DOCSLIB.ORG

Vol 1 – So Santa Clara County Fds SOC Study Report – Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vol 1 – So Santa Clara County Fds SOC Study Report – Final This page was intentionally left blank Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and the South Santa Clara County Fire District Standards of Coverage Assessment—Volume 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 of 2 – Technical Report (this volume) Section Page Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Policy Choices Framework ........................................................................................................................ 1 Overall Deployment Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Challenge #1—Daily Staffing Capacity ..................................................................................................... 3 Challenge #2—Fire Station Locations ....................................................................................................... 4 Challenge #3—Mutual Aid Isolation ......................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings and Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 5 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Section 1—Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Report Organization .................................................................................................................... 13 1.1.1 Goals of the Report ......................................................................................................... 14 1.1.2 Limitations of Report ...................................................................................................... 14 1.2 Project Approach and Scope of Work ......................................................................................... 14 1.2.1 Project Approach and Research Methods ....................................................................... 14 1.2.2 Project Scope of Work .................................................................................................... 15 1.3 Study Area Overview .................................................................................................................. 15 1.4 Fire Agencies Overview .............................................................................................................. 16 Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment ...................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Standards of Coverage Process Overview ................................................................................... 21 2.2 Current Deployment .................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.1 City of Gilroy .................................................................................................................. 23 2.2.2 City of Morgan Hill......................................................................................................... 24 2.2.3 South Santa Clara County Fire District ........................................................................... 24 2.2.4 Current Deployment Model ............................................................................................ 26 2.3 Outcome Expectations ................................................................................................................. 27 2.4 Community Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................... 30 2.4.1 Risk Assessment Methodology ....................................................................................... 30 2.4.2 Values at Risk to Be Protected ........................................................................................ 31 2.4.3 Hazard Identification ....................................................................................................... 32 2.4.4 Risk Assessment Summary ............................................................................................. 34 2.5 Critical Task Time Measures—What Must Be Done over What Time Frame to Achieve the Stated Outcome Expectation? ...................................................................................................... 35 2.5.1 Critical Firefighting Tasks .............................................................................................. 36 2.5.2 Critical Medical Emergency Tasks ................................................................................. 38 2.5.3 Critical Task Analysis and Effective Response Force Size ............................................. 38 2.6 Distribution and Concentration Studies—How the Location of First-Due and First Alarm Resources Affects Emergency Incident Outcomes ...................................................................... 40 2.6.1 Deployment Coverage Baselines .................................................................................... 41 2.6.2 Road Mile Coverage Measures ....................................................................................... 44 Table of Contents page i Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and the South Santa Clara County Fire District Standards of Coverage Assessment—Volume 1 2.7 Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 45 2.7.1 Service Demand .............................................................................................................. 46 2.7.2 Simultaneous Incident Activity ....................................................................................... 51 2.7.3 Unit Hour Utilization ...................................................................................................... 53 2.7.4 Operational Performance ................................................................................................ 