Post on 12-Jun-2020
Standards of Cover
Assessment
for the
June 16, 2015
2250 East Bidwell St., Ste #100 Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 458-5100 Fax: (916) 983-2090
Menlo Park Fire
Protection District
Management Consultants Folsom (Sacramento), CA
Volume 2 of 3 –
Technical Report
This page was intentionally left blank
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Table of Contents page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
VOLUME 1 of 3 – Executive Summary (separately bound)
VOLUME 2 of 3 – Standards of Cover Assessment
Technical Report (this volume)
Section 1—Introduction and Background ...................................................................................1
1.1 Report Organization .........................................................................................1
1.2 Project Scope of Work .....................................................................................2
1.3 District Overview .............................................................................................2
1.4 Previous Studies of the District ........................................................................4
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Introduction ........................................................................5
2.1 Standards of Coverage Study Processes ...........................................................5
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment ..................................9
3.1 Why Does the District Exist and How Does it Deliver the Existing
Fire Crew Deployment Services? .....................................................................9
3.2 Community Risk Assessment Introduction ....................................................12
3.3 Risk Factors ....................................................................................................16
3.4 Community Growth and Development ..........................................................19
3.5 Prior Risk Studies ...........................................................................................23
3.6 Community Expectations ...............................................................................25
3.7 Risk Assessment Methodology ......................................................................26
3.8 District Hazards Assessment ..........................................................................27
3.9 Risk Assessment Result ..................................................................................41
3.10 Existing District Deployment .........................................................................42
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis .......................................................................45
4.1 Critical Time Task Measures—What Must be Done Over What Time
Frame to Achieve the Stated Outcome Expectation? .....................................45
4.2 Distribution and Concentration Studies—How the Location of First-
Due and First Alarm Resources Affects the Outcome ...................................52
Section 5—Statistical Analysis ....................................................................................................63
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Table of Contents page ii
5.1 Historical Effectiveness and Reliability of Response—What Statistics
Say About Existing System Performance ......................................................63
5.2 Service Demand .............................................................................................63
5.3 Response Time Analysis ................................................................................68
5.4 Simultaneous Incident Activity ......................................................................73
5.5 Station Demand Percentage and Unit Hour Utilization .................................74
5.6 The District’s Unique Deployment Issues ......................................................76
Section 6—SOC Evaluation and Recommendation ..................................................................87
6.1 Overall Evaluation ..........................................................................................87
Section 7—Next Steps ..................................................................................................................91
7.1 Next Steps .......................................................................................................91
Appendices
Appendix A—Risk Assessment Exhibits
Table of Tables
Table 1—Standards of Response Coverage Process Elements ....................................................... 6
Table 2—Fire Department Deployment Simplified ....................................................................... 7
Table 3—Probability and Consequence Matrix ............................................................................ 14
Table 4—Town of Atherton Demographics ................................................................................. 17
Table 5—City of East Palo Alto Demographics ........................................................................... 18
Table 6—City of Menlo Park Demographics ............................................................................... 18
Table 7—San Mateo County Demographics ................................................................................ 19
Table 8—District Population ........................................................................................................ 21
Table 9—District Employment ..................................................................................................... 21
Table 10—District Residential Development ............................................................................... 22
Table 11—Non-Residential Development – District Cities ......................................................... 22
Table 12—Urban Land Hazard Exposure Area – San Mateo County .......................................... 24
Table 13—2010 ABAG Hazards .................................................................................................. 28
Table 14—2010 ABAG Hazards Potentially Impacting the District ............................................ 29
Table 15—2015 District Hazards ................................................................................................. 30
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Table of Contents page iii
Table 16—District Incident Response Capabilities Correlating to Hazard Impact Severity
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 17—District Risk Assessment Zones ................................................................................. 31
Table 18—Probability of Future Major Incident Occurrence Criteria ......................................... 32
Table 19—Probability of Future Occurrence by Incident Category ............................................. 32
Table 20—Impact Severity Factors .............................................................................................. 33
Table 21—Impact Severity Factor Analysis – BUILDING FIRE ................................................ 34
Table 22—Impact Severity Factor Analysis – WILDLAND FIRE.............................................. 34
Table 23—Impact Severity Factor Analysis – MEDICAL EMERGENCY ................................. 35
Table 24—Impact Severity Factor Analysis – RESCUE ............................................................. 35
Table 25—Impact Severity Factor Analysis – HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE ............ 35
Table 26—Overall Risk Rating Scores by Incident Type ............................................................ 36
Table 27—Overall Risk Rating Categories .................................................................................. 36
Table 28—District Overall Risk Ratings by Incident Category and Risk Zone ........................... 37
Table 29—Daily Minimum Staffing per Unit for the District – 2015 .......................................... 42
Table 30—Resources Sent to Common Risk Types ..................................................................... 43
Table 31—First Alarm Structure Fire – 16-21 Firefighters .......................................................... 46
Table 32—Multi-Casualty Traffic Collision – 3 Firefighters plus 2 Ambulances ....................... 48
Table 33—Cardiac Arrest – 3 Firefighters plus an Ambulance ................................................... 49
Table 34—Road Mile Coverage for First-Due and First Alarm Units ......................................... 53
Table 35—Incident Demand by Incident Type by Year ............................................................... 67
Table 36—Incident Demand by Property Use by Year ................................................................ 68
Table 37—Call to Arrival Response Time (Minutes/Seconds) .................................................... 69
Table 38—Turnout Time Performance ......................................................................................... 70
Table 39—Travel Time Performance ........................................................................................... 71
Table 40—Incidents: Count – Year by Station ............................................................................. 72
Table 41—Call to Arrival Time for ERF Incidents by Year ........................................................ 72
Table 42—Travel Time for ERF Incidents by Year ..................................................................... 73
Table 43—Simultaneous Incident Activity – 2014 ...................................................................... 73
Table 44—Unit-Hour Utilization for Apparatus........................................................................... 75
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Table of Contents page iv
Table 45—Apparatus: Count – Arrival Sequence by Station ....................................................... 77
Table 46—District Resources Used By Arrival............................................................................ 77
Table 47—Apparatus: 90% Performance Minutes – Arrival Sequence and Count per Station ... 78
Table 48—Apparatus: 90% Travel Minutes – Vehicle ID and Count per Hour of Day (City Side
Resources into Bay Side Area) ..................................................................................................... 80
Table 49—City Side Combined Apparatus Travel Time and Counts by Hour ............................ 81
Table 50—Apparatus: 90% Travel Minutes – Vehicle ID and Count per Hour of Day (Bay Side
Resources into City Side Area) ..................................................................................................... 83
Table 51—City Side Combined Apparatus Travel Time and Counts by Hour ............................ 84
Table 52—Impact Severity Factor Evaluation Criteria – BUILDING FIRE ............................... 95
Table 53—Impact Severity Factor Evaluation Criteria – WILDLAND FIRE ............................. 96
Table 54—Impact Severity Factor Evaluation Criteria – MEDICAL EMERGENCY ................ 97
Table 55—Impact Severity Factor Evaluation Criteria – RESCUE ............................................. 98
Table 56—Impact Severity Factor Evaluation Criteria – HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
RELEASE ..................................................................................................................................... 99
Table of Figures
Figure 1—Risk Types ................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2—Fire Progression Timeline ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 3—Risk Zone Rating Calculations Flowchart ................................................................... 27
Figure 4—Survival Rate vs. Time of Defibrillation ..................................................................... 39
Figure 5—Number of Incidents by Year ...................................................................................... 64
Figure 6—Number of Incidents by Year by Incident Type .......................................................... 64
Figure 7—Number of Incidents by Month by Year ...................................................................... 65
Figure 8—Number of Incidents by Day of Week by Year ........................................................... 65
Figure 9—Number of Incidents by Hour of Day by Year ............................................................ 66
Figure 10—Number of Incidents by Station by Year ................................................................... 66
Figure 11—Number of Station Simultaneous Incidents ............................................................... 74
Figure 12—Bay Side Incidents ..................................................................................................... 79
Figure 13—City Side Incidents .................................................................................................... 82
VOLUME 3 of 3 – Map Atlas (separately bound)
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 1—Introduction and Background page 1
SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Citygate Associates, LLC’s detailed work product for a Standards of Response Cover (SOC)
review for field deployment functions for the Menlo Park Fire Protection District (the District) is
presented in this volume. Citygate’s scope of work and corresponding Work Plan was developed
consistent with Citygate’s Project Team members’ experience in fire administration. Citygate
utilizes various National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) publications as best practice
guidelines, along with the self-assessment criteria of the Commission on Fire Accreditation
International (CFAI).
1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report volume is structured into the following sections. Volumes 1 (Executive Summary)
and 3 (Map Atlas) are separately bound.
Section 1 Introduction and Background: An introduction to the study and background facts
about the District.
Section 2 Standards of Response Coverage Introduction: An introduction to the Standards of
Coverage (SOC) process and methodology used by Citygate in this review.
Section 3 Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment: An in-depth examination of the
District’s deployment ability to meet the community’s risks, expectations, and
emergency needs.
Section 4 Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis: A review of (1) the critical tasks that must be
performed to achieve the District’s desired outcome; and (2) the District’s existing
fire station locations and future locations.
Section 5 Response Statistical Analysis: A statistical data analysis of the District’s incident
responses and an overall deployment evaluation.
Section 6 SOC Evaluation and Deployment Recommendation: A summary of deployment
priorities and an overall deployment recommendation.
Section 7 Next Steps: A summary of deployment short- and long-term next steps.
1.1.1 Goals of Report
As each of the sections mentioned above imparts information, this report will cite findings and
make recommendations, if appropriate, that relate to each finding. There is a sequential
numbering of all of the findings and recommendations throughout Sections 3 through 6 of this
report. To provide a comprehensive summary, a complete listing of all these same findings and
recommendations, in order, is found in the Executive Summary. Section 7 of this report brings
attention to the highest priority needs and possible next steps.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 1—Introduction and Background page 2
This document provides technical information about how fire services are provided, legally
regulated, and how the District currently operates. This information is presented in the form of
recommendations and policy choices for the District leadership to discuss.
1.2 PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK
1.2.1 Standards of Response Coverage Review
The scope of the Standards of Response Coverage review included the following elements:
Modeling the need and effects of the current fire station locations. Although this
is not a study of fire departments adjacent to the District, the study considered the
impacts of the District’s existing or potential automatic and mutual aid
agreements on the District’s needs.
Establishing performance goals consistent with best practices and national
guidelines from the NFPA and CFAI.
Using an incident response time analysis program called StatsFD™ to review the
statistics of prior historical performance.
Using a geographic mapping response time measurement tool called FireView™
to measure fire and ambulance driving coverages.
SOC Study Questions
To prepare and develop a Standards of Coverage document for the District, Citygate reviewed
computer data, response time analysis, and past performance. As a result, this study addresses the
following questions:
1. Is the type and quantity of apparatus and personnel adequate for the District’s
deployment to emergencies?
2. What is the recommended deployment to maintain adequate emergency response
times as growth continues to occur?
1.3 DISTRICT OVERVIEW
Located between Highway 280 and the San Francisco Bay in the southern most portion of San
Mateo County, the Menlo Park Fire Protection District provides public safety services consisting
of fire protection and prevention, emergency medical, technical rescue, hazardous materials,
disaster preparedness, and public education, as well as related services to the Town of Atherton,
Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, portions of unincorporated San Mateo County, and
contract emergency services for the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC).
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 1—Introduction and Background page 3
Bordered generally by Redwood City on the north, San Francisco Bay on the east, Santa Clara
County (Palo Alto) on the south, and Woodside on the west, the District encompasses
approximately 30 square miles with an estimated population of 90,000 residents. Situated just
north of Silicon Valley in Santa Clara County and South of San Francisco, the area developed
initially as a popular country estate community for San Francisco businessmen. In addition to
being home to Stanford University, Stanford Hospital, and Facebook, the region is also known as
a venture capital center and research and development hub for the Valley with one of the ten
Department of Energy National Labs at SLAC and other National Testing Centers such as
Stanford Research Institute (or SRI International).
As part of the greater urban San Francisco Bay Area, the majority of the District is residential
with related commercial and light industrial uses. The economy centers around high density
venture capital, private equity, financial services, law firms, and other professional services
companies focusing on technology and health science. The economic activity is concentrated in
the western area of the District near Stanford University and Hospital, and high density business
and industrial uses on the east side adjacent to San Francisco Bay near the Dumbarton Bridge.
With elevation ranging from sea level to approximately 300 feet, the District enjoys a
Mediterranean climate characterized by mild winters and dry summers. Rainfall averages
approximately 16 inches per year, generally occurring between mid-October and mid-April.
Average temperatures range from a low of 36o
F – 40o
F in the winter to a high of 75o
F – 80o F in
the summer. The area enjoys an average of 255 sunny days per year with 56 days of precipitation
and mild winds.
The District receives fire dispatch from San Mateo County Communications serving all of the
cities, districts, and unincorporated areas of the County.
1.3.1 Legal Basis for Agency1
On September 16, 1915, a group of 62 residents petitioned the San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors and the Menlo Park Fire Protection District was formed. The boundaries of the Fire
District eventually followed lines similar to those drawn for the original incorporation of Menlo
Park. On March 23, 1874, Menlo Park became the second incorporated city in San Mateo
County, although only for a short time. The purpose was to provide a quick way to raise money
for road repairs. This incorporation, which included Fair Oaks (later Atherton) and Ravenswood
(later East Palo Alto) lasted only until 1876. Menlo Park attempted to reincorporate in 1923, and
the boundaries would have included what is now Atherton. Citizens in Atherton had other ideas
and beat Menlo Park to the County Courthouse by only minutes and submitted their own
incorporation documents. Menlo Park delayed their submission and the city was not incorporated
1 District web site history.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 1—Introduction and Background page 4
until 1927. East Palo Alto remained as an unincorporated county area until 1983 when the City
of East Palo Alto was formed. The Menlo Park Fire Protection District is older, therefore, than
the three cities that it protects.
1.3.2 Funding Sources and Restrictions
In Fiscal Year 15/16, the Board-approved Final Operating Expenditures were $37,521,000.
Revenues inclusive of property taxes and fees were projected to be $37,347,000 for all funds.
The Board of Directors places a high priority on closely monitoring the impact of local economic
conditions on the District’s finances and on the District’s ability to maintain current service
levels, meet infrastructure needs, and build and maintain healthy reserve balances. The budget
preparation and adoption process is guided by several basic fiscal tenets:
Ongoing operating expenditures are to be paid with ongoing operating revenues.
Some services provided by District staff have a cost recovery element that is close
to 100% cost recovery.
Alternate revenue sources such as grants are encouraged with the caveat that the
associated expenditures have a limited life equal to that of the revenue source.
Paid time off balances, such as annual leave, will be funded at 100% pay out
values per Memorandum(s) of Understanding and compensation and benefit plans
effective at the end of each fiscal year.
The District has incorporated these tenets into its fiscal strategies and uses them to set fiscally
responsible short- and long-term goals. The District also continues to provide a high level of
reliable service to the public. Despite the recent difficult economic conditions, the District’s
reserves are healthy and its long-term financial outlook is strong. Fire stations have not been
closed and no fire engines were taken out of service. Employees have not been laid off or
furloughed and service levels have been maintained. Effective leadership and prudent fiscal
practices continue to ensure that the community the District serves will receive the service level
that it has come to expect.
1.4 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE DISTRICT
The District Directors last commissioned a full Standards of Cover study in June 2004. Since that
time the District has conducted user and impact fee studies and successfully managed its
operations as the communities it serves continued to evolve.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Introduction page 5
SECTION 2—STANDARDS OF COVERAGE INTRODUCTION
2.1 STANDARDS OF COVERAGE STUDY PROCESSES
The core methodology used by Citygate in the scope of its deployment analysis work is the
“Standards of Response Coverage” 5th
Edition, which is a systems-based approach to fire
department deployment, as published by the CFAI. This approach uses local risk and
demographics to determine the level of protection best fitting the District’s needs.
The Standards of Response Coverage method evaluates deployment as part of the self-
assessment process of a fire agency. This approach uses risk and community expectations on
outcomes to help elected officials make informed decisions on fire and emergency medical
services deployment levels. Citygate has adopted this methodology as a comprehensive tool to
evaluate fire station locations. Depending on the needs of the study, the depth of the components
may vary.
Such a systems approach to deployment, rather than a one-size-fits-all prescriptive formula,
allows for local determination. In this comprehensive approach, each agency can match local
needs (risks and expectations) with the costs of various levels of service. In an informed public
policy debate, a governing board “purchases” the fire and emergency medical service levels the
community needs and can afford.
While working with multiple components to conduct a deployment analysis is admittedly more
work, it yields a much better result than using only a singular component. For instance, if only
travel time is considered, and frequency of multiple calls is not considered, the analysis could
miss over-worked companies. If a risk assessment for deployment is not considered, and
deployment is based only on travel time, a community could under-deploy to incidents.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Introduction page 6
The Standards of Response Coverage process consists of the following eight parts:
Table 1—Standards of Response Coverage Process Elements
Element Meaning
1. Existing Deployment Policies Reviewing the deployment goals the agency has in place today.
2. Community Outcome Expectations Reviewing the expectations of the community for response to emergencies.
3. Community Risk Assessment Reviewing the assets at risk in the community. (In this Citygate study, see Section 3.2 Community Risk Assessment.)
4. Critical Task Study
Reviewing the tasks that must be performed and the personnel required to deliver the stated outcome expectation for the Effective Response Force.
5. Distribution Study Reviewing the spacing of first-due resources (typically engines) to control routine emergencies.
6. Concentration Study
Reviewing the spacing of fire stations so that building fires can receive sufficient resources in a timely manner (First Alarm assignment or the Effective Response Force).
7. Reliability and Historical Response Effectiveness Studies
Using prior response statistics to determine the percent of compliance the existing system delivers.
8. Overall Evaluation Proposing Standard of Cover statements by risk type as necessary.
Fire department deployment, simply stated, is about the speed and weight of the attack. Speed
calls for first-due, all-risk intervention units (engines, trucks, and/or rescue ambulances)
strategically located across a department responding in an effective travel time. These units are
tasked with controlling moderate emergencies without the incident escalating to second alarm or
greater size, which unnecessarily depletes department resources as multiple requests for service
occur. Weight is about multiple-unit response for serious emergencies such as a room-and-
contents structure fire, a multiple-patient incident, a vehicle accident with extrication required, or
a heavy rescue incident. In these situations, enough firefighters must be assembled within a
reasonable time frame to safely control the emergency, thereby keeping it from escalating to
greater alarms.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Introduction page 7
This deployment design paradigm is reiterated in the table below:
Table 2—Fire Department Deployment Simplified
Meaning Purpose
Speed of Attack Travel time of first-due, all-risk intervention units strategically located across a department.
Controlling moderate emergencies without the incident escalating to second alarm or greater size.
Weight of Attack Number of firefighters in a multiple-unit response for serious emergencies.
Assembling enough firefighters within a reasonable time frame to safely control the emergency.
Thus, small fires and medical emergencies require a single- or two-unit response (engine and
specialty unit) with a quick response time. Larger incidents require more crews. In either case, if
the crews arrive too late or the total personnel sent to the emergency are too few for the
emergency type, they are drawn into a losing and more dangerous battle. The science of fire crew
deployment is to spread crews out across a community for quick response to keep emergencies
small with positive outcomes, without spreading the crews so far apart that they cannot amass
together quickly enough to be effective in major emergencies.
This page was intentionally left blank
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 9
SECTION 3—DISTRICT DEPLOYMENT GOALS/MEASURES AND RISK
ASSESSMENT
3.1 WHY DOES THE DISTRICT EXIST AND HOW DOES IT DELIVER THE EXISTING FIRE CREW
DEPLOYMENT SERVICES?
3.1.1 Existing Response Time Policies or Goals—Why Does the Agency Exist
The District Board of Directors over the decades has not
adopted formal response time policies by type of risks.
