity of the fire. In the recent 2017 North Bay fires, there was significant damage Agenda Item #11.1.

22 to storm water infrastructure. Underground plastic pipes and metal culverts melted in the fire, causing cascading impacts during the rainy season, which for late summer fires, is often only weeks or months away.

Environment
Fire is a natural process, but with increases in ignitions caused by humans (electrical lines, equipment, campfires, fireworks, etc.), decades of robust fire suppression, and anthropogenic climate change, the dynamics have become less natural. Fires impact different environments differently. In forests, the intensity of the fire is a key characteristic that influences the impact of the fire. Historically, more frequent low intensity fires burned underbrush and small trees, leaving larger trees. In recent decades, fires in the region have been higher intensity which has resulted in complete vegetation loss.

Because fires can cause so much damage, and when uncontained are unpredictable, fire management typically translates into suppression of many fires. The result, recognized across the Western United States, has been an increase in forest density, especially in the number of smaller trees. This has led to high intensity fires that burn all vegetation. Following a fire, vegetation that was endemic to a location may be less likely to come back, with new species taking over.

The loss of vegetation and changes to surface soils caused by the fire alters the environment. When all supporting vegetation is burned away, hillsides become destabilized and prone to erosion. In high heat fires, the burned surface soils are harder and absorb less water. When winter rains come, this leads to increased runoff, erosion, and can cause landslides in hilly areas. For more information on Bay Area landslide hazard, see Risk Profile (ABAG, 2017a).

As mentioned in the Infrastructure section above, the erosion and debris flow potential can cause cascading impacts in the waterway systems. Water species reliant on specific conditions, both physical, and nutrient-based are impacted by drastic changes.

C. Bay Area Fire Risk
The first two portions of this section described the Bay Area fire hazard and a subset of Bay Area assets.

Their intersection offers a glimpse into the risk posed by wildfires in the region. At the regional scale there are limited comprehensive data sets for the region, which limits the ability to effectively characterize and quantify regional WUI risk. Some communities in the region that have more granular information about their hazard or their assets are capable of producing much more robust and meaningful WUI risk assessments that can help to communicate needs and prioritize risk reduction strategies.

Analysis of Bay Area Wildfire Mapping
The multiple mapping data sets discussed in the hazard section provide multiple ways for jurisdictions to characterize their wildfire risks. ABAG performed GIS analyses to understand how successful current maps are in predicting past wildfire extents. The white paper provides summary results. For detail on the analysis performed please refer to Appendix E. Further Discussion on Wildfire Mapping Data Analysis which has details on the analysis, and data sources used.

Success of Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Fire Threat in Mapping Historic Fire Perimeters (1955-2016) In a literature review of local wildfire planning efforts, Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones were the most commonly stated resource to characterize hazard. A GIS mapping intersection was done to determine Agenda Item #11.1.

23 two key features: Table 1, of areas that have burned in the last 65 years, how much of the burned area was in different Severity Zones; and Table 2, what percent of different Severity Zones have burned.

Table 1 Percentage of Burned Area in Each Fire Severity Zone Very High 38%
High 28%
Moderate 23%
Not Mapped 11%
Total 100%
Table 2 Percentage of Fire Severity Zone that has Burned Very High 45%
High 18%
Moderate 24%
Not Mapped 5%
All Areas 18%
The analysis should give users confidence that the Fire Hazard Severity Zones have been decent predictors of fire risk. In 65 years, 45% of Very High areas have burned. It also begs the question of whether more mapping is needed for areas that are characterized as unmapped. Eleven percent of the area that has burned in the Bay Area has occurred in the unmapped areas.

CAL FIRE also uses the Fire Threat layer to characterize fire risk. Unlike Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Fire Threat maps fire hazard at all locations in the region. Table 3 and Table 4 share the results to the same assessment, completed for Fire Threat.

Table 3 Percentage of Burned Area in Fire Threat Classifications Extreme1 0.1%
Very High 56%
High 34%
Moderate 8%
Little or No Threat 3%
Total 100%
1 In the Bay Area there are only 681 acres classified as Extreme Threat. Because of this, it makes up just a small portion of the overall area (850,000 acres) that has burned in the region from 1950 – 2016.

Table 4 Percentage of Fire Threat Classifications that has Burned Extreme 34%
Very High 32%
High 23%
Moderate 5%
Little or No Threat 4%
All Areas 18%
Agenda Item #11.1.

24 An important distinction to recognize is the difference in past burned areas for “moderate” values in Fire Threat and Fire Hazard Severity maps. Moderate for Fire Hazard Severity Maps has burned 3x more frequently than the moderate value for Fire Threat. When using either mapping layer the above tables are helpful tools to characterize Very High, High, Moderate attributes.

In the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) specifically, 33,230 acres have burned. As mentioned previously for the Fire Hazard Severity Zones, only the Very High risk is mapped in the LRA, while Fire Threat is mapped across all responsibility areas. Of the 33,230 total acres burned, 5,110 acres were in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, while 28,120 acres were in unmapped areas. As a percentage of total area, 10% of very high LRA land has burned, while only 2% of unmapped LRA land has burned, but of the burned LRA, 85% was out of the mapped areas. Comparatively, because the Fire Threat map characterizes all areas, there is data for each threat category. The categories appear to be poor determinants of risk in LRA when looking at the percent of total burned area, but this is largely because a much greater percent of LRA by area is in lower threat zones. When reclassified as percent of severity zone burned we see that 12% of Very High LRA fire threat has burned while only 5% of high, 2% of moderate, and 1% of little/no threat have burned.

Table 5 In the LRA, the Percent of Area Burned in Different Hazard Zones 1955-2016 Fire Hazard Severity Zone % of Total
Burned Area
% of Severity
Zone Burned
Very High 15% 10%
High - -
Moderate - -
Not Mapped 85% 2%
Fire Threat Zone % of Total
Burned Area
% of Severity
Zone Burned
Extreme 0% 0%
Very High 10% 12%
High 16% 5%
Moderate 61% 2%
Little or No Threat 13% 1%
Exposure of Land Use to Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Using the Fire Hazard Severity Map, an exposure assessment was conducted on the region’s land use, based on ABAG’s five regional land use categories (2005). This analysis looks at the distribution of land use within each Severity Zone as well as the percentage of land in each Severity Zone for each land use category.

Agenda Item #11.1.

25 Table 6 Percent of Severity Zone in Each Land Use by Area Fire Hazard Severity
Land Use Value Unmapped Moderate High Very High
Open Space, Agriculture 50% 82% 71% 70%
Commercial & Industrial 8% 0% 0% 0%
Education/Public/Semi-Public 5% 2% 1% 1%
Residential 25% 14% 27% 26%
Other1 12% 2% 1% 2%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
1Other is a combination of Land Use Values "Water, Other/Unknown, Mixed Use, Mixed Use: Other" Table 7 Percent of Land Use Area in Each Severity Zone
Fire Hazard Severity
Land Use Value (acres) Unmapped Moderate High Very High Total Open Space, Agriculture (2,917,000) 32% 22% 31% 15% 100% Commercial & Industrial (158,000) 98% 2% 1% 0% 100%
Public and Education (138,000) 72% 9% 12% 7% 100%
Residential (1,087,000) 43% 10% 32% 15% 100%
Other1 (258,000) 83% 6% 6% 4% 100%
Total (4,559,000)
1Other is a combination of Land Use Values "Water, Other/Unknown, Mixed Use, Mixed Use: Other" Table 6 highlights a few trends that someone familiar with the region might expect. Nearly all of the Very High zone is open space and residential land, with 70% in open space. Almost all commercial and industrial land uses are completely out of mapped fire risk zones, and nearly three-quarters of public and education land uses are out of mapped fire risk zones.

Table 7 shows that by area nearly half of residential land is in high or very high fire hazard zones. Using a more detailed land use attribute set with 15 different land use categories, the residential category can be dissected further to discover that a big portion of the land area under residential is defined as “mixed use: residential and open space/agriculture”. Table 8 shows how the different sub categories of residential uses break out.

Table 8 Acres of Residential Land Use in Each Severity Zone Fire Hazard Severity
Land Use Value Unmapped Moderate High Very High Total
Residential 454,687 54,406 37,005 44,546 590,644
Mixed Use: Res. & Com./Ind. 3,890 32 9 - 3,932
Mixed Use: Res. & O.S./Ag. 11,302 56,129 305,861 119,323 492,616 Total 469,880 110,567 342,876 163,870 1,087,192
Agenda Item #11.1.

26 Nearly half of the area falls into the “Residential and Open Space/Agriculture” sub section. The Open Space/Agriculture category also represents over 73% of the Very High residential share. The land use layer is helpful in understanding the amount of different areas in different severity zones, but fails to express how many homes are in the zones. Unfortunately a regional parcel level assessment was not conducted for this study due to constraints of the project scope and limited parcel data available at a regional level. However, at the local level where more granular information may be known at the parcel level, an assessment can be done categorizing by number of homes rather than number of acres.

Exposure of Vulnerable Communities to Fire Hazard Severity Zones As discussed in the section on Vulnerable Populations on page 20, of key importance is recognizing where vulnerable communities are located relative to hazards. At a regional scale, demographic data is used to highlight general trends in population (for example: income, education, age, language) to flag areas where communities are less able to prepare for, respond to, and recover from a disaster. Across the region at a local level there may be more detailed efforts underway that are focused on understanding where there are individuals within the community that need special support for evacuation. Table 9 highlights the exposure of vulnerable residents (as defined by section on Vulnerable Populations on page 20), in Fire Hazard Severity zones.

Table 9 Vulnerable Community Populations (in number of residents) in each Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Fire Hazard Severity
Unmapped Moderate High Very High Total
Community
Vulnerability
(0 lowest,
10 highest)
3 1,138,447 46,515 41,452 42,296 1,268,710
4 838,361 12,370 6,630 11,317 868,677
5 570,102 2,913 2,981 2,956 578,952
6 411,869 396 198 1,742 414,205
7 351,600 575 - - 352,174
8 147,587 554 - - 148,141
9 10,533 - - - 10,533
Total 3,468,498 63,322 51,261 58,311 3,641,392
In the region of 7.5 million residents (in 2015), census block groups totaling 3.64 million residents were classified as having a community vulnerability rating of 3 or greater. This does not mean that everyone within the census block is vulnerable, but rather they live in a block group with a proportionally higher concentration of vulnerable populations as compared with other block groups. Of the 3.64 million residents living in communities with a vulnerability score greater than 3, 3.46 million are in the unmapped fire hazard severity zones. The good news is that the vast majority of the remaining census tracts that are in areas of marked fire hazard severity are communities with lower community vulnerability score. In fact there is not a single census tract with a community vulnerability indicator score above 7 located in high and very high severity zones (see Table 9).

This analysis portion only highlights key takeaways of the analysis and does not include details of the data sets and assumptions and approximations used to complete analysis. Appendix E. Further Discussion on Wildfire Mapping Data Analysis has more tables, and breakdowns that provide additional information on differences between Local, State, and Federal lands as well as values in acres.

Agenda Item #11.1.

27 II. WUI Plans and Strategies
A. Local Fire Plans – Lay of the Land
Jurisdictions and agencies use a range of plans to characterize wildfire risks and develop responsive strategies. Some plans are led by grassroots engagement with threatened communities, while others are organized by fire agencies or jurisdictions to meet state of federal requirements or guidelines.

Common Stakeholders & Networks
Most planning processes recognize the need for collaborative input, and are developed with the support of other key stakeholders. The most common authors and key stakeholders included in wildfire planning documents are:

Fire Safe Councils – Most communities in the region have citizen-organized councils focused narrowly on wildfire issues. In some counties, a countywide council provides input on fire planning efforts, and acts as an engagement and network to encourage individual action by property owners. Other Fire Safe Councils represent individual neighborhoods, with a particular focus on fire safety within a single subdivision. In other cases the county has a Fire Safe Council, with more localized councils providing an opportunity to engage on local issues. Some councils are the lead or co-lead on planning processes, while others are primarily an engagement and dissemination platform to educate residents of risks and to promote preparedness, mitigation programs, and training. Some councils apply for grants and are the implementation leads for projects.

Local Government (Fire Department) and/or Fire Special District – In incorporated portions of the Bay Area, cities develop fire-related plans, or incorporate fire hazards into elements of comprehensive planning. Cities also carry responsibilities for land use zoning, building permitting and inspection, and maintenance of infrastructure. Many communities have a fire department with key functions to reduce fire risk and to respond to fires. Other communities are set up differently, and instead rely on a fire special district to provide their service. Often times the special district provides services to multiple jurisdictions. Appendix D. List of Fire Districts in the San Francisco Bay Area lists and maps all the fire districts in the nine-county region. In total there are over 166 fire agencies in the nine-county Bay Area.

CAL FIRE – The state is responsible for providing fire services to unincorporated land that is not federally owned. In some cases CAL FIRE has contracts to provide fire services to other areas. The state agency leads annual operational planning efforts, and works on long range wildfire planning. Statewide, CAL FIRE has 21 units; the Bay Area Counties are divided into four units. Within each unit there are battalions that provide service to a smaller area. CAL FIRE also has staff that develop fire hazard maps for the state, and other staff focused on supporting local governments with fire planning and implementation.

Outside of these three stakeholders there are other entities that play important roles in wildfire planning and in response to fires. Large land owners (open space preserves, water districts, etc.), community/neighborhood based organizations, residents, and a myriad of state and federal agencies can all be major players in planning.

Agenda Item #11.1.

28 Common Plans
Unit Fire Management Plans (Unit Plans) are completed on an annual basis by the CAL FIRE Pre-Fire Engineer in each Unit area. The Unit Plans document assessments of the fire situation within each of CAL FIRE's 21 Units and six contract counties. The plans include stakeholder contributions and priorities, and identify strategic areas for pre-fire planning and fuel treatment as defined by the people who live and work with the local fire problem (CAL FIRE, 2012). CAL FIRE Unit staff are the leads on these plans.

Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) emanate from the 2003 Federal Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) in response to destructive wildfires in 2002. The HFRA was intended to direct funding and guidance for better forest management practices throughout wildland and WUI areas. In the Act, CWPPs were incentivized to prioritize future fuel reduction projects. CWPPs needed to meet three overarching criteria (Firewise, 2016):

1. Formed through collaborative efforts among different agency/government stakeholders and impacted parties;

2. Identify and prioritize areas for fuel reduction treatments; and

3. Recommend measures that communities can take to reduce the ignitability of structures.

Communities that are covered under a CWPP are prioritized for federal grant funds through the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the California Fire Safe Council. CWPP’s are commonly led by a community organized fire safe council, local jurisdictions, or fire district.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMP) emanate from the 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA),which amended the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to include a new approach to hazard mitigation planning and implementation efforts. The DMA established requirements for states, tribal, and local entities to create FEMA approved plans that would open up funding opportunities through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (FEMA, 2004). Plans are required to document and assess local hazard, including fire, and develop mitigation strategies to reduce risk. LHMP’s are led by local governments, or by a County, with local governments annexing onto the County plan.

Safety Elements are a required component of every city and county’s general plan. The goal of the safety element is to reduce the potential short and long-term risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fires, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides, climate change, and other hazards. The safety element must identify hazards and hazard abatement provisions to guide local decisions related to zoning, subdivisions, and entitlement permits.

The recent introduction of climate risk to the discussion of the safety element, mandated by SF 379, adds a focus on longer term preparation of a community for a changing climate. Policies in a safety element should identify hazards and emergency response priorities, as well as mitigation through avoidance of hazards by new projects and reduction of risk in developed areas. As California confronts mounting climate change impacts, local governments are now required to include a climate change vulnerability assessment, measures to address vulnerabilities, and comprehensive hazard mitigation and emergency response strategy as explained further in the SB 379 section below. (OPR, 2017). Safety Elements are completed by local governments.

Other Plans are used for narrower strategy focus. Examples of other plans include: Fuel Management, Vegetation Management, Open Space Management, Timber Harvest, Wildfire Management, and PreAgenda Item #11.1.

29 Attack plans. Many CWPP’s and Unit Plans reference these plans and the plan implementation as a key priority.

Integration of Plans
Over the past decade there have been numerous efforts to coordinate and align hazard mitigation and climate adaptation planning with other planning efforts. Many plans by themselves do not have any exacting requirements to ensure implementation. A suite of state legislation is increasingly requiring jurisdictions to use mitigation and adaptation planning efforts to inform their safety element – the plan with the strongest connection to local decision making. Figure 11 shows the relationship between three state laws that incentivize (carrot) or require (stick) greater integration of fire planning in day-to-day local government actions. While Unit Plans and Community Wildfire Protection Plans do not have any laws requiring their incorporation into the Safety Element or LHMP, many call out strategies to incorporate specific strategies into those documents.

Figure 11 Key Local Fire Planning Documents and Carrot and Stick Plan Consistency Laws *SB1241 does not impact all communities. 34 Bay Area cities are subject to SB1241 and are listed in Appendix D.

AB 2140 authorizes local governments to adopt their LHMPs with the safety elements of their general plans (Gov. Code § 65302.6). Integration or incorporation by reference or annexation is encouraged through a post-disaster financial incentive that authorizes the state to use available California Disaster Assistance Act funds to cover local shares of the 25% non-federal portion of grant-funded post-disaster projects when approved by the legislature (Gov. Code § 8685.9) (OPR, 2017). The incorporation of LHMPs with the safety element was further strengthened by SB 379.

SB 379, codified at Government Code section 65302(g)(4), requires cities to address climate change adaptation and resilience in the safety element of all general plans. Specifically, “upon the next revision of a local hazard mitigation plan, adopted in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), on or after January 1, 2017, or, if a local jurisdiction has not adopted an LHMP, beginning on or before January 1, 2022, the safety element shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to address climate adaptation and resilience strategies applicable to the city or county (OPR, 2017).

SB 1241 (Kehoe, Statutes of 2012) revised the safety element requirements for state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones (Government Code Sections 65302 and 65302.5). Specifically, during the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, Agenda Item #11.1.

30 2014, the safety element shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones. SB 1241 requires that the draft element of or draft amendment to the safety element of a county or a city’s general plan be submitted to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and to every local agency that provides fire protection to territory in the city or county (OPR, 2014). Appendix C. List of Bay Area Cities with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone & Subject to SB 1241 has a list of jurisdictions that are subject to this law.

B. Bay Area Fire Plans
Each of the described plans in Section II, A have unique geographic boundaries. Figure 12 illustrates (as of Summer 2016) where jurisdictions have each plan type. The majority of jurisdictions in the region have a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Community Wildfire Protection Plan, and a Unit Plan. All cities are required to have a General Plan with a Safety Element. Figure 13 illustrates the boundaries for Unit Plans, and Figure 14 shows the boundaries for CCWPs.

The maps are not intended to highlight jurisdictions who do not have a certain plan, but instead for jurisdictions to recognize that if they’d like to understand what their strategies for wildfire mitigation are, they may need to look at a number of documents to understand the complete set of actions.

Because there are many types of planning documents that all have unique requirements and motivations, a complete approach to wildfire mitigation may be represented in multiple documents.

Similarly, a community that invests in a robust process for one planning process may have sufficient information to craft strategies and follow through.

Agenda Item #11.1.

31 Figure 12 Wildfire Fire Plan Coverage in San Francisco Bay Area Local Jurisdictions (as of Summer ’17) Agenda Item #11.1.

32 Figure 13 CAL FIRE Unit Management Plan Boundaries in the San Francisco Bay Area Agenda Item #11.1.

33 Figure 14 Community Wildfire Protection Plans in the San Francisco Bay Area Agenda Item #11.1.

34 Analysis of Bay Area Fire Plans
Each Fire Plan in the region is unique, with different resources available to complete the work, and with different goals/scopes. This section summarizes some of the tools in use in the Bay Area to manage fire risk.

Napa County’s CWPP’s were focused on single neighborhoods, and were produced primarily by local Fire Wise Councils made up of local residents. None of the Napa CWPP plans were longer than 21 pages. In comparison, the Santa Clara County CWPP was supported by consultants and was much more expansive, with hundreds of pages and twelve appendices. While reviewing plans in the region, a number of qualities were noted to understand what elements/resources different communities were incorporating into their plans.

Risk Assessments, and Climate Change
Risk assessments are a key element recommended as part of each plan type’s (CWPP, Unit Plan, and LHMP) guidance document. For LHMPs, a risk assessment is required. As staff reviewed plans, key elements of wildfire risk assessments were noted. Figure 15 below shows how different planning processes used different assessment elements. This matrix reflects only what was in the plan document and does not reflect risk assessments that may have informed the planning process but that were not included in the plan itself.

Agenda Item #11.1.

35 Figure 15 Elements of Risk Assessments and their Inclusion in Bay Area Fire Plans.

Two risk assessments in the region stood out as leaders in using modeling to assess their risk. Marin County’s CWPP and Santa Clara County’s CWPP each included a robust risk assessment. Both plans characterized the hazard using granular local data, and included discussion of how assets were at risk to the fire.

To date, climate change has not been well referenced within the documents; only Marin County included the influence of climate change in fire hazard characterization.

C. Bay Area Fire Plan Strategies
ABAG staff used the 15 Fire Plans to explore strategies Bay Area stakeholders were recommending to reduce wildfire risk. The strategies were organized into a database and used to develop three sections:
• High Level Bay Area Strategy Insight and General Wildfire Strategies • Description of General Strategies & List of Most Commonly Cited Strategies • Funding Options
Contra Costa,
Alameda,
Santa Clara
Contra
Costa Alameda Santa Clara San Mateo San Mateo Marin Marin Sonoma,
Napa,
Solano
Sonoma Napa
Does the Plan… Unit Plan CWPP CWPP CWPP Unit Plan CWPP Unit Plan CWPP Unit Plan CWPP CWPP's (6) designate WUI areas? No No No Yes Trace Trace Yes Yes No Yes N/A include ignition history? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No N/A have historic fires listed? No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A have fuel/vegetation layer? No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes N/A include a hazard Layer Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes N/A include an asset layer? No Trace No Yes No Trace No Trace No Trace N/A include asset attributes? No No No Yes No No No No No No N/A intersect hazard & asset? No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes N/A discuss climate change No Yes Trace Yes No No Trace Yes No Yes N/A express climate change in
hazard?
No No No No No No No Trace No No N/A
Agenda Item #11.1.

36 For more background, Appendix F. Further Discussion on Bay Area Wildfire Plan Strategies has a longer description of the strategies, and a link to the strategy database.

High-Level Bay Area Strategy Insight and General Wildfire Strategies Risk is the product of vulnerability and consequence. In Bay Area Fire Plans, a suite of strategies are recommended to reduce either value. Figure 16 is a visual representation of the common categories most strategies fall within and whether they reduce the likelihood of damage (vulnerability), or if they reduce the impact of a fire (consequence). In addition to the topical strategy areas represented in the visualization, there are a number of different mediums to implement each of the strategies. For example, many plans have multiple strategies focused on defensible space; some focus on research, others focus on educational resources, while others suggest policies, programs, or inspections.

Figure 16 Visualization of Wildfire Risk Reduction Measures Agenda Item #11.1.

37 Within each of the strategy categories described in Figure 16 above, there are a wide range of elements that specific strategies may target. Below is a general description of what each category attempts to address.

Strategy Types to Reduce Vulnerability
Reduce Exposure through Land Use Planning – Where homes, businesses, and infrastructure are located can be a powerful way to reduce wildfire risk. Different locations within a city can present drastically different wildfire risk. Locating important assets in areas of low fire risk is a straightforward method to reduce risk. When using land use as a fire management tool it is critical that other considerations like flood risk, transit access, and economic feasibility are considered as well.

Reduce Exposure through Vegetation Management – Vegetation is a key variable in determining the fire risk for a specific area. In the Wildland Urban Interface, vegetation (grass, shrubs, trees) is the primary fuel source that powers fires. Most strategies to address vegetation occur in three sub-areas:

Defensible Space – The amount of vegetation and its proximity to a home has a large influence on the likelihood the structure will be damaged by a wildland fire. Depending on the local conditions, many strategies recommend anywhere between 30 and 100 feet of vegetation clearance around structures, with the distance largely dependent on the slope of the property as well as the vegetation height.