56 2.8 Overall Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 61 2.8.1 Deployment Recommendations ...................................................................................... 62 Section 3—Future Service Needs and Alternative Service Models ....................................................................... 65 3.1 Future Growth ............................................................................................................................. 65 3.1.1 City of Gilroy .................................................................................................................. 65 3.1.2 City of Morgan Hill......................................................................................................... 65 3.1.3 South Santa Clara County Fire District ........................................................................... 66 3.2 Future Service Demand ............................................................................................................... 66 3.3 Future Facility, Resource, and Staffing Needs ............................................................................ 67 3.3.1 Fire Station Siting Guidelines ......................................................................................... 68 3.3.2 City of Gilroy .................................................................................................................. 68 3.3.3 City of Morgan Hill......................................................................................................... 70 3.3.4 South Santa Clara County Fire District ........................................................................... 72 3.4 Alternative Service Models ......................................................................................................... 74 3.5 Future Needs Summary ............................................................................................................... 75 Section 4—Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 77 4.1 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 77 4.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 81 Section 5—Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................ 85 Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................... 87 A.1 Community Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................... 87 A.1.1 Risk Assessment Methodology ....................................................................................... 87 A.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary ............................................................................................. 89 A.1.3 Risk Planning Zones ....................................................................................................... 90 A.1.4 Values at Risk to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CREEK & WATERSHED MAP Morgan Hill & Gilroy
    POINTS OF INTEREST 1. Coyote Creek Parkway Trailhead. Coyote Creek Parkway is a remaining sycamores dot the landscape, creating a beautiful setting to Springs Trail to follow Center Creek into its headwater canyons. The trail paved trail following Coyote Creek for 15 miles from southern San Jose savor the streamside serenity. will eventually cross over into the headwaters of New Creek as it rises to Morgan Hill. Popular with walkers, bikers, equestrians, and skaters, toward the summit of Coyote Ridge, 1.5 miles from the trailhead. much of this trail passes through rural scenery. View riparian woodland 4. Anderson Dam and Reservoir. Anderson dam, built in 1950, species such as big-leaf maple, cottonwood, sycamore, willow, and impounds Coyote Creek, the largest stream in the Santa Clara Valley. The 12. Coyote Lake. Streams carry water and sediment from the hills to the coast live oak along the trail. The oaks produce acorns, which were an dam backs up a deep reservoir, which can store 90,000 acre-feet of water, ocean; damming a stream blocks the flow of both. Sediment typically important source of food to the Native Americans, and still serve many the largest reservoir in Santa Clara Valley. Like SCVWD’s nine other deposits where the stream first enters the lake, forming a broad plain Coyote animal species today. reservoirs built between 1935 and 1957, Anderson Reservoir’s major called a delta. From the county park campground, enjoy a beautiful view purpose is to store wintertime runoff for groundwater recharge during the of the delta of Coyote Creek, Coyote Lake, and the valley below.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP)
    Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) VTA administers and distributes funds from these The Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) is the funding sources to Member Agencies, matching appropriate proj- mechanism for planned bicycle projects in Santa Clara ect types and funding amounts with the requirements County. It is developed in conjunction with the VTP of each fund source. VTA assists Member Agencies as update. The bicycle network is an essential component necessary to comply with the various regional, state and of a fully integrated, multimodal, countywide trans- federal procedural rules of each fund source. As part of portation system, and VTA is committed to improving the VTP update, the BEP projects list will be reviewed bicycling conditions that will benefit all users 7 days per and re-adopted approximately every four years as part of week and 24 hours per day, enabling people of all ages to the VTP process. In May 2013, VTA Board of Directors bike to work, school, errands, and for recreation. adopted the BEP Project List (Table 2.7a, Figure 2.6). The BEP was first adopted by the VTA Board of The process for developing the BEP Project List involves Directors in 2000 as a financially constrained list of two main steps: 1) Developing a master list of projects, projects with a ten-year funding horizon. BEP projects and 2) Constraining the master list to the financial con- are solicited from Member Agencies and evaluated by a straints of the VTP. Per the BEP Policies, the projects committee consisting of BPAC members and VTA staff. were divided into two categories: The development of the BEP is guided by the Board- • Category 1—greater than or equal to 50 points adopted Policies and Evaluation Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Flood Report