However, the District has a long history of striving to
provide a high level of service that can be documented in
response times, number of fire companies, and minimum
staffing. Thus, although no formal policy has been
adopted by the Board or the citizens of the District, the
District has been budgeting for and providing a level of services that can be well documented.
For emergency medical services, the current countywide first responder fire department system
uses fire engines with paramedics and expects a response time of 6:59 minutes/seconds from the
time the 9-1-1 call is received in the County Communications Center. Emergency ambulances
are staffed by a paramedic contractor and have a response time standard of 13 minutes from
dispatch.
Another source to look for community response time policies are the Safety Elements of the
cities’ and the County’s adopted General Plans. However, given there is a fire district, none of
the other governmental agencies have adopted fire service response time goals or explicit desired
outcomes. The General Plan Safety Elements do have broad goals for overall community safety.
Thus, today it is impossible to measure current performance to national best practices that define
a start and end time by type of risk to be protected for non-EMS incidents.
The lack of response goals by the District is not congruent with best practices for emergency
response time tracking. Nationally recognized standards and best practices call for a time line
with several important time measurements that include a definition of response time.
The District also has not identified response goals for technical rescue and hazardous material
responses; in addition to firefighting and EMS, these incident types response time goals also are
required to meet the Standards of Coverage model for the Commission on Fire Accreditation
International (CFAI). In this Standards of Coverage study, Citygate will recommend revised
response time goals to include all risks including fire, EMS, hazardous materials, and technical
rescue responses. The goals will be consistent with the CFAI systems approach to response.
3.1.2 Existing Outcome Expectations
SOC ELEMENT 1 OF 8*
EXISTING DEPLOYMENT
POLICIES *Note: This is an overview of Element 1.
The detail is provided on page 42.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 10
The Standards of Response Cover Process begins by
reviewing existing emergency services outcome
expectations. This can be restated as follows: for what
purpose does the response system exist? Has the
governing body adopted any response performance
measures? If so, the time measures used need to be understood and good data collected.
Current best practice nationally is to measure percent completion of a goal (e.g., 90% of
responses) instead of an average measure. Mathematically this is called a “fractile” measure.2
This is because the measure of average only identifies the central or middle point of response
time performance for all calls for service in the data set. Using an average makes it impossible to
know how many incidents had response times that were way over the average or just over. For
example, if a department had an average response time of 5 minutes for 5,000 calls for service, it
cannot be determined how many calls past the average point of 5 minutes were answered in the
6th minute or way out at 10 minutes. This is a significant issue if hundreds or thousands of calls
are answered far beyond the average point. Fractile measures will identify per minute the number
of incidents that are reached up to 100%.
The District has data from the regional computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system and its Records
Management System (RMS) indicating its actual performance.
Upon completion of this study, the District should consider adopting the performance goals
recommended for its emergency response systems consistent with the recommendation of the
NFPA and CFAI. There are other organizations that suggest different criterion; however, CFAI
is the most detailed and system-wide analysis available.
More importantly within the Standards of Response Coverage Process, positive outcomes are the
goal, and from that crew size and response time can be calculated to allow efficient fire station
spacing (distribution and concentrations). Emergency medical incidents have situations with the
most severe time constraints. In a heart attack that stops the heart, a trauma that causes severe
blood loss, or in a respiratory emergency, the brain can only live 8-10 minutes without oxygen.
Not only heart attacks, but also other events can cause oxygen deprivation to the brain. Heart
attacks make up a small percentage; drowning, choking, trauma constrictions, or other similar
events have the same effect. In a building fire, a small incipient fire can grow to involve the
entire room in an 8- to 10-minute timeframe. If fire service response is to achieve positive
outcomes in severe emergency medical situations and incipient fire situations, all responding
2 A fractile is that point below which a stated fraction of the values lie. The fraction is often given in percent; the
term percentile may then be used.
SOC ELEMENT 2 OF 8
COMMUNITY OUTCOME
EXPECTATIONS
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 11
crews must arrive, size-up the situation, and deploy effective measures before brain death occurs
or the fire leaves the room of origin.
Thus, from the time of 9-1-1 receiving the call, an effective deployment system is beginning to
manage the problem within a 7- to 8-minute total response time. This is right at the point that
brain death is becoming irreversible and the fire has grown to the point to leave the room of
origin and become very serious. Thus, the District needs a first-due response goal that is within
the range to give the situation hope for a positive outcome. It is important to note the fire or
medical emergency continues to deteriorate from the time of inception, not the time the fire
engine actually starts to drive the response route. Ideally, the emergency is noticed immediately
and the 9-1-1 system is activated promptly. This step of awareness—calling 9-1-1 and giving the
dispatcher accurate information—takes, in the best of circumstances, one minute. Then crew
notification and travel time take additional minutes. Once arrived, the crew must walk to the
patient or emergency, size-up the situation, and deploy its skills and tools. Even in easy-to-access
situations, this step can take two or more minutes. This time frame may be increased
considerably due to long driveways, apartment buildings with limited access, multi-storied
apartments or office complexes, or shopping center buildings such as those found in parts of the
District.
Unfortunately, there are times that the emergency has become too severe, even before the 9-1-1
notification and/or fire department response, for the responding crew to reverse; however, when
an appropriate response time policy is combined with a well-designed system, then only issues
like bad weather, poor traffic conditions, or multiple emergencies will slow the response system
down. Consequently, a properly designed system will give citizens the hope of a positive
outcome for their tax dollar expenditure.
For this report, “total” response time is the sum of the fire dispatch, crew turnout, and road travel
time steps. This is consistent with the recommendations of the CFAI.
Finding #1: The District Directors have not adopted a complete and best
practices-based deployment measure or set of specialty response
measures for all-risk emergency responses that includes the
beginning time measure from the point of fire dispatch receiving
the 9-1-1 phone call, nor a goal statement tied to risks and outcome
expectations. The deployment measure should have a second
measurement statement to define multiple-unit response coverage
for serious emergencies. Making these deployment goal changes
will meet the best practice recommendations of the Commission on
Fire Accreditation International.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 12
3.2 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION
The third element of the SOC process is the development
of a community risk assessment or analysis. The objective
of a community risk assessment is to:
1. Identify specific hazards with potential to
adversely impact the community or
jurisdiction
2. Quantify the probability of occurrence of each identified hazard
3. Quantify the probable severity of resultant impacts from a hazard occurrence.
Hazard is broadly defined as a situation or condition that can cause or contribute to harm.
Hazard examples include fire, medical emergency, vehicle collision, earthquake, flood, etc. Risk
is broadly defined as the probability of hazard occurrence in combination with the likely severity
of resultant impacts.
For an SOC study, the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) identifies two
risk categories: fire risk and non-fire risk3. Identification and quantification of the various fire
and non-fire risks are important factors in evaluating how fire resources are or can be deployed
to mitigate those risks.
Figure 1 identifies the fire and non-fire risks evaluated for this SOC study. As the District is an
“all risk” response agency, all of the incidents categories were evaluated.
3 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, Standards of Cover (5
th Edition)
SOC ELEMENT 3 OF 8
COMMUNITY RISK
ASSESSMENT
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 13
Figure 1—Risk Types
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 14
3.2.1 Building Fire Risk
Table 3 illustrates four building occupancy risk categories based on probability of occurrence
and likely severity of consequences.
Table 3—Probability and Consequence Matrix
Low Consequence High Consequence
Hig
h P
rob
ab
ilit
y
Moderate Risk
(High Probability)
(Low Consequence)
Maximum Risk
(High Probability)
(High Consequence)
Lo
w P
rob
ab
ilit
y
Low Isolated Risk
(Low Probability)
(Low Consequence)
High/Special Risk
(Low Probability)
(High Consequence)
Probability is defined as the likelihood of fire occurring in a particular occupancy type, and
consequences are defined as the effects that the fire will have on the building, occupants,
property, and community. The building occupancy risk categories are described below:
Low/Isolated risk building occupancies include detached unoccupied garages and
outbuildings.
Moderate risk building occupancies include mobile homes, detached single-
family and two-family residences easily reached with pre-connected attack lines,
commercial/industrial buildings less than 10,000 square feet without a high fire
load, and other buildings where loss of life or property value is limited to a single
occupancy.
Maximum risk occupancies include concentrations of older multi-family
dwellings, multi-family dwellings over two stories high, occupancies with high or
hazardous fuel loading, aircraft or airport property, large commercial occupancies,
and built-up areas with high concentrations of property with substantial risk of
loss of life, severe financial impact, or the potential for unusual damage to
property or the environment.
High/Special risk occupancies include apartment complexes greater than 25,000
square feet, key government/infrastructure occupancies, hospitals, nursing homes,
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 15
industrial complexes with needed fire flow exceeding 3,500 gpm, refineries and
warehouses, vacant/abandoned buildings, and any building where available water
supply is less than needed fire flow.
Another measure of building fire risk is required fire flow, or the quantity of water in gallons per
minute (gpm) that would be needed if a building were seriously involved in fire. The Insurance
Services Office (ISO) calculates Needed Fire Flow4 (NFF) for buildings it evaluates for
insurance underwriting purposes. For the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, the ISO database
identifies 931 buildings evaluated, 293 of which have required fire flows of 2,000 gpm or higher.
There are also 38 buildings with fire flows in excess of 4,000 gpm, and 21 buildings at 5,000-
7,000 gpm or greater.
This is a significant amount of firefighting water to deploy, and a major fire at any one of these
buildings would require the entire on-duty District firefighting force. Using a generally accepted
figure of 50 gallons per minute per firefighter on large building fires, a fire in a building
requiring 2,000 gallons per minute would require 40 firefighters, which is more than the
minimum number of 24 on-duty fire engine-based firefighters in the District. For fires exceeding
the on-duty District forces, then the regional automatic and mutual aid system is required.
Resource deployment and response time are two critical components necessary to achieve a good
outcome for building fire risk. Figure 2 shows that response times of 7 minutes or less are
necessary to stop a building fire before it reaches the flashover point. Flashover is the point at
which the entire room erupts into fire after all of the combustible objects in that room have
reached their ignition temperature. Survivability of a person in a room after flashover is unlikely.
4 Needed Fire Flow (NFF) is the same as Required Fire Flow
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 16
Figure 2—Fire Progression Timeline
Source: http://www.firesprinklerassoc.org
Building fire risk is mitigated by both resource distribution and concentration: distribution to
ensure rapid intervention to control small fires, and concentration to prevent moderate fires from
escalating into larger, more damaging events.
3.3 RISK FACTORS
Elements to be considered in a community risk assessment include factors that influence service
demand; response capability; probability of risk occurrence; and severity of impacts on life,
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 17
property, and community resilience. The factors include community demographics and projected
future population growth and development.
3.3.1 Community Demographics
Key demographic information relevant to this study for the communities served by the District is
summarized in Table 4-Table 7 below:
Table 4—Town of Atherton Demographics
Demographic 2000 2010
Percentage / Percent Change
Population 7,194 6,914 -3.90%
Under 5 years 371 282 -23.99%
5 – 17 years 1,332 1,261 -5.33%
18 – 64 years 4,040 3,809 -5.72%
Over 65 years 1,451 1,562 7.65%
Median age 45.3 48.2 6.40%
Housing Units 2,505 2,530 1.00%
Owner-Occupied 2,288 2,116 -7.52%
Renter-Occupied 125 214 71.2%
Median Value $1,000,000+ n/a n/a
Birthplace
U.S. 6,178 n/a 85.7%
Foreign Born 1,032 n/a 14.3%
Education
High School Graduate 267 n/a 5.4%
Bachelor’s Degree 1,785 n/a 36.0%
Graduate Degree 1,995 n/a 40.2%
Employment
Professional 2,220 70.1%
Sales/office 599 18.9%
Service 194 6.1%
Other 153 4.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 18
Table 5—City of East Palo Alto Demographics
Demographic 2000 2010
Percentage / Percent Change
Population 29,506 28,155 -4.58%
Under 5 years 2,943 2,616 -11.11%
5 – 17 years 7,376 6,360 -13.77%
18 – 64 years 17,668 17,504 -0.93%
Over 65 years 1,519 1,675 10.27%
Median age 25.8 28.1 8.91%
Housing Units 7,091 7,819 10.27%
Owner-Occupied 3,033 2,971 -2.04%
Renter-Occupied 3,943 3,969 0.67%
Median Value $302,000 n/a n/a
Birthplace
U.S. 16,546 n/a 56.2%
Foreign Born 12,904 n/a 43.8%
Education
High School Graduate 2,733 n/a 18.0%
Bachelor’s Degree 1,069 n/a 7.0%
Graduate Degree 545 n/a 3.6%
Employment 3,043 2,723 -10.5% Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder
Table 6—City of Menlo Park Demographics
Demographic 2000 2010
Percentage / Percent Change
Population 30,785 32,026 4.03%
Under 5 years 2,030 2,458 21.08%
5 – 17 years 4,707 5,347 13.60%
18 – 64 years 19,159 19,643 2.53%
Over 65 years 4,889 4,578 -6.36%
Median age 37.4 38.7 3.48%
Housing Units 12,714 13,085 2.92%
Owner-Occupied 7,055 6,927 -1.80%
Renter-Occupied 5,332 5,420 1.65%
Median Value $778,500 n/a n/a
Birthplace
U.S. 23,780 77.25%
Foreign Born 7,006 22.75%
Education
High School Graduate 2,216 n/a 9.90%
Bachelor’s Degree 6,949 n/a 30.90%
Graduate Degree 6,896 n/a 30.70%
Employment
Professional 9,695 62.80%
Sales/office 2,927 19.00%
Service 1,415 9.20%
Other 1,392 9.00% Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 19
Table 7—San Mateo County Demographics
Demographic 2000 2010
Percentage / Percent Change
Population 707,161 718,451 1.60%
Under 5 years 45,374 46,360 2.17%
5 – 17 years 116,726 113,412 -3.05%
18 – 64 years 456,976 462,417 1.19%
Over 65 years 88,085 96,262 9.28%
Median age 36.8 39.3 6.79%
Housing Units 260,576 271,031 4.01%
Owner-Occupied 156,133 153,110 -1.94%
Renter-Occupied 97,970 104,727 6.90%
Median Value $469,200 n/a n/a
Birthplace
U.S. 479,043 n/a 67.7%
Foreign Born 228,118 n/a 32.3%
Education
High School Graduate 85,569 n/a 17.5%
Bachelor’s Degree 119,856 n/a 24.4%
Graduate Degree 71,421 n/a 14.6%
Employment
Professional 154,419 42.7%
Sales/office 98,865 27.3%
Service 48,869 13.5%
Other 59,487 16.5% Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder
3.4 COMMUNITY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
3.4.1 Overview
Future population growth and development within the Menlo Park Fire Protection District will
center primarily on the cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. No projected growth or
development data was available for the Town of Atherton; however, there is little if any open
space remaining, and zoning restrictions preclude any commercial or industrial uses. Citygate
was also unable to isolate projected population and development projections for the
unincorporated areas of the District; however, despite the majority of the area being older
residential and commercial occupancies, some open space exists in the North Fair Oaks area and
a few newer office/commercial buildings exist.
The City of East Palo Alto plans for an approximate 25% growth in population, and nearly 28%
growth in employment, over the next 20 years. The City expects this population growth to drive
a 30% growth in residential housing units, and nearly 1,000% growth in non-residential
development over the same period.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 20
The City of Menlo Park also envisions significant growth over the next 20 years, anticipating a
17% growth in both population and employment. The City also anticipates a 10.5% growth in
housing units, and slightly more than 22% growth in non-residential development.
3.4.2 Land Use
Atherton5
Land use in Atherton is also predominantly (approximately 90%) low- and medium-density
single-family residential with approximately 5% public facilities and 5% parks / open space.
East Palo Alto6
Land use in East Palo Alto consists of approximately 40% single-family residential, 10% multi-
family residential, 10% general office/commercial, 10% light industrial, and 30% open space /
undeveloped. Industrial use is limited to the northeastern area of the City on the north and south
sides of Bay Road.
Menlo Park7
Land use in Menlo Park is predominantly (approximately 70%) low- and medium-density single-
and multi-family residential with approximately 10% apartment/office, 10% commercial, and
10% general industrial uses. Office and commercial uses are located generally on the southwest
end of the City in the Sand Hill Road corridor and the core downtown area. Commercial uses are
limited to the very northeastern area of the City adjacent to San Francisco Bay.
San Mateo County8
Land use in the San Mateo County areas of the District outside of the three incorporated cities is
a combination of open space, low- and medium-density residential, and commercial.
5 Atherton General Plan (2002)
6 East Palo Alto Vista 2035 General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report – Figure 4-1: Existing Land Use
(2014) 7 Menlo Park General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps (2013)
8 San Mateo County Zoning Map (no date)
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 21
3.4.3 Population
Table 8 summarizes estimated District population growth between 2012 and 2040.
Table 8—District Population
Service Area 2012
Population
Projected 2040
Population
Projected Population
Growth Percent Growth
Atherton 6,888 7,903 1,015 14.7%
East Palo Alto 28,467 35,526 7,059 24.8%
Menlo Park 32,513 38,060 5,547 17.1%
Unincorporated Areas 18,038 24,158 6,120 33.9%
Total 85,906 105,646 19,740 23.0%
Source: Draft Menlo Park Fire Protection District Facilities Impact Fee Study (2015)
Table 8 shows that the population within the District is projected to grow by nearly 20,000
residents over the 25-year planning horizon. The City of East Palo Alto is projected to
experience the greatest population growth, followed by the unincorporated areas of San Mateo
County and the City of Menlo Park.
3.4.4 Employment
Table 9 summarizes estimated District employment growth between 2012 and 2040.
Table 9—District Employment
Service Area 2012
Employment1
Projected 2040
Employment Employment
Growth Percent Growth
Atherton 2,666 3,1731 508 19.0%
East Palo Alto 2,824 3,6043 780 27.6%
Menlo Park 29,784 34,9802 5,196 17.45%
Unincorporated Areas 4,158 5,6301 1,472 35.4%
Total 39,431 47,677 8,246 20.9% 1 Draft Menlo Park Fire Protection District Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study (2015)
2 Menlo Park General Plan Update, Draft Existing Conditions Report (January, 2015)
3 2035 projected employment – East Palo Alto General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report (February, 2014)
Table 9 indicates that the City of Menlo Park is expected to experience the greatest employment
growth, accounting for nearly 65% of anticipated new jobs within the District, primarily due to
the Facebook and Menlo Gateway projects.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 22
3.4.5 Community Development
Residential Development
Table 10 summarizes projected residential development growth within the Menlo Park Fire
Protection District from 2013 to 2035.
Table 10—District Residential Development
Service Area
Housing
Units 2013
1
Projected Housing Units
2
2035
Projected Additional Housing
Units
Projected Growth Percent
Atherton 2,440 N/A N/A N/A
East Palo Alto 7,754 10,0692 2,315 29.8%
Menlo Park 12,803 14,1503 1,347 10.52%
Unincorporated Areas N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 U.S. Census Bureau
2 East Palo Alto General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report (February, 2014)
3 Menlo Park General Plan Update, Draft Existing Conditions Report (January, 2015)
Table 10 indicates that Menlo Park expects moderate housing growth at 10.52%, and East Palo
Alto expects extensive housing growth at 29.8%, over the next 20 years. No residential
development projection data was available for the Town of Atherton and the unincorporated
areas of the District.
Non-Residential Development
Table 11 summarizes projected non-residential development growth within the District from
2013 to 2035.
Table 11—Non-Residential Development – District Cities
Service Area
2013 Non-Residential
Development
Units1
Estimated 2035 Non-Residential
Development Units
1
Projected Additional Non-
Residential Development
Units1
Projected Growth Percent
Atherton N/A N/A N/A N/A
East Palo Alto2 1,225
2 1,664
2 439 35.8%
Menlo Park3 8,850
3 10,829
3 1,979
3 22.36%
Unincorporated Areas N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1,000 square feet
2 East Palo Alto Vision 2035 General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report (2014) and Ravenswood/Corners TOD
Specific Plan (2013) 3 Menlo Park General Plan Update, Draft Existing Conditions Report (January, 2015)
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 23
Table 11 indicates that Menlo Park anticipates over 22% growth, mostly in the M-2 area,
including several potential mid-rise to high-rise buildings. East Palo Alto also envisions
significant growth in non-residential development, primarily targeted for the University Avenue /
Highway 101 interchange and the Ravenswood / 4 Corners area.