Fuel Breaks – Areas can be greatly protected when there is a break in vegetation. Across the region fire crews use paved roads, dirt roads, and fire break specific lines to provide a barrier where a fire may have a reduced chance of spreading. Any fuel break by itself will not stop a wildfire, but they provide an increased probability of success for fire suppression activities.

Open Space Management – The makeup of vegetation in the wildland and open space areas can drastically change the likelihood and intensity of fires. Types of vegetation and densities of vegetation can change fire characteristics. If fires are less intense in wildland areas, they’re less likely to spread in an uncontrollable manner.

Reducing Fragility by Hardening Assets – Certain construction methods and materials are less likely to ignite when they are exposed to fire, or when embers from a nearby fire are present. By making structures or infrastructure less likely to catch fire, there is a greater likelihood assets will survive nearby fires. This is also sometimes referred to as structure ignitability.

Strategy Types to Reduce Consequence
Air Quality – Given that a fire has occurred, developing strategies to reduce exposure to smoke can improve the health of impacted populations. When appropriate, moving people away from the smokiest areas, having shelter facilities with filters to improve building air quality, or providing the appropriate masks can reduce public health impacts.

Minimizing Consequences through Evacuation – Nothing is risk proof. When fires and other hazards are too great, having a strategy to move people to safety is imperative. Improving evacuation outcomes requires a variety of approaches:

Route Planning – Having a plan in place to rapidly move everyone out of an area is critical.

Evacuation plans, like many of these strategies requires research, plans, education, and training.

Agenda Item #11.1.

38 Notification – When there is a hire fire risk, or when there is a fire that poses a risk, a robust communication channel is needed. Red flag warnings and a variety of emergency management messaging platforms are used to warn of heightened risk and issue evacuation orders.

Access, Egress & Road Maintenance – In many cases alterations may be needed to ensure safe evacuation. Narrow roads, single routes, or roads with overhanging vegetation are dangerous.

When safe routes are designated they should be maintained to provide safe evacuation.

Special Populations – Many community members require assistance to evacuate. The car-less, disabled, elderly, and youth are populations that need special attention.

Post Fire Treatments – Following a fire, there are a suite of actions that can improve ecosystem health.

Some strategies include rehabbing any fire breaks created during the fire, or shoring up waterways to handle rainfall in a post-fire landscape.

Insurance – Coverage for homeowners, renters, and businesses can reduce the financial hardship.

Having coverage is a good start, but having sufficient coverage is also important.

Ambient – Following a disaster that displaces households and businesses, having a community that can meet the needs of the displaced individuals is key. When vacancy rates are low, or when people don’t have a local network on which to rely, they are less able to stay in the community.

Managing Fires by Suppression
Having firefighting assets in place to suppress wildland fires near development can prevent fires from expanding, or allow for greater resources to protect the urban environment. Having available equipment (trucks, tenders, aircraft), crews (firefighters, first responders), and accessible water all improve the ability to contain fires. The plans described in this white paper do not focus on listing equipment or crew needs; however there are many strategies that focus on ensuring water availability for fire-fighting in the wildland urban interface.

Strategy Mediums and Methods
Within each strategy category, there are often specific strategies to achieve the desired goal. While reviewing the plans a number of common mediums and methods were continually referenced. To help characterize the plan strategies a set of common mediums/methods were used:
• Research (data collection, analysis, exploratory)
• Education (resource, activity)
• Networking (professional-to-professional, professional-to-public, public-to-public) • Plans (long range, operational)
• Policies (code, ordinance)
• Programs
• Projects
• Training
• Funding
• Inspection
To get a high-level picture of where fire plans in the region focus strategies, a matrix of strategy category and strategy medium was produced, see Figure 17. In total 368 strategies across the Unit Plans Agenda Item #11.1.

39 and CWPP were sorted. “General” was added to categories to represent strategies that embodied comprehensive approaches. Vegetation management was the overwhelming focus of the plans in the region, followed by evacuation and structure ignitability strategies. As for strategy medium, the strategies were well distributed with education and research at the top.

Figure 17 Matrix of Strategy Category and Medium
General Vegetation
Mgmt
Structure
Igniteability
Water
Supplies Evacuation Notification Total
Research 20 27 1 1 10 1 60
Education 41 33 9 0 6 5 94
Network 24 14 0 3 2 1 44
Plan 15 3 0 0 15 0 33
Policy 1 12 9 1 2 0 25
Program 1 16 0 0 4 0 21
Project 2 37 0 7 6 1 53
Training 1 0 0 0 3 1 5
Funding 5 4 2 0 0 0 11
Inspection 3 16 2 0 1 0 22
Total 113 162 23 12 49 9 368
Agenda Item #11.1.

40 Funding Sources
Many strategies discussed in the plans require funds to implement. Grants are a common funding source, while other plans have strategies focused on long-term funding for mitigation. The Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan goes into great detail on grant funding sources. An excerpt of this portion of the plan is included in Appendix G. Wildfire Funding Opportunities – From Santa Clara County CCWP. In addition to grant opportunities, two Bay Area communities have been able to fund WUI mitigation programs and projects with local funding approaches.

Grant Opportunities
Appendix G. Wildfire Funding Opportunities – From Santa Clara County CCWP has a broader set of potential grant sources and opportunities. Three of the larger grant opportunities are described here:

CAL FIRE has a range of grants. The Fire Prevention Fund provides over $15 million annually for areas within the SRA for both mitigation projects as well as planning efforts. Government entities as well as organizations like Fire Safe Councils can be awarded grants.

In 2017 CAL FIRE awarded 11 grants to Bay Area communities ranging from $22,500 to $200,000, all for fuel management (CAL FIRE, 2017).

Federal Emergency Management Agency has a Pre Disaster Mitigation Grant Program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program that can be used to support WUI mitigation projects. Between 2005 and 2010 the nine-county region secured $14.9 million in grants to support a range of vegetation management projects and programs. The largest awarded grant was for $3 million.

The East Bay Regional Park District was successful in retrieving five HMGP and PDMC grants between 2007 and 2009. The average grant award was over $2 million (ABAG, 2017b). In total for all-hazards projects the region has received over $330 million since 1994, but no wildfire projects within the region have been funded since 2009.

Outside of the region El Dorado County and San Bernardino Counties have each received HMGP funds to administer a wood shake roof replacement program for existing homes. The program offers homeowners up to 70% of the cost of replacement with a maximum of $6,500 and $4,500 respectively. In San Bernardino County the program is accompanied by an ordinance requiring roof replacement for many triggers (County of San Bernardino County, 2016).

California Fire Safe Council works annually to bundle a suite of funding opportunities into a single process. The grants focus on reducing the risk of WUI fires and often have a focus on vegetation management projects. In the past the grants have a maximum of $200,000.

Fire Safe Councils in San Mateo ($133,000) and Santa Clara ($186,000) Counties were each awarded 2017 grants for vegetation management projects and a public wildfire education program respectively.

Local Funding – Assessment Districts
Assessment districts are an effective funding tool to pay for collective WUI mitigation projects. They can be used for annual maintenance, as well as projects with long-term reduction in WUI risk. One of the best examples of local funding is the Oakland Wildfire Prevention Assessment District. The District has had a complex history. First instituted by City Council in 1993, the district operated for four years before Agenda Item #11.1.

41 California Proposition 218 required the assessment to be voted on by the residents of the district. After a stint of special funding from the local budget, in 2003 the assessment was approved by voters in the district with 74% of the property owners voting in favor. The following ten years, the district generated $1.7 million in annual revenue with a $65 assessment on Oakland Hills properties. The funding paid for vegetation management along 300 miles of roads, provided contractor training, replaced fire danger signs, paid for remote automated weather stations, defensible space inspectors, and staff to support projects and explore grant opportunities. Unfortunately, when the District required a re-approval vote in 2014, it fell 66 votes short of the 2/3 threshold. A 2017 report to Oakland City Council highlights the accountability failures that led to less support for the district (City of Oakland, 2017).

Local Funding – Municipal Service Tax
The Marin County CWPP recommended placing a Municipal Service Tax on a future ballot to support a robust vegetation management program. The City of Mill Valley Community Facilities District (within Marin County) already has a $266 annual tax (with a 2% annual increase to keep up with inflation) on single family residences to pay for a suite of services, including “reduce fire hazards.” Over $300,000 of the annual funds go to vegetation removal, chipper programs, and educational mailings. The city has a process for fixed and low-income residents to be exempt from the tax. In 2016 the tax was supported by 77% of the voters (City of Mill Valley, 2017).

Agenda Item #11.1.

42 III. Next Steps
Aggregating the strategies from 15 Bay Area wildfire plans allowed for common themes to rise to the surface. Based on the analysis of fire planning documents and a regional level GIS analysis the following six recommendations are made:

1. Coordination of planning processes and documents.

2. Collect, analyze, and communicate parcel/building-specific information.

3. Thoughtful expansion of the WUI code.

4. Develop high quality, locally relevant educational collateral.

5. Explore and pilot cost-effective methods of vegetation management.

6. Invite air quality experts to comment on wildfire plans and offer strategies to address smoke impacts.

A commonality across all strategies was a need to connect the wildfire mitigation work with non-fire focused entities. Most of the strategies listed benefit from others’ support, or alignment with like efforts rather than in parallel.

Coordination of planning processes and documents.

There is a suite of planning documents which communities can use to characterize their wildfire risks and prioritize mitigation strategies. At the state and federal level, there should be some consideration of opportunities for plans to be coordinated and streamlined, enabling communities using one robust plan to access funding sources currently tied to a single plan. For the time being, separate planning processes should build upon one another, taking advantage of a single vulnerability assessment and existing public engagement platforms built in past efforts, as well as link important strategy actions to implementationoriented documents, like the general plan, specific plan, and capital improvement budget. These plans are often produced in planning departments, finance departments, or city manager and administrator offices.

Many of the plans call for the need to connect more closely with the broader hazard mitigation, climate adaptation and resilience planning efforts. Having fire-focused research, strategies, and plans is a great way to dig deep into the issues, but they must be successfully integrated into larger strategies that can support their implementation.

Local and regional growth strategies should focus future growth outside of highest WUI risk areas. As part of the next Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, ABAG and MTC will consider natural hazards and climate impacts in areas of focused growth. The current plan designates Priority Development Areas, that are projected to absorb the majority of the region’s forecasted growth.

By area, only .5% of PDAs are in fire hazard severity zones and half of the acreage exposed to fire hazard severity zones is in a single PDA. Continued focus on driving future growth into PDAs will support a goal of limiting residential exposure to wildfire. Local governments who have areas of growth outside of PDAs should work to reduce the amount of new construction occurring in the highest fire risk areas.

Appendix A. Annotated Bibliography of Fire Planning Resources has a suite of documents that can support the integration of wildfire planning into the General Plan and other elements of local government. The resources provide detailed recommendations and processes to be aware of for stakeholders who want to integrate WUI strategies into land use plans.

Agenda Item #11.1.

43 Collect, analyze, and communicate parcel/building-specific information.

Some communities have used Hazus or wildfire-specific modeling to understand their WUI risk by number of physical assets, acreage, or financial assets exposed. In most cases these models are developed with assumed building data. Knowing which buildings have fire-resistant roofs and which do not has a large impact on the risk assessment. Granular information about individual buildings would allow jurisdictions to develop more accurate and detailed risk assessments, leading to targeted outreach and education in specific locations. In addition to informing agency decisions about risk, the data can be shared with individual homeowners to educate them about their specific risks. In Santa Clara County’s CWPP they specifically call out a need for more granular data for two products: (1) improve their risk assessment model at a finer scale, (2) produce an interactive tool for citizens to use online that shows them the degree of fire hazard, as well as their unique risk because of their building and parcel attributes.

Building-specific information is not a unique need to wildfire mitigation strategies. It can also support many other mitigation programs focused on upgrading existing buildings. Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies focused on energy efficiency as well as water efficiency efforts have strategies focused on building-level data collection. Many communities are also interested in building inventories for seismic and flood mitigation policies. While the specific data may be different for different risks, the process for collecting the data could be coordinated. Similar to Santa Clara County’s desire to have a public-facing building inventory to educate homeowners on their specific wildfire risks, other efforts are attempting to build similar platforms that use building-specific data to showcase opportunities to mitigate risk or reduce greenhouse gasses or water consumption. The foundation for all of these strategies is good building-level information. Communities interested in many policies might consider a comprehensive approach to building-level data collection.

Thoughtful expansion of the WUI code.

The WUI code could be expanded in three ways: (1) expand the areas that are subject to the WUI code; (2) increase the triggers for structural hardening by adjustments to the state standard, or by local amendment; and (3) improve enforcement of the code. Expansion of the code needs to be done in a measured manner to ensure the benefits outweigh the costs and that there are appropriate resources to support an increased enforcement need. These three elements are interdependent. If you change the boundary of areas subject to the WUI code, or increase the frequency of retrofit projects, more resources will be needed for inspection. Changes to the first two without enforcement can diminish the quality of the efforts.

Expand the areas that are subject to the WUI code.

Currently, all SRA lands and Very High Severity Zones in the LRA are subject to the WUI codes. There are areas within local jurisdictions that have high and moderate severity zones, but they’re not included in the State’s final maps. The state produced draft maps in 2007 with high and moderate zones marked at the local level. The analysis performed in this white paper, and the recent North Bay Fire illustrates that unmapped areas still do burn. Jurisdictions can choose to expand the areas of their cities subject to the WUI code to decrease risk.

Increase triggers for structural hardening by adjustments to the state standard or by local amendment.

The structural hardening components of the WUI code apply only to new construction. Other jurisdictions across the state have adopted amendments to the California Fire Code to require building Agenda Item #11.1.

44 owners to meet the updated building code standards at a variety of trigger levels (10% remodel, point of sale, etc.). Increasing the frequency of triggers will accelerate building retrofits to meet the fire code.

Jurisdictions with very high risk and resources could consider a mandatory compliance, similar to actions taken by jurisdictions for seismically-deficient buildings.

Increase the enforcement of the code.

Many plans in the region called for greater resources to expand the number of inspections completed each year. Other plans described strategies to increase efficiency, tracking, or partnerships to increase inspections. With improved enforcement, the existing areas subject to the code will have higher compliance, reducing their risk.

Develop high quality, locally relevant education collateral.

Every plan reviewed listed the need for better resources to support private property owners with decision support information to mitigate their risk and prepare for possible evacuation. Federal and state agencies produce generic model resources to support jurisdictions. Elements of documents are helpful, but other elements can be counter-productive to local goals (i.e. keeping vegetation moist at all times may work for communities with robust water supplies, but is counter-productive per drought considerations in much of California). Each property owner has a unique set of variables that make generic resources less helpful. Supporting residents with targeted information will help ensure the quality of the work they take on, and increase action.

In addition to having locally relevant educational materials, many jurisdictions specifically call out the need for comprehensive materials that talk about all fire related considerations (vegetation management, structural ignitability, street standards, evacuation preparations, etc.), rather than separate resources for each component. In addition to the breadth of the material, having information that describes the problem, and provides specific resources (i.e. standards, funding/financing, process, contact information) will help prevent people from getting stuck, not knowing how to proceed with a project that may require a permit, coordination with a large land owner, or finding a contractor.

Bay Area focused model resources that are adaptable may provide a base to allow individual jurisdictions or neighborhoods to make high-quality, locally relevant decision support resources for their community. Similar educational documents targeted at homeowners to inform them of ways their home can be made more safe, healthy or green are being developed by other stakeholders. Any efforts to coordinate and align homeowner engagement may make limited resources go further.

Explore and pilot cost effective methods of vegetation management.

Plans across the region call for studying the cost effectiveness of different vegetation management methods, as well as efforts needed to streamline the regulatory process. For individual homeowners, large open space managers, and government, vegetation management is expensive and sometimes a permit-fraught process. This is a challenge across the state of California, with state and federal agencies key stakeholders for any efforts to streamline the regulatory element of vegetation management.

In a handful of documents, agencies and departments were curious about the costs and benefits of goat grazing, as well as mechanical treatments with revenue generating potential. In some areas in the state mechanical treatments to reduce forest density generate revenues, some of which can have a net revenue to help pay for further management elsewhere. These strategies are being discussed for Sierra Nevada Mountain forests (PPIC, 2017).

Agenda Item #11.1.

45 Many plans call out a need for developing a database of vegetation management costs associated with different management techniques to help communities choose the best approach, with better understandings of costs. It should be recognized that many of the permit issues and delays can be a result of other communities being in opposition to projects that have negative impacts on the area (habitat, erosion, aesthetics). A process that bring the stakeholders in at the beginning may make for more streamlined processes during implementation.

Invite air quality experts to comment on wildfire plans and offer strategies to address smoke impacts.

Smoke from wildfires is an impact that threatens community health well beyond the burn area. The recent North Bay fires registered the top five ever recorded bad air quality days in the Bay Area. The consideration of wildfire smoke impacts should be considered in communities response plans for evacuation and shelters, with special accommodations made for those most vulnerable to smoke impacts (see Section 1.B. Fire Impacts on Assets for more discussion on this).

The plans reviewed do not discuss the air quality challenge, nor were any solutions recommended.

Bringing in air district partners for discussion may result in new strategies that will reduce the impacts of smoke on the community.

Agenda Item #11.1.

46 IV: WORKS CITED
ABAG (2017a) Risk Profile. Print. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wpcontent/documents/mitigation_adaptation/RiskProfile_4_26_2017_optimized.pdf ABAG (2017b) Inventory of Bay Area Resilience Actions: Local FEMA Awards. Print Only.

ABAG (2014) Cascading Failures: Earthquake Threats to Transportation and Utilities. Web. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/projects/transportation_utilities_2014/ BAAQMD (2018) Air District Monitoring Station Data. Presented at Bay Area Metro Talks: Learning from the North Bay Wildfires. February 1, 2018.

CAL FIRE (2017) FY 2016-17 SRAFPF & TM Grant Program. Web. http://www.fire.ca.gov/Grants/downloads/2017_SRA_TM_GrantAwardees.pdf CAL FIRE (2012) CAL FIRE Unit & Contract Fire Plans. Web. http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/fire_er/fpp_planning_plans
CAL FIRE (2003) The Changing California: Forest and Range 2003 Assessment. Trends in Wildland Fire.

Web. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/assessment2003/Chapter3_Quality/wildfire City of Oakland (2017) Final Report on the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District City of Oakland.

Public Safety Committee. Oakland City Council. June 2017. Web. www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK063154
City of Mill Valley (2017) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mill Valley Declaring the Results of a Special Election in City of Mill Valley Community Facilities District No. 2016-1 (Municipal Services) and Directing the Recording of a Notice of Special Tax Lien. Web. http://www.cityofmillvalley.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=25864 County of San Bernardino (2016) An Ordinance of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, Amedning Section 23.0801 of the San Bernardino County Code Relating to Compliance With Roof Covering Requirements. Web.
http://thinisin.org/shake/images/DOWNLOADS/ORDINANCES/Ord_4225.pdf FEMA (2004) Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

Print & Web. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1424878409827- c19165ee0d13e65f864b85f8c00546e5/State_Mitigation_Planning_Guidance_2008.pdf FireWise (2016) Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Web. http://www.firewise.org/usa-recognitionprogram/cwpps.aspx NFPA, 2017A Fire Deaths By State http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/fire-statistics-andreports/fire-statistics/fires-in-the-us/overall-fire-problem/fire-deaths-by-state OPR (2017) General Plan Guidelines. Chapter 4 Required Elements: Safety Element. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_C4_final.pdf
OPR (2014) Fire Hazard Planning General Plan Technical Advice Series. May 2014. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf
Agenda Item #11.1.

47 PPIC (2017) Improving the Health of California’s Headwater Forests. September 2017. http://www.ppic.org/publication/improving-the-health-of-californias-headwater-forests/ Scawthorn, C. (2008) The ShakeOut Scenario: Supplemental Study – Fire Following Earthquake. Prepared for USGS. Web. http://www.sparisk.com/documents/Scawthorn-2008-ShakeOut-FFE.pdf SFPUC (2013) Rim Fire Updates. Web
U.S. Fire Administration (2017). Residential Fire Fatalities – Statistics – California – 2016. https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/civilian-fatalities/incident/reportList USGS (2017) The HayWired Earthquake Scenario. Scientific Investigations Report 2017-5013. Web. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20175013
Westerling, A., Bryant, B. (2008) Climate Change and Wildfire in California. http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/pdffiles/08CC_WesterlingBryant.pdf Agenda Item #11.1.

48 V: APPENDICES
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography of Wildfire Planning Resources Appendix B: 2017 North Bay Wildfires – An Early Perspective Appendix C: List of Communities with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone & Subject to SB 1241 Appendix D: List of Fire Districts in the SF Bay Area
Appendix E: Further Discussion on Data Analysis
Appendix F: Further Discussion on Bay Area Wildfire Plan Strategies Appendix G: Outtake of the Santa Clara County CCWP Appendix on Funding Opportunities Appendix H: Other Fire Types & Impacts
Appendix I: Fire Code Details
Agenda Item #11.1.

49 A. Annotated Bibliography of Fire Planning Resources Documents Focused on Supporting Local Governments
Managing Fire in the Urban Wildland Interface (396 Pages) Blonski, B., Miller, C., Rice, C. 2010.

Print. Solano Press Books. 978-0-923956-96-7.

Fire Hazard Planning: General Plan Technical Advice Series (55 Pages) Office of Planning & Research. May 2014.
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf
A Handbook for Fire Planning in the General Plan (41 Pages) California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. May 2014. http://www.bof.fire.ca.gov/resources/fire_planning_and_the_general_plan_handbo ok_final_may2014_newtitlepage.pdf
Documents Focused on Issues Greater than Local Governments California’s Forest and Rangelands: 2010 Assessment (353 Pages) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; Fire and Resource Assessment Program. 2010.
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/assessment/2010/document
California Forest Carbon Plan (201 Pages)
CAL FIRE, California Natural Resources Agency, CalEPA. 2017 http://www.fire.ca.gov/fcat/downloads/California%20Forest%20Carbon%20Plan %20Draft%20for%20Public%20Review_Jan17.pdf
Improving the Health of California’s Headwater Forests (36 Pages) Public Policy Institute of California. September 2017.
http://www.ppic.org/publication/improving-the-health-of-californias-headwaterforests/ Agenda Item #11.1.

50 B. 2017 North Bay Wildfires – An Early Perspective
This White Paper does not provide findings and lessons learned from the devastating 2017 fires in California. Other after action reports and studies have been commissioned, and will be better resources for stakeholders to use as they develop strategies to address WUI risks.

Following the North Bay Fires, MTC offered support to the impacted local governments to help facilitate the rebuilding and recovery process. This support was documented in a report out to the ABAG Executive Board on May 17, 2018. A recording of the report is available here:
http://baha.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=878755fa-5ac9-11e8-8074-00505691de41 The fires in Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties destroyed over 8,000 structures (Figure 18). The dollar value for the fire’s damage has exceeded $10 billion, and the reconstruction is expected to take many years.

Before the fires occurred, the research of local fire planning documents had highlighted Sonoma County’s use of a fire scenario to describe WUI risk. In 2016 the County approved the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. In the report, under the risk assessment section, the plan used two 1964 fires to showcase that those same fires would cause significantly more damage in 2016 than occurred in 1964 due to subsequent development.
“In September of 1964, the Hanley fire, fueled by dry weather and 70 mile per hour winds, swept across the Napa-Sonoma County border. It burned out of control through Knights Valley, Franz Valley, and Mark West Canyon and was finally stopped when it reached the northern parts of Santa Rosa. Simultaneously, a fire burned through Nunn’s Canyon to the edge of Route 12.

Together, these fires burned 65,800 acres, over 100 homes and destroyed millions of dollars in property.

