DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Five Year Update 2017–2022

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Five Year Update 2017–2022 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Five Year Update 2017–2022 Hazard Mitigation is any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. ~ Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (§206.401) Adopted by the City Council xxxx xx, 2017 Table of Contents APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................... II MAPS AND FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ II TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................ III HOW TO USE THIS PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... IV PART 1 — INTRODUCTION AND ADOPTION .................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 CLIMATE ADAPTATION ............................................................................................................................................. 6 CHAPTER 1: ADOPTION BY CITY COUNCIL ..................................................................................................... 8 ADOPTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 10 PART 2 — THE PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................................................................ 23 CHAPTER 3: THE PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 24 PROJECT TEAMS: THEN AND NOW .......................................................................................................................... 25 PART 3 — HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... 30 IDENTIFICATION AND PROFILING OF HAZARDS ............................................................................................................ 31 CHAPTER 4: EARTHQUAKES AND LIQUEFACTION ......................................................................................... 35 CHAPTER 5: WILDFIRES............................................................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER 6: FLOODS AND ASSOCIATED COASTAL STORMS ........................................................................... 65 CHAPTER 7: DROUGHT ............................................................................................................................... 77 CHAPTER 8: TSUNAMI ................................................................................................................................ 94 CHAPTER 9: COASTAL EROSION ................................................................................................................ 104 CHAPTER 10: DAM FAILURE LESSER RISK ................................................................................................ 113 CHAPTER 11: LANDSLIDE .......................................................................................................................... 118 CHAPTER 12: MULTI-HAZARD SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 129 PART 4 — MITIGATION STRATEGY .............................................................................................................. 130 CHAPTER 13: MITIGATION STRATEGY ........................................................................................................ 131 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................... 133 PART 5 — PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS ................................................................................................. 150 CHAPTER 14: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS ............................................................................................ 151 CHAPTER 15: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 156 ENDNOTES ........................................................................................................................................................ 188 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017–2022 UPDATE i Appendices Appendix Subject A Hazards That Are Not a Significant Risk B Acronyms and Abbreviations C Glossary of Terms D Critical Facilities E Public Schools F Private Schools G Day Care Facilities H Senior Residence and Care Facilities I City of Santa Cruz Facilities J References for Tsunami Run Up K Successful Programs and Projects L Water Shortage Contingency Plan: Executive Summary M Census Characteristics N Critical Structures Overview O Emergency Operations Plan 2012 P Climate Adaptation Plan Q City of Santa Cruz Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Project Team Local Emergency Management Agency and Jurisdictional Partners Review of R this LHMP Update Maps and Figures Map/Figure Subject 1 City Limits of Santa Cruz with Surrounding Greenbelts 2 City of Santa Cruz Location within the State of California 3 Key Transportation Routes to and within Santa Cruz Critical Structures within the City of Santa Cruz and Unincorporated 4 Surrounding Area 5 Public and Private Schools, Day Care and Senior Facilities 6 Areas in Santa Cruz Potentially Vulnerable to Liquefaction Intensity and Magnitude of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake in 7 Santa Cruz 8 Scenario N-9 Repeat of 1906 Earthquake 9 Scenario N-9 Repeat of 1906 Earthquake — Bldg. Economic Loss by County 10 Scenario N-9 Repeat of 1906 Earthquake Loss by Census Tract 11 Scenario N-7 Santa Cruz Mountains 12 Scenario N-7 Santa Cruz Mountains — Building Economic Loss by County 13 Scenario N-7 Santa Cruz Mountains — Bldg. Economic Loss by Census Tract 14 Wildfire Hazard Areas within the City of Santa Cruz 15 FEMA Flood Map showing 100-year flood zone 16 Water Service Area 17 US Drought Monitor, late 2015 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017–2022 UPDATE ii Map/Figure Subject 18 Water Year Classification Total Annual Runoff San Lorenzo River (acre feet) 19 Tsunami Inundation Area 20 Areas Susceptible to Coastal Erosion 21 Slides and Earth Flows in Santa Cruz County 22 Potential Slide Threats to Santa Cruz Tables Table Subject 2-1 Temperature Averages for Santa Cruz City of Santa Cruz Population and Household Growth — 2-2 U.S. Census 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 3-1 List of Meetings A-1 Review of All Hazards A-2 Hazard Screening for City of Santa Cruz 4-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 4-2 Ten Most Likely Damaging Earthquake Scenarios in California 4-3 Earthquake Potential Loss Inventory 5-1 Wildfire Potential Loss