3.5 PRIOR RISK STUDIES
The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2000), which amended the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), emphasizes the need for state and
local entities to closely coordinate disaster planning and mitigation efforts to reduce the severity
of disaster impacts. In addition to continuing the requirement for a state mitigation plan as a
condition of federal disaster assistance, DMA2000 creates a similar requirement for local entities
and creates incentives for increased coordination and integration of mitigation activities among
local jurisdictions.
In 2005, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)9 published its initial Multi-
Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP) for the San Francisco Bay Area –
Taming Natural Disasters. The Plan, updated in 2010, identifies the following hazards with
potential to impact the Bay Area:
Earthquake-Related Hazards
1. Surface faulting
2. Ground shaking
3. Liquefaction
4. Landslide
5. Tsunami
Weather-Related Hazards
6. Flooding
7. Wildfire
8. Drought
9. Climate change
9 Association of Bay Area Governments includes participating jurisdictions from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 24
Human Condition Hazards
10. Hazardous material release
11. Dam failure
12. Energy shortage
13. Weapon of mass destruction
The ABAG Plan focuses on natural hazards related to earthquakes and weather, and only
addresses the human condition hazards as they relate to earthquake and weather-related hazards.
Jurisdictions participating in the ABAG Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for
the San Francisco Bay Area, including the County of San Mateo, the Town of Atherton, and
cities of Menlo Park and West Palo Alto, have developed and adopted annexes to the Plan for
their specific jurisdictions.
The San Mateo County Annex addresses all of the hazards identified in the 2010 ABAG Plan
with the exception of tsunami, climate change, hazardous material release, energy shortage, and
weapon of mass destruction. Table 12 summarizes the urban county areas exposed to each
identified hazard in acres.
Table 12—Urban Land Hazard Exposure Area – San Mateo County
Hazard
Acres Exposed
2005
Acres Exposed
2010 Percent Change
Total Acres of Urban Land 31,277 31,215 -0.20%1
Earthquake Faulting (within CGS zone) 1,380 1,404 10.14%
Earthquake Shaking (within 2 highest shaking categories)2 25,959 26,099 0.54%
Earthquake-Induced Landslides (within CGS study zone) Not Available3
Liquefaction (within moderate, high, or very high susceptibility) 6,089 6,197 1.78%
Flooding (within 100-year floodplain) 1,084 1,108 2.21%
Flooding (within 500-year floodplain) 238 243 2.10%
Landslides (within areas of existing landslides) 5,932 5,999 1.13%
Wildfire (subject to high, very high, or extreme wildfire threat) 13,078 13,989 6.96%
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Threat 10,838 11,242 3.73%
Dam Inundation (within inundation zone) 811 832 2.59%
Drought4 31,277 31,215 -1.78%
Source: San Mateo County Annex to 2010 ABAG Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
1 Attributable to ABAG mapping revisions intended to improve accuracy
2 In large part to presence of San Andreas Fault within County
3 No maps prepared yet for San Mateo County
4 All urban areas within County subject to drought
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 25
The Town of Atherton Annex, adopted in May 2011, validates four earthquake-related hazards
including ground shaking, liquefaction, landslide, and tsunami, and three weather-related hazards
including flooding, wildfire, and drought as having potential to impact Atherton.
The City of East Palo Alto Annex, adopted in November 2011, validates the five earthquake-
related hazards and the four weather-related hazards as having potential to impact the City. It
further concludes that the City of East Palo Alto does not face any other natural disasters, and
cites earthquake shaking and flooding as posing the greatest risk.
The City of Menlo Park Annex, completed in October 2011, also validates all of the earthquake-
related and weather-related natural hazards as potentially impacting the City with the exception
of surface faulting. Surface faulting is not considered a hazard because no active seismic faults
are located within the City. The Annex further suggests that the Fire Threatened Communities
map depicting the area of the City west of El Camino Real as at risk for wildfire not be used for
planning purposes until further mapping or revisions of the map are completed by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). This map was created in 2003 by CAL
FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). A more appropriate reference for
wildfire risk exposure is CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps. The FHSZ
project utilizes a variety of wildland fire hazard attributes, including wildland fire history,
vegetative fuels, topography, weather, fire occurrence probability, and predictive fire behavior
modeling, to identify Moderate, High, and Very High Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones. For
local jurisdictions, such as cities outside of CAL FIRE’s statutory responsibility, the program
only identifies areas meeting Very High Hazard criteria. The map for San Mateo County, last
updated in November 2008, identifies all areas of the City of Menlo Park as outside of a Very
High Hazard Severity Zone. This does not preclude a local jurisdiction from adopting its own
risk criteria, including lower threshold criteria for wildland fire hazard risk.
3.6 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS
As indicated, the cities within the District, as well as San Mateo County, have not formally
adopted a specific fire department response performance standard either by policy or within the
Safety Element of their respective General Plans. However, it is reasonable to assume that
residents, employees, and visitors of the District expect a level of fire service response that
effectively keeps time-sensitive events such as serious medical emergencies, fires and hazardous
material releases, from becoming more serious, or worse, catastrophic. To achieve this, best
practices for the first-due fire department response in an urban risk area is within 7:00 minutes
from time of 9-1-1 notification, with a crew of 3 to 4 firefighters. Serious emergencies requiring
multiple units and a minimum of 14-15 firefighters, including a Chief Officer, should arrive
within 11:00 minutes of 9-1-1 notification.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 26
3.7 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
A risk assessment is a fact-based objective evaluation of local hazards and their associated risk to
the community or jurisdiction, and involves the following basic elements:
1. Hazard identification
2. Determination of hazard occurrence probability
3. Identification of impact severity factors by hazard
4. Quantification of overall impact severity by hazard
5. Determination of overall risk rating by hazard.
It is important to understand that, regardless of the methodology employed, every risk
assessment involves some element of subjectivity, and risk perception will likely vary from one
individual to the next. The important concept to remember is that every risk assessment is a
chosen or perceived rating.
The methodology utilized by Citygate to assess community risk as an integral element of an SOC
study involves the following specific steps:
1. Identify natural and human-caused hazards with potential to adversely impact the
community/jurisdiction
2. Identify primary agency response capabilities as incident response categories that
correlate directly to mitigation of impacts of the identified natural and human-
caused hazards
3. Identify specific geographic risk assessment sub-zones (risk zones) as appropriate
for each incident category
4. Identify probability of future incident occurrence criteria
5. Determine the probability of future occurrence score of major incidents by risk
zone for each incident category using the probability of future incident occurrence
criteria and agency/jurisdiction-specific historical data
6. Identify appropriate factors influencing impact severity (impact severity factors)
by incident category
7. Determine appropriate impact severity factor evaluation and scoring criteria
8. Evaluate and determine the impact severity factor score for each impact severity
factor in each risk zone of each incident category using the corresponding impact
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 27
severity factor scoring criteria and agency/jurisdiction-specific data and
information
9. Add the impact severity factor scores to determine the total impact severity
factors score for each risk zone of each incident category
10. Multiply the probability of future occurrence score by the total impact severity
factors score to determine the overall risk rating score by risk zone for each
incident category
11. Determine overall risk rating scoring criteria
12. Identify the overall risk rating for each risk zone of each incident category using
the overall risk rating score and risk rating scoring criteria
13. Summarize community/jurisdiction risk assessment findings.
Figure 3 further illustrates the calculations made to determine the overall risk rating for each
incident category by risk zone.
Figure 3—Risk Zone Rating Calculations Flowchart
3.8 DISTRICT HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
3.8.1 Hazard Identification
As discussed earlier in Section 3.5 of this report, the 2010 ABAG Multi-Jurisdictional Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP) for the San Francisco Bay Area identifies 13 hazards with
potential to impact the Bay Area as shown in Table 13.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 28
Table 13—2010 ABAG Hazards
Hazard Category Hazard
Earthquake-Related Hazards
1 Surface Faulting
2 Ground Shaking
3 Liquefaction
4 Landslide
5 Tsunami
Weather-Related Hazards
6 Flooding
7 Wildfire
8 Drought
9 Climate Change
Human Condition Hazards
10 Hazardous Material Release
11 Dam Failure
12 Energy Shortage
13 Weapon of Mass Destruction
Also as discussed earlier in Section 3.5, annexes to this plan adopted by the Town of Atherton,
cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, and the County of San Mateo, validated these hazards
for their specific jurisdictions with the following exceptions:
Atherton
Earthquake faulting
Climate change
Hazardous material release
Dam failure
Energy shortage
Weapon of mass destruction
East Palo Alto
Hazardous material release
Dam failure
Energy shortage
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 29
Weapon of mass destruction
Menlo Park
Surface faulting
Hazardous material release
Dam failure
Energy shortage
Weapon of mass destruction
San Mateo County
Tsunami
Climate change
Hazardous material release
Energy shortage
Weapon of mass destruction
Citygate’s analysis of District demography, infrastructure, and hazard history concludes that the
hazards listed in Table 14 from the 2010 ABAG Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and
adopted local agency annexes, have potential to adversely impact the District.
Table 14—2010 ABAG Hazards Potentially Impacting the District
Hazard
1 Ground Shaking
2 Liquefaction
3 Landslide
4 Tsunami
5 Flooding
6 Wildfire
7 Hazardous Material Release
8 Weapon of Mass Destruction
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 30
Citygate’s analysis further identified building fire as an additional significant hazard with
potential to adversely impact the District. Table 15 summarizes all of the natural and human-
caused hazards with potential to impact the Menlo Park Fire Protection District.
Table 15—2015 District Hazards
Hazard
1 Building Fire
2 Ground Shaking
3 Flooding
4 Hazardous Material Release
5 Landslide
6 Liquefaction
7 Tsunami
8 Weapon of Mass Destruction
9 Wildfire
3.8.2 Incident Categories
In the context of a Standards of Response Coverage (SOC) study, the natural and human-caused
hazards with potential to impact the District in Table 15 correlate directly to a fire agency’s
response capabilities. For example, ground shaking, flooding, landslide, liquefaction, and
tsunami hazards correlate directly to fire, rescue, and medical emergency capabilities. Similarly,
hazardous materials release and weapon of mass destruction hazards correlate directly to
hazardous materials response, rescue, fire, and/or medical emergency capabilities. Thus, another
way to look at hazards for risk assessment, particularly relative to an SOC study, is in terms of
the specific operational capabilities needed to effectively mitigate the potential impacts resulting
from natural and human-caused hazards, or similarly, in terms of the incident response categories
related to occurrences of natural and human-caused hazards. Table 16 identifies the specific
District response capabilities required to mitigate impact severity of the natural and human-
caused hazards listed in Table 15.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 31
Table 16—District Incident Response Capabilities Correlating to Hazard Impact Severity
Mitigation
Incident Category
1 Building Fire
2 Wildland Fire
3 Medical
4 Rescue
5 Hazardous Material
3.8.3 Risk Assessment Zones
Citygate next analyzed District demography and historical response data to determine
appropriate geographic risk assessment sub-zones for the District specific to each incident
category. Table 17 identifies the risk zones identified for each incident category.
Table 17—District Risk Assessment Zones
Incident Category Risk Zone
Building Fire
Low/Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial / Industrial
Wildland Fire Southwest of Alameda de las Pulgas
Northwest of Alameda de las Pulgas
Medical Emergency
Atherton
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
San Mateo County Areas
Rescue District-Wide
Hazardous Material Release District-Wide
3.8.4 Future Incident Occurrence Probability
A commonly accepted principle of risk management is that, absent implementation of mitigation
measures that effectively reduce or eliminate occurrence, prior hazard occurrence is an effective
predictive indicator of future hazard occurrence. As such, Citygate evaluated prior incident
occurrence in terms of historical response to various incident types to determine the probability
of occurrence of future major incidents using the criteria in Table 18.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 32
Table 18—Probability of Future Major Incident Occurrence Criteria1
Score Description
1 Never Less than 1% probability of occurrence within study timeframe
2 Unlikely 1% - 5% probability of occurrence within study timeframe
3 Possible 6% - 49% probability of occurrence within study timeframe
4 Probable 50% - 99% probability of occurrence within study timeframe
5 Certain Greater than 99% probability of occurrence within study timeframe
1 Major incidents only requiring multiple-alarm resources and impacting multiple assets at risk
Citygate’s determination of future probability of major incident occurrence by incident category
over the next ten years (2015-2025) is shown in Table 19.
Table 19—Probability of Future1 Occurrence by Incident Category
Incident Category Risk Zone Probability
Score Probability Description
Building Fire2
Low/Medium Density Residential 3 Possible
High Density Residential 4 Probable
Commercial / Industrial 4 Probable
Wildland Fire3
Southwest of Alameda de las Pulgas4 3 Possible
Northwest of Alameda de las Pulgas 2 Unlikely
Medical Emergency5
Atherton 2 Unlikely
East Palo Alto 4 Probable
Menlo Park 4 Probable
San Mateo County Areas 3 Possible
Rescue6 District-Wide 3 Possible
Hazardous Material Release7 District-Wide 3 Possible
1 2015 – 2025
2 Significant building fire incident requiring multiple-alarm resources and involving multiple occupancies or a large single high-risk/value occupancy
3 Wildland fire incident requiring multiple-alarm resources and impacting multiple values at risk
4 Mutual Threat Zone (MTZ)
5 Mass-casualty incident requiring multiple-alarm resources and impacting multiple hospitals
6 Multiple-victim incident requiring multiple resources (e.g., earthquake, explosion, flooding, etc.)
7 Incident requiring multiple resources and impacting multiple values at risk (e.g., freight/tank truck collision, freight train derailment, earthquake, explosion, weapon of mass destruction, etc.)
The Probability of Future Occurrence scores in Table 19 reflect Citygate’s analysis of historical
major incident responses from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014 as discussed in detail
in Section 5 of this study. It is important to note that this analysis focuses on future major
incidents impacting multiple values at risk and requiring a significant number of response
resources, and does not include less serious and more routine incident responses.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 33
It is also important to note that mitigation and fire prevention programs are needed to minimize
the probability of incidents occurring. Therefore, the District’s existing fire prevention programs
have to keep up with the new and existing building fire code inspection needs. This could impact
the District’s fire prevention staffing, office spaces, and inspector vehicles.
3.8.5 Impact Severity Factors
Impacts resulting from a hazard occurrence are generally described in terms of adverse impacts
to assets or values at risk. For urban/suburban communities, assets or values at risk typically
include people, critical infrastructure and key resources (e.g., government services facilities;
schools; hospitals; lifeline utilities including water, electricity, gas, sewer, and communications
facilities; key access/egress and through transportation routes; railways; airports; etc.), and key
economic drivers, such as large employers and/or large revenue-producing businesses.
The factors evaluated in this study as influencing impact severity for each incident category are
shown in Table 20.
Table 20—Impact Severity Factors
Incident Category Impact Severity Factors
Building Fire
1 Building Construction
2 Occupancy Loading
3 Built-In Fire Protection Systems
4 Water Supply
5 Response Capability
Wildland Fire
1 Vegetation
2 Weather
3 Topography
4 Water Supply
5 Response Capability
Medical
1 Population Density
2 Population Demography
3 Traffic
4 Pre-Hospital Emergency Care
5 Hospital Emergency Care
Rescue
1 Earthquake
2 Flood
3 Explosion / Act of Terrorism
4 Traffic
5 Response Capability
Hazardous Materials
1 Vulnerable Populations
2 Hazardous Materials Use/Storage
3 Hazardous Materials Transportation
4 Response Capability
5 Evacuation Capability
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 34
3.8.6 Impact Severity Factor Analysis
To determine the potential impact severity for each incident category, Citygate evaluated the
impact severity factors using the criteria for each incident category in Appendix A. Using data,
information, and observations of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District for each risk zone, each
impact severity factor was assigned a score of 0 - 5 representing its relative impact severity for
the overall incident category for the specific risk zone. A score of zero represents that the factor
does not add to overall impact severity for the incident category, or contributes to limiting impact
severity. A score of five represents that the factor adds significantly to overall impact severity for
the incident category. The Impact Severity Scores were then totaled to determine the Total
Impact Severity Score for each risk zone for each incident category. Table 21 through Table 25
show the impact severity factor scores by risk zone for each incident category.
Table 21—Impact Severity Factor Analysis – BUILDING FIRE
Building Fire1
Impact Severity Factors
Construction Type
Occupancy Loading
Fire Protection Systems
Water Supply
Response Capability
Total Impact Severity Score
Low / Medium Density Residential
5 0 3 1 1 10
High Density Residential 5 3 5 2 2 17
Commercial / Industrial 2 2 3 1 2 10
1 Significant building fire incident requiring multiple-alarm resources and involving multiple occupancies or a large single high-risk/value occupancy
Table 22—Impact Severity Factor Analysis – WILDLAND FIRE
Wildland Fire1
Impact Severity Factors
Vegetation Weather Topography Water
Supply Response Capability
Total Impact Severity Score
Southwest of Alameda de las Pulgas
4 3 1 1 3 12
Northwest of Alameda de las Pulgas
3 3 0 0 1 7
1 Significant wildland fire incident requiring multiple-alarm resources and impacting multiple values at risk
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 35
Table 23—Impact Severity Factor Analysis – MEDICAL EMERGENCY
Medical Emergency1
Impact Severity Factors
Population Density
Population Demography Traffic
Pre-Hospital Emergency
Care
Hospital Emergency
Care Capacity
Total Impact
Severity Score
Atherton 2 3 2 0 0 7
East Palo Alto 5 2 4 0 0 11
Menlo Park 3 3 5 0 0 11
San Mateo County Areas 5 2 3 0 0 10
1 Mass-casualty incident requiring multiple-alarm resources and impacting multiple hospitals
Table 24—Impact Severity Factor Analysis – RESCUE
Rescue1
Impact Severity Factors
Earthquake Flood Explosion / Terrorism Traffic
Response Capability
Total Impact
Severity Score
District-Wide 5 3 2 5 1 16
1 Multiple-victim incident requiring multiple resources (e.g., earthquake, explosion, flooding, etc.)
Table 25—Impact Severity Factor Analysis – HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE
Hazardous Material Release
1
Impact Severity Factors
Vulnerable Populations
Hazardous Material
Use/Storage
Hazardous Material Trans.
Response Capability
Evacuation Capability
Total Impact
Severity Score
District-Wide 2 4 5 1 3 15
1 Incident requiring multiple resources and impacting multiple values at risk (e.g., freight/tank truck collision, freight train derailment, earthquake, explosion, weapon of mass destruction, etc.)
3.8.7 Risk Rating Determination
Subsequent to the impact severity factor analysis conducted in the prior subsection, Citygate then
calculated the overall Risk Rating Score for each incident category (hazard) by multiplying the
Probability of Future Occurrence scores from Table 19 by the Total Impact Severity Score from
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 36
Table 21 through Table 25 for each incident category and risk zone. The resultant Overall Risk
Rating Score for each incident category and risk zone are shown in Table 26.
Table 26—Overall Risk Rating Scores by Incident Type
Incident Category Risk Zone
Probability of
Occurrence Score
Total Impact
Severity Score
Overall Risk
Rating Score
Building Fire
Low / Medium Density Residential
3 10 30
High Density Residential 4 17 68
Commercial / Industrial 4 10 40
Wildland Fire
Southwest of Alameda de las Pulgas
3 12 36
Northwest of Alameda de las Pulgas
2 7 14
Medical Emergency
Atherton 2 7 14
East Palo Alto 4 11 44
Menlo Park 4 11 44
San Mateo County Areas 3 10 30
Rescue District-Wide 3 16 48
Hazardous Material Release
District-Wide 3 15 45
The Probability of Future Occurrence Score range of 1 – 5 from Table 18, combined with the
Total Impact Severity Score range of 0 – 25 from Table 21 through Table 25, yields a potential
Overall Risk Rating Score of 0 – 125 (probability of future occurrence score x total impact
severity factors score). An Overall Risk Rating was then determined for each risk zone for each
incident category using the scoring criteria in Table 27.