If we superimpose the areas burned by these two fires on today’s built environment, we find that 3,500 buildings are currently located in these areas. These buildings include many private homes, one public middle school, ten sites with hazardous materials, a PG&E substation, and high-tech commercial space. An estimated 9,600 people live in this area.

The cost of damage to buildings, their contents and agriculture could easily exceed one billion dollars. Developments including Franz Valley, Mark West Estates, Foothills Ranch, Porter Creek, and Heights Subdivision would be devastated by a repeat of these fires. Firefighting costs could reach multiple millions.

Stringent fire safety standards in Sonoma County coupled with improved mutual aid systems may prevent a repeat of the 1964 fires; however, it is not inconceivable that a large uncontrolled wildland fire burning on a severe weather day could overwhelm resources and cause significant damage.” – Sonoma County CWPP (2016)
The 2017 fires were eerily similar to the 1964 fires that Sonoma County had used to explore their present day fire risk. Figure 19 shows the high overlap between the two fire years. In the end, the 2017 fires were even worse than a direct repeat of the 1964 fires. The excerpt from the 2016 Sonoma County CWPP highlights the value of scenario planning as a method to explore risks.

Agenda Item #11.1.

51 Figure 18: 2017 North Bay Wildfire Affected Areas and Damaged or Destroyed Structures within Fire Perimeters
Agenda Item #11.1.

52 Figure 19: Comparison of 1964 Hanley and Nuns Fire Perimeters to 2017 Tubbs and Nuns Fires Agenda Item #11.1.

53 C. List of Bay Area Cities with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone & Subject to SB 1241 Jurisdictions with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone are required by SB 1241 to update their safety element/housing element when they update their housing element or local hazard mitigation plan. 34 jurisdictions have a VHFHSZ and are subject to the law:

Alameda County (5)
• Berkeley
• Oakland
• Piedmont
• Pleasanton
• San Leandro
Contra Costa County (7)
• Danville
• El Cerrito
• Lafayette
• Moraga
• Orinda
• Pinole
• Richmond
Marin County (3)
• Larkspur
• Mill Valley
• Novato
Napa County (2)
• Calistoga
• Yountville
San Francisco (0)
San Mateo County (8)
• Belmont
• Half Moon Bay
• Hilsborough
• Portola Valley
• Redwood City
• San Carlos
• San Mateo
• Woodside
Santa Clara County (6)
• Cupertino
• Los Gatos
• Monte Sereno
• Morgan Hill
• San Jose
• Saratoga
Solano County (0)
Sonoma County (2)
• Cloverdale
• Santa Rosa
Agenda Item #11.1.

54 D. List of Fire Districts in the San Francisco Bay Area Below is the best available knowledge of Fire Districts and Departments in the nine-county Bay Area.

Agenda Item #11.1.

55 Agenda Item #11.1.

56 Agenda Item #11.1.

57 Agenda Item #11.1.

58 E. Further Discussion on Wildfire Mapping Data Analysis The tables in Section I.C. Bay Area Fire Risk are available in excel format on the report website:
http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wildfires/. The first sheet of each file has meta data on both the GIS data and geoprocessing operations, as well as the attribute tables and excel analysis. The GIS data is available for download on the Resilience Program’s Open Data Page: http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/open-data/.

The files included online are:

Fire Perimeter Severity Tables – Summarizes the intersection of Fire Hazard Severity with past fire burn perimeters.

Fire Perimeter Threat Tables – Summarizes the intersection of Fire Threat with past fire burn perimeters.

Fire Perimeter Comparison Severity Threat – Compares results of the above two tables.

Fire Land Use Severity Tables – Summarizes the intersection of Fire Hazard Severity with different a regional land use layer.

Fire Community Indicators Tables – Summarizes the intersection of Fire Hazard Severity with community vulnerability.

F. Further Discussion on Bay Area Wildfire Plan Strategies Staff extracted strategies from all of the CCWP and Unit Plans in the region to understand the universe of existing strategies. The strategies are available in an accompanying spreadsheet and can be searched by their plan origin, and the tags used in Figure 17. In the spreadsheet, the first sheet has meta data on the tags used in the strategy “database” and includes descriptions of how to use the pivot table to study different intersections among strategy keywords.

When staff looked at the aggregate of strategies there were thirteen strategies that were common among the fifteen studied plans. Many strategies were listed multiple times within a plan, or were common across all plans. Below is a list of the 13 most cited strategies within the Bay Area region. These do not necessarily reflect the most effective strategies, or the overall priorities of the region, but they are the strategies that appeared most frequently.

General – Collaborative Planning Process
Most plans recognized a need to jointly plan, exercise, and support the other stakeholders within their planning area. Strategies often cited national, state, and local agencies as well as the need to partner directly with neighborhoods to support planning. In six of the eight counties plans recognized a need to partner with other agency partners as well as with neighborhood groups.

General – Comprehensive Public Awareness Campaign
Each plan recognized the need to have a robust and comprehensive public awareness strategy. Many plans suggested blending separate campaigns focused on individual actions into a comprehensive campaign focused on preparedness, mitigation, and response. Departments across the region Agenda Item #11.1.

59 mentioned efforts to message at local events and local schools, and an interest in using social media in a more significant way. For a more comprehensive approach to fire risk, the plans mention the need to have a single resource (pamphlet, website, app) that has all the information in a single location, that has locally relevant material.

Land Use – Conduct, Integrate, and Maintain wildfire planning documents.

All the plans recognized the needs to consistently maintain the documents and improve their quality as new information and resources are available. Many plans recognized the suite of planning documents and the need to align their strategies, and attach strategies to Local Hazard Mitigation Plans, the Safety Element, or a special ordinance. To achieve this goal, many plans called out the need to work directly with local government staff to integrate fire approaches into the more comprehensive documents.

Vegetation Management – Special Resources for Species and Site Conditions The most frequently cited strategy was the development and dissemination of resources on specific species management as it relates to vegetation management. In the Bay Area, vegetation management is complex because of the varied species, site conditions, and techniques necessary to perform vegetation management for each unique case. The plans discussed needs for materials to support stakeholders (individual residents, forest management crews, and large land owners) in performing vegetation management appropriately to limit other environmental consequences, and in a cost effective manner. Across multiple planning documents, goat grazing was discussed as an exciting technique that should be studied further and expanded.

Vegetation Management – Defensible Space Inspections
Property owners living in State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the LRA are required by the code to maintain clearance of flammable vegetation around their property.

A property owner’s clearance responsibility is limited to 100 feet from his or her structure(s) or to the property line, whichever is closer, and is limited to their lands. Responsible fire departments/agencies have the authorization to inspect and levy fines for violations of the defensible space code. The LE 100 inspection is a standard form used in many communities. For more on the specific code language see Appendix I. Fire Code Details.

Vegetation Management – Defensible Space Programs
Beyond education resources to help residents maintain defensible space around their property, many communities have supported programs to make the process easier for residents. Programs to provide access to a wood chipper and/or easy green waste disposal are common strategies. Some plans recognized two important additions to defensible space program offerings: (1) support for residents who are physically unable to perform the necessary work and/or don’t have the financial resources to complete the work, and (2) address defensible space on absentee and vacant properties which don’t only increase the risk for the vacant property, but also the surrounding neighbors.

Vegetation Management - Fuel Breaks & Large Land Owners A suite of fuel break strategies are common in most planning documents. The strategies range from efforts to map the location and quality of the fuel breaks, strategies to leverage existing roads as fuel breaks, and the expanded use of shaded fuel breaks. Shaded fuel breaks are a technique to not remove Agenda Item #11.1.

60 all vegetation, but instead remove underlying brush and thinning tree cover. In some areas the shaded fuel break provides a better balance between wildfire protection and ecosystem and aesthetic goals.

Many plans call for shaded fuel breaks in transition zones between open space areas and developed residential zones.

Hardening Assets – Provide resources for retrofit.

Many plans recognize that the state mandated code only requires new building construction to meet the WUI code for structures. Plans recognized a need to educate both homeowners and contractors on structure ignitability retrofits. Specific strategies suggested partnerships with local home improvement stores to promote educational materials on structure ignitability retrofits.

Hardening Assets – Inspect and enforce the code.

The building code requires new construction to meet stricter standards. An inspection process is outlined in the code to ensure that standards for roofs, vents, windows, doors, decking, underfloors and auxiliary structures are met. For more information on the code requirements, and the inspection process for new construction see Appendix I. Fire Code Details.

In some jurisdictions, amendments have been made to the state fire code to require buildings at point of remodel to require WUI code upgrades to the building be made. Different thresholds (i.e. projects greater than 50% the cost of structure) are used in different regions, and some jurisdictions do not have this local amendment. When these amendments are in place, it’s important that inspection be used to enforce the regulation.

Suppression – Study and expand water storage.

Only a few plans called out the need to expand the amount of water for firefighting in the WUI. Some plans were interested in exploring mutual use of water supply for recreation areas, irrigation, or other water storage uses. The plans also explored an interest in studying opportunities to expand water storage for multi-use projects (i.e. drinking water at trailhead and for firefighting purposes). A few plans specifically called out increasing existing storage standards for private properties – increasing the minimum above 5,000 gallons.

Suppression – Use new technologies to detect fires.

A number of new exciting technologies are being developed that have the potential to monitor forest health in real time and detect fires quickly. A combination of flying drones, stationed cameras, and satellites have the potential to improve the awareness of real time risk, and be alerted more quickly to ignitions. Some strategies call for the expansion of these systems while others are focused on studying their potential use for their district/agency.

Evacuation – Develop and train evacuation plans for all WUI communities and ensure special population needs are met.

Ensuring neighborhoods have an evacuation plan in place is an important first step. Many plans call for the review of current plans, and require secondary access routes where none exist. Some plans mentioned engagement activities to train/exercise the plan with residents, as well as engagement Agenda Item #11.1.

61 activities to train residents on the evacuation plan and educate them on other preparedness measures they should have in place before an evacuation order is issued.

Many plans mentioned an overall need to know where special needs populations are, so plans can be made to assist those who are unable to evacuate by themselves. This includes disabled, elderly, and children.

Evacuation – Maintain evacuation routes free of vegetation and vehicular congestion In after-action reports from past fires across the globe, responders have noted that evacuation was less successful because evacuation routes had fire-caused debris on the roadways. This is a dangerous condition, that many plans call out. Some plans call for prioritized vegetation management along evacuation routes, or specific programs for vegetation management along evacuation routes.

In addition to vegetative debris blocking evacuation, traffic congestion and parked vehicles can hinder evacuations. In the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire the narrow roadways combined with parked cars resulted in a poor evacuation. Some plans call for strict parking standards in areas that are a high fire risk and where roads are narrow. The fire code for new construction also requires sufficient access and egress to allow for evacuation as well as emergency vehicles to effectively access properties with space to turn around their large vehicles.

G. Wildfire Funding Opportunities – From Santa Clara County CCWP In Appendix D of the 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan there is a summary of funding opportunities. The appendix provides summaries of the funding programs and when available details about past funding amounts and processes. You can access Appendix through Santa Clara Counties website: http://www.sccfd.org/santa-clara-county-community-wildfire-protection-plan Agenda Item #11.1.

62 H. Other Fire Types and Impacts
Sidebar 1 – Structural Fires
The most frequent fires are structural fires. Mostly caused by accidents, structure fires occur during all seasons and can begin from a variety of ignition sources.

In California, over the decades, structural fires have decreased, in large part due to the successful adoption and enforcement of building codes. Increased indoor water sprinkler requirements, reduced material flammability, improved alarm systems, and better fire escape egress have all reduced the frequency of structural fires, their spread, and their impact on life safety. These code improvements have resulted in safer new buildings, but as is common with many building code upgrades, improvements are rarely retroactive. Older buildings built before current code standards may not be required to update. It is often up to local building code amendments and ordinances to require existing buildings of certain types to upgrade their systems.

These deficiencies in older buildings was realized on December 2, 2016 w Oakland warehouse fire during an event caused 36 fatalities. The single structure fire was more deadly than the 1991 Tunnel fire which destroyed over 3,000 homes and killed 25. Across California, there were 107 deadly residential structure fires reported to the U.S. Fire Administration in 2016 (U.S. Fire Administration, 2017). This count only captures reported fires and only captures residential fires – which omit fires like the December 2 warehouse fire.

Sidebar 2 – Fire Following Earthquakes
Fire following an earthquake can lead to large scale urban conflagrations. The urban fire conflagration that followed the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake did more damage than the earthquake itself. In the 1906 earthquake, liquefaction-related ground deformation damaged water pipelines and this disruption to the water supply contributed significantly to the extent of the fire spread (USGS, 2017).

The scale of the fire following earthquake risk is a combination of two earthquake impacts: (1) simultaneous ignitions across a wide area, (2) extensive damage to water pipeline infrastructure. In an earthquake electrical, natural gas appliances and infrastructure cause ignitions across a wide scale. The greater the shaking the greater chance of ignitions (Scawthorn, 2008). In a significant earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward faults hundreds (if not a thousand) ignitions could begin simultaneously. At the same time that ignitions occur, the water pipelines are also expected to have significant breaks which can drain the system rapidly. The combination of many ignitions and limited water supplies to suppress the fires creates the large fire following earthquake risk.

As a result of the 1906 earthquake the City and County of San Francisco invested in an auxiliary water supply system, a redundant water supply system specifically designed for firefighting. The system includes cisterns throughout the city and pipes and additional pumping stations. The City of Berkeley took a novel approach to the problem, investing in an the Berkeley Above Ground Water Supply System (BAWSS). The system is mobile and consists of trucks, pumps, and large diameter flexible hose. The system can be deployed quickly and pump water five miles inland from the San Francisco Bay. No other Bay Area cities have a redundant firefighting system to the likes of San Francisco and Berkeley. But many cities share their same risk.

Agenda Item #11.1.

63 Sidebar 3 – Rim Fire & Headwater Study & Climate Change Impact On August 17, 2013 a fire began in the Stanislaus National Forest, 150 miles east of San Francisco. The fire grew rapidly from 16,204 acres on August 21st to 201,795 acres on August 30th. In total, the fire burned 257,314 acres surrounding San Francisco’s water and power facilities. The fire was not considered contained until October 24th.

There were initial fears that the fire and future runoff would contaminate the Hetch Hetchy watershed.

Because the fire was largely outside of the Hetch Hetchy watershed there were no serious water quality issues; however, the power system was impacted. Two of the three hydroelectric powerhouses were taken offline on August 19th, because the facilities as well as the transmission lines were threatened by the fire. The rooftop of the Holm powerhouse caught fire and sensitive equipment inside the building suffered smoke damage. During the disruption in generation, San Francisco purchased energy on the open energy market, amounting to $860,000 (2013 dollars). During the event, there was enough capacity on the open market to meet the demand (ABAG, 2014).

The event highlighted the Bay Area’s reliance on infrastructure systems that are hundreds of miles away.

In this instance the fire did not disrupt water supply, nor did the fire interrupt energy sources enough to disrupt the grid. The fire does highlight the potential for other fires to disrupt key Bay Area infrastructure systems. Strategies that reduce fire risk in the Sierra Nevada mountains will make the Bay Area’s water and energy supplies more reliable.

For a statewide assessment of wildfire risk in the Sierra Nevada, and it’s potential impacts to the Sierra watersheds, the Public Policy Institute of California published Improving the Health of California’s Headwater Forests (PPIC, 2017).

Agenda Item #11.1.

64 I. Fire Code Details
There are two key elements to the WUI fire code: (1) defensible space clearance that must be upkept continuously, and (2) building standards for new construction. In both cases the minimum standards outlined in the state code only require these codes to be enforced in SRA and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the LRA. Local jurisdictions can increase the extent of the standards if they choose. The suite of codes are well outlined in the California Fire Code Chapter 49. The chapter outlines refers readers to other codes. A summary of Chapter 49 and it’s referenced codes is described in this appendix, and includes links to the full code language.

California Fire Code Chapter 49 Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas.

Adopted frequently. Current code last adopted in 2016.

The code defines state responsibilities, maps, and plans, and calls out sections of different codes that must be met. The code calls out two key sections:

1. Section 4905 Wildfire Protection Building Construction a. Refers readers to comply with three specific elements of the California Building Standards Code. The Code applies to State Responsibility Areas, and in Local Responsibility Areas where “substantial evidence in the record [shows] that the requirements of this section are necessary for effective fire protection.” i. California Building Code, Chapter 7A.
ii. California Residential Code, Section R327.
iii. California Referenced Standards Code, Chapter 12-7A.

2. Section 4906 Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management a. Mandates that all Fire Hazard Severity Zones (Moderate, High, and Very High) in the SRA, and Very High Severity Zones in the LRA are required to comply with the following code requirements.
i. Public Resources Code, Section 4291
ii. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Section 1299.
iii. California Government Code, Section 51182
iv. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter 1, Section 3.07.
v. For SRA only

1. Public Resources Code 4290

2. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Section 1270
vi. For LRA only

1. Government Code 51175 - 51189
California Building Code 7A
Applies to properties permitted after December 1, 2005.

Applies to building materials, systems, and/or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of new buildings located within a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area – defined as all SRA lands, and Very Agenda Item #11.1.

65 High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the LRA (which is supported by Government Code Sections 51177(c), 51178, and 5118). The code has requirements for the following building elements. Within each section there are further references to specific standards.

1. Roofing

2. Attic ventilation

3. Exterior walls

4. Underfloors (decking, floors)

5. Ancillary buildings and structures
California Residential Code Section R327
Adopted regularly
All requirements apply to buildings built after July 1, 2008. Some (roof and attic ventilations sections) apply to buildings built after December 1, 2005.

The code reads similar to California Building Code 7A and focuses on materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This code includes Section R372.3 which describes the specific building and material standards for testing. This code includes the same sections described in California Building Code 7A but expands within each section and includes an additional subsection on windows and doors.

California Referenced Standards Code, Chapter 12-7A
Goes into much greater detail than both CRC Section R327 and CBC 7A. It provides greater detail into the fire resistant testing standards for materials and building components.

PRC 4291
Adopted in 2009.

Requirements apply to buildings built after January 1, 2010.

The code primarily focuses on defensible space requirements for property owners. In addition to defensible space requirements is states that new construction, including a building damaged by a fire, be built to standards outlined by Government Code Section 51189. It also makes the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection responsible for the development and maintenance of fuels management guidance.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Article 3, Section 1299.

Provides guidance for the implementation of PRC 4291 to increase the survivability of buildings that exist with the SRA. It outlines a the specific set of defensible space requirements for two zones:

1. Zone 1 – Applies to area within 30 feet of a building.

2. Zone 2 – Applies to area between 30 and 100 feet of a building.

Additional defensible space beyond 100 feet can be required, but cannot require clearance beyond the property line.

Agenda Item #11.1.

66 California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter 1, Section 3.07.

Focuses on required clearances. No combustible material shall be placed within 10 feet of any building, and reiterates (more succinctly) the defensible space requirements in Subchapter 3.

PRC 4290
Adopted June 1989
Requires properties permitted after 1990 to meet the following regulations:

1. Road standards for fire equipment access.

2. Standards for signs identifying streets, roads, and buildings.

3. Minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use.

4. Fuel breaks and greenbelts.

5. *these regulations do not supersede local regulations which equal or exceed minimum regulations by the state.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Section 1270 The regulations have been in effect since September 1, 1991.

Provides the minimum wildfire protection standards for buildings and development in the SRA. The code has requirements for the following sections. It also grants the responsible fire agency/department to inspect for compliance with the regulations.

1. Emergency access – regulations for road width, supportive of surface loads, grades, turnarounds and turnouts, and driveways.

2. Signing and building numbering – regulations for roads and properties.

3. Private water supply reserves for emergency fire use – regulations for quantities and locations of water supplies, with details for hydrants and valves

4. Vegetation modification – reiterates the defensible space regulations with an additional section on the use of greenbelts for subdivision plans.

Government Code 51175 – 51189
Outlines many of the already described regulations. The code describes the procedural process for designated local areas as Very High Fire Hazard Severity and set the original designation date as January 1, 1995 for all Bay Area counties, and by January 1, 1996 for all CA counties. The code calls for the VHFHSZ designation in LRA to be updated every five years and when possible coincide with general plan updates [Note, this has not been updated every five years]. The code also requires property owners to disclose during transfers of the property (1102.6a and 1103.2 Civil Code) that it is in the VHFHSZ.

California Government Code, Section 51182
Is specific to defensible space regulations. Violations of regulation are punishable by a fine between $100-500 for the first infraction, $250-$500 for the second infraction, and greater than $500 and charged with a misdemeanor for the third infraction. The local agency can also contract the necessary defensible work space and place the expenses as a lien on the property.

Agenda Item #11.1.

67 Links to Full Code Text
CFC Chapter 49
https://up.codes/viewer/california/california_fire_code_2016/chapter/49/requirements-for-wildlandurban-interface-fire-areas#49 CBC 7A
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/downloads/ICC_2009_Ch7A_2007_rev_1Jan09_Supplement.pdf CRC Section R327
http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/codedevelopment/pdf/wildfire%20protection%20building%20construction/2010 -Part-2%205-CBC-SecR327.pdf
CRSC Chapter 12-7a
https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/chapter/content/2375/
PRC 4290 & 4291
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=4290.&lawCode=PRC https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=4291.&lawCode=PRC California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Article 3, Section 1299. https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=IB643BB 30D48311DEBC02831C6D6C108E&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextD ata=(sc.Default)
California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter 1, Section 3.07. https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I70D8EA3025E411E089088B03F1E6C213?viewType=FullT ext&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default) California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Section 1270 https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I944CA9 B2D48311DEBC02831C6D6C108E&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextD ata=(sc.Default)
Government Code 51175 – 51189
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/downloads/GovernmentCode51175.pdf Agenda Item #11.1.

U.S. Communities with
Limited Evacuation Routes
* Definitions: Risk Rank out of 685 U.S. communities with 3X the average evacuation risk of all towns with populations <40,000 analyzed Number of Exits defined as the number of usable vehicle exits incl. paved and dirt roads Main Exit Load defined as the % of daily traffic using the main exit route For more on methodology and an interactive map, visit: streetlightdata.com/limited-evacuation-routes-map/ List is ordered alphabetically by state… with towns within each state ordered by U.S. Risk Rank* Page 1 Agenda Item #11.1.

U.S. Communities with
Limited Evacuation Routes (continued)
List is ordered alphabetically by state… with towns within each state ordered by U.S. Risk Rank* Page 2 Agenda Item #11.1.

U.S. Communities with
Limited Evacuation Routes (continued)
List is ordered alphabetically by state… with towns within each state ordered by U.S. Risk Rank* Page 3 * Definitions: Risk Rank out of 685 U.S. communities with 3X the average evacuation risk of all towns with populations <40,000 analyzed Number of Exits defined as the number of usable vehicle exits incl. paved and dirt roads Main Exit Load defined as the % of daily traffic using the main exit route For more on methodology and an interactive map, visit: streetlightdata.com/limited-evacuation-routes-map/ Agenda Item #11.1.

U.S. Communities with
Limited Evacuation Routes (continued)
List is ordered alphabetically by state… with towns within each state ordered by U.S. Risk Rank* Page 4 Agenda Item #11.1.











 


 

!"#


! $%
!
&$"
!
!


''!!
'


$ (()*

'
! +

'
'


!"
,

'
!!