Inventory 6-1 Flood Probability Terms 6-2 Flood Potential Loss Inventory 7-1 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Assessment 7-2 Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Assessment Relationship of Water Shortages with Various Recurrence Intervals 7-3 to the Probability of Occurrence over Time 8-1 Locally Generated Tsunami Source 8-2 Tsunami Potential Loss Inventory 9-1 Coastal Erosion Potential Loss Inventory 11-1 Landslide Potential Loss by Structure CITY OF SANTA CRUZ LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2017–2022 UPDATE iii How to Use This Plan FEMA has defined very specific requirements for Local Hazard Mitigation Plans and this plan follows those guidelines. The organization of the Plan follows FEMA’s structural requirements and includes the following four organizational levels: Parts Chapters Sections Subsections This LHMP Five Year Update [2017–2022] is organized into five primary Parts and fifteen Chapters (and, Appendices A–R), that track the phases of the plan’s development as follows: Part 1 — Prerequisites — Introduction and Adoption Acknowledgements • Summary Adoption by City Council ......................................... Chapter 1 Community Profile.................................................... Chapter 2 Part 2 — The Planning Process ..................................................... Chapter 3 Part 3 — Risk Assessment ..................................................... Chapters 4–12 Part 4 — Mitigation Strategies — Goal, Objectives, Actions Mitigation Strategy ................................................. Chapter 13 Part 5 — Plan Maintenance Process Plan Maintenance Process....................................... Chapter 14 Public Outreach and Plan Development ................. Chapter 15 Risk Assessment (Part 3) is organized into specific hazards by chapter (Chapter 4 through Chapter 12). Within each of these chapters all elements required
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Santa Cruz County San Mateo County
    Santa Cruz County San Mateo County COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared by: CALFIRE, San Mateo — Santa Cruz Unit The Resource Conservation District for San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County Funding provided by a National Fire Plan grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the California Fire Safe Council. M A Y - 2 0 1 0 Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................2 Background & Collaboration...............................................................................................3 The Landscape .....................................................................................................................6 The Wildfire Problem ..........................................................................................................8 Fire History Map................................................................................................................10 Prioritizing Projects Across the Landscape .......................................................................11 Reducing Structural Ignitability.........................................................................................12 x Construction Methods............................................................................................13 x Education ...............................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared By
    Santa Cruz County San Mateo County COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared by: CALFIRE, San Mateo — Santa Cruz Unit The Resource Conservation District for San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County Funding provided by a National Fire Plan grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the California Fire Safe Council. APRIL - 2 0 1 8 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 3 Background & Collaboration ............................................................................................... 4 The Landscape .................................................................................................................... 7 The Wildfire Problem ........................................................................................................10 Fire History Map ............................................................................................................... 13 Prioritizing Projects Across the Landscape .......................................................................14 Reducing Structural Ignitability .........................................................................................16 • Construction Methods ........................................................................................... 17 • Education .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2016 1 Chief’S Message
    Report to the Community Fall 2016 1 Chief’s Message As Fire Chief of the Albany Fire Department, it is my honor to present the Albany Fire Department’s Report to the Community. In our response to emergencies and our provision of health, safety and emergency services to the community, the department continues to exemplify the excellence and professionalism Albany has come to expect. Although you probably know us as the “fire department,” this by no means reflects the many ways our department serves the community every day. The Albany Fire Department not only responds to fires, but also provides the necessary training to respond to a multitude of emergencies. We also provide emergency medical services including transport, hazardous material response, and technical rescues for vehicle accidents and water rescue. Thanks in great part to the success of our Fire Prevention program, emergency medical calls now account for a majority of our workload. As we move forward into 2017 and beyond, we continue to emphasize training and best practices in everything we do to keep Albany safe. I would like to thank the Mayor, the City Council and the City Manager Mission for their support throughout some tough years, and for their support and vision for AFD’s continued growth and change. The Albany Fire Department enhances the quality of life and the environment by providing fire prevention and suppression, The future of the Albany Fire Department looks tremendous. It is my emergency medical services, public education and emergency honor to be a part of this department and its long, rich history and preparedness.