Table 27—Overall Risk Rating Categories
Overall Risk Rating Score
Overall Risk Rating
0 – 31 Low
32 – 62 Moderate
63 – 94 High
95 – 125 Very High
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 37
The Overall Risk Ratings for Menlo Park Fire Protection District by incident category and risk
zone are summarized in Table 28.
Table 28—District Overall Risk Ratings by Incident Category and Risk Zone
Incident Category Risk Zone Overall Risk Rating Score
Overall Risk Rating
Building Fire
Low / Medium Density Residential 30 Low
High Density Residential 68 High
Commercial / Industrial 40 Moderate
Wildland Fire
Southwest of Alameda de las Pulgas
36 Moderate
Northwest of Alameda de las Pulgas
14 Low
Medical Emergency
Atherton 14 Low
East Palo Alto 44 Moderate
Menlo Park 44 Moderate
San Mateo County Areas 30 Low
Rescue District-Wide 48 Moderate
Hazardous Material Release District-Wide 45 Moderate
3.8.8 Risk Assessment Summary
Overall risk in the Menlo Park Fire Protection District is typical of other medium-sized urban
communities within the greater San Francisco Bay Area region with technology/investment-
focused economies. Measured in terms of probability of future natural and human-caused hazard
occurrence and response capabilities necessary to effectively mitigate the potential impacts of
prospective hazard occurrences, overall risk within the District ranges from low for medical and
wildland fire incidents within specific risk assessment zones to high for high-density residential
building fire incidents. These risk ratings reflect a generally low to moderate probability of
future major incident occurrence combined with low to moderate impact severity scores.
The impact severity scores reflect the generally low to moderate impacts expected from a hazard
occurrence due to the excellent response capabilities of the District and its adjacent partner
agencies, good water supply, high quality pre-hospital care capability, multiple emergency care
facilities within close proximity, and a population with a relatively low percentage of at-risk
persons.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 38
Other impact-reducing factors include a generally low building occupancy rate within residential
and commercial occupancies, mild weather and topography, and low probability of an act of
terrorism. Factors increasing impact severity include population density in some areas, traffic,
earthquake probability, flooding potential in some areas, and quantity of hazardous materials
used, stored, and transported through the District.
The District also offers strong programs for community self-help preparedness such as the
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training, “Get Ready” (an individual or family
preparedness program), and other classes and outreach programs that focus on being prepared for
emergencies. While these are essential to train residents and business employees how to be
initially self-reliant, the District’s personnel also have to be trained, equipped, and able to
respond to any of the hazards identified in this review.
3.8.9 Emergency Medical Services System Risk Assessment
The emergency medical services (EMS) system provided by the District consists of the fire
engines staffed with at least one Advanced Life Support Paramedic (EMT-P). These units are
equipped to meet the standards set forth by the San Mateo County Emergency Medical Services
Agency requirements. The County emergency medical services system provides a 24-hour
emergency paramedic ambulance response, treatment and transportation of ill and injured
patients in the District, plus the planning and staffing of medical coverage for special events and
related activities.
Within the District, a 9-1-1 call for medical assistance receives an ambulance and a fire engine or
ladder truck, whichever is closest. This level of response provides a minimum of two paramedics
and three firefighters to every call for service.
The most serious medical emergency would likely be a heart attack or some other emergency
where there was an interruption or blockage of oxygen to the body. The figure below indicates
survivability rate of a heart attack victim. There are other factors that can influence survivability
as well such as early CPR, early defibrillation, and early ALS intervention. The District has a
very robust emergency medical services delivery system.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 39
Figure 4—Survival Rate vs. Time of Defibrillation
Source: www.suddencardiacarrest.org
3.8.10 Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment
Hazardous materials risk assessment is for fixed facilities that store, use, and produce hazardous
chemicals. Additionally, with the road and railroad transportation infrastructure within the
District, the risk assessment also includes transit risk.
California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and the California Environmental Protection
Agency (CalEPA) regulate hazardous materials use in businesses. In addition to certain sections
of the District’s adopted state fire code, the County Department of Environmental Health
manages the CalEPA regulations for all areas of San Mateo County.
For the state environmental regulations, the County has to inspect each business once every three
years to assure compliance with the business’s environmental disclosure, use of chemicals, and
emergency plans. Additionally, each facility receives fire and life safety inspections from the
District’s Fire Prevention bureau annually for hazardous materials and occupancy permits. Fees
are collected and permits are issued along with inspections for compliance. Hazardous materials
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 40
are present throughout the District and the District needs to deliver services to mitigate these
incidents. Before service levels can be defined, the amount and type of chemicals needs to be
assessed. This assessment is based on the level of risk; not all chemicals present a high level of
risk or concern.
The District then responds to chemical release emergencies in a tiered approach. Each fire
department in the County operates at the “First Responder Operational” (FRO) level that is
trained to determine the severity of the problem, isolate bystanders from the area, perhaps begin
chemical containment/runoff, and then, as needed, call for the regional Hazardous Materials
Team, staffed by other agencies.
3.8.11 Technical Rescue Risk Assessment
It is difficult to predict and locate where technical rescue requests for service will occur in an
urban area. The potential types of technical rescues that might occur in the District range from
trench collapses from water pipe installations, high angle rescue of window washers, structural
collapse after an earthquake, confined space rescues from tanks and underground vaults, and
swift water rescues from flooded urban streams and Bay rescue responses. Technical rescues can
also come from industry. Personnel trapped in machinery, transportation accidents, aircraft
crashes, rail incidents and daily motor vehicle accidents account for many technical rescues.
The District has prepared and trained for these events and has established a response matrix with
the regional fire dispatch center to send the appropriate number of personnel and equipment to
mitigate those situations.
The Menlo Park Fire Protection District sponsors a Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) national Urban Search and Rescue Task Force (CA-TF3) CA-TF3 is a specially trained
and equipped 80-person Urban Search and Rescue Task Force consisting of 18 participating
agencies and 60 civilians. There are a total of 220 members in all that are available to respond.
Task Force 3 includes firefighter and paramedic rescue specialists, emergency room physicians,
structural engineers, heavy equipment specialists, canine search dogs and handlers, hazardous
materials technicians, communications specialists, and logistics specialists. This unique technical
rescue team responds with 70,000 pounds of prepackaged search and rescue tools and medical
equipment to conduct around the clock search and rescue operations at domestic and
international disasters, both natural and man-made. As the sponsoring agency, the Fire District
has the responsibility of managing the team to ensure it is able to respond to any incident it is
requested to do so.
The District is a registered training center with the state of California for the following
disciplines: Rescue Systems I, Rescue Systems II, and Confined Space Rescue Operations. The
District’s training center has a full additional heavy rescue tool cache at the training center. The
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 41
District also has a very strong water rescue capability with trained personnel and watercraft well
suited to the low-water-level bayside areas and mudflats.
Given this level of technical rescue preparedness, the District’s personnel are well trained and
equipped for technical rescue; however, these types of incidents can require large numbers of
personnel. Therefore, when these incidents occur, the limited number of District personnel can
call upon the Countywide mutual aid system.
3.9 RISK ASSESSMENT RESULT
Upon Citygate’s review of the risk assessment data, the District has:
Urban population densities in many areas.
Significant building stock ranging from single-family detached homes to
multiple-story residential and business properties. In the ISO database, there are
no buildings taller than three useable floors in the District.
Unique commercial and institutional uses such as schools and health care
facilities.
Many residential areas that are bordered by open space areas containing quantities
of wildland fire fuel types mixed in with the housing.
Three major highway corridors, major surface street prime arterials, and a rail
line.
Strong automatic aid agreements and resources on three sides of the District.
Based on the these factors, the District has staffed and designed its response system to field an
“Effective Response Force” of multiple units to reported serious fires in buildings and wildland
areas, and operates paramedics for emergency medical responses.
The District’s multi-unit force (First Alarm) is designed to stop the escalation of the emergency
and keep it from spreading to greater alarms. This “informal” goal will be the foundation of
updated deployment measures as part of this Standard of Response Cover Process.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 42
3.10 EXISTING DISTRICT DEPLOYMENT
3.10.1 Existing Deployment Situation—What the District Has in Place Currently
As the District Directors have not adopted a best
practices-based response time policy, this study will
benchmark the District against the response time
recommendations of NFPA 1710 for career fire service
deployment. These are:
Four (4) minutes travel time for the first-due unit to all types of emergencies
Eight (8) minutes travel time for multiple units needed at serious emergencies
(First Alarm).
The District’s current daily staffing plan is:
Table 29—Daily Minimum Staffing per Unit for the District – 2015
Per Unit Minimum Staff Extended Minimum
7 Engines @ 3 Firefighters/day 21
1 Truck Company @ 4* Firefighters/day 4
Subtotal firefighters: 25
Battalion Chief 1 Per day for command 1
Total: 26
*The ladder truck will soon be staffed with a minimum of four personnel instead of three.
This daily staffing is adequate for the immediate response fire risk needs presented in the most of
the built-up urban areas of the District. However, for this staffing statement to be accurate for a
building fire, the assumption is that the closest crews are available and not already operating on
another emergency medical call or fire, which can and does happen. For example, if one engine
and one rescue-medic unit are committed to an emergency medical services call, then an adjacent
engine company or truck company must respond. This situation will be evaluated separately in
Section 4 of this volume where simultaneous incident workload is analyzed.
The District has solid automatic and mutual aid partnerships with the surrounding fire
departments that, via regional dispatch, will send their closest units into the District if the
District’s units are committed to other emergencies.
SOC ELEMENT 1 OF 8*
EXISTING DEPLOYMENT
POLICIES *Note: Continued from page 9.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 43
Services Provided
The District is an “all-risk” fire department providing the people it protects with services that
include structure fire, technical rescue, and first-responder hazardous materials response as well
as other services.
Given these risks, the District uses a tiered approach of dispatching different types of apparatus
to each incident category. The County Fire/EMS Communications Center’s system selects the
closest and most appropriate resource types and handles this function. As an example, here are
the resources dispatched to common risk types:
Table 30—Resources Sent to Common Risk Types
Risk Type Minimum Type of Resources Sent Total Firefighters
Sent
1-Patient EMS 1 Engine or Truck and 1 Ambulance 3-4 FF+
Ambulance
Auto Fire 1 Engine 3 FF
Building Fire 5 Engines, 1 Ladder Truck, 2 Battalion Chiefs (BCs) 21 FF1
Wildland Fire 3 Engines, 1 BC 10 FF
Technical Rescue 1 Engine, 2 Tech Rescues2, 1 Truck, 1 Ambulance, 1 BC 16 FF + Ambulance
1 In some instances the 4
th and 5
th engines comes from automatic aid; the 2
nd and 3
rd trucks always come from automatic aid;
and the 2nd
and 3rd Battalion Chiefs come from automatic aid.
2 The second technical rescue unit comes from automatic aid.
Fire
The District provides typical structural fire protection services utilizing seven engine companies
and one truck company from seven stations. The District has two technical rescue units, reserve
engines, and water rescue craft along with other specialty and command apparatus.
The District is equipped for the common, everyday risks present in the District, if all of the fire
stations are staffed.
Rescue
The District operates a heavy Type 1 technical rescue unit and a rescue engine, both of which are
cross-staffed by the Station #1 personnel.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 3—District Deployment Goals/Measures and Risk Assessment page 44
Finding #2: The District has a standard response dispatching plan that
considers the risk of different types of emergencies and pre-plans
the response. Each type of call for service receives the combination
of engine companies, truck companies, ambulances, specialty
units, and command officers customarily needed to handle that
type of incident based on fire department experience.
3.10.2 Emergency Unit Staffing
The seven engine companies are staffed on a daily basis with a minimum staffing of three
firefighters. The ladder truck will be staffed with a minimum of four personnel instead of three.
More personnel are on duty some of the time when there are not absences for vacation, sick and
injury leave and other types of leaves. The daily minimum shift staffing count is 25 firefighters
on firefighting units plus one Battalion Chief. Per NFPA 1710, 14-15 firefighters plus a
command chief are required for a typical room and contents fire in a home in a suburban area.
For a single-patient emergency medical services event, one fire company plus an ambulance is
needed.
Thus, the daily staffing depth of the District is adequate to handle several medical emergencies
and one serious building fire before relying on automatic aid. However, the District does not
need to use all of its resources at once. In the regional automatic aid closest-unit agreement a mix
of different agencies is sent based on shortest response times. Doing so leaves other District units
available for simultaneous calls for service.
Finding #3: Minimum apparatus staffing per unit on engine companies at three
is appropriate for the size and risks present in the District. The
District will soon fund four personnel per day on the aerial ladder
truck.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 45
SECTION 4—STAFFING AND GEO-MAPPING ANALYSIS
4.1 CRITICAL TIME TASK MEASURES—WHAT MUST BE DONE OVER WHAT TIME FRAME TO
ACHIEVE THE STATED OUTCOME EXPECTATION?
Standards of Coverage (SOC) studies use time-task
information to determine the firefighters needed within a
timeframe to accomplish the desired fire control objective
on moderate residential fires and modest emergency
medical rescues. The time it takes to complete one specific
task is called an “evolution.” These time-task evolutions are shown one the following page to
demonstrate how much time the operations take. The following tables start with the time of fire
dispatch notification, and finish with the outcome achieved. These tables are composite tables
from Citygate clients in communities very similar to the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, and
with unit staffing similar to the District’s (three personnel per engine or ladder). These tasks and
times also are consistent with national published studies. There are several important themes
contained in these tables:
1. The evolution test results were obtained at training centers under best conditions;
the day was sunny and moderate in temperature. The structure fire response times
are from actual events, showing how units arrive at staggered intervals.
2. It is noticeable how much time it takes after arrival, or after a task is ordered by
command, to actually accomplish the tasks and arrive at the desired outcome. This
is because it requires firefighters to carry out the ordered tasks. The fewer the
firefighters, the longer some task completion times will be. Critical steps are
highlighted in grey in the table.
3. Task completion time is usually a function of how many personnel are
simultaneously available. This is desirable so that firefighters can complete some
tasks simultaneously.
4. Some tasks must be assigned to a minimum of two firefighters to comply with
safety regulations. For example, two firefighters are required for searching a
smoke-filled room for a victim.
The following tables of unit and individual duties are required at a First Alarm fire scene for a
typical single-family dwelling fire. This set of duties is taken from typical suburban fire
department’s operational procedures, which are entirely consistent with the customary findings
of other agencies using the Standards of Response Cover process. No conditions existed to
override the OSHA 2-in/2-out safety policy which requires that firefighters enter serious building
fires in teams of two, while two more firefighters are outside and immediately ready to rescue
them should trouble arise.
SOC ELEMENT 4 OF 8
CRITICAL TASK TIME
STUDY
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 46
Shown below are the critical tasks for a department’s response to structure fires in built-up
suburban areas with three engines, one ladder truck, one ambulance, and one Battalion Chief for
a minimum force total of 16 personnel.
As stated in Section 3.10.1 above Table 30, due to automatic aid in San Mateo County, the
regional system sends 21 firefighters to a structure fire. So the times in the table below show
what a minimum force can accomplish. The larger the force (weight of attack), the faster the
tasks are completed.
Scenario: This was a simulated one-story residential structure fire with no rescue situation.
Responding companies received dispatch information as typical for a witnessed fire. Upon
arrival they were told approximately 1,000 square feet of the home was involved in fire.
Table 31—First Alarm Structure Fire – 16-21 Firefighters
Task Description Task Clock
Time Elapsed Time
from 9-1-1
Time of call 00:00 00:00
Dispatch 01:20
Crew turnout 02:00
Travel to scene 05:13 08:33
First-due engine on scene, size up, pull fire attack line Begin Scene Time
08:33
Ladder truck on scene / ventilation 00:40 09:13
First ladder to roof 02:54
Forcible entry 04:05
Attack team entry pre-connect 04:05 12:38
2nd
engine on scene 04:20
Provide water supply line 05:22
Rescue-ambulance on scene 05:00
Battalion Chief on scene, transfer command 05:40
3rd
engine on scene 07:27
Primary search completed 08:03 16:36
Roof ventilation completed 08:06
Rapid Intervention Crew established 08:21
Water on fire 09:05
Fire knocked down 09:10 17:43
Secondary search completed 09:20
Fire under control 09:30 18:03
Total Time to Control: 09:30 18:03
Total Personnel: 16
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 47
The above duties, grouped together, to form an Effective Response Force or First Alarm
assignment. Remember that the above distinct tasks must be performed simultaneously and
effectively to achieve the desired outcome; arriving on-scene does not stop the escalation of the
emergency. While firefighters accomplish the above tasks, the clock keeps running, and has been
since the emergency first started.
Fire spread in a structure can double in size during its free burn period. Many studies have shown
that a small fire can spread to engulf the entire room in less than four to five minutes after free
burning has started. Once the room is completely superheated and involved in fire (known as
flashover), the fire will spread quickly throughout the structure and into the attic and walls. For
this reason, it is imperative that fire attack and search commence before the flashover point
occurs if the outcome goal is to keep the fire damage in or near the room of origin. In addition,
flashover presents a serious danger to both firefighters and any occupants of the building.
For comparison purposes, the critical task table on the following page reviews the tasks needed
on a typical automobile accident rescue.
Scenario: This was a simulated two-vehicle accident with three patients, two of whom were
trapped. Extrication required total removal of the driver’s door. A standard response of one
engine and two ambulances responded with a total of 7 personnel.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 48
Table 32—Multi-Casualty Traffic Collision – 3 Firefighters plus 2 Ambulances
Task Description Task Clock
Time Elapsed Time
from 9-1-1
Time of call 00:00
Dispatch 01:20
Crew turnout 02:00
Travel to scene 05:13 08:33
First-due engine on scene Begin Scene Time
08:33
Size-up by 1st engine fire captain & ambulance paramedic 02:00
Foam line flowing onto fuel spill 03:30 12:03
Car #2 cribbed to support it on its side 04:30
1 FF into upright car (#1) for patient assessment 04:30 13:03
2nd
ambulance on-scene, patient #2 assessed in car #1 05:11
Car #1 driver door removed 05:30
FF into car #2 for patient care 08:00 16:33
Patient #1, car #1 removed by backboard 09:40
Windshield removed from car #2 10:50
Patient #1 packaged, ready for transport 11:15 19:48
Patient #2, car #1 removed by backboard 11:30
Patient #2 packaged, ready for transport 12:20 20:53
Roof cut and removed from car #2 15:40
Patient #3,car #2 removed from car 16:15
Patient #3 packaged, ready for transport 16:30
Total Time to Begin Transport: 16:30 25:03
Total Personnel: 7
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 49
As another comparison, below are the critical tasks needed on a typical cardiac patient full arrest:
Scenario: This was a simulated one-patient full arrest indoors. A standard response of one
engine and one ambulance responded with a total of 5 personnel.
Table 33—Cardiac Arrest – 3 Firefighters plus an Ambulance
Task Description Task Clock
Time Elapsed Time
from 9-1-1
Time of call 00:00
Dispatch 01:20
Crew turnout 02:00
Travel to scene 05:13 08:33
First-due engine on scene Begin Scene Time
08:33
Engine crew determine full arrest and start CPR 00:55
Rescue ambulance on-scene 01:35
Cardiac monitor attached to patient 02:10
Auto pulse CPR unit attached 03:18
Intravenous line placed 03:24 11:57
Bag valve mask ventilation started 03:42
Epinephrine administered 05:32 14:05
Intubation completed 06:10 14:43
Defibrillate, positive change in patient rhythm 06:53 15:26
Patient on gurney 07:28
Patient in ambulance 10:15 18:48
Total Time to Begin Transport: 10:15 18:48
Total Personnel: 5
4.1.1 Critical Task Analysis and Effective Response Force Size
What does a deployment study derive from a response time and company task time analysis? The
total task completion times (as displayed in the tables) to stop the escalation of the emergency
must be compared to outcomes. We know from nationally-published fire service “time vs.
temperature” tables that after about four to five minutes of free burning, a room fire will grow to
the point of flashover. At this point, the entire room is engulfed, the structure becomes
threatened, and human survival near or in the fire room becomes impossible. Additionally, we
know that brain death begins to occur within four to six minutes of the heart having stopped.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 50
Thus, the Effective Response Force must arrive in time to stop these catastrophic events from
worsening.