    FLOODING REPORT (FINAL) COYOTE CREEK, UVAS CREEK, SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, AND WEST LITTLE LLAGAS CREEK JANAURY AND FEBRUARY OF 2017 Prepared by the Hydraulics, Hydrology, and Geomorphology Unit November 2017 DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS John L. Varela, Chair District 1 Nai Hsueh District 5 Barbara F. Keegan District 2 Tony Estremera District 6 Richard P. Santos, Vice Chair District 3 Gary Kremen District 7 Linda J. LeZotte District 4 CONTENTS WINTER SEASON SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 JANUARY 6TH THRU 9TH STORM ..................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW & WEATHER ................................................................................................................................ 2 FLOODING – JANUARY 8th ............................................................................................................................. 4 UVAS CREEK .............................................................................................................................................. 4 WEST LITTLE LLAGAS CREEK ...................................................................................................................... 6 FEBRUARY 6th AND 7th STORM ...................................................................................................................... 9 OVERVIEW & WEATHER ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 3Rd Administrative Draft
    Section 3.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation 3.11 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following discussion evaluates existing cultural and paleontological resources and the environmental effects of implementation of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical reports: • Cultural Resources Existing Setting, Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California, Basin Research Associates, July 2009. • Cultural Resources Impacts, Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California, Basin Research Associates, November 2010. • Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California, C. Bruce Hanson, September 2010. Copies of these reports are included in the Technical Appendices to this Draft PEIR (Appendix J). 3.11.1 Existing Setting 3.11.1.1 Overview Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and archeological resources. These resources may be located above ground, underground or underwater, and have significance in the history, prehistory153, architecture or culture of the nation, State of California, or local or tribal communities. Examples of historic resources include buildings (e.g., houses, factories, churches, hotels); structures (e.g., bridges, dams); districts (i.e., a group of buildings or structures that have a common basis in history or architecture); sites (e.g., prehistoric or historic encampments); objects (e.g., statues, ships, marquees); and areas (e.g., historic mining towns, parks). Cultural resources may include homes, buildings or old roads of early settlers; structures with unique architecture; prehistoric village sites; historic or prehistoric artifacts or objects; rock inscriptions; human burial sites; and earthworks, such as canals or prehistoric mounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D: Biological Resources Supporting Data
    City of Morgan Hill - Citywide Agriculture Preservation Program and Southeast Quadrant Land Use Plan Draft EIR Appendix D: Biological Resources Supporting Data Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\2086\20860001\4 - Draft EIR\20860001 Sec99-00 Appendix Dividers.doc Biological Resources Supporting Information Citywide Agriculture Preservation Program and Southeast Quadrant Land Use Plan City of Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California Prepared for: Community Development Department 17575 Peak Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 408.778.6480 Contact: Rebecca Tolentino, Senior Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 2540 N. First Street, Suite 290 San Jose, CA 95131 Contact: Angela McIntire, Biologist February 22, 2013 Multiple Occurrences per Page California Department of Fish and Game California Natural Diversity Database Ambystoma californiense Element Code: AAAAA01180 California tiger salamander Listing Status: Federal: Threatened CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3 State: Threatened State: S2S3 Other: DFG_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_VU-Vulnerable Habitat: General: CENTRAL VALLEY DPS FEDERALLY LISTED AS THREATENED. SANTA BARBARA & SONOMA COUNTIES DPS FEDERALLY LISTED AS ENDANGERED. Micro: NEED UNDERGROUND REFUGES, ESPECIALLY GROUND SQUIRREL BURROWS & VERNAL POOLS OR OTHER SEASONAL WATER SOURCES FOR BREEDING Occurrence No. 42 Map Index: 10819 EO Index: 28422 Element Last Seen: 1981-01-20 Occ. Rank: None Presence: Extirpated Site Last Seen: 1981-01-20 Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2001-11-14 Quad Summary: Morgan Hill (3712126) County Summary: Santa Clara Lat/Long: 37.14883 / -121.66995 Accurracy: 1 mile UTM: Zone-10 N4112210 E618114 Elevation (ft): 340 PLSS: T09S, R03W, Sec. 17 (M) Acres: 0.0 Location: MADRONE. Detailed Location: Ecological: General: MVZ 31854 COLLECTED 3 MAY 1931.
