06 Staff Report - Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury ReportMEETING DATE: 09-4-2007
~owN 0 AGENDA ITEM:
cospos COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 30, 2007
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: APPROVE RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
REPORT - DISASTER PREPAREDNESS IN THE COUNTY:
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report - Disaster Preparedness in the
County: Improvements Needed
BACKGROUND:
The Civil Grand Jury is empowered to investigate the policies and practices of public agencies
within the County of Santa Clara and to make recommendations for changing current or adopting
new procedures. California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that the governing body of the
entity subject to a grand jury report respond within 90 days to the findings and recommendations
contained in the report. The response must either agree or disagree in whole or in part with the
findings and state the reasons for any disagreement, and further state whether the
recommendations have or will be implemented and the plan for doing so, an explanation of the
reasons for not doing so, or whether the recommendation requires further study and how that
study will be conducted in a frame of time not to exceed six months.
DISCUSSION:
The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury investigated the emergency response procedures of five
cities including San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Gilroy and Morgan Hill. The investigation
focused on three areas: personnel call back ability; equipment availability; and seismic security
of communications equipment. In general, the Grand Jury found a lack of consistency among the
PREPARED BY: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY
OPK_LMBAvp [N VATYVtepons\Report GJ Disaster Prep 9-07.wpd]
4- E
Reviewed by; Town Manager Assistant Town Manager Clerk
Finance Community Development
Rev: 8/30/07 5:18 pm
Reformatted: 7/19/99 Fi[e# 301-05
PAGE2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
APPROVE RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT
August 30, 2007
cities regarding personnel call back ability and the seismic security of communications
equipment.
The Grand Jury Report - Disaster Preparedness in the County: Improvements Needed, contains
six factual findings and recommendations. The Town is required to respond to finding No. 6,
which states nothing other than the extent of the investigation conducted by the Grand Jury, and
recommendation No. 6, which requires an explanation of how the Town would respond to
questions regarding personnel call back ability and seismic security of communications
equipment.
The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department is responsible for coordinating emergency
response by the Town. The Police Department reports that it has already implemented a call
back system by maintaining up-to-date personnel rosters in the Police Department dispatch
center. The Department is also in the process of implementing an automated callback system.
The proposed response also states that an evaluation of the seismic security of communications
equipment with regard to section 1632 of Chapter 16 of the California Building Code will be
undertaken by Town staff. Council approval of this response will also direct staff to undertake
this evaluation.
Attachments:
1. Grand Jury Report - Disaster Preparedness in the County: Improvements Needed
2. Proposed response
t5 [ 1UR~
t
i. 2007
May 22, 2007
VoR R r ,~VNI I COW-
Honorable Joe Pirzynski
Mayor
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Dear Mayor Pirzynski and Members of the Town Council:
The 2006-2007 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report,
Disaster Preparedness in the County: Improvements Needed.
California Penal Code § 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or
department which has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under
the control of the governing body. California Penal Code § 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to
Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this letter.
PLEASE NOTE:
1. As stated in Penal Code § 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or
"Disagree" with each APPLICABLE Finding(s) E6. If you disagree, in whole or part,
you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.
2. As stated in Penal Code § 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond to each
APPLICABLE Recommendation(s) R6, with one of four possible actions.
Your comments are due in the office of the Honorable Catherine A. Gallagher, Presiding Judge,
Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, no later than
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk ofAe Court.
Sincerely
DONALD R. LAYMAN
Foreperson
2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury
RRL:dsa
Enclosures (2)
,(e MR C,IL!cI )U11 Pl191 Noa tit PiR T SIRE 1_, S %N JOSE, CA i.ii o,=_:viA 98173 • (408) 882-2721. • [:A\ 882-2798 ~o
Attachment 1
California Penal Code Section 933.05, in relevant part:
933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding,
the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the
response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury
recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following
actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding
the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation
and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time
frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or
head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed,
including the governing body of the public agency when applicable.
This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not
warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
i
(ENDORSED)
2006-2007 SANTA CLARA COUNTY E D
CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT MAY 2 2 2001
KIRI TORRE
Chief Executive Officer
Superior Court of CA C unry of Santa Clara
BY D. AI_DY~KI DEPUTY
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS IN THE COUNTY:
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED
Summary
Disaster events that have occurred in Santa Clara County (County) have
heightened interest in emergency preparedness. The umbrella organization for
emergency services in the County is the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency
Services (Emergency Services). This organization is augmented by the emergency
services organizations of each of its fifteen cities.