"
"
-./01/0234202565435731508941/91:4;190 <4;185=10>?.@;/53 ABCDEFGHBIJKFLJMNNNOJGPJQRJDOSBITGBSFUJTVRDJPFV WX15/53>242.=0;5==49Y505.=Z43Y=4;11659@504./[0X1952120@Y>.=0X1\]\] ^3522<4;1 _;0X@;`.X51;05ab4c5?5/=12X5/5;5dX47ae;[email protected]/;49.`./9X45ah 5ijkjljmnmopjqrstoruvwnxjnrrqjnxyz{n|}njkrqljuvyz{n|ys~r|rn 7€‚}njkrqljuvy€rƒ„m{qnry j†umqjty‡{luqtƒjt _`Wˆ-‰e ˆb<Š ‹rv~mq|lŒ e659@504./ 43Y=4;1 W;5==49Y>/5c492 43Y35/YŽ@;75/4/01;=591 .Y1334/d ^3522<4;1 _8W`_-W e659@504./4259;@9453‘.349>0.c404d501Z43Y=4;14c‘5902’“/Y1;205/Y4/d0;5==49Y>/5c492Y@;4/d5Z43Y=4;1 1659@504./95/X13‘5@0X.;404120.4c‘;.614/4c‘;.64/d1c1;d1/9>c5/5d1c1/0‘35/2a0X@24c‘;.64/d34=1 25=10>’ˆ/0X4220@Y>aZ1Y1613.‘1Y5c10X.Y.3.d>0.1”0;590X420.;49530;5==49Y505=;.c61X4931Y10190.;20504./2 5/[email protected]/53>242.=0;5==49Y>/5c492=.;590@53Z43Y=4;11659@504./2’WX42X52711/4c‘31c1/01Y4/ 5/.‘1/Ž5991220..395331YW;5==49:>/5c49_/53>21;•W:_–ZX49Xd1/1;50122‘11YŽY1/240>5/Y=3.ZŽY1/240> ;13504./2X4‘2=;.c Y505@24/d7.0X9.cc./3>@21Yc59;.29.‘490;5==49c.Y13252Z13352c59X4/1315;/4/d 019X/4—@12•1’d’a2@‘‘.;06190.;;1d;1224./–’WX1@21.=0X1c10X.Y.3.d>42Y1c./20;501YZ40X5952120@Y>.= 0X1\]\]^3522<4;14/-534=.;/45a“8_’WX1;12@302=;.cW:_2X.Z1Y5234dX0;1Y@904./4/2‘11Y25/Y=3.Z2./ “8˜4dXZ5>™]™Y@;4/d0X11659@504./291/5;4.a9.c‘5;1YZ40X0X1;.@04/1291/5;4.’.;1.61;a759gd;.@/Y 0;5==49X52711/2X.Z/0.‘35>5g1>;.314/0X1\]\]^3522<4;19.c‘5;1YZ40X‘;164.@2Z43Y=4;11659@504./ 291/5;4.2•1’d’a0X1\]™šf4/95Y1=4;1–’WX1952120@Y>2X.Z1Y0X500X1c10X.Y.3.d>4c‘31c1/01Y4/0X1W:_ 95/71@21Y0.@/Y1;205/Y0;5==491659@504./Y>/5c4924/Z43Y=4;1291/5;4.25/Y0.6534Y5011659@504./c.Y132’ ›œžŸ ¡¢£¤Ÿ¥¡ž -34c5019X5/d15/Y.0X1;5/0X;.‘.d1/49=590.;2•2@9X52=.;120 c5/5d1c1/05/Y2@‘‘;1224./‘.349412–X56131Y0.3./d1;Z43Y=4;1215Ž 2./2Z.;3YZ4Y15/Y4/9;1521Y=4;1=;1—@1/9>5/Y4/01/240>Y@;4/d0X121 2152./2¦™§’.;1.61;a0X1Z43Y35/YŽ@;75/4/01;=591•“ˆ–X52532. 4/9;1521Y¦\§’ˆc‘;.61Y1659@504./‘35//4/d5/Y;153Ž04c1Y19424./Ž c5g4/d5;11221/04530.c4/4c4210X1/1d504614c‘5902.=0X1210;1/Y2 ./9.cc@/40412’ 43Y=4;11659@504./c.Y132X561d;150‘.01/04530.2@‘‘.;01659Ž @504./‘35//4/d5/Y;153Ž04c1Y19424./Žc5g4/d5/Y0;5==49c5/5d1Ž c1/0’W.‘;.64Y15/599@;5011204c504./.=0X11659@504./‘;.9122a 0X121c.Y1322X.@3Y9./24Y1;0X1Y4==1;1/052‘1902.=5Z43Y=4;1161/0 •4’1’a=4;15/Y2c.g12‘;15YaY19424./Žc5g4/da‘1Y120;45/;12‘./215/Y c.61c1/0a5/Y0;5==49–a52Z133520X14/01;5904./710Z11/0X12152Ž ‘1902¦¨a©§’`./9X41053’¦©§5221221Y0X1‘.01/0453.=1”4204/d=4;1 c.Y132a‘1Y120;45/c.Y1325/Y0;5==49c.Y1320.71@21Y4/5c@304Ž35>1; 1659@504./24c@3504./c.Y13=.;Z43Y=4;12’.;1.61;a;1215;9X1;2X561 205;01Y0.Y1613.‘4/01d;501Yc.Y132=.;Z43Y=4;11659@504./¦ª«™™§’ [email protected]¦™\§5/Y`./9X45/Y^Z>//1¦™¨§5;d@10X50Y@10..@; 9@;;1/03>34c401Y@/Y1;205/Y4/d.=1659@11Y19424./Žc5g4/d‘;.912212 5/Y0X1359g.=Y5050.6534Y5010X1c.Y1335>1;2a=@;0X1;;1215;9X 1==.;022X.@3Y=.9@2./Y5059.331904./5/Y5/53>242’ h-.;;12‘./Y4/d5@0X.;’ w¬­tjƒt||qrllŒ1/;49.’;./9X4®7;5/Y’30X’21•e’`./9X4–’ W;5==49c.Y1325;1./1.=0X1c.Y1334/d35>1;20X50/11Y=@;0X1; 6534Y504./Y5052102’5/>c59;.29.‘49ac12.29.‘495/Yc49;.29.‘49 0;5==49c.Y1329.@3Y71@21Y=.;Z43Y=4;11659@504./c.Y1334/d¦™©§’ ˜.Z161;a0X121c.Y132X561711/95347;501Y@24/dY505=;.c /./Ž 1659@504./291/5;4.2’-5347;504./5/Y6534Y504./1==.;02.=0X121c.Y132 =.;1c1;d1/9>291/5;4.25;134c401Y7>5359g.=Y505./1659@11 0;561371X564.@;5/Y0;5==49Y>/5c492Y@;4/dZ43Y=4;11659@504./2¦ša ™\a™ª«™¯§’WX14c‘.;05/91.=0X121Y50542X4dX34dX01Y7>:4”405/Y .32X./¦™°§aZX.=.@/Y5™]±«™²± ;1Y@904./4/;.5Y95‘5940>4/ “8_X@;;495/11659@504./161/02ZX1/9.c‘5;1YZ40X/./Ž1c1;d1/9> 0;5==49Y505’<590.;24Y1/04=41Y524/=3@1/0453.=0X42Y4==1;1/914/93@Y1 @/=5c4345;40>Z40X0X1c.Y19X.21/a4/9;1521Y‘5221/d1;3.5Y.=0X1 61X4931a4/9;1521Y61X493131/d0X.;9X5/d14/Y124;1YX15YZ5>•;13501Y 0.4/9;1521Y;42g‘1;91‘04./–’`191/020@Y412¦™š§./0;5==49Y>/5c492 Y@;4/d5Z43Y=4;1161/02X.Z 24c435;0;1/Y2’_/53>242.=0;5==49Y505 9.331901Y7.0X71=.;15/Y5=01;0X1\]™šf4/95Y1<4;14/8./.c5 -.@/0>a-534=.;/45=.@/Y0X5061X49312‘11Y2Y@;4/d0X1=4;1161/0 Z1;1;1Y@91Y7>5‘‘;.”4c5013>¨’ªgc³X=.;Y1/240412710Z11/]5/Y ²©61X³gc³35/15/Y0X195‘5940>Z52;1Y@91Y7>5‘‘;.”4c5013>ª± ZX1/9.c‘5;1YZ40X;.@04/19./Y404./2’˜.Z161;a520X4242./1161/0a =@;0X1;;1215;9X42/11Y1Y0.9./=4;c 0X121;12@302=.;.0X1;=4;12’ X00‘2[³³Y.4’.;d³™]’™]™²³´’=4;125=’\]\¨’™]¨š]š `191461Y¨]5>\]\¨µ_991‘01Y™²_@d@20\]\¨ Agenda Item #11.1.










!"#$%$&'()*+,-'./)0)1,+,-2123,()./2.20)4*),(24252678
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
_^`a^

bba^
c
^d
aefg
aeh 91*+'/20'2.-'*24)50=,(),/+33-'471+*-'0+/)6)1)/+5574)0'/->)4 >7,(/))D:+1,-,-)0iBHC,()+<)/+6)<)(-'5)0.))4jBG*k(C=BIC,() ,/+33-'4)10-,7lB<)(kG*k5+1)C=BmC+14,(),/+33-'352;nB<)(k(k5+1)C8 ?()0)D:+1,-,-)0+/)'+5':5+,)432/)+'(/2+40)6*)1,+1432/)+'(,-*) 0,).>7*)+1023,(/))/)5+,-210(-.0i,()'210)/<+,-2123<)(-'5)0=,() 3:14+*)1,+5)D:+,-2123,/+33-'352; BnoljC=+14,()0.))4A4)10-,7 /)5+,-210(-.B23,)1/)3)//)4,2+0p*+'/20'2.-'*24)50q,()*0)5<)0C8 ?()3-/0,0.))4A4)10-,7/)5+,-210(-.;+0./2.20)4>7K/))10(-)540 -1HrmstIJu8&-1'),()1=*+17(+<)32552;)48F)55AG12;1*24)50 -1'5:4),())@.21)1,-+5*24)5=4)<)52.)4>7N14)/;224tIHu=,() v2/,(AF)0,)/1*24)5>7Z/+G)),+58tIIu=,()>-A5-1)+/B,/-+16:5+/C *24)5>7Z+6+1w2tImu=,()*24)5>7x+1O)/4)+14y+G(+tIz=Isu= ,()*24)5>7Z)5M+0,-552+14{)1|,)wtI}u+14,()*24)5>7M()16 ),+58tI~u8 ?/+33-'4),)',-21070,)*0'+16)1)/+557*)+0:/)0.))4=352;=+14 4)10-,78?()/)32/)=-,-0.200->5),2'+5->/+,),().+/+*),)/023*+'/2A 0'2.-'*24)50>73-,,-16,()*24)5021,2,/+33-'4+,++14'2*.+/-16 ,()2>,+-1)4<+5:)032//2:,-1)0')1+/-20;-,(,(20)23)<+':+,-21 0')1+/-208)/)=2157,()*24)5>7Z+6+1w2tImuB€D8BHCC=,()*24)5 >7x+1O)/4)+14y+G(+tIz=IsuB€D8BICC+14,()*24)5>7M()16 ),+58tI~uB€D8BmCC+/)./)0)1,)4=+0,()0)*24)50+/)*20,3/)D:)1,57 :0)4,24+7+143-,>)0,;-,(,()4+,+232:/'+0)0,:478Z),+-5021 ,()'+5->/+,-2123+44-,-21+5*24)50+/)+<+-5+>5)-1tIu8?()3-/0, ,;2*24)50/)57215721.(70-'+5.+/+*),)/0ij‚ B,()3/))A352;0.))4Cƒ j„ B,()'/-,-'+50.))4C=n„ o l„j„ B,()'/-,-'+5352;='+.+'-,7C=l„ B,()'/-,-'+54)10-,7C=+14l
B,()E+* 4)10-,7C8?()*24)5>7M()16 ),+58tI~u+502/)5-)021,().25712*-+52/4)/†8 jo‡ˆ‰Š ‹
Œ
j‚j‚
Ž

l l

‘
Ž

l„
 
l

‘
’
“
”
BHC lo 
•– —
j‚j–„j;-,(˜
™
š
›
•oj‚
œ
j„j‚
ž
l
j
„
—oj‚
œ
j„j‚
ž
l
j
„
„o 
l„j„

j‚
l


„
BIC jo j‚
œ
–œlŸl„
ž†žŸ† BmC [[

e_¡¢]£g

¤
_
O0+1)@+*.5)23+,/+33-'4+,+>+0),(+,'+1>):0)4+0+4+,+ 02:/')32/;-543-/))<+':+,-210,:4-)0=;)+42.,)4,()¥)/32/*+1') ¦)+0:/)*)1,&70,)* B¥)¦&C23,()M+5-32/1-+Z).+/,*)1,23?/+10A .2/,+,-21BM+5,/+10C8?(-04+,+>+0);+0)0,+>5-0()4-1,/24:')4-1Hrrr= -1'22.)/+,-21;-,(,()N1-<)/0-,723M+5-32/1-+={)/G)5)7tIru8?24+7= -,'255)',0/)+5A,-*),/+33-'4+,+3/2**2/),(+1z}}JJ4),)',2/00./)+4 2<)/*2/),(+1HrJJJ<)(-'5)4),)',-210,+,-210BxZ&0C+5216,()M+5A -32/1-+13/));+7070,)*8?()4+,+-00,2/)4+14*+4)+<+-5+>5)215-1) B(,,.0ikk.)*0842,8'+862<kC+14'+1>):0)4,2+1+570),/+33-'471+*-'0 +140)/<-')D:+5-,7+5216*+E2/(-6(;+70+'/200,()0,+,)8¦2/)2<)/= ,()4+,+>+0)'21,+-10-1'-4)1,/)'2/403/2* ,()M+5-32/1-+-6(;+7 ¥+,/25+145+1)'520:/)/)'2/403/2* M+5,/+10)+4D:+/,)/0tIru8 ?()*20,'2**214),)',2/-1¥)¦&-0,()522.4),)',2/B}z§ 23 xZ&0+/))D:-..)4;-,(-14:',-<)522.0C8O522.4),)',2/-0)00)1,-+557 +;-/),(+,-0-10,+55)4-1+0)+5)4522.A0(+.)40+;':,=E:0,>)1)+,(,() /2+40:/3+')tmJu8?();-/)+',05-G)+'2-58F()1+<)(-'5).+00)02<)/ ,()'2-5=-,6)1)/+,)0+<2/,)@'://)1,-1,()522.0:'(,(+,,()522.q0 -14:',+1')4)'/)+0)0>7+3);.)/')1,tmJu8M210)D:)1,57=21)522.-0 +>5),24),)',,(),/+33-'352;+14,()4),)',2/2'':.+1'78&2*)xZ&0 +/))D:-..)4;-,(4:+5522.0=;(-'('210-0,23,;2522.0=,7.-'+557 .20-,-21)4,(/)),232:/*),/)0+.+/,3/2*)+'(2,()/tmHu8?()0)4:+5 522.0'+1+5022>,+-1,()<)(-'5)0.))4+0,()/+,-223,()522.4-0,+1') +14,()4),)',-214)5+7Bjo¨©Ÿ¨ªC8 F(-5)120.)'-3-'0,:4-)0'2:54>)-4)1,-3-)44),)/*-1-16,()+'':A /+'74),)',2/0:0)4>7M+5,/+10=2,()/0,:4-)0(+<)4)*210,/+,)4,() (-6(5)<)523+'':/+'723-14:',-<)522.0-16)1)/+58&,:4-)0210-*-5+/ 522.0-1¦-11)02,+0(2;,(+,,()352;+'':/+'75-)0>),;))1r~8J+14 rr8r§;()1'2*.+/-16-,;-,(+*+1:+5'2:1,3/2*<-4)2322,+6)+14 ,(+,,()0.))4+'':/+'75-)0>),;))1r}8~+14r8§;()1'2*.+/)4,2 ,()<)/-3-)40.))42*),)/23+./2>)<)(-'5)tmIu8y)0)+/'(.)/32/*)4 -1?)@+0tmJu/)<)+50+*)+1)//2/-1<)(-'5)0.))423+../2@-*+,)57 I8zG*k(BH8s*.(C=-1'2*.+/-021,2+1-13/+/)40)102/0.))4,/+.8 {+0)421,()0,:4-)0*)1,-21)4+>2<)=,/+33-'4),)',2/4+,+'+1>) '210-4)/)4+*216,()*20,+'':/+,)4+,++<+-5+>5),2-1<)0,-6+,),/+33-' 471+*-'0+14;+032/,(-0/)+021>))1'(20)1-1,(-00,:478 [«¬

_

^ae F-,(,()4+,+>+0)-4)1,-3-)4=,()1)@,0,).-0,20)5)',+4+,+0),3/2* ¥)¦&32/+0.)'-3-';-543-/))<)1,,2:14)/0,+14,/+33-'471+*-'0:14)/ )*)/6)1'7'214-,-210+14'2*.+/)-,;-,(,(),/+33-'471+*-'0:14)/ /2:,-1)'214-,-2108?(-0/)D:-/)0,()-4)1,-3-'+,-2123+0),,-*)3/+*) Agenda Item #11.1.









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

Z
[\]\ =0"<"/0(*(8($74)(4(3"*0")",-58+*"3.*"*,5./"*4)(5"*+)"'() <(*"8',//,-$60,50.55(+-/3'()/0"4"5+8,.),/,"3('/0"*./.+-*") 5(-3,*")./,(-#=0"<.5)(35(4,5<(*"83^_`abc5.-&"',//"*/(/).'',5 *./.&7<,-,<,3,-$/0"3+<('3d+.)"3!e2('/0")"3,*+.83!"))()(-/0" 34""*4)"*,5/,(-32#f"+3"*/0"H"1"-&")$gG.)d+.)*/.8$(),/0< MPP% PTO#=0")"3,*+.83.)"6",$0/"*.34)(4(3"*&7h+"/.8#MPVO/("-3+)" /0.//0"<(*"8',/36"88(1")/0"'+88).-$"('*"-3,/,"3!3""Jd#!T2MPVO% 60")".88i*./.4(,-/3.)"()*")"*3(/0./bjkbl60"-jml2#f,/0(+/ 6",$0/,-$%/0"<(*"836(+8*/74,5.887',/4(()87,-/0"0,$0Q*"-3,/7 )"$,(-*+"/(/0",<&.8.-5"/0./,3('/"-(&3")1"*,-/).'',5*./.# e_ni j
oj
p
^jq`abjc
rs !T2 60")" oj_
t
u
v
w
absqbxc j_x jyx jqxczs j_s{|{}{iqx i iqxc j_i
~/,3.83(4(33,&8"/(5(<4.)"/0"/)"-*3('/0""1.5+./,(-*./. .-*)(+/,-"*./.6,/0(+/.33+<,-$.-+-*")87,-$34""*Q*"-3,/7)"8.Q /,(-30,4#=(*(3(%/6(<.50,-"8".)-,-$<"/0(*3.)".448,"*#=0" ',)3/<"/0(*,3.+33,.-€")-"8A<((/0,-$!€A2%.5(<<(-87+3"* 6",$0/"*<(1,-$.1").$"#(6"1")%/0"6",$0/3('/0".+33,.-K")Q -"8.)".83(<+8/,48,"*&7/0"6",$0/3<"-/,(-"*.&(1"!Jd#!T22/( 5())"5/'()/0",<&.8.-5"**./.#=0"3.<"6",$0/3.)".448,"*/(/0" <(1,-$d+.-/,8"3%60,50.)"5.85+8./"*&78,-".),-/")4(8./,(-')(</0" "<4,),5.85+<+8./,1"*,3/),&+/,(-'+-5/,(-%.34)(4(3"*&7F.):"-MP‚O# =0,36.7%/0".37<<"/)7.-*0"/")(35"*.3/,5,/7('/0"1.),.-5".)" *,358(3"*6,/0(+/.33+<,-$,/3*,3/),&+/,(-#~-/0"3"5(-*<"/0(*%/0" )"$)"33,(-,3(&/.,-"*')(< 3+44()/1"5/())"$)"33,(-!AUƒ2#")"%/0" 35,K,/Q8".)-4.5K.$"MPRO,3+3"*/("3/.&8,30/0")"$)"33,(-3#=((&/.,- -(-Q4.).<"/),5)"$)"33,(-3%.+33,.-!.83(5.88"*).*,.8&.3,3'+-5/,(-2 K")-"836")"50(3"-# =0"(4/,<.8074")4.).<"/")3!/0"K")-"88"-$/035.8"„('/0"€A .-*/0"K")-"85("'',5,"-/ .-*)"$+8.),3./,(-4.).<"/")† ('/0" AUƒ26")"'(+-*&7<".-3('.$),*3".)50%*+),-$60,50/0".1").$" 6",$0/"*3+<('3d+.)"3!Jd#!T22')(<.',1"Q'(8*5)(33Q1.8,*./,(-6.3 <,-,<,3"*# =0"',//"*<(*"83.-*)"$)"33,(-8,-"3('/0""1.5+./,(-*./..-*/0" )(+/,-"*./.5.-/0"-&"5(<4.)"*/(*,35+33/0"*,''")"-5"3,-/).'',5 *7-.<,53#;-")".3(-/0./<,$0/4.)/87"B48.,-(&3")1"**,''")"-5"3 5(+8*&".50.-$",-/0".1").$"1"0,58"8"-$/03#=0")"'()"%/0,3 <"/0(*4)(4(3"3/(.-.873"/0"1"0,58"8"-$/03.36"88#=0"8"-$/03 5.-&"5.85+8./"*.3$,1"-,-Jd#!V2MP‡%PNO> ˆ_^‰Š !V2 60")"ˆ,3/0".),/0<"/,5.1").$"8"-$/0!<‹1"02('.881"0,58"34.33Q ,-$&7/0"*"/"5/()%^,3/0".1").$"34""*!<‹32%‰,3/0"*"/"5/()3 (55+4.-57!g2%60,50,3/0"').5/,(-('/0"3.<48,-$4"),(*'()60,50 .1"0,58",34)"3"-/.//0"*"/"5/()8(5./,(-%.-*Š,3/0"'8(6!1"0‹32 4.33,-$&7/0"*"/"5/()!.88*+),-$/0"',1"Q<,-+/",-/")1.82# ŒŽ‘‘’“”•–—’“˜–™•˜š =0"<"/0(*(8($74)"3"-/"*,-A"5/,(-C6.3,<48"<"-/"*,-. /((86,/0.$).40,5.8+3"),-/")'.5"!3""E,$#C2#=0,3/((8.88(63/0" +3")/("B/).5/F"GA*./.')(< *,''")"-/1"0,58"*"/"5/,(-3/./,(-3./ *,''")"-/4"),(*3!35"-.),(32.-*/(.+/(<./"/0".-.873,3#=0"/((8% 5.88"*=).'',5@./.I-.873")!=@I2%,3)"8".3"*,-(4"-.55"33(-,/0+& .-*L"-(*(MT›O#f0./'(88(63,3.*"35),4/,(-('/0"*,''")"-/+3"3(' /0"<"/0(*(8($7'()/).'',5"1.5+./,(-*./..-.873,3+3,-$=@I# =0"+3")<+3/34"5,'7/0",)F"GA.55(+-/*"/.,83%/0",*"-/,',5./,(- -+<&")('/0"1"0,58"*"/"5/()3/./,(-3/0"7,-/"-*/(.-.873"%.3 6"88.3/0"/,<"34.-3/0"7.)",-/")"3/"*,-#=0"=@I,3/0"-.&8" /(8($,-/(/0"48./'()< .-*.+/(<./,5.887"B/).5/.88)"d+,)"**./.# ")".'/")%,/4)(5"33"3/0"*./.&7"B"5+/,-$/0"-"5"33.)75(-1")3,(-3 .-*5.85+8./"3/0"/).'',5*"-3,/7.-*/0".1").$"1"0,58"8"-$/03#~' /0"+3")0.3+3"*=@I&"'()"%/0"75.-.83(+3"/0"34)".*30""//0./ /0"7$"-")./"*&"'()"%)./0")/0.-*(6-8(.*,-$.-*4)(5"33,-$.88*./. .$.,-#D"B/%=@I$"-")./"3/0"$).403.3)"d+"3/"*&7/0"+3")# A,-5"(+)4)(4(3"*<"/0(*(8($7.*1,3"3/0"+3")/(1,3+.887,-34"5/ /0")"8./,(-30,43&"/6""-/0"'+-*.<"-/.81.),.&8"3%/0"/((80.3&""- *"1"8(4"*/($"-")./"$).403'()".50*"/"5/()3/./,(-,-*,1,*+.887# A4""*%'8(6%.-**"-3,/,"35.-&"48(//"*'()".508.-"('/0"3"3/./,(-3% &(/0.3/,<"3"),"3.-*.335.//")48(/3#=0"3"$).403.)"1.8+.&8"/( 4")'()< .1,3+.8,-34"5/,(-('/0"*./.# G()"(1")%[email protected].$$)"$./"/0"34""*%'8(6%.-**"-3,/7*./.(- /0"35"-.),(Q8"1"8!"1.5+./,(-1")3+3)(+/,-"2.-*4)(1,*"/0"35./Q /")48(/3#~/.83(.88(63',//,-$!4)"*"',-"*()+3")Q*"',-"*2<(*"83,- .55()*.-5"6,/0(+)4)(4(3"*<"/0(*(8($7!3""A"5/,(-C#T2#~-.**,Q /,(-/(/0"$).403%.3"5(-*34)".*30""/,35)"./"*/0./5(-/.,-3/0" 1.8+"3('/0"',//"*4.).<"/")3%.36"88.3/0"5(-',*"-5",-/")1.83 ('/0"3"1.8+"3#JB.<48"3('/0"3"$).403.-*/.&8"3.)"30(6-,- A"5/,(-T# Agenda Item #11.1.