    [Show full text]
  • PLEASE JOIN US for the 2007 BURROWING OWLS CENSUS! "Tear up Your Field Guide and Paste It Back Together: What DNA Sequences
    Only Copy Please Do Not Remove The Newsletter of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society May - June 2007 PLEASE JOIN US FOR THE 2007 BURROWING OWLS CENSUS! Annual Potluck by Ruth Troetschler of the current statewide population Dinner at resides in these areas? As those of you who have read the last two issues oftheAvo­ c) How has the statewide McClellan Ranch cet know that protecting the Burrowing Owl locally has proven population changed since 1993 to be a difficult task, It is no surprise then, that the Burrowing Park when the last IBP census was Owl is a California Species of Special Concern. In order to completed? How has the state­ see Page 5 help protect our favorite owl via changes in the law, we need wide distribution of the species more data-change always requires data. changed, and what hav.e been the trajectories of the various Again this year, the Institute for Bird Populations (IBP) is sub-populations in the state's constituent regions? continues its state-wide , volunteer-based survey to assess Bur­ rowing Owl distribution and abundance throughout the entire How The Survey Works breeding range of the species in California-including the 1PMhas divided the BUOWs California range into 11 geo­ Great Basin and desert areas . In order to do this they need the graphic regions, and then subdivided each region into 5-km by help of dedicated volunteers and volunteer coordinators from 5-km census blocks. 1PM selects a random sample of census Audubon Society chapters and other birding groups, to census blocks within each region, and then augment the sample with BUOWs throughout the state, to provide regional and statewide blocks that contain known Burrowing Owls breeding sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church
    VOLUME I – DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN/SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH SCH #2003012119 PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy May 24, 2004 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN/SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH Volume I –Draft Environmental Impact Report PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Melissa Durkin Planner II 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc 301 Lighthouse Avenue Suite C Monterey CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 [email protected] www.emcplanning.com May 24, 2004 Table of Contents Summary .......................................................................... S-1 1.0 Introduction .................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Authorization and Purpose ........................................................ 1-1 1.2 Project Location and Setting ...................................................... 1-3 1.3 Project Background and Description .......................................... 1-17 1.4 Consistency with Local and Regional Plans ................................. 1-37 1.5 EIR Uses ............................................................................. 1-44 2.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ....... 2-1 2.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Agricultural Resources ........................................................... 2-21 2.3 Air Quality .......................................................................... 2-41 2.4 Biological Resources .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
    Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared for Santa Clara County Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants August 2016 SANTA CLARA COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared for SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 14700 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Prepared by SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 60 Stone Pine Road Half Moon Bay, CA, 94019 Telephone: (650) 440-4160 www.swca.com SWCA Project No. 33985 August 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) acknowledges the efforts of the CWPP Core Team, who without their ongoing contributions, expertise and commitment to wildfire preparedness in Santa Clara County, this CWPP would not have been developed. SWCA Environmental Consultants i August 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan This page intentionally left blank SWCA Environmental Consultants ii August 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan SIGNATORY PAGE (Placeholder) SWCA Environmental Consultants iii August 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan This page intentionally left blank SWCA Environmental Consultants iv August 2016 Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildfire continues to be a threat to communities across the United States; in the last few years, most western states have experienced the largest wildfires in their histories. Wildfires with a broad range of sizes and locations have destroyed hundreds of homes; the cost to suppress wildfires across the nation typically exceeds one billion dollars annually. In recognition of this threat, many communities have worked to develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans, bringing together many stakeholders to develop strategies to mitigate the occurrence and effects of wildfire.