The response and task completion times discussed previously show that the residents of the
District are able to expect positive outcomes, and have a good chance of survival, in a serious
fire or medical emergency. This is because the District’s first responding units are typically
available in 6:34 minutes/seconds or less total response time and the follow-on units for serious
emergencies (the Effective Response Force or First Alarm) typically arrive on-scene within 9:31
minutes/seconds minutes total response time. As has been discussed, the District is staffed per
day with enough firefighters to deliver one such force at a large building fire.
Mitigating an emergency event is a team effort once the units have arrived. This refers back to
the “weight” of response analogy. If too few personnel arrive too slowly, then the emergency
will worsen instead of improve. Control of the structure fire incident in the simulation still took
09:30 minutes/seconds after the time of the first unit’s arrival, or 18:03 minutes/seconds from
fire dispatch notification. The outcome times, of course, will be longer, with less desirable
results, if the arriving force is later or smaller.
In the District, the quantity of staffing and the arrival time frame can be critical in a serious fire.
Fires in older and/or multi-story buildings could well require the initial firefighters needing to
rescue trapped or immobile occupants. If a lightly-staffed force arrives, it cannot simultaneously
conduct rescue and firefighting operations.
Fires and complex medical incidents require that the other needed units arrive in time to
complete an effective intervention. Time is one factor that comes from proper station placement.
Good performance also comes from adequate staffing and training. In the critical task measures
above, the departments that staff units similar the Menlo Park Fire Protection District can
perform well in terms of time. However, major fires and medical emergencies in which the
closest unit is not available to respond still challenge the District’s response system to deliver
good outcomes. This factor must be taken into account when fire station locations are
considered. If fire stations are spaced too far apart, then when one unit has to cover another
unit’s area, or multiple units are needed, these units can be too far away and the emergency will
worsen.
Previous critical task studies conducted by Citygate, the Standard of Response Cover documents
reviewed from accredited fire departments, and NFPA 1710 recommendations all arrive at the
need for 15+ firefighters arriving within 11 minutes (from the time of call) at a room and
contents structure fire to be able to simultaneously and effectively perform the tasks of rescue,
fire attack, and ventilation. Given that the District sends at least 14 of its own personnel (3
engines, 1 ladder truck, 1 Battalion Chief) to an incident involving a working First Alarm
building fire, it is clear that the District and its leaders understand that firefighting crews arriving
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 51
closely together are needed to deliver a positive outcome that protects lives and property by
stopping the escalation of the emergency as found by the arriving force.
A question one might ask is, “If fewer firefighters arrive, what from the list of tasks mentioned
would not be done?” Most likely, the search team would be delayed, as would ventilation. The
attack lines would only consist of two firefighters, which does not allow for rapid movement
above the first-floor deployment. Rescue is conducted with only two-person teams; thus, when
rescue is essential, other tasks are not completed in a simultaneous, timely manner. It must
always be remembered: effective deployment is about the speed (travel time) and the weight
(firefighters) of the attack.
Nineteen initial District firefighters could handle a moderate-risk house fire; however, even a
department-based Effective Response Force of 16 will be seriously slowed if the fire is above the
first floor, in a low-rise apartment building, or commercial/industrial building. This is where the
capability to add alarms to the standard response becomes important.
However, due to the County Automatic Aid response agreement using a single dispatch center,
the fact that the actual District First Alarm (Effective Response Force) uses automatic aid to
deliver 21 personnel to a moderate risk building fire reflects the District’s goal to confine serious
building fires to or near the room of origin, and to prevent the spread of fire to adjoining
buildings. This is a typical desired outcome in built-out areas and requires more firefighters more
quickly than the typical rural outcome of keeping the fire contained to the building, not room, of
origin.
It should be noted that the dissolution of the Belmont / San Carlos Fire Authority resulted in the
net loss of one Battalion Chief and Aerial Ladder Truck in the South San Mateo County zone.
Essentially, those units between Redwood City and Foster City / San Mateo no longer exist.
Given no adopted Board of Directors response time policy, the District’s current physical
response to building fires, is in effect the District’s de-facto deployment measure to built-up
urban/suburban areas. Thus, this becomes the baseline policy for the deployment of firefighters.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 52
4.2 DISTRIBUTION AND CONCENTRATION STUDIES—HOW THE LOCATION OF FIRST-DUE
AND FIRST ALARM RESOURCES AFFECTS THE OUTCOME
The District is served today by seven fire stations. It is
appropriate to understand what the existing stations do
and do not cover, if there are any coverage gaps needing
one or more stations, and what, if anything, to do about
them.
In brief, there are two geographic perspectives to fire
station deployment:
Distribution – the spreading out or spacing of first-due fire units to stop routine
emergencies.
Concentration – the clustering of fire stations close enough together so that
building fires can receive sufficient resources from multiple fire stations quickly.
As indicated, this is known as the Effective Response Force, or, more
commonly, the “First Alarm Assignment”—the collection of a sufficient number
of firefighters on scene, delivered within the concentration time goal to stop the
escalation of the problem.
To analyze first-due fire unit travel time coverage for this study, Citygate used a geographic
mapping tool called FireViewTM
that can measure theoretical travel time over the street network.
For this time calculation, Citygate staff uses the base map and street travel speeds calibrated to
actual fire company travel times from previous responses to simulate real-world coverage. Using
these tools, Citygate ran several deployment tests and measured their impact on various parts of
the District. The travel time measure used was 4 minutes over the road network, which is
consistent with the “benchmark” recommendation in NFPA 1710 and desirable outcomes in
critical emergencies. When a minute is added for dispatch time and 2 minutes for crew turnout
times, then the maps effectively show the area covered within 7 minutes for first-due, and 11
minutes for a First Alarm assignment.
4.2.1 Traffic Congestion Impacts
Once Citygate team members observed in person the current rush-hour traffic congestion in the
eastern District, and obtained from the City of Menlo Park its Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) traffic study data which has values for volume of trips and the negative impacts of that
volume to crossing an intersection on one or more green light cycles (intersection grading A-F),
we realized that our legacy approach to predict fire apparatus travel times over a street network
did not have enough actual fire unit travel time occurrences at peak rush hours to be statistically
significant enough to slow down the GIS travel time model during rush hours.
SOC ELEMENT 5 OF 8
DISTRIBUTION STUDY
SOC ELEMENT 6 OF 8
CONCENTRATION STUDY
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 53
We thus researched and found traffic throughput travel speed data from the company that
provides real-time traffic data to Google and Apple maps. That company is a multi-national firm
called HERE and is a subsidiary of Nokia. This is the same data that drives the Apple/Google
map view of traffic congestion with red, yellow, and green segments to indicate flow impedance
and thus sluggish travel times at peak congestion hours. HERE obtains traffic speed samples
from a variety of public and private sources and measures traffic speeds in 15-minute time
blocks, between intersections (segments), on a 24/7/365 for a rolling 36-month period.
For the time-over-distance maps to follow, the model first uses actual fire apparatus travel times
averaged over a 24-hour time period for two years. Then the HERE data is used to build a
congested traffic model. The baseline non-rush hour coverage is shown as green street segments,
the congested as red. Overall, the congestion impacts can be measured in the quantity of streets
in the District covered at peak and off-peak hours:
Table 34—Road Mile Coverage for First-Due and First Alarm Units
Measure
Non-Congested Miles
Reached
Congested Coverage
Miles Reached Difference (Miles)
First-Due unit, 4-minute
travel, only Menlo Park
FPD stations
280.95 212.18 68.77
First Alarm, 5 engines,
1 truck, 1 Chief 476.82 74.75 402.07
As can be seen the first-due unit coverage is negatively impacted at rush hour. More importantly,
the multi-unit coverage is severely impacted, as units have to travel across large sections of the
District. The maps to follow will show where this reduced coverage occurs.
4.2.2 Community Deployment Baselines
Map #1 – General Geography and Station Locations
This view shows the existing District fire station locations with the District boundaries. This is a
reference map view for the other map displays that follow.
Map #2a – Risk Assessment – ISO Surveyed Buildings, Hazardous Materials Permitted
Businesses, and District High Hazard Sites
Risk assessment is an effort by the District to classify properties by potential impact on service
demand levels. Building fire risk, separate from the housing areas, was examined by
understanding the locations of the higher fire flow buildings as calculated by the Insurance
Service Office (ISO) as a measure of how zoning locates the educational, commercial, and
industrial uses in the District. These higher fire flow sites (shown in blue) are the buildings that
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 54
must receive a timely and effective First Alarm force to serious fires, thus requiring more
firefighters in fewer minutes should a serious fire emerge. Most of these higher fire flow
buildings are along the major road corridors.
Businesses that use hazardous materials as permitted by the County Department of
Environmental Health are shown as small red dots (large red dots are station locations).
The District has also used the Risk Hazard and Value Evaluation process (RHAVE) to determine
properties that would present significant challenges to firefighting efforts and/or the rescue of
trapped persons. These sites are shown in green.
Of significance is the quantity of buildings in the City of Menlo Park’s M2 development zone
currently consisting of mostly smaller building businesses. There are a total of 154 sites
comprised of 125 hazardous materials locations, 27 high fire flow ISO sites, and 2 District-
identified RHAVE sites. This cluster represents a significant risk of commercial buildings to be
protected, even if the area is substantially redeveloped as proposed.
Map #2b – Risk Assessment – Wildland Fire Threat Zones
As another measure of risk, this map displays the areas in the western district where there is
significant exposure to buildings from wildland fires. The mutual threat zone is an area identified
by CAL FIRE where, if a fire starts in this area, the state will start suppression efforts as this area
abuts state responsibility areas.
Map #2c – Risk Assessment – Primary Response Routes
This map identifies the feeder roads that fire engines use from their stations out into
neighborhoods. If these roads are impacted with traffic congestion or traffic calming structures,
response times can be significantly delayed.
Map #3a – First-Due Unit Distribution 4-Minute Engine Travel – District Stations ONLY
This map shows, using green street segments (for off-peak uncongested traffic) and red street
segments (for peak congested traffic), the distribution of District stations per a best-practice-
recommended response goal of 4 minutes travel time. Therefore, the limit of green color per
station area is the time an engine could reach within this time, assuming it is in-station and
encounters no unusual traffic delays. In addition, the computer mapping tool uses actual fire
company speed limits per roadway type. Thus, the green projection is realistic for fire trucks
with normal traffic present.
Real dispatch data shows response times to be a little slower in some edge areas. Most likely, this
is due to the effects of the non-grid street design layout and open space areas and freeways that
bisect parts of the District. The purpose of computer response mapping is to determine and
balance station locations. This geo-mapping design is then checked in the study against actual
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 55
dispatch time data, which reflects the real world. There also should be some overlap between
station areas so that a second-due unit can have a chance of an adequate response time when it
covers a call in another fire company’s first-due area.
This map also shows in red the streets ONLY covered in 4 minutes during morning and evening
traffic congestion. As can be seen, units west of Highway 101 cannot reach east of the highway,
if the two closest units are already assigned on incidents. Also, Stations #2 and #77 cannot even
reach the edges of their assigned areas.
It is not possible to serve every road segment out to the edge of the District’s urban areas in 4
travel minutes; however, traffic congestion makes even getting somewhat close to the edges of
the District problematic in several station areas.
Finding #4: Using the current seven fire station locations, not including
automatic aid stations, the highest developed population density
areas are within 4 minutes travel time of a fire station. However,
traffic congestion has a marked negative impact on unit travel
times.
Map #3b – First-Due Unit Distribution 4-Minute Engine Travel with Automatic Aid Stations
This map also shows the distribution per a best-practice-recommended response goal of 4
minutes travel time, with automatic aid stations also shown for the uncongested and congested
travel coverage models. Even with automatic aid stations, the units cannot overcome traffic
congestion in multiple areas.
Map #4a – ISO Coverage Areas
This map exhibit displays the ISO requirement that stations cover a 1.5-mile distance response
area. Depending on the road network in a department, the 1.5-mile measure usually equates to a
3.5- to 4.5-minute travel time. However, a 1.5-mile measure is a reasonable indicator of station
spacing and overlap. As can be seen, the ISO coverage is similar, but less forgiving on a few
edges of the District, than the 4-minute travel time measure. This is due to the fact that a
“distance-based” measure cannot account for higher speeds on freeways and primary arterial
streets that feed out into the neighborhoods.
This map shows a first-due fire company is located properly to provide most areas a distribution
of neighborhood-based fire units to deliver rapid response.
Map #4b – ISO Ladder Truck Coverage Area
This map exhibit displays the ISO requirement that ladder trucks cover a 2.5-mile distance
response area. Depending on the road network in a department, the 2.5-mile measure usually
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 56
equates to an 8-minute travel time. As can be seen using this measure, a single ladder truck from
Station #1 cannot cover the entire District, and in particular it cannot cover the built-up areas of
eastern East Palo Alto and much of the M2 development area.
Map #5 – Concentration (First Alarm)
This map exhibit shows the concentration or massing of fire crews for serious fire or rescue
calls. Building fires, in particular, require 15+ firefighters (per NFPA 1710) arriving within a
reasonable time frame to work together and effectively to stop the escalation of the emergency.
Otherwise, if too few firefighters arrive, or arrive too late in the fire’s progress, the result is a
greater alarm fire, which is more dangerous to the public and the firefighters.
The concentration map exhibits look at the District’s ability to deploy its units based on the
entire County’s regional closest-unit response plan to send five engine companies (at least two
from automatic aid), the District’s one truck company, and two chief officers to serious, working
building fires within 8 minutes travel time (11 minutes total District response time). This
measure ensures that a minimum of 21 firefighters (three firefighters per engine and four on the
truck) can arrive on-scene to work simultaneously and effectively to stop the spread of a serious
building fire.
This map shows in green where the District’s current fire station system should deliver the initial
Effective Response Force during off-peak traffic hours.
As can be seen, given the regional fire department’s policy to require five engines to respond to
report building fires, some edges of the District are just beyond this coverage at off-peak traffic
hours. During peak traffic congestion, so many units are slowed that an effective First Alarm can
only reach the red area in the center of the District, where the stations “come into the center” of
the station siting plan.
Map #6 – 5 Engines Only at 8-Minute Travel
This map shows a different view of concentration by only showing the 8-minute coverage of
engine companies. Here, the green color shows the areas receiving five engines in 8 minutes
travel time during off-peak travel hours, which is most of the District. In the congested traffic
model (shown in red), the 5-engine area is again much smaller, showing that the slow coverage is
due not only to the District having one ladder truck, but also traffic congestion.
Map #6b – 5 Engines Overlap at 8 Minutes Travel – Traffic Congested Model
It is also important to understand the number of engines from the District and automatic aid
sources that are available together (overlapped) at 8 minutes travel or less in the most built-up
areas of the District. This map measure shows that for the congested traffic model, the five-
engine coverage area is mostly District units and is only in the center of the District.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 57
Map #7 – One Battalion Chief and One Ladder Truck at 8-Minute Travel
This map displays the coverage for one Battalion Chief at 8 minutes travel time, and the
District’s one ladder truck, both of which respond from Station #1. While, for safety reasons, the
regional automatic aid agreement sends three chief officers and three ladder trucks to serious
emergencies, there is only one District Battalion Chief and ladder truck within the District.
Therefore, this map shows the minimum District provided chief officer and ladder truck
coverage. The coverage from Station #1 is good to all of the developed areas in the District only
in the non-congested traffic model. During periods of traffic congestion, the Station #1 units
cannot reach large sections of Station #2 and #77 areas.
Map #8 – Ladder Truck Overlap Coverage at 8-Minute Travel
Map 8 displays the 8-minute ladder truck overlap travel time coverage using the District Station
#1 and the automatic aid ladder truck locations. As can be seen, the core of the District can be
reached by at least two ladder trucks, during off-peak traffic hours, assuming the automatic aid
units are not already on other incidents and that there is not a traffic congestion problem. During
traffic congestion, again a ladder truck in 8 minutes travel cannot reach large areas of Station #2
and #77 areas.
Map #9 – All Incident Locations
These next maps are an overlay of the exact location for all incident types. It is apparent that
there is a need for fire services on almost every street segment of the District. The greatest
concentration of calls is also where the greatest concentration of District resources are available.
Given the District’s boundary drop and closest-unit automatic aid partnerships, also shown are
the locations outside the District where its units responded.
Also of note on this map is the quantity of incidents in the M2 Development area and in eastern,
East Palo Alto. Even the areas zoned for businesses generate demand for fire department
services.
Map #10 – Emergency Medical Services and Rescue Incident Locations
This map further breaks out only the emergency medical and rescue call locations. With the
majority of the calls for service being emergency medical, virtually all areas of the District need
emergency medical services.
Map #11 – All Fire Type Locations
This map identifies the location of all fires in the District since January 2013. All fires include
any type of fire call, from auto to dumpster to building. There are obviously fewer fires than
medical or rescue calls. Even given this, it is evident that all first-due engine districts experience
fires; the fires are more concentrated where the population is higher and the District resources
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 58
are more concentrated. This also happens to be the area where the building stock is older and less
likely to be in compliance with current codes.
Map #12 – Structure Fire Locations
Displayed in this map are the structure fire locations. While the structure fire count is a smaller
subset of the total fire count, there are two meaningful findings from this map. First, there are
still structure fires in every first-due fire company district. The location of many of the building
fires parallels the older and higher risk building types in the District where more significant risk,
and the ISO-evaluated buildings, are more common. These areas and buildings are of significant
fire and life loss risk to the District. Second, fires in the more complicated building types must be
controlled quickly or the losses will be very large. Fortunately, in the commercial and industrial
zones where commercial buildings tend to have automatic fire sprinklers and good management
practices, there are fewer to no building fires in the 2-year period.
Map #13 – Emergency Medical Services and Rescue Incident Location Densities
This map view examines, by mathematical density, where clusters of emergency medical
services incident activity occurred. In this set, the darker density color plots the highest
concentration of all incidents. This type of map makes the location of frequent workload more
meaningful than just mapping the dots of all locations, as done in Map #10.
This perspective is important because the deployment system needs an overlap of units to ensure
the delivery of multiple units when needed for serious incidents or to handle simultaneous calls
for service. When this type of map is compared with the concentration of engines in Map #6, the
best concentration should be where the greatest density of calls for service occurs. For the
District, this occurs primarily in East Palo Alto, where the incident demand has been the highest
in the District. Once the single station is committed to an incident, simultaneous incidents in East
Palo must wait for units that can only come from one direction—the west, which at rush hour,
are the most traffic-congested roads in the District.
Map #14 – All Fire Location Densities
This map is similar to Map #12, showing the hot spots of activity for all types of fires. Again,
much of this incident activity occurs in East Palo Alto, where over the decades the incidence of
fires and fire deaths has been the highest in the District.
Map #15 – Structure Fire Densities
This map shows only the building fire workload by density. The density is more focused in the
older areas of the District, including East Palo Alto, and follows the higher population densities
per square mile.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 59
Finding #5: A neighborhood-based fire unit within a best practice
recommendation of 4 minutes travel time covers all of the
District’s neighborhoods, except for small outer-edge areas.
Finding #6: The District’s most built-up areas are within 8 minutes travel time
of an Effective Response Force assignment of 5 engines, 1 District
ladder truck, and 1 District Battalion Chief.
4.2.3 Second Ladder Truck Need and Location Test
The GIS analysis indicated that while there is overlapping ladder truck coverage in the District
due to regional automatic aid, the District’s single ladder truck not only cannot cover the entire
District, it cannot reach the eastern edges of East Palo Alto and the City of Menlo Park M2
development zone within the ISO 2.5-mile distance measure. Additionally, at rush hour, traffic
congestion slows the ladder truck and other units from their normal travel times to the areas east
of Highway 101. The travel time and workload statistics for this will be covered in the next
section of this report.