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`(/I0--(/)'0R+4./ *.''+,(100R012/^Va`7 bcde

ef
gh
hf

e
i P*0MNMN&-(//O+'0/2('20541MjU0)20JZ0'MNMNW./2Z034'0k (J (15,412+1.05Z.'1+1K34'Mk5(6/.12+-+2I(/3.--6,412(+105 [41MNl,24Z0'MNMN\^kV`7P*0+K1+2+41)4+12I(/-4,(205+1m()( n4.126Hn(-+34'1+(HT1+205U2(20/HZ.22*03+'00o)(1505'()+5-624 U414J(n4.126H5.0242*00o2'0J0-6*+K*20J)0'(2.'0/H/2'41KI+15/ (15.1)'0,05012055'4.K*2^kM`7p62*0/0,4155(6H())'4o+J(20-6 VkjNN*0,2('0/[qrkNN(,'0/\43-(15*(/Z001(330,205HI*+,*+/J4'0 2*(1*(-3432*00R012.(--6(330,205('0([MjqNN*0,2('0/4'rjsNN (,'0/\^kV`7P*0+K1+2+41)4+12(150R012.(-)0'+J020'432*03+'0('0 5+/)-(605+1O+K7q7l12*0/0,4155(6H2*03+'0'0(,*052*024I1/43 U(12(t4/(Hn(-+/24K(H(15U(+12u0-01(7G1242(-HVsss/2'.,2.'0/I0'0 50/2'4605^kV`[43I*+,*kMv I0'0'0/+5012+(-\(15MaM/2'.,2.'0/ I0'05(J(K05[43I*+,*sjv I0'0'0/+5012+(-\HV J(w+1K2*+/3+'02*0 2012*J4/250/2'.,2+R0I+-53+'0+1n(-+34'1+(245(20^kq`7 p42*U414J(n4.126(15m()(n4.126('05+R+505+124X410/24 J(1(K00R(,.(2+41/5.'+1K0J0'K01,+0/7G1U414J(n4.126H(--0R(,Q .(2+414'50'/I0'0+//.05412*0Mj2*(152*0Ma2*43U0)20JZ0'^kk`H I*+-0+1m()(H2*0-(/24'50'I(/+//.05412*0k2*43l,24Z0'7x-- 4'50'/I0'0-+3205Z02I0012*0M15(152*0V_2*43l,24Z0'7M P*0 0R(,.(2+41X410/34'I*+,*(I('1+1K4'4'50'I0'0+//.05H('0/*4I1 +1O+K7q7 byz

{

|fih

hf

e
i l1-6410'4.20+12*0R+,+1+26432*00R(,.(2+41X410/+/0Y.+))05 I+2*R0*+,-05020,2+41/2(2+41/[}~U/\L2*03050'(-*+K*I(6TUVNV7 P*+/*+K*I(6'.1//2'(+K*22*'4.K*U414J(n4.126(15+2+/2*0 41-6'4.20I+2*J.-2+)-0-(10/+10(,*5+'0,2+41(15K'(50Q/0)('(205 W.1,2+41/7G2*(/(/)005-+J+243rsJ+*[€VNswJ*\7 P*0'0('0qNVR0*+,-05020,2+41/2(2+41/(-41KI*+,*,41K0/2+41 4,,.'/+1U414J(n4.1267x--I0'0,41/+50'05+12*0/0-0,2+41)'4,0// )'0/01205+1U0,2+41M7q7P*04.2,4J0+//.JJ('+/05+12*03-4I,*('2 +1O+K7k7R012.(--6H3+32001/2(2+41/I0'05+/,('505(320'2*0R+/.(- +1/)0,2+417O4'/0R01432*0/0/2(2+41/H5020,24'/I0'0)'0/01241(1 V &-(//O+'0G1,+5012T)5(20H)4/20541PI+220'Z6nx‚OGt7 M m0I/.)5(20/H)4/20541-+10Z6xpnjm0I/7 Agenda Item #11.1.










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``B'596593aa59123b3&+7'1'A'@3;<23/123835?2175@:'8737@1'15/9@ 2'7/93/8B/837313:1/8@12'1(8/7>:37>98365'A637'1';<23059'6 @363:15/9/0cd+@5@(83@3913759M5?;Y; <23058@13=':>'15/9/8738@43835@@>37/9+>97'H123[e12/0 +3(13BA38;f0138'9'6H@59?12318'005:06/4G514'@73:57371/:/9@5738 '93=':>'15/9@:39'85/12'1@1'81@/9&/97'H123[X12'97397@/9 V3793@7'H123YW12/0+3(13BA38)V33KDW.;<2383'@/90/8125@ 73:5@5/95@3T(6'593759B/83731'5659+3:15/9D;Y;</:/B('831237'1' 45129/8B'618'005:G8/>15937'1'5@3T18':137/93433K3'86538)V33K YZ.G14/433K@3'86538)V33KYX.G'970/>8433K@3'86538)V33KY\.G 08/B &/97'H1/V3793@7'H'@4366;<2383'@/942HV33KYe5@9/1 59:6>7375@A3:'>@3/0g'A/8d'HG/9&/97'H123e12/0+3(13BA38; <25@7'HG18'005:06/4 5@@5?9505:'916H750038391'9718'005:7H9'B5:@ '83'6@/:/9@5738371/750038)'@``433K397aa^7H9'B5:@'833T(3:137.; <'A63L@>BB'85@3@12315B3(385/7@/07'1'3T18':15/9;<23'=38'?3 06/47>859?123@3(385/7@5@'6@/@2/49; b3&+'6@/(8/=573@59:5739183(/81@;-9125@:'@3GB/@1/0123 59:57391@'83=325:63@/8/Ah3:1@12'1A85306H/A@18>:11238/'7;F/93 /012359:57391@6371/6'93:6/@>83@/85906>39:3712318'005:7H9'B5:@ :/9@5738'A6H;f:/B(631365@1/059:57391@5@(8/=573759C[XE; ijk lmnmo

oonpqlk
rnpm V32'=33T18':137G(8/:3@@37'97(>A65@2371237'1'59/(39'::3@@ CD]E;<25@@3:15/9'9'6H@3@1237'1'; M5?;]@2/4@1232/>86H06/4 '97@(337/012318'005:/9s+LWL A30/83'977>859?1233=':>'15/9;<2306/4@'97@(337@'83/A1'5937 AH'=38'?59?123='6>3@/0'6614391H^05=3@363:1377313:1/8@;J>8=3@/0 123750038391433K@'83/=386'571/73B/9@18'1312383:>8859?18397@; <233'8653@1433K5@V33KYDG/9425:2123934 @:2//6H3'8@1'8137; -1:'9A33'@56H9/15:3712'11238/>159318'005:06/4@'8383?>6'8G'@ '66A6>3:>8=3@/=386'(4366;<23/933T:3(15/95@&/97'H123e12/0 +3(13BA38[W[W)V33KYe.G'@515@'9'15/9'62/657'H)t u
v
l.; <230583@1'8373'86H/9+>97'H123[e12/0+3(13BA38)V33KDW.; f('8108/B836'15=36H@B'663=':>'15/9/8738@'1'75@1'9:33w>'61/[] KB 08/B s+LWLG9//8738@'835@@>37>91566'13591233=3959?CDLE; <233003:1/012345670583/912318'005:06/4 5@:63'86H=5@5A637>859? 1236'@114/2/>8@;x/43=38G7>859?123@314/2/>8@G12318'005:06/45@ 8'12386/4)5;3;G9/739@5153@A3H/97[]=32UKBU6'93'8383:/8737.;-1 4'@123830/8373:57371/:/9@5738123@1'81/01233=':>'15/9@:39'85/ /9&/97'H)@33<'A63L.'97397/9V3793@7'H;<25@'6@/365B59'13@ 1233003:1/0123433K397/912318'005:7H9'B5:@; M5?;\@2/4@123@:'1138(6/1/01233T18':1377'1';J63'86HG:/9?3@^ 15/9/::>8@7>859?1233=':>'15/9)'@4366'@7>859?8/>1593:/97515/9@.; x/43=38GB/@1/01237'1'(/591@2'=3'6/418'005:739@51H)ZX;\y /0 '66(/591@2'=3'739@51HA36/4 [W=32UKBU6'93.;<25@:/9058B@123 93370/8435?2159?4239051159?123@(337^739@51H836'15/9@25(1/123 7'1')@33+3:15/9[;D.; </'((6H/>8@>??3@137B312/7/6/?HG123B/736@AHd'?'9_/Gc'9 f3873'97,'K2'G'97J239?31'6;'830511371/1237'1'>@59?123 <df;<2383@>61@'83(83@39137?8'(25:'66H59M5?;\'979>B385:'66H59 <'A63[;<231'A63@2/4@123/(15B'6B/736('8'B3138@G123:/905739:3 B'8?59@'971238'15/@zG425:283(83@391123='6>3/0123('8'B3138 7>859?1233=':>'15/9@:39'85/G836'15=31/123='6>37>859?1238/>1593 @:39'85/; <2318397@/01237'1':'9'6@/A3(83@391374512/>1'@@>B59?' 836'15/9@25(A314339@(337'97739@51H;M5?;e(83@391@123435?2137 B/=59?'=38'?3':253=37AH{'>@@5'9K38936@B//1259?){|+.;fK38^ 936639?12@:'63}/0[;e]W=32UKBU6'934'@>@37;<23:/6/>8376593@ 83(83@391123'=38'?3='6>3@'97123:/6/>837@>80':3@'83A/>9737AH 123]1/Z](38:391563@;M5?;e'6@/@2/4@1236593@/A1'59374512@>((/81 =3:1/883?83@@5/9)+c,.;<23K38936:/3005:5391~'9712383?>6'85@'15/9 ('8'B3138'83\W'97W;W[X83@(3:15=36H0/81233=':>'15/9@:39'85/ '97ZD'97W;W[D0/81238/>1593@:39'85/; M5?;e@2/4@@65?2175003839:3@A31433912314/@:39'85/@;J/B('8^ 59?3=':>'15/9'978/>1593@:39'85/@G123'=38'?3@(337837>:15/90/8 739@5153@A314339W'97\W=32UKBU6'933w>'6@L;WeKBU20/8{|+ '97L;[YKBU20/8+c,;<23:'(':51H837>:3@AHL;Zy ){|+./8Y;Ly )+c,.;<23('8'B3185:B/736051@@2/4 @B'6675003839:3@A314339123 @:39'85/@'@4366)@33M5?;\'97<'A63[.; M5?;X=5@>'65@3@123@'B(6375@185A>15/9/0'=38'?3=325:63639?12@ 0/81233=':>'15/9@:39'85/'971238/>1593@:39'85/;I/1212325@^ 1/?8'B'97123:>B>6'15=3(8/A'A5651H:>8=3'83:/9@18>:137AH435?21^ 59?123'=38'?3=325:63639?12@451212306/4/012359138='6'976'93 59w>3@15/91//A1'59:'8^A'@3775@185A>15/9@;<2325@1/?8'B@/0A/12 @:39'85/@@2/4 '@>A@1'915'6/=386'(/0Z\;WyG@>??3@159?'B595B'6 75@('851H5912375@185A>15/9@/0=325:63639?12@; €$"‚ƒ„‚‚" † ‡=38'66G123B312/7/6/?H'97'::/B('9H59?<df1//64383>@371/ :/663:1'97'9'6H@318'005:7'1'A30/83'97'0138123[W[W{6'@@M58359 +/9/B'J/>91HGJ'650/895';<23(8/:3@@'66/4@123>@381/59(>1123 7313:1/8@1'15/9@'@4366'@1237'13@/0123750038391@:39'85/@'97 Agenda Item #11.1.










!"#$%$&'()*+,-.(/.+010'0*.2(34-(*011/(-.+050+2*'060.0*.2(31.,.2(31/(-(7-*,101.7689 !"#$:$;(7-'8/'() ,3614006<,50-,=06(50-,''60.0*.(-1<>0/(-0,3667-23=.+0)2'6/2-09 ?&(-23.0-4-0.,.2(3(/.+0-0/0-03*01.(*('(7-23.+21/2=7-0'0=036<.+0-0,60-21 -0/0--06.(.+0)0>50-12(3(/.+21,-.2*'09@ ABCDEF G01./2.5,'701,36*(3/2603*0H,-=23(/.+0H(60'4,-,H0.0-19 I(60' J,-,H0.0-1 G01./2.KLMN *(3/2603*0H,-=23 O?N@ P(7.230 Q5,*7,.2(3 R,=,3S(TUVW XY ?ZH[+@ \]U9\ K]9\U \]\9^ K]9U\ __9` ab ?50+[ZH[',30@ \c9\ K]9]V \V9d K]9]M _`9e f?50+[ZH[',30@ \LU9U KU9\c UV]9g K^9Mg hij9h kPIlQ?ZH[+@ d9\L d9Lg m,3n0-60oP,Z+,TUcW XY ?ZH[+@ \]M9g K]9\^ \]M9] K]9UL __9i p?ZH ',30[50+@ c9MgQq]V Kd9LQq]M c9\dQq]V K\9MQq]c _j9r s?ZHi ',30[50+[+@ \9MLQq]\ K^9^Qq]V \9ULQq]\ K\9VQq]U th9j b?+',30[50+@ M9gVQq]c KV9]Qq]d d9UMQq]c Kd9VQq]d hjr9e kPIlQ?ZH[+@ M9Ld d9^^ u+03=0.,'9TU^W XY ?ZH[+@ \]L9U K]9\L \]L9] K]9Vc __9t ab ?50+[ZH[',30@ Uc9M K]9]d Uc9] K]9\U _r9` v?w@ U9U^ K]9]\ U9UM K]9]V __9i kPIlQ?ZH[+@ d9Vd ^9VU (>.,23.+014-0,61+00.,36.+0=-,4+1/(-0,*+1.,.2(3?23625267,''8 ,36*(''0*.250'8@.(>0..0-7360-1.,36.-,//2*683,H2*1(/05,*7,.2(3 1*03,-2(1,36-(7.2301*03,-2(1(3+2=+),8123.+01.,.0(/u,'2/(-32,9 n1.+0xRn21-0'0,10623(403,**011<.+0.((',362.1,**(H4,3823= H0.+(6('(=8,-04-0103.06+0-0.(4-(H(.02.17109k2.+xRn<4,1. ,36/7.7-0/2-0123u,'2/(-32,*,3>0,3,'810623,12H2',-),8.(>0..0- 7360-1.,36.-,//2*683,H2*12362//0-03..8401(//2-01<*(HH732.201< +2=+),81<,3605,*7,.2(31*03,-2(19y.21+(406.+,..+0H0.+(6('(=8 4-0103.06*,3>0,44'206.((.+0-.-,//2*6,.,>,101,-(736.+0)(-'69 x+0710(/.+0xRn,''()1/(-,*(H4-0+0312507360-1.,3623=(/.+0 4(.03.2,'*+,3=02314006</'()<,36(**74,3*8(3+2=+),8167-23= 0H0-=03*80503.1<17*+.+,.0z21.23=.-,//2*H(60'1*,3>0746,.06 Agenda Item #11.1.










!"#$%$&'(()*)(+,-./)0.00+).1(2-..()34)(5,246.1((70890.-4+)0.00+).1(649.-+()0.0:;<46-+.(6'6(.0.-4+42.1(6(2(6(+8(,.4845496-+.1-,2-=96(5(=(+)>.1(6(0)(6-, 6(2(66().4.1(?(@7(6,-4+42.1-,06.-85(:A !"#$B$C4+*'0603(.6-86(=6(,,-4+>[email protected]+()@/DE&;5(2.A0+)&FG;6-=1.A:;<46-+.(6'6(.0.-4+42.1(6(2(6(+8(,.4845496-+.1-,2-=96(5(=(+)>.1(6(0)(6-,6(2(66().4.1(?(@ 7(6,-4+42.1-,06.-85(:A !"#$H$I64@0@-5-./)(+,-./0+)893950.-7('64@0@-5-./42.1(07(60=(7(1-85(5(+=.1:;<46-+.(6'6(.0.-4+42.1(6(2(6(+8(,.4845496-+.1-,2-=96(5(=(+)>.1(6(0)(6-,6(2(66().4 .1(?(@7(6,-4+42.1-,06.-85(:A .408849+.246(70890.-4+,8(+06-4,:J+.96+>.1(,(0+)29.96(2-+)* -+=,80+@(9,().4-3'647(.1(?0/-+?1-8184339+-.-(,'50+246 ?-5)2-6(,@(246(0+(7(+.0+)(3(6=(+8/09.146-.-(,30K()(8-,-4+, 0@49.(70890.-4+>-+859)-+=-+,.-.9.-+=.6022-830+0=(3(+.,459.-4+,> -+6(05*.-3(: L1('64'4,()3(.14)454=/0+)LMN ?(6(.1(+-3'5(3(+.()-+ 080,(,.9)/2489,()4+.1(OPOPD50,,2-6(:G(,95.,2643 .1(LMN )(34+,.60.(0+07(60=(6()98.-4+-+,'(()42Q:ORK3S1;DE&A.4 Q:TOK3S1;&FGA?1(+843'06-+=(70890.-4+,8(+06-4,?-.1649.-+( ,8(+06-4,:L1(640)80'08-./)64',@/O:QU ;DE&A.4V:TU ;&FGA: W4?(7(6>.1-,)-22(6(+8(?0,,3055(6.10+.10.-)(+.-2-()@/G410(6. (.05:XQYZ-+.1(-6,.9)/42.1(OPQYE-+80)(<-6(;-:(:>0,.9)/.10.05,4 0+05/,()347(3(+.054+=[&QPQA:L1()-22(6(+8(@(.?((+.1(E-+80)( <-6(0+).1(D50,,<-6(-,5-K(5/6(50.().4.1('4,-.-4+42.1(2-6(0+) (70890.-4+\4+(,-+6(50.-4+.4[&QPQ:M96-+=.1(E-+80)(<-6(>.1( 022(8.()(70890.-4+\4+(,,96649+)()@4.1,-)(,;-:(:>(0,.0+)?(,.A 42[&QPQ]?1(6(0,-+.1(D50,,<-6(>.1(1-=1?0/?0,4+5/-+854,( Agenda Item #11.1.