The 2006-2007 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) interviewed
the director of Emergency Services for the County and the directors of a sampling of
five cities within the County. The organizations reviewed are the County, the City of San
Jose, the City of Sunnyvale, the City of Santa Clara, the City of Morgan Hill, and the
City of Gilroy. These interviews, and review of pertinent documents, focused on three
areas of emergency preparedness: personnel callback ability, equipment availability,
and seismic security of communications equipment.
The personnel callback ability refers to the ability of an agency to locate, contact,
and advise employees of the type of emergency and to request their return to the
workplace. Equipment availability refers to the availability of types of equipment lists,
such as dozers, buses or water purification systems, knowledge of where the equipment
is located, and knowledge of how to request and obtain the equipment. Seismic security
of communications equipment refers to the presence of physical restraints to minimize
damage to communications components during an earthquake.
The Grand Jury found a lack of consistency in the attention given to two of the
three areas of focus by the agencies reviewed. The Grand Jury made recommendations
to improve emergency preparedness in these areas of focus: personnel callback, and
seismic security of communications equipment.
Discussion
The 1.7 million residents of the County are susceptible to significant emergency
events. These events could include earthquakes, weather extremes, floods,
transportation accidents, toxic substance spills, terrorist attacks, and utility interruptions.
The city and county governments have the responsibility to prepare for these events.
They also have the responsibility to provide for various populations within the County
that have limited mobility in the event of an emergency, including the sick and injured,
the elderly, and those lacking transportation.
Major areas of focus in this report are: (1) ability to call back personnel in the
event of a major emergency, (2) equipment availability in the event of a major
emergency, and (3) seismic security of communications equipment.
The Grand Jury reviewed the County and five of its fifteen cities to determine
their preparedness in the three major areas of focus. It is the intent of this report that
pertinent information be used by the other ten cities to evaluate their own emergency
preparedness. Government entities and their Emergency Operations Centers reviewed
were:
• City of Gilroy Emergency Operations Center
• City of Morgan Hill Emergency Operations Center
• City of San Jose Emergency Operations Center
• City of Santa Clara Emergency Operations Center
• City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety
• Santa Clara County Emergency Operations Center
Agencies whose staff members were interviewed can be found in the Interviews
and Observations section of this report.
Documents secured from each agency include: (1) Emergency Operations Plan,
(2) personnel callback listings, (3) equipment availability lists, and (4) documents related
to seismic security of communications equipment. Not all the agencies reviewed had
current listings.
Tours were made of all six of the emergency operations centers. The information
gathered and the documents received are the bases for the Conclusions, Findings, and
Recommendations below.
The standards to which the seismic security of communications equipment is
measured are listed in the California Building Code, Chapter 16. Section 1632 of this
Chapter refers to nonstructural components supported by structures.
Conclusions
Ability to Call Back Personnel for Emergencies
Not all government emergency operations centers surveyed have up-to-date,
available information as to where their personnel live or how to contact them. Not all
have a rapid means of summoning their workers in the event of an emergency.
2
Equipment Availability
All emergency operations centers have listings of equipment and how to acquire
additional equipment from the local area. All emergency operations centers are aware
of the procedures available to acquire needed equipment through mutual aid from
surrounding jurisdictions or through the County. Mutual aid is the response to one
agency's request for needed services or supplies by another agency, either by another
agency within the County or by one from outside the County.
Seismic Security of Communications Equipment
None of the sampled government emergency operations centers has been
evaluated for the safety and survivability of their communications equipment during an
earthquake. Few could even accurately define the applicable seismic standards to
which their communications equipment installations were supposed to be measured. All
of the communications equipment inspected had some means of securing it to the floor,
a wall, and/or the ceiling. However, some equipment inspected had individual
components that were unsecured.
General
All of the government entities reviewed had an Emergency Operations Plan, an
Emergency Operations Center, and a designated Emergency Operations Coordinator or
equivalent. In addition, all had thoroughly considered and clearly defined the potential
emergency needs for their jurisdictions.