In the District there are 88 buildings that are three stories and 11 that are four or more stories.
These are not spread equally throughout all seven fire station areas in the District. These taller
buildings present the most challenges for fire departments. While ladders cannot reach the roofs
of mid-rise and high-rise buildings, they can reach multiple lower floors and are very effective in
rescue operations by delivering firefighters to upper floors, and in limiting the spread of fire from
the building to adjoining buildings at the lower stories. Ladder trucks also are an effective rescue
tool in construction accidents, when window washer equipment malfunctions on high-rise
buildings, and when earthquakes damage buildings making normal entry impossible.
As early as 2004, the District identified (by way of a Standards of Response Cover report) that
the western portion of the District is underserved with a single ladder truck located at Station #1.
That study’s second finding as received by the District’s Board of Directors, stated, “The truck
company cannot cover the west side of station areas 3 and 4.”10
Currently the City of Menlo Park is master planning the development of the area known as M2
on this study’s maps. While final building heights and densities are not fully set, all of the plans
to date call for a significant increase in the usage of the land and multiple story buildings in an
area today dominated by single story, widely spaced buildings.
10 Standards of Response Cover Deployment Analysis for the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, Citygate
Associates, June 2004.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 60
While in and of itself the M2 area might not add enough multi-story buildings in a single
neighborhood to trigger the ISO requirement (that when 50% or more of another 2.5-mile driving
distance “standard response district” for a ladder truck is obtained, an agency add another ladder
truck), the M2 area and eastern, East Palo Alto clearly places the District in the position of
needing a second ladder truck. If the M2 area is redeveloped, the District will have areas on both
its west and east sides with multiple buildings that, in the aggregate, exceed the ISO criterion.
Further, the cumulative fire suppression needs of the District cannot be adequately served by one
ladder truck at one location. It is not feasible to expect the District to move the single ladder
truck to the east side of the District to serve this new project and exacerbate the existing ladder
truck coverage issues in the western areas of the District as reported in Citygate’s 2004 study.
Good fire deployment practices would direct a specialty unit to cover a 360-degree response area
and cover the most road miles, in the least travel minutes. Given the street network in the District
and this intense, new development on the eastern edge, the District cannot cover all of its tall
building needs with a single truck at any one location.
As for the ISO rating in the future, a local agency cannot predict what the next ISO rating will
be. The District, in the last rating in 2013, was graded at Class 2 on a scale of one to ten, with
one being the best. In the next rating, even if all the other ISO measures stayed the same, given
that new taller buildings are located more than 2.5-mile driving distance from the District’s only
ladder truck, and they are at the easternmost edge of the District’s service area, it is reasonable to
expect that the District’s ISO rating may be negatively impacted by the increased M2
Development. This would also be the case even if improvements in other non-ladder truck ISO
Classification areas were to be made by the District.
If the District slips from an ISO Class 2 to an ISO Class 3, it could negatively impact properties
including the newly constructed M2 area buildings. Ladder truck coverage is required by the ISO
even when buildings have fire sprinklers.
The M2 development area is located at, and just beyond, the 8-minute response time
recommended by NFPA Standard 1710. NFPA Standard 1710 is a nationally-recognized
recommended best practice routinely relied on and used by fire service professionals. Given
street network designs and traffic congestion, the 8-minute travel time recommendation
translates to an approximate 2.25- to 2.75-mile driving distance. The M2 area is located
approximately 3.0- to 3.3-mile driving distance from the nearest ladder truck. Moving the ladder
truck to a closer station would compromise the safety of residents in other areas of the District.
In a recent realistic time trial, with no traffic congestion, at night, it took a ladder company from
Station #1 8-9 minutes to respond to the M2 area site.
Finally, the ladder truck coverage to the M2 area would be inconsistent with the District’s risk
assessment under the Commission on Fire Accreditation International’s Standards of Response
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 4—Staffing and Geo-Mapping Analysis page 61
Cover methodology. The District’s response plan is to send an effective response force of
multiple units quickly enough to keep fires in or near the room of origin. Given the rate at which
structure fires spread, this usually equates to the NFPA 1710 8-minute travel time. As noted
above, the M2 development area would not comply with the NFPA 1710’s recommended 8-
minute travel time.
Given that the ladder truck’s response to an incident at either the M2 area and eastern, East Palo
Alto will exceed a best practices response time of 8 minutes, there is a serious concern that the
District would be unable to confine a fire in these areas to the room of origin. Thus, the District
would be severely challenged to prevent the spread of fire to other areas or other structures and
becoming a potentially serious fire emergency. There are many variables in fire spread, and there
are threats by fire to occupants even in a building protected by fire sprinklers. In some scenarios,
a slow to non-existent ladder truck response could negatively affect outcomes.
Based on only two units east of Highway 101, significant call for services, simultaneous calls,
and the limited ladder truck reach east of Highway 101 discussed above, this study modeled the
impact of adding a second ladder truck, as a third company, east of Highway 101 at Station #2 in
East Palo Alto.
Map #16 – Added Ladder Truck Coverage from Station #2
This map shows the 8-minute travel time for a proposed second ladder truck. The location at
Station #2 completely covers the eastern District areas as well as overlaps the ladder truck at
Station #1 up to downtown Menlo Park. Thus, a serious fire in downtown Menlo Park would
receive two ladder trucks within 8 minutes without waiting for an out-of-District ladder truck
from the automatic aid system.
Finding #7: The District’s single ladder truck is insufficient to cover the
eastern, more developed areas of the District.
Recommendation #1: To deliver best practices-based ladder truck coverage to
the eastern District areas, as well as to add a third
company to the east of Highway 101 area to provide an
improved multiple-unit response force to this more
remote area of the District, the District should add a
second ladder truck or a quint and rescue squad unit at
Fire Station #2. Additionally, to ensure the District can
also add other units as needed east of Highway 101,
Station #77 should be rebuilt to accommodate at least two
fire crews of 3 to 4 personnel each.
This page was intentionally left blank
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 63
SECTION 5—STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
5.1 HISTORICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND RELIABILITY OF RESPONSE—WHAT STATISTICS SAY
ABOUT EXISTING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The map sets described in Section 4 show the ideal
situation for response times and the responses
effectiveness given perfect conditions with no competing
calls, light traffic conditions, units all in place, and no
simultaneous calls for service. Examination of the actual
response time data provides a picture of how response
times are in the “real” world of simultaneous calls, rush hour traffic conditions, units out of
position, and delayed travel time for events such as periods of severe weather.
5.1.1 Data Set Identification
Menlo Park Fire Protection District provided National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS
v5) incident data for three years. Dispatch CAD data, however, was only available for two years.
A good merge of the 2-year CAD and NFIRS data sets was obtained for the period of 1/1/2013 –
12/31/2014. This data set contains 16,344 incidents and 26,151 apparatus response records, and
is considered to be a statistically significant data set.
5.2 SERVICE DEMAND
In 2014 the Menlo Park Fire Protection District responded to 8,152 incidents, or about 22.33
incidents per day. Of those incidents, 1.13% were fires, 64.60% were EMS, and 34.27% were
other types of incidents.
SOC ELEMENT 7 OF 8
RELIABILITY & HISTORICAL
RESPONSE EFFECTIVENESS
STUDIES
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 64
The number of incidents declined only slightly from 2013 to 2014:
Figure 5—Number of Incidents by Year
The following graph illustrates the number of incidents by incident type. The number of fires and
emergency medical incidents decreased slightly, while the number of “Other” incident types
grew between 2013 and 2014.
Figure 6—Number of Incidents by Year by Incident Type
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 65
5.2.1 Breakdown of Incident Demand Over Time
Incident counts are generally lower in late winter, rising through June. There is a slight decline
through summer, and a large increase in December.
Figure 7—Number of Incidents by Month by Year
When broken down by day of week, incident activity is fairly flat during the workweek. Activity
declines on Saturday. There is a further decline in incident activity on Sunday.
Figure 8—Number of Incidents by Day of Week by Year
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 66
This following graph compares incident activity by hour of day. The graph follows traditional
fire department activity hours. The annual increase in incident activity appears to be roughly
during business hours.
Figure 9—Number of Incidents by Hour of Day by Year
5.2.2 Breakdown of Incident Demand by Station Area
The following is a breakdown of the number of incidents by station area. Incident activity is
increasing in Station #3 and Station #77’s area.
Figure 10—Number of Incidents by Station by Year
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 67
Finding #8: The District’s time-of-day, day-of-week, and month-of-year calls
for service demands are very consistent. This means the District
needs to operate a fairly consistent 24/7/365 response system, and
is not in near term need of a peak-hour-of-the-day part-time unit.
5.2.3 Breakdown of Incident Demand by Property Type
Another way to understand the location of fire department responses is to review the types of
properties at which incidents occur. The next chart illustrates the count for property types
receiving services from the District. Family residences, medical facilities, and roads make up the
top property types. Only the incident types with greater than 100 occurrences are listed first:
Table 35—Incident Demand by Incident Type by Year
NFIRS Code # and Description 2013 2014 Totals
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 4,716 4,503 9,219
611 Dispatched & canceled en route 604 584 1,188
700 False alarm or false call, other 353 281 634
322 Vehicle accident with injuries 282 285 567
531 Smoke or odor removal 244 226 470
324 Motor vehicle accident no injuries 176 152 328
550 Public service assistance, other 152 153 305
600 Good intent call, other 164 138 302
554 Assist invalid 126 108 234
320 Emergency Medical Service, other 217 217
745 Alarm system sounded, no fire - unintentional 84 119 203
743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintended 107 94 201
Other Key Incident Types
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped) 53 48 101
131 Passenger vehicle fire 28 36 64
111 Building fire 29 32 61
143 Grass fire 11 7 18
Of the 8,152 incidents, 1,076 (or 13%), were accidental/false/canceled responses. Of the
remaining 7,076 incidents, 4,809 (or 68%), were for emergency medical activities.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 68
The following chart illustrates the ranking of incidents by property types. In a broad sense, all
residential property types are in the 400 series. The most activity in residential property types
occurs in “419 1 or 2 family dwelling”, “429 Multi-family dwellings”, “400 Residential, Other”
and “449 Hotel/motel, commercial”. If all 400 series property type areas are added together they
account for 8,442 incidents in 2013 and 2014. That means 51.65% of all incidents occur in a
residential property type. Only the property types with greater than 100 occurrences are listed
below:
Table 36—Incident Demand by Property Use by Year
NFIRS Code # and Description 2013 2014 Totals
419 1 or 2 family dwelling 3,108 3,264 6,372
429 Multi-family dwellings 818 782 1,600
962 Residential street, road or residential driveway 719 715 1,434
311 24-hour care Nursing homes, 4 or more persons 267 248 515
963 Street or road in commercial area 239 257 496
961 Highway or divided highway 236 246 482
960 Street, other 264 209 473
965 Vehicle parking area 169 160 329
340 Clinics, Doctor’s offices, hemodialysis centers 135 148 283
599 Business office 121 118 239
213 Elementary school, including kindergarten 116 104 220
331 Hospital - medical or psychiatric 74 89 163
500 Mercantile, business, other 52 79 131
400 Residential, other 92 33 125
215 High school/junior high school/middle school 44 70 114
519 Food and beverage sales, grocery store 49 64 113
161 Restaurant or cafeteria 62 47 109
5.3 RESPONSE TIME ANALYSIS
Once the types of incidents are quantified, incident analysis shifts to the time required to respond
to those incidents. Fractile breakdowns track the percentage (and count the number) of incidents
meeting defined criteria, such as the first apparatus to reach the scene within progressive time
segments.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 69
5.3.1 District-Wide Response Time Performance
A citizen measures the speed of fire department response from the time assistance is requested
until the assistance arrives. This measurement is called “Call to 1st Apparatus Arrival” (or “Call
to Arrival”). Police and sheriff’s departments, under state law, act as a Public Safety Answering
Point (PSAP) for 9-1-1 calls. All 9-1-1 calls for fire service in the District are routed to the San
Mateo County Regional Communications Center.
Based on national recommendations, Citygate’s response time test goal is for the 90% Call to
Arrival to be 7 minutes (or 420 seconds). This is made up of three component parts:
Call Processing Time: 1 minute (receive, determine need, alert crew)
Turnout Time: 2 minutes (notify, don required protective gear, get moving)
Travel Time: 4 minutes (travel time)
The following is the breakdown for Call to First Apparatus Arrival for the overall District and by
station area by year for fire and emergency medical incidents:
Table 37—Call to Arrival Response Time (Minutes/Seconds)
Station 2013 2014
District-wide 06:32 06:34
1 06:41 07:03
2 05:40 06:09
3 06:09 06:29
4 07:08 07:08
5 06:32 06:14
6 05:55 05:26
77 07:36 07:11
Finding #9: The overall District’s total response times are better than
Citygate’s recommendation of 7:00 minutes/seconds from call
receipt at fire dispatch.
5.3.2 Call Processing Time – Call to Dispatch
In 2014 we found that 90% of the calls were received and dispatched to the crews within 24
seconds.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 70
Finding #10: The San Mateo County Regional Communications Center’s
dispatch processing times are very good and are better than
national recommendations.
5.3.3 Turnout Time
Turnout time – This measure is for all crews to hear the dispatch message, don safety clothing,
and begin moving the assigned apparatus.
Table 38—Turnout Time Performance
Station 2013 2014
District-wide 01:46 01:49
1 01:51 01:51
2 01:36 01:55
3 01:48 01:46
4 01:51 01:49
5 01:45 01:50
6 01:43 01:40
7 01:55 01:46
While the NFPA recommends 60-80 seconds for turnout time, it has long been recognized as a
standard rarely met in practical experience. Crews must not just hear the dispatch message, they
must also don the OSHA-mandated personal protective clothing for the type of emergency.
Citygate has long recommended that, due to this and the floor plan design of some stations,
agencies can reasonably make a 2-minute crew turnout time to 90% of the emergency incidents.
Finding #11: The District’s turnout times are consistently under 2 minutes from
station to station, which is very good.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 71
5.3.4 Travel Time
Travel time – The District-wide travel time measures for 2013 and 2014 to all emergency
incidents are shown hereafter. Travel time is defined as the time element between when the
dispatch center is notified either verbally or electronically that the unit is enroute to the call, and
when it arrived at the address or location street front, not the patient side.
Table 39—Travel Time Performance
Station 2013 2014
District-wide 04:55 04:55
1 04:51 05:06
2 04:20 04:31
3 04:39 04:49
4 05:27 05:35
5 04:59 04:39
6 04:19 04:04
7 05:41 05:36
NFPA Standard #1710 recommends a 4-minute travel time goal in urban and suburban areas.
Given the travel times above, the District is challenged to meet this goal. There are several
reasons for this: some emergency medical incidents occur outside of the District boundaries;
traffic congestion varies; a non-grid road network design exists in many areas; open spaces,
waterways, and highways that limit through streets; and, in some places, the station districts are
too large to cover in a short travel time. Having said this, all but three of the District’s stations
have times less than 5 minutes, and the balance in less than 6 minutes. A 5-minute travel time is
hard even for metro fire departments on a grid street network with adequately spaced stations to
achieve.
Finding #12: The travel times in the District are longer than a best practice goal
of 4 minutes, which is reflective of the size of some station areas
and serious traffic congestion at morning and evening rush hours.
Short of adding more fire stations, fire station-based crews, or
peak-hour activity units for simultaneous incidents, there is no way
to appreciably lower the travel times. This is particularly true for
the third- through sixth-due units to the areas east of Highway 101.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 72
Finding #13: The District’s total response times are very good, and given the
travel times being slightly longer than 4 minutes, the good
performance at 7 minutes is due to excellent dispatch and turnout
times.
5.3.5 First Alarm (Effective Response Force) Performance to Building Fires
First Alarm or Effective Response Force Performance to Building Fires – In the District, the
regional closest-unit system response plan is for 5 engines, 3 ladder trucks, and 3 Battalion
Chiefs (two ladders and chiefs arrive from automatic aid).
However, this response force is large in order to provide enough units due to traffic congestion
when some fires are very serious at the time of the 9-1-1 call. However, in a year there are few
building fires where the entire force of 11 units all are needed and arrive at the incident location.
Therefore the response time sample size is very small:
There were 10 Effective Response Force (ERF or First Alarm) incidents requiring all units to the
scene during the 2-year study period. Only incidents where arriving ERF resources were
dispatched within 60 seconds of each other were counted as ERF-dispatched incidents. This filter
was used to eliminate escalated responses:
Table 40—Incidents: Count – Year by Station
Station 2013 2014 Totals
2 3 1 4
3 1 3 4
5
2 2
Totals 4 6 10
The following chart illustrates the Call to Arrival for each of the 10 ERF incidents. Citygate’s
recommendation, based on national best practices, is for the entire force to arrive within 11
minutes of the 9-1-1 call being received in fire dispatch:
Table 41—Call to Arrival Time for ERF Incidents by Year
Station 2013 Time 2014 Time
2 15:27 09:31
3 08:22 10:06
5
08:53
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 73
The following chart illustrates the ERF Travel Time for each of the 10 ERF incidents. Citygate’s
recommendation based on national best practices is for the entire force to arrive within 8 minutes
travel time of the 9-1-1 call being received in fire dispatch:
Table 42—Travel Time for ERF Incidents by Year
Station 2013 Time 2014 Time
2 14:17 08:27
3 07:19 09:21
5
07:47
Finding #14: The District’s total response time for all units to serious fires,
known as the Effective Response Force (ERF or First Alarm),
ranging from 08:53 to 10:06, are better than Citygate’s
recommendation of 11 minutes.
5.4 SIMULTANEOUS INCIDENT ACTIVITY
Simultaneous incidents occur when other incidents are already underway at the time a new
incident occurs. In the District in 2014, 33.59% of incidents occurred while one or more other
incidents were underway. Here is the percentage of simultaneous incidents broken down by
number of simultaneous incidents:
Table 43—Simultaneous Incident Activity – 2014
# of Simultaneous Incidents Percentage
1 or more 33.59%
2 or more 6.62%
3 or more 1.00%
4 or more .15%
In a large city or county area, simultaneous incidents in different station areas have very little
operational consequence. However, when simultaneous incidents occur within a single station
area, there can be significant delays in response times.
The following graph illustrates the number of single-station simultaneous incidents by station
area in 2013 and 2014. Station #2 has the greatest number of in-station area simultaneous
incidents, followed by Station #1.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 74
Figure 11—Number of Station Simultaneous Incidents
5.5 STATION DEMAND PERCENTAGE AND UNIT HOUR UTILIZATION
Due to the simultaneous incident rates measured in the section above, this next section of
incident measures presents the location the demand occurs, the hour of day it occurs, and
determines if the peak hour demand is so high that response times suffer since units must cross
the District to cover for overly busy units.