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`abc]^ H(".7*7)-7-).)$%.*$'!)5B)%(','5':&+'-%()*$*5&.".'+%-*++"# ,*%*"$?"5,+"-))!*#4*%"'$.#)$*-"'.68*.),'$8'%(+"%%"$:7*-*B)%@ -"#B*#-'.#'7"#%-*++"#B',)5.*$,$'$@7*-*B)%-"#B*#("$)5)*-$"$: -):-).."'$.1H()B)%(','5':&(*.8))$"B75)B)$%),"$*%''5#*55), H-*++"#I&$*B"#.>$*5&.)-/HI>06?("#(".B*,)*!*"5*85)+'-+-))+'- *55"$%)-).%),7*-%").CD=G*$,(*.8))$,)B'$.%-*%),%(-'4:(*#*.) .%4,&'+%()<=<=N5*..M"-)1H(),*%*+-'B%(".#*.).%4,&(*.*5.'8))$ B*,)*!*"5*85)'7)$5&CDdG1e).45%..('?%()$)),+'-4$,)-.%*$,"$: %-*++"#)!*#4*%"'$,&$*B"#.,4-"$:?"5,+"-).*$,('? %(".#*$8) -)+5)#%),"$?"5,+"-))!*#4*%"'$B',)5,)!)5'7B)$%6#*5"8-*%"'$6*$, !*5",*%"'$)++'-%.1 fg_`hihjc]^]k_]lmgjc^nc^jgigbj H()*4%('-.,)#5*-)$'#'$+5"#%'+"$%)-).%*..'#"*%),?"%(%() B*$4.#-"7%1 fhjhhohc`hpc`cjq I*%**-)7485"#5&*!*"5*85) r_s^]t`gunglg^jb H(".?'-9(*.8))$+4$,),4$,)-*?*-,E=v>vw<JIJJO+-'B %() v*%"'$*5W$.%"%4%)'+S%*$,*-,.*$,H)#($'5':&/vWSH06R1S1I)7*-%@ B)$%'+2'BB)-#)1H()*4%('-.?'45,5"9)%'%(*$9%()xRW@vWHy %)*B /z'$*%(*$x*(53!".%6N4"55)-B'e)"$6T*--&V"%#()556v"9'5*'. L*5':)-'7'45'.6S%)!)N?&$$)6T4"{")6U)%)-H('B7.'$6V*;L"@ $*%),)-6T*B),V'A*++*-"V**-)+6V*;"$)w)-%("*4B)6v'4-),,"$) w|$"#('46*$,>B*$,*L"B8*5501x)*5.'*#9$'?5),:)%()%)#($"#*5 7*$)5'+%()7-'X)#%+'-%()"-.477'-%*$,:4",*$#)}2*-'5)>,*B6 >B&2(-".%"*$.'$6H'B2'!*6~*4-)$M'596>8".()9N*4-6U*'5'W$%"$"6 z4.%"#)z'$).6w-&*$L5)"$62(-".~*4%)$8)-:)-6e4::")-'~'!-):5"'6 z)--&V#>,*B.6e4,,&V)5565".)V"55)-@T''9.62*%(&S%)7()$.6S%)!) H*&5'-6S*$,-*€*"#"45&%)6{"5)"(*'6e"%*M*(&6~4#"*$I)*%'$6*$, V"#()5)S%)"$8)-:1 ‚gkgig^_gb CJG z1N1U*4.*.6z11L))5)&6x"5,+"-).*$,:5'8*5#(*$:)6M-'$%1#'51$!"-'$1JK /F0/<=<J0ƒOF„ƒKd1 C<G >1w)$%'@N'$ *5!).6>1€")"-*6x"5,+"-)."$%()?"5,5*$,@4-8*$"$%)-+*#)}L)& #'$#)7%.*$,)!*54*%"'$B)%(','5':").6S#"1H'%*5$!"-'$1F=F/<=<=0JƒddK<1 CƒG 1e'$#("6S1V1N?&$$)6N1e)"$6e1x*,(?*$"6U1W$%"$"6>1w)-:.%),%6 )@S*$#%4*-&}Y7)$ V45%"@U(&."#. M-*B)?'-9 +'- V',)55"$: x"5,+"-) R-8*$ !*#4*%"'$6M"-)U-'%)#%"'$e).)*-#(M'4$,*%"'$†4"$#&6<=JF1 CDG 1e'$#("6S1V1N?&$$)6N1e)"$6U1W$%"$"6e1x*,(?*$"6>$'7)$B45%"@7(&."#. +-*B)?'-9+'-B',)55"$:?"5,5*$,@4-8*$"$%)-+*#)+"-))!*#4*%"'$.6S*+1S#"1JJO /<=JK0OEO„OO=1 CdG U11I)$$".'$6H1z12'!*6V1>1V'-%"A6xRW€>2}*?"5,5*$,@4-8*$ "$%)-+*#) )!*#4*%"'$%-"::)-B',)5*775"),"$.%-*%):"#?"5,+"-).#)$*-"'.6v*%1T*A*-,. DJ/J0/<==F0JOJ„JKK1 CEG >1€))-*.?*B&61e1N*5)*6~1M"5"77",".6U1z1~*?-)$#)6S1T**.*$)$6e1z1 N*AA*-,6H11SB"%(6H()."B45*%"'$'+4-8*$@.#*5))!*#4*%"'$.#)$*-"'.?"%( *775"#*%"'$%'%()S?"$5)&+'-).%+"-)6S*+1S#"1J=</<=JO0JFO„JKƒ1 CFG z1x*(53!".%61e'$#("6S1V1N?&$$)6V1L"$*%),)-6N1e)"$6T1V"%#()556v1 w|$"#('4621V*6>1L"B8*5561L45":'?.9"6H()."B45*%"'$'+?"5,5*$,@4-8*$ "$%)-+*#)+"-))!*#4*%"'$}H()xRW@vWHy75*%+'-B6S*+1S#"1JƒE/<=<J0J=dJDd1 COG S1N-*X,4-*6S1w'-X":"$6I1v")B)")-6M*.%@B'!"$: ,"-)?"5,+"-))!*#4*%"'$ ."B45*%"'$6H-*$.71e).1IJ=D/<=<<0J=ƒJK=1 CKG S1I1x'$:6z121w-'*,)-6z1~1x*59)-6S1>1S(*())$6R$,)-.%*$,"$:2*5"+'-$"* ?"5,+"-))!*#4))8)(*!"'-*$,X'"$%#('"#)B*9"$:6H-*$.7'-%*%"'$/<=<<01 CJ=G T1V"%#()556S1N?&$$)61e'$#("6v1L*5':)-'7'45'.6N1e)"$6W$%):-*%"$: ?"5,+"-).7-)*,*$,)!*#4*%"'$%"B).%',).":$.*+)%-"::)-.}>775"#*%"'$%'%?' -4-*5#'BB4$"%").4."$:UeW~B',)56S*+1S#"1JdF/<=<ƒ0J=dKJD1 CJJG I1S"$:(6U1>.(%'$6H1I)..6V1T*-7)-61L45":'?.9"6U1N*B*:)6~1V*-34)A6 €1~)B"*5)6z1T*55",*&6e1V#L)$A")6V1U-*9*.(6w4.(+"-))!*#4*%"'$,)#"."'$ .477'-%.&.%)B 4.)"$"$#",)$%B*$*:)B)$%%-*"$"$:6>4.%1z1B)-:1V*$*:)1 ƒF/D0/<=<<0Fƒ„FE1 CJ<G 1L45":'?.9"6!*#4*%"'$ ,)#"."'$@B*9"$: *$, 8)(*!"'-"$ ?"5,+"-).}U*.% -).)*-#(6#4--)$%#(*55)$:).*$,*+4%4-)-).)*-#(*:)$,*6M"-)S*+1z1J<=/<=<J0 J=ƒJ<K1 CJƒG 1e'$#("6S1N?&$$)62'B74%*%"'$*5)!*#4*%"'$B',)5"$:"$?"5,+"-).6"$}S1~1 V*$A)55'/,106$#&#5'7),"*'+x"5,+"-).*$,x"5,5*$,@R-8*$W$%)-+*#)/xRW0 M"-).6S7-"$:)-W$%)-$*%"'$*5U485".("$:62(*B6<=JK6771J„J=1 CJDG U1W$%"$"61e'$#("6S1N?&$$)6>1U)56H-*++"#B',)5"$:+'-?"5,5*$,„4-8*$ "$%)-+*#)+"-))!*#4*%"'$6z1H-*$.71$:1>JDd/ƒ0/<=JK0=D=JK==<1 CJdG v1x)%%)-8)-:61e'$#("6z1x*(53!".%6W$,"!",4*5,-"!"$:8)(*!"'4-"$?"5,+"-) .B'9)6M"-)H)#($'51dF/ƒ0/<=<J0J=DJ„J=EJ1 CJEG w1(*'6S1I1x'$:6I)!)5'7"$:%-*$.7'-%*%"'$-).7'$.).%-*%):").+'-?"5,+"-) )!*#4*%"'$.!"**$)B7"-"#*55&.477'-%),%-*++"#."B45*%"'$'+w)-9)5)&62*5"@ +'-$"*6H-*$.7'-%*%"'$e).)*-#(e)#'-,}z'4-$*5'+%()H-*$.7'-%*%"'$e).)*-#( w'*-,<EFd/J<0/<=<J0ddF„dO<1 CJFG {1(*'6e1~'!-):5"'61L45":'?.9"6I1v"5..'$6R."$:*-%"+"#"*5"$%)55":)$#)+'- .*+)*$,)++)#%"!)?"5,+"-))!*#4*%"'$.6M"-)H)#($'51dF/<0/<=<J0DOƒ„DOd1 CJOG €1I";"%6w1x'5.('$6!*#4*%"'$%-*++"#,&$*B"#.6H-*$.71e).12 DK/<=JD0 JJD„J<d1 CJKG >1e'(*)-%61I1L45":'?.9"6>1>-,"$:)6z1x*(53!".%6S1V1N?&$$)6>1L"B8*556 v1w|$"#('461e'$#("6H-*++"#,&$*B"#.,4-"$:%()<=JK L"$#*,)?"5,+"-) )!*#4*%"'$6H-*$.71e).1IJJE/<=<ƒ0J=ƒEJ=1 C<=G w1N-))$.(")5,.6z1w"88"$.6x12(*$$"$:6T1V"55)-6>.%4,&'+%-*++"##*7*#"%&6 T":(?1e).1w'*-,U-'#1JKƒd/JKƒd01 C<JG e1H1R$,)-?'',6S7)),6!'54B)*$,,)$."%&-)5*%"'$.("7.6"$}†4*5"%&*$,H()'-& '+H-*++"#M5'?1>S&B7'."4B6y*5)R$"!)-."%&w4-)*4'+T":(?*&H-*++"#6w4-)*4 '+T":(?*&H-*++"#6y*5)R$"!)-."%&6JKEJ6771JDJ„JOO1 C<<G z1I-*9)6z1S#('+)-6>1V*&6>.%*%".%"#*5*$*5&.".'+.7)),@,)$."%&(&7'%().).6 H-*++"#M5'? H-*$.71/JKEd0dƒ„OF1 Agenda Item #11.1.









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`+401>O+248-+)3>-57 ->4016=119R91+684< 513)48-+608=RS)54U:^1+15)3401-5<./5)+6=&@16&A"GCYECFGGYE#J#I#BG. SOQ386015:S15*)7-+& !"J$ a&%01+*.b&c8O.d&c8+.e&V&b0-O.;+6R60)=1940511R=)5)71415CV#E45)>>82 6451)7 7-913?8402-+68641+42)5>-33-?8+*513)48-+608=./5)+6=&@16&A FY# C"]"FE"DHI"JF& !"B$ X&@-+208.\&Z)03[P864.;&@-0)154.X&(&fO38*-?6N8.T&\)+>160)+;5)*08.^& @18+.M&K8420133.T&f)3-*15-=-O3-6.K&f8+)41915.M&K&K))51>.K&A15408)O71. ;&f87Q)33.ZgURTU/d#:KO348RK140-9/5)>>82K-P171+4()4)%-331248-+>-5ZgU '851XP)2O)48-+K-91338+*./120&@1=&.'851S5-41248-+@161)520 '-O+9)48-+. aO8+2<.K;CgV;E."]"#.=&B]& !"G$ %&(&->/5)+6=-54)48-+.S1KVg615^O891.%)38>-5+8)(1=)5471+4->/5)+6=-54)R 48-+."]"]& !#]$ (&c&Z--96.A&S&%5-+8+.@&;&M)77.V=119K1)6O5171+4?840U+9O24)+21c--= V=119/5)=6./120&@1=&'MZ ;h/eRGYhF#G"RB./1W)6/5)+6=-54)48-+U+6484O41. ;O648+.FGGD.=&JB& !#F$ c&;&f318+.K&@&f133<.(141248-+ /120+-3-*< >-5ULMV.L-3O71 F./120& @1=&'MZ;R@(RGYRF]].gV (1=)5471+4->/5)+6=-54)48-+.'1915)3M8*0?)< ;978+8645)48-+.Z)608+*4-+.(%.FGGH& !#"$ K&(&->/5)+6=-54)48-+.XP)3O)48-+ ->T-+RU+45O68P1/120+-3-*816>-5/5)>>82 (141248-+./120&@1=&TU/ S0)61UU@1=-54#HB#.K8++16-4)(1=)5471+4-> /5)+6=-54)48-+."]]"& !##$ f&c1P1+Q15*.;7140-9>-54016-3O48-+->2154)8++-+R38+1)5=5-Q31768+31)64 6[O)516.aO)54&;==3&K)40&"C"ECFGDDEFHDIFHB& !#D$ (&Z&K)5[O)594.;+ )3*-58407 >-5 31)64R6[O)516 16487)48-+ -> +-+38+1)5 =)5)714156.\&V-2&U+9&;==3&K)40&FFC"ECFGH#ED#FIDDF& !#Y$ e&aO.V&Z)+*.\&b0)+*.`+401>O+9)71+4)398)*5)7 >-5>511?)<45)>>82:; +-P132)38Q5)48-+)==5-)20>-568+*31R51*8717-9136./5)+6=&@16&AJ#C"]FYE GFIF]"& !#H$ X&S)5,1+.T-+=)5)71458264)486482)39)4)7-9138+*.\&;715&V4)4864&;66-2&JD C#HYECFGJGEF]YIF"F& !#J$ '&S1951*-6).^&L)5-[O)OW.;&^5)7>-54.L&K82013.A&/0858-+.`&^58613.K& A3-+913.S&S51441+0->15.@&Z1866.L&(OQ-O5*.\&L)+915=3)6.;&S)66-6.(& %-O5+)=1)O.K&A5O2015.K&S155-4.X&(O2016+)<.V28N84R31)5+:K)208+131)5+8+* 8+=<40-+.\&K)20&c1)5+&@16&F"C"]FFE"B"YI"B#]& !#B$ %&%01+.'511?)< S15>-57)+21 K1)6O5171+4V<6417 CS1KVE.U+6484O41 -> /5)+6=-54)48-+V4O9816.g+8P15684<->%)38>-5+8)."]]#& !#G$ (&\&()831<.;64)486482)3)3*-58407 >-516487)48+*6=119>5-7 68+*313--=P-3O71 )+9-22O=)+2<71)6O5171+46./5)+6=&@16&A##CYECFGGGE#F#I#""& !D]$ ;&@-0)154./5)>>829<+)7826)+)3<615C/(;E."]"".044=:hh9W&9-8&-5*hF]&Y"BFh ,1+-9-&JFBFDBH& !DF$ ^&U&K-5586.%;c'U@X"]"]'851V81*1./120&@1=&.%)38>-5+8)(1=)5471+4-> '-51645<)+9'851S5-41248-+."]"]& !D"$ ^3)66'851T)4O5)3@16-O5216g=9)41./120&@1=&.%)38>-5+8)V4)41S)5N6.A)<;51) (8645824T)4O5)3@16-O521K)+)*171+4S5-*5)7."]"F& !D#$ %&(&->'-51645<.'&S5-41248-+./-="]K-64(1645O248P1%)38>-5+8)Z839>8516. /120&@1=&.%)38>-5+8)(1=)5471+4->'-51645<)+9'851S5-41248-+."]""& !DD$ V&%&X715*1+2<K)+)*171+4.^3)66'851XP)2O)48-+`59156M864-5<./120&@1=&. X715*1+2<K)+)*171+4.V-+-7)%-O+4<."]"]& !DY$ ;&@-0)154.T&\)+>160)+;5)*08.X&(&fO38*-?6N8.X&@-+208.()4)614->45)>>82 9<+)78269O58+*401"]"]*3)66?839>8511P)2O)48-+."]"#.044=:hh9W&9-8&-5*hF]& Y"BFh,1+-9-&JDB#DBJ.L1568-+TO7Q15:F./<=1:9)4)614& !DH$ S&K)*013)3.e&c8.Z&^&S1)2-2N.M8*0?)< 2-+*1648-+ 9O58+* 1P)2O)48-+: 1W)78+8+* 4010-O610-39i620-821->+O7Q15->P10823164- 1P)2O)41.T)4& M),)596BJC#EC"]FJEF#GGIFDFF& !DJ$ M&R%&ZO.K&f&c8+9133.%&V&S5)415.c-*864826->0O5582)+1 1P)2O)48-+ 8+ MO5582)+16f)458+))+9@84)./5)+6=&@16&'FYCDEC"]F"EDDYIDHF& !DB$ b&M-O.\&()55.K&b0)+*.S5198248+*45)>>82=15>-57)+219O58+*)?839>851 O68+*7)208+131)5+8+*./5)+6=&@16&@12-59:\&/5)+6=&@16&A-)59 C"]""E ]#HFFGBF""FF"HY& !DG$ e&b0)-.d&eO.@&c-P51*38-.X&fO38*-?6N8.(&T8366-+./&\&%-P).;&ZO.e&d)+. X6487)48+*?839>8511P)2O)48-+912868-+)+991=)54O514878+*O68+*3)5*1R62)31 ^SV9)4)./5)+6=&@16&(F]JC"]""EF]#"JJ& Agenda Item #11.1.

land use and
growth management
chapter two
Agenda Item #11.1.

2-2 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
2 land use and growth management
The Land Use and Growth
Management Element provides an outline for governing
future land use decisions and
development patterns.

2.1 Purpose of the Element
The Land Use and Growth Management Element presents a framework for governing future decisions about allowable, context-appropriate land use and desirable development patterns to maintain the small-town character of St.

Helena. This framework aims to effectively manage growth by drawing from and building upon the community’s distinct history, walkable and strong neighborhoods, and active downtown. The Land Use and Growth Management Element sets the stage for maintaining an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable St. Helena.

The Land Use and Growth Management Element includes the following sections.
• 2.2 Community Development Framework. Describes the framework for community development, including the growth management system and land use designations (p. 2-3).
• 2.3 Key Findings. Identifies key findings based on an existing conditions analysis and extensive community outreach (p. 2-26).
• 2.4 Goals. Defines overarching goals to guide policies and implementing actions (p. 2-28).
1 introduction
2 land use and growth
management
3 economic sustainability
4 public facilities and services
5 circulation
6 historic resources
7 community design
8 open space and
conservation
9 public health, safety and
noise
10 climate change
11 housing
12 parks and recreation
13 arts, culture and
entertainment
Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-3
2 land use and growth management
• 2.5 Policies and Implementing Actions. Identifies policies and implementing actions to manage growth and maintain community character (p. 2-29).

2.2 Community Development Framework
Famous for its scenic Napa Valley location, fine wineries, and historic Main Street, St. Helena seeks to protect its small-town, agricultural character through a coordinated approach to growth management and land use planning. The City has developed an Urban Limit Line to control and limit development in order to ensure that prized agricultural and open space lands remain for future generations. In addition, it has crafted a land use designation system that works in tandem with its growth management goals, while allowing for targeted development in key areas and maintaining the character of its existing neighborhoods and central commercial areas. Following are detailed descriptions of the City’s land use designations, growth management system, and development capacity.

The increasing pressures to grow caused serious concern in the community during the 1970s and resulted in the creation of a Growth Management System in the late 1970s. Public workshops and a phone survey conducted for the 1993 General Plan Update indicated that the principal land use concern was the rate of growth in the city. The community was generally concerned that there would be a loss of charm and beauty, increased traffic conditions, and an inadequate water supply. For the 2040 General Plan Update, a phone survey, Town Hall meetings, and mail-in survey were conducted and found that the same issues still resonate in the community and addressing concerns regarding traffic congestion, inadequate water supply, and preservation of small-town character remain priorities in St. Helena. Therefore, the City should follow the long-standing philosophy that growth in St. Helena needs to be carefully managed to ensure that each of these decades-long public concerns are adequately addressed in future land use determinations.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2-4 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
2 land use and growth management
St. Helena seeks to protect its
small-town, agricultural character through a coordinated approach to growth management and land use planning.

LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Land in St. Helena is classified according to four broad land use categories:
• Residential Areas;
• Commercial and Mixed-use Areas;
• Business and Industrial Areas; and
• Community and Natural Resource Areas.

Within each of these categories, specific land use designations identify uses and the density and intensity of development allowed in each designation. Table

2.1 and Figure 2.1 outline the City’s land use designations. For quick comparison and reference, Figure 2.2 includes a menu of St. Helena’s land use designations, permitted building intensities and densities, and examples of potential building types for each land use designation.

Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-5
2 land use and growth management
TABLE 2.1: General Plan Land Use Acreage
Land Use Designation Acres Percent of Total
Residential
Low Density Residential 97 3%
Medium Density Residential 409 13%
High Density Residential 83 3%
Subtotal 589 19%
Commercial and Mixed-Use
Mixed-Use 19 1%
Central Business 28 1%
Service Commercial 61 2%
Subtotal 108 4%
Business and Industrial
Office 15 0.5%
Industrial 60 2%
Subtotal 75 2.5%
Community and Natural Resource
Open Space 72 2%
Park 57 2%
Public and Quasi-Public 156 5%
Woodlands and Watershed 451 14%
Agriculture 1,451 46%
Subtotal 2,187 69%
Total 3,148 100%
Note: Acreage totals do not include public roadways.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2 land use and growth management
Chaix Ln
Mills Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Meadowood Ln
York Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
DeanYork Ln
W heeler Ln
Inglewood Ave
La Fata St
Victoria Ln
Laguna Seca
Davis Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
Money Way
Del Rio Ct
Boyson Ln
Mccormick St
Pope St
Railroad Ave
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Palmer Dr
Stice Ln
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
Valley View Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
PinotWay
Charter Oak Ave
ChilesAve
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock R d
·|}29
College Ave
Deer Park Rd
Sylvaner Ave
White Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Fawn Park Rd
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
·|}29
Stockton St
Madrona Ave Spring St
Howell Mounta ni Rd
Sulph ur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
Lodi Ln
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Stockton St
Silverado Trail
Vineland Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
MountainView Ave
Park St
Hudson Ave
Garden Ave
Con n Valley Rd
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
Data Source: City of St.Helena, 2018;Napa County, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
C i t y o f S t . H e l e n a
Figure 2.1
Proposed Land Use Diagram
St. Helena General Plan
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Central Business
Service Commercial
Mixed-Use
Office
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture
Open Space
Woodlands andWatershed
Napa County General Plan
Agricultural Resource
Agriculture,Watershed and Open
Railroad
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-7
2 land use and growth management
Caption.

FIGURE 2.2: General Plan Land Use Menu
Land Use Category Density/
Intensity Examples
Low Density Residential (LDR):

Single-family detached homes, secondary residential units and limited agricultural uses.

1.0 to 5.0
dwelling
units per
acre
Medium Density Residential
(MDR): Single-family detached and
attached homes, and secondary
residential units.

5.1 to 16.0
dwelling
units
per acre
Higher Density Residential (HDR):

Single-family and multi-family housing, including apartments, townhouses and group homes.

16.1 to 28.0
dwelling
units
per acre
Mixed-Use (MU): Medium density
residential mixed with retail, office,
restaurant or other local-serving
uses.

Up to 20
dwelling
units
per acre
Central Business (CB): Retail and
commercial businesses that serve
residents and visitors, including restaurants, lodging, retail, office, etc.

Maximum
FAR 2.0
Service Commercial (SC): Retail
and service uses that are localserving and may be auto-oriented, including offices, restaurants, service stations, etc.

Maximum
FAR 0.50
Notes: Dwelling units per acre (du/ac) describes residential building density. Floor area ratio (FAR) denotes building intensity for non-residential uses.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2-8 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
2 land use and growth management
Land Use Category Density/
Intensity Examples
Business and Professional Office
(BPO): Administration and professional office uses, including medical, financial, etc. Maximum FAR 0.50
Industrial (I): Industrial parks, warehouses, light manufacturing, auto and farm-related uses.

Maximum
FAR 0.50
Woodland and Watershed (WW):

Very low density residential that
ensures protection of wildlife, vegetation, open space and watershed resources.

Minimum
parcel size
5 acres
Agriculture (AG): Agricultural and
winery uses with restricted singlefamily residential.

Minimum
parcel size
5 to 40
acres
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP):

Government-owned facilities,
schools, churches, cemeteries, etc.

Maximum
FAR 0.50
Parks and Recreation (PR): Parks
with public recreation uses. N/A
Open Space (OS): Natural open
spaces devoted to natural resource
preservation and management, outdoor recreation, public health and safety.

N/A
Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-9
22 land use and growth management land use and growth management There are a variety of residential densities including single family, multi-family
and secondary dwelling
units.

Residential Areas
St. Helena has a variety of residential areas that include single family, multifamily, and secondary residential housing options. These neighborhoods support a range of lifestyles at a broad spectrum of household income levels. Higher density infill development can expand housing options citywide, but the impact to neighborhoods with regard to traffic, parking, and public safety - where difficult fire access, roads with parking on both sides, and sidewalks without street separation can result in accidents - should be carefully considered. The creation of mixed-use areas with retail in the heart of the city can also increase housing options. Residential land use designations should encourage the development of accessible and diverse neighborhoods, where appropriate. Figure 2.3 highlights residential areas. • Low Density Residential (LDR). The LDR land use designation includes single-family detached homes, accessory dwelling units (sometimes referred to as “second units”), limited agricultural uses, and similar and compatible uses. This designation permits residential densities between 1.0 and 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The LDR designation applies to limited areas of the city with large, residentially-subdivided parcels, particularly those near the city’s perimeter.
• Medium Density Residential (MDR). The MDR land use designation includes single-family attached and detached homes, and compatible uses.

This designation permits residential densities between 5.1 and 16.0 dwelling units per acre. Retained from the 1993 General Plan, the MDR designation is the City’s predominant residential designation and it is intended to maintain a development pattern in St. Helena’s higher density areas that is consistent with historic development patterns.
• Higher Density Residential (HDR). The HDR land use designation can accommodate single-family and multi-family residential housing, apartments, and group quarters. This designation permits residential densities between

16.1 and 28.0 dwelling units per acre.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2 land use and growth management
Chaix Ln
Mills Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Meadowood Ln
York Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
DeanYork Ln
W heeler Ln
Inglewood Ave
La Fata St
Victoria Ln
Laguna Seca
Davis Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
Money Way
Del Rio Ct
Boyson Ln
Mccormick St
Pope St
Railroad Ave
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Palmer Dr
Stice Ln
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
Valley View Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
PinotWay
Charter Oak Ave
ChilesAve
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock R d
·|}29
College Ave
Deer Park Rd
Sylvaner Ave
White Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Fawn Park Rd
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
·|}29
Stockton St
Madrona Ave Spring St
Howell Mounta ni Rd
Sulph ur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
Lodi Ln
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Stockton St
Silverado Trail
Vineland Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
MountainView Ave
Park St
Hudson Ave
Garden Ave
Con n Valley Rd
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
Data Source: City of St.Helena, 2018;Napa County, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
C i t y o f S t . H e l e n a
Figure 2.3
Residential Areas
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Railroad
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-11
2 land use and growth management
Commercial uses include
restaurants, cafes, retail
and offices.

Commercial and Mixed-Use Areas
St. Helena has a number of commercial areas that provide retail and commercial services. Businesses serve tourists, city residents, and residents of the unincorporated agricultural areas who have traditionally traveled to St. Helena to shop for goods and services. In the city’s historic Central Business District, a small amount of higher-density, mixed-use development that is context appropriate can expand housing options while also supporting additional retail and commercial services. Figure 2.4 highlights commercial and mixed-use areas. • Mixed-Use (MU). The MU land use designation allows medium- to high-density residential mixed with retail, office, restaurant, or other commercial uses.