    [Show full text]
  • Damage and Mortality Assessment of Redwood and Mixed Conifer Forest Types in Santa Cruz County Following Wildfire
    Damage and Mortality Assessment of Redwood and Mixed Conifer Forest Types in Santa Cruz County Following Wildfire Steve R. Auten1 and Nadia Hamey1 Abstract On August 12, 2009, the Lockheed Fire ignited the west slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains burning approximately 7,819 acres. A mixture of vegetation types were in the path of the fire, including approximately 2,420 acres of redwood forest and 1,951 acres of mixed conifer forest types representative of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Foresters and land managers were left with tough decisions on how to treat tree damage and mortality compounded by the Pine Mountain Fire which occurred in the same area in 1948. Big Creek Lumber Company (BCL), Cal Poly’s Swanton Pacific Ranch (SPR) and other professionals familiar with this region of redwood teamed up to develop a method for evaluating damage and mortality. Qualitative criteria for evaluating stand damage focused on historic defect, cambial death, root damage, and associated fire intensity. Quantitative damage criteria was used to contrive three mortality assessment tables, broken up by diameter class (1 through 8, 9 through 16, 17+), for all tree species and tested against 83, 1/5th acre fixed plots from SPR’s Continuous Forest Inventory. Since the initial mortality evaluation using the new tables in fall of 2009, each of the 2877 trees have been re-evaluated in spring 2010 and spring 2011. Accuracy against the initial evaluation is 89.3 percent. Key words: damage, hardwood, mortality, redwood Introduction What should be harvested to encourage regeneration of selectively-managed forestland in the Southern Subdistrict of the Coast Forest District following wildfire? What determines tree mortality for the purpose of amending the sustainability analysis (SA) of a Non-industrial Timber Management Plan (NTMP) following wildfire? Charged with managing and maintaining the health and vigor of the forest ecosystem, foresters and land managers need an accurate way of field-evaluating damage and mortality in conifers and hardwoods immediately following wildfire.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts and Presenter Biographical Information Oral Presentations
    ABSTRACTS AND PRESENTER BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ORAL PRESENTATIONS Abstracts for oral presentations and biographical information for presenters are listed alphabetically below by presenting author’s last name. Abstracts and biographical information appear unmodified, as submitted by the corresponding authors. Day, time, and room number of presentation are also provided. Abatzoglou, John John Abatzoglou, Assistant Professor of Geography, University of Idaho. Research interests span the weather-climate continuum and both basic and applied scientific questions on past, present and future climate dynamics as well as their influence on wildfire, ecology and agriculture and is a key player in the development of integrated climate scenarios for the Pacific Northwest, US. Oral presentation, Wednesday, 2:30 PM, B114 Will climate change increase the occurrence of megafires in the western United States? The largest wildfires in the western United States account for a substantial portion of annual area burned and are associated with numerous direct and indirect geophysical impacts in addition to commandeering suppression resources and national attention. While substantial prior work has been devoted to understand the influence of climate, and weather on annual area burned, there has been limited effort to identify factors that enable and drive the very largest wildfires, or megafires. We hypothesize that antecedent climate and shorter-term biophysically relevant meteorological variables play an essen- tial role in favoring or deterring historical megafire occurrence identified using the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity Atlas from 1984-2010. Antecedent climatic factors such as drought and winter and spring temperature were found to vary markedly across geographic areas, whereas regional commonality of prolonged extremely low fuel moisture and high fire danger prior to and immediately following megafire discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ECONOMIC IMPACT of 2016 LOMA FIRE the Economic Impact of the 2016 Loma Fire
    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 2016 LOMA FIRE The Economic Impact of the 2016 Loma Fire AUTHORS Zachary Christin, Johnny Mojica, Ken Cousins, and Matt Chadsey of Earth Economics. RECOMMENDED CITATION Christin, Z., Mojica, J., Cousins, K., Chadsey M. 2017. The Economic Impact of the 2016 Loma Fire. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is funded by the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority This document is owed to the guidance and review of Andrea Mackenzie, Marc Landgraf, and Derek Neumann of the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, as well as Earth Economics volunteer Tehva Kastel Riggan. Edit review by Jessica Hanson and cover page design by Sage McElroy, both of Earth Economics. We would also like to thank Earth Economics’ Board of Directors for their continued guidance and support: Alex Bernhardt, David Cosman, Elizabeth Hendrix, Greg Forge, Ingrid Rasch, Molly Seaverns, and Sherry Richardson. 1 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 4 1. Introduction: Natural Capital and California Wildfires in Santa Clara County .................... 6 2. What is Natural Capital ..................................................................................................... 8 3. Study Area and the Loma Fire Overview ......................................................................... 11 3.1. Geography and Major Features .............................................................................................. 11 3.2. Population