3
Findings
The following findings were reviewed with the subject agencies:
Ability to Call Back Personnel for an Emergency
171 Emergency Operations Centers of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and the
County have personnel availability listings that record where their personnel
currently live. The City of Gilroy has records that are not current.
• The City of Gilroy has contact information. The information is not current, and
callback is through a manual system. They also have a text-paging system
that can be used when personnel can be reached by email.
• The City of Morgan Hill's records are current. Callback is a manual system.
• The City of Santa Clara has current information, but it is a manual system
relying on a phone tree system.
• The City of San Jose has printed cards with the information needed to
manually call back their personnel. They maintain a list of "the line of
succession" for key staff, along with all contact information for these
employees. This list is updated on a regular basis. Some departments of the
City have automated systems of callback.
• The City of Sunnyvale has an automated system that can call a large group of
employees simultaneously. The system automatically distinguishes whom to
call, based on the type of incident and the size of response required.
Personnel are required to update contact information regularly, which they
can do on the City's website.
• The County has the necessary records. Their callback system is a manual
system.
F2 The City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety and some departments of the
City of San Jose have automated means of summoning their workers in the
event of an emergency. However, the Emergency Operations Centers for the
County and for the Cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, San Jose, and Santa Clara do
not have automated means.
Equipment Availability
F3 The emergency operations centers of all the jurisdictions surveyed have listings
of equipment within their control and are aware of the methods needed to obtain
additional emergency equipment.
4
Seismic Security of Communications Equipment
F4 There was no consistency among the jurisdictions surveyed as to the codes to
which their communications equipment was installed. In response to questions
regarding seismic audits to ensure survivability, most of the jurisdictions identified
some code(s) to which their equipment was installed. The Grand Jury cannot
determine if the codes cited by the jurisdictions provide the equivalent level of
protection for the communications equipment as specified in California Building
Code Chapter 16, Section 1632.
• The City of Gilroy states that they comply with Section 1605.2 of Chapter 16,
California Building Code. In addition, the City refers to Table 16K of the same
chapter, which provides data on Occupancy Category/Essential Facilities, and
Table 16S, which deals with Near Source Factor/Seismic Source Factor.
• The City of San Jose states that the City "does adhere to all State seismic
retrofit requirements for buildings at the time of construction" and "newer
facilities are designed and constructed to meet or exceed seismic safety
standards as public safety facilities..." They did not specify the standards to
which they comply.
• The City of Santa Clara states that they comply with Section 1632 of the
California Building Code for seismic security of equipment. They further state
that they use "industry standard" racks and mounting standards that secure
the equipment to walls and/or ceilings. Internal audits and safety inspections
of communications equipment are regularly conducted.
• The City of Sunnyvale states that their facilities conform to the Uniform
Building Code, 1991, including the seismic requirements of Section 2312 for
Earthquake Zone 4. They also state that they comply with the seismic
requirements of SB 239, Chapter 1521. Contracts with their communications
equipment suppliers reference the above codes, plus a lengthy list of other
building codes, National Fire Protection Administration technical
requirements, Occupational and Safety Administration standards, and other
standards.
The City of Morgan Hill states that their facility meets the California Building
Code standards as an essential facility. They further state that the seismic
requirements for essential facilities were incorporated in the facility during
reconstruction.
• The County states that they know the standards and are in compliance.
F5 All of the emergency operations centers surveyed have an Emergency
Operations Plan and a designated Emergency Operations Coordinator ' or
equivalent.
F6 Five cities and the County were surveyed. There were ten cities within the
County that were not surveyed, and the preparedness levels of these cities as
related to the major areas of focus are unknown.
5
Recommendations
The 2006-2007 Grand Jury recommends that the agencies take the following
actions:
R1 The Emergency Operations Center for the City of Gilroy needs to prepare
availability lists showing the employees' current residence. All emergency
operations centers should develop a procedure for keeping their listings current.
R2 The Emergency Operations Centers for the Cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, San
Jose, Santa Clara, and the County should consider developing automated or
other rapid means of summoning their employees.
R3 No recommendation.
R4 The County and all of the surveyed cities should assure that they meet California
Building Code Chapter 16, especially Section 1632 relating to the physical
security of nonstructural equipment.
R5 No recommendation.
R6 The ten cities not reviewed in this report should examine their planning for
disasters and determine if the above recommendations apply to them.