The maximum allowable residential density in MU areas is 20 dwelling units per acre. The intent of this land use designation is to protect the Urban Limit Line by encouraging a mix of uses at infill locations and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by locating housing opportunities within close proximity to commercial and retail.
• Central Business (CB). The CB land use designation includes retail and commercial uses that serve local residents and the surrounding area. Typical CB uses include offices, restaurants, specialty retail and lodging, with particular emphasis on pedestrian-oriented retail and service uses on the ground floor level and offices located on upper floors. Residential uses can be considered for upper floor areas but are subject to discretionary use permit review and approval. The maximum allowable FAR in CB-designated areas is 2.0.

The CB district extends from Sulphur Creek along Main Street to midway between Adams Street and Pine Street, west to Oak Avenue and along the north side of Adams Street east of Main Street.
• Service Commercial (SC). The SC land use designation includes service and retail uses that have larger space needs than are available in the Central Business District. Potential SC uses include offices, restaurants, service stations, and lodging, with a maximum allowable FAR of 0.50. The SC designation includes areas fronting State Route 29/Main Street south of Sulphur Creek.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2 land use and growth management
Chaix Ln
Mills Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Meadowood Ln
York Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
DeanYork Ln
W heeler Ln
Inglewood Ave
La Fata St
Victoria Ln
Laguna Seca
Davis Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
Money Way
Del Rio Ct
Boyson Ln
Mccormick St
Pope St
Railroad Ave
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Palmer Dr
Stice Ln
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
Valley View Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
PinotWay
Charter Oak Ave
ChilesAve
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock R d
·|}29
College Ave
Deer Park Rd
Sylvaner Ave
White Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Fawn Park Rd
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
·|}29
Stockton St
Madrona Ave Spring St
Howell Mounta ni Rd
Sulph ur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
Lodi Ln
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Stockton St
Silverado Trail
Vineland Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
MountainView Ave
Park St
Hudson Ave
Garden Ave
Con n Valley Rd
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
Data Source: City of St.Helena, 2018;Napa County, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
C i t y o f S t . H e l e n a
Figure 2.4
Commercial and Mixed-Use Areas
Central Business
Service Commercial
Mixed-Use
Railroad
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-13
2 land use and growth management
Industrial areas provide
important locations for light
manufacturing and agriculture-related uses.

Business and Industrial Areas
St. Helena has limited areas designated for business and industrial uses. These uses are important to the community’s economic health, serving St. Helena residents as well as residents and businesses in the surrounding unincorporated areas. Figure 2.5 highlights business and industrial areas. • Business and Professional Office (BPO). The BPO designation allows for professional and administrative office uses, including medical, financial, and similar uses. Residential uses in this designation can be considered for upper floor areas, subject to discretionary use permit review and approval. The maximum allowable FAR is 0.50. BPO areas are located throughout the city and provide a compatible, transitional use between commercial and residential areas. • Industrial (I). The Industrial land use designation includes industrial parks, warehouses, light manufacturing, and auto and farm-related uses. The maximum allowable FAR is 0.50. Industrial areas are located south of Mills Lane and east of State Route 29; along Sulphur Creek between State Route 29 and Valleyview Street; and east of State Route 29, south of Mills Lane. An Urban Reserve Area is designated to the east of the existing industrial area south of Dowdell Lane for future expansion of this area.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2 land use and growth management
Chaix Ln
Mills Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Meadowood Ln
York Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
DeanYork Ln
W heeler Ln
Inglewood Ave
La Fata St
Victoria Ln
Laguna Seca
Davis Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
MoneyWay
Del Rio Ct
Boyson Ln
Mccormick St
Pope St
Railroad Ave
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Palmer Dr
Stice Ln
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
ValleyView Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
PinotWay
Charter Oak Ave
Chiles Ave
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock Rd
·|}29
College Ave
Deer Park Rd
Sylvaner Ave
White Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Fawn Park Rd
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
·|}29
Stockton St
Madrona Ave Spring St
Howell Mounta ni Rd
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
Lodi Ln
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Stockton St
Silverado Trail
Vineland Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
MountainView Ave
Park St
Hudson Ave
Garden Ave
Con n Valley Rd
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
Data Source: City of St. Helena, 2018;Napa County, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
C i t y o f S t . H e l e n a
Figure 2.5
Business and Industrial Areas
Office
Industrial
Railroad
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-15
2 land use and growth management
Agriculture designations make
up more than 48% of the land
within the City.

Community and Natural Resource Areas
St. Helena has a wide range of agriculture, parks, open spaces, and civic uses that serve a diverse range of community needs. Natural areas, such as the creeks and hills, offer opportunities for preservation and conservation. Public facilities provide opportunities for social and community development. Land use planning should aim to improve these amenities and enhance accessibility for all city residents. Figure 2.6 highlights community and natural resource areas. • Woodland and Watershed (WW). The WW designation includes very low density residential that ensures the protection of wildlife, vegetation, open space, and watershed resources. This designation applies to steep hillsides at the city’s westernmost and easternmost boundaries, with the intent to accommodate low-density, estate type development in locations that are less suitable for agricultural use. The minimum allowable parcel size is five acres.
• Agriculture (AG). The AG land use designation includes agricultural and winery uses with restricted single family residential and public/quasi-public uses. This designation applies to large areas of the valley floor that surround the city’s urban core. With the exception of hillside areas designated WW, all lands outside the Urban Limit Line are designated AG regardless of their size or actual use. Minimum parcel sizes for new parcels in AG areas range from 20 to 40 acres. However, wineries in AG land may utilize a small portion of onsite land for provision of affordable employee housing thus alleviating some of the low and moderate housing needs in the city, while simultaneously reducing commute traffic. • Public/Quasi-Public (PQP). The PQP land use designation provides for government-owned facilities, public and private schools, and quasi-public uses such as churches, community/public serving endeavors, and cemeteries. The maximum FAR for the PQP designation is 0.50. The PQP designation occurs throughout the city, and includes the City library, all of the public schools, some of the private schools, all churches, cemeteries, and the City-owned wastewater treatment plant.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2 land use and growth management
Chaix Ln
Mills Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Meadowood Ln
York Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
DeanYork Ln
W heeler Ln
Inglewood Ave
La Fata St
Victoria Ln
Laguna Seca
Davis Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
MoneyWay
Del Rio Ct
Boyson Ln
Mccormick St
Pope St
Railroad Ave
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Palmer Dr
Stice Ln
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
ValleyView Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
PinotWay
Charter Oak Ave
Chiles Ave
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock Rd
·|}29
College Ave
Deer Park Rd
Sylvaner Ave
White Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Fawn Park Rd
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
·|}29
Stockton St
Madrona Ave Spring St
Howell Mounta ni Rd
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
Lodi Ln
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Stockton St
Silverado Trail
Vineland Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
MountainView Ave
Park St
Hudson Ave
Garden Ave
Con n Valley Rd
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
Data Source: City of St. Helena, 2018;Napa County, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
C i t y o f S t . H e l e n a
Figure 2.6
Community and Natural Resource Areas
St. Helena General Plan
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture
Open Space
Woodlands andWatershed
Napa County General Plan
Agricultural Resource
Agriculture,Watershed and
Open Space
Railroad
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-17
2 land use and growth management
• Parks and Recreation (PR). The PR land use designation includes public parks with recreation uses. It applies to all existing public parks and proposed park sites. • Open Space (OS). The OS designation includes open spaces that are devoted to natural resource preservation and management, passive outdoor recreation, multi-use trails, public health, and safety. All OS areas are associated with stream corridors that pass through or are adjacent to the city, including the Napa River, Sulphur Creek, and York Creek. Roads are part of Open Space, but are not contributors to natural resource, public health, recreation, etc. as stated above.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT
St. Helena aims to contain development and preserve agricultural lands in and adjacent to the city. Tools for accomplishing this include the Urban Limit Line, designated Urban Reserve Areas, and the Residential Growth Management System. Figure 2.7 illustrates St. Helena’s Urban Limit Line and Urban Reserve Areas.

Urban Limit Line
The Urban Limit Line is a parcel-specific boundary that marks the limit of where urban development is permitted within the incorporated area of St. Helena. The intent of the Urban Limit Line is to discourage urban sprawl by containing urban development within designated areas during the planning period (see Figure

2.7).

Land outside the Urban Limit Line, but inside the incorporated area, is designated for agricultural uses. Given the long-term nature of the General Plan and the potential for unforeseen circumstances, the Plan anticipates the potential need to expand the urban area by identifying Urban Reserve Areas.

Urban Reserve Areas
Urban Reserve Areas can be considered for urban development after urban sections within the Urban Limit Line are developed and if additional land is needed The Urban Limit Line marks
the limit of where development
is permitted.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2 land use and growth management
Chaix Ln
Mills Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Meadowood Ln
York Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
DeanYork Ln
W heeler Ln
Inglewood Ave
La Fata St
Victoria Ln
Laguna Seca
Davis Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
MoneyWay
Del Rio Ct
Boyson Ln
Mccormick St
Pope St
Railroad Ave
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Palmer Dr
Stice Ln
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
ValleyView Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
PinotWay
Charter Oak Ave
Chiles Ave
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock Rd
·|}29
College Ave
Deer Park Rd
Sylvaner Ave
White Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Fawn Park Rd
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
·|}29
Stockton St
Madrona Ave Spring St
Howell Mounta ni Rd
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
Lodi Ln
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Stockton St
Silverado Trail
Vineland Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
MountainView Ave
Park St
Hudson Ave
Garden Ave
Con n Valley Rd
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
Crane
Park
Wappo
Park
Jacob
Meily
Park
Lyman
Park
Data Source: City of St. Helena, 2018;Napa County, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
Urban Limit Line
Urban Reserve Areas
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Railroad
Parks and Open Space
Water Features

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
C i t y o f S t . H e l e n a
Figure 2.7
Urban Limit Line and Urban Reserve Areas
Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-19
2 land use and growth management
for urban uses. The Urban Reserve Areas, which are contiguous with the existing urban area, have been carefully located to encourage thoughtful, measured growth and to ensure that further urban development will maintain the compact development pattern desired by the community.

Urban Reserve Areas are all designated Agricultural (AG) and are expected to remain in agricultural use or undeveloped for the foreseeable future. Zoning in the Urban Reserve Areas will be the same as in other areas designated for agriculture.

Zoning changes of any specific Urban Reserve Areas will be determined by the City Council at the time of incorporation within the Urban Limit Line. Such changes will depend upon many factors, including: compatibility with existing or proposed surrounding uses; availability of services; demand for the proposed uses; the availability of other suitable areas; and the agricultural resource value of the land.

Locational suitability and timing will be considered when considering changes to the Urban Limit Line and incorporation of Urban Reserve Areas. Requests for expansion of the Urban Limit Line will be considered in logical groupings that reflect the best long-term interests of the City, and will not be considered on a parcel-by-parcel basis, or in a manner that would permit non-contiguous development.

Residential Growth Management System (GMS)
The Residential Growth Management System limits (GMS) the number of building permits available for residential growth each year. That limit, as of the time of the General Plan update in 2018 is nine (9) residential units/year, with exceptions given for affordable housing, accessory dwelling units, and in other circumstances as spelled out in the City’s implementing Growth Management Ordinance. The City, as part of its periodic review of the GMS, should consider the assigned Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) number for a given Housing Element cycle when establishing limits. This will help to ensure consistency with the larger Bay Area’s growth direction which encourages development in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) near transit and job centers. The regional growth strategy indicates that development outside the PDAs encourages sprawl, and contributes to traffic congestion and environmental impacts such as reduced air quality and loss of open space and Agricultural lands. No PDAs have been established in St. Helena.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2-20 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
2 land use and growth management
A growth strategy principle
is to maintain high-quality
design and community
character.

GENERAL PLAN STRATEGY
The General Plan strategy presents an outline for the evolution of the city. This strategy is grounded in a set of planning principles and identifies key General Plan Change Areas and land use capacity in those areas. Each of these topics is described in more detail below.

Growth Strategy Principles
The principles for guiding future growth in St. Helena are based upon the city’s unique development pattern, vision for a sustainable future and its growth management. The following planning principles apply to the land use development strategy:
• Protect agricultural lands located outside the Urban Limit Line. • Preserve agriculture, green, and open space within the Urban Limit Line to ensure the city maintains a rural and small-town character with sufficient “fingers of green”, particularly in light of St. Helena’s longstanding significant inadequacy of park land. (See Parks and Recreation Element). • Focus new residential and commercial growth inward on appropriate infill sites.
• Maintain community character by requiring high-quality design and by avoiding “big box” development patterns and styles for commercial, industrial, and residential growth. • Ensure that growth is sustainable for the long term and does not strain natural resources, services, or quality of life.

Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-21
2 land use and growth management
General Plan Change Areas
During the General Plan Update process 13 sites were identified for land use change, including sites for Mixed-Use, which is a new land use designation.

These sites are located within the Urban Limit Line (with some minor shifts) and include parcels with commercial, mixed-use, and residential designations.

Figure 2.8 shows the land use change areas that correspond to the list below.

1. Adams Street and Library Lane (5.66 acres): The proposed development program for the Adams Street property involves designating the entire site, with the exception of the library, as Central Business District. The library site will remain Public/Quasi Public. A modification of the Urban Limit Line is also proposed, which will increase the developable area by 2.83 acres and orient development along Adams Street.

2. Main Street, Spring Street and Oak Avenue (2.61 acres): M=Mixed-Use is proposed for this area to allow a mix of commercial, office, and residential development.

3. Mitchell Drive and Oak Avenue-Northwest (2.04 acres): High Density Residential is proposed for this area to allow for higher density development within walking distance to downtown.

4. Mitchell Drive and Oak Avenue-Southeast Side (1.58 acres): Mixed-Use is proposed for this area to allow a mix of commercial, office, and residential development.

5. Main Street and Charter Oak Avenue (12.12 acres): Mixed-Use is proposed for the eastern portion of the parcel and Industrial for the western portion of the property.

6. Main Street and Vidovich Avenue (14.44 acres): This parcel has a MixedUse General Plan land use designation, and the Vineland Station Hotel Project, a mixed-use project, has been approved for the location.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2 land use and growth management
Chaix Ln
Mills Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Meadowood Ln
York Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
DeanYork Ln
W heeler Ln
Inglewood Ave
La Fata St
Victoria Ln
Laguna Seca
Davis Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
Money Way
Del Rio Ct
Boyson Ln
Mccormick St
Pope St
Railroad Ave
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Palmer Dr
Stice Ln
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
Valley View Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
PinotWay
Charter Oak Ave
ChilesAve
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock R d
·|}29
College Ave
Deer Park Rd
Sylvaner Ave
White Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Fawn Park Rd
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
·|}29
Stockton St
Madrona Ave Spring St
Howell Mounta ni Rd
Sulph ur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
Lodi Ln
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Stockton St
Silverado Trail
Vineland Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
MountainView Ave
Park St
Hudson Ave
Garden Ave
Con n Valley Rd
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
"
"
"
"
"
Data Source: City of St.Helena, 2018;Napa County, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
C i t y o f S t . H e l e n a
Change Areas
St. Helena Land Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Central Business
Service Commercial
Mixed-Use
Office
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture
Open Space
Woodlands andWatershed
Napa County Land Use
Agricultural Resource
Agriculture,Watershed and
Open Space
Railroad
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
11 1
10 12
2 7
3 4
5 6
8 9
Figure 2.8
Land Use Change Areas
Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-23
2 land use and growth management

7. Spring Street and St. James Drive (4.65 acres): Medium Density Residential is proposed for this area to accurately reflect existing densities.

8. Grayson Avenue (7.01 Acres): Medium Density Residential is proposed on these parcels to allow more flexibility in density for this area.

9. West end of Spring Street (14.31 acres): This area includes a modification to the Urban Limit Line and an identical shift expanding the Low Density Residential area by 1.49 acres. This change is made to better reflect the flat portion of this parcel.

10. Flood Control Project Site (15.7 acres): Redesignate this parcel (the flood control project site) from Medium Density Residential to Open Space.

11. Railroad Avenue (4 parcels): Adjust the General Plan designation for parcels 1547 to 1569 on Railroad Avenue from Medium Density Residential to Mixed-Use.

12. City Hall Site: The Central Business District (CBD) designation is proposed for the property where City Hall is currently located.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2 land use and growth management
2-24 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
The Relationship between Land Use and Zoning
The General Plan Land Use and Growth Management
Element establishes a broad vision and framework
for land use in St. Helena. It sets forth policies and
implementing actions that are intended to guide
local decision-makers over the life of the Plan. In contrast, the Zoning Ordinance details specific standards and design guidelines to regulate development. The
functions of these two planning tools are described in
further detail below.

St. Helena’s Land Use and Growth Management
Element
• Defines and locates land uses throughout the City.
• Specifies acceptable building heights and densities
per land use type.
• Describes the intent and direction of St. Helena’s
growth.
• Includes overarching, citywide development principles, goals and policies to achieve a high quality built environment.

St. Helena’s Zoning Ordinance
• Regulates density (number of residential dwelling units per acre) and intensity (floor area ratio) of development.
• Specifies standards for site design, including open
space, building orientation, massing, setbacks and
relationship to the street and adjacent properties,
parking requirements, and elevation.
• Provides incentives for affordable housing.
• Establishes allowed and prohibited uses.

CONCEPTS, TRENDS AND IDEAS
Chaix Ln
Mills Ln
r Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Meadowood Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
n
W heeler Ln
Inglewood Ave
La Fata St
Victoria Ln
Laguna Seca
Davis Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
MoneyWay
Del Rio Ct
Mccormick St
Pope St
Railroad Ave
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Stice Ln
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
ValleyView Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
PinotWay
Charter Oak Ave
Chiles Ave
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock Rd
·|}29
College Ave
Sylvaner Ave
White Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Fa
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
Stockton St
na Ave Spring St
Howell Mounta ni Rd
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
Stockton St
Vineland Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
MountainView Ave
Park St
Hudson Ave
Garden Ave
Con n Valley
Rd
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
2018;Napa County, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018
4,000
Feet
n
ential
esidential
ential
al
Office
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture
Open Space
Napa County General Plan
Agricultural Resource
Agriculture,Watershed and Open
Space
Railroad
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-25
2 land use and growth management
Land Use Capacity
Several factors contribute to managing and guiding new growth in St. Helena.

The General Plan Land Use and Zoning maps describe where different land uses are permitted and the intensity of development that may be allowed. The Land Use Change Areas map (Figure 2.8) and Housing Opportunity Site map (see Housing Element Figure 1.0) present locations where new development is likely to occur in the next 20 years. The Growth Management System limits the allowed number of new residential permits to a maximum of nine (9) new residential units per year. That represents a total of 72 units over the eight-year term of the Housing Element, which exceeds the City’s 2015 to 2023 RHNA allotment of 31 total residential units. Established by the State of California in 1969, RHNA requirements directly influence how St. Helena considers population growth. The State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) works with the various regional Councils of Governments (COGs) throughout the state to identify and allocate the supply of housing necessary to meet the existing and projected growth in population and households in California (also see the Housing Element).

St. Helena functions as a service center for surrounding towns and unincorporated
areas.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2-26 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
2 land use and growth management

2.3 Key Findings
There are several challenges and opportunities facing St. Helena related to land use and growth management. The following key findings are based upon comprehensive existing conditions analysis and community input. • Regional growth forecasts prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in 2013 anticipate that St. Helena will add 400 new residents between 2015 and 2040. The City should be aware of long-term population projections when developing General Plan land use policies. • The City’s Residential Growth Management System limits residential growth in order to protect agricultural land and ensure that the City can provide adequate public services, natural resources, and infrastructure necessary to meet increased need.
• St. Helena experiences high commercial rents and, except for the 2008 and 2009 recession, relatively high demand for additional commercial and office space in the city. The demand for office space is again increasing, and commercial rents are increasing as a result. • There are a number of light industrial and commercial areas with a potential for development or redevelopment, particularly in the vicinity of State Route 29 south of Sulphur Creek.
• In February 2005, the City adopted the Highway 29 Specific Plan, which outlines circulation changes, roadways extensions, traffic signal installations, and streetscape improvements along the State Route 29 corridor west of the Sulphur Creek Bridge.

Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-27
2 land use and growth management
• Despite its relatively small population, St. Helena functions as a service center, and provides public services for surrounding towns and unincorporated areas, including Meadowood, Madrone Knoll, Calistoga, Angwin, Deer Park, Rutherford, and the unincorporated area south of St. Helena. Through efficient land use planning, the City can ensure that St. Helena continues to serve this function while meeting the needs of its residents. • Land use changes and development in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the city limits can have a significant impact on St. Helena. Close coordination with Napa County is essential for managing adverse impacts on St.

Helena and coordinating City planning efforts accordingly. • St. Helena has been successful in preserving agricultural lands within the city limits. The California Department of Conservation and Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies only one significant incidence of land converted from farmland to an urbanized use, which was the conversion of eight acres of farmland into an expansion of Crane Park. County-wide, most agricultural land conversions have been from rangeland or lower-value uses, such as orchards, to vineyards for wine production.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2 land use and growth management
2-28 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
2 land use and growth management

2.4 Goals
The goals of the Land Use and Growth Management Element are:

Manage Growth and Maintain Community Character.

St. Helena is committed to preserving its existing community character, maintaining agricultural lands, managing growth and the impacts of tourism, and ensuring that adequate infrastructure and facilities are provided.

Promote High-Quality and Sustainable Development.

St. Helena is dedicated to a high standard of quality, economic viability and ecological sustainability with respect to the design, planning, and construction of new and renovated public and private facilities.

Agenda Item #11.1.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-29
2 land use and growth management

2.5 Policies and Implementing Actions
A range of policies and implementing actions are outlined below and organized into the following topic areas:

1. Growth Management;

2. Residential Neighborhoods;

3. Commercial Districts;

4. Industrial Districts;

5. Agricultural Uses; and

6. Public Facilities.

The following policies and actions mandate, encourage, or allow certain initiatives to be pursued throughout the duration of the General Plan. Together, they serve as strategic directions for City staff and partners, highlighting where time and resources should be focused.

Agenda Item #11.1.

topic area
2 land use and growth management
2-30 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
Policies
LU1.1 Require new development to occur within well-defined boundaries and be consistent with the ability to provide urban services. New development should mitigate infrastructure impacts by using sustainable, best management practices in green building and stormwater management and paying its share of development impact fees, while minimizing impacts on sewer, water, energy, and natural resources.

LU1.2 Allow urban development to occur only within the Urban Limit Line.

Consider an exception for on-site employee housing on Agricultural lands.

Urban services, such as sewer, water, and storm drainage, will only be extended to development within the Urban Limit Line.

The Urban Limit Line may only expand when the amount of developable land within the Urban Limit Line is insufficient to implement the General Plan policies or when logical to include developed lands receiving urban services from the City. Expansion outside the Urban Limit Line should first be considered in Urban Reserve Areas. Expansion into other areas outside the Urban Limit Line should be considered only when the proposed land use is found to further the goals and long-term objectives of the City and does not result in adverse impacts to adjacent uses in either the urban or rural areas.
1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Agenda Item #11.1.

topic area
2 land use and growth management
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-31
Infill development is encouraged in order to postpone
the need for expansion of the
Urban Limit Line.

LU1.3 Support agricultural and low-intensity uses beyond the Urban Limit Line.

LU1.4 In order to minimize and postpone the need for expansion of the Urban Limit Line, encourage infill development within currently developed areas.

LU1.5 Require new development to provide adequate infrastructure and urban services, including compliance with the policies and implementing actions affecting new development as set forth in the Public Facilities and Services Element.

LU1.6 Support the redevelopment of vacant and underutilized sites within the downtown area with mixed-use development opportunities. Encouraging infill development with a mix of uses will support a pedestrian-oriented, vibrant retail and commercial district that is centrally located and easily accessible to residents and neighborhoods.

LU1.7 Continue to limit the approval of market rate residential development to the maximum allowed under the Growth Management System. Regulated affordable units and second units are exempt from this limitation. 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Agenda Item #11.1.

topic area
2 land use and growth management
2-32 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
Implementing Actions
LU1.A In order to increase residential density and housing availability without requiring an extension of the Urban Limit Line, allow the conversion of singlefamily homes in central locations to duplexes or triplexes under appropriate circumstances and where the homes are in medium and high density zoning districts. Update the Zoning Code to implement this policy.