In the tables to follow, the different colors illustrate the variation in demand; the lowest rates of
activity are green, progressing up to yellow, and finally red, which indicates the greatest quantity
of incidents or rate of activity. The utilization percentage for apparatus is calculated by the same
primary factors; number of responses and duration of responses. The following chart illustrates a
Unit-Hour Utilization Summary for District apparatus. The busiest apparatus are listed first:
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 75
Table 44—Unit-Hour Utilization for Apparatus
Vehicle E2 E4 E6 E1 E77 E5 E3 T1
00:00 6.95% 3.50% 2.54% 3.00% 2.46% 2.02% 1.70% 0.77%
01:00 6.95% 2.84% 1.52% 2.76% 2.69% 3.84% 2.16% 0.97%
02:00 8.90% 2.47% 1.49% 4.18% 3.37% 3.40% 1.71% 2.31%
03:00 6.07% 1.83% 2.42% 2.29% 1.78% 1.47% 1.74% 0.80%
04:00 5.20% 2.39% 1.78% 1.53% 0.92% 1.40% 0.82% 0.53%
05:00 5.52% 3.42% 2.46% 1.95% 3.04% 4.21% 1.80% 1.72%
06:00 6.80% 3.20% 2.61% 3.43% 2.37% 1.62% 1.47% 0.82%
07:00 8.33% 5.80% 3.86% 3.21% 3.37% 2.88% 2.64% 1.99%
08:00 9.58% 5.76% 5.45% 5.09% 4.61% 4.91% 3.40% 2.62%
09:00 9.08% 7.28% 7.68% 5.91% 6.29% 3.28% 4.20% 2.77%
10:00 8.18% 6.87% 8.02% 7.71% 7.67% 4.15% 4.25% 3.08%
11:00 9.19% 6.33% 7.84% 6.88% 7.34% 4.34% 3.96% 2.85%
12:00 10.76% 7.18% 6.84% 6.75% 5.13% 3.68% 4.77% 3.50%
13:00 13.51% 7.07% 6.05% 6.76% 6.29% 6.00% 6.19% 3.45%
14:00 14.07% 9.78% 6.34% 6.70% 6.08% 4.51% 5.01% 3.31%
15:00 12.00% 7.96% 8.39% 7.10% 5.42% 5.71% 7.47% 4.80%
16:00 11.63% 7.27% 6.67% 6.07% 6.52% 5.18% 4.58% 3.62%
17:00 14.32% 7.32% 6.26% 4.60% 5.43% 4.36% 4.94% 3.64%
18:00 15.55% 6.26% 6.48% 6.12% 7.69% 5.13% 3.76% 3.93%
19:00 12.22% 7.12% 4.67% 5.62% 4.59% 3.40% 4.71% 3.10%
20:00 12.07% 5.10% 4.65% 3.32% 4.01% 2.96% 3.49% 1.79%
21:00 11.30% 6.22% 5.46% 5.23% 4.14% 3.29% 3.07% 2.39%
22:00 10.51% 5.22% 3.48% 3.55% 4.11% 2.44% 3.09% 1.79%
23:00 7.11% 3.32% 3.24% 2.96% 2.99% 2.61% 2.00% 1.36%
Overall 9.83% 5.48% 4.84% 4.70% 4.51% 3.62% 3.46% 2.41%
Responses 4,874 2,518 2,593 2,727 2,499 1,837 1,743 1,986
While Station #2 is the busiest unit during daylight hours, the utilization percentage does not
reach Citygate’s problematic threshold of 30%, above which crew training and other fire
department duties suffer during daylight hours.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 76
5.6 THE DISTRICT’S UNIQUE DEPLOYMENT ISSUES
There are two categories of fire department performance measurements—distribution and
concentration. Distribution measures the performance of the first fire department apparatus to
reach the scene. Concentration measures the performance of second due and later apparatus—the
apparatus necessary to assemble teams on apparatus on an emergency scene.
The District does not have a significant distribution problem. First unit arrival performance is
within predictable expectations. The District does have a concentration problem. When more
than one fire apparatus is required on the scene of complex emergencies, there can be significant
delays.
To understand the concentration problem, it is necessary to visualize the District as having two
distinct operational areas separated by Highway 101. For purposes of clarity, station areas 2 and
77 on the bay side of Highway 101 will be referred to as the Bay Side operational area. Although
there are only two fire stations in the Bay Side operational area, this area accounts for 44.42% of
all fire and emergency medical incidents.
The other 5 District fire stations (1, 3, 4, 5, and 6) are located on the city side of Highway 101.
This area will be referred to as the City Side operational area. This 5-fire-station area experiences
55.58% of the District’s fire and emergency medical incidents.
Traffic patterns allow Bay Side apparatus to move within the Bay Side area with only the usual
traffic and road network issues. The same is true for apparatus movements within the City Side
area. Again, apparatus are able to respond with expected traffic and road network issues.
The problem occurs when Bay Side apparatus are required to respond through Highway 101
traffic choke points into the City Side area, or when City Side apparatus are required to respond
through the same traffic choke points into the Bay Side operational area.
For the 2-year study period there were 16,344 incidents. If this total is reduced to “No Aid
Given” incidents the number drops to 15,629 incidents. If that number is reduced to fire and
emergency medical incidents only, the number of incidents drops again to 10,645. Of the 26,151
apparatus responses that occurred during the 2-year analysis period, 16,582 were directly related
to the 10,645 fire and emergency medical incidents. If we filter-out automatic aid apparatus and
command vehicles, and focus on just the following primary vehicles: E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6,
E77, and T1, we see the number of apparatus responses drop further from 16,582 to 13,416. If
those responses are reduced to only those arriving at the incident, the number of apparatus
responses reduces again to 12,283. Of this number of apparatus responses, 5,786, or 47.11%, of
responses occurred in Bay Side while 6,497, or 52.89%, occurred in City Side. Here again we
see that the Bay Side contains more complex incidents requiring more apparatus resources than
the City Side.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 77
The following is a breakdown of these apparatus responses by arrival. Note, this is the arrival
sequence for these apparatus only and does not include outside companies or command vehicles:
There are 12,283 Apparatus records being analyzed.
Table 45—Apparatus: Count – Arrival Sequence by Station
Station
1st Arrival
2nd Arrival
3rd Arrival
4th Arrival
5th Arrival
6th Arrival
7th Arrival Totals
1 1,506 164 109 30 3
1,812
2 3,378 304 223 45 14 8 2 3,974
3 728 67 40 13 7 4 1 860
4 1,283 66 32 9 2 1
1,393
5 927 109 52 20 5 1
1,114
6 1,409 81 64 8 3 2
1,567
77 1,331 125 86 20 1
1,563
Totals 10,562 916 606 145 35 16 3 12,283
Notice Station #2 is the heaviest consumer of concentration resources. The following is the
breakdown of District resources used by arrival:
Table 46—District Resources Used By Arrival
Arrival Number and Percentage of District Resources
Station #2’s 1st Arrival 3,378 of 10,562 or 31.98% of District resources
Station #2’s 2nd Arrival 304 of 916 or 33.19% of District resources
Station #2’s 3rd Arrival 223 of 606 or 36.80% of District resources
Station #2’s 4th Arrival 45 of 145 or 31.03% of District resources
Station #2’s 5th Arrival 14 of 35 or 40% of District resources
Station #2’s 6th Arrival 8 of 16 or 50% of District resources
Station #2’s 7th Arrival 2 of 3 or 66.67% of District resources
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 78
In the following table, the previous Table 45 illustrating counts (above) is converted to show the
travel time of apparatus by arrival. The longest travel times are highlighted:
There are 12,283 Apparatus records being analyzed.
Table 47—Apparatus: 90% Performance Minutes – Arrival Sequence and Count per
Station
Station 1st Arrival 2nd Arrival 3rd Arrival 4th Arrival 5th Arrival 6th Arrival 7th Arrival
1 05:01 (1,506) 05:39 (164) 06:51 (109) 08:24 (30) 05:33 (3)
2 04:24 (3,378) 07:38 (304) 09:23 (223) 10:20 (45) 14:22 (14) 46:48 (8) 10:34 (2)
3 04:44 (728) 07:28 (67) 11:57 (40) 08:16 (13) 12:07 (7) 20:16 (4) 07:17 (1)
4 05:29 (1,283) 07:56 (66) 08:08 (32) 14:17 (9) 09:36 (2) 09:27 (1)
5 04:46 (927) 07:37 (109) 08:36 (52) 11:10 (20) 12:42 (5) 04:17 (1)
6 04:10 (1,409) 05:23 (81) 08:16 (64) 19:29 (8) 18:54 (3) 19:48 (2)
77 05:36 (1,331) 06:35 (125) 07:49 (86) 09:06 (20) 12:19 (1)
First Arrival Summary
Station #2 does not have a distribution (first apparatus arrival) problem. In fact, it has the second
shortest first arrival travel time.
Second Arrival Summary
Station #2 does have a concentration problem. Station #2 requires nearly one-third of all second-
due arrivals, yet it has the second longest second-due travel time. The station with the longest
travel time has the least number of second apparatus arrivals at 66.
Third Arrival Summary
Station #2 requires more than 36% of third-due arrivals, yet it has the second longest third-due
travel time.
Fourth Arrival Summary
Station #2 requires nearly a third of all fourth-due arrivals, yet it has the fourth longest fourth-
due travel time.
Note: Due to lower volumes the 5th
, 6th
, and 7th
arrivals will tend to be very volatile.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 79
5.6.1 Geographic Illustration: Bay Side Incidents
Below is a snapshot of City Side resources responding into Bay Side incidents through traffic
choke points. Only incidents occurring between 7:00am – 11:00am (peak City Side to Bay Side
travel congestion) are shown. Notice Station #1 delivers most of the City Side resources into the
Bay Side operational area during these times:
Figure 12—Bay Side Incidents
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 80
The following chart illustrates the response of City Side resources into the Bay Side area by
Vehicle ID and 90% travel time. These responses are to fire and emergency medical incidents
during the 2-year study period:
There are 357 Apparatus records being analyzed.
Table 48—Apparatus: 90% Travel Minutes – Vehicle ID and Count per Hour of Day
(City Side Resources into Bay Side Area)
Hour of Day E1 E3 E4 E5 E6 T1
00 04:32 (1)
01:26 (1)
05:46 (3)
01 06:38 (6)
14:48 (2)
08:17 (11)
02 15:09 (5) 06:59 (1)
08:27 (3) 09:17 (1) 13:19 (6)
03 05:58 (4)
03:08 (1) 07:11 (1) 06:10 (3)
04 09:26 (2)
10:47 (5)
05
06:39 (3)
06 07:33 (2)
06:17 (1) 08:39 (1)
07 04:53 (2)
13:33 (3)
07:37 (10)
08 08:32 (4)
07:30 (10)
09 04:52 (3)
06:00 (1) 11:55 (2)
08:49 (6)
10 11:35 (3)
02:35 (1) 06:57 (3) 07:41 (3) 09:30 (12)
11 04:39 (3) 00:30 (1)
03:38 (1)
07:31 (5)
12 07:34 (3)
04:41 (3)
13 14:23 (4)
06:28 (4) 06:51 (1) 08:57 (8)
14 12:12 (10) 07:27 (1)
12:25 (6) 05:14 (1) 08:28 (16)
15 14:22 (6)
07:30 (1) 10:43 (2) 12:58 (7)
16 10:21 (4)
06:45 (2) 03:24 (1) 06:43 (10)
17 12:52 (11)
02:25 (1) 05:50 (3)
13:38 (9)
18 08:44 (12)
08:41 (6) 10:19 (1) 08:59 (19)
19 07:10 (3)
03:21 (2)
10:18 (8)
20 10:42 (7)
12:16 (4)
21 05:26 (5)
09:58 (2) 10:17 (2) 07:06 (7)
22 05:52 (5)
05:02 (1)
09:32 (9)
23 07:10 (4)
07:19 (1) 12:19 (2) 07:21 (7)
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 81
The following is the same 24-hour travel time breakdown, but this time all City Side apparatus
are combined into one count and travel time:
Table 49—City Side Combined Apparatus Travel Time and Counts by Hour
Hour of Day Travel Time (Count)
00 05:46 (5)
01 08:17 (19)
02 09:17 (16)
03 07:11 (9)
04 10:47 (7)
05 06:39 (3)
06 08:39 (4)
07 08:17 (15)
08 08:32 (14)
09 08:49 (12)
10 09:30 (22)
11 05:49 (10)
12 07:34 (6)
13 08:27 (17)
14 11:22 (34)
15 10:43 (16)
16 07:49 (17)
17 12:52 (24)
18 08:59 (38)
19 08:11 (13)
20 10:42 (11)
21 07:39 (16)
22 06:41 (15)
23 07:21 (14)
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 82
5.6.2 Geographic Illustration: City Side Incidents
Below is a snapshot of Bay Side resources responding into City Side incidents through traffic
choke points. Only incidents occurring between 3:00pm – 8:00pm (peak Bay Side to City Side
travel congestion) are shown.
Notice very few Bay Side resources travel deep into the City Side operational areas during this
peak congestion time.
Figure 13—City Side Incidents
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 83
The following chart illustrates the response of Bay Side resources into the City Side area by
Vehicle ID and 90% travel time. These responses are to fire and emergency medical incidents
during the 2-year study period. Notice far fewer resources cross Highway 101 from Bay Side to
City Side:
Table 50—Apparatus: 90% Travel Minutes – Vehicle ID and Count per Hour of Day
(Bay Side Resources into City Side Area)
Hour of Day E2 E77
00 02:51 (1) 05:59 (3)
01
04:07 (1)
02
04:18 (1)
05
07:17 (1)
06 08:24 (1) 07:59 (2)
07 02:51 (1) 11:10 (2)
08 04:41 (2) 05:52 (5)
09
06:21 (2)
10 02:30 (2) 06:17 (2)
11 03:02 (3) 05:50 (5)
12 05:48 (5) 03:56 (3)
13 03:48 (1) 07:28 (4)
14 04:18 (5)
15 07:27 (4) 12:42 (3)
16 05:49 (3) 07:38 (2)
17 05:34 (7)
18 09:31 (5) 09:06 (7)
19 05:10 (3) 06:25 (6)
20 05:03 (3) 06:08 (4)
22
02:58 (1)
23 04:10 (4)
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 84
The following is the same 24-hour travel time breakdown, but this time all Bay Side apparatus
are combined:
Table 51—City Side Combined Apparatus Travel Time and Counts by Hour
Hour of Day Travel Time (Count)
00 05:59 (4)
01 04:07 (1)
02 04:18 (1)
05 07:17 (1)
06 08:24 (3)
07 11:10 (3)
08 05:52 (7)
09 06:21 (2)
10 06:17 (4)
11 05:50 (8)
12 05:48 (8)
13 07:28 (5)
14 04:18 (5)
15 12:42 (7)
16 07:38 (5)
17 05:34 (7)
18 09:06 (12)
19 06:25 (9)
20 06:08 (7)
22 02:58 (1)
23 04:10 (4)
5.6.3 Deployment Discussion and Summary
The experience of a responder stuck in grid-locked traffic is memorable and compelling. The
District’s growing employment base and regional post-recession economic jobs recovery is
yielding intense traffic congestion at rush hours. The GIS travel time analysis in this study and
the prior travel time data for District responses clearly show the substantial hindrance this causes
to emergency response travel in the District.
The only way going forward to maintain reasonable travel times, will be for the District to add
more crews, positioned initially east of Highway 101. Other crews may be needed later in the
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 5—Statistical Analysis page 85
central and western District on a full- or part-time basis. One way to visualize this would be the
tight fire station spacing needed in downtown urban areas like San Francisco, Manhattan, and
Chicago where traffic congestion impairs typical fire station spacing.
Highway 101 isolates Bay Side Stations #2 and #77 from District concentration resources
required for complex incidents. However, GPS closest unit dispatching has most likely
moderated the Bay Side resource imbalance keeping performance stats from being severely
degraded by traffic.
Finding #15: The most compelling justification for additional resources in the
Bay Side area is simply call volume, as well as the slightly greater
likelihood of complex incidents on the Bay Side of Highway 101.
This page was intentionally left blank
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 6—SOC Evaluation and Recommendation page 87
SECTION 6—SOC EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 OVERALL EVALUATION
The District serves a very diverse land use pattern with a
geographically challenging and limited road network in
some areas. Population drives service demand and
development brings population. The western, more
upslope areas of the District have slightly slower response times typical of outer edge, hilly
suburban areas of California. While the District and now the state-mandated Fire Code has
required fire sprinklers even in dwellings, it will be many more decades before enough buildings
are replaced or remodeled using automatic fire sprinklers. For the foreseeable future, the District
will need both a first-due firefighting unit and Effective Response Force (First Alarm) coverage
in all parts of the District, consistent with current best practices, if the risk of the fire is to be
limited to only part of the inside of the affected building.
If the District wants to provide the three outcomes below, the District will have to increase its
deployment of crews, to include at least a second ladder truck or quint / rescue squad and more
personnel east of Highway 101 as development occurs:
Provide equitable response times to all similar risk neighborhoods
Provide for depth of response when multiple incidents occur
Provide for a concentration of response forces in the core for high-risk venues.
For its current risks and desired outcomes, the District has the correct quantity of fire engines
(pumpers). The District’s single ladder truck does not cover the entire District. While the
regional response system provides ladder trucks, there is no guarantee they will be available in a
timely manner. Additionally, due to traffic congestion and incidents east of Highway 101
occurring at the peak hours of the day, the District needs a third company and more personnel in
that area.
To increase ladder truck coverage and total staffing east of Highway 101, the District has two
immediate options:
1. Field a second ladder truck east of Highway 101 at Station #2 staffed with 4
personnel.
2. Field two quints (combination engine/ladder apparatus) staffed with four
personnel that would replace Engines 2 and 4. Additionally, add a two-person
rescue squad at Station #2, increasing the personnel east of Highway 101 by a
total of three and by one at Station #4.
SOC ELEMENT 8 OF 8
OVERALL EVALUATION
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 6—SOC Evaluation and Recommendation page 88
Additionally, in the future when Station #77 is rebuilt, the District should make it large enough
for two crews in case this station needs two crews as calls for service grow past what three
companies east of Highway 101 can handle in the near term.
Recommended deployment next steps are summarized below, and further specified in Section 7:
The first deployment step for the District in the near term is to adopt performance measures from
which to set forth service expectations and, on an annual basis, monitor Fire Department
performance as part of its annual budgeting process.
The second and on-going step is for the District Board to provide the policy direction for the
appropriate capital impact development fees to allow the District to require growth to pay its way
for the needed capital expansion needs.
Third, the District should strive to fund the addition of a second ladder truck crew or a quint /
rescue squad with personnel east of Highway 101.
Fourth, over time, the District should provide for the needed replacement or repair of fire stations
as they continue to age.
6.1.1 Deployment Recommendation
Based on the technical analysis and findings contained in this Standards of Coverage study,
Citygate offers the following overall deployment recommendation:
Recommendation #2: Adopt District Board of Directors Deployment
Measures Policy: The District elected officials should
adopt updated, complete performance measures to direct
fire crew planning and to monitor the operation of the
District. The measures of time should be designed to
deliver outcomes that will save patients medically
salvageable upon arrival; and to keep small, but serious
fires from becoming greater alarm fires. With this is
mind, Citygate recommends the following measures:
2.1 Distribution of Fire Stations: To treat medical patients
and control small fires, the first-due unit should arrive
within 7 minutes, 90% of the time from the receipt of the
9-1-1 call in the regional fire dispatch center. This
equates to a 1-minute dispatch time, a 2-minute
company turnout time, and a 4-minute drive time in the
most populated areas.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 6—SOC Evaluation and Recommendation page 89
2.2 Multiple-Unit Effective Response Force for Serious
Emergencies: To confine fires near the room of origin,
to stop wildland fires to under three acres when noticed
promptly, and to treat up to five medical patients at
once, a multiple-unit response from the regional
response system of a minimum of 5 engines, 1 ladder
truck, and 2 Battalion Chiefs totaling 21 personnel
should arrive within 11:00 minutes from the time of 9-1-
1 call receipt in fire dispatch, 90% of the time. This
equates to 1 minute dispatch time, 2 minutes company
turnout time, and 8 minutes drive time spacing for
multiple units in the most populated areas.
2.3 Hazardous Materials Response: Provide hazardous
materials response designed to protect the community
from the hazards associated with uncontrolled release of
hazardous and toxic materials. The fundamental mission
of the District response is to minimize or halt the release
of a hazardous substance so it has minimal impact on the
community. It can achieve this with a travel time in
urban to suburban areas for the first company capable of
investigating a HazMat release at the operations level
within 4 minutes travel time or less than 90% of the
time. After size-up and scene evaluation is completed, a
determination will be made whether to request additional
resources from the District’s multi-agency hazardous
materials response partnership.