    [Show full text]
  • Lockheed Fire Post Fire Risk Assessment
    Lockheed Fire Post Fire Risk Assessment San Mateo-Santa Cruz Unit California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection September 30, 2009 Aerial photo of Mill Creek drainage August 25, 2009 Table of Contents Page # Executive Summary 1 Introduction and Incident History 1 Watersheds 3 Field Observations 3 Burn Severity Characteristics 8 Fire Behavior 8 Historic Fire Return Intervals 9 Seasonal Context 10 Geology 12 General Observations 13 County Road 13 Downstream Impacts 13 Description of Geologic Units 16 Soils 17 Hydrophobic Soil Conditions 19 Soil Erosion Potential 20 Ecological Impacts 21 Redwood Forest 25 Mixed Conifer 25 Chaparral 26 Coastal Scrub 27 Grassland 27 Specific/Isolated Forest Stands 28 Invasive Species 29 General Recommendations 31 Recommendations to Mitigate Potential Soil Erosion and the Impacts 33 of Storm Water Runoff/Flooding Specific Observations 37 References 51 Post Fire Restoration Do’s and Don’ts 54 Firescaping and Erosion Control with Native Plants 59 Sample No Trespassing Sign 64 Maps Page # Watershed Map 6 Burn Severity Map 7 Fire History Map 11 Geology Map 15 Soil Map 18 Vegetation Type Map 24 Risk Maps Archibald Creek 40 Bettencourt Creek 41 Big Creek 42 Boyer Creek 43 Little Creek 44 Lower Scotts Creek 45 Mill Creek 46 Molino Creek 47 Queseria Creek 48 Upper Scotts Creek 49 Winter Creek 50 Tables and Charts Page # Table 1. Percent of Watersheds Burned 3 Table 2. Ranked Watersheds 5 Table 3. Fire Behavior 9 Table 4. Burn Severity by Vegetation Type 22 Chart 1. Lockheed Fire Severity by Vegetation Type 23 Chart 2. Vegetation Types by Burn Severity 23 Table 5.
    [Show full text]
  • San Lorenzo River and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey Update
    Santa Cruz Water Department in association with San Lorenzo Valley Water District San Lorenzo River and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey Update February 2018 This Page Intentionally Blank 2350 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 525 Santa Clara, California 95454 650-852-2800 FAX: 650-856-8527 San Lorenzo River and North Coast Watersheds Sanitary Survey Update February 2018 Prepared for City of Santa Cruz 715 Graham Hill Rd. Santa Cruz, CA 95060 In association with San Lorenzo Valley Water District K/J Project No. 17680004*00 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures................................................................................................................................ x List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xi Preparers ....................................................................................................................................... I Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... I Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Study Area .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Watershed Sanitary Survey Requirements
    [Show full text]
  • 0 Richmond Cover CWPP
    DRAFT 11/8/2019 Richmond CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan An Appendix to the Contra Costa Countywide Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Contra Costa County Prepared by Richmond Fire Department In conjunction with the Diablo Fire Safe Council Stakeholder Committee Members Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Scope and Purpose Section 1: City of Richmond Information 1.1 City Overview 1.2 The Planning Process & Stakeholders 1.3 Integration with Other Plans and Initiatives Section 2: Fire Hazard and Risk in the Wildland Urban Interface 2.1 Wildfire Environment 2.2 Wildland Urban Interface Risk and Hazard Assessments 2.2.1 Potential for Wildfire to Occur 2.2.2. What to Protect - Values at Risk within the WUI 2.2.3 Protection Capabilities 2.3 Strategies for Reducing Risk within the WUI Section 3: Recommended Action Plan 3.1 Selection of Recommended Priorities 3.2 Information, Education and Collaborative Planning Priorities 3.3 Enhanced Suppression Capability and Emergency Preparedness Priorities Section 4: Prioritizing Fuel Reduction Treatments 4.1 Hazardous Fuels Management 4.2 Fuels Reduction Treatments – Geographically Based Projects 4.3 Fuel Reduction Treatments – Related Priorities 4.4 Environmental Review and Permitting Section 5: Prioritizing Treatment of Structure Ignitability 5.1 Structure Ignitibility 5.2 Key Ignition Resistance Factors 5.3 Improving the Survivability of Structures within the WUI 5.4 “Home Hardening” - Retrofitting an Existing Structure for Survivability Section 6: Sustaining the Plan 6.1
    [Show full text]
  • (CNPS) Fire Recovery Guide