6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2002-2003 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. Inquiry into Computer Information
Systems Disaster Recovery Plans.
2004-2005 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. Confirmation of Responses to 2002-
2003 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Recommendations.
California Seismic Safety Commission. The Tsunami Threat to Califomia.
http://www.seismic.ca.qov/pub/CSSC°102005-03°/o2OTsunami %20Findings pdf
December 2005.
California Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Chapter 16, Structural Design
Requirements, 2001.
Dillon, Tim. Do We Have to Wait for Another National Emergency to Get Some of These
Things Done? USA Today. September 14, 2005.
Shunk, Kimberly. Golden Guardian 2006 Master Scenario of Events List (MSEL)
Worksheet. November 14, 2006.
Shunk, Kimberly. Email, San Jose Office of Emergency Services - Follow up to
Golden Guardian 2006 Exercise. January 26, 2007.
FEMA. Information Center for Natural Disasters. Hyperlinks to: Prepare for
a Disaster, Determine Your Risk, Plan for Emergencies, Assemble Supplies,
Protect Your Property, Are you Ready? and What FEMA Is Doing? Mitigation
Activities hftp://www.fema.gov/pIan. November 21, 2006.
Memorandum dated October 3, 2006, from Peter Kutras, Jr. to County of Santa Clara
Board of Supervisors, Reorganization of the Office of Emergency Services in the
Office of the County Executive.
US Geological Survey. Earthquake Hazards Program - Northern California.
http://quake.usgs.gov/prer)are/hazards.htmi. April 21, 2003.
US Geological Survey. Earthquake Preparedness in California.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/qip/2005/15. 2006.
7
Emergency Plans
City of Gilroy
City of Morgan Hill
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
City of Sunnyvale
Santa Clara County
INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS
September 6, 2006
Interviewed Staff, Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff
and Staff of the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency
Services. Presentation to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury.
October 4, 2006
Observed demonstration of the San Jose Police
Department's emergency equipment operational capability.
October 22, 2006
Interviewed Staff of Santa Clara Fire Department.
November 3, 2006
Interviewed Staff of the Santa Clara County Office of
Emergency Services, and Staff of Telecommunications for
Santa Clara County.
November 6, 2006
Interviewed Staff of the Sunnyvale Department of Public
Service.
November 15, 2006
Observed the Golden Guardian Multi-Agency Exercise and
Simulations at Moffett Field.
November 17, 2006
Interviewed Staff of City of San Jose Office of Emergency
Services.
January 5, 2007
Interviewed Staff of Morgan Hill Police Department.
January 5, 2007
Interviewed Staff of the Gilroy Fire Department.
January 23, 2007
Interviewed Staff of Emergency Services Department,
Gilroy Police Department.
8
PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 24th day of
April 2007.
Rona . Lay an
Foreperson
& 6--
David M. Burnham
Foreperson Pro tem
K~athryn C. hilp
Secretary
9
September 5, 2007
TOWN OF Los ATOs
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY CPnCCENrER
(408) 354-6880 110 E. MAIN STREET
P.O. Box 949
FAX: (408) 354-8431 Los GATOS, CA 95031
The Honorable Catherine A. Galagher
Superior Court Building - Dept. 20
191 North First Street
San Jose. California 95113
Subject: 2006-2007 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - Disaster Preparedness in
the County: Improvements Needed
Dear Judge Galagher:
Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the Town of Los Gatos ("Town") responds to the above
referenced final report of the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury as follows:
Finding,s
F6: The Town agrees with the finding.
Recommendations
R6: The Town has implemented the recommendation. The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police
Department has a method to call back personnel by maintaining regularly updated personnel
rosters and collateral personnel rosters which are immediately available to the dispatch team.
The Town is currently negotiating with products vendors and telecommunications companies
for the development of a system and phone subscriber information necessary to allow
automated summoning of employees. An evaluation of the seismic security of communications
equipment with regard to section 1632 of Chapter 16 of the California Building Code will be
undertaken by Town staff, to be completed within six (6) months of this response.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
ORRY P. KORB
Town Attorney
OPK:pg
Attachment 2
cc: Mayor and Town Council
Pamela Jacobs, Town Manager
Scott Seaman, Chief of Police - Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department
INCORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887
®4t