    [Show full text]
  • Field-Trip Guide to the Southeastern Foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains in Santa Clara County, California
    Field-Trip Guide to the Southeastern Foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains In Santa Clara County, California U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-121 2002 By Philip W. Stoffer1 and Paula Messina2 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Geological Survey http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-121/ 1U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2San Jose State University, Department of Geology, 321 Duncan Hall, San Jose, CA 95192-0102 1 Field-Trip Guide to the Southeastern Foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains In Santa Clara County, California By Philip W. Stoffer1 and Paula Messina2 Introduction This field trip is an introduction to the geology of the southeastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains in southern Santa Clara County. Seven stops include four short hikes to access rock exposures and views of the foothills east of Loma Prieta Peak between Gilroy and San José. Field-trip destinations highlight the dominant rock types of the “Franciscan assemblage” including outcrops of serpentinite, basalt, limestone, ribbon chert, graywacke sandstone, and shale. General discussions include how the rocks formed, and how tectonism and stream erosion have changed the landscape through time. All field trip stops are on public land; most are near reservoir dams of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
    [Show full text]
  • FY21-26 Capital Improvement Program Projects
    City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: BPC Review of FY21-26 Capital Improvement Program Projects Meeting Date: February 25, 2020 From: Girum Awoke, Director of Public Works Department: Public Works Department Submitted By: Gary Heap, City Engineer RECOMMENDATION Receive report and provide feedback. BACKGROUND The City of Gilroy’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) represents an on-going process through which the City identifies, prioritizes, and develops a multi-year work plan for major capital expenditures and their associated funding sources, in an effort to improve and maintain the City of Gilroy’s roadways, parks, facilities, and other infrastructure. Generally, CIP improvements are major expenditures that have a multi- year life and result in becoming City assets. The CIP is a strategic planning tool focusing on City owned infrastructure, summarizing in one document the City’s overall capital project needs and associated funding requirements during a five-year period. The CIP document is merely a planning tool and should be used as such in the budget preparation process. For a project to be considered for funding within the CIP, the project must meet the following criteria identified in the attached CIP Policy Document: • Have a total value greater than $25,000 USD (United States Dollars) o individual year(s) may be less than $25,000 USD for phased or ongoing projects so long as the total value when the project is completed is greater than $25,000 USD • Estimated useful life of, or extending estimated useful life by, five (5) years or more • Require advanced planning and design • Have a project duration of more than three months from inception to completion • Primarily non-recurring projects • Be developed/implemented at a fixed location Projects not meeting these criteria are not considered capital projects and may be funded as maintenance or one-time projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonata Townhomes 8101 Kelton Drive Gilroy, CA 95020 Offering
    Offering Memorandum Sonata Townhomes 8101 Kelton Drive Gilroy, CA 95020 NON - ENDORSEMENT AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE Confidentiality and Disclaimer The information contained in the following Marketing Brochure is proprietary and strictly confidential. It is intended to be reviewed only by the party receiving it from Marcus & Millichap and should not be made available to any other person or entity without the written consent of Marcus & Millichap. This Marketing Brochure has been prepared to provide summary, unverified information to prospective purchasers, and to establish only a preliminary level of interest in the subject property. The information contained herein is not a substitute for a thorough due diligence investigation. Marcus & Millichap has not made any investigation, and makes no warranty or representation, with respect to the income or expenses for the subject property, the future projected financial performance of the property, the size and square footage of the property and improvements, the presence or absence of contaminating substances, PCB's or asbestos, the compliance with State and Federal regulations, the physical condition of the improvements thereon, or the financial condition or business prospects of any tenant, or any tenant's plans or intentions to continue its occupancy of the subject property. The information contained in this Marketing Brochure has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable; however, Marcus & Millichap has not verified, and will not verify, any of the information contained herein, nor has Marcus & Millichap conducted any investigation regarding these matters and makes no warranty or representation whatsoever regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. All potential buyers must take appropriate measures to verify all of the information set forth herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment #3 (Gpa 14-02) and Residential Subdivision (Tm 14-04)
    INITIAL STUDY HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04) PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy March 25, 2015 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04) EIR Addendum to the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR (SCH# PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Melissa Durkin, Planner II 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Tel 408.846.0451 Fax 408.846.0429 [email protected] PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 Teri Wissler Adam, Senior Principal [email protected] www.emcplanning.com March 25, 2015 This document was produced on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND ............................................................... 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..... 22 C. DETERMINATION ......................................................... 23 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................. 24 1. Aesthetics ......................................................................... 26 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................... 29 3. Air Quality ....................................................................... 31 4. Biological Resources .......................................................... 34 5. Cultural Resources ............................................................ 44 6. Geology and Soils .............................................................. 48 7. Greenhouse
    [Show full text]