    FIRE RECOVERY GUIDE The Fire recovery Guide is made possible thanks to support from an anonymous donor, the Butte County Fire Safe Council, Giles W. and Elise G. Mead Foundation, Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, Marin and Mount Lassen chapters of CNPS, North Valley Community Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and individual CNPS donors. We also want to acknowledge the dozens of topic experts who generously shared their time and knowledge to bring the latest science and information to our readers. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers Heath Bartosh (Nomad Ecology) Jennifer Buck-Diaz (CNPS) Raphaela Floreani Buzbee (CNPS) Richard Casale (Natural Resources Conservation Service) Catherine Curley (CNPS) www.cnps.org Calli-Jane DeAnda (Butte Fire Safe Council) 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Julie Evens (CNPS) Sacramento, CA 95816-5130 Matteo Garbelotto (UC Berkeley) Phone: 916-447-2677 Dan Gluesenkamp (CNPS) Fax: 916-447-2727 Sarah Gordon (Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation) Email: [email protected] Richard Halsey (California Chaparral Institute) Diana Hickson (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) Nick Jensen (CNPS) Seth Kauppinen (CNPS) Elizabeth Kubey (CNPS) Roy Leggitt (Tree Management Experts) Don McEnhill (Russian River Keepers) Lech Naumovich (Golden Hour Restoration Institute) Liv O’Keeffe (Editor, CNPS) Brian Peterson (Nomad Ecology) Jaime Ratchford (CNPS) Ricky Satomi (UCANR) The science of fire recovery is advancing Alex Roa (Sonoma County Ag + Open Space) rapidly, and there are still differences of Wendy Trowbridge (Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation) interpretation among experts. We welcome Andrea Williams (Marin Municipal Water District) new information and will apply your Kate Wilkin (UCANR) feedback to improving future versions of Marti Witter (National Park Service) the Fire Recovery Guide.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Fire Mortality and Response in a Redwood/ Douglas-Fir Forest
    POST-FIRE MORTALITY AND RESPONSE IN A REDWOOD/ DOUGLAS-FIR FOREST, SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA A Thesis presented to the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Forestry Sciences by Garren McKendree Andrews December 2012 i © 2012 Garren McKendree Andrews ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP TITLE: POST-FIRE MORTALITY AND RESPONSE IN A REDWOOD/ DOUGLAS-FIR FOREST, SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA AUTHOR: Garren M. Andrews DATE SUBMITTED: December 2012 COMMITTEE CHAIR: Dr. Christopher A. Dicus, Professor COMMITTEE MEMBER: Dr. Brian Dietterick, Professor COMMITTEE MEMBER: Dr. Mark Horney, Professor iii Abstract Post-fire Mortality and Response in a redwood/ Douglas-fir forest, Santa Cruz Mountains, California Garren Andrews We investigated how fire severity impacts the survival and response (sprouting/seeding) of multiple species in the Santa Cruz Mountains of coastal California, including coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens ), Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ), tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus ), and Pacific madrone( Arbutus menziesii ). During August 2009 the Lockheed Fire burned nearly 3,160ha of mixed-conifer stands with variable severity. Data from 37 Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) plots were collected immediately before and for 2 successive years following the 2009 Lockheed Fire. This research entails three objectives. First, we quantified post-fire mortality of trees that vary in species, size, and fire severity. Second, data was quantified for post-fire response (sprouting, seeding) of those three tree species in areas of varying fire severity. Third, we developed logistic regression models that predict post-fire mortality and response for each of the three species.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to County Board of Supervisors on Wildfire Risk and Response
    Report to Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors WILDFIRE RISK & RESPONSE April 2019 ATTACHMENT 3 County of Santa Clara Fire Department BACKGROUND At the December 4, 2018 Board of Supervisors meeting, a board referral was given to the County Fire Chief due to the implications of the huge increase in wildland fires in the region and the potential risks to Santa Clara County. Specifically, the referral requested information on tools, technology, strategies, policies, procedures and resources available in the County as well as what additional resources are needed to protect our community. The Santa Clara County Fire Department (Central Fire Protection District) Fire Chief was asked to coordinate with the other fire districts (Los Altos Hills and South Santa Clara County), the Roads and Airports department, and County Parks and report back to the Board no later than April, 2019. The Board’s request came shortly after the Camp fire destroyed the communities of Concow, Magalia, and Paradise in Butte County, ending the deadliest and most destructive year of wildland fires in California history. More than 20,000 structures were destroyed, over 1.9 million acres burned, and 98 people were killed. The Camp fire alone is estimated to have cost over $120 million to contain1 and burned more than 18,000 structures, becoming California’s most destructive wildland fire ever. This is remarkable considering just 13- months prior the Tubbs fire in Sonoma County had been the most destructive fire in California history burning 5,636 structures and killing 22 people. These fires fueled by dense, dry vegetation and warmer, drier weather have unfortunately become increasingly more common over the last several years and have resulted in rising suppression costs.
    [Show full text]