2.4 Technical Rescue: Respond to technical rescue
emergencies as efficiently and effectively as possible
with enough trained personnel to facilitate a successful
rescue. Achieve a travel time for the first company in
urban to suburban areas for size-up of the rescue within
4 minutes travel time or less 90% of the time. Assemble
additional resources for technical rescue capable of
initiating a rescue within a total response time of 11
minutes, 90% of the time. Safely complete
rescue/extrication to ensure delivery of patient to a
definitive care facility.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 6—SOC Evaluation and Recommendation page 90
2.5 Emergency Medical Services: The District has to
continue to provide first responder paramedic services to
all neighborhoods to 90% of the medical incidents
within 6:59 minutes/seconds from crew notification, per
the current agreement with the County EMS agency.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 7—Next Steps page 91
SECTION 7—NEXT STEPS
7.1 NEXT STEPS
The purpose of a Standards of Cover Services Assessment study is to compare the District’s
current performance against the local risks to be protected as well as to compare against
nationally recognized best practices. This analysis of performance forms the base from which to
make recommendations for changes, if any, in fire station locations, equipment types, staffing,
and headquarters programs.
As one step, the District Board of Directors should adopt updated and best practices based
response time goals for the District and provide accountability for the District personnel to meet
those standards. The goals identified in Recommendation #2 meet national best practices.
Measurement and planning as the District continues to evolve over time will be necessary for the
District to meet these goals. Citygate recommends that the District’s next steps be to work
through the issues identified in this study over the following time lines:
7.1.1 Short-Term Steps
Absorb the policy recommendations of this fire services study and adopt updated
District performance measures to drive the deployment of firefighting and
emergency medical resources.
Monitor the final approved developments for the City of Menlo Park M2 area.
Continue to measure the effects of traffic congestion on response times and
communicate the effects to partner agencies having the authority for traffic
circulation design and the possible use of traffic-calming measures.
Immediately develop the costs and a timeline for the addition of a second ladder
truck or quint / rescue squad staffed by additional personnel at Fire Station #2.
The timeline needs to include the pace of development in eastern Menlo Park and
East Palo Alto, along with the District’s ability to open the new and rebuilt Fire
Station #2 and fund not just the ladder truck or quint / rescue squad via impact
fees, but also the staffing for the additional personnel at Fire Station #2. The
District should explore the option of remodeling or rebuilding Station #77 to
accommodate more than a single fire crew of 3 to 4 personnel.
7.1.2 Long-Term Steps
Monitor the effect of growth in the eastern District areas on incident demand
volume at peak hours of the day.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Section 7—Next Steps page 92
If adding a third company east of Highway 101 (the second ladder truck or quint /
rescue squad located at Station #2) and rebuilding Station #77 to handle two
crews is not enough to maintain response times to District-adopted goals, the
District should begin the long-range planning for the addition of a reliever unit to
operate at peak hours of the day, possibly a 2-firefighter Fast Response Rescue
Squad, to assist with peak-hour incidents inside traffic-congested areas.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Appendix A page 93
APPENDIX A
RISK ASSESSMENT EXHIBITS
This page was intentionally left blank
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Appendix A—Risk Assessment Exhibits page 95
Table 52—Impact Severity Factor Evaluation Criteria – BUILDING FIRE1
Impact Severity Factor Score Scoring Guidelines
Building Construction
0 ≥90% of buildings are protected non-combustible construction (Type II-A) or better
1 ≥90% of buildings are unprotected non-combustible construction (Type II-B) or better
2 ≥90% of buildings are protected combustible construction (Type III-A) or better
3 ≥75% of buildings are unprotected combustible construction (Type III-B) or better
4 ≥75% of buildings are protected wood-frame (Type V-A) or better
5 <75% of buildings are protected wood-frame construction (Type V-B) or better
Occupancy Loading
0 ≥90% of buildings have less than 10 persons average daily occupancy
1 ≥90% of buildings have less than 25 persons average daily occupancy
2 ≥75% of buildings have less than 50 persons average daily occupancy
3 ≥50% of buildings have less than 100 persons average daily occupancy
4 ≥25% of buildings have more than 250 persons average daily occupancy
5 ≥25% of buildings have more than 500 persons average daily occupancy
Built-In Fire Protection Systems
0 ≥95% of buildings have monitored fire sprinkler system and monitored fire detection/alarm system
1 ≥75% of buildings have monitored fire sprinkler system and monitored fire detection/alarm system
2 ≥75% of buildings have automatic fire sprinkler system and local fire detection/alarm system
3 ≥50% of buildings have automatic fire sprinkler system and local fire detection/alarm system
4 ≥25% of buildings have automatic fire sprinkler system
5 <25% of buildings have automatic fire sprinkler system
Water Supply
0 ≥90% of buildings have Needed Fire Flow2 (NFF) available within 300 ft.
1 ≥75% of buildings have Needed Fire Flow2 (NFF) available within 300 ft.
2 ≥50% of buildings have Needed Fire Flow2 (NFF) available within 300 ft.
3 ≥50% of buildings have Needed Fire Flow2 (NFF) available within 500 ft.
4 ≥50% of buildings have Needed Fire Flow2 (NFF) available within 1000 ft.
5 <50% of buildings have Needed Fire Flow2 (NFF) available within 1000 ft.
Response Capability
0 ERF3 for all building fire risk, meeting minimum recommended annual training, available with response time ≤15:00 min. @ 90%
1 ERF
3 for ≥90% of building fire risk, meeting minimum recommended annual training, available with response time ≤15:00 min. @
90%
2 ERF
3 for ≥90% building fire risk, meeting minimum recommended annual training, available with response time ≤30:00 min. @
90%
3 ERF
3 for ≥75% building fire risk, meeting minimum recommended annual training, available with response time ≤30:00 min. @
90%
4 ERF3 for ≥50% building fire risk available with response time ≤30:00 min. @ 90%
5 ERF3 for ≥50% of building fire risk not available, or response time >30:00 min. @ 90%
1 Significant building fire incident requiring multiple-alarm resources and involving multiple occupancies or a large single high-risk/value occupancy
2 Needed Fire Flow as determined by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) criteria
3 Effective Response Force (ERF) – number of personnel required to apply Needed Fire Flow and perform other critical tasks necessary to prevent fire from impacting other values at risk
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Appendix A—Risk Assessment Exhibits page 96
Table 53—Impact Severity Factor Evaluation Criteria – WILDLAND FIRE1
Impact Severity Factor Score Scoring Guidelines
Vegetation
0 No flammable vegetation2 within 1000 ft. of ≥90% of exposed values at risk
3
1 No flammable vegetation2 within 500 ft. of ≥90% of exposed values at risk
3
2 No flammable vegetation2 within 500 ft. of ≥75% of exposed values at risk
3
3 No flammable vegetation2 within 300 ft. of ≥75% of exposed values at risk
3
4 No flammable vegetation2 within 200 ft. of ≥50% of exposed values at risk
3
5 Flammable vegetation2 within 100 ft. of ≥25% of exposed values at risk
3
Weather
0 High fire weather factors4 occur together ≤ average of 15 days per year
1 High fire weather factors4 occur together ≤ average of 30 days per year
2 High fire weather factors4 occur together ≤ average of 45 days per year
3 Very high fire weather factors5 occur together ≤ average of 30 days per year
4 Very high fire weather factors5 occur together ≤ average of 45 days per year
5 Very high fire weather factors5 occur together > average of 45 days per year
Topography
0 Average slope ≤5%; no topographic features6 present within 1/4 mile of ≥90% of exposed values at risk
3
1 Average slope ≤5%; no topographic features6 present within 1/8 mile of ≥90% of exposed values at risk
3
2 Average slope ≤5%; no topographic features6 present within 1/8 mile of ≥75% of exposed values at risk
3
3 Average slope ≤10%; no topographic features6 present within 1/4 mile of ≥90% of exposed values at risk
3
4 Average slope ≤10%; no topographic features6 present within 1/4 mile of ≥75% of exposed values at risk
3
5 Average slope >10% and/or topographic features6 present within 1/4 mile of >25% of exposed values at risk
3
Water Supply
0 Public water supply ≥1,000 GPM within 500 ft. of ≥90% of exposed values at risk3
1 Public water supply ≥750 GPM within 500 ft. of ≥90% of exposed values at risk3
2 Public water supply ≥750 GPM within 500 ft. of ≥75% of exposed values at risk3
3 Public water supply ≥500 GPM within 500 ft. of ≥75% of exposed values at risk3
4 Public or private water supply ≥500 GPM within 1000 ft. of ≥75% of exposed values at risk3
5 Public or private water supply <500 GPM; or >1000 ft. of >25% of exposed values at risk3
Response Capability
0 ERF6 for all wildland fire risk, meeting minimum recommended annual training, available with response time ≤15:00 min. @ 90%
1 ERF
6 for ≥90% of wildland fire risk, meeting minimum recommended annual training, available with response time ≤15:00 min. @
90%
2 ERF
6 for ≥90% of wildland fire risk, meeting minimum recommended annual training, available with response time ≤20:00 min. @
90%
3 ERF
6 for ≥75% of wildland fire risk, meeting minimum recommended annual training, available with response time ≤30:00 min. @
90%
4 ERF6 for ≥50% of wildland fire risk available with response time ≤40:00 min. @ 90%
5 ERF6 for ≥50% of wildland fire risk not available, or available with response time >40:00 min. @ 90%
1 Significant wildland fire incident requiring multiple-alarm resources and impacting multiple values at risk
2 Includes more than 5 grouped (less than mature species height spacing) specimens of highly combustible tree and/or brush species, or more than 5,000 ft
2 of dried annual weeds/grasses
more than 6” high 3 Includes occupied buildings; Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR); vulnerable populations
4 High Fire Weather Factors: Temperature >90
o F.; relative humidity <25%, wind >5 mph
5 Very High Fire Weather Factors: Temperature >95
o F.; relative humidity <15%, wind >10 mph
6 Includes box canyon, chimney, ridge, saddle
7 Effective Response Force (ERF) – number of personnel required to apply appropriate fire flow and perform other critical tasks necessary to prevent fire from impacting other values at risk
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Appendix A—Risk Assessment Exhibits page 97
Table 54—Impact Severity Factor Evaluation Criteria – MEDICAL EMERGENCY1
Impact Severity Factor Score Scoring Guidelines
Population Density
0 Average population density ≤500/sq. mile
1 Average population density ≤1,000/sq. mile
2 Average population density ≤2,500/sq. mile
3 Average population density ≤5,000/sq. mile
4 Average population density ≤10,000/sq. mile
5 Average population density >10,000/sq. mile
Population Demographics
0 ≤5% of population: under age 10 and/or over age 65 and/or average annual household income ≤ $25,000
1 ≤10% of population: under age 10 and/or over age 65 and/or average annual household income ≤ $25,000
2 ≤20% of population: under age 10 and/or over age 65 and/or average annual household income ≤ $25,000
3 ≤30% of population: under age 10 and/or over age 65 and/or average annual household income ≤ $25,000
4 ≤40% of population: under age 10 and/or over age 65 and/or average annual household income ≤ $25,000
5 >40% of population: under age 10 and/or over age 65 and/or average annual household income ≤ $25,000
Traffic
0 No highway traffic; no seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog; controlled intersection service level2 A ≥ 90% of the time
1 Single rural two-lane highway; no seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog; controlled intersection service level2 B or better ≥ 90% of the time
2 Multiple two-lane rural highways; no seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog; controlled intersection service level2 C or better ≥ 90% of the time
3 Single multiple-lane highway; seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog; controlled intersection service level2 D or better ≥ 90% of the time
4 Single multiple-lane freeway; seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog; controlled intersection service level2 E or better ≥ 80% of the time
5 Multiple 4+ lane freeways; seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog; controlled intersection service level2 F or better ≥ 15% of the time
Pre-Hospital Emergency Care
0 ALS3 services available ≤ 6:00 min. response time5 @ 90%
1 ALS3 services available ≤ 7:00 min. response time5 @ 90%
2 ALS3 services available ≤ 8:00 min. response time5 @ 90%
3 ALS3 or BLS4 services available ≤ 10:00 min. response time @ 90%
4 ALS3 or BLS4 services available ≤ 15:00 min. response time @ 90%
5 ALS3 or BLS4 services not available, or available > 15:00 min. response time @ 90%
Hospital Emergency Care
0 Primary emergency room ≤10 min. travel time @ 90%; secondary emergency room ≤20 min. travel time @ 90%; trauma center ≤30 min. travel time @ 90%
1 Primary emergency room ≤15 min. travel time @ 90%; secondary emergency room ≤30 min. travel time @ 90%; trauma center ≤40 min. travel time @ 90%
2 Primary emergency room ≤15 min. travel time @ 90%; secondary emergency room ≤30 min. travel time @ 90%; trauma center ≤45 min. travel time @ 90%
3 Primary emergency room ≤20 min. travel time @ 90%; secondary emergency room ≤35 min. travel time @ 90%; trauma center ≤60 min. travel time @ 90%
4 Primary emergency room ≤25 min. travel time @ 90%; secondary emergency room ≤45 min. travel time @ 90%; trauma center ≤60 min. travel time @ 90%
5 Primary emergency room >25 min. travel time @ 90%; secondary emergency room >45 min. travel time @ 90%; trauma center >60 min. travel time @ 90%
1 Mass-casualty incident requiring multiple-alarm resources and impacting multiple hospitals
2 Controlled intersection Level of Service (LOS) – Levels A-F describe delay/queue times for traffic through controlled intersections (US Dept. of Transportation)
3 Advanced Life Support (ALS)
4 Basic Life Support (BLS)
5 Response Time – time from receipt of 9-1-1 call to arrival of initial response resource
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Appendix A—Risk Assessment Exhibits page 98
Table 55—Impact Severity Factor Evaluation Criteria – RESCUE1
Impact Severity Factor Score Scoring Guidelines
Earthquake
0 No known active fault/historical earthquake activity within 100 miles
1 No historical earthquake activity ≥3.0 magnitude within 100 miles in past 20 years
2 No historical earthquake activity ≥4.0 magnitude within 100 miles in past 20 years
3 No historical earthquake activity ≥5.0 magnitude within 100 miles in past 20 years
4 No historical earthquake activity ≥6.0 magnitude within 100 miles in past 20 years
5 Historical earthquake activity >6.0 magnitude within 100 miles in past 20 years
Flood
0 None of risk zone within 500-year floodplain or tsunami inundation zone
1 ≤1% of risk zone within 500-year floodplain or tsunami inundation zone
2 ≤5% of risk zone within 100-year floodplain or tsunami inundation zone
3 ≤10% of risk zone within 100-year floodplain or tsunami inundation zone
4 ≤25% of risk zone within 100-year floodplain or tsunami inundation zone
5 >25% of risk zone within 100-year floodplain or tsunami inundation zone
Explosion / Act of Terrorism
0 No presence of hazardous processes; no likely probability of act of terrorism
1 ≤1% of occupancies use hazardous processes; ≤1% probability of act of terrorism
2 ≤5% of occupancies use hazardous processes; ≤5% probability of act of terrorism
3 ≤10% of occupancies use hazardous processes; ≤10% probability of act of terrorism
4 ≤25% of occupancies use hazardous processes; ≤25% probability of act of terrorism
5 >25% of occupancies use hazardous processes; >25% probability of act of terrorism
Traffic
0 No highway traffic; no seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog
1 Single rural two-lane highway; no seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog
2 Multiple two-lane rural highways; no seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog
3 Single multiple-lane highway; seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog possible
4 Single multiple-lane freeway; seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog possible
5 Multiple 4+ lane freeways; seasonal snow, ice, or dense fog possible
Response Capability
0 Type-I USAR Company or better / Type-1 Swiftwater/Flood S&R Team available ≤30:00 min. @ 90%
1 Type-I USAR Company or better / Type-2 Swiftwater/Flood S&R Team or better available ≤45:00 min. @ 90%
2 Type-2 USAR Company or better / Type-2 Swiftwater/Flood S&R Team or better available ≤60:00 min. @ 90%
3 Type-3 USAR Company or better / Type-3 Swiftwater/Flood S&R Team or better available ≤90:00 min. @ 90%
4 Type-4 USAR Company or better / Type-4 Swiftwater/Flood S&R Team or better available ≤120:00 min. @ 90%
5 No Technical Rescue capability / no Swiftwater/Flood S&R capability available or available > 120:00 min. @ 90% 1 Multiple-victim incident requiring multiple resources (e.g. earthquake, explosion, flooding, etc.)
Menlo Park Fire Protection District—Standards of Cover Assessment
Volume 2—Technical Report
Appendix A—Risk Assessment Exhibits page 99
Table 56—Impact Severity Factor Evaluation Criteria – HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE1
Impact Severity Factor Score Scoring Guidelines
Vulnerable Populations
0 ≤5% of population under age 10 and/or over age 65
1 ≤10% of population under age 10 and/or over age 65
2 ≤20% of population under age 10 and/or over age 65
3 ≤30% of population under age 10 and/or over age 65
4 ≤40% of population under age 10 and/or over age 65
5 >40% of population under age 10 and/or over age 65
Hazardous Material Use/Storage
0 ≤1% of occupancies use/store ≤100 lbs./gals. of hazardous materials
1 ≤5% of occupancies use/store ≤500 lbs./gals. of hazardous materials
2 ≤5% of occupancies use/store ≤1,000 lbs./gals. of hazardous materials
3 ≤10% of occupancies use/store ≤2,500 lbs./gals. of hazardous materials
4 ≤10% of occupancies use/store ≤5,000 lbs./gals. of hazardous materials
5 >10% of occupancies use/store >5,000 lbs./gals. of hazardous materials
Hazardous Material Transportation
0 ≤500 lbs./gals. of hazardous material transported into/through risk zone ≤weekly
1 ≤5,000 lbs./gals. of hazardous material transported into/through risk zone ≤weekly
2 ≤10,000 lbs./gals. of hazardous material transported into/through risk zone daily
3 ≤100,000 lbs./gals. of hazardous material transported into/through risk zone daily
4 ≤250,000 lbs./gals. of hazardous material transported into/through risk zone daily
5 >250,000 lbs./gals. of hazardous material transported into/through risk zone daily
Response Capability
0 Type-I HazMat Team available ≤ 15:00 min. @ 90%; all response personnel trained to HazMat FRO2 level
1 Type-I HazMat Team available ≤ 30:00 min. @ 90%; all response personnel trained to HazMat FRO2 level
2 Type-II HazMat Team or better available ≤ 30:00 min. @ 90%; all response personnel trained to HazMat FRO2 level
3 Type-II HazMat Team or better available ≤ 45:00 min. @ 90%; ≥75% of response personnel trained to HazMat FRO2 level
4 Type-III HazMat Team or better available ≤ 60:00 min. @ 80%; ≥50% of response personnel trained to HazMat FRO2 level
5 Type-III HazMat Team or better not available, or available > 60:00 min. @ 80%; <50% of response personnel trained to HazMat FRO
2 level
Evacuation Capability
0 Evacuation plan adopted and functionally exercised ≤ every 12 months; multiple EMNS
3 able to effectively notify ≥90% of
residents/businesses ≤15:00 mins.; EMNS tested ≤ every 12 months
1 Evacuation plan adopted and functionally exercised ≤ every 18 months; EMNS
3 able to effectively notify ≥75% of
residents/businesses ≤15:00 mins.; EMNS tested ≤ every 18 months
2 Evacuation plan adopted and evaluated ≤ every 18 months; EMNS
3 able to effectively notify ≥75% of residents/businesses
≤30:00 mins.; EMNS tested ≤ every 24 months
3 Evacuation plan evaluated ≤ every 24 months; EMNS
3 able to effectively notify ≥50% of residents/businesses ≤30:00 mins.;
EMNS tested ≤ every 24 months
4 Evacuation plan not evaluated; EMNS3 unable to effectively notify ≥50% of residents/businesses ≤30:00 mins. and/or not tested
5 No evacuation plan and/or no EMNS available 1 Incident requiring multiple resources and impacting multiple values at risk (e.g. freight/tank truck collision, freight train derailment, earthquake, explosion, weapon of mass destruction, etc.)
2 First Responder Operational (FRO)
3 Emergency Mass Notification System (EMNS)