LU1.B Rezone appropriate sites with land use designations such as Central Business, Service Commercial, and Mixed-Use, in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Map. Include provisions to allow for compatible uses on the same site, either in one structure or adjacent structures. The mix of uses can be vertical or horizontal and can include attached residential development in keeping with the integrity of historic structures and historic districts.

LU1.C Continue to update the City’s housing inventory to track the status of residential growth by unit type and affordability level. 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Agenda Item #11.1.

topic area
2 land use and growth management
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-33
The City’s housing inventory
should be regularly updated.
1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
LU1.D Review the City’s housing needs every five to eight years in conjunction with updates to the Housing Element to reassess housing priorities for the future years.

LU1.E Restrict the use of housing units as short-term rentals, except for those allowed by the Short-Term Rental Ordinance.

LU1.F Evaluate the effectiveness of the Growth Management System and consider the need for revisions in light of the City’s Housing Strategy. As part of this effort, study options for incorporating a mechanism to assess the relative benefits a proposed residential project brings to the community, such as through a community benefits program.

LU1.G Work with property owners and the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission to study the benefits of annexing lands adjacent to the City of St. Helena, where the City owns and operates critical municipal infrastructure, including utility infrastructure, and/or provides municipal services, or where the provision of municipal services to replace wells and aging sceptic systems would improve public health.

LU1.H In the event that unincorporated areas are annexed to the City, advocate for favorable tax-sharing agreements that ensure that the City receives the revenues necessary to support the municipal services and infrastructure required in those areas.

Agenda Item #11.1.

topic area
2 land use and growth management
2-34 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
A mix of housing types and
price ranges allows choice for
residents.

Policies
LU2.1 Promote a mix of housing types and price ranges that are consistent with the Housing Element RHNA categories of housing affordability.

LU2.2 Encourage new residential development that is consistent in design, size, color, and floor area ratio (FAR) with the older residences in the neighborhood.

LU2.3 Protect residential neighborhood views of surrounding vineyards and mountains.

LU2.4 Encourage the subdivision and/or development of larger parcels as Planned Unit Developments to ensure a more comprehensive and creative approach to planning the development as a single unit. This does not prohibit use of Planned Unit Developments on parcels less than three acres.

LU2.5 Encourage the development of higher density housing in areas near the center of the city and close to recreation and services, such as transit, retail, and public facilities.

LU2.6 Allow residential density at the higher end of the permitted range for single family development within Medium and High Density Residential Land Use designations as long as the development character of the single family area is maintained, including lot widths, orientation to street, building heights, onsite parking, traffic, and noise, among other considerations.

LU2.7 Ensure safe, walkable, and bikeable residential neighborhoods and vibrant, livable streets.

LU2.8 Ensure walkable and accessible neighborhoods through mixed-use development.
2 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Agenda Item #11.1.

topic area
2 land use and growth management
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 2-35
Implementing Actions
LU2.A Update the zoning ordinance and map to be compatible with the General Plan land use map and designations.

LU2.B Develop and implement residential design guidelines and/or form-based codes, for single family and multiple family uses, to provide oversight and guidance for new buildings and renovations. Guidelines should ensure that new residential development is consistent with the design, size, and footprint of older residences in the neighborhood. Consider the impact of new development on surrounding residences. (Also see the following elements: Community Design, Topic Area 3; and Economic Sustainability, Topic Area 3).

LU2.C Implement view shed protection review for residential development as part of an updated design review process.

LU2.D Continue to require residential developers to contribute to the provision of community facilities and services (e.g. parks, recreation facilities and programs, education facilities, traffic and transportation facilities, and services), consistent with State law requiring a nexus between project impacts and required mitigation.

LU2.E Update zoning standards to encourage the following criteria:
• A variety of lot widths and sizes, such as that found in the older areas of town; • Garages at the rear of lots rather than on the street; or creative garage designs that incorporate the “garage door” frontage appearance to blend into the home;
• Lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) that is consistent with the scale of historic and older areas; • Planting of street trees and planting strips along sidewalks; and • Setbacks, building massing, and configuration consistent with older parts of neighborhoods.
2 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Agenda Item #11.1.

topic area
2 land use and growth management
2-36 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
Downtown is the City’s social
and cultural core.

Policies
LU3.1 Strengthen the downtown as the City’s social and cultural core, and as the primary center of retail services. Facilitate a healthy mix of retail and commercial uses, residential development, entertainment, and lodging.

LU3.2 Enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of commercial areas and provide for convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to encourage walking and reduce vehicle trips within the commercial area.

LU3.3 Support the redevelopment of auto-oriented commercial areas into pedestrian-friendly commercial uses.

LU3.4 Protect historic resources in the commercial areas and encourage appropriate rehabilitation and adaptive reuse.

LU3.5 Ensure that new retail and commercial development is compatible with and complementary to St. Helena’s small-town image. In addition, within the City’s Central Business District, new retail and commercial development should be of a scale and type that complements the historic character. 3 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Agenda Item #11.1.

Infrastructure
Planning
The Planning Commissioner Handbook
Chapter 8
ILGPlanningHandbook.org
Agenda Item #11.1.

Infrastructure Planning
Infrastructure 186
Infrastructure Planning 187
Good Infrastructure Planning 187
Capital Improvement Plans 187
Wet Utilities 188
Water 188
Sewer 188
Collection System 189
Treatment System 189
Onsite Systems 189
Drainage 189
Dry Utilities 191
Electricity 191
Gas 192
Communication Infrastructure 192

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Agenda Item #11.1.

Infrastructure Planning 186
Infrastructure
Infrastructure refers to the physical support services necessary for development. At the simplest level, a road, driveway or easement of some type is essential to gaining property access and allowing development on a property. Other infrastructure can include water or sewer lines in developed areas, or wells and irrigation channels in rural areas. Electrical power, telephone lines, television cable and fiber optic are also considered infrastructure. Generally, the more people expected at a site, the more infrastructure that is needed to provide services.

Infrastructure for individual projects is handled at the staff level and is usually the first question asked concerning the development potential for a property. Most agencies have development standards that establish a basic minimum amount of infrastructure for certain types of development, and in many instances have adopted ordinances that require an extension of lines to connect to existing infrastructure. As a result, by the time the planning commission is considering a project these issues have largely been addressed.

Occasionally infrastructure must be brought from an area outside of the project boundaries and occasionally for some distance. When this occurs, there are direct impacts such as trenching, road closure, etc. associated with construction and indirect impacts such as growth inducement that the commission must consider. As this need would be part of the project itself, both the direct and indirect impacts should also be addressed in the staff report for the project and provided to the commission.

The commission will have a considerable say in where infrastructure is provided in long range planning associated with a general or a specific plan, or master planning of a large project. As a part of this process, the commission will need to consider existing and future land use. Staff will provide information regarding utilities in that area that may be available to support additional development. An example might be considering adding new housing to a downtown where water and sewer lines already exist. In some instances, there will be adequate capacity because the system may have been designed for housing in the past, in others expansion of the system may be required as part of any improvements. Without a technical engineering study, it is not possible to know what improvements will be needed.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Infrastructure Planning 187
Infrastructure Planning
Good Infrastructure Planning
Good infrastructure planning starts with the general plan and the anticipated density and intensity of development. Because we can estimate utility demand based on population and building size, dwelling units, persons per acre, type and size of commercial development are important components of long-range planning. Ideally infrastructure should be phased, meaning that you only build enough to meet your short-term needs and allow for expansion to meet long term needs.

However, the individual phases may need to be larger than the project at hand to take advantage of engineering efficiencies, or practicality. For example, it is not possible to build half an overpass.

Infrastructure can also be used to help guide development into areas of the community that meet the goals of the general plan. If major infrastructure is extended into an area that currently lacks infrastructure it becomes easier for development to occur, which can attract developer interest. While in one context this could be considered growth inducing, in another it can be seen as furthering the expectations expressed in the general plan.

Infrastructure planning does not just look at new (greenfield) development potential, it is also important to evaluate the potential to intensify development that has already occurred. For example, if you are expanding housing opportunities in your downtown it is likely that that the new homes will have a greater demand on sewer and water systems than the existing commercial land use. While expanding existing infrastructure can be disruptive to daily activities, encouraging infill may have greater long-term benefits.

Capital Improvement Plans
A capital improvements plan (“CIP”) is a plan for the orderly expansion and financing of infrastructure— like roads, drainage, sewers, water lines, parks, libraries and other civic amenities—to meet the needs of new and existing development. These costs are critical expenditures that can seldom be covered through a local agency’s annual operating budget. Once a CIP is created, it can be used to establish a fee schedule for new development. The planning agency is required to review capital improvements for consistency with the general plan.1 One method of ensuring consistency is to have the planning commission review and make a general plan consistency finding for the CIP prior to its adoption by the agency.

To provide a simple example, if a city’s capital improvements plan calls for each neighborhood to have its own park and the estimated cost for a park in a new 2000-unit development is $100,000, the per-unit fee would be $500. Most calculations are more complex, but the idea is the same: new development should pick up its fair share of the cost of infrastructure.

Remember, however, that new development cannot be asked to make up for shortcomings in existing infrastructure. For example, if an existing wastewater treatment plant needs to be replaced, the agency cannot place the entire replacement cost on new development.

Master plans are often prepared for important infrastructure. These plans are based on the general plan and reflect the anticipated development potential within the service area covered by the plan. Often the staff report or analysis for the project will reference whether the project is consistent with the water, wastewater or storm drainage master plan. In some cases, payment of fees is all that is needed for the project to be considered consistent, and in others the project will actually construct some of the improvements called for in the master plan. As the improvements and fees are based on development potential, projects that are less than the expected potential can have an impact on the overall plan because the agency may receive less in the way of fees which can affect funding of other plan components. 1 Government Code Section 65103(c)
Agenda Item #11.1.

Infrastructure Planning 188
Wet Utilities
Water
Developers refer to infrastructure as utilities and divide them into wet and dry utilities. Wet utilities include water, sewer and storm drainage. Water service can be provided by a public agency or by a private water company or in some instances by the landowner themselves through either a private well or collection of wells. The placement of water lines is regulated by an agency’s design standards and by the physical constraints of the site. Because water lines operate under pressure, steep slopes and valleys are not as critical an issue to new water lines.

It is important to note that most water services are sized (meaning the diameter of the pipes and the design of the system) not for the actual use of the building but to meet fire flow which is a much higher demand. Water providers prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that assumes development consistent with a general plan, shows the service area and source of all water.2
Usually, a project that is consistent with the general plan and the UWMP is sufficient to determine there is adequate water for that project. Note that the update periods of the UWMP and different than those of the general plan therefore as part of the development review process the agency confers with the water provider early in the development review process to ensure adequate water resources. For large projects, Water Code Section 10910 requires preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) as part of the environmental documentation for the project. The WSA must demonstrate that water is available to meet the needs of the project during multiple drought years.

For rural projects, or projects that are on some form of groundwater well, providing service can be more complicated. The reason for this is the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act3 that establishes regional planning to prevent overdraft of groundwater. Overdraft is when more water is extracted from the ground than can be replenished. Other planning considerations for groundwater wells include water quality, gallons per minute, emergency generator(s) as backup and possible interaction with other groundwater wells. Well placement, abandonment and construction are usually overseen by the local health department who maintain standards for groundwater wells.

In California, water is a valuable and scarce resource. The wise and efficient use, and ultimately reuse of water, is an essential part of the long range and current planning process. After years of multiple droughts, our fragile water collection and distribution system is mandating that decisions on development include a discussion of water usage. Depending on location and water resources, efficient use of water may require the elimination of lawns in some areas, and the extension of reclaimed water into others.

Sewer
Sewer or sanitary sewer is arguably one of the most important aspects of development as careful consideration is needed to avoid contamination and health impacts. Agencies that provide sewer service create master plans that rely on development potential established by the general plan. These master plans often form the basis of impact fees charged for development to connect to the system. The sewer master plans typically have a collection and a treatment system component. 2 Water Code Section 10631
3 Water Code Section 10720
Agenda Item #11.1.

Infrastructure Planning 189
Collection System
Sewer lines are placed underground, and ideally designed to use gravity to move liquid and solids toward a wastewater treatment plant. Because of the mix of liquid and solids, the slope of the sewer line is important. If the slope of the line is too steep the liquid will flow faster than the solids which can lead to the solids blocking the pipe. If the slope of the line is too shallow the flow will collect and can stagnate causing odor and blockage problems. If topography does not allow the use of gravity, the agency may require a form of pump known as a lift station to lift the sewer up and into a gravity system. In some instances, the pump can force sewage into a pressurized sewer line which is known as a forced main. While lift stations and forced mains are essential in some communities, engineers try to avoid them because they require power and have moving parts which require regular maintenance. Because of the potential for blockage, and to relieve hydraulic pressure, lines are connected using a series of manholes. A manhole (or maintenance hole) is usually a concrete column that leads to the sewer line. The sewer line is open at the bottom of a manhole to allow inspection and to remove blockage.

Treatment System
Once the sewage reaches the wastewater treatment plant it is treated in accordance with state and federal requirements.

Some wastewater treatment plants treat sewage at a level that allows reuse of the water. Reused water can be pressurized like potable water but is delivered in a purple pipe. The pipes are purple to avoid cross connection with potable water lines that are white. Purple pipe water is often used for irrigation of landscaping and can also be used for some industrial purposes.

If a wastewater treatment plant does not create reusable water it must discharge the water either onto land or into a receiving water body. The quality of water discharged from the wastewater treatment plant is regulated by the state Regional Water Quality Control Board and is in a published permit that can be reviewed by the public.

Onsite Systems
In areas where there is no sanitary sewer system, on-site systems may be used. Because of the potential public health hazard, the design of on-site systems is usually monitored by the health department. The most commonly known on-site system is called a septic tank. A septic tank consists of a concrete box that has multiple chambers that capture liquids and solids from the structure(s). Bacteria forms in the tank that breaks down the solids and the excess liquid drains into a leach field. A leach field is a collection of perforated pipes that are underground and allow the liquids to drain into the soil where more bacteria in the soil further treat the water. Septic tanks are dependent upon soil types, depth to ground water, and the types of use, all of which are regulated by the health department. Septic tanks also require regular maintenance and rely upon the owner to have knowledge of the system limitations.

There are several different ways of treating wastewater on-site and each has benefits and constraints. Engineers will select the system best suited for the project, soil conditions and regulatory environment. These decisions seldom rise to the level of the planning commission as they are highly technical in nature and heavily regulated for public health and safety.

Drainage
Land can create impervious surfaces which are surfaces that repel stormwater and keep it from soaking into the ground.

Stormwater runoff can be channelized by topography into creeks and rivers, and by development through buildings, roads, curbs and channels. Flowing water is powerful and erosive and unless kept in check it can create damage and hazards far in excess to the size of a given storm. The process of planning for storms is called stormwater planning and often occurs at a regional and local level.

All land can be placed in a defined watershed. A watershed is an area with a ‘top’ and a ‘slope’ toward a receiving water Agenda Item #11.1.

Infrastructure Planning 190
body or drainage. Development within the watershed changes the natural drainage by placing buildings, roads and other improvements in the path of stormwater. While collecting stormwater in pipes and channels concentrates its potentially damaging effects, a collection system can protect communities from flooding, aid in groundwater recharge and in some cases allow reuse of the water. Toward the top of the watershed the storm drainage system may consist of curbs along paths or roadways that direct drainage away from improvements. As the amount of impervious area increases, the stormwater is directed to drop inlets (DI) which is usually a form of grate in the curb line of a roadway that leads to a pipe. A series of pipes and channels direct the stormwater flow to the receiving waterbody. Generally, stormwater system pipelines and channels are larger at the bottom of the watershed the closer they are to the receiving water body.

As with sewer, the discharge of stormwater into a receiving water body is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQC). The RWQC requires development to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) that every agency has, or operates under (some agencies operate under a larger agency permit). The quality of the stormwater runoff is monitored and if it exceeds standards active measures are required to improve the quality. A component of the stormwater system can include onsite detention or retention basins, along with pervious landscaping or recharge areas to keep as much of the stormwater on the project site as possible.

Agenda Item #11.1.

The Planning Commissioner’s Role 11
Public Service Ethics
As a planning commissioner, you wield considerable power over how your community grows and develops. With this power comes the expectation that you will hold yourself to the highest ethical standards. Part of being ethical means exercising your power in the public’s interests, as opposed to personal self-interest or other narrow, private interests.

All parties appearing before the planning commission are entitled to a fair, ethical and accountable government process, which includes appointed committees and commissions. This requires that public officials and appointed committee and commission members adhere to the following:

1. Comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting government operations and processes;

2. Be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions;

3. Prioritize the public good when fulfilling duties as a public servant and avoid any appearance that title or position is used for personal gain; and

4. Conduct public deliberations and processes openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.

There are a number of resources on the ethical obligations of planning commissioners. One is the law. California has a robust array of laws relating to ethics that are summarized in this section. The law, however, merely sets a minimum standard for ethical conduct. Just because an action is legal doesn’t mean that it is ethical. For example, it may be legal for you to vote on your best friend’s project application, but if everyone in the community knows how close the two of you are, will the community truly feel that you were able to put the community’s interests ahead of your personal loyalties? Making Ethical Decisions
Another source of guidance may be your agency’s own code of ethics, if it has one. Many cities and counties have adopted ethics codes to provide guidance in local decision-making processes. At some point in your service as a planning commissioner, you will likely face two common types of ethical dilemmas. The first involves situations in which doing the right thing will come at a significant personal cost to you or your public agency. In these situations, the answer is relatively simple.

The bottom line is that being ethical means doing the right thing for the community regardless of personal or organizational costs.

The second type of ethical dilemma involves those situations in which there are two conflicting sets of “right” values. In these instances, drawing the ethical bottom line is more difficult. If you find yourself faced with a “right versus right” decision, the following questions may help you come to an answer:
‹ Which ethical values are in conflict (for example, trustworthiness, compassion, loyalty, responsibility, fairness or respect)? ‹ What are the facts? What are the benefits, of or the harm avoided by, a particular decision? Is there a decision that does more good than harm?
‹ What are your options? Is there a course of action that would be consistent with both sets of values? ‹ Is one course of action more consistent with a value that is particularly important to you (for example, promise-keeping or trustworthiness)?
‹ What decision best reflects your responsibility as an officeholder to serve the interests of the community as a whole? Agenda Item #11.1.

The Planning Commissioner’s Role 12
‹ What decision will best promote public confidence in the planning commission and your leadership? For example, in your role as a planning commissioner, you will frequently be asked to make exceptions to your jurisdiction’s planning laws. A developer may, for instance, ask for a general plan amendment to enable a project to be approved. The developer is likely to point to numerous benefits that will flow to the community as the result of the amendment.

In coming to a decision in such a situation, the first step is to consider what ethical values are at stake. One might be fairness to those property owners who developed their properties in accordance with the policies expressed in the general plan and the public who participated in developing the plan. Another might be compassion for the developer seeking the amendment:
if it is not economically feasible to develop the property as envisioned by the general plan, perhaps an amendment is in order. The next step is to weigh the competing costs and benefits. Although the developer has identified the benefits to the community associated with approving the amendment, what are the benefits of adhering to the general plan? What are the costs of amending the plan? Will an amendment in this situation open the door for other amendment requests? How might the planning commission fairly evaluate those requests while still maintaining the overall integrity of the general plan? Are there options that might enable the community to reap some of the benefits described by the developer while still being consistent with the general plan as written?
Finally, consider which approach will best promote the public’s confidence in the planning process. Will the public’s confidence be undermined if the commission doesn’t enforce the plan? Or will denying the amendment look so rigid and unfair to the applicant that it will undermine the public’s faith in the planning commission as a decision-making body? What decision will best support the commission’s stewardship of the community’s economic and environmental health? The answers to the questions listed above will vary with each situation and likely will not be clear-cut or obvious. However, asking difficult questions and thoroughly evaluating the answers can go a long way in helping you make consistently ethical decisions that further the public’s interests. Often we have biases that we are not aware we have. Make sure you consider any bias you may have that might impact your decision.

Agenda Item #11.1.







 

!"#$%
"&'#()**")&!%
$+,
-.'
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`aBR_Z=?EBF?FB?E=F BRFS?DB@S_b?>;CK?O>W?PBAB@CFQS?cdS?@GB?J:=K?@CFGBRF?=Z=D?G=A?TRA>=?@G=D?FG=?BJJCIC;: @;AD=K?T=BT:=?DBF?FB?>T=DK?FC<=?E;FG=ACDE?FG=CA?L=:BDECDE>W [G=?;L;DKBD=K?I;A>?D=;A?H;ICJCI?H;:C>;K=>?e?<;D\?K=DF=K?;DK?LABV=D?@G=D?; LR::KBQ=A?G;K?FB?T:B@?FGABREG?FG=<?FB?<;V=?@;\?JBA?=<=AE=DI\?IA=@>?e?L=I;<=?; >\<LB:?BJ?MB>?NDE=:=>_>?K=>T=A;F=?;FF=<TF?FB?<BLC:CQ=?;E;CD>F?@G;F?C>?>G;TCDE?RT FB?L=?FG=?<B>F?K=>FARIFCZ=?JCA=?CD?CF>?GC>FBA\W [G=?IG;BFCI?>I=D=?@;>?BD=?\=;A>?CD?FG=?<;VCDEW?N>?CD?BFG=A?;A=;>?BJ?FG=?FB@=ACDES JCA=fTABD=?GC::>CK=?D=CEGLBAGBBK>?FG;F?ACDE?FG=?MB>?NDE=:=>?L;>CDS?H;ICJCI?H;:C>;K=> A=>CK=DF>?G;K?:BDE?T:=;K=K?JBA?<BA=?;FF=DFCBD?FB?TA=T;ACDE?JBA?FG=?JCA=>?FG;F?;A= ghijklmnoponklmqormsjrktjrosjuvrkrmoskvwjknhiixuovykwmskqhuzkmr{jskphtkihtjksjvmoqjs potjk|tj|mtmvohuk|qmur}k~wjukmkpotjktmzjskvwthxzwkvwjknhiixuovykvworkjj{€kztosqhn{ jurxjs} Agenda Item #11.1.


  




 
   

  


 


  


 


   







 


  !
 


 "

#



 
 

   


$ 

 





 " 







 #  
  


 
%
&
%



 







 

 


 
'
  (


 

 



   







 


 





 &
%
%

 )

 





  
*+   



 
 #

 

 
  

 
 
 



 
, 
 






 






 




 

 
-  

'
  .
.


 

  


    /







 



 










 


  


0
Agenda Item #11.1.













 !"
#!
$%&
'&(
)!
$*&
Agenda Item #11.1.







 
 


 !"
# $ 

 
%
&'(
 (


&
('

()(*
+, * 

-
'  '


'(..
 &'(
' 


&

'



( .(



&-* 
)
(

'

 
&
' &*
((/(
,0
(
1() 
 
2(..
 &$ 
 (' (3
(.
0 .&4+'(..
  
' 0* 
 
5 
1
&
((
)
 & 
5 -6) .  0 (
0 

)(



 7

())-




*
(*
 1(1
 )
'(..
 &. 0

(
* 
 
-

8 9).)
 1



.
'(.)' *

5

(


(.5.(
 
 
)(
)
,( . 0-



-


)



8 9).((
 1'
 ( )
(1 (

' (
-(&(
(


)'  '1'
 ((

*(


1(

. 

 .( -
)
0(
'(
 (

Agenda Item #11.1.













 


























 


 ! "#

$








 






$%
 #


 &
 '
()
$

(



*
+



$

 


















, 
















 
-







$ 
 ".


(




-





$ 

 
/










 






(
$%
 0 





(







#
$

 



















 
















(




 ,

(















)1


 #

.
($



.
 .



*
+
&&

$









$ 


















 





 













2
Agenda Item